The Kevstaaa
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Heck of a wrestler, great technician, and a jam up guy
Posts: 18,566 
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Mar 23, 2016 21:46:13 GMT -5
I would be okay with it. While I've loved unstoppable Brock, if Dean has to go through extreme lengths to beat him, Brock could stay strong in defeat. However, his name is not Roman, so I doubt he beats Brock.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 122,182
Member is Online
|
Post by Mozenrath on Mar 23, 2016 21:46:30 GMT -5
Quick answer... Yes. But the more important question is how is the chainsaw going to be used in the match? There aren't many weapons in wrestling that are less believable than Janice, but a freakin' chainsaw is one of them. A chainsaw right in the diverticulitis does sound like the blueprint for defeating Brock though. They'll probably have Dean cut part of the Wrestlemania stage or something like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 21:55:41 GMT -5
No. Yes, I hate Ambrose, but he can still look good in defeat. Lesnar is God status right now in WWE. He ended the streak and has obliterated guys left and right. The guy to cut him down shouldn't be Dean Ambrose. It's not believable and it's not necessary. Again, Ambrose can put up a hell of a fight, take Brock to the limit, and have him come up short in the end. Many guys have lost and gone on to look better because of it. It'll be fine and won't hurt him to lose to a guy like Lesnar. Having said all of that, I fully expect Brock to lose to Ambrose thanks to interference from the Wyatt family. That and the "Shield bias" the WWE has been planted in for what seems like forever now. Thing is that if WWE keeps using "God status" as an excuse, then it's never going to happen, and they'll end up wasting the Lesnar rub on someone who doesn't need it. Which is exactly how we ended up with Lesnar breaking the Streak in the first place. Lesnar ending the Streak was absolutely the right call. Any young guy doing that would've been burdened with having the biggest accolade imaginable, something they could never hope to reach anything like again, and with having to live up to that. If the guy who beat the Streak failed to stay over or turn out to be a draw, welp, 20-plus years wasted. Plus it'd be very hard to keep up the appropriate aura out of that from having the guy be around 24/7 in the thick of things with WWE's fickle booking, while Brock's schedule being as spotty as it is makes it much easier to keep on being a big deal after doing it. Plus not many people would've likely been able to overcome the heat from being the one to end it, which Lesnar could because he's awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Mar 23, 2016 21:57:25 GMT -5
I don't know if he should but God knows I want him to because it would be rad as hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by 111111 on Mar 23, 2016 22:13:05 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. I think if they go down the route of him taking an absolute beating and coming back for more over and over during the match but ultimately losing which they were sort of hinting at at first with him calling out Brock, getting F5'd and asking for more which they originally were doing on TV it would garner sympathy towards him and make people see him as a tough SOB. To me his match with Triple H was a perfect example of how to make someone look strong in defeat. By having him lose it would also rile up portions of the fanbase who will accuse the company of burying Dean, which is a great way to build sympathy and support, then they could build it for a few months to a rematch in which he finally beats Brock The promos from Heyman for the next match would be great, they could even have him refuse Dean telling him's he's already had his shot which would build some more heat. I think it could be a very long fued with lots of twists and turns and I'm not sure if having the smaller scrappy babyface defeating the behemoth that is Brock Lesnar the first time around is the best way to do it. I personally like Dean as the guy who fights his ass off but ends up just missing out on the win better as when he does finally win something big it's going to feel much more meaningful. |
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Mar 23, 2016 22:30:24 GMT -5
No. Yes, I hate Ambrose, but he can still look good in defeat. Lesnar is God status right now in WWE. He ended the streak and has obliterated guys left and right. The guy to cut him down shouldn't be Dean Ambrose. It's not believable and it's not necessary. Again, Ambrose can put up a hell of a fight, take Brock to the limit, and have him come up short in the end. Many guys have lost and gone on to look better because of it. It'll be fine and won't hurt him to lose to a guy like Lesnar. Having said all of that, I fully expect Brock to lose to Ambrose thanks to interference from the Wyatt family. That and the "Shield bias" the WWE has been planted in for what seems like forever now. Thing is that if WWE keeps using "God status" as an excuse, then it's never going to happen, and they'll end up wasting the Lesnar rub on someone who doesn't need it. Which is exactly how we ended up with Lesnar breaking the Streak in the first place. And that's one of the big reasons they should've never had Lesnar break the streak. It skyrocketed him into a level where it's going to take someone EXTREMELY believable as a bad ass to take down Brock. At the risk of sounding like some macho asshole, I don't buy Ambrose as a legit tough guy. In the kayfabe sense, this is the guy who jobbed to a monitor (more or less). Again, nothing wrong with Lesnar beating him. Like I said before, have Ambrose take him to the limit and then have Lesnar himself acknowledge how tough Ambrose was the following night on Raw. You keep the mystique of Lesnar intact and I think that would do wonders for Ambrose. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Mar 24, 2016 2:52:58 GMT -5
