I know a lot of people here are still likely in shock and disbelief over Lesnar ending the Streak, and rightfully so. Before returning to face John Cena at Extreme Rules 2012 in an Extreme Rules match, Lesnar's last match with the company had been with Goldberg. At Wrestlemania 20, in both he and Goldberg's last match with the company. It was a total disgrace, and leaving or not, Lesnar and Goldberg were still getting paid. So be professionals, will you?
I say all of this to come to my point: Why in the world would WWE trust Brock Lesnar to so much as fight Undertaker at Wrestlemania, let alone end the Streak?And the answer came to me as I sat in shocked silence, watching the referee's hand come down and slap three.
Brock Lesnar was the last believable challenge to the Streak that WWE had left.
Sting? He's 55. While he's reportedly just signed a contract with the WWE, we don't know
what it will be to do. John Cena? Cena and Bray Wyatt had been on a collision course since the Royal Rumble. And if you went with Cena, would you really turn Cena heel for
one match? While WWE has certainly changed course before, they could so here, right? Reports were that Undertaker had requsted since 2010 to have Lesnar
both end his Streak and likely his career. The worked-shoot ("wink-wink, nudge-nudge")Undertaker orchestrated after Lesnar's next-to-last UFC fight in Vegas was likely the beginning of the build-up to this. So why not Cena? Because I beliueve that while Cena and Wyatt had been locked in for this 'Mania for months, I believe Lesnar and 'Taker for Wrestlemania 30
years ago.
Having said that, plans can
always change. But with the rotten way Lesnar has been booked since his return, what better way to boost his legacy and make him seem like a supreme threat to
anyone then by having Lesnar end the streak? There are others ways, sure, but Lesnar has been mishandled in such an incredibly stupid way that he almost had to win this match.
As big of a John Cena mark as I am, Brock Lesnar should have won the match between the two. If Cena or WWE wanted him to 'get his win back', book a second match. He defeated HHH in 2 out of 3 matches, and I'm ok with the loss he suffered, actually. While HHH had HBK to run interference for him outside the ring and neutralize Paul Heyman's-including hitting Sweet Chin Music at a critical time on Heyman that allowed HHH to hit the pedigree on Lesnar- in the two matches that were truly 1 on 1, Lesnar won. Sure, Heyman interfered when he
could, but he wasn't the physical threat to HHH that HBK was to neutralizing Heyman.
Nevertheless, this is when the bad booking of Lesnar came in. Lesnar was made to bleed at one point during the build-up to the match with
CM Punk.
'A good big man will always beat a good little man' is a common saying in 80's martial arts mythology. Well, Lesnar is a great big man, and Punk, an average little one. Lesnar could also easily outwrestle Punk as well. Then why did Lesnar need Heyman to save his butt several times in the actual match against Lesnar, including breaking up the 1-2-3 after Punk hit the GTS on Lesnar?
He's then manhandled in the buildup with his match against Big Show. It got to the point where he needed about 20 chair shots before the match, and yes, his F-5 on Show while walking with him on his shoulders was impressive. But just as if he would likely have lost the match against Punk had it not been for Heyman, he would have lost his match against Show had it not been for the steel chair shots. During the build to the match with Show, he was manhandled every week, with the
World's Larger Jobber tossing Lesnar around like he was nothing and no one.
Which leads us to the build-up between he and Undertaker for Wrestlemania. I suppose, with his record since returning, it made sense for him to be knocked around by 'Taker so easily. While he should have laughed off 'Taker's Bela Lugosi-esque mind games, he was frightened by them. He only got the best of 'Taker once during the build to their Wrestlemania match, and that was only due to a Paul Heyman distraction.
But finally, in the Wrestlemania match between the two, they got Lesnar's booking
right. At first, I was just as angry as everyone else. Brock Lesnar, (1)part-timer extrordinaire, (2)beat Undertaker at Wrestlemania, breaking the Streak, (3)clean. (4)He has a mediocre record since returning, and he's beating Undertaker?
Sure he is...
From all the posts I've seen, these seem to be the
four biggest complaints surrounding Lesnar defeating Undertaker. Let me
try and set minds to ease regarding them.
1. Brock Lesnar is a part-timer: Undertaker wrestles less then Lesnar, and his only long-or PPV-match each year is at Wrestlemania. Lesnar is only 36, at what should be the peak of his wrestling career. The only matches that Lesnar has lost have been in No-Holds-Barred types of matches. This was not one of those. This was Brock Lesnar, -a former amateur wrestling champion- wrestling a broken-down, over-the-hill Undertaker. He is 49. Had this been Hell in A Cell, or No Holds Barred, I could see 'Taker winning. But in a wrestling match? It's easily advantage Lesnar.
