Yeah but when you look at this in a vacuum - aka if you toss aside how everything gets 50/50 booking - I don't think this is that predictable of a victory one way or the other
SummerSlam Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar
- 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
Oh I 100% agree. I really still haven't come out one way or the other and said Undertaker is going to win... I know it almost seems like I am arguing that, but I'm not. I'm just arguing that their are plenty of valid reasons to have him win.
Honestly, I am enjoying this thread because it represents what is actually going on with this match. It's not all the time that this much speculation about what is going to happen occurs.
Which demonstrates why I don't feel sure enough to make a prediction yet. I would never have made the bet you and Prince Balor made in a million years, which means I still have no solid idea what is going to happen.
Gambling is one of the few ways to make it fun here. I'm excited for the bet, it'll be hilarious either way.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 31,583
- Reaction score
- 5,877
- Points
- 28
- Age
- 30
- Location
- The United States of Ambrose
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Ideally, I would want the match between the two to end in a DQ. I know what you're thinking, "we see enough of those every week, why would you want the Main Event of SummerSlam to end like that!?" Well to me, neither of those guys are in a good position to lose. You have Lesnar, who has been built up as this indestructible force, which is largely built on the fact that he did break Undertaker's streak. And then you have Taker, a legend of the WWE who has returned for the sole reason to destroy Lesnar at any cost. Undertaker's motive and determination is good enough on its own for him to walk out the victor, but him defeating Lesnar would negate everything they've laid down for Lesnar the past couple of years. As well as tear away the potential factor of making a new star(I.E Owens/Cesaro) by having them beating the man deemed unbeatable.
This is why I propose that the match serve as the groundwork for Undertaker's last match at WrestleMania 32.
The question remains as who, who should be the person to end the match via DQ?
My answer: Kane. That's right, the man who was recently taken out by Lesnar himself a couple of weeks ago. Think about it, the closing moments of the match the lights go out and you hear rumblings in the ring. All of a sudden pyro comes out of the ringposts, the lights come back on, and a masked Kane is standing behind Lesnar. Lesnar turns around and is met with Kane's hand around his throat, BUT Kane switches targets and chokeslams Undertaker!
Since Kane touches Lesnar first he technically wins, and it'd set up a WrestleMania match between Kane and The Undertaker. The match could serve as a final sendoff for BOTH of the men and I couldn't think of a better person to be the one to send one another off. Besides Sting, but I think they still want him for more than one more match.
Tl;dr: Masked Kane interferes to set up a match between him and The Undertaker.
Honestly though, they just pulled something similar at the last PPV so I doubt they'd do it again. Undertaker will probably win and we won't see him again till after the next Rumble, yay.
This is why I propose that the match serve as the groundwork for Undertaker's last match at WrestleMania 32.
The question remains as who, who should be the person to end the match via DQ?
My answer: Kane. That's right, the man who was recently taken out by Lesnar himself a couple of weeks ago. Think about it, the closing moments of the match the lights go out and you hear rumblings in the ring. All of a sudden pyro comes out of the ringposts, the lights come back on, and a masked Kane is standing behind Lesnar. Lesnar turns around and is met with Kane's hand around his throat, BUT Kane switches targets and chokeslams Undertaker!
Since Kane touches Lesnar first he technically wins, and it'd set up a WrestleMania match between Kane and The Undertaker. The match could serve as a final sendoff for BOTH of the men and I couldn't think of a better person to be the one to send one another off. Besides Sting, but I think they still want him for more than one more match.
Tl;dr: Masked Kane interferes to set up a match between him and The Undertaker.
Honestly though, they just pulled something similar at the last PPV so I doubt they'd do it again. Undertaker will probably win and we won't see him again till after the next Rumble, yay.
I should add a note beforehand, I am not saying your DQ idea is bad or trying to contradict you here, since all of our feelings about it is valid. Just reassuring that what you think will happen is Lesnar loses, won't happen.
This is the main problem that I've been having with people and Lesnar. Brock Lesnar being a nearly unstoppable force didn't start when he beat the Undertaker. That has always been his gimmick. This is the man who won the WWE title within his first year of wrestling, who easily picked up the Big Show into an F 5, who beat Hulk Hogan so badly that Hogan was bleeding from his mouth... The guy who beat the Undertaker twice before his first retirement and eliminated him from the Royal Rumble... the guy who was so dominant that the only clean loss I can ever remember him having was against Goldberg. This has been the way Lesnar has been built since the beginning.
He hasn't been unbeatable even since he's been back. He lost his first match back, to John Cena. He lost his third match back to Triple H. He beat the hell out of Roman Reigns and all he got for it was Reigns laughing at him and kicking out of three F 5s.
