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

[Damian Rey]

I'm confused. If heels shouldn't win too much, where's the login in Hunter basically running through any credible face or possible top babyface the company had from 2003-2005? Why didn't fans cheer him? I mean, he was winning a lot.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey I'm confused. If heels shouldn't win too much, where's the login in Hunter basically running through any credible face or possible top babyface the company had from 2003-2005? Why didn't fans cheer him? I mean, he was winning a lot.

Oh that's because hhh was a monster amazing next level super sayan heel. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the same way Vince and I do.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey I'm confused. If heels shouldn't win too much, where's the login in Hunter basically running through any credible face or possible top babyface the company had from 2003-2005? Why didn't fans cheer him? I mean, he was winning a lot.

He put over Goldberg, Benoit, and Batista during that time.

So he actually did what a good heel does. Lose the big match.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick He put over Goldberg, Benoit, and Batista during that time. So he actually did what a good heel does. Lose the big match.

As opposed to Rollins, who lost all the time, defended by the "heels can't win too much" malarkey you tried to pass off as an excuse whenever Rollins losing got complained about.

So was Hunter a shitty heel since he only lost the big matches and rarely lost otherwise? I'm shocked he didn't go face.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey As opposed to Rollins, who lost all the time, defended by the "heels can't win too much" malarkey you tried to pass off as an excuse whenever Rollins losing got complained about. So was Hunter a shitty heel since he only lost the big matches and rarely lost otherwise? I'm shocked he didn't go face.

The point is Hunter didn't win all the time. He beat certain guys, but would ultimately lose the big match. That's how you build a storyline. The hero wins in the end. Hunter generally speaking would lose in the end so he stayed heel.

Hunter was also at a different point in his career vs Rollins in 2015. In 2003 Hunter had already been champion multiple times, he had headlined multiple Manias. If you look at how they booked Rollins, he won the title, and beat guys at a certain level. They were just starting to give him more credible wins (Sting, Kane), but he was likely going to lose the big one against Reigns. My guess though is he was going to look good in that match. Not unlike HHH. He beat the guys like Booker T and RVD but lost to Goldberg or Benoit or Batista.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick The point is Hunter didn't win all the time. He beat certain guys, but would ultimately lose the big match. That's how you build a storyline. The hero wins in the end. Hunter generally speaking would lose in the end so he stayed heel. Hunter was also at a different point in his career vs Rollins in 2015. In 2003 Hunter had already been champion multiple times, he had headlined multiple Manias. If you look at how they booked Rollins, he won the title, and beat guys at a certain level. They were just starting to give him more credible wins (Sting, Kane), but he was likely going to lose the big one against Reigns. My guess though is he was going to look good in that match. Not unlike HHH. He beat the guys like Booker T and RVD but lost to Goldberg or Benoit or Batista.

Lose in the end. Key phrase. You're dancing around the point. You said Rollins can't win too much or it'll turn him face. Hunter was beating everybody but because he. eventually lost it was ok? You're making no sense.

Hunter was beating established main eventers in Mick Foley and bested the Rock at Wrestlemania. He then won his feud against Austin before losing to Taker the following year. He also beat Kurt Angle in the interim, won the IC title and then blew out his leg.

It's not the same despite your lame attempts to defend the booking of Rollins. The minute Hunter got the belt, they protected him. The minute Rollins got the belt, they jobbed him. One heel would all the time barring a huge marquee match, whereas Rollins wa losing on a semi weekly basis.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey Lose in the end. Key phrase. You're dancing around the point. You said Rollins can't win too much or it'll turn him face. Hunter was beating everybody but because he. eventually lost it was ok? You're making no sense. Hunter was beating established main eventers in Mick Foley and bested the Rock at Wrestlemania. He then won his feud against Austin before losing to Taker the following year. He also beat Kurt Angle in the interim, won the IC title and then blew out his leg. It's not the same despite your lame attempts to defend the booking of Rollins. The minute Hunter got the belt, they protected him. The minute Rollins got the belt, they jobbed him. One heel would all the time barring a huge marquee match, whereas Rollins wa losing on a semi weekly basis.

Hunter lost plenty when he first got the title. We've been over this in another thread. In fact Hunter lost the belt MULTIPLE TIMES during his first year after winning the title. The booking with Rollins was he would beat certain guys, lose some non title matches, but ultimately win when the title was on the line. Like Hunter, he beat the guys like Ambrose, Sting, and Kane, and was likely going to lose to Reigns.

There is this myth that Hunter never lost, but it's just not accurate. He lost in his initial run on top (similar to Rollins), and he lost the blowoff matches in the 03-05 period (Rollins was going to lose the blowoff to Reigns). The key factor is Hunter would win a couple, then lose. That kept him heel. If Hunter would have just beat Goldberg and Benoit clean, I guarantee by 2004 he would have been a babyface.

Instead, they booked him to rely on Evolution to win big matches, and then eventually he would get his cumuppance. You guys are just glossing over the fact that Hunter did a lot of key high profile JOBs to people the fact that he was just better than most of the guys he put over is why he kept getting the title back. If someone had come along who could take his spot on the heel side, he would have been moved down the card, but that didn't happen.