Is Brock currently on a bigger reign of terror than HHH was?

[Unocal 76]

Say what you want about the 2002-2003-2004-2005 World Heavyweight Championship reigns of Triple H.... but I actually think Brock's current reign as Universal Champion is more of a reign of terror for these reasons:

1. Brock has been champion for 392 days. Even HHH's longest reign at 280 days was still 100+ days shorter.

2. HHH was still there every week. Yes, I know, the 20+ minute promos, but...... at least he usually showed up every Monday night (save for a stretch in September-October 2003 when he took some shows off, but did put up a $100,000 bounty on then-champ Goldberg). For all the issues of that Reign of Terror, at least he was never a Part Time Sporadic title holder.

3. HHH actually LOST the belt on his own. Whereas Brock 2.0 has NEVER been pinned in a title match (Only time he lost a title belt was when Rollins cashed in, but Roman took the pin). Contrast that with HHH actually losing the belt on his own (HBK, Goldberg, Benoit, Batista) where nobody else took the fall.

4. Brock has ALWAYS gone over in title matches recently. When he's the champ since 2014, save for that WM situation, belt on the line, he NEVER lost. HHH actually has a losing record in WM big title matches- hell, he has the most losses in WM history. He lost 3 straight WM title match main events and since 2004 has only won once in a big title match at WM.

5. It's the SAME schtick with Heyman. HHH at least would have something involving Flair and or Batista/Orton/Evolution.

Look, I'm not defending HHH and that run, but I think this might be worse. It's one thing to say he buried guys back in the day, but at least he was full-time and actually DROPPED the belt at times. Brock isn't even around on a consistent basis if he were to 'bury' a Reigns or Strowman or Joe.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy his long runs. But my god, it's one thing to be a long-time champion. It's another to not be consistent every week, which I think goes against being a long-term champion. If you're gonna hold the belt this long, why as a part-timer?

When Brock gets pinned to lose the Universal title, it'll be the first time. And he hasn't been pinned to lose a title match as champion since........... Eddie Guerrero in 2004 (Again, WM 31 was Rollins Curb Stomping Reigns, not Brock).

[Starshine]

Brock not being there >>> Trips boring and repetitive opening monologues.

Honestly, Brock not being there >>> Trips buttf*** boring title defences too.

[Malcolm]

Say what you will about the Reign of Terror, but at least Triple H was actually around, actually had contenders on a regular basis, and treated the belt like it was his child and the most important thing to him. Brock, on the other hand, seems to treat the belt like another worthless prop and makes people forget Raw even has a top championship.

[Deleted]

Apr 29, 2018 23:16:34 GMT -5 Malcolm said:

Say what you will about the Reign of Terror, but at least Triple H was actually around and treated the belt like is was his freakin child. Brock, on the other hand, seems to treat it like another prop.

Brock seems like he hates his job and is doing the bare minimum to not get fired.

[Deleted]

So this is where we are now

[Amazing Kitsune]

I get the Brock Lesnar fatigue. I don't get the Brock Lesnar hate to the point that people say he's lazy and doesn't care about his performance. I really feel like he does. I think the style in which he's booked and the style that he's gotten over has worn thin with a certain section of fans.

It's a matter of taste.

I think Lesnar's being booked in the most logical way possible. At the same time, I think there were opportunities for him to lose and build other people that have been squandered. I think that's something else that infuriates people.

[TWERKIN' MAGGLE]

Apr 29, 2018 23:25:18 GMT -5 Amazing Kitsune said:

I don't get the Brock Lesnar hate to the point that people say he's lazy and doesn't care about his performance.

Not calling the Dean Ambrose match, which should have been a star making match for Dean, a lazy effort on Brock's part is willful ignorance. Straight up.

[Sam Punk]

I think Brock not being around is actually better. He isn't burying people every week like haitch was.

[Starshine]

Apr 29, 2018 23:48:48 GMT -5 TWERKIN' MAGGLE said:

Apr 29, 2018 23:25:18 GMT -5 Amazing Kitsune said:

I don't get the Brock Lesnar hate to the point that people say he's lazy and doesn't care about his performance.

Not calling the Dean Ambrose match, which should have been a star making match for Dean, a lazy effort on Brock's part is willful ignorance. Straight up.

I was super underwhelming, yes. But it wasn't like the guy was sleepwalking through the thing. The match was technically fine, it just never came close to any of the expectations it promised.

