WWE (Wrestlemania 30) [SPOILERS]

[ben-zayb]

Fellow WWE fans, with the monumental 30 year anniversary of Wrestlemania, what are your thoughts on the show?

The highlight of the night for me is the streak being beaten. I mean, Lesnar is a legit badass, so it's not unbelievable that he did what he did. I just thought the build up and the match quality could've been better. That said, Undertaker may well just be way past his limits if this match is any indicator, so him finally retiring with a HoF induction on the way might be the next order of business..

The next best moment (with a hair's breadth of a margin) was Daniel Bryan's payoff. FINALLY! Eight months of waiting and so worth it. Props to Evolution too, IMO there's no weak link in the two matches.

Cesaro's win was a nice surprise, and along with the Shield being alpha-wolves, the future is really shaping up nicely for this four guys.

[DrBurr]

Best part of the night was Cesaro's win in the Battle Royal, hoping to see him in the main event by Summer Slam and claiming the Andre the Giant Trophy and his oncoming Break Up with Swagger put him in a solid position, lets hope they don't kill his momentum like they did to Wade Barrett.

As for the Streak, I'm still pretty mad about it, I get Taker is old and the Streak was going to end but why give it to Lesnar? Brock isn't even going to be around in a month seems like a giant waste of an opportunity and the match was terrible. If Taker was just going to retire they should of given Punk the win last year, would of turned him Heel for life but at least Punk wrestles each week Brock just shows up to lose at the Big Four.

The Daniel Bryan match was really good shame the crowd was still confused about the Taker match, Several times I thought Randy or Daniel were legit injured, like when Randy took that nasty fall onto the Monitor. I'll probably rewatch this match in the coming week so I can catch all the spots.

Rest of the Show was pretty typical, Divas match is used as filler, Shield vs New Age Outlaws and Kane was a good appetizer, Triple H vs Daniel Bryan was a solid opening and got everyone pumped. Only other decision I didn't like was giving Cena the win over Wyatt, It was kinda of necessary to pull the coming blow but I'm worried WWE are going to bury Bray Wyatt like they've done before and theres alot potential in the character

[ben-zayb]

The question with that route is: will Punk still leave had he beaten taker? Seems to risky to me. On one hand, you need legit guys to convince people that they're threats to win. On the other hand, rarely do young guys at the start of their career have said legitimacy. Next guy to Lesnar kayfabe-wise would be Cena, and neither of them need it. (same reason why I don't think the Cena win is needed in his match with Wyatt)

Orton gets major props for working through that sick bump. The man is talented and can be on fire at times, but he just doesn't seem motivated on a consistent basis nowadays.

[KnightDisciple]

As for the Streak, I'm still pretty mad about it, I get Taker is old and the Streak was going to end but why give it to Lesnar? Brock isn't even going to be around in a month seems like a giant waste of an opportunity and the match was terrible. If Taker was just going to retire they should of given Punk the win last year, would of turned him Heel for life but at least Punk wrestles each week Brock just shows up to lose at the Big Four.
This this this this this this a THOUSAND TIMES THIS.

Brock Lesnar is not only old and barely in wrestling, not only is he B-rate at best (relying mostly on having shoulders for the shoulders on his shoulders), but he has negative stage presence. Brock is so bad at being charismatic, he requires a "manager" to do all his talking and emoting for him.

Meanwhile, Undertaker basically has never uttered a word, but manages to have way more charisma and presence than the "manager" for Lesnar (whose sole task was having charisma and presence).

If you're going to legit break The Streak, it should have either gone to a young rising star (perhaps Daniel Bryan or some such), or, if you insisted on it being an "old guy" wrestler (40s-50s is old), pick someone like Triple H or Shawn Michaels or The Rock or basically anyone who's actually famous and has ring presence. I would have been okay with The Streak ending at 20 and 1 last year against Triple H. Triple H is old, but the guy knows how to make an entrance (as we saw last night), and he knows how to work the crowd.

Heck, my friend who was hosting the party mentioned there were rumors Sting was going to come out of retirement for a single match with Taker. That could have been epic, even if Taker won and kept the streak.

I am honestly wondering if this loss was even planned; Taker got tired quick in this match, and when he got counted out, even *Brock* seemed stunned. Mayhaps he was supposed to kick out, but had gotten so tired he just couldn't, and the ref couldn't not count him out if he didn't kick out, since Brock had him legit pinned.

