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

... 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.

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

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

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

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

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+.

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.

<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>

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>

<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>

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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">

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.

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.

Steiner: HUH? HUH? HUH?

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.

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.

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

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

<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>

<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>

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.

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

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

Already happened.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Isnt KoKo B Ware a Hall of Famer?

How would you describe him?

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 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.

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?

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.

Oh wow.

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.

Disagree?

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

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.

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

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

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.

Hahahahaha!

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

that is just terrible logic.

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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

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!"

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.

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.

HHH didn't do anything wrong but at the time Batista's mic skills were pretty awful.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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