Is Brock Lesnar as Dominant As We Think

[robinkom]

Personally, I feel like the way in which they hype him through Paul Heyman is very old-school wrestling from the pre-internet days. He is a big hacked off monster and really could beat the piss out of Cena if he decided to go into business for himself and ruin the whole work.

Even though John has beaten him before, Heyman can put whatever spin he needs on it to make you believe it won't happen this time. Brock couldn't ask for a better mouthpiece. Heyman can make you believe it verbally, Brock can make you believe it physically. They are a perfect pairing.

Scripted wins and losses don't matter as long as you can always make the fans believe the guy is still a dominant threat. Flair made a career out of putting over the other guy and look at the legacy he left.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

I know what the original poster is saying and I get it. I always think it's weird that we're just supposed to forget that we've already seen Lesnar lose to people tons of times in the past, even if not recently.

Here's the thing though. Brock Lesnar is the one person that when he gets in the ring, I don't know what is going to happen. I'm 99% sure that he's going to follow through with what he's supposed to do, but the man is so monstrous that a part of me thinks "oh man he could just decide he's going to legit take someone out. He has money to pay for lawyers." He's that intimidating that I actually think that.

 

[wwesux]

Brooooock Lesner is more extremely dominant now as he ever has been and that is what they should have done when he first returned instead of making him job to HHH and john semen and make him to be a useless jobber not to be taken seriously! He should beat john semen and eliminate him and put him out for 6 months on the shelf!

 

[Roman Empire]

Brock Lesnar was recovering from a brutal illness during his previous losses. When he's 100%, what you saw at SummerSlam and WrestleMania is what he's capable of.

Take that as a kayfabe or shoot comment, it works either way for me.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

From all those loses maybe just Cena one was bad booking wise. Because Cena lost to Rock and that maybe was one of the golden opportunities to show how vulnerable Cena is and when he comed back and won on Mania later could be more defying. But it didnt done any damage and dont think they intended for Brock to stay after Mania next year and have something more for him. Besides if he had beaten Cena there was nothing(bookingwise) that would get him from title shot and that wouldnt happen then when he had so limited dates and was featured in 2 matches with total of 10 apperences maybe. So even that had some logic. And HHH loss was justified in a meaning that it was done storyline wise when Brock destroyed Vince and it was personall and Brock got win before that and win after.

After that he had beaten Punk, "The Streak" and desocrated Cena. So he was booked like a monster from the start except now they book him like unbeatabable monster who beats unbetanable things like Undertaker at Mania and 15 times world champions in squash matches. So tell me again how some rookie(in a sense that Reigns never even had a match for title let alone beaten someone so "monsterish") is in a favorable position against Lesnar?