2. He broke the streak: This is the hardest one for people to wrap their heads around, and it's a difficult point to argue. The arguments are: ("(a)Use Undertaker to build up an 'up-and-comer'"), ("(b)Have John Cena cheat and turn heel",) or the strongest of them all (c.)( "Have Undertaker retire undefeated.")
Using Undertaker to enhance an up-and comer doesn't really work anymore. When he faced Dean Ambrose on Smackdown, it would have made no sense for Ambrose to go over him. At the time, Ambrose was one of the top-if not the top-
up-and-coming heels in the company. But what worked in bringing heat was having
the Shieldattack and triple powerbomb
after the match. With an up-and-comer, the bigger draw is for Undertaker to win, like he did against heel Randy Orton at Wrestlemania 21. Then have-like they didn't do after the Orton/'Taker match-(But did throughout the summer and fall, at times.)Orton beat 'Taker down.
As for Cena, it's the same reason he didn't hit Bray Wyatt with the chair on Sunday. Turning him heel removes your top guy from face to heel for the sake of one match and ending the biggest Streak in wrestling history. But being that it begins and ends after after one match, what do you do with Cena after? And who takes his place? With Punk gone, there's a large hole in the face department as is. Cena turning heel would leave a huge gap, and it's not easily filled by rushing a heel there.
Finally, the idea of having Undertaker retiring with the Streak intact is the best argument, to be honest. But if you're going that direction, don't pit him up against Lesnar in a
wrestling match. Lesnar's only two losses since his return have been in Extreme Rules and No Holds Barred Matches, and Lesnar still dominated Cena in the first. So if you want Undertaker to retire with the streak intact(kayfabe-wise), it makes no sense for Undertaker to face a 13 years younger Brock Lesnar in a wrestling match. And still, Undertaker summoned all his other-worldly powers to kick out of two F-5's, while no one -not even in an Extreme Rules or No Holds Barred Match- has kicked out of
more then one. If Undertaker is to leave 'Mania with the Streak intact, he needs to take a match more in his favor.
3. He beat Undertaker clean:And he's won
all the matches he has according to the stipulation that was in place for each. Yeah, there's the whole 'Five-minute beatdown of Big Show before their
wrestling match, but it within the rules of the match. It was dirty, sure, but Show has shown he could manhandle Brock in a shoot-fight style atmosphere. And even so, Lesnar was still hit by the KO punch, and he still kicked out. Then despite likely still seeing stars, he picked Show up and gave him the biggest F-5 I've ever seen -In the biggest feat of strength I've ever seen- when he carried him around for 10 seconds. So it's not unreasonable to think that after unleashing three F-5's, he could pin Undertaker, even at Wrestlemania. As I said before, no one else had ever kicked out of of more then one, so a beat-up, broken down Undertaker doing so wasn't unrealistic.
Yes, I know this was Wrestlemania, so it would have made more sense to have Lesnar win cheaply. However, Undertaker then goes out losing at Wrestlemania
dirty, which would have people even more angry at the booking. Here, Lesnar gets to look like a beast as his career continues, and Undertaker(most likely) gets to retire as the only man to kick out of two F-5's. Yes, people are angry he lost clean to Lesnar, but they'ld be even angrier if Undertaker's last match was one in which he lost due to a Heyman distraction.
4. Lesnar has a mediocre record since returning: After defeating Undertaker, Lesnar's record is now 5-2 since returning. Even as the Cena mark that I am, if his first match back is against Cena, then Lesnar should have gone over. It's harder to argue the loss to HHH at Wrestlemania, because it was with HHH's career on the line. He was so desperate, he brought (an afraid of Lesnar) HBK to the ring with him, and Heyman's interference was neutralized. In the other matches he's won(2 against HHH, one against Punk, one against Show, one against Undertaker), he's simply fought according to the rules of the match.
The fact remains that despite the loss in his first match to Cena and the loss to HHH at Wrestlemania 29, he's still 5-2. It took a chain shot from Cena in a match he dominated to beat him, and interference from HHH's #2, HBK for HHH to win at 'Mania. In the match he needed to win absolutely clean, he did so. One could argue that it's how he should have been booked all along, but it was the
proper booking.
A 36 year old Brock Lesnar wins a
wrestling match against a beat-up, over-the-hill Undertaker, even at Wrestlemania. It was the correct way to book this match, angry fans or not. Especially if this was to be Undertaker's last match. And as much as many of us really don't like Brock Lesnar...
We should be good with Lesnar as the one to end the streak, especially if it's what Undertaker
wanted.
