Phoenix Region, Fourth Round: Iron Man: (2) Andre the Giant vs. (6) Brock Lesnar

[El Rev sXe]

In his prime, Andre was unbeatable. Andre never got a World title, because there was no believable way for Andre to LOSE the title. So we're supposed to believe the guy who couldn't be beaten is going to lose three times in one match? That's asinine.


This has got to be Andre. It's a shame so many people are voting for the 1987 Andre the Giant, which we saw as being slow and at the end of his career due to his disease. If people were voting for the Andre the Giant which dominated pro wrestling for over a decade, then this would be a no-brainer win for Andre.

Don't be sucked into the big muscles of Brock Lesnar. Andre should be the winner here.

Well okay I might be exaggerating with the 3-1, however look the way Lesnar was build. He was ALSO this unstoppable monster, he beat everyone that was big for the WWE at the moment: HHH, Taker, Angle, Rocky, Edge (who wasn't at the moment on the same level as the rest of the list but was on fire) and the future face of the WWE, John Cena. This isn't about him being a muscle giant, that way I would support Batista for example. This is how the WWE build Lesnar. I don't like compare the Big Show to André, however if you think about it, at the time only Hogan could lift André. In Lesnar's prime he lift every superheavyweight the WWE could offer.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well okay I might be exaggerating with the 3-1, however look the way Lesnar was build. He was ALSO this unstoppable monster, he beat everyone that was big for the WWE at the moment: HHH, Taker, Angle, Rocky, Edge (who wasn't at the moment on the same level as the rest of the list but was on fire) and the future face of the WWE, John Cena. This isn't about him being a muscle giant, that way I would support Batista for example. This is how the WWE build Lesnar. I don't like compare the Big Show to André, however if you think about it, at the time only Hogan could lift André. In Lesnar's prime he lift every superheavyweight the WWE could offer.

So now we're going to decide the winner of the match based upon how the WWE built them? Great, then you agree Andre wins this. Because for 10 years, they built Andre to be the Eighth Wonder of the World, and a man NOBODY could pin or submit. Andre was undefeated. No matter how you see the WWE building Lesnar, the fact is Lesnar got beat. Andre didn't.

So if we're going to base the winner of this matchup based upon how each wrestler was built during their time in the WWE, then Andre the Giant wins this.

 

[JGlass]

I voted Andre. While Brock is certainly one hell of an athlete and a powerful competitor, Andre wasn't exactly The Great Khali in his day. He could move with the best of them, and his power was second to none. He also wrestled in a period where long matches were the norm, so I have no doubt that he could be able to last just as long if not longer than Lesnar. Finally, strength fades as matches go on, weight stays the same, and that will play a huge role in the last moments of the match. While Brock will be struggling to use any power moves, Andre will still be able to throw his weight around.

Vote Andre.

 

[LSN80]

Im going with Andre here. Its been said so many times before, but Andre was no slouch in the ring. Very few men scored one pinfall over him, let alone to be able to score more then one over him in the course of a match. Brock was tremendous during his tenure within the company, and has stupendous conditioning and stamina. However, it's not as if Andre is some fat slob who would tire after 30 minutes and Brock would destroy him. If anything, the opposite would happen, and Andre would hammer Brock so badly within the first 30 that even the highly conditioned Brock Lesnar would be beaten into oblivion and find himself trailing 2, 3-0 before Brock got much offense in on Andre. After that, he sure as heck isnt going to get 3 or 4 pinfalls or submissions on Andre, and he's not getting The Giant in the Brock Lock. I simply don't see a feasible way for Lesnar to win this. I believe this match favors Andre in every way, and there's no way he shouldn't move on.

 

[El Rev sXe]

So now we're going to decide the winner of the match based upon how the WWE built them? Great, then you agree Andre wins this. Because for 10 years, they built Andre to be the Eighth Wonder of the World, and a man NOBODY could pin or submit. Andre was undefeated. No matter how you see the WWE building Lesnar, the fact is Lesnar got beat. Andre didn't.

So if we're going to base the winner of this matchup based upon how each wrestler was built during their time in the WWE, then Andre the Giant wins this.

André was lifted by Hogan and then DEFEATED. Basically the WWF build at the time was, "he is so big no one can make any kind of move, therefore he is undefeatable." Obviously I'm exaggerating before you take my post literally. Obviously it isn't registered at WWE's history books but Harley Race, El Canek, and Stan Hansen slammed him. Anyway, we have seen Lesnar making the F-5, geman suplex, superplex and even doing a belly to belly (actually I don't know wich one is more impressive) to a guy as big as the Big Show. Yes, the Big Show wasn't as big as André (485 lb (220 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) respectively), however lifting the Big Show wasn't exactly the most difficult thing in the world to do for Lesnar. As far André concerns, it's only 22 pounds more.

