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

[Simple Fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick 2. Sting served his purpose. Long term money was building up a match between Hunter and Rollins. Having Hunter lose to someone like Sting would have hurt the money match. This is similar to the Booker discussion, where clearly Booker wasn't the right type of guy to go over HHH. A guy like Goldberg made more sense, which they did.

Now you just sound dumb. There is more money in Sting than Booker and Goldberg combined. Explain how Sting beating Hunter hurts the money match. If the money match was Rollins, a Sting win at Mania would have made more sense to have Sting built up for Rollins.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Simple Fan Now you just sound dumb. There is more money in Sting than Booker and Goldberg combined. Explain how Sting beating Hunter hurts the money match. If the money match was Rollins, a Sting win at Mania would have made more sense to have Sting built up for Rollins.

Its actually more than just a match with Rollins. Hunter will likely be called upon to be a special attraction on special events for years. You can't just have him lose to every guy who comes available. I would rather see Hunter beat Sting to keep an aura and then lose to guys like Rollins or Reigns or Cesaro.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Simple Fan Now you just sound dumb. There is more money in Sting than Booker and Goldberg combined. Explain how Sting beating Hunter hurts the money match. If the money match was Rollins, a Sting win at Mania would have made more sense to have Sting built up for Rollins.

I've explained this to CyNick COUNTLESS times, and he doesn't get it. There are many ways to skin a cat, but CyNick just can't wrap his head around how making money off Sting while that program is there before moving onto Triple H vs. Rollins makes as much sense, probably more, than Triple H beating Sting and basically using him as an enhancement to build to a potentially big match later down the track between two guys that won't even mention Sting in their feud.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid I've explained this to CyNick COUNTLESS times, and he doesn't get it. There are many ways to skin a cat, but CyNick just can't wrap his head around how making money off Sting while that program is there before moving onto Triple H vs. Rollins makes as much sense, probably more, than Triple H beating Sting and basically using him as an enhancement to build to a potentially big match later down the track between two guys that won't even mention Sting in their feud.

Most people on here cant see the larger picture.

Sting vs Hunter at Mania was used to sell future Monday Night Wars programming on WWE Network. Thats why they involved NWO (representing WCW and DX representing WWE). From thats standpoint alone it made sense for Hunter to win, because WWE won the war.

BEYOND THAT, you want to keep Hunter strong because he's going to work with Rollins at some point. And further, the story they were telling between Hunter (the teacher) and Rollins (the student), it hurts the story if Hunter looks weak right off the bat.

I personally dont think there was huge money in other Sting matches. I could be wrong, but the guy was in TNA for years, and its not like TNA ever had a really successful PPV that he was a part of. So I dont see where the evidence is that Sting was big time player. Thats the disconnect with some of you guys, you see Sting on the level of guys like Brock, Rock or Hunter, where I dont think the average fan does.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Most people on here cant see the larger picture. Sting vs Hunter at Mania was used to sell future Monday Night Wars programming on WWE Network. Thats why they involved NWO (representing WCW and DX representing WWE). From thats standpoint alone it made sense for Hunter to win, because WWE won the war. BEYOND THAT, you want to keep Hunter strong because he's going to work with Rollins at some point. And further, the story they were telling between Hunter (the teacher) and Rollins (the student), it hurts the story if Hunter looks weak right off the bat. I personally dont think there was huge money in other Sting matches. I could be wrong, but the guy was in TNA for years, and its not like TNA ever had a really successful PPV that he was a part of. So I dont see where the evidence is that Sting was big time player. Thats the disconnect with some of you guys, you see Sting on the level of guys like Brock, Rock or Hunter, where I dont think the average fan does.

Sigh, one last time:

* It shouldn't have been used for that reason. Triple H was the heel; Sting was the face. The WWE vs. WCW thing doesn't make sense. If you defend what happens without acknowledging what shouldn't have happened, then you're not seeing as big a picture as you think you are, chum.

* Triple H is forever strong. He's not losing to JTG on Superstars.

* The fans do see Sting on that level -- your own argument works against you. That's why people care so much that the WWE fucked it up.

* If your modern 8-year old WWE fan doesn't? You MAKE them. It's fucking storytelling.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid Sigh, one last time: * It shouldn't have been used for that reason. Triple H was the heel; Sting was the face. The WWE vs. WCW thing doesn't make sense. If you defend what happens without acknowledging what shouldn't have happened, then you're not seeing as big a picture as you think you are, chum. * Triple H is forever strong. He's not losing to JTG on Superstars. * The fans do see Sting on that level -- your own argument works against you. That's why people care so much that the WWE fucked it up. * If your modern 8-year old WWE fan doesn't? You MAKE them. It's fucking storytelling.

So does that mean a heel can never beat a babyface in a big match?

Why would you invest an HHH loss for Sting, who at best would work 3-5 more matches in his career that are going to be throwaway matches. On the other hand you can use Sting, who has a name, create a special moment (Sting's Mania debut and the NWO v DX thing), sell the Monday Night Wars show on the Network, and keep HHH strong to eventually mean more when Rollins beats him?

It baffles me why people can't see the larger picture. I mean I know the reason. It's HHH, so you people think you have to hate anytime he goes over. It gets tiresome, but it is what it is

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So does that mean a heel can never beat a babyface in a big match? Why would you invest an HHH loss for Sting, who at best would work 3-5 more matches in his career that are going to be throwaway matches. On the other hand you can use Sting, who has a name, create a special moment (Sting's Mania debut and the NWO v DX thing), sell the Monday Night Wars show on the Network, and keep HHH strong to eventually mean more when Rollins beats him? It baffles me why people can't see the larger picture. I mean I know the reason. It's HHH, so you people think you have to hate anytime he goes over. It gets tiresome, but it is what it is

I guess this guy doesn't read James Steele posts.