I can't for the life of me understand why it makes more sense for Wrestler A to cost Wrestler B a championship match, especially if the rivalry has been ongoing. So far, many people believe Brock Lesnar is going to keep Goldberg from beating Owens for the title at Fastlane, even though Golderberg and Lesnar have a date at Wrestlemania. Wouldn't the smart option be for Lesnar to sit this one out, with the idea of beating Golderg for the most coveted prize in wrestling on the grandest stage of them all? No one with any sense would want to screw that opportunity up because "revenge blah blah blah"... Or am I being too narrow-minded here? Maybe there is something I'm not seeing in this angle. Is the desire for vengeance more important than the desire to be champion? If so, then I don't quite understand why they treat the belt with any prestige. To me, the Universal/World title should be the one thing every superstar wants, whether they're part-timers or not. It shouldn't be completely forgotten about because interfering in your rival's match is just the coolest thing ever. Not to mention how many times this sort of thing has happened, it is borderline cliche for someone to interfere, especially in a Kevin Owens match. I'm not saying either one needs the title. In fact, this isn't really even about Brock Lesnar and Goldberg, but how superstars in general lose sight of being THE champion, because of pettiness. Am I wrong? Is there really more to it than I realize? Or is this tactic just illogical and maybe I shouldn't think about it too much?