"The Wrong Guy Went Over"

[King Pitcos]

Looking at what a star attraction Lesnar has became ever since he started smashing fuck out of guys like Taker and Cena last year, it really makes those losses to Cena and Triple H when he came in look pretty dumb.

 

Not really. Even leaving aside how the 2012 Cena/Lesnar stuff was absolutely perfect as it was (bar that week where they thought Brock could do live promos), they'd never have kept a three year undefeated streak for him. He'd have been beaten at some point before now, perhaps even cleanly if it had come at a point where they weren't scared of going all the way with a push of someone new.

[ColinBollocks]

Cena just came off that loss to The Rock too. While Cena is pretty bulletproof, having him lose two big matches in a row isn't ideal - he's not some CM Punk, he's the difference year round.

 

It worked out anyway. Lesnar now being "100%" has been unstoppable.

[PowerButchi]

Lex Luger's opponent in pretty much any match of note he had other than Hogan on Nitro in 97 and Windham at the 91 Bash. He was hot in 1988, and was a more than quality wrestler at that point as well doing sterling work with Barry Windham in tags and in feuds, certainly better than Sting was, but then he dropped 2 PPV main events to Flair by dubious nature and forever started his trajectory of choker. He spent 1989 in the US title spot still putting on some quality matches, especially against Steamboat. Then, with Sting injured in 1990 he fell into the top spot again, taking on Flair at Wrestlewar (choked) then at Capital Combat in some prototypical Hell in a Cell which was an awesome match, but he somehow managed to choke again. It was too late in 1991, he'd bulked up too much, stopped being motivated, and wasn't hot either. I think his only decent match that year was vs Dan Spivey at WrestleWar. Then, here comes 1993. And Luger chokes again! And at Wrestlemania X. 

[air_raid]

Plus having him drop the belt back to Hollywood five days after the Nitro you mention made Lex look weak, or at the very least stupid for not having the Giant, the Steiners, Dallas Page or FUCKING ANYONE watching his back knowing that the order were going to interfere. I know they need the belt on Hogan for the inevitable Sting match, but they didn't need to make Luger look like such a wally in the interim, especially after all the champagne and cleaning off the belt bollocks, and especially after the build Luger had received, between his valiant effort at Uncensored, non title win over Hogan on a Nitro in June, and making him submit again at Bash At The Beach. Road Wild was essentially "Luger? FUCK Luger."

[PBWFan]

What I meant was if wyatt had beaten taker than Lesnar's win against taker would have just been the norm. Lesnar's character that he is now, for me, was built on ending that streak.

 

Wyatt does it aswell then Lesnar doesn't look as strong for having done it.

 

Doesn't seem too hilarious to me.

[Keith Houchen]

But it doesn't change the fact that Lesnars ENDED the streak. Only one person can end an undefeated record. Hell, you could argue that even a year afterwards, Lesnar fucked up Taker so much that even Wyatt beat him. A whole year after Lesnar.

 

Taker could lose another 10 mania matches. It would never make Lesnar's win the norm.

[air_raid]

What I meant was if wyatt had beaten taker than Lesnar's win against taker would have just been the norm.

 

Ending the most celebrated winning streak in the history of professional wrestling cannot be retconned to "the norm" no matter how much you want it to be. Those shocked faces, the shock every wrestling fan on Earth watching felt, the fact that it was one of the biggest achievements in company history..... just, no. Brock Lesnar beating the Undertaker at WrestleMania does not magically become "the norm" just because someone does it subsequently, that's insane. He did it FIRST. He did it when everyone on the planet thought it was IMPOSSIBLE. His win can affect the likelihood going forward of somebody else being able to do it and the inherent shock value or enormity of Wyatt, or anyone else, beating him, but an effect cannot travel backwards. That result being thought of as "the norm" ???????? Fuck me ragged. If you want to start arguing that effects can travel backwards, then the fact Shawn Michaels became one of the best wrestlers of all time means that Paul Roma must have been fucking awesome, because he pinned Shawn a shitload of times in 1990. Same logic.

 

Doesn't seem too hilarious to me.

 

"We'll agree to disagree" is putting it extremely mildly.

[PBWFan]

Lesnar beats taker at mania. Fans lose their mind as you said. The very next year Bray Wyatt does the same thing. With the time frame being only twelve months surely the casual fan would bring Lesnar's win into question? It's likely a factor behind why Taker did actually go over at Mania.

 

It's not insane but yeah let's "agree to disagree" and keep it extremely mild.

[hallicks]

Wyatt should have beaten Cena at WM30. He would have been established as a genuine threat on the biggest stage. Instead, he loses and comes out the next night and says "I don't really care about winning anyway" and no-one's really given a shit since. That terrible cage match win the next month did nothing for him.

 

Let's say Lesnar hadn't lost to Cena and HHH since being back, and then he's booked against the Undertaker's streak. Maybe the build and general audience reaction to that match might not have sucked so much.

[air_raid]

It's likely a factor behind why Taker did actually go over at Mania.

 

I think it's got less than the square root of fuck-all to do with Lesnar and more to do with the fact they don't want to present the Undertaker as completely on his way out, which losing to a guy as inconsistent as Bray Wyatt would do. "The Undertaker at WrestleMania" is still, apparently, a big part of the show, and now he's stronger for next year, rather than being a guy in the obvious winter of his career who had a whole year to heal up for his only match of the year against a relative mid-card act and still managed to lose.

