MAJOR SummerSlam News - 2 Legends booked to return

[slik]

Woah...



Dirt Sheets are reporting that both Sting and Undertaker are scheduled to have matches at SummerSlam...could they finally be doing Taker/Sting? Also, The Dead Man is booked to return to RAW this Monday!

[Shisen Kopf]

Surfer/Biker? Please say yes. Omg that would rule.

[Innovator]

Undertaker & Sting vs. Kane & Big Show



BOOK IT

[FakeLaser]

Most likely I think The Undertaker interferes in the Lesnar/Rollins match to keep the belt on Rollins and to set up Taker vs Lesnar II at Summerslam. Makes sense; avenges the streak and Lesnar putting Kane out of action.

Really lame if Taker "gets his win back" from Lesnar though.

If Kane wasn't written out of the show, a return of THE DEMON KANE to tag with The Undertaker as The Brothers of Destruction would be pretty dope and a good final run for them both where they can work as a tag to hide their limitations. Kane and The Undertaker vs Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose would be cool at some point.

If Undertaker is aligned with the authority we kind of have a Corporate Ministry thing going don't we?

For Sting, I dunno. I'd hate to see him go 0-2 for his WWE career, so booking him is more difficult. I don't know who I'd want to put him over though.

[Savio]

Put Sting over Adam Rose.

[#1-norm-fan]

For some reason, the thought of Sting vs Stardust popped into my head. And I don't mind it.

[Ruien]

I don't mind Stardust vs anyone.

[Savio]

Yeah Sting vs Stardust would be grand, heck make it a Triple thread with Neville so the match would be good too.

[FakeLaser]

That's a good idea

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think they might just go with Brock Lesnar vs. Undertaker. Not sure where they go with Sting, exactly, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Sting avenge his WrestleMania loss and beat Triple H in a short match at SummerSlam. Either him or Bo Dallas in an impromptu match.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Surfer/Biker? Please say yes. Omg that would rule.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, first things first...if they really want to take this year's event to the next level, they need to re-name it to SummerFest! :shifty:

Oh, and have Jeremy Piven as the host of the show.

[Heyman]

At this stage in his career, Undertaker's mouth is essentially just a vehicle for other wrestlers to deposit their semen. My hope is that Taker retires pretty soon.

[Maluco]

I think they will do Taker/Sting for the spectacle at Mania, so this is to set up two mini feuds to put over both guys big at Summerslam to lead into that match. Don't think a win over Stardust does anything for Sting in this scenario.

Maybe Taker over Seth (who can carry a match) and Sting over Triple H (with a slight Rock distraction)

[DAMN iNATOR]

At this stage in his career, Undertaker's mouth is essentially just a vehicle for other wrestlers to deposit their semen. My hope is that Taker retires pretty soon.

Still say putting him in the HoF the night before WM 33 and having him get one last win to make him 24-1 @ WM all-time, having wrestled 25 matches at the show is the way to go Have him share a brief emotional moment with his final opponent in-ring, then have the cameras follow him as he slowly saunters up the ramp one last time before raising his right fist high into the air, and looking back at the crowd one ladt time before walking backstage.

Then the following night on RAW, give him the Flair-style retirement with a nice video package, maybe a small speech from The Deadman himself, and a bunch of the guys coming down to the ring to say goodbye to him once more before he "officially" retires.

[Heyman]

Still say putting him in the HoF the night before WM 33 and having him get one last win to make him 24-1 @ WM all-time, having wrestled 25 matches at the show is the way to go Have him share a brief emotional moment with his final opponent in-ring, then have the cameras follow him as he slowly saunters up the ramp one last time before raising his right fist high into the air, and looking back at the crowd one ladt time before walking backstage.

Then the following night on RAW, give him the Flair-style retirement with a nice video package, maybe a small speech from The Deadman himself, and a bunch of the guys coming down to the ring to say goodbye to him once more before he "officially" retires.

That would be pretty good.

I'm wondering if Taker's last match at Mania' should be against Cena......with Cena going over.

Cena basically plays the role of HBK while Taker plays the role of Flair.

[DAMN iNATOR]

'Taker shouldn't even have 1 loss, let alone suffer a second. He should win @ WM 32 & 33 (assuming no injuries keep him out of either or both; he IS 50, after all) and retire 24-1. Otherwise if Cena (or anyone) wins a theoretical match with him @ WM, he has a more diminished résumé for the HoF than his 1 loss has already done.

[#1-norm-fan]

lol Taker's HoF resume is not in any danger of being diminished. Come on.

[Mercenary]

'Taker shouldn't even have 1 loss, let alone suffer a second. He should win @ WM 32 & 33 (assuming no injuries keep him out of either or both; he IS 50, after all) and retire 24-1. Otherwise if Cena (or anyone) wins a theoretical match with him @ WM, he has a more diminished résumé for the HoF than his 1 loss has already done.



Wait? What? Wow

[Savio]

Why does everyone think Cena needs to continue to add things to his resume?

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>Why would Taker suddenly care about avenging his WM30 loss when an entire WM has passed by in which Taker fought somebody completely different and won?</font>

[DAMN iNATOR]

Well I mean it was kind of his crowning achievement in the company. He's never struck me as the kind of guy who cares about money, titles or popularity.

[#1-norm-fan]

The streak is his crowning achievement. It happened... and it's over. He doesn't need to keep winning matches now to "protect his legacy" or anything.

[Emperor Smeat]

Observer on the current matches planned for Suumerslam involving the big surprises:

Brock vs Taker
Bray vs Sting

Sting probably was meant to face Rusev before he got injured if the sheets were right about the original plans getting scrapped around the same time.

[slik]

<font color=goldenrod>Why would Taker suddenly care about avenging his WM30 loss when an entire WM has passed by in which Taker fought somebody completely different and won?</font>

he lost clean to

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>Exactly. There's nothing for him to avenge, he lost fair and square. And even if he DID want to avenge the loss, you'd think he would have done it the next year rather than going "oh wait, gotta take care of Bray Wyatt first."</font>

[#1-norm-fan]

Unless he turned heel and is working for The Authority or something.

Then again, that wouldn't really be him avenging his loss.

I don't know. All I know is if they did this massive build over a year and a half for Lesnar just to have him lose to Taker, Vince, Triple H and Stephanie all need to fire themselves.

[James Steele]

I'm guessing they will go with the angle being that Brock and Heyman poked the bear one time too many when they overtly insulted Taker and proceeded to insult Kane and shattered his ankle.

[FakeLaser]

THE CORPORATE MINISTRY IS BACK

[FakeLaser]

Faarooq and Bradshaw will replace J&J Security

[Emperor Smeat]

Him avenging the loss is probably what they are going to use even though they've been using the same routine to get him to show up for years now.

Someone randomly summons his name either in a mocking or demeaning manner and Taker suddenly appears a week or so later. Like Vito said, Taker could have easily had his chance earlier in the year but since Bray summoned him, Taker forgot about everything Lesnar related at the time.

Since Heyman summoned him last, now Taker suddenly remembers why he hates Lesnar.

[#1-norm-fan]

Was just reminded of how The Shield put Taker out of action after WrestleMania 29 and he didn't do shit about it. That makes the idea of him helping Rollins out as part of his revenge on a guy who beat him clean even more silly.

