Brock Lesnar WWE World Heavyweight Championship Run Thread

[The Show Jordan Richards]

I agree. I think Bryan's injury especially hurts the WWE. He was the one true babyface that got a universal pop and could be relied on to put on the best matches of the night. Without him being injured, he would have been the one to drop the title to Lesnar and they would be feuding right now, instead of John Cena filling that role. Reigns' injury probably helps Reigns' build-up more than it hurts Lesnar's reign. Reigns was being fast-tracked to the main event, which has been proven to fail time and again. This injury comes at a great time, if there is a "good" time for an injury. It allows his build to cool off during the non-WrestleMania season, which means his return will coincide with a mega push toward Lesnar and the main event of WM XXXI and will seem much fresher than if he received the "Superman" treatment all the way to 'Mania. It's a double-edged sword having Brock Lesnar as the WWE World Heavyweight Champion right now. I would have booked Randy Orton to defeat "The Golden Boy" at HIAC. Orton would have presented a much more interesting challenge than Cena right now. Nevertheless, it seems that Reigns will be back before Bryan, if Bryan can return at all. The problem is that there are not a plethora of credible seeming challengers for "The Beast" at this time...

 

[Mustang Sally]

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.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see it as wasted. They've decided to run a program around Brock starting with his last two matches with Cena, in which he's been cast as an indestructible monster. He hasn't been one all through his wrestling career; when he started this incarnation with WWE 2 years ago, he was defeated by Cena in his first match back; apparently he wasn't indestructible back then.

For this program, that's how WWE has cast him....and the program has been a good one.....but it's just a program. Eventually, it will end, either by Brock leaving the company (a genuine possibility) or by having someone defeat him. It could be Cena, it could be Roman Reigns, it could be someone else......but due to the unique nature of Brock's contractual agreement with WWE (his deal is structured differently than anyone else who wrestles for the company), his conqueror doesn't have to be the "future of the company." It will be a performer who is deemed capable of defeating Brock......and at present, I see only Cena or Reigns as candidates. When it happens, they either move Brock to a new program.....or watch as he waves bye-bye.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I think Bryan's injury especially hurts the WWE.

True, but the question asked is whether Bryan and Reigns' injuries are hurting Brock's title reign....and to that, I say "no" for Daniel and "maybe" for Roman.

I don't know whether Daniel Bryan was going to be cast as a threat to Brock Lesnar in any shape or form. I feel he's too small to compete with a behemoth like Brock.....and yes, while the pre-scripted world of pro wrestling could find a way for Daniel to beat Brock in a match, there's nothing to say it would look real or effective. In fact, I believe watching Brock succumbing to Daniel's side kicks would look so ridiculous as to spoil the illusion of reality a company that produces pro wrestling needs to cast in order to remain a viable form of entertainment. Of course, that's just my opinion; if Daniel Bryan could chop down a monster like Brock Lesnar and make it look real, I'll shut up.

In any event, since I don't see Daniel as a threat, I'd say his absence hasn't affected Brock's title reign at all.

Roman Reigns is a different question. He could be seen as a legitimate threat to Brock because of his size, appearance and reputation for fierceness. Personally, I believe he was scheduled to be the man to oppose Brock at WM31.....and very possibly the man to defeat him. His injury has probably screwed up the works something fierce, and in that regard, Roman's time away from ring wars might have negatively affected Brock's reign.

Still, a lot depends on when Reigns' gets back. If it's a few months before the big event next April, there might still be time to build him up as a legit challenger for Brock....and if so, Roman's injuries will wind up having had little effect on Brock's title reign......but it's a good thing John Cena was around to pick up the slack during Roman's absence.

Yes, Cena was the planned recipient of Brock's beatdown as originally scheduled, but his second match (and possibly third, if it happens) with Brock might have happened only because Roman wasn't available.

 

[Kizzani]

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.

There is not need to apologize, truly after reading you post and being confused I had to go out and do my homework as to what the hell you were talking about and now I get it. So it is I who needs to apologize.

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 athleticism 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 modified the layout for your post and edited some spelling just so it would look better, so I hope you don't feel I am taking your words out of context.

I don't off the top of my head recall the title reigns are meaningless thread but It does fit the bill of exactly what I am talking about. As you can tell for all my posts I have defended John Cena's actions outside the ring and give him praise but having the title won 14 times or whatever number he sits at now does make the title seem pointless just as much as Lesnar winning and going all Harry Houdini on the WWE programming.

