Post by gstaylor99 on Nov 23, 2016 10:49:07 GMT -5
After a couple of days to digest and listening to the LAW & Review A Raw, would like to throw my 2 cents on the issue that is now probably done to death.
Specifically, to counterpoint some arguments that almost made me drive off the 401 on my commute.
1. 'Lesnar is not hurt by this loss'.
Of course he is. He just got the SD Jones treatment (minus the headbutt hope spot) by an old guy who hasn't wrestled in over a decade.
The aura of Lesnar is not what it was before he walked into the ring that night. He is hurt by this and what is worse, the locker room that he apathetically rolled over for over 2 years in his special appearances is hurt even more. It's like they've taken all the money that they've built up in their Lesnar savings account for the past 2 years and blown it all on the prettiest girl in the bar that maybe they'll see once in a while. Fun? Sure. Smart? Not really.
2. 'No one was worthy of beating Lesnar'
No one on the roster was hotter than Dean Ambrose early March of 2016 leading up to Mania. It was he who should've been given this spot. The guy on TV every week who also shows up to wrestle in Bismarck, North Dakota, etc. on the weekends. Not an expensive special attraction who calls himself a superhero on night 1.
3. 'Goldberg is the most over babyface on the roster'
No. This is a false positive. Do not confuse a nostalgic, special appearance attraction with being consistently over. Get on TV regularly and drive ratings upward. Go to house shows and build attendance from the ground up.
4. 'Lesnar is not undefeated'
Ok. True I guess. But Lesnar HIMSELF has not lost cleanly since he beat the streak (the reset on his character as I heard many times by different LAW personalities then). The only time was on the Undertaker with the phantom tap finish. Beyond that, nothing. Presenting the argument that he is not unblemished therefore this loss doesn't mean as much, is revisionist and wrong. Prior to Sunday night, I can't think of any bigger and better way to get someone over than a dominating, clean win over Lesnar. That is gone now and much like Taker's streak, it went to the wrong person.
Lastly, let me present a scenario. Say Goldberg didn't come back. Instead the Survivor Series main event is promoted as Lesnar is issuing an open challenge to an unnamed opponent. The bell is rung and Kevin Owens walks out, or Samoa Joe, or Nakamura or AJ Styles, or Dean Ambrose, or Seth Rollins or Rusev or Cesaro or hell Braun Strowman & the same 90 second match unfolds.
In which scenario is the WWE better off?
I've rambled enough & thanks for reading if you've gone this far. That was cathartic.
Specifically, to counterpoint some arguments that almost made me drive off the 401 on my commute.
1. 'Lesnar is not hurt by this loss'.
Of course he is. He just got the SD Jones treatment (minus the headbutt hope spot) by an old guy who hasn't wrestled in over a decade.
The aura of Lesnar is not what it was before he walked into the ring that night. He is hurt by this and what is worse, the locker room that he apathetically rolled over for over 2 years in his special appearances is hurt even more. It's like they've taken all the money that they've built up in their Lesnar savings account for the past 2 years and blown it all on the prettiest girl in the bar that maybe they'll see once in a while. Fun? Sure. Smart? Not really.
2. 'No one was worthy of beating Lesnar'
No one on the roster was hotter than Dean Ambrose early March of 2016 leading up to Mania. It was he who should've been given this spot. The guy on TV every week who also shows up to wrestle in Bismarck, North Dakota, etc. on the weekends. Not an expensive special attraction who calls himself a superhero on night 1.
3. 'Goldberg is the most over babyface on the roster'
No. This is a false positive. Do not confuse a nostalgic, special appearance attraction with being consistently over. Get on TV regularly and drive ratings upward. Go to house shows and build attendance from the ground up.
4. 'Lesnar is not undefeated'
Ok. True I guess. But Lesnar HIMSELF has not lost cleanly since he beat the streak (the reset on his character as I heard many times by different LAW personalities then). The only time was on the Undertaker with the phantom tap finish. Beyond that, nothing. Presenting the argument that he is not unblemished therefore this loss doesn't mean as much, is revisionist and wrong. Prior to Sunday night, I can't think of any bigger and better way to get someone over than a dominating, clean win over Lesnar. That is gone now and much like Taker's streak, it went to the wrong person.
Lastly, let me present a scenario. Say Goldberg didn't come back. Instead the Survivor Series main event is promoted as Lesnar is issuing an open challenge to an unnamed opponent. The bell is rung and Kevin Owens walks out, or Samoa Joe, or Nakamura or AJ Styles, or Dean Ambrose, or Seth Rollins or Rusev or Cesaro or hell Braun Strowman & the same 90 second match unfolds.
In which scenario is the WWE better off?
I've rambled enough & thanks for reading if you've gone this far. That was cathartic.
