Did HHH really bury Booker T?

[Trent Valentine]

Whenever someone thinks of Booker T's run in WWE, they think of how he was buried into an oblivion by Triple H who was the World Champion. Keep in mind..this was the ill fated Reign of Terror where HHH was pretty much invincible. Here's how the story goes.

After Booker T and Goldust split up, Booker decides to focus on the singles division. He wins a battle royal on Raw to face Triple H on the grandest stage of all...Wrestlemania.

Then...this happens.



The infamous race card angle between Booker T and Triple H. How HHH said that "someone like Booker" can't beat him. Some have said that promo was taken out of context where he was trying to imply that he was nothing more than entertainment, comedy routine etc, but it does look like he was burying him..especially that remark about WCW. And so at Wrestlemania the two have a lengthly match. After all HHH said, Booker T should have won right?


Wrong.


HHH ended up retaining his title while Booker was stuck in mid card hell until the King Booker angle where he won the title FINALLY. This feud looked pretty one sided, any sane person would say Booker should have won the title..what do you think?

[MGH]

I don't know if HE did, but the storyline sure as hell did.

Two months of being told "your people" aren't champions and how Booker was never good enough to be on Triple H's level. Booker T couldn't be champion. It's just common sense, you NEVER do that storyline if you don't intend to give the people the big pay off. I don't care if it took the entire army to defeat Booker T that night. What do you think people remember? That he got cheated, or that after that entire horrible, racially driven storyline he NEVER got to win the belt from Hunter? They never got the image of Booker being triumphant and debunking all of Hunter's claims by winning the World Title.

One of WWE's most hideous booking moves I can ever remember. From start to finish.

[Arturo Classico]

Yeah pretty much. The fans were so behind and Booker was about to break out as a huge star and HHH got the fans behind Booker by looking like a huge racist and wanted Book to shut up Hunter and take his title than......jobbed out Wrestlemania and looked like an idiot and useless until he became King Booker (which was totally awesome, by the way). Same thing happened with Kane which is way I still hat HHH to this day.

Although I did like him from 1997-2001 when he didn't have to win every feud by someone not named John Cena, Ric Flair and Batista.

[Renslayer]

By subtly injecting race into their feud, Booker should've won and it would've made a great story for that summer. But, they made him look like a chump at WM and it took him years to reach championship contention instead. I wouldn't call it a burial, just a poorly executed angle.

[Rick Mad]

I always thought Triple H's thing about "someone like Booker T" not being able to beat him meant "a former WCW main eventer" or something like that, but I guess I was naive about it or something.

[MGH]

Apr 15, 2010 13:49:49 GMT -5 Rick Mad said:

I always thought Triple H's thing about "someone like Booker T" not being able to beat him meant "a former WCW main eventer" or something like that, but I guess I was naive about it or something.

It would have been better if it was, but running in to him backstage and saying "dance for me Booker", and walking in to the bathroom and demanding he get him a towel like he was a servant or something had nothing to do with WCW.

[Rick Mad]

Apr 15, 2010 13:49:49 GMT -5 Rick Mad said:

I always thought Triple H's thing about "someone like Booker T" not being able to beat him meant "a former WCW main eventer" or something like that, but I guess I was naive about it or something.

Nevermind, rewatched it, definitely obviously racist overtones.

[waluigi]

To get an idea of how stupid the writers were with this:

Booker not only lost at Mania, he didn't even get a rematch at backlash. All they did was a six man tag match with him, Shawn Michaels and Diesel vs. Evolution.

And booker's team STILL LOST...

[Schattenjager]

Don't get me wrong, I'm openly a HHHater and I hate to defend the Booker T burial job here and I hated the angle and I hated the whole racial tone it took, but I have to admit that I think it was the right decision to keep the belt on Triple H, I'm afraid. It's my understanding that the original plan was, in fact, to give Booker T the belt at WrestleMania and that's why they added the racial aspect to the feud: to give Booker T a triumphant underdog victory at WrestleMania, as well as a bonafide WrestleMania moment. But a decision was made later on to reverse the outcome, because Booker T's crowd support just wasn't at the level they wanted it to be in order to give him the World title at WrestleMania.

And I have to agree, when you watch the match, you can clearly see that the crowd is absolutely dead and would rather be anywhere else. Sorry, Booker, I guess you just weren't World Championship material. Now, that does not excuse the idiotic buildup that they had for the match. If you build the match up like that, you better have the underdog win, because the loss did make Booker T look like an absolute chump. The buildup should have been more even sided, so it would not have hurt Booker T so much that they decided to keep the belt with Triple H. Since they were only testing waters with Booker T at this point, it was beyond stupid to build the angle up the way they did. They pretty much painted themselves into a corner.

[Threadkiller [Classic]]

If they hadn't injected the race issue into the angle, it simply would have been a case of "Well, good booking sense dictates that Booker wins, but Hunter retaining could work too." With the race issue, however, it became a case of "Justice DEMANDS that Booker win the title, even if just for one night. Hunter retaining would be inexcusable."

