WWE: Why Triple H vs. CM Punk Is Missing a Key Ingredient
"This isn't CM Punk talking to HHH. This is Phil Brooks talking to Paul Levesque."
—Phillip Brooks / CM Punk
Many people love CM Punk. I include myself in that group.
He is possibly the greatest professional wrestler in the business right now because of just how talented he is both on the mic and as an in-ring competitor.
At Night of Champions, CM Punk goes head to head with Triple H, a multiple time World Champion and one of the best to step into a WWE ring, in what, at this point, is looking to be the main event of the evening.
These two are amazing competitors in their own right and are at the exactly the points in their career that they should be able to create a great feud, so why doesn't this fighting between the two seem right?
Every time these men step into a ring together, the two stare each other down and fight back and forth about the wrongs of WWE management and how each man hates the other man.
CM Punk is completely right, as we IWC fans all know, when he says that the WWE loves big men. He is completely correct in his assessments of WWE's follies and how they lack the ability, at times, to see great stars.
Do you believe in the feud between CM Punk and Triple H?
The problem is that HHH tries to answer Punk in a way that is a mix of reality and kayfabe. Trying to make Punk feel bad by saying that he could not get the crowd behind him in the past is ridiculous. CM Punk could never get cheers from the crowd because he was too good at drawing heat as a heel. Then, HHH tries to say that everything the WWE does is right, and that getting the crowd behind you is enough to make a star of anyone. That is just not true.
The biggest point the two point the feud seemed to fight over was John Cena, proving that the great feud between Punk and Cena should still be going on.
The main problem in all of this though is not just the lack of collusion between these stars. It is the idea that this is all personal.
How can it be? Triple H is the COO, and CM Punk is one of his workers. Vince McMahon and CM Punk had the same relationship months ago, but their heat was over the idea of Punk taking down the company. Sure, Punk throws a barb at HHH every once in a while, but that is just CM Punk. He never did anything to harm Triple H or Stephanie McMahon. All Punk did was tell the truth.
You want a personal feud. Look back at Randy Orton vs. Triple H at WrestleMania XXV. That was the last time HHH had a real, personal feud, and HHH did not act nearly as angry that night as he probably will on Sunday.
If CM Punk vs. Triple H was personal, why did the two's final encounter amount to a debate about how CM Punk did not get over fast enough? How is that personal?
I understand that Punk wanted to get these ideas off his chest, but it was just not the right forum for it. Punk and Triple H should have been clambering for the chance to make the hate between them seem warranted. The best we got was fighting over getting a working mic and a quick hit from Punk on Triple H.
Triple H and CM Punk are great competitors and deserve to have a real and lasting feud. This fighting between them right now needs the flair and poise both stars naturally possess and a real reason behind their animosity. WWE has yet to provide that tension.
In the end, CM Punk vs. Triple H will be a great match, probably the match of the night; however, that does not excuse the fact that this feud, which could have been great, has been allowed to dissolve into a simple match at Night of Champions. These two should have created a lasting impression on the WWE, but instead they are fighting to simply try and get WWE's latest PPV a few more buys.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?