Who will dethrone the beast??

[Red Rain]

says the guy who doesn't watch WWE any more....at least last I heard....

he's injured and wants to be 100%....he's talented as well and the only thing he doesn't do as good as Ziggler is sell moves...Ziggler is great but also a cocky asshole..maybe if he gets his head out of his ass, he will actually be world champ and not settle for IC champ.

You're so judgmental, it's astonishing.

So much wrong with this shitty post (shitty post is redundant for you, just post would work fine) I don't even know where to begin, so I just won't lol. You were on my ignore list for a reason, but I have no idea how you got off of it.

Ziggler is a confident, talented, hilarious, awesome, sexy fucking beast and you clearly don't know what a real asshole is. If you think Ziggler is an asshole you will burn in hell because no just god will stand for your buffoonery. Now, please direct yourself to the nearest busy intersection and throw your head into oncoming vehicles.

He and I fight tooth and nail. It's like talking to a brick wall. To him, you are wrong and talking out of your a**.
His methodology of argumentation is entirely foreign to me.

Who would you prefer defeated Lesnar next year?

By the rationale by some in this thread, they expect a reality finish.
In reality, Swagger, Ziggler and Del Rio would be the only talent to fit that criteria.
Business wise, Triple H and John Cena are comparable but obviously an 'established' star beating Lesnar would garner an extreme backlash and defeat the initial purpose.

 

[Trip in the Head]

Swagger! I didn't even think of that! Theres a good candidate

 

[Red Rain]

All that text to say you agree with most posters here.

Articulation. If you are in court or presenting an article to a committee, you must present your case formally and articulately.
It seems redundant or 'stupid' to you, but being competent and presenting a case intelligently is like breathing to some people.
I'm not calling you out for I have no desire for the drama.
Lock's paragraph's obviously irritate you to no end (I'm personally dumbfounded by that, but.), so I thought I'd present why Lock probably does it.

Instead of telling you why Hulk Hogan is old too wrestle (for example), I'd rather go into intricate detail explaining why exactly this is the case.

 

[edge4ever]

You're so judgmental, it's astonishing.

He and I fight tooth and nail. It's like talking to a brick wall. To him, you are wrong and talking out of your a**.
His methodology of argumentation is entirely foreign to me.

By the rationale by some in this thread, they expect a reality finish.
In reality, Swagger, Ziggler and Del Rio would be the only talent to fit that criteria.
Business wise, Triple H and John Cena are comparable but obviously an 'established' star beating Lesnar would garner an extreme backlash and defeat the initial purpose.

Wait who's judgemental?

 

[The GOAT]

For those who say Bryan wouldn't be able to put up believable offense that could stagger Lesnar, check these out:

 

[Farooq]

If Eddie could beat Brock for the strap, I fully believe Daniel Bryan could.

 

[Red Rain]

If Eddie could beat Brock for the strap, I fully believe Daniel Bryan could.

Possibly.
Keep in mind, if you will, that Eddie Guerrero outweighed Daniel Bryan by maybe 30 lbs or so.
One could make the argument that Brock Lesnar of 2014 is far more dangerous and ruthless than the Brock Lesnar of 2004.
Lesnar of 2004 was less battle tested, while this Lesnar is a prize fighter who only wrestles sparingly
Daniel Bryan is MMA savvy, but Lesnar is more so.

If Bryan wins it will clearly be because either kayfabe dictated or it was a 'fluke'. A running knee or a 'fluke' pin will get the job done, regardless of opinion.

 

[Prince Bálor]

Possibly.
Keep in mind, if you will, that Eddie Guerrero outweighed Daniel Bryan by maybe 30 lbs or so.
One could make the argument that Brock Lesnar of 2014 is far more dangerous and ruthless than the Brock Lesnar of 2004.
Lesnar of 2004 was less battle tested, while this Lesnar is a prize fighter who only wrestles sparingly
Daniel Bryan is MMA savvy, but Lesnar is more so.