Ambrose is 30. Brock is 38. Ambrose has only been in the WWE for five years. Brock has has been in the WWE for eleven years ( even counting his absence.) There's zero reason for Dean to lose. He's the hot up-and-comer with a seemingly bright future. Brock is a well-established aging veteran. Why would you put an aging veteran over a hot up-and-comer at the biggest show of the year. This is like booking 101. Hell , Brock shows up on maybe thirty dates a year. Ambrose is there every week. You get way more outt of an Ambrose win here. By a measurable amount. There's a few things wrong with that booking 101 though. For starters, there's no build. Ambrose is coming off a feud with Owens for the IC title. Owens is great and all, but you don't go from beating him to pinning Brock at WM from a few legends segments. Also, there's the 2 pins he's eaten from Roman since Survivor Series. And being fresh off losing to Trips in the middle of the ring, clean as can be at Road Block. 3 whole weeks before WM! I mean, if Ambrose is to beat Brock here, then he should be going towards the belt and nothing else. He's been a contender before, and lost to Rollins and Reigns all day. So beating Brock should be the stepping stone to the gold. But why not have him pin Brock at Fastlane??? If you go all the way with Ambrose, you do it at WM. And I haven't a clue how today's WWE can book Ambrose over Brock at WM and keep him away from the belt until next year's WM. Have Ambrose do the Austin at WM and come away huge in defeat, then beat Brock at Summerslam, then become a megastar at WM. It makes no sense to lose clean to Trips 3 weeks before WM, then beat a more protected Brock at WM. Austin went from being a big deal losing in a non-main event in XIII to being a god at WM XIV. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 2:59:33 GMT -5
When in doubt, double KO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 3:13:45 GMT -5
Ambrose is 30. Brock is 38. Ambrose has only been in the WWE for five years. Brock has has been in the WWE for eleven years ( even counting his absence.) There's zero reason for Dean to lose. He's the hot up-and-comer with a seemingly bright future. Brock is a well-established aging veteran. Why would you put an aging veteran over a hot up-and-comer at the biggest show of the year. This is like booking 101. Hell , Brock shows up on maybe thirty dates a year. Ambrose is there every week. You get way more outt of an Ambrose win here. By a measurable amount. There's a few things wrong with that booking 101 though. For starters, there's no build. Ambrose is coming off a feud with Owens for the IC title. Owens is great and all, but you don't go from beating him to pinning Brock at WM from a few legends segments. Also, there's the 2 pins he's eaten from Roman since Survivor Series. And being fresh off losing to Trips in the middle of the ring, clean as can be at Road Block. 3 whole weeks before WM! I mean, if Ambrose is to beat Brock here, then he should be going towards the belt and nothing else. He's been a contender before, and lost to Rollins and Reigns all day. So beating Brock should be the stepping stone to the gold. But why not have him pin Brock at Fastlane??? If you go all the way with Ambrose, you do it at WM. And I haven't a clue how today's WWE can book Ambrose over Brock at WM and keep him away from the belt until next year's WM. Have Ambrose do the Austin at WM and come away huge in defeat, then beat Brock at Summerslam, then become a megastar at WM. It makes no sense to lose clean to Trips 3 weeks before WM, then beat a more protected Brock at WM. Austin went from being a big deal losing in a non-main event in XIII to being a god at WM XIV. One HUGE difference everyone is neglecting is that the circumstances really aren't the same. For Austin, that was establishing him as a face and first laying the groundwork for him as the never-say-die fighter damned determined to win. For Ambrose, that much has been established from the multitude of times Brock's already beaten him up just for him to come back begging for more. Going through it again at Mania would just make him look like a putz who proved what everyone's been saying about how he bit off more than he could chew and got his ass kicked. Plus Austin had already had a few big wins - he'd beaten Bret before and he'd won the Rumble. Ambrose has lost a ton of big matches at this point, including one just three weeks ago - he has to win one eventually or why should you continue believing in him? Plus, what on earth is the interest in a rematch with Lesnar if Brock wins? If he loses you can frame it around Dean barely scraping by in an environment that allowed for it and now being backed into a corner tasked with doing it again but this time with his bare hands. If he faces Brock again... so what? He already had him under ideal conditions once and lost. Why would the second time be any different? |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Mar 24, 2016 3:24:52 GMT -5
