Should/Could Lesnar Remain Undefeated Till Wrestlemania 32?

[Lockard 23]

As everyone knows (or may not know), Wrestlemania 32 is already being considered a bigger-deal-than-the-usual-Wrestlemania because it's being booked in the AT&T Stadium, which has an 80,000 seat capacity with enough expandable room to include 105,000 people overall. And that has everyone thinking that if they hold a big enough match and save a big enough moment for that year, it could be their best chance to break the Wrestlemania 3 attendance record of 93,000 people, which still stands after nearly three decades. Originally, a lot of people (including Steve Austin on one of his podcasts) thought that Undertaker/John Cena was being saved for this event, but that's obviously out the window now that the streak is dead. So I'm personally thinking that other than Steve Austin having one final match (it being in Texas and all), it's possible the big moment they have saved up for what could end up being their largest crowd ever is keeping Lesnar's first (and possibly only) defeat since ending the streak for there. Imagine Lesnar didn't win the championship this year but rather near the end of 2015 or the beginning of 2016, and then only suffered his first loss at Wrestlemania 32 by putting someone over huge as the man who finally conquered the Streak-Killer (and became the new WWE Champion as a result.)

How would you feel if they had Lesnar remain undefeated for two years instead of one? Obviously, there's some arguments against it (namely that Lesnar/Bryan likely won't be happening anytime soon) but overall, having to wait two years instead of just one to see someone triumph over Lesnar would carry more weight.

 

[Wacokid27]

I'm going to get hate for this, but.....

they should have Lesnar defend the WWE Championship (or whatever it's become called by that point) against Roman Reigns at Mania 32.

As you suggest, Lesnar should be kept out of the title picture until late 2015 and so should Reigns (he needs seasoning anyway). Have Reigns win the Rumble in 2016 and those two face off for the title in that match (maybe even put Rocky or Undertaker in Reigns' corner....something like that).

wk

 

[HunterHearstJericho]

Well this is if Lesnar signs after 31, also I wouldn't mind seeing this if Lesnar was active as the champ at televised shows and whatnot but that probably won't happen, than again it could because WWE only has one main title so if you take him out of the picture for 7 months or so you will lose alot, so if Lesnar had this happen he'd need to be active as a superstar or they split the titles he appears televised events and whatnot and put the weight on the other main champion.

 

[BrockLesnarFanForLife]

My man Brock will re sign when his contact is up next year and he will continue his successful undefeated streak at Wrestlemania 32

 

[Brad.]

Lesnar is the #1 guy now. Anyone who beats him takes the whole importance of The Streak so jobbing him out would be a huge mistake.

Focusing on WM31 (because going any further is pointless), Lesnar will either be defending the championship or facing a 'legend'. If he's champion he will be against Reigns or Cesaro, the winner of the Rumble. I think Reigns will be more ready to have this match, but with Cesaro they could do that HHH/Batista angle, where Cesaro wins the Rumble and Heyman tries to persuade him not to face Brock, but Cesaro wants to, turning him face. If it's a legend it will probably be The Rock in a career vs. career match or something. Brock should win that imo.

But, yeah Austin vs. Punk should happen at WM32. I'm sure they'd both be game for that and it makes perfect sense.

 

[Lockard 23]

I'm going to get hate for this, but.....

they should have Lesnar defend the WWE Championship (or whatever it's become called by that point) against Roman Reigns at Mania 32.

As you suggest, Lesnar should be kept out of the title picture until late 2015 and so should Reigns (he needs seasoning anyway). Have Reigns win the Rumble in 2016 and those two face off for the title in that match (maybe even put Rocky or Undertaker in Reigns' corner....something like that).

wk

Not sure why you'd get hate. That's the idea I had, too. I think Roman Reigns is the #1 candidate in most everyone's mind as the chosen one to eventually take Lesnar down.

 

[Brad.]

Not sure why you'd get hate. That's the idea I had, too. I think Roman Reigns is the #1 candidate in most everyone's mind as the chosen one to eventually take Lesnar down.

Why would you wait until 32 to do Brock/Reigns? Reigns is going to go over Hunter and come out of The Shield split looking the strongest before then, so he'll be ready, especially with a Rumble win.

