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

**The CyNick** · 11-24-2015, 03:19 PM

I'll give you guys credit, you guys are amazing at ignoring facts that disprove your theory.

Hunter lost key/big matches such as Mania 20, 21 and 22. This is during the period you guys are talking about where he supposedly never lost. Every year he lost the BIG MATCH, usually at Mania.

SEPARATE FROM THAT he lost key matches to Goldberg. You're right, he didn't win the clusterf match at Summerslam where everyone would have accused him of dropping the strap in a multi person match vs losing it one on one. He then went on the next TWO PPVs including a "key" PPV called Survivor Series and put over Goldy in the middle. Goldberg proved he wasn't in it for the long haul, so they put the belt back on Hunter, but didnt even do it one on one. Hunter then went on to put over Benoit for the next 6 months, including the biggest match to that point at Mania.

Now, let's explore the issue of the impact of Goldberg not winning at Summerslam. I believe it was our good friend Noid who said WWE lost like 500k viewers or something. I don't know if that's true, but I'll take his word for it. In 2000, Rock was in a similar position, he won the belt a month after the big match, and business didn't collapse. It causes me to pause and ask what was the difference? The obvious answer to me is Rock was far superior to Goldberg, and Goldberg would have never worked long term because he's so limited. But that's a point of opinion, I concede.

I also never said Hunter and Seth were booked EXACTLY the same. I just pointed out some similarities. The narrative on these parts in Rollins lost "all the time", which is BS. My line about heels winning all the time doesn't apply to Hunter, because as I've pointed out numerous times, in every year he was champion, he lost to the challenger in that year. 2000 it was Rock, 03 is it was Goldberg, 04 it was Benoit, 05 it was Batista, 06 it was Cena. But ya'll want to ignore all that. No worries though, just makes for a fun back and forth.

11-24-2015, 03:19 PM	#10
The CyNick Make the IWC Great Again Posts: 8,922	I'll give you guys credit, you guys are amazing at ignoring facts that disprove your theory. Hunter lost key/big matches such as Mania 20, 21 and 22. This is during the period you guys are talking about where he supposedly never lost. Every year he lost the BIG MATCH, usually at Mania. SEPARATE FROM THAT he lost key matches to Goldberg. You're right, he didn't win the clusterf match at Summerslam where everyone would have accused him of dropping the strap in a multi person match vs losing it one on one. He then went on the next TWO PPVs including a "key" PPV called Survivor Series and put over Goldy in the middle. Goldberg proved he wasn't in it for the long haul, so they put the belt back on Hunter, but didnt even do it one on one. Hunter then went on to put over Benoit for the next 6 months, including the biggest match to that point at Mania. Now, let's explore the issue of the impact of Goldberg not winning at Summerslam. I believe it was our good friend Noid who said WWE lost like 500k viewers or something. I don't know if that's true, but I'll take his word for it. In 2000, Rock was in a similar position, he won the belt a month after the big match, and business didn't collapse. It causes me to pause and ask what was the difference? The obvious answer to me is Rock was far superior to Goldberg, and Goldberg would have never worked long term because he's so limited. But that's a point of opinion, I concede. I also never said Hunter and Seth were booked EXACTLY the same. I just pointed out some similarities. The narrative on these parts in Rollins lost "all the time", which is BS. My line about heels winning all the time doesn't apply to Hunter, because as I've pointed out numerous times, in every year he was champion, he lost to the challenger in that year. 2000 it was Rock, 03 is it was Goldberg, 04 it was Benoit, 05 it was Batista, 06 it was Cena. But ya'll want to ignore all that. No worries though, just makes for a fun back and forth.