Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,100
|
Post by Mecca on Jul 2, 2009 8:27:01 GMT -5
Personally, I wouldn't be making the same complaints because at least then it would make sense for why HHH was being booked this way, in spite of tepid ratings/buyrates and bigger draws taking a back seat. That said, I've heard a lot of the "he still gets pops" arguments, but I don't really hear it. Maybe it's just me, or my TV, but the only significant pops he's gotten recently have been for his various returns, his entrance, and the Pedigree. There's something like mild apathy in-between. I'd been watching 24/7 when they aired Survivor Series 2008, and I couldn't help thinking, during the HHH-Koslov match, "Man, he really is trying to get this over in spite of itself." I'm sure it wasn't HHH's decision to put Koslov in that main event spot despite tepid fan reaction, but part of me wonders if Koslov wasn't something of a pet project for HHH. In the match there was a lot of straight-up wrestling, and I felt as though HHH was trying desperately to recreate Magnum TA vs. Nikita Koloff, or even Ric Flair vs. Nikita Koloff. While admirable, that match died a sloooooow, painful death, with the crowd literally dying off completely, such that when Vickie came out, the fans LEAPT at having something to react to. And when Edge came out? Forget about it. And then Hardy...well, the crowd spent a goodly portion of the match chanting for Hardy anyway, so that should have been the sign to move on from HHH. And if not then, Wrestlemania should have been the final nail in the coffin for HHH's time in the main event. I've never seen a main event wrestler have PPV main events die so horribly with the live crowd. People would never sit on their hands in the WM main event featuring a Hogan, Austin, or Rock. I'm not saying it happens all the time with HHH, or that it's ever happened more than (at most) one-tenth of his PPV main events in the past three or four years. But the fact that it happens AT ALL shows you that he's not Hogan, he's not Austin, he's not The Rock, and he's standing on top of the mountain fending off all the people who have the potential to be. I'm sure he doesn't book himself, but the man sits in on creative meetings, he has the pull to put others over, and to quiet his own pushes. Maybe not you personally but I've been a fan long enough to know that every main eventer has his detractors who say 'we don't want him on top anymore!' and that includes the guys who drew big. I saw it with Backlund, saw it with Hogan (well before WCW), saw it with Rock (before he 'sold out') and call me jaded but after awhile the arguments are always the same no matter who the guy drawing the venom is. The difference is H at his peak never had what those guys had...who's a good comparison for H... This is actually really hard, there aren't to many guys who've haven't had super duper drawing power that stayed on top this long....Kevin Nash?
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Jul 2, 2009 8:29:37 GMT -5
Maybe not you personally but I've been a fan long enough to know that every main eventer has his detractors who say 'we don't want him on top anymore!' and that includes the guys who drew big. I saw it with Backlund, saw it with Hogan (well before WCW), saw it with Rock (before he 'sold out') and call me jaded but after awhile the arguments are always the same no matter who the guy drawing the venom is. The difference is H at his peak never had what those guys had...who's a good comparison for H... This is actually really hard, there aren't to many guys who've haven't had super duper drawing power that stayed on top this long....Kevin Nash? Ric Flair stayed on top well long after his drawing power faded.
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,100
|
Post by Mecca on Jul 2, 2009 8:34:18 GMT -5
The difference is H at his peak never had what those guys had...who's a good comparison for H... This is actually really hard, there aren't to many guys who've haven't had super duper drawing power that stayed on top this long....Kevin Nash? Ric Flair stayed on top well long after his drawing power faded. Flair basically had to be removed from the mainevent kicking and screaming and it resulted in him saying he hates Bischoff and is glad WCW folded, swell guy. But at his peak I'd say he was more of a draw than H was.
|
|
|
Post by mauled on Jul 2, 2009 8:49:23 GMT -5
Personally, I wouldn't be making the same complaints because at least then it would make sense for why HHH was being booked this way, in spite of tepid ratings/buyrates and bigger draws taking a back seat. That said, I've heard a lot of the "he still gets pops" arguments, but I don't really hear it. Maybe it's just me, or my TV, but the only significant pops he's gotten recently have been for his various returns, his entrance, and the Pedigree. There's something like mild apathy in-between. I'd been watching 24/7 when they aired Survivor Series 2008, and I couldn't help thinking, during the HHH-Koslov match, "Man, he really is trying to get this over in spite of itself." I'm sure it wasn't HHH's decision to put Koslov in that main event spot despite tepid fan reaction, but part of me wonders if Koslov wasn't something of a pet project for HHH. In the match there was a lot of straight-up wrestling, and I felt as though HHH was trying desperately to recreate Magnum TA vs. Nikita Koloff, or even Ric Flair vs. Nikita Koloff. While admirable, that match died a sloooooow, painful death, with the crowd literally dying off completely, such that when Vickie came out, the fans LEAPT at having something to react to. And when Edge came out? Forget about it. And then Hardy...well, the crowd spent a goodly portion of the match chanting for Hardy anyway, so that should have been the sign to move on from HHH. And if not then, Wrestlemania should have been the final nail in the coffin for HHH's time in the main event. I've never seen a main event wrestler have PPV main events die so horribly with the live crowd. People would never sit on their hands in the WM main event featuring a Hogan, Austin, or Rock. I'm not saying it happens all the time with HHH, or that it's ever happened more than (at most) one-tenth of his PPV main events in the past three or four years. But the fact that it happens AT ALL shows you that he's not Hogan, he's not Austin, he's not The Rock, and he's standing on top of the mountain fending off all the people who have the potential to be. I'm sure he doesn't book himself, but the man sits in on creative meetings, he has the pull to put others over, and to quiet his own pushes. Maybe not you personally but I've been a fan long enough to know that every main eventer has his detractors who say 'we don't want him on top anymore!' and that includes the guys who drew big. I saw it with Backlund, saw it with Hogan (well before WCW), saw it with Rock (before he 'sold out') and call me jaded but after awhile the arguments are always the same no matter who the guy drawing the venom is. But the Rock did change his game. He became Hollywood Rock and used fans boo's over him doing movies in his charachter and put over so many stars on his way out the door (Austin excpeted who himself literally came out of the hospital to put the Rock over) and during Raw at the time he was often on first so as not to put himself constantly in the main event of the evening or overshadow the other Raw stars. Could Trips ever do that???
