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

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

... the actual genius of them.

I will get the ball rolling.

CyNick, knower of all things booking decisions... what was the benefit of murderfucking Booker T's push in 2003 by having HHH not only tell him he was a nappy haired loser who didn't deserver the title, but then beat him clean in the middle of the ring after waiting 45 seconds to pin him post pedigree?

I need to know the long term benefits and Vince's mindset, and why this was CLEARLY the right move.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Careful or he'll start spewing WWE's financial numbers for 2015 at you.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Feel free to hypothesize what our good friend the "CyNick" may profess as the reason for this obviously brilliant piece of booking.

[Lock Jaw]

Because Booker T didn't deserve the title. Certainly not over Triple H.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

and totally deserved to have ALL of his credibility destroyed, and seem like not a threat at all.

[The CyNick]

Yeah basically what Lock Jaw said.

I'm trying to remember the timeline, but I believe HHH and HBK traded the big gold belt in late 2002 after HHH was handed the title. The thinking was probably we need to establish this championship, and HHH was just hitting his prime as a main eventer around this time. The long term money match in 2003 was with Goldberg, and I believe when the time was right, they put the strap on Goldberg. Had they had HHH lose all the time prior to that feud, it wouldn't have meant as much. And dont people on here hate when heel champs lose like crazy?

That said, I wasn't a fan of some of the language used in the program with Booker. Similar to how I said I wasn't a fan of the use of Charlotte's brothers' death in the Paige-Charlotte build. I really wish WWE would take the high road as much as possible in their angles in order to not alienate any would be viewers. Obviously whats done is done in the past, but going forward I wish they would keep it classy.

Back to Booker getting beat soundly, I have absolutely no problem with that. Booker is a nice hand, but he was only ever world champion because of a lack of depth and lawsuits. He's a classic B+ player. But not in the sense that WWE wrote TV about Daniel Bryan being a B+ player, and pushed him like an A+ player, Booker was actually a B+.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Beating him clean is one thing, waiting the entire duration of wrestlemania to pin him is killing him. You need to keep your b plus players credible.

There's nothing wrong with keeping HHH strong, but if you're going to spend the entire angle burying Booker, he needs to shine in the end. If you spend the angle making booker look strong THEN have H go over either sneakily or with a Pedigree and an IMMEDIATE pin then Booker doesn't come out looking as bad, and you have a strong B plus player that can step in at any time, as opposed to a guy who can never fully regain his momentum.

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>The stalling before pinning Booker was fucking ludicrous. Whenever somebody waits that long to execute a pin, it should end in a kickout. He may as well have read War and Peace before fucking pinning him.</font>

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Vito, you choose next bad booking decision! I PASS IT OFF TO YOU OLD FRIEND

[Evil Vito]

Vito, you choose next bad booking decision! I PASS IT OFF TO YOU OLD FRIEND

<font color=goldenrod>How about Hornswoggle being Vince's illegitimate son? Everybody knows it was supposed to be Mr. Kennedy, but he had to fall on his sword and take a suspension for the steroid bust. We get that.

But what possible value could have come from simply punting the angle and using such a main story for months of comedy relief instead of, you know, actually trying to find a way to salvage the angle in a way that it wouldn't have felt like a complete and utter waste of time?</font>

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>I was going to want him to explain away Punk returning so soon after MITB 2011 and them doing a WWE title tourney for no reason not to mention him jobbing to Triple H...but I know he'd just point to the 14 month title reign and say "see???"</font>

[The CyNick]

Beating him clean is one thing, waiting the entire duration of wrestlemania to pin him is killing him. You need to keep your b plus players credible.

There's nothing wrong with keeping HHH strong, but if you're going to spend the entire angle burying Booker, he needs to shine in the end. If you spend the angle making booker look strong THEN have H go over either sneakily or with a Pedigree and an IMMEDIATE pin then Booker doesn't come out looking as bad, and you have a strong B plus player that can step in at any time, as opposed to a guy who can never fully regain his momentum.

Classic HHH hate for no reason.

Classic overrating an above average talent.

Do you know why they took so long to get to the pin? Did you get one of your hero "reporters" to ask Vince McMahon why that decision was made? Was it to build anticipation for a kick out? Was it to further cement HHH because he was the top guy? Was HHH just trying to bury him? If HHH did try to bury him, did Vince have a chat with HHH afterwards? Oh I know, lets just speculate that HHH is the devil, read all about it in next week's issue...unless of course plans change!!!

Its funny, I was at MSG when HHH put over Chris Benoit clean in the middle. You know the guy all your heroes said was referred to as the Vanilla Midget? Yeah that guy. HHH put him over multiple times clean as a sheet. He put over Goldberg. He put over Batista. He put over Cena. He put over Bryan. He put over The Shield. But he's the devil.

Seriously, you guys are butt hurt about BOOKER T. It shows how terrible some of you are at evaluating talent that you hold onto that program with a death grip, as though Booker T was going to mean anything for business long term. Its fantastic.

[The CyNick]

<font color=goldenrod>How about Hornswoggle being Vince's illegitimate son? Everybody knows it was supposed to be Mr. Kennedy, but he had to fall on his sword and take a suspension for the steroid bust. We get that.

But what possible value could have come from simply punting the angle and using such a main story for months of comedy relief instead of, you know, actually trying to find a way to salvage the angle in a way that it wouldn't have felt like a complete and utter waste of time?</font>

Potentially great storyline ruined by a talent. Hornswaggle involvement was retarded. Whatever long term plans they had for Kennedy were ruined, so no point of just pointing to someone randomly and go "okay MVP you're going to be Vince's son"

Reminds me of the Bella storyline, where the talent fucked it up, so they just went okay this is screwed up, and basically tried to pretend it didnt happen.

[The CyNick]

<font color=goldenrod>I was going to want him to explain away Punk returning so soon after MITB 2011 and them doing a WWE title tourney for no reason not to mention him jobbing to Triple H...but I know he'd just point to the 14 month title reign and say "see???"</font>

Do you mean why create the 2nd belt if Punk is going to be back soon anyway?

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

They let it go because his name originally was Little Bastard. So, they could said it was all designed from the start if they wanted to. Bullshit though.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Classic HHH hate for no reason.

Classic overrating an above average talent.

Do you know why they took so long to get to the pin? Did you get one of your hero "reporters" to ask Vince McMahon why that decision was made? Was it to build anticipation for a kick out? Was it to further cement HHH because he was the top guy? Was HHH just trying to bury him? If HHH did try to bury him, did Vince have a chat with HHH afterwards? Oh I know, lets just speculate that HHH is the devil, read all about it in next week's issue...unless of course plans change!!!

Its funny, I was at MSG when HHH put over Chris Benoit clean in the middle. You know the guy all your heroes said was referred to as the Vanilla Midget? Yeah that guy. HHH put him over multiple times clean as a sheet. He put over Goldberg. He put over Batista. He put over Cena. He put over Bryan. He put over The Shield. But he's the devil.

Seriously, you guys are butt hurt about BOOKER T. It shows how terrible some of you are at evaluating talent that you hold onto that program with a death grip, as though Booker T was going to mean anything for business long term. Its fantastic.

Wow you're accusing me a lot of things I didn't say in my post. Sounds like you have a lot of pent up issues man.

[Lock Jaw]

Don't remember the match or the long wait for the pin, or really any of the program/storyline/feud, so that may be clouding my judgement on the matter.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

in retrospect putting HHH over is fine... it's just the manner in which they did it is the problem. It mad H very uninteresting. What made Ric Flair such a great heel champion was that he made everyone look great when beating them.

[Simple Fan]

Seriously, you guys are butt hurt about BOOKER T. It shows how terrible some of you are at evaluating talent that you hold onto that program with a death grip, as though Booker T was going to mean anything for business long term. Its fantastic.

The mans a Hall of Famer and runs his own promotion but he means nothing to the business long term.

Booker is a nice hand

Couldn't take anything else serious after he called Booker a good hand.

[Dark One]

The mans a Hall of Famer and runs his own promotion but he means nothing to the business long term.


A promotion with ROLLERMACKA no less, which is a pretty significant contribution to these forums.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

How dare you insult PARVIS's BOSS Cynick! You are grounded mister!

<img src="http://1.images.southparkstudios.com/blogs/southparkstudios.com/files/2014/09/1214_12_Butters_Grounded.gif" class="mainImage" data-bm="12">

[hb2k]

The whole HHH reign of terror reeks of him finding excuses to constantly hold off him losing because the next big reason is the right one.

Should lose to RVD? No, wait, we'll lose to Kane. Nope, wait, we'll lose it to Shawn to get it back to me, then I'll lose it on the big show to the new star, Booker. Nope, we've got Goldberg now, it'll mean more to lose to him. But lets do this Nash feud first. Okay, lets do the Goldberg thing. But I should win the Chamber first, THEN lose, because there will be more heat. Then I get it back to put over Benoit at Mania. Orton beats Benoit, HHH immediately kills Orton, and in a fluke mulligan, at last, after four years, loses to Batista, and finally the shit cycle is broken.

[Corporate CockSnogger]

Well, Triple H definitely shouldn't have lost it to any of those guys. Also hb2k, you've pretty much stated in clear writing why Triple H's reign should have gone on so long, and defended him, while trying to argue against his reign. Odd post.

RVD - Nowhere near Triple H's level
Kane - Solid hand, didn't need to win the title
HBK - He did win it, and wasn't that one of the best feuds ever? You know, with Triple H?
Booker T - Not on Triple H's level
Nash - Obvious feud to throw in due to their history. Credible threat, didn't need to win the title at that point in his career.
Goldberg - A legit big name. And Triple H drops the belt to him.
Benoit - Not on Triple H's level, still put him over
Orton - Not ready to be on Triple H's level at that point, still put him over early on in the feud
Batista - Ready for a big push, Triple H put him over.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Steiner: HUH? HUH? HUH?

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Triple H's reign was NOT to make Triple H look strong. Triple H's long reign was to validate the newly minted World Heavyweight Title. It had no title history as it was a brand new title that looked like the WCW Title. It needed credibility and Triple H had that in abundance.

[hb2k]

Wasn't even arguing against it as such, Mr. CockSnogger, a lot of the points you make above are absolutely valid when it comes to the individual circumstances. But you can see, step by step, why he was able to play the system - there always was a better option around the corner, it just always found its way back until he reached the point of no return and no alternative with Batista.