[#1-norm-fan]

Actually, Taker should have showed up after the pre-show match to beat down King Barrett as revenge for leading an army of men to bury him alive. Seems like the first guy you'd want revenge on.

[FakeLaser]

They could easily use that he attacked his brother Kane as the reason for his newfound motivation.

[Savio]

Rollins attacked Kane too.

[Simple Fan]

They could easily use that he attacked his brother Kane as the reason for his newfound motivation.

Or just the fact that Paul has mentioned 21-1 every time he gets a mic.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Faarooq and Bradshaw will replace J&J Security

http://i.imgur.com/osu53cl.gif

[rad dggy dg]

I read the vigilante Sting will tag team with Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose to face off against the Wyatt Family. Good way to hide Sting's limited ability.

[Heyman]

Reigns and Ambrose vs. Wyatt and Harper should be decent.

[Emperor Smeat]

Rumored card for Summerslam at the moment according to the dirtsheets:

Seth vs HHH or Seth vs Kane

Brock vs Taker II

Reigns & Sting vs Wyatt & Harper

Rusev/Summer vs Dolph/Lana

Big Show vs Miz vs Ryback

Stardust vs The CW's Green Arrow

Divas match

Cena match (probably not with Owens)

[ron the dial]

well that certainly reads like a lackluster show.

[XL]

If that cards anywhere near true, it's exactly why people consider Owens to be buried. It's great that he went in on Cena's level, and beat him first time out. But now he's lost to him twice, what next? Who does he work with that keeps him on that level?

[The CyNick]

Taker vs Brock "2" is really odd booking to me.

It makes sense to get Brock out of Battleground without actually losing, but I dont see what is gained from a program with Taker and Brock. Both guys should be kept strong for Mania matches. Especially Brock, who seems to be gaining steam lately.

If Brock wins, you just brought back Taker early just to lose. If Taker is going over, then you've pretty much killed the Lesnar character.

Almost feels like a match that will have no winner, and set up another angle, which will have a payoff at Mania. Maybe The Shield get back together and turn heel.

[Maluco]

Unless Sting wins at SS, Taker loses, and they do a redemption story. Can he raise his game one last time and get one last win against Sting? Could be pretty emotional if done right...

[Jazzy Foot]

I believe Undertaker v Brock Lesnar at Summer Slam is going to be part 2 of 3 with the 3rd coming at WM 32.

I know many here seem against that idea but I think it would be an awesome storyline if planned out correctly.

[DAMN iNATOR]

I believe Undertaker v Brock Lesnar at Summer Slam is going to be part 2 of 3 with the 3rd coming at WM 32.

I know many here seem against that idea but I think it would be an awesome storyline if planned out correctly.

I could buy that but I do worty they might just book Brock to go over @ WM 32 and give 'Taker another unecessary WM loss

[Heyman]

Taker vs Brock "2" is really odd booking to me.

It makes sense to get Brock out of Battleground without actually losing, but I dont see what is gained from a program with Taker and Brock. Both guys should be kept strong for Mania matches. Especially Brock, who seems to be gaining steam lately.

If Brock wins, you just brought back Taker early just to lose. If Taker is going over, then you've pretty much killed the Lesnar character.

Almost feels like a match that will have no winner, and set up another angle, which will have a payoff at Mania. Maybe The Shield get back together and turn heel.





My guess is that Taker won't make it to Wrestlemania, and that this year is his swan song. I think Taker will fight Lesnar to a 'draw' at Summerslam, to which Taker and Lesnar will have a rematch a month later where Lesnar wins and retires Taker.


Like you said - Taker going over Lesnar serves no purpose, and I think Taker wanted to come back early because he wants to definitively retire.....and enter the HOF at Mania.


p.s._________Good seeing you again! Feel like I entered some 2004 time warm when I saw your post. :P

[Crimson]

Sting is showing up to cost Taker the match, setting up their Wrestlemania encounter

[XL]

Can't see Taker's career ending at a 'B' PPV. Maybe they stretch it to Survivor Series, where it all began for him. He needs a really poignant send-off whether he wins or loses.

If he lost I'd have his opponent leave the ring leaving Taker lying motionless in the ring, really play on it, stretch it out for a while. *GONG* Lights go out. *GONG* They come back on, Taker sits up. *GONG* Lights out. *GONG* Lights come back on and Taker is now stood in the ring. Lights out again, when they come back he's wearing his hat and coat. Out/on again, Taker is nowhere to be seen. In the centre of the ring his hat, coat, and boots lay where he once stood. The camera focuses on them as we end the show and fade to black.

[Jazzy Foot]

I could buy that but I do worty they might just book Brock to go over @ WM 32 and give 'Taker another unecessary WM loss

Would be seen as "unnecessary" or simply "validating" the previous Lesnar win and signalling once and for all Undertaker's retirement?

I would write it this way:

- Undertaker gets the win.

- Lesnar accepts the defeat but continues to goad him about the streak.

- Taker accepts that will still bother him and the only way to truly right that wrong is to beat him at WM.

- Both go into it as a face and surprise themselves and everyone else by staging a great match. I want Taker to win so he at least has the record of beating all his WM opponents. I would....dare I say it...like to see a handshake between the two at the end of that third encounter whichever way it goes especially if they're building Lesnar into a face.




As for Sting. He has no place facing Undertaker at WM without the Streak on the line and without having a win himself. It appears that Undertaker is booked to go on post-Summer Slam so either bring Sting in to face him at the Survivor Series or if both men are still fit enough for it have them fight after WM 32 and just let the focus now be between Undertaker and Lesnar.


Also I don't want to see Sting job to Wyatt assuming that is the way things are headed but I'm fed up of seeing Wyatt lose to all the big names. Truthfully, Sting and Wyatt shouldn't even be feuding. Allow Wyatt to build up his own momentum towards a title shot in 2016.


Like Undertaker/Lesnar if Sting returns then he really ought to address his "unfinished business" with Triple H but The Authourity storyline doesn't appear to be as "heated" any more not since Bryan left the picture.


Sting and Cena at WM 32 would be a dream match but another loss for Sting. I mean if Hogan was never going to get a win over The Rock do you honestly think Sting will get one over Cena? It would still be a match worth watching.........


Otherwise out of Triple H, Undertaker, Cena who would Sting be able to feud with and make it "interesting"? Orton is another possibility but I don't see that being effective. Brock Lesnar would be a non-starter.


Chris Jericho if he wanted to come back.....did him and Sting ever feud in WCW? Would we want to really see that now? HBK or Austin coming out of retirement to take on Sting?

[Heyman]

Lesnar should NOT job to Taker. Period.

[Big Vic]

Jazzy Foot how can you not see how much damages is done if Lesnar loses to Taker?

[Damian Rey]

He won't get it. Despite how entertaining last night's tussle was between the two, I see zero benefit to having these two go at it again at this stage in Lesnar's run. They're not going to let Lesnar do to Taker what he did to Cena. And Taker doesn't need nor should he win under any circumstances.

They'd have been better off having Wyatt or even Owens screw him over. There's nothing to be gained by Taker or Brock losing to one another.