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,100
|
Post by Mecca on Jul 2, 2009 8:53:19 GMT -5
Maybe not you personally but I've been a fan long enough to know that every main eventer has his detractors who say 'we don't want him on top anymore!' and that includes the guys who drew big. I saw it with Backlund, saw it with Hogan (well before WCW), saw it with Rock (before he 'sold out') and call me jaded but after awhile the arguments are always the same no matter who the guy drawing the venom is. But the Rock did change his game. He became Hollywood Rock and used fans boo's over him doing movies in his charachter and put over so many stars on his way out the door (Austin excpeted who himself literally came out of the hospital to put the Rock over) and during Raw at the time he was often on first so as not to put himself constantly in the main event of the evening or overshadow the other Raw stars. Could Trips ever do that??? I've always thought one reason he's booked the way he is, is that he was always jealous that he was never on Austin or Rocks level. Now that they're both gone and he remains he still wants to be thought of like they are so he's booked super strong. It's an ego thing even though no booking will ever put him on their level.
|
|
|
Post by mauled on Jul 2, 2009 9:03:38 GMT -5
But the Rock did change his game. He became Hollywood Rock and used fans boo's over him doing movies in his charachter and put over so many stars on his way out the door (Austin excpeted who himself literally came out of the hospital to put the Rock over) and during Raw at the time he was often on first so as not to put himself constantly in the main event of the evening or overshadow the other Raw stars. Could Trips ever do that??? I've always thought one reason he's booked the way he is, is that he was always jealous that he was never on Austin or Rocks level. Now that they're both gone and he remains he still wants to be thought of like they are so he's booked super strong. It's an ego thing even though no booking will ever put him on their level. Interesting point I agree for me champs are either seen as huge draws and enterainers with charisma ala Hogan/Rock and Austin or if not big draws then known for great wrestling skills instead like Bret/HBK and Angle. The problem with Trips is he falls into nethier section. For me at his best he was moderate to good wrestler and (I dunno what his highest rating was btw) but like you said he has never been as big as the above. Hell was DX ever as good with him leading it when HBK was gone after wm14. I think Trips deep down feels the sameway which is why he always keeps himself at the top.
|
|
|
Post by Threadkiller [Classic] on Jul 2, 2009 9:11:02 GMT -5
Maybe not you personally but I've been a fan long enough to know that every main eventer has his detractors who say 'we don't want him on top anymore!' and that includes the guys who drew big. I saw it with Backlund, saw it with Hogan (well before WCW), saw it with Rock (before he 'sold out') and call me jaded but after awhile the arguments are always the same no matter who the guy drawing the venom is. Even though we disagree on HHH, I have to agree with that statement completely. If Cena was booked this way (and he has been before, but hasn't been for a long time - hence, the booing decrease. Fans just plain appreciate him more) this would be an "I hate Cena" thread. If it was Batista being booked like an indestructible monster, same deal. The only difference is in who gets hated. But HHH does seem to be held to a much different standard. Cena's year-long reign with the title may have been stale, but I'd take that reign all over again if it meant never having to deal with another reign like Trips's 02-03 or 2008 reigns. There's just something about him that makes his staleness more offensive than Cena's or Batista's or even Edge's (who's been stale for the longest time and is desperately in need of a turn or a change of some kind - dude has almost caught up to HHH's number of reigns - and in 3 years...and most of them in similarly cheap fashion). It's ironic that HHH spearheaded Evolution, since it's the truly great characters that create longevity for themselves by evolving with the times, something HHH seems woefully incapable of doing: -HBK doesn't gyrate anymore, or prance around to "Sexy Boy." He's a much more serious-minded wrestler for a more serious-minded time, and his storylines are considerably more mature and believable (even in supernatural fare like his feud with Taker) than Trips's feud with Orton. He's respected as a legend and possibly the greatest worker of all-time because, outside of Wrestlemania season where he's "The Showstopper/Mr. Wrestlemania," they don't shove him down our throats as the greatest. -The Rock won his first world title as part of the Corporation. He was so hated as a heel that his eventual face turn was a mega-event. From 1999-2003, The Rock was THE MAN. But when the fans started turning on him for "selling out," he became "Hollywood Rock," a briliant re-invention of the character which played on the fans' feelings of betrayal at The Rock leaving wrestling for his burgeoning movie careeer. He could have gotten YEARS out of that character had he not left to do movies, in my opinion. -Stone Cold Steve Austin was the same beer-swilling, Stunner-giving badass from 1997-2001. But when the character began to grow stale as the company transitioned out of the Attitude era, they reinvented Steve Austin as the leader of the Invasion. Outside of 1997 Austin, when you could see just how big of a star he would become, 2001 Austin is my favorite iteration of the character. I never thought in a million years that Austin would