Championship Region, Sixth Round: (2) The Rock vs. (12) Brock Lesnar

Discussion in 'Championship Region' started by klunderbunker, May 14, 2014.

?

Who Wins This Matchup?

  1. The Rock

  2. Brock Lesnar

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. klunderbunker

    klunderbunker Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    17,857
    Likes Received:
    3,359
    This is a sixth round match in the Championship Region. It is a standard one on one match, held at the Super Dome in New Orleans, Louisiana. Damage carries over from the fifth round match.

    [​IMG]

    NOTE ABOUT THE FINAL ROUNDS: The remaining three rounds are a one night only tournament in the style of King of the Ring. All damage from this round carries over to the next round and is based on the margin of victory. If someone wins a close match, they took a severe beating but survived. If someone wins a blowout, they didn't suffer as much damage.

    [​IMG]

    #2. The Rock

    Defeated Ric Flair 76-30

    Vs.

    [​IMG]

    #12. Brock Lesnar

    Defeated Triple H 61-43




    Polls will be open for six days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

    Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.
     
    #1
  2. GI Cake

    GI Cake Thank God For Sodamy.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    943
    Sorry Brock, you're an awful, overrated, overhyped sack of shit is finally going down, and it was far overdue. Rock wipes the floor with Lesnar in every single imaginable. Let's ignore the fact that Brock has the stamina of Danny Devito. Seriously, where has Brock been after every ppv? Oh right, getting more veins tattooed onto his 'sword' or whatever he wants to call the 2 foot long schlong that he inked onto his overrated torso.

    Fuck Brock, as he gets the boot from the Rock.
     
    #2
    Jaffa likes this.
  3. Dragon Chief

    Dragon Chief Exodus 3:14

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    20
    Brock Lesnar took a lot of damage from Triple H in the previous round but looking back at his career he shows no signs of slowing down, Brock Lesnar wrestled two matches at King of the Ring PPV to win the tournament, he beat both The Hardyz at the same time, he beat the Big Show and went on to win the Royal Rumble 2003 during the same night, he beat Kurt Angle at WrestleMania 19 with injured ribs and after a botched shooting star, Brock Lesnar took a jackhammer from Goldberg before his match against Eddie Guerrero, wrestled 30 minutes, took a spear from Goldberg during his match, kicked out, giving Eddie no choice but to use an illegal weapon to finally put down the beast. Brock Lesnar can take a lot of pain and still pull off a victory. Brock Lesnar's conditioning and durability is unmatched.

    [​IMG]

    Not to mention this actually happened.

    Now to quote Hall of Famer Edge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=937M4-tndRk

    Vote for the more dominant part-timer, vote Brock Lesnar.
     
    #3
  4. Da Prophet

    Da Prophet Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,207
    Likes Received:
    708
    Brock's run in the tournament has been hilarious. I hope he wins match and then wins the entire tournament. You can't let Brock Lesnar get this far and not have him win. I'm voting Lesnar because it would make me laugh if he wins the tournament after beating Hogan, Rock and Austin.
     
    #4
  5. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    WHY ROCK BEATS LESNAR​


    The lunacy has reigned long enough this year. Now it shall draw to a comfortable conclusion in the semi-final, and we can have two finalists deserving of their position as WZT finalists, as both Cena and Austin are fully deserving of that right, as is The Rock. Brock Lesnar is however, not worthy of a position against Cena or Austin in the WZT final not only because he is simply not proficient enough to earn such a position, but because he could not defeat The Rock in his prime.

    Before I jump in to my analysis, let's dispel a triad of things I expect will be coming up from Brock supporters.

    Fallacy 1: Brock Lesnar defeated The Rock at Summerslam 2002.

    Indeed, he did, and for a man who had been on the roster for about 5 months at the time, that's a respectable feat. But here's the thing: this can be dispelled from both a kayfabe standpoint and a reality standpoint. In kayfabe, The Rock's best days were behind him and he didn't exactly hold the title for long, clocking in at a measly 35 days. During this time, his only non tag match victories were over Ric Flair (way past his prime), Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero (both who had not hit their primes). He also had a no-contest against Triple H, which goes to show just how bad this reign was for The Rock from a kayfabe perspective. He also lost a few tag matches as well, although I don't think he was involved in the fall, but it still counts as a blemish on his record. And Lesnar scarcely beats Rocky after all that. Keep in mind that Lesnar had been up to that point as completely unstoppable.