If Bryan wins it will clearly be because either kayfabe dictated or it was a 'fluke'. A running knee or a 'fluke' pin will get the job done, regardless of opinion.

They'd better fucking do Bryan vs Lesnar for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, with DBry winning, of course! These two could put on a great match, they could bring something different to the table.

 

[Farooq]

Possibly.
Keep in mind, if you will, that Eddie Guerrero outweighed Daniel Bryan by maybe 30 lbs or so.
One could make the argument that Brock Lesnar of 2014 is far more dangerous and ruthless than the Brock Lesnar of 2004.
Lesnar of 2004 was less battle tested, while this Lesnar is a prize fighter who only wrestles sparingly
Daniel Bryan is MMA savvy, but Lesnar is more so.

If Bryan wins it will clearly be because either kayfabe dictated or it was a 'fluke'. A running knee or a 'fluke' pin will get the job done, regardless of opinion.

Actually Eddie only outweighed him by 10 pounds, and was even two inches shorter than Daniel Bryan. While Brock does seem like an unstoppable monster currently, he did have that same vibe when going into the match with Eddie. These two matches would have the same feeling, except they would just have to change the match style since Eddie had different tactics to his matches as oppose to Daniel Bryan. Regardless, it could still work and the build up would be grand.

 

[edge4ever]

why are people getting so into the details of this? as far as what's "realistic" when it comes to WWE? The whole point of WWE is that it doesn't have to be "realistic." Hell, Stone Cold isn't a huge guy yet he whooped Taker's ass, Kane, Big Show, The Rock, Triple H, etc., but using the DB "realistic" logic, what Stone Cold did is basically impossible and not real. With that being said, DB beating Brock is totally realistic. DB came off beating Triple H, Orton, Batista in the same night on the biggest stage of the year. He did this in 2 separate matches (he had a lot of fatigue). Also, Triple H beat him up after their match, yet Daniel still won the richest prize in the business battling Orton and Dave (he was also smashed through a table in a Batisa Bomb-RKO like way).

Whether you use the "realistic" approach or not, DB beating Brock can happen and look legit. Everyone knows it's not about size, it's skill. The greatest Mixed Martial artist, essentially the founder, Bruce Lee, was 5 '7 and could sidekick a guy that weighed 300 pounds 6 feet across the room. DB is supposed to be the master technician in WWE....why can't he overcome this beast? Why is it not "realistic?"

 

[Farooq]

Because it's build up. Lets say Luke Skywalker defeated Darth Vader in his first try. Being little trained by Yoda and Ben, it just doesn't seem likely and that would be poor build up. You need to build these things up and at least have logic(or what seems like logic in these scenarios) to make these entertaining and get the most out of them. That way, the finale feels like a big pay off. Stone Cold could beat Undertaker, Kane, and Big Show because he was built up to be this fearless badass that didn't take shit from anybody. It was his character and it was played off great. They all used their size and gimmicks to mostly strike fear into opponents, but as for Stone Cold he just didn't care. Not to say they couldn't wrestle at their time,, but it was mostly gimmick.

As for The Rock and Triple H, I don't see why it seemed unrealistic. They aren't huge and built to look like monsters like Kane and Undertaker, so it's just like normal fight without having to throw gimmicks into it to much, but of course they still did to keep it entertaining. The only problem I see with Daniel Bryan/Brock Lesnar is being, being able to have Daniel get solid offense, while still making Brock look like a monster in the end. Obviously this can't end in tap out if they want Daniel to win, so I would say have it for pinfall. Which, they can actually do this anyways. Daniel is always seen as the underdog, and plays that wonderful. Brock Lesnar can play the beast, destroying Daniel at the end of the show, no problem. So I can't see why this feud shouldn't take place, it'll be a great match honestly.

