SummerSlam Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar

[The GOAT]

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.

It's not a lousy argument, rather a fairly sensible one. Yeah, Lesnar dominated Cena for the majority of the Extreme Rules match, but that just highlights how dominant Brock was even when his health wasn't 100%. Now imagine how much more dominant/stronger/harder to defeat he is when he's operating at a full healthy capacity, and thus you have the Lesnar that we've been watching post-Streak. Of course it doesn't make 100% sense if you over-analyze it, but then pretty much nothing in the world of wrestling ever does. It's a plausible enough reason for the majority of people to accept as to why Brock is seen as "unbeatable" since ending the Streak despite his previous losses.

And I'm not "completely missing your point", I'm simply making my own. Of course Brock post-Streak is different than Brock pre-Streak. He's taken more finishers AND kicked out of them all in a single match than he ever did before (he took four AA's and two curb-stomps during the Rumble match alone and still got a shoulder up before the three count.) He hasn't required Paul Heyman's assistance in helping him win any matches either. Brock would have probably lost if Heyman hadn't of low-blowed HHH at Extreme Rules 2013. Heyman interfered twice during Brock's match with Punk at Summerslam, complete with the announcers saying that Punk had the match won if not for Heyman. He needed a chair shot to bring Big Show down to his knees at the Rumble, making it look like he worried he couldn't get the job done without it. Heyman hasn't lent Brock a helping hand since the Streak ended because he hasn't needed to.

The commentators have even continued to sell him as such, even saying shit like "Will anyone ever be able to beat this man?" Triple H has mentioned it in his sit-down interviews on WWE.com, too (he cited possible ring rust as another reason why Brock lost a couple of times when he first returned.)

 

[edge4ever]

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.

It is inaccurate. This has nothing to do with perception. Fact is that Brock lost twice since his return in 2012, pre streak. Triple and cena beat him. To lockards point as well, he had to cheat sometimes and couldn't handle nearly as many finishers, nor dominate even close to what he does now.

Post streak Brock has been unbeatable. Literally. And when he steps in the ring he utterly dominates. Cena, taker, Rollins, reigns, etc. He's kicked out of so many finishers during matches that it's too hard to count... He then still stands and can nail an F5 and win. And act like nothing happened to him. Taker also had to resort to, after Brock was in a full length match with Rollins, a low blow just hit a choke slam on Brock. Or else he may have been F5d and destroyed. The Brock after the streak is a whole other animal. There's not argument that can be presented against that. It's fact.

 

[Jacob Fox]

It is inaccurate. This has nothing to do with perception. Fact is that Brock lost twice since his return in 2012, pre streak. Triple and cena beat him. To lockards point as well, he had to cheat sometimes and couldn't handle nearly as many finishers, nor dominate even close to what he does now.

Post streak Brock has been unbeatable. Literally. And when he steps in the ring he utterly dominates. Cena, taker, Rollins, reigns, etc. He's kicked out of so many finishers during matches that it's too hard to count... He then still stands and can nail an F5 and win. And act like nothing happened to him. Taker also had to resort to, after Brock was in a full length match with Rollins, a low blow just hit a choke slam on Brock. Or else he may have been F5d and destroyed. The Brock after the streak is a whole other animal. There's not argument that can be presented against that. It's fact.

Now you're just being rude and I don't have time for people who are rude.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. If you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, I don't have time to argue in circles with you.

 

[edge4ever]

Now you're just being rude and I don't have time for people who are rude.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. If you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, I don't have time to argue in circles with you.

Not rude. And you're dodging. What did I say that was rude? I merely stated something similar to what lockard said.

Fact is that Brock lost up until mania 30 twice and had to resort to cheating and couldn't nearly take the same abuse as he does now.

Fact is that after mania 30 he not only is unbeatable, but he dominates all and kicks out of everything.

Combine those 2 facts, there's no perception or opinion, it's reality.

 

[Solidus1]

Masked Kane

ooh:

 

[Rogue]

ooh:

[/COLOR][/RIGHT] in your sig is annoying me. Fix it, please.:henry2:

 

[Jacob Fox]

It's not a lousy argument, rather a fairly sensible one. Yeah, Lesnar dominated Cena for the majority of the Extreme Rules match, but that just highlights how dominant Brock was even when his health wasn't 100%. Now imagine how much more dominant/stronger/harder to defeat he is when he's operating at a full healthy capacity, and thus you have the Lesnar that we've been watching post-Streak. Of course it doesn't make 100% sense if you over-analyze it, but then pretty much nothing in the world of wrestling ever does. It's a plausible enough reason for the majority of people to accept as to why Brock is seen as "unbeatable" since ending the Streak despite his previous losses.