    Let's look at this in a reality perspective. Lesnar was hand-picked to be the next big draw for WWE, and Rock was leaving to film a movie anyhow, so the title was pretty much guaranteed to change hands. Brock wins, and his only close to impressive victory is over Undertaker in a Cell match at No Mercy. Then he gets injured, loses the title to Show, and despite winning the title twice again, he never picked up the same momentum as he did in 2002. He had a good feud with Kurt Angle, but Kurt Angle is the keyword at hand. 2003 Angle was nowhere near an all-time great (unless you're talking about his in-ring work, which was divine), and yet Lesnar had considerable difficulty beating him. In short, Brock Lesnar beating The Rock in 2002 meant very little both in kayfabe and in reality terms, and he was facing The Rock when he was a shell of his former self.

    Fallacy 2: Brock Lesnar won King of the Ring 2002 so he's used to the tournament enviornment.

    He beat Test and RVD in one night. Test wasn't worth a damn at that point in time, and RVD had already began to stick as a main-event jobber around that time period, not regaining major momentum until 2006. Lesnar has already had much more difficulty putting Triple H away in this tournament, while Rock slid by Flair a lot more comfortably. I'm pretty sure a close match against Triple H in his prime is worth more than 2002 Test and 2002 RVD combined. So we've established Brock is weaker coming into this match than he was after winning the KOTR final, and he's against someone that is arguably even tougher than Triple H in his prime. This doesn't bode well for Lesnar, even if The Rock possesses slight injuries coming in, Lesnar's injuries are far graver and he is against arguably a stronger opponent.

    Fallacy 3: Brock Lesnar broke the Streak.

    This is by far the stupidest of all three arguments because it is completely counter-productive. Lesnar has wrestled 7 times in 2 years, and he happened to beat a guy that was well, well out of his prime to break something that was inevitably going to be ended someday by the skin of his teeth. Wouldn't that suggest that Brock has a significant disadvantage coming into his second match of the night, even ignoring injuries? The Brock Lesnar who ended the streak is not Brock Lesnar in his prime, so don't even try to use that in your argument, especially if you start to argue with Brock's first run in WWE at the same time.

    Now that the fallacies are out of the way, let's get into the analysis itself.

    Brock Lesnar is not in the same league as The Rock. There's a very good reasons why The Rock has been seeded #2 in his bracket and why Brock Lesnar has been seeded #12 in his: The Rock is considerably better than Brock, and what's more, with both men in their primes, The Rock would beat Brock in a fight, plain and simple. Now, seeding isn't always the best representation of skill, but that mostly applies to old-school wrestlers, such as Kiniski or Ed Lewis for example. Let's break this semi-final down.

    First of all, Brock Lesnar was Vince McMahon's first major attempt of building a superstar artificially. Some may argue that Ultimate Warrior was also built artificially, but Warrior also had a very strong connection with the fans, something Brock failed to achieve in his time, and Warrior was given a ball to run with, and he did just that. With Brock, Vince already had plans that he was destined for greatness, and had him destroy most in his path, before finally winning the title at Summerslam 2002.

    Now, how many names did Brock beat that were either not out of their prime or anything more than main-event jobbers and below during his ascension? The answer is a big, fat zero. Brock never faced anyone of huge importance or someone huge such as Hogan or Flair during their prime, and his only credible win with the title was against Undertaker in a Hell in a Cell match., aka not a singles match like we're dealing with here. Then he lost it to Big Show, and his momentum never reached the same heights again. Sure, he won the title a couple more times, but on Smackdown, he clearly was a big fish in a small pond, trading the title with Kurt Angle.