 

[seabs]

why are people getting so into the details of this? as far as what's "realistic" when it comes to WWE? The whole point of WWE is that it doesn't have to be "realistic." Hell, Stone Cold isn't a huge guy yet he whooped Taker's ass, Kane, Big Show, The Rock, Triple H, etc., but using the DB "realistic" logic, what Stone Cold did is basically impossible and not real. With that being said, DB beating Brock is totally realistic. DB came off beating Triple H, Orton, Batista in the same night on the biggest stage of the year. He did this in 2 separate matches (he had a lot of fatigue). Also, Triple H beat him up after their match, yet Daniel still won the richest prize in the business battling Orton and Dave (he was also smashed through a table in a Batisa Bomb-RKO like way).

Whether you use the "realistic" approach or not, DB beating Brock can happen and look legit. Everyone knows it's not about size, it's skill. The greatest Mixed Martial artist, essentially the founder, Bruce Lee, was 5 '7 and could sidekick a guy that weighed 300 pounds 6 feet across the room. DB is supposed to be the master technician in WWE....why can't he overcome this beast? Why is it not "realistic?"

They mention Brock being an ex UFC champ a lot so someone bridging that gap in size on a skilled opponent could be an issue for some. I generally don't give a fuck about it but I can see the reasoning behind it.

 

[edge4ever]

Because it's build up. Lets say Luke Skywalker defeated Darth Vader in his first try. Being little trained by Yoda and Ben, it just doesn't seem likely and that would be poor build up. You need to build these things up and at least have logic(or what seems like logic in these scenarios) to make these entertaining and get the most out of them. That way, the finale feels like a big pay off. Stone Cold could beat Undertaker, Kane, and Big Show because he was built up to be this fearless badass that didn't take shit from anybody. It was his character and it was played off great. They all used their size and gimmicks to mostly strike fear into opponents, but as for Stone Cold he just didn't care. Not to say they couldn't wrestle at their time,, but it was mostly gimmick.

As for The Rock and Triple H, I don't see why it seemed unrealistic. They aren't huge and built to look like monsters like Kane and Undertaker, so it's just like normal fight without having to throw gimmicks into it to much, but of course they still did to keep it entertaining. The only problem I see with Daniel Bryan/Brock Lesnar is being, being able to have Daniel get solid offense, while still making Brock look like a monster in the end. Obviously this can't end in tap out if they want Daniel to win, so I would say have it for pinfall. Which, they can actually do this anyways. Daniel is always seen as the underdog, and plays that wonderful. Brock Lesnar can play the beast, destroying Daniel at the end of the show, no problem. So I can't see why this feud shouldn't take place, it'll be a great match honestly.

honestly, im not trying to be a dick. But im missing your point I think. Because DB has huge build up and everyone knows it's his heart and relentless assault that wins him titles and big victories.

in response to offense and defense, it's actually really easy. Make the match very back and forth....make it similar to Brock and Cena NOC, but with more offense from DB than what Cena had. Brock nails an F5...DB kicks out and then gets him right in the yes lock followed up by a running knee plus. I feel that after 5 knee pluses, DB should be able to pin him...but the match should be about 30 mins of nothing but back and forth action....DB using his technical skills all the way through the match....flipping out of Germans and kick lesnar non stop....elbows...headbutts....yes locks..etc.

 

[edge4ever]

They mention Brock being an ex UFC champ a lot so someone bridging that gap in size on a skilled opponent could be an issue for some. I generally don't give a fuck about it but I can see the reasoning behind it.

well right..but they did this before...since Brock came back in 2012....yet people have beaten him since then. Granted, now Brock has beaten Taker and it makes him the new phenom....but they still split the boundaries of UFC and WWE. In other words, they've said things like "Brock may have been a former ufc champion, but he's fighting a multiple WWE champion now."

I mean I get Brock is supposed to be huge right now....but I think people are diving into the details too much. Plus, if Cena can nearly beat Brock, Cena being a guy who really has no technical skill, it's actually more realistic having DB beat Brock...a guy who can really wrestle or do submissions.

 

[Farooq]

I only said the problem they would have it match wise. The only build up I was talking about was more towards Stone Cold with his former opponents.