Brock Lesnar WWE World Heavyweight Championship Run Thread

[mkw1962]

The ratings are down because of all the injuries AND because we have a part time Champion. Brock is awesome in the ring but this giving him the title and than not seeing him for months is a joke. We need to see a fighting Champion, I will admit this does give more time to show other wrestlers but it seems as though Brock has got the WWE by the throat. You do it Brock's way or else, I say as good as he is I would just take the title away from him and let him go away.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

The guy can't talk on the mic, his micskills are so bad, he sounds like a little girl, so he has someone else doing it for him, Paul Heyman, that does it good.

Just stick to complaining about the fact that he is never there and doesn't "care" about the business.

His mic skills are irrelevant. He doesn't need mic skills.

 

[rbv13]

Me like @StoneColdHell. He so right bout wrestling. Brock be a crock. Where be the real champs from the past? WM this year should be Stunning vs. Ring Master vs. Stone Cold in three hour Iron Man match. Now time to flick my baby D while on the SCSA pod cast.

 

[Kizzani]

I don't care about seeing the title defended.

DB's title wins were great.

Let me know when you find your true stance.

They like seeing the title like some shiny object for a baby.

Obviously you have never been a champion. When I won my first little league trophy I was so proud, It wasn't until we won state was that moment out shined. Then even though I was 3rd string and only saw 2 minutes of play time, winning the National Championship made those other two moment fail in comparison. I can only assume winning the WWE championship feels like that to the wrestlers, even though it is scripted. If you ever had a similar moment you would understand.
So Yeah I like seeing those moments.

 

[mkw1962]

There are quite a few wrestlers who probably could beat Brock but the WWE says he is unbeatable. He is never there to give someone a chance, it was a joke when they gave him the title. They are losing fans and the ratings are dropping they are letting employees go because of budget cuts or something, but hey lets pay someone a ton of money to hold our title hostage. Well back to the question:
1. Roman is who WWE is talking about right now I think he can do it even if he is not quite ready yet.
2. John Cena can beat Brock for sure but it has been done to death.
3. Daniel Bryan would be interesting but he is just getting back.
4. Randy can do it but he does have his rematch that they owe him.
5. Seth can do it but he is the MITB holder.
6. I would give big pushes to Ryback, Sheamus, Bray, Dolph or even Rusev is a possibility.
7. I would say it will be Dean because he is ready now and the fans love him and he can do it, there is your feel good moment at the end of Wrestlemania and you can go with big feuds after Dean wins.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Oh I'm sorry, 6 title defenses a year instead of 5. I guess I don't know wrestling and am a fake ass fan... But while we're debating here, Hulk Hogan won the title in January and in one full year defended the championship 6 times according to your website. By Mania Lesnar would have held the title for 7 months and have defended the title at least 3 times... So what the hell is your argument here? It's the exact same thing...




Like I said earlier, they need to take the last step. They are still seen as upper-midcard, not bona-fide main event. So Lesnar can leave, the title can go away, and these guys can get a chance to shine in the main event. Get it?

So now all it takes to hold the title is passion? Good point man.



Do you think WWE is going to look at this dirt sheet and say, "Oh shit, they're really angry that Brock Lesnar isn't defending the title, we should put it on Ambrose!"... No. If WWE were reading this forum right now they would probably say something like, "Wow, Lesnar's getting some real good heat, people are gonna pay big money to watch him lose at Wrestlemania", which was my original point.

You are missing the major information that list is providing. The defenses Hogan made monthly were at the MSG supershows, which were the bread and butter of the company at the time as it was a LIVE EVENT business. War To Settle The Score and Mania were the exceptions, not the rule. WWF did it's core business on drawing fans to MSG once a month, and to other venues in an ever expanding area. This meant on those big shows, Hogan was needed but he didn't need to be on every show making defenses.

As TV came into it they could pre-tape a lot of his stuff, after all most of what Hogan did on TV in that era was a "Mean Gene" promo... that could have been done weeks before as they knew where they were taking the story much further in advance and with fewer changes. But in the odd new market he would do that in that old ringside stage area so the live crowd would pop... Hogan there would grow that market, even without a match.