[Deleted]

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I've been saying that for a while now and I'll break down why. A lot of the Reign of Terror is glossed over due to his long promos and wins but most people forget how it was at that time. It's like the nostalgia glasses of the Attitude Era in reverse.

For one, Triple H wasn't as dominating as Lesnar. Granted, the guy was a main event heel and he was strong but the guy always had this "ok Triple H needs his goons to get it done" thing about him. Let's look at this.

HBK, Orton, Benoit and Batista all went over HHH, hell Orton got his as well. Triple H was fine with guys going over him when the time came most cases and the guy even looked lame in the middle of the feuds. He always went out there, talked shit to the faces, got punked out and came back with his crew to beat them down. He rarely did things on his own and from an audience perspective he wasn't seen as some ass-kicker, he was seen as a rich guy who could only take care of business when his team wanted to eat well for the night. He was a joke. He wasn't even seen as that monster in the AA era, he was seen as a guy who became super rich and funny enough seemed lazy with the riches hence why he hired people. It's funny because his character seemed lazy while Lesnar's been called really lazy.

This isn't the case for Lesnar as Lesnar always wins. Lesnar's been at the top of the totem pole for years and unlike Triple H, the guy doesn't have goons. He doesn't use shenanigans like Trips to win, he doesn't use weapons to win, he doesn't use clever tactics to get his opponents off his back, he just goes out there and kicks ass and at the end of the day the big problem with that is this...it doesn't make anyone better besides Lesnar. In Triple H's case? It made HBK look great, it made Orton look great, Benoit look great, shit Steiner look great, everybody looked great. The problem wasn't the fact that they didn't look great, the problem was the fact that Triple H ended up getting the belt back or retaining the title due to his dudes and the guys he went over when he shouldn't have gone over them (Booker for example) Triple H had help beating them too. Whenever Triple H got the belt back it was mostly due to bullshit like him being randomly handed the belt and him winning due to help. Believe it or not, Triple H never won the belt on his own during this time. At all. The same can't be said for Lesnar as he's held the belt for a long ass time already and he did it with no help.

So we've established that Lesnar beats everyone alone and doesn't make anyone look great when they need it while Triple H on the other hand always needed help and made others look great against him.

Next, the promos, yeah those were some looooooonnnnnnnng ass promos. On the flip side almost every single promo ended with Trips being ran to the back and/or embarrassed. Those promos sucked but the faces didn't let that shit slide most of the time. We also need to look into those promos because one thing Triple H did is that he always showed up beaten, bruised, bandaged up and hyped up his last opponent who did that to him before he hyped himself up. It's not as if the face's damage against him went unnoticed. For Lesnar? Heyman does the same shit as always. He hyped Lesnar up but Lesnar is never bruised, shaken or phased by his opponent. Shit doesn't help anyone but Brock. Brock always rarely looks embarrassed.

Finally, let's go for length...

Triple H's Reign of Terror lasted 2.5 years.
Lesnar's Reign of Terror has lasted since he beat Taker at Wrestlemania which has been 4 years so far.
In Triple H's Reign you had 324 days when the guy wasn't even world champion.
You already know how it's been for Lesnar since he's beaten Taker.
In Triple H's Reign of Terror, the guy actually worked hard every single match to the point where he looked exhausted especially when his opponents were kicking his ass through it.
In Lesnar's Reign the guy's been called out for being lazy as hell and doing the same old shit every single time.

You can't even compare them to me anymore. Triple H's reign made more guys look better, made him look more defenseless, made more babyfaces and made more guys superstars compared to Lesnar's who's reign is all about Lesnar. If you just want to count Lesnar's Universal Title run then the same remains true.

Lesnar's Reign of Terror is worse than Triple H's overall. Absolutely.

[rocnsoc88]

No way. Triple H’s reign of terror was way worse.

Apr 29, 2018 23:10:07 GMT -5 Unocal 76 said:

1. Brock has been champion for 392 days. Even HHH's longest reign at 280 days was still 100+ days shorter.

Triple H had several reigns though. That was just the longest one. His title reigns from September 2002 to April 2005 were a total of 616 days. And that’s not including that time where it was vacated just so he could get it back.

