Battle of the Feuds: Comparing Reigns/Lesnar and Okada/Omega

#5 Overall enjoyability

All that matters.

Perhaps the greatest criteria for judging Professional Wrestling is basic enjoyability factor. Wrestling is unlike other sports in the sense that we don't tend to just measure superstars on their win/loss record or the number of titles they have won.

Similarly we don't just judge how good a feud was based on the quality of matches or whether somebody put together a perfect promo. Underneath it all, we are allowed to just enjoy what we enjoy and nobody can really tell us any different.

Therefore this fifth criteria is largely subjective and as the one writing this, I am naturally influenced by my own opinion. The fact that I enjoyed Omega and Okada's feud more than the one between Reigns and Lesnar might mean very little to some people.

That being said, there are certain ways we can attempt to measure enjoyability objectively. First and foremost there is the internet and the general direction of conversation that took place online and across social media. Yes, there might be echo chambers within the IWC, but wrestling fans do tend to be quite sheep-like in their following of the herd.

Generally speaking, it does seem like the Reigns and Lesnar feud, when taking it in its entirety, was fairly negatively received. Whether it's the problems we have with Reigns as the top guy in WWE, or the fact that Lesnar has seemingly brought nothing but disdain to the Universal Championship by not turning up every week, fans always had something to moan about.

So much so, that when it came time for the matches, most of us felt rather fatigued and unable to actually enjoy the action. Never before in recent memory of Pro Wrestling has a feud come with such negative emotional baggage.

Omega and Okada's feud, at least on the surface, appears to have been received rather differently. Whether that is due to the influence of Meltzer is certainly a factor here, but like the Wrestling Observer, it seems that most fans didn't really have anything bad to say about the four matches these two competed in. Indeed, people are talking about it as the most important and impactful feud of modern Pro Wrestling - outside of WWE, at least.

But one cannot ignore the fact that the Western part of the audience for Omega/Okada was smaller in number. It is a little like the NXT/WWE Main Roster dynamic. It is easier to please the NXT audience because things are a lot more concentrated on a particular type of fan and you will naturally find more people around you that agree with your opinion, giving the illusion that everyone loves the product.

Imagine if the Okada/Omega feud was played out to a typical WWE main roster audience. Would New Japan have done enough to cater for everybody - adults, children, men, women etc? What would have happened to the feud if the promoters realised that large parts of their audience were not going for it? Would it have been made more 'family friendly' and generic like most current day WWE feuds?

Measuring enjoyability of wrestling is no easy task and we cannot just rely on the opinions of those we agree with. That being said, if you came looking for my personal take, Omega and Okada win this one too.

---

Which feud do you think is better out of the two? Tell us in the comments below!