Lesnar doesnt subscribe to the plucky underdog story newsletter, not unless Goldberg is hiding in the wings. This is why he won KOTR, the rumble, why he beat The Rock, CRUSHED John Cena and broke the Streak. He doesnt overcome the odds, he just overcomes, funnily enough though, people do want to see it, we cant just ignore those "Suplex City!" chants, so how creative do you need to be?
Championship Match: (3) Shawn Michaels vs. (11) Brock Lesnar
- Thread starter klunderbunker
- Start date
Lesnar doesnt subscribe to the plucky underdog story newsletter, not unless Goldberg is hiding in the wings. This is why he won KOTR, the rumble, why he beat The Rock, CRUSHED John Cena and broke the Streak. He doesnt overcome the odds, he just overcomes, funnily enough though, people do want to see it, we cant just ignore those "Suplex City!" chants, so how creative do you need to be?
MrMojoRisin
Championship Contender
Some food for thought for the David versus Goliath/why book a heel to steamroll over the tournament crowd.
Is Brock Lesnar really the heel here?
Is Shawn Michaels really the face?
I know the rules of this thing got thrown out a long time ago. But one of them was supposedly that we're supposed to be looking at each of these guys in their PRIME. If anyone still cares enough, let's look at their primes.
HBK's prime would have to be considered the mid-90's. In a kayfabe sense, when he came back after the 4 year layoff, he would lose a lot more than he ever would back then, and he didn't win championships, so that can't really be considered his prime.
So HBK's prime is the mid 90's. A time when despite their best efforts, the WWF could not make him into a sympathetic babyface. They tried the whole boyhood dream approach when they made him champ... but the fans didn't buy it and were turned off.
He's a guy who in his prime, simply worked best as a cocky heel you wanted to see get his comeupance. Not as the little guy you rooted for and wanted to see overcome the odds of beating the unstoppable, monster heel.
So the narrative of HBK winning because it's logical and would send the fans home happy? It doesn't work with PRIME HBK. You can use it with the 2000's HBK (he'd learned how to be more sympathetic by then), but then that guy lost a fair bit and you have to begin to acknowledge stuff like how he lost his career to the streak that Lesnar ended with ease.
As for Lesnar being the heel? Like someone pointed out, Brock's only got 5 years professional experience, and he's been the top guy for that entire time. You can argue that his entire career to date has been his prime. So let's look at him now. Is he a heel anymore? Not really. At best he's a tweener. He's a guy that comes out and destroys everyone in his path like a monster heel would... but the fans love it and that's exactly what they want to see.
So having Brock steamroll over Austin, Cena then HBK in one night to win? Yeah that's good booking, because the fans would eat it up. That's what has won the fans over for Brock Lesnar.
I could buy the David and Goliath argument against a lot of guys for Lesnar. Not with Prime HBK though... one of the least sympathetic guys the business has ever seen.
To me, the only way HBK wins is by refusing to go out unless they book him to win... and the organizers paying Brock extra to do the job. Not exactly the feel good ending some seem to be going for.
Truthfully, the bigger feel good ending for many would be Lesnar suplexing HBK into a pancake, smearing his blood across his chest and pinning him for the 1...2...3!
Is Brock Lesnar really the heel here?
Is Shawn Michaels really the face?
I know the rules of this thing got thrown out a long time ago. But one of them was supposedly that we're supposed to be looking at each of these guys in their PRIME. If anyone still cares enough, let's look at their primes.
HBK's prime would have to be considered the mid-90's. In a kayfabe sense, when he came back after the 4 year layoff, he would lose a lot more than he ever would back then, and he didn't win championships, so that can't really be considered his prime.
So HBK's prime is the mid 90's. A time when despite their best efforts, the WWF could not make him into a sympathetic babyface. They tried the whole boyhood dream approach when they made him champ... but the fans didn't buy it and were turned off.
He's a guy who in his prime, simply worked best as a cocky heel you wanted to see get his comeupance. Not as the little guy you rooted for and wanted to see overcome the odds of beating the unstoppable, monster heel.