If I was really lobbying against it, I'd say that comparing people against HHH point for point is an irrelevant argument - numbers were falling with HHH on top, and you can't look at a guy's stats on a piece of paper and say whether it'll work or not all the time. Case in point, one month before they started the Batista/HHH angle, Batista would have been the LEAST ready or capable candidate of the guys mentioned to be the guy to dethrone Hunter. Not a good worker, not a good talker at that point either, not over at a top level, and was just "the other guy" in Evolution for months prior. But they tried it, and it worked out.

Van Dam was far more ready. I'd argue that Kane and Booker were dead to rights by the time the matches rolled around due to the horrible creative. Steiner as a babyface wasn't the solution. The treatment of Orton was inexcusable, because he was genuinely on the cusp, and had they done the Batista angle with Orton I'd argue it would have worked even better.

The point where the Booker argument falls apart for me is that if you hold the title change off for Goldberg, then fucking go to Goldberg, don't wait until September. He didn't need building with a feud against Christian and Jericho in the middle while HHH and Nash stink it up for three months. If you were going to wait, give Booker the moment at Mania, see if that works since Hunter on top wasn't anyway, if not, no harm done, go back to Trips to get it to Goldy.

[Corporate CockSnogger]

Please at least show some respect to Kevin Nash in this honourable month.

[Volare]

Steiner: HUH? HUH? HUH?

"Errybody knows, wants to know, you don't know me? You don't know me?"

[Evil Vito]

Do you mean why create the 2nd belt if Punk is going to be back soon anyway?

<font color=goldenrod>Yeah you can take it that way. Why not build tension of there being no champion?

And regardless of when he returned, if they had some grand master plan of giving Punk a massively long reign (they probably didn't) why not just have him keep it from MITB 2011 until he lost it? What point did it serve to have Del Rio and Cena play hot potato with the belt? It did pretty much nothing for Del Rio after a year about him talking about his "destiny".</font>

[Evil Vito]

Potentially great storyline ruined by a talent. Hornswaggle involvement was retarded. Whatever long term plans they had for Kennedy were ruined, so no point of just pointing to someone randomly and go "okay MVP you're going to be Vince's son"

Reminds me of the Bella storyline, where the talent fucked it up, so they just went okay this is screwed up, and basically tried to pretend it didnt happen.

<font color=goldenrod>The problem is when you invest that much time in an angle and then completely gloss over it, it gives the impression that WWE feels its fan base has the attention span of a peanut.

Could they really not identify anybody else who could have been Vince's son and gotten whatever push Kennedy was going to receive? It's never totally come to light what would have happened in the angle but I doubt it would have been something only Kennedy could pull off. At least giving the spot to someone else and trying to make something of it might have ended up with someone getting over rather than just tossing the whole thing away.</font>

[Big Vic]

In no way should Booker T gone over HHH at Mania 19.

Potentially great storyline ruined by a talent. Hornswaggle involvement was retarded. Whatever long term plans they had for Kennedy were ruined, so no point of just pointing to someone randomly and go "okay MVP you're going to be Vince's son"MVP being vince's son would have been awesome. vince tries to win the love of his son by acting all street, but in the end realizes that it does matter if he's cool, MVP just wants his dad to be there for him.

[hb2k]

And this way, Vince could still get away with that sweet doo-rag

[Dark One]

In no way should Booker T gone over HHH at Mania 19.

MVP being vince's son would have been awesome. vince tries to win the love of his son by acting all street, but in the end realizes that it does matter if he's cool, MVP just wants his dad to be there for him.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JtAJqeTpDis" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Already happened.

[Rammsteinmad]

There's two flaws that have popped up however, in regards to people being ready and the legitimacy of the title.

Firstly, saying guys like RVD weren't ready for the title because he wasn't "on Triple H's level" is silly. Was Triple H on Steve Austin's level when he won his first title? Was John Cena on "Triple H's level" when he won his first title?

By the time of Unforgiven 2002, Rob Van Dam had been one of the most over guys in the company for over a year. Winning that title would have put him on Triple H's level, or as close as he ever would be, seeing as nobody could come close to being on the level of the guy who's banging the bosses daughter.

The other issue is Triple H's reign legitimizing a title. It's a valid point, but did it really need a three year reign of terror to do so? Do casual fans and ten-year-old kids care about the history of the title?

[Rammsteinmad]

At the end of the day it's all an absolute load of bollocks, overthinking "the business" and basically taking the fun out of men pretending to fight each other.

[Big Vic]

Look what it did for Batista though, a sub-par talent was put over cleanly at 3 consecutive PPVs by Raws top dog and he was set for the rest of his career.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Liking where Rammstein took it, as well as Big Vic. But you're still wrong because CyNick understands the business and we're just a bunch of Dave Meltzer wannabes.

[Mr. Nerfect]

There's two flaws that have popped up however, in regards to people being ready and the legitimacy of the title.

Firstly, saying guys like RVD weren't ready for the title because he wasn't "on Triple H's level" is silly. Was Triple H on Steve Austin's level when he won his first title? Was John Cena on "Triple H's level" when he won his first title?

By the time of Unforgiven 2002, Rob Van Dam had been one of the most over guys in the company for over a year. Winning that title would have put him on Triple H's level, or as close as he ever would be, seeing as nobody could come close to being on the level of the guy who's banging the bosses daughter.

The other issue is Triple H's reign legitimizing a title. It's a valid point, but did it really need a three year reign of terror to do so? Do casual fans and ten-year-old kids care about the history of the title?

Thank you!

Anyone who thinks Triple H vs. Booker T at WrestleMania XIX was a good piece of business is a fucking moron. Anyone who thinks Triple H's long run with the belt, beating down far more interesting babyface acts was a good piece of business just needs to look at their ratings compared to SmackDown's.

That's not a blast at Triple H, by the way. That's just the reality of RAW '02-'05.

Dumbest thing said in this thread: "The long term money match in 2003 was with Goldberg, and I believe when the time was right, they put the strap on Goldberg"

Bwahahahaha!

[Mr. Nerfect]

Lol, I remember an article that was written listing Triple H as one of the most unsexy men in the world after he inserted himself right into the CM Punk stuff and made it about him and Kevin Nash for some reason.

[The CyNick]

in retrospect putting HHH over is fine... it's just the manner in which they did it is the problem. It mad H very uninteresting. What made Ric Flair such a great heel champion was that he made everyone look great when beating them.

They were completely different characters though. Flair looked like a normal dude off the street, HHH was/is built like a beast. Not everyone should be booked like Ric Flair was.

[The CyNick]

The mans a Hall of Famer and runs his own promotion but he means nothing to the business long term.



Couldn't take anything else serious after he called Booker a good hand.

Isnt KoKo B Ware a Hall of Famer?

How would you describe him?

[The CyNick]

The whole HHH reign of terror reeks of him finding excuses to constantly hold off him losing because the next big reason is the right one.

Should lose to RVD? No, wait, we'll lose to Kane. Nope, wait, we'll lose it to Shawn to get it back to me, then I'll lose it on the big show to the new star, Booker. Nope, we've got Goldberg now, it'll mean more to lose to him. But lets do this Nash feud first. Okay, lets do the Goldberg thing. But I should win the Chamber first, THEN lose, because there will be more heat. Then I get it back to put over Benoit at Mania. Orton beats Benoit, HHH immediately kills Orton, and in a fluke mulligan, at last, after four years, loses to Batista, and finally the shit cycle is broken.

Are you saying he should have lost to Booker T, RVD, Kane, and Goldberg?

At the end of the day he put over Goldberg for the title. He got it back because Goldberg was a part time guy, and WWE wanted someone full time to carry the belt. Then he put over Benoit clean (multiple times). Yes, he got it back because Benoit was a flop as a headliner. He then singlehandedly made Batista a superstar. He then put over Cena the following year.

I'm curious what more you felt he should have done.

[The CyNick]

<font color=goldenrod>Yeah you can take it that way. Why not build tension of there being no champion?

And regardless of when he returned, if they had some grand master plan of giving Punk a massively long reign (they probably didn't) why not just have him keep it from MITB 2011 until he lost it? What point did it serve to have Del Rio and Cena play hot potato with the belt? It did pretty much nothing for Del Rio after a year about him talking about his "destiny".</font>

The whole idea behind the angle was to have Punk run around with the real belt. I dont know if that got them what they were looking for in terms of publicity. At the end of the day, Punk ended up going over Cena multiple times and then got a massive run with the title.

Another case of I'm not sure what more could be done to help Punk there.

[The CyNick]

There's two flaws that have popped up however, in regards to people being ready and the legitimacy of the title.

Firstly, saying guys like RVD weren't ready for the title because he wasn't "on Triple H's level" is silly. Was Triple H on Steve Austin's level when he won his first title? Was John Cena on "Triple H's level" when he won his first title?

By the time of Unforgiven 2002, Rob Van Dam had been one of the most over guys in the company for over a year. Winning that title would have put him on Triple H's level, or as close as he ever would be, seeing as nobody could come close to being on the level of the guy who's banging the bosses daughter.

The other issue is Triple H's reign legitimizing a title. It's a valid point, but did it really need a three year reign of terror to do so? Do casual fans and ten-year-old kids care about the history of the title?

You cant have Triple H put over everyone and still remain a credible draw himself. When you have a star the caliber of HHH, you want to use him to make new stars, who you think can eventually carry the ball. I really dont think a guy like RVD was someone you want to invest in. History would prove this true when they finally did put the title on him, and he embarrassed the company by getting poppe for drug arrest.

Did Triple H have the belt for three years? He was a top guy, and he managed to make or help make new top stars in 04, 05 and 06. Who else should have carried the company during that time period?

[The CyNick]

Look what it did for Batista though, a sub-par talent was put over cleanly at 3 consecutive PPVs by Raws top dog and he was set for the rest of his career.

Because Batista was really talented, so HHH identified that and put him over multiple times. I suppose he did something wrong there though too.

Booker T and RVD were not on Batista's level.

[KIRA]

Because

Booker T and RVD were not on Batista's level.

Oh wow.

[The CyNick]

Thank you!

Anyone who thinks Triple H vs. Booker T at WrestleMania XIX was a good piece of business is a fucking moron. Anyone who thinks Triple H's long run with the belt, beating down far more interesting babyface acts was a good piece of business just needs to look at their ratings compared to SmackDown's.

That's not a blast at Triple H, by the way. That's just the reality of RAW '02-'05.

Dumbest thing said in this thread: "The long term money match in 2003 was with Goldberg, and I believe when the time was right, they put the strap on Goldberg"

Bwahahahaha!

So how should Booker T vs HHH went down at 19? Did you just not like the finish? Did you think Flair shouldnt have kept getting involved so HHH could just win clean? How would you have improved the piece of business? Booker go over clean?

