Is Brock Lesnar A WWE Hall of Famer

[S.J. Maximus]

I was in the middle of making a thread on this forum about current guys who we think would be hall of famers if the WWE ended today (which I still may eventually finish) when I came across the career of Brock Lesnar. To me, Brock Lesnar is a very interesting case when it comes to answering this question. Over the last 11 years, Brock has performed in a WWE PPV main event in 5 of them, but in only 1 of those 5 years was he ever a full-time performer for the full calendar year.

Nonetheless, Brock Lesnar was (and maybe even more now is) one of the biggest names in the WWE. He has had the look and undeniable ring ability to easily dominate the ranks of the WWE for every moment that he's been on the roster. He holds an accolade that imo may never be broken, being the youngest ever WWE Champion at the tender age of 23. He is a King of the Ring, Royal Rumble winner, and won the main event of one of the more successful WrestleMania's in history, WrestleMania XIX. He has defeated a bunch of all-time greats, from Hulk Hogan to The Rock, from Undertaker to Triple H but does he qualify to you as a WWE Hall of Famer?

In my opinion, he does not. Had he returned to the WWE full-time, I'm sure he wouldve done things from 2012-present to help solidfy his HOF status (just like Jericho did when he returned in late 2007 or HBK did in 2002) but all he has done is wrestle 4 (about to be 5) matches. I don't think any man deserves a spot in the hall of fame for 1 full year of service, no matter how many accolades he earned in that year. I'm not sure if you can tell, but I am a huge fan of Brock Lesnar, but I simply don't think he paid his dues enough or spent enough time in the WWE to be considered a hall of famer despite his massive success and mainstream popularity (especially since most of that popularity was gained in UFC).

What do you think, if WWE ended tomorrow and we had to pick out hall of famers, would The Beast be inducted?

 

[MCMG]

In my opinion he is a hall of famer. Brock Lesnar has been successful: WWE Champion three times, King of the Ring, Royal Rumble winner and still time to add to that. Moreover, he has put on some great matches in his career, The Undertaker, John Cena and Kurt Angle are the stand-outs.

Remember, just because he is a part-timer doesn't mean that he can't achieve more in his career. It doesn't mean he can't put on great matches in the years to come. He has a already passed the criteria to be a Hall of Famer and will only solidify his status in the near future.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Lesnar is a Hall Of Fame headliner. My predicted year of induction in 2016.

You can't say otherwise. He might not have been a full time wrestler for long and his impact from 2002-2004 is debatable, but he's a big star. Saying Lesnar shouldn't be in the Hall Of Fame is like saying Golberg shouldn't be because he wasn't around for long and his WWE run was a flop. Not true, Goldberg also should be inducted and he should be the star inductee at that.

 

[H33LTurn]

Thats a difficult question, much like asking if Batista or Goldberg are HOF material. These kinds of men join the company at such a late stage in their athletic careers, do a small stint, which not to knock any of them because they did accomplish a lot, but they eventually leave at the height of their time there. Brock is a bit different because he did return and have some high profile rivalries. The HOF has lost its prestige greatly these last couple of years, too many people in the celebrity wing and too many people who are still young and currently working with the company. If they do award Brock with a HOF spot, it probably wont be any time soon, unless they know he wont be willing to return to accept the award when he leaves. Regardless of how long he's been with the business, Brock has left his mark on the business and deserves due recognition for that. He definitely deserves it.

 

[Degenerate88]

Unfortunately, he more than likely will be in the HOF in the future. But at the same time, that isn't really saying much. Pretty much anyone gets in the HOF.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

When you look at the general impact Brock Lesnar has had on pro wrestling, I see a WWE Hall of Fame career. Even before Brock Lesnar returned to WWE in 2012, a LOT of people talked about the roughly 2 years he was in WWE before leaving with reverence. Every year during WZ's annual tournament, Lesnar's nearly 2 years of dominance is an argument that many use to flat out beat others over the head with. During the short time Lesnar was in WWE, he created his own miniature dynasty in which he decimated the top talent on the WWE roster at the time including the likes of John Cena, Kurt Angle, Big Show, The Rock, Edge, Rey Mysterio, Jeff Hardy and The Undertaker while winning the King of the Ring, Royal Rumble and 3 WWE Championships along the way.

As a lifelong fan of pro wrestling, I understand the sentiment of dislike towards Lesnar. He was someone who thought going into wrestling would be an easy way to earn some big money though he himself didn't particularly love the business. As a fan, it rubs me the wrong way and I'm sure many MMA fans felt the same way when Lesnar came to UFC. However, it doesn't negate the impact Lesnar had on WWE or UFC. He was a major star in both organizations and while counting Lesnar among the "all time greats" in either area is probably going to be a major stretch, he's a massive star that's generated a ton of buzz, been apart of some truly memorable moments and helped generate huge sums of money.

