I'd like to see Brock beaten clean by someone in his next big match. I can imagine WWE to give Lesnar his next clean loss against The Rock at WM. It'd just be like WWE to make a big star bigger than to use the opportunity to really push someone.

Just look at the streak. It could have been ended by Wyatt to really push him. Instead it went to Lesnar, which made an already dominate althlete look even more dominant. Following that, Lesnar's run was handled with great care. If the streak had gone to Wyatt, he'd look like a megastar. I don't blame WWE for playing it safe. I just don't like it.

The closest we'd probably get to Lesnar losing clean and giving someone a push is Reigns. Even then, it won't be really pushing him as he's already been pushed all the way. They'd use a win over Lesnar to fully cement Reigns. It'd be good that they're helping Reigns, but I'd rather they use a win over Lesnar to fully push someone.

Hoping all (or at least some) of it makes sense!

I don't think anyone is ready to be put over Lesnar. They need to establish a guy that the fans buy into before having him beat Lesnar.

Wyatt wasn't ready to be put over Taker. He was nowhere near the level for fans to accept him getting the streak. The fans would have rejected him getting it.

You're right. But WWE doesn't seem to have many long-term development plans for talent. There aren't many who have been consistently and convincingly been pushed. Before WWE decides to have Lesnar lose clean, they do need to build up his opponent. I'd suggest Rusev.

If they had decided Wyatt to end the streak, he would have needed big wins against big names. Guys like Orton, Cena, HHH, Rock etc. Then it would've been conceivable that Wyatt broke the Streak. Ah well. Too late for that now.

The problem is that they don't do planning. Everything used to be planned meticulously in the 80s but with so much more content, injuries and Vince just being past it they seem to book on a week to week basis at best. So stop-start pushes galore.

Wyatt beating Taker would have been pretty pointless given Taker had just lost the previous year. Im sure alot of fans would have preferred Taker destroying Brock then losing to Wyatt the following year instead.

Everything wasent planned in the 1980s and promos deffinately wernt unlike todays kids who get everything scripted to say. No wonder their promos look lame compared to Legends.

Didnt Savage forget the match at mania 3 and they had to adlib the entire match?

No, the Savage match against Steamboat was planned move for move. STeamboat has talked about it in interviews since, about how he doesn't enjoy working that way etc. Maybe you're thinking of a different match?

And I'm talking about the long term booking, not the promos. Like the whole Savage winning the title at Mania 4, turning heel on Hogan and then facing him at Mania 5 was planned from the very start. Vince Sr. planned out Billy Graham's title reign to the day, knowing who he wanted him to drop it to before it even began. Yeah, Vince Jr. changed things up now and then when the situation called for it, but booking by and large used to be quite meticulous.

Think you're referring to me. If so don't think I said it was 'wrong' more that it caused WWE to book themselves into a corner. That and subsequent Lesnar booking has got them stuck in a rut where they've booked him to be so dominant that it's unrealistic now for anyone to defeat him.

I'm definitely not saying he should never have been pushed.

On who should beat him, I remember plenty of arguments over who should break Taker's streak. In the end there's unlikely to be that 'perfect person' to do it (I remember plenty saying Brock shouldn't do it before he did) but that doesn't mean nobody should break it or that they need 2 years or similar of solid build to do so - I mean Lesnar broke the streak after several clean losses to HHH and Cena.
Definitely though some names leap out as people who shouldn't be.

I still think that Ambrose should've been the one to defeat Lesnar.
And before anyone makes the point about appearance and believability. it was a No DQ match between the two and given Ambrose kept mentioning using a chainsaw in the build so it wouldn't have been totally preposterous. Brock could still have lost and looked strong.

As much as I want to see a proper Orton/Lesnar match I don't see a point in them facing each other again. The Summerslam ending (which was surely intentional) was very decisive and made Orton not look in Lesnar's league so there's no reason for the two to face each other again. As pleased as I'd be to see it, it'd be a waste of Lesnar's appearances.


There's a balance to be struck though. You don't want it that plans are so etched in stone that by the time it's played out fans have moved onto a different superstar or that fans don't care as they can guess half a year ahead exactly what'll happen.

Not that the opposite extreme of WWE booking week-to-week and totally abandoning or forgetting storylines is brilliant either.

Or the extreme with Russo where everything involves character changes, implausible swerves or pole matches.