So the narrative of HBK winning because it's logical and would send the fans home happy? It doesn't work with PRIME HBK. You can use it with the 2000's HBK (he'd learned how to be more sympathetic by then), but then that guy lost a fair bit and you have to begin to acknowledge stuff like how he lost his career to the streak that Lesnar ended with ease.
As for Lesnar being the heel? Like someone pointed out, Brock's only got 5 years professional experience, and he's been the top guy for that entire time. You can argue that his entire career to date has been his prime. So let's look at him now. Is he a heel anymore? Not really. At best he's a tweener. He's a guy that comes out and destroys everyone in his path like a monster heel would... but the fans love it and that's exactly what they want to see.
So having Brock steamroll over Austin, Cena then HBK in one night to win? Yeah that's good booking, because the fans would eat it up. That's what has won the fans over for Brock Lesnar.
I could buy the David and Goliath argument against a lot of guys for Lesnar. Not with Prime HBK though... one of the least sympathetic guys the business has ever seen.
To me, the only way HBK wins is by refusing to go out unless they book him to win... and the organizers paying Brock extra to do the job. Not exactly the feel good ending some seem to be going for.
Truthfully, the bigger feel good ending for many would be Lesnar suplexing HBK into a pancake, smearing his blood across his chest and pinning him for the 1...2...3!
enviousdominous
Behold my diction
Lest we forget
[YOUTUBE]6JFPSrkW7-w[/YOUTUBE]
Sure, we're all slapping logic together like a bunch of avant-garde craftsmen of art imitating bullshit. Lesnar beats Michaels because he's the Juggernaut, Michaels beats Lesnar because underdogs never lose. My logic is, big doesn't always mean stupid.
For Brock to lose to a smaller opponent, he has to assume that his opponent is weak because he's small and thus let his guard down for a kick to the diverticulitis scar to be his undoing. Thus, Brock in all his wisdom doesn't choose to take Shawn Michaels as a serious opponent.
To make a match interesting you have to show a big guy falling prey to superior wit and flexibility, because that makes money. The only way to trump this trope is to have a draw like Brock Lesnar on the card, in which case the crowd seems to revel in seeing him obliterate all opponents he's made to compete with. There's no "Super Lesnar" mode, he's all monolith to heart stopping intimidation. He doesn't have to look like his opponent was anywhere near winning to keep the crowd engaged.
Shawn Michaels would, in my arrogant opinion, only win if Lesnar didn't take him seriously in the kayfabe world. In the real world, in my even more arrogant opinion, the crowd would lean toward Lesnar in picking a favorite to cheer for. I admit that such circumstances haven't always decided how a match is booked, rest assured that kayfabe Michaels would only ever beat kayfabe Brock Lesnar on this forum.
[YOUTUBE]6JFPSrkW7-w[/YOUTUBE]
Sure, we're all slapping logic together like a bunch of avant-garde craftsmen of art imitating bullshit. Lesnar beats Michaels because he's the Juggernaut, Michaels beats Lesnar because underdogs never lose. My logic is, big doesn't always mean stupid.
For Brock to lose to a smaller opponent, he has to assume that his opponent is weak because he's small and thus let his guard down for a kick to the diverticulitis scar to be his undoing. Thus, Brock in all his wisdom doesn't choose to take Shawn Michaels as a serious opponent.
To make a match interesting you have to show a big guy falling prey to superior wit and flexibility, because that makes money. The only way to trump this trope is to have a draw like Brock Lesnar on the card, in which case the crowd seems to revel in seeing him obliterate all opponents he's made to compete with. There's no "Super Lesnar" mode, he's all monolith to heart stopping intimidation. He doesn't have to look like his opponent was anywhere near winning to keep the crowd engaged.