Whether Lesnar himself will ever care to being in the HOF is anybody's guess. If not, then that's on him and not WWE.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Lets look at the WWE accoplishments of Brock Lesnar:

-King of the Ring

-WWE Undisputed Champion

-2003 Royal Rumble Winner

-Youngest WWE Champion in history

-Has defeated the likes of Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Kurt Angle, Triple-H , Undertaker, John Cena, Rob Van Dam etc.

-Face of the Ruthless Aggression Era.

Of course he is a future WWE Hall of Famer. He is one of the greatest wrestlers of all time.

 

[Brockaholic]

jesus get your facts straight at least he was 25 when he became champion and he was in wwe for 2 years not 1

 

[Dirk]

I think his run as champion alone should be enough to get him in there. I mean, that's huge. Brock was at the very top of the pile for a good while.

I'm not a big Brock fan, but the guy is an immediate threat to whoever holds the belt, even if his booking last year wasn't stellar. He could main-event any PPV and nobody would bat an eye, that's why he should go in.

 

[The Shining Wizard]

● What do you think, if WWE ended tomorrow and we had to pick out hall of famers, would The Beast be inducted?

Yes.

All because of the simple fact that he's more worthy of being in it than the Drew Careys, William Perrys, and Pete Roses that are already in. But, for the sake of argument, I'm going to ignore the celebrity HOF-ers and focus on Brock's impact/legacy/career/what-have-you instead.

Lesnar, for the majority of his career, has been a top dog in the WWE. Sure, he was only with the company from 2002 to 2004. But during that small window, he made an impact. He accomplished a hell of a lot in kayfabe terms and he probably made the company a lot of money (and still does). Plus, the guy even had a successful run in the UFC. And now he's back and working on a Rocky/Taker/Triple H-esque contract. Big paycheck for a little work. The WWE knows what kind of commodity Lesnar is and they're not going to stop when the guy retires and calls it quits for good.

Lesnar's a household name, a moneymaker, and just an all-around draw. So yeah, he'll be inducted some day.​

 

[FlairFan2003]

Absolutely not. Lesnar had a very nice and impactful SHORT run, some memorable matches, title wins, then he left. Since then he went through a long absence from wrestling, afterwhich he returned to wrestle less than 7 or 8 bouts per year, losing several, and not being anywhere near as impactful as Cena, Punk, and other top regular stars. The HOF Is about both great performers and great careers. If he retired for good today Lesnar has had no where near the career of HBK, Brett Hart, Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes, Flair, Hogan, Austin. With such a short run as anything close to full time he is nowhere near Ricky Steamboat, Yokozuna, LOD, The Horsemen, Edge, the list of recent inductees who's careers were better is endless.

Even The Rock, with his very limited part time run recently is a better candidate, he had a much longer full time career, made greater impact over a longer run at the top of the card, even his part time run, as limited as it was, had higher profile matches vs Punk & Cena, a World Title run, and two WrestleMania main events.

Goldberg was a bigger draw and made more impact during his late 97-99 run than Lesnar and has another (albeit short) full time stint that included beating HHH for the World Title at the height of the Evolution angle. Batista had a much longer run as a full time wrestler with multiple World Title wins and high profile runs vs HHH, Taker, & Orton, plus his role in Evolution. While I dont think either did enough to deserve a HOF spot they are both better candidates today than Lesnar.

 

[kidmetal24]

I'd say Brock Lesnar is a Hall Of Famer. If you don't think he is than you can tell him.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Brock is absolutely a HOFer, and a headliner to boot. His initial run had him star a show. People will point fingers and talk ratings and the slump n' shit but that was bound to happen because of the Attitude Era withdrawal. Brock was unlucky, and was a ruthless exciting mofo to watch in the ring. He was THE guy back then

Upon his return, he became a bonafide draw. He is being used almost like Andre, as in he is an attraction. And people would pay to see Brock on Raw or a PPV. Next to Cena, he is probably the biggest draw at the moment. Then come Bryan and Punk.

 

[Chicago1989]

People can say that Brock Lesnar wasn't in the WWE for 10 years or whatever, but he achieved more than almost anyone can ever dream of in such a record time. Nobody in WWE history has ever accomplished the goals he's accomplished in 2 years and beat a laundry list of legends. His career in WWE is deserving of a HOF induction when it's all said and done. All these thread replies tell you all you need to know.

 

[tom9422]

Yes, he's accomplished a lot, was/is a huge star and is a memorable figure in the world of pro-wrestling.

It's pretty crazy to think he's had such a big impact despite being on WWE TV for little over 3 years total (so far). I mean, he got a mega-push after his debut but he certainly backed it up. His current stint is only reinforcing his legacy. I bet he'll be around for a long time part-time anyway.

