The thread where we get CyNick to defend maligned storylines, and tell us how we don't understand... - Page 6

**Damian Rey** · 11-24-2015, 02:57 PM

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".

"...."

**The CyNick** · 11-24-2015, 03:19 PM

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.

**Damian Rey** · 11-24-2015, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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.

**The CyNick** · 11-24-2015, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian Rey

Classic I have no response response.

Par for the course.

**#1-norm-fan** · 11-24-2015, 09:30 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan

I've honestly never seen another situation in any form of scripted entertainment where two people in the middle of a heated feud seemingly became best friends again off-camera between episodes with no explanation...

Because that would be some all-time horrible writing and outside of WWE currently, even the trashiest, shittiest TV shows and movies have higher writing standards than that.

Anything on that yet or nah?

**Nark Order** · 11-25-2015, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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.

**The CyNick** · 11-26-2015, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narcissus

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.

**Ol Dirty Dastard** · 11-24-2015, 10:06 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, 10:11 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, 10:13 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?

**The CyNick** · 11-26-2015, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIRA

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.

**Simple Fan** · 11-26-2015, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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.

**The CyNick** · 11-26-2015, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simple Fan

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.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 11-28-2015, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simple Fan

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.

I've explained this to CyNick COUNTLESS times, and he doesn't get it. There are many ways to skin a cat, but CyNick just can't wrap his head around how making money off Sting while that program is there before moving onto Triple H vs. Rollins makes as much sense, probably more, than Triple H beating Sting and basically using him as an enhancement to build to a potentially big match later down the track between two guys that won't even mention Sting in their feud.

**The CyNick** · 11-29-2015, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noid

I've explained this to CyNick COUNTLESS times, and he doesn't get it. There are many ways to skin a cat, but CyNick just can't wrap his head around how making money off Sting while that program is there before moving onto Triple H vs. Rollins makes as much sense, probably more, than Triple H beating Sting and basically using him as an enhancement to build to a potentially big match later down the track between two guys that won't even mention Sting in their feud.

Most people on here cant see the larger picture.

Sting vs Hunter at Mania was used to sell future Monday Night Wars programming on WWE Network. Thats why they involved NWO (representing WCW and DX representing WWE). From thats standpoint alone it made sense for Hunter to win, because WWE won the war.

BEYOND THAT, you want to keep Hunter strong because he's going to work with Rollins at some point. And further, the story they were telling between Hunter (the teacher) and Rollins (the student), it hurts the story if Hunter looks weak right off the bat.

I personally dont think there was huge money in other Sting matches. I could be wrong, but the guy was in TNA for years, and its not like TNA ever had a really successful PPV that he was a part of. So I dont see where the evidence is that Sting was big time player. Thats the disconnect with some of you guys, you see Sting on the level of guys like Brock, Rock or Hunter, where I dont think the average fan does.

**KIRA** · 11-26-2015, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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.

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

**Ol Dirty Dastard** · 11-24-2015, 10:16 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, 01:18 AM

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

**The CyNick** · 11-26-2015, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIRA

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.

**Shadrick** · 11-25-2015, 04:30 AM

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

trump 4 prez.

**Rammsteinmad** · 11-25-2015, 06:52 AM

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

Sean O'Haire.

**The CyNick** · 11-26-2015, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad

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

Sean O'Haire.

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

**Mr. Nerfect** · 11-25-2015, 08:49 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.

**The CyNick** · 11-26-2015, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noid

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.

**Ol Dirty Dastard** · 11-25-2015, 10:10 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.

**hb2k** · 11-26-2015, 10:30 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, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hb2k

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.

**Simple Fan** · 11-26-2015, 02:52 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, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simple Fan

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, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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

SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!!!

**Simple Fan** · 11-26-2015, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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.

**The CyNick** · 11-27-2015, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simple Fan

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.

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

**Vastardikai** · 11-26-2015, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simple Fan

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.

**The CyNick** · 11-26-2015, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vastardikai

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?

**Vastardikai** · 11-26-2015, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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.

**The CyNick** · 11-27-2015, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vastardikai

You overestimate his business acumen and underestimate his inferiority complex.

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

**Simple Fan** · 11-26-2015, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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.

**The CyNick** · 11-27-2015, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simple Fan

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.

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.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 11-28-2015, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick

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?

EGO.

11-26-2015, 10:30 AM	#26
hb2k Do Unto Others... Posts: 2,086	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. Crazy Like A Fox - The Definitive Chronicle of Brian Pillman 20 Years Later Featuring interviews with members of the Pillman family, Dave Meltzer, Kim Wood, Raven, Jim Cornette, Mark Madden, Shane Douglas, Mark Coleman, Alex Marvez, Les Thatcher and many more close friends and colleagues Available on Amazon now: http://amzn.to/2h93SxL

11-24-2015, 02:57 PM	#1
Damian Rey Posts: 3,755	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". "...."

11-24-2015, 03:19 PM	#2
The CyNick Make the IWC Great Again Posts: 8,922	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.

11-24-2015, 10:06 PM	#8
Ol Dirty Dastard boop/bop/beep Posts: 38,453	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.

11-24-2015, 10:11 PM	#9
Ol Dirty Dastard boop/bop/beep Posts: 38,453	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.

11-24-2015, 10:13 PM	#10
KIRA Celestia's Left Hand Posts: 17,359	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?

11-24-2015, 10:16 PM	#17
Ol Dirty Dastard boop/bop/beep Posts: 38,453	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.

11-25-2015, 01:18 AM	#18
KIRA Celestia's Left Hand Posts: 17,359	OOo I got one more Cynick, defend the amazingly unnecessary pile of shit that was Barack vs Hilary.

11-25-2015, 04:30 AM	#20
Shadrick The black Corey Graves Posts: 3,602	this thing went 7 pages? jesus. this country used to be so great. trump 4 prez.

11-25-2015, 06:52 AM	#21
Rammsteinmad TPWW's #3 Peep Posts: 20,903	I've got a good one for CyNick to explain. Sean O'Haire.

11-25-2015, 08:49 AM	#23
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 61,634	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.

11-25-2015, 10:10 AM	#25
Ol Dirty Dastard boop/bop/beep Posts: 38,453	hahaha fair enough. We will see! I think I just appreciate that we're talking about wrestling and not inundated with the backyard threads.

11-26-2015, 02:52 PM	#28
Simple Fan Let me talk to ya Posts: 11,749	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.