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.

To be honest I was confused what your meaning was until I did my research. I am not sure how you made a connection between a guy who played well in 1 game in high school to a guy who barely played in any games at the collegiate level. Referring back to your previous quote about enjoying movies and watching wrestling for the last 30 years. You're a TV baby, you related to Mr. Bundy because that is the life you lead.....wrok, TV, work, TV. Don't take this as a slight towards you my father too lived this life and he died happy 2 years ago. People are different and want different things.

This is where the disconnect is and now I understand why. You watch Raw so you see the things that a limited on live shows and not even shown at house shows. Unfortunately I don't have the time or luxury to sit in front of the TV, so I attend live shows between 20-25 per year. House Shows don't get the same glamour that a TV production has, so some of the stories are lost behind what is commonly referred to as dark matches.
I get to see more matches and stories told inside the ring and less on the microphone, there are things I get to hear and see that are not on TV. If you had the time to travel close to the WWE touring you would understand what I mean.
If I stopped attending live events for six months and only watch the TV, I would probably feel like I am cheating myself, but I would most likely understand your point of view.
I hate watching Cena, but with that said when you see a guy come out and defending his title 6 -10 times in a month at live events and on TV, you do gain some respect for a guy who can do it so many times in a short period. I still will remain one of the first and loudest to start Cena sucks chants every time.
For those of use who attend live shows and hope to see the champ not only has he no been on TV but he also skips live shows. So the champion "Is here" is not longer relevant, because the champ is never there. Wrestling is not about what you see on TV, but all the shows as a whole.
So since shows are live all week long and in the same area you can attend so many shows, tonight I have tickets to raw and tomorrow I am there for smackdown taping, only because one is in Buffalo and the other in Albany. After that, unless I head to Florida to see NXT there is no live events until the 17th (Roanoke, VA) ( thanks stupid international tours).

The point is people are talking about Brock not defending his title in for 2 months, but those are the people who don't go to live events and when you buy tickets you see who is advertised. Brock is not advertised anywhere leading up to the Rumble ( which I am unsure of, I won't find out until the holiday tour starts). So looking forward the title won't be at events live or TV until January which is 4 months out.
Now don't get me wrong here, a champ should defend his title and if Brock truly DOMINATED like so many say Cena ( like he did at Summer Slam) then maybe I would be okay with the absence ( in reality no), But he didn't dominate, he squeaked by with a DQ...John Cena could have and most likely would have beaten Lesnar if it wasn't for Seth Rollins ( good for Rollins career).
So now instead of having a bad ass who steam rolled the top dog and others to a title, we have a guy who slipped by with a DQ and then he realized he almost lost so he tucked tail and ran, like a little ( excuse my language) chicken shit. This doesn't make him look like a beast but more of a scared little girl.
I will be the first to admit I want a mean, monster (old school taker, Old School Kane) to come in an dominate cleanly each and every week. But almost losing or winning by default then hiding way is sissy. This is why I hate Lesnar as a champ.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think that Bryan's injury has hurt WWE because, whether you're a fan of Bryan or not, he's probably the most universally over babyface that WWE has had in years. Casual fans, average fans, hardcore fans, smarks, adult men, adult women, teenagers, kids, all LIKE cheering for Bryan and have been heavily invested in him. When a guy who isn't even in the building or on the show gets the biggest pop of the night, there's money to be made.

If reports are correct in saying that Bryan was originally intended to have the lopsided loss to Lesnar that Cena had at SummerSlam, I don't think fans would have reacted positively. Cena's loss didn't hurt him in the least because...well he's John Cena and nobody's been booked as consistently strong as Cena has been since Hulk Hogan. Bryan's loss would've met with a lot of complaints ranging from "WWE just buried Daniel Bryan" to "Brock Lesnar doesn't deserve to be champion" and any number of others.

Whether or not Bryan would have lost, Bryan being in the title picture instead of or along with Cena and possibly Orton would have had a fresher feel about it. Putting the title back on Cena after Bryan's injury was probably the right thing to do, but it's also got the built in problem of a lot of people just being flat out tired and bored with John Cena wrestling as or wrestling to become WWE Champion, same with Randy Orton.

