Is anyone more interested in Reigns/Lesnar than Bryan/Lesnar?

[Everlong]

Regardless of how everything has been booked/should have been booked:

Is there anyone here who is more interested in the prospect of a Reigns/lesnar WrestleMania match than a Bryan/Lesnar WrestleMania match? If so, why?

[SortaCreative]

I'd like to here a compelling argument for Reigns vs. Lesnar tbh. It's the worst possible match up you could have come up with from the current roster to main event Wrestlemania.

[prophet]

I don't think there's a soul alive that is more interested in Reigns/Lesnar. *waits for @The Legend to arrive and prove me wrong*

[Messiah]

No, the match will suck. I am 90% sure of that. They are not a good fit together.

[The Legend]

Alright, fine I'll bite. Am I really excited for Roman Reigns vs Brock Lesnar, not really. It's not a great match up and Roman isn't ready to be in the main event yet, but if I were ordering the matches I most want to see right now, Daniel Bryan vs Brock Lesnar ranks absolutely at the bottom of the list.

It ranks at the bottom of the list because the match up sucks, because I know the story they will have to tell to get Daniel Bryan over Brock Lesnar and it's a tired and crappy storyline. You are telling me they've spent all of this time building Brock Lesnar into the Beast Incarnate, an unstoppable monster, they've had him snap Undertaker's undefeated streak, they've had him slam John Cena onto the back of his head 352 times now and for what? To have a 5'10", 200-pound goat-faced munchkin beat him? You might as well put a multi-color mask over that bearded face and start calling Daniel Bryan "the new Rey Mysterio", because that's exactly the type of repetitive, underdog crapfest reign you are setting him up to have.

Styles make fights and there are so many better ways to start Daniel Bryan's reign, the reign and accomplishment that should ultimately be his crowning career achievement by being a fantastic, injury-free long reign. There's a reason the UFC and other legitimate fighting organizations have weight limits, it's because you can't possibly believe that if these two guys are going to step in the ring together that any other result besides Brock Lesnar grinding Daniel Bryan into dust could ever realistically happen.

If it were up to me, I'd keep it as Roman Reigns vs Brock Lesnar, because in addition to everything I've written above the Royal Rumble needs to still mean something otherwise the PPV needs to go away because there is no point of sitting there watching that longer than an ironman match if there is no payoff.

Now you have to address the elephant in the room which is why I would book it this way. Lesnar's leaving anyways, the crowd doesn't like Reigns, he needs help on the microphone, why not go this route. Have Paul Heyman pull a swerve and turn heel on Lesnar and help Roman Reigns beat Lesnar. Let Reigns have a cup of coffee with the belt, then have Seth Rollins cash in on Reigns at some point around Extreme Rules. At this point you can have the much more appetizing feud of Seth Rollins vs Daniel Bryan play out over the late Spring, early Summer. Bryan can then go on and be champion for right around 6 months against challengers that make sense to satisfy everyone's appetite before moving on to a new champion.

[Everlong]

^I disagree with you, but god dammit do I respect you

[prophet]

[The Legend]

^I disagree with you, but god dammit do I respect you

I luv U too man.

[Hanley!]

Maybe?

I'm not sure. Kinda. This whole thing has become so muddled that I find it hard to think straight on the issue.

Before the Royal Rumble I wanted Bryan vs Lesnar more, because it would probably be the better match (Reigns vs Lesnar would need gimmicks and stipulations and careful booking to have a chance at competing with it). It also has that great David/Goliath dynamic which works so well at Wrestlemania.

But mostly I wanted that match, because it's what most other people wanted and it always pisses me off when WWE doesn't listen to their fans. If they were listening to their fans then they would have had Bryan win the Rumble from the start. As for me personally, I'm not too interested in seeing Bryan as champion. He's boring.

Sure, Bryan is good in the ring (though there are a few that I like more in that area). And I enjoy rooting for the underdog. But his character is pretty lame and pandering. I don't dislike him exactly and I hope he stays around the main event scene for quite some time. But I've almost no interest in seeing him as champion. I was really hoping to see someone new in the mix this year instead. Or at least for Bryan to develop something other than the length of his facial hair.

They shouldn't have pushed Reigns to the main event scene this soon. Bryan was a better choice to win the Rumble, and had they allowed them to pick up some momentum before the match I think Ziggler and Ambrose would have been better choices too. I was hoping one of those guys would be the winner this year. But with Reigns going for the title, at least I feel he'll be forced to grow as a character. And if I can get an angle that actually features a little character growth, I'll be a happy man.

Before the Rumble I was wanted to see Bryan/Lesnar more, but now it might have swung the other way. The Reigns decision was a disaster, but they could still salvage things by having the reactions change Reigns in some way that makes him more appealing to the audience. With the right booking, he could still be a very interesting challenger. Bryan on the other hand ... the Royal Rumble made him look like a jobber. If he gets the title match now, the story will be too contrived for me to buy into it. It's no longer the typical fairytale David vs Goliath story, it's Bryan getting another shot to sneak into the Wrestlemania main event, when he clearly doesn't deserve one. I don't think getting the shot against Lesnar will help his popularity and it'll kill Reigns as a character.

