|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Mar 22, 2016 23:05:54 GMT -5
Nope. No way. Never.
Audiences don't want to see a brave knight slay a mighty dragon. They want to see a lineup of brave knights go down one-by-one, only for another dragon, one who was over in the Attitude Era, to show up at the last minute and slay the first one.
Hi, I'm Vince.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 22, 2016 23:10:25 GMT -5
Here's the thing, and I LOVE Brock. He's one of my top five favorites ever, and I've loved his form of the Destructor run these last couple of years. But he doesn't benefit from a win, and he doesn't suffer from a loss. At this point, he's made. Brock can take an L, then show up tomorrow and wreck shit and people will go just as nuts for him. That aura is now set.
Dean on the other hand GREATLY benefits from a victory. It launches him into another stratosphere, provided they capitalize on it right.
I'm a much, much bigger fan of Brock than Dean; but the better story and the most benefit has Dean getting the victory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 23:11:33 GMT -5
He's built up too much to risk having anyone beat him, because they might fail afterwards. They should just have a part-timer do it. That's terrible logic. Lesnar's rocket push started two years ago when he beat the part-timer. It means absolutely nothing to have Lesnar win and win and win if he's not going to make a star out of someone eventually. Giving that to Rock or Triple H does literally nothing for the product and is another step back in terms of making this new generation of stars matter. Ambrose is huge, he's on the verge of being a top face, and giving him a massive moment at Wrestlemania where he manages to live up to his gimmick and prove a crazy enough motherf***er to beat down Lesnar will f***ing make the dude. The logic of not letting any full time star accomplish anything worthwhile or beat any elite part-timers will only perpetuate the need to keep trucking part-timers out in the first place. Worked for the Streak... isn't that why they had Lesnar break it in the first place?  |
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Mar 22, 2016 23:17:16 GMT -5
That's terrible logic. Lesnar's rocket push started two years ago when he beat the part-timer. It means absolutely nothing to have Lesnar win and win and win if he's not going to make a star out of someone eventually. Giving that to Rock or Triple H does literally nothing for the product and is another step back in terms of making this new generation of stars matter. Ambrose is huge, he's on the verge of being a top face, and giving him a massive moment at Wrestlemania where he manages to live up to his gimmick and prove a crazy enough motherf***er to beat down Lesnar will f***ing make the dude. The logic of not letting any full time star accomplish anything worthwhile or beat any elite part-timers will only perpetuate the need to keep trucking part-timers out in the first place. Worked for the Streak... isn't that why they had Lesnar break it in the first place? Only so they could then actually put someone over Lesnar without having to worry about the fallout that might stem from breaking the streak. Building Lesnar up as a monster so powerful that even the Undertaker at Wrestlemania couldn't stop him. But someone can, and that someone can't be Triple H. If what you're advocating for is nobody beating Lesnar ever, then his presence on the show is basically a waste of time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 23:30:40 GMT -5
Worked for the Streak... isn't that why they had Lesnar break it in the first place? Only so they could then actually put someone over Lesnar without having to worry about the fallout that might stem from breaking the streak. Building Lesnar up as a monster so powerful that even the Undertaker at Wrestlemania couldn't stop him. But someone can, and that someone can't be Triple H. If what you're advocating for is nobody beating Lesnar ever, then his presence on the show is basically a waste of time. Okay I was just making fun of that sentiment for why no mortal man should break the streak. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 23:35:31 GMT -5
That's terrible logic. Lesnar's rocket push started two years ago when he beat the part-timer. It means absolutely nothing to have Lesnar win and win and win if he's not going to make a star out of someone eventually. Giving that to Rock or Triple H does literally nothing for the product and is another step back in terms of making this new generation of stars matter. Ambrose is huge, he's on the verge of being a top face, and giving him a massive moment at Wrestlemania where he manages to live up to his gimmick and prove a crazy enough motherf***er to beat down Lesnar will f***ing make the dude. The logic of not letting any full time star accomplish anything worthwhile or beat any elite part-timers will only perpetuate the need to keep trucking part-timers out in the first place. Worked for the Streak... isn't that why they had Lesnar break it in the first place? The whole reason the Streak ended and Cena being dominated by Lesnar happened was for Roman Reigns to get the big WM win over Lesnar. It was all supposed to be transported to Reigns who's a full-time superstar. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 1:27:08 GMT -5
Worked for the Streak... isn't that why they had Lesnar break it in the first place? The whole reason the Streak ended and Cena being dominated by Lesnar happened was for Roman Reigns to get the big WM win over Lesnar. It was all supposed to be transported to Reigns who's a full-time superstar. Pretty much. The failing there was that they made the move to do it well before Roman was ready for it and well before anyone wanted to see it, but the plan itself was sound. |
|
|
|
Post by 111111 on Mar 23, 2016 3:08:32 GMT -5
No.
Ambrose would be better served with a loss as long as the storytelling is on point.