[slik]

I think Taker is winning and Sting is getting shoehorned into Ambrose/Reigns vs The Wyatt Family

Still so 'ugh' at Cena and Rollins...please keep Cena out of the WWE Title picture.

[Damian Rey]

Fucking Lesnar losing twice to an old man and then shaking his fucking hand? No fucking thanks. That'd not only be completely against Lesnar's character, it'd be fucking awful to watch. Brock isn't John Cena. He doesn't shake hands, he rips them from your wrist and makes you eat it. How daft would it look for the guy who's been built as unstoppable to not only lose, twice, to an aging Undertaker, but then to shake the guy's hand like "hey man, you beat, and golly do I respect losing to you". No thanks.

[slik]

I don't think it will be Taker's last stand because I think WWE is smart enough to market the holy hell out of that like they did with Ric Flair. I think Taker will retire at WM32 and it will be part of the 'selling point' of the ppv.

[NormanSmiley]

Do you turn ambrose and have him join the wyatt family and screw with reigns? Am I the only one who finds the most bothersome thing about the ss potential card is hhh in a fucking title match?

[The CyNick]

My guess is that Taker won't make it to Wrestlemania, and that this year is his swan song. I think Taker will fight Lesnar to a 'draw' at Summerslam, to which Taker and Lesnar will have a rematch a month later where Lesnar wins and retires Taker.


Like you said - Taker going over Lesnar serves no purpose, and I think Taker wanted to come back early because he wants to definitively retire.....and enter the HOF at Mania.


p.s._________Good seeing you again! Feel like I entered some 2004 time warm when I saw your post. :P

haha, I decided to make a once a decade return.

Unless a major injury occurs, I can pretty much guarantee Taker plays a big part in Mania 32. I think his appearance now is more about WWE ensuring they have something special to promote for Summerslam to boost those subscriber numbers. Plus, he's probably getting paid a million plus right now to sit at home. If he's healthy enough to work a couple dates, why not use him?

The crowd was really into the angle on Monday, so it looks like they made the right call. I just dont get where the booking goes. You would hope they have a long term plan, and it will all make sense. I dont see it right now though. Neither guy should be losing at this stage, and unless they do a pure angle to get out of the finish, I'm not sure the end result will be good. Usual WWE logic is Taker needs to get his win back, which would be beyond absurd if they go that way.

[Blonde Moment]

Taker Lesnar just doesn't do it for me. You watch the PPV and Taker had trouble even getting Lesnar up for the Tombstone, personally I would just as well see a Taker and Kane vs Wyatt and Harper at WM32 as Kane can play the hero in peril most of the match and keep Taker fresh looking and look half decent for his last match. Have the brothers go out together in a puff of fire and brimstone. MAybe leave the Takers hat behind for Wyatt to take.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'm not as bothered by Lesnar vs. Taker as some. The guys clearly want to work the match, and I assume that this is some sort of "redemption" for Taker, and he gets to work the sort of match he wanted to with Lesnar. The story is there, as it does make sense Taker wants to bounce back from the loss -- such a proud man goes down and he doesn't care? Why did he wait so long? He was preparing, and he said on RAW -- Brock just couldn't stop gloating.

I, personally, think this should be for the WWE World Title. You could bring Kane back for a lower-card match against Rollins, or do Triple H vs. Seth Rollins away from the title. But I'm thinking they do go with Rollins vs. Cena with both titles on the line. Owens can face Randy Orton.

[Jazzy Foot]

I'm not as bothered by Lesnar vs. Taker as some. The guys clearly want to work the match, and I assume that this is some sort of "redemption" for Taker, and he gets to work the sort of match he wanted to with Lesnar. The story is there, as it does make sense Taker wants to bounce back from the loss -- such a proud man goes down and he doesn't care? Why did he wait so long? He was preparing, and he said on RAW -- Brock just couldn't stop gloating.



This.

[Jazzy Foot]

Jazzy Foot how can you not see how much damages is done if Lesnar loses to Taker?

Damage in what way?

Financially? Without having seen any financial stats I can't comment but I doubt very much any rise or indeed dip in ratings/profits were as a result of Brock Lesnar winning etc.


This is about the story and legacy of the Undertaker, one of the most iconic superstars to have graced the ring. As I have been ranting for some time it makes no sense whatsoever for a character as proud and as intimidating as the Undertaker to suffer loss, heck, a catastrophic loss and simply "accept it and move in". The fact they would have Lesnar and Heyman gloat about it constantly since April 2014 goes to show that WWE creative did not view that moment as "the end of the feud".

Indeed this has created a new feud on the level of Austin/Rock, Cena/Punk etc and we've not really had a feud on that level for quite some time.

If you think having Undertaker return or getting the win is a bad idea then perhaps you didn't hear the reaction yesterday at Raw or on Sunday at Battleground? He is ageing yes I give you that but is he totally invalid? No. He still has some physicality left in him and could stage at least 2 more memorable matches.

As I keep saying about Lesnar losing to anyone let alone the Undertaker should in theory do no harm whatsoever to him as a character etc. He is a beast, a thug, a brawler etc that's what he always has been since he stepped into a WWE ring back in the early 2000s.

If you feel a loss albeit to the Undertaker somewhat diminishes Lesnar's standing as a character then the reality is you (and anyone else who feels that way) simply does not particularly rate Lesnar. And you surely didn't expect Lesnar to go unbeaten for years and years right?


So no I don't buy the whole "damage" argument. Lesnar is a big enough star that losing to the Undertaker wouldn't hurt him in the long or even short term. Lesnar still has a good few years left in his career, the man isn't even 40 yet right? I mean Rock never beat Austin in a title match at WM. The only time he beat Austin at WM was mid-card. Did that do any damage to either men's legacies?


See the Undertaker/Lesnar feud for what it is; a much needed rivalry between two of the biggest stars in the WWE of the last 15 years or so and who are still active. Even Bryan vs Triple H/The Authourity never quite stirred the imagination. And I somehow doubt ratings, merchandise sales etc are going to dip if Taker beats Lesnar once or even twice more. If anything I think the fans will love it.


Furthermore as for the shaking hands bit and how Lesnar shouldn't be "fucking shaking hands" but tearing strips off; that's exactly why. If they can show Undertaker bouncing back from a rather humiliating and painful loss/beating against one of the top heels of recent years that garners a huge amount of respect.

[Savio]

Lesnar is marketed as an Unstoppable beast. If he loses the match you can no longer market him as such. Undertaker is not a full timer, he should not have the honors of stopping the beast. A full time guy should be the one to do the honors because you can make money with that full time guy cutting promos and wrestling every week.

[The CyNick]

Damage in what way?

Financially? Without having seen any financial stats I can't comment but I doubt very much any rise or indeed dip in ratings/profits were as a result of Brock Lesnar winning etc.


This is about the story and legacy of the Undertaker, one of the most iconic superstars to have graced the ring. As I have been ranting for some time it makes no sense whatsoever for a character as proud and as intimidating as the Undertaker to suffer loss, heck, a catastrophic loss and simply "accept it and move in". The fact they would have Lesnar and Heyman gloat about it constantly since April 2014 goes to show that WWE creative did not view that moment as "the end of the feud".

