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

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.

No.

broverboard is tremendous.

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.

And Eugene!

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.

sure sure

:|

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

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

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.

Most people of greatness are hated in their time.

BTW I think its time for a new storyline

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.

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

Rey Misterio's terrible title run

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

I honestly dont remember, maybe it did.

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.

About 500,000 people tuned out.

they jobbed him mercilessly as champion of their company lol

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

what Simple Fan said

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 being smart and handsome. A deadly yet undeniable trait.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

"...."

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.

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.

Classic I have no response response.

Par for the course.

LMFAO THEN DON'T PUT THE BELT ON HIM

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

Anything on that yet or nah?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

trump 4 prez.

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

Sean O'Haire.

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.

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

Racist

Dude. Hunter disparraged him for being black and insinuated that he would never win the WWE Championship because he is black. Then Triple H beat him and Booker T indeed never won the WWE Championship. What aren't you getting about how ridiculous and fucked up that is? I mean, it is insane to the point of being comical.

I'm not saying he would have been the greatest of all time and that he NEEDED to win under all circumstances. But if you are going to turn the storyline racial and have Triple H claim that Booker is a lesser talent because of his skin color (which he did do), then Triple H winning is reinforcing the point of white racial superiority. There's no real way around that. That is essentially what they did. It was such an odd and fairly insulting way for a WM match to end.

And there is no argument. It was racially charged. He meant "you people" as black people. Him backtracking and saying he was referring to WCW guys is absurd. He handed him a dollar. Why would he possibly do that if it was meant to be about people in WCW? There was most definitely racial and socioeconomic undertones. (I dont think youre denying it, it was just brought up earlier)

He lost matches once his spot was absolutely secure and there was no chance of him ever losing it to anybody. I don't argue that Triple H is a shithead overall, especially due to some of the stuff he's doing now. Although, I think it is more than clear that when he was coming up, he was a very involved backstage politician and did some sneaky shit to get to where he is. He was constantly in the bookers ears and getting things done the way he wanted them. He would disparrage guys behind their backs to management. Every thing you could do to secure a spot, he did. I'm not going to get into the Stephanie wormhole but that happened shortly after Shawn left, which is the time where he needed new coattails to hold on to. I'm not saying that he did it intentionally, but if he were to make an intentional move to move up in the company and secure your spot, there isn't a better one to make.

Also, that entire point is utterly tone deaf, as by your own admission that the man in the big match every year is Triple H. Meaning that even if he loses, he keeps his position.

The point shouldn't be that he didn't lose, losing is just the easiest indicator of the wider point - he didn't elevate anybody beyond Batista and never got out of the fucking way despite numbers showing there's an issue with basing things around him.

I don't even remember that. Sounds awful.

1. This is an example of not reading everything I write (which BTW you should). I've stated on numerous occasions there were things I didn't like. Reid Flair angle was a recent example.

2. Sting served his purpose. Long term money was building up a match between Hunter and Rollins. Having Hunter lose to someone like Sting would have hurt the money match. This is similar to the Booker discussion, where clearly Booker wasn't the right type of guy to go over HHH. A guy like Goldberg made more sense, which they did.

3. I don't remember the specifics around Dolph. I know he says a lot of dumb stuff online. Maybe he stepped out of line and needed to be put in check.

I dunno, he sucked. What's there to explain?

Of course I will disappear at some point. I'm a part time player. My value is in limited appearances where I headline, then go away for a bit.

When I leave you guys can go back to agreeing how everything stinks and have no activity on the board.

Its not rediculous because a guy like Booker is inferior to a guy like Hunter. I personally don't like including race in an angle, but WWE did. Doesn't mean you need to change the direction. Money was in Hunter being built up with Evolution for Goldberg to conquer. Which is what happened. If Booker would have won, you lessen the impact of Goldberg's win.

Like I said before. If Booker's loss was such a big deal, why did he still go on to have success? You would think the fans would just give up on him and he would be out of the WWE within 6 months. He ended fine from the loss. This issue is something created by the IWC, it's not a real issue.

I don't know why you're hammering home the race point, I never disputed the feud had race as a tie in. Just saying I don't think you put over Booker just because he's the colored guy in the feud.

I think you're listening to people to respond, and not to understand. This reply right here is a really big example.

Sneaky shit? Care to elaborate with some facts or evidence? Or are we just throwing out random BS?

According to Hunter, Vince asked him to help out with creative long before Steph was in the picture. So if doing what the boss asks is sneaky, well call me sneaky too.