make such a great chicken**** heel. But he did, and he was both hilarious and compelling. Had they not turned him back after the Invasion, I think a feud between a heel Austin and a face HHH (The Two-Man Power Trip EXPLODES!) could have drawn huge money. -The Undertaker has created a nearly 20-year career out of growing and evolving with the times. When the straight-up zombie-type gimmick wasn't going to cut it anymore, he became a more vulnerable version of that gimmick (around the time of his first feud with Kane), parlaying that into a heel turn that saw him take on an Occult-ish personality (during "The Blair Witch" era where horror films were back in the public spotlight again, making huge money), and then became the American Badass when that became too over the top. Then, finally, with the death of that phase of the gimmick, he returned with a variant on all iterations of the Undertaker character: the Occult aspects of Ministry Taker, the superhuman elements of the original Undertaker, the vulnerability of Kane-era Taker, and the submission-style workrate of BikerTaker. It's one of the most remarkable evolutions of any character/worker in the history of the business. And that's why HHH should take note. People marked for the return of the Deadman because he'd gone through phases, changes, evolutions, so that the return to his roots was an event in itself, and elicited a huge response because even though it was old hat, it was suddenly new again. HHH has spent so long being the same guy that he's grown immeasurably stale. From 2000 ("I am THE GAME"), to 2002-2005 ("There's only one diamond in this business, and you're looking at him!"), to 2006-2007 ("And if you're not down with that, I got two words for ya!") all the way through to today. Other than the return of DX (which got over huge for the same reasons Undertaker's return to the Deadman character got over huge), HHH has been the same guy, with no real growth or change at all. HHH is unrelentingly stale, both as champion and as challenger. It's going to take a drastic reinvention of his character for me to get into him again. It'll probably take either a heel turn or a role similar to that of an elder statesman to do the trick. But until then, I just can't deal with this same ol', same ol' HHH. Because it's getting to the point where Wrestlemania each year is less a question of "What's the main event going to be?" than it is a question of "So who's HHH going to be facing in the main event this year?" And I in no way want to diminish his accomplishments, but based on ratings/buyrates/fan response, the man simply doesn't deserve to be booked that way. At least not anymore. baerrtt, I certainly respect your opinion, since your references place you as having been a fan for much longer than I have (I'm going to be 24 next week and have been watching since 1996). In your post you mention Bob Backlund as a man with detractors similar to how HHH is derided. As someone who's apparently lived through it, how was the Backlund reign? I mean, I can't imagine anybody (even Hogan in his prime) drawing the kind of money that justifies five years on top, especially when you're a straight-up shooter-type wrestler who's a milky white babyface. I may dislike HHH's position right now, but if you survived Backlund's five year reign, hats off to you. Because even though it may have been a different time, I may not have been able to handle it. (And EXTRA kudos to the people who lived through Bruno Sammartino's 7-year reign. The most I could probably handle would be two years of the same champion, but I suppose that's the nature of the business and the fans now).
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 2, 2009 9:11:22 GMT -5
Ric Flair stayed on top well long after his drawing power faded. Flair basically had to be removed from the mainevent kicking and screaming and it resulted in him saying he hates Bischoff and is glad WCW folded, swell guy. But at his peak I'd say he was more of a draw than H was. How can Flair say he hates WCW, that's where he got most of his push! It makes no sense.
|
|
Mecca
Wade Wilson
Posts: 25,100
|
Post by Mecca on Jul 2, 2009 9:12:59 GMT -5
Flair basically had to be removed from the mainevent kicking and screaming and it resulted in him saying he hates Bischoff and is glad WCW folded, swell guy. But at his peak I'd say he was more of a draw than H was. How can Flair say he hates WCW, that's where he got most of his push! It makes no sense. It's on the Monday Night Wars DVD but he basically says he hates Bischoff, he wasn't treated right etc, then he follows that by saying he's glad it closed. He was really quite bitter about it.
|
|
|
Post by SickFlipPiledriver on Jul 2, 2009 10:17:28 GMT -5
About a dozen different people have explained how Triple H didn't squash MVP. But according to y'all, it doesn't matter; he still squashed MVP.
Same with his fued with Booker, his fued with RVD, unmasking Kane, burying Cena, marginalizing Benoit, etc., etc., etc. Nope, he still buried Booker, he still squashed RVD, he still marginalized Benoit.
You (that is to say, people in this thread) don't want a rational explaination for things, you just want to hear anything that fits the "Triple H is Evil" paradigm.
Anything else... other than every other post I've made.
No.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 2, 2009 10:21:44 GMT -5
It's on the Monday Night Wars DVD but he basically says he hates Bischoff, he wasn't treated right etc, then he follows that by saying he's glad it closed. He was really quite bitter about it. Did he praise McMahon to high heaven and claim WWE is the best wrestling league ever in the known universe?
|
|
bigbossfan
Trap-Jaw
Eh, what can you do?