And I'm not "completely missing your point", I'm simply making my own. Of course Brock post-Streak is different than Brock pre-Streak. He's taken more finishers AND kicked out of them all in a single match than he ever did before (he took four AA's and two curb-stomps during the Rumble match alone and still got a shoulder up before the three count.) He hasn't required Paul Heyman's assistance in helping him win any matches either. Brock would have probably lost if Heyman hadn't of low-blowed HHH at Extreme Rules 2013. Heyman interfered twice during Brock's match with Punk at Summerslam, complete with the announcers saying that Punk had the match won if not for Heyman. He needed a chair shot to bring Big Show down to his knees at the Rumble, making it look like he worried he couldn't get the job done without it. Heyman hasn't lent Brock a helping hand since the Streak ended because he hasn't needed to.

The commentators have even continued to sell him as such, even saying shit like "Will anyone ever be able to beat this man?" Triple H has mentioned it in his sit-down interviews on WWE.com, too (he cited possible ring rust as another reason why Brock lost a couple of times when he first returned.)

It might not make sense when you "over-analyze it." But I hate to break it to you, I didn't over analyze anything. I pulled it off the top of my head. If I can pull it off the top of my head, so can anyone else. That is why it is a lousy argument in my viewpoint. And I stand by it.

 

[The GOAT]

It might not make sense when you "over-analyze it." But I hate to break it to you, I didn't over analyze anything. I pulled it off the top of my head. If I can pull it off the top of my head, so can anyone else. That is why it is a lousy argument in my viewpoint. And I stand by it.

Eh, I was using "you" in a very broad sense, I wasn't necessarily saying that you over-thought it, personally. I'm aware that there are people who share your point of view, but for reasons that I already stated, I think most would already see it my way and even if they didn't, put forth the argument to them that I gave in my last post and I think the grand majority of them would.

In a nutshell: Brock has been more dominant than ever since his historical victory of ending the Streak and thus the next time he loses will be the biggest loss of his career thus far. I suppose one day the stars could align magnificently to the point where another loss might mean more, like in the case of putting over someone who might actually be the next face of the company, but that isn't in any way a guarantee. What is a practical guarantee though is that his next loss will be the one that carries the most impact, and you'll forgive me for being diametrically opposed to the idea of the Undertaker being the one to get that win, especially when he's *this* close to retirement with a career already full of defining moments anyway.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I am explaining why, in my mind, it is a lousy argument. I am not saying that your opinion is bad or wrong, so don't take it like that. The sarcasm is not directed at you, because you are not the person who made the diverticulitis excuse, Heyman was. So this is directed towards Heyman or anyone else who created that idea.

This is my opinion and my opinion only. Unlike what others have done here, I am not disparaging anyone's opinion. It's fine if you or anyone think differently. THis is why I cannot buy that argument. This is also an example of me over analyzing it, so keep that in mind in the future that if I am going to over analyze something, everyone will know about it because I sure as hell can analyze the crap out of anything (it comes with a career as a psychologist). However, just to make it clear, we're on a wrestling forum.. that is almost all of what we do here is over analyze things all day.

Okay, the argument in question is that Heyman said that Lesnar was not dominant when he first came back to WWE because of his diverticulitis. Okay, that is the reason. So that being the case:

Lesnar dominates Cena completely in an 18 minutes match, which includes him escaped AA attempts and ONLY loses because he gets hit with a steel chain. So, it was the fault of his diverticulitis that caused the chain to knock him out. So if Lesnar did not have diverticulitis, the chain would not have knocked him out. Or if Lesnar didn't have diverticulitis, John Cena would have been UNABLE to hit him with a chain, right? Yeah, I think Einstein figured that out in his field equations: "people can only get hit with steel chains if they have diverticulitis"

Summerslam 2012, Lesnar dominates HHH for the beginning of the match. HHH attacks Lesnar in the intestinal area and the commentators go on and on about the diverticulitis. Despite this, Lesnar easily kicks out of the pedigree and continues to dominate the match and beating HHH so bad, breaking his arm and beating him so badly they are talking about him retiring. Even though he was attacked where everyone assumes he is supposed to suffering from, he still dominates and wins the match quite brutally.