There's a few things wrong with that booking 101 though. For starters, there's no build. Ambrose is coming off a feud with Owens for the IC title. Owens is great and all, but you don't go from beating him to pinning Brock at WM from a few legends segments. Also, there's the 2 pins he's eaten from Roman since Survivor Series. And being fresh off losing to Trips in the middle of the ring, clean as can be at Road Block. 3 whole weeks before WM! I mean, if Ambrose is to beat Brock here, then he should be going towards the belt and nothing else. He's been a contender before, and lost to Rollins and Reigns all day. So beating Brock should be the stepping stone to the gold. But why not have him pin Brock at Fastlane??? If you go all the way with Ambrose, you do it at WM. And I haven't a clue how today's WWE can book Ambrose over Brock at WM and keep him away from the belt until next year's WM. Have Ambrose do the Austin at WM and come away huge in defeat, then beat Brock at Summerslam, then become a megastar at WM. It makes no sense to lose clean to Trips 3 weeks before WM, then beat a more protected Brock at WM. Austin went from being a big deal losing in a non-main event in XIII to being a god at WM XIV. One HUGE difference everyone is neglecting is that the circumstances really aren't the same. For Austin, that was establishing him as a face and first laying the groundwork for him as the never-say-die fighting damned determined to win. For Ambrose, that much has been established from the multitude of times Brock's already beaten him up just for him to come back begging for more. Going through it again at Mania would just make him look like a putz who proved what everyone's been saying about how he bit off more than he could chew and got his ass kicked. Plus Austin had already had a few big wins - he'd beaten Bret before and he'd won the Rumble. Ambrose has lost a ton of big matches at this point, including one just three weeks ago - he has to win one eventually or why should you continue believing in him? Plus, what on earth is the interest in a rematch with Lesnar if Brock wins? If he loses you can frame it around Dean barely scraping by in an environment that allowed for it and now being backed into a corner tasked with doing it again but this time with his bare hands. If he faces Brock again... so what? He already had him under ideal conditions once and lost. Why would the second time be any different? Why is everyone just throwing away the feud if Brock wins? Isn't this the same WWE who runs the same matches into the ground, ala Rollins/Ambrose? I think the Ambrose backers are a little too "sky is falling" if Ambrose doesn't win next week. There's ALWAYS reason for more than one match with someone higher on the card. It's literally been done thousands of times. I mean, the whole Brock feud is based around the fact that Ambrose doesn't stay down and keeps coming back for more. So after losing, he should reasonably stay down and not come back for more. |
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Mar 24, 2016 3:29:23 GMT -5
While in some ways I wouldn't mind if Ambrose lost but earned Brock's respect in the process, maybe even made him genuinely fear the guy, I think Dean has to go over because it would make all these segments with hardcore legends seem more than a little bit pointless if he didn't and pretty much leave Roman as the only other guy in the current landscape who looks like they have a chance to actually put one over Lesnar. Hopefully the bait and switch with this Mania is "Surprise, we didn't put all our eggs in one basket" a wise person would learn from the "holy crap, the only 4 people we've built in the last few years are all out for months" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 3:34:51 GMT -5
One HUGE difference everyone is neglecting is that the circumstances really aren't the same. For Austin, that was establishing him as a face and first laying the groundwork for him as the never-say-die fighting damned determined to win. For Ambrose, that much has been established from the multitude of times Brock's already beaten him up just for him to come back begging for more. Going through it again at Mania would just make him look like a putz who proved what everyone's been saying about how he bit off more than he could chew and got his ass kicked. Plus Austin had already had a few big wins - he'd beaten Bret before and he'd won the Rumble. Ambrose has lost a ton of big matches at this point, including one just three weeks ago - he has to win one eventually or why should you continue believing in him? Plus, what on earth is the interest in a rematch with Lesnar if Brock wins? If he loses you can frame it around Dean barely scraping by in an environment that allowed for it and now being backed into a corner tasked with doing it again but this time with his bare hands. If he faces Brock again... so what? He