Hogan would also be doing regular media work to promote and be seen as the champ away from the WWF. The point being Hogan was a highly VISIBLE champion... even if not defending as often or on every show.

Brock isn't a visible champion AT ALL, not even in the same way Rock was last year. Dwayne was doing all the talk shows and putting the belt out there, talking up the fact he was the biggest movie star going AND the WWE champ even when he wasn't showing on RAW.

Brock isn't even doing that, or pre-tapes or actually ANYTHING... he is a ghost champion at present and while WWE might thing "people will pay more to see him lose", history doesn't bear that out. Look how much crap they take when a Dean Ambrose never defended the US title? but at least he was visible and carrying the belt to matches...

A title not being used onscreen all the time is fine if work is being done elsewhere to promote the title. Brock isn't doing that, to all intents and purposes, the belt is on Brock's farm gathering dust. He's not on a Fallon or Kimmel or other TV as "The Champ". Even Heyman isn't showing up all the time... If the title is THAT invisible, it wouldn't make a difference if it was defended once, ten or thirty times a year or against whom... titles are only "valuable" if they are SEEN... but that doesn't mean defences...

Bret's first run where he named himself a "fighting champion" did the damage, it became the norm... the nearest they got to true credibility was Punk's long reign, where you got the sense he was even if it was story, calling his shots... but he would show up even if not defending. No one can take "the step up" if Brock isn't there for them to do so, either via promos or staredowns etc... the nearest they got in recent weeks was the now wasted RKO to Heyman...

 

[Evil Ernie]

I understand that he has a limited number of appearances in his contract, but surely they can get him to do some 'live via satellite' interviews.

Better yet, use his contract as a tactic to get heat. "I've got the WWE in the palm of my hand." Have Vince McMahon or HHH come out as an advocate. State that 'Opponent X' isn't worth wasting a date on Lesnar's contract. It could become the new 'B Plus Player'.

 

[MasterDebator]

I think John Cena is the one who can and the one who should be in there with Brock at the biggest show of the year. Yes, all the negative stuff constantly brought up about him casts doubt on what the company might want to do with him but he's still, by far, the #1 performer and personality in WWE and I celebrate each time he ascends to the world title, unlike many of you.

My alternative pick is Roman Reigns. I believe he might have been on the path to do the deed with Brock at WM31....but his injury really gummed up the works, forcing the company to alter all their plans. I think Reigns star would have risen so high by then that the allure of Lesnar-Reigns would have been irresistible.

Reigns is big enough and tough enough to be seen as a credible opponent for Brock......and except for Cena, who else would be?

Big Show or Mark Henry? At Wrestlemania.....are you kidding? They have the size but not the allure. Dean Ambrose or Seth Rollins? They have the allure but not the size.

Don't talk to me about Daniel Bryan. As much as many of you feel he has magic, I believe he would look so ridiculous standing in the ring with Lesnar that it would make the match a non-event on WM31 night, regardless of how it had been built up over the months. Daniel would lose....lock, stock & Brock.

So, if Roman Reigns can come back soon enough and the publicity machine could build the match to fever pitch, he might very well be the one in the ring against Brock. But if he can't, I'd love to watch Cena win the rubber match with Lesnar.

Cena did an amazing thing for a #1 guy, losing cleanly to Brock in their first match (Can you imagine Hulk Hogan doing that, when he was the man?) But you don't really think Cena is going to finish second best in the long run, do you?

I must, respectfully, disagree with you Sally. I don't think Daniel Bryan should be the one to beat Brock Lesnar, but acting as if it's an impossible story to tell is unfair. In professional wrestling, as well as in legitimate fighting sports, plenty of "David and Goliath" scenarios have ended with the giant slain. In the world of MMA, Randy Couture once defeated Tim Sylvia, a man six inches taller and forty pounds heavier than him. Japanese kickboxing organizations have also featured smaller competitors facing bigger competitors time after time. They're incredibly popular and they're as real as it gets.

In professional wrestling, "smaller" wrestlers with less of a storied technical background than Daniel Bryan have been successful. Rey Mysterio comes to mind as well as, to a lesser extent, Shawn Michaels.