    It was during this period that WWE ratings saw a dramatic decline. Gone were the days of the die-hard Attitude Era fans, and Vince had failed to live up to the standards set by Austin and, ironically enough, The Rock. I'll concede that this is mainly due to how horrific RAW was at the time, but while Smackdown was a much better product in-ring wise, it still wasn't attaining ratings of the magnitude it had been before. So in short, Vince's artificial step into the next generation failed, and it took the natural rise of Cena for Vince to get things right.

    So Brock was a failure as the next big thing as he left pretty early in his main roster tenure. His competition, apart from Angle (who actually took the title from him) was nothing special, and the ratings were down. And that's all without comparing him to The Rock's prime, which I'm going to do now.

    In 1999, Stone Cold Steve Austin was the hottest thing in wrestling. But then, at the end of the year, he was written off television in order to undergo much needed neck surgery. Now, WCW at this time were floundering, but with Austin gone, they might have had a chance to bounce back, right?

    If anything, they were further decimated going into 2000. Granted, WCW had gotten even worse, but the WWF had gotten even better with the advent of The Rock as the top star. He took the ball and ran with it, and 2000 is often cited as one of the best years for WWF, and for good reason, because it was fucking great, from both a story and in-ring perspective. WWF proved they didn't need Austin to put on great entertainment when The Rock was in control. The WWF continued to draw big crowds during 2000, and that can be attributed to The Rock's work.

    What's more, The Rock actually picked up impressive victories, such as a victory over Triple H during one of HHH's best periods ever as just one of a few examples. The Rock was a draw, he was booked against stronger competition, and the ratings thrived. He fully moved out of Austin's shadow and cemented himself as one of the greats. On the contrary, Lesnar is often remembered as one of the biggest disappointments in wrestling history, having failed to live up to expectations and having his return to wrestling being viewed by many as redemption.

    One more thing to throw salt on the wound, damage passing over. You will notice that Lesnar had a closer match than The Rock did last round, which gives Lesnar the disadvantage in every conceivable way.

    In short, The Rock trumps everything Brock Lesnar has to throw at him. I know they'll inevitably be some cretinous arguments, but I hope this post acts as the safety net to stop most of the shit that will try to stream into the thread.

    The nonsense stops now. Vote Rock.
     
    #5
    BooCocky, Jaffa and TLC like this.
  6. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    So you're going to allow your obvious bias for Brock to counter the fact that Brock is banged up coming in. Yeah, because Brock has a self-healing serum that helps him win matches no matter how banged up he was prior :rolleyes:.

    He beat a main event jobber and Test. Triple H has already given him a harder time than both of those men.

    Ignoring that this isn't a Handicap match, The Hardyz in 2002 meant far, far less than either Triple H or Rock in their prime.

    Where he entered at Number 29, when a good chunk of the competition had been cleared out. Also, the Royal Rumble match has no effect on this match, as it's completely different from a one on one match. But if you must, The Rock also won the Royal Rumble in 2000 from an earlier position than Lesnar, therefore having to deal with more people. And one of those people was 2000 Big Show, who meant a hell of a lot more than 2003 Big Show.

    You're implying that Kurt Angle wasn't banged up as well, which he was.

    And guess who won? Are you even trying anymore?

    As has The Rock.

    All of which who aren't even in the same league as Prime Rock.

    So he beat a past-prime Rock, and went on to become WWE's biggest failure as the top face ever. I don't see how that supports your argument. I also love how you're trying to use a kayfabe comment to support your argument.

    Alternatively, we can vote against you because you are a cretinous fanboy.
     
    #6
    ocekit likes this.
  7. Bythedockofthebay

    Bythedockofthebay Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    59
    LMFAO, wow you just wow. In 2002 his best days were behind him? So at a massive what 30 years old the Rock was a hasbeen? Most men hit their prime at 30 not fall apart. If that's the case put Brock through now. Second point, his 35 day reign being part of the reason for his best days being behind him, well lets take a look at Rocky's reigns.

