Next WWE Champion Poll
- Thread starter Solidus1
- 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
Good thinking, man. That's actually really plausible.
There's only one thing I'd replace here... Push the much more talented Ambrose instead of Reigns. Ambrose would be perfect for this role, except that he wouldn't need Heyman by his side.
But anyways, if this somehow happens with Reigns, he'd definitely need a mouthpiece.
I've gone back and forth on this one. I was sort of siding with the rest of the wrestling world and assuming having Reigns win the Rumble and take the belt off Lesnar at Wrestlemania 31 was the plan.
I am starting to doubt this, though. There's enough uneasiness about Lesnar's title reign and several months to go before Wrestlemania with one one Lesnar match thought to happen in between... his defense against Cena supposedly.
So, I am going to assume Lesnar will lose the belt in his next title defense before Wrestlemania. My reasoning is this:
1. Reigns versus Lesnar only makes sense as a build up for Reigns... there is no conflict or any animosity between the two and it would would seem too manufactured.
2. WWE is still having problems pushing the network and they need a world champion who they can afford to pay to show up at every PPV.
3. Seth Rollins has been the central heel in WWE this year, in my view. I say more than Lesnar just because Lesnar hasn't been around much.
4. It makes sense that Wrestlemania 31's main event should be a culmination of the stories.
5. It is weird that John Cena's number one contendership is being put on the line at TLC.
So, I think Seth Rollins is going to take the belt off Lesnar. I doubt he will beat Cena for the contendership, but having him face Cena for it puts him into the Cena vs Lesnar dynamic. I think Lesnar will defend the belt successfully against Cena at the Rumble, and then Rollins will cash in the contract and take the belt off Lesnar.
Then, since the belt will be on Rollins, there is more of a dynamic in place for Wrestlemania. Reigns can win the Rumble and continue his feud with Rollins due to the Shield betrayal. However, I don't think this will happen. I personally think Randy Orton will return and win the Royal Rumble and face Rollins at Wrestlemania for the belt, bringing their feud to a head.
Now, the only other way I saw it was Cena losing his contendership and Orton facing Lesnar and beating him at the Rumble...only to have Rollins win the Rumble and go to Wrestlemania. This doesn't work due to the MITB contract... it seems completely unnecessary to have Rollins win the Rumble and go to the main event at Wrestlemania while still holding the contract.
I think the first scenario would be the absolute best one they could construct. But I don't believe it will be Lesnar and Reigns at Wrestlemania anymore.
Edit: I should add that the reason I don't think Cena will beat Lesnar for the belt and then have Rollins cash in on Cena is that they won't have Cena tie Flair just to lose the belt immediately after.
I am starting to doubt this, though. There's enough uneasiness about Lesnar's title reign and several months to go before Wrestlemania with one one Lesnar match thought to happen in between... his defense against Cena supposedly.
So, I am going to assume Lesnar will lose the belt in his next title defense before Wrestlemania. My reasoning is this:
1. Reigns versus Lesnar only makes sense as a build up for Reigns... there is no conflict or any animosity between the two and it would would seem too manufactured.
2. WWE is still having problems pushing the network and they need a world champion who they can afford to pay to show up at every PPV.
3. Seth Rollins has been the central heel in WWE this year, in my view. I say more than Lesnar just because Lesnar hasn't been around much.
4. It makes sense that Wrestlemania 31's main event should be a culmination of the stories.
5. It is weird that John Cena's number one contendership is being put on the line at TLC.
So, I think Seth Rollins is going to take the belt off Lesnar. I doubt he will beat Cena for the contendership, but having him face Cena for it puts him into the Cena vs Lesnar dynamic. I think Lesnar will defend the belt successfully against Cena at the Rumble, and then Rollins will cash in the contract and take the belt off Lesnar.
Then, since the belt will be on Rollins, there is more of a dynamic in place for Wrestlemania. Reigns can win the Rumble and continue his feud with Rollins due to the Shield betrayal. However, I don't think this will happen. I personally think Randy Orton will return and win the Royal Rumble and face Rollins at Wrestlemania for the belt, bringing their feud to a head.