So yeah, it's a tough call. I think WWE successfully soured me on both matches to be honest. I think Reigns vs Lesnar has a better chance of being a compelling story at this point, but only if booked well. Bryan vs Lesnar is still the safe option, because even if the story is shit, the match will likely save it.

[Everlong]

Steve, the question was to take what's been booked out of your decision!

[The Legend]

I love Hanley's response, because it sums up how I feel about Daniel Bryan perfectly.

[Hanley!]

Steve, the question was to take what's been booked out of your decision!

I find that difficult.

If we're ignoring what was booked for the Royal Rumble, then I would be more interested in Bryan vs Lesnar.

If we're ignoring what was booked for the last year, I'm 100% more interested in the prospect of Reigns vs Lesnar.

Honestly, I think I'm just more interested in Reigns' character development going forward. The problem with Reigns is that he's just not ready yet.

[KaiserGlider]

I want Bryan vs Lesnar simply for the match.

I feel like I know exactly how Reigns vs Lesnar will play out. They will have a 10-15 minute brawl where both guys try to overpower each other, Reigns ends up overpowering Lesnar, hits a bunch of Spears, Lesnar kicks out of everything, Reigns hits another Spear and wins. It would feel contrived.

Bryan will do a much better job sucking you into the match and its story. What is Bryan's strategy to take down the Beast? Try to use his speed advantage to outmaneuver Lesnar? Chop him down with kicks and then lock in a submission? Come off the top rope with knees to Lesnar's skull and stun him that way? It would be a far more interesting, unpredictable match, and Bryan will make you believe in every move he delivers - something Reigns is not capable of doing in my opinion. Bryan vs Lesnar will be a journey. I'm not sure how else to describe it. I want to see it.

[Daz]

Bryan/Lesnar would simply be the better match. Do I think Reigns and Lesnar could put on a good show? Yeah sure, I think Reigns is a perfectly adequate in ring performer and has enough big moves and intensity to prevent it from being the plodding shit fests the Lesnar/Triple H matches were. That being said, it'd be much safer and more basic than the alternative, and I don't think there's a natural story to be told or to invest in there. I think that's where my problem begins. Lesnar/Bryan seemed like a far more obvious matchup to me than Reigns/Lesnar. Especially when you have Rollins acting as the antagonizing Authority golden boy, who would quite frankly get a better out of Reigns than Lesnar would anyway.

Would Bryan have to be treated like an underdog against Lesnar? Absolutely. But so is everybody else. What's wrong with that? Just put over the fact that Bryan is a phenomenal wrestler, which he is, and defeating Lesnar will mean something. I think Bryan is easy to root for, I think Bryan would make for the better story, and what's more, I think Bryan would make Lesnar look far more effective as a destructive force than Reigns would. I see why WWE would be reluctant to give us essentially the same moment we got last year with Bryan, but on the other hand, we were robbed of the Bryan title reign that followed because of an unfortunate injury - so repeating it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. And on top of all that, let's remember the Punk/Lesnar match. Punk is obviously Lesnar's physical inferior, but he wasn't necessarily treated as such during that match. He just went balls to the wall after Lesnar and showed no fear. They had Seth Rollins to it at the Royal Rumble. There's no reason the same cannot be said for Bryan. Let's be honest, we've all watched wrestling for an extended period of time, we all know exactly how almost every match unfolds. There's the shine, the heat, comeback with a few hope spots thrown in for good measure. I don't care if Bryan is smaller than Lesnar ... fuck it, I'm watching a worked sport, not a sport. I don't have to worry about weight limits or any of that bullshit. If I did, Big Show would have to be the Champion of everything because he's bigger than bloody everyone. And I think we can all agree, the last thing anyone wants in 2015 is Big Show holding the belt.

Do I think taking away the spot from Reigns is the right thing to do? No. But it certainly doesn't devalue the Rumble at all. Especially when you consider how often the Rumble winner has actually closed the PPV in recent years. Hell, Del Rio opened the bloody show after winning the Rumble. That's hardly what you'd call the Main Event. Also, it's not as if they've not done it before. McMahon won the Rumble and didn't headline Mania. Rey Mysterio lost his Mania title shot to Orton and had to be re-inserted afterwards. There's a precedent for it.

Just some of my jumbled thoughts after reading this thread.

[Kyle]

I don't think Reigns vs Lesnar makes for a good match, so by default I have to go with Bryan vs Lesnar. Bryan is a small wrestler, so what? Seth Rollins did great damage to Brock at the Rumble and he's a high-flyer. Besides, over a decade ago, Eddie beat Brock to win the WWE Title in a matchup that's basically identical to this one. And yes, I know Eddie had help from Goldberg to win that match, but Reigns had Rock help him win the Rumble and he's supposed to be an unstoppable force.

[The Legend]

I don't think Reigns vs Lesnar makes for a good match, so by default I have to go with Bryan vs Lesnar. Bryan is a small wrestler, so what? Seth Rollins did great damage to Brock at the Rumble and he's a high-flyer. Besides, over a decade ago, Eddie beat Brock to win the WWE Title in a matchup that's basically identical to this one. And yes, I know Eddie had help from Goldberg to win that match, but Reigns had Rock help him win the Rumble and he's supposed to be an unstoppable force.

