Ummm, you actually didn't successfully argue the body argument. You posted a few pics of HBK, one was before the Attitude Era, another in 1999 when HBK wasn't even wrestling anymore, and another where you claim that he was sucking in his gut. Every main eventer in the Attitude Era (1997-2001) was jacked, with the exception of Mick Foley who was huge, nonetheless. It's not fair to Punk, but steroids were prevalent in that era, and unfortunately, Punk's unwillingness to use them would hurt him.
In terms of height and weight, Punk and Michaels are equal. Michaels may have had more muscle definition but the difference is negligible. Michaels also wore ring gear that accentuated his physique better than Punk's.
If this were a legit combat sport, Punk and Michaels would be in the same weight class.
Secondly, Punk is nowhere near as good of a wrestler as HBK. Just nowhere near. Stone Cold was also considered one of the best workers in the world at the time, if not the best. Yes, his surgery slowed him down considerably, but he was also a better wrestler. Unfortunately, most people never got to see that side of Austin, but no one was as intense in the ring as him. Yes, Punk is a better wrestler than the Rock, but Rock is simply much more charismatic than Punk. I mean, we're talking prime 98-2000 Rock here. And Undertaker? What? They're not even similar. Either way, Taker is arguably the best big man wrestler they've ever had.
Again, I'm no expert. I don't know what constitutes a five star match. My method of gauging the quality of a match is whether it can hold my attention or not. To break down the elements of what makes a match entertaining or boring, to put it into words other than, "good match", is beyond me.
All I can say is that I'd put CM Punk's match against John Cena at Money in the Bank right up there with any of Shawn Michaels'. It had that big fight feel. From the promos leading up to it, to his entrance with that hometown crowd. I'd put that entrance above Michaels' zip line entrance, easily. Leaving with the title through the crowd... All of it.
Keep in mind that CM Punk has more restrictions today than in the Attitude Era. Chair shots, hardcore matches, cage matches, street fights, blood, banned moves, etc. Today it all pales in comparison to the attitude era, it's not just a question of CM Punk individually.
My point about Punk is that there is a combination of things that work against him. Bad physique. Good mic skills, but not up to Rock/Austin. Great wrestler, but there were plenty of great wrestlers then (with mic skills just as good, namely Jericho) who couldn't main event in that era.
Like I said, his physique is the same as Shawn Michaels'.
Ok, so you're saying he's closer to Chris Jericho than Shawn Michaels. First off, Jericho was restricted to the Cruiser Weight division in WCW because of his size, Michaels faced no such restriction in WWF and neither has CM Punk. Backstage politics held Jericho back in WWF, not his size, mic skills, or wrestling ability.
Here's why CM Punk would be the Top Guy in the attitude era just like the guys you've mentioned; Michaels, The Rock, and Austin.
Shawn Michaels got to where he was in the attitude era because of being in the right place at the right time and Vince McMahon believing that he can manufacture anyone into the next Hulk Hogan. He's nothing like Punk and the only reason I'm comparing them is because their physiques are the same.
The Rock had the red carpet rolled out for him because he was a third generation wrestler. He became the Top Guy by dropping the Rocky Maivia gimmick, becoming The Rock and making a huge impact. He relies on a script and is a good actor. Punk didn't have the luxury of being born into wrestling, he doesn't need a script, his entrance theme is better, and his elbow drop is better than Rock's sharpshooter. Punk is better than The Rock.
Stone Cold had Austin 3:16. CM Punk had the Summer of Punk.
Jericho had nothing. His debut was his biggest achievement and he never followed it up with anything.
Punk is not like Jericho.