|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Dec 23, 2013 22:34:57 GMT -5
Former WWE writer Seth Mates was talking about the beginning of the brand split on the PWTorch livecast(free portion) this past friday and how after Brock was going to be champion on Smackdown that they were going to split the titles again and have Rob Van Dam(who was Ic champ and absorbed the Hardcore and Euro titles)go over Triple H and become the World Heavyweight champ and hold the belt for a while, at least until WM... That was the plan until Hunter got in Vince's ear with the classic "he's not ready yet" and "I can make him" and convinced Vince to change things. Can you imagine in 2002, the WWE having fresh faces for Raw and Smackdown with RVD and Brock respectively? In stead, we got the reign of terror....
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Dec 23, 2013 23:29:25 GMT -5
I've echoed the whole burial of RVD in late 2002 in other threads, but to me the first dagger was the 2002 KOTR finals where a green Lesnar went over RVD. That said, if we're going into times where HHH went over RVD unnecessarily, I think about the Raw WWE title tourney in 2006 heading into WM. Or rather not so much that HHH went over (HHH/Cena was basically penciled in), but the way it happened. The Big Show/HHH semi went to a double countout, so they put both men against RVD in the finals. Now, since Big Show was clearly meaningless, logic would dictate that he takes the pedigree there to blow off the mini feud with HHH and keep a returning RVD strong. But no....despite being crazy over in that match RVD inexplicably ate a pedigree and a pin just because HHH wanted to shovel one more pile of dirt. Never mind that RVD was going to win MITB and get a major push while Big Show did nothing more than tag/feud with Kane.
|
|
ASYLUMHAUSEN
Fry's dog Seymour
GIFs | Shitposts | Fun
Posts: 24,372
|
Post by ASYLUMHAUSEN on Dec 24, 2013 1:11:11 GMT -5
While reading this thread, I got the mental image of John Goodman pulling a gun on whoever runs the WWE website, telling him to pull up WWE Title History and yelling "MARK IT ZERO!"
|
|
|
Post by N E O G E O B O Y S on Dec 24, 2013 1:47:31 GMT -5
Besides Batista, all his feuds after 2003 had him go over unnecessarily,and I'm a fan of the guy
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Dec 24, 2013 2:53:59 GMT -5
Any match he had against Foley. For like 5 months they feuded, and Mick never got one win in. Mick has wins over Rock an Austin in that same year, but nope, not against Triple H
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 24, 2013 3:01:21 GMT -5
I never understood the Goldberg complaint. Not just this one, but when Nash beat him too. In both cases, he was still booked as totally unstoppable. It required a taser to end the streak and he looked like a beast in the EC and had to be taken out with a sledgehammer. He would get his revenge both times too. Was Goldberg supposed to never lose? He wasn't even that good. He was reckless and couldn't talk. While I do agree, again WWE booked themselves in a corner. They signed Goldberg to a one year contract. So during that time, they wanted to build, give him the title, lose the title and put someone over during that one year. That's a ton to get done, at least a 2 year contract would justify giving him a title reign. I think a major issue a lot of people had with Trips winning at the time, was that Goldberg could've taken the title sooner and it wouldn't have made a major difference. We have to remember that Triple H was in rough shape at this time, he was grotesquely out of shape and injured his groin, severely limiting what he could do. Why doesn't he drop the title at the Chamber and take a couple months off? For the record, I HATED Goldberg during this time, but I can understand other people's issues since Triple H was oozing his way through feuds and making the championship look embarassing. That said, I don't think I was ever as pissed as I was when he beat Booker at Wrestlemania. They went and took their most over face on Raw and just ruined all his credibility in one fell swoop. It didn't help that Trips was pulling out wrestling holds like the Indian Death Lock, which he almost never used. If you're going to introduce a move, it should be a face doing it, not a heel. I forgot how bad of a shape HHH was in but I remember it now that you mention it. It was the worst he's ever looked. But I was talking from a Goldberg losing perspective and not so much a HHH winning one. I've never hated the WWE more than when HHH went over Booker at Mania. They must know how bad it is now because they never mention but I'd still like to know the rationale for doing it in the first place. Even if he was planning on leaving, then they could've got the belt off him the following month. He took forever to make the pin too. I consider it worse than the Montreal screwjob.
|
|
Capt Lunatic
Unicron
Buttah in mah ass, lollipops in mah mouth
Posts: 3,241
|
Post by Capt Lunatic on Dec 24, 2013 3:32:44 GMT -5
I just watched it. It was 25 seconds between Pedigree and pin. Just brutal.
Although the line "Booker T's family portrait is a courtroom sketch." followed by "You're no stranger to courtrooms yourself King." made me laugh.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Dec 24, 2013 5:31:18 GMT -5
Can we add his victory over King Booker at Summerslam 2007 to the list? That seemed pointless as well, and just another time in Bookers career when he lost to HHH.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 7:46:04 GMT -5
What was that one where Cena was about to have a WWE title match against SOMEONE ELSE at the upcoming PPV, yet on the go home show he loses to HHH...just because.
HHH wasn't even involved.
