Renslayer
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
every time i come around your city...
Posts: 16,692
|
Post by Renslayer on Aug 24, 2011 18:26:52 GMT -5
Glad someone brought up Goldberg in the Elimination Chamber. Holy s*** what were they thinking? Goldberg was booked to be on fire, he was on fire, and then that happened. It was like they discovered how to book Goldberg, had everyone in the ring put him over (with the exception of Nash... lol), and then.... *plop*. That still angers me. Goldberg gets in, dominates the match & had the crowd real hot. Then, sledgehammer to the head & HHH retains, even though he didn't do shit all match. Just awful
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Aug 24, 2011 18:40:57 GMT -5
Wrestlemania 19- Booker T/HHH- it was Bookers' time to be champ, but HHH wouldn't allow it.
Summerslam 2010- Nexus/Team WWE- was the beginning of the end for Nexus
Summerslam 2011- Orton/Christian- was no point of having Orton win the belt yet again, Christian could have used the huge win to be seen as a legit champ.
Starrcade 98- Goldberg/Nash- beginning of the end for WCW
Summerslam 2003- Elimination Chamber- HHH was injured and won with literally one move to beat Goldberg. Really nothing else to be said about that one.
Armageddon 2003- HHH/Goldberg/Kane- there was no point whatsoever in having Goldberg lose the title at that PPV. Maybe if they let Goldberg have a long title run, he would of actually stayed for more than 11 months.
I'm sure there's plenty of others, but I can't think of them at the moment, if I do I'll add them.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Aug 24, 2011 18:42:01 GMT -5
I hate the concept that there's a "correct" outcome to any match, or a "correct" way for any storyline to go, etc.....That kind of kills the point of wrestling for me. I notice the wrestling observer guys are pretty big on this. Every angle has to go specific steps they have in mind or its terrible. Which of course, is completely non-responsive to the thread's point, I admit. +1 We aren't bookers, we don't really know the inner workings despite many of us speaking the former. I always dislike when people fantasy book an angle in their head and shit all over the actual outcome when it doesn't go the way they had it planned. Its a recurring theme here that things have to happen a certain way otherwise it is "predictable". And yet, it'd be just as predictable if people always got their way. I don't think people realize this. In the case of HHH/Booker, I still point to Booker contemplating retirement and the company simultaneously trying to legitimize the World Heavyweight Championship. That's why the match went the way it did. No amount of evil HHH chicanery could have stopped Booker from winning had he been intent on staying, at least from what I remember reading months back. This is a fake sport with predetermined outcomes, there's no such thing as a wrong winner, just an undesired one. And in that case the heel was the unwanted victor, so his winning and forthcoming hatred made sense in wrestling storytelling sense.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Aug 24, 2011 18:54:19 GMT -5
I hate the concept that there's a "correct" outcome to any match, or a "correct" way for any storyline to go, etc.....That kind of kills the point of wrestling for me. I notice the wrestling observer guys are pretty big on this. Every angle has to go specific steps they have in mind or its terrible. Which of course, is completely non-responsive to the thread's point, I admit. +1 We aren't bookers, we don't really know the inner workings despite many of us speaking the former. I always dislike when people fantasy book an angle in their head and s*** all over the actual outcome when it doesn't go the way they had it planned. Its a recurring theme here that things have to happen a certain way otherwise it is "predictable". And yet, it'd be just as predictable if people always got their way. I don't think people realize this. In the case of HHH/Booker, I still point to Booker contemplating retirement and the company simultaneously trying to legitimize the World Heavyweight Championship. That's why the match went the way it did. No amount of evil HHH chicanery could have stopped Booker from winning had he been intent on staying, at least from what I remember reading months back. This is a fake sport with predetermined outcomes, there's no such thing as a wrong winner, just an undesired one. And in that case the heel was the unwanted victor, so his winning and forthcoming hatred made sense in wrestling storytelling sense. True, but I mean come on. HHH made everyone look like shit for that year as a champ. Look what happened to guys like RVD, Kane, Steiner after their fued with HHH was over. Hell Steiner wasn't even on the damn Mania 19 card after his fued with HHH came to an end. There's a lot of instances where there's a right guy who should have won, at least in my opinion. Best example is Nash/Goldberg at Starrcade 98. That was probably the worst booking decision in wrestling history, to have Nash go over WCWs' top star for no reason whatsoever. It was the beginning of the end for WCW when that happened. Goldberg was still over, but in the eyes of many fans they didn't really care as much anymore because the streak was gone.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Aug 24, 2011 19:02:54 GMT -5
If Jericho had beaten Michaels at Wrestlemania XIX, we wouldn't have gotten the "HBK goes for the Hogan/Warrior show of sportsmanship, Jericho tearfully hugs him... and then kicks him in the balls" bit, which is one of the funniest endings to a non-comedy match ever.
