SummerSlam Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar

[Jacob Fox]

I mean I wouldn't be "surprised" if taker won, that's def fair to say. However, to say that Brock wouldn't gain from this is crazy.

Taker comes back, huge epic rematch, and then Brock dominates the phenom yet again? I mean it would be huge. Arguably just as big as when he killed Cena at the 2014 SS.

The average fan doesn't recall how many times Brock has beaten taker. They're more concerned with the streak breaking. Thus, to the average fan, it's their second match. This means that if Brock beats him not only by snapping the streak, but also dominates him at summerslam... Well, there is def no question as to who the real phenom of this era is: Brock lesnar.

I get your point, but, again, I do feel that Brock winning would be huge.

Actually, both Paul Heyman and Michael Cole have mentioned the other losses to Lesnar, but you're probably right. Most fans likely won't recall unless they were watching at that time.

I may have expressed myself poorly before. Sure Lesnar will gain something, but is it something he needs in any way? He's already viewed by everyone as being the most dominant current entity in American wrestling. He doesn't NEED to beat Undertaker. He'll just look even more unstoppable and it begs the question to what end are they wanting to book Lesnar this way? If a man can beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania, then completely dominate John Cena and then beat the Undertaker again, then he's booked into a corner. It does him more harm than it does good.

For me, it's similar to the Ultimate Warrior winning the title from Hogan. You book these two guys to not only be completely unbeatable, but you book the Warrior to beat a man who has not been pinned cleanly in nearly a decade and take his title from him and hold both titles, after Warrior was pretty unstoppable to begin with. Afterwards, Warrior had absolutely no credible opponents. He drew poorly as a champion and I don't think that was his fault, it was because you knew he was going to beat everyone because there was no conceivable opponent who could defeat him.

If Lesnar continues to dominate like this, to what end is leading? A wrestler with absolutely no vulnerability just isn't interesting to watch because every match is going to end up being like Rollins and Lesnar was... no matter how much of a fight the opponent puts up, it becomes systematic and Lesnar wins.

EDIT: I just want to add, I am not telling you or anyone else that I think you're wrong. I think everyone has had valid arguments here and I respect them. I just see it differently

 

[Snowman1]

Although I must agree that little is established by Lesnar winning this match... But we got six weeks of good build, they got improving ratings and buy rates, and in the end nothing really changed... I'd call that a positive

 

[Jacob Fox]

Although I must agree that little is established by Lesnar winning this match... But we got six weeks of good build, they got improving ratings and buy rates, and in the end nothing really changed... I'd call that a positive

The build is great and will probably be much better than the match... but it has been enjoyable

 

[The GOAT]

Actually, both Paul Heyman and Michael Cole have mentioned the other losses to Lesnar, but you're probably right. Most fans likely won't recall unless they were watching at that time.

I may have expressed myself poorly before. Sure Lesnar will gain something, but is it something he needs in any way? He's already viewed by everyone as being the most dominant current entity in American wrestling. He doesn't NEED to beat Undertaker. He'll just look even more unstoppable and it begs the question to what end are they wanting to book Lesnar this way? If a man can beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania, then completely dominate John Cena and then beat the Undertaker again, then he's booked into a corner. It does him more harm than it does good.

He already beat the Streak and rag-dolled John Cena, that alone is enough to make him look seemingly "unbeatable." Beating the Undertaker again would make Lesnar look good because it's another victory and still keeps him undefeated post-Streak, but he's still only doing what he's already done before by beating Taker, so I don't agree that it makes him look too invincible or Taker look bad. The only thing that could do either is if Taker gets literally destroyed in the same manner that Cena was last year, but we all know that isn't happening. We can expect a hellacious match between the two and regardless of who goes over, it won't be an easy victory for either guy.

There's two good things that come from a Lesnar victory:

1. Surprise factor. Wrestling thrives on these. Even though they've done a swell job of making it seem as if either man could walk out the victor here (I'm basing this mainly on all the superstars giving their prediction last night on Raw on who they think will win), on paper it can't be denied that the story points more towards Taker winning. The 'improbability' of him coming back just to lose again, the fact that he has more to prove than Lesnar does, etc. So imagine the surprise in the minds of most fans if Brock goes over again.