It would be like if Daniel Bryan won the rumble, then on the go home show before going against Orton at mania, he did a quick clean job to Del Rio.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Dec 24, 2013 7:53:28 GMT -5
It seems revisionist history has Booker looking like shit in his feud with Hunter. He actually looked very strong in the build with Triple H expressing fear that he would get beaten, that makes the match even more stupid.
|
|
"Magic" Mark Hurr
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Here, have some chili dogs
Not related to Phantasmo
Posts: 15,751
|
Post by "Magic" Mark Hurr on Dec 24, 2013 7:55:44 GMT -5
When I saw the thread title I said to myself. "How long do we have to go into this? Cause if we talking about HHH I'll need to get comfortable."
All the ones I thought of were in this thread already. There were times where HHH's music played at the end of the match or a segment that felt like WWE were taking huge steps back. It's like they have a discussion about how to fix an issue and HHH disguising his voice as a woman voice will say, "Why don't we have HHH win. He's the bestest.", and Vince will say, "Linda's right. Get HHH in here and tell him he's goin over!".
I know some people who are HHH fans and I am to an extent but my goodness he's like Cell. He just absorbed so many others careers/heat into his own being.
Honestly we have witnesed something truely remarkable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 8:02:08 GMT -5
There's a few here I actually get why they had HHH go over, including the win over Booker at WrestleMania. The build was the biggest problem with that feud. Not only did they turn HHH into a racist, but they basically mocked Booker's credentials and acted like he wasn't a threat at all. They were portraying Booker as some giant underdog which a five-time (five-time five-time) world champion shouldn't be. And by booking it as a racism angle, they booked themselves into a corner with Booker almost having to win. Instead HHH won and it looked stupid. If the build had been completely different I wouldn't have minded HHH keeping the title.
Same type of thing with WrestleMania XXV against Orton. Orton got the upper hand almost every week and it'd gotten so personal that it only made sense the villain would get his grand comeuppance. So instead of HHH putting Orton over like it should've been, HHH went over.
Some of the HHH burials were inexcusable though. Londrick, CM Punk in 2011, Randy Orton in 2004, Goldberg in 2003. I'd like to see even the biggest Triple H fan defend those victories/moments.
|
|
|
Post by Sparvid on Dec 24, 2013 9:58:33 GMT -5
Minor thing, but I don't understand why Spirit Squad got exactly zero wins over D-X. It's like they hade it planned out from the beginning that "We're going to do this, then this, then this, and after that not a single viewer will think they are any kind of threat, so I guess we'll release them or something. Okay, let's start next week!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 10:11:37 GMT -5
Can we add his victory over King Booker at Summerslam 2007 to the list? That seemed pointless as well, and just another time in Bookers career when he lost to HHH. Honestly, the damage was already done that that feud's build was solely devoted to Booker repeatedly getting his ass kicked by Lawler and being told by everyone around him how compared to Triple H he had no right to call himself a king. It's no wonder Booker left the night after that angle ended. Some of the HHH burials were inexcusable though. Londrick, CM Punk in 2011, Randy Orton in 2004, Goldberg in 2003. I'd like to see even the biggest Triple H fan defend those victories/moments. I think him beating Punk was justifiable, but it was still stupid that they got to that point. Punk's character around that point was probably at its most unbearable and really was just coming off as needlessly vicious and cruel to Triple H with no real provocation for it, and he was being written in such a way that he really needed to be knocked down a peg, plus the loss was a complete fluke where Triple H just happened to be the guy who recovered first from all of the run-ins. At the same time though, it is stupid how it went absolutely nowhere and that Punk's character reached that point of being such an asshole about things to begin with, particularly given how Triple H accidentally screwed over Cena for him the month before. Really, that's just another sign of how everything in that period of time would have made more sense if Cena had won that match at SummerSlam instead of Punk. And, I'd argue, if it were a triple threat match with Miz but that'd require a bit more tweaking to the story than just, "Cena has reason to be upset about the cash-in and to get a rematch after losing the title on two consecutive PPVs over the guy who beat him both times, and Punk goes after Triple H for maybe-accidentally screwing him over."
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Dec 24, 2013 11:11:38 GMT -5
Y2J's phantom title reign comes to mind, especially since Jericho was more than capable of leading the show at the time (with Austin gone there was really just Rock, Trips, Show, Undertaker and a near-crippled Mick Foley, so there was plenty of room for one more). I DON'T think Jericho should've won it on a throwaway episode of Raw but at that time he was burning hot and they could've given him a real run (he shouldn't have had to wait so long, as I've said in the Jeff Jarrett thread).