Wrestlemania 29 HHH beats Lesnar after pedigreeing him on steel steps. Yup, he lost that match because of his ongoing diverticulitis issue. If he didn't have diverticulitis, being pedigreed on the steel steps would not have beaten him.

Summerslam 2013, Lesnar beats CM Punk in probably the most even match he's had.

First match after breaking the Streak, Lesnar dominates Cena exactly as he did at Extreme Rules 2012 except Cena doesn't have a chain this time around. Of course, he was just as dominant in both matches, but it was his diverticulitis being gone that helped him win despite.

Night of Champions 2013 Cena vs Lesnar. John Cena gets more offense in this match against Lesnar than anyone has so far since they came back and he likely had Lesnar beaten if Rollins hadn't interfered. Of course, Lesnar lost this match due to a disqualification. Rollins then puts a curb stomp on Lesnar, who hasn't recovered yet, which is shocking because he doesn't have diverticulitis anymore and he shouldn't be able to be hurt.

Royal Rumble 2015. Lesnar is taken out of the match and an attempt to be stretchered out of the ring. He is not in a large portion of the match. But of course, he must have been faking it. This is the ONLY time I can recall Lesnar ever on a stretcher in his career and it happened AFTER the diverticulitis issue had been cleared up.

Wrestlemania 31. Lesnar beats the holy living crap out of Reigns for most of the match. He hits four F5's, more than he has on anyone since he has come back but is unable to defeat Reigns with four F5's despite not having diverticulitis anymore.

He was able to kick out of more finishers after the streak ending because he doesn't have diverticulitis? The number of finishers hit is irrelevant if he is not beaten by one of those finishers. So Triple H only hit two pedigrees at Summerslam... well, Brock kicked out of them both and won the match handily. I'm not quite sure why kicking out of a certain number of finishing moves matters as long as he kicks out of every one used in the match.

He was more dominant after the diverticulitis cleared up and that was why he was able to beat the Undertaker and win the WWE championship? Well, I think he was only given a match with the Undertaker and a title shot AFTER the diverticulitis cleared up and those opportunities presenting themselves had a lot more to do with it than him not having diverticulitis anymore.


That is why the diverticulitis argument is a lousy one. There is absolutely no sense in the argument because not a single thing in the time period before he beat the streak in any way indicated that he was performing worse because of it. If he was less dominant, if he was getting his ass kicked, I might agree with you. But the fact is that the only two times he was beat was due to a steel steps and a metal chain. Whether he has diverticulitis or not is not going to matter when he's hit in the head with a chain and steel steps.

 

[edge4ever]

I am explaining why, in my mind, it is a lousy argument. I am not saying that your opinion is bad or wrong, so don't take it like that. The sarcasm is not directed at you, because you are not the person who made the diverticulitis excuse, Heyman was. So this is directed towards Heyman or anyone else who created that idea.

This is my opinion and my opinion only. Unlike what others have done here, I am not disparaging anyone's opinion. It's fine if you or anyone think differently. THis is why I cannot buy that argument. This is also an example of me over analyzing it, so keep that in mind in the future that if I am going to over analyze something, everyone will know about it because I sure as hell can analyze the crap out of anything (it comes with a career as a psychologist). However, just to make it clear, we're on a wrestling forum.. that is almost all of what we do here is over analyze things all day.

Okay, the argument in question is that Heyman said that Lesnar was not dominant when he first came back to WWE because of his diverticulitis. Okay, that is the reason. So that being the case:

Lesnar dominates Cena completely in an 18 minutes match, which includes him escaped AA attempts and ONLY loses because he gets hit with a steel chain. So, it was the fault of his diverticulitis that caused the chain to knock him out. So if Lesnar did not have diverticulitis, the chain would not have knocked him out. Or if Lesnar didn't have diverticulitis, John Cena would have been UNABLE to hit him with a chain, right? Yeah, I think Einstein figured that out in his field equations: "people can only get hit with steel chains if they have diverticulitis"

Summerslam 2012, Lesnar dominates HHH for the beginning of the match. HHH attacks Lesnar in the intestinal area and the commentators go on and on about the diverticulitis. Despite this, Lesnar easily kicks out of the pedigree and continues to dominate the match and beating HHH so bad, breaking his arm and beating him so badly they are talking about him retiring. Even though he was attacked where everyone assumes he is supposed to suffering from, he still dominates and wins the match quite brutally.