 

[closet_fan]

I think it comes down to longevity vs. doing everything in a two-year span.

Compare him to someone like Mark Henry. Henry has been around since 1996. He's won a couple championships. Has been in a few major storylines, and also has a very glowing career outside of the ring, which the WWE would love to use as his HOF background.

Lesnar did it all and then some in two years. I don't see him winning anymore championships, Royal Rumbles, etc. Not if the WWE isn't willing to shell out a lot of dough for him to appear full time.

Henry - Long/Successful career
Lesnar - Short career, but did it all in those two years.

 

[Alex]

Well yeah he is.

His accomplishments speak for themselves and he was in major fueds and was arguably the face of Smackdown (his face was on the cover of Smackdown: Here Comes The Pain)

Yes he could've contributed more to the business had he not left, but what he's accomplished isn't to be frowned upon. I'm sure there are many wrestlers who would like to achieve one third of what Brock Lesnar achieved in the same amount of time.

Look at like this. Nirvana are classed as legends yet they only released three albums (two that are seen as revolutionary) Does that take away from guys like Iron Maiden, Rolling Stones etc who released more albums and are also classed as legends. No it just means they achieved that status in a shorter amount of time.

 

[rge2010]

Absolutely. One of the biggest draws in the business. EVER. Had a wonderful run from 2002-2004 and then the last 18 months haven't been shabby either.

His promo last week on Raw sealed the deal for me.

 

[Miz_Mark]

You can go over his laundry list of accolades and the who's who of men he's beaten, but as far as I'm concerned there's only 1 thing that needs to be considered:

Brock Lesnar is one of only 6 men in the history of the business to be the Undisputed Champion.

That alone makes him HOF worthy.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Lesnar is a Hall Of Fame headliner. My predicted year of induction in 2016.

You can't say otherwise. He might not have been a full time wrestler for long and his impact from 2002-2004 is debatable, but he's a big star. Saying Lesnar shouldn't be in the Hall Of Fame is like saying Golberg shouldn't be because he wasn't around for long and his WWE run was a flop. Not true, Goldberg also should be inducted and he should be the star inductee at that.

I agree with this totally, other than I think he will be inducted at a later date than 2016- I expect Brock to still be active at that time, I think we need to wait a few more years for "The Pain" to go into the Hall of Fame.

However, there is no doubt AT ALL in my mind that he will go in, and definitely as a headliner. Brock Lesnar was the youngest WWE Champion in history, KOTR winner, Royal Rumble winner and has been pretty much a headliner and major star throughout his career.

If people like Koko B Ware can go into the HOF, then Lesnar definitely should be in.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I'm really torn on this one to be honest. Look, there's no denying the impact of Brock Lesnar when he burst onto the scene. The man was as dominant in those two years as anyone has been, and his list of accolades has already been listed in the thread by others, so no reason to restate them, but the list is extensive. Lesnar was a force who would have been a sure fire hall of famer, had he stuck around.

Truth be told, though, he didn't stick around beyond two years and even worse, he left abruptly and in an unprofessional manner. He showed a lack of interest in the fans and in the business when he all of a sudden decided to take his ball and go home. I'm not questioning the fact that he did it, that's his prerogative, but the fact remains, he did it and he did so in a crappy manner. I'm not so sure that should be recognized and rewarded .

Since his return he has been part time and the accolades have stopped and the win loss record has been less than stellar (kayfabe obviously). He hasn't really added to his impressive résumé (although he clearly could if he and WWE wanted to go this route). Sure he has still been impactful, every now and then, but phase two of his career has not been hall of fame worthy.

Hypothetical question. A MLB player comes to the big leagues, hits .400 and clubs 62 home runs in his rookie season, his team wins the World Series, but two years later he decides he doesn't want to play anymore. No injury, no illness, he just tells his team right before the start of Spring Training that he no longer wishes to play pro baseball. He doesn't like to travel, misses his family, and doesn't like the attention that comes with stardom.

Does this guy end up in Cooperstown? I say no. And this is a (rough) analogy to the Lesnar situation. Sure, two years of dominance, but not necessarily a hall of fame career.

And that all assumes he even has the faintest interest in the WWE Hall of Fame in the first place.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I'm really torn on this one to be honest. Look, there's no denying the impact of Brock Lesnar when he burst onto the scene. The man was as dominant in those two years as anyone has been, and his list of accolades has already been listed in the thread by others, so no reason to restate them, but the list is extensive. Lesnar was a force who would have been a sure fire hall of famer, had he stuck around.

Truth be told, though, he didn't stick around beyond two years and even worse, he left abruptly and in an unprofessional manner. He showed a lack of interest in the fans and in the business when he all of a sudden decided to take his ball and go home. I'm not questioning the fact that he did it, that's his prerogative, but the fact remains, he did it and he did so in a crappy manner. I'm not so sure that should be recognized and rewarded .