Reigns being out has been a blow as well, though not as much of one as Bryan being out, at least in my opinion. While it might've been interesting to see Reigns interacting with Lesnar, I think it's a spot that he's not ready for. I know that a lot of WWE officials are reportedly high on Reigns, I'm a fan of the guy myself, but I think he still has a long way to go before he's ready to be champ.

Also, more than anything else, Lesnar being MIA for months on end is hurting his title reign, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. While it MIGHT give his title defenses more of a special, big match feel, you still have to deal with the fact that WWE's World Heavyweight Champion isn't around often. Also, and I think this could also be a result of Bryan & Reigns' injury, Lesnar's title defenses may not feel as special as they could have been because his matches have been against Cena. As I said earlier, a good number of fans are burned out on Cena as champion. I can see why WWE went that route, but that doesn't prevent it from being any less stale.

 

[OYDK]

I think Daniel Bryan's injury may have hurt Lesnar's title reign a tad bit. The original plan (apparently) was to have Bryan hold the strap until Summerlslam where he (instead of John Cena) would take the brutal beatdown from Lesnar and drop the title. If this happens, Lesnar starts off his reign with MASSIVE heel heat, a hell of a lot more heat than he got beating John Cena I would argue. And than of course there would probably be a Daniel Bryan-John Cena #1 contenders match and so on, so in a way, yes I do think DB getting injured took away from the "true" monster heel story WWE was trying to tell.

As for Reigns, I didn't see him getting anywhere near Lesnar until Rumble time anyway so I would argue that Reigns' injury doesn't hold THAT much of an impact on Lesnar's title run.

 

[enviousdominous]

Lesnar is Lesnar because he's Lesnar. He's more who is he because of how he looks and the fact that he can whip anyone off his shoulders for an F-5. While his wins over Hogan and Rock were big for his push, they weren't upset victories based on how he was being marketed.

While some performers seem like they couldn't possibly get any more over with the crowd, going up against Lesnar boosts their appeal thanks to Lesnar being booked like he's the next Andre the Giant. Whatever happens outside of Lesnar's title reign is practically irrelevant, it's not so much about the belt as it's more about being able to say that you beat Lesnar for it.

I think that Lesnar is one of the few smart aspects of the WWE.

 

[Navi]

I voted somewhat. The whole Brock Lesnar title reign has been screwed up since the very beginning.

The WWE knew what they were getting into with Lesnar, and they knew a couple of months before giving him the belt Bryan was out with an injury. They also knew he wasn't getting any better but gave the belt to Lesnar anyway. The fly in the ointment was Reigns going out with a hernia operation. No one saw that coming, even Reigns himself.

So now you have Lesnar with the belt and limited working dates. That's an important fact, because it doesn't matter if both Bryan and Reigns were there, we still would have Lesnar not showing up.

So who's hurt his title reign, he has himself by not defending it. It's nice to put the blame on others, but in this case Lesnar with his inability to show up, the WWE with their inability to put anyone else up against him than John Cena have put the title in an awkward position.

I don't think for one minute the title is being elevated. The only time it was defended the title holder got his ass handed to him, and he left and hasn't been seen since. Some beast incarnate there. There are credible challengers the issue is that the WWE doesn't want to use them. This is not UFC, this is the WWE, and anyone can win this title in a scripted match.

So yes injuries have hurt the main event picture, but others have stepped up, the champ is the only one who hasn't. And I really have no idea how all of a sudden Brock Lesnar, who is here on a limited contract which is up in April, has become more important than everyone else combined. We all give part timers crap, but Lesnar is looked at as a God of some sort. I think he's a lazy prick sorry but that's my feeling.

 

[Luten]

For years, and years, and years..Well, 2002 - 2014 anyway. All I wanted as a fan was to return to the days of having ONE Champion. I loved the Undisputed Championship carried by the likes of Triple H, Hogan, Taker in 2002, it looked AMAZING!

WWE obviously weren't satisfied with the state of confusion they created in 2001 with so many belts floating around.
They brought the WH Title back and then a guy (you might know his name) called John Cena came along and introduced the spinner belt.

It killed so much of the luster surrounding being the champion (At least for me anyway)
I always wondered if new fans to the WWE particularly young ones were ever confused as to why there were two main event titles, especially after 2011 when the draft lottery ended..