Anyway, to go with a much more recent example, Sheamus should have beaten Mark Henry at Summerslam. Decisively. As in, kicks out of the World's Strongest Slam and gets the pin after a Brogue Kick decisively.
The crowd was hot as hell for Sheamus, and this should have been his slamming Andre moment. I like Mark, but he's middle-aged and he isn't going anywhere; what momentum he's gathered over the last couple months would best be used to put over someone on the rise. A non-ending that tries to make both guys look strong just makes it look like the bookers are too indecisive to really get behind either guy, and that makes both of them look worse off.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Aug 24, 2011 19:07:37 GMT -5
+1 We aren't bookers, we don't really know the inner workings despite many of us speaking the former. I always dislike when people fantasy book an angle in their head and s*** all over the actual outcome when it doesn't go the way they had it planned. Its a recurring theme here that things have to happen a certain way otherwise it is "predictable". And yet, it'd be just as predictable if people always got their way. I don't think people realize this. In the case of HHH/Booker, I still point to Booker contemplating retirement and the company simultaneously trying to legitimize the World Heavyweight Championship. That's why the match went the way it did. No amount of evil HHH chicanery could have stopped Booker from winning had he been intent on staying, at least from what I remember reading months back. This is a fake sport with predetermined outcomes, there's no such thing as a wrong winner, just an undesired one. And in that case the heel was the unwanted victor, so his winning and forthcoming hatred made sense in wrestling storytelling sense. True, but I mean come on. HHH made everyone look like s*** for that year as a champ. Look what happened to guys like RVD, Kane, Steiner after their fued with HHH was over. Hell Steiner wasn't even on the damn Mania 19 card after his fued with HHH came to an end. There's a lot of instances where there's a right guy who should have won, at least in my opinion. Best example is Nash/Goldberg at Starrcade 98. That was probably the worst booking decision in wrestling history, to have Nash go over WCWs' top star for no reason whatsoever. It was the beginning of the end for WCW when that happened. Goldberg was still over, but in the eyes of many fans they didn't really care as much anymore because the streak was gone. And I agree with you here. Goldberg was the victim of many bonehead decisions, especially SummerSlam 2003. Thing with HHH is that when he beat Kane, his mask was lost and it began a career resurgence for the guy. With RVD, I would argue that he wasn't yet ready for the gold as he ended up serving as a placeholder between HHH/HBK in the summer and HHH/HBK in the winter. I doubt he was ever supposed to win the gold in that feud. The main event at the time was already kind of bloated with HHH/Y2J/HBK/and Kane vying for the gold. RVD lost, but rest assure he didn't lose popularity and he eventually won two belts at the same time in 2006 when the time was right. Steiner got exposed as being out of shape and not the worker he once was once he came into WWE, I can't feel too bad for him after his performances.
|
|
HBL
Unicron
This is what yoga does to you.