already had him under ideal conditions once and lost. Why would the second time be any different? Why is everyone just throwing away the feud if Brock wins? Isn't this the same WWE who runs the same matches into the ground, ala Rollins/Ambrose? I think the Ambrose backers are a little too "sky is falling" if Ambrose doesn't win next week. There's ALWAYS reason for more than one match with someone higher on the card. It's literally been done thousands of times. I mean, the whole Brock feud is based around the fact that Ambrose doesn't stay down and keeps coming back for more. So after losing, he should reasonably stay down and not come back for more. It'd make sense for Ambrose to keep coming at him, sure. But why on earth should anyone care about their eventual match in that case? By that point Brock would've kicked his ass one-on-one on Raw, done so even with Reigns backing him up after that then again at Fastlane, again in the parking lot, one or two more times since then, and then done it at Mania even with Ambrose having the backing of a bunch of legends and the freedom to use weapons under what's being hyped as the ideal circumstances for Dean to fight him in a challenge he made himself. Sure, you could do the match again, but by then Dean would be firmly established as just plain not remotely in his league. The underdog thing's been established already and the underdog needs to win every once in awhile or they're not worth rooting for. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Mar 24, 2016 4:00:44 GMT -5
Why is everyone just throwing away the feud if Brock wins? Isn't this the same WWE who runs the same matches into the ground, ala Rollins/Ambrose? I think the Ambrose backers are a little too "sky is falling" if Ambrose doesn't win next week. There's ALWAYS reason for more than one match with someone higher on the card. It's literally been done thousands of times. I mean, the whole Brock feud is based around the fact that Ambrose doesn't stay down and keeps coming back for more. So after losing, he should reasonably stay down and not come back for more. It'd make sense for Ambrose to keep coming at him, sure. But why on earth should anyone care about their eventual match in that case? By that point Brock would've kicked his ass one-on-one on Raw, done so even with Reigns backing him up after that then again at Fastlane, again in the parking lot, one or two more times since then, and then done it at Mania even with Ambrose having the backing of a bunch of legends and the freedom to use weapons under what's being hyped as the ideal circumstances for Dean to fight him in a challenge he made himself. Sure, you could do the match again, but by then Dean would be firmly established as just plain not remotely in his league. The underdog thing's been established already and the underdog needs to win every once in awhile or they're not worth rooting for. Again, come on. Ambrose losing to Brock isn't the end of the world. If they have a close match where Ambrose doesn't even need to be pinned (like he has recently), how does that "firmly establish him as not remotely in Brock's league"? And I'm not saying Ambrose shouldn't ever beat Brock. Beat Brock at Summerslam. I think Ambrose losing at WM, a short program with either Rollins or Orton with him going over, beat Brock at SS, win the Rumble, title at WM. At least that is a more natural build than beating Owens, losing to the two in the main event, and beating Brock out of nowhere. People still cared about Ambrose at Fastlane despite him losing clean to Reigns at Survivor Series. And the result was losing clean to Reigns again. They'll care because they like Ambrose. They don't just stop caring because he loses, otherwise no one would have anything invested into this match at all. The sky is not going to fall if he doesn't beat Brock next weekend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 15:09:39 GMT -5
It'd make sense for Ambrose to keep coming at him, sure. But why on earth should anyone care about their eventual match in that case? By that point Brock would've kicked his ass one-on-one on Raw, done so even with Reigns backing him up after that then again at Fastlane, again in the parking lot, one or two more times since then, and then done it at Mania even with Ambrose having the backing of a bunch of legends and the freedom to use weapons under what's being hyped as the ideal circumstances for Dean to fight him in a challenge he made himself. Sure, you could do the match again, but by then Dean would be firmly established as just plain not remotely in his league. The underdog thing's been established already and the underdog needs to win every once in awhile or they're not worth rooting for. Again, come on. Ambrose losing to Brock isn't the end of the world. If they have a close match where Ambrose doesn't even need to be pinned (like he has recently), how does that "firmly establish him as not remotely in Brock's league"? And I'm not saying Ambrose shouldn't ever beat Brock. Beat Brock at Summerslam. I think Ambrose losing at WM, a short program with either Rollins or Orton with him going over, beat Brock at SS, win the Rumble, title at WM. At least that is a more natural build than beating Owens, losing to the two in the main event, and beating Brock out of nowhere.