Now, the only other way I saw it was Cena losing his contendership and Orton facing Lesnar and beating him at the Rumble...only to have Rollins win the Rumble and go to Wrestlemania. This doesn't work due to the MITB contract... it seems completely unnecessary to have Rollins win the Rumble and go to the main event at Wrestlemania while still holding the contract.
I think the first scenario would be the absolute best one they could construct. But I don't believe it will be Lesnar and Reigns at Wrestlemania anymore.
Edit: I should add that the reason I don't think Cena will beat Lesnar for the belt and then have Rollins cash in on Cena is that they won't have Cena tie Flair just to lose the belt immediately after.
Last edited:
This is something I've been thinking about.
1. I agree here. Reigns defeating Lesnar would be pretty much pointless, there's no story/animosity between the two, just like you said... Unless they're planning on calling up Brock to work more frequently. The way it is right now... It'd be like, Reigns wins the Rumble, Brock's gone again and here comes WM31 and he's scheduled to face the champ who's been gone for so long during his championship reign. I would absolutely hate it.
2. This Network thing is stupid, I've hated it since the beginning. A champ that is actually there at every show/PPV would be sweet, though. I thought Lesnar being the champ would actually be good, but the SOB ain't even workin' the PPVs.
3. Rollins has been doing a darn good job at being a heel. The only heat Lesnar ever gets is when Heyman says that he defeated Taker's streak at Mania. That's all.
4. I couldn't agree more. In a perfect WWE world, it would be Ambrose vs Rollins. But it's far from perfect.
5. I find it weird that they put Cena's #1 contendership on the line, too. Cena's gonna win, that's obvious. Orton/Reigns might get involved to cost Rollins the win and continue the feud with Rollins. I assume they decided to do this only because Lesnar won't be working TLC. If he was working TLC, it'd be Cena vs Lesnar for the title to finally close that chapter. Lesnar would win, of course! But, oh well...
- Is Rollins going to take the belt off Lesnar? I'd love it, but I doubt it's gonna happen. If it does happen at the Rumble, just like you proposed, then cool. But, I'd much rather love Rollins cashing in on the new champ at WM31 (possibly on Reigns). It's never been done before at WM, plus it'd add even more heat on Rollins and would make him the biggest heel in the business.
- If Rollins wins the title at the Rumble, and then Reigns wins the Rumble match, then this would be a sound storyline. One brother betrayed the other, their story culminates at WM, everything's good. However, I don't see this scenario happening. Knowing WWE, they will most likely keep the WWE-WHC on Lesnar and just put Reigns in there in the ME of WM, give him the title... Which would absolutely suck. But if they had some cojones, they'd let Rollins cash in on Reigns afterwards.
- As much as I like Orton, there's no need for him to win the Rumble. The stars are made at WM, I doubt they'd go with this Rollins/Orton scenario, even though I wouldn't mind it... But Orton's already an established superstar and Rollins is a heel. The babyfaces get their big moments at Mania, most of the time. There's also the MITB factor, Seth would have to lose it to compete at the RR match. Him winning the Rumble match while still holding the MITB brifecase would be redundant. I don't see Rollins winning the Rumble or even participating in that match. This is how I think it's gonna go... He's gonna lose that match against Cena at TLC, and then at the RR that briefcase will most likely be on the line against Orton/Reigns. Rollins shouldn't be losing it to anyone, imo.
- Oh... And that 'Cena wins the belt, then Rollins cashes in on him' scenario, I doubt it's gonna happen. It'd probably lead to Cena's road to redemption BS and the burial of Rollins, and nobody wants to see that.
Last edited:
When the talk about Lesnar winning the belt first was going around, I really didn't think it would happen. It didn't make sense to put the belt on a part time wrestler. And I don't blame Lesnar for it. WWE knew what it was getting into when they put the belt on a part time wrestler so long before Wrestlemania. Although I thought it was a stupid way to end CM Punk's reign, at least when the Rock won the belt, it was for a short period of time and he defended it in accordance with the 30 day rule even as a part timer.
