Skip to main content

Salvaging Brock Lesnar

We all know that Vince's ultimate goal is go put WWE over Brock
Lesnar/UFC.  I think it can be done while still being captivating and
elevate the WWE title.  To start, Brock has to lose to HHH in similar
fashion to the Cena loss.  Have Brock dominate, lock in the kamora,
and then replicate HHH v Undertaker 2, only with the sledgehammer
connecting.  Then have Brock disappear.
Meanwhile, come the end of December somehow vacate the WWE title and
put it up for grabs via the Royal Rumble.  Have Brock show up as a
surprise entrant and win the match, but with a twist: he is now
wrestling a "WWE style".
On Raw have Brock, still heel, explain that he toyed with Cena and HHH
but lost.  So, to win in the WWE he had to embrace professional
wrestling (putting WWE over UFC).  He then spends the time until
Wrestlemania dominating everyone, defending the title at PPV and
occasionally on Raw (using up the appearances).  He proclaims his
dominance over WWE and it's title, and then the Rock comes out.
Wrestlemania match, Rock wins the title for the fans, Brock gone
forever.  WWE over UFC:  check.  WWE over Brock: check.  WWE title
elevated: check.

I think that's kind of overthinking the situation.  Really, the best way to build him up is to have him beat a bunch of top guys clean, and then lose to someone at Wrestlemania cleanly on the way out.  In particular, I think losing to HHH at Summerslam would kill him dead even if it's a great close match where he looks dominant.  Basically he should do like Punk did -- get hot by beating HHH at Summerslam, win the title from someone at Survivor Series (like Punk) in dominant fashion, then take the title hostage and leave until Royal Rumble so that it MEANS something when someone gets a title shot at him.  Plus then the World title can have the spotlight while the WWE title is in the deep freeze and maybe it'll mean something too then.  Brock can finally defend at the Rumble, get the big win there over a John Cena or Randy Orton, and then Rock wins the Rumble and gets the WWE title at Wrestlemania.  Rock doesn't even have to keep it, he can just vacate it and they'll do a tournament at Backlash or whatever they want.  


  1. I can't believe that we're having this discussion.  There's only one way that this can possibly end: Brock Lesnar getting his win back over Goldberg at Wrestlemania.

  2. "Rock doesn't even have to keep it, he can just vacate it and they'll do a tournament at Backlash or whatever they want."

    Ah yes, that would do wonders for the WWE. Have 2 part-timers fight for a belt, have the Rock basically throw the belt in the trash & have both guys leave.

    Honestly, I don't think they can salvage Lesnar. The money (non-WrestleMania division) was in Lesnar/Cena. They blew through that already. No one is going to give a crap about Lesnar/HHH. Or Lesnar/Orton. Lesnar/Punk might be interesting but in terms of salvaging Lesnar -- he will never, ever be as hot as he was leading up the Extreme Rules, no matter what they do.

  3. I think what they did with Cena is pretty much what they'll do with him. They'll build him up for each big match he has and then have him lose. Then build him up again, same thing. He'll probably go over someone, eventually, but it'll probably be midcarders to set him up for the big match, that he'll lose. I don't think making Brock Lesnar a star is the goal here. 

  4. They put The Rock, part timer, over John Cena, face of the company since 2005. Not that I'm complaining, but in WWE cannon John Cena is the best in the company. But The Rock can beat him. Again, fuck John Cena, but they did put a part timer (at best) over him...and the WWE Champion doesn't main event pay per views and it's been established that John Cena is more important than the title. Is that worse for the WWE or the title than Rock winning it and giving it up?

  5. The Brock dream is dead. MacMahon is paying Brock a ton of money to lie down for WWE guys. Brock doesn't care; his long term plan doesn't involve being the greatest WWE wrestler or anything.

    HHH already did the job for Undertaker this year. He's not doing two jobs a year unless it's 1998 again.

  6.  The only way Triple H is putting anyone over is if it's a respect thing (like Undertaker), or if it's a clear case where a guy needs a win over an established guy because he's on the way to big things (and even that doesn't seem likely)...Vince McMahon's son in law isn't jobbing to the guy who spit in the face of "the business".