When he got the title, he's going to have say over some things, or more accurately imput. But that's no different than any top guy. The fact is, 2003 was about putting over Goldberg NOT Booker T. HHH put over Goldberg many times, including dropping the strap to him and losing rematches. In 2004 he put over Benoit the same way. In 2005 it was Batista. In 2006 it was Cena. All of those guys owe him a huge debt a gratitude for taking his heat and using it to help establish them. How far they were able to take it after he did his job is on them, has nothing to do with Hunter.

Batman needs a Joker in good vs evil

Nobody was able to take his spot as the top heel. His job was to make the top babyface look good. He did that year after year after year after year.

If no heels were able to elevate their game to pass HHH, well that's on them. In each case, I can't think of a better person to be in Hunter's position. He's truly the most underrated person in the history of WWE for all the good he did. No other top guy made as many guys as Hunter.

Which numbers are you referring to? I'm sure as a podcast host you will need to contact one of the higher ups in the IWC for some facts, but once you get them, please share.

No its not. I responded to everything he brought up.

Now you just sound dumb. There is more money in Sting than Booker and Goldberg combined. Explain how Sting beating Hunter hurts the money match. If the money match was Rollins, a Sting win at Mania would have made more sense to have Sting built up for Rollins.

Also Sting beating HHH wouldn't hurt HHH at all. Sting is one of the greatest of all time. Beter than HHH to. Hunter could have given one promo and been right back where he was. WWE has wasted Sting and made his decision not to sign with WWE years ago a smart one. Just wish he would have stayed away from WWE if they weren't going to use him right.

Its actually more than just a match with Rollins. Hunter will likely be called upon to be a special attraction on special events for years. You can't just have him lose to every guy who comes available. I would rather see Hunter beat Sting to keep an aura and then lose to guys like Rollins or Reigns or Cesaro.

Lol Sting is way below HHH in terms of all time greats. Come on now.

Look I get you are partial to Sting, so it's tough to have a rational discussion about his spot. Sting at best was going to work 3-4 matches. Even in his debut, he wasnt over like some of the huge stars (Rock, Austin, etc), so why waste a win over HHH on a guy like that?

I wasn't angry at HHH for this. He could have said no, but this was one last chance for Vince to say "Fuck you, WCW! I won!" It was incredibly pathetic, if you ask me. The commentary pissed me off the most.

u wot m8

only they did change direction because all throughout the build, Booker was scheduled to go over until Hunter got the kibosh put on it not long before Mania. And Goldberg hadn't even signed a deal, let alone debuted when they started building towards WM 19.

SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!!!

Sting is better than Triple H...maybe not by a ton, but enough so that him beating Triple H wouldn't have hurt Triple H.

And you have no room to talk about people being partial to anybody or anything, since you're EXTREMELY partial and biased towards WWE. Bet that's why you think Trips is so much better than Sting: he's WWF/WWE, Sting was WCW.

Didn't Goldberg debut right after Mania?

Even if it's true that Booker was set to go over at Mania (would be good if you had a quote from Vince to back up this claim), perhaps when they learned Goldberg would be signed, it changed the booking for Mania. Which would make perfect sense because Booker isn't on the level of Goldberg in terms of star power. So you should build to the bigger match.

How do you know that was the motivation behind the booking?

If Sting going over was the right call for business, why would Vince turn down that money?

I just think Trips had a bigger impact and drew more money. A lot more.

You overestimate his business acumen and underestimate his inferiority complex.

If Sting wins fans get behind him and buy mask, shirts and other merchandise. HHH is not going to seel anymore than what he has for years. Vince has money and doesnt worry about making the max dollar on guys he didnt create.

Sting will always be better than HHH as far as all time greats go. I wouldn't even put Hunter in the top 5. Come on now.

I dont think you even know anything about Sting other than his WWE appearances. Sting was winning World Heavyweight Championship while HHH was still terror rising.

And I'm telling you, you think wrong.

I love Triple H, but there is no way you are critiquing certain people for not having quotes or stats to back up some of their arguments, when surely you have made the same error with that statement.

There is absolutely no way to prove that Hunter made more money than Sting. There were very view events where Hunter was the main attraction (and by that I mean the reason the majority bought their ticket) and it would be impossible to count the money he made.

Same with Sting, but he was doing great business when Hunter was a jobber on his show. He did amazing business just by sitting in the rafters and watching matches. Sting is iconic and the face of WCW. If your opinion is that Hunter drew more due to his position and big matches, that's fine, but there is no way you can say he drew a lot more than Sting.

Sting is iconic and comfortably top 10 in GOAT debate, Hunter isn't IMO.

Sting has been face most his career while HHH has been a heel most of his. I'm sure Sting made more money from selling merchandise and being the face at the top of the card. But I could be wrong, is that how the business works CyNick?