    1. 44 days (I mean that just dwarfs the 35)
    2. 2 days (WOW!)
    3.41 days (again I see the HUGE difference here. That's almost a full week!)
    4. 21 days (Shesh and this is 2000 or sooner before his best days were behind him)
    5. 119 (Someone call the police he made it almost four MONTHS!)
    6. 35 (that's the same as 7)
    7. 35 (brock here)
    8. 70 days (that's like two months man)

    The guy was never much of a champion. He loses all kinds of big matches, and he's never beaten brock. Advantage Brock, and brocks first reign was longer than every reign Rock had except one. The Rock was so dominate!
     
    #7
  8. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    I really don't think you understand. Let me spell it out for you.

    Brock spent his time defeating people out of their prime and main-event jobbers, with his only significant win over a 2002 Undertaker before losing to a 2002 Big Show.

    The Rock meanwhile had competition from 2000 HHH, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Kane, Big Show (yes, he was a big deal in 2000) and upon his return, SCSA. And yet, other than Stone Cold, he stood head and shoulders above the rest. 2000 was the year that The Rock became a major force in WWE.

    Even after WM17, The Rock played a major role as the big babyface during the Invasion. But soon, The Rock started to wind down from his 2000 run and didn't reach those heights again until his return in 2011. Sure, he won the title, but he was a transitional champion, intended to be fed to Brock for more reasons than one. Therefore, it's pretty safe to say that Rock was past his prime that he was originally in 2000.

    Also, you're not looking into the context of those title reigns at all, you're just regurgitating statistics.

    Don't be stupid. Vote Rock.
     
    #8
  9. Bythedockofthebay

    Bythedockofthebay Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    59
    The Rock was always being fed to someone. It was his role in the company. You brought up his 35 days as champion not me. The Rock was always that way and even in his "prime" as you call it he would've been fed to brock
     
    #9
  10. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    The only guy that The Rock has a bad W/L record against is Austin, and there's little shame in that. In 2000, he broke out and easily became the second-biggest Attitude Era star and actually picked up far more impressive wins than any of Brock's victories during his prime. Brock was destined to be the biggest star of the next era and failed miserably.

    This is a match with both men in their primes. Brock took a long time to put him away in 2002, Brock has no distinct advantage in this match-up, he's more damaged than The Rock coming into this round and Rocky is just better in every way as explained. What more needs to be said?
     
    #10
  11. Jaffa

    Jaffa Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2012
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    34
    I have seen this argument in the Hogan Lesnar match and now this one just if you are a multiple time world champion holding it in a particular year doesn't make that year your prime. Otherwise you could argue the near 41 year old Rock who had wrestled 2 matches after Wrestlemania 20 was in his prime last year when he beat CM Punk for the WWE Title.

    A returning Rock beats John Cena in his first singles match in 8 years a returning Lesnar loses to John Cena in his first singles match in WWE in 8 years which is why it amuses some Lesnar voter has a mma>wrestling sig. That pretty much sums up the difference between Lesnar and The Rock one wins the big match in the big environment and the other loses the big match. The Rock loses the big matches though he's only beaten Stone Cold, Hogan and Cena at Wrestlemania. Sure The Rock has some short world title reigns out of his 10 but Lesnar has what 3 world title reigns in WWE.

    Bigger Star - Rock
    Bigger Draw - Rock
    Bigger accomplishments - Rock
     
    #11
    FunKay the Inevitable likes this.
  12. FunKay the Inevitable

    FunKay the Inevitable People Like Me, We Don't Play

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    1,934
    I have an issue with this match.

    I'll probably vote for Lesnar. To me the simple fact is they've both sustained fairly solid amounts of damage in their previous match and Lesnar was, in the real world, booked much more as a monster and freak of nature who could absorb massive amounts of pain and still keep beating the best. Rock could take an ass-kicking for sure and dish it out too, but Lesnar can probably sustain and unleash more than Rock. That and they've wrestled once and Brock completely battered him. That's why I'll probably vote Brock.

    This is where my issue comes in.

    The vast majority, not all, but the vast majority, of the most vocal supporters of the Brock Lesnar cause in this tournament are so painfully awful that I want to vote for Rock just to spite them. They are dreadful. Now make no mistake about it, there are some Rock supporters who fall into this category too, just not as many. Topping this off is the fact that I can easily see where the argument for Rock comes in. Dude was a bigger draw, bigger legacy etc...

