WWE Battleground - Shinsuke Nakamura VS Baron Corbin

[Jack-Hammer]

After a few weeks of attacks by Corbin and a brawl that took place before their scheduled match on SmackDown Live tonight, it was announced that the new Mr. Money in the Bank takes on the King of Strong Style for the first time in a singles bout at Battleground.

Should be a fun match and while I don't think Nakamura would lose anything if he lost this match, you know there'd be some sort of backlash online if it happened. For their first time out, however, I see Nakamura securing a win.

 

[The Perfect Max]

WWE sometimes goes down the route of Mr. Money in the Bank, or someone in line for a push in general, generally losing their matches before their big break or cash-in. WWE already did that with Baron Corbin ahead of Money in the Bank and I suspect that they will continue to do so.

You're right in that a backlash of sorts would occur if Shinsuke Nakamura was to lose. But I feel as if Corbin winning this cheaply, perhaps using the briefcase as leverage, would be much more beneficial. It gets him the heat and adds up some important wins ahead of a title run. He really needs that because there's some people who don't believe in Baron Corbin. Now I do and because of that, I wouldn't mind if he won this match.

It is somewhat awkward timing though. While I feel like it would be more beneficial for Corbin to win, Shinsuke hasn't really achieved all that much on the main roster yet, and I'd prefer to keep him going along a winning route until he gets his big feud or something. He's only been on SmackDown for a few months and arguably he needs to keep a winning record, but perhaps that's a creative issue based on the fact that his run so far has been a tad bit underwhelming, but that's subjective. This should be fun though.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I suppose the safest best is a DQ or Count Out Finish.

Honestly though WWE put themselves in a hole on who goes over.

Nakamura Wins - this hurts your MITB winner which you are supposed to build up.

Corbin Wins - This hurts Nakamura who has already lost part of his luster after his feud with Ziggler

 

[OYDK]

It really doesn't matter who wins this match, mainly because wins and losses matter very little nowadays, but also because I don't see much downside either way. If Corbin loses, who cares. The guy has been losing for a while now and is the MITB winner which gives him a failsafe. If they want him to be WWE Champion, he'll be WWE Champion no matter how many matches he loses. They'll book him strong when he wins the title. Not very logical, but that's been the pattern for years now when it comes to MITB champions.

If Shinsuke loses, well, he lost to the future WWE Champion. It will also get rid of that "unstoppable aura" vibe that actually seems to do more harm than good at times when it comes to newer talent. Facing adversity is good for a babyface. Not everybody should be booked like Braun Strowman. I have faith that Nakamura can easily come back from a loss to somebody like Baron Corbin.

The only thing I will say is that if Corbin does end up winning, it shouldn't be clean.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

It really doesn't matter who wins this match, mainly because wins and losses matter very little nowadays, but also because I don't see much downside either way.

"The Wins and Loses Don't Matter" is totally false.

I mean Goldberg because a huge star because of his streak, Austin pretty much won all his matches from Aug 97 until late 98, Cena basically won all his PPV matches from April 2004 to Extreme Rules 2006 with a few exceptions (DQ finishes, MITB cash ins), it took Hogan 6 years to lose at a PPV via pinfall or submission, and Undertaker basically became the guy he was since he only loses clean in a handful of times during the 90's.

Win and loses matter even at work sport. It's no secret the guys I mentioned had a long string of wins that made them into superstars.

Look at Lesnar when he returned after WM28. His first two years were kind of disappointing and it's mostly because his 3 matches he ended up losing. It's only after he broke Taker's streak at WM and demolished Cena at Summer Slam that Lesnar's stock started to sky rocket.

Wins and loses matter, at least when you are in the scenario when you are trying to build someone up into a superstar.

 

[OYDK]

"The Wins and Loses Don't Matter" is totally false.

I mean Goldberg because a huge star because of his streak, Austin pretty much won all his matches from Aug 97 until late 98, Cena basically won all his PPV matches from April 2004 to Extreme Rules 2006 with a few exceptions (DQ finishes, MITB cash ins), it took Hogan 6 years to lose at a PPV via pinfall or submission, and Undertaker basically became the guy he was since he only loses clean in a handful of times during the 90's.

Win and loses matter even at work sport. It's no secret the guys I mentioned had a long string of wins that made them into superstars.

Look at Lesnar when he returned after WM28. His first two years were kind of disappointing and it's mostly because his 3 matches he ended up losing. It's only after he broke Taker's streak at WM and demolished Cena at Summer Slam that Lesnar's stock started to sky rocket.

Wins and loses matter, at least when you are in the scenario when you are trying to build someone up into a superstar.

I said wins and losses matter very little nowadays and all you have to do is look at the current WWE Champion to see the truth of the statement. Jinder Mahal spent years as a jobber, won like, 4 matches, and now holds the top prize in the company. Baron Corbin lost to Ambrose at Mania and to Zayn at Backlash and is in line to become the next WWE Champion. Bray Wyatt lost all the damn time before winning the WWE title. Roman Reigns lost to Braun Strowman at GBoF and is in a #1 contenders match next week. AJ Styles lost to Jericho at Mania and than twice to Reigns before getting a match with John Cena and beating him. I can go on and on. Of course it's important to win every now and then, but the only wins that truly matter anymore are wins over the stars of old. Beating Cena, Taker, Brock, and HHH means something. Stringing wins together against guys like Ziggler, Owens, and Zayn doesn't mean a damn thing.

Also, you may say that Brock's first two years were disappointing, but that's subjective. Lesnar was a big draw early on in his return and remained so before he beat Taker at Mania 30. I would argue that his stock as a draw has actually gone down in the last little while but that's difficult to argue today because of the Network. And that also proves my point. Lesnar's record was sub-par before his win at Mania, but after defeating Taker he was given a title shot in his next match.

I won't go so far as to say win's don't matter at all. But they matter a hell of a lot less than they used to in the past. If Vince and his cronies want to push you, they'll push you no matter your win/loss record.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I said wins and losses matter very little nowadays and all you have to do is look at the current WWE Champion to see the truth of the statement. Jinder Mahal spent years as a jobber, won like, 4 matches, and now holds the top prize in the company. Baron Corbin lost to Ambrose at Mania and to Zayn at Backlash and is in line to become the next WWE Champion. Bray Wyatt lost all the damn time before winning the WWE title.

On your examples that's kind of the problem isn't it? Which is why the WWE is unable to build new superstars and Smackdown! ratings are currently taking a hit.

Wins and losses don't matter if you are going to book someone as Champion or the top contender in a scripted sport. But it matters if you want to build superstars and your fans to see the roster as superstars.

Of course when you are at Superstar status winning and losing doesn't matter anymore and you could afford to lose matches because you are already established.

The only guys I recall that were able to become superstars by being booked to lose a lot more than they won were The Rock, Foley, and Daniel Bryan but that is more the exception than the norm.

I recall Austin in his podcast saying if you want to build superstars you can't have too much parity because it means everyone is going to be the same level. I mean it's great if you want to build the WWE as a brand with a collective roster but bad if the company is looking for the next Hogan, Austin, or Rock.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

It's like they're trying to lower expectations with Nakamura by pairing him off against their most middling roster members.

 

[ShinChan]

Enjoying this feud. I don't know who wins here though.

Baron Corbin is coming off a big MITB victory while Shinsuke Nakamura is still undefeated. I reckon that Nakamura will be getting the win and then moving onto AJ Styles for United States Championship. And at Summerslam, we get the match we want.