The thread where we get CyNick to defend maligned storylines, and tell us how we don't understand...

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by NormanSmiley Point of order: can anyone speak in the notion that the booking of the mania 19 match was changed last minute? I was under the impression the build went how it did because booker was going to go over, and day of hhh pushed to keep the belt. Any truth to this? It would explain why the build seemed to come off poorly.

One of the reporters or people with podcasts should ask Vince or Triple H to clarify.

Instead they will ask a guy who was a janitor at one of the arenas who claims he overheard Vince talking to Hunter about the finish while taking a dump.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

The idea of Vince or HHH telling the truth is laughable lol. It WOULD make sense that the booking changed with the way the angle was booked.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by KIRA People were behind Booker long before they decided to go the to the racial thing all that did was make the conclusion to their feud that much more illogical. You asked how highly we rate Booker t I seriously don't think Batista is or was as great as you think. On the mic he's still pretty average(his last go round was actually kinda terrible) you said him blowing up in Hollywood is all him no it isn't Leviathan from OVW wouldn't have gotten the call to be Drax the destroyer Batista from the WWE however... He isn't The Rock(who oozes charisma like crazy) I used DB as an example earlier because while he isn't strong on the mic he actually does have A weird charisma that connects with people. I don't recall Batista's following being especially strong. Was he over sure, but I wouldn't rate him too far up. Nothing sticks out about him in the ring either now that I think about it. all that said Kanyetista was amazing. This last time his clothes were the most interesting and over thing about him (I'm not even joking)

Watch the set up for Mania and let me know if you think he was over.

I can't really argue the Booker v Batista point, it's a matter of opinion. To me, if I saw Booker T and Batista walk into a room and was told I could only pick one to headline fir the next several years, I would pick Bats every day of the week. He looks like a larger than life badass. Booker looks like a pro wrestler. Even though I think Booker is entertaining and is really good at what he does. I just don't think he screams headliner.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by KIRA His in ring work with the WWE got people on board too he is a joy to watch in the ring the connection he made with fans runs amazingly deep like the Rock my overall point is the Rock and DB are two vastly different people but both are darlings to fans they are extraordinary Batista is...average Cynick makes it sound like he was something special.

Bryan caught fire and WWE added gasoline to make it an inferno. I don't think Bryan was going to stay that over for years and years. But that's just a guess on my part.

Rock is maybe the most charismatic guy to ever step into a ring, so that's a tough standard to set.

The discussion is Bats vs Booker. I maintain Batista had more potential based on look alone than Booker. Again, just my opinion. The FACT is Batista ended up having more success, which indicates I am right.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead The idea of Vince or HHH telling the truth is laughable lol. It WOULD make sense that the booking changed with the way the angle was booked.

What makes you say both guys are liars? Kinda harsh to just make accusations about people like that.

I'm guessing you know both guys, and they have lied to you on multiple occasions to lead you to that comment. Unless you're just pulling it out of your ass, which would be sad and pathetic.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey I'm confused. If heels shouldn't win too much, where's the login in Hunter basically running through any credible face or possible top babyface the company had from 2003-2005? Why didn't fans cheer him? I mean, he was winning a lot.

He put over Goldberg, Benoit, and Batista during that time.

So he actually did what a good heel does. Lose the big match.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by hb2k No, I'm not saying he should have lost to all of them by any means. I'm saying that he got out of losing when he was planned to lose to all of them, and in the end nobody was elevated of those four because the Goldberg loss came too late, he feuded with HHH the entire time he was champion, and HHH walked away with the belt. Again, the numbers fell during this whole period of time, and Raw needed a new focus, and Triple H wasn't the answer. And the "they aren't good enough" argument is dead as soon as you say he singlehandedly made Batista, because that is completely correct, he just chose not to do it for those other guys, all of whom had more going for them at the point the feud started than Batista did.

I'm trying to remember the details, but I don't recall HHH winning a final one on one match with Goldberg. Could be wrong though.

Regardless, Goldberg was never committed to the business, so the fact that Hunter put him over at all shows Hunter was a team player. In the end he put over guys who the company thought would be long term stars (Benoit, Batista, Cena, even Bryan).

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Vastardikai Randy only got the belt at that time as a fuck you to Lesnar. He really wasn't ready at that point, despite them feeding Foley to him repeatedly. Batista benefitted from a better angle (which more or less started after Randy's burial), better timing, and a better look. There's really only one reason RVD, Goldberg, and Booker didn't get to finally end the reign of terror, and it has NOTHING to do with politics, and EVERYTHING to do with why Batista was chosen: which one of the four guys that I just mentioned was a Vince creation?