Posts: 290
|
Post by bigbossfan on Jul 2, 2009 10:41:51 GMT -5
About a dozen different people have explained how Triple H didn't squash MVP. But according to y'all, it doesn't matter; he still squashed MVP. Same with his fued with Booker, his fued with RVD, unmasking Kane, burying Cena, marginalizing Benoit, etc., etc., etc. Nope, he still buried Booker, he still squashed RVD, he still marginalized Benoit. You (that is to say, people in this thread) don't want a rational explaination for things, you just want to hear anything that fits the "Triple H is Evil" paradigm. Anything else... other than every other post I've made. No. Well........That's better. Listen, just because I disagree with lazy debating, doesn't mean I'm 100% opposed to your opinions. If I was the president of the HHH fan club I'd have said the same. I'm not a HHHater, mor of a HHDoubter, if you will. Honestly, I don't want to go off on an anti-specific posters thing here, i just thought that the HHH debate, during this thread at least, has evolved and just dropping in for a quick *yawn* does no favours and takes the discussion a step backwards. Most people had the maturity to ignore it though. (I will admit to, and apologise for, not going back through the 25 pages of thread to read all your posts and just going by the association in my mind of your Mega Powers avatar and the sentiment of having heard it all before, but then that's why I post on a wrestling messageboard and don't work in the research dept of the BBC) As for my own take on it, I don't think HHH 'squashed' MVP but by the same token I don't think that MVP, though in control for most of the match, looked particularly dominant. Unlike most people I don't think that it's terribly important either way, though. Now the bigger issue is HHHs dominance of the main event over the last decade. I have mixed feelings. I think that there truly are few people in WWE who take wrestling more seriously (and I mean that in a good way) as HHH. Equally there are few people who are, as a total package, as good or better than he. There does exist the perception that in the last few years he hasn't grown as a performer though, which I reckon exists because nothing changes when he switches between heel and face save for the fact face HHH sometimes makes terrible jokes. I'll put it this way. If HHH was a religion, I'd be an agnostic.
|
|
|
Post by SickFlipPiledriver on Jul 2, 2009 11:07:12 GMT -5
Well hey, I disagree with lazy debating too. That's why it pisses me off when people (not just me, mind you) make posts defending him that are ignored in favor of page-long yammering diatribes about how Triple H Is Wrestling Cancer. Long post =/= great debating, necessarily. You're probably right but it made me feel better about the discussion at the time. And it's completely fair to be tired of Triple H, and not want to see him on top, but to say things like "He's just so stale now," when he's clearly one of the most cheered people on the roster, it's just applying personal preference against established fact. If he was stale his reactions would be dying off.
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Jul 2, 2009 11:23:12 GMT -5
Maybe not you personally but I've been a fan long enough to know that every main eventer has his detractors who say 'we don't want him on top anymore!' and that includes the guys who drew big. I saw it with Backlund, saw it with Hogan (well before WCW), saw it with Rock (before he 'sold out') and call me jaded but after awhile the arguments are always the same no matter who the guy drawing the venom is. Even though we disagree on HHH, I have to agree with that statement completely. If Cena was booked this way (and he has been before, but hasn't been for a long time - hence, the booing decrease. Fans just plain appreciate him more) this would be an "I hate Cena" thread. If it was Batista being booked like an indestructible monster, same deal. The only difference is in who gets hated. But HHH does seem to be held to a much different standard. Cena's year-long reign with the title may have been stale, but I'd take that reign all over again if it meant never having to deal with another reign like Trips's 02-03 or 2008 reigns. There's just something about him that makes his staleness more offensive than Cena's or Batista's or even Edge's (who's been stale for the longest time and is desperately in need of a turn or a change of some kind - dude has almost caught up to HHH's number of reigns - and in 3 years...and most of them in similarly cheap fashion). It's ironic that HHH spearheaded Evolution, since it's the truly great characters that create longevity for themselves by evolving with the times, something HHH seems woefully incapable of doing: -HBK doesn't gyrate anymore, or prance around to "Sexy Boy." He's a much more serious-minded wrestler for a more serious-minded time, and his storylines are considerably more mature and believable (even in supernatural fare like his feud with Taker) than Trips's feud with Orton. He's respected as a legend and possibly the greatest worker of all-time because, outside of Wrestlemania season where he's "The Showstopper/Mr. Wrestlemania," they don't shove him down our throats as the greatest. -The Rock won his first world title as part of the Corporation. He was so hated as a heel that his eventual face turn was a mega-event. From 1999-2003, The Rock was THE MAN. But when the fans started turning on him for "selling out," he became "Hollywood Rock," a briliant re-invention of the character which played on the fans' feelings of betrayal at The Rock leaving wrestling for his burgeoning movie careeer. He could have gotten YEARS out of that character had he not left to do movies, in my opinion. -Stone Cold Steve Austin was the same beer-swilling, Stunner-giving badass from 1997-2001. But when the character began to grow stale as the company transitioned out of the Attitude era, they reinvented Steve Austin as the leader of the Invasion. Outside of 1997 Austin, when you could see just how big of a star he would become, 2001 Austin is my favorite iteration of the character. I never thought in a million years that Austin would make such a great chicken**** heel. But he did, and he was both hilarious and compelling. Had they not turned him back after the Invasion, I think a feud between a heel Austin and a face HHH (The Two-Man Power Trip EXPLODES!) could have drawn huge money. -The Undertaker has created a nearly 