  7. Or instead of Rock vacating the title and doing a tournament, why not the Raw after WM advertise a fatal fourway with the winner facing Rock the next week on Raw for the title. Then they get a huge tv rating and exposure. Obviously a PPV match would be nice, but if they could get Rock to do one Raw, hype the shit out of it, and get a bunch of eyes on the product. Imagine how many people would tune into Raw to see Rock vs. John Cena II for the title. Or Rock vs. Punk. Then pack the show with young talent and interesting angles. Try and make it the "best raw ever"

    Then again I'm no business man so that could be the worst idea ever. Sounds interesting typing it out though lol 

  8. I was reading these two comments and realized there's no argument against them. It's true and it's happening. Thanks for ruining Summerslam!

  9. I think the fact that you posed that question in the form of a negative (is it any worse?) shows just how stupid BOTH ideas are/were. A story should not be proposed on the grounds that it "isn't any worse" than what we are already doing; it should be GOOD, BETTER, and help fix some of the problems being dealt with. bignasty is dead on; this Rock idea is a disaster and will only increase the trend towards treating everything non-Wrestlemania as worthless.

    In general, though, all of these storylines are worthless until the "part-timers" start interacting with the roster. I don't give a flying fuck about Rock vs Brock. It's boring and already happened when both were younger and more motivated. I want to see Brock Lesnar - the jerk that is claiming he is better than the WWE - face the rest of the roster and deal with their assault; he should be leaving regular wrestlers as bloody heaps on the mat, talking about how nice it is to be back fighting easy foes, and smiling in the front row at UFC events. Then light a fire under the asses of the other wrestlers and tell the story of the slow overcoming of Brock, culminating in someone beating him for the title at Mania. The whole POINT of this "mainstream attention" - or so we are told - is that it brings more eyes to the product. So, of course the WWE proceeds to treat the product, aside from the "mainstreamers," as being stupid, aimless, boring, listless and the wrestlers themselves as unimportant! I am sick of watching 45-year olds limp through matches that are called "classics" and taking the attention away from the CM Punks, Daniel Bryans, Dolph Zigglers, and a whole new crop (Cesaro, Ohno, etc.) of wrestlers that might have some new and interesting things to contribute to the promotion. Punk vs Bryan at Over the Limit, for example, could NOT, on any of their best days, have been achieved by HHH or Taker. The WWE should be saying that, emphasizing that, and telling the fans that a NEW era is here, NOT that the OLD era is over. Or else, roll credits, end movie!


    Oh, and don't do drugs.

  10. I love Rock, but no way in hell should he be the guy that gets the big win over Brock. Its gotta be one of the full time guys surely. They should be using these two guys to make their next top guys.

  11. WWE over UFC? Umm, no -- Two different animals -- Kids love Cena -- And they should -- Kids don't love any fighters; fighting is boring to to them -- And it should be, it's pretty inaccessible -- Cena is a superhero -- Brock is just another asshole to them -- WWE is trying to sell shirts and make movies -- Any pretense about trying to be about wrestling left the building several years ago -- Brock's back because he has a name and can help Cena sell some T-shirts and make money in the process -- Personally, I don't get it -- I watched Brock in UFC and paid money to see him as I was intrigued by him (though he was outmatched, he was the only guy to give my former wrestling teammate, Steve Neal, a competitive match in the NCAA tournament)   -- Now that he's back in WWE, I could give a shit less -- I'm supposed to care about a real (failed) fighter in a fake sport?  

  12. I don't think Vince ever had a "Brock dream," other than to see him put over his big star and his son-in-law.

  13.  Love it! -- Do the kids who watch now even have a fucking clue who Goldberg is/was? Ah, Goldberg, possibly the biggest wasted opportunity ever in professional wrestling -- Couldn't talk, didn't know much in the ring, but had "it" in spades sounds like a pretty cool guy who listened to the wrong people early on -- Never should of have had him lose to Nash -- He was a superhero and would have weathered WCW's downfall -- Imagine him being a bigger asshole (business-wise) and refusing to job to Nash and go into the Invasion storyline undefeated -- Goldberg showing up on Raw unannounced, inhaling the smoke and clearing the ring (maybe spearing Kane) would have been epic

  14. "Rock doesn't even have to keep it, he can just vacate it and they'll do a tournament at Backlash or whatever they want."