People still cared about Ambrose at Fastlane despite him losing clean to Reigns at Survivor Series. And the result was losing clean to Reigns again. They'll care because they like Ambrose. They don't just stop caring because he loses, otherwise no one would have anything invested into this match at all. The sky is not going to fall if he doesn't beat Brock next weekend. You're not understanding something here. This company is not going to let anyone beat Lesnar legit unless it's a WM. At SS, Taker tapped out, low blowed and Lesnar passed out for Lesnar to be "beaten". They've saved anyone beating him for the biggest event possible which is why Reigns was going to pin him at last year's WM but didn't. It's not happening at a SS and if Lesnar isn't beaten at WM, chances are we'll have to wait until next year's. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Mar 24, 2016 15:29:21 GMT -5
Again, come on. Ambrose losing to Brock isn't the end of the world. If they have a close match where Ambrose doesn't even need to be pinned (like he has recently), how does that "firmly establish him as not remotely in Brock's league"? And I'm not saying Ambrose shouldn't ever beat Brock. Beat Brock at Summerslam. I think Ambrose losing at WM, a short program with either Rollins or Orton with him going over, beat Brock at SS, win the Rumble, title at WM. At least that is a more natural build than beating Owens, losing to the two in the main event, and beating Brock out of nowhere.
People still cared about Ambrose at Fastlane despite him losing clean to Reigns at Survivor Series. And the result was losing clean to Reigns again. They'll care because they like Ambrose. They don't just stop caring because he loses, otherwise no one would have anything invested into this match at all. The sky is not going to fall if he doesn't beat Brock next weekend. You're not understanding something here. This company is not going to let anyone beat Lesnar legit unless it's a WM. At SS, Taker tapped out, low blowed and Lesnar passed out for Lesnar to be "beaten". They've saved anyone beating him for the biggest event possible which is why Reigns was going to pin him at last year's WM but didn't. It's not happening at a SS and if Lesnar isn't beaten at WM, chances are we'll have to wait until next year's. They've continually used Summerslam as a launching pad for the main event. Whether it be Bryan beating Cena clean or Lesnar squashing Cena, both of which were on the more unreasonable side going in. Ambrose beating Lesnar isn't the payoff, him winning the main event at WM is the payoff. If they wanted to do a long run with Ambrose taking the belt off Brock at next WM, fine. But I don't trust them to work that long of booking. It just seems like microwave booking to have Dean lose to Trips 3 weeks before beating the unbeatable beast. The last 3 Network shows have ended with Ambrose being thrown out of the Rumble by Trips, pinned in the middle of the ring by Reigns, and pinned in the middle of the ring by Trips with no real shenanigans. He shouldn't become a world beater overnight because it seems incredibly forced. |
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,706
|
Post by The Ichi on Mar 24, 2016 15:44:49 GMT -5
Brock has ended the streak, beaten John Cena in a squash match and won a feud with HHH. One loss to Ambrose isn't going to ruin him.