If WWE was really interested in telling this kind of story with Bryan and Lesnar, a story that properly told would be incredible to watch, they could. Every giant has his Achilles Heel. Perhaps for Brock it's his ankle/leg, his arm, his torso, his neck, etc. Who knows? Bryan would have to scrap. Brock would have to wrestle pompously, but it could work. After all, let's face it, if we're so worried about how any of this looks, every Lesnar match looks laughable. It took him twenty minutes to defeat a guy pushing fifty last year and he was defeated by a corporate businessman two years ago. Brock would easily decimate just about any wrestler in WWE, but WWE has the luxury of operating in the world of professional wrestling, so anything can be done.

I would love for Daniel Bryan to return to challenge Lesnar. I think Bryan even coming close to defeating Brock would be incredible to watch. It'd put deafening heat on Brock and Heyman for them to trash DB, working in the age-old criticisms about his size being his downfall in WWE, imploring him to back down. In the end, I'd be okay with Bryan losing, too.

Side-note: I don't have any specific love for Reigns beating Lesnar. I find Reigns to be the best fit aesthetically, but in no other way. Responses to Reigns had grown tepid, so hopefully he can reclaim his heat once he undoubtedly returns to finally shut Seth Rollins up. If not, WWE might be granting a victory to a guy who, let's face it, isn't as over as Daniel Bryan. Hell, I'd prefer to see John Cena defeat Brock Lesnar before Reigns.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Brock should have never won the title. Bad for business. Serves no purpose.
Brock is making the title a joke.

I will never respect or like brock. Overrated.
Always got shit handed to him

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Brock Lesnar shits on WWE and the history, and every wrestler in it.

How he do that? Show evident or go fuck way.

I think it so shitty that we not have a champions who's not even there in months on RAW/Smackdown.

We hads The Rocky and several otter wrestlers that do this. Why come Brock can't do this?

How many apperance has Brock Lesnar?

He have many apperance before and now he not there with belt make it look all ominous and stuff which good for budness. We finally have champ that no get injured or named Cenorton. Why you bitch bout that?

The guy can't talk on the mic, his micskills are so bad, he sounds like a little girl, so he has someone else doing it for him, Paul Heyman, that does it good.

Heyman make all look good. Brock sound like killer when doin his promos and that all that matter.

So while Brock Lesnar was taking the streak to pieces, shits on the current roster, and taking paycheck without doing something.

It called getting heat cuz he bad guy you slow indy videoall. We finally have heel that we don't like.

This is bad business, and it's really spitting all the fans and all the wreslters right in the face.

Maybe if Austin was there he make everything better. Don't be Negative Nancy.

Fuck Lesnar.

You have weird obsession with fecal matter. Why you have weird obsession with fecal matter?

 

[Mudlup50]

I honestly don't see the big deal. I don't miss seeing a belt on TV. It's just a belt. I get why people wanna see the belt but it doesn't add or take away from the show. I'm not saying it adds to the belt, others have made that argument and it's irrelevant, I just don't care if the belt is there or not. We're all entitled to our opinions I'm just saying it doesn't hurt the product in my eyes

 

[fallguye6011]

Like many others have said, this is a very tough decision, but one thing is for sure, it can't be soon enough. I'd probably have to go with Cena for the simple fact that it leaves the door open for Daniel Bryan to get back what he never lost. Reigns will get his time, but he's not ready yet and Ryback needs to get a strong midcard run, perhaps knock off Rusev. Like Raven said, WWE certainly cannot afford having Lesnar as champ, his contract virtually makes him worthless. WWE has to know he's costing them more than he's making them and having him champ is hurting an already sinking company. Giving this part time hack anything is stupid, much less the title. Now WWE's got a giant mess on its hands trying to figure how to get the belt from him.

 

[MC_Live]

This seems more like b*+ching and moaning about something you don't like than presenting an actual argument. Am I necessarily happy about Brock not being at every PPV? No. Would I have him there more often? Yes. Personally I think Orton should have beat Cena at HIAC, and then we could have had a Lesnar-Orton Title Match at Survivor Series, which would have been cool. Personally, I would wish for at least a Heyman promo every week to remind us of the champion, but that's ok because they still talk about the championship very often, such as the Cena Orton #1 Contenders match.

