Originally Posted by Rated_R(ob)KO
You have to compare those wrestlers to today then; If CM Punk were around in 1995, do you seriously think he'd do 400+ days with Hart, HBK or an emerging undertaker on the roster? No.
Would he have pulled it off during the attitude era? No. You seriously think Punk would outdraw Stone Cold, The rock, Mankind or Triple H? Not going to happen.
Punk is a product of good timing. He has come in an era that is so cookie cut, that he is one of the highlights of most fans. So yes, he accomplished a great run as a fill in champion but let's be real; He isn't the face of Raw, let alone the WWE. That's something all those you named WERE at one point.
Best in this era, is probably the closest to the truth.
You think Punk would say no to a CHANCE at undertaker if he were to lose? He would jump at the chance to just wrestle him at Wrestlemania. If HBK and Triple H fail TWICE, why would Punk have a better chance?
Now, it's "rumoured" that Undertaker is actually a fan of Punk's, so it could just be that Undertaker requested the match. Undertaker doesn't need it, but it's a situation where Vince feels the WWE HAS to have the Undertaker appear; and Undertaker appears for the love of the business. I'd say it's possible he's screwed out of a win somehow though. I don't see the point in him losing to The Rock twice, then Cena, but then beats Undertaker.