Shawn Michaels would, in my arrogant opinion, only win if Lesnar didn't take him seriously in the kayfabe world. In the real world, in my even more arrogant opinion, the crowd would lean toward Lesnar in picking a favorite to cheer for. I admit that such circumstances haven't always decided how a match is booked, rest assured that kayfabe Michaels would only ever beat kayfabe Brock Lesnar on this forum.
Savior of Silence
Occasional Pre-Show
If my "lack of imagination" is the reason you vote HBK then that should say something about the true lack of reason HBK has for winning this match.
I play by the rules of logic. Logic brought us The Big Bang. Imagination brought us God. Do the right thing and vote for logic, The Big Bang and Brock Lesnar.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Logic has no place in wrestling. If it did, then the Authority would win every time because they can just fire anyone that disagrees with them. If logic had a place in wrestling, Andre the Giant crushes Hulk Hogan in 40 seconds. If logic was around, Mick Foley isn't a legend thrown off a Cell and no one thinks Undertaker is an undead zombie.
Logic in wrestling is boring.
There's a difference between logic and suspension of disbelief. It's the reason why people praise all of the angles you mention and shit on WCW's dying days and TNA - their angles don't make logical sense. Logic absolutely has a place in wrestling, without it you end up with nonsensical booking.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Nonsensical like having Brock beat all the stars in one night and then have him win the whole thing? You give Shawn the win and have Brock chase him around for months to set up the big showdown later on. That's the logical move.
But I thought logic had no place in professional wrestling?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I've sat here for a few minutes now trying to figure out a way around that bad wording and nothing is coming.
The best I've got: there's no good reason to have Lesnar win as it kills anything for the future. Why have him beat everyone, including Cena and Austin, in one night and leave no one to challenge him? It kills the box office, and only an illogical booker would do that. The smart move here is to have Shawn beat Lesnar by some form of cheating, have Lesnar come out with Heyman to say his client wasn't at 100% and that he'll murder Shawn in the rematch. Pay per views made for two months minimum.
Shawn has a history of beating bigger opponents and winning big time matches, so this is right up his alley. I know Lesnar is a different kind of animal, but at the end of the day HBK is at his best when he is facing a larger than life monster. Diesel, Vader, Undertaker, he took them all down. In addition big time matches are when he shines brightest. Very few people have outperformed HBK in big matches. When he brings his A-game, he does not lose. Lastly, Lesnar has a glass jaw, as evidenced during his tenure in the UFC. One tap from the Sweet Chin Music and Lesnar is done. It should be a hard fought match, but Michaels should come out the winner.
Little Jerry Lawler
Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids
Diesel and Undertaker have taken HBK down too. At Wrestlemania.
And when he loses quite often.
Austin has. Cena has. HHH has. Rock has. Angle has. Taker has.
WM 11, WM 20, WM 21, WM 23, WM 25, WM 26
I could name other matches against the likes of HHH and Jericho where he has brought his A-game and lost.
Only time Lesnar took Sweet Chin Music, he landed on his feet. One isn't going to take him down. HBK will not have a chance for a second try before Lesnar F-5's him through the mat.
Generally a glass jaw refers to a fighter who can't take many punches to the chin without getting knocked out.
Brock Lesnar does not have a glass jaw, he doesn't know how to properly handle a punch yes, but never in his UFC career was he knocked out. Against Shane Carwin he took a tenacious beating from one of the hardest hitters in the division. He entered the second round with a wink and arm triangled Carwin not long after.
I don't see this as relevant to the argument.
FlairFan2003
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I would pick HBK by a hair....he's smarter than Lesnar who has always been billed on his strength and athleticism, HBK always had speed and skill but also was billed as being a tactician.
This reminds me of classic Lex Luger-Ric Flair, circa 1988-90, Luger was younger and significant advantages in height (6"7 to 6"2) weight (268 to 243) and was physically much stronger. Flair had experience and was considered more skilled as a technical wrestler but his main advantage was intelligence. In their biggest battles Flair always pushed Luger hard (most agree these were Luger's best performances) and he always seemed to win one way or another by his ability to outsmart Luger.