In the 80's and 90's the champ didn't wrestle every week. They didn't defend the title every month. Yes, there was also only 4 or 5 PPV's a year. But it was the fact that you didn't see a title match so often that made it more special. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. By not seeing Brock all the time, it will make his appearances, and thus the WWE Championship, more valuable when we actually do see it. And plus, with the WWE Network including every PPV, it's not as important who is on every event. There may be 13 PPV's a year, but the butyrate doesn't mean as much. The amount of buys for each event isn't as important, because with the Network, PPV buys will go down. So in this new Network era, they don't need the WWE Champion on every PPV because it's already been sold to whoever is subscribed to the network. Just think about it, at 731,000 subscribers right now, each PPV has 731,000 buys before the first match is even announced. WrestleMania 31 already has 731,000 buys, and tickets haven't even gone on sale. The Network changes the game when it comes to how the product is presented. So it's not as necessary to have the champion there all the time.

And to combat your claims about the UFC, the UFC is a lot different than it was when Brock won the Championship. With all the PPV's, Fight Pass shows, Ultimate Fighter Finales, Fight Nights, UFC on FX, UFC on Fox, and UFC on Fox Sports One Shows, they have a lot more events now, and as such they have a lot more talent to spread the main events around. Not every card features a title fight. So the UFC had to create more Main Event Talent, to make money without title fights. Also, today the UFC has more weight classes, and thus more titles than they did 5 years ago. In 2009 the UFC had 5 Championships. Today, between the men and the women's divisions, the UFC has 10 Championships (9 until they crown a Women's Straweight Champion in December). Thats twice as many. So now the UFC doesn't need each champion defending the title more than once or twice a year, because they have more champions. Also, the less the fighters fight in the UFC, the less damage they take in the octagon, the longer their careers can last, the more money they make the UFC in the long run. So maybe the Brock Lesnar effect, as you have dubbed it, isn't all bad.

 

[The Boss]

Cena did an amazing thing for a #1 guy, losing cleanly to Brock in their first match (Can you imagine Hulk Hogan doing that, when he was the man?) But you don't really think Cena is going to finish second best in the long run, do you?

Um, yes. HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN lost cleanly to Brock Lesnar in their first match. He lost cleanly in his first match with Bill Goldberg. He lost cleanly in his first match with the Ultimate Warrior. He lost cleanly in his first match with The Rock. He also lost cleanly several times in his pre WrestleMania III matches with Andre the Giant.


Oh, and BTW. John Cena didn't do the job first. In case you forgot Lesnar layed down for him in their first match at Extreme Rules 2012.

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

I think John Cena is the one who can and the one who should be in there with Brock at the biggest show of the year.

Then all the build up for Brock would be for absolutely nothing. If the monster heel push Brock's been given isn't used to build up and put over someone who can be the future of the company, then it's wasted pure and simple.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

I find it funny how flaming-troll-esque the OP sounds whilst complaining about flaming trolls.

 

[MC_Live]

I have two assumptions. Either @stonecoldhell is a complete moron, or a foreigner, because he has no idea how to properly write using the English language. Anything that isn't written in the proper English language automatically loses all credibility, at least when dealing with an English speaking audience, such as the WZ forums. Add in to the fact that there is no evidence to support your claim. You're just saying stuff like a four year old. You lose most credibility that way.

Is Brock's absence really bad business? Because for a guy who isn't on TV that much, we sure do talk about him a lot. I mean, this is the second thread about Brock to pop up on the homepage just TODAY. And the last I checked, the more people talk about something, the more opportunity it has to make money. Or at least that's what my college professors told me.

If you're gonna angrily rant about something, have some evidence to back it up, and make it look good. Make it look like you're actually an educated person. Sure, Brock being gone isn't the best creative decision. But from a creative standpoint, he's the most hated heel in the world of wrestling. That's very hard to do. Also, his rare appearances make everything he does more meaningful. And as a result, that makes the Championship more meaningful. It's no secret WWE lacks depth in main event talent and big names right now. It's a bit of a rebuilding stage. WWE needs time to build the younger guys like Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, and Cesaro, among others. Being as 2014 is a bit of a rebuilding year, we don't need perfection. So, it's ok to have the WWE Champion be absent. The bottom line of the company won't change too much. WWE needs to aim long term right now, not short term.