20-year career out of growing and evolving with the times. When the straight-up zombie-type gimmick wasn't going to cut it anymore, he became a more vulnerable version of that gimmick (around the time of his first feud with Kane), parlaying that into a heel turn that saw him take on an Occult-ish personality (during "The Blair Witch" era where horror films were back in the public spotlight again, making huge money), and then became the American Badass when that became too over the top. Then, finally, with the death of that phase of the gimmick, he returned with a variant on all iterations of the Undertaker character: the Occult aspects of Ministry Taker, the superhuman elements of the original Undertaker, the vulnerability of Kane-era Taker, and the submission-style workrate of BikerTaker. It's one of the most remarkable evolutions of any character/worker in the history of the business. And that's why HHH should take note. People marked for the return of the Deadman because he'd gone through phases, changes, evolutions, so that the return to his roots was an event in itself, and elicited a huge response because even though it was old hat, it was suddenly new again. HHH has spent so long being the same guy that he's grown immeasurably stale. From 2000 ("I am THE GAME"), to 2002-2005 ("There's only one diamond in this business, and you're looking at him!"), to 2006-2007 ("And if you're not down with that, I got two words for ya!") all the way through to today. Other than the return of DX (which got over huge for the same reasons Undertaker's return to the Deadman character got over huge), HHH has been the same guy, with no real growth or change at all. HHH is unrelentingly stale, both as champion and as challenger. It's going to take a drastic reinvention of his character for me to get into him again. It'll probably take either a heel turn or a role similar to that of an elder statesman to do the trick. But until then, I just can't deal with this same ol', same ol' HHH. Because it's getting to the point where Wrestlemania each year is less a question of "What's the main event going to be?" than it is a question of "So who's HHH going to be facing in the main event this year?" And I in no way want to diminish his accomplishments, but based on ratings/buyrates/fan response, the man simply doesn't deserve to be booked that way. At least not anymore. baerrtt, I certainly respect your opinion, since your references place you as having been a fan for much longer than I have (I'm going to be 24 next week and have been watching since 1996). In your post you mention Bob Backlund as a man with detractors similar to how HHH is derided. As someone who's apparently lived through it, how was the Backlund reign? I mean, I can't imagine anybody (even Hogan in his prime) drawing the kind of money that justifies five years on top, especially when you're a straight-up shooter-type wrestler who's a milky white babyface. I may dislike HHH's position right now, but if you survived Backlund's five year reign, hats off to you. Because even though it may have been a different time, I may not have been able to handle it. (And EXTRA kudos to the people who lived through Bruno Sammartino's 7-year reign. The most I could probably handle would be two years of the same champion, but I suppose that's the nature of the business and the fans now). Backlund was a huge draw during the five/six years he was on top and yet the very early Wrestling Observers, from around 1982, were claiming that fans were turning on Bob largely because a feud with Jimmy Snuka that year (when Snuka was a heel) saw Superfly actually cheered by half of the crowds. In truth Dave Meltzer's low personal opinion on Backlund influenced the views on his readership to the point that BB being World Champion was voted Most Disgusting Promotional Tactic of that year. That's right a main eventer who was drawing good money was considered as tasteless as say WWE exploiting Eddie G's death. And that's why since then I tend to roll my eyes when another main eventer gets the exact same blasting because in the end 'smart' wrestling fans have always had the same bugbears when it comes to certain guys being on top 'longer than they deserve to be'. And if a guy actually draws well (as Bobby did) they WILL always find something to go on about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2009 11:46:11 GMT -5
Maybe not you personally but I've been a fan long enough to know that every main eventer has his detractors who say 'we don't want him on top anymore!' and that includes the guys who drew big. I saw it with Backlund, saw it with Hogan (well before WCW), saw it with Rock (before he 'sold out') and call me jaded but after awhile the arguments are always the same no matter who the guy drawing the venom is. Even though we disagree on HHH, I have to agree with that statement completely. If Cena was booked this way (and he has been before, but hasn't been for a long time - hence, the booing decrease. Fans just plain appreciate him more) this would be an "I hate Cena" thread. If it was Batista being booked like an indestructible monster, same deal. The only difference is in who gets hated. But HHH does seem to be held to a much different standard. Cena's year-long reign with the title may have been stale, but I'd take that reign all over again if it meant never having to deal with another reign like Trips's 02-03 or 2008 reigns. There's just something about him that makes his staleness more offensive than Cena's or Batista's or even Edge's (who's been stale for the longest time and is desperately in need of a turn or a change of some kind - dude has almost caught up to HHH's number of reigns - and in 3 years...and most of them in similarly cheap fashion). It's ironic that HHH spearheaded Evolution, since it's the truly great characters that create longevity for themselves by evolving with the times, something HHH seems woefully incapable of doing: -HBK doesn't gyrate anymore, or prance around to "Sexy Boy." He's a much more serious-minded wrestler for a more serious-minded time, and his storylines are considerably more mature and believable (even in supernatural fare like his feud with Taker) than Trips's feud with Orton. He's respected as a legend and possibly the greatest worker of all-time because, outside of Wrestlemania season where he's "The Showstopper/Mr. Wrestlemania," they don't shove him down our throats as the greatest. -The Rock won