That being said, if Hogan could lift André and hit him with a fucking leg drop in order to get the 1,2,3; well Lesnar could do the F-5 and a shooting star press to defeat André.

Lesnar 1-0 Yes Sly, in that you made me change my mind.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

In this type of match you have to give the advantage to Lesnar. While Andre may have been very fit for his size, he simply cannot compete with the superior conditioning of Brock Lesnar, a man who is more of a machine than anyone I have ever seen in the wrestling business.

Andre would start strongly and give Lesnar a run for his money, but Brock has the speed and power to take Andre down. We all remember him nailing an F5 on Big Show, plus many other moves that a wrestler like Andre would not be used to taking. Has anyone in history ever hit a move like a F5 on Andre? I doubt it.

Brock would be able to dominate the latter stages of this match after The Giant blew up badly. He showed in his previous Iron Man match that he would also sacrifice an early DQ or two in order to inflict punishment on his opponent that would allow him to get more falls later on. I would expect to see a few chair shots early on which would weaken Andre and give him a couple of falls, but would help Brock in the latter stages of the contest.

I could see a couple of late pinfalls for Lesnar giving him a 6-3 victory in this one. Andre would do his best, but Brock is a class above the big man.

 

[Slyfox696]

André was lifted by Hogan and then DEFEATED. Basically the WWF build at the time was, "he is so big no one can make any kind of move, therefore he is undefeatable." Obviously I'm exaggerating before you take my post literally. Obviously it isn't registered at WWE's history books but Harley Race, El Canek, and Stan Hansen slammed him. Anyway, we have seen Lesnar making the F-5, geman suplex, superplex and even doing a belly to belly (actually I don't know wich one is more impressive) to a guy as big as the Big Show. Yes, the Big Show wasn't as big as André (485 lb (220 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) respectively), however lifting the Big Show wasn't exactly the most difficult thing in the world to do for Lesnar. As far André concerns, it's only 22 pounds more.

That being said, if Hogan could lift André and hit him with a fucking leg drop in order to get the 1,2,3; well Lesnar could do the F-5 and a shooting star press to defeat André.

Lesnar 1-0 Yes Sly, in that you made me change my mind.

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you read anything I've posted in this thread? Who gives a fuck if Lesnar can pick up Andre, have I said one thing about that? No, I haven't.

I'm talking about the fact Andre was undefeated for TEN YEARS! A whole fucking decade Andre was undefeated. And you're going to tell me, a guy who literally had a cup of coffee in pro wrestling isn't going to get pinned once by the most dominating wrestler in history?

It's amazing what you kids will believe these days. Andre was a better worker, he worked several 60 minute matches and he was undefeated for a decade.

I know the little kiddies in this thread will vote for Lesnar, but in a wrestling match, Andre would have won this.

 

[UltimateHitman]

Reason I voted for Lesnar was because I'm not looking at after the facts, I'm looking at how Brock was booked.

Brock came onto the scene as a huge, powerful guy who was almost Goldberg-esque in his dominance. He came in as a force to be reckoned with.

And just as in the case of the Big Show, how do you give your new, break-out star the credibility to be a major player? He picks up, F5's, and pins your resident Giant to make him stand out from the crowd.

 

[JXL]

It's all Brock here. His endurance alone can outlast Andre in an Iron Man match. Andre will get a few falls in based on slowing down the pace with holds, but in the end its going to be Brock decimating Andre and won't be winded doing it either. Brock gets the win 5 falls to Andre's 3 falls.

My vote: Brock Lesnar

 

[Slyfox696]

Reason I voted for Lesnar was because I'm not looking at after the facts, I'm looking at how Brock was booked.

Brock came onto the scene as a huge, powerful guy who was almost Goldberg-esque in his dominance. He came in as a force to be reckoned with.

And just as in the case of the Big Show, how do you give your new, break-out star the credibility to be a major player? He picks up, F5's, and pins your resident Giant to make him stand out from the crowd.

So you looked at how Brock was booked, but not how Andre was booked? Solid reasoning.

Funny how you mention how Brock was booked as a force to be reckoned with, and conveniently ignore the fact Andre was booked to be invincible for the TEN YEARS he was undefeated.

Just say you like Brock better than Andre. At least then you don't have to make up bullshit excuses.