Indeed this has created a new feud on the level of Austin/Rock, Cena/Punk etc and we've not really had a feud on that level for quite some time.

If you think having Undertaker return or getting the win is a bad idea then perhaps you didn't hear the reaction yesterday at Raw or on Sunday at Battleground? He is ageing yes I give you that but is he totally invalid? No. He still has some physicality left in him and could stage at least 2 more memorable matches.

As I keep saying about Lesnar losing to anyone let alone the Undertaker should in theory do no harm whatsoever to him as a character etc. He is a beast, a thug, a brawler etc that's what he always has been since he stepped into a WWE ring back in the early 2000s.

If you feel a loss albeit to the Undertaker somewhat diminishes Lesnar's standing as a character then the reality is you (and anyone else who feels that way) simply does not particularly rate Lesnar. And you surely didn't expect Lesnar to go unbeaten for years and years right?


So no I don't buy the whole "damage" argument. Lesnar is a big enough star that losing to the Undertaker wouldn't hurt him in the long or even short term. Lesnar still has a good few years left in his career, the man isn't even 40 yet right? I mean Rock never beat Austin in a title match at WM. The only time he beat Austin at WM was mid-card. Did that do any damage to either men's legacies?


See the Undertaker/Lesnar feud for what it is; a much needed rivalry between two of the biggest stars in the WWE of the last 15 years or so and who are still active. Even Bryan vs Triple H/The Authourity never quite stirred the imagination. And I somehow doubt ratings, merchandise sales etc are going to dip if Taker beats Lesnar once or even twice more. If anything I think the fans will love it.


Furthermore as for the shaking hands bit and how Lesnar shouldn't be "fucking shaking hands" but tearing strips off; that's exactly why. If they can show Undertaker bouncing back from a rather humiliating and painful loss/beating against one of the top heels of recent years that garners a huge amount of respect.

The issue to me is Lesnar is the only character on the main roster who feels unique. I know this because I consider myself a casual observer these days, and when he's advertised, I make sure to check his segments out. He only works a handful of dates, and of those dates he only works a few matches a year. His presence since beating Taker is completely different than when he first came back and was losing pointless matches to HHH. They had Cena put him over strong, after giving him a rub that was 20+ years in the making. To hurt that by just having him lose in the rematch to me is a waste of time.

On the flip side, Taker's value, due to his health, is down to a once a year appearance at Mania. You will never get back the streak, so whats the logic in having Taker "get back his win"? Where do you go with Taker? Is he going to start a Summerslam streak? Its even worse to go over on Lesnar who can theoretically draw for the WWE for the next 10 years if he wanted to.

You can say its just one match, and sure Lesnar will be a big star no matter what. However, I believe you risk the uniqueness of his character, and the worst thing they can do is have another top guy who is just another guy. To me that's what he heads towards if he loses on Sunday.

One last thing, if you think Lesnar is a heel, I dont think you're watching that closely.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't agree that Lesnar/Taker is as big Austin/Rock, but I do here what Jazzy is saying about the damage. Look, I wouldn't have Brock lose to Taker, but I wouldn't have had Brock lose to Cena either. It's arguable he should have beaten Triple H too. In fact, if you take all things into consideration, it's possible to make the case that Brock shouldn't have lost any of his WWE matches since returning. That being said, that he has hasn't hurt him in anything more than our smarky view. Brock could lose to Taker and bounce back the next night by F5ing half the roster and no one would really care. They shouldn't do that though.

I wish they'd dip more into these guys' history with each other. Has Taker ever beaten Brock? I remember them fighting at Unforgiven and No Mercy in 2002, but I think Brock won both those matches.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Brock might even win with the Kimura and actually tap-out Taker.

[Mr. Nerfect]

* Brock Lesnar vs. The Undertaker

* Seth Rollins vs. John Cena -- Title for Title

* Reigns/Ambrose vs. Wyatt/Harper

* Randy Orton vs. Kevin Owens -- RKO vs. KO

* The Bella Army vs. Paige/Charlotte/Becky vs. Team BAD -- Pyramid of Pussy Match

* Rusev & Summer Rae vs. Dolph Ziggler & Lana -- Mixed Tag

* Sheamus vs. Cesaro -- MITB

* Stardust vs. Neville (w/ Arrow)

* Ryback vs. Big Show vs. The Miz -- IC Title

* Kickoff: PTP vs. New Day vs. Lucha Dragons vs. Los Matadores -- Tag Team Titles

That's how SummerSlam should probably go.

[Jazzy Foot]

The issue to me is Lesnar is the only character on the main roster who feel unique. I know this because I consider myself a casual observer these days, and when he's advertised, I make sure to check his segments out. He only works a handful of dates, and of those dates he only works a few matches a year. His presence since beating Taker is completely different than when he first came back and was losing pointless matches to HHH. They had Cena put him over strong, after giving him a rub that was 20+ years in the making. To hurt that by just having him lose in the rematch to me is a waste of time.

On the flip side, Taker's value, due to his health, is down to a once a year appearance at Mania. You will never get back the streak, so whats the logic in having Taker "get back his win"? Where do you go with Taker? Is he going to start a Summerslam streak? Its even worse to go over on Lesnar who can theoretically draw for the WWE for the next 10 years if he wanted to.

You can say its just one match, and sure Lesnar will be a big star no matter what. However, I believe you risk the uniqueness of his character, and the worst thing they can do is have another top guy who is just another guy. To me that's what he heads towards if he loses on Sunday.

But how many people do you think tuned into Battleground or Raw and/or snapped up tickets last minute when they caught wind of the fact that Undertaker might be there?

The fact he makes rare appearances is a HUGE draw, let's not deny the fact the Undertaker is one of the biggest stars of all time and still is. TNA or ROH would kill for the chance to have soeone like that even appear on their show for 5 minutes.

Lesnar isn't going to be a huge draw over the next ten years. Yes he is a big star but is he/was he ever more popular than say Bryan, Punk, Cena? Heck I'd argue Edge and Jericho had a broader fanbase.

Furthermore other than being the conqueror of the streak which is a massive deal, Lesnar is not "unique" as a thug/beast/unstoppable force. Goldberg was the same as was Batista as was Bobby Lashley for 15 seconds, as was Andre the Giant, as was Luger etc etc. i.e. all physically imposing individuals. The difference with Lesnar is obviously the UFC effect the fact he went away made a career there and then returned. But from a wrestling/character standpoint, there is nothing unique about Brock Lesnar and given he is "propped up" by Paul Heyman as his own mic skills are woeful at best, Lesnar isn't "fantastic" by any stretch of the imagination.


However I still don't think Lesnar would be viewed any less if he lost to the Undertaker and I am certain this is on the cards for Summer Slam otherwise why bother to bring him back? Taker isn't going to retire before WM 32 so losing to Lesnar again at this stage would simply feel a case of prolonging the retirement etc. I mean when HBK jobbed to Hogan at Summer Slam, it did no harm to HBK right? He still headlined a couple of WMs afterwards, a title match with Cena I recall and of course WM 25 and 26 with Undertaker. Of course HBK and Lesnar are not on the same level but the argument that "losing to a part-timer will damage his credibility" just doesn't wash with me and as I keep saying if it is the case his credibility is damaged then it goes to show Lesnar had none to begin with.

