Problem With Brock VS Punk

[Kodo Sawaki]

I dont see any problem at all. If build up properly its plausable. And for cryin outload about finishers and belivability, I always laughe my ass off when I see 619 and that doesnt stop Ray to beat almost anyone on WWE with same finisher.

Btw from some reports, match would happen at Summerslam...

 

[CmPunker]

What's ultimately important to WWE is the usage of Brock Lesnar's name and presence to help jack up ppv buys. Whether he ultimately wins or loses his matches, Lesnar being on the card helps to increase the number of buys a show does.

As for Punk vs. Lesnar, the whole difference in their size thing doesn't mean squat to me frankly. If this was a real fight, then I might think a bit differently. However, if Punk is able to go up against powerhouses like John Cena, Big Show and Mark Henry with success; then why not Brock Lesnar? Lesnar isn't really any bigger physically than Cena and is much smaller than Show or Henry. I know that Lesnar was an MMA guy for a while with a UFC Heavyweight Championship run and that's all well and good but, even in a real fight, Lesnar being a bigger guy doesn't guarantee he's someone whose going to always win against someone much smaller. Frankly, if you were to put Lesnar against someone like Anderson Silva, I'd back Silva all day long. Why? Because he's a bad motherfucker that's why even. Silva hasn't lost a fight in over 7 years and has been UFC World Middleweight Champion for the past 6.5 years. He wouldn't have Brock Lesnar's size or strength, but the guy's got serious skills. In the world of professional wrestling, those same traits can be applied to CM Punk.

I ultimately see them having a match at MITB in which Brock Lesnar winds up winning. After that, I expect them to have another match at the next ppv in which Punk scores a win over Lesnar. Finally, I see the feud culminating at SummerSlam and I think Punk ultimately takes the rubber match. I know that didn't happen with Triple H vs. Lesnar but Triple H is someone whose wrestling career is almost finished at this point in his life. Even if Punk does lose to Lesnar at SummerSlam, scoring at least one decisive victory over Brock Lesnar won't make him look weak.

Its not really about the size.. its about the booking and the fact that he is a UFC fighter.. cm punk is sometimes sloppy in the ring and he has really amateur mma skills. please dont bring up cm punk's mma skills

 

[sdelfin]

It's already not believable yet nothing has actually happened. Some people are so quick to make judgments. First of all, in wrestling there will always be situations where the babyface is seemingly in a bind where he cannot win. Think of Hogan vs. Andre. That's easy to sell. Lesnar is supposed to be the overwhelming favorite. Whether or not it ends up as believable depends on the participants involved, and the style of matches they work. They might work a perfect big man/little man match in which Punk takes a beating but never quits and then figures something out, maybe using new submissions suited to the size difference. And Punk strikes me as smart enough in the ring to know how to work an exciting, believable style against a monster like Lesnar. I think it's going to be good.

 

[Con T.]

Believability is something that obviously wasn't considered. I'm sorry, but look at CM Punk, and then take a look at Brock Lesnar... what do you see? I know what I see. A massacre.

Let's play a game called "compare the bodies". I know, I'm about to lower my panties, too.

Anyway, let's look at Brock Lesnar

Not gonna lie, I crapped my pants a little. Now, let's look at John Cena:

Was there ever much of a problem for Punk when facing John Cena? I don't recall there being one, and look what came out of that. I'm not saying that I don't see the point, but I am saying that it seems to be ignoring a good chunk of the last two years, where CM Punk proved he could hang with someone that has the frame of Brock Lesnar.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

CM Punk looks like a homeless man. I think he's really good at what he does, but I can't get past this. Just about any fake wrestler kicking Lesnar's ass is unbelievable, but there's no better example than CM Punk.

Is this a big deal? No. No one cares. It's pro wrestling, so disbelief should be suspended the moment you tune in. Personally, however, I can't buy into it. I'm looking forward to the feud, but it makes me giggle... like a school girl.

(can't wait for the "CM Punk does martial arts... stuff, you idiot!!! arguments)

Let's play a game called "compare the bodies". I know, I'm about to lower my panties, too.

