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

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid You've got so many conflicting points in your posts. The small amount of losses Triple H took during his heel run has been brought up as a counterpoint to the shit they had Seth Rollins drudge through recently plenty of times. It is NOT a point for your case, so I would drop it. The Booker vs. Batista thing? You seem to say that one being a major star and the other not is somehow indicative of their actual limits -- whereas we are saying that poor booking and presentation may have hampered Booker and aided Batista. That doesn't prove anyone right or wrong, but you can't take a guy that was booked amazing well and a guy that was booked tremendously bad and say "all things being as equal as they are" like it's a ghost of a point. You say that guys like Goldberg weren't commited to the business. Sure, there might be truth to that -- but how much of his decision to leave the WWE as quickly as he did was BECAUSE the WWE were clearly fucking him up. Everyone thought so. People stopped watching.

I'm not saying Rollins and Hunter were booked exactly the same. The initial point was Hunter never lost in 03-05 Thats utter crap. He lost the key matches. Guys like you are on about Rollins losing random TV non title matches that only you guys will remember in 5 years. Despite your claims that Rollins was crapped on, the fans chanted "thank you Rollins" when his injury was announced. So clearly WWE did a good job building him up to someone the fans care about.

Have you seen me try to change anyone's opinion about Booker T? I just always felt Batista was the overall better talent. If someone else thinks that if Booker T would have stood up to the racist HHH in 03, and been booked strong, he would have been seen as a modern day hero for the black community, and would have gotten over like crazy, that's cool. My main points are A) I had no problem with HHH going over the way he did and B) Batista ended up being not only the bigger star in the business, but appears to be in elite company of guys who will become Hollywood success stories.

I know Goldberg wasnt committed because I've heard him talk in interviews. He wasn't like John Cena looking to make every town and do all this extra stuff to help the company. And fair play to Goldberg, he was in a financial position where he could get by doing the bare minimum. But as a result, he was never going to be someone WWE built around long term. Imagine being a young John Cena seeing Goldberg as the top guy, working maybe once a week, not having great matches, and just mailing it in. Is that going to motivate you to bust your ass and make that radio gig in Des Moines at 8AM to push a house show?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I'm not saying Rollins and Hunter were booked exactly the same. The initial point was Hunter never lost in 03-05 Thats utter crap. He lost the key matches. Guys like you are on about Rollins losing random TV non title matches that only you guys will remember in 5 years. Despite your claims that Rollins was crapped on, the fans chanted "thank you Rollins" when his injury was announced. So clearly WWE did a good job building him up to someone the fans care about. Have you seen me try to change anyone's opinion about Booker T? I just always felt Batista was the overall better talent. If someone else thinks that if Booker T would have stood up to the racist HHH in 03, and been booked strong, he would have been seen as a modern day hero for the black community, and would have gotten over like crazy, that's cool. My main points are A) I had no problem with HHH going over the way he did and B) Batista ended up being not only the bigger star in the business, but appears to be in elite company of guys who will become Hollywood success stories. I know Goldberg wasnt committed because I've heard him talk in interviews. He wasn't like John Cena looking to make every town and do all this extra stuff to help the company. And fair play to Goldberg, he was in a financial position where he could get by doing the bare minimum. But as a result, he was never going to be someone WWE built around long term. Imagine being a young John Cena seeing Goldberg as the top guy, working maybe once a week, not having great matches, and just mailing it in. Is that going to motivate you to bust your ass and make that radio gig in Des Moines at 8AM to push a house show?

This post is full of that "one or the other" horse shit that is such a logical fallacy that it's not even worth replying to. This is where a Cornette face becomes appropriate.

Fans popped for Hardcore Holly when he came back from injury. Whoop-dee-fuck. He was booked shit, you're wrong. It's not even opinion. You can look at his actual win-loss record and statistically record how he performed as a champion. You can subjectively like Seth Rollins and his sports entertainment-style of losing as champion all you like; but you cannot argue that he was booked well without damaging your own integrity.