Lesnar isn't a bad wrestler or star etc I never said that. I just don't think he's on the same level as Hogan, Flair, Taker, Rock, Austin, Hart, Cena, HBK or heck even Foley, Triple H, Sting or even Edge or Jericho. I'd put Angle, Guererro and even Benoit above him. But I'd rate Lesnar above the likes of Goldberg, Batista, Sid, Vader, maybe Mysterio.

[#1-norm-fan]

I don't agree that Lesnar/Taker is as big Austin/Rock, but I do here what Jazzy is saying about the damage. Look, I wouldn't have Brock lose to Taker, but I wouldn't have had Brock lose to Cena either. It's arguable he should have beaten Triple H too. In fact, if you take all things into consideration, it's possible to make the case that Brock shouldn't have lost any of his WWE matches since returning. That being said, that he has hasn't hurt him in anything more than our smarky view. Brock could lose to Taker and bounce back the next night by F5ing half the roster and no one would really care. They shouldn't do that though.

I wish they'd dip more into these guys' history with each other. Has Taker ever beaten Brock? I remember them fighting at Unforgiven and No Mercy in 2002, but I think Brock won both those matches.

He went to another level after he beat the streak and destroyed Cena for the title. His credibility got shot out of this world. He became unstoppable and a level above the rest of the roster. Losing to Taker puts him back to where he was before that. Still credible... but much more "human". All so that a 50 year old man can get his win back in one of him last matches. It would be beyond retarded.

[Mr. Nerfect]

That's a good point. As I said, I wouldn't put Taker over. I just think the WWE have done stupider things with Ryback than that.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Taker has also been getting better, in a kayfabe sense, keep in mind. If Taker beat Brock, it'd give Brock a reason to go and get better. Still don't think they should do it.

[The CyNick]

I don't agree that Lesnar/Taker is as big Austin/Rock, but I do here what Jazzy is saying about the damage. Look, I wouldn't have Brock lose to Taker, but I wouldn't have had Brock lose to Cena either. It's arguable he should have beaten Triple H too. In fact, if you take all things into consideration, it's possible to make the case that Brock shouldn't have lost any of his WWE matches since returning. That being said, that he has hasn't hurt him in anything more than our smarky view. Brock could lose to Taker and bounce back the next night by F5ing half the roster and no one would really care. They shouldn't do that though.

I wish they'd dip more into these guys' history with each other. Has Taker ever beaten Brock? I remember them fighting at Unforgiven and No Mercy in 2002, but I think Brock won both those matches.

There is a difference to me between Lesnar and how he should be booked, given his background, and every other guy on the roster. His reactions are different to other top guys. People believe in him, and its not just the people who subscribe to the Wrestling Observer.

There's a legitimacy to Brock that NOBODY else can touch. Having him lose to a 50 year old man, even one who is a legend is counterproductive. Hopefully the booking is Lesnar just squashes Taker, but I cant imagine thats where they will go.

[#1-norm-fan]

Lesnar isn't going to be a huge draw over the next ten years. Yes he is a big star but is he/was he ever more popular than say Bryan, Punk, Cena? Heck I'd argue Edge and Jericho had a broader fanbase.

Wait what...

[#1-norm-fan]

That's a good point. As I said, I wouldn't put Taker over. I just think the WWE have done stupider things with Ryback than that.

WWE has done plenty of stupid things. And I wouldn't put having Taker go over past them. But let's not pretend it wouldn't fuck anything up.

[Jazzy Foot]

I don't agree that Lesnar/Taker is as big Austin/Rock, but I do here what Jazzy is saying about the damage. Look, I wouldn't have Brock lose to Taker, but I wouldn't have had Brock lose to Cena either. It's arguable he should have beaten Triple H too. In fact, if you take all things into consideration, it's possible to make the case that Brock shouldn't have lost any of his WWE matches since returning. That being said, that he has hasn't hurt him in anything more than our smarky view. Brock could lose to Taker and bounce back the next night by F5ing half the roster and no one would really care. They shouldn't do that though.

I wish they'd dip more into these guys' history with each other. Has Taker ever beaten Brock? I remember them fighting at Unforgiven and No Mercy in 2002, but I think Brock won both those matches.

Personally I thought it was stupid having Lesnar lose to Cena in his first match upon his return. Cena was broken after losing to the Rock and then you have him beat a beast like Lesnar?

Nothing will ever compare to Austin v Rock imo not even any of Hogan or Flair's greatest rivalries came close but whilst other decades were shaped and defined by great feuds, this decade appears rather barren. Cena v Punk never hit those heights and the Bryan v Authority storyline got very tedious very quickly and when Bryan eventually did overcome the odds, he got injured.

If Taker beating Brock at SS means building up to a main event at WM 32 and generating the biggest buzz for the best part of a decade then it's the right way to go.

What would be bigger would be making it for the title whilst that may defy the odds in terms of age, I doubt fans would be unhappy seeing Taker hoist the belt up high at cowboys stadium even if he was to relinquish the title shortly afterwards. He's one of the all time greats, ageing but not completely over the hill like say if Flair or Hogan came out of retirement.

[The CyNick]

But how many people do you think tuned into Battleground or Raw and/or snapped up tickets last minute when they caught wind of the fact that Undertaker might be there?

The fact he makes rare appearances is a HUGE draw, let's not deny the fact the Undertaker is one of the biggest stars of all time and still is. TNA or ROH would kill for the chance to have soeone like that even appear on their show for 5 minutes.

Lesnar isn't going to be a huge draw over the next ten years. Yes he is a big star but is he/was he ever more popular than say Bryan, Punk, Cena? Heck I'd argue Edge and Jericho had a broader fanbase.

Furthermore other than being the conqueror of the streak which is a massive deal, Lesnar is not "unique" as a thug/beast/unstoppable force. Goldberg was the same as was Batista as was Bobby Lashley for 15 seconds, as was Andre the Giant, as was Luger etc etc. i.e. all physically imposing individuals. The difference with Lesnar is obviously the UFC effect the fact he went away made a career there and then returned. But from a wrestling/character standpoint, there is nothing unique about Brock Lesnar and given he is "propped up" by Paul Heyman as his own mic skills are woeful at best, Lesnar isn't "fantastic" by any stretch of the imagination.


However I still don't think Lesnar would be viewed any less if he lost to the Undertaker and I am certain this is on the cards for Summer Slam otherwise why bother to bring him back? Taker isn't going to retire before WM 32 so losing to Lesnar again at this stage would simply feel a case of prolonging the retirement etc. I mean when HBK jobbed to Hogan at Summer Slam, it did no harm to HBK right? He still headlined a couple of WMs afterwards, a title match with Cena I recall and of course WM 25 and 26 with Undertaker. Of course HBK and Lesnar are not on the same level but the argument that "losing to a part-timer will damage his credibility" just doesn't wash with me and as I keep saying if it is the case his credibility is damaged then it goes to show Lesnar had none to begin with.