Anyway, needless to say I was thrilled when they unified the belts at TLC 2013 and even more happier with the introduction of ONE Belt (It's not my fav title design, but it'll do)

What WWE are doing at the moment in regards to the title is superb
However, I do feel that there needs to be some kayfabe explanation as to why the Championship is not likely going to be defended until 2015.. Fans have grown accustomed to a WWE Title match almost every month, and so this is why there has been this backlash Re: this thread.

I feel WWE at least need to address this i.e even something as simple as Paul Heyman saying "Brock Lesnar doesn't get told when to defend the title, Brock Lesnar tells you when he will defend it" ..

I feel this is made ever more important by the way Night of Champions ended.. Brock won via DQ.. and then was seen smiling about it as the PPV closed.. Lesnar the destroyer surely wouldn't have liked that victory, and what’s more; he's not been seen since after getting a curb stomp by Rollins.. At least in terms of kayfabe you'd think the Beast would want revenge before taking a hiatus.

All I want is for someone in kayfabe to address the elephant that is currently not in the living room.

 

[Brushfire]

I think the booking decisions are what has hurt Lesnar's title reign, as well as his reluctance to ever turn up. Not only have they created an unstoppable beast who completely dominated the only man being presented as a viable challenger to win the title, but they aren't making any effort to build anyone else up in his place. They had a real chance to let Orton also present a challenge to Lesnar, but instead they opted for Lesnar v Cena IV. I just cannot understand the thinking behind that no matter how much I think about it. It makes Cena look head and shoulders above the rest of the roster, and Lesnar head and shoulders above them.

Maybe that's something that will be addressed when Reigns gets back from injury, but only having Cena and Reigns face Lesnar is sure to create a negative backlash from some fans as they'll have to be booked as a superman to even come close to gaining the (kayfabe) credibility to face Lesnar.

Also would like to throw in the casual reminder than Eddie Guerrero was the man who beat Brock Lesnar for the title last time, for those struggling to believe that Daniel Bryan could ever be seen as a viable contender to beat Brock Lesnar in a scripted wrestling match.

 

[achromat666]

Greetings all,

Been reading the various forums dealing with the Brock Lesnar title run and the issues that come with it, but I think most post miss some of what I think are key issues with it and I don't think WWE has a real solution in place.

Here's my take:

-Yes Brock Lesnar is a legit threat to whatever title he pursues and yes his matches and overall reign should demonstrate said dominance. The build up worked well enough (beating Undertaker at Wrestlemania, beating Cena convincingly to win the title) but now we have the issue of not just an absent champion but a depleted main event pool. Cena and Orton are the 2 guys that are legitimately in the main event that are active. Rollins and Ambrose are being groomed, but haven't had the big match with one of the other main eventers to put them over. Bray is somewhere in a similar position has had main event rubs but still lies in the upper mid card. Bryan and Reigns are still out and the other guys that deserve some time in the upper mid card (Cesaro, Barrett, Ziggler, Sheamus and the like) are either relegated to remain below or simply haven't been given a sustained push to get any farther. So, as of right now you 2 main eventers (Cena, Orton) a few upper mid carders on the brink of breaking through (Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt) and little else to build stories on.

-When you build someone to be the badass that Lesnar is currently being built as, who do you realistically get to beat him if the only person that ever gets a chance is John Cena? Cena has actually lost to other people on the roster, so logically if you maintain that Cena can beat him don't you at least give those that have beaten Cena a chance at it? Orton, Bryan (when he's healthy again) and others should be at least considered for the belt but the only real wildcard is Rollins cashing in the MITB in the next title match.

-While Heyman is fine to be on Raw and such promoting Brock shouldn't there be at least some promos with Heyman and Lesnar to keep people talking about the champ (even if it's via video)? Vignettes showing his career of dominance to reinforce what he can do? Whatever reasons the WWE had for agreeing to a clearly limited appearance deal for Lesnar they could at least use the material they already have more effectively to keep the title in people's minds as well as the champion.

Lastly, I'm curious as to what kind of precedent this is going to set for future title runs. Brock is unique and I doubt any else will get this treatment but we've gone from having the title trade hands extensively in a short period for a long stretch to a year plus title reign (Punk) to title reign screwjobs and sadly injury (Bryan) and now we have an absent champion that no one can seemingly stop holding a title for who knows how long.