Anyway, let's look at Brock Lesnar

Not gonna lie, I crapped my pants a little. Now, let's look at John Cena:

Was there ever much of a problem for Punk when facing John Cena? I don't recall there being one, and look what came out of that. I'm not saying that I don't see the point, but I am saying that it seems to be ignoring a good chunk of the last two years, where CM Punk proved he could hang with someone that has the frame of Brock Lesnar.

The portion in bold should be enough for everyone to understand my thinking - it won't matter, nor should it. I'm a dopey internet smark, so it matters to me, but that's it.

And there's a huge difference between John Cena and Brock Lesnar - Lesnar's a legitimate, world-class bad ass. Cena isn't.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Let's play a game called "compare the bodies". I know, I'm about to lower my panties, too.

Anyway, let's look at Brock Lesnar

Not gonna lie, I crapped my pants a little. Now, let's look at John Cena:

Was there ever much of a problem for Punk when facing John Cena? I don't recall there being one, and look what came out of that. I'm not saying that I don't see the point, but I am saying that it seems to be ignoring a good chunk of the last two years, where CM Punk proved he could hang with someone that has the frame of Brock Lesnar.

This is a really good point. Lesnar and Cena are close to the same size, the only difference being how they are presented. Cena is Cena, whereas Lesnar is presented as a monster.

After the Triple H storyline, however, a lot of that mystique has been destroyed. Lesnar lost to Triple H and Cena. Punk lost to Triple H due to Kevin Nash, and has beaten Cena on multiple occasions. Who's to say Punk can't manage against Lesnar, given his history against Cena and, to a lesser extent, Triple H.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

Yeah, I don't see a problem here. I'm certain Brock will dominate the match but he does that anyway, he dominated Triple H every time except for the steel cage due to a hurt knee, he dominated John Cena, he'll dominate CM Punk. Punk will get more than enough offense in, if Rey Mysterio could beat JBL and Big Show at one point I'm certain the "Best Wrestler in the World" can find something in his arsenal to control the beast.

And anyway, the fucking thing only started last night, give it some time for Christ sake.

 

[The Eighties]

I've never understood the issue here, we've known that Lesnar vs Punk was almost certain to happen and some are acting like it's the biggest physical mismatch ever when there isn't even that much of a height difference. It's like Randy Savage vs Andre, Bret Hart vs Diesel and Shawn or Flair vs Vader never happened and didn't all result in the much smaller man winning cleanly.

No, this really comes down to the fact Brock is legit and thus the size is suddenly a problem, the really silly think is that guys like Punk, Bryan and Jericho would probably stand a better chance in a shoot fight with Brock than Triple H and Cena despite their big muscly bodies, because the former have all actually done real fight training, not just pumped iron and stuffed god knows what into their bodies to get all jacked up.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I expect Punk VS Lesnar part one to mirror the booking of Cena VS Lesnar from Extreme Rules. Lesnar will annihilate and maul Punk during the majority of the match, while Punk struggles to survive, maybe getting a few shots in here and there along the way.

Although, I don't expect Punk to win. If WWE plans on stretching this feud out more, and getting multiple matches out of a Punk/Lesnar, then they need to maintain Lesnar's mystique as the vicious monster.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

This is a really good point. Lesnar and Cena are close to the same size, the only difference being how they are presented. Cena is Cena, whereas Lesnar is presented as a monster.

No it's not. Not at all. Lesnar's whole persona is now built around being this bad motherfucker. His UFC past has been brought up. Remember how taboo that used to be, saying UFC on WWE TV?

I have waited till I heard all the arguments so someone would explain to me how this can work, I have heard:

Am I really reading this correct? People are saying Punk cant beat Lesnar because of his size? OH MY GOD!!! Its scripted folks!!!!! Who cares who wins!

Ok, so should we just shutdown WrestleZone now or maybe after this feud? Cause I had no idea it was scripted! I had no idea all the threads in the forums are about a make believe sport!

When he was squaring off against Cena and then HHH, Punk's unusually high perseverance was highlighted on many occasions - kicking out of multiple AAs, surviving/countering several STFs, it taking numerous Pedigrees (and a 7ft Jackknife Powerbomb) to beat him.