Well this is surprising....



Also, I assume Hollie will be shedding a few tears tonight if this is true...

http://411mania.com/wrestling/backst...ay-out-of-tna/

Also when did I miss one of the Smashing Pumpkins becoming their President?

The Facebook page of Chicago's Allstate Arena announced that Randy Orton vs. Brock Lesnar will take place at the WWE live event on Saturday, September 24th.

EDIT: http://nodq.com/wwe/474497601.shtml

They should have booked Wyatt/Triple H and Undertaker/Sting.

Your probably right. Can you remember what match it was?

I dont think it was Flair/Savage from VIII, I mean if its not the mania 3 match then im guessing it ust have been Flair/Steamboat wasent it? No idea which match, probably one of their 1990 matches. Probably Wrestlewar.

Undertaker shouldnt be in tag matches at a Mania though, thats probably why they changed it one year into a handicap match when Nathan Jones was supposed to tag.

Wyatt beating Taker for the streak would have been heavily dumped on. Wyatt wasn't at the level needed to beat Taker. Indifferent in the ring and a meandering promo.

I would have absolutely loved to see Taker vs Sting. But I'm kind of glad we didn't see it at WM 30-onwards because I don't think their bodies would have done the match justice. If it happened 10/15 years ago, then it would've made for an amazing match!

I think he meant two singles matches; Wyatt vs HHH and Taker vs Sting.

I think it's because Jones was so awful they didn't want to put him on live PPV!

I feel like it was Flair vs Steamboat but I'm not sure.

One of the few times they've booked with a long term plan in recent years is the Cena vs. Rock feud which started in March 2011 and finished exactly two years later. CM Punk's title reign was even pulled into that in the spring of 2012. That heel turn was a bit thrown together, but the culmination was set six months in advance. Even possible the eventual streak challenge, face turn and match with Brock was put together long before it happened. Triple H had wrote himself a year long war with Lesnar.

Amazing by modern standards. All did good business too, but with full timers and the spot fest style it's impossible to get it spot on.

They really, really need to call a halt to this spot-fest stuff for the health of the guys, let alone of the long term good of the business anyway. They produce so much content that everyone is overexposed and it's hard to book long term and the style is so spotty that big moves mean nothing and guys get hurt all the time.

So Lesnar/Orton 2 confirmed for a house show...again a complete waste of a match/appearance. Not only is it a house show but 1 night before a PPV. Very odd

It's a very strange placement. Maybe Orton wins but they don't talk about it much in order to protect Brock's image?

It's reached the point where I prefer the TV matches because they're toned down and a non finisher move can end a match (example: Owens beating Neville last week). The PPVs matches are a spamfest of deadly, dangerous moves. That's quite sad thinking about it.

I wonder if it's because a lot of the newer generation grew up as big wrestling fans from a very young age. That was rare in the Hogan and Austin eras and less common into the Cena years. A lot of the time it feels like I'm watching a grown up version of two 10 year olds exchanging moves in the garden/house. Rather than something which feels like a fight.

I think Brock's contract contained a number of house show appearances.

I probably rambled on about it way too much (for which I apologise) but I fully agree about the spotfest, finisher heavy matches which are far too present in modern day WWE. I'm so over it now.

Taking a Heyman response about Lesnar. If you see Lesnar every week he isn't special (I'd argue now he's no longer that special for reasons I rambled on about last week). If WWE put on Wrestlemania every month, Wrestlemania wouldn't be special. So why they can't apply that logic to their matches is beyond me.

Again, for a company so intent on creating moments they fail phenomenally on most occasions. Shane falling through the air was a cool (yet mostly uncomfortable) moment because it so rarely happens. The crazy shit Jeff Hardy used to pull was cool because not every person was doing it. Every top flight match going through 17 finishers isn't a moment making thing, it's a 30 second hit to the crowd who go 'ooooooh' and then forget about it because within 5 minutes there is another finisher.

Apologise for rambling again...

Agreed. My view is that as much as I disliked the streak ending Lesnar was 100% the person to do it because it did make Lesnar a huge star in my eyes. The problem is that they failed so spectacularly in the follow up and from the second the refs hand hit 3, somebody should have been built to eventually take that massive rub and they failed and now have Lesnar as this unbeatable, formulaic, part time man and absolutely nobody in a position not too far from 3 Wrestlemania's since it happened to take that spot.