"but him defeating Lesnar would negate everything they've laid down for Lesnar the past couple of years"
It won't. I can't imagine why you think it would. Losing to the Undertaker is not going to negate anything. He's the fricken Undertaker... yes he's 50 and yes he has knocky knees.... but he's still the Undertaker. Being beat by the Undertaker is not going to do an iota of harm to Lesnar.
"As well as tear away the potential factor of making a new star(I.E Owens/Cesaro) by having them beating the man deemed unbeatable"
That's the WWE for you, though. They have always done that. When you think someone is being built in such a way in order to eventually put someone else over, it never happens. Hell, I can't even think of one time it did happen. They sure as hell didn't do it with the Streak. Beating the Streak was the opportune moment to build someone's career. And besides, even if they did, it's no guarantee it will make their career. Who ever remembers the name of the woman who beat Ken Jennings on Jeopardy.
Regardless of what happens here, people are not going to look at Lesnar any differently. And a victory over Lesnar will still mean as much as it would if Undertaker does not beat him.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 31,583
- Reaction score
- 5,877
- Points
- 28
- Age
- 30
- Location
- The United States of Ambrose
- Favorite Wrestler
-
- Favorite Wrestler
-
Maybe I should've phrased what I was trying to get across better, because I do realize that Brock being a legit dominant force has always been his thing. His initial run on Smackdown was when the brand was at its best, at least to me anyways. My point was mainly supposed to be about The Undertaker, even though it doesn't really seem like it looking back at it now. When Brock returned he was met with a loss to a couple of the 'greats', but him putting away Taker at WrestleMania was the real turn around point for him on this run. It was from there that initiated the path of becoming head above shoulders than the rest of the current roster per say.
For him to lose to The Undertaker cleanly does kinda make it feel like he's not all what he's cracked up to be. And there really isn't anything else that can redeem Lesnar's dominance in the eyes of those viewers who weren't watching the product during his first run, and that happens to be quite a bit of people unfortunately. That could be a good thing for someone else that is able to go over Lesnar in similar fashion in the future, but it would take away the shock factor for someone like Owens going over Lesnar. But maybe that's not what the WWE wants, because they haven't done it much like you said. It's just a big opportunity that the WWE needs to capitalize on.
My argument actually stemmed from the fact that this match makes sense. Thus, I brought up my experience and knowledge simply stating that this feud makes sense. And the feud can be really good as it has in the past.
Based on this, I said what I said. Could I be wrong? Sure, just as you very well could be. I just don't see how something that makes sense, has 2 of the biggest names in history battling each other, and raises a lot of questions won't be a good thing? If taker wins, I'll hate it. But, really it won't "ruin" Brock.
If Brock wins, taker can go to mania and into the hall of fame or whatever and leave Brock as the next top dog. That makes more sense to me. So.... Based on my experience, this match really does make sense and I don't see what could work against it at this point.
That was actually the only point I was making. We both have good instincts and we both could be wrong.
Funny thing is, I keep expressing myself poorly. I keep making it seem like I am predicting an Undertaker win, and I'm actually not. I honestly haven't formed an opinion yet. It's a reason why I am somewhat psyched for the match. If I had a preponderance for my opinion, it would probably be Undertaker, but only like 55-45.
The whole thing has been weird for me, because I am not an Undertaker fan. But it keeps on seeming like I am leaning in that direction. I personally would benefit more from a Lesnar win. I would LOVE the promos Heyman would deliver after that. But for some reason, I just haven't come down on either guy yet.
On a more interesting note, though, for some odd reason I wanted to go back and watch New Year's Revolution 2006 to watch Edge cash in MITB and defeat John Cena, one of the most amazing moments in WWE history for me. Simultaneously with the three count, the little indicator popped up on my computer showing you made this post. Given your screen name, I just found that amusing.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 36
Urgh. I've seen enough Undertaker-Kane matches in my life that I would really love never having to see another. Hopefully Taker is given a fresh opponent to retire on. If it's not a rubber match between Taker and Brock (should Taker win at Summerslam), then Taker-Cena or Taker-Sting (if Vince decides to change his mind about not wanting it) are definitely more exciting options to go with.
That first time Brock gets pinned is gonna feel the most important. Anytime after that is just another loss. Brock will still be a big threat of course, but it won't nearly as momentous in impact. And yes, Lesnar has already lost since coming back, but like Shadow said, him ending the Streak was an historical enough victory for them to plausibly "restart" his monster push and make him out like he was a new Brock Lesnar that was now more dominant than ever, plus Paul Heyman spin-doctored his previous losses by pointing out that he was still suffering from diverticulitis and wasn't 100% when they happened.
Um, JBL putting over John Cena? Triple H putting over Batista? Both of those were planned a year ahead of time (except Lesnar was supposed to be in JBL's place, and Orton in Batista's) and happened at the same event and were the beginnings of Cena and Batista's successful main event runs. Brock Lesnar himself was supposed to put over Roman Reigns this year, but we all know why that didn't happen. Of course WWE screws up a lot of perfect opportunities that could have been used to make a new superstar, but let's not act as if it's always the case.