Granted, it didn't end up being the end of the world, or this irreparable, inexcusable act. Then again, given how long it took Booker T to recover his momentum (and it's arguable that he ever did), I'm not so sure. The only other time he had that kind of momentum was with the King Booker angle, and we all know who put the bullet in that momentum too (well, that, and wellness).

[Apricots And A Pear Tree]

Booker couldn't win man,they needed HHH to give the title credibility........I miss the eye rolling smiley right now.

[Feargus McReddit]

Apr 15, 2010 14:00:03 GMT -5 Apricots And A Pear Tree said:

Booker couldn't win man,they needed HHH to give the title credibility........I miss the eye rolling smiley right now.

But then why book it like that? Why not just have the typical Mania championship booking? Why did they have to bring RACE into it? It just makes the whole thing look completly stupid.

[MGH]

Apr 15, 2010 13:59:37 GMT -5 Threadkiller [Classic] said:

If they hadn't injected the race issue into the angle, it simply would have been a case of "Well, good booking sense dictates that Booker wins, but Hunter retaining could work too." With the race issue, however, it became a case of "Justice DEMANDS that Booker win the title, even if just for one night. Hunter retaining would be inexcusable."

And that's why I harp on this much more than any Triple H outcome in recent memory. You just can't do the build they did, and not give the fans the visual of Booker over coming those attempting to bring him down. It's the ultimate feel good storyline. Had this just been "Hey Booker, you're from WCW, you can't touch me pal", then while I would have been pulling for Booker I really wouldn't have cared about the out come. But you tell the guy to dance for you, then you beat him with the infamous 30 second one handed pin pedigree? Just can't do it. It's inexcusable. If they changed their mind mid-stream, they still should have had Booker win then have Hunter steal it from him again the next night on Raw. But there had to be the payoff after they went THERE with the storyline, and it never was.

[Killah Ray]

God how I hate that f***ing promo.....

And the way Booker was buried was really f***ing ridiculous...and then he did the same to both RVD and Kane in the same year....

[Threadkiller [Classic]]

Apr 15, 2010 14:11:16 GMT -5 Killah Ray said:

God how I hate that f***ing promo.....

And the way Booker was buried was really f***ing ridiculous...and then he did the same to both RVD and Kane in the same year....

Actually, that was six months earlier, in the fall of 2002. Although in the summer of 2003, he would be responsible for the unmasking of Kane after pinning him for the umpteenth time.

But they were turning Kane heel anyway, so I guess it made sense.

I just remember the story that, in the build-up to WM that year, they were going to have The Rock put Booker over clean on Raw. And Rock was all about it until he heard what was going to happen at WM.

Or am I getting the story wrong? Because Rock wound up putting over The Hurricane only for The Hurricane to get squashed by Hunter a week or two later. I think I might have gotten the stories crossed.

But yeah, I remember the week before Mania, when Booker pinned Hunter in a tag match and I thought, "Well, I guess this means Booker's losing at Mania, although I have serious doubts that any company would be THAT stupid."

Alas, it would be the first of many such moments provided by WWE in the 2000s, spattered amongst the good and the in-between.

[toonami4life]

By the time it took HHH to hit the pedigree and cover him I could've read War and Peace from Front to Back. That in the eyes of many symbolized HHH burying Booker T and the fact he just draped an hand over him and Booker showed no signs of life made it worse.

[Jason]

Am I the only one who LOVED this reign? But yeah, he buried him alright. He pretty much said that black people don't win titles and that they were only there to "carry his bags" and entertain us. Sadly enough, he proved himself right at Wrestlemania.

I loved this era though, Triple H played the bastard brilliantly.

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Apr 15, 2010 14:04:02 GMT -5 MGH said:

Apr 15, 2010 13:59:37 GMT -5 Threadkiller [Classic] said:

If they hadn't injected the race issue into the angle, it simply would have been a case of "Well, good booking sense dictates that Booker wins, but Hunter retaining could work too." With the race issue, however, it became a case of "Justice DEMANDS that Booker win the title, even if just for one night. Hunter retaining would be inexcusable."

And that's why I harp on this much more than any Triple H outcome in recent memory. You just can't do the build they did, and not give the fans the visual of Booker over coming those attempting to bring him down. It's the ultimate feel good storyline. Had this just been "Hey Booker, you're from WCW, you can't touch me pal", then while I would have been pulling for Booker I really wouldn't have cared about the out come. But you tell the guy to dance for you, then you beat him with the infamous 30 second one handed pin pedigree? Just can't do it. It's inexcusable. If they changed their mind mid-stream, they still should have had Booker win then have Hunter steal it from him again the next night on Raw. But there had to be the payoff after they went THERE with the storyline, and it never was.

You just admitted you cared more about the outcome because they brought race into it. They were attempting to sell a PPV. The biggest one of the year. It wasn't about making Booker, or even making HHH, it was about selling that event.