My opinion Os that Barry hrowitz is better than the rock

First Booker T isn't the right guy now Sting FREAKING STING isn't the right guy.

You know this how? You read it online? Have you ever talked to the man?

Buyrates HHH dummies

House show revenue HHH dummies

Merchandise HHH dummies

Number of all time great moments and matches HHH dummies

Curious where you think Sting has HHH beat. Most TNA matches?

Sting in the rafters was the only period you could argue he made huge money for the company. Until Goldberg came along, he was the #1 face in WCW, without working. An amazing feat.

However, HHH has worked near or at the top of the card for call it 10+ Wrestlemanias, many of those were 60k+ fans in attendance. Sting headlined ONE PPV that did massive business, without looking I would say HHH probably was a key draw in 10+ PPVs that did way more than that, many doing in the million range.

HHH headlined with Austin and Rock on house show runs. I dont know what those did in terms of dollars, but no way Sting had a better run than that.

Business wise, I dont even think its close to be honest.

White Castle of Fear. That is my response to that.

The only people who would be looking to buy Sting masks are likely now in their 30s or 40s. So I'm guessing sales would be minimal. Hard to imagine a new flock of kids seeing 50+ year old Sting and saying "thats my guy".

Gotta let go of your childhood hero man.

Do you have actual numbers to back up these claims? I'm not debating with whether or not they're true. Just curious if there's factual evidence to support this.

Overall career quality. I guess you've never considered that Sting EARNED the right to be called "The Icon".

I've said it before and I'll say it again It does not matter how many times Triple H has been champ and as bad as the WWE would love for us to think so no matter how many DVDs they put out proclaimng how great he is, HHH is NOT ON THE SAME LEVEL as Taker,Austin,Rock,HBK or Sting. there is a reason no one was clamoring to see Taker V Triple H at mania there is a reason People regarded Sting v Taker as a dream match.

I know it hurts but its true He's second banana at best 3rd tier support character at worst.

Kids don't root for 50 year olds? OK here's where I have a problem with your logic. You say the program is tailored to the kids but WWE can't build up an Icon in this business good eneogh to sell Sting mask to kids. Kids will still root for Sting today and if they dont that just goes to show you how bad HHH did in their program. I suppose kids weren't cheering Undertaker any during Undertaker week seeing how old he is and all.

My youngest nephew is about 9 and (through no fault of mine) he is IN LOVE with UT to the point where we have to get him everything taker related his mom got the WWE network because he asked for more Taker.

Shit there's a video of a special needs child who requested to meet Taker.

You're not seriously comparing Sting to Taker are you? Taker has a legacy in the company that's lasted over a quarter century. Sting is not at a point where he can build such a legacy in WWE. He's gotta live off what people remember. I'm guessing a 9 year old doesn't remember Sting's WCW run.

I don't think Sting is good enough at this stage of his career to justify pushing him to the point you would need to to get little kids behind him. And if they did, watch how quickly people on here would "lol wwe they are pushing a 50 year old over Kevin Owens"

HHH was at those events and main evented many, but I just wonder how many people bought their tickets to see HHH, or even to see HHH get his comeuppance. He was a supporting star and I don't think you could argue that he sold tickets on his own.

Sting sold tickets on his name alone across quite a wide generation, people of all ages came to see Sting. I think that is the difference.

In saying that, I wouldn't use him at all now because I feel his time has passed and totally agree with you on that point.

Triple H drawing a lot more than Sting is dubious though.

Yeah Sting and Taker a very comparable, they both have legacys. My point is WWE hasnt capitalized on Stings and have left money off the table. Stings and kids go hand and hand with each other. Kids are smarter than you make them out to be. Sting doesnt have to be pushed to the moon. Why sign him if he didn't justify the selling some merchandise to kids. Like said its WWE and Vince's job to tell Stings story but all they did was stick to killing WCW again. HHH/Sting shouldn't have been anything about WCW but that's what they made it. The only time they used Sting right was the build to Night of Champions as he was playing mind games and messing with Rollins. Sting should have came in and had a big win to build him up and then been used to put talent over. I have no problem with Sting doing the job to Rollins but Rollins had just lost a match to Cena that made Sting look even weaker and did nothing for Rollins.

My point is that age doesn't factor in kids like who they like.

For myself I discovered I liked Piper as a kid I knew nothing of his previous work before showed up to challenge Hollywood hogan and by then Piper was no where near the worker he was.

You really think kids have to have an extensive knowledge of a wrestlers body of work in order to like them?

I have paid to see Triple H.

I have paid to see Triple H

There's a shocker :D