Which other babyfaces did he "beat down" during that time? RVD I'm assuming? Was it okay that he beat The Hurricane? Or was he right on the cusp of headlining as well?

Sorry, in your mind, what was the long term money match for HHH in 2003 if not Goldberg? Or was it the timing that you didnt like? You already had Booker T or RVD beating HHH, so really I guess the long term match would be something like Booker T vs Goldberg? Dont forget Goldberg is going to leave the WWE in a few months, so if you put him over everyone, you might be left with no eggs in your basket. But I'm sure you already thought of that.

[The CyNick]

Oh wow.

Disagree?

[The CyNick]

Lol, I remember an article that was written listing Triple H as one of the most unsexy men in the world after he inserted himself right into the CM Punk stuff and made it about him and Kevin Nash for some reason.

hahahaha that article sound so amazing. I cant wait to look it up and read it.

[CSL]

Booker T and RVD were not on Batista's level.

Oh wow.

he's right

[CSL]

don't really care about the Triple H reign of doom that still seems to get people so worked up, the RVD stuff, the Kane stuff etc. That said, Booker should have gone over at Mania, even if it meant hotshotting the belt back a month later

[CSL]

Please at least show some respect to Kevin Nash in this honourable month.

4 REALSIES

[CSL]

if people talk shit about Big Kev during Nashvember, can we get some bans handed out? I'm thinking

first offence: lifetime
second offence: ISP contacted and internet shut down
third offence: some kind of modern witch hunt

[KIRA]

Disagree?

Not so much with RVD with Booker YES and its not like he could not have been built up to that level he was talented and over the Triple-H stuff cut the legs out from under him (in a pretty despicable way even if it is just wrestling)

Batista is only "Above Booker's level because the company got behind him and pushed as a huge deal. Booker had it all over Batista he could talk as a heel or face (Batista only hit his stride as a heel) he was Athletic and had a nice look to him. Theres a Wrestle crap entry that talks about the HHH Booker thing way better than I can that said Booker definitely should have beaten HHH even James Steele will fully admit this.

Saying Batista has it over Booker to me is like saying Nikki Bella has it over Sasha Banks.

When the company gets behind you and wants you to be the guy you really can't lose barring a colossal fuck-up. Look at Roman he's gonna be the man whether you like it or not. Is he better than Ambrose fuck no, but he's the guy the company wants.

[McLegend]

Going back to the original idea of this thread, which is a great idea btw


Cynick, Why was it good that Hulk Hogan beat Yokozuna at WM IX instead of just having Bret win or even Yokozuna keeping the belt?

Thanks

[KIRA]

if people talk shit about Big Kev during Nashvember, can we get some bans handed out? I'm thinking

first offence: lifetime
second offence: ISP contacted and internet shut down
third offence: some kind of modern witch hunt

Is somebody talking shit about Nash during Nashvember? Even I've abstained out of respect for the season.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Are you saying he should have lost to Booker T, RVD, Kane, and Goldberg?

At the end of the day he put over Goldberg for the title. He got it back because Goldberg was a part time guy, and WWE wanted someone full time to carry the belt. Then he put over Benoit clean (multiple times). Yes, he got it back because Benoit was a flop as a headliner. He then singlehandedly made Batista a superstar. He then put over Cena the following year.

I'm curious what more you felt he should have done.

Listen to his podcast. It's a bunch of dudes who actually know what they are talking about. And actually read what he says and don't put words into his mouth.

[Mr. Nerfect]

So how should Booker T vs HHH went down at 19? Did you just not like the finish? Did you think Flair shouldnt have kept getting involved so HHH could just win clean? How would you have improved the piece of business? Booker go over clean?

Which other babyfaces did he "beat down" during that time? RVD I'm assuming? Was it okay that he beat The Hurricane? Or was he right on the cusp of headlining as well?

Sorry, in your mind, what was the long term money match for HHH in 2003 if not Goldberg? Or was it the timing that you didnt like? You already had Booker T or RVD beating HHH, so really I guess the long term match would be something like Booker T vs Goldberg? Dont forget Goldberg is going to leave the WWE in a few months, so if you put him over everyone, you might be left with no eggs in your basket. But I'm sure you already thought of that.

Hahahahaha!

[Mr. Nerfect]

don't really care about the Triple H reign of doom that still seems to get people so worked up, the RVD stuff, the Kane stuff etc. That said, Booker should have gone over at Mania, even if it meant hotshotting the belt back a month later

CSL proves his greatness again. You cannot put the heel over in the style of feud they developed between Triple H and Booker T. You don't need to give Booker an eight month run with the belt. It was all in that moment of proving he could beat Triple H.

[KIRA]

CSL proves his greatness again. You cannot put the heel over in the style of feud they developed between Triple H and Booker T. You don't need to give Booker an eight month run with the belt. It was all in that moment of proving he could beat Triple H.

Agreed for that storyline it made ZERO sense for Triple H to come out on top.

[Maluco]

Interesting discussion and I think Cynick actually makes some good points, but defending EVERY decision is overzealous. Even if you praise the product people make mistakes at the best of times.

Booker should have gotten his moment after the way the feud was booked, and you never know what could have happened with him after that.

Cynick is right about Punk though. They couldn't have done anymore for him. He was put on par with Cena and pushed to the moon. He didn't have Cenas work ethic and ended up sulking off. Another reason why they have to be careful who they invest in.

Am sure they were grateful they didn't invest in RVD either, too unreliable as a person to be the face of the company even for a period of time. One drugs bust as champ and the whole company suffers.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Is somebody talking shit about Nash during Nashvember? Even I've abstained out of respect for the season.

Hell, I'd even go so far as to say we should officially change the name of Thanksgiving to Nashgiving.

[The CyNick]

Not so much with RVD with Booker YES and its not like he could not have been built up to that level he was talented and over the Triple-H stuff cut the legs out from under him (in a pretty despicable way even if it is just wrestling)

Batista is only "Above Booker's level because the company got behind him and pushed as a huge deal. Booker had it all over Batista he could talk as a heel or face (Batista only hit his stride as a heel) he was Athletic and had a nice look to him. Theres a Wrestle crap entry that talks about the HHH Booker thing way better than I can that said Booker definitely should have beaten HHH even James Steele will fully admit this.

Saying Batista has it over Booker to me is like saying Nikki Bella has it over Sasha Banks.

When the company gets behind you and wants you to be the guy you really can't lose barring a colossal fuck-up. Look at Roman he's gonna be the man whether you like it or not. Is he better than Ambrose fuck no, but he's the guy the company wants.

Nah. Lots of guys were pushed to the moon, but just failed. Lex Luger comes to mind.

I like Booker T, probably sounds like I dont. I just think he's a solid hand, but doesnt have the "it" factor to be the guy. He could have been world champion, and I dont think he would have killed business or anything, but I dont think he would have helped.

Batista has a presence about him, that you just cant teach. Its probably why he's blowing up in Hollywood. The WWE may have made him a big star, but they are not making him a star in Hollywood, he's doing that because he understands how to present himself as a star, and understand how to dominate the screen. He doesnt say very much in the Bond movie, but he's presence is amazing.

[The CyNick]

Listen to his podcast. It's a bunch of dudes who actually know what they are talking about. And actually read what he says and don't put words into his mouth.

I read it, I read everything. It was the same old same old I read somewhere else at the time in 4 point font. Completely unoriginal thoughts.

[The CyNick]

Hahahahaha!

About the response I would expect from you. I love when I set the bar low for you, and you still manage to limbo your way under it.

[The CyNick]

Going back to the original idea of this thread, which is a great idea btw


Cynick, Why was it good that Hulk Hogan beat Yokozuna at WM IX instead of just having Bret win or even Yokozuna keeping the belt?

Thanks

Never liked that call. Bret should have just won and went on to face Hogan and beat him. At the same time, I can see from Hogan's perspective why he didnt want to put over Bret.

[McLegend]

2 in 1 here

Was it a good idea for Orton to win the World Heavyweight Championship in 2004 from Benoit?

Was it a good idea to take the title away from Orton a month later?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

They were completely different characters though. Flair looked like a normal dude off the street, HHH was/is built like a beast. Not everyone should be booked like Ric Flair was.

that is just terrible logic.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Nah. Lots of guys were pushed to the moon, but just failed. Lex Luger comes to mind.

I like Booker T, probably sounds like I dont. I just think he's a solid hand, but doesnt have the "it" factor to be the guy. He could have been world champion, and I dont think he would have killed business or anything, but I dont think he would have helped.

Batista has a presence about him, that you just cant teach. Its probably why he's blowing up in Hollywood. The WWE may have made him a big star, but they are not making him a star in Hollywood, he's doing that because he understands how to present himself as a star, and understand how to dominate the screen. He doesnt say very much in the Bond movie, but he's presence is amazing.

HHH doesn't have the it factor to be "the guy".

[KIRA]

Nah. Lots of guys were pushed to the moon, but just failed. Lex Luger comes to mind.

I like Booker T, probably sounds like I dont. I just think he's a solid hand, but doesnt have the "it" factor to be the guy. He could have been world champion, and I dont think he would have killed business or anything, but I dont think he would have helped.

Batista has a presence about him, that you just cant teach. Its probably why he's blowing up in Hollywood. The WWE may have made him a big star, but they are not making him a star in Hollywood, he's doing that because he understands how to present himself as a star, and understand how to dominate the screen. He doesnt say very much in the Bond movie, but he's presence is amazing.

I wonder is it the same intangible "it factor" that I've argued Daniel Bryan has and other people seemed to think Bret Hart had.

About booker T tho, if you never give the guy the ball how do you know he can't run with it? DB,Seth(in Seths case it was more the fans) and recently especially The New Day could have all easily been afterthoughts lost in the shuffle but They turned out to be phenomenal when they were given the chance to shine. (Bryans bad luck notwithstanding)

[Vastardikai]

I think people are understating the Batista turn storyline. It took place over about several months. It was a slow build where Dancing Dave started doubting Trips supremacy, then actually got in his face once or twice, all leading to the thumbs down and eventual turn. Throughout the process, fans ate it up.

One of the last times long term booking was properly used.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Dave was pretty good but the same arguments used AGAINST the likes of RVD, Booker T et all could have been used against him. It's just arbitrarily whatever serves the narrative is used as a reason why the guy didn't go over.

[NormanSmiley]

2 plus 2....do you know booker?...... Thomas jefferson sucka

[Shadrick]

Booker should have gone over at Mania. But hey, whatever.

