Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteinmad
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?
|
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!