Posts: 3,196
|
Post by HBL on Aug 24, 2011 19:19:58 GMT -5
Got only one for now: Nexus vs Team WWE.Totally stupid decision to make Team WWE win.If Nexus won each member would have the right to brag about how they defeated WWE's finest and with that kind of victory at a PPV like Summerslam would definitely boost their style.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonwolf on Aug 24, 2011 19:21:25 GMT -5
Edge and Cena at the Rumble screamed of WWE having their plan set in place months prior, and just refusing to mold to what their fans wanted. Edge did what a lot of the "hot" stars can't. He brought them some killer ratings. I hate that they do that so much now. You're paid to be CREATIVE. If something pops up unexpectedly that the crowd gravitates towards and takes a real emotional interest in, why tell them, "NO, WE PLANNED THIS. WE DON'T CARE.". That drives me crazy. I don't disagree with the result of Edge/Cena. I disagree with WHEN it took place. They should have saved it for Wrestlemania. Instead the whole thing reeked of them forgetting about the MitB, then remembering in a panic and having Edge just use it up before it was too late. I kinda of disagreed. It more so reeked of "OMG, the crowd is bashing the @$ out of Cena, we gotta get him over." The whole time period was surreal, because it was obvious they were saving Super-Cena to face off against Triple H at Wrestlemania, but they didn't count on the crowd turning on him so quickly, and the whole thing with dropping the title briefly to Edge felt more like they were in panic mode and testing to see if the crowd would like Cena again if he actually drop. Not to downplay Edge, but I think the ratings surge during his reign had just as much to do with Cena actually losing the title. As for who should have won their matches: Triple H vs Booker: That one is just a no brainer, Booker should have won. The entire angle was booked in a way that Booker should have won. Why they decided to let Triple H win will always remain a mystery. 2003 Elimination Chamber: Yeah, another no brainer. The entire match had Goldberg decimating everyone (in his normal fashion.) That was the moment to put the title on him. Because then he would've become this hot entity and who ever finally pinned him afterwards would've got a major rub (aka they could've did what WCW failed to capitalize on.) Randy Orton vs Hulk Hogan: Now I can respect Orton not going over Taker (especially since it was supposedly Orton who backed out of being booked to win) but Hogan should have put over Orton. Orton was at the height of his "Legend Killer" gimmick and getting a pin over Hogan would've gave him a massive push. Kofi vs Orton: Kofi should have pinned Orton at the PPV following SS. Nuff said.
|
|
TheDieselTrain
Fry's dog Seymour
Chicks Dig Hootie.
Is Stone Cold gonna have to smack a bitch?? WHAT!!!?????
Posts: 23,724
|
Post by TheDieselTrain on Aug 24, 2011 19:29:33 GMT -5
Armageddon 2003- HHH/Goldberg/Kane- there was no point whatsoever in having Goldberg lose the title at that PPV. Maybe if they let Goldberg have a long title run, he would of actually stayed for more than 11 months. Very stupid that Kane didn't win this one. For that matter this should have been Kane vs. Goldberg 1 on 1. As mentioned earlier he was the top character on RAW after being unmasked on a tear an destroying everything and he should have won that night. HHH didnt even show up on he RAW before the ppv.
|
|
|
Post by alliedbiscuit on Aug 24, 2011 19:37:35 GMT -5
HHH/Cena WM 22, Hogan vs Orton and HBK, Edge/Del Rio at WM 27, HHH/Undertaker WM 27, Nexus/Team WWE Summerslam '10 are my top choices.
|
|
|
Post by Long Live the Stream on Aug 24, 2011 19:38:32 GMT -5
Sheamus/Zack Ryder
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Aug 24, 2011 19:45:14 GMT -5
Armageddon 2003- HHH/Goldberg/Kane- there was no point whatsoever in having Goldberg lose the title at that PPV. Maybe if they let Goldberg have a long title run, he would of actually stayed for more than 11 months. Very stupid that Kane didn't win this one. For that matter this should have been Kane vs. Goldberg 1 on 1. As mentioned earlier he was the top character on RAW after being unmasked on a tear an destroying everything and he should have won that night. HHH didnt even show up on he RAW before the ppv. Yeah, your right. Kane winning would have been fine as well. He was still in his unstoppable role at the time, so that would have been cool seeing him with the title as well. They could have just worked around it when Kane was going to lose the belt, where he could of had the title stripped somehow so he wouldn't look weak by having to lose clean just yet.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Aug 24, 2011 19:46:53 GMT -5
Going back a bit for these but..