[#1-norm-fan]

Well, to get back on topic, CyNick said he responded to this point on the discussion of that major Bella twins angle last year with some super legit CYNICKFACTS but I was hoping maybe he could use this thread to SCHOOL US ALL with a nice truncated CYNICKFACT RESPONSE or maybe even some CYNICKQUOTES from when he already showed us the CYNICKFACTS that properly explained WWE's writing process here...

Look everything on TV is exaggerated. Plenty of TV shows or movies will have something happen between characters and then they work it out.

I've honestly never seen another situation in any form of scripted entertainment where two people in the middle of a heated feud seemingly became best friends again off-camera between episodes with no explanation...

Because that would be some all-time horrible writing and outside of WWE currently, even the trashiest, shittiest TV shows and movies have higher writing standards than that.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Fan, we just don't understand wrestling the way he does. We need to accept this.

[screech]

I love that explanation, though. It's like he had nothing left other than to dump on creative/Vince, so instead went with: "Don't forget it's not real, you guys!"

[The CyNick]

CSL proves his greatness again. You cannot put the heel over in the style of feud they developed between Triple H and Booker T. You don't need to give Booker an eight month run with the belt. It was all in that moment of proving he could beat Triple H.

If you're just going to put the belt back on Trips, what's the point? Booker T wasn't meant to be a long term headliner. He was just there to help give HHH more credibility.

If HHH was just going to get the belt back, this would essentially be like losing a non title match, which I thought you say kills a guys credibility.

[The CyNick]

2 in 1 here

Was it a good idea for Orton to win the World Heavyweight Championship in 2004 from Benoit?

Was it a good idea to take the title away from Orton a month later?

Yes, to the first one. The whole point should have been Orton did what Hunter couldn't (beat Benoit). The next couple months should have been Hunter acting like he was happy for Orton, and struggling with taking a secondary role in the group. Then I would have had Hunter win the title in some type of multi person match where he didn't pin Orton. Then have Orton ask Hunter for a rematch saying we can have an all time classic match, the belt will stay in the evolution family, and we will shake hands after, but i just need to know if i can beat you. Hunter then does the deal where they beat him down.

Yeah to me they rushed it with moving the belt to Hunter. However, at the end of the day they turned the angle to get over Batista instead of Orton. So it's like I would have booked 21 to be Orton v Hunter with Orton getting revenge as a babyface. They moved Batista into the role, Hunter looked unstoppable then because of the Orton angle, and the show did a massive amount of buys. So in the end maybe they made the right call.

[Big Vic]

Because Batista was really talented, so HHH identified that and put him over multiple times. I suppose he did something wrong there though too. HHH didn't do anything wrong but at the time Batista's mic skills were pretty awful.

[The CyNick]

I wonder is it the same intangible "it factor" that I've argued Daniel Bryan has and other people seemed to think Bret Hart had.

About booker T tho, if you never give the guy the ball how do you know he can't run with it? DB,Seth(in Seths case it was more the fans) and recently especially The New Day could have all easily been afterthoughts lost in the shuffle but They turned out to be phenomenal when they were given the chance to shine. (Bryans bad luck notwithstanding)

My thing was I feel like Hunter as a viscous heel and could only put over so many guys clean before he loses his credibility. Booker T to me just simply wasn't the right guy, neither was RVD, neither was Kane. Goldberg made sense, Benoit was out of left field but kudos to H for doing it, and Batista was clearly the right guy.

It just comes down to how highly do you rate Booker T in this example. I just don't think he was worthy of the spot and having him beat HHH was a bad call long term.

[The CyNick]

Dave was pretty good but the same arguments used AGAINST the likes of RVD, Booker T et all could have been used against him. It's just arbitrarily whatever serves the narrative is used as a reason why the guy didn't go over.

Bud, it's not a real sport. You can't look at Booker T and go he's hiring .356 so he's ready for the big leagues.

It's all about who do you think will be must likely to be a larger than life superstar.

I've watched ton of each guy in that time period and Batista comes off as a much bigger star than Booker. I don't see Booker in a top role in a James Bond movie. Batista oozes charisma and has more presence. Booker is a funny character, but when funny is your best quality, you probably shouldn't be a main event guy.

[Big Vic]

Funny can be main event, DB, Kurt Angle, Rock.

[The CyNick]

Funny can be main event, DB, Kurt Angle, Rock.

All those guys had a serious switch. Booker's serious switch is still funny

[XL]

If you're just going to put the belt back on Trips, what's the point? Booker T wasn't meant to be a long term headliner. He was just there to help give HHH more credibility.

If HHH was just going to get the belt back, this would essentially be like losing a non title match, which I thought you say kills a guys credibility.

I may be mistaken but the issue at hand was the way in which the story was told. Booker didn't have to win at Mania in a 1v1 match with HHH until they went the way they did (the racial undertones).

Would BT be on the level of Rock/Austin/Hogan? No, but not many are. Would a win have helped him to the level of HHH? Maybe.

[Shadrick]

I may be mistaken but the issue at hand was the way in which the story was told. Booker didn't have to win at Mania in a 1v1 match with HHH until they went the way they did (the racial undertones).

Would BT be on the level of Rock/Austin/Hogan? No, but not many are. Would a win have helped him to the level of HHH? Maybe.

This. When Hunter looks a guy up and down and says "people like you don't beat people like me" and makes a comment about his nappy hair, and then beats the guy clean, you're like "oh. well...i guess he's...right?" its shitty story telling.

Like christian winning the title and losing it a week later was cool with me because of the story it told. I didn't care if he gave it to Randy a week later. The way the story was set up, Booker should have gone over. Doesn't matter if he drops the belt back at the next PPV, the story would have made much more sense.

[road doggy dogg]

the much-maligned cynic

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

the much-maligned cynic

Lol I hate you.

I made it pretty clear it was about how the story line played out but cynick ignored that to push his narrative. Tho, I'd have been upset if he didn't.

[The CyNick]

I may be mistaken but the issue at hand was the way in which the story was told. Booker didn't have to win at Mania in a 1v1 match with HHH until they went the way they did (the racial undertones).

Would BT be on the level of Rock/Austin/Hogan? No, but not many are. Would a win have helped him to the level of HHH? Maybe.

I don't understand why they went with the racial tones. Again I'll bring up my disdain for the Reid Flair stuff on Monday. I think it comes off as low v brow. Gotta remember though, this was what 2003, they were coming off the horrific writing of The Attitude Era, so they probably thought it was edgy.

Still, I don't think that justifies putting Booker over Hunter. I just think the writers and Vince had a lapse in judgement as to how to get over the feud. Likely had something to do with Book being inferior to Hunter and WWE feeling they needed to do something extreme to get people behind Booker.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I don't understand why they went with the racial tones. Again I'll bring up my disdain for the Reid Flair stuff on Monday. I think it comes off as low v brow. Gotta remember though, this was what 2003, they were coming off the horrific writing of The Attitude Era, so they probably thought it was edgy.

Still, I don't think that justifies putting Booker over Hunter. I just think the writers and Vince had a lapse in judgement as to how to get over the feud. Likely had something to do with Book being inferior to Hunter and WWE feeling they needed to do something extreme to get people behind Booker.

That is Fucking retarded. The book man was over. They just needed to push him as a plucky under dog. If he puts up a great effort and comes up short, it is what it is. Just shows how out of touch the bookers were even then.

[The CyNick]

This. When Hunter looks a guy up and down and says "people like you don't beat people like me" and makes a comment about his nappy hair, and then beats the guy clean, you're like "oh. well...i guess he's...right?" its shitty story telling.

Like christian winning the title and losing it a week later was cool with me because of the story it told. I didn't care if he gave it to Randy a week later. The way the story was set up, Booker should have gone over. Doesn't matter if he drops the belt back at the next PPV, the story would have made much more sense.

So people like him can get people like us to slip on a banana peel, and take advantage, but ultimately the people like us will reign supreme. You're essentially just being a mark for a babyface winning at Mania. If the story ended with Hunter winning and being champ, all you've done is devalued the title by paying hit potato with it.

[The CyNick]

That is Fucking retarded. The book man was over. They just needed to push him as a plucky under dog. If he puts up a great effort and comes up short, it is what it is. Just shows how out of touch the bookers were even then.

I don't recall Booker being that over. I'm sure people wanted to see Hunter lose, because he was an effective heel. I recall RVD being more over than Booker. But it was over 10 years ago, I could be wrong.

Do you think Booker was a guy they should have gone with in 2003? Like what would be the money program that would have led to? With Hunter as champ you had Goldberg and then Benoit as major babyface challengers. Say Book goes over at 19, and Trips fades into the background, what's the big business that Booker T as champ is building towards?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

So people like him can get people like us to slip on a banana peel, and take advantage, but ultimately the people like us will reign supreme. You're essentially just being a mark for a babyface winning at Mania. If the story ended with Hunter winning and being champ, all you've done is devalued the title by paying hit potato with it.

Lol oh dear god I love you. For all of the wrong reasons. You're like the girl I go back to even though she's no good for me. Ps. I likem heavy.

[The CyNick]

the much-maligned cynic

I often feel like what it must feel like to try to oppose the leadership in North Korea. I know lots of people agree with me, but everyone has been brainwashed to think a certain way, so they just dismiss what I say as being absurd and ludicrous.

[The CyNick]

Lol oh dear god I love you. For all of the wrong reasons. You're like the girl I go back to even though she's no good for me. Ps. I likem heavy.

Its he coming on to me? I'd be heavy for a girl.

Much like talking to a chick, I feel like you change the subject when I've made a point.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I don't recall Booker being that over. I'm sure people wanted to see Hunter lose, because he was an effective heel. I recall RVD being more over than Booker. But it was over 10 years ago, I could be wrong.

Do you think Booker was a guy they should have gone with in 2003? Like what would be the money program that would have led to? With Hunter as champ you had Goldberg and then Benoit as major babyface challengers. Say Book goes over at 19, and Trips fades into the background, what's the big business that Booker T as champ is building towards?

Lol you're so cute. You are arguing a point I'm not arguing. Booker was connecting big time with the fans. He was one of the hotter acts in the company thus him facing h at mania. Once again tho, all we've said is the way the angle was booked was awful and the finish was the cherry on top of the shit cake. They were the ones who booked themselves into a corner of poor storytelling, not us. Plus new champs and some outside of the box thinking can lead to good business. He definitely could have had a great feud with heel rock and possibly dropped the belt back to h after that. Who knows. Regardless, they wouldn't have killed book with a loss if they didn't book the whole shmoz so poorly.