Lesnar isn't a bad wrestler or star etc I never said that. I just don't think he's on the same level as Hogan, Flair, Taker, Rock, Austin, Hart, Cena, HBK or heck even Foley, Triple H, Sting or even Edge or Jericho. I'd put Angle, Guererro and even Benoit above him. But I'd rate Lesnar above the likes of Goldberg, Batista, Sid, Vader, maybe Mysterio.

Bud, how many times did Edge, Jericho, Puck, Cena or anyone in WWE outside of Lesnar draw 1.6 million buys on PPV?

[The CyNick]

That's a good point. As I said, I wouldn't put Taker over. I just think the WWE have done stupider things with Ryback than that.

We're having problems here if we think Lesnar and Ryback are in the same planet in terms of importance to the company.

Ryback? Seriously?

[#1-norm-fan]

He's not comparing the two... he's simply comparing the potential shitty booking of Lesnar to the shitty booking of Ryback. Which was the shittiest booking in the history of shitty booking.

[The CyNick]

He's not comparing the two... he's simply comparing the potential shitty booking of Lesnar to the shitty booking of Ryback. Which was the shittiest booking in the history of shitty booking.

So the thought process in these parts is that RYBACK should have been the next big thing, but was crippled by bad booking

Back to lurking for me....

[#1-norm-fan]

Clearly. The man was booked strong and started getting ridiculously over and WWE decided to take advantage of that by jobbing him to anyone and everyone including Mark Henry. It was some of the most retarded booking in wrestling history. And that's saying something.

[#1-norm-fan]

He's actually a good example, albeit on a smaller scale than where Lesnar is now, of how you can build a monster so that the crowd is massively behind him and then fuck it up royally by making him look weak and vulnerable.

[Mr. Nerfect]

We're having problems here if we think Lesnar and Ryback are in the same planet in terms of importance to the company.

Ryback? Seriously?

fan summed it up -- I'm not the biggest Ryback fan in the world, but him losing to Mark Henry was stupid booking without any upside. At least Taker is a massive attraction for the company and is probably going to have another huge match after he wrestles Lesnar.

I've never felt Ryback had anything special, but he was/is over. The company certainly made sure that he was never going to be the next big thing with his booking circa 2013 though.

[Heyman]

So the thought process in these parts is that RYBACK should have been the next big thing, but was crippled by bad booking

Back to lurking for me....





NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Look what you fucktards did.


You made CyNick go back into lurking. CyNick, don't leave!




p.s._____________And yes - comparing Ryback in any shape or form to Lesnar is monumentally fucking stupid.


p.p.s.__________Any notion of Taker defeating Lesnar "to get his win back" is fucking stupid.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I love CyNick. I hope he doesn't leave.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I was comparing shitty booking to shitty booking. I'm not even a pro-Ryback guy. Don't be fucking stupid and look too much into it.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Taker beating Lesnar to "get his win back" is fucking stupid. Taker beating Lesnar because they want Taker to beat Lesnar is different. All I'm saying is that people acting as if it'd break the planet are really overreacting.

[Jazzy Foot]

Bud, how many times did Edge, Jericho, Puck, Cena or anyone in WWE outside of Lesnar draw 1.6 million buys on PPV?

Were those 1.6 million buys alone attributed to Lesnar?

Somehow I think that Cena is head and shoulders above the rest of the roster in terms of popularity, merchandise sales etc regardless of the booing.

[Jazzy Foot]

Taker beating Lesnar to "get his win back" is fucking stupid. Taker beating Lesnar because they want Taker to beat Lesnar is different. All I'm saying is that people acting as if it'd break the planet are really overreacting.

Nothing will get his streak back it's gone forever. This is just to give him some measure of revenge.

However I don't see it simply "ending" at Summer Slam unless it's a comprehensive beating and great rivalries always have a trilogy.

[Jazzy Foot]

On another topic: could Sting end up being the new member of the Wyatt Family?

[Heisenberg]

Joker Sting comes back with his own Suicide Squad, featuring a wigged out Scott Steiner mouth piecing them on the mic

[DAMN iNATOR]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Look what you fucktards did.


You made CyNick go back into lurking. CyNick, don't leave!




p.s._____________And yes - comparing Ryback in any shape or form to Lesnar is monumentally fucking stupid.


p.p.s.__________Any notion of Taker defeating Lesnar "to get his win back" is fucking stupid.

Nobody "made" him leave. He left of his own accord and free will.

[Jazzy Foot]

Wait what...

Yep you heard me.

[Simple Fan]

Joker Sting comes back with his own Suicide Squad, featuring a wigged out Scott Steiner mouth piecing them on the mic

Add Samoa Joe and Booker T and we have MEM WWE style.

[#1-norm-fan]

Yep you heard me.

You can't possibly believe that any of those guys were as big of a deal as Brock Lesnar. Jesus.

[Blonde Moment]

So the thought process in these parts is that RYBACK should have been the next big thing, but was crippled by bad booking

Back to lurking for me....

I think that with the proper booking Ryback could have been bigger, why not? Wwe seems to have a major problem with maximizing their talents strengths while minimizing their flaws which is something they could do. I mean lets look at the Diva's Division... does anyone honestly believe that they could not have female wrestlers on their roster that ar just as talented as the some of the men?

Was Ryback another Austin or Rock? Hell no but maybe the potential is there ....

[Big Vic]

If Taker beating Brock at SS means building up to a main event at WM 32 and generating the biggest buzz for the best part of a decade then it's the right way to go.
If everyone in this forum is telling you that this is not the way to go then how much buzz do you think this will create?


Lesnar isn't going to be a huge draw over the next ten years. Yes he is a big star but is he/was he ever more popular than say Bryan, Punk, Cena? Heck I'd argue Edge and Jericho had a broader fanbase.
Lesnar going over to UFC and then coming back to WWE gives him a bigger fanbase. When was the last time you saw Bryan, Punk, Jericho, or edge on ESPN, Yahoo's front page, or MSNs front page?
He's not comparing the two... he's simply comparing the potential shitty booking of Lesnar to the shitty booking of Ryback. Which was the shittiest booking in the history of shitty booking.I disagree... "Big Show vs The Authority (Iron clad contract)" and "The Bellas 2014" were muchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shitter

[Jazzy Foot]

If everyone in this forum is telling you that this is not the way to go then how much buzz do you think this will create?


Lesnar going over to UFC and then coming back to WWE gives him a bigger fanbase. When was the last time you saw Bryan, Punk, Jericho, or edge on ESPN, Yahoo's front page, or MSNs front page?
I disagree... "Big Show vs The Authority (Iron clad contract)" and "The Bellas 2014" were muchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shitter

A few posters here and there isn't "everyone" and neither is TPWW representative of the wider WWE/Wrestling fanbase. You just have to listen to the crowd reaction on Sunday and Monday to realise the Undertaker is still a big deal.


Also to argue on your point that Lesnar losing would diminish his credibility, the man was the youngest WWE champion at 25, only 160 days or so into his debut, scored wins of the likes of The Rock, Kurt Angle, John Cena, Undertaker more than once, Triple H etc. and what losing to Taker in a rematch destroys his credibility?


