Is Brock as champ really a good thing?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Senhor Perfect, Aug 10, 2014.

  1. Most of us are in agreement that Brock will walk out of SummerSlam with the championship. However, is that really what's best for business? Brock has a limited amount of dates. If they want him to remain champion until the Royal Rumble, or even Survivor Series, how often will he be able to appear on RAW? It irked everyone, and rightfully so, when the Rock was champ and either appeared via satellite or not at all. Will we just get Paul Heyman hype jobs every Monday without seeing the champion at all until a week or two before a PPV? Brock is a great name to have as champion and brings legitimacy to the WWE like pretty much no other man can, I just don't know if having a champion who won't be around much is such a great idea.
  2. From the time that Brock broke the streak until he returned as plan C, it was Heyman who kept him alive. Who's to say that a Heyman promo every week hyping the next title defense with the obligatory appearance by Lesnar for the random beatdown of his opponent won't work? They could try it for a month or two and gauge audience reaction and go from there. We all know that Heyman on the mic is pure gold and I don't think we have to see Brock every week for a feud to be hyped.. him standing beside Heyman bouncing and making random faces won't hype much honestly. He shows up once a month.. beats up his opponent and Heyman does the rest.. in the meantime the midcard gets the chance to shine as we see more talent coming up in the ranks on RAW rather than the typical main event finish based around whatever WHC feud is going at the moment.

    If any of that made sense let me know =)
  3. I sincerely doubt that Lesnar is keeping the strap all the way till Wrestlemania. From the sound of it, he may not even be keeping it past Night Of Champions. But regardless, for however long he does keep it, there ARE clever ways to book around it without demanding that he appear every single week. Paul Heyman stated it perfectly in an interview just yesterday:

  4. It isn't a matter of him defending the title, its a matter of him showing up to the arena at all.
    For some reason, a person will always feel cheated if he goes to an arena and the champion is too busy to show.
    It makes the other stars look second rate. Even worse would be the live RAW's he would miss.
    As for the Rock comparison, there really is none. The Rock isn't a wrestler anymore. He was similar to a trophy wife, a paper champion if you will.

    Lesnar still has the cred so if he isn't defending the title it isn't because he's a protected commodity, its because he's simply better.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. It's a good thing. I'm quite sure he'll beat Cena at SS, retain at NoC, and then on the following Raw he'll lay down in the ring and Rollins will pin him, because he's just their mercenary to get the belt off Cena. Then Rollins has the belt, and, well, he'll probably drop it back to Cena so he can do the job to Reigns at WM but yeah, Lesnar won't hold it for more than a month or so.
  6. Sorry, anybody who lies down for anybody is the stupidist mother***king idea ever.
    I wouldn't OK it even if it rocket launched Rollins into superstardom
    The person signing off on this would be a jacka**, then again this is HHH we're talking about here.
    He might think its funny, ironically it was funny once HBK handed HHH the Euro title

    I'd refuse that sh** if I were Rollins. WWE really would be c*nts if they ok'd this idea
  7. It's the best way I figured they could do it. That way, Cena doesn't kill the guy who broke the streak his first match after, Lesnar doesn't hold the belt for long and we get Seth's reign out of the way (since I think Reigns is getting it at WM and having Rollins cash in afterwards would result in a failed cash in or a short reign from him and Roman, which wouldn't be great). Granted, titles switching hands this way isn't great to see, but unless Lesnar does a job to Cena/someone destroys him causing him to be cashed in on (which would turn Lesnar babyface, which... I dislike) I'm not sure how they could get themselves out of this. Unless they want Brock to hold it until WM and drop to Roman or whatever.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. We could, of course, just see Lesnar destroy Cena at SummerSlam and him allowing Rollins to cash in now after Ambrose feigns an injury earlier in the night to prevent him from stopping him... it wouldn't make Lesnar look bad to destroy Cena and HHH gets what he wants because his plan worked. It would probably disappoint some people but it would make sense and Brock wouldn't be needed to show up for anything afterward.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. So Brock does the job? I particularly wouldn't like to see that but, yeah, it would solve most problems.
  10. No... Brock doesn't even pin Cena.. Rollins comes out and cashes in after Cena is lying there. That's what I was thinking at least.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Oh, I see. So it's basically the same idea of him laying down (doesn't want the belt and is just a mercenary) but instead of stretching it out just do it at Summerslam. It would look better in the fact that Brock doesn't have to lay down, but I'm sure they want Lesnar to work Night of Champions and I think a Cena rematch would be the best way to go here.
  12. I dig this idea.
    I wouldn't write it as a foregone conclusion that Seth Rollins even cashes in successfully. If anyone had Intercontinental Championship written on him, its this dude.
    He'll win it later of course but as good as I've always thought he was, the Empire is pushing a tad harder than I expected. Unpredictability may be a good thing, however.
  13. I'll take 1 appearance a month from Brock as champ over anyone else on the roster showing up 4 times a month.
  14. The current rumor is that if Lesnar loses the championship back to Cena at Night Of Champions, it'll be in a Steel Cage match since he wouldn't have to take a pinfall there to lose. Plus, Paul Heyman could cut a promo the next night saying that only by "running away" from Brock Lesnar (i.e escaping the cage) could Cena reclaim the championship. If they still used the old school design of the steel cage (the ones with the bars), they could have ripped off the ending of Austin vs McMahon from St. Valentine's Day Massacre when Big Show threw Austin against the side of the cage so hard that it swung open, allowing Austin to drop to the floor and win via escape.