his first world title as part of the Corporation. He was so hated as a heel that his eventual face turn was a mega-event. From 1999-2003, The Rock was THE MAN. But when the fans started turning on him for "selling out," he became "Hollywood Rock," a briliant re-invention of the character which played on the fans' feelings of betrayal at The Rock leaving wrestling for his burgeoning movie careeer. He could have gotten YEARS out of that character had he not left to do movies, in my opinion. -Stone Cold Steve Austin was the same beer-swilling, Stunner-giving badass from 1997-2001. But when the character began to grow stale as the company transitioned out of the Attitude era, they reinvented Steve Austin as the leader of the Invasion. Outside of 1997 Austin, when you could see just how big of a star he would become, 2001 Austin is my favorite iteration of the character. I never thought in a million years that Austin would make such a great chicken**** heel. But he did, and he was both hilarious and compelling. Had they not turned him back after the Invasion, I think a feud between a heel Austin and a face HHH (The Two-Man Power Trip EXPLODES!) could have drawn huge money. -The Undertaker has created a nearly 20-year career out of growing and evolving with the times. When the straight-up zombie-type gimmick wasn't going to cut it anymore, he became a more vulnerable version of that gimmick (around the time of his first feud with Kane), parlaying that into a heel turn that saw him take on an Occult-ish personality (during "The Blair Witch" era where horror films were back in the public spotlight again, making huge money), and then became the American Badass when that became too over the top. Then, finally, with the death of that phase of the gimmick, he returned with a variant on all iterations of the Undertaker character: the Occult aspects of Ministry Taker, the superhuman elements of the original Undertaker, the vulnerability of Kane-era Taker, and the submission-style workrate of BikerTaker. It's one of the most remarkable evolutions of any character/worker in the history of the business. And that's why HHH should take note. People marked for the return of the Deadman because he'd gone through phases, changes, evolutions, so that the return to his roots was an event in itself, and elicited a huge response because even though it was old hat, it was suddenly new again. HHH has spent so long being the same guy that he's grown immeasurably stale. From 2000 ("I am THE GAME"), to 2002-2005 ("There's only one diamond in this business, and you're looking at him!"), to 2006-2007 ("And if you're not down with that, I got two words for ya!") all the way through to today. Other than the return of DX (which got over huge for the same reasons Undertaker's return to the Deadman character got over huge), HHH has been the same guy, with no real growth or change at all. HHH is unrelentingly stale, both as champion and as challenger. It's going to take a drastic reinvention of his character for me to get into him again. It'll probably take either a heel turn or a role similar to that of an elder statesman to do the trick. But until then, I just can't deal with this same ol', same ol' HHH. Because it's getting to the point where Wrestlemania each year is less a question of "What's the main event going to be?" than it is a question of "So who's HHH going to be facing in the main event this year?" And I in no way want to diminish his accomplishments, but based on ratings/buyrates/fan response, the man simply doesn't deserve to be booked that way. At least not anymore. baerrtt, I certainly respect your opinion, since your references place you as having been a fan for much longer than I have (I'm going to be 24 next week and have been watching since 1996). In your post you mention Bob Backlund as a man with detractors similar to how HHH is derided. As someone who's apparently lived through it, how was the Backlund reign? I mean, I can't imagine anybody (even Hogan in his prime) drawing the kind of money that justifies five years on top, especially when you're a straight-up shooter-type wrestler who's a milky white babyface. I may dislike HHH's position right now, but if you survived Backlund's five year reign, hats off to you. Because even though it may have been a different time, I may not have been able to handle it. (And EXTRA kudos to the people who lived through Bruno Sammartino's 7-year reign. The most I could probably handle would be two years of the same champion, but I suppose that's the nature of the business and the fans now). The main problem with long reigns on top now is overexposure. During Hogan's big run you'd rarely see him wrestle anyone on free TV, and the PPVs were spread far apart. Now when someone has a long reign at the top, you see them every show, sometimes on multiple shows...and then you see them wrestle 12+ ppv main events that year as well. As such a year long run in the main event now feels longer than a 4 year run in the main event 20-25 years ago. In fact, you've probably seen more of HHH just this year (and it's only the beginning of July) than people saw Hogan for a full four year period back then. Edit: Also yes I DID read all that, and agreed with it, I was just commenting on one part near the end.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jul 2, 2009 13:09:28 GMT -5
I really respect the way Baerrt is making his points here. It's a real good debate - I just have to ask with regards to HHH - how much is too much?
Do we let him go for another 5 years as the focus? Not just as a main eventer - but as the focus of the show? Until he is broken down and finally cannot work a full schedule anymore.
Cena experienced the reaction a few months into his main event run. They could either say that one of their Mania main event winners was a bust and acknowledge it as a waste, or they could try and make it work. They had to try and make it work, because they knew the audience they wanted to target and that Cena was the man to do it. They were eventually proved right. Even during his year + long reign, the crowd were reacting with force every time he appeared. It was a backlash but pretty much as a result of one era clashing with another, and the transition taking a bit of time. Fact is the crowd were still reacting though. Since Cena got it a few months into his run it wasn't a case of being stale and needing to be phased out, it was a reaction to the character.