Lesnar & HBK match up much the same way although the physical disparity is a little bit bigger between them. Size wise it's comparable to classic Monster vs Face matches like Vader-Flair or Vader-HBK, which by the way were classics that the little guy believably won.
Lesnar would probably make multiple attempts at his suplex gig and fail a few times due to HBK's counter wrestling skills, eventually I think he would nail the spot but it wouldn't be enough to win the match, it might change the momentum though, maybe coming at a moment when Lesnar really needs to regain an advantage. Likewise I think HBK goes for The Super Kick early and misses and I think he hits it at least once without getting a pinfall.
Much of the match I think would be a more technical style battle, like Lesnar-Angle was. Lesnar wanting to prove he could out wrestle HBK and not just out muscle him but this would be an even fight, HBK has shown in matches with more skilled opponents such as Angle, Jericho, HHH, that he can trade moves for a long time effectively. Like Flair, HBK can take considerable punishment, but also like Flair he wont continually be caught in punishing moments, his speed and counter wrestling skill will help him evade about half of Lesnar's big power moments.
Lesnar traditionally does not fare well when he is pushed in an even match. When he has lost it was usually a situation where he his opponent kept things close for a long time and he couldn't dominate. Lesnar barely survived the Triple Threat Match at The Royal Rumble, seemingly un prepared for the varied attacks of Rollins & Cena, benefitting by the extra man taking each other out instead of just him. Likewise he's faced John Cena four times and has one dominant win alongside an evenly fought loss, a loss he dominated but still lost cleanly, and another match in which Cena basically kicked his $#@.
I think this is a war, but not an overly dirty fight, I think HBK's counter mat wrestling and aerial attacks offset Lesnar's power style to a large degree and make it difficult for Lesnar to finish him off when he has the advantage. Ultimately I see Lesnar getting frustrated as the match creeps longer, likely past 30 minutes, and unlike UnderTaker, who was always booked as a seemingly patient character who will bide his time waiting for the perfect chance to strike (think his WM wins over Flair, HHH, Edge, & Shawn, Taker can seemingly come out of nowhere when you least expect it, even when getting his #$@ kicked, and lock in a finisher to end a match) I think Lesnar makes a fatal mistake, maybe trying one of his patented moves one too many times and gets trapped by HBK in a pinfall combination like a small package.
This reminds me of classic Lex Luger-Ric Flair, circa 1988-90, Luger was younger and significant advantages in height (6"7 to 6"2) weight (268 to 243) and was physically much stronger. Flair had experience and was considered more skilled as a technical wrestler but his main advantage was intelligence. In their biggest battles Flair always pushed Luger hard (most agree these were Luger's best performances) and he always seemed to win one way or another by his ability to outsmart Luger.
Lesnar & HBK match up much the same way although the physical disparity is a little bit bigger between them. Size wise it's comparable to classic Monster vs Face matches like Vader-Flair or Vader-HBK, which by the way were classics that the little guy believably won.
Lesnar would probably make multiple attempts at his suplex gig and fail a few times due to HBK's counter wrestling skills, eventually I think he would nail the spot but it wouldn't be enough to win the match, it might change the momentum though, maybe coming at a moment when Lesnar really needs to regain an advantage. Likewise I think HBK goes for The Super Kick early and misses and I think he hits it at least once without getting a pinfall.
Much of the match I think would be a more technical style battle, like Lesnar-Angle was. Lesnar wanting to prove he could out wrestle HBK and not just out muscle him but this would be an even fight, HBK has shown in matches with more skilled opponents such as Angle, Jericho, HHH, that he can trade moves for a long time effectively. Like Flair, HBK can take considerable punishment, but also like Flair he wont continually be caught in punishing moments, his speed and counter wrestling skill will help him evade about half of Lesnar's big power moments.