Wrestlemania 29 HHH beats Lesnar after pedigreeing him on steel steps. Yup, he lost that match because of his ongoing diverticulitis issue. If he didn't have diverticulitis, being pedigreed on the steel steps would not have beaten him.

Summerslam 2013, Lesnar beats CM Punk in probably the most even match he's had.

First match after breaking the Streak, Lesnar dominates Cena exactly as he did at Extreme Rules 2012 except Cena doesn't have a chain this time around. Of course, he was just as dominant in both matches, but it was his diverticulitis being gone that helped him win despite.

Night of Champions 2013 Cena vs Lesnar. John Cena gets more offense in this match against Lesnar than anyone has so far since they came back and he likely had Lesnar beaten if Rollins hadn't interfered. Of course, Lesnar lost this match due to a disqualification. Rollins then puts a curb stomp on Lesnar, who hasn't recovered yet, which is shocking because he doesn't have diverticulitis anymore and he shouldn't be able to be hurt.

Royal Rumble 2015. Lesnar is taken out of the match and an attempt to be stretchered out of the ring. He is not in a large portion of the match. But of course, he must have been faking it. This is the ONLY time I can recall Lesnar ever on a stretcher in his career and it happened AFTER the diverticulitis issue had been cleared up.

Wrestlemania 31. Lesnar beats the holy living crap out of Reigns for most of the match. He hits four F5's, more than he has on anyone since he has come back but is unable to defeat Reigns with four F5's despite not having diverticulitis anymore.

He was able to kick out of more finishers after the streak ending because he doesn't have diverticulitis? The number of finishers hit is irrelevant if he is not beaten by one of those finishers. So Triple H only hit two pedigrees at Summerslam... well, Brock kicked out of them both and won the match handily. I'm not quite sure why kicking out of a certain number of finishing moves matters as long as he kicks out of every one used in the match.

He was more dominant after the diverticulitis cleared up and that was why he was able to beat the Undertaker and win the WWE championship? Well, I think he was only given a match with the Undertaker and a title shot AFTER the diverticulitis cleared up and those opportunities presenting themselves had a lot more to do with it than him not having diverticulitis anymore.


That is why the diverticulitis argument is a lousy one. There is absolutely no sense in the argument because not a single thing in the time period before he beat the streak in any way indicated that he was performing worse because of it. If he was less dominant, if he was getting his ass kicked, I might agree with you. But the fact is that the only two times he was beat was due to a steel steps and a metal chain. Whether he has diverticulitis or not is not going to matter when he's hit in the head with a chain and steel steps.

The fact that you mentioned that lesnar was pinned twice since the 2012 return until mania 30 proves exactly what we've been saying. And, in every example you gave before mania 30, Brock also had heyman help him at times and could only survive like 1, maybe 2 finishers... Now he can survive like 4-5.

 

[edge4ever]

lol and name one match since his 2012 return until mania 30 where he dominated like he did with cena in the 2014 SS match. There's no comparison.

But since there's some blindness (not meaning that in a "mean" way, just how I perceive it) I'll just leave this discussion alone. Brock was overall pretty dominant before mania 30, but no where near the level he is Now.

 

[ShaRpY HaRdY]

I sincerely hope Brock goes over Taker again.. the only reason that won't happen is via interference.. but who would get involved? that would be my question.

 

[Prince Bálor]

I sincerely hope Brock goes over Taker again.. the only reason that won't happen is via interference.. but who would get involved? that would be my question.

[HASHTAG]#MaskedKane[/HASHTAG] #HeHasToSistematicallyEviscerateBrockForBreakingHisLeg

 

[ShaRpY HaRdY]

[HASHTAG]#MaskedKane[/HASHTAG] #HeHasToSistematicallyEviscerateBrockForBreakingHisLeg

I was going to say Kane but I see him getting involved in the Rollins/Cena match.. but I guess that doesn't mean he can't do both and come back with a straight vengeance.

 

[Prince Bálor]

I was going to say Kane but I see him getting involved in the Rollins/Cena match.. but I guess that doesn't mean he can't do both and come back with a straight vengeance.

Right.

I can also see KO getting involved in a Rollins/Cena match, tbh.