Do you guys even realise Brock Lesnar existed pre-streak ending? Also going over to UFC and coming back doesn't automatically give himm a bigger fanbase. UFC and WWE are still two different products and it's silly to assume UFC/MMA fans are going to want to spend time/money watching WWE just to catch a glimpse of a former UFC star.

Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard have moved to the MLS but I doubt there has been a sudden spike in interest from English fans or even Liverpool, Chelsea or Man City fans etc.

[Blonde Moment]

It's been a bit since i have seen the pre Undertaker Lesnar matches but for some reason I remember not one of those wins really ending with an exclamation point rather it was more of a fluke due to actions of Lesnars overconfidence or one good shot that rocked him.

I think he went down a little to easy even if Old Man Taker had to cheat to get him down the first time. I would have been much happier with Lesnar rolling out of the ring after the last Tombstone have the lights go out when he tries to get into the ring and have the Undertaker vanish leaving a wobbly Lesnar in the ring when the lights return.

[Big Vic]

A few posters here and there isn't "everyone" and neither is TPWW representative of the wider WWE/Wrestling fanbase. You just have to listen to the crowd reaction on Sunday and Monday to realise the Undertaker is still a big deal.
Flair could come back next week and get a bigger pop, that doesn't mean he should go over Lesnar.


Do you guys even realise Brock Lesnar existed pre-streak ending? Yes he was losing so no one really cared too much about his character.Also going over to UFC and coming back doesn't automatically give himm a bigger fanbase. UFC and WWE are still two different products and it's silly to assume UFC/MMA fans are going to want to spend time/money watching WWE just to catch a glimpse of a former UFC star.It gives him more of a fanbase than Edge and Bryan who have done fuck nothing outside of the WWE.

[Heyman]

A 50 year old Undertaker on the verge of retirement, going over what is arguably the best thing you have going in the business today, is monumentally stupid. Period.

[Big Vic]

I'm done telling him that, he can't seem to grasp it.

[Jazzy Foot]

I'm done telling him that, he can't seem to grasp it.

You make it sound as if it's my decision to let Lesnar job to Taker which it isn't. That's totally down to WWE creative and if they do go down that route it isn't stupid at all. I mean was allowing Hogan to beat HBK stupid? How about Hogan winning the WWE Undisputed title from Triple H even if only held for a month, was that stupid?

Neither of those decisions did any harm to any of the wrestlers concerned. If WWE as a product is "failing" it's because of a multitude of reasons beyond booking etc.

[Heyman]

Jazzy Foot would "most likely" give head to the Undertaker if presented with the opportunity to do so.

[Jazzy Foot]

A 50 year old Undertaker on the verge of retirement, going over what is arguably the best thing you have going in the business today, is monumentally stupid. Period.

Brock Lesnar? The best thing going in the business today? Hell no.

The best thing in the business at the moment is John Cena and you have to look at his merchandise sales alone if you want evidence of that.

[Jazzy Foot]

Jazzy Foot would "most likely" give head to the Undertaker if presented with the opportunity to do so.

Now you're just being silly.

[Jazzy Foot]

Flair could come back next week and get a bigger pop, that doesn't mean he should go over Lesnar.

Yes he was losing so no one really cared too much about his character.It gives him more of a fanbase than Edge and Bryan who have done fuck nothing outside of the WWE.

Yes but the difference is Flair IS too old and out of shape to wrestle. Undertaker is still in decent shape and can put on a match.

People did care about Lesnar back in his first run and if not he wouldn't have been given the push he had in such a short space of time and scoring the wins over the big stars like he did.

I don't think Lesnar was even that HUGE of a deal in the UFC and it's not like PPV buys or ratings shot through the roof once he re-signed.

Also you don't need to have done anything outside of wrestling to be a huge star. I don't recall Austin or HBK or Flair ever doing much beyond the squared circle.

[Sixx]

Fuck's sake, Taker came back again?

[Simple Fan]

I don't think Lesnar was even that HUGE of a deal in the UFC and it's not like PPV buys or ratings shot through the roof once he re-signed.

His fights are some of the biggest PPV buys in UFC history UFC 100 had ove 1.5 million buys. He was HUGE deal n the UFC and that's why they wanted him back so bad. Just look at the Japanese tour earlier this year, as soon as Lesner was announced that show sold out.

[The CyNick]

He's actually a good example, albeit on a smaller scale than where Lesnar is now, of how you can build a monster so that the crowd is massively behind him and then fuck it up royally by making him look weak and vulnerable.

I guess. I just never saw that much in him, so any errors in his booking didnt even really cross my mind.

[The CyNick]

Were those 1.6 million buys alone attributed to Lesnar?

Somehow I think that Cena is head and shoulders above the rest of the roster in terms of popularity, merchandise sales etc regardless of the booing.

I'm still trying to determine if you are a troll or not.

Lesnar was the biggest draw on a show that did 1.6 million buys. Cena has never done that.

Yes, Cena sells more merch, but he's selling to little kids, its different.

Besides Cena isnt the issue, you went diving in the barrel to come up with guys like Edge, Jericho, and Punk.

[Damian Rey]

Comparing Lesnar top HBK is just showing how willfully ignorant you're choosing to. Lesnar is the biggest draw the company has. He's their main event star and is the center of attention.

Hbk was quite literally a featured attraction that was never the main focal point of the show or considered "the man" upon his return.

They're not even remotely alike. Stop being so dumb.

[Heyman]

Wwe's biggest priority right now should be in creating new main-event stars. Period. The way you do this, is by having said up-and-comer ultimately go over a guy that is made to look damn near unbeatable. Period. Lesnar IS that guy. Period. By having Lesnar job to a 50 year old Undertaker, you risk damaging that 'aura' of Lesnar (and so basically - all of that time having spent rebuilding Lesnar's credibility from that Overeem loss to the victory over Taker at WM 30, will take a massive hit).

It's in the WWE's best interests to make Lesnar look damn near unbeatable until the *right* young up-and-comer is deemed worthy enough to dethrone Lesnar......and hence, making him look like a million bucks.

How do you not see this?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Jazzy Foot is on the same page as me with this. I don't think he's saying the WWE *should* do this. It just won't ruin Lesnar, and he's provided many reasons why -- pointing to stars in the past that have done questionable jobs and come out still spelling of roses.

Taker might be 50 years old in reality, but he's eternal in WWE years, so putting him over Brock is more a nod to him than a slant to anyone else. But yes, new stars *should* be the WWE's priority.

[Heyman]

I just can't agree with this. Unless Taker gets a "fluke" victory over Lesnar (i.e. Someone interfering and messing with Lesnar), then I just think Lesnar doing a clean job is so above and beyond not acceptable.

[#1-norm-fan]

I disagree... "Big Show vs The Authority (Iron clad contract)" and "The Bellas 2014" were muchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shitter

Neither of those ruined a potential star though.

[#1-norm-fan]

Jazzy Foot is on the same page as me with this. I don't think he's saying the WWE *should* do this. It just won't ruin Lesnar, and he's provided many reasons why -- pointing to stars in the past that have done questionable jobs and come out still spelling of roses.

Taker might be 50 years old in reality, but he's eternal in WWE years, so putting him over Brock is more a nod to him than a slant to anyone else. But yes, new stars *should* be the WWE's priority.

