|
|
Post by ChitownKnight on Jan 24, 2024 1:01:12 GMT -5
He broke the streak, decimated Cena and ended his top guy run. He had 5 world title reigns during that time period, one of them lasting a year and a half, Main evented 3 manias and was in the world title match for 4. It also seemed like they were gun-shy with Roman at the time.
|
|
UN PLOMBIER NIGHTMARE #blm
Fry's dog Seymour
Sponsored by Arizona Green Tea/Peanuts But Only At Baseball Stadiums/Biscuits Cat Adoption Agency
Posts: 24,382 
|
Post by UN PLOMBIER NIGHTMARE #blm on Jan 24, 2024 1:10:03 GMT -5
Maybe but I didn’t give a shit about him lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by ChitownKnight on Jan 24, 2024 1:12:12 GMT -5
Maybe but I didn’t give a shit about him lmao His run would of been way better if he wrestled atleast once a month |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 24, 2024 3:07:23 GMT -5
No.
I am a huge fan of Brock. But 'the guy' shows up every week.
|
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 24, 2024 10:09:45 GMT -5
Lesnar was easily top guy regardless of what the people in here will say.
When he showed up, it was about him. It didn't happen til Wrestlemania 30, prior to that Brock was in a weird run where he lost to Cena in his first match back, but then beat Triple H that Summerslam, only to lose to him at Wrestlemania but beat him the month after. He then beat Punk at Summerslam 2013 and proceeded to just be there until the Taker match. Leading up there was doubt Brock would win given the streak and the fact Taker hadn't beaten Brock on TV up til that point, even during the 2002/2003 feud.
Instead the streak ended, time stopped and one can argue Vince saw something that night and pushed forward with Brock as the top guy.
He destroyed Cena at Summerslam 2014 and Cena never truly got back to that spot again, in spite of holding a few more titles. From there they built him up as almost the main character, in spite of limited appearances. Roman is on that same model right now and it hasn't yet to mean he isn't the main guy.
Brock after 2014 almost Main Evented every show he appeared in and was always featured as the top guy.
Did it suck to watch? At times, yes.
Personally I thought Brock had a lot of good matches and was portrayed and written very well. The problem is and what I understand is moreso that he existed on a limited basis for the entire 6 year run, which is a creative problem more than anything. For the amount of times he appeared, it should have been 3 years at most, but WWE in the late 2010s seemed like they weren't sure who to run with at times, but Brock was a guarantee over, which is why it ran nearly 6 years until Roman took that spot in late 2020.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 24, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Nah it was still Cena then Roman. While Brock was a fixture, he was never presented as the central focus of the show. He's always been an obstacle to overcome more than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 24, 2024 11:27:54 GMT -5
Lesnar was easily top guy regardless of what the people in here will say. When he showed up, it was about him. It didn't happen til Wrestlemania 30, prior to that Brock was in a weird run where he lost to Cena in his first match back, but then beat Triple H that Summerslam, only to lose to him at Wrestlemania but beat him the month after. He then beat Punk at Summerslam 2013 and proceeded to just be there until the Taker match. Leading up there was doubt Brock would win given the streak and the fact Taker hadn't beaten Brock on TV up til that point, even during the 2002/2003 feud. Instead the streak ended, time stopped and one can argue Vince saw something that night and pushed forward with Brock as the top guy. He destroyed Cena at Summerslam 2014 and Cena never truly got back to that spot again, in spite of holding a few more titles. From there they built him up as almost the main character, in spite of limited appearances. Roman is on that same model right now and it hasn't yet to mean he isn't the main guy. Brock after 2014 almost Main Evented every show he appeared in and was always featured as the top guy. Did it suck to watch? At times, yes. Personally I thought Brock had a lot of good matches and was portrayed and written very well. The problem is and what I understand is moreso that he existed on a limited basis for the entire 6 year run, which is a creative problem more than anything. For the amount of times he appeared, it should have been 3 years at most, but WWE in the late 2010s seemed like they weren't sure who to run with at times, but Brock was a guarantee over, which is why it ran nearly 6 years until Roman took that spot in late 2020. Hard disagree. Brock was 80s Andre. Special attraction, separate to the guy. |
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 24, 2024 11:44:19 GMT -5