[DrBurr]

Yeah thats the one hard thing about banking on Punk, he's walked out on the company twice, though the first one was probably a work. Chances are he'll be back and he would of stuck around if had been given a higher place on the card. Its kind of a vicious cycle with Punk, WWE doesn't trust him so he walks out so WWE doesn't trust him.

Yeah I agree Wyatt needed the win more than Cena but with Taker losing they need all their other faces to win. No else really has the legitimacy to fight Taker except Cena, Lesnar and other returning Superstars from 10 years ago. Ideally they should of built up a guy like Barrett to kind of take this job, but with the end of the Nexus and an injury Barrett now wrestles less than Santino.

Orton is a great workhorse and pulls off great matches, his main issue is his wellness violations which prevent WWE from investing in him, less something like Mr.Kennedy happen again. So long as Orton isn't wrestling Cena, a match we've seen hundreds of times, I love watching him work hes got a great style which really matches his persona.

Though I'm mad about Taker still, it was a good Wrestlemania, now its really a question of whats going to happen on Raw, the night after can make or break Superstars. Wyatt needs to come out and make a strong promo, maybe taking this feud to Extreme Rules where he can regain his momentum.

[KnightDisciple]

I will say that I had a lot of fun watching Wyatt. I will also admit I typically only watch Wrestlemania and maybe one or two other events in a year...

But Wyatt seems like the sort of character who ought to stick around. I'm not shocked he lost; Cena's incredibly popular, and the guy legit does tremendous amounts of charity work. I don't see the WWE actually having him "destroy his legacy" to beat Crazy Cultist Hillbilly Joker. (Seriously that match was like The Dark Knight's plot.)

Daniel Bryan winning wasn't a sure thing, but it was fun to watch. I didn't like him last Mania when he was working with CM Punk (something about Punk has always rubbed me the wrong way, putting aside he apparently throws temper tantrums and leaves a lot), but on his own he seems pretty legit. Also, DAT BEARD.

[Talakeal]

I remember when Brock Lesnar first appeared and was a legitimate monster. In his rookie year he won the title, man evented WrestleMania, won the royal rumble, beat several legends, did amazing feats of strength and agility like tossing around Rikishi and Big Show and doing Shooting Star presses of the top rope. If he had done this then I would have bought it.


Then he announced he was leaving the company and everyone (both the fans and the writers) stopped caring. His match with Goldberg could have been the biggest thing ever, but instead it just sucked and ended with Austin giving both men the finger.


I assumed that this match would have been more of the same. I actually never would have seen this coming, almost makes me wish I had watched WrestleMania despite not having seen a wrestling pay per view in ten years. I wonder if they will be able to keep up Brock's push this time or if it will be the same thing over again.

[DrBurr]

I remember when Brock Lesnar first appeared and was a legitimate monster. In his rookie year he won the title, man evented WrestleMania, won the royal rumble, beat several legends, did amazing feats of strength and agility like tossing around Rikishi and Big Show and doing Shooting Star presses of the top rope. If he had done this then I would have bought it.


Then he announced he was leaving the company and everyone (both the fans and the writers) stopped caring. His match with Goldberg could have been the biggest thing ever, but instead it just sucked and ended with Austin giving both men the finger.


I assumed that this match would have been more of the same. I actually never would have seen this coming, almost makes me wish I had watched WrestleMania despite not having seen a wrestling pay per view in ten years. I wonder if they will be able to keep up Brock's push this time or if it will be the same thing over again.

Not really a push, Brock wrestles part-time chances are after tonight's Raw hes going to go home and we won't see him until Summer Slam. Though I'd gladly a title reign by the Beast if he was a fighting champ, none of this PPV only bull, if your the best you got to prove each week. Something I've always given props to Cena for even though I'm not a fan of his character I respect that he came out each week and wrestled a match or if he wasn't cleared atleast came down and cut a promo on how this latest injury wouldn't stop him from retaining at [Insert PPV]

[Fjolnir]