    So here's what I'm goiing to do. If the Brock Lesnar brigade can manage to annoy me sufficiently by the time the poll goes up, I will vote for the Rock. Otherwise, Lesnar has my vote secured for the reasons I mentioned at the start of this post.
     
    #12
    Jaffa likes this.
  13. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    Something I remembered: The Rock came into his Summerslam 02 match with injured ribs, whereas Lesnar had no such injuries, and it took Lesnar 16 minutes to take him down with that significant advantage coming into the match. Brock had every factor on his side coming into that sole match, and it took him 16 minutes to stop an injured, past prime Rock.

    On the contrary, prime Rock has less injuries coming into this match than Lesnar, is a bigger deal than he was in 2002, with Brock never reaching the heights that he did again during his mega-push.

    Speaking of injuries:

    The Rock won by 46 votes last round, Lesnar by 18. That's more than double the advantage in terms of health coming into this match. I'd understand the "Brock is a beast" argument if there was say 10 votes maximum between them, but not with a 28 point advantage.

    If he needed every factor on his side to stop Rock in 2002, why would he win when the tables have completely turned on him here?

    He wouldn't.
     
    #13
  14. Poop Master Flex

    Poop Master Flex Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,974
    Likes Received:
    863
    This is where Brock's run comes to an end. He had a great run, beat some pretty impressive names but I don't think he's beating The Rock here. The Rock is a mega draw, great on the mic, solid in the ring, unbelievable charisma and has one of the most unforgettable personas in the history of wrestling, plus I can justify having Rock beat Brock even if Brock beat Hogan a few rounds back. Also from the last round The Rock has taken less damage (not that it matters against Brock though) and is certainly savvy enough to figure out a way to best the beast.

    On all fronts I gotta go with The Rock here. Yeah Lesnar's a beast, yeah he beat the streak, yeah he beat The Rock for the title, yeah he's pulled of some impressive victories but this match isn't one of those victories. The Rock wins this.

    I definitely think Lesnar COULD win this match, he's definitely done enough at this point, he's beaten every big star he's ever faced, he's one of the most dominant guys in wrestling and I wouldn't be against him going to the finals, but Rock gets my vote.
     
    #14
  15. Dragon Chief

    Dragon Chief Exodus 3:14

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    20
    Yeah because Big Show wrestling as the Showster and screaming "I feel like dancing" in 2000 was a big deal. Big Show was at his peak in 2002-2003, he was the biggest heel on SmackDown before Brock Lesnar turned heel later in the year. Also you discredit Brock Lesnar for beating RVD calling him a main-event jobber yet say feuding with Kane is more credible? Kane is one of the founding fathers of main-event jobbing, RVD has a hell of a lot more credibility than Kane and was one of the most popular assists the WWE had during the invasion storyline.

    The Rock's title reigns are too short to look into the context of them, all he did during those reigns was pass them back and fourth with the same names you listed as Rocky's competition.

    At the end of the day The Rock's most memorable reigns as champion were short lived, he always won the title with the sole purpose of dropping it to a hotter commodity not too long after whether it be Steve Austin at WrestleMania 15 and 17, Brock Lesnar at SummerSlam 2002 or John Cena at WrestleMania 29.

    The only time The Rock was truly the face of the company was when Steve Austin was injured, he had a chance again in 2002 but Brock Lesnar put him on an extended hiatus.
     
    #15
  16. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    He main-evented Wrestlemania and was the runner-up in the Royal Rumble match, as well as coming into the year champion. That sounds like quite a big deal to me.

    No, I'm pretty sure 2002-2003 Big Show isn't as big a deal as 2000 Big Show. Also, you speak as if being the biggest heel of Smackdown during that period means something, when it really doesn't.

    Kane was still a big deal going into 2000 and 2001, finding himself in the title picture a fair amount and breaking the elimination record at the 2001 Rumble. So I'd say he was a bigger deal than a post-Invasion RVD during that time period.

