Ugh. Now this is the prime reason why I hate prime vs prime arguments. Brock Lesnar. This guy was pushed as a monster who killed everyone in his path. He was pushed as the guy who would dominate WWE for ages. As a result of this, he had a great prime. But guess what happened after that? He left and is now just a footnote in the industry. Yes, I know that he returned to WWE recently amidst a lot of hype, but that does not mean that he is anything but a footnote in the world of wrestling. He was built up great but it ultimately led to nothing. Which means that at the end of the day he means a lot less to the business than Randy Savage. Savage is someone who is better than Brock in all aspect of pro wrestling. Promo work. Savage. Ring work. This was the guy who was Mr WrestleMania before Shawn Michaels won his first singles belt in the company. Being a draw. Eric Bischoff once claimed in a WCW lockerroom that till that point, Hogan and Savage were the only two people in the locker room who had drawn any significant amount of money at that point. Ratings tanked with Brock as champion. WrestleMania did badly with Brock as champion and that too when the card was stacked with great matches all round. My vote goes to Savage. Simply put, I do not feel that the prime versus prime argument can be used anywhere and everywhere. This is between a guy who was good, who gave his all to the business and did very well for a number of years and a guy who could have been a big deal but just wasn't and was eventually replaced by guys who were much better talents( Cena, Orton and Batista).