But he created Benoit and Guerrero? Interesting.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick What makes you say both guys are liars? Kinda harsh to just make accusations about people like that. I'm guessing you know both guys, and they have lied to you on multiple occasions to lead you to that comment. Unless you're just pulling it out of your ass, which would be sad and pathetic.

lmao

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

You yourself have claimed that Vince would never put all of his cards on the table... that would apply to everything, not just creative direction to wrestlers. I'm not saying they would lie because they are horrible liars (Which Vince is) but they wouldn't be forthcoming with the truth on a behind the scenes booking decision which would potentially make them look pretty bad and like a bunch of petty politicking dickheads. I personally don't know any high up corporate professional that is that up front about behind the scenes decisions.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead You yourself have claimed that Vince would never put all of his cards on the table... that would apply to everything, not just creative direction to wrestlers. I'm not saying they would lie because they are horrible liars (Which Vince is) but they wouldn't be forthcoming with the truth on a behind the scenes booking decision which would potentially make them look pretty bad and like a bunch of petty politicking dickheads. I personally don't know any high up corporate professional that is that up front about behind the scenes decisions.

You're mixing things up.

I said if we want to know if the booking changed the day of, a good reporter would ask Vince, since it was his call to make. In theory you could ask HHH because the accusation is he's the one who lobbied the change.

You're response was even if we did that, you wouldn't trust Vince because he's a liar.

That's completely different from being a good businessman and holding your cards close to your chest in a negotiation. Not showing your cards is not being a liar, it's just good negotiation. You said he would outright lie if approached with a very specific question. That's a heck of an accusation on someone you likely have never spoken to much less know on a personal or professional level to be able to make such a judgement.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick He put over Goldberg, Benoit, and Batista during that time. So he actually did what a good heel does. Lose the big match.

As opposed to Rollins, who lost all the time, defended by the "heels can't win too much" malarkey you tried to pass off as an excuse whenever Rollins losing got complained about.

So was Hunter a shitty heel since he only lost the big matches and rarely lost otherwise? I'm shocked he didn't go face.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey As opposed to Rollins, who lost all the time, defended by the "heels can't win too much" malarkey you tried to pass off as an excuse whenever Rollins losing got complained about. So was Hunter a shitty heel since he only lost the big matches and rarely lost otherwise? I'm shocked he didn't go face.

The point is Hunter didn't win all the time. He beat certain guys, but would ultimately lose the big match. That's how you build a storyline. The hero wins in the end. Hunter generally speaking would lose in the end so he stayed heel.

Hunter was also at a different point in his career vs Rollins in 2015. In 2003 Hunter had already been champion multiple times, he had headlined multiple Manias. If you look at how they booked Rollins, he won the title, and beat guys at a certain level. They were just starting to give him more credible wins (Sting, Kane), but he was likely going to lose the big one against Reigns. My guess though is he was going to look good in that match. Not unlike HHH. He beat the guys like Booker T and RVD but lost to Goldberg or Benoit or Batista.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick The point is Hunter didn't win all the time. He beat certain guys, but would ultimately lose the big match. That's how you build a storyline. The hero wins in the end. Hunter generally speaking would lose in the end so he stayed heel. Hunter was also at a different point in his career vs Rollins in 2015. In 2003 Hunter had already been champion multiple times, he had headlined multiple Manias. If you look at how they booked Rollins, he won the title, and beat guys at a certain level. They were just starting to give him more credible wins (Sting, Kane), but he was likely going to lose the big one against Reigns. My guess though is he was going to look good in that match. Not unlike HHH. He beat the guys like Booker T and RVD but lost to Goldberg or Benoit or Batista.

Lose in the end. Key phrase. You're dancing around the point. You said Rollins can't win too much or it'll turn him face. Hunter was beating everybody but because he. eventually lost it was ok? You're making no sense.

Hunter was beating established main eventers in Mick Foley and bested the Rock at Wrestlemania. He then won his feud against Austin before losing to Taker the following year. He also beat Kurt Angle in the interim, won the IC title and then blew out his leg.

It's not the same despite your lame attempts to defend the booking of Rollins. The minute Hunter got the belt, they protected him. The minute Rollins got the belt, they jobbed him. One heel would all the time barring a huge marquee match, whereas Rollins wa losing on a semi weekly basis.