2. It establishes Lesnar as the one dominant foe that "The Phenom" The Undertaker could never manage to defeat, despite his repeated best efforts. That makes Brock look good (and establishes him as a sort of modern-day "Phenom"), but it doesn't make Taker look "bad" because he's still the Undertaker, a figure that has defeated nearly all of the top names in the past twenty-five years at some point or another, and who still has the best win-loss record (especially if we're counting only clean losses) in company history.

 

[edge4ever]

Actually, both Paul Heyman and Michael Cole have mentioned the other losses to Lesnar, but you're probably right. Most fans likely won't recall unless they were watching at that time.

I may have expressed myself poorly before. Sure Lesnar will gain something, but is it something he needs in any way? He's already viewed by everyone as being the most dominant current entity in American wrestling. He doesn't NEED to beat Undertaker. He'll just look even more unstoppable and it begs the question to what end are they wanting to book Lesnar this way? If a man can beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania, then completely dominate John Cena and then beat the Undertaker again, then he's booked into a corner. It does him more harm than it does good.

For me, it's similar to the Ultimate Warrior winning the title from Hogan. You book these two guys to not only be completely unbeatable, but you book the Warrior to beat a man who has not been pinned cleanly in nearly a decade and take his title from him and hold both titles, after Warrior was pretty unstoppable to begin with. Afterwards, Warrior had absolutely no credible opponents. He drew poorly as a champion and I don't think that was his fault, it was because you knew he was going to beat everyone because there was no conceivable opponent who could defeat him.

If Lesnar continues to dominate like this, to what end is leading? A wrestler with absolutely no vulnerability just isn't interesting to watch because every match is going to end up being like Rollins and Lesnar was... no matter how much of a fight the opponent puts up, it becomes systematic and Lesnar wins.

EDIT: I just want to add, I am not telling you or anyone else that I think you're wrong. I think everyone has had valid arguments here and I respect them. I just see it differently

I actually really like your comparison to warrior. It makes sense. But I do feel there were more factors paying into warriors demise, rather than just blaming some booking. He began to get more sloppy in the ring and his attitude and everything changed.

Thus far, Brock has not suffered from having the biggest victory of all time. He's only looked better. No matter who's he's faced since, the booking has been done well and the fans have seemingly responded well. I'm not saying that taker is the best opponent for Brock in this stage, but I also view it as why not have taker fight him?

Realistically, taker would want revenge of some kind. He proved he can still win at mania by beating bray. So now he wants Brock again, for redemption. Furthermore, it's unusual of taker to make an appearance outside of mania. So, we all know something big will happen in this match. Either Brock will lose after like 5 tombstones, which I think would suck. Or, Brock will win after like 5 F5's. if Brock can walk in and dominate taker yet again, I don't see how that wouldn't be substantial or really help him more. He's not only
Beaten anyone in his path, but he, yet again, beat taker even when he returned at SS. Something he never does.

Also, I know the commentators have mentioned the history of lesnar and taker. But, as you know, most people will simply be thinking about the streak match, nothing previous. Same thing when Cena fought Brock again. They really only thought of when Brock fought him back in 2012.

As far as a superstar looking too dominant, well, it's worked for Brock so far. And, it makes him look like the next phenom. He can go on a Tyraid for a while, then lose at mania 32, assisting an upcoming talent. I think it works well and makes sense. There is someone who can actually crack brocks code and find a way to win. The hype when lesnar does lose would be immense. And I hope they don't waste it with taker.

taker should not win this match.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I think it works well and makes sense.

And that might be the single factor that works the most against it.

 

[Jacob Fox]

He already beat the Streak and rag-dolled John Cena, that alone is enough to make him look seemingly "unbeatable." Beating the Undertaker again would make Lesnar look good because it's another victory and still keeps him undefeated post-Streak, but he's still only doing what he's already done before by beating Taker, so I don't agree that it makes him look too invincible or Taker look bad. The only thing that could do either is if Taker gets literally destroyed in the same manner that Cena was last year, but we all know that isn't happening. We can expect a hellacious match between the two and regardless of who goes over, it won't be an easy victory for either guy.