[The CyNick]

Lol you're so cute. You are arguing a point I'm not arguing. Booker was connecting big time with the fans. He was one of the hotter acts in the company thus him facing h at mania. Once again tho, all we've said is the way the angle was booked was awful and the finish was the cherry on top of the shit cake. They were the ones who booked themselves into a corner of poor storytelling, not us. Plus new champs and some outside of the box thinking can lead to good business. He definitely could have had a great feud with heel rock and possibly dropped the belt back to h after that. Who knows. Regardless, they wouldn't have killed book with a loss if they didn't book the whole shmoz so poorly.

Thanks

So if no racial undertones, it would have been okay if Hunter just beat him clean? Just trying to better understand your position.

I hear your point, but i just don't think it hurt Booker in the end, it's somethingthe IWC clings on to. He ended being exactly what I thought he would become. Solid upper mid card guy. It's not luke people stopped caring about him after he let down every black person in the wield by losing to white supremacist Triple H.

[road doggy dogg]

I often feel like what it must feel like to try to oppose the leadership in North Korea. I know lots of people agree with me, but everyone has been brainwashed to think a certain way, so they just dismiss what I say as being absurd and ludicrous.

The IWC are an interesting breed. Like it's unfathomable to the collective that someone on this planet could possibly dislike Daniel Bryan or Cesaro. Herd mentality.

[KIRA]

I often feel like what it must feel like to try to oppose the leadership in North Korea. I know lots of people agree with me, but everyone has been brainwashed to think a certain way, so they just dismiss what I say as being absurd and ludicrous.

I doubt Booker winning as the better choice was pounded into our heads till we believed it.I'm pretty sure the moment he lost there was a collective WTF from people watching.No one argues the point because this is a scenario that has no justification for why it happened and again in terms of storytelling it was just god-awful.

I'd also argue that Booker's win would have told a better story HHH may have just crossed Batista once too often and it reached a boiling point.To Booker he was looking down on him not just as an inferior wrestler but an inferior human being.So by having him win you tell the audience that HHH this privileged,arrogant, quasi-racist dick is right in all he said about Booker T.

Triple H was presenting himself as one of the worst kinds of villain at that point. He should have met his end at the hands of the man who was his opposite number the man he pegged as inferior to him in all aspects.

[Simple Fan]

The IWC are an interesting breed. Like it's unfathomable to the collective that someone on this planet could possibly dislike Daniel Bryan or Cesaro. Herd mentality.

Daniel Bryan sucks. Although I would rather have him as champion over face Reigns any day. Cesaro is the goods though

[KIRA]

All those guys had a serious switch. Booker's serious switch is still funny

I would've loved for Santino to win the Rumble and go to WM. Just Sayin.

He's always goofy but he was shown to have a case of crouching moron hidden badass at several points don't see why booker couldn't have been the same way.

[Simple Fan]

I really feel WWE shit the bed with Booker. For him to never win the WWE championship is a bit of a head scratcher. His one World Heavyweight Championship reigns was pretty good but really it was a little late in his career. If he would have went over HHH that would have pushed him to new heights and maybe be a regular main event guy. But he was a WCW guy that Vince didn't create so he let Booker fall into the mid card.

[The CyNick]

I really feel WWE shit the bed with Booker. For him to never win the WWE championship is a bit of a head scratcher. His one World Heavyweight Championship reigns was pretty good but really it was a little late in his career. If he would have went over HHH that would have pushed him to new heights and maybe be a regular main event guy. But he was a WCW guy that Vince didn't create so he let Booker fall into the mid card.

So do you think Vince purposely threw away money? Or do you think he thought HHH as champ was the better choice at that given time?

We all know Vince is not prefect, but to say he passed over Booker T just because he was a WCW guy is a little... I dont even know the word... I'll call it Meltzerish. Especially odd line of thinking when a year later he had TWO WCW guys standing in the middle of his ring, in the middle of his arena, closing his company's marquee event.

Maybe your better argument is Vince is racist. Which isn't true, but it seems like it has more weight to it.

[The CyNick]

The IWC are an interesting breed. Like it's unfathomable to the collective that someone on this planet could possibly dislike Daniel Bryan or Cesaro. Herd mentality.

Cesaro is fascinating to me. He's clearly good, he's very good even. But this is where I'm a fan of staying of the sheets. Until I started posting here again, I never thought he was under pushed. I've always thought he was like Hunter or Rock in 1996. You could see they were really good, but had not yet put it all together to headline.

[road doggy dogg]

Cesaro is awesome, but my point is that it's okay if somebody thinks otherwise.

[The CyNick]

I agree!

[KIRA]

So do you think Vince purposely threw away money? Or do you think he thought HHH as champ was the better choice at that given time?

We all know Vince is not prefect, but to say he passed over Booker T just because he was a WCW guy is a little... I dont even know the word... I'll call it Meltzerish. Especially odd line of thinking when a year later he had TWO WCW guys standing in the middle of his ring, in the middle of his arena, closing his company's marquee event.

Maybe your better argument is Vince is racist. Which isn't true, but it seems like it has more weight to it.

People who've worked for Vince have said that he isn't racist he just doesn't know any better and is out of touch which I completely believe although, Its worrisome that no one has tried to tell the guy. See: R-Truth, New Day (before they brilliantly subverted the gimmick ) I'm not sure who los matadores is offending but I bet they are still offensive. R-Truths's awesome heel turn got him far and away from only to be stuck in that gimmick once more.

[Simple Fan]

So do you think Vince purposely threw away money? Or do you think he thought HHH as champ was the better choice at that given time?

We all know Vince is not prefect, but to say he passed over Booker T just because he was a WCW guy is a little... I dont even know the word... I'll call it Meltzerish. Especially odd line of thinking when a year later he had TWO WCW guys standing in the middle of his ring, in the middle of his arena, closing his company's marquee event.

Maybe your better argument is Vince is racist. Which isn't true, but it seems like it has more weight to it.


I dont know if he purposely did it but there was more money in Booker than whst he got. Eddie and Benoit jumped ship to WWF before they acquired WCW. That's different than Booker who was acquired in the sell. They jumped ship and Vince rewarded them.

[Evil Vito]

Thanks

So if no racial undertones, it would have been okay if Hunter just beat him clean? Just trying to better understand your position.

<font color=goldenrod>I'm pretty sure that's how most of us feel. We can argue whether or not Booker should have won in any scenario no matter what, but it's just really shoddy storytelling to basically tell the dude that he won't win the belt because he's black and then go out and prove it. At least if they avoided the race angle and Booker just put up a good fight in defeat, it wouldn't have felt insulting.

What's worse is Triple H went on record and said that people mistinterpreted the Booker T angle. "You people" was meant to be a slight on WCW alumni. Suuuuuuuure.</font>

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

All those nappy haired wcw wrasslers. Booker I believed should have went over to breath some life into raw which was very stagnant, cuz as cynick is trying to ignore, he gained a lot of steam BUT that's a different argument, and win vs loss is less egregious.

[KIRA]

<font color=goldenrod>

What's worse is Triple H went on record and said that people mistinterpreted the Booker T angle. "You people" was meant to be a slight on WCW alumni. Suuuuuuuure.</font>

And this is the moment I knew that the WWE thought fans were complete morons.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Cesaro is awesome, but my point is that it's okay if somebody thinks otherwise.

Agree with that. Tho I still can't believe anyone could dislike Bret Hart.

[road doggy dogg]

Gertner would like a word with you

[#1-norm-fan]

Well, to get back on topic, CyNick said he responded to this point on the discussion of that major Bella twins angle last year with some super legit CYNICKFACTS but I was hoping maybe he could use this thread to SCHOOL US ALL with a nice truncated CYNICKFACT RESPONSE or maybe even some CYNICKQUOTES from when he already showed us the CYNICKFACTS that properly explained WWE's writing process here...

Look everything on TV is exaggerated. Plenty of TV shows or movies will have something happen between characters and then they work it out.

I've honestly never seen another situation in any form of scripted entertainment where two people in the middle of a heated feud seemingly became best friends again off-camera between episodes with no explanation...

Because that would be some all-time horrible writing and outside of WWE currently, even the trashiest, shittiest TV shows and movies have higher writing standards than that.

So no then? Just wanna double check.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Gertner would like a word with you

Much maligned Gertner

[Shadrick]

So people like him can get people like us to slip on a banana peel, and take advantage, but ultimately the people like us will reign supreme. You're essentially just being a mark for a babyface winning at Mania. If the story ended with Hunter winning and being champ, all you've done is devalued the title by paying hit potato with it.

lol holy shit

[Shadrick]

<font color=goldenrod>I'm pretty sure that's how most of us feel. We can argue whether or not Booker should have won in any scenario no matter what, but it's just really shoddy storytelling to basically tell the dude that he won't win the belt because he's black and then go out and prove it. At least if they avoided the race angle and Booker just put up a good fight in defeat, it wouldn't have felt insulting.

What's worse is Triple H went on record and said that people mistinterpreted the Booker T angle. "You people" was meant to be a slight on WCW alumni. Suuuuuuuure.</font>

This. I feel like Booker should have gone over because of the storytelling, not because of who he is. Booker is fine to me, but I'm not mark for a babyface going over or for him specifically. Shitty storytelling. When the video packages and vignettes are him overcoming the odds, doing something with his life, etc, and then....clean loss. And no follow up. Its like "uh. ok."

[KIRA]

This. I feel like Booker should have gone over because of the storytelling, not because of who he is. Booker is fine to me, but I'm not mark for a babyface going over or for him specifically. Shitty storytelling. When the video packages and vignettes are him overcoming the odds, doing something with his life, etc, and then....clean loss. And no follow up. Its like "uh. ok."

I feel like I already said this in so many words.

[McLegend]

Yes, to the first one. The whole point should have been Orton did what Hunter couldn't (beat Benoit). The next couple months should have been Hunter acting like he was happy for Orton, and struggling with taking a secondary role in the group. Then I would have had Hunter win the title in some type of multi person match where he didn't pin Orton. Then have Orton ask Hunter for a rematch saying we can have an all time classic match, the belt will stay in the evolution family, and we will shake hands after, but i just need to know if i can beat you. Hunter then does the deal where they beat him down.

Yeah to me they rushed it with moving the belt to Hunter. However, at the end of the day they turned the angle to get over Batista instead of Orton. So it's like I would have booked 21 to be Orton v Hunter with Orton getting revenge as a babyface. They moved Batista into the role, Hunter looked unstoppable then because of the Orton angle, and the show did a massive amount of buys. So in the end maybe they made the right call.
I agree with this. At the time I was pissed about, but it everything worked out in the end. Also the Orton mark is still somewhat upset about it, because to this day HHH has never put over Orton, and it doesn't make sense to me.