Lesnar was easily top guy regardless of what the people in here will say. When he showed up, it was about him. It didn't happen til Wrestlemania 30, prior to that Brock was in a weird run where he lost to Cena in his first match back, but then beat Triple H that Summerslam, only to lose to him at Wrestlemania but beat him the month after. He then beat Punk at Summerslam 2013 and proceeded to just be there until the Taker match. Leading up there was doubt Brock would win given the streak and the fact Taker hadn't beaten Brock on TV up til that point, even during the 2002/2003 feud. Instead the streak ended, time stopped and one can argue Vince saw something that night and pushed forward with Brock as the top guy. He destroyed Cena at Summerslam 2014 and Cena never truly got back to that spot again, in spite of holding a few more titles. From there they built him up as almost the main character, in spite of limited appearances. Roman is on that same model right now and it hasn't yet to mean he isn't the main guy. Brock after 2014 almost Main Evented every show he appeared in and was always featured as the top guy. Did it suck to watch? At times, yes. Personally I thought Brock had a lot of good matches and was portrayed and written very well. The problem is and what I understand is moreso that he existed on a limited basis for the entire 6 year run, which is a creative problem more than anything. For the amount of times he appeared, it should have been 3 years at most, but WWE in the late 2010s seemed like they weren't sure who to run with at times, but Brock was a guarantee over, which is why it ran nearly 6 years until Roman took that spot in late 2020. Hard disagree. Brock was 80s Andre. Special attraction, separate to the guy. Stronger disagree. Andre never had as much TV time. Who would you place as the top guy for 2014-20? |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 24, 2024 11:56:09 GMT -5
Hard disagree. Brock was 80s Andre. Special attraction, separate to the guy. Stronger disagree. Andre never had as much TV time. Who would you place as the top guy for 2014-20? I mean, there wasn't anywhere near as much TV for him to have more TV time. Probably nobody was the guy in that time frame. I don't think a promotion needs a top guy. They didn't even make it Roman with their full chest. Brock could go months without even being mentioned sometimes |
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 24, 2024 11:58:42 GMT -5
Stronger disagree. Andre never had as much TV time. Who would you place as the top guy for 2014-20? I mean, there wasn't anywhere near as much TV for him to have more TV time. Probably nobody was the guy in that time frame. I don't think a promotion needs a top guy. They didn't even make it Roman with their full chest. Brock could go months without even being mentioned sometimes He could but even when he wasn't around, he was a focus. |
|
DichEvans
Samurai Cop
Lenny Lazy Lane Stinks
Posts: 2,245
|
Post by DichEvans on Jan 24, 2024 12:01:59 GMT -5
I think he was more the Andre/Taker "Special Attraction" type. Despite not really being over at the time, I would still say Roman was the guy.
It's weird now, that Roman is both THE guy and a special attraction.
|
|
schma
El Dandy
Who are you to doubt me?
Posts: 7,545
|
Post by schma on Jan 24, 2024 12:19:11 GMT -5
I mean, there wasn't anywhere near as much TV for him to have more TV time. Probably nobody was the guy in that time frame. I don't think a promotion needs a top guy. They didn't even make it Roman with their full chest. Brock could go months without even being mentioned sometimes He could but even when he wasn't around, he was a focus. During his one reign he was so absent that I genuinely forgot he was champion multiple times. We're talking I literally had to google who the champion was because I couldn't for the life of me remember. Apart from the occasional Paul Heyman proposal he was out of sight and out of mind, not mentioned by commentary or other wrestlers. The Andre comparison seems fitting. |
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 24, 2024 12:31:18 GMT -5
He could but even when he wasn't around, he was a focus. During his one reign he was so absent that I genuinely forgot he was champion multiple times. We're talking I literally had to google who the champion was because I couldn't for the life of me remember. Apart from the occasional Paul Heyman proposal he was out of sight and out of mind, not mentioned by commentary or other wrestlers. The Andre comparison seems fitting. Andre never held the belt or was seen as a focus. Brock was. Andre really wasn't a focus til the Hogan feud, before that he was an Upper Midcarder at best, similar to Undertaker pre 1996. Brock was more like the NWA Champion. |
|
|
|
Post by Aceorton on Jan 24, 2024 12:42:31 GMT -5
Stronger disagree. Andre never had as much TV time. Who would you place as the top guy for 2014-20? I mean, there wasn't anywhere near as much TV for him to have more TV time. Wait. What is happening here? Andre may not have *wrestled* on TV very often in the '80s golden era, but he appeared on most shows in some form or another (promos with Heenan, special update segments, Brother Love, etc.) and was part of the sell for most of their PPVs until 1990. And he was also on the road all the time doing house shows. Do a find for "Andre" in the ring results for 1989: thehistoryofwwe.com/wwf-results-1989/Boss Monster Lesnar from 2014-2020 didn't put in a fraction of the work Andre did. |
|
schma
El Dandy
Who are you to doubt me?