It's all Brock here. His endurance alone can outlast Andre in an Iron Man match. Andre will get a few falls in based on slowing down the pace with holds, but in the end its going to be Brock decimating Andre and won't be winded doing it either. Brock gets the win 5 falls to Andre's 3 falls.

My vote: Brock Lesnar

Yes, good point.

Despite going undefeated for an entire decade during his prime, Andre is going to lose 5 times in 60 minutes. Undefeated for ten years, 5 losses in 60 minutes. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Bunch of dumbasses in this thread.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I'd like to weigh in here. I did not look at how either man was 'booked' in all honesty. The fact that Andre was undefeated for 10 years is VERY important - throw away the notion that he was "booked" that way. Of course he was booked that way! It's perfectly plausible for a man that size with those physical tools and at that time to not lose until he ran into a strong, charismatic, and talented champion on the biggest stage of them all at Wrestlemania.

Here are the reasons I chose Lesnar over Andre, despite my role as a perenial Andre supporter.

1. Physical Tools. Andre was big. So was Lesnar. Andre was strong. Lesnar, pound for pound, was stronger. Andre was fast and agile in his prime (late 70's and 80's with US and Japan), Lesnar was faster and more agile. The only thing Andre had that Lesnar didn't have was longevity / long-term focus.

2. Endurance. I cannot accept "Andre routinely wrestled 60 minutes" at face value. The pace of matches and the athletic quality of competition in Andre's era vs Lesnar's era are different. Andre would go long periods of time with guys who, for the most part, lacked the athleticism of Brock's opponents. Lesnar was putting on marathons with Kurt Angle, who is known for his fast pace and conditioning. There is also the amateur wrestling background, and the argument that "showing a 7 minute college wrestling match to prove a man can go for 60 minutes is just stupid," well, that argument is wrong. In a 7 minute college wrestling match, you're going through 7 minutes of almost non-stop physical exhaustion, and anybody who has not wrestled on that level won't understand it. In pro wrestling, there are rest holds (armbars, nerve holds) and are not physically demanding on the person performing the hold. In pro wrestling, there is pandering to the crowd, time to speak to the referee, etc. In college wrestling, it is almost non stop resistance training at the highest possible level. The ability to wrestle a 7 minute D1 college match and not gas is ABSOLUTELY relevant in an argument for Brock Lesnar.

3. The matchups. Andre the Giant struggled with ONE TYPE of opponent - the big, muscular powerhouses. Andre suffered exactly 4 losses cleanly in his long and storied 70's - early 90's run: To El Canek in Mexico (a smaller power wrestler who slammed Andre), to Antonio Inoki in Japan (smallest guy to ever beat Andre, and he did so via submission), to Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania 6, and to The Ultimate Warrior. Lesnar is a prototype of the kind of guy Andre would lose matches to.

Andre is an all time great, no questions asked, but if anybody has the tools to beat him, it's Brock Lesnar.

 

[El Rev sXe]

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you read anything I've posted in this thread? Who gives a fuck if Lesnar can pick up Andre, have I said one thing about that? No, I haven't.

I'm talking about the fact Andre was undefeated for TEN YEARS! A whole fucking decade Andre was undefeated. And you're going to tell me, a guy who literally had a cup of coffee in pro wrestling isn't going to get pinned once by the most dominating wrestler in history?

It's amazing what you kids will believe these days. Andre was a better worker, he worked several 60 minute matches and he was undefeated for a decade.

I know the little kiddies in this thread will vote for Lesnar, but in a wrestling match, Andre would have won this.

Fuck, André could be THREE FUCKING DECADES undefeated, the fact is(kayfabe wise), his streak ended with a simple slam and a fucking leg drop. Now are you going to tell that Lesnar who is faster, stronger, bigger, more athletic, more vicious, more agile than Hogan and has lifted with no problem the Big Show; couldn't do the exact same thing to André?

 

[a0161613]

You dont get it Rev. Sly's point has been that in his prime, Andre was unbeatable and among other things, wouldnt allow himself to be picked up. It doesnt matter if Brock could do it or not.

At Mania against Hogan, he was a wreck. Nothing like the man who dominated the industry before Hogan took over.

This is a close one for me and I can see every reason to vote Andre.

 

[Vega]

Damn, I misclicked and voted Andre, even though I wanted to vote Brock (who will advance anyway as it seems).

Brock, IMO, is exactly the type of guy who would defeat Andre. Both have unbelievable power, but Brock seems to have more stamina and is technical superior. And no, I probably haven't seen more than five matches of the prime Andre, so I can only assume.

