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

[Damian Rey]

Remember even CyNick went to the source for that tweet he cited, only he didn't?

Also, did you guys know Triple H was pinned less than 10 times from the minute he won the title from Foley all the way through Backlash 2000? Two of those times Austin cost him the title.

I like how the losing champ argument went from "a heel can't win all the time or it'll turn him face" to "well Hunter lost the key matches".

Wanna know a key match? Summer Slam 03. Elimination Chamber that Goldberg dominates, the crowd hot for him to take the belt, only for him t lose to Triple H, who had taken a 30 minute nap.

Instead they waited to a lesser show, in a forgettable match nobody remembers.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey Remember even CyNick went to the source for that tweet he cited, only he didn't? Also, did you guys know Triple H was pinned less than 10 times from the minute he won the title from Foley all the way through Backlash 2000? Two of those times Austin cost him the title. I like how the losing champ argument why from "a heel can't win all the time or it'll turn him face" to "well Hunter lost the key matches". Wanna know a key match? Summer Slam 03. Elimination Chamber that Goldberg dominates, the crowd hot for him to take the belt, only for him t lose to Triple H, who had taken a 30 minute nap. Instead they waited to a lesser show, in a forgettable match nobody remembers.

Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it built heat. Point is, Hunter still put him over for the strap.

Do you really think it made a huge difference? Rock probably should have won the belt at 16, but he actually won the next month. Did that prevent Rock from being a massively over babyface? Did it prevent him from being the most recognizable talent in the company's history? Rock is talented, he made it work. If you really think Goldberg not winning at one PPV vs another made a difference, well, you are a card carrying member of the IWC.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it built heat. Point is, Hunter still put him over for the strap. Do you really think it made a huge difference? Rock probably should have won the belt at 16, but he actually won the next month. Did that prevent Rock from being a massively over babyface? Did it prevent him from being the most recognizable talent in the company's history? Rock is talented, he made it work. If you really think Goldberg not winning at one PPV vs another made a difference, well, you are a card carrying member of the IWC.

Or, you know, can see how business dipped after they did it.

P.S. Haha, I don't hate you. You're just a cunt.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid Or, you know, can see how business dipped after they did it. P.S. Haha, I don't hate you. You're just a cunt.

So business was rising up until Summerslam, and then it went down right after?

I honestly dont remember, maybe it did.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So business was rising up until Summerslam, and then it went down right after? I honestly dont remember, maybe it did.

About 500,000 people tuned out.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid About 500,000 people tuned out.

From when to when? Like are you saying one RAW was say 5 million viewers, then Goldberg lost at Summerslam and next week was 4.5 million viewers?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick From when to when? Like are you saying one RAW was say 5 million viewers, then Goldberg lost at Summerslam and next week was 4.5 million viewers?

4 million dropped to 3.5 million. They tuned in after SummerSlam and then the massive drop off in the weeks after.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid About 500,000 people tuned out.

In 2002 Unforgiven did 44% fewer buys than Summerslam.

In 2003 Unforgiven did 23% fewer buys than Summerslam.

Unforgiven YoY was 20% higher in 2003. So business didn't decline in the key area.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it built heat. Point is, Hunter still put him over for the strap. Do you really think it made a huge difference? Rock probably should have won the belt at 16, but he actually won the next month. Did that prevent Rock from being a massively over babyface? Did it prevent him from being the most recognizable talent in the company's history? Rock is talented, he made it work. If you really think Goldberg not winning at one PPV vs another made a difference, well, you are a card carrying member of the IWC.

I like that you're dancing around the topic and trying to go off track. Nobody is bringing up how big of a star Rock was.

Of course when he lost matters, because you yourself pointed out that he lost the "key"matches, which isn't entirely the case. He walked out of two marquees main events as champ. Key matches don't happen at secondary events. Hunter won the big matches, then jobbed at the lesser show. Unless of course you consider backlash and whatever b show he lost to Goldberg on a key event.

You're also trying to dance around your original "heels can't win often" statement you used to defend the Rollins booking by saying "well Hunter won, but lost the key matches and lost a lot in his initial run", which is statistically false.

Your name should be SpiNick instead.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey I like that you're dancing around the topic and trying to go off track. Nobody is bringing up how big of a star Rock was. Of course when he lost matters, because you yourself pointed out that he lost the "key"matches, which isn't entirely the case. He walked out of two marquees main events as champ. Key matches don't happen at secondary events. Hunter won the big matches, then jobbed at the lesser show. Unless of course you consider backlash and whatever b show he lost to Goldberg on a key event. You're also trying to dance around your original "heels can't win often" statement you used to defend the Rollins booking by saying "well Hunter won, but lost the key matches and lost a lot in his initial run", which is statistically false. Your name should be SpiNick instead.

Someone said Trips put off losing to Goldberg at the big show (Summerslam), in favor of another show. My response was they did that with Rocky in 2000 and it didn't impact his success one bit. My point is if Goldberg was going to be able to hold an audience, him winning the belt 4 weeks later would not have made a difference. Goldberg fizzled out just like he did in WCW because his act is a short term act. There's no sustainability to his gimmick.

