TPWW Forums
Page 7 of 16 123456 7 8910111213141516
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

TPWW Forums (https://www.tpwwforums.com/index.php)
-   wrestling forum (https://www.tpwwforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   The thread where we get CyNick to defend maligned storylines, and tell us how we don't understand... (https://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=130639)

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-24-2015 09:06 PM
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 11-24-2015 09:11 PM
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 11-24-2015 09:13 PM
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 11-24-2015 09:16 PM
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 11-25-2015 12:18 AM
OOo I got one more Cynick, defend the amazingly unnecessary pile of shit that was Barack vs Hilary.

Shadrick 11-25-2015 03:30 AM
this thing went 7 pages? jesus. this country used to be so great.

trump 4 prez.

Rammsteinmad 11-25-2015 05:52 AM
I've got a good one for CyNick to explain.

Sean O'Haire.

Mr. Nerfect 11-25-2015 07:49 AM
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 11-25-2015 09:10 AM
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 11-25-2015 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4734319)
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

Nark Order 11-25-2015 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4734306)
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 .
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)

Nark Order 11-25-2015 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4735164)
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.
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.

hb2k 11-26-2015 09:30 AM
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRA (Post 4735445)
OOo I got one more Cynick, defend the amazingly unnecessary pile of shit that was Barack vs Hilary.
I don't even remember that. Sounds awful.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRA (Post 4735389)
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?
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad (Post 4735500)
I've got a good one for CyNick to explain.

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

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noid (Post 4735514)
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.
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus (Post 4735625)
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)
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.

Shadrick 11-26-2015 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736029)
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus (Post 4735653)
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.
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hb2k (Post 4735990)
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.
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadrick (Post 4736030)
I think you're listening to people to respond, and not to understand. This reply right here is a really big example.
No its not. I responded to everything he brought up.

Simple Fan 11-26-2015 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736024)
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.
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.

Simple Fan 11-26-2015 01:52 PM
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple Fan (Post 4736034)
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.
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple Fan (Post 4736035)
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.
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?

Vastardikai 11-26-2015 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple Fan (Post 4736035)
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.
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.

CSL 11-26-2015 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736024)
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.
u wot m8

Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736029)
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.
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.

Vastardikai 11-26-2015 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736043)
Lol Sting is way below HHH in terms of all time greats. Come on now.
SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!!!

DAMN iNATOR 11-26-2015 02:35 PM
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSL (Post 4736046)
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.
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.

The CyNick 11-26-2015 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastardikai (Post 4736045)
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.
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?

The CyNick 11-26-2015 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR (Post 4736048)
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.
I just think Trips had a bigger impact and drew more money. A lot more.

Vastardikai 11-26-2015 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736050)
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?
You overestimate his business acumen and underestimate his inferiority complex.

Simple Fan 11-26-2015 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736050)
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?
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.

Simple Fan 11-26-2015 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736043)
Lol Sting is way below HHH in terms of all time greats. Come on now.
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.

Simple Fan 11-26-2015 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736043)
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 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.

DAMN iNATOR 11-26-2015 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4736051)
I just think Trips had a bigger impact and drew more money. A lot more.
And I'm telling you, you think wrong.

Maluco 11-26-2015 04:30 PM
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.

Simple Fan 11-26-2015 04:45 PM
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?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 PM.
Page 7 of 16 123456 7 8910111213141516
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin®