Why didn't they give him a singles title match?I already said it, braun doesn’t and shouldn’t need a partner. He’s an exception to literally everything I’ve thought about “big guys.”
He’s fast, a decent wrestler, believable, has personality, and I like his whole character. Thus, he should be an exception to most things, and in this case, with the tag titles, it should be an exception.
I get that, and I agree that he should fight for a singles title, but if he’s not, I don’t mind this exception for a guy like himWhy didn't they give him a singles title match?
Call me a traditionalist, but to win the tag team titles you have to be in a tag team. If he is so good that he can destroy The Bar then maybe he shouldn't be going after the tag titles.
:disapprove:That brain strowman bit was funny. I had a good chuckle from it anyway.
So what are we thinking?
~ (Woken) Bray Wyatt
~ Elias
~ Rey Mysterio
~ James Ellsworth
~ Big Show
I don't really care...as long as he has a tag partner
& doesn't go over the Bar 2 on 1 I'll be fine.
:disapprove:
Roman Reigns!
:emoji_thinking:Big Cass
Ah wow big cass. Is he scheduled to come back soon then? (Or has he already been back? Lol haven't followed much)
Without enzo he'll need something to do..and what better way than to return and pair with braun and win the tag titles. That would be gold.
Whoa! That might be the mystery partner after all.
I personally don’t want to see Rey in this match. Wouldn’t it be just a one off thing anyway? WWE just needs someone to take the pin for Braun. He has to be moving into the Universal title picture soonThere have been several rumours about who the mystery tag team partner of Braun Strowman would be at Wrestlemania 34. There was an earlier report about Bobby Lashley’s return and possibly teaming with the Monster Among Men.
There has now been a twist on the earlier rumour as Rey Mysterio who made a one-time appearance back in January at the Royal Rumble is the one being pencilled to team with Strowman.
Rey Mysterio to return and team with Braun Strowman?View attachment 5073View attachment 5074