WWE Weekly Takes: The ‘Real’ Liv Morgan should face Bayley

If Seth Rollins can beat Brock twice, why can’t Kofi do it once?

It seems like a foregone conclusion that Brock Lesnar will win the WWE Championship on the first episode of SmackDown on FOX, leading to yet another title reign for a wrestler who is seen as WWE’s biggest mainstream draw as a champion.

Lesnar’s reigns with the Universal Championship were meant to make it clear that the Universal Title stood above the WWE Title on the hierarchy of championships in the company, mainly because the red belt was meant to signify the superiority of the red brand. It’s likely WWE will do the same on SmackDown, since FOX likely value Lesnar’s mainstream appeal highly on a show that they apparently want to make sports-centric. (Hence the recap shows akin to those they run for other major American sports.)

So yeah, I understand all of that. And I also understand the fact that if Kingston’s excellent, dream-come-true reign as WWE Champion is to end, Lesnar is the most prestigious opponent he could conceivably lose it to.

Yet at the same time, why can’t Kofi win? Why is it that we’ve almost resigned ourselves to a Lesnar championship reign? If Seth Rollins can beat Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania and SummerSlam in a calendar year, then why can’t Kingston? In other words, what makes Kingston worse than Rollins on the ranking of WWE superstars that he can’t beat Brock once? After all, Kingston’s title reign has been better than Rollins’s, right?

And if Kofi does win, it would be the feel-good, THIS IS WHAT WWE CAN BE moment that would really make SmackDown’s first showing on FOX feel special.

If Brock wins, it’s deflating. It’s expected. Yeah, it’ll get headlines, but imagine how many more headlines would be made if Brock LOST his first match on television in ages? Imagine the “slump” takes on “The Bump”.

And imagine the incredible outpouring of support for Kofi Kingston if he were to grab another brass ring in his Hall-of-Fame career.