As long as he puts the time in yes. I'm not saying he should be on every house show but if they do have him hold the title until 'Mania then he needs to appear on more than one RAW every month and has to wrestle on every PPV between then and now, and if I was him considering he beat 'Taker at WM30 I would do that.
Post by punksnotdead on Jul 21, 2014 7:51:26 GMT -5
I like Brock. I think he's a massive mountain of a man and he's the kind of guy that can instantly legitimize a world title. He's great for business.
That being said, I really don't care about business from a fan standpoint. As a fan, I see a guy who shows up a dozen times a year, gets paid a crazy amount of money and doesn't have anywhere near the mass appeal of a guy like The Rock. Do I have a problem with him winning the title? Not really because I understand why it's happening. Do I think it's fair? Not particularly, no. I think if Brock's title win wasn't coming against John Cena, that more people would have a bigger problem with it. I actually don't think it's fair for Cena, the face of the company, to serve as a transitional champion, but nobody else is at a level where they can do it. It's hard telling what this would have looked like had Daniel Bryan made it to SummerSlam with the title and had the fans not backed off the gas on Bryan the entire time. I think far fewer people would have been rooting for Brock against Bryan than they are Brock against Cena.
Big picture, it's really not that big of a deal for Brock to win the title imo. Roman Reigns isn't winning until at least WrestleMania, and Rollins can be positioned to win at any point when this is over because of the case. I thought Cena vs Brock at ER was incredible. So if we can get a match or two like that then I have no complaints. The youth movement is going to continue as soon as it's over. So I'll take Brock coming in and shaking the card up for 2-3 PPVs, over watching Cena vs Orton or Kane for the 25th time.
Only if Cena isn't the guy to beat Brock again. That includes Cena winning then getting cashed in on.
Brock likely won't even wrestle anyone else in that time period though, so he absolutely has to lose it back to Cena because he'll be gone. There is an extremely high chance that's exactly how it plays out imo. I expect Cena tying Flair to be all of a 3-5 minute title reign.
Post by CMPUNKISGOOD on Jul 21, 2014 8:06:01 GMT -5
No he shows up for a month breaks the streak goes away for about 4 months wins the belts, shows up the next ppv wins, won't return until after Royal Rumble. No, IMO a champion as to be their almost every Raw and/or Smackdown and defend the belt at every PPV.
Long answer: Yes, because he's Brock ing Lesnar though if the idea is he has to lose the belt back to Cena, then forget it. Then again, I'm not gonna have a WWE Network subscription anymore after SummerSlam, so let 'em do whatever they want.
I'm more concerned whether or not Brock's gonna be more active if he gets the belt. If he's not, then I'm against it. If he is going to be more active being around a couple of Raws here and there and defending the title on PPV, then I'm more open to it.
Only if Cena isn't the guy to beat Brock again. That includes Cena winning then getting cashed in on.
Yep. If only Bryan was healthy after SS.
Do people really want Reigns to take the Title off Brock? That would most likely turn out to be a huge mistake. A returning Bryan would be the only logical and realistic guy to beat Brock.
Only if Cena isn't the guy to beat Brock again. That includes Cena winning then getting cashed in on.
Yep. If only Bryan was healthy after SS.
Do people really want Reigns to take the Title off Brock? That would most likely turn out to be a huge mistake. A returning Bryan would be the only logical and realistic guy to beat Brock.
How is Bryan more logical than Reigns at this point?