Let Paul Heyman Tell You Why Part-Timer Brock Lesnar Would Make The Perfect WWE Champion
Options
VIBE
Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
Part-time pro wrestler Brock Lesnar is heading into WWE SummerSlam 2014 to face John Cena for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship and for once, there’s a chance Cena will lose it.
Cena’s workload of Tina Fey movies and Judd Apatow efforts may elevate his film career above the Fred franchise and distract him.
Lesnar’s heading into his first match since conquering the Undertaker’s undefeated streak at WrestleMania.
If Cena beats an Undertaker-beating Lesnar, what’s left?
A lot of folks (especially the folk on the Internet) aren’t happy with the idea of Lesnar — a performer with a limited number of dates and no guarantee he’ll show up between SummerSlam and the build to WrestleMania — being WWE’s champ.
Lesnar’s manager Paul Heyman is happy with the idea, and the good news is that he’s an expert in explaining why he thinks what he thinks.
The “1 behind the 1 in 21-1″ sat down with the Miami Herald on Friday to discuss his DVD, ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, My Name is Paul Heyman,’ and spoke authoritatively on why Lesnar as champion makes sense. Warning:
You may never think of part-timers the same way again.
“I don’t know if any of those critics of privy to an agreement Brock Lesnar may or may not have with WWE.
So I don’t understand how anybody can credibly say this is what Brock Lesnar’s schedule is going to be when he becomes the WWE champion.
Second, I think the WWE championship is the defended too often and lost some of the prestige because of the beast of monthly pay-per-views.
The champion having to defend on every single pay-per-view, let alone at every single arena, has taken away from the special event that is when a champion defends the title.”
“Here is the best example I can give you. Why don’t we just do 12 WrestleMania events a year?
I mean it’s the brand name in pay-per-view. You know people understand that WrestleMania means it’s something special and unique and doesn’t happen all the time.
It’s can’t miss. Well, you can’t do 12 WrestleMania events a year because then you water-down WrestleMania, and it won’t mean as much on the rare occasion you present the brand name WrestleMania.”
“It’s the same with Brock Lesnar. If you present Brock Lesnar 52 weeks a year and you have Brock Lesnar defend the title 12 times a year, you’re losing money.
You’re not making money because you are watering down the unique opportunity that the audience can have to see an once-in-a-lifetime athlete on the rare occasion that he dons the tights and laces up the boots and goes into the ring to beat people within an inch of their lives.”
“Plus, here is one more thing to consider. If Brock Lesnar were to work a full-time schedule he would wipe out the roster at once.
There would be nobody left for him to fight. So how can people be clamoring for Brock Lesnar to be work a full-time schedule?
Then you’ll have three hours of Brock and Paul Heyman sitting alone in a ring talking to each other because there would be nobody left for Brock Lesnar to conquer.”
Nailed it.
I also would’ve accepted “blood and ? and ? .”
Cena’s workload of Tina Fey movies and Judd Apatow efforts may elevate his film career above the Fred franchise and distract him.
Lesnar’s heading into his first match since conquering the Undertaker’s undefeated streak at WrestleMania.
If Cena beats an Undertaker-beating Lesnar, what’s left?
A lot of folks (especially the folk on the Internet) aren’t happy with the idea of Lesnar — a performer with a limited number of dates and no guarantee he’ll show up between SummerSlam and the build to WrestleMania — being WWE’s champ.
Lesnar’s manager Paul Heyman is happy with the idea, and the good news is that he’s an expert in explaining why he thinks what he thinks.
The “1 behind the 1 in 21-1″ sat down with the Miami Herald on Friday to discuss his DVD, ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, My Name is Paul Heyman,’ and spoke authoritatively on why Lesnar as champion makes sense. Warning:
You may never think of part-timers the same way again.
“I don’t know if any of those critics of privy to an agreement Brock Lesnar may or may not have with WWE.
So I don’t understand how anybody can credibly say this is what Brock Lesnar’s schedule is going to be when he becomes the WWE champion.
Second, I think the WWE championship is the defended too often and lost some of the prestige because of the beast of monthly pay-per-views.
The champion having to defend on every single pay-per-view, let alone at every single arena, has taken away from the special event that is when a champion defends the title.”
“Here is the best example I can give you. Why don’t we just do 12 WrestleMania events a year?
I mean it’s the brand name in pay-per-view. You know people understand that WrestleMania means it’s something special and unique and doesn’t happen all the time.
It’s can’t miss. Well, you can’t do 12 WrestleMania events a year because then you water-down WrestleMania, and it won’t mean as much on the rare occasion you present the brand name WrestleMania.”