2. HHH was still there every week. Yes, I know, the 20+ minute promos, but...... at least he usually showed up every Monday night (save for a stretch in September-October 2003 when he took some shows off, but did put up a $100,000 bounty on then-champ Goldberg). For all the issues of that Reign of Terror, at least he was never a Part Time Sporadic title holder.

Triple H being there every week made it worse. He was there every week to hold down other guys to the benefit of himself, and there was hardly ever a sense of upward trajectory for anybody who was beneath him. It was just him all the time with his monotonous promos at the center of Raw until Batista in 2005. And unlike Lesnar, there’s also the added layer of nepotism.

3. HHH actually LOST the belt on his own. Whereas Brock 2.0 has NEVER been pinned in a title match (Only time he lost a title belt was when Rollins cashed in, but Roman took the pin). Contrast that with HHH actually losing the belt on his own (HBK, Goldberg, Benoit, Batista) where nobody else took the fall.

Yeah, he would lose it but then he would just get it back fairly quickly. Or just still be at the center of the show when he wasn’t champion, before cutting the legs off of the momentum of guys who had their relatively brief reigns. Especially Orton.

4. Brock has ALWAYS gone over in title matches recently. When he's the champ since 2014, save for that WM situation, belt on the line, he NEVER lost. HHH actually has a losing record in WM big title matches- hell, he has the most losses in WM history. He lost 3 straight WM title match main events and since 2004 has only won once in a big title match at WM.

Because Lesnar’s a part-timer, he’s had relatively few title defenses. Way less than Triple H during his reign of terror. Lesnar’s only defended his title six times since winning it from Goldberg last year (Styles at Survivor Series wasn’t a title match).

Also, with Lesnar's current reign, there’s been the understanding ever since he won it at Wrestlemania 33 (and when he beat Cena for the title at Summerslam 2014 for that matter) that he was eventually going to put someone else over in a big way. Now, we may disagree with what that plan is and who the eventual winner is supposed to be, but at least it has that going for it.

5. It's the SAME schtick with Heyman. HHH at least would have something involving Flair and or Batista/Orton/Evolution.

I’ll give you that Flair back then was more entertaining than Heyman is now. So there’s that...

[Deleted]

Brock is not around often enough for me to care what he is doing.

HHH was wayyy worse because it was an endless nightmare of the same damn promo opening the show...same damn step by step booking of him overcoming ze odds even though he was the damn heel.

[Starshine]

I think people have forgotten how much of RAW revolved around Triple H during those years. Even when he wasn't champion, or chasing the belt, he was still the main focus of the show while whoever actually held the belt was marginalised in some lame-duck feud with Kane, or whoever.

[Malcolm]

Even if Trips did the same promo after retaining, at least something happened in those. Every promo with Brock Lesnar retaining is basically "Heyman talks while Lesnar stands around and smiles and nothing happens".

[hbkwrestlinggod]

Neither are reign of terrors, especially HHH. I think the idea of HHH's 2003-2005 run being the "reign of terror" is a complete incorrect myth. The HHH\Batista feud was the second biggest feud of the attitude era behind only Rock\Cena. Vengence 2005 HIAC rematch popped an incredible 420k ppv buys which was a buyrate shock at the time. The WM21 was built around HHH\Batista and did a buyrate of 980,000 the second best ever at the time behind only WM17. Regardless of if you didn't like any of HHH's other feuds in that 2003-2005 run, I'd say the Batista long term storytelling, feud, ultimate payoff is one of the greatest storylines in wrestling history. Batista was actually cemented as a mega star top guy of a brand by HHH and put over cleanly unlike the conclusion of Sting\Hogan. 

As far as Brock, I'm over his title reign reign and ready for a full timer to return. Brock has already done everything in this business and I would say is the greatest athlete in WWE history. I just think Brock's gone through everybody and there's really nothing left for him to do besides maybe a Batista\Lashley feud but those can easily be without the title. Time to give somebody else another chance and see if they can improve ratings as champion showing up weekly. At this point, I definitely don't want Reigns to beat Lesnar as he's had three chances to pin him and failed each time. From the looks of it though, Reign will finally beat Lesnar at Summerslam. I still think Brock has been built up as strong as anybody in WWE history and would give a huge rub to anybody but it looks like its all just going to Reigns for now. 