When Lesnar retained againt Cena, the very first thing I thought was that they should have Orton versus Lesnar at the Rumble. It's a match that we haven't seen before and I doubt many people really want to see Cena and Lesnar again. The only reason I don't see this happening at this point is now it wouldn't make sense in accordance with the TLC match for the number one contendership. John Cena would have to lose the contendership, which is not going to happen. Even if he did, it would not make sense to give Orton the match because Cena lost to Rollins. That is way too convoluted.
I agree with you about the Rumble and Wrestlemania being used to build newer stars. WWE, however, wasn't thinking that the past two years when the winners were John Cena and Batista, respectively. I agree honestly that there's no need for him to win the Rumble, but there was even less need for Batista to win it this year, but he did.
Now, I am not a fan of Randy Orton. I've always thought him to be extremely overrated. But even then, I would like to see him face Lesnar for the belt and then Rollins for the belt simply because those are scenarios I haven't seen. I thought that Orton would take the belt from Lesnar and Rollins would win the Rumble and face Orton at Wrestlemania for the belt.... the Orton/Rollins conflict has been going on for quite a while and is only momentarily dormant. But as long as Rollins has the MITB contract, that scenario makes no sense.
The problems you had with the MITB scenario were the reasons I came to think Rollins would cash in at the Rumble. I agree that it makes no sense to have him win the rumble if he has the briefcase. It's redundant. But what else are they going to do with him? I am sure he'll be feuding with Orton, but for all intent and purposes, Rollins is the top heel in WWE right now. Booking him in a match with Orton at Wrestlemania with no title implications, even if he does cash in at the end, seems like a very bad promotional decision. That was pretty much why I suggested Rollins cashing in and beating Lesnar at the Rumble, Orton winning the Rumble and the two facing off at Wrestlemania....it ties up all of the loose ends.
Will it actually happen? Probably not. I honestly think they need to get the belt off Lesnar by the Rumble though. If they are not going to pay him to show up often between the Rumble and Wrestlemania, the promotion for the Wrestlemania main event will be practically non existent and they will likely not be able to push Network sales based off the biggest match on the card.
The perfect scenario would be Rollins cashing in on Lesnar, Ambrose winning the Rumble and those two main eventing Wrestlemania. But with Ambrose involved with Bray Wyatt, it's unlikely that they'll backtrack on the feuds right now. But Lesnar and Reigns would be a predictable match, predictable outcome and wouldn't have the effect they want it to have... which I suppose means that is exactly what will happen.
Last edited:
- Yeah, but I thought they were gonna go with Lesnar all the way. There was no purpose of bringing him back in the first place, unless he was gonna win the title. 'cause he just came off a never-before-seen victory over Undertaker at WrestleMania. Personally, I was fine with it. Man, he'd won it in such fashion. I loved seeing Cena getting maimed. This part timer thing was alright, as long as he was working every PPV. He didn't have to be there for every RAW, but when it comes to PPVs, you have to put that title on the line. This whole '30 day defense rule' is really dumb when it's applied only when a (babyface) champion is hurt.
- When Lesnar retained the WWE-WHC at Night of Champions, Orton vs Lesnar at the Rumble would've been awesome! That's something I've been looking forward to seeing ever since he won the title at SummerSlam. But nah, they decided not to call Lesnar to work Hell In a Cell, when he should've worked it to finally close that chapter 'tween him and Cena. Now they're gonna do it for the 4th time at the Rumble, this is like 100% certain 'cause there ain't no way of Cena losing that #1 contendership match to Rollins at TLC. However, if Orton doesn't end up feuding with Rollins at the Rumble, then they may as well put Orton in that match against Lesnar and Cena. We'll see what happens, though.
- Yes, I totally agree. There was no need of neither Cena and Batista winning the Rumble at all, yet they did. But maybe they let Batista win only to make us think that the WWE were legit screwing Bryan, maybe it was all a work, maybe it wasn't... Who knows. The good news is, D-Bry won the WWE-WHC at WM30 and saved us from a clusterfuck Orton vs Batista could've been.