“It’s the same with Brock Lesnar. If you present Brock Lesnar 52 weeks a year and you have Brock Lesnar defend the title 12 times a year, you’re losing money.
You’re not making money because you are watering down the unique opportunity that the audience can have to see an once-in-a-lifetime athlete on the rare occasion that he dons the tights and laces up the boots and goes into the ring to beat people within an inch of their lives.”
“Plus, here is one more thing to consider. If Brock Lesnar were to work a full-time schedule he would wipe out the roster at once.
There would be nobody left for him to fight. So how can people be clamoring for Brock Lesnar to be work a full-time schedule?
Then you’ll have three hours of Brock and Paul Heyman sitting alone in a ring talking to each other because there would be nobody left for Brock Lesnar to conquer.”
Nailed it.
I also would’ve accepted “blood and ? and ? .”
Comments
-
Brock beating Taker made it that Cena had to lose the ? up ? is now Cena gonna get that W back sooner or late
-
Paul Heyman is the GOAT...
-
paul heyman is ? to you dudes. whatever he says you eat it up as gospel
the WM comparison was left field. WM is only supposed to occur once a year. its more than common for the wwe title to be defended every month. two months at most. its damn sure common for the wwe champion to make at LEAST 1 televised appearance per week
he would have a point with the wwe title losing prestige if it was defended on every raw and smackdown
its not
he would have a point with the wwe title losing prestige if it played second fiddle to whatever feud john cena or any other non champion was in (peep the first 8 months of cm punk's long title reign)
its not
part timers shouldnt be champion unless they're willing to fully commit to a champions schedule
-
and it wasnt such a huge problem defending the title every couple weeks when they kayfabe enforced that 30 day rule
-
Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here. -
Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh. -
Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh.
I didn't even attack anyone in particular so you must have some guilt.
I made two statements in two topics, both of them you quoted and reacted to, neither addressed you, but you felt the need to personalize your response as if I were talking to you.
This means you have some issues. Get that checked out, come back and argue my points. -
Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh.
I didn't even attack anyone in particular so you must have some guilt.
I made two statements in two topics, both of them you quoted and reacted to, neither addressed you, but you felt the need to personalize your response as if I were talking to you.
This means you have some issues. Get that checked out, come back and argue my points.
1st off, you were attacking the belief that a part timer having a championship. I share that belief. 2nd, Ive already typed out my points a page or 2 ago. 3rd, you cant disagree with somebody without calling it "? " or "absurd". Seems to me you are still displaying female traits and you are the one with the issues brother. -
Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh.
I didn't even attack anyone in particular so you must have some guilt.
I made two statements in two topics, both of them you quoted and reacted to, neither addressed you, but you felt the need to personalize your response as if I were talking to you.
This means you have some issues. Get that checked out, come back and argue my points.
1st off, you were attacking the belief that a part timer having a championship. I share that belief. 2nd, Ive already typed out my points a page or 2 ago. 3rd, you cant disagree with somebody without calling it "? " or "absurd". Seems to me you are still displaying female traits and you are the one with the issues brother.
I don't care what anyone else thinks the E will do whatever they want anyway, we share opinions and nothing more. If you think Lesnar being a part-time champion is good then by all means share why you think so...not going off on tangents about me. -
Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh.
I didn't even attack anyone in particular so you must have some guilt.
I made two statements in two topics, both of them you quoted and reacted to, neither addressed you, but you felt the need to personalize your response as if I were talking to you.
This means you have some issues. Get that checked out, come back and argue my points.
1st off, you were attacking the belief that a part timer having a championship. I share that belief. 2nd, Ive already typed out my points a page or 2 ago. 3rd, you cant disagree with somebody without calling it "? " or "absurd". Seems to me you are still displaying female traits and you are the one with the issues brother.
I don't care what anyone else thinks the E will do whatever they want anyway, we share opinions and nothing more. If you think Lesnar being a part-time champion is good then by all means share why you think so...not going off on tangents about me.
I did share my opinion, would it ? you to use the mouse, click the back button, go to the news thread where the argument is, go back to page 184 and find my post at the bottom of the page? All Im saying is stop talking out of your ass, just because I believe this doesnt make me a hypocrite considering I was never one of those people you were referring to with the Ambrose/Sheamus comment. Thats all Im saying. -
Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh.
I didn't even attack anyone in particular so you must have some guilt.
I made two statements in two topics, both of them you quoted and reacted to, neither addressed you, but you felt the need to personalize your response as if I were talking to you.
This means you have some issues. Get that checked out, come back and argue my points.