Why would the same story not work with Lesnar? Punk taking an absolute hiding of the highest order but still managing to continue. Coincidentally, given where the microphone landed during the F5, I almost wanted Punk to go against the normal way of things and comment into the mic about "is that all you got?" I think a repeat along the lines of Hardy/Taker with Punk telling Lesnar that he won't break him, minus the eventual Lesnar respect, of course.

Lesnar is in just another bracket in this kayfabe world. You can have Sin Cara beat him tomorrow with a rollup, coz he is quick as shit but that would diminish Lesnar's luster wouldn't it? That's what I mean here. This is not like Punk going up against Hunter or Cena, those are 'wrestlers' to the strictest terms. This is Baaaaarock Lesnar, and his whole appeal is being legit and shit. A line of kayfabe is blurred here (even though it is a WWE ring), that Brock can be beaten by any TOP star. This isn't like going up against Big Show and Nash and Henry because we have ALWAYS seen them as wrestlers. Lesnar's entire appeal is that he is a legit sport crossover star isn't it? You can't have him look weak or anywhere near like just another member of the roster.

seriously??? this is the problem?? I think that is a VERY small issue, pun intended. look at it like this. there have been MANY MANY small guys vs. big guys and it worked, so why cant this???

I'll say this for the last time, THIS ISN'T ABOUT HOW CAN A SMALL GUY BEAT A BIG GUY? Read the OP I addressed this, Lesnar should be impervious to certain kayfabe scenarios in order to protect his persona and to give his character a longer lifespan. A face Punk can not seriously beat a monster heel Lesnar.

Guys like HBK, Eddie Guerrero, Bret Hart, Jericho, Benoit, Mysterio, AJ Styles etc. have all made careers out of beating guys much bigger than them, why should I not beleive some on as good as Punk wouldn't be able to at the very least hang with Brock?

Yes beating big wrestlers, yes. Problem is, Lesnar isn't presented as 'just another big wrestler'. You know how we are made to believe in Show's KO punch and Henry's Hall Of Pain after his feats of strength? With Lesnar the problem is, he HAS stepped into the cage and FOUGHT guys. And that's what WWE parades him as. There is a certain kayfabe uniqueness here that I fear most aren't grasping.

After the Triple H storyline, however, a lot of that mystique has been destroyed.

The BEST argument. Now you're working from a kayfabe angle and chipping away at Brock's persona. Yes, his last match was when I saw 'Brock the Wrestler'. In what way you ask? He was backing off Hunter and begging him to lay off. This is a subtle but big tweak in his character because now, you are making him look a little powerless for the first time. This helps.

I've never understood the issue here, we've known that Lesnar vs Punk was almost certain to happen and some are acting like it's the biggest physical mismatch ever when there isn't even that much of a height difference. It's like Randy Savage vs Andre, Bret Hart vs Diesel and Shawn or Flair vs Vader never happened and didn't all result in the much smaller man winning cleanly.

No, this really comes down to the fact Brock is legit and thus the size is suddenly a problem, the really silly think is that guys like Punk, Bryan and Jericho would probably stand a better chance in a shoot fight with Brock than Triple H and Cena despite their big muscly bodies, because the former have all actually done real fight training, not just pumped iron and stuffed god knows what into their bodies to get all jacked up.

Hey, remember Bruno Sammartino? Once a pretty famous grappler decide he would not sell the Italian's shit and shoot with him. You know what happened? Bruno broke free and broke the guy's arm in the process. Don't be this fucking naive thinking that smaller guys will always have an 'advantage'. When J.R used to say "that is Superhuman strength by Cena", he wasn't kidding. Or do I need to break out a pictorial for that?

Ughhhh, and please for fuck's sake, it's not just a small wrestler against a big wrestler HERRRRRE! Brock is a unique storyline in himself.








The only way I see Punk winning is if you go the MMA route, the Extreme Rules 2012 route. Ye make it an all out pseudo-legit bloody affair. As Barbosa said then either a Hail Mary of a move (NOT THE FUCKING GTS!) or Punk locks in a submission.