I don't think the build up to HHH vs Orton was that bad. If Cena was in that position I'm positive the crowd would have been reacting more, ditto Jeff Hardy. There just wasn't any need for the crowd to be passionate about a HHH win though.
So when does it end? Do we go another 5 years if HHH is able to? Is that right? Why is it that Cena, while still the current franchise and biggest money maker, can spend time and job in the mid-card. Cena for moments this year and last year essentially takes up HBK/Taker positons, and is not the focus. HHH always is.
Again I don't disagree that he should be a main eventer. Just not the focus of the show after he has done absolutely everything. The show shouldn't have HHH in play if crowds aren't reacting with passion to him.
Every Cena match has maximum crowd reaction because he is the biggest star. The crowd would not have been silent if it was Cena in the main event at Mania. Indeed the Cena match followed HBK/Taker, but the crowd were still pumped. They would not sing Jeff Hardy out of the arena to a noticeable noise. So why is HHH still the biggest star? Not just a star, but THE BIGGEST? Even when the casual crowd, and not just the internet, is showing signs of getting bored.
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
|
Post by spagett on Jul 2, 2009 13:28:07 GMT -5
I have said it before and I will say it again but it is 2009 and John Cena whould be the focal point of the WWE.
I don't even like him but it is obvious to everyone that he is this generations Austin or Hogan, he is the superhero makes them more money than anyone else and should be booked the strongest.
It is baffling as to why Triple H is being booked stronger than ever before when he is almost 10 years past his peak and you have people like Orton and Cena waiting to be made the stars of Raw.
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Jul 2, 2009 13:36:08 GMT -5
I really respect the way Baerrt is making his points here. It's a real good debate - I just have to ask with regards to HHH - how much is too much? Do we let him go for another 5 years as the focus? Not just as a main eventer - but as the focus of the show? Until he is broken down and finally cannot work a full schedule anymore. Cena experienced the reaction a few months into his main event run. They could either say that one of their Mania main event winners was a bust and acknowledge it as a waste, or they could try and make it work. They had to try and make it work, because they knew the audience they wanted to target and that Cena was the man to do it. They were eventually proved right. Even during his year + long reign, the crowd were reacting with force every time he appeared. It was a backlash but pretty much as a result of one era clashing with another, and the transition taking a bit of time. Fact is the crowd were still reacting though. Since Cena got it a few months into his run it wasn't a case of being stale and needing to be phased out, it was a reaction to the character. I don't think the build up to HHH vs Orton was that bad. If Cena was in that position I'm positive the crowd would have been reacting more, ditto Jeff Hardy. There just wasn't any need for the crowd to be passionate about a HHH win though. So when does it end? Do we go another 5 years if HHH is able to? Is that right? Why is it that Cena, while still the current franchise and biggest money maker, can spend time and job in the mid-card. Cena for moments this year and last year essentially takes up HBK/Taker positons, and is not the focus. HHH always is. Again I don't disagree that he should be a main eventer. Just not the focus of the show after he has done absolutely everything. The show shouldn't have HHH in play if crowds aren't reacting with passion to him. Every Cena match has maximum crowd reaction because he is the biggest star. The crowd would not have been silent if it was Cena in the main event at Mania. Indeed the Cena match followed HBK/Taker, but the crowd were still pumped. They would not sing Jeff Hardy out of the arena to a noticeable noise. So why is HHH still the biggest star? Not just a star, but THE BIGGEST? Even when the casual crowd, and not just the internet, is showing signs of getting bored. Thanks. I see your and everyone's point as essentially Trips has been in World title programs nearly every year since 2000 (except 2007 when he was injured and even then we know the supposed original plans for WM 23 were). The answer is obviously to stick him in a feud which doesn't involve the title as has happened occasionally this decade (Flair in 2005, Big Show in early '06, the DX run that year) but even then main eventers who find themselves in the 'midcard' spot rarely job and thus the other 'problem' (Trips not 'properly' putting ppl over) still remains. Your main event guy is always going to be overexposed, is always going to be booked strong even if you believe they don't have 'it' anymore or they should spend time laying down for every potential superstar. The only time I recall the promotion doing that was in sacrificing Andre The Giant to Ultimate Warrior in '89 and that's largely because Andre, unlike Trips, was pretty much on the verge of retirement due to his physical condition. I'd like to see it happen but how he's booked in-ring will largely stay the same until they want him to specifically put one of their 'chosen' over (which he has done before).