    Not to say that the WWE title is so prestigious or anything but damn, does that cheapen the belt and make it absolutely worthless.

  15. Fuck yeah!!!!

    Especially liked the 45 year olds limping through so called classics.

  16. I don't really understand what anyone was expecting from Brock's return. For years now the iwc has been tearing it's collective hair out over the WWE's tendency to botch pretty much every hot prospect or angle it's handed. Flair in '91, Invasion, Goldberg, Nexus, Punk...and that's just off the top of my head. Why did anyone think Brock would be any different?

    Personally, I just don't get emotionally invested in wrestlers anymore, as long as the match itself delivers I don't especially care who wins. Cena/Brock will still be an awesome match in ten years time, long after it's ceased to matter whether they salvaged Brock.

  17. Brock Lesnar siting at the UFC PPV...could he be stepping into the cage to challenge the winner of Mir/JDS for the heavyweight title?!?!?

  18. I'm surprised they even showed him on camera. Not surprised that Mir just got the shit kicked out of him.

  19. Rock wins the Rumble and gets the WWE title at Wrestlemania.  Rock doesn't even have to keep it, he can just vacate it and they'll do a tournament at Backlash or whatever they want.

    But that just cheapens the WWE title and makes it Rock's plaything.  He wins the title but has more important things to do, so he vacates it?  Do you take Viagra to have a such a hard-on for him?

  20. Yep, my thoughts exactly.  Scott's man-crush on the Rock is running wild, brother.

  21. Somebody tell Mir that maybe he shouldn't stand in front of the guy. How many takedowns did Mr. Jiu-jitsu attempt? 1 maybe 2?.

  22. Not really fair to call Brock a failed fighter. His main losses came after his diverticulitus (no idea if I spelled that right). Up until that point he was very dominant and had the pedigree to be very good.

    I agree its apples and oranges but try telling vkm that

  23. That would have been awesome but on a petty level I'm glad Goldberg did a few jobs before hhh got to bury him

  24.  Goldberg turning up at the invasion at all would have been epic.

  25. I hate that so many people want the end goal of Brock's run to be against the Rock. To me it's just not an interesting match. Cena/Rock was because they were basically able to sell it as a match between two eras, or a match between the two top guys, etc.

    What do we get from Brock/Rock? A match  between two guys who won't be with the company the next day.

    It feels like this is the exact same thing that Scott and a lot of others shat on WCW for doing...

  26. I have zero faith, ZERO faith in these morons anymore. HHH is gonna beat Brock at SummerSlam, Brock is going to get tired of it all early despite making money and leave sooner than Wrestlemania instigating some big legal battle that'll ensure we never see him again. If we DO get to the point of Rock/Brock II at Mania for the title it'll be by the dumbest way possible, like Brock winning a shitty battle royal on RAW.

    After reading the writing assistant's stuff, I think that if they ever do feel Sheamus is built up enough to take Cena's spot and finally turn him heel, then I'll even bother to do some conjecture. At this point right now though, everything good will be fucked up and nothing will change until Vince is forced out. Nothing.

    I don't want to be a curmudgeon about all this stuff, but it's been bullshit for 3-5 straight years now. They made me this way.

  27. Because people still care about them and they can still go?

  28. that alone is not that great of an argument. as seen during the Rumble, people also still care about Kevin Nash und the Road Dogg.

  29. I meant that people care enough to pay money to see them, not just care enough to give them a nostalgic pop and forget about them 10 seconds later.

  30.  They can kind of still go, right now. And in some cases that's a relative term. But what's the value in pushing them over your regular stars? You can pop a small buyrate but then in a year or two the novelty has worn off and you're stuck with a roster who just jobbed to some guys who can't wrestle a full schedule. Taker doesn't have many matches left in him, Rock will still be making movies, HHH can't carry the company by himself. It's short-sighted and pointless. Frankly if they aren't putting people over that could really use the rub, they shouldn't be around at all. The current roster can't feel like they're less than the old time roster if there is no interaction there.

