So why respond to Chris' take on the Lesnar/Cena situation, if I'm just going to agree with him anyways?
Because there's always more to the puzzle, dear reader. Let's keep reading Chris' piece:
"Brock Lesnar is part-time. He was brought in specifically to, a) make Vince money and b) put over full-time talent. He has succeeded in both, period."
Let's pick apart that first statement: Brock Lesnar was brought in specifically to make Vince money. Obviously I'm not going to debate that; WWE is a business first and foremost. It's unlikely the CEO of a publicly traded company brought Lesnar back so he could "mark out" – although the image is downright hilarious.
What I question is Lesnar's effectiveness. Has he really done his job? Has Brock Lesnar actually made Vince McMahon more money by being around? I can tell you he didn't sell tickets to Extreme Rules; Chicago would have been sold out a month in advance, no matter whose name was in the main event. Did he sell PPV buys? When Lesnar was fighting for the UFC they were raking in record buys any time he had a fight. Brock Lesnar is easily the biggest drawing name in MMA, and yet numbers indicate that Extreme Rules barely registered an increase over last year.
With CM Punk and Chris Jericho fighting over the WWE Title in Chicago, the same city that saw 2011's famous walk-out Championship match, I'd bet the farm they had more to do with the consistent number than Lesnar's return. But WWE isn't looking for consistent with Lesnar! They're looking for big numbers, and so far I haven't seen them. With fans' dwindling interest (read: WWE's awful booking of the event) in the past five or more years, I doubt we're going to see a big draw for Hunter and Lesnar at SummerSlam. That's ok, if history tells us anything, WWE can always blame their poor performance on the Miz.
That brings us to point number two: Brock Lesnar was brought in specifically to put over full-time talent. Again, I don't doubt the point, I doubt its success.
So Brock Lesnar, a huge UFC draw and former WWE monster, comes back for one more run with the company and who does he go after? John Cena and Triple H, so far. This makes perfect sense to me! Lesnar is certifiably badass; if I were in his position I'd go after whoever is on top. Now, you would think this means the WWE Champion, but I'll settle for the poster boy and the Chief Operating Officer.
Hang with me here, I'm about to get to the point.
Brock Lesnar isn't going to put over John Cena or Triple H. Wins and loses mean nothing to either man at this point in their careers. John Cena "going over" Lesnar means nothing; he's already been WWE Champion 10 times and come back from the brink of death enough that nobody cared. If Triple H beats Brock Lesnar this Sunday, where is the payoff? Who does that help, other than Hunter's well accounted ego? Let's play out the scenario and assume that Lesnar will lose to either the Rock or Undertaker at WrestleMania 29. So he comes in for a year and loses to three guys that could never score a win for the rest of their respective careers, and still go into the Hall of Fame without one mention of their 2012 feuds with Brock Lesnar.
Have a news tip? Attended an event and want to send a live report?