Eddie and Rollins are both bigger than Bryan and more to the point both are more athletic, they look more athletic and are much better at flying around the ring. Seeing them beat Lesnar would be more believable and an easier story to tell. There's nothing that Bryan (IN WWE) is particularly great at that makes me think he could actually beat Lesnar in any convincing way.

[Kyle]

I don't think Reigns vs Lesnar makes for a good match, so by default I have to go with Bryan vs Lesnar. Bryan is a small wrestler, so what? Seth Rollins did great damage to Brock at the Rumble and he's a high-flyer. Besides, over a decade ago, Eddie beat Brock to win the WWE Title in a matchup that's basically identical to this one. And yes, I know Eddie had help from Goldberg to win that match, but Reigns had Rock help him win the Rumble and he's supposed to be an unstoppable force.

Eddie and Rollins are both bigger than Bryan and more to the point both are more athletic, they look more athletic and are much better at flying around the ring. Seeing them beat Lesnar would be more believable and an easier story to tell. There's nothing that Bryan (IN WWE) is particularly great at that makes me think he could actually beat Lesnar in any convincing way.

Punk looked pretty credible against Lesnar. No reason Bryan couldn't either in a similar kind of match.

[Daz]

I don't think Reigns vs Lesnar makes for a good match, so by default I have to go with Bryan vs Lesnar. Bryan is a small wrestler, so what? Seth Rollins did great damage to Brock at the Rumble and he's a high-flyer. Besides, over a decade ago, Eddie beat Brock to win the WWE Title in a matchup that's basically identical to this one. And yes, I know Eddie had help from Goldberg to win that match, but Reigns had Rock help him win the Rumble and he's supposed to be an unstoppable force.

Eddie and Rollins are both bigger than Bryan and more to the point both are more athletic, they look more athletic and are much better at flying around the ring. Seeing them beat Lesnar would be more believable and an easier story to tell. There's nothing that Bryan (IN WWE) is particularly great at that makes me think he could actually beat Lesnar in any convincing way.

I heavily dispute the idea that Eddie Guerrero, at that point in his career, was more athletic than Daniel Bryan is presently. Bryan has also been heavily touted as a submission expert since his WWE career began and last year's WrestleMania ended with him tapping out one of the biggest stars of the last decade in Batista, who by the by, is of a similar size to Brock Lesnar. I don't recall anybody questioning that decision, because it wasn't "convincing".

[Hanley!]

^^ I'd disagree heavily with the idea that Bryan is currently more athletic than Guerrero was then though. He doesn't look it in any case. Also, while Lesnar and Batista might be the same size, nobody considers them equals in terms of credibility. Lesnar has better credentials, he's visibly stronger and more powerful, he's visibly more athletic and dexterous and he's spent far more of his career being presented as a monster. Believably beating Batista is far from the same thing as beating Lesnar.

However, in the world of pro-wrestling, I definitely think Bryan can beat Lesnar and have it be convincing. Big guy vs small guy matches happen all the time, and these are both very good wrestlers who can make that dynamic work. More importantly than that, Lesnar is very good at selling. So he can make Bryan's offense look good.

So I don't quite agree with your reasoning, but I do agree with your position.

[The Legend]

^^ I'd disagree heavily with the idea that Bryan is currently more athletic than Guerrero was then though. He doesn't look it in any case. Also, while Lesnar and Batista might be the same size, nobody considers them equals in terms of credibility. Lesnar has better credentials, he's visibly stronger and more powerful, he's visibly more athletic and dexterous and he's spent far more of his career being presented as a monster. Believably beating Batista is far from the same thing as beating Lesnar.

Hanley basically just gave you my opinion on that matter better than I could so, I'll just steal his words and I'll add this in. Here's what bugs me as someone who spends his time watching athletes and even covering them professionally for my job. Daniel Bryan every day looks more and more like the average guy next door. He looks mundane, generic and unimpressive in his physique, his stature and most every way. If WWE is supposed to be believable as a career that takes athletic and physical prowess then a guy like Daniel Bryan doesn't belong as it's top heavyweight champion.

To me there's nothing Daniel Bryan does that's all that impressive and there never really has been either. He may have done more impressive things in ROH or other organizations, but to me there's nothing that particularly draws me in. WWE has for sure had better talkers, they've had better high flyers too. Hell they've even had guys that can work "scientific wrestling" better than Bryan does in WWE. Hell, Brock's probably a better scientific wrestler than Bryan is - something that Batista definitely was not. That's the thing, Batista was a big lug that couldn't move very well, he had a specific weakness that everyone saw and everyone knew Bryan could exploit. Lesnar doesn't have a weakness that Bryan can exploit. Lesnar's stronger than Bryan and he's at a minimum an equal grappler to Bryan. There's no strategy or gameplan that I can forsee where Bryan has a hole in Lesnar's game to exploit. At least Reigns can be seen as a guy that can match Lesnar blow for blow in a battle of strength.