Now if Brock taps, he just isn't the same 'Beast' that we are made to believe anymore.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

The truth is Lesnar has fought 2 guys since he got back to WWE, Cena and HHH. When Cena beat Lesnar they did it in such a way you could suspend belief and buy into it. They didn't have Cena become invincible and take him down, he caught Lesnar and took advantage, but for 20 minutes Lesnar just beat Cena into the ground, no one has EVER manhandled Cena like Lesnar did and although Cena won, Lesnar got re established in a big way, then Triple H showed up.

The biggest reason I didn't like Lesnar vs. Triple H is because unlike Cena he was often in the drivers seat against Lesnar, it was more important to put himself over than Lesnar and it came off as one of the most unrealistic things I've ever seen in wrestling. I can suspend belief but I can't buy Triple H getting in more than 30 seconds of offense against Lesnar because at one point he was the #1 ranked MMA fighter in the world, he can take a pounding from Carwin but Triple H is somehow too much? Sorry, there's suspending belief and then there is just being ridiculous.

This brings me to CM Punk. Once again I understand you got to suspend disbelief but once again it can only go 1 way: Lesnar absolutely dominates Punk. If Punk is gonna win they better figure out some extremely creative way to do it because there is no way Punk would last 30 seconds in the ring with Lesnar. Punk has to win in the most creative fashion ever or he has to lose, but either way he has to get dominated in the ring by Lesnar like what happened with Cena.

Frankly the best way for this match to end is Lesnar wins by ref stoppage and a lot of blood is poured from CM Punks head with him getting in little to no offense.

I just can't buy Punk winning this match in any conceivable way that makes sense and can actually help the guy as a face.

 

[Con T.]

No it's not. Not at all. Lesnar's whole persona is now built around being this bad motherfucker. His UFC past has been brought up. Remember how taboo that used to be, saying UFC on WWE TV?

Plenty of wrestlers are built as bad mammajammas. Mark Henry immediately springs to mind, but it doesn't mean Mark Henry is unbeatable.

I have waited till I heard all the arguments so someone would explain to me how this can work, I have heard:

Have you? Because it would seem you made up your mind, that's why you made the declaration in the opening post.

Ok, so should we just shutdown WrestleZone now or maybe after this feud? Cause I had no idea it was scripted! I had no idea all the threads in the forums are about a make believe sport!

And yet, a good part of your point is centered around Brock's "legitimate background" from UFC.

Lesnar is in just another bracket in this kayfabe world.

He's about the same tier as John Cena. Actually, probably a little lower when you consider Cena beat him. And Punk beat Cena.

I'll say this for the last time, THIS ISN'T ABOUT HOW CAN A SMALL GUY BEAT A BIG GUY? Read the OP I addressed this, Lesnar should be impervious to certain kayfabe scenarios in order to protect his persona and to give his character a longer lifespan. A face Punk can not seriously beat a monster heel Lesnar.

And why? Because he has a legitimate background? The only knock you can really have on Punk is his size.

Can you knock his credentials? Absolutely not, he's one of the most decorated wrestlers in the promotion.

Can you knock his offense? It's worked on monsters before, why wouldn't it work now?

Can you knock his place on the card? No, he's earned his place on the card.

So what exactly about CM Punk makes it so unbelievable?

Yes beating big wrestlers, yes. Problem is, Lesnar isn't presented as 'just another big wrestler'. You know how we are made to believe in Show's KO punch and Henry's Hall Of Pain after his feats of strength? With Lesnar the problem is, he HAS stepped into the cage and FOUGHT guys. And that's what WWE parades him as. There is a certain kayfabe uniqueness here that I fear most aren't grasping.

It isn't all that unique, really. It's a gimmick at this point, just like Henry,just like Show, just like everyone.

Hey, remember Bruno Sammartino? Once a pretty famous grappler decide he would not sell the Italian's shit and shoot with him. You know what happened? Bruno broke free and broke the guy's arm in the process. Don't be this fucking naive thinking that smaller guys will always have an 'advantage'. When J.R used to say "that is Superhuman strength by Cena", he wasn't kidding. Or do I need to break out a pictorial for that?