Booker T is probably the worst though, especially given that Trips was playing the "racist moron" going into the match. when you pull the "racist scumbag" card the ONLY acceptable ending is one where you lose and are made to look like an idiot. if Trips wasn't going to put Booker over he shouldn't have gone down that road, and I think that's probably the one feud that pretty much everyone holds against him.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Dec 24, 2013 11:15:20 GMT -5
Minor thing, but I don't understand why Spirit Squad got exactly zero wins over D-X. It's like they hade it planned out from the beginning that "We're going to do this, then this, then this, and after that not a single viewer will think they are any kind of threat, so I guess we'll release them or something. Okay, let's start next week!" that one I think was actually more to blame on creative realizing the gimmick had no room for growth at all and deciding to end it while the wrestlers were still salvageable. mind, Dolph was the only one who got a real second chance after that, but I can understand why they would squash the gimmick and write it off the way they did.
|
|
Crimson
Hank Scorpio
Thank you DWade
Posts: 6,511
|
Post by Crimson on Dec 24, 2013 11:15:22 GMT -5
It seems revisionist history has Booker looking like shit in his feud with Hunter. He actually looked very strong in the build with Triple H expressing fear that he would get beaten, that makes the match even more stupid. The "revisionist" history comes from the fact that Booker T lost the match in a bad fashion. If Booker had won, or if Triple H had won due to a lot of hijinks, I don't think nearly as many people would be pissed off over it.
|
|
ratetankmark
Samurai Cop
Equalist Lex Luthor
RIP Rik Mayall, you blimmen genius - Ria Vandervis on Rik Mayall
Posts: 2,426
|
Post by ratetankmark on Dec 24, 2013 11:25:59 GMT -5
Since I can't link non-WWE official videos in this thread or something like that, I watched London and Kendrick get buried by HHH and damn it was just painful to watch, at least Kendrick had a good run as The Brain Kendrick with Big Zeke, the fact that London and Kendrick never got any type of revenge, as mentioned before, hurt them also, Triple H is the real life version of a fan-fiction Mary-Sue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 11:29:48 GMT -5
Times like this I wish we had a really aggressive Triple H defender. Like, someone who was just a huge fan and got the WWE's view of these things. I might disagree but it'd be nice to see the other side. Sort of like how SOR used to be about TNA. Instead we're left just kind of all nodding at the same points
(Not meant to be a shot at SOR. It was very useful.)
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Dec 24, 2013 11:58:06 GMT -5
I think most of the more baffling ones have been named. Whereas I do not personally subscribe to the "Triple H buries everyone" rhetoric, I do think they got it wrong on a few occasions.
Somebody mentioned Triple H going over Austin at three stages of hell, I think it needs to be remembered how he went over - he collapsed unconscious on top of him. So it was kayfabe a fluke win after a hard fought contest. It was intended before Trips' quad injury that he would turn on Austin in the Two Man Power trip, turning face in the process then challenging him. This way he seems like a legitimate threat, and it does make sense. Being an Austin mark I would prefer he had won, but it wasn't like Triple H won emphatically or anything and it was a great match.
Booker T at Mania 19 is an odd one though that is difficult to defend. Given the racist connotations of the build up, it seemed only fitting/proper that Booker got the win. It is another argument for a different thread, but personally I do not think Booker was the right choice to challenge Trips at this event, and perhaps that was the reason he did not get the win. Booker was over, but I just never saw him being the face of the company (to quote present day Authority Triple H). But that is just me not being a fan of Booker more than anything else. That said, they could easily have had him win on the night and drop the belt back, or even win by DQ or count out if their thinking was that he couldn't carry the belt. There is also the thought that Booker was meant to win, then they signed Goldberg and realised they needed a heel champ for him to chase.
Which leads me onto Goldberg in the Elimination Chamber. I do think Goldberg should have won this match, and it would have made him look immense given the way he mowed everyone in that match down. I think the logic was simple: they thought seeing Goldberg get screwed meant that more would pay to see him beat Triple H at the following PPV (which he did). There was logic there, it was just flawed as the Goldberg character was all about being invincible.
Trips winning the Triple Threat at Armageddon 03 v Kane and Goldberg and winning the belt back I have more of an issue with however. I understand that the reason was purely to set up the triple threat for the belt v Benoit and HBK, I just did not like the way they did it as I thought Goldberg looked weak.
Sheamus at WM26 I thought was the incorrect choice, as Sheamus going over would have been a huge rub for him at the time. What followed, with Sheamus putting Trips out for months and then coming back to crush Sheamus - NOT EVEN IN A MATCH BUT A SEGMENT ON RAW - was a bit dismissive of the Irishman and incredibly shoddy booking.
Fast forwarding to more modern ones that have been mentioned, the one I have absolutely never got my head around was Triple H beating CM Punk in 2011. I know it was a screwy finish with lots of interference, and Punk did kick out of pedigree(s) during the match, but it made no sense for him to go over the hottest star in the company at the time. Bad decision.
I also do think that he never should have beaten Brock Lesnar at WM29 or even had a rematch. It was unnecessary, and this was one I was not keen on. It made Brock look weaker going forward and did not serve much purpose.
That said, the recent one I do not get why a lot of people are annoyed about was the ending to Raw a few weeks back. Trips was punched to the ground by CM Punk, and his wife had just been knocked over by Randy Orton. It made perfect sense for him to hit the Pedigree at that point, and it also kept everyone guessing as to whether the Authority were still behind Orton or going to switch to Cena. I had no issue with that whatsoever, and do not see that as spot light hogging.
|
|