 

[shattered dreams]

1. Physical Tools. Andre was big. So was Lesnar. Andre was strong. Lesnar, pound for pound, was stronger. Andre was fast and agile in his prime (late 70's and 80's with US and Japan), Lesnar was faster and more agile. The only thing Andre had that Lesnar didn't have was longevity / long-term focus.

Did you just try and say Lesnar was as big as Andre? Andre is over a foot taller. Pound for pound? Ok I will buy into that but Andre has over 200 pounds on Brock so by your own logic he is significantly stronger.

2. Endurance. I cannot accept "Andre routinely wrestled 60 minutes" at face value. The pace of matches and the athletic quality of competition in Andre's era vs Lesnar's era are different. Andre would go long periods of time with guys who, for the most part, lacked the athleticism of Brock's opponents. Lesnar was putting on marathons with Kurt Angle, who is known for his fast pace and conditioning. There is also the amateur wrestling background, and the argument that "showing a 7 minute college wrestling match to prove a man can go for 60 minutes is just stupid," well, that argument is wrong. In a 7 minute college wrestling match, you're going through 7 minutes of almost non-stop physical exhaustion, and anybody who has not wrestled on that level won't understand it. In pro wrestling, there are rest holds (armbars, nerve holds) and are not physically demanding on the person performing the hold. In pro wrestling, there is pandering to the crowd, time to speak to the referee, etc. In college wrestling, it is almost non stop resistance training at the highest possible level. The ability to wrestle a 7 minute D1 college match and not gas is ABSOLUTELY relevant in an argument for Brock Lesnar.

I think you need to make up your mind if there are or are not going to be rest holds in this match and then clean up the thought process here.

3. The matchups. Andre the Giant struggled with ONE TYPE of opponent - the big, muscular powerhouses. Andre suffered exactly 4 losses cleanly in his long and storied 70's - early 90's run: To El Canek in Mexico (a smaller power wrestler who slammed Andre), to Antonio Inoki in Japan (smallest guy to ever beat Andre, and he did so via submission), to Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania 6, and to The Ultimate Warrior. Lesnar is a prototype of the kind of guy Andre would lose matches to.

How is 4 clean losses in 20+ years "struggling?" Especially when all but one of them are to legends way beyond anything Brock ever could claim in prowrestling. Brock has been pinned 2 times in 30 days before. He has also been pinned by the big show if "possibilities" are of interest. Brock is much more likely to be pinned twice in this match than Andre is.

 

[ThUnDeRpHoEnIx]

Brock Lesnar.

Only because he'd be able to outlast Andre.It wouldnt be a great match by any means but it would be close.Brock 5 to Andre's 4.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Did you just try and say Lesnar was as big as Andre?.

No. My exact words were "Andre is big. So is Lesnar." I was merely stating the obvious fact that both men are big men. Andre has the advantage in size, but it's not nearly as pronounced an advantage as it would be against most other guys left in the field.

Andre is over a foot taller. Pound for pound? Ok I will buy into that but Andre has over 200 pounds on Brock so by your own logic he is significantly stronger.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, nor what your logic is.

I think you need to make up your mind if there are or are not going to be rest holds in this match and then clean up the thought process here.

What the fuck are you on about now?

There might be rest holds, there might not. But Brock Lesnar will push the pace faster than anybody else Andre went 60 minutes with (Nick Bockwinkle and Harley Race) which causes me to argue that Andre will gas.

How is 4 clean losses in 20+ years "struggling?"

You're not very smart, are you? Andre struggled with ONE TYPE of opponent. He didn't wrestle powerhouses like Hogan and Warrior all 20 years of his career, genius, he wrestled guys like Killer Khan, King Kong Bundy, and John Studd, too. The type of wrestler that Hogan, Warrior, and Canek are - well, that's the type of guy Lesnar is. So it stands to reason that this is a bad matchup for Andre.

Brock has been pinned 2 times in 30 days before.

Are you dumb enough to compare Andre's era to Brock's era? When Andre was going undefeated, there were 0-1 PPV's per year. In Brock's era, there were 12. In Andre's era, matches were televised MAYBE weekly. In Brock's era, major wrestling programming was on 2-3 days per week. When Andre was going undefeated, he was padding his record with a load of matches against jobbers. In Brock's era, many of the jobbers were former Intercontinental Champions like Val Venis and Golddust.

SD, listen, I respect your attempt to keep things going for Andre. He's one of my all time favorites, and in almost any other match I'd probably back him. He's overmatched in an ironman match against a guy like Lesnar. I know this. Now please, don't direct quote me until you're actually in my league. Leave that sort of thing to the big kids, k?

