clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Vince McMahon's reasons for choosing Brock Lesnar to break Undertaker's WrestleMania streak don't make a whole lot of sense

WWE.com

Randy Orton wasn't good enough.  Neither was John Cena.

Even if you take away the notion held dear by many of us in the hardcore fan ranks that defeating The Undertaker (or Mark Calloway, as I guess we're okay to call him now since that's what Vince McMahon called him on the service I have to pay $10 a month to access) was a way to make a new main eventer, it's mind boggling to think that there would be only one man on the entire WWE roster that Vince felt was worthy of that honor.

That it was a guy who was only contracted to work 10 - 15 days a year, requires a mouthpiece to maximize his utility, was only under contract for another year and has proven in the past that he's willing and able to walk away from pro wrestling whenever he feels like it...well, to say such a thing beggars belief.

But that's exactly what Vince McMahon told Steve Austin last night during their seventy-five minute interview on WWE Network:

When you consider, well, who else was -- looking down on the line when looking at the talent roster -- who else possibly could Undertaker work with and at that time give back in the biggest possible way he could to help someone be a star? When you look at that talent roster, who was it going to be? There was no one on the roster, potentially, and the following year or the year after that.

A recurring theme in their conversation was Vince's insistence that storytelling matters - a point he inadvertantly contradicted multiple times with examples that revealed he had no confidence in the ability of a story to get him where he wants his product to go.  This is crystal clear in the discussion of Taker's streak.

First, Brock Lesnar needed help being a star?  If he's not already a star, why do you classify him as a "special attraction" who's more important than the WWE title?  Was the decision made to give him the rub of breaking the Streak in order to justify the contract?

The idea that a win over Undertaker in New Orleans would make a star also indicates that McMahon is aware of the argument that breaking the Streak could help create a major player for WWE, and that he even supports it.  I guess it goes back to his belief that the WWE roster is currently full of "millennials" who aren't ambitious.

What's damning is that he doesn't think that he and his Creative team can do anything in a year or two to help one of those guys get into position where they'd be deserving of a 'Mania win over The Dead Man.

To his credit, when it at first sounded like Calloway made the call to lose to Lesnar, McMahon definitively stated that it was his decision alone.  But his justification for it again belies his confidence in what he says is his company's core business - storytelling:

That's on me. Those decisions aren't easy to make, you know, but you have to make difficult decisions sometimes. That's my job, to do that. I think I made the right call at the right time. Coming into this year's WrestleMania, I don't think that Brock Lesnar could be any hotter than he will be reminding everyone of what happened, of Brock Lesnar breaking the Undertaker's streak. So, to me, it was the right call.

Everything he says is true, but none of it explains why it had to be Brock.  Wouldn't any other talented pro wrestler/sports entertainer, booked strongly throughout the year, "hotter" coming into WrestleMania 31 having beated Taker at 30?  If the heat generated for Lesnar will be used to put over a newer, younger act, couldn't that newer, younger act just have been the one to break the Streak?

I'm not even saying that Vince is wrong - but his evidence for being right is suspect.  It's another reason you end the time spent with the Chairman and the Rattlesnake wishing they could have spoken for hours, just to see Austin push McMahon further on some of these points to see if he'd concede or talk in more circles to stick to the point he's adamant on making.

What do you think, Cagesiders?  Was Brock Lesnar over Undertaker at WrestleMania 30 "the right call at the right time"?  Do you agree with why Vince McMahon says it was?

Sign up for the newsletter Sign up for the Cageside Seats Daily Roundup newsletter!

A daily roundup of all your pro wrestling news from Cageside Seats