Except I doubt Punk's going to shoot on Brock;we escaped that era in wrestling long ago.

Ughhhh, and please for fuck's sake, it's not just a small wrestler against a big wrestler HERRRRRE! Brock is a unique storyline in himself.

Every wrestler (in theory) is unique. Brock is a star, but that doesn't make him untouchable.

The only way I see Punk winning is if you go the MMA route, the Extreme Rules 2012 route. Ye make it an all out pseudo-legit bloody affair. As Barbosa said then either a Hail Mary of a move (NOT THE FUCKING GTS!) or Punk locks in a submission.

Now if Brock taps, he just isn't the same 'Beast' that we are made to believe anymore.

I just don't see why Brock can't take a GTS. He hit Taker with it, why not Brock?

I just can't buy Punk winning this match in any conceivable way that makes sense and can actually help the guy as a face.

Interesting. I remember when there was a tournament, just this year. In this tournament came the proposed match of Brock Lesnar and Shawn Michaels. And using this logic, surely you'd feel Brock should have beat Shawn.

Oh no, wait. You voted for Shawn.

So tell me, why do you believe Shawn would beat Brock, but Punk couldn't?

 

[HBsam31]

Shawn Michaels used a mans fake leg to help him beat deisel. Steve Austin hit people with chairs on a semi-weekly basis. The point is not for the babyface to never cheat, but to do so only when pushed in a corner. This match will play out alot like Brock vs Eddie (whom Punk holds a height advantage over fyi). Brock will dominate the match. Paul Heyman will be conflicted. RVD will interfere with a Vandaminator, Punk... Elbow drop... win. Something like that is totally possible. It wouldnt hurt either superstars rep.

This makes more sense than anything else I have read so far. HBK made a career out of beating men twice his size that would absolutely kill him in a real fight. Does anyone remember Bret Hart? Eddie and Benoit were not the biggest men either. I get where the OP is coming from I really do, but this is professional wrestling. There are numerous ways that Punk can win this. I like the interference from RVD, or Punk resorts to using a ballbat. We have seen this thing before. Brock doesn't need to win matches. He is a special attraction now. I am not saying Punk will win, but it is not impossible for him to do so and keep Brock credible at the same time.

 

[Барбоса]

The slamming of the GTS is a bit strange to me. Sure, Punk is a little inconsistent in hitting it but in purely kayfabe terms, it is a rather devastating move - a rising knee to a falling face. What would be wrong with that taking out anyone?

Actually, I could easily see Punk finally getting his win over Brock by strapping something - a lifting weight or the like - to his knee and dropping Lesnar with it.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Interesting. I remember when there was a tournament, just this year. In this tournament came the proposed match of Brock Lesnar and Shawn Michaels. And using this logic, surely you'd feel Brock should have beat Shawn.

Oh no, wait. You voted for Shawn.

So tell me, why do you believe Shawn would beat Brock, but Punk couldn't?

1) Michaels is much better than Punk in every way.

2) Michaels plays a much better David to Lesnar's goliath.

3) It was an ECW match, crazy shit happens all the time. The entire Kliq gang beating Lesnar for example is something that could happen in ECW and considering how convoluted and overbooked it was I can definitely see that happening.

4) Most of all (and I mean most of all) I absolutely refuse to vote against Michaels in the second round of the Wrestlezone Tournament. It's a fantasy tournament, personal preference will often be a factor. It was simple really, considering Michaels career (which is much greater) vs. Lesnars career (which is significantly less) who is the most likely to move on from a BOOKING point of view in a tournament to determine the greatest of all time, Lesnar or Michaels?

Like I said before, they have to get creative if Punk wins to make it believable, you are comparing a vote in a FANTASY tournament to something that's actually happening in real life. Think about that for a minute.

 

[Con T.]

Like I said before, they have to get creative if Punk wins to make it believable, you are comparing a vote in a FANTASY tournament to something that's actually happening in real life. Think about that for a minute.

Except, if I remember correctly, you had a pretty stringent kayfabe policy put in place. Wasn't it you that argued Yokozuna should beat Roddy Piper, because you couldn't imagine Piper's offense working against Yokozuna? Hell, I believe you even stated that Piper was better in every way.

