No chance. No chance in the house. 4 years of build just for Roman to win on a technicality. Undertaker lost his streak so that Brock can put someone over big.
If Not Roman, Who?
- Thread starter Redboy123@
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
I say Bobby Lashley. That would make for a great match up, IMO.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
- Messages
- 14,732
- Reaction score
- 10,647
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 41
- Location
- Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Sounds like a Vince idea to me...
Russo that is...
:emoji_stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
Undertaker's streak has nothig to do with this...and
whatever the streak was worth was wasted when
Goldberg bitched Brock in 86 seconds.
Undertaker put Brock over big at Mania so that he could eventually put Roman over even more. Even though that plan changed with Goldberg. The orginal intention is still a valid point. Brock isnt going to lose by a descion turn based on a technicality days after the match.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
- Messages
- 14,732
- Reaction score
- 10,647
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 41
- Location
- Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Unless he "takes his ball & goes home" & doesn't give the WWE a choice in the matter.
Perhaps Lesnar simply doesn't want to put Reigns over?
Has anyone thought of that?
I think Brock is gonna have the title on him for awhile. Maybe until Wm35. I think Vince likes the fact that Lesnar is turning more heel again because basically everyone is sick of him holding the title and being part time. But hes an over paid, legit combat sports badass, so whose gonna take it from him? Then u got Paul Heyman, former ECW owner and just all around sleazeball who is getting his meal ticket from Lesnar, which I'm sure WWE hates lol. That they gotta have Heyman stick around and collect fat pay checks all cuz Brock wont go anywhere without him.
I think it would be a good thing to have Bobby win the title off him for many reasons.
Had Big E moved away from the New Day, I would have wanted him to be the first but let Bobby be the first black man to hold the big title.
Yes, I know Rock is half-black but he never came off as black. He always worked his Samoan angle more. Bobby also has a background in MMA so it just makes sense.
It isn't like he is some no-name guy and it would be WAY more suiting to have two MMA guys feuding vs Brock and a block of wood.
Had Big E moved away from the New Day, I would have wanted him to be the first but let Bobby be the first black man to hold the big title.
Yes, I know Rock is half-black but he never came off as black. He always worked his Samoan angle more. Bobby also has a background in MMA so it just makes sense.
It isn't like he is some no-name guy and it would be WAY more suiting to have two MMA guys feuding vs Brock and a block of wood.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2016
- Messages
- 44,448
- Reaction score
- 19,920
- Points
- 128
- Location
- New Brunswick, Canada
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
- Favorite Sports Team
-
But still, the fact that WWE hasn't had an actual African American as WWE Champion yet is shocking. They have touched the Big Gold belt, with Booker T (King BOOKAH!) and Mark Henry, but not the WWE Championship. But Big E I'm sure can be a great champion once New Day eventually would split. Heck, even Kofi proved at points he has/had main event potential, even if he would be a transitional champion.
ity:Mark should have been the first. I was never big on Booker T myself but Mark was everything that Vince seemed to get juiced up for.
R Truth should of won it. Too bad he failed a drug test or whatever
It SHOULD be Braun Strowman he’s over with the fans he’s got Vince McMahon’s look in being a muscle guy and he actually is a good wrestler. Why Vince has not put the belt on him is just completely ridiculous. I like Bobby Lashley but he just came back so he should not be the one to end Brock Lesnar title run.
I'm finding this "Lesnar beat the Streak to give the rub to Roman Reigns" to be ridiculous fan fiction at this point. While I will agree that there has been an obvious program to build Roman, who may eventually benefit from it, I do NOT believe that is the reason the Streak was ended. First off, neither Vince nor anyone in the WWE has ever stated this as being the case. When Vince himself has talked about it, he has never indicated any such thing. He, in fact, came right out and said that the reason Lesnar broke the streak was because he was the only person left who was a realistic choice to do so. Being someone who never cared for the Streak to begin with, I always expected Vince to eventually end it. It has never been in his nature to let something like that stay intact indefinitely. He just never had someone he considered to be the realistic opponent until Lesnar came back.
The entire premise is ridiculous too. Let's have Brock Lesnar beat the Undertaker's Streak so Roman Reigns can beat him and be a bigger star, because obviously that's the same thing as Roman beating Undertaker... except it's not. And in fact, WWE has made the point over and over the past 30 years that anyone can beat anyone on any given night. It they wanted to give Roman a boost by beating the man who beat the Undertaker, they would have had Roman be the guy who beat the Streak. They would not have set him up simply as the guy who beat the guy who beat the Streak.
And yeah, I hear the nonsense about how WWE wouldn't have had Roman beat the Undertaker's Streak because he would have been booed but I find that to be absolute drivel as well. If Roman went in as a face, had the fan support (since at the time the Streak was broken Roman actually DID have fan support), had him beat the Undertaker and had the Undertaker be gracious in defeat, it wouldn't have turned Roman into a heel.
IN FACT, this probably would have done more to help Roman than to hurt him. WWE could have had Lesnar lose to Undertaker and the following year had Roman face Undertaker. Keeping Roman out of the title match at Mania 31 would have likely satiated the Daniel Bryan fanbase who felt Roman was inserted at Bryan's detriment. People wouldn't have felt Roman was being forced down their throats as the de facto champion/face of the company while they were still hot on Bryan, there wouldn't have been as high a backlash and Roman would have been given the time to grow and possibly go on to the following Mania to win a world title with more fan support.
So, I have never seen any credible evidence that the streak ended to give the rub to Roman to be anything more than fan theory. And I don't count "insiders" whose names don't end with McMahon as being credible sources on this.
Now, if this was WWE's intention, it doesn't matter anymore. Lesnar just beat Reigns two matches in a row... and I Don't care about the nonsense about Roman's feet hitting the floor and Brock's didn't when the ref called the match one way, it was a defeat. So what now, after three attempts and three failures to beat Lesnar, Roman beats him a third time and that makes him a beast slayer? Nonsense.
Goldberg slayed the Beast. Whatever is going on now is scavenging the carcass.
The entire premise is ridiculous too. Let's have Brock Lesnar beat the Undertaker's Streak so Roman Reigns can beat him and be a bigger star, because obviously that's the same thing as Roman beating Undertaker... except it's not. And in fact, WWE has made the point over and over the past 30 years that anyone can beat anyone on any given night. It they wanted to give Roman a boost by beating the man who beat the Undertaker, they would have had Roman be the guy who beat the Streak. They would not have set him up simply as the guy who beat the guy who beat the Streak.
And yeah, I hear the nonsense about how WWE wouldn't have had Roman beat the Undertaker's Streak because he would have been booed but I find that to be absolute drivel as well. If Roman went in as a face, had the fan support (since at the time the Streak was broken Roman actually DID have fan support), had him beat the Undertaker and had the Undertaker be gracious in defeat, it wouldn't have turned Roman into a heel.
IN FACT, this probably would have done more to help Roman than to hurt him. WWE could have had Lesnar lose to Undertaker and the following year had Roman face Undertaker. Keeping Roman out of the title match at Mania 31 would have likely satiated the Daniel Bryan fanbase who felt Roman was inserted at Bryan's detriment. People wouldn't have felt Roman was being forced down their throats as the de facto champion/face of the company while they were still hot on Bryan, there wouldn't have been as high a backlash and Roman would have been given the time to grow and possibly go on to the following Mania to win a world title with more fan support.
So, I have never seen any credible evidence that the streak ended to give the rub to Roman to be anything more than fan theory. And I don't count "insiders" whose names don't end with McMahon as being credible sources on this.
Now, if this was WWE's intention, it doesn't matter anymore. Lesnar just beat Reigns two matches in a row... and I Don't care about the nonsense about Roman's feet hitting the floor and Brock's didn't when the ref called the match one way, it was a defeat. So what now, after three attempts and three failures to beat Lesnar, Roman beats him a third time and that makes him a beast slayer? Nonsense.
Goldberg slayed the Beast. Whatever is going on now is scavenging the carcass.