Thoughts?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Since there's been about four or five different threads over the course of the past week or so talking about the same thing, namely Lesnar's title run and debate over its pros & cons, I figure it's time to consolidate it all to one thread.

 

[BenChillin]

If you gave me Cesaro vs Brock in a 20 minute pay per view match, my mind would be blown.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

As you can tell for all my posts I have defended John Cena's actions outside the ring and give him praise but having the title won 14 times or whatever number he sits at now does make the title seem pointless just as much as Lesnar winning and going all Harry Houdini on the WWE programming.

So we agree, the title can be pointless. I disagree however that Lesnar absence makes the title pointless. To me, the lack of interest most of the roster seems to have in the title makes it pointless. The ones that do seem interested (Cena, Orton) have won it so many times that it doesn't mean anything to me for them to want it, win it, defend it, or lose it. There has to be a compelling story attached to the title match for me to care, other it is just a prop.

Referring back to your previous quote about enjoying movies and watching wrestling for the last 30 years. You're a TV baby, you related to Mr. Bundy because that is the life you lead.....wrok, TV, work, TV. Don't take this as a slight towards you my father too lived this life and he died happy 2 years ago. People are different and want different things.

Not taken as a slight since you don't know me at all but I'd hardly call my life "work, TV, work, TV". My wife and kids are a huge priority for me and far more important than work and TV.

This is where the disconnect is and now I understand why. You watch Raw so you see the things that a limited on live shows and not even shown at house shows. Unfortunately I don't have the time or luxury to sit in front of the TV,

I assure you most (probably 99%) of the members of this forum are getting their wrestling through television or internet.

so I attend live shows between 20-25 per year.

You don't have time for TV but you have time to go to that many house shows? Sorry, this doesn't make sense.

I would say you choose to not watch TV. You certainly have the time if you are going to all these house shows.

House Shows don't get the same glamour that a TV production has, so some of the stories are lost behind what is commonly referred to as dark matches.
I get to see more matches and stories told inside the ring and less on the microphone, there are things I get to hear and see that are not on TV. If you had the time to travel close to the WWE touring you would understand what I mean.

I admit, I have no idea about the touring life. I'm guessing there are few that do. I'm interested in learning about this:

How does one afford it? How many people do this? Why do it? What are the people like that do this? How long have you done it? Do you build relationships with the performers? Does WWE provide you with special recognition for attending so many events?

I hate watching Cena, but with that said when you see a guy come out and defending his title 6 -10 times in a month at live events and on TV, you do gain some respect for a guy who can do it so many times in a short period. I still will remain one of the first and loudest to start Cena sucks chants every time.

I have nothing against Cena as a person. I think he is a terrific performer. I would not chant Cena sucks for a multitude of reasons. It just doesn't mean anything for me to see him win the title. Again, I need more of a story around him winning the title to get invested.

For those of use who attend live shows and hope to see the champ not only has he no been on TV but he also skips live shows. So the champion "Is here" is not longer relevant, because the champ is never there. Wrestling is not about what you see on TV, but all the shows as a whole.

But you're putting this on the internet without prefacing how many house shows you go too. Most of, if not all the rest of us get our WWE through TV, internet, and the occasional live experience. How are any of us supposed to relate?

So since shows are live all week long and in the same area you can attend so many shows, tonight I have tickets to raw and tomorrow I am there for smackdown taping, only because one is in Buffalo and the other in Albany. After that, unless I head to Florida to see NXT there is no live events until the 17th (Roanoke, VA) ( thanks stupid international tours).

The point is people are talking about Brock not defending his title in for 2 months, but those are the people who don't go to live events and when you buy tickets you see who is advertised. Brock is not advertised anywhere leading up to the Rumble ( which I am unsure of, I won't find out until the holiday tour starts). So looking forward the title won't be at events live or TV until January which is 4 months out.
Now don't get me wrong here, a champ should defend his title and if Brock truly DOMINATED like so many say Cena ( like he did at Summer Slam) then maybe I would be okay with the absence ( in reality no), But he didn't dominate, he squeaked by with a DQ...John Cena could have and most likely would have beaten Lesnar if it wasn't for Seth Rollins ( good for Rollins career).

