|
I forgot to touch on merchandising, DVD/Network specials, documentaries, the potential torch-passing loss, etc. I could have gotten another half-dozen bullet points out of those.
Triple H didn't need the win to have heat or credibility in the WWE. The loss hurts Sting more than it helps Triple H. It's really that simple. And you can say that I'm a nobody that thinks I know better than the WWE, but I'm not the only one saying it. A lot of really successful people in the industry have come out and said they thought it sucked a giant donkey dick and made no sense from a business or creative standpoint. I'm not appealing to authority like you are with the WWE, but rather pointing out that there are a lot of people who aren't nobodies that would agree with me -- rendering your ad hominem assault pretty pointless.
Your only point other than "The WWE are giant and therefore know what they are doing," like they haven't made a bad decision in their existence, is "Triple H beating Sting is good because he can now get Seth Rollins, the World Champion, to beat him and make him look great." Except Seth Rollins is about to beat the guy that Triple H himself beat, which renders it all a little redundant, doesn't it? Why get A to beat B to give the rub to C if C is going to beat B anyway?
And if Sting can't beat a dude just ten years younger than him, what chance does he have against someone thirty years younger than him?
Last edited by Mr. Nerfect; 09-06-2015 at 08:08 PM.
|