 

[Leo C]

I'm going to get hate for this, but.....

they should have Lesnar defend the WWE Championship (or whatever it's become called by that point) against Roman Reigns at Mania 32.

As you suggest, Lesnar should be kept out of the title picture until late 2015 and so should Reigns (he needs seasoning anyway). Have Reigns win the Rumble in 2016 and those two face off for the title in that match (maybe even put Rocky or Undertaker in Reigns' corner....something like that).

wk

Also not sure where the hate would derive from. I'm sure most people here are aware that Reigns is going to be a big time main eventer at some point.

Anyway, I guess this could work. I don't think they need to rush into giving him the belt, they just can't have him lose. Saving the big rub for the big show would be alright imo.

 

[Wacokid27]

Not sure why you'd get hate. That's the idea I had, too. I think Roman Reigns is the #1 candidate in most everyone's mind as the chosen one to eventually take Lesnar down.

Also not sure where the hate would derive from. I'm sure most people here are aware that Reigns is going to be a big time main eventer at some point.

Anyway, I guess this could work. I don't think they need to rush into giving him the belt, they just can't have him lose. Saving the big rub for the big show would be alright imo.

The hate I expect(ed) to get get was from the idea that Lesnar and Reigns should both be kept away from the WWEWHC until the lead-up to WM32 when most people seem to think they should both be Champs by/at 31.

wk

 

[Leo C]

The hate I expect(ed) to get get was from the idea that Lesnar and Reigns should both be kept away from the WWEWHC until the lead-up to WM32 when most people seem to think they should both be Champs by/at 31.

wk

I see.

 

[Lockard 23]

Why would you wait until 32 to do Brock/Reigns? Reigns is going to go over Hunter and come out of The Shield split looking the strongest before then, so he'll be ready, especially with a Rumble win.

Nothing says that if/when Reigns goes over Brock for the title at WM32, it has to be the first time he wins the gold. Maybe Reigns becomes champion for the first time at next year's Wrestlemania (he could go over Cena, Triple H in a rematch, or whoever), but then loses/gets screwed out of the title sometime later in the year and it eventually ends up around Lesnar's waist somehow. Then Reigns wins the Rumble again in 2016 and during the build to Wrestlemania 32, Heyman taunts Reigns, saying that Reigns will never win the WWE Championship ever again so long as it rests with The Beast Incarnate.

Of course, the alternate idea is that they're somehow clever enough with their handling and booking of Reigns and manage to keep him away from the world title scene (or at least winning the championship) until he wins the Royal Rumble in 2016. It can be done. They kept Steve Austin from the championship nearly a full year after it could be argued he was ready for it. Shawn Michaels only won and held the championship for one month during his entire second run from 2002-2010. If they're careful enough, they could accomplish the same thing with Reigns for the next year or year and a half.

Or if not, there's always the first idea.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I sincerely doubt WWE has any inkling as to what will happen at Wrestlemania 31, much less 32, so I don't really care to speculate.

 

[Leo C]

I sincerely doubt WWE has any inkling as to what will happen at Wrestlemania 31, much less 32, so I don't really care to speculate.

I enjoy speculating myself but you're pretty spot on on them not really knowing what will happen lol. Which is why it kills me when Meltzer comes out and talks about how they have two/three main events ready for 31.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I enjoy speculating myself but you're pretty spot on on them not really knowing what will happen lol. Which is why it kills me when Meltzer comes out and talks about how they have two/three main events ready for 31.

I'm sure they've talked about it, but yea, some dude tells Meltzer they talked about a match in a creative meeting and somehow in Big Dave's mind he concludes "This match is set for Mania 31!!!"

 

[Lockard 23]

If I recall, Meltzer didn't say for certain that any matches were set in stone for Wrestlemania 31, just that some were being discussed. Rock/Brock was planned for this year so that one is obviously plausible for next year as well. And Lesnar/Cesaro... well, that one kind of speaks for itself (although I'm doubtful it happens.) It's not like it's unusual for WWE to have mere ideas for what matches could take place a year from now. Speculating that Lesnar might remain undefeated for two more years is still reasonable to me considering that Lesnar will probably only have five matches or so before then.