He's definitely saying WWE *should* do it. He's said it for weeks. It wouldn't be as much of a talking point if he was just trying to make the point that that *could* do it and it would be okay. But even then, the comparison between Lesnar and other questionable jobs doesn't work. Those guys didn't beat the streak and squash John Cena for the title. That puts him at a level that will most likely only come once in a lifetime. Having him job to Taker wouldn't just bring his character back down to earth, it would waste a credibility that you only have the chance to manufacture once in a lifetime. It would be monumentally stupid.

[Emperor Smeat]

Current rumored card for Summerslam:

United States Champion John Cena vs. WWE World Heavyweight Champion Seth Rollins

Sting, Roman Reigns & Dean Ambrose vs. The Wyatt Family

Ryback vs. The Big Show for the Intercontinental title

The Prime Time Players vs The New Day

Cesaro vs. Kevin Owens

Dolph Ziggler vs. Rusev (If Ziggler’s movie shoot is finished)

Bellas & Alicia Fox vs. Naomi & Tamina Snuka & Sasha Banks vs. Paige & Becky Lynch & Charlotte

According to the Observer, biggest debate within the WWE right now is if Lesnar-Taker II happens at Summerslam or gets delayed till next Mania. Both teased to result in Taker winning although if the match happens at Summerslam, its going to tie into what gets planed for Taker and/or Lesnar at Mania.

[Jazzy Foot]

He's definitely saying WWE *should* do it. He's said it for weeks. It wouldn't be as much of a talking point if he was just trying to make the point that that *could* do it and it would be okay. But even then, the comparison between Lesnar and other questionable jobs doesn't work. Those guys didn't beat the streak and squash John Cena for the title. That puts him at a level that will most likely only come once in a lifetime. Having him job to Taker wouldn't just bring his character back down to earth, it would waste a credibility that you only have the chance to manufacture once in a lifetime. It would be monumentally stupid.

Both you and Noid are kind of right here. I think they should do it to inject some life/one last hurrah for the Undertaker and at the same time it does little if any damage to Brock Lesnar.


Brock Lesnar is a beast now and still will be until the day he decides to retire from wrestling.

Even JR thinks having Taker get his win over Lesnar would be the way to go and he even suggests a handshake or embrace:

http://www.tpww.net/2015/07/jim-ross-fantasy-books-the-undertaker-vs-brock-lesnar/

[#1-norm-fan]

He's also said he hates how Brock Lesnar has been booked because he doesn't cheat enough.

Jim Ross has said a lot of silly things when it comes to how to book wrestling.

[Heyman]

I hope Jim Ross becomes HIV positive if we're being perfectly honest with ome another.

[Damian Rey]

Jim Ross has unfortunately proven how out of touch he is not only with the current landscape but also with the times in which we live. His entire podcast is typically summed up to"they don't know tha bidness". He's just an old codger stuck in the old days. His take on the business is neither fresh or relevant these days.

[Heyman]

Agreed with Damien Rey.

[Damian Rey]

God damn it, it's spelled DamiAn.

[The CyNick]

I like the idea of Cesaro and Owens. Hopefully they can be both built up to elevate each other to the next level. Similar to HHH and Rocky back in the day.

Cena back in the WWE title picture is kinda meh, but should give a good job to Rollins. Curious to what the long term plan is with Rollins and the WWE title.

[Mr. Nerfect]

He's also said he hates how Brock Lesnar has been booked because he doesn't cheat enough.

Jim Ross has said a lot of silly things when it comes to how to book wrestling.

Well, to be fair, if Brock showed a complete disregard for the rules, it would have made sense for his heel character. Brock shouldn't exactly be squeaky clean.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I kind of hope they make Owens vs. Cesaro for the US Title. Have Rollins cost Cena the title in an open challenge and have Owens take it into battle against Tony.

I'm still not against the idea of having Sheamus, Orton, Cesaro, Owens, Ziggler, Rusev and maybe Barrett and R-Truth in some sort of Ladder Match for Sheamus' briefcase. You can run Owens vs. Cesaro and Ziggler vs. Rusev as television mains or on a live special the following month.

[#1-norm-fan]

Well, to be fair, if Brock showed a complete disregard for the rules, it would have made sense for his heel character. Brock shouldn't exactly be squeaky clean.

Within reason. He's a realistic character and controlling himself enough not to risk getting DQed when he can easily destroy someone without the risk makes sense.

What Jim Ross said is that heels need to cheat to be effective and he singled out Lesnar. Which is just... silly. It's that kind of black and white thinking that's fucked up WWE with most of the full-time roster. Heels and faces can get over as heels and faces in multiple ways. Brock is (was?) the monster who is supposed to make you worry about the face's well-being. He's not the dastardly heel who has to use underhanded tactics to win matches he's outmanned in and piss you off.

[#1-norm-fan]

It's like when Wade Barrett came back from injury as a bare knuckle fighter with all these vignettes that showed him as a badass destroying guys with his bare hands back home in England.

... And then within a week or two of his in ring return he was running away from faces. Because fuck giving a guy an identity and letting him stand out. He has to do "what heels do".

[Damian Rey]

I cite your argument of how Barrett was sold as this street fighter in vignettes only to turn cowardly upon becoming a regular as evidence that wwe has no clue how to diversify their characters.

EDIT: damn it, fan.

[#1-norm-fan]

lol. It's the glaring example I always think of when that issue comes up.

[Damian Rey]

Well it's a damn fine one, I'll give you that. Lesnar is not some chicken shit heel who needs to cheat. He obliterated John Cena for fuck sakes. This is why I've become so disenchanted with Jim Ross these days and am glad he's not helping run creative. It's bad enough as it is. They don't need someone stuck in the yesteryear of rasslin booking their biggest legit draw in decades.

[Savio]

I absolutely hated it when Brock sided with Vince in 03. His character became so damn lameeeeee.

Going toe to toe with hardcore holly. :rolleyes:

[Damian Rey]

And retreating from Hardcore Holly. Made zero sense. This was the same guy who beat the Undertaker twice, once inside hell in a cell, and he's running from a career low mid carder.

[DAMN iNATOR]

I absolutely hated it when Brock sided with Vince in 03. His character became so damn lameeeeee.

Going toe to toe with hardcore holly. :rolleyes:

Actually, I think that may have happened as early as the SD! after Survivor Series 2002. He ended up fighting Shannon Moore on the December 19, 2002 show.

They also met again nearly 1 year later, on December 18, 2003. Poor kid, lol.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think it was Shannon Moore who took one of the sickest F5's I've ever seen.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't think Brock should be a chickenshit, by the way. He just needs to kick the shit out of people. I surely don't think JR would have meant Brock using school boys with tight-pulling...

[DAMN iNATOR]

I think it was Shannon Moore who took one of the sickest F5's I've ever seen.

I watched one of those matches again recently but can't find the 2002 match for the life of me.

LOL'd so hard after the match when Brock walked out to the Royal Rumble tumbler, which supposedly held ping pong balls marked with the names of a bunch of different guys but they all had Moore's name on them, and a pull from the tumbler was how his opponent was chosen.:lol::rofl:

This was during Heyman's run as SD! G.M.