It may seem like I'm veering off topic, all I'm saying is there seems to be a line of inconsistency here. A good amount of what you said is fairly subjective, and at the risk of turning this into Punk/Michaels part deux, I think you can make a point that Punk and Michaels are fairly comparable, and in the kayfabe world, have pretty similar qualifications

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Plenty of wrestlers are built as bad mammajammas. Mark Henry immediately springs to mind, but it doesn't mean Mark Henry is unbeatable.



Have you? Because it would seem you made up your mind, that's why you made the declaration in the opening post.



And yet, a good part of your point is centered around Brock's "legitimate background" from UFC.



He's about the same tier as John Cena. Actually, probably a little lower when you consider Cena beat him. And Punk beat Cena.



And why? Because he has a legitimate background? The only knock you can really have on Punk is his size.

Can you knock his credentials? Absolutely not, he's one of the most decorated wrestlers in the promotion.

Can you knock his offense? It's worked on monsters before, why wouldn't it work now?

Can you knock his place on the card? No, he's earned his place on the card.

So what exactly about CM Punk makes it so unbelievable?




It isn't all that unique, really. It's a gimmick at this point, just like Henry,just like Show, just like everyone.



Except I doubt Punk's going to shoot on Brock;we escaped that era in wrestling long ago.



Every wrestler (in theory) is unique. Brock is a star, but that doesn't make him untouchable.





I just don't see why Brock can't take a GTS. He hit Taker with it, why not Brock?



Interesting. I remember when there was a tournament, just this year. In this tournament came the proposed match of Brock Lesnar and Shawn Michaels. And using this logic, surely you'd feel Brock should have beat Shawn.

Oh no, wait. You voted for Shawn.

So tell me, why do you believe Shawn would beat Brock, but Punk couldn't?

Yes, Haiku everyone is unique in their own special way, but Brock is just a kayfabe anomaly here. When I say Brock is in a different bracket I mean that he isn't presented to you and me as a 'wrestler'; he is presented as a genuine ass-kicker in a wrestling world.

Of course he adheres to wrestling laws, but his gimmick (and consummate background) make him someone who can't be booked normally.


Why did he need to bloody Cena with those forearm shots? Coz he's "legit". Why does it takes ringsteps to beat him? Coz he is a monster who just can't be beat using normal rules. Show, Henry have and it isn't the same.

I haven't made up my mind, I just don't see good arguments solving this rubik's cube i.e Brock Lesnar being beat by Punk. Thriller gave a good argument as to how Brock acted more 'wrestler-like' recently at Extreme Rules. Apart from that, NADA!


His gimmick and background should make him immune to a certain number of scenarios and this is one of them.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Except, if I remember correctly, you had a pretty stringent kayfabe policy put in place. Wasn't it you that argued Yokozuna should beat Roddy Piper, because you couldn't imagine Piper's offense working against Yokozuna? Hell, I believe you even stated that Piper was better in every way.

It may seem like I'm veering off topic, all I'm saying is there seems to be a line of inconsistency here. A good amount of what you said is fairly subjective, and at the risk of turning this into Punk/Michaels part deux, I think you can make a point that Punk and Michaels are fairly comparable, and in the kayfabe world, have pretty similar qualifications

Not really, I mentioned where the match took place dictated who would win, same reason I voted Taker over Misawa, its not necessarily that Taker is greater but the match was in WWE country so my argument was no way Misawa beats Taker in WWE country, it just wouldn't happen. Same applies to Piper vs. Yokozuna, it was in a WWE ring unlike Michaels vs. Lesnar which was in an ECW ring, if Piper had Bob Orton and Paul Orndorff come down to help him he would be DQ'ed, Michaels could invite the entire Kliq down to murder Lesnar and he could win.

Also you got to look at success in certain situations. Michaels in a David vs. Goliath situation is a pretty favorable record, Piper to my knowledge isn't quite as successful in the same situation.