Obsessing over wins and losses is to miss the point of wrestling entirely.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,529
|
Post by Dub H on Mar 23, 2016 3:12:05 GMT -5
Yes.They don't need to make him a super strong hero.But he should be able to beat the most bad-ass and strong of man in a street fight.And that will put him even more over.
So naturally,he is losing
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,529
|
Post by Dub H on Mar 23, 2016 3:13:24 GMT -5
Why do we need to "keep Lesnar strong"? He's already booked as the absolute baddest guy in the company. He's been kept strong as f***. It's time he makes someone a star by being pinned clean. If not Ambrose, who exactly are we "saving" Lesnar for?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 3:35:29 GMT -5
No. Ambrose would be better served with a loss as long as the storytelling is on point. Obsessing over wins and losses is to miss the point of wrestling entirely. But at the same time, if Ambrose is never going to win any big matches he's ever in, why should people care about him? At this point he's lost every main event match he's ever had, lost the majority of the feuds he's had, and failed to take the WWE title about four times now. He has to get a big win eventually, why not now? |
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Mar 23, 2016 4:18:05 GMT -5
I love Dean, and I think having him lose ala Austin vs Bret, but take absolutely EVERYTHING Brock has to be put down, is the better route and better way to establish his character.
For me, the guy who beats Brock has to have impressive offence. Dean's isn't that impressive. The guy who beats Brock needs to be a guy who can do stuff that looks like it can slay the Beast, and the guy who beats Brock should do it without weapons or it waters down the win, and also devalues subsequent wins over Brock as it's already been done. Losing to HHH required a rebuilding job for him.
Ambrose is awesome, I don't think he needs the win and I actually think he will benefit more from a tough defeat. I think he can get over to the next level by taking an absolutely insane, Foley-would-be-jealous beating, for Brock to beat him. He doesn't need to beat Lesnar, he can lose and just be so damn tough that Lesnar cracks, or post-match shows him respect- something Brock has done to NOBODY, and doesn't fit right if Lesnar loses. Plus, a huge part of his fanbase are rallying around him as a stick it to the man, rebellious underdog type guy. Once you slay the biggest monster in the company you're never an oppressed underdog again.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Mar 23, 2016 4:41:35 GMT -5
100% Yes. Dean is a guy on the cusp of being a megastar. Having him beat Brock Lesnar in a big singles match at the biggest show of the year could launch him into that next level. If they're careful with him and give him key wins, he could be the biggest draw they've seen since John Cena.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseface on Mar 23, 2016 5:25:56 GMT -5
No. Ambrose would be better served with a loss as long as the storytelling is on point. Obsessing over wins and losses is to miss the point of wrestling entirely. Ambrose is at the point where losing well will do nothing for him. This is the kind of match that Lesnar can lose clean, and still come out just as strong. It's Ambrose's kind of match, and he should win it, clean. Clean in this context meaning without interference. Fans respond to Ambrose, and at Roadblock he showed he could wrestle WWE main event style, so there's no reason not to give this to him unless they're going to put more eggs in the one basket by having Reigns beat Lesnar instead. |
|
fw91
Crow T. Robot
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 40,047 
|
Post by fw91 on Mar 23, 2016 5:26:06 GMT -5
starting to think, this may close the show
|
|
vinnie245
Bubba Ho-Tep
The Vinster
Posts: 568
|
Post by vinnie245 on Mar 23, 2016 7:16:25 GMT -5
Personally i'd rather Brock lose to Samoa Joe, yeah he's 38 but hes still got plenty of years left in him.
And it'd be an absolute war street fight or not.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 122,182
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Mar 23, 2016 7:25:30 GMT -5
No. Ambrose would be better served with a loss as long as the storytelling is on point. Obsessing over wins and losses is to miss the point of wrestling entirely. The way the storyline has been building, with Heyman saying Dean and Roman at the same time couldn't beat Brock, much less Dean alone, weapons or not, the storyline isn't building to a loss. All a loss would serve Dean at this point is confirmation that he's strictly inferior as Heyman paints him, a giant red "L' on his forehead and a reputation as a choke artist, whereas if he wins, he would be elevated and establish street fights as his trademark match, something they could make great use out of in the future for him. |
|
|
|
Post by joediego on Mar 23, 2016 8:46:49 GMT -5
No. Ambrose is nowhere near Lesnar's level. They are saving Lesnar for Reigns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 8:50:07 GMT -5
No. Ambrose is nowhere near Lesnar's level. They are saving Lesnar for Reigns. So, save Brock for someone already established as a world-beater, who's been widely rejected any time they've actually positioned him for a major match, who if he ever faced Brock again would likely just inspire booing at best and indifference at worst given it'd be blatantly obvious who was winning, who previously was only shown as a threat to Brock in a way where if it happened the same way again would make both guys look like utter morons, when Brock's in a match where he could easily lose by a complete fluke and still keep every bit of his aura afterward. Makes sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 9:03:57 GMT -5
He won't but he should.
|
|