    And yet, Lesnar traded the belt with Kurt Angle. Do you not see how your favouritism is clouding your judgement? Not to mention, Rock traded his belt with much stronger competition as I've already mentioned and came out of his feuds champion still. 2003 Angle was good, but 2000-01 Angle was a bigger deal. And Rock performed favourably against him, whereas Lesnar and Angle traded wins with one another.

    :lmao:

    You're seriously using the 2013 run in your argument?

    And that's incorrect in itself. I've already deemed the Summerslam 02 argument to be invalid and have proven that, and you're acting as if losing to Austin is worse than losing the title to the Big Show and Kurt Angle.

    :icon_neutral:

    No, Rock didn't have a chance because he was going to film a movie, and Brock was the only guy available to hold the championship at the time considering Triple H and HBK were involved with their own feuds. Plus Brock was undergoing an artificial push at the time

    If you want to be a fanboy, that's fine. If you want to defend Brock, that's fine. Just please provide coherent reasoning.
     
    #16
  17. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    This'll shock lots of you... I'm not a big fan of either guy! Nothing will ever persuade me that they have been extremely cynical in their overall attitude towards the business that made them.

    As to who should win here? Well, we're in the Sixth round now and this year's tournament has developed it's own kayfabe which is, to me, leading to the main event that never materialized. The true reason it never occurred we all know about but in kayfabe, we were fed the teasers in the run up and conclusion to WMXX.

    Lesnar has plowed through 2 time World Champion Lex Luger, 6 timer CM Punk, 3 timer Dusty Rhodes, 12 timer Hulk Hogan and 13 timer Triple H... that's some list! Rock's record isn't shoddy (former AWA Champs Rick Martel & Antonino Rocco, Warrior, Andre and Naitch) but, to me anyway, isn't close to the consistency level Lesnar has faced. In fact, I can Heyman bemoaning how whoever is running this tournament is deliberately trying to derail his client.

    Vote Lesnar... so Stone Cold can stomp a mud hole in his ass in the final!!!
     
    #17
  18. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    For the record, Lesnar only beat Hogan because of the stipulation. Anyone with half a brain cell would have put Hogan over in a normal match. I know we're talking in kayfabe terms, but the result would have been much different if it wasn't a cell match.

    Also, I fear Austin won't be able to stop Lesnar. Not because Austin isn't better because he's far superior, but the trolls and idiots will be at a high come the final, which jeopardizes Austin's chances.

    I respect your opinion though, even though I don't see things that way.
     
    #18
    FitFinlay4Life likes this.
  19. Harthan

    Harthan Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    1,388
    Those of you with the WWE Network, navigate your way to SummerSlam 2002 and watch the main event. Those of you without, pop in a DVD, or find it in some seedy corner of the Internet. Have you started? It's about 15 minutes long. I'll wait.

    I haven't participated much in this tournament, but I assume there's been a lot of very silly arguments revolving around "X beat Y in 19zz or 20aa" and "therefore I conclude ______", and also Andre the Giant can't climb a ladder. Fortunately, we have no need for such shenanigans in this particular match, because as you will have just seen if you had followed my instructions, Brock Lesnar defeated the Rock in the one and only time they've met one on one.

    I had some other numbers, regarding win/loss records, shows of dominance, etc., etc., but you know what? I'm done. This match already happened, Lesnar won.

    Or, in other terms:

    EAT
    SLEEP
    BEAT THE ROCK
    NEVER REPEAT BECAUSE THE ROCK HAD TO MAKE A MOVIE
     
    #19
    FunKay the Inevitable likes this.
  20. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    And I argued tooth and nail that HiaC was a good environment for Hogan. Kayfabe, it'd be hypocritical of me shifting from that stance.

    Quite possible... but I must hope and argue otherwise...

    Thank you. I respect your opinion too and if this was the final, I'd be backing you to the hilt... but the mystery booker has had Lesnar in full on monster mode this whole tournamnet (with cackling Heyman in full smarm on mode beside him) bulldozing his way into the final only to be halted in his tracks by the toughest SOB babyface... as is traditional.
     