There's two good things that come from a Lesnar victory:

1. Surprise factor. Wrestling thrives on these. Even though they've done a swell job of making it seem as if either man could walk out the victor here (I'm basing this mainly on all the superstars giving their prediction last night on Raw on who they think will win), on paper it can't be denied that the story points more towards Taker winning. The 'improbability' of him coming back just to lose again, the fact that he has more to prove than Lesnar does, etc. So imagine the surprise in the minds of most fans if Brock goes over again.

2. It establishes Lesnar as the one dominant foe that "The Phenom" The Undertaker could never manage to defeat, despite his repeated best efforts. That makes Brock look good (and establishes him as a sort of modern-day "Phenom"), but it doesn't make Taker look "bad" because he's still the Undertaker, a figure that has defeated nearly all of the top names in the past twenty-five years at some point or another, and who still has the best win-loss record (especially if we're counting only clean losses) in company history.

1. Wrestling might thrive on surprise factors, but often, when you think Vince McMahon is on the verge of surprising you, he does the least surprising thing that he can do.

2. Opinions vary, I disagree. I am sure there are a lot of people who see it your way and a lot of people who think it will make the Undertaker look bad. To come back 18 months in a fiery vengeance, especially given his reasoning that it was Paul Heyman and Lesnar bragging about the streak being broke that got under his skin, to come back after 18 months when he could have just let it die only to lose.... I think it makes him look bad.

 

[The GOAT]

1. Wrestling might thrive on surprise factors, but often, when you think Vince McMahon is on the verge of surprising you, he does the least surprising thing that he can do.

2. Opinions vary, I disagree. I am sure there are a lot of people who see it your way and a lot of people who think it will make the Undertaker look bad. To come back 18 months in a fiery vengeance, especially given his reasoning that it was Paul Heyman and Lesnar bragging about the streak being broke that got under his skin, to come back after 18 months when he could have just let it die only to lose.... I think it makes him look bad.

1. Sad truth, unfortunately.

2. To some perhaps, but it can be interpreted in different ways. You could argue that Sting taking the fight to The Authority and being built up as this mystical figure that they couldn't properly deal with (much like he was in the old WCW/NWO days) only to lose to HHH at Wrestlemania made him look "bad", but that's what happened. And speaking of which, maybe there's even some sort of respectful nod or a quick handshake between Lesnar and Undertaker after the match is over like there was with Sting and Hunter. The idea would be that after going through one last war with each other, they both realize that the issue is settled and they have a weird new-found respect for one another after the hell they put each other through during their match at Summerslam. In that case, even if Lesnar wins, Taker still comes out looking like a million bucks by putting him through a lot of punishment and earning Brock's respect as opposed to Heyman just cutting a promo the next night screaming at the top of his voice about how Brock has killed the Undertaker for good (although I'd really enjoy seeing the latter... No telling how fired-up Heyman would get putting Brock over as a Beast with another victory over the Undertaker.)

 

[Snowman1]

And that might be the single factor that works the most against it.

Shoot, we just watched this play out with Sheamus winning MITB. Darn right about that.

And the "Send the crowd home happy!" factor sounds like it's at play here, because it sounds like you longtime fans they're really catering to at this point who watched so much of Undertaker's career are totally on his side on this one, and don't want to see him lose twice to Brock... But on the other hand, you didn't want to see the Streak end and want to maximize the impact of the damn Streak instead of 50/50 booking that. So come on, join Team Brock. We have cookies.

As for the guy he puts over being the new Warrior... perhaps, but what if Roman Reigns would have beat him at 31 and been pushed as a monster superface for a few months? He'd get that Warrior heat and flop for sure, but with this crop of mid/uppercard babyfaces we have in the current era, a massively overpowered heel Roman could draw huge against an Ambrose or Ziggler or, especially, Daniel Bryan.

