[Flairwhoo84123]

Simple question what do you find more entertaining , and which one solidified Lesnar Legacy 2002 era or 2012 era, and why?

 

[Fearless Viper]

While his 1st run was great, his 2nd run is one of the best run in wrestling and he managed to reinvent himself to keep his run fresh.

 

[GNKenny]

2nd run by miles. Though I do like his 1st run a lot as well.

Better character, way better matches and more memorable moments. Best North American wrestler of the 2010s I think.

 

[Lorromire]

First run by a mile and it isn't even close.

 

[Passing Triangles]

First run.

What are people smoking? His in-ring work during his first run was extraordinary. A combination of power moves and technical grappling. His second run is a spam of suplexes and big spots.

 

[Charzhino]

First run by a long distance. He really was the next big thing. I can still remember many moments and matches. His hell in the cell vs the Undertaker. His title match with Eddie Guerrero. His backstage milk segment with Kurt Angle on Smackdown. His Mania main event with Kurt Angle. His destruction of Zack Gowen. His debut title win vs the Rock at Summerslam.

I didnt watch much WWE after 2012 so maybe thats why. But Brock was working with better talent in his first run.

 

[promoter2003]

2012 Era solidified Lesnar as if he never came back, he would not have fulfilled his "Next Big Thing" mantra long term as Cena replaced him. He came back bigger than ever with UFC credentials and ended the streak. Then went on to decimate Cena for the title.

It's a toss up as far as entertainment value though.

 

[Victor86]

Second run for sure.
Sure he was more athletic in his first run and could do flips but before legitimizing himself with his UFC career he never really stood up more than any other big top guy.

For example Batista, HHH, Orton, Cena etc all felt like way more rounded and better too stars than Lesnar pre 2012.

But when he returned after successful UFC run he finally had the aura and presence of an actual legit monster that can fuck everyone up and do it believable.

Also he had a lot better feuds in his second run than his first. The only feuds I really liked during his first run was his Angle feud and the Eddie Guerrero feud.

His second run however he had amazing feuds with Taker, his Squash match vs Cena, his king feud
With Roman , his Samoa Joe feud, the Goldberg feud etc etc- all giving us some “Oh shit “ moments .

 

[THE_OD]

Lesnar was so unique back then.

You had a guy who looked like Goldberg, but wrestled like Kurt Angle, and he was only 25 years old.

The ammount of memorable moments and matches hed had in less than two years is insane.

 

[Flairwhoo84123]

im tOrn on this,his first run, we got the fued with taker and the classic HIAC match they had, basically squashing Hulk Hogan on free tv, beating the Rock in a pretty good match to become WWF Champion just months being with the company at Summerslan 2002 , the series of great to classic matches with Kurt Angle in 2003, his 2003 smackdown match against Chris Benoit, the backstage milk segment with Kurt Angle, the fued and match with Eddie Gurrero, etc all made him a star, it was a shock to many he walked away to persue other goals after the atrocious Goldberg match at WM 20.


However on the flipside his 2012 - present run really stands out like he a legend, his UFC credentials upon his return, and the beatdown of Cena leading up to Extreme Rules 2012, squashing Big Show at a live event, beating the streak and shocking wrestling fans worldwide, the destruction he left on the raw after wrestlemania 31, dominating Cena and throwing him around like a rag doll at Summerslam 2014, the confrontation between him and Samoa Joe in 2017, and making Joe look like a beat in a losing effort, busting open Randy Orton the hardway in shocking fashion at Summerslam, the various good to great matches he has had against Samoa Joe, The Undertaker , Roman Reigns, John Cena, Cm Punk , Aj styles, Daniel Bryan, etc.

 

[BabaYaga]

Can you really compare 2002 - 2004 from 2012 - 2022? The second run has 8 years on top of his original run. Lesnar back then was a beast, the next big thing, here comes the pain but it’s wrong to compare both because Lesnar was only around two years and had an incredible run for someone two years in the business with classics against Angle, Guerrero, Undertaker to name a few.

But Lesnar in 2012 was a beast coming off a successful legit UFC run and has gone on to beat the streak, multiple championships and creating historic feuds in Reigns and reigniting some in Cena etc.

The Lesnar in 2012 outshadows his original run based on facts and length but Lesnar in 2002 was iconic in its own right.