- Speaking of Orton, I am a fan of his. His in-ring work is simply flawless, but he used to be so bland character-wise, up until the point of 2-3 weeks leading up to Survivor Series. He really stepped it up then and The Viper showed some attitude! Again, Orton vs Lesnar would've been awesome. Now, I'm unsure if they'd let Orton take the belt from Lesnar. I'm sure they'd much rather choose Cena for that job. So, there's that MITB factor again, for Rollins to participate in the Royal Rumble match, he'd have to lose it at the Rumble, possibly to Ziggler, then he'd try and politic his way into the Rumble match and end up being #30 and pick up the win. Then Orton vs Rollins for the title at WM31 would've been sweet. But, knowing WWE, they'll probably choose the easiest route... Lesnar retains against Cena, Reigns wins the Rumble, Lesnar goes home and then appears at WM31, Reigns vs Lesnar makes no sense, Reigns defeats Lesnar, end of story. Everything's perfect in their world. That's how I see it happening.
- Rollins cashing in on Lesnar at the Rumble... Man, that'd be awesome. But hey, our precious little WWE may as well have Cena defeat Lesnar, tie up Flair's record and then Rollins could cash in on Cena. Fine by me, 'cause Cena tying up and then breaking Flair's record is inevitable, in my opinion.
- Will this happen, will Rollins cash in on Lesnar at some point? Yeah, just like you said... Probably not. I agree that they gotta take the titles off Lesnar at the Rumble if they're not gonna have him appear all the way till WM31, that'd also mean that they can't afford him to appear all the time. But Lesnar being gone for so long after the Rumble would mean squat for the new champ, like you said, the ME would practically be non-existent. There'd be no storyline/animosity involved, whatsoever.
- Yes, in a perfect WWE world Rollins would cash in at the Rumble on Lesnar, Ambrose would win the Royal Rumble match and these two would finally square off at WM31. Yeah, Ambrose may be busy with Wyatt all the way to the Rumble, I agree. But that doesn't mean they can't pick up on the Rollins/Ambrose feud. They could do it at any time, imo. Dean could be like 'You must be crazy to think that I forgot about you, Seth'. I hope WWE ends up pushing the much more talented Ambrose, instead of Reigns. But we'll see.
"But Lesnar and Reigns would be a predictable match, predictable outcome and wouldn't have the effect they want it to have... which I suppose means that is exactly what will happen." - Yup, my thoughts exactly.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 37
I'd totally face-palm myself if they had Rollins cash in on Brock Lesnar at the Rumble. Not because Rollins walking into Wrestlemania as champion is a bad idea per se (although I'm totally opposed to any idea that has Lesnar losing the strap before WM), but because by then we would have gone no less than four months without seeing the title defended, all because the company thought it was worth not having the title around for that long if that's what it took to keep the title on Lesnar that long and yet still have him walk into Wrestlemania as the champion. If they decide to go back on that now and have Brock drop it at the Rumble, it would have made the last four months of having no world title around completely pointless. They would also be throwing away a surefire Wrestlemania moment of Seth Rollins being the first man to cash in the MITB briefcase at a Wrestlemania. Next year is the ten-year anniversary of the MITB match as well (the inaugural MITB match was at WM21 in 2005), making the moment all the more appropriate.
Plus, if Rollins cashed in at the Rumble, he would only get to keep the belt all of two months before dropping it at Mania (unless you booked him to win at WM, which I doubt they'd do if he walked in as champion.) Whereas if he cashed in at Wrestlemania, he could potentially keep it all the way till Summerslam.
In my opinion, there doesn't need to be several months of buildup for a Wrestlemania main event. Austin vs Michaels at WM14 didn't have that luxury, and the match didn't feel any less special because of it. The only story there needs to be here is that someone wins the Rumble and they're now burdened with the task of defeating the most dominant athlete in WWE history (Brock Lesnar) to become the champion. From there on, the creative team has two whole months to build up as much animosity between the two competitors as possible. How effective of a job they do with that would largely depend on how many dates Lesnar agrees to work between the Rumble and Wrestlemania, I agree, but given they would have gone four months without hardly using him at all by then, who is to say they aren't planning on having him work a good amount of dates? Especially since there's belief that he may not even decide to resign with the company after WM31 (although I think he will.)
