Brock's Championship Reign vs Punk's Championship Reign

[MildlyUpsetGerbil]

I'm glad you said that, because isn't that what every wrestler should be trying to do?

They should be trying to be entertaining. I don't see Johnny Gargano, Tommaso Ciampa, or the Undertaker struggling to entertain despite neither of them innovating a single move on their moveset.

 

[Crash]

They should be trying to be entertaining. I don't see Johnny Gargano, Tommaso Ciampa, or the Undertaker struggling to entertain despite neither of them innovating a single move on their moveset.

Well they are trying new stuff sometimes, always reinventing themselves that's all I'm trying to say.

 

[MildlyUpsetGerbil]

Well they are trying new stuff sometimes, always reinventing themselves that's all I'm trying to say.

You should be more clear when typing, haha.

 

[Crash]

You should be more clear when typing, haha.

Okay, how?

 

[MildlyUpsetGerbil]

Okay, how?

By saying "I prefer wrestlers that adapt and change their movesets over time" instead of saying this:

But I would say yes, a wrestler has to do something unique and original to get my attention.

 

[Crash]

By saying "I prefer wrestlers that adapt and change their movesets over time" instead of saying this:

But what's the difference?

 

[MildlyUpsetGerbil]

But what's the difference?

One is clear while the other is vague. If I asked you to buy me a grape soda, you'd have to choose from a few different brands of grape soda first. If I asked you to buy me a grape Fanta, you know precisely what I want and don't have to worry about picking a brand I might not like.

 

[Crash]

One is clear while the other is vague. If I asked you to buy me a grape soda, you'd have to choose from a few different brands of grape soda first. If I asked you to buy me a grape Fanta, you know precisely what I want and don't have to worry about picking a brand I might not like.

is this the right soda?

 

[Fuzion]

Punk was the champ and was still taking a backseat to Cena, not his fault that no matter what during that time Cena was the star of the company. Punk loved wrestling and was a hard worker and had lots of potential. Great matches with Jericho and a good fued with Cena, he was never used to his full potential and wasted when his title defenses felt like forced mid card matches with no meaning or story (which is a shame because Punk was a great storyteller) Lesnar is a beast and defiantly a draw, the way he rarely appears makes it feel special when he makes an appearance. Although it feels like we've been getting the same match over and over with Lesnar with the repetitive suplexes, hes boring to me now and you can tell he doesn't care at all. Punk>Lesnar.

 

[Mustafar Reginald]

This isn't directed towards anyone on here but reading a thread about championship lengths where the "draw" is thrown around a lot just makes me compelled to say any argument that Lesnar's excessively lengthy championship reign is justified because he's a draw is absolutely baffling to me. When you're that big of a draw, you're that big of a draw. It's not contingent on holding a championship. Anyone who is watching/attending/etc. just for Brock Lesnar is not going to be fickle enough to decide against it if he isn't holding a championship they probably don't really care about. Even without the title, he'd still be Brock Lesnar with just as much drawing power, only without the title you're not pissing off a size-able portion your dedicated audience.

 

[Jacob Fox]

The less times you defend the belt the better. Makes the division work hard to get a title match.

While I agree with this, I have two issues with the premise.

First, the few title defenses Brock does have nothing at all to do with WWE trying to make the belt better and therefore makes it an invalid argument to the idea that Lesnar has been a better champion than Punk. Punk defended the belt when WWE made him and had no choice in the matter. WWE dictates Lesnar's title defenses based of how much money they're willing to pay Lesnar per defense. Furthermore, If the prestige of the belt has grown, it has been done as a consequence of Lesnar's sparse title defenses, not as a purpose of them. And this will become truer once Lesnar does lose the belt and the belt goes back to be defended like WWE World/Universal championships were beforehand.

Second, although I feel the belt should be defended less, it shouldn't be 3 or 4 times a year. Once a month at a PPV would be make the most sense since the WWE audience is used to a belt being defended in such a way. At the very least, they should follow their own "rule" of defending it once every 30 days or getting rid of that rule. We know they haven't gotten rid of it as it not only has been mentioned, it has been used in recent years more than once to strip a wrestler or their title.

 

[The Gipper]

All I have learnt from this thread is that I have never seen a Ridley Scott film.

 

[Solid Snake]

is this the right soda?

You went all the way to Japan for that!?

 

[Redboy123@]

Second, although I feel the belt should be defended less, it shouldn't be 3 or 4 times a year. Once a month at a PPV would be make the most sense since the WWE audience is used to a belt being defended in such a way. At the very least, they should follow their own "rule" of defending it once every 30 days or getting rid of that rule. We know they haven't gotten rid of it as it not only has been mentioned, it has been used in recent years more than once to strip a wrestler or their title.

I think once every two months would be appropriate. Kinda devalues the WWE title when the Universal title always main events over it. One ppv only needs one world title match. So big 4 ppv's feel big when you do book two world title matches.

 

[SWL]

Punk's reign was basically just a mid-card reign for most of it, which is obviously out of his control but it still hurt the image of the title at times. Of course, due to the fact that Punk was around every week, it gave them the opportunity to do more with him on a weekly basis, but it also lead them into fillers like Punk vs Ryback or the whole AJ/Bryan/Kane storyline for example.
Lesnar's reign on the other hand was the complete opposite. They didn't even have the opportunity to book themselves into fillers because they had months to pick out his next opponents and I must say, most of the matches he was in during his title reign were pretty decent. He started it off hot against Goldberg, then had a great brawl with Joe, moved on to an insane Fatal 4 Way at Summerslam and later on had a great encounter with AJ Styles at Survivor Series. The only negatives are the stuff with Braun (/Kane) and the fact that he went over Reigns at Mania/GRR. My point though is, it might just be a part-time-reign but whenever he did show up for work, he mostly put in the work.

But yea, if we're comparing them by entertainment value, it's Punk's without a doubt. Matches were always good and there was always so much going on with him that it legit felt like an eternity when he finally lost the title whereas Lesnar's reign still doesn't feel like a year long reign to me