Also I feel like they lucked into the Batista thing. It didn't feel like that was the original plan to put Batista in that role, but it just kind of happened. I forget what caused Batista to pick up so much steam.

[Shadrick]

I feel like I already said this in so many words.

:y:

[DAMN iNATOR]

Cesaro is awesome, but my point is that it's okay if somebody thinks otherwise.

He damn sure is! All hail the King of the Swing!

[Mr. Nerfect]

How anyone can think that a 34-second gap between the Pedigree and a cover in that storyline is anything short of shitty is beyond me. CyNick cannot possibly believe this shit.

I also laugh at the basic implication: "When Booker T ended up being terribly booked, he ended up exactly where I thought he would -- a poorly booked upper mid-card guy." I'm NOT saying that Booker T could have changed the industry, and I'm not saying he WOULDN'T have. That is besides the point. I just want people to reflect on how over the guy was and how the WWE booked him from day dot with the company, and reflect on whether or not that might have affected the ceiling EDITED: lovely folk like CyNick put on him.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

lol Good post Noid, BUT calling Nick a moron is a bit harsh. Keep in mind we're all friends in the wrassling forum!

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'm not genuinely being nasty -- sorry if it comes off that way. CyNick has just been pushing buttons for so long, I think he's earned a few "cunts" here and there.

[Mr. Nerfect]

CyNick knows I am ambivalent towards him.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

It will only add to his delusions that he's a maverick/rogue in the same light as Han Solo.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yeah, good point. Best I just ignore it and keep my laughter to myself.

[Mr. Nerfect]

For the sake of wrestling discussion though:

Is there an angle that is widely considered terrible that you actually didn't mind? I'd rather just cut CyNick out of the conversation. He can answer, of course -- but I'll ignore it.

[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.

[NormanSmiley]

For the sake of wrestling discussion though:

Is there an angle that is widely considered terrible that you actually didn't mind? .

For me the mania 7 blind fold match that gets shit on I enjoyed.
The invasion angle finale I enjoyed
Nash ending the streak

[KIRA]

I don't understand why they went with the racial tones. Again I'll bring up my disdain for the Reid Flair stuff on Monday. I think it comes off as low v brow. Gotta remember though, this was what 2003, they were coming off the horrific writing of The Attitude Era, so they probably thought it was edgy.

Still, I don't think that justifies putting Booker over Hunter. I just think the writers and Vince had a lapse in judgement as to how to get over the feud. Likely had something to do with Book being inferior to Hunter and WWE feeling they needed to do something extreme to get people behind Booker.

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)

[DAMN iNATOR]

Bryan got so over in WWE partly because he was already so well known by indy fans from his decade plus on the independent circuit. He was also a guy who was seen as relatable due to having to attend therapy all the while keeping a strained (to say the least) relationship with Kane going as they were tag champs, plus he had to fight against a perceived injustice in a quest to regain his WWE Championship by standing up for himself against his boss. Between that and the positivity that radiated from the "YES!" chants, he was made to come off as a very down-to-earth man of simple pleasures.

[KIRA]

Bryan got so over in WWE partly because he was already so well known by indy fans from his decade plus on the independent circuit. He was also a guy who was seen as relatable due to having to attend therapy all the while keeping a strained (to say the least) relationship with Kane going as they were tag champs, plus he had to fight against a perceived injustice in a quest to regain his WWE Championship by standing up for himself against his boss. Between that and the positivity that radiated from the "YES!" chants, he was made to come off as a very down-to-earth man of simple pleasures.

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.

[hb2k]

Are you saying he should have lost to Booker T, RVD, Kane, and Goldberg?

At the end of the day he put over Goldberg for the title. He got it back because Goldberg was a part time guy, and WWE wanted someone full time to carry the belt. Then he put over Benoit clean (multiple times). Yes, he got it back because Benoit was a flop as a headliner. He then singlehandedly made Batista a superstar. He then put over Cena the following year.

I'm curious what more you felt he should have done.

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.

[Mr. Nerfect]

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.

Beautiful post.

I wasn't even a massive Goldberg mark, but my interest in RAW dropped to 0 when Triple H walked out of the Chamber champion. Almost as egregious as the Booker T fiasco. I was surprised to see it come up as often as it did in your "jumping the shark" podcast recently, although it makes total sense.

[DAMN iNATOR]

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.

Let's just say there's a reason I decided to AVOID the Batista discussion between you two. Mostly because I don't want to end up endlessly arguing with CyNick, but that's a whole different issue altogether.

[KIRA]

And for the record there was in fact a point were Booker T as a heel was played completely straight. He had a stint after it was reveled that his was complicit in his wife's cheating to help him win matches.

[Tom Guycott]

"Errybody knows, wants to know, you don't know me? You don't know me?"

"...and you don't know what I'm cap'pul of!"

[#1-norm-fan]

Beautiful post.

I wasn't even a massive Goldberg mark, but my interest in RAW dropped to 0 when Triple H walked out of the Chamber champion. Almost as egregious as the Booker T fiasco. I was surprised to see it come up as often as it did in your "jumping the shark" podcast recently, although it makes total sense.

I wouldn't put it as a "jumping the shark" moment since it definitely wasn't the definitive moment when shit went downhill. It was pretty bad though.

Goldberg's presence/"aura" was really all he had going for him. WCW built it up properly, made him a star and put the title on him.

WWE finally had Goldberg to for their own... and decided to kill his aura AND THEN put the title on him. What?

[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.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Heh heh.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I wouldn't put it as a "jumping the shark" moment since it definitely wasn't the definitive moment when shit went downhill. It was pretty bad though.

Goldberg's presence/"aura" was really all he had going for him. WCW built it up properly, made him a star and put the title on him.

WWE finally had Goldberg to for their own... and decided to kill his aura AND THEN put the title on him. What?

I wouldn't have put it as a jumping the shark moment either, but it definitely does stand out as a majorly dumb move. I LOL'd at CyNick saying "when the time was right" in regards to Goldie getting the belt, I'll be honest.

It sucked in the same way that Jeff Jarrett beating Monty Brown sucked, but on a much larger scale.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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.

Oh that's because hhh was a monster amazing next level super sayan heel. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the same way Vince and I do.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The money was in Triple H facing Batista in 2005, remember? After they failed to make that money off Triple H vs. Randy Orton in 2004...

[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?

[Lock Jaw]

Also, RVD is terrible and should have never been anywhere near the WWE Title.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Also, RVD is terrible and should have never been anywhere near the WWE Title.

I'd say in the ring he wasn't great but he had an undeniable connection with the audience and could put on a hell of a show. Oh lol and he couldn't talk either. But he certainly had am it factor about him. Pretty neutral towards him tbh. Worst working punched ever.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I was never the biggest RVD mark, but he was over enough to be in the main event picture. It seemed a lot of time was spent trying to cool him.

[Mr. Nerfect]

You have a guy that over, you try and make money off him. And I'm sure the WWE did, but not as much as they could have obviously.

[DAMN iNATOR]

If he hadn't fucked up shortly after beating Cena, Van Dam could have had a really tremendous run as simultaneous WWE and ECW Champions.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think they would have taken the WWE Title off him before too long. He did fuck up, but it doesn't change the company fucking up with him for the better part of five years up to that point.

[Armchair Booker]

WE GOT SOME WARFARE GOING ON IN HERE?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

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

[Simple Fan]

I really don't need the CyNick, I mean WWE is pretty much dead set on Roman Reigns being the top baby face and tonight set that in motion. Sheamus as champ is better than Reigns at this point and pretty much they're trying to recreate a Daniel Bryan scenerio where Reigns keeps getting screwed out of the title. I don't think it will work but it seems like the plan. Reigns probably gets screwed at TLC and then wins the Rumble. Could see Cena returning and winning the title off Sheamus at The Royal Rumble to set up Reigns/Cena.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Reigns might win it at TLC in order to get to Reigns vs. Brock too. I don't care either way.

[The CyNick]

I dont know if he purposely did it but there was more money in Booker than whst he got. Eddie and Benoit jumped ship to WWF before they acquired WCW. That's different than Booker who was acquired in the sell. They jumped ship and Vince rewarded them.

Maybe. But the IWC narrative is that Vince won't push guys he didn't create. He didn't create Chris Benoit. Yet he still had him there in MSG closing out his marquee event.

To me both Eddie and Benoit were better than Booker T, so they made the right call putting over those guys instead of Booker. But that's just a matter of opinion.

[The CyNick]

<font color=goldenrod>I'm pretty sure that's how most of us feel. We can argue whether or not Booker should have won in any scenario no matter what, but it's just really shoddy storytelling to basically tell the dude that he won't win the belt because he's black and then go out and prove it. At least if they avoided the race angle and Booker just put up a good fight in defeat, it wouldn't have felt insulting.

What's worse is Triple H went on record and said that people mistinterpreted the Booker T angle. "You people" was meant to be a slight on WCW alumni. Suuuuuuuure.</font>

I hear you, I just don't think it's s big issue. Like I said, the angle did no damage to Booker. He is who he is, he is a upper mid card guy. To me he in no way deserved to beat Hunter, no matter what the storyline.

If Booker's career would have been ruined by not rising up for black people, I would understand the criticism. But that didn't happen, he went on to become even more popular. So I would say WWE did the right thing with .

[The CyNick]

All those nappy haired wcw wrasslers. Booker I believed should have went over to breath some life into raw which was very stagnant, cuz as cynick is trying to ignore, he gained a lot of steam BUT that's a different argument, and win vs loss is less egregious.

A lot of guys can gain stream, but being able to carry the ball is a totally different thing. I personally never saw Booker as a top guy.

[The CyNick]

How anyone can think that a 34-second gap between the Pedigree and a cover in that storyline is anything short of shitty is beyond me. CyNick cannot possibly believe this shit.

I also laugh at the basic implication: "When Booker T ended up being terribly booked, he ended up exactly where I thought he would -- a poorly booked upper mid-card guy." I'm NOT saying that Booker T could have changed the industry, and I'm not saying he WOULDN'T have. That is besides the point. I just want people to reflect on how over the guy was and how the WWE booked him from day dot with the company, and reflect on whether or not that might have affected the ceiling EDITED: lovely folk like CyNick put on him.

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?

[The CyNick]

It will only add to his delusions that he's a maverick/rogue in the same light as Han Solo.