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jul 2, 2009 13:57:39 GMT -5
I really respect the way Baerrt is making his points here. It's a real good debate - I just have to ask with regards to HHH - how much is too much? Do we let him go for another 5 years as the focus? Not just as a main eventer - but as the focus of the show? Until he is broken down and finally cannot work a full schedule anymore. Cena experienced the reaction a few months into his main event run. They could either say that one of their Mania main event winners was a bust and acknowledge it as a waste, or they could try and make it work. They had to try and make it work, because they knew the audience they wanted to target and that Cena was the man to do it. They were eventually proved right. Even during his year + long reign, the crowd were reacting with force every time he appeared. It was a backlash but pretty much as a result of one era clashing with another, and the transition taking a bit of time. Fact is the crowd were still reacting though. Since Cena got it a few months into his run it wasn't a case of being stale and needing to be phased out, it was a reaction to the character. I don't think the build up to HHH vs Orton was that bad. If Cena was in that position I'm positive the crowd would have been reacting more, ditto Jeff Hardy. There just wasn't any need for the crowd to be passionate about a HHH win though. So when does it end? Do we go another 5 years if HHH is able to? Is that right? Why is it that Cena, while still the current franchise and biggest money maker, can spend time and job in the mid-card. Cena for moments this year and last year essentially takes up HBK/Taker positons, and is not the focus. HHH always is. Again I don't disagree that he should be a main eventer. Just not the focus of the show after he has done absolutely everything. The show shouldn't have HHH in play if crowds aren't reacting with passion to him. Every Cena match has maximum crowd reaction because he is the biggest star. The crowd would not have been silent if it was Cena in the main event at Mania. Indeed the Cena match followed HBK/Taker, but the crowd were still pumped. They would not sing Jeff Hardy out of the arena to a noticeable noise. So why is HHH still the biggest star? Not just a star, but THE BIGGEST? Even when the casual crowd, and not just the internet, is showing signs of getting bored. Thanks. I see your and everyone's point as essentially Trips has been in World title programs nearly every year since 2000 (except 2007 when he was injured and even then we know the supposed original plans for WM 23 were). The answer is obviously to stick him in a feud which doesn't involve the title as has happened occasionally this decade (Flair in 2005, Big Show in early '06, the DX run that year) but even then main eventers who find themselves in the 'midcard' spot rarely job and thus the other 'problem' (Trips not 'properly' putting ppl over) still remains. Your main event guy is always going to be overexposed, is always going to be booked strong even if you believe they don't have 'it' anymore or they should spend time laying down for every potential superstar. The only time I recall the promotion doing that was in sacrificing Andre The Giant to Ultimate Warrior in '89 and that's largely because Andre, unlike Trips, was pretty much on the verge of retirement due to his physical condition. I'd like to see it happen but how he's booked in-ring will largely stay the same until they want him to specifically put one of their 'chosen' over (which he has done before). I don't even have a problem with how HHH 'doesn't job' because I don't think it's him that decides it. The position he is in means the results of a program are already decided, but it's using him in that 'the show focussed on you' role that gets me. If he was in an HBK role he could still win plenty of matches, but guys could beat him ever so slightly more and he wouldn't be the focus. I just mentioned in the Smackdown thread that his 08 title run was fine IMO because he wasn't THE focus of the show. I think he had a massive hand in Jeff's development to bona-fide main eventer and he deserves massive kudos for that. But does he need to be the focus of Raw? Since I got back watching in 07 I've been through Cena being the focus, then Orton, then Regal, then Punk, then Jericho, then Orton again. And now it's HHH. Each one of those times, my motivation to tuning in has been based on what story I am going to get a continuation of: - With Cena's great long reign the television was secondary to the monumental feel of each of his matches IMO, but it was still good to see how he would try and fight his way through. - With Orton, this was his first reign as a 'legitimate' champion, actually being given a proper shot, so this was interesting to see with the Age of Orton. - Then eventually HHH dethroned him but at the same time (credit to the writers/bookers/HHH/whoever again) HHH was not the focus. It was more on how Regal was both King and GM, and let that power go to his head. So it was interesting to see what new ways they could take a guy having both monikers. - Then Punk cashed in, and the focus wasn't a much on one particular guy as it was that anything can happen on the show. Cena was facing JBL, Punk was champion, Batista and Kane were swimming around him and HBK/Jericho was really kicking into gear. There was a lot to like on Raw. - Then Jericho with his awesome new character took over, not much to say about Jericho that hasn't already been said. - Then Orton returned, started Legacy so the focus was both on the formation of that group and the development of Orton's character. That leads us to when HHH got involved in the feud with the McMahons. The central story revolving around the character in focus on the show is what keeps people tuning in. It's why programming tends to suck for a couple of weeks when plans get derailed unexpectedly (like Regal's suspension meaning the focus of the show was on Vince giving away money, and HHH as champion) and they try and find something else to set in motion. HHH hadn't been the focus of the show since early 2005, when it transitioned over to Batista. Even when DX were getting a lot of exposure in 2006, the focus was still on Cena being the controversial champion overcomming tremendous odds as well as a backlash from the fans. So why is he back to being the focus of the show again? Did they think that some time out of the - relative - spotlight meant he would be fresh again? Well he isn't really, because he's still been very high up in some capacity. Why is the show not about how Orton's Legacy is taking control, how his mental weakness leads him to doing things that are beyond his control, and perhaps even how Orton has surrounded himself with multi generational stars to not only protect him from others, but to protect him from himself, because they know best what pressures he had gone through growing up in this business? Why is it, that after so much progress had been made, so many new stars have been created, and with a roster that is now more talented than at any time since 2002, suddenly been decided that the show once again needs to focus on how bad-ass HHH is and his endless quest for the title? Why?
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 2, 2009 14:15:47 GMT -5
I wonder how much of the pop is for his music and how much is for HHH himself.
|
|