|
|
Post by Firearm: Supposed Big Deal on Apr 17, 2010 13:30:33 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over?HHH = EVILIND--never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Schattenjager on Apr 17, 2010 13:56:33 GMT -5
Guys, guys, guys. Let's face it, it was all Booker T's fault, anyway. He knew Triple H had Flair at ringside, he should have called for help, too. Booker T should have called these guys.
And he would have walked out of WrestleMania XIX the new World Champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Apr 17, 2010 15:31:13 GMT -5
 C'mon, let me hear you say it, just once. |
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Apr 17, 2010 18:18:33 GMT -5
I've been avoiding this thread because this was the moment I started strongly despising Triple H. I thought this storyline was the biggest crock of s*** I've seen in wrestling. To this day, I still hold this against Triple H. I just can't bring myself to support him. The only time I have is whenever DX returned, and that was mainly leftover support from HBK.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Apr 18, 2010 20:28:11 GMT -5
If Booker T being a champion five times over in WCW meant nothing, why did they constantly refer to it? Why was it the main accolade he and announcers always touted? To you personally, it meant nothing but in the "WWE Universe" they treated it like it meant something and made him legitimate. The nature of the angle dictates Booker had to win. I'm sorry, but you're trying to tell me that they felt it was worse to have Booker win a feud that he NEEDED to win, given the story they presented than to just have him win and then get screwed over by the nefarious Hunter at a later date? Given this thread and the fact that 7 years later, people not only still remember it, but also remember it negatively, indicates maybe otherwise. And again, I just don't buy that they were so unsure and uneasy about everything regarding Booker when a) it's their biggest show of the year and b) they had weeks to not do that type of angle. Booker's reactions didn't dissipate once the angle with Hunter began. If they felt he was in the right position before the program started, then he was at the very least in the same position during it. Because it's something to make Booker look good to the fans, but that's not what I was saying. Being a multi time world champ in another organisation isn't going to convince Vince that he can be the flagship of his company. ...AGAIN, then WHY would he be considered for the spot/angle/match in the first place?! We keep going in circles because you don't actually answer my question. If he "wasn't good enough" or "wasn't popular enough" or whatever supposed reasoning you've given me so far, then why did it happen at all? And once you start it - especially "it" being a racially charged angle - you don't start throwing all that nonsense out the window mid-stream. You finish what you start, give it the right ending and suck it up for the month or three weeks or however long it was until Backlash and have Hunter take the title back. Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over? If you run a company and are about to promote someone only for them to tell you that they're considering being 'done' some months down the line do you offer them the promotion? That's the thing that some fans in their dislike for a certain main eventer, in this case HHH, don't bother considering. That the company may actually want any potential headliners to be 100% reliable and a guy actually considering quitting even when he knows he's going to be pushed isn't. I still want to know then, why they would start any main event, title, Wrestlemania angle involving him? Going with the thinking that Booker's intentions at the time were to retire and that WWE knew all about this, it's all on THEM for starting the angle anyways. And since they did, they should have ended it properly. Like or dislike of a wrestler has nothing to do with anything, at least not for me. Every reason I've been hearing is as though those reasons are enough to warrant how the whole thing was executed, as if it's some kind of justification. They made their bed with the angle and they should have laid in it. It's not as though any potential problem couldn't have been rectified in mere weeks anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Apr 18, 2010 23:39:53 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over? Putting it in big letters for EMPHASIS. I also agree with the Goldberg statement. Because that has nothing to do with the topic. It's not about wether the WWE should put a title on someone considering retiring. That's a completely different topic.The question was did HHH bury Booker at mania? Considering the racist won in a racist angle, it took forever for him to get covered for the pin and he still doesn't kick out, and he loses again at Backlash and doesn't see the main event again for years, the answer is an obvious yes. |
|