See that's my problem with ending the streak with Lesnar, the current way he allows himself to be utilized in the business puts him in a place where this win doesn't put him over the top, but instead slots him into the role of a top tier Jobber Beast heel. That is, a guy whose role it is to be a big ugly obstacle to be overcome at major events. You'll see him at events like money in the bank, elimination chamber, etc., etc, in the main event but if he gets a belt it's sure to be taken from him in one month at the next ppv (or held by him until a major tentpole) but otherwise he's just going to be a career speedbump to put other guys over the top or occasionally to dismantle a guy as a form of cheap drama. He can be a good undercard for some people that need to have that match against a legitimate tough guy/ big man where even if they lose, they'll get a good boost as long as the match is well fought. I understand that this was Undertaker's choice to some extent, but from a creative standpoint losing last year to HHH would likely have been a better choice as would some sort of thing which would have preserved the streak on a technicality such as outside interference allowing taker to win, which would have cemented lesnar's rep as a beast and set up a rivalry arc between the part timer undertaker and lesnar which would have probably ended up with the streak ending next wrestlemania without the abruptness of this one.

[ben-zayb]

snipI sort of agree, except for a correction on the Undertaker vs HHH part. That was two/three years ago, since Undertaker didn't wrestle last year. :smallamused:

I'd be fine with "End of an Era" type of retirement, and HHH had that gimmick match. The probably down side is that it would be predictable to end the streak there, but then again predictability isn't exactly that bad depending how you present it.

[SaintRidley]

Lesnar is an absolute waste as streakbreaker. I would have preferred someone much earlier in his career. Daniel Bryan's no noob, but I think it could have worked (they could have worked it as Hunter booking him a sure loss at Mania while also trying to force the crowd against him). Alternately, someone pretty new like Roman Reigns could be good. He'd have to stay a heel for a long while, but the company seems to believe in him (see Royal Rumble and his setting the new single-Rumble elimination record) and he has the potential to go the distance. At some point, years from now, you could have him acknowledge the streak break in the course of a face turn where he starts talking about what he learned from going against the Undertaker - you know, that kind of hackneyed "I learned respect" thing.

Lesnar... there's just no real good way to swing this into a positive. He's not full time, he doesn't really gain any credibility as a threat, etc. It just makes no sense as a move. Either retire him streak intact, or give him someone who can actually use the win down the line. This was the worst of all scenarios, especially since the pacing of the end of the match was so bizarrely bad.

[ben-zayb]

Lesnar is an absolute waste as streakbreaker. I would have preferred someone much earlier in his career. Daniel Bryan's no noob, but I think it could have worked (they could have worked it as Hunter booking him a sure loss at Mania while also trying to force the crowd against him). Alternately, someone pretty new like Roman Reigns could be good. He'd have to stay a heel for a long while, but the company seems to believe in him (see Royal Rumble and his setting the new single-Rumble elimination record) and he has the potential to go the distance. At some point, years from now, you could have him acknowledge the streak break in the course of a face turn where he starts talking about what he learned from going against the Undertaker - you know, that kind of hackneyed "I learned respect" thing.

Lesnar... there's just no real good way to swing this into a positive. He's not full time, he doesn't really gain any credibility as a threat, etc. It just makes no sense as a move. Either retire him streak intact, or give him someone who can actually use the win down the line. This was the worst of all scenarios, especially since the pacing of the end of the match was so bizarrely bad.I see three problems with booking Roman Reigns vs Taker:
1. The Shield is arguably the hottest thing in TV right now as a group, save for the Wyatt (and to some extent, the Real Americans). The Shield have plenty more "booking/design space" to go to, such as a breaking up storyline or the awesome legit-badass face stable that we see today. As a group, they are legit threats, which brings me to my next point.
2. Individually, they don't have a lot of credibility...yet. Sure they are getting rubs like getting titles and setting new records, but that's it. They are best (unstoppable, even) when they're together, as repeatedly said by Ambrose and Rollins in and out of kayfabe.
3. Roman Reigns is too green. You should notice by now. In the ring, and in the mic, he still got awful ways to go. Sure they're obviously building him up as the next superman, but that's it. He's still being built up, so that when he's got better in and out of the ring, he'll get the crowd solidly behind him and with a legit credibility of his own.

[SaintRidley]

True. I've literally only watched the 2014 Royal Rumble match, Taker vs. Punk, and Taker's match, the Diva's invitational, and the title match from last night's Wrestlemania in the last two years, so I haven't much to go on in terms of seeing Reigns. He seems a bit green, but potential-filled. If the Shield thing is that important to his establishment right now, though, then yeah, he's not viable. Though you could parlay something like this (if not of this import) into a breaking up storyline - one member starts shining brighter than the others, overshadowing them, and resentment grows...

[Fjolnir]

IF Lesnar and Heyman are willing to throw it all in on being the most despised heel/manager pair ever to grace the Ring, this MIGHT work. The problem is can they become the Dragon and the Mastermind with only 12-16 appearances a year?

Edit: With Heyman starting to form a stable this is a little more feasible, as rivalries can be set up only to end up across the stable and people end up on a collision course with Lesnar at PPV XYZ for some good undercard.

[Traab]

I will be honest, I wish he had retired, streak intact. It would have been the perfect punctuation to his career. Forever he would have had that reputation hanging over the heads of future wrestlers. "Yeah this new guy mcnasty is awesome, but could he have taken The Undertaker?" and it just seems like so rarely you get a big name able to leave with his rep intact. There is almost always a big loss before he goes. Or just a general drift downwards till he leaves. The Undertaker deserved better imo.

[ben-zayb]

The Undertaker deserved better imo.If we are to believe the rumor mill, Undertaker offered ending the streak to many of the 21-0's latter half. It was out of respect (for Taker and the Streak itself) that everybody else declined. Secondly, the reason why some wrestlers retire on a losing match is that it's supposedly the traditional way to go, as well as a sign of respect. Something like you always put someone over as much as you can in your last match.

[Starwulf]

I will be honest, I wish he had retired, streak intact. It would have been the perfect punctuation to his career. Forever he would have had that reputation hanging over the heads of future wrestlers. "Yeah this new guy mcnasty is awesome, but could he have taken The Undertaker?" and it just seems like so rarely you get a big name able to leave with his rep intact. There is almost always a big loss before he goes. Or just a general drift downwards till he leaves. The Undertaker deserved better imo.

Meh, that's the issue with all of wrestling being scripted like a soap opera. Probably the main reason I really stopped watching wrestling a few years ago. Having watched it since I was like 6 until I was 28 or so, you pretty much have seen everything they can really do, everything that's happening now, has happened before in some way or another.

Still, does suck that Undertaker finally lost his streak :-(. That was a constant that I always counted on.

[Traab]

If we are to believe the rumor mill, Undertaker offered ending the streak to many of the 21-0's latter half. It was out of respect (for Taker and the Streak itself) that everybody else declined. Secondly, the reason why some wrestlers retire on a losing match is that it's supposedly the traditional way to go, as well as a sign of respect. Something like you always put someone over as much as you can in your last match.

I suppose. I mean, I understand that its a very helpful way to boost some up and comer or to help pass a torch or whatever. Events like watching andre get slammed (yes I am that old) by hogan are huge events. Its just, this guy wasnt stone cold steve austin, he wasnt the rock, he was a freaking pillar of the wwf. The only guy with more seniority than him is freaking VINCE! (May or may not be true, but it really feels like it) Maybe its just me taking it personally, because the undertaker was always my favorite character. I just wish he could have left with his rep intact. Or at least let it be in some legendary way. A buried alive style ending, a fight to the "death" where he and his opponent fight till both can barely stand like that iron man match between shawn michaels and brett hart. (Obviously he wouldnt have been able to do a 60 minute fight justice, its just an example) SOMETHING suitably epic that will be on highlight reels and lists for years to come like when he hurled mankind off the cage into the table.

[ben-zayb]

Ultimate Warrior just passed away... RIP. WWE got lucky being able to mend fences with him.

[Starwulf]

Ultimate Warrior just passed away... RIP. WWE got lucky being able to mend fences with him.

Crap >< That really sucks :-(. One of the greats from back when I was young!

[Tiki Snakes]

I am honestly wondering if this loss was even planned; Taker got tired quick in this match, and when he got counted out, even *Brock* seemed stunned. Mayhaps he was supposed to kick out, but had gotten so tired he just couldn't, and the ref couldn't not count him out if he didn't kick out, since Brock had him legit pinned.

I didn't watch it, and I've no idea if this is a work or a shoot or just a weird rumour, but the BBC is reporting that Undertaker went straight from the match to the hospital with a major concussion.
Which is to say, maybe you're not a million miles out except it doesn't look like he got tired as much as sustained a non-trivial head injury. Perhaps.

[AtomicKitKat]

IF Kane hadn't been stuck in that awful Authority angle(and he looks a lot smaller out of costume, especially beside someone legitimately tall like Orton, who's just a couple inches below him), I would have said let him be the one to hand Taker a DRAW. Like both men fight, and finally, he literally buries Taker, only to collapse from exhaustion into a shallow grave.

[Starwulf]

IF Kane hadn't been stuck in that awful Authority angle(and he looks a lot smaller out of costume, especially beside someone legitimately tall like Orton, who's just a couple inches below him), I would have said let him be the one to hand Taker a DRAW. Like both men fight, and finally, he literally buries Taker, only to collapse from exhaustion into a shallow grave.

How can you call someone "legitimately tall" when they are several inches shorter then person you are comparing them to? Kane is still taller then Orton, how is he not "legitimately" tall? Makes no sense whatsoever :)

Beyond that, I do like the sounds of that, I mean they are step-brothers or whatever, would have been an awesome way for Undertaker to go out.

[Traab]

How can you call someone "legitimately tall" when they are several inches shorter then person you are comparing them to? Kane is still taller then Orton, how is he not "legitimately" tall? Makes no sense whatsoever :)

Beyond that, I do like the sounds of that, I mean they are step-brothers or whatever, would have been an awesome way for Undertaker to go out.

Kane plants Undertaker in the "grave" staggers over to the lever that will bury him. With his last strength he pulls it, but falls into the grave himself. Both are "buried" Then later on after enough time has passed, you cut a promo of Kane's arm breaking through soil like one of those cheesy scenes from the tmnt movies where shredder shows he is alive to signal kane getting back to whatever his new story line would be.

[AtomicKitKat]

How can you call someone "legitimately tall" when they are several inches shorter then person you are comparing them to? Kane is still taller then Orton, how is he not "legitimately" tall? Makes no sense whatsoever :)

I mean Orton is legitimately tall at 6'3/4, compared to say Cena, who's about 6'(tall end of average, but definitely shorter than Kane however you look at them). Kane's true height is about 6'6/7(same as Jack Swagger), with lifts in his wrestling boots to push him closer to 6'10. But put him in the corporate suit, with dress shoes, and he's at best 6'8", which is just a couple inches above Orton in his wrestling boots.

Traab: Brilliant! Classic Horror movie ending. Especially if they had the match earlier in the night, audience assumes both men are buried forever, then right as they're focusing on Daniel Bryan celebrating his victory, Kane's glove shoots up from the grave, and/or he shambles to the ring, with Bryan goggle-eyed and slowly backing away, going "NO!" while violently shaking his beard. Fade to black.

[Starwulf]

I mean Orton is legitimately tall at 6'3/4, compared to say Cena, who's about 6'(tall end of average, but definitely shorter than Kane however you look at them). Kane's true height is about 6'6/7(same as Jack Swagger), with lifts in his wrestling boots to push him closer to 6'10. But put him in the corporate suit, with dress shoes, and he's at best 6'8", which is just a couple inches above Orton in his wrestling boots.

Traab: Brilliant! Classic Horror movie ending. Especially if they had the match earlier in the night, audience assumes both men are buried forever, then right as they're focusing on Daniel Bryan celebrating his victory, Kane's glove shoots up from the grave, and/or he shambles to the ring, with Bryan goggle-eyed and slowly backing away, going "NO!" while violently shaking his beard. Fade to black.

It is truly sad when random people on the internet can come up with a far superior storyline to the crap that paid professionals come up with. That would have been truly awesome to watch.

[ben-zayb]

It is truly sad when random people on the internet can come up with a far superior storyline to the crap that paid professionals come up with. That would have been truly awesome to watch.Then again, you wouldn't really know assuming VKM has a final say on almost anything.

[Traab]

Plus you have the infinite monkeys aspect to consider. Enough people randomly throwing out ideas, eventually one of them will come up with something better.

[Seerow]

I'm not particularly into wrestling (never watched it as a kid, and now feel too old to get into it later), but this topic came up on another forum (apparently the streak is a big enough thing the entire internet decided to talk about it). In that forum, one user posted his reasoning for why the way it ended was potentially the best way possible for it to end was made. It was a good enough post that it made me wish I cared about wrestling, so I figured it was worth sharing.


Okay its time for my (Nero, PhD in Thuganomics) expert analysis. please excuse all the following grammatical and spelling mess but im not doing another ****ing draft of this okay

My provisional vote is "Lesnar was the best choice", *IF* (and it's a big if let's be honest) if he is booked right from this point onward. Why you may ask? Well let me explain!

The Undertaker's streak is (or rather was) something LEGENDARY in the world of wrestling. For nearly a quarter of a century, many of the greats (and not so greats) fell to the Deadman at WWE's show of shows. WWE fans everywhere delighted each year in seeing this legendary figure come out year after year and pulling out a win, no matter what. So obviously if the streak was ever going to get broken, it would have to be made into A BIG ****ING DEAL. A common argument was therefore that the streak should be broken by a young up and coming wrestler who you wanted to make into a star, someone who's legacy could be built upon the fact that they were the one who finally beat the Undertaker at wrestlemania.

There are however myriad potential problems here: How do you determine the right time for a young superstar to break the streak? Do it too early and the fans won't buy it, an unproven wrestler defeating the undertaker would be downright insulting. Even worse, do it too early and the guy you picked might turn out to be not ever live up to your expectations: perhaps they fail to live up to exceptions either with their work ethic, or they lack required charisma and don't get over with the fans. Or maybe they get injured and get their career cut short. Or perhaps the simply walk out on the company early. Bottom line is, counting on ending the streak to "make" a young guy's career would have been a very risky move.

If your eventual goal was to try to create a star of the magnitude of say John Cena. to be the guy who can carry your company into the future, you probably want them to be a good guy. You want him to be so beloved that all the little kids nag their parents to go see him at the shows and buy all his merch. The trouble is, the man who beat the undertaker would almost certainly be REVILED. The Undertaker and the streak were absolutely beloved by WWE fans and you will be seen as a ****ING ******* if you ended it. Turning his image around to eventually get him to point of beloved babyface might have been difficult. (not impossible though* SEE FOOTNOTE)

Why give the streak to an established guy though? Isn’t that kind of lame to give that sort of “rub” to someone who doesn’t need it? Well yeah, kind of. But WWE has a chance to make it work.


Enter THE BEAST INCARNATE BROOOOOOOCCCCCCK LEEEEESSSSNNNNNNAAAAAAARRRRR. A natural bad guy and the most "legit" asskicker in WWE today. Former NCAA Division I heavyweight wrestling champion. Former UFC World Heavyweight Champion. It is therefore (somewhat) believable that this man could succeed where all others have failed and break the Undertaker’s streak. From this point onward, Brock Lesnar should NEVER lose. He should come back every so often to beat top guys like, to suggest some names, The Rock, Randy Orton, Batista and (as much as it pains me personally) Daniel Bryan. (also John Cena, but lol I wouldn’t count on it). There could be no possible better candidate to play this role of unstoppable monster, Brock Lesnar is a natural. Along with the best talker in the industry Paul Heyman as his villainous advocate

Brock Lesnar’s victories should mount up to the point that the crowd will be DESPATE to see someone beat him: with the best talker in the industry Paul Heyman as his villainous advocate, this shouldn’t be too difficult.

Hopefully then his defeat will end up being the next BIG Wrestlemania moment, just like when Hulk Hogan lifted the hitherto unstoppable Andre the Giant over his head and SLAMMED him at the SILVERDOME at Wrestlemania III, BROTHER. People will be so overjoyed to see the Beast finally slain that the man who does it will be beloved by all. Therefore, the next big star can be made not by having them beat the Undertaker, but by having them beat the man who DID beat the Undertaker, thereby circumventing the initial negative reaction that he would have gotten by beating the Undertaker directly.

*Wrestling fans can be fickle as ****. In 2013 CM Punk was the antagonist in a feud built around him tormenting the Undertaker with the fact that Percy Pringle, the man who was the beloved former WWF/E manager "Paul Bearer" HAD ACTUALLY JUST DIED IN REAL LIFE. One part of this feud involved CM Punk bathing himself in ashes!!!.

Then a few months later CM Punk came back and was treated like a major babyface again like nothing had happened. Fukin smarks I swear.

[Starwulf]

That...actually made sense. But it would almost entirely have to go down just like that guy said, or it loses all impact.

[Fjolnir]

Hopefully we saw the beginning of that with the first raw after wrestlemania with heyman talking up Lesnar and Ceasaro deciding to throw in with him.