Big John Studd winning the 1989 Royal Rumble. Studd came back and was put over huge by winning this match. and then what did they do with him? Make him a special guest Ref at Wrestlemania 2 months later and that was about it. They devoted a decent amount of time to DiBiase "buying" the #30 spot and he had been pretty much (along with Andre) the main contender to Savage's title for the previous 9 months. Yet he gets in the Rumble, eliminates a couple of guys and then Studd wipes the floor with him. Hogan winning could have been an option too, as Savage could say "he only won the Rumble because he eliminated me", adding more fuel to the Mega Powers explosion.
Hulk Hogan winning the 1990 Royal Rumble. As with the other early Rumbles, there wasn't the guaranteed title shot at this time and although it wasn't as prestigious as it would become in later years, it still meant something to win the Rumble. But why make the reigning WWF Champion win it? They obviously knew Warrior was winning the title at Mania and one of the biggest faults with Warrior's reign was that they didn't really build up any heels to #1 contender level. So why not have Earthquake win the Rumble, or maybe Rick Rude? Or perhaps best of all, Mr. Perfect? It made sense for Hogan to win the 1991 Rumble and it would have made sense for him to win the 1989 Rumble but why this one?
|
|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Aug 24, 2011 19:50:05 GMT -5
I agree with the OP re: HHH vs Booker T at Wrestlemania.
Eddie Guerrero should NOT have dropped the world title to JBL (What the hell was JBL doing in a main event match in the first place?)
Bret Hart should never have 'lost' his match to HBK at the Survivor Series.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Aug 24, 2011 20:10:28 GMT -5
Randy Orton winning all the singles matches against Kofi. They could have atleast given Kofi one victory (other than his Survivor Series match)
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Aug 24, 2011 20:35:08 GMT -5
+1 We aren't bookers, we don't really know the inner workings despite many of us speaking the former. I always dislike when people fantasy book an angle in their head and s*** all over the actual outcome when it doesn't go the way they had it planned. Its a recurring theme here that things have to happen a certain way otherwise it is "predictable". And yet, it'd be just as predictable if people always got their way. I don't think people realize this. In the case of HHH/Booker, I still point to Booker contemplating retirement and the company simultaneously trying to legitimize the World Heavyweight Championship. That's why the match went the way it did. No amount of evil HHH chicanery could have stopped Booker from winning had he been intent on staying, at least from what I remember reading months back. This is a fake sport with predetermined outcomes, there's no such thing as a wrong winner, just an undesired one. And in that case the heel was the unwanted victor, so his winning and forthcoming hatred made sense in wrestling storytelling sense. True, but I mean come on. HHH made everyone look like s*** for that year as a champ. Look what happened to guys like RVD, Kane, Steiner after their fued with HHH was over. Hell Steiner wasn't even on the damn Mania 19 card after his fued with HHH came to an end. There's a lot of instances where there's a right guy who should have won, at least in my opinion. Best example is Nash/Goldberg at Starrcade 98. That was probably the worst booking decision in wrestling history, to have Nash go over WCWs' top star for no reason whatsoever. It was the beginning of the end for WCW when that happened. Goldberg was still over, but in the eyes of many fans they didn't really care as much anymore because the streak was gone. OK, you lost me at Steiner....at that point in time, Scott Steiner shouldn't have been on a card at a high school gym, much less WrestleMania. His matches with HHH were outright embarrassing, and it had nothing to do with Hunter making him look bad, he did that just fine on his own.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Aug 24, 2011 20:55:47 GMT -5