 

[edge4ever]

And that might be the single factor that works the most against it.

It could, but I highly doubt it.

I also still don't get why people aren't semi excited for this match. I'm pumped. I really want to see how this plays out. I really want to see if they'll actually let Brock win and they shake hands afterwards

 

[Jacob Fox]

It could, but I highly doubt it.

I also still don't get why people aren't semi excited for this match. I'm pumped. I really want to see how this plays out. I really want to see if they'll actually let Brock win and they shake hands afterwards

I've highly doubted a lot of things in my life, only to see them come to pass

I'm extremely excited for this match. I don't assume the actual wrestling itself will be great, but I am eager to see what happens.

 

[Jacob Fox]

As for the guy he puts over being the new Warrior... perhaps, but what if Roman Reigns would have beat him at 31 and been pushed as a monster superface for a few months? He'd get that Warrior heat and flop for sure, but with this crop of mid/uppercard babyfaces we have in the current era, a massively overpowered heel Roman could draw huge against an Ambrose or Ziggler or, especially, Daniel Bryan.

I made that exact same point when Roman Reigns won the Royal Rumble.

 

[Jacob Fox]

2. To some perhaps, but it can be interpreted in different ways. You could argue that Sting taking the fight to The Authority and being built up as this mystical figure that they couldn't properly deal with (much like he was in the old WCW/NWO days) only to lose to HHH at Wrestlemania made him look "bad", but that's what happened. And speaking of which, maybe there's even some sort of respectful nod or a quick handshake between Lesnar and Undertaker after the match is over like there was with Sting and Hunter. The idea would be that after going through one last war with each other, they both realize that the issue is settled and they have a weird new-found respect for one another after the hell they put each other through during their match at Summerslam. In that case, even if Lesnar wins, Taker still comes out looking like a million bucks by putting him through a lot of punishment and earning Brock's respect as opposed to Heyman just cutting a promo the next night screaming at the top of his voice about how Brock has killed the Undertaker for good (although I'd really enjoy seeing the latter... No telling how fired-up Heyman would get putting Brock over as a Beast with another victory over the Undertaker.)

You can argue anything. That was sort of the point of my post.

And sure we can say the buildup surrounding Sting's match made him look bad, but it's not the exact same situation just yet. We can make analogies until the cow's come home, but analogies are rarely, if ever, completely accurate because tons of other factors come into play.

For example, the Wrestlemania match was no DQ. The Summerslam match is not. Beating Sting after he was built up that way by having DX and the NWO intefere while HHH also used a sledgehammer on Sting is not the same thing as Undertaker being built up and being beaten cleanly in a match with Lesnar, if that is what happens. You can always save a bit of face when losing a no DQ match. That doesn't translate to a regular rules match.

 

[edge4ever]

I've highly doubted a lot of things in my life, only to see them come to pass

I'm extremely excited for this match. I don't assume the actual wrestling itself will be great, but I am eager to see what happens.

True but more often than not my doubts are true when it comes to WWE. They're usually very predictable. Most of the time.

About 9 times out of 10 if I doubt something will happen in wrestling, it usually doesn't happen.

And, yes, the wrestling itself may not be great, but I want it to be a special move, all out brawl.

 

[Jacob Fox]

True but more often than not my doubts are true when it comes to WWE. They're usually very predictable. Most of the time.

About 9 times out of 10 if I doubt something will happen in wrestling, it usually doesn't happen.

And, yes, the wrestling itself may not be great, but I want it to be a special move, all out brawl.

Then any instance can always be that one out of ten you were wrong about. And this could be it.

I'm mostly always able to predict what is going to happen in wrestling too. Wrestling storylines are not difficult to figure out. After watching it for 30 years, I don't get surprised very much.

However, you can be right 9 out of 10 times and I can also be right 9 and of 10 times and that in no way signifies that either of us are going to be right about this match. How often either of us tend to be right isn't a proper argument for how this match will turn out. I'm not going to say "Well, edge4ever says he's right 9 out of 10 times, so I have to concede that he's right"

And I'm not trying to be an ass, it's just not a valid argument.