My point is you are just looking at person vs. person, not the other factors surrounding the match like where it takes places, rules, ect. That's why I voted the way I voted and I stand by it. I didn't look at 1 match looking just at the people in the match up unless it was 100% cut and dry (like James Storm vs. Hulk Hogan).

Lastly I never said Punk can't win but they have to come up with a creative way to do it. If Punk was a heel it would be a lot easier for him to win this match, if it has a stipulation that greatly favors Punk that would work too but first match I would expect a 1 on 1 match, not lets say a tables match where Punk could get a cheap victory. I'm not saying it can't work but its definitely a challenge to put Punk over more as a face, have him win and make it realistic.

That's probably why it seems like I contradict myself a lot on here, not everything is cut and dry, there are numerous variables that can change an opinion in similar circumstances. On top of that people grow and opinions change. For example I had my first kid back in September, since then my opinion has changed greatly on a number of things, not this particular argument but a lot of things, its apart of growing and apart of life.

 

[Miz_Mark]

It seems to me like the people who think a loss to Punk would hurt Lesnar just do and have their minds made up because in their minds that's just how it seems. We've got people discounting the idea that in reality a fight like this could go to the smaller man, we've got people disregarding the obvious wrestling analogies, we've even got people saying it'd be ok for Brock to lose to someone of similar size because that guy is "better" than Punk, but not to Punk because Brock is something special and in their mind can't take a loss from Punk...

So, seems to me this is all personal taste and opinion. You don't like the idea of Brock losing to Punk. That's fine. That's you. It doesn't mean that loss is logically invalid or that Brock will suffer at all from it.

Personally I have an easier time believing Punk could beat Brock than Trips, Trips is largely retired, Punk is in the prime of his career and is the Best in the World. Hell, I could even see it being argued that Punk is more believable than Cena, where Cena's strengths Brock meets and excedes whereas Punk has a much more varied skill set and is far more intelligent a fighter.

Anyway, bottom line- some of you are REALLY upset with the concept of Brock losing, and that's cool if that's how you feel. The rest of us don't have a problem with it.

 

[Con T.]

Yes, Haiku everyone is unique in their own special way, but Brock is just a kayfabe anomaly here. When I say Brock is in a different bracket I mean that he isn't presented to you and me as a 'wrestler'; he is presented as a genuine ass-kicker in a wrestling world.

It's a gimmick, Ghost.

It. Is. A. Gimmick.

And, fortunately enough, it isn't going to change because Brock loses to one of the top superstars in the company. Brock lost to John Cena his first match back, and it didn't lessen his gimmick. Triple H beat him at Wrestlemania, and nothing changed. Brock will still be an ass kicker, even in a loss, as long as he dishes out his punishment.

Of course he adheres to wrestling laws, but his gimmick (and consummate background) make him someone who can't be booked normally.

Except he has been; so far he's won as many matches as he's lost.

Why did he need to bloody Cena with those forearm shots? Coz he's "legit". Why does it takes ringsteps to beat him? Coz he is a monster who just can't be beat using normal rules. Show, Henry have and it isn't the same.

And you can still have that, and Punk win at the same time. You're acting like it's an either or situation, and it isn't.

I haven't made up my mind, I just don't see good arguments solving this rubik's cube i.e Brock Lesnar being beat by Punk. Thriller gave a good argument as to how Brock acted more 'wrestler-like' recently at Extreme Rules. Apart from that, NADA!

What argument is there to make? It shouldn't be that hard to believe that one of the best wrestlers on the roster can beat another wrestler, especially when said wrestler has already lost.

His gimmick and background should make him immune to a certain number of scenarios and this is one of them.

He should be immune to losing to one of the best wrestlers WWE has to offer?

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense.

My point is you are just looking at person vs. person, not the other factors surrounding the match like where it takes places, rules, ect. That's why I voted the way I voted and I stand by it. I didn't look at 1 match looking just at the people in the match up unless it was 100% cut and dry (like James Storm vs. Hulk Hogan).