And that all assumes he even has the faintest interest in the WWE Hall of Fame in the first place.

I don't do baseball...

How did he take his ball and go home?

Austin took that ball and never came back with it. Why? Because noone other than Rock, Austin or Taker have the cojones to screw with Vince like that. Brock told them that he wants to leave and play pro ball with the Vikings. That makes a lotta sense. He grew up in Minnesota, he must've been a Vikings fan and he decided to chase the dream. More power to you man.

He dropped the title to Eddie, and then lost to Goldberg (there's a malcontent motherfucker) and left. He left and garnered mainstream publicity with his run in the UFC. And Vince, loves anyone who gives him mainstream appeal. Thats why he jumped on the chance of signing Brock once he retired from MMA.


His initial run had him have great matches, win the Rumble, KOTR (when it kinda mattered), beat The Rock, bloody Hogan. Youngest Undisputed champ. Be shouldered headlining a brand like SD. On that alone he gets a shout out. Let alone on the fact that he is a great marquee at the moment.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I can see why some people would be torn on Lesnar going in.

Lesnar had a dominant run his first time around, but on the flip side of that, there's a lot of "what if?" scenarios and a lot that's left to the imagination on how truly great Brock could've been, because he left after two years.

And I can also see why some wrestling purists wouldn't want him in, because Brock has been very outspoken about not loving the business of pro wrestling before. Pretty much, he just sees it as a big paycheck, and nothing more. In fact, this line of thinking is used for Lesnar's current character in WWE A LOT (i.e. the soulless mercenary, who's only in it for the money).

But that's life. You can't live in a bubble of fallacies, and think every pro wrestler is in it for the love of the business. So yeah, Brock is a Hall Of Famer without a doubt. Truth be told, WWE is going to need him as a big headline guy in the future. I'm sure it'll happen sometime in the future, but a posthumous induction of Randy Savage won't feel the same, because Savage won't be there in person. And WWE will still need another big name guy after Warrior presumably goes in, because WWE felt the need to unload so many big names this year with Backlund, Trish, Foley, Bruno, and Booker.

 

[swordiris]

I'm going to pretend Drew Carey isn't in the hall of fame because Lesnar deserves it way more than him.

I argue that Lesnar did not do enough to be a hall of famer. The man was only in action for two years before he sold out to UFC. That WM 20 match was a sap in the face to WWE; it hurt Goldberg's rep too but he was in the business longer than Lesnar (counting WCW which WWE now owns rights to.)

 

[enviousdominous]

I think that it's very silly to suggest that he shouldn't be in the HOF only because he's made sporadic appearances. Andre the Giant was deliberately used sparingly, it helped make his few appearances that much more amazing.

Brock has an impeccably played character that many men have tried to become, the monster who presents a vibe of silent rage and brutal aggression. Brock does a better job of playing a sophisticated beast than anyone else I've ever seen, and that includes Goldberg.

Brock gave all of himself to the WWE and dropped the belt to Eddie when he knew that his days were numbered. He took a huge pay-cut to follow his dream of playing in the NFL, he didn't take a seven figure contract from a rival promotion. After the NFL gig fell through, in my opinion because a pro-wrestler isn't considered to be a "real" athlete, he earned some stripes in Japan. Then he granted his star power to the UFC and packed arenas for their otherwise mediocre programs. Sure, he was handed his UFC Heavyweight Championship after beating a past his prime Randy Couture and only having a 4-1 professional record. He still managed to stand in an arena with men who fight in MMA for a living, this act changed a lot of opinions of the fighting prowess of a pro-wrestler and made the WWE look like less of a joke to MMA enthusiasts. While his departure wasn't especially graceful, he didn't need to come back to the WWE for his own sake. Brock came back to the WWE when we were all expecting the show to be boring as it was right after Wrestlemania, it seemed like there would be an obligatory series of promos between Rock and Cena that would lead up to another match with new stipulations. That didn't happen, the crowd got a "HOLY SHIT!" moment for their money when Brock came out and echoed their anti-sentiment toward the character of John Cena.

Brock wrestled through broken ribs and as I recall was humble enough to recognize publicly that Kane is the strongest guy in the locker room. I only mention the Kane thing to help show that Brock isn't an arrogant prick like his character may make him seem.

Brock helped bring the WWE out of the state of stupidity that the Invasion angle had left it in. He sold tickets anywhere he went and he always put on a hell of a show. For all he's done for the WWE, they owe him a place in the HOF.

Let's remember that the WWE HOF inducted Antonio Inoki and Verne Gagne. Two men who are recognized for what they did for pro-wrestling, and have had almost no business relations with the WWE


Posted from Wrestlezone.com App for Android