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

Apr 29, 2018 23:10:07 GMT -5 Unocal 76 said:

Say what you want about the 2002-2003-2004-2005 World Heavyweight Championship reigns of Triple H.... but I actually think Brock's current reign as Universal Champion is more of a reign of terror for these reasons:

1. Brock has been champion for 392 days. Even HHH's longest reign at 280 days was still 100+ days shorter.

2. HHH was still there every week. Yes, I know, the 20+ minute promos, but...... at least he usually showed up every Monday night (save for a stretch in September-October 2003 when he took some shows off, but did put up a $100,000 bounty on then-champ Goldberg). For all the issues of that Reign of Terror, at least he was never a Part Time Sporadic title holder.

3. HHH actually LOST the belt on his own. Whereas Brock 2.0 has NEVER been pinned in a title match (Only time he lost a title belt was when Rollins cashed in, but Roman took the pin). Contrast that with HHH actually losing the belt on his own (HBK, Goldberg, Benoit, Batista) where nobody else took the fall.

4. Brock has ALWAYS gone over in title matches recently. When he's the champ since 2014, save for that WM situation, belt on the line, he NEVER lost. HHH actually has a losing record in WM big title matches- hell, he has the most losses in WM history. He lost 3 straight WM title match main events and since 2004 has only won once in a big title match at WM.

5. It's the SAME schtick with Heyman. HHH at least would have something involving Flair and or Batista/Orton/Evolution.

Look, I'm not defending HHH and that run, but I think this might be worse. It's one thing to say he buried guys back in the day, but at least he was full-time and actually DROPPED the belt at times. Brock isn't even around on a consistent basis if he were to 'bury' a Reigns or Strowman or Joe.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy his long runs. But my god, it's one thing to be a long-time champion. It's another to not be consistent every week, which I think goes against being a long-term champion. If you're gonna hold the belt this long, why as a part-timer?

When Brock gets pinned to lose the Universal title, it'll be the first time. And he hasn't been pinned to lose a title match as champion since........... Eddie Guerrero in 2004 (Again, WM 31 was Rollins Curb Stomping Reigns, not Brock).

Brock just a terrible champion plan and simple. Even as a part timer he could do media or something with the title. It's fine if he not wrestling every week and ext. What makes it bad is when he not here, he is nowhere. They don't talk about him much when he gone, there nothing to fill the gap between his matches until he shows up. As a champion you could do talk shows or something but nope he just hiding in the mountains. Unless he facing AJ or multi person matches, most of Brock matches since Taker at WM have been terrible. Some blame Lazy and others say it booking. Look at his cage match at GRR, the match was video gamed because ALL they did 90 of the match was German Suplex and f5s from Brock, and Superman Punch and Spears from Reigns. No story, no flow or build to a finisher. The fact WM of all places wasn't much different. We can say all because the fans pop for the Suplexes and yeah for a little while They did but not so much in the last several matches did fans care.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Apr 29, 2018 23:48:48 GMT -5 TWERKIN' MAGGLE said:

Apr 29, 2018 23:25:18 GMT -5 Amazing Kitsune said:

I don't get the Brock Lesnar hate to the point that people say he's lazy and doesn't care about his performance.

Not calling the Dean Ambrose match, which should have been a star making match for Dean, a lazy effort on Brock's part is willful ignorance. Straight up.

Definitely - but this is the one example of that clearly being on Brock rather than anyone else. His entire reputation has been demolished by one match seemingly.

[theironyuppie]

Apr 30, 2018 0:33:36 GMT -5 Starshine said:

I think people have forgotten how much of RAW revolved around Triple H during those years. Even when he wasn't champion, or chasing the belt, he was still the main focus of the show while whoever actually held the belt was marginalised in some lame-duck feud with Kane, or whoever.

And when Triple H wasn't in the room, everyone had to say "Where's Triple H?"

[OVO 40 hunched over like he 80]

Brock barely appears and when he does it's just a segment.

Triple H cut 30 minute promos trying to be Ric Flair with Ric Flair kissing his ass and yelling "you go champ".

Ever wonder why when people talk about their favorite wwe memories of the early to mid 2000s nobody mentions raw? Because of the reign of terror.

[mcstoklasa]

Regarding kn’s Point that Lesnar always go over without shenanigans: Brock isn’t an outright heel like hhh was. He’s a dominant monster that gets mostly cheers. He hasn’t displayed chickenshit heel tendencies since the crap feud with triple h in 2013. However against reigns in the cell, Heyman did lend Brock a hand for the first time in what, five years?