Exactly, and we both agree to that. I just don't think it's so far fetched to say CM Punk could beat Brock Lesnar

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Exactly, and we both agree to that. I just don't think it's so far fetched to say CM Punk couldn't beat Brock Lesnar

And I can't give you rep, shitty. I can respect that and I think skill wise in a fight Punk has a better shot than Triple H or Cena. I didn't take the Triple H win seriously because it seemed so fake but I feel they made Cena win in the most realistic way possible although still far fetched. I just want them to get creative if Punk wins like they did with Cena, if they do that I'm all for Punk winning this match, I'm just curious if they are smart enough to pull it off.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

It's a gimmick, Ghost.

It. Is. A. Gimmick.

And, fortunately enough, it isn't going to change because Brock loses to one of the top superstars in the company. Brock lost to John Cena his first match back, and it didn't lessen his gimmick. Triple H beat him at Wrestlemania, and nothing changed. Brock will still be an ass kicker, even in a loss, as long as he dishes out his punishment.



Except he has been; so far he's won as many matches as he's lost.



And you can still have that, and Punk win at the same time. You're acting like it's an either or situation, and it isn't.



What argument is there to make? It shouldn't be that hard to believe that one of the best wrestlers on the roster can beat another wrestler, especially when said wrestler has already lost.



He should be immune to losing to one of the best wrestlers WWE has to offer?

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense.

Can't do the quote on quote mate, so I'll have to clump my concern all at once.


Brock lost to Cena because he was kept down barely for a 3 count, I remember Brock up on his feet, groggy but up, soon after. Actually his win at Triple H has made him more 'human' lately. So, I guess this is the best time to go up against Punk.


The only thing with Punk is, he is a face now and is going against this badass who mauls the shit out of his opponent for fun. For God's sake don't make him tap out! I get that this legit ass-kicker thing is a gimmick, coming from a said background, but if Brock taps, that knocks a big chunk out of his gimmick. It's the same thing I said in the Mania discussion thread; Brock tapping should be a big no-no. It doesn't make sense in regards to his gimmick.


Yes, Punk is too small when compared, ridiculously so, but I am disregarding that and I said so in the OP, my concern is how does a fan-favourite Punk believably beat Brock? And how do you do it protecting Brock's image for further storyline purposes as well?

 

[Pepper Lewis]

The size difference is definitely huge, but I think it is entirely believable that someone of Punk's size could beat beat someone of Lesnar's size. I mean, if Rey Mysterio can defeat Kevin Nash and Big Show, then anything is possible. I never thought that was realistic, but it happened. So Punk can definitely beat Lesnar.

Yeah, but REY has REAL WRESLTING SKILL, he is fast, and technically sound!

- I dont care what you cm punk fans say, THE TRUTH is PUNK IS NOT A GOOD WRESTLER!
- Punk is sloppy, and doesnt esecute well

- PUNK does not look the part, he is too skinny with no muscle tone! Its not even CLOSE to BELIEVABLE that he can hurt, in any way LESNAR

 

[Pedigree1]

No fucking shit Lesnar would destroy Punk! Lesnar in a real fight would beat the holy hell out of any member on the Roster.. Yes Punk looks like a homeless/short order cook at Dennys but Punk is a beast. Dude is a legit martial artist and is a machine in the ring.. This feud when it happens at the end of the day is all about Money..

Yes RVD vs Punk would be sick say about 4 years ago but really that was before Punk was the star he is now! RVD blew his chance against rubbing shoulders with someone like Punk.. Punk Vs Lesnar is major star power.. Drawing Power and will put asses in seats! Its not supposed to be made legit

 

[Thriller Ant]

This is a really good point. Lesnar and Cena are close to the same size, the only difference being how they are presented. Cena is Cena, whereas Lesnar is presented as a monster.

That's what I said.

No it's not. Not at all. Lesnar's whole persona is now built around being this bad motherfucker. His UFC past has been brought up. Remember how taboo that used to be, saying UFC on WWE TV?

This was your reply. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Cena is billed at 6'1, 251 and Lesnar is 6'3, 286 (both according to Wikipedia). That's not that big of a difference. What is a big difference, is how we are supposed to look at each of them. Cena is supposed to be an underdog overcoming the odds. Lesnar is supposed to be a killing machine. That is much more notable than 2 inches and 30 pounds.