In any case, why can't they do it? If it made more money for them as a result, it's fair game. If they wanted Booker to be a star, they could have continued pushing him, but they clearly didn't want to. If they were going to use him on the same level they may as well try and make as much money out of a much featuring him as possible. It didn't render him unpushable afterwards. Ratings didn't plummet because of that one angle, and it made people want the belt off of HHH more after he won it.

[rapidfire187]

Well, Booker looked bad coming out of Wrestlemania 19. There was no reason why he shouldn't have won the strap, but HHH retained. How much HHH had to do in the making of that decision we'll probably never know.

Then at Summer Slam 2007 (I think) HHH returned and beat Booker T in what I think was his last match in WWE. I'm not so sure that you can call that burying. HHH wasn't going to lose regardless of who he fought in his big return match. And with Booker headed out the door why would they have put him over HHH? I don't think that one can be blamed on HHH at all.

In the end none of it really mattered though. After the WM 19 match, Booker looked bad for a few years but he eventually got a long title reign. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have won the WM 19 match, I'm just saying that in the end it didn't ruin Booker's career or anything.

Edit: And the race deal didn't make me care any more about the outcome of the match. It may just be my memory, but I don't remember the angle making HHH look like an overt racist or anything. I do remember the promo in the original post where he said something along the lines of "You people are too uppity", but the feud wasn't focused on that. I just really thought Booker should've won the Mania match because it was Mania and the stuff with HHH was already getting old. Plus HHH had already retained the title as a heel 3 years earlier and people hated it.

[Threadkiller [Classic]]

Apr 15, 2010 16:19:32 GMT -5 wrestlecrapcrap said:

Apr 15, 2010 14:04:02 GMT -5 MGH said:

And that's why I harp on this much more than any Triple H outcome in recent memory. You just can't do the build they did, and not give the fans the visual of Booker over coming those attempting to bring him down. It's the ultimate feel good storyline. Had this just been "Hey Booker, you're from WCW, you can't touch me pal", then while I would have been pulling for Booker I really wouldn't have cared about the out come. But you tell the guy to dance for you, then you beat him with the infamous 30 second one handed pin pedigree? Just can't do it. It's inexcusable. If they changed their mind mid-stream, they still should have had Booker win then have Hunter steal it from him again the next night on Raw. But there had to be the payoff after they went THERE with the storyline, and it never was.

You just admitted you cared more about the outcome because they brought race into it. They were attempting to sell a PPV. The biggest one of the year. It wasn't about making Booker, or even making HHH, it was about selling that event.

In any case, why can't they do it? If it made more money for them as a result, it's fair game. If they wanted Booker to be a star, they could have continued pushing him, but they clearly didn't want to. If they were going to use him on the same level they may as well try and make as much money out of a much featuring him as possible. It didn't render him unpushable afterwards. Ratings didn't plummet because of that one angle, and it made people want the belt off of HHH more after he won it.

Well, I'm not saying they're not allowed to do an angle like that. What I am saying is that there are other ways to make money that aren't classless. You say they were trying to push the match and make money, but ultimately, Wrestlemania XIX wound up being the least bought Wrestlemania of the decade, and the lowest-drawing Mania since Wrestlemania 13. So not only did they do a tasteless angle with an insulting finish, but they didn't do any significantly better business on the back of it anyhow. Booker T getting his Wrestlemania moment was probably one of the only sure things that a fan ordering the show could count on, given how the angle was built. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it drove fans away, although let's be honest, nobody was buying the PPV for that match anyway.

If people were going to buy Wrestlemania at all, they were probably going to buy it on the name/brand alone. I think doing an angle like that with the finish that angle had smacks of bad taste. Seriously, you'd think that in 2003 we would have gotten past the whole "derisive racial conflicts in wrestling" thing. That shit was played out with the Gang Warz/Stable Warz in 1997 and it was played out in 2003. My problem is not that HHH went over. That's not it at all. It's that he said all the racially charged things he said AND THEN he went over anyway.

And to your point about HHH's win making the fans even hungrier for him to lose the belt. Well, yeah. It made me hungrier to see him lose the belt...to Booker T. Because that's the only pay off, after all of the crap that came before it, that made a single lick of sense. HHH going over made me want Booker T to continue the chase and for HIM to be the one to dethrone Hunter, that's all that finish did. But then Kevin Nash showed up and it was pretty much over for Booker T as a world title contender, and it actually made me resent Nash because he's not the one I wanted to see take the belt off of HHH. Granted, Nash didn't do it either. And Goldberg only did it after jobbing nonsensically at the second-biggest PPV of the year, and winning the title in front of an apathetic crowd who'd been burnt out from waiting so long.

So that's basically my ramble. Nobody is saying they can't do a finish like that. But one would hope that common sense (hell, even common decency) would tell the Higher Ups just how bad an idea it is.