Now i wish i watched Star Trek and understood the reference

[The CyNick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Sticks and stones.

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

I edited for Gorgeous Dale and his sensibilities, not for you. Don't flatter yourself, bro.

[Mr. Nerfect]

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?

This post is full of that "one or the other" horse shit that is such a logical fallacy that it's not even worth replying to. This is where a Cornette face becomes appropriate.

Fans popped for Hardcore Holly when he came back from injury. Whoop-dee-fuck. He was booked shit, you're wrong. It's not even opinion. You can look at his actual win-loss record and statistically record how he performed as a champion. You can subjectively like Seth Rollins and his sports entertainment-style of losing as champion all you like; but you cannot argue that he was booked well without damaging your own integrity.

[Mr. Nerfect]

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.

No.

[Mr. Nerfect]

broverboard is tremendous.

[Damian Rey]

Remember even CyNick went to the source for that tweet he cited, only he didn't?

Also, did you guys know Triple H was pinned less than 10 times from the minute he won the title from Foley all the way through Backlash 2000? Two of those times Austin cost him the title.

I like how the losing champ argument went from "a heel can't win all the time or it'll turn him face" to "well Hunter lost the key matches".

Wanna know a key match? Summer Slam 03. Elimination Chamber that Goldberg dominates, the crowd hot for him to take the belt, only for him t lose to Triple H, who had taken a 30 minute nap.

Instead they waited to a lesser show, in a forgettable match nobody remembers.

[Lock Jaw]

HHH and Shawn Michaels for the most part.

And Eugene!

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yeah, don't remember Triple H losing too many "key" matches. He beat Booker T in their key match; he beat Goldberg in their key match; he beat Randy Orton in their key match. That takes us through until Batista.

[The CyNick]

I edited for Gorgeous Dale and his sensibilities, not for you. Don't flatter yourself, bro.

sure sure

[Mr. Nerfect]

:|

You are a cunt, Gorgeous Dale is not. Real simple.

[The CyNick]

HHH and Shawn Michaels for the most part.

And Benoit beat one or both of them on three PPVs. Yet somehow he wasnt the focal point.

[The CyNick]

Remember even CyNick went to the source for that tweet he cited, only he didn't?

Also, did you guys know Triple H was pinned less than 10 times from the minute he won the title from Foley all the way through Backlash 2000? Two of those times Austin cost him the title.

I like how the losing champ argument why from "a heel can't win all the time or it'll turn him face" to "well Hunter lost the key matches".

Wanna know a key match? Summer Slam 03. Elimination Chamber that Goldberg dominates, the crowd hot for him to take the belt, only for him t lose to Triple H, who had taken a 30 minute nap.

Instead they waited to a lesser show, in a forgettable match nobody remembers.

Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it built heat. Point is, Hunter still put him over for the strap.

Do you really think it made a huge difference? Rock probably should have won the belt at 16, but he actually won the next month. Did that prevent Rock from being a massively over babyface? Did it prevent him from being the most recognizable talent in the company's history? Rock is talented, he made it work. If you really think Goldberg not winning at one PPV vs another made a difference, well, you are a card carrying member of the IWC.

[The CyNick]

:|

You are a cunt, Gorgeous Dale is not. Real simple.

Most people of greatness are hated in their time.

[The CyNick]

BTW I think its time for a new storyline

[Mr. Nerfect]

Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it built heat. Point is, Hunter still put him over for the strap.

Do you really think it made a huge difference? Rock probably should have won the belt at 16, but he actually won the next month. Did that prevent Rock from being a massively over babyface? Did it prevent him from being the most recognizable talent in the company's history? Rock is talented, he made it work. If you really think Goldberg not winning at one PPV vs another made a difference, well, you are a card carrying member of the IWC.

Or, you know, can see how business dipped after they did it.

P.S. Haha, I don't hate you. You're just a cunt.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

And Benoit beat one or both of them on three PPVs. Yet somehow he wasnt the focal point.

I like how repeating exactly what happened in a sarcastic tone some how makes it not a fact.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

BTW I think its time for a new storyline

Rey Misterio's terrible title run

[The CyNick]

Or, you know, can see how business dipped after they did it.

P.S. Haha, I don't hate you. You're just a cunt.

So business was rising up until Summerslam, and then it went down right after?

I honestly dont remember, maybe it did.

[The CyNick]

Rey Misterio's terrible title run

Good intention, Vince trying to do something nice, but Rey was just way too unbelievable as champion.

I think I kinda tuned out around that time so hard to comment.

[Mr. Nerfect]

So business was rising up until Summerslam, and then it went down right after?

I honestly dont remember, maybe it did.

About 500,000 people tuned out.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Good intention, Vince trying to do something nice, but Rey was just way too unbelievable as champion.

I think I kinda tuned out around that time so hard to comment.

they jobbed him mercilessly as champion of their company lol

[Simple Fan]

you are a card carrying member of the IWC.

Being a member of this forum pretty much makes you member of the IWC. Yes that means you too CyNick.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

what Simple Fan said

[Damian Rey]

Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it built heat. Point is, Hunter still put him over for the strap.

Do you really think it made a huge difference? Rock probably should have won the belt at 16, but he actually won the next month. Did that prevent Rock from being a massively over babyface? Did it prevent him from being the most recognizable talent in the company's history? Rock is talented, he made it work. If you really think Goldberg not winning at one PPV vs another made a difference, well, you are a card carrying member of the IWC.

I like that you're dancing around the topic and trying to go off track. Nobody is bringing up how big of a star Rock was.

Of course when he lost matters, because you yourself pointed out that he lost the "key"matches, which isn't entirely the case. He walked out of two marquees main events as champ. Key matches don't happen at secondary events. Hunter won the big matches, then jobbed at the lesser show. Unless of course you consider backlash and whatever b show he lost to Goldberg on a key event.

You're also trying to dance around your original "heels can't win often" statement you used to defend the Rollins booking by saying "well Hunter won, but lost the key matches and lost a lot in his initial run", which is statistically false.

Your name should be SpiNick instead.

[CSL]

Good intention, Vince trying to do something nice, but Rey was just way too unbelievable as champion.

I think I kinda tuned out around that time so hard to comment.

nope, was all business in terms of Hispanic TV numbers and a huge groundswell of support from the boys and the writers for Rey. Vince was the one person that needed to be convinced to run with it, which didn't last very long, hence the not so glamourous title run.

[Damian Rey]

CSL being smart and handsome. A deadly yet undeniable trait.

[The CyNick]

About 500,000 people tuned out.

From when to when? Like are you saying one RAW was say 5 million viewers, then Goldberg lost at Summerslam and next week was 4.5 million viewers?

[The CyNick]

they jobbed him mercilessly as champion of their company lol

Because he never should have been champion in the first place. Most of my friends are casual fans at best of WWE. I always remember my friends saying it looks dumb when Rey fights someone like Kane or Taker. So you have to book Rey like an underdog.

[The CyNick]

I like that you're dancing around the topic and trying to go off track. Nobody is bringing up how big of a star Rock was.

Of course when he lost matters, because you yourself pointed out that he lost the "key"matches, which isn't entirely the case. He walked out of two marquees main events as champ. Key matches don't happen at secondary events. Hunter won the big matches, then jobbed at the lesser show. Unless of course you consider backlash and whatever b show he lost to Goldberg on a key event.

You're also trying to dance around your original "heels can't win often" statement you used to defend the Rollins booking by saying "well Hunter won, but lost the key matches and lost a lot in his initial run", which is statistically false.

Your name should be SpiNick instead.

Someone said Trips put off losing to Goldberg at the big show (Summerslam), in favor of another show. My response was they did that with Rocky in 2000 and it didn't impact his success one bit. My point is if Goldberg was going to be able to hold an audience, him winning the belt 4 weeks later would not have made a difference. Goldberg fizzled out just like he did in WCW because his act is a short term act. There's no sustainability to his gimmick.

Regarding the losing. My point with Rollins was he can't just dominate every babyface within the first 6 months of his reign. This was in n reference to losing matches primarily to Cena. Hunter was in a different position. In his first year after winning the belt, he not only lost matches, but he lost the belt to unworthy opponents. In the end, he got over, because he's talented. In the 03-05 timeframe he's a different type of champion, but even still, he was booked similarly to Rollins in that he defended the title against the B players (Kane, Ambrose, Booker, RVD) but lost to the A players (Goldberg, Batista, etc and then in Rollins case it would have been losing to Reigns).

I get it, HHH is the devil in these parts. You need someone to point to and blame the shortcomings of your favourites on.

[Damian Rey]

Someone said Trips put off losing to Goldberg at the big show (Summerslam), in favor of another show. My response was they did that with Rocky in 2000 and it didn't impact his success one bit. My point is if Goldberg was going to be able to hold an audience, him winning the belt 4 weeks later would not have made a difference. Goldberg fizzled out just like he did in WCW because his act is a short term act. There's no sustainability to his gimmick.

Regarding the losing. My point with Rollins was he can't just dominate every babyface within the first 6 months of his reign. This was in n reference to losing matches primarily to Cena. Hunter was in a different position. In his first year after winning the belt, he not only lost matches, but he lost the belt to unworthy opponents. In the end, he got over, because he's talented. In the 03-05 timeframe he's a different type of champion, but even still, he was booked similarly to Rollins in that he defended the title against the B players (Kane, Ambrose, Booker, RVD) but lost to the A players (Goldberg, Batista, etc and then in Rollins case it would have been losing to Reigns).

I get it, HHH is the devil in these parts. You need someone to point to and blame the shortcomings of your favourites on.

Christ. You said, above, Hunter lost the key matches. And you're wrong. He lost secondary matches after winning the big match hyped at the headline events. Stop beating around the bush. Everyone can see you wrote "key matches" and everyone knows the key matches happened at Summer Slam and Mania, not b shows.

You also pointed out that Hunter, supposedly, didn't go around dominating in his initial reign, which you were wrong about again. Hunter constantly got dq'd and was rarely pinned in his initial run, and two of those pins saw him being shafted and were far from clean.

You keep trying to change the subject but it's clear that because you're too lazy to fact check you're instead trying to pull info out of your ass and making false statements, only to back track and try and change direction of conversation.

Case in point, please point out something I've said blaming Hunter for beating a wrestler I like. Can you cite it? Or is it another one of your SpiNick tactics to distract others from calling you out on your forever changing stance.

