Quote:
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.
11-23-2015, 11:11 AM
Threaded Mode