Lesnar traditionally does not fare well when he is pushed in an even match. When he has lost it was usually a situation where he his opponent kept things close for a long time and he couldn't dominate. Lesnar barely survived the Triple Threat Match at The Royal Rumble, seemingly un prepared for the varied attacks of Rollins & Cena, benefitting by the extra man taking each other out instead of just him. Likewise he's faced John Cena four times and has one dominant win alongside an evenly fought loss, a loss he dominated but still lost cleanly, and another match in which Cena basically kicked his $#@.
I think this is a war, but not an overly dirty fight, I think HBK's counter mat wrestling and aerial attacks offset Lesnar's power style to a large degree and make it difficult for Lesnar to finish him off when he has the advantage. Ultimately I see Lesnar getting frustrated as the match creeps longer, likely past 30 minutes, and unlike UnderTaker, who was always booked as a seemingly patient character who will bide his time waiting for the perfect chance to strike (think his WM wins over Flair, HHH, Edge, & Shawn, Taker can seemingly come out of nowhere when you least expect it, even when getting his #$@ kicked, and lock in a finisher to end a match) I think Lesnar makes a fatal mistake, maybe trying one of his patented moves one too many times and gets trapped by HBK in a pinfall combination like a small package.
Eat. Sleep. Suplex. Repeat.
Eat. Sleep. Conquer.Repeat.
Eat. Sleep. Break the Streak.
What ever you say about Shawn Michael's does not matter. In the land of wrestling HBK failed twice. Undertaker succeeded in maintaining his streak, but not against Lesnar. Against Lesnar, he lost.1 - 2 - 3, the streak was over. The MOST prestigious thing in WWE is gone.
Brock Lesnar F5's Michaels multiple times before pinning him with one foot.
Eat. Sleep. Conquer.Repeat.
Eat. Sleep. Break the Streak.
What ever you say about Shawn Michael's does not matter. In the land of wrestling HBK failed twice. Undertaker succeeded in maintaining his streak, but not against Lesnar. Against Lesnar, he lost.1 - 2 - 3, the streak was over. The MOST prestigious thing in WWE is gone.
Brock Lesnar F5's Michaels multiple times before pinning him with one foot.
When is this alleged rematch supposed to happen? Its not, is it? On the one hand, you have the Beast incarnate, the man who conquered the streak and suplexes lesser men (basically everybody) into oblivion and has already taken out far better than HBK in this tournament, alone. On the other hand you have 90's sexy boy, Stone Colds undersized place-holder, Shawn Michaels, the man who was conquered by the streak and an aging Hulk Hogan. Only a booker who really hated money would have Shawn win their one off encounter, if thats the kind of route you really want to go down.
So now this match is being booked based on how things would play out post-tournament? Really? That is taking stretching it to a new level. In that case I guess we will see Hogan get his revenge next year by taking down Yoko in a Flag match?
Yikes. I thought the final rounds were one night with damage carrying over to crown the winner. Not who wins based on future PPV's....
Yikes. I thought the final rounds were one night with damage carrying over to crown the winner. Not who wins based on future PPV's....
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
So we have someone who basically does two moves and is called one of the best ever, vs. someone who could wrestle against anyone. Brock is incredibly fun to watch in small doses, but he gets very repetitive in a hurry. If anyone else used 16 suplexes and a handful of the same finisher in a row, they would be booed out of the building. Brock is nowhere near as great as people make him out to be. He's very fun to watch, but he's not that great.
The question is who would win. That should be Shawn.
The powers that be put Michaels over The Rock with PM shenanigans and then booked him into the tournament to have good matches with Hart and Angle. The crowd, angered that their hero had been swindled would be baying for blood, and Lesnar in his role as juggernaut would be here to give comeuppance, despite the authority figure's meddling. Michaels was put over The Rock heelishly and had an easy finals, while Lesnar has faced Cena, Austin, Gotch, Savage, Sting and Foley - literally all amongst the biggest names in history. The powers that be gave him a crap seeding and stacked everything against him whilst backing their guy.
That is the only way that this final would ever make sense to be booked.
In the end, Lesnar would win.
That is the only way that this final would ever make sense to be booked.
