|
Post by What? on Dec 24, 2013 13:33:44 GMT -5
Though it has been mentioned in this thread, vs. Booker T @ WrestleMania is the one that really comes to mind. Couple questions: How many times did HHH beat HBK in all of their encounters from 2002-2004? Was it a good idea for HHH to walk out as champion at WreslteMania 2000? I want to say that after Shawn won the first two encounters in 2002, HBK lost at Armageddon 2002, Backlash '03 when Shawns team lost the 6-man tag (I think they did,but I'm not sure if trips pointed him there), summerslam 2003 (hbk was pinned by goldberg, but Hunter won the bout), raw in late 2003, royal rumble 2004, bad blood 2004 hiac, and taboo tuesday 2004. Unless I'm missing something there, that gives shawn a 2-5 record in matches where he laid down for Hunter
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 24, 2013 13:36:07 GMT -5
So many examples.
But the Booker one is the worst
HHH says that a nappy haired black man can't win the title....and is proven right.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Dec 24, 2013 13:37:01 GMT -5
over Steph at the honeymoon. She should have finished on top.
|
|
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 13:56:22 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. Losing the match poorly doesn't mean he was booked terribly up until that point. That's the point I'm trying to make. Go back to those Raws, specifically either the go-home or the one before, when Ric Flair tells Triple H something along the lines of Booker not being able to beat Triple H and Hunter, out of breath and pouring sweat following a confrontation with Booker, "Somebody forgot to tell him that." If 2003 Triple H is scared of you, you're booked alright.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 24, 2013 14:21:06 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 That's only because WWE purposely wrote HHH to not be the heel and mastermind like he should have been. All the cards were there. There was no need or reason for HHH to stay face. That's why I count it as a burial. HHH should have been the heel because Punk was so over and had caught fire. You should never prove the babyface morally wrong. It's bad writing. It'd be like if Savage had footage of Hogan trying to kiss Elizabeth going into Mania V. Why would anyone take Hogan's side then in that feud? Savage had to be the paranoid psycho to justify the betrayal. If he was right, it'd have just been a lecherous Hulkster getting what was coming to him. 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.) The problem is, it's really impossible to defend most of the things done logically. It'd be like being OJ's lawyer and dude shows up in court wearing the bloody gloves and knife. It's all out there. The guilt is obvious to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on Dec 24, 2013 14:43:51 GMT -5
I just went back and rewatched the ending to HHH vs. Booker T at Mania 19 and the WAY it happened was the worst part. HHH hit the pedigree and was knocked out along with Booker T for almost 15 seconds then he crawls over and lays one hand(no leg hook, not even his whole body weight) on Booker T and that's the pin that beats him. I forgot it went down like that. Here it is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3WHwZVACPM&feature=player_detailpage#t=1518
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 24, 2013 14:58:29 GMT -5
I just went back and rewatched the ending to HHH vs. Booker T at Mania 19 and the WAY it happened was the worst part. HHH hit the pedigree and was knocked out along with Booker T for almost 15 seconds then he crawls over and lays one hand(no leg hook, not even his whole body weight) on Booker T and that's the pin that beats him. I forgot it went down like that. Here it is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3WHwZVACPM&feature=player_detailpage#t=1518It's a shame HHH never learned from Foley how over you can be by losing because that was a great match but the ending ruins the whole thing. Unless you're a racist. I guess they were cheering.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Dec 24, 2013 14:59:52 GMT -5
I just went back and rewatched the ending to HHH vs. Booker T at Mania 19 and the WAY it happened was the worst part. HHH hit the pedigree and was knocked out along with Booker T for almost 15 seconds then he crawls over and lays one hand(no leg hook, not even his whole body weight) on Booker T and that's the pin that beats him. I forgot it went down like that. Here it is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3WHwZVACPM&feature=player_detailpage#t=1518It's a shame HHH never learned from Foley how over you can be by losing because that was a great match but the ending ruins the whole thing. Unless you're a racist. I guess they were cheering. #WETHEPEOPLE
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Dec 24, 2013 15:38:10 GMT -5
During his "Reign of Terror" he was stripped of the title, just to win it back a month later.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Dec 24, 2013 15:44:27 GMT -5
Haven't read through this thread but the biggest to me is Punk at NOC. The Booker T thing never bugged me cause I never liked him.
|
|
|
Post by EP 54 is banned from Collision on Dec 26, 2013 13:50:51 GMT -5
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. Losing the match poorly doesn't mean he was booked terribly up until that point. That's the point I'm trying to make. Go back to those Raws, specifically either the go-home or the one before, when Ric Flair tells Triple H something along the lines of Booker not being able to beat Triple H and Hunter, out of breath and pouring sweat following a confrontation with Booker, "Somebody forgot to tell him that." If 2003 Triple H is scared of you, you're booked alright. That was a theme during the Reign of Terror. Challenger pops up, Triple H is scared! Chickenshit heel mode engaged. Challenger looks like he's going to finally divest HHH of the title, but come the PPV, Hunner switches gears to 'Wresling God' and wins. Clean as a sheet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 14:01:56 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." Vince, is that you? When someone catches fire with the crowd, you don't sabotage it by knocking them down a peg. That's what they've been doing for years. It's why the same people keep main eventing and we're getting John Cena vs Randy Orton at the end of 2013.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 18:05:39 GMT -5
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. 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." Vince, is that you? When someone catches fire with the crowd, you don't sabotage it by knocking them down a peg. That's what they've been doing for years. It's why the same people keep main eventing and we're getting John Cena vs Randy Orton at the end of 2013. I'm just saying that Punk's character had gotten an unbearably large ego and was basically a full-on heel during that storyline. It was stupid and self-defeating that they got to that point with it but by the time they did he needed to lose to at all salvage the gimmick.
|
|
|
Post by Brooklynpunk97 on Dec 26, