I did some research and found this interesting. In WWF/WWE, Brock has 69 wins and 26 losses. But that's not what I found interesting. Here's the matches that Brock lost:

I'll put it in a spoiler so it doesn't take up a bunch of room.

Spoiler:

According to this, Brock Lesnar has only lost to the following people with either a pin or submission: Kurt Angle (2), Eddie Guerrero, Goldberg, John Cena, & Triple H. That means, not including tag matches, handicap matches, multi-man matches, or matches where he lost by disqualification, Brock has only lost six times.

Eddie Guerrero was the only person to beat Brock for the championship in a 1v1 match. Although, it wasn't a clean victory. Goldberg interfered.

and they complain about Cena.

Big Show beat Brock at Survivor Series '02 for the title, was also Brock's first loss in the company

Batman wrote:

and they complain about Cena.

>Brock wrestled fulltime 2 years
>Cena wrestled fulltime 12 years

There is no comparison.

Hahahah you genius, that actually helps my point, because I thought of that as well. Brock wrestled for 2 years full time and got all these free title reigns, jobbed everyone, ended the streak on his return, etc. Cena has worked hard for 12 full years straight, and people complain when he's given something LESS than Brock. So it's ok for Brock (someone who wrestled for a tiny amount of time) to get everything for free, but not ok for Cena, who works his ass off for WWE and wrestled for 12 full years, to get benefits from it? Yeah, lol. Logic.

LOL WHAT. "Free title reigns"? What the fuck? Lesnar's had 4 title reigns. FOUR. It's been 10 years since his last one. How many has Cena had? Oh wait, that's right....15. Over a 9 year timeframe. 

I honestly dont understand the argument of how Cena has gotten less than Brock when Brock left the business for a decade, and if he would of never left in 2004 (he was under a 10 year contract at the time), he probably would of gotten more title reigns.

Because he ENDED THE STREAK! And yeah, he got 3 title reigns, in the span of TWO YEARS. He beat The Rock, Hogan, Undertaker, etc. all in the TWO YEARS that he was there.

Then he returns as a PART TIMER and he ENDS THE STREAK. If anything, him and Cena are AT LEAST tied for records. Sure, Cena has way more titles, but that's really it. And he won them all in 12 years. 12 years by 15 titles is about consistent with 2-3 years and 4 titles. Cena works every single week, most shows, etc. Brock works one show every now and again. How can you be ok with Brock doing that but then bitch about Cena getting about the same treatment despite Cena working a hundred times harder? Answer that for me, because to me, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It sounds like an excuse.

Dead wrote:

Big Show beat Brock at Survivor Series '02 for the title, was also Brock's first loss in the company

Ah shit. The site I used didn't show me everything at first.

Yeah, if Brock hadn't left in 2004, he'd probably be on Title reign #20 by now.

And I wouldn't hate him for it. He's an awesome character and a great in-ring competitor. He's awesome as a character. But as a person and as a worker, he's a useless shit, and people are completely ok with that despite hating Cena and others who work much harder than him for "IRL reasons."

Batman wrote:

And he won them all in 12 years. 12 years by 15 titles is about consistent with 2-3 years and 4 titles.

Actually, Cena didn't win a world title until 2005, so it's been 15 titles in 10 years.

Regardless, Lesnar would be on pace to have MUCH more than 4 if he wasn't a part-timer

Well yeah, but I still count it as 12 years cause he did work up to his first title those 2 years. He didn't debut and then win the title, he spent 2 years building himself up. But I get what you mean.

THIS is Lesnar's 4th reign. He had 3 titles in 2 years.

Cena's had 15 titles in 10 years.

Exactly the same ratio.

I know this is Lesnar's 4th reign

But since returning, he's worked minimal shows. Anyway, fine, let's go 3 reigns in 2 years and 15 reigns in 10 years. How does that help the point AT ALL? If anything, they're the same, which I pointed out is a possibility. It doesn't make it any less hypocritical to be ok with Lesnar doing that and then get mad when Cena - who works a lot harder - gets about an even ratio. FOH.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone. I was clearing up how people were saying 4 titles in 2 years.

I was and still am saying 4 titles in 2 years. I know he won 3 in his first run and won one now, but I am not counting his minimal dates where he works like 4-5 days out of the year as a legit run. If it'll make it better, I'll say "He got 4 titles in 2 years and 15 days."

The true difference from Brock and Cena.

WWE puts millions of dollars behind Brock to become the face of the company. Brock tells WWE and the fans to go fuck themselves and leaves 2 years later.

WWE puts millions of dollars behind John Cena to become the face of the Company. John is still here 10 or more years later.

I don't care if Brock won the title early, I believe in striking while the iron is hot sometimes and Brock was on fire. But all the money WWE wasted on him just for him to tell everyone to go fuck off.

It's too bad the boys who work their asses off each week can't get the same treatment as Brock. It's not hard to be a draw when you only appear so often and not let people get tired of you.

^ That's why he was a great option to end the streak, though. But that's besides the point, and also gets argued back and forth over and over again so put the streak aside.


But that's also the reason why people dislike Cena, and I guess it is too bad but there's nothing to stop it. A LOOOT more people would hate Brock if he WAS this dominant for a span of 10+ years because he'd get stale and people would get tired of seeing him at the top over and over again. It's not fair to the people working hard to look at it that way, but we're not watching wrestling to see who's working the hardest, it's about who's the best in the ring when they are there and who's the most entertaining when they are there. If someone gets stale for being extremely dominant and involved in the main event for way too long, it's logical for people to turn on that person, especially without changing much of their character in that time span. And that's what happened to Cena. Brock probably WOULD be looked at the same exact way 10 years from now if he went down that same road and kept his same dominant badass character.

Cena doesn't care though, cause he's exactly where he wants to be. WWE doesn't care cause they're making so much money off him and built one of the biggest superstars in history for sticking with their plan and not backing down from the Cena haters at its peak. It's just the Cena haters that are annoyed and the Cena supporters that can't stand the Cena hate. But it all makes sense why a whole bunch of people don't like him & in the end WWE won so the Cena supporters really shouldn't care.

Brock doesn't even compare because he hasn't had enough time to get stale, and isn't getting stale at all now with his part-time booking. The only argument is "but it's not faaaaair" due to his current part-time status, which it really kinda isn't, but has nothing to do with what we see on the shows & PPVs every month and therefore is nothing like Cena's dominant staleness and the hatred he gets for it.

^ That would make sense, but the thing is, it's hypocritical when fans hate Cena for IRL reasons. I can completely understand someone saying "I'm not a big fan of Cena, he's gotten stale, I see too much of him." but when it comes to most Cena-haters, they ALL hate Cena for "IRL reasons."

We're not talking about hating Cena because he's gotten stale, it's more about people saying "he wins too much. he never puts anyone over. It's his fault WWE is pg (bullshit). He won too many titles. He sucks. etc." it's more to do with IRL reasons. Same thing with The Rock. The Rock is an amazing character, yet a good amount of people hated him for IRL reasons (He's a part-timing movie star.)

Yet those same people give absolutely no shits that Lesnar is a shitty person IRL, or at least has done some shitty things. THAT's what bothers me. I've never been a person to give even the slightest shit about how someone is IRL when it comes to wrestling. I don't care if "Batista's a bad person backstage." He's an awesome character, I love Batista. I don't care if "Hogan never wanted to put anyone over." He was one of the biggest stars of all time and I will cheer for him. I have never cared about that stuff, everyone else seems to though. And it's fine, as long as you're not a hypocrite about it. Don't give shit to The Rock (ew part timer returning and winning titles, omg.) or Batista (wow, first match in years and he wins the RR and is going to headline WM, omg.) or Cena (wow he gets wayyy too many wins/titles.) or Hogan (wow he was such a shitty worker backstage.) when you're completely fine with Lesnar (doing all of the above really, aside from the whole winning the RR thing.). It's just insanely hypocritical.

I feel like I started something.

I don't understand how Brock Lesnar doesn't deserve what he's been given since his return.

If WWE were handing out employee of the month awards, I'm sure Cena would be a front-runner every time because of his incredible work ethic. But that's not what this business is. Brock Lesnar was the next big thing in his first run in the company, but he made himself something more than that when he returned. He made himself a spectacle. He's the biggest draw in the world right now, and why shouldn't the biggest draw in the business be awarded the top prize in the company?

Would Lesnar being a "full-timer" legitimize his contributions to you all in any way? If he showed up every Monday night, squashed Heath Slater and let Heyman cut a promo about what a behemoth he is, would that make him more worthy of anything?

But it's all irrelevant: WWE's investment in Brock Lesnar is an investment in THE GUY WHO BEATS Brock Lesnar. Because right now, Lesnar is the most dominant competitor in WWE history. But he won't go undefeated. Whoever hands Lesnar a loss at this moment in time, will have beaten the man who conquered the Streak, and destroyed the face of the company. They're setting up for the most monumental push a wrestler could dream of; much bigger than ending the streak or squashing John Cena.

Batman wrote:

^ That would make sense, but the thing is, it's hypocritical when fans hate Cena for IRL reasons. I can completely understand someone saying "I'm not a big fan of Cena, he's gotten stale, I see too much of him." but when it comes to most Cena-haters, they ALL hate Cena for "IRL reasons."

We're not talking about hating Cena because he's gotten stale, it's more about people saying "he wins too much. he never puts anyone over. It's his fault WWE is pg (bullshit). He won too many titles. He sucks. etc." it's more to do with IRL reasons. Same thing with The Rock. The Rock is an amazing character, yet a good amount of people hated him for IRL reasons (He's a part-timing movie star.)

Yet those same people give absolutely no shits that Lesnar is a shitty person IRL, or at least has done some shitty things. THAT's what bothers me. I've never been a person to give even the slightest shit about how someone is IRL when it comes to wrestling. I don't care if "Batista's a bad person backstage." He's an awesome character, I love Batista. I don't care if "Hogan never wanted to put anyone over." He was one of the biggest stars of all time and I will cheer for him. I have never cared about that stuff, everyone else seems to though. And it's fine, as long as you're not a hypocrite about it. Don't give shit to The Rock (ew part timer returning and winning titles, omg.) or Batista (wow, first match in years and he wins the RR and is going to headline WM, omg.) or Cena (wow he gets wayyy too many wins/titles.) or Hogan (wow he was such a shitty worker backstage.) when you're completely fine with Lesnar (doing all of the above really, aside from the whole winning the RR thing.). It's just insanely hypocritical.

Yeah that's 100% true and I also never care about that stuff. I personally never hate anyone at all for any kind of IRL reasons or similar things like that. (love The Rock forever, somewhat like Brock for being a relatively entertaining badass, very slightly dislike Cena but mainly only for certain stale & boring character reasons, etc.) But yup I see what you're saying with that, it's hypocritical and used for some superstars while ignored for others.

MFiSG wrote:

I don't understand how Brock Lesnar doesn't deserve what he's been given since his return.

If WWE were handing out employee of the month awards, I'm sure Cena would be a front-runner every time because of his incredible work ethic. But that's not what this business is. Brock Lesnar was the next big thing in his first run in the company, but he made himself something more than that when he returned. He made himself a spectacle. He's the biggest draw in the world right now, and why shouldn't the biggest draw in the business be awarded the top prize in the company?

Would Lesnar being a "full-timer" legitimize his contributions to you all in any way? If he showed up every Monday night, squashed Heath Slater and let Heyman cut a promo about what a behemoth he is, would that make him more worthy of anything?

But it's all irrelevant: WWE's investment in Brock Lesnar is an investment in THE GUY WHO BEATS Brock Lesnar. Because right now, Lesnar is the most dominant competitor in WWE history. But he won't go undefeated. Whoever hands Lesnar a loss at this moment in time, will have beaten the man who conquered the Streak, and destroyed the face of the company. They're setting up for the most monumental push a wrestler could dream of; much bigger than ending the streak or squashing John Cena.

While you have a point, I feel a need to ask - to make my own point - did you feel this way about The Rock when he returned and won the title off Punk?

Because that's what my point is. Not that this is a bad move by WWE.