That's interesting, I didn't know Rock had that impression either, though I will say I'm a little skeptical it's accurate given that it seems to make more sense that the plan from the very beginning would have been a Rock win at 28 and Cena's retribution at 29. Maybe plans changed somewhere along the line, though.

WM 29, IMO, just suffered from a huge lack of unpredictability (which partially stemmed from them being rematches, as you mentioned). At WM 28, the top 3 matches were Cena/Rock, Punk/Jericho and Undertaker/HHH. Punk/Jericho, while an anticipated match, was pretty predictable, but Cena/Rock could have gone either way. Undertaker/HHH wasn't totally predictable either. Given the rep that Hunter had at the time, I don't think it was totally wrong for fans to believe he could end up being the one to end the streak. 2/3 of the matches were somewhat unpredictable. WM 29's 3 big matches were Rock/Cena II, Undertaker/Punk and Lesnar/HHH II. Rock/Cena II was predictable because almost every fan could figure out they wouldn't do a rematch just to have Cena lose again. Undertaker/Punk was more predictable because of the Paul Bearer factor - it could come off badly for Punk to win a match where the buildup heavily played off a real life death. Lesnar/HHH was the most unpredictable of the 3 because of the "HHH retires if he loses" stipulation. So 2/3 of the top matches here were pretty predictable.

I've always thought the better ideas were the three way elimination that Punk suggested where Punk is eliminated first which then gives the Rock/Cena rematch, or doing Rock/Cena II non-title and having Punk hold the title until WM and doing a 500 day champion vs undefeated at WM match.

Punk is my favorite wrestler ever, so I'm biased, but it always makes me so mad/sad when I think back on what could have been if the company had gotten behind him more. It just sucks.

Interesting. Always figured that a straight rematch was the plan, since they put over Rock the previous year. The triple threat would have been far more interesting, as it would have brought three different rivalries (Cena/Rock, Rock/Punk, Cena/Punk) on a collision course with one another all at once and given us a fresh main event.

We would have been left without that excellent Punk/Undertaker match, but it would have been worth it. I wonder where that'd leave Taker, Lesnar, and HHH, though. I suppose they could have done the Taker/Brock match a year earlier, but Hunter is too much of a mark for himself to skip out on the opportunity to put himself over Lesnar.

It should’ve been Punk vs. Taker, Championship vs. Streak. Punk was Cena’s kryptonite, ended Ryback’s undefeated streak, survived TLC, Hell in a Cell and triple threat matches, and had he defeated Rock at the Royal Rumble and survived an Elimination Chamber match, the logical progression would’ve been the Streak. Punk would’ve been a credible threat and the outcome would’ve been hard to call. Do they give the rub of ending Punk’s 500+ day reign to a man who only wrestles once a year?

Rock vs. Cena II was necessitated by the outcome of their first match. The star of a bygone era should lose to the star of the modern era. It’s an endorsement, a pat on the back, a seal of approval. Andre lost to Hogan, Hogan lost to Rock, Cena will lose to Reigns, probably at WrestleMania 35, and Reigns will lose to the next man at WrestleMania 40-something. Unfortunately it was decided that Rock had to have his ego massaged at WrestleMania 28 before doing business at WrestleMania 29.

29 was such a mess. What a complete waste of a Wrestlemania.