Plus, if Rollins cashed in at the Rumble, he would only get to keep the belt all of two months before dropping it at Mania (unless you booked him to win at WM, which I doubt they'd do if he walked in as champion.) Whereas if he cashed in at Wrestlemania, he could potentially keep it all the way till Summerslam.
In my opinion, there doesn't need to be several months of buildup for a Wrestlemania main event. Austin vs Michaels at WM14 didn't have that luxury, and the match didn't feel any less special because of it. The only story there needs to be here is that someone wins the Rumble and they're now burdened with the task of defeating the most dominant athlete in WWE history (Brock Lesnar) to become the champion. From there on, the creative team has two whole months to build up as much animosity between the two competitors as possible. How effective of a job they do with that would largely depend on how many dates Lesnar agrees to work between the Rumble and Wrestlemania, I agree, but given they would have gone four months without hardly using him at all by then, who is to say they aren't planning on having him work a good amount of dates? Especially since there's belief that he may not even decide to resign with the company after WM31 (although I think he will.)
We were just discussing all possible scenarios, including Rollins cashing on Lesnar, Cena defeating Lesnar, Orton winning the Rumble, etc...
Anyways, I would love it if they let Rollins cash in on the new champ at WM31. I've said it since the day he won that MITB briefcase. Purely because it's a 10 year anniversary of the MITB match at WM31, making the moment all the more appropriate, you said it yourself.
So, here's to hoping Rollins cashes in on the new WWE-WHC at WM31 and becomes one himself!
Anyways, I would love it if they let Rollins cash in on the new champ at WM31. I've said it since the day he won that MITB briefcase. Purely because it's a 10 year anniversary of the MITB match at WM31, making the moment all the more appropriate, you said it yourself.
So, here's to hoping Rollins cashes in on the new WWE-WHC at WM31 and becomes one himself!
- I would tend to agree with your comments about not bringing Lesnar back after the Undertaker victory unless he was going to win the title, except that the assumption lies on the condition that the WWE does what makes sense. They have done some of the most bizarre and nonsensical things I've ever seen. That, and if I am not mistaken, he still had appearances in his contract that had already been paid for, so it wouldn't have made sense not to use him.
-I dunno, I never got Orton. His matches are sort of formulaic, and I hate that DDT he uses with the opponents feet on the second rope. There's absolutely no way such a thing would hurt more than a real DDT, since a real DDT is more jarring and the wrestler's head has further to travel to hit the mat. I agree that his character got better a couple weeks before being taken out.., but then he's suddenly gone. This scenario I have worked out is actually the very first time I've ever really thought a whole lot about having him in a story line that I would like. But other than that, I honestly think he's the most overrated wrestler in WWE. I won't say that John Cena is the most overrated because at least half of us have always known he is crap.
- "Cena tying up and then breaking Flair's record is inevitable, in my opinion." All I can say is "uck." This would be the reason I would support the Reigns and Lesnar match and hope that Reigns would become the top babyface just to prevent this from happening since it would be akin to the seventh sign of the Apocalypse.
- But in short, I really don't think my idea is going to happen. But I'd rather bet on it to shake things up and not be rehashing the same old thing over and over.
- I stole your method of putting a dash in front of each separate issue because my thoughts are not organized well this morning/afternoon.
I disagree about the buildup between Michaels and Austin. Although the match was not official until Austin won the Royal Rumble, there was a whole lot more in play leading up to this match.
Around the time of the Montreal Screwjob, it became pretty obvious this was the way they were going to go at Wrestlemania 14. Back then, top babyfaces followed a pattern. They would get momentum, win the IC title, lose the IC title and win the WWF title. Bret Hart was a perfect example of this pattern. Austin's momentum as the "good guy" began all the way at Wrestlemania 13. Then, he continued it with the IC title win. His conflict with Vince McMahon was brewing, and he was undoubtedly on a meteoric rise as the top man in the company.
