JR has said many times that 'Taker has become the Andre of modern wrestling. So has Jim Cornette, Russo, and several others inside the wrestling industry. I'd suggest you do a little research. It won't be hard to find.
These are comparisons based on spectacle and size, which whilst defining attributes, are not the key attributes of either wrestler's career. Undertaker lost far, FAR more than Andre ever did, but Taker maintained a nearly 3 decade position at the top of the most successful wrestling company of all-time. To lump Andre and Taker together is simply unfair because of the vast number of differences between the pair of them. You are using a very vague comparison to justify that if Brock can beat Undertaker, he could beat Andre.
I'd argue that the Rock n Wrestling alliance is really what pushed WWE into the Golden Era. You give Andre and Hogan to much credit here. While yes, they were the main draws of WM 3, that gate wouldn't have been anywhere near as big as it was if not for the national exposure that they got from Rock n Wrestling. You're acting as if Hulk slammed Andre and then bam, wrestling ruled the world. Not so much. Hogan was already on MTV, several talk shows, and even Saturday Night Live before WM 3.
I think you're confusing the beginning of a golden age with the peak of a golden age.
Using the example of classical history, the Macedon Empire did not reach its peak whilst Alexander was being tutored by Aristotle and began his conquests, in the same way that the Rock n Wresting connection didn't immediately peak the WWF in popularity forever more - WWF were still very much on the rise.
WM3 was, unless the exaggerated figures of the modern Wrestlemanias are to be believed, the highest attended Wrestlemania of all-time. The finish to the main event turned Hogan from a highly successful wrestler into a icon recognizable by pretty much everyone in the modern world. Andre's undefeated streak, presence and position was highly instrumental in moving the needle for Hogan to achieve his status today. It's not that Hogan wasn't popular already, but the defeat of Andre helped secure his position as one of, if not
the very best in professional wrestling.
Lesnar breaking the Streak has already changed wrestling in the short-term by giving us a near unbeatable monster in Lesnar out of it. There simply hasn't been enough time since that moment to judge how history is going to remember it.
I don't know, 2 years have passed, and very little has changed. Lesnar was always seen as a monster before he conquered the streak, and the conquest certainly gave him extra credibility, but Roman Reigns certainly held his own at WM31, as did Cena at NoC. Going off what we've seen so far, Brock has more credibility in his current WWE run, (which was pretty pathetic to begin with if we're being honest) but it's not drastically changed the wrestling industry, unlike Andre's accomplishments.
I'd also like to point out that the reason people were so surprised at the conclusion of the streak wasn't necessarily that the streak itself ended, but it was Brock Lesnar who broke it. There was a divide between people who thought the streak would end and those who didn't, but nobody expected Brock to break it. That's what the breaking of the streak all the more shocking at the time; because nobody had any faith in Brock to do it because of how laughable his current WWE run had been at that point.
Why isn't he? As has been said, he routinely beats giants. Andre would be no different.
The fact that you lump Andre amongst the likes of Big Show is pretty shameful; Andre was in a class of his own. And I've already explained why The Undertaker and Andre are two very different things.
I wasn't suggesting that Show was as big a deal as Andre. I was suggesting that they were similar in size and build and that if Lesnar could throw Show around, he could do the same to Andre.
And again, I think you're grossly misrepresenting how dominant Brock was in his fights against Big Show. Lesnar had a lot of difficulty putting Big Show away, and while he had the potential to throw Big Show, this didn't happen nearly as much as you'd think. Against a more potent threat like Andre, he'd have much more difficulty in a match against Big Show.
We can only go by what we know and what we've seen. What I know and what I've seen is that Lesnar is a far more vicious monster. More prone to using weapons and such. That's why I think he'd use the chain more. Andre wasn't known for using weapons. He may have before, but it wasn't often.
If there's a chain in front of both men that can legally be used as a weapon, I can guarantee you that both men will use it to their advantage, and just as often as each other when they get the opportunity to do so. Andre wouldn't shy away from using the chain because he didn't use weapons as much as Lesnar.
Oh yes, Lesnar would lose some of his speed and agility, but so would Andre. My argument was that unless the chain was just a few feet in length, which it's not, that the disadvantage the chain provides would be negligible.
Except Andre was a slow and methodical wrestler, and this would play into his style, so I cannot see him being hampered close to the same extent as Lesnar. Sure, Lesnar has the MMA training which would definitely be of assistance in close combat, but this is an environment Andre excels in also, and Lesnar has never had a true MMA match with someone the size and the strength of Andre.
You and I have very different views on what domination is my friend. IMO, Brock dominated 'Taker at Mania,
No, the match with The Undertaker was a lot closer than you might think; it was relatively standard, and considering that Undertaker got concussed early into the match both in kayfabe and genuinely, it's pretty embarrassing Brock struggled as much as he did.
His 1 on 1 fight with Rollins was not a decisive victory, it was a disqualification victory. That's not discounting that he dominated Rollins during it, but still, the fact he couldn't put Seth Rollins away is very telling.
and hell, in his first match back he dominated Cena until a steel chain was used.
It doesn't matter that a steel chain was used by Cena; Brock had every opportunity to use a steel chain himself due to the match stipulation, and he didn't. Just like he'll have the same opportunity as Andre in this match.
He broke HHHs and HBKs arms.
Well good for Lesnar, he snapped the arms of two guys who no longer wrestle full-time; one of which actually managed to take a victory from him at Wrestlemania 29.
Lesnar has also proven to be extremely strong in Kayfabe and vicious. Breaking people's arms in submissions a few times. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Lesnar could hold Andre in a submission. Especially after wearing the big fella down.
Vote Brock.
No one is suggesting that it's outside the realms of possibility that Lesnar could apply a submission hold on Andre. But by looking at Andre's strength, it's very safe to assume that Andre has the capability of powering out of whatever holds Lesnar has in store for him.