So now instead of having a bad ass who steam rolled the top dog and others to a title, we have a guy who slipped by with a DQ and then he realized he almost lost so he tucked tail and ran, like a little ( excuse my language) chicken shit. This doesn't make him look like a beast but more of a scared little girl.
I will be the first to admit I want a mean, monster (old school taker, Old School Kane) to come in an dominate cleanly each and every week. But almost losing or winning by default then hiding way is sissy. This is why I hate Lesnar as a champ.

I'm confused. Do you watch Raw or not? Anyway, not important. To each their own. I get why people want the title there. I just find that WWE doesn't do much with it from a meaning or entertainment standpoint when it is there. It is mostly just a prop. My guess is that if WWE did things your way and had it defended so regularly on TV it would lose fan interest after a while more so than how they have done things over the past couple of years.

This topic is done to death. Start a thread on touring with WWE (maybe in the Spam sections). It would be far more interesting than Lesnar and title talk.

 

[kadroan]

I'm not a fan of the idea. It's not like fans are clamoring for this match up. If anything if the casual fan wanted to see a returning wrestler face Brock, it would probably be The Rock, Bryan and Punk, even a midcarder like MVP long before Kozlov is considered

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

Lesnar's run with the Title isn't being affected by injuries at all, because he would defend the belt the same number of times whether everyone was healthy or not. They aren't not booking him because he has no one to face, they're not booking him because he costs a lot of money to book.

I think giving Brock the Title was a good idea, because after ending the Streak he pretty much has to become Champion. The fact that he is a "part-timer" doesn't bother me at all and having him only defend the Title on PPVs adds to his gimmick as a legit fighter. The match with Cena was at SummerSlam was handled perfectly, it was shocking to see a Title match that one-sided and it put over Brock that much more as an unstoppable force. However, having silly run-ins and standard wrestling finishes ultimately hurts his character so I think the finish at Night of Champions was handled poorly.

That being said, he still has an aura of dominance, and it's going to be a big deal when someone beats him for the Title, whoever that may be. It looks like his next defense will be against Cena at the Rumble, and I think Lesnar needs to go over decisively again. Having Cena overcome Brock on a third attempt doesn't make sense and benefits no one, and I don't think having some kind of screwy finish to set-up Cena's next feud with somebody is worth it either. Brock looking strong is more important at this point.

So then the question is, who does Lesnar face at WrestleMania 31?

Roman Reigns is the straightforward choice. Use your dominant heel Champion to put over your a new babyface. Reigns returns and wins the Rumble, setting up the match with Lesnar, simple enough. The build-up could be similar to Rock/Brock from SummerSlam 02, since Reigns also has a legitimate athletic background. Focus on Reigns and Lesnar both training for the match, show montages of them in the gym, have an official weigh-in, show the tale of the tape before the match, treat it like a real fight to capture that big fight feel. Like I said before, when you book Lesnar, you need to emphasize his legitimacy as much as possible and a build-up like that would be perfect.

The next obvious choice is the returning Daniel Bryan. It would be the hottest face in the company versus the hottest heel in the company. To me, this would be the best choice if you get Lesnar to renew his contract. At WrestleMania 30 Bryan won two matches in one night to become Champion, and Lesnar ended the Streak. Now at WrestleMania 31 they face off against each other. Again, the build up could focus on their training. I can picture a montage similar to Rocky IV, with Lesnar training in a gym with sophisticated equipment and technology and the underdog Bryan training in the woods on his property in the middle of nowhere. I think it would be really cool, and to me this is probably the best option for the main event at Mania 31.

The wildcard in all of this is Dean Ambrose. There's not denying how over he has become, and it really seems as though the fans have chosen him. For an Ambrose/Lesnar match to work I think it needs to be No Holds Barred. After winning the RUmble, have Ambrose come out on RAW and say he wants his match with Lesnar to be No Holds Barred. The announcers would put over how crazy he is for wanting to face the Beast in a match where anything goes. Ambrose isn't a physical threat to Lesnar, so for it to be belieavble he needs to get in Lesnar's head. Booking Ambrose as a lunatic who isn't afraid of getting hurt is a good place to start. Lesnar is used to his opponents fearing him but Ambrose is a guy who has no fear and it's believable that he would get into Lesnar's head because of that. Honestly, Lesnar could probably go voer and it wouldn't matter, because you could make Ambrose into a huge star from a loss in this case. Have him take a crazy amount of punishment and kick out of everything, visably rattling Lesnar until he finally snaps and puts Ambrose down for good. After the match instead of being stretchered out Ambrose fights off the paramedics and walks off on his power to a huge ovation from the fans.