    #20
  21. FunKay the Inevitable

    FunKay the Inevitable People Like Me, We Don't Play

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    1,934
    Remember when I said I might vote against Lesnar because of his irritating support. Well I may well do the exact opposite based on this post:

    He had what we call a "Miz Year". Big Show spent the next two months as a walking parody and the subsequent rest of the year trying and failing miserably to lose weight in OVW.

    That's right, consistently main eventing PPV's and capturing the US Title means nothing in the light of one Mania main event, where he featured for about three minutes, and seven months failing to lose weight at glorified fat camp.

    Kane then is no different to Kane now. They book him strong when they want him to be and they always book him to come out on the bottom of the major feuds. And, he lost the Intercontinental Championship after three weeks to Albert. ALBERT. At least Van Dam was losing that title to people like Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho.

    That's right, Rock came out of that feud with Steve Austin with the belt...

    Oh and he didn't trade the belt with Angle at all between 00 and 01. Nope. Didn't happen.

    Look, Rock is more or less the Edge of his era when it comes to titles. Wins multiple World titles in a restricted period of time and loses them about as quickly. Combining Rock's seven WWF Championship reigns from 1998-2001 he held the belt for 297 days. Brock Lesnar held the WWE Championship for 355 days in three reigns between 2002 and 2004 over an eighteen month period.

    Sure he might've traded the belt with Angle, but at least he kept a hold of it.

    Well going by your logic, being in the main event of WrestleMania automatically means you're a BIG deal.

    Snarky comment aside, I'd say wrestling machine, tapping everyone out Kurt Angle who held the WWE Championship for six months combined or so and was pretty much the best wrestler on the planet was a bigger deal than comedic Olympian with all the natural talent on the planet who goes on to have the greatest rookie year of all time. Subjective perhaps, but there's more than a case to be made.

    I'll reiterate; Rock did exactly the same thing between 2000 and 2001.

    Sure losing the belt to Austin is nothing to be ashamed of, but neither is losing it to Angle (ask Rock) or Show. It's not like Lesnar was dropping the belt to David Arquette. These are compotent, proven main event talents.

    Oh yeah because the Rock's never had an artificial push in his entire life. No sir. Never.

    And you're seriously suggesting that in 2002 Vince McMahon thought his only option to be champion was Brock Lesnar because Rock needed to make a movie and because HHH and Shawn Michaels were in a feud together? So he didn't consider, oh I don't know, the Undertaker (who was champion a month prior), Chris Jericho (six months prior), Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, heck even our old buddies Rob Van Dam or Big Show, even Booker T, to possibly be champion?

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

    He's hardly being a fanboy any more than you are Fallout.
     
    #21
  22. Dan Severn's Moustache

    Dan Severn's Moustache Patent Pending

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    519
    Just before I go into this post, I'll apologise for being obnoxious to people earlier. I'm getting heated over a internet tournament, and while I will continue to debate, I'll refrain from the name-calling and general dickishness from now on. Truth be told, I don't like being a dick to people, but I sometimes will do out of anger. Once again, sorry about that.

    I can totally understand not reading most of the tournament so far, and I think you're coming in here with a stable state of mind. However, you have missed a fair few arguments.

    Referring way back to the first round, Benoit was against Henry. The arguments were split down the middle, but a lot of people were stating the argument "Henry tapped out to Benoit in 2004, so he'd lose."

    This is the same thing, but perhaps even worse. Coming into the Summerslam match, Rock was nowhere near as big as he was in 2000, while Lesnar was having a rocket up his ass. In short, Lesnar was in his prime, undergoing a mega-push, while Rock was not.

    Furthermore, it was mentioned in the match that Rock had bad ribs coming in while Brock had no such injuries, so Brock had the advantage in every conceivable way coming into that match, and it still took him 16 minutes to beat a weakened Rock out of his prime.

    Whether you look from it from a kayfabe stance or a reality stance, Brock's victory over Rock proves that Lesnar has difficulty beating an injured 2002 Rock. Now imagine, Brock is twice as injured coming into this match as Rock is and this is 2000 Rock, not 2002, bad ribs Rock.