Plus it wont be booked like he outwrestled Brock, he just outcrazied him.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,981
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Mar 24, 2016 15:45:39 GMT -5
I dunno really. All I know is I am hyped as hell for this match. So happy for Brock to be facing such a great talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by CubsFan71 on Mar 25, 2016 1:30:55 GMT -5
Hell yes he should. The timing is right for it. But all I see is WWE somehow screwing this up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 2:16:18 GMT -5
You're not understanding something here. This company is not going to let anyone beat Lesnar legit unless it's a WM. At SS, Taker tapped out, low blowed and Lesnar passed out for Lesnar to be "beaten". They've saved anyone beating him for the biggest event possible which is why Reigns was going to pin him at last year's WM but didn't. It's not happening at a SS and if Lesnar isn't beaten at WM, chances are we'll have to wait until next year's. They've continually used Summerslam as a launching pad for the main event. Whether it be Bryan beating Cena clean or Lesnar squashing Cena, both of which were on the more unreasonable side going in. Ambrose beating Lesnar isn't the payoff, him winning the main event at WM is the payoff. If they wanted to do a long run with Ambrose taking the belt off Brock at next WM, fine. But I don't trust them to work that long of booking. It just seems like microwave booking to have Dean lose to Trips 3 weeks before beating the unbeatable beast. The last 3 Network shows have ended with Ambrose being thrown out of the Rumble by Trips, pinned in the middle of the ring by Reigns, and pinned in the middle of the ring by Trips with no real shenanigans. He shouldn't become a world beater overnight because it seems incredibly forced. You say you don't trust them to do long-term booking and yet when it comes to Lesnar and Reigns they're particularly with their wins and loses. Since Brock broke the Streak, anything he's done has been towards someone beating him at WM, that's the point, and as for Reigns the same applies to given he hasn't lost a 1v1 singles match on the main roster clean yet. It's all for a reason. Ambrose beating Lesnar doesn't mean he's a world beater since Ambrose is fighting on his own terms and given he's a utility main eventer, he's pretty legit. Lesnar still hasn't lost a 1v1 w/o stipulations yet post-Streak win which is the main thing this company's been enforcing with him even with an Ambrose loss. You can also count clean Ambrose's 1v1 losses on one hand and most times it's due to himself. People like to comment on the amount of times he's lost but he rarely loses clean. Wyatt has lost clean more times than Ambrose has. Hell Cena has lost clean way more times than Ambrose. Ambrose is also one of the only superstars to say they had to get 2 Spears from Reigns to lose a match against since his single's push, I mean Ambrose kicked out of a Spear. Who can you really say in Roman's single's push besides Lesnar has that happened to? I mean let's look at your examples of Ambrose: Rumble - Had a LMS match with Owens, won, limped to the ring, made it in the final two, almost won the title but was barely eliminated by Triple H and yet you're using this against him....why? This makes no sense FastLane - Lost against Reigns when he's the #1 booked star on the roster even above Cena in his prime, Reigns hasn't lost a 1v1 match clean on the main roster at all, his last lost was in 2012 Roadblock - Lost against Triple H due to the fact he threw off his gameplan and wanted to destroy him rather than win the match, he got the pin, feet were out of bounds and then he caused his own downfall, Trips didn't kick out of the Dirty Deeds It's not incredibly forced if you look at who they've made Ambrose beat, what he's taken, who he's come up against, how he's lost and what all he can do. It only looks forced to you when you only look at wins and loses when this company's shown us time and time again that at the end of the day that really doesn't matter much as much as people wishes it should. It's why there's a stipulation in this match in the first place. The reason there is one is because it raises Ambrose to Lesnar's level, gives him a higher chance of winning and it doesn't hurt Lesnar if he loses. If it didn't do that there would be no stipulation. |
|
|
|
Post by wingedeagle on Mar 25, 2016 4:29:45 GMT -5
Absolutely not! While I'm an Ambrose fan, it will make Lesnar look awful losing to a guy who's lost 13 PPVs since going solo from The Shield!
|
|
