Reigns "verge of winning" at mania 31

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by edge4ever, Nov 2, 2015.

  1. Hola,

    I'm curious as to why WWE and other sites seem to think that reigns was going to beat Brock at mania 31?? I just read yet another article where its portrayed as if reigns had the beast beat... But, in reality, he didn't. Brock seemingly had reigns beat. He not only beat his ass like the whole match, but then Brock just nailed a 4th F5, then both men collapsed. Rollins then came out and got involved.

    But, even though Brock had the edge throughout the whole match, here's what says:

    "The Big Dog has had eight months to replay the final moments of WrestleMania 31 in his head. Reigns was seemingly on the verge of conquering Brock Lesnar and capturing the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, until Seth Rollins stole his WrestleMania moment — and the title — by cashing in his Money in the Bank contract and going on to pin Reigns."

    Did we all not see the same match? Brock was seem finely going to win, not reigns. Reigns gave Brock his toughest challenge yet, but in no way did he seem like he was going to win?

    Is it just me? Or am I wrong?
  2. I don't think they necessarily meant that Reigns had the match and the title won for certain (and even if the person writing the article did mean to indicate that, this is still just the nerds of we're talking about here), just that it was incredibly likely he did. They intentionally booked the final moments of the match so that Reigns and Lesnar were more or less on equal footing to the point where the match could have gone either way had Rollins not ran out and cashed in the briefcase. (And yeah, Brock hit the last offensive move of the match before Seth ran in, but he was still too weak to crawl over and make the cover.)
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Well, yes, but I mean they're portraying it as if he had the beast on edge. Sure, reigns was pushing Brock to the limit, I'll give him that. But Brock just nailed a 4th F5 and I'm sorry but no one is really going to be able to do anything after 4 F5's. You pretty much lost. I just have an issue with them basically telling a lie
  4. Debatable seeing as how Brock was pretty slow on the cover. Reigns recovered enough to run back in the ring and hit Brock with a spear at full speed when he had Rollins in the F-5, so he still had something left in the tank. He could have conceivably still pulled out the victory had Seth not interfered.

    If you want to over-analyze it, then yeah, Brock had more left in the tank, since all it took was one curb-stomp to finally finish Reigns for good whereas Lesnar took a curb-stomp and yet was still able to pop up seconds later and catch Rollins into an F-5 position before Reigns hit him with the spear, but still.
  5. Let me put it this way. Had Seth not interfered, who do think would've won based on what happened? Brock, right?

    That's my point. I see your point and where reigns did get up and nail a spear. But Brock did have more in the tank and did just nail a 4th F5. If Seth didn't interfere and Brock and reigns made it to their feet at the same time, reigns would've been at the disadvantage. I mean that's pretty clear. If, for example, reigns just nailed a 4th spear and then couldn't capitalize at that exact moment, well, I could see how they would say reigns had Brock nearly beat. And that would be consistent and make sense.

    I know they may not mean it exactly how they're saying it, but I don't like it when anyone portrays something about a superstar when it clearly wasn't what was happening. The only person I've seen truly having Brock beat via pin fall was cena. Cena nearly did this at NOC in 2014. I'm not saying he would've gotten the pinfall, but he truly had Brock on the edge had it not been for Seth.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Being at a disadvantage doesn't mean the person would be incapable of winning. That much applies to real sports and competition, and it certainly applies to the phony world of pro wrestling. Reigns' victory over Brock would be sold as an underdog victory either way, so even with Brock at a slight advantage, there's nothing to indicate that Roman wouldn't have fought back with enough tenacity and determination to still overcome The Beast in the end.

    Besides, it's best not to over-analyze it. Both men were down and almost out when Seth ran in. From a very simplistic point of view, that makes it appear as if either man could have realistically won the match from that point on. That's all that matters.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Rollins cashed in successfully, that's all that matters to me!
    • Like Like x 1
  8. In the world of sports, when someone is in the lead or clearly has the advantage, people say "well it looks as if they have this one sealed." Sure, it's possible that the other team can come back. But the odds are stacked. And I mean we're talking 4 F5's. I understand they would sell it as an underdog victory, but, again, they're acting as if reigns was on the verge of winning the championship unless Seth interfered, which is a complete lie as there was nothing indicating that; in fact, it seemed to be on the other side of the fence.

    Honestly I've left it alone and take the simplistic approach to all of this, but idk that article got under my skin. And ones like this it get on my nerves. I mean this is just such shit:

    "The Big Dog has had eight months to replay the final moments of WrestleMania 31 in his head. Reigns was seemingly on the verge of conquering Brock Lesnar and capturing the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, until Seth Rollins stole his WrestleMania moment — and the title — by cashing in his Money in the Bank contract and going on to pin Reigns."

    Reigns was seemingly on the verge? Not at all....because he was in the disadvantage stage at that moment. Seth didn't "steal his moment." Rather, it could've went either way. It actually favored Brock more. Seth could've been "stealing" brocks moment.

    I get they're trying to sell the feud and everything, I just hate stuff like this. The match itself was great, but if they were truly going to build this "Seth stole my moment" scenario, things should've happened differently.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Without intending to be too argumentative about it, Seth did technically "steal his moment." Even though his victory wasn't a certainity, he still came an inch away from beating Lesnar and Rollins cashing in stripped away any possibility of him pulling out an historical victory over The Beast had the match continued to go on.

    It pissed me off far more when the commentators spent the remainder of 2014 constantly telling us how definitive a Cena victory over Lesnar at Night Of Champions had it not been for Seth's interference was, even though it wasn't. With Brock/Reigns, they've never actually shoved it down our throats on-screen that either guy had it won for sure.
  10. I am on the verge of crying myself to sleep. I think he needs to be built more before he gets his big moment this way when it does happen, it means more. I still think they are aiming for a Rock vs Brock WM match. Heck, make it a triple threat. I just don't think Reigns should win yet.
  11. Being optimistic, I mean it's fair to state "Rollins stole reigns moment." But what's more accurate is "Rollins stole the main event, including Brock and reigns moment."

    Brock was just in the driver seat when Rollins came into the match, and that's what bothers me. Had it been the other way around, it would've been different.

    And I agree 100% about the NOC thing. Although cena seemed much closer to beating Brock than reigns did at that time, I don't agree with them saying cen would've for sure beaten Brock. There was no certainty, Rollins just got involved and there was no answers. But, the cena train never stops.
  12. I think he's built as good as he's going to be now. He doesn't need another rumble win now and if they do that shit, it'll be utter bs and the fans will boo him to death.

    They def are going with rock vs Brock which I'm fine with.

    I think reigns should win now. It's fine by me. Seth has had a good run and aiming for a triple h feud is fine by me.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. I am just thinking in the longer run. I mean if they want him to be the new Cena, I don't think he will be ready next year for that and we don't need the wwe forcing it. You see how well that has worked for others...
  14. Well they tried forcing it and it failed. If he wins at SS, it won't feel as forced because reigns has proven a lot in 8 months, imo. If you just let him win the rumble again or something huge like that, it'll feel like a repeat and he will her booed like crazy. I think it's the right time for him to beat Seth.
  15. So him vs Seth at Mania and winning? Then what about Seth?
  16. No Roman beats Seth at SS. Seth moves onto feud with triple h.
  17. ahh I guess that would work and make sense. He can blame HHH for his loss. Heck, if he has got one more in him, let it be HHH vs Roman for the title at mania.
  18. Well yeah. Seth and Roman can feud up until the rumble. Then at mania it's triple h vs Seth. Then Roman vs cena for the title.
    • Like Like x 1
Draft saved Draft deleted