    The thing with Lesnar losing it next month (as opposed to laying down for Rollins) is that Lesnar could just invoke his rematch clause to get another shot but I guess they could just choose to conveniently ignore that in this case. I agree that Brock laying Cena out at Summerslam allowing Rollins to cash in is the ideal scenario, but since they want Brock to work NOC, I don't see that scenario playing out.
  15. This begs a question I've had for sometime. When does a rematch clause expire? Cena had a rematch clause with Bryan, but putting Bryan over was the sole purpose of that match.
    Hulk Hogan never got his rematch with Warrior, did he? Once Bryan regains the championship the rematch will be revisited, not because of the clause, but out of respect.
    The Rock still has a rematch clause with Cena, does he not? This is all empty rhetoric because rematch clauses seem only to occur out of convenience.

    If Lesnar lies down, Rollins may end up holding the title until the Empire has an angle written that would allow Bryan, Reigns, Lesnar and Cena to be heavily featured at Wrestlemania.
  16. They really lack consistency when it comes to rules. The rematch clause is an example as it's something that they choose to invoke or not depending on whether it fits the current angle to do so. The Rock will never get his rematch (if he ever challenged for the championship again, he would be granted a shot just because he's The Rock, not necessarily because he is still owed a rematch), Bryan will no doubt have to earn a rematch when he returns, etc. Strangely, The Miz wasn't even granted a rematch after losing the championship to Cena at Extreme Rules 2011. Logically, one should have been granted to him immediately but he had to go and win a triple-threat against Mysterio and Del Rio on Raw just to earn a shot against Cena at Over The Limit:

    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Plus, it would make Cena look like a d*** if he ever orally invoked a rematch clause on air to Bryan.
    Vince likes a white meat babyface and cats like that don't get grimy with a rematch clause.
    It isn't consistent, however, because a left-wing babyface like Orton probably would invoke a rematch clause almost immediately.
  18. Didn't the Miz did get his championship rematch on Raw? Riley got the ref, Miz hit Cena with the belt to lay him out, hid the belt and pin him for the 1-2-3. Ref raised the left hand and the proud Riley raised up the right hand and revealed that the Miz was holding the title and the ref reversed the decision.

    (I'm getting the timeline right here, right? Maybe that was after Over the Limit?)

    Anyway, I slightly like the idea of "Cena barely escapes the cage with his life, maybe his feet touch the floor right before Brock" as it seems like a good way out, but Cena going over Brock in any way shape or form will just anger so many people at a time when they really should be doing the opposite...

    It seems like the only good way out of this without Brock losing is what Leo C said, which makes the OP perfectly right. Does create a lot of intrigue for how this all will go down, however. :emoji_slight_smile:
  19. I'm pretty sure that was the next night on Raw. He blamed Alex Riley for the loss in the way you described, which lead to the Riley face turn and their match at Capital Punishment.

    I agree that Lesnar shouldn't be losing in any way, even via Cena escaping the cage. Putting the championship on Lesnar just so he can put over Cena the next month (even in an ending that avoids him taking a pinfall loss) is rather pointless. Really, the perfect way out of Lesnar holding the championship for a long period of time would have been a babyface cashing in their MITB contract on him, but unfortunately, a heel is currently in possession of the briefcase. Not that I'm suggesting Rollins shouldn't have won the briefcase, just saying. As predictable as it may have been, imagine Cesaro remained face after Wrestlemania (or rather, made the official turn afterwards), won the briefcase and then cashed in on Lesnar to become champion. Or imagine he did align himself with Paul Heyman but betrayed him by cashing in on Brock. I doubt they would have gone that route since all of their focus is on building Reigns as the next big superstar, but still, it's an idea.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  20. If Lesnar is Plan C, then maybe that plan is he beats Cena to a pulp. Gets a DQ for Rollins to take the easy cash in?