The young talent? Really? The 3 biggest matches on the card were: Batista vs Orton vs ? , Triple H vs Daniel Bryan and The Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar.
Wyatt vs. Cena must be considered amongst the biggest matches on the card, and in there, you have the face of the company against a rising heel. The triple threat for the title didn't have any "part-timers' in it. Batista may have just returned in January, but he's been here every week since returning. That doesn't equate to part-time.
As for Lesnar vs. the Rock, I don't care about using part-time talent to put over younger talent. I care about matches that make sense. I care about matches that are enjoyable. We don't know if the Rock will ever wrestle another match again, as we may very truly the last we've seen of him wrestling.
The more sensible alternative, especially if you're looking for a younger wrestler for him to enhance, is Roman Reigns. But the idea that Brock Lesnar at age 36 needs to be putting over younger talent is pretty silly. He's the same age as Cena and Orton. While they can use their positioning on the card and within the company as
top stars to help get younger talent over, it certainly isn't because of his
age, as I've read here.
Rock vs. Brock? Doesn't interest me much, to be honest. Their Summerslam match in 2002 was solid, but that was a 29 year old Rock against a 24 year old Brock. Now that they've aged 12 years, I'm not sure Rock can go at the level he one did.
As I said, I'd rather see Brock vs. Reigns. Roman looks to be a huge breakout face, and who better to test him against then Brock?
After his loss to Cena?
No, Rock is no longer the same bench mark he used to be. He's a legend and icon, but defeating him in a match at Bryan's current level doesn't mean a ton. It would mean far more for Bryan to defeat Brock.
Whose loss are we talking about, Rock's or Brock's? How can you tout that Rock would be a bad opponent because he lost to Cena, only to forget that Brock did
the exact same thing?
