8 Hyped Wrestling Matches RUINED By Backstage Politics

6. Triple H Vs. CM Punk (WWE Night Of Champions 2011)

In his scathing, industry-shifting ‘Pipebomb’ address of June 27, 2011, CM Punk referred to Triple H as the “doofus son-in-law” of Vince McMahon. That went down about as well as a nun. In one of the less-remembered promos in this uber-mangled Summer of Punk storyline, Punk also said that Triple H wears Stephanie’s panties. When Punk challenged Triple H if he wanted a fight, Punk asked Triple H if he had to first ask for his wife’s permission. According to Kevin Nash, in a February episode of his ‘Kliq This’ podcast, this comment informed the shocking decision for Triple H to go over Punk at Night of Champions. 

Supposedly, Triple H confided in his close friend Nash - who had re-debuted at SummerSlam and was set to wrestle Punk at the PPV in a thoroughly bizarre sequence of events - “You’re not wrestling Punk, I am. I’m beating that motherf*cker”. Triple H did in fact beat that motherf*cker. 

He also shouted at Punk mid-match for insulting Stephanie. If you’re of a cynical disposition, you might argue that Triple H played a blinder of a political game here. He beat Punk, but the match was so rife with Awesome Truth interference that he gave himself an “out”. He wasn’t burying Punk - he even let him kick out of the Pedigree! Then again, it was implied that Triple H would have won at the first attempt at his finisher, if John Laurinaitis was not in the way of the referee. Maybe this wasn’t a hit-job; maybe it was just a schmozz designed to set up a cleaner sequel, allowing Punk to get his win back.

But, to borrow a Triple H phrase, here’s the thing: there was no rematch. 

Now, Nash is an unreliable narrator who loves to stir sh*t purely for the sake of it - but  the issue of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, in which the story of the cancelled Punk Vs. Nash match was covered, yields some interesting information. Per Meltzer’s write-up, “there was a medical ailment discovered when Nash was getting his physical in Pittsburgh…it was said to be something that in any other era of wrestling, the match would have taken place…the company made the decision to err on the side of caution.”

Did Kevin Nash just accuse WWE of a cover-up? Were both things - the failed medical and the Triple H sabotage - true at the same time? Or was Kevin Nash simply being Kevin Nash? Even if this is just a case of Nash being Nash, you can still doubt Triple H’s motives. You can always doubt Triple H’s motives. CM Punk himself doubted Triple H’s motives! This might be a simple case of “guy with power is threatened by emerging new star”. 

On the infamous Art Of Wrestling podcast in 2014, Punk raged against the decision, saying that Triple H “should” have put him over, because it was “best for business”, “but you had to f*cking come in and squash it”. 

CM Punk Vs. Triple H felt like a massive deal in June 2011; by September, it was a dead issue.