The JBL thing is not the same thing. JBL was a weak and cowardly champion who hung onto his title by cheating and finding loopholes. Triple H was doing the exact same thing.
What I was saying never seems to happen is a champion being built up and completely dominant, like they have done with Lesnar, to only be used to put someone else over. Triple H putting over Batista and JBL putting over Cena are nowhere close to being the same thing.
Furthermore, I did not act like "it's always the case." I said that I could not think of a single time that has happened. Me not being able to pull something off the top of my head is not the same thing as saying it never happened. I pride myself on being as factually accurate as possible and I would never claim that something definitely did or did not happen without researching it. I don't appreciate the implication that I would.
"And yes, Lesnar has already lost since coming back, but like Shadow said, him ending the Streak was an historical enough victory for them to plausibly "restart" his monster push and make him out like he was a new Brock Lesnar that was now more dominant than ever, plus Paul Heyman spin-doctored his previous losses by pointing out that he was still suffering from diverticulitis and wasn't 100% when they happened."
I don't recall that ever being said, but I'll take your word for it. It's a lousy argument. The first loss came to Cena in his first match back at Extreme Rules. For a guy who wasn't 100%, he spent the entire 18 minutes of the match completely dominating John Cena. Cena only won because he found a chain and hit Lesnar with it and AAed him on the steel step. So, if Heyman did say that, I don't buy it as a sensible excuse.
In regards to Lesnar's losses, you completely missed my point. My point was that despite the losses, Lesnar never lost his air of invincibility. So in my view, the "restart" after defeating the Streak wasn't a restart, because he never lost a step before it. My point was never that Lesnar suffered from the losses. He won't suffer from this match if he loses either. And that is the only point I have been making over and over again. Even if he loses to Undertaker, in ANY way, he's not going to be looked at any weaker than he ever was. Losing to the Undertaker is not the same as losing to anyone else.
Last edited:
"In regards to Lesnar's losses, you completely missed my point. My point was that despite the losses, Lesnar never lost his air of invincibility. So in my view, the "restart" after defeating the Streak wasn't a restart, because he never lost a step before it. My point was never that Lesnar suffered from the losses. He won't suffer from this match if he loses either. And that is the only point I have been making over and over again. Even if he loses to Undertaker, in ANY way, he's not going to be looked at any weaker than he ever was. Losing to the Undertaker is not the same as losing to anyone else."
I like a lot of what you said, but this part is inaccurate. First off, Brock got the single biggest victory in WWE history by beating taker at mania 30...he ended the streak when no one honestly thought he would do so, let alone no one ever believed any superstar would end the streak. Idc who it is or what their background is at that point, but that automatically makes them better and more dominant than anyone. Why? Because that's arguably the single biggest victory in WWE history. You can take every accolade and I that one tops it.
My point in saying all of that is to say this, Brock was "dominant" before this, but not like he is now. He still lost to triple h and cena before mania 30. Sure, he had credibility before that... But look at how much better he is now and fans in general see him as a more dominant entity. How couldn't they? Beating taker, then cena, a triple threat, etc. in every match he looks freakishly more powerful and dominant. Lesnar is still the beast, but he's a revamped beast. It's not the same as before mania 30 and won't be ever again. When you get a win like that, you're on another level. They're showing that.
Also, hey man has also mentioned that Brock was sick for a couple years and now he's 100%. And look at how much better he's doing. That's also a hint that he is better now as Paul even said it.
To lockards point, his first loss, no matter who does it, will look huge. Like big... The guy who eneded the streak is finally beaten. And why waste that on taker? People have been watching Brock matches not only because he's fun to watch, but they're curious if he will actually lose.
Well, no, it's not inaccurate. What I said was "in my view." And then I explained how Lesnar looked in my own perception. You can disagree with it all you want, but that doesn't make it inaccurate in any way.
Also, plenty of people believed the streak would end. Just because they are not the majority does not mean that no thought it would. I have always believed the streak would end. I honestly thought it would have ended long before it did. On the previous forum I posted on, most people felt it would eventually end.
I never said Heyman didn't say that about Lesnar being sick. I only admitted I have no memory of it, but I did take his word for it.
The fact is, I am simply stating my perception just like you are and just like Lockard is. In my perception, Brock Lesnar had the air of dominance like he always had. It probably doesn't mean a lot to younger people who didn't grow up with Hulk Hogan, but the way he destroyed Hogan and made him bleed from the mouth was flabbergasting. . And I stand by what I said. Lesnar losing to the Undertaker is not going to hurt him in any way. We're obviously not going to convince each other on this one, so rather than go back and forth to the end of time, I am just going to agree to disagree and move on at this point.
Last edited: