The Cashbox: Still Think Brock Lesnar Should Have Beaten John Cena? Read This…


Let's call a spade a spade here and get to the real issue, which is the fact it was John Cena that beat him. That's the reason some of you are still holding on to it. It's also costing you the ability to look at Lesnar/HHH objectively.

It's a real shame, too. The program (with the addition of Heyman) has been really good. But you'd never know it. You still think Brock is ruined be cause he lost a match to Cena.

Give me a break.

Mark Madden recently seconded another writer's opinion and wrote, "VKM is paying for UFC Lesnar, but getting WWE Lesnar". I'm curious to know the real difference.

UFC Lesnar was perceived to be a bad***; WWE Lesnar was perceived to be a bad***.

Madden claims WWE Lesnar is now "playing a chicken**** heel who has twice run from a fight on Raw"; my last few memories of UFC Lesnar is of him getting pummeled to such a degree, he had to curl up in a fetal position until either the man beating on him gassed out or the ref stopped it.

I'm not trying to knock or discredit Lesnar's legit toughness, but it goes to show you that wrestling fans ARE capable of forgetting the last fight. I guess we can't though when Cena's involved, right?

Smart fans are the only ones that still care Lesnar lost that match. And it makes no sense. Did you think it was going to be a real fight? Is wrestling only entertainment and fake when it doesn't include a former UFC fighter?

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.

I'm not claiming Vince never makes mistakes, but this one wasn't one.

Chris Cash can be reached on Twitter @RealityofChris or emailed at

Have a news tip? Attended an event and want to send a live report? Submit it now!
monitoring_string = "851cc24eadecaa7a82287c82808f23d0"