I agree though that if Punk isn't WWE champ when the Royal Rumble comes round, there's a good chance we could see him winning it.
In the ways that you state I guess he is like John Cena,
But by that logic near on every top guy the company has ever had is kinda like John Cena.
What makes the top guys is the complete opposite of what you are saying, they aren't one of the generic people who make up the roster (largely due to the gimmicks they are given, not their own faults).
They are different, and that's what gives them the potential to be the top guys.
So I don't think he is like John Cena at all really.
I was also thinking the royal rumble
Back to your original topic, I look at it from this point. Wrestlers don't get into the business to capture the WWE title one time, or form a stable one time, they get into it to have multiple title reigns, to have memorable title reigns, to entertain the fans. So what is left for Punk to accomplish? Having the feud that will forever be remembered, ie HBK vs HHH, Cena vs Edge, HBK vs Hart, Austin vs Rock. There is alot he has left to accomplish
Winning so many titles is more about how quickly they change hands anymore, cheapening the accomplishment of winning a belt and the championship it represents. Half the guys above midcard have held major belts--I mean look at Jack Swagger, former world champ who can't get a win over anyone this year--so it's not like the past when being a belt-holder meant so much.
Most sensible wrestlers are in the profession to make as much money as possible. That's what they're REALLY hoping to achieve--victories and fame, a distant second.
John Cena is the biggest star in wrestling, cm punk is not.
The main difference between the 2 (other than the fact Punk has yet to win a Rumble or headline Mania) is that Cena never needs the WWE title again to be considered the company's posterboy.