Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzy Foot
The first point in bold; I keep saying, Lesnar was never portrayed as anything less be it during his first stint or current WWE run. His whole character, look etc fits that persona and makes no difference if he lost a match.
The second point: who better to "stop" him as it were than the man he beat some two years before? For me Taker v Lesnar is more of a story, closing a chapter i.e. Taker wanted to end on a winning note and beat the man he hasn't beaten at mania and who inflicted his only defeat. It would be a perfect way to sign off. Again it does no harm to Lesnar just like having Lesnar lose his first match back post WM-29 to Cena did no harm to his run/character.
|
Lesnar portrayed a chicken shit heel for parts of 2003, like when he needed the FBI to help him to beat Taker. And when he returned in 2012 He lost to Cena and then lost a rematch to HHH. He didn't become the character he is today until he beat Undertaker at Mania.