True, but I mean come on. HHH made everyone look like s*** for that year as a champ. Look what happened to guys like RVD, Kane, Steiner after their fued with HHH was over. Hell Steiner wasn't even on the damn Mania 19 card after his fued with HHH came to an end. There's a lot of instances where there's a right guy who should have won, at least in my opinion. Best example is Nash/Goldberg at Starrcade 98. That was probably the worst booking decision in wrestling history, to have Nash go over WCWs' top star for no reason whatsoever. It was the beginning of the end for WCW when that happened. Goldberg was still over, but in the eyes of many fans they didn't really care as much anymore because the streak was gone. OK, you lost me at Steiner....at that point in time, Scott Steiner shouldn't have been on a card at a high school gym, much less WrestleMania. His matches with HHH were outright embarrassing, and it had nothing to do with Hunter making him look bad, he did that just fine on his own. Fair enough. But HHH wasn't working the best of matches either at that time either. Most of his matches in that time period were horrible. Not counting any match with HBK, what matches of HHH were good in 2002-2003?
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Shamrocks on Aug 24, 2011 21:00:02 GMT -5
lol, I never thought of it that way. "Hey, Steamboat's looking pretty good, but if we put these guys in the ring with him, he'll look absolutely legendary." I guess I could have lived with a Flair distraction leading to Steamboat crossbodying him for a win. Rourke jaws with Jericho, Flair distracts ref, Rourke cold-cocks Jericho, Jericho staggers into a Steamboat chop, crossbody off the top, 1-2-3, MSG goes plaid. I like it. Honestly, that would have been a fantastic ending. Sometimes simple is better, I suppose.
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by PKO on Aug 24, 2011 21:19:41 GMT -5
I hate the concept that there's a "correct" outcome to any match, or a "correct" way for any storyline to go, etc.....That kind of kills the point of wrestling for me. I notice the wrestling observer guys are pretty big on this. Every angle has to go specific steps they have in mind or its terrible. Which of course, is completely non-responsive to the thread's point, I admit. I get your point (and agree to an extent) but I think you can look back at storylines and matches and say with the benefit of hindsight "it would have been better if this had happened". I'm always a benefit-of-the-doubt kind of guy, and want to wait things out and see where they're going before criticisng. But sometimes, the desired outcome is so clear, so obvious, that if it doesn't happen it's disappointing. And not the kind of disappointment that you tune in to see what will happen next week, the kind of disappointment that you don't really want to watch. But I know what you mean with the Observer guys; it's gotten really irritating as of late. Most of the time they aren't saying " this is how I would have done it", they're saying " what they are doing is wrong because they should be doing it my way".
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Aug 24, 2011 22:47:21 GMT -5
Sadly, how exactly was Booker going to have any sort of decent title push in 2003? Goldberg had just signed so the build was going to be for GB/HHH. I might have put Booker over at WM at best, then he could job it maybe at the HIAC match and they could have jettisoned the Nash feud.
I actually didn't have a huge problem with the HHH/RVD match with Flair turning heel. The problem was that they did nothing else with that feud, instead putting RVD with Flair briefly and HHH went on to the awful Katie Vick storyline.
Wrong guy won: The Fully Loaded 2000 match with Jericho vs. HHH in the Last Man Standing. That's one where Jericho needed to go over.
My favorite of these is an underrated one: Brock over RVD at KOTR 2002. People take this one for granted but in my view Lesnar was not ready for the push and showed that he wasn't ready for the push. RVD was one of the most popular wrestlers on the roster and needed the KOTR win and the #1 contendership for Rock or Taker at SS. Brock could have beaten RVD for the IC title at the next PPV and had a dominant IC run before moving on to the big belt.
|
|