[Simple Fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Now i wish i watched Star Trek and understood the reference

Star Wars get it right. Han Solo would kick your ass for putting him in Star Trek.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey Lose in the end. Key phrase. You're dancing around the point. You said Rollins can't win too much or it'll turn him face. Hunter was beating everybody but because he. eventually lost it was ok? You're making no sense. Hunter was beating established main eventers in Mick Foley and bested the Rock at Wrestlemania. He then won his feud against Austin before losing to Taker the following year. He also beat Kurt Angle in the interim, won the IC title and then blew out his leg. It's not the same despite your lame attempts to defend the booking of Rollins. The minute Hunter got the belt, they protected him. The minute Rollins got the belt, they jobbed him. One heel would all the time barring a huge marquee match, whereas Rollins wa losing on a semi weekly basis.

Hunter lost plenty when he first got the title. We've been over this in another thread. In fact Hunter lost the belt MULTIPLE TIMES during his first year after winning the title. The booking with Rollins was he would beat certain guys, lose some non title matches, but ultimately win when the title was on the line. Like Hunter, he beat the guys like Ambrose, Sting, and Kane, and was likely going to lose to Reigns.

There is this myth that Hunter never lost, but it's just not accurate. He lost in his initial run on top (similar to Rollins), and he lost the blowoff matches in the 03-05 period (Rollins was going to lose the blowoff to Reigns). The key factor is Hunter would win a couple, then lose. That kept him heel. If Hunter would have just beat Goldberg and Benoit clean, I guarantee by 2004 he would have been a babyface.

Instead, they booked him to rely on Evolution to win big matches, and then eventually he would get his cumuppance. You guys are just glossing over the fact that Hunter did a lot of key high profile JOBs to people the fact that he was just better than most of the guys he put over is why he kept getting the title back. If someone had come along who could take his spot on the heel side, he would have been moved down the card, but that didn't happen.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Simple Fan Star Wars get it right. Han Solo would kick your ass for putting him in Star Trek.

You would think he would want to establish those Star Trek guys so they can make money together.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Rude and spineless. Good combination Noidy. Do you think every guy who steps into a ring has the potentially to be a successful headliner? Or do you think some guys can only go so far?

Don't call me spineless, you cunt. I edited my post to protect your weak human feelings.

[Mr. Nerfect]

You've got so many conflicting points in your posts. The small amount of losses Triple H took during his heel run has been brought up as a counterpoint to the shit they had Seth Rollins drudge through recently plenty of times. It is NOT a point for your case, so I would drop it.

The Booker vs. Batista thing? You seem to say that one being a major star and the other not is somehow indicative of their actual limits -- whereas we are saying that poor booking and presentation may have hampered Booker and aided Batista. That doesn't prove anyone right or wrong, but you can't take a guy that was booked amazing well and a guy that was booked tremendously bad and say "all things being as equal as they are" like it's a ghost of a point.

You say that guys like Goldberg weren't commited to the business. Sure, there might be truth to that -- but how much of his decision to leave the WWE as quickly as he did was BECAUSE the WWE were clearly fucking him up. Everyone thought so. People stopped watching.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick One of the reporters or people with podcasts should ask Vince or Triple H to clarify. Instead they will ask a guy who was a janitor at one of the arenas who claims he overheard Vince talking to Hunter about the finish while taking a dump.

Actually, no, a lot of the time they speak to actual talent involved, or the podcaster themselves has experience with the WWE.

[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by The CyNick But he created Benoit and Guerrero? Interesting.

Except, Benoit didn't really end the Reign of Terror. How many PPVs did he main event without HHH and/or HBK? 1, when he dropped to Orton.

Guerrero wasn't on Raw.

You're a piss poor troll. Nice attempt to shift the goalposts, though.

[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead Can the much maligned Cynick explain the much maligned Survivor Series? STAY TUNED FOR THE CYNICK's REPLY IN "The thread where we get CyNick to defend maligned storylines, and tell us how we don't understand..." DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN

I have quote ready for when he does.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid Don't call me spineless, you cunt. I edited my post to protect your weak human feelings.

Sticks and stones.

