When Brock Lesnar started to cut his own promos, many people didn’t like it. They thought he wasn’t charismatic. They wanted Paul Heyman back. I could see why, to be honest. There’s a mold of people who are considered to be good on the microphone, and a guy who sounds like a homespun, cornfed farm boy doesn’t fit that mold.
[adinserter block=”2″]That being said, I dug it when Lesnar took to the microphone. He’s not CM Punk, but does everyone in the company HAVE to be a stylish and slick wordsmith on promos? Isn’t variety the slice of life? Maybe Lesnar is supposed to be delivering his lines like a hick, because that’s what he is, right? Lesnar is basically the Midwestern kid who made it big, delivered a big ego, left and then came back as a super big shot. Why wouldn’t he be speaking for himself, making grandiose demands all while acting the part of the high school jock thinking he was running things back on the parking lot? In many ways, I feel like that’s the biggest reason why WWE has successfully gotten fans to boo him.
So, why bring Heyman back? Well, we don’t know whether this is a full-time thing or not. The real question is, why are fans so hyperactive to see him back? It’s obvious. Heyman is one of the best all-time on the microphone. I can’t deny that. The man didn’t reach the pinnacle of being one of the best all-time managers and promoters without knowing a thing or two about talking. Context-free, this is a positive, right?
Context is a tricky thing though. For as much as some of the more critical fans of WWE want them to keep moving forward, bringing back Heyman is as much of a retread move as they come. Granted, it’s not TNA-bringing-back-the-Nasty-Boys bad, but that was cronyism at its best. There’s no reason for anyone to think Vince McMahon thinks Heyman as a chum right now. That being said, if this is more than just a one-night, “hey, look we know our continuity” thing, and Heyman is to be Lesnar’s permanent mouthpiece again, then don’t we have to start looking at the Law of Diminishing Returns to start kicking in here?
Besides, when Heyman was talking for Lesnar the first time, it didn’t take long for the fans to start taking a shine to him. My guess is WWE doesn’t want Lesnar to be cheered. The definition of stupidity is doing something the same way and expecting different results. I understand that Lesnar has a limited amount of dates and needs someone to speak for him. Why couldn’t it continue to be John Laurinaitis? How about Eve Torres in the stead of David Otunga (who is by his wife’s side during the trial of the man who murdered her family). Instead of bringing someone back to talk for Lesnar that made him popular and beloved, why not have someone speak for him while he’s gone who’ll make the crowds boo him and want to see him lose?
And when he’s there, why not let him keep talking? Some see it as “bad”. I see it as different, effective and yes, entertaining. I love seeing the big galoot come out and big time everyone with the sophistication of a rolling boulder. It’s a fascinating contrast to the steely resolve of John Cena or the cooler-than-everyone-in-the-room air of Triple H. If everyone is the same as everyone else, no one gets over. When you have contrast though? That’s how stories develop and become memorable.
[adinserter block=”1″]And it’s not that I hate Paul Heyman either. If they had another role for him, I’d be all over that. Hell, I enjoyed him on RAW this past Monday and I’ll probably continue to enjoy him in the future. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think it’s a bit shortsighted to think that he’s absolutely needed as an attachment to Brock Lesnar.
Tom Holzerman is a lifelong wrestling fan and connoisseur of all things Chikara Pro, among other feds. When he’s not writing for the Camel Clutch Blog, you can find him on his own blog, The Wrestling Blog.