In my opinion , the best thing would be if they could get Lesnar to renew his contract, do the Bryan match at Mania 31 and put Lesnar over, then have an up and comer beat him at some point down the road, most likely at SummerSlam in the Garden. But at the end of the day, Ambrose, Reigns and Bryan are basically the only 3 big matches you have for Lesnar at WrestleMania or otherwise.

 

[The Dark Warlords]

Personally i loved how he won the title. I loved how he just rag dolled Cena to get the championship. Someone that has Lesnar's credentials should always win the title in that way. It showcased how dominating someone like Lesnar can be. Loved the match.

 

[Batman234]

do you guys think if brock lesnar loses the wwe championship before wrestlemania it would a be a huge blow on wwe's part? Considering they had him beat the undertaker's streak having him lose to cena or losing to seth rollins cash in would feel a bit anticlimactic.

 

[steven87gill]

Having Bryan job out to Lesnar at WM would be a bit of a waste. As would be having Reigns or Ambrose doing it at SS. Mania is where Lesnar became 'the one', & Mania is where 'insert wrestler here' should beat 'the one'.

This really isn't as hard as some people are making it. You have Bryan go over Lesnar cleanly at Mania (if he's back by then) then you have Bryan drop to a heel who then drops to whomever at 32. Could be Ambrose, could be Reigns, could be any number of guys that may get over in the next 18 months.

My preference would be for Cena to finally make the switch at Survivor Series 15, 'heeling' up on Bryan to take the title. You can then use him to Crown Reigns at Mania 32, exactly 10 years after Cena became 'the man'. (21 was really Batista's year, Cena making HHH tap in Chicago a year later was his true crowning moment)

 

[HeroForHire]

I love it. I think it is great. Makes the title feel important again. You don't see Brock all the time and that is how it should be. When he shows up it is for an important reason.

 

[joey414]

disappointing that the title isn't being held by someone who cant be bothered to defend, however its a great way to build up lesnar heat and to give the new main event guys, i.e wyatt, rollins, ambrose and reigns time to build themselves as contenders.
Cena winning belt is only way any of those 4 guys are gonna get a sniff at the strap as not one of them is in brocks league
would have liked to have seeen brock v orton as would have been original, or see dan bryan fight lesnar and get properly broken

 

[Damien"Dark"Starr]

What I wanna know is how come Ziggler got his world title taken away from him because he couldn't defend it due to injury but Lesner doesn't have to defend his in a period of time. Am I missing something? Ziggler wasn't out of action for that long....

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

disappointing that the title isn't being held by someone who cant be bothered to defend, however its a great way to build up lesnar heat and to give the new main event guys, i.e wyatt, rollins, ambrose and reigns time to build themselves as contenders.
Cena winning belt is only way any of those 4 guys are gonna get a sniff at the strap as not one of them is in brocks league
would have liked to have seeen brock v orton as would have been original, or see dan bryan fight lesnar and get properly broken

Considering this is wrestling, the wrestlers that are "in Brock's league" are whoever the WWE BOOKS to be in Brock's league.....no more, no less. Brock is only in the league that he's in because the WWE books him that way.

 

[joey414]

I cant see brock gettin to mainia with the strap as only roman reigns (via royal rumble return/win) could possibly challenge him, or we can watch cena have yet another match with him. I cant think of anyone to face the beast realistically so better to get the whole cena wins belt rollins cash in thing happen at rumble over and done with as cena could put over a greater range of superstars than brock could

 

[joey414]

potential brock contenders......... my top 10 in no particular order and the problems they face....

1. Cena
been done 4 times now
2. Reigns
roman pretty broken atm
3. Rock
should have happened 5 years ago, rock starting to age
4. Big Show
too slow
5. Rusev
could be good match, wont get booked
6.Ambrose
squash match
7. rollins
cash in only
8. ceasaro
again could be good, wont get booked
9. Orton
wouldnt want to get hammered
10. Seamus
wont get booked

so unless creative get good or a 300 lb roid freak shows up to even up the fight, lesnar really aint got a lot of competition meaning that the strap stays off tv until brock decides he wants out