I mean is there any evidence to support Lesnar's absence extremely affecting how the company is doing? Ticket sales, TV ratings, PPV buys, Network subscriptions, and stock price have all been relatively stagnant. No real major change, positive or negative. So as it goes, the negatives do not outweigh the positives in relation to how Brock's title reigns is affecting WWE's business numbers, so you might as well do it. The rest of the problem is trying to improve the quality of the product involving everyone else.

 

[GeneralKarim]

Am I really the only one who doesnt give a crap about it? I like that WWE has dun goofed and Brock is barely working. It gives people a chance to shine. Hell, it exposes WWE and their lackluster product. I love it.

Brock is Brock, he can do w/e he wants and charge howere much he wants for his dates. I dont need to see the champion every week cutting promos. This is the perfect time to build stars and let them shine and more importantly, let them loose.

Not to mention, I would absolutely hate for Brock to defend the championship every PPV as that would mean him running over a lot more people. People that WWE is not interested in making a big deal out of. Like I would love a Lesnar Cesaro feud because of the match they could have. But we all know Lesnar would win in the end and Cesaro would be back in the mid card jobbing and getting 0% heel reactions. So why even do the match? Let the guy be an attraction.

You might think they would make the IC and US title and the Tag titles and even the Divas title more important in this time that Brock is taking off. But look at them, they dont even give two shits about any of them. They might get a boner once in a while about an idea but after 1-2 months everything is back to normal like always. Seriously, if the only way WWE can make compelling television is if they have a random WWE Championship match then I'm not interested. They screwed up big time and are lacking in big names now to carry the company and they still dont give a crap. It's really mind-boggling that they can just cruise along on auto-pilot while their company sinks entertainment wise, cause financially because of their 1000000 sponsorships and ass kissing they are doing fine.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Let me know when you find your true stance.

My truest stance is that hyperbole and context are lost concepts on your brain.

Obviously you have never been a champion. When I won my first little league trophy I was so proud, It wasn't until we won state was that moment out shined. Then even though I was 3rd string and only saw 2 minutes of play time, winning the National Championship made those other two moment fail in comparison. I can only assume winning the WWE championship feels like that to the wrestlers, even though it is scripted. If you ever had a similar moment you would understand.
So Yeah I like seeing those moments.

That's so sweet guy who once started a thread asking if title reigns are meaningless. I'm glad for you that the title means so much. I started watching wrestling 30 years ago and at some point my tastes became more geared towards the stories and the athletecism of pro wrestling and less about who carries the strap. It is like a movie for me. I can't enjoy the climax of the movie if I didn't enjoy story and action that went in to said climax. I'm sorry if I just can't get in to Cena's 14th title win or another heel win screw job ending to a match.

But good for you that the title of a weekly scripted program means so much and allows you to vicariously re-live your days at Polk High. Bud and Kelly must love your old football stories.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

You forgot that Lesnar didn't lose to Austin
What?!
Austin didn't beat Lesnar every time they fought? No Way!!

 

[PeterSellersSTL]

Brocks absence is a noticeable drag on 3 hour RAWs but I like that he works a part time schedule and any match against him gets and feels like "the big fight". I just wish, like Russo, that WWE filmed more stuff with him for the days he wouldn't work. I also wish he did more promotional work outside of the WWE. Rollins is the mvp in his absence and is doing a great job.

 

[Ric 'The Nature Boy' Flair]

WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS HATING ON THE GUY EVERYONE ENJOYS AND ALWAYS PRAISING AUSTIN? WHAT THE FÛCK IS WRONG WITH U

 

[Rusty]

I actually agree with the OP and I've reinforced my point many times.

But.. to those saying "oh but in the early 90's the title wasn't defended every month". Well, um, hate to break it to ya, but in case you haven't noticed the WWE has consistently produced monthly pay per views for the last 15+ years, with fans expecting the title to be defended on a monthly basis. You can't train an audience for so long and then expect them to become untrained. That's like lowering expectations when they are so used to, you know, receive bang for their buck in the sense that they are guaranteed to see at least one WWE Championship match at a pay per view.