  31. Having guys like Rock/Brock/Taker/HHH etc pop in every once in awhile and wrestle each other does no damage to the product or the roster. And before you say they should be putting over the younger guys, there are only like 4 guys that I would buy as a main event going up against those guys. 

    I have no interest in seeing guys like Ziggler and Kofi up against Rock and Undertaker just like I would have had no interest in seeing Billy Gunn and Val Venis against Hulk Hogan or Bret Hart back in 1998. 

  32. So having these people pop up every once in awhile (oddly enough, this usually happens at Wrestlemania, when the most eyes are on the product anyways) and main eventing doesn't hurt the rest of the roster? And yet at the same time you imply that you don't buy anyone of the current generation (except "like 4 guys") as being on the level of the previous generation? And you don't see any wacky connections between these two processes? Would you have ever bought Stunning Steve Austin as being on the same level as Bret Hart? Or the Ringmaster? Could Rocky Maivia even hold a candle to Shawn Michaels? Could Shawn hold a candle to Hulk? How the heck could that Cena guy have ever ended up on the same level as HHH, HBK or the Rock?

    Wrestling is about perception. Sure, a large part of it is on the shoulders of the wrestlers. But I think Dolph Ziggler is a more talented wrestler than Cena ever was. Well, at least I am entertained enough to hunt down Ziggler's matches that I missed during the Cena era (when I didn't watch the product at all). The difference is perception. The whole next generation has been treated like they aren't good enough. 

    Sometimes, the generational transition happens by way of necessity: injuries, retirements or departures force elevation. In other cases, the previous generation has to do the work of getting the new guys over. Sadly, that isn't in fashion. If Rock, HHH, or any of those guys were on TV every week, ratings would be just as bad. HHH didn't do crap for ratings over the past decade of decline, and guys like Rock and Brock regularly see diminishing returns the longer they stay. Why? Because the product is stagnant. They know it, and that's why they politik themselves into big contracts, with minimal appearances, and focus on Mania: it makes them look good. 

    I don't care if they show up every once in awhile, but if they aren't helping solve the problem and they aren't interested in putting over the new generation, they have to leave - be it by injury, retirement or departure.

  33. Who got hurt by having Rock-Cena and Undertaker-HHH? Daniel Bryan? Him losing in 18 seconds made him a bigger star. Those guys on the pre-show? They shouldn't be on the show anyway. 

    And as much as I love Ziggler, dude is a bumping machine, he is nowhere near the worker that Cena is. And probably never will be. To quote a movie about caddys, "Well, the world needs ditch diggers too." Wrestling needs mid-carders too. Not everyone is destined to be a main eventer. Just because a guy is underused and can take a bump, doesn't mean every legend that can still walk should lay down for him.

    Edit- "Would you have ever bought Stunning Steve Austin as being on the same level as Bret Hart? Or the Ringmaster? Could Rocky Maivia even hold a candle to Shawn Michaels? Could Shawn hold a candle to Hulk? How the heck could that Cena guy have ever ended up on the same level as HHH, HBK or the Rock?"

    To answer your question, no. Pre-KOTR speech, I would not have bought Austin vs Hart. Pre-Nation, I would not have bought Rock vs HBK. Pre-window smashing, I would not have bought HBK vs Hogan. Pre-rapping, I would not have bought Cena vs any of those guys.

    Seeing the "wacky connection"? None of those guys had megastars come and in and lay down just because they were talented. They had to earn it and work their way up to that level on their own. Ziggler hasn't had his moment yet, and who knows if he ever will.

  34. 4 out of the 6 "main eventers" at Mania were part time wrestlers (only 1 of those 4 has wrestled since) and one of the remaining two (Cena) has been on top for 7 years. You KNOW you are going to get a big audience; you KNOW you need new blood on top; you spend the whole event putting over established "legends"? How is that helping ANYONE? Especially when all we heard leading up to the event was: "Wrestling is about money and viewers. The Rock will bring in viewers and will provide exposure for the whole roster". And yet, NO ONE gets elevated in the process.

    We can disagree on Ziggler. I think the guy does a lot more than bump. He is one of the few men on the roster that oozes real emotion and intensity (not the phony intensity of Cena). He puts everything into his moves and makes the whole thing feel more real. I respect Cena for his success and dedication, but his matches generally bore me. Of course, when he is in the ring with more creative wrestling minds (Punk, Lesnar) his matches improve.