Regarding the losing. My point with Rollins was he can't just dominate every babyface within the first 6 months of his reign. This was in n reference to losing matches primarily to Cena. Hunter was in a different position. In his first year after winning the belt, he not only lost matches, but he lost the belt to unworthy opponents. In the end, he got over, because he's talented. In the 03-05 timeframe he's a different type of champion, but even still, he was booked similarly to Rollins in that he defended the title against the B players (Kane, Ambrose, Booker, RVD) but lost to the A players (Goldberg, Batista, etc and then in Rollins case it would have been losing to Reigns).

I get it, HHH is the devil in these parts. You need someone to point to and blame the shortcomings of your favourites on.

[Damian Rey]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Someone said Trips put off losing to Goldberg at the big show (Summerslam), in favor of another show. My response was they did that with Rocky in 2000 and it didn't impact his success one bit. My point is if Goldberg was going to be able to hold an audience, him winning the belt 4 weeks later would not have made a difference. Goldberg fizzled out just like he did in WCW because his act is a short term act. There's no sustainability to his gimmick. Regarding the losing. My point with Rollins was he can't just dominate every babyface within the first 6 months of his reign. This was in n reference to losing matches primarily to Cena. Hunter was in a different position. In his first year after winning the belt, he not only lost matches, but he lost the belt to unworthy opponents. In the end, he got over, because he's talented. In the 03-05 timeframe he's a different type of champion, but even still, he was booked similarly to Rollins in that he defended the title against the B players (Kane, Ambrose, Booker, RVD) but lost to the A players (Goldberg, Batista, etc and then in Rollins case it would have been losing to Reigns). I get it, HHH is the devil in these parts. You need someone to point to and blame the shortcomings of your favourites on.

Christ. You said, above, Hunter lost the key matches. And you're wrong. He lost secondary matches after winning the big match hyped at the headline events. Stop beating around the bush. Everyone can see you wrote "key matches" and everyone knows the key matches happened at Summer Slam and Mania, not b shows.

You also pointed out that Hunter, supposedly, didn't go around dominating in his initial reign, which you were wrong about again. Hunter constantly got dq'd and was rarely pinned in his initial run, and two of those pins saw him being shafted and were far from clean.

You keep trying to change the subject but it's clear that because you're too lazy to fact check you're instead trying to pull info out of your ass and making false statements, only to back track and try and change direction of conversation.

Case in point, please point out something I've said blaming Hunter for beating a wrestler I like. Can you cite it? Or is it another one of your SpiNick tactics to distract others from calling you out on your forever changing stance.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey Christ. You said, above, Hunter lost the key matches. And you're wrong. He lost secondary matches after winning the big match hyped at the headline events. Stop beating around the bush. Everyone can see you wrote "key matches" and everyone knows the key matches happened at Summer Slam and Mania, not b shows. You also pointed out that Hunter, supposedly, didn't go around dominating in his initial reign, which you were wrong about again. Hunter constantly got dq'd and was rarely pinned in his initial run, and two of those pins saw him being shafted and were far from clean. You keep trying to change the subject but it's clear that because you're too lazy to fact check you're instead trying to pull info out of your ass and making false statements, only to back track and try and change direction of conversation. Case in point, please point out something I've said blaming Hunter for beating a wrestler I like. Can you cite it? Or is it another one of your SpiNick tactics to distract others from calling you out on your forever changing stance.

Here I thought Mania 20, 21, and 22 were pretty big shows.

I haven't changed the discussion at all. Can someone explain why Rock got over by losing at Mania then winning the next month vs the Goldberg losing at Summerslam deal? Its the exact same scenario, but according to IWC logic it caused Goldberg to be a dead character and yet with Rocky it didn't hurt him one bit.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Someone said Trips put off losing to Goldberg at the big show (Summerslam), in favor of another show. My response was they did that with Rocky in 2000 and it didn't impact his success one bit. My point is if Goldberg was going to be able to hold an audience, him winning the belt 4 weeks later would not have made a difference. Goldberg fizzled out just like he did in WCW because his act is a short term act. There's no sustainability to his gimmick. Regarding the losing. My point with Rollins was he can't just dominate every babyface within the first 6 months of his reign. This was in n reference to losing matches primarily to Cena. Hunter was in a different position. In his first year after winning the belt, he not only lost matches, but he lost the belt to unworthy opponents. In the end, he got over, because he's talented. In the 03-05 timeframe he's a different type of champion, but even still, he was booked similarly to Rollins in that he defended the title against the B players (Kane, Ambrose, Booker, RVD) but lost to the A players (Goldberg, Batista, etc and then in Rollins case it would have been losing to Reigns). I get it, HHH is the devil in these parts. You need someone to point to and blame the shortcomings of your favourites on.

THERE'S NO SUSTAINABILITY IN THE GIMMICK ONCE YOU SHOOT IT IN THE HEAD FUCKING DEAD!!!!!