Separately, Michaels began taking heat after the Hell in the Cell match. He quickly turned full heel after this and his DX antics, although having nothing to do with Austin, paralleled Austin's rise as the top face. Even though he claimed to not know about the screwjob, anyone with half a brain knew he was full of crap. Michaels not only glanced at McMahon right before putting the sharpshooter on Hart, but once he had it locked, he glanced over at Hebner. Other than that, Michaels is a crappy actor and his little "pissed look" after the match wasn't too convincing. All of this continued his rapid climb as the most hated wrestler in the sport at that time.
So it was around November that most of the people I knew came to the conclusion that Michaels would defend against Austin at Wrestlemania. Although they didn't have any personal interactions until after the Rumble, it was the inevitable culmination of nearly a year of parallel rises.
Reigns and Lesnar, on the other hand, makes no sense at all other than as a method of putting Reigns over as the top face. Lesnar is in no way the top heel in the promotion. Enough people hate John Cena to not be angry in any way at him for decimating Cena. For a lot of us, it was a good ole time. Lesnar didn't pick up any more heat in the rematch because Cena pretty much had him until Rollins caused the DQ. And Rollins got the heat for that, not Lesnar.
Reigns was on a roll before his injury, but it paled and still pales to the rise of Dean Ambrose. He's been out since after Summerslam and even before that, he wasn't getting the reaction that Ambrose was. I would venture that anyone who simply watches the show and doesn't read about it on the internet or listen to rumors would fail to see any indication of an inevitable conflict between these two men. I think with Michaels and Austin, it was kismet.
I know it would seem like a waste of the time without Lesnar defending the belt to simply have him lose it at the Rumble, but honestly, having him lose it at the Rumble was no where as stupid as having him win it at Summerslam. They could have had Lesnar win the belt at the Survivor Series, defend it at TLC and the Rumble and then ultimately lose it at Wrestlemania. It would have been the exact same number or matches, plus they wouldn't have this long and pointless lull without a defending champion at their PPVs while they are trying to sell Network subscriptions. Honestly, that was a much stupider decision that having him lose it at the Rumble. As we all know, WWE is capable of doing some pretty stupid things.
But yeah, Lesnar dropping the title might make the four months without a defense seem pointless, but I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to the importance of Lesnar's appearances after the Rumble. If he is not going to appear very much, having him drop the title at the Rumble would be a way to stop the bleeding and use the time they have left to promote a new match for Wrestlemania. You can't change the mistakes in the past (Lesnar going four months without a defense) but you can preempt the mistakes of the future (taking the belt off Lesnar and promoting a new match while you have time).
- Correct. That's why they used Lesnar in a right way by letting him win the title at SummerSlam... But, everything else post-SS was a downfall. Night of Champions' ME finish was BS, and Lesnar should've definitely been used for HIAC to finally end his feud against Cena. But instead, he was sent home. WWE's really ignorant at times.
- Well, they are sort of formulaic. Aren't them all, at the end of the day? Anyways... One thing's for certain about Orton's matches, though. They're always good. The dude is simply flawless and smooth, he doesn't have a single wasted movement in the ring. "I won't say that John Cena is the most overrated because at least half of us have always known he is crap." Right on, man. You nailed it 100%.
- Yeah, I totally agree here. While I don't like Reigns, I would choose much lesser evil and have Reigns defeat Lesnar than having Cena tie/break Flair's record. If Cena turned heel, then I'd consider it being alright.
- You see, that's kinda WWE's thing. RINSE, WASH, REPEAT. I'm really pulling for Ambrose vs Rollins to happen at WM31. It would be a perfect storyline culminating on the grandest stage of 'em all. But anyways, if it doesn't happen, then I'd still love it if they let Rollins cash in on the new champ (Reigns, most likely), being the 10th anniversary of the MITB match and all and making the moment even more appropriate.
- That's quite alright, bro. It's easier to organize longer, insightful posts that way.
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding Orton. I've always found his matches to be a complete bore. But, I think that the fact that I hate him as a wrestler, but want to see the story line that I outlined actually means I must have some sort of faith in him.
But yeah, most matches are sort of formulaic. But there are wrestlers who reach beyond their standard match and those are the guys that are more fun to watch... the guys who continue to develop and learn new holds.
At least we can all agree about Cena being crap