    You're right, no megastars "came in" to put those guys over. But Austin was elevated by Bret. He did NOTHING between KotR and Survivor Series until the Bret storyline gave him focus and  direction. He then got to stun everyone on the roster whole injured (instead of just disappearing for four months), got put clean over Shawn Michaels, etc. 

    Window smashing? Shawn wasn't a viable main eventer when he threw Jannetty through a window. He was a main eventer when he won the Royal Rumble by starting at #1, when he got emotional music videos based on his worked injuries, or, if you want to go earlier, when he got 20 minutes and a ladder to put on a show at THE BIGGEST EVENT OF THE YEAR! I mean, Daniel Bryan turned into a star while losing in 18 seconds. Imagine if he actually had the full support of the WWE media machine! 

    I like the current WWE roster. It's why I am watching for the first time in years. I just wish someone in their own company believed in these workers.

  35. I know the window smashing is revisionist history, but it has a nicer ring to it than being a dick and sabotaging the company's top babyface in the main event at WM.

    And if Daniel Bryan has an intense 20 minute match at WM, everyone is happy, nobody adopts the YES! chants as a sort of protest and Bryan probably slides back down the card. 

    I will say they should have done more to showcase guys like Ziggler at WM, but that doesn't mean throwing him in against Rock or Undertaker, which would have done a lot of damage to his career. 

    Putting Ziggler in a hot under card match/storyline at Mania and using Rock/Cena to introduce him to a wider audience is the way to go. And hopefully they like what they see and continue to tune in. And after you get them invested in him, then maybe you could do Rock/Ziggler. 

  36.  I'm just gonna put this down here wherever it lands. Before Mania, I was firmly in the camp of "make damn sure that any new eyes who are watching because of Rock leave wanting to watch you the next night" but that didn't really happen for anyone. What's the long term benefit of making a bunch of semi-retirees look more important than your current roster? They aren't going to be there every week, so when you have a show that doesn't have Rock, Taker, HHH, HBK, whomever on it, fans are going to look at that and say "well obviously this isn't as good as if Rock/Taker/HHH/HBK/Brock/whoever else were on it." Which makes WM seem like a rare occurrence and makes a lot of money for that show, but who's to say any of those guys are coming back next year? What about the year after? They're putting all their money on guys who aren't going to be able to give them returns, and it's at the expense of the guys who can. People thought in the 80s that HBK and Hart and the like weren't  on the level of Hogan and Savage and Warrior, but when you didn't have any of those guys wrestling (or had Savage in matches underneath them) then it made them seem like a bigger deal. You need that separation, because one person in a main event seems equal to another if they aren't actually on the same card.

  37.  Agree, but because it's the Rock, as always it gets a free pass. The Rock is the single most overrated wrestler in history, and does not deserve the respect he's given. He was a brief flash in the pan in the business, who ran off to do shitty movies and only comes back when he can promote his crap. Seriously, the Rock is a boring person to listen to and Steve Austin was 10X more entertaining.
     Simply put there is no reason for Rock/Brock/HHH/Taker to be involved in Wrestlemania in an active role anymore. Like someone else stated earlier on here, we don't need to 45 year olds wrestling. Wrestlemania was horrible this year because we had the two matches with the most promotion feature three guys who are not full timers. It's time for Wrestlemania to be about the titles and the talent (those who will still be there on Monday).
     The main event for any PPV should be for the World Title, not the continuation of the John Cena Show. I'm tired of seeing the part timers/old broken down guys headline these shows while talent like Ziggler/Swagger/McIntyre/Kingston/etc are either left of the show or in meaningless matches.
     The fact is the WWE has so little opportunity for anyone to be elevated, it's all a series of lateral movements. Look at Kofi, he's held the tag title multiple times, when will he get his chance in the top? Yet Cena and Orton get to headline PPV, especially Cena, even when not holding a title. The last PPV should have been headlined by Punk/DB and then the four way under that, but instead we end with JL/Cena. It's pathetic to watch this constant degradation of the product.
    /End Rant


Post a Comment