I think less of you for editing. That was my point.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid You've got so many conflicting points in your posts. The small amount of losses Triple H took during his heel run has been brought up as a counterpoint to the shit they had Seth Rollins drudge through recently plenty of times. It is NOT a point for your case, so I would drop it. The Booker vs. Batista thing? You seem to say that one being a major star and the other not is somehow indicative of their actual limits -- whereas we are saying that poor booking and presentation may have hampered Booker and aided Batista. That doesn't prove anyone right or wrong, but you can't take a guy that was booked amazing well and a guy that was booked tremendously bad and say "all things being as equal as they are" like it's a ghost of a point. You say that guys like Goldberg weren't commited to the business. Sure, there might be truth to that -- but how much of his decision to leave the WWE as quickly as he did was BECAUSE the WWE were clearly fucking him up. Everyone thought so. People stopped watching.

I'm not saying Rollins and Hunter were booked exactly the same. The initial point was Hunter never lost in 03-05 Thats utter crap. He lost the key matches. Guys like you are on about Rollins losing random TV non title matches that only you guys will remember in 5 years. Despite your claims that Rollins was crapped on, the fans chanted "thank you Rollins" when his injury was announced. So clearly WWE did a good job building him up to someone the fans care about.

Have you seen me try to change anyone's opinion about Booker T? I just always felt Batista was the overall better talent. If someone else thinks that if Booker T would have stood up to the racist HHH in 03, and been booked strong, he would have been seen as a modern day hero for the black community, and would have gotten over like crazy, that's cool. My main points are A) I had no problem with HHH going over the way he did and B) Batista ended up being not only the bigger star in the business, but appears to be in elite company of guys who will become Hollywood success stories.

I know Goldberg wasnt committed because I've heard him talk in interviews. He wasn't like John Cena looking to make every town and do all this extra stuff to help the company. And fair play to Goldberg, he was in a financial position where he could get by doing the bare minimum. But as a result, he was never going to be someone WWE built around long term. Imagine being a young John Cena seeing Goldberg as the top guy, working maybe once a week, not having great matches, and just mailing it in. Is that going to motivate you to bust your ass and make that radio gig in Des Moines at 8AM to push a house show?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid Actually, no, a lot of the time they speak to actual talent involved, or the podcaster themselves has experience with the WWE.

Right, so a bunch of hearsay. Vince has final say, he doesn't run everything by every member of creative, or every star on the roster.

Why not go to the source?

Because the source won't feed the narrative they are trying to sell you to get you to read the next newsletter to get the scoopz.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Vastardikai Except, Benoit didn't really end the Reign of Terror. How many PPVs did he main event without HHH and/or HBK? 1, when he dropped to Orton. Guerrero wasn't on Raw. You're a piss poor troll. Nice attempt to shift the goalposts, though.

Lol

So even when he puts over Benoit in the middle of the ring in MSG at 20, he's still evil. Amazing!

Maybe you missed the following months when Benoit still couldn't cut a promo, and his reactions died down.

And even if you want to fault Hunter for that, which is absurd. He spent the next 6-9 months heating up Batista and then put him over clean on 3 straight shows. Whaaaaat a bastatd!

[KIRA]

Sidenote: While I detested seeing HHH steamroll over everybody he probably didn't think was worthy enough for him to suffer a loss to, I only lost it after he started beating people with a sleeper.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Lol So even when he puts over Benoit in the middle of the ring in MSG at 20, he's still evil. Amazing! Maybe you missed the following months when Benoit still couldn't cut a promo, and his reactions died down. And even if you want to fault Hunter for that, which is absurd. He spent the next 6-9 months heating up Batista and then put him over clean on 3 straight shows. Whaaaaat a bastatd!

lol his reactions went down because they didn't book him in main even angles

[KIRA]

What is it with this Booker T being a hero to black people thing? Nobody(with a brain) likes a racist. It would've been heroic period.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead lol his reactions went down because they didn't book him in main even angles

Could have sworn he headlined a mess of PPVs in 2004. Rumble? Yup. Mania? Yup. Summerslam? Yup. I know he had a rematch with HHH and HBK and at least one other PPV against H. I'm sure you're right though, those were likely curtain jerkers.

Can't accept that he was given every opportunity but wasn't good enough to hang, eh?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by KIRA What is it with this Booker T being a hero to black people thing? Nobody(with a brain) likes a racist. It would've been heroic period.

Well everyone is taking about how because they used race, that meant Booker had to go over. Well if you tell that story, then the outcome should be Booker T stood up to the racism and overcame. The logical progression to that would be to sell Booker as a conquering hero to that community. Much like WWE took Lex Luger body slamming the evil foreigner and spun that into a patriotic gimmick for Luger. I think it would have been stupid, but I'm just following the logic people here are giving me.

What really happened was Booker lost because he is the inferior talent, and he went on to be a super successful upper mid card-low tier main event guy. Not too bad for someone who was left dead and buried by WWE and HHH at 19.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by KIRA Sidenote: While I detested seeing HHH steamroll over everybody he probably didn't think was worthy enough for him to suffer a loss to, I only lost it after he started beating people with a sleeper.

RNCs are the real deal.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Can't accept that he was given every opportunity but wasn't good enough to hang, eh?

lol I do not have that much of a horse in the race big fella. As soon as he was done with H and Michaels, he was taking on Kane and beating him with a roll up. He was not presented as a central focus of the show unless it was as the guy in the middle of the Shawn Michaels, HHH feud. They gave him his moment in the sun at Wrestlemania and a little hangover at Backlash, but he was used as a transitional champion, not as a guy who could bring in ratings.

In saying that, Benoit would not have been the saviour of the company, and I'm not against them not giving him an uber long run, but 3 or 4 months of actual compelling storylines with him as the champ and the focal before losing it would have only helped the company's product. Instead, he was a mid card champion after he no longer served his purpose in the HHH/Michaels feud.


Okay, now I get to see where this trails off into. I love this thread.

[broverboard]

The great thing about Internet forums is the ability they give people to air an opinion and have a meaningful and interesting discussion.

Sometimes, as is the case in this thread, there is no way to measure if an opinion is right or wrong - the fun is exploring different peoples point of view. You may disagree but that doesn't mean you're right. It would appear that The Cynick fails to grasp this. Mr The Cynick, I offer my apologies in advance if you do in fact grasp this but it's not the opinion I've formed having read some of what you've said here.

Now, in my opinion, I don't think Booker T should have gone over HHH. I do also think the build up should have been booked differently. That doesn't mean I'm right and I've enjoyed reading some of the conflicting opinions which is why it's a shame the thread has been turned into a "you're wrong" discussion, like many of the other potentially interesting topics of discussion on here.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Cynick's "father knows best" tone can grow a tad meandering, but it does tend to open up some conversation.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead lol I do not have that much of a horse in the race big fella. As soon as he was done with H and Michaels, he was taking on Kane and beating him with a roll up. He was not presented as a central focus of the show unless it was as the guy in the middle of the Shawn Michaels, HHH feud. They gave him his moment in the sun at Wrestlemania and a little hangover at Backlash, but he was used as a transitional champion, not as a guy who could bring in ratings. In saying that, Benoit would not have been the saviour of the company, and I'm not against them not giving him an uber long run, but 3 or 4 months of actual compelling storylines with him as the champ and the focal before losing it would have only helped the company's product. Instead, he was a mid card champion after he no longer served his purpose in the HHH/Michaels feud. Okay, now I get to see where this trails off into. I love this thread.

He won the Rumble. He lost the belt at Summerslam. Thats 8 months of being the focal point. If memory serves me the fight with Kane was on the show with HHH-HBK in a Cell, Benoit headlined with HHH at the next PPV and WON. He then headlined with Orton and lost. So if 8 months is a transitional run on top, well there have been TONS of transitional headliners in WWE history.

Dont worry, I used to think just like you before I stopped drinking the kool aid.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

He wasn't a focal point though, you're talking shite.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by broverboard The great thing about Internet forums is the ability they give people to air an opinion and have a meaningful and interesting discussion. Sometimes, as is the case in this thread, there is no way to measure if an opinion is right or wrong - the fun is exploring different peoples point of view. You may disagree but that doesn't mean you're right. It would appear that The Cynick fails to grasp this. Mr The Cynick, I offer my apologies in advance if you do in fact grasp this but it's not the opinion I've formed having read some of what you've said here. Now, in my opinion, I don't think Booker T should have gone over HHH. I do also think the build up should have been booked differently. That doesn't mean I'm right and I've enjoyed reading some of the conflicting opinions which is why it's a shame the thread has been turned into a "you're wrong" discussion, like many of the other potentially interesting topics of discussion on here.

The title of this thread is asking me to defend my opinions on things. You may have missed that part when you stepped in. Dont go into the "I enjoy flowers" thread and get annoyed at reading about pedals.

I agree with you that Booker shouldn't have gone over, and I believe I posted in here that I didnt like the use of race in the angle. But its the direction they went in. I dont think it changes that the right call was for HHH to go over.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead He wasn't a focal point though, you're talking shite.

What was the focal point?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

HHH and Shawn Michaels for the most part.