Lesnar was the "saviour of wrestling?"Â Then why were the ratings, house show attendance, and buyrates all on a downturn during his run?Â
If he were the saviour, wouldn't he have lead wrestling back to the promised land of mainstream acceptance, been a crossover star into other mediums and, at least, draw ratings above the 4 mark? However, he did none of those and never showed the potential to do any of those.
Was Lesnar a big deal? No doubt.  When he quit, did it hurt Smackdown? No, it didn't just hurt Smackdown, alongside Angle taking time off for his neck, it crippled it. Lesnar was their biggest player and strongest heel, but the "saviour of wrestling?" Lesnar was a good-great big man, power move wrestler, with decent mic skills and charisma, but very little mainstream appeal. He didn't have enough appeal to be brought in as a ticket selling attraction for the Vikings, a team that really had nothing to lose by keeping him around. Would he be accepted as a credible contender from day 1, if he came back? Yeah, I have very little doubt. However, so would Batista. Does that make either the "saviour of wrestling?" Hell no. Lesnar was good, I'll never deny that, but was he or would he ever be, if he hadn't quit, on the same level as Hogan, Austin or Rock. I'd be a little more than shocked. Lesnar'd be lucky to be held in the same regard as Goldberg, as far as "wrestling saviours," go. He hangs around, I don't see wrestling being much, if any, better than it is right now.
The_Dude14
Lesnar was far too young though, I said he would have been the savior of wreslting. Look at the man's accomplishment and reputation in a 3 year period, no one else in the business has accomplished so much in that little time, why even Kurt Angle had to fiddle around in the mid-card for at least a year and a half. Lesnar had he been given time to blossum would have been the new face of the company the way Hogan was, the way Hart was, the way Austin was, the way the Rock, etc. Each of these men in their respective times moved the company forawrd into mainstream status in some form, these names (maybe with the exception of Hart) are recognizable to non-fans thusly prooving wreslting to some extent had made a mainstream impact even further. To be called the "Savior of wrestling" it imply's the wreslter can reutnr the comapny and business to the once glorious apex it was at, that clearly being the Hogan reign when wrestling was widely popular with everyone. Each of the wreslters I listed above did somewhat do that, like I said they made wreslting popular in their respective times. Yet we have not seen that face for quite sometime, ever since the dwindling of the Rock we as an industry have been aching for that face. Lesnar had it.
Now Lesnar's personal choices have no bearing on him as being full of potential to bring wreslting back to the forefront of mainstream television, and to some extent neither does his wreslting ability as some have called to question. Lesnar has more wreslting ability now then Hogan ever had, it simply doesn't matter in a star that is built right. (Personally though I feel Lesnar was a great technical wreslter, I'm just addressing concerns).
But again back to the potential never reached question, I feel now is a great time to revert back to how much Lesnar had accomplished and how mouch fan support and credibility he had earned in his short tenure. Now compare that to the first 3 years of the Rock, Austin, Hart, and even Hogan, he looks like a superstar compared to them. One more factor you must equate is the factor of unpredicatability, do you think if I told you that the Rock would be perhaps the second biggest draw in the history of the industry when he was Rocky Maiva you'd believe me? No you'd probably laugh and go back to chanting DIE ROCKY DIE. What about when the Ringmaster arrived? Terry Boulder? That's what I thought.
Log in to comment