 

[shattered dreams]

No. My exact words were "Andre is big. So is Lesnar." I was merely stating the obvious fact that both men are big men. Andre has the advantage in size, but it's not nearly as pronounced an advantage as it would be against most other guys left in the field.

If your "exact words" are of interest then why did you say this:

The only thing Andre had that Lesnar didn't have was longevity / long-term focus.

You conveniently tried to gloss over this size advantage and I called you out on it. Just like you are trying to say Brock being stronger pound for pound means the strength game is neutralized. Something that in no way precludes Andre from actually being the stronger one since he could enter this match with twice as many pounds as Brock.

There might be rest holds, there might not. But Brock Lesnar will push the pace faster than anybody else Andre went 60 minutes with (Nick Bockwinkle and Harley Race) which causes me to argue that Andre will gas.

I thought you claimed you were keeping things kayfabe? Since when is there such a thing as a rest hold in kayfabe? This is a prowrestling match going an hour. Of course they are going to book in rest holds. If the gimmick was amateur wrestling match then maybe you would be on to something but it isn't. If you are really keeping it kayfabe I guess you should acknowledge that Andre is going put his weight and strength to work on Brock in such menacing maneuvers for extended periods of time.

You're not very smart, are you? Andre struggled with ONE TYPE of opponent. He didn't wrestle powerhouses like Hogan and Warrior all 20 years of his career, genius, he wrestled guys like Killer Khan, King Kong Bundy, and John Studd, too. The type of wrestler that Hogan, Warrior, and Canek are - well, that's the type of guy Lesnar is. So it stands to reason that this is a bad matchup for Andre.

He did not struggle with any type of opponent when he went over 10 years without being pinned or submitted in the US, where this match happens to take place. He was pinned or submitted twice during this whole time and one of those times was by a 220 pound man. Please explain how this shows he struggles against anyone specific. After his prime he lost to the greatest professional wrestler of all-time, who happened to be in prime, while Andre was about to turn 40 and his body was a mess. The warrior win occurred even later. It is possible the broken down Andre had trouble with powerhouses but that isn't the Andre that is wrestling this match. Pretending that Andre is indicative of his whole career is the ultimate cop out. Especially when Brock did not even stick around long enough to show how he would age in wrestling.

At the end of his long career, with his body in terrible shape, Andre lost to Hogan and Warrior in their primes over the course of a few years. At the end of his short career, with his body still in peak condition, Brock lost to Eddie Guerrero and a retiring Goldberg in a months time.

What in all of Andre's career leads you to believe he is going to get pinned twice in this match?

 

[Tastycles]

In all sincerity, I'm keeping this brief, because the majority of you are being too ******ed for me to bother to engage with. The fact that anyone sincerely believes that this is going to be 5 - 4 or whatever is incredible. Andre lost less than 5 times between 1963 and 1987, and you think he's suddenly going to spectacularly fall apart in 60 minutes? Do me a favour.

The arguments seem to be focussed on the fact that Lesnar is somehow better conditioned than Andre. Why is that? Is it because he subsequently became a star in a sport where matches last 25 minutes? Oh, looking back a few of you said that it was because he beat Angle in an iron man match over 60 minutes.

Except that's a shit argument. Lesnar had a 5-2 lead with ten minutes to go and lost two falls before the end, which is pretty much conclusive proof that he isn't well conditioned for a 60 minute wrestling match, but is good at beating down wrestlers quickly.

Pop quiz, who is the least likely wrestler in history to be beaten down quickly? The answer, fittingly, is Andre the Giant. So with Lesnar not having the safety net of being able to build up a quick lead, and with Andre having experience of not falling apart in the last 10 minutes of a match, and the small matter of him being a better wrestler etc, this would be a victory for Andre, and it would probably be 1 or 2-0.

 

[Born To Fly]

This one goes to Brock Lesnar. I'm not sure if Andre The Giant wrestled 60 minutes in his entire wrestling career, combined. All jokes aside, Brock Lesnar is a freak athletically and can hang with the best of them. Lesnar destroyed Big Show, so there is no doubt in my mind he could punish Andre.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Andre the Giant, one of the all-time great spectacles in wrestling. But he would never last 60 minutes in the ring, let alone against a powerhouse like Brock Lesnar. Lesnar has actually competed in an Iron Man match, and did pretty well for himself (I believe he retained his WWE Title against Kurt Angle?). No disrespect to the big man's legacy, but he was an attraction, not a wrestler. Brock Lesnar would take this match, hands down.