    Rock has the very distinct advantage in every way.

    As shall I, but remember, Edge nearly won the tournament before due to benefactors backing him, despite numerous arguments detailing why he shouldn't have got as far as he did.

    Me thinks the mystery booker wants a nostalgia inducing final ;)

    Sure, Big Show declined afterwards, but he came into the year as a big force and a tough opponent for all those he faced up until post WM16.

    He main-evented two PPV's in 2003, both times where he was pinned or stretchered out. He was essentially a main-event jobber.

    I should have clarified that Kane's good run ended at around WM17. Sorry for sounding as if I'm grabbing at straws, but it's a detail I overlooked.

    In 2000, Kane main-evented the same amount of times as Big Show did in 2003, except that Kane was out with an injury for a chunk of that year. Kane also had more high profile matches than Big Show's stint in the mid-card, such as Undertaker and Jericho in a Last Man Standing match.

    I meant 2000.

    I got to that.

    And I've argued that Rocky had much tougher competition, something that has yet to be refuted. Lesnar only really had Angle in 2003 as a threat (maybe Taker too, but 2003 was far from his best year), who I personally don't think was as big as 2000 HHH.

    And The Rock eventually took it back from Angle. Granted, he lost it to Austin, but hey, it's Austin.

    Not saying 2003 Angle wasn't a big deal, but I just think 2000 Angle had a better run on the whole, considering the competition.

    And other than Austin, it was Rock that was nearly always the guy regaining the title.

    Yes, but they're not on the level of Austin and they never have been. They weren't even close in that time period.

    Is this a Rocky Maivia reference? I don't see how that's relevant.

    You've reiterated, let me do so too.

    Brock was in the middle of a monster push, and was Vince's next big prospect, so naturally, Vince wanted Brock to take the title from Rock in order to bring about the next era. He wasn't the best option in my view, but he was best option in Vince's view, so that's what happened.

    I'll admit that I phrased that poorly though.

    I'm sorry if it appears that way, because I'm pretty neutral on The Rock. I'm just pissed off with Brock's sudden push in this tournament, and I'm attempting to try and stop it, mostly because he isn't worthy in a lot of posters eyes, myself included.
     
    #22
  23. FitFinlay4Life

    FitFinlay4Life What's the craic?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    708
    Believe me, amigo, if I was the mystery booker this would be Ric Flair vs Hulk Hogan and Sting would be taking on Kurt Angle :lmao: but it is what it is and this year's story does appear to be leading to a dream match up that never happened as opposed to major PPV events that have.
     
    #23
  24. The Holy One

    The Holy One What's really good?

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    254
    Now I've seen some claim the 2002 match isn't including a Rock in his prime, but if we're considering one year to be a man's prime then should that man be this far into the tournament to begin with? I would like to consider the year 2002 as a part of the Rock's prime as it does include at time record breaking 7th WWE title reign and defeating Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania.

    Yes, you can bring up the facts that Rock is a bigger draw, has bigger accomplishments, and bigger star power. That shit was true in 2002 when the Rock, the Undisputed WWE Champion and face of the company, took on a rookie, 4 months into the company, Brock Lesnar. The following video is indeed a spoiler:

    [YOUTUBE]vUy1b3v7irY[/YOUTUBE]

    Now I understand that Brock Lesnar shouldn't have made it this far and I'm fine if you are voting against him for that reason, but I see no reason for the Rock to beat Lesnar other than personal preference.
     
    #24
  25. Little Jerry Lawler

    Little Jerry Lawler Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Likes Received:
    938
    Both have won multiple titles, King of the Ring, and the Royal Rumble.

    For me, it pretty much comes down to this. I don't think Rock would have been a huge as draw as he was if it wasn't for Austin not being there and/or HHH having arguably the greatest year of his career. Still, he was a bigger draw than Brock ever was when he was champion.

    If we comparing title reigns, Brock's longest consisted of beating Benoit, Holly, and Undertaker in title matches. Rock's consisted of beating Benoit, HHH, Angle, Undertaker, and Kane.

    I'm picking Rocky.
     
    #25
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"