Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHart
So wait, you're saying that Triple H, during his nearly 3 year domination of Raw where he held the title 5 times, for a total of 616 days, wasn't booked as a monster heel? When HHH came back from injury in 2002, he was unstoppable. It wasn't until the program with Orton that he started to show signs of a chicken heel. That was 2 years after his return.
The rest of those guys I agree with, but Triple H, in my opinion is exactly how you build up the perfect heel. He was simply invincible from 2002-2005.
He probably didn't win cleanly every match, but he destroyed everyone that came into his path. That's the important part. The Nexus doesn't have to win cleanly. They need to destroy everyone they go up against using the numbers game and whatever it takes to pull a win. Don't have Cena be the first opponent, he's Superman. You start with midcarders and work up to the Cenas and the Ortons.
Just my two cents.
|
Triple H won more than he should have, but that made his absolutely detestable to not only marks, but smarks. Some of Triple H's victories were clean, but keep in mind that a lot of those were the ones that we critically protested the most. For example, I don't think I was alone in being pissed off that Booker T didn't win the World Heavyweight Title at WrestleMania XIX after he was essentially told by Triple H on the air that "people like him" don't win World Championships. Especially after a Pedigree that Triple H took his time to follow up with a pin.
There were also other flubs, such as having Triple H retain the World Heavyweight Title in the Elimination Chamber where Goldberg should have DESTROYED Triple H. The flip-side to that is that Goldberg's character never had much depth, and that without invulnerability, Billy G. had nothing. But at the same time, Triple H used a sledgehammer slipped to him by arguably the greatest heel of all-time in Ric Flair, and cracked Goldberg over the skull with it.
Triple H was a cunning heel in this period, that hogged the spotlight, held onto the World Title far more than he needed to, and really didn't do much to help the credibility or interest surrounding the title (the WWE Title scene was far more interesting at the time, and that title switched from Brock Lesnar to Big Show to Kurt Angle back to Lesnar, back to Angle, etc.). When he did drop off the title, during this period, it was only really to his friends or because he had to, and then won it back quickly. It wasn't the best stuff, but the very worst of it was the very stuff we criticsed at the time.
Besides Triple H being Triple H; if Wade Barrett did essentially the same thing, and squashed a rising babyface (let's say Daniel Bryan) to retain the World Title -- how would we feel? Pissed off, and we'd criticse the shit out of it because the babyface should have won.
As has been said: The Nexus look strong because they are dominating right now. They put Vince McMahon, they've put The Undertaker out -- fuck, those are the two constants of the WWE right there. Wade Barrett OWNS John Cena right now. He probably won't for much longer; but he'll probably ride John Cena to a WWE Title reign. How is that weak?
The other Nexus guys are also laying out essentially everyone, and while they might look like henchmen, they have all been champions and gotten MASSIVE victories. I won't repeat the guys who the respective members of Nexus have falls over. It's also very rare that they take falls, unless they are in elimination matches, where guys are meant to be eliminated. They are constantly landing big hits on top WWE Superstars.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but I just don't see the evidence you are presenting as supportive of it. Especially since the guys in Nexus are still in the biggest push of their young careers when they haven't even been on the main roster for a year. And that's counting NXT as the "main roster."