[The CyNick]

Christ. You said, above, Hunter lost the key matches. And you're wrong. He lost secondary matches after winning the big match hyped at the headline events. Stop beating around the bush. Everyone can see you wrote "key matches" and everyone knows the key matches happened at Summer Slam and Mania, not b shows.

You also pointed out that Hunter, supposedly, didn't go around dominating in his initial reign, which you were wrong about again. Hunter constantly got dq'd and was rarely pinned in his initial run, and two of those pins saw him being shafted and were far from clean.

You keep trying to change the subject but it's clear that because you're too lazy to fact check you're instead trying to pull info out of your ass and making false statements, only to back track and try and change direction of conversation.

Case in point, please point out something I've said blaming Hunter for beating a wrestler I like. Can you cite it? Or is it another one of your SpiNick tactics to distract others from calling you out on your forever changing stance.

Here I thought Mania 20, 21, and 22 were pretty big shows.

I haven't changed the discussion at all. Can someone explain why Rock got over by losing at Mania then winning the next month vs the Goldberg losing at Summerslam deal? Its the exact same scenario, but according to IWC logic it caused Goldberg to be a dead character and yet with Rocky it didn't hurt him one bit.

[Damian Rey]

Can you quote where I said that?

You said he lost a lot in his initial run. False. You said he lost "key" matches. False. Now you're trying to argue "well it didn't hurt business", which isn't the point.

You're arguing a point with yourself. You said Hunte lost like Rollins. Wrong. You said he lost key matches. Wrong. Everything else your spewing to avoid acknowledging that, including this new Wrestlemania malarkey you're now bringing up i is irrelevant.

Spin spin spin.

[Damian Rey]

And let us not forget.

"Heels have to lose or they'll go face".

"Triple H didn't lose much at from 2002-2005".

"Well he lost the key matches".

"Didn't be beat a shit hot Goldberg in the Summer Slam main event and drop the belt at a later b show and win a Mania main event?"

"Well it didn't hurt Goldberg or the business and the point is he still lost and he also lost at a bunch of events nobody else is referencing and iwc logic wants to blame for beating guys they like and boy the Rock did just fine in losing and Hunter was different but lost initially and the key matches and don't get butt hurt and call Triple H the devil and BAH GAWD BATISTA".

"...."

[The CyNick]

I'll give you guys credit, you guys are amazing at ignoring facts that disprove your theory.

Hunter lost key/big matches such as Mania 20, 21 and 22. This is during the period you guys are talking about where he supposedly never lost. Every year he lost the BIG MATCH, usually at Mania.

SEPARATE FROM THAT he lost key matches to Goldberg. You're right, he didn't win the clusterf match at Summerslam where everyone would have accused him of dropping the strap in a multi person match vs losing it one on one. He then went on the next TWO PPVs including a "key" PPV called Survivor Series and put over Goldy in the middle. Goldberg proved he wasn't in it for the long haul, so they put the belt back on Hunter, but didnt even do it one on one. Hunter then went on to put over Benoit for the next 6 months, including the biggest match to that point at Mania.

Now, let's explore the issue of the impact of Goldberg not winning at Summerslam. I believe it was our good friend Noid who said WWE lost like 500k viewers or something. I don't know if that's true, but I'll take his word for it. In 2000, Rock was in a similar position, he won the belt a month after the big match, and business didn't collapse. It causes me to pause and ask what was the difference? The obvious answer to me is Rock was far superior to Goldberg, and Goldberg would have never worked long term because he's so limited. But that's a point of opinion, I concede.

I also never said Hunter and Seth were booked EXACTLY the same. I just pointed out some similarities. The narrative on these parts in Rollins lost "all the time", which is BS. My line about heels winning all the time doesn't apply to Hunter, because as I've pointed out numerous times, in every year he was champion, he lost to the challenger in that year. 2000 it was Rock, 03 is it was Goldberg, 04 it was Benoit, 05 it was Batista, 06 it was Cena. But ya'll want to ignore all that. No worries though, just makes for a fun back and forth.

[The CyNick]

About 500,000 people tuned out.

In 2002 Unforgiven did 44% fewer buys than Summerslam.

In 2003 Unforgiven did 23% fewer buys than Summerslam.

Unforgiven YoY was 20% higher in 2003. So business didn't decline in the key area.

[Damian Rey]

I'll give you guys credit, you guys are amazing at ignoring facts that disprove your theory.

Hunter lost key/big matches such as Mania 20, 21 and 22. This is during the period you guys are talking about where he supposedly never lost. Every year he lost the BIG MATCH, usually at Mania.

SEPARATE FROM THAT he lost key matches to Goldberg. You're right, he didn't win the clusterf match at Summerslam where everyone would have accused him of dropping the strap in a multi person match vs losing it one on one. He then went on the next TWO PPVs including a "key" PPV called Survivor Series and put over Goldy in the middle. Goldberg proved he wasn't in it for the long haul, so they put the belt back on Hunter, but didnt even do it one on one. Hunter then went on to put over Benoit for the next 6 months, including the biggest match to that point at Mania.

Now, let's explore the issue of the impact of Goldberg not winning at Summerslam. I believe it was our good friend Noid who said WWE lost like 500k viewers or something. I don't know if that's true, but I'll take his word for it. In 2000, Rock was in a similar position, he won the belt a month after the big match, and business didn't collapse. It causes me to pause and ask what was the difference? The obvious answer to me is Rock was far superior to Goldberg, and Goldberg would have never worked long term because he's so limited. But that's a point of opinion, I concede.

I also never said Hunter and Seth were booked EXACTLY the same. I just pointed out some similarities. The narrative on these parts in Rollins lost "all the time", which is BS. My line about heels winning all the time doesn't apply to Hunter, because as I've pointed out numerous times, in every year he was champion, he lost to the challenger in that year. 2000 it was Rock, 03 is it was Goldberg, 04 it was Benoit, 05 it was Batista, 06 it was Cena. But ya'll want to ignore all that. No worries though, just makes for a fun back and forth.

http://usatlife.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tumblr_m8q9trdfcm1ro8ysbo1_500.gif?w=500&h=212

[The CyNick]

http://usatlife.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/tumblr_m8q9trdfcm1ro8ysbo1_500.gif?w=500&h=212

Classic I have no response response.

Par for the course.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Because he never should have been champion in the first place. Most of my friends are casual fans at best of WWE. I always remember my friends saying it looks dumb when Rey fights someone like Kane or Taker. So you have to book Rey like an underdog.

LMFAO THEN DON'T PUT THE BELT ON HIM

[#1-norm-fan]

lol These SHEEP avoiding FACTS so they can believe what they wanna believe, right Cynick!?! Anyways...

I've honestly never seen another situation in any form of scripted entertainment where two people in the middle of a heated feud seemingly became best friends again off-camera between episodes with no explanation...

Because that would be some all-time horrible writing and outside of WWE currently, even the trashiest, shittiest TV shows and movies have higher writing standards than that.

Anything on that yet or nah?

[Mr. Nerfect]

From when to when? Like are you saying one RAW was say 5 million viewers, then Goldberg lost at Summerslam and next week was 4.5 million viewers?

4 million dropped to 3.5 million. They tuned in after SummerSlam and then the massive drop off in the weeks after.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Someone said Trips put off losing to Goldberg at the big show (Summerslam), in favor of another show. My response was they did that with Rocky in 2000 and it didn't impact his success one bit. My point is if Goldberg was going to be able to hold an audience, him winning the belt 4 weeks later would not have made a difference. Goldberg fizzled out just like he did in WCW because his act is a short term act. There's no sustainability to his gimmick.

Regarding the losing. My point with Rollins was he can't just dominate every babyface within the first 6 months of his reign. This was in n reference to losing matches primarily to Cena. Hunter was in a different position. In his first year after winning the belt, he not only lost matches, but he lost the belt to unworthy opponents. In the end, he got over, because he's talented. In the 03-05 timeframe he's a different type of champion, but even still, he was booked similarly to Rollins in that he defended the title against the B players (Kane, Ambrose, Booker, RVD) but lost to the A players (Goldberg, Batista, etc and then in Rollins case it would have been losing to Reigns).

I get it, HHH is the devil in these parts. You need someone to point to and blame the shortcomings of your favourites on.

THERE'S NO SUSTAINABILITY IN THE GIMMICK ONCE YOU SHOOT IT IN THE HEAD FUCKING DEAD!!!!!

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

With Goldberg they struck when the iron was no longer hot. Yeah they gave him the belt, but it was at the wrong time.

Same can be said for Angle in 2001. Summerslam was the place to do it, but they decided to do it at Unforgiven (I believe) instead. The match was good but not as scorchingly intense as Summerslam and therefore the win didn't have the same hootzbah.

You can say for days, for weeks, for months, for years "Vince did this by doing that" but it doesn't take a genius to know when they're all in on someone and when they have a toe dipped in the water.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

And yes, it can literally be one event, one ppv, one wrong move that derails anyone. Particularly if the company doesn't really believe in them and is looking to de push them. You don't need the dirtsheets to tell how a lot of this stuff just plays out on t.v.

When I was 9 years old I could tell Bret Hart was getting the shit end of the stick in the build up towards the Iron Man Match. Not nec. the wrong move since he was going the way and Shawn was the guy, but you could tell the direction they were going. It was pretty fucking obvious... and I was NINE YEARS OLD. I didn't know what an internet was. And honestly as a Bret fan I remember feeling a little cheesed and that intrinsically Bret could have looked like more of a badass going in, instead of an afterthought.

[KIRA]

I have a few more things for Cynick


1.Is there anytime you ever thought Vince missed the boat on a wrestler it seems like you think WWE can do no wrong.

2. What was the point of bringing in Sting literally the last soldier of WCW and Jobbing him?

3.WWE not pushing Dolph to the moon after Survivor Series what sense did it make to give him such a ridiculously strong showing and then drop it?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

CyNick is amazing because he actually gets mentioned everywhere in the forum. He can talk a load of horse shit but literally everything is revolving around him because of his posting technique. It is actually in its own right downright impressive.

[KIRA]

OOo I got one more Cynick, defend the amazingly unnecessary pile of shit that was Barack vs Hilary.

[Shadrick]

this thing went 7 pages? jesus. this country used to be so great.

trump 4 prez.

[Rammsteinmad]

I've got a good one for CyNick to explain.

Sean O'Haire.

[Mr. Nerfect]

CyNick is not amazing. He's a bearded woman that walked out of a car crash. This fascination with his horse shit will tire out very soon and he will disappear again.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

hahaha fair enough. We will see! I think I just appreciate that we're talking about wrestling and not inundated with the backyard threads.

[Big Vic]

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.
Racist