1st off, you were attacking the belief that a part timer having a championship. I share that belief. 2nd, Ive already typed out my points a page or 2 ago. 3rd, you cant disagree with somebody without calling it "? " or "absurd". Seems to me you are still displaying female traits and you are the one with the issues brother.
I don't care what anyone else thinks the E will do whatever they want anyway, we share opinions and nothing more. If you think Lesnar being a part-time champion is good then by all means share why you think so...not going off on tangents about me.
I did share my opinion, would it ? you to use the mouse, click the back button, go to the news thread where the argument is, go back a couple of pages and find my post at the bottom of the page? All Im saying is stop talking out of your ass, just because I believe this doesnt make me a hypocrite considering I was never one of those people you were referring to with the Ambrose/Sheamus comment. Thats all Im saying.
Bolded: dude...what? You want me to search out your specific opinion on the subject when I wasn't specifically talking to you? What? You know you aren't the only one advocating for this nonsense right?
Second, I never said you were a person I was talking about with the Sheamus/Ambrose comment. It's called a generalization.
We are all members of the IWC I suppose. We listen to podcasts, like say, JR for instance, who will one hand chide WWE for having "cold titles" like the US belt but at the same time promote the concept of turning the WWE title cold by taking it out of rotation for months on end.
Stop taking this personally. I just sent an email question to one of those podcasts just now saying the same thing I said here, these people are hypocrites. If it doesn't apply then why you so mad? -
Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh.
I didn't even attack anyone in particular so you must have some guilt.
I made two statements in two topics, both of them you quoted and reacted to, neither addressed you, but you felt the need to personalize your response as if I were talking to you.
This means you have some issues. Get that checked out, come back and argue my points.
1st off, you were attacking the belief that a part timer having a championship. I share that belief. 2nd, Ive already typed out my points a page or 2 ago. 3rd, you cant disagree with somebody without calling it "? " or "absurd". Seems to me you are still displaying female traits and you are the one with the issues brother.
I don't care what anyone else thinks the E will do whatever they want anyway, we share opinions and nothing more. If you think Lesnar being a part-time champion is good then by all means share why you think so...not going off on tangents about me.
I did share my opinion, would it ? you to use the mouse, click the back button, go to the news thread where the argument is, go back a couple of pages and find my post at the bottom of the page? All Im saying is stop talking out of your ass, just because I believe this doesnt make me a hypocrite considering I was never one of those people you were referring to with the Ambrose/Sheamus comment. Thats all Im saying.
Bolded: dude...what? You want me to search out your specific opinion on the subject when I wasn't specifically talking to you? What? You know you aren't the only one advocating for this nonsense right?
Second, I never said you were a person I was talking about with the Sheamus/Ambrose comment. It's called a generalization.
We are all members of the IWC I suppose. We listen to podcasts, like say, JR for instance, who will one hand chide WWE for having "cold titles" like the US belt but at the same time promote the concept of turning the WWE title cold by taking it out of rotation for months on end.
Stop taking this personally. I just sent an email question to one of those podcasts just now saying the same thing I said here, these people are hypocrites. If it doesn't apply then why you so mad?
Because you tied the ambrose/sheamus comment to the subject of part timer champions. You also said it was absurd to belive what I believe. Im not taking it personal like that, we just are disagreeing about a subject. I though these forums were all about debate?
you said I should post my opinion and Im just saying Ive already posted my opinion. If you want to know the specifics of my opinion, I told you where it was.
and how am I the mad one when you on here sounding angry as ? saying its ? , absurd, and hypocritical? -
Although, the title doesn't get defended on RAW or SmackDown! it does get defended every pay-per-view and we have already expressed how having 13 PPV's per year is too much.
IMO, the issue of the title not being there is and isn't a problem.
I understand the gripe it brings, people want to see the champ there. But, if he isn't defending it, why care about it? I mean, someone being there, every Monday night, what point does it bring that the title is there?
He can take part in matches and not defend it, to build credibility as champion, but then that puts your champion at risk for injury and being completely worn out. (see Punk)
When the Rock did it, I was one of those who didn't agree w the decision of the title not being there but as the weeks went on, and he wasn't there, it wasn't like we missed out on much. Then, I realized that it really didn't mean much whether or not he showed up w the title in hand.
When he did, it was exciting. It wasn't boring. You looked forward to seeing him when they announced he would be there the following Monday.
I think that the champion should be the "special feature" and be a treat to see. He doesn't need to keep showing up every week to be relevant or to remind anyone of anything.
But he's gonna have to show at least once a month, maybe twice and at least have a match (to build feuds) at least once every two months.