In the end, Lesnar would win.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Nice theory. Totally inaccurate, but nice theory.
Yeah because I mapped this whole thing out and told everyone who was seeding the tournament how to make their lists so that I could plan out the final rounds in advance. That's so far out there I don't even know where to start.
Indeed. After getting pinned.
.
Because he was seeded far lower than Shawn. It's how tournaments work.
Actually everyone who seeded the tournament did. If you think Brain and Shocky are the Powers That Be, enjoy that line of thinking.
Which I've covered ad nauseam.
I'm not suggesting you actually did those things, I'm suggesting the booking perception, as you are in your previous post. Equally the only reason an actual booker would book a tournament to end with these two is because of the way I've mentioned. I'm certainly not moaning about seeding in reality - I doubt I have ever put Lesnar in my top 128, because I don't like him. That being said, Shocky had Lesnar at #1, so if I was moaning, he'd not be the problem.
Absolutely no booker in history would put Lesnar against all of the behemoths he's faced in order to then lose to Shawn Michaels. Equally, no booker would have Michaels limp through a tournament - which is what he's done, not one of his matches have been a landslide even against Japanese wrestlers - and then beat Lesnar unconvincingly. That helps absolutely nobody.
The hypothetical booking argument is a daft one, but if it is going to come up, it's in the favour of Lesnar.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Rock had to work hard to win most of his tournament matches and went over Mankind in 1998. It's hardly without precedent.
Going back to the bad booking idea, as I've said, where do you go if Lesnar destroys everything and wins? It's the same idea that Heyman had with Daniel Bryan submitting everyone on the roster in just a few seconds. WHere does it leave anyone to challenge him? It gets dull in a hurry and that's never a good thing.
Two of the Rock's three opponents were part of the faction he was going to join that night. He beat one of them in 3 seconds and beat Undertaker by DQ. He only won because of bullshit nonsense from the organisers of the tournament. Oh wait, I see your point.
Exactly the same place WWE were in last year? They then had to build someone to beat him. They did it with AJ and Paige too.
Where do you go once Hogan has beaten all the heels? Ultimate Warrior. By what logic would you have Lesnar steamroller Cena and Austin - wrestlers far better than Michaels with huge wins against him - and then lose the final? Lesnar actually spent his career beating everyone and then waiting for a suitable opponent. It makes perfect booking sense for him to dominate here.
You're basically describing Benoit or Angle with the above paragraph, suplex suplex finisher, did you not see Slyfox's post about the moves not actually being that important?... "Suplex City!" *clap clap clapclapclap* "Suplex City!"... People want to see Lesnar maul and maul is what Lesnar does. He can roll around on the floor grappling people as well, if he needs to, but he doesn't, for the aforementioned reason.
As to the bold, I am struggling to think of a universe or dimension where Shawn Michaels should beat Brock Lesnar, for a guy that is supposed to be the plucky underdog I've seen him slapped down more times by big names than not, I reckon, whereas Lesnar just slaps everyone down.
Everything is possible somewhere, I guess, and at wrestlezone forums, where Shawn Michaels is already a tournament winner, common sense goes to die. RVD probably would've beaten him in the KOTR finals here, and Rey Mysterio would be undefeated against him, but they didn't, and they're not, because Lesnar doesn't subscribe to the plucky underdog newsletter. These two probably wouldn't be my finalists (maybe Brock) but now that they're here, there isn't a single place in existence of imagination where I'd put HBK over the Beast.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
And what happened when Lesnar did all that last and this year? It was REALLY dull waiting around for him to show up again. People were complaining left and right that no one was a real threat to him and the matches got really boring. Lesnar is more trouble than he's worth, whereas with Shawn you can always have him fake a knee injury to drop the title.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I'm going to assume you're kidding about Benoit/Angle and move on, as that's about as absurd as you can get.
I'll give you a universe: the one you're in. The real world. It's how wrestling works, like that time last year when Daniel Bryan overcame Evolution in one night for example. People liked that as I recall.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