 

[Shaun_27]

Both are legendary, but I am controversially going to say the recent run. It has been a longer run so there is more potential for better matcher, but since 2012 he has felt larger than life.

 

[deadcool]

2nd run for sure. The first run, he was pretty much like Roman Reigns; overpushed while not being over to warrant it. He had a good look that Vince liked, but he was terrible on the mic (he's still not great on the mic) but he was great in the ring and could go.

Once he became the UFC world champion, the way people viewed him changed. So when he left UFC and came back to the WWE, he brought a certain legitimacy to the WWE because of his UFC run. Even the casual fan who didn't know anything about wrestling or UFC knew that this guy could legit smash anyone in WWE because he was UFC WHC. He jobbed to people who he shouldn't have jobbed to like Cena and Triple HGH, but once he got to beat Undertaker at WM, he was pretty much golden.

 

[validreasoning]

Second no question.

First run.

What are people smoking? His in-ring work during his first run was extraordinary. A combination of power moves and technical grappling. His second run is a spam of suplexes and big spots.

Business is more than just movez..
This business is all about presenting a star aura and in that terms its not even close, clearly second run.

Even then I would put Lesnar vs Cena (Extreme Rules 12), Lesnar vs Punk, Lesnar vs Taker HIAc, Lesnar vs Styles, Bryan, Reigns (Wrestlemania 31), Lesnar vs Rollins vs Cena (Rumble 15) up against any of Lesnars matches in 2002-04...

Lesnar vs Goldberg second run blows away Lesnar vs Goldberg during first run too

 

[Ram Jam]

Second no question.


Business is more than just movez..
This business is all about presenting a star aura and in that terms its not even close, clearly second run.

Even then I would put Lesnar vs Cena (Extreme Rules 12), Lesnar vs Punk, Lesnar vs Taker HIAc, Lesnar vs Styles, Bryan, Reigns (Wrestlemania 31), Lesnar vs Rollins vs Cena (Rumble 15) up against any of Lesnars matches in 2002-04...

Lesnar vs Goldberg second run blows away Lesnar vs Goldberg during first run too

The question was which run did you find more entertaining, not which made the most money for Vince

 

[King K Rool]

First run, he absolutely destroyed everyone in his path and was at his most yolked.i actually believed he could fuck people up pretty easily and come to find out later was true. lol.

Plus watching him destroy the likes of Zach Gowen was fun

 

[REALCellWaters]

Brock was a better athlete from 2002 - 2004. It was a good run. Probably Hall of Fame worthy even though his career was short.

In 2012, he returned with a better, larger-than-life character, went on to become one of the best of all time.

I prefer 2012 onward.

 

[Erik.]

Lesnar was untouchable in that first run. He had great matches with Eddie, Rock, Taker and of course Angle.

But for me personally, I think Brock today is a far more complete performer due to the fact his legit top level MMA background adds a psychology to the match that absolutely nobody can replicate. It is almost like he's a throwback. He's one of those guys that you know in real life nobody can fuck with and that just adds that aura you can't really explain.

Look at his triple threat match with Rollins & Cena to see perfectly why that little extra bit of psychology adds so much. He's a true legitimate monster that Vince McMahon has been trying to recreate since the 80s but can't.

With Brock you pretty much feel he's going to dominate anybody he's in there with.

 

[promoter2003]

Lesnar was untouchable in that first run. He had great matches with Eddie, Rock, Taker and of course Angle.

But for me personally, I think Brock today is a far more complete performer due to the fact his legit top level MMA background adds a psychology to the match that absolutely nobody can replicate. It is almost like he's a throwback. He's one of those guys that you know in real life nobody can fuck with and that just adds that aura you can't really explain.

Look at his triple threat match with Rollins & Cena to see perfectly why that little extra bit of psychology adds so much. He's a true legitimate monster that Vince McMahon has been trying to recreate since the 80s but can't.

With Brock you pretty much feel he's going to dominate anybody he's in there with.

I think you have made a great observation. He comes off like an Andre The Giant or a Hulk Hogan dominant from 84-88. The fact he took out the Undertaker's streak to me says long term it was probably the best move despite Taker wanting Reigns to do it.

Vince may have been thinking exactly this when he thought of Lesnar ending the streak because months later he ends up destroying Super Cena too.

 

[validreasoning]

The question was which run did you find more entertaining, not which made the most money for Vince

Answer is still the second