And another point.. has there actually been evidence Lesnar draws? Cause I have not seen ONE piece of evidence to prove this yet. Heel champions don't draw usually, and I don't understand why people are making it seem like he is a bigger star than he actually is. Sure he has his MMA background but apart from that, why is he a draw? People who watch real fighting are not going to watch fake fighting, that's the reality. And people who used to watch wrestling but gave up, are not going to start watching again due to the return of Brock Lesnar, only the Rock, HBK or Steve Austin has that kind of power.

 

[Navi]

I actually agree with the OP and I've reinforced my point many times.

But.. to those saying "oh but in the early 90's the title wasn't defended every month". Well, um, hate to break it to ya, but in case you haven't noticed the WWE has consistently produced monthly pay per views for the last 15+ years, with fans expecting the title to be defended on a monthly basis. You can't train an audience for so long and then expect them to become untrained. That's like lowering expectations when they are so used to, you know, receive bang for their buck in the sense that they are guaranteed to see at least one WWE Championship match at a pay per view.

And another point.. has there actually been evidence Lesnar draws? Cause I have not seen ONE piece of evidence to prove this yet. Heel champions don't draw usually, and I don't understand why people are making it seem like he is a bigger star than he actually is. Sure he has his MMA background but apart from that, why is he a draw? People who watch real fighting are not going to watch fake fighting, that's the reality. And people who used to watch wrestling but gave up, are not going to start watching again due to the return of Brock Lesnar, only the Rock, HBK or Steve Austin has that kind of power.

I totally agree with you there about the title showing up every now and again. It shouldn't be won and then disappear.

Look at it this way. People are saying Lesnar is elevating the title by not defending it, that he's adding mystique to it. Bullshit. The WWE doesn't want to pay him to show up, that's the bottom line. They painted themselves into a corner and now they're screwed.

When Ambrose held the US title, he hardly ever defended it, and everyone shit all over him for doing that. He didn't elevate the title, it was almost forgotten about, even though he was on TV every week holding it. Even the commentator's and his Shield partners made remarks on his lack of title defenses. When Sheamus won it from him, fans were overjoyed, because now he was willing to fight to defend it, just as Lesnar should be.

And my point from earlier still stands. When Cena, Reigns, Ambrose, Rollins or Orton wins it back, will they be allowed to sit at home with it for months on end and do nothing. No of course they won't. They like Daniel Bryan will be stripped of the title for not being a fighting champion.

What the WWE are saying to their roster is this. You guys go out there and work your ass's off 300 days a year. You give up your family lives, travel wherever we tell you too, but you are not good enough to hold the belt, and if you do, you'd better work your ass off to keep it. So Brock Lesnar a part timer, and someone who doesn't give two shits about the WWE is better than all of you. What a sad thing to say to those guys who really care about what they do, and bring in the bulk of the money for this company.

And I believe it has been proven that Lesnar does bring in PPV buys, only problem is right now, who is going to buy it when he's not there. Bringing him in to up the buyrate was a failure as well.

 

[pepentorresHHH]

I think its fair to say that Brock Lesnar Current WWE World Heavyweight Championship reign is controversial. Some people love it cause we finally have a legitimate world champion who is the perfect monster heel. People need to fight just to get an eventual shot at him. He doesnt have to show up until its time to build his fights. But also some people complain he is not here often and both point can be correct BUT

We've also had a strong number on important injuries on KEY members of the roster. Daniel Bryan, arguably the most popular man in the roster went down with injury and hasnt been seen in a ring in 6 months. Reigns got surgery just befre Night of achampions, Ambrose was missing for a month in between summerslam and Night of champions.

At least Reigns and Bryan were very popular superstars who carried a great portion of the WWE as a whole with multiple segments on Raw and SD being given to them. Now we have Cena and Ambrose carrying the load of top babyfaces. But with WWE' lack of build for the IC and US titles as the most important belts at least for now...... Are injuries making apparent the fact that Brock is simply not here?

The WWE title signifies that whoever holds it is the best, and the best is not on tv right now, and without reigns and Bryan, its more evident. Lack of stars are showing how needed the or a wwe champion is right now? If Reigns and Bryan were here we would have two more challengers fighting for a title shot but also two very popular guys that are main eventers and can main event shows without the need of a champion

Thoughts?