There's 8 months until WM31 and I'm sure he's holding it until then. So, regardless if you like it or not, he's holding that title for quite a while as a part-timer and he will miss quite a few shows. -
Agree with this, less is more, makes it more of a spectacle when it's being defended, at the same time I don't think everyone could get away with it, but after beating the greatest streak of all time and dominating Cena in the fashion he did at SS, also having one of the most brilliant managers by his side Lesnar kind of got that Andre the Giant mystique going right now, and that's how it was in the 80's/early 90's you weren't seeing the title being defended all the time and that's what made it more of a spectacle than John Cena defending it against Randy Orton for the millionth time at Hell in the cell or whatever is up next would be, if they do this right it's going to make for a goat storyline heading into Mania, I'm thinking they got big plans for Reigns he just needs to step it up from now until then
-
UPDATE:Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »Lol that's such ? . You have to be naive to buy that a title defense once a month is too much, if anything it isn't defended enough.
Strange thing is: the US title hasn't been defended in months as of right now, it must be the most prestigious title on the planet using this logic.
It's typical favoritism nonsense. Dean Ambrose/Sheamus doesn't defend a title people clamor about it being worthless but when the plan is for Lesnar to hold the belt for months and not defend it somehow it's a great idea.
? outta here.
I was not one of the people saying Ambrose or Sheamus didnt defend it enough. Ive always been on the other side. So calm the ? down bruh.
I didn't even attack anyone in particular so you must have some guilt.
I made two statements in two topics, both of them you quoted and reacted to, neither addressed you, but you felt the need to personalize your response as if I were talking to you.
This means you have some issues. Get that checked out, come back and argue my points.
1st off, you were attacking the belief that a part timer having a championship. I share that belief. 2nd, Ive already typed out my points a page or 2 ago. 3rd, you cant disagree with somebody without calling it "? " or "absurd". Seems to me you are still displaying female traits and you are the one with the issues brother.
I don't care what anyone else thinks the E will do whatever they want anyway, we share opinions and nothing more. If you think Lesnar being a part-time champion is good then by all means share why you think so...not going off on tangents about me.
I did share my opinion, would it ? you to use the mouse, click the back button, go to the news thread where the argument is, go back a couple of pages and find my post at the bottom of the page? All Im saying is stop talking out of your ass, just because I believe this doesnt make me a hypocrite considering I was never one of those people you were referring to with the Ambrose/Sheamus comment. Thats all Im saying.
Bolded: dude...what? You want me to search out your specific opinion on the subject when I wasn't specifically talking to you? What? You know you aren't the only one advocating for this nonsense right?
Second, I never said you were a person I was talking about with the Sheamus/Ambrose comment. It's called a generalization.
We are all members of the IWC I suppose. We listen to podcasts, like say, JR for instance, who will one hand chide WWE for having "cold titles" like the US belt but at the same time promote the concept of turning the WWE title cold by taking it out of rotation for months on end.
Stop taking this personally. I just sent an email question to one of those podcasts just now saying the same thing I said here, these people are hypocrites. If it doesn't apply then why you so mad?
Solomonster actually read my statement on air. He totally caught feelins. It's in the mailbag portion of the show if you want to hear it.
It was the same statement I made in here verbatim (I just cut and pasted it) and he took it personally...oh well.
As far as his response...it was okay, some of his points were irrelevant and in a real debate on the subject I would have eaten his lunch.
Basically he pulled that HBK took a month off from defending the title back in 1996 (yeah one month almost 20 years ago), and that UFC doesn't defend titles monthly (very different product), he also ranted about the champions being ? and losers etc.
His best point, was that there is a sizeable difference between world titles and midcard titles and that you need to defend midcard titles more often because there are more midcard guys.
I can't remember what else he said but there were some attacks on my character, he refered to me as "son" and a guy that doesn't like change.
It's all good though, I'm pretty surprised it actually got read, I expected it to be ignored.
-
You can tell the age ranges reading this thread. Hogan used to defend and have matches so rarely that it was a big ? deal to see him. Since the Monday Night Wars the title could be defended on a PPV Sunday, again on Raw, and once more on Smackdown.
Heyman's argument goes beyond Brock. The title was ? out when I stopped regularly watching in 03. I can only imagine what's up now. -
i mean these days the title is defended on regular tv like once a year, been like that for a long ass time, im not sayin it needs to be defended on every show like the tv title, but the holder of the world title at least needs to be around for storyline purposes twice a month, and maybe as i suggested a week of house shows a month couldnt hurt, we'll see tho