 

It's a shame Triple H beat Sting, else the "give Undertaker and Sting wins and they fight next year" argument would be getting wheeled out here.

 

Wyatt should have beaten Cena at WM30. He would have been established as a genuine threat on the biggest stage. Instead, he loses and comes out the next night and says "I don't really care about winning anyway" and no-one's really given a shit since. That terrible cage match win the next month did nothing for him.

 

Agreed. Cena winning the feud in the end is fine, but Bray should have been permitted to win the first match.

 

Let's say Lesnar hadn't lost to Cena and HHH since being back, and then he's booked against the Undertaker's streak. Maybe the build and general audience reaction to that match might not have sucked so much.

 

I think the reaction might have had less to do with the build and more because the match itself was plodding and dull.

[King Pitcos]

Let's say Lesnar hadn't lost to Cena and HHH since being back, and then he's booked against the Undertaker's streak. Maybe the build and general audience reaction to that match might not have sucked so much.

 

Not if he'd lost to CM Punk at the SummerSlam before, or to whoever he'd have fought at Extreme Rules 2013 if the HHH feud ended at 0-0 and didn't need a rubber match. Or even if he'd not fought HHH the second time, and lost to someone else at WrestleMania 29. WWE's plan was never going to be "let him steamroll over everyone and maybe lose to someone new in three or four years." As best as can be made out, the decision for him to end the streak was only made on the day because Undertaker turned up like shite, and that formed a plan that was only one year, and they couldn't even stick to that in the end. There's no way they'd have ever done a multi-year plan that involved him beating three of the biggest stars they've ever had with only a vague, distant endgame in mind. So he'd have lost way before now -- and who knows whether he'd have come back from a first loss, if that unbeaten thing was 100% of his act.

 

We'd have had a less classic Extreme Rules 2012 match, not had the cracking Triple H cage match at all, and most likely be left with Brock nowhere near as big as he is now because his supermonstermegapush would've peaked and ended ages ago. And as a bonus shitterfly effect, it might have prevented the Daniel Bryan title push story from happening.

[ColinBollocks]

WWE had no clue how long Lesnar was sticking around for past his first contract. The plan originally was supposedly for Lesnar to basically put over their stars, but Lesnar turned out to be good value and that's him been with the company for 3 years (yep, a little too fast), so WWE have protected their investment.

 

Also, the fact nobody expected Lesnar to win was exactly why that moment was brilliant. Despite the couple of losses pre-'Mania 30, Lesnar is the best thing going and their hottest babyface. Can't wait for him to turn up in the Summer with a gaudy Suplex City t-shirt.

[fraserbee]

Lex Luger's opponent in pretty much any match of note he had other than Hogan on Nitro in 97 and Windham at the 91 Bash. He was hot in 1988, and was a more than quality wrestler at that point as well doing sterling work with Barry Windham in tags and in feuds, certainly better than Sting was, but then he dropped 2 PPV main events to Flair by dubious nature and forever started his trajectory of choker. He spent 1989 in the US title spot still putting on some quality matches, especially against Steamboat. Then, with Sting injured in 1990 he fell into the top spot again, taking on Flair at Wrestlewar (choked) then at Capital Combat in some prototypical Hell in a Cell which was an awesome match, but he somehow managed to choke again. It was too late in 1991, he'd bulked up too much, stopped being motivated, and wasn't hot either. I think his only decent match that year was vs Dan Spivey at WrestleWar. Then, here comes 1993. And Luger chokes again! And at Wrestlemania X.

A perfect answer. I actually said more-or-less the same thing a page or so ago but somehow my posts seem to pretty much invisible on here!

It's amazing how often Luger was right on the cusp of being the next big thing only for the promotion to lose their nerve and cut him off.

[The Invisible Boy]

I hated Sandow losing his Money in the Bank cash in match. I understand the WWE Title was the big belt at the time but his briefcase was for the World Heavyweight Title, so it wasn't even like it was for what was recognised as the big Title. Now obviously John Cena was the World Heavyweight Champion but I imagine if Sandow had won that match he would have had a totally different path from there. As things went Sandow was the second Money in the Bank holder to cash in and not end up with the Title, the first being John Cena. However Cena didn't get the Title due to beating CM Punk in his cash in match by DQ and Titles can't change hands on a DQ. Sandow on the other hand was the first Money in the Bank winner who had never held the WWE or World Heavyweight Title to go on and lose his cash in match. He was also the first and only man to ever cash in and lose his cash-in match after John Cena gave him an Attitude Adjustment,

 

From there I think Sandow began appearing as comic relief, doing impressions and then moving on to be The Miz's stunt double and personal assistant. Whereas to think what Sandow could have been capable of it really is annoying. I remember Sandow used to get great pops and I used to love his Intellectual Saviour gimmick as I imagine a lot did too. A loss for Cena would not have been bad at all considering how a cash in can take place when the Champion is down and out. He could have been built up as such an awesome heel Champion but alas, he became an impressionist and eventually Damien Mizdow, who I actually loved him as but I would have preferred Sandow as World Heavyweight Champion.

[King Pitcos]

He'd have lost the title back to Cena very quickly, either at the next PPV or more likely, on Raw the week after he won it (if not later in the same night). Randy Orton vs Damien Sandow wasn't going to be the title unification match.