Posts: 7,545
|
Post by schma on Jan 24, 2024 13:26:54 GMT -5
During his one reign he was so absent that I genuinely forgot he was champion multiple times. We're talking I literally had to google who the champion was because I couldn't for the life of me remember. Apart from the occasional Paul Heyman proposal he was out of sight and out of mind, not mentioned by commentary or other wrestlers. The Andre comparison seems fitting. Andre never held the belt or was seen as a focus. Brock was. Andre really wasn't a focus til the Hogan feud, before that he was an Upper Midcarder at best, similar to Undertaker pre 1996. Brock was more like the NWA Champion. Andre technically held the belt briefly. The reason I find the comparison apt is that both were special attractions. Yeah Brock was always prominent when he was around, but then so was Andre. He was a guy that for many represented an unbeatable foe, much like Brock. Brock was a special attraction in that when he bothered to actually show up, he was prominent. However, when he was off screen no one was asking where Poochy Brock was. We'd go weeks or months without so much as a word about him even when he was champ to the point where the MITB holder was basically seen as the champ. Both Andre and Brock were also once in a lifetime athletes/personas. As much as I shit on Brock's lazy matches where he does the bare minimum, I will fully acknowledge that there is something unique about him. Also consider, Brock broke the streak, but Andre ended Hogan's championship run. For years Hogan had fended off anyone and everyone. Beating him for the title was a massive deal. I think there's a lot to the similarities between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 24, 2024 13:27:18 GMT -5
I mean, there wasn't anywhere near as much TV for him to have more TV time. Wait. What is happening here? Andre may not have *wrestled* on TV very often in the '80s golden era, but he appeared on most shows in some form or another (promos with Heenan, special update segments, Brother Love, etc.) and was part of the sell for most of their PPVs until 1990. And he was also on the road all the time doing house shows. Do a find for "Andre" in the ring results for 1989: thehistoryofwwe.com/wwf-results-1989/Boss Monster Lesnar from 2014-2020 didn't put in a fraction of the work Andre did. Even less argument for Lesnar to have been The Guy if he showed up less than Andre did |
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Jan 24, 2024 13:33:20 GMT -5
Can we? Yes.
Should we? Probably not.
Will we? Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Jan 24, 2024 17:45:49 GMT -5
Andre never held the belt or was seen as a focus. Brock was. Andre really wasn't a focus til the Hogan feud, before that he was an Upper Midcarder at best, similar to Undertaker pre 1996. Brock was more like the NWA Champion. Andre technically held the belt briefly. The reason I find the comparison apt is that both were special attractions. Yeah Brock was always prominent when he was around, but then so was Andre. He was a guy that for many represented an unbeatable foe, much like Brock. Brock was a special attraction in that when he bothered to actually show up, he was prominent. However, when he was off screen no one was asking where Poochy Brock was. We'd go weeks or months without so much as a word about him even when he was champ to the point where the MITB holder was basically seen as the champ. Both Andre and Brock were also once in a lifetime athletes/personas. As much as I shit on Brock's lazy matches where he does the bare minimum, I will fully acknowledge that there is something unique about him. Also consider, Brock broke the streak, but Andre ended Hogan's championship run. For years Hogan had fended off anyone and everyone. Beating him for the title was a massive deal. I think there's a lot to the similarities between the two. I can agree to that extent, he was a special attraction and a focus when there. It just feels like the main story arc of that era was who could beat Brock. I think a lot of that though has to do with Vince changing the way the company was approaching creative in that era. A part timer World Champion had never happened in the WWE or the WWF. The Rock's 2013 run withstanding, it just wasn't a thing and Brock's case was very unique. That's a reason Andre never got the belt prior to 1988 and why Taker was kept away from the belt after 1991 until 1997. They went the other direction here and I do agree it hurt the company in the sense of it created a whole in the World Championship picture but it also allowed a new focus and a unique way of writing that I feel they handled poorly due to indecision on terms of a direction after Brock. Roman without a doubt was suppose to be that guy at 31 but it failed. Rollins was a Heel but wasn't booked as the lead character during his time or got pushed as such until 2019 when he beat Brock. Even though they had tried Roman again at 34 and it backfired. AJ Styles came in but you can tell they didn't want to go there. A product perhaps of too much talent but its a lot of batters with no pitchers. |
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone.
Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 24,163
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jan 24, 2024 18:03:14 GMT -5
He was certainly the cloud that hung over everything.
There was no point in investing in anything on the men's side of things because it all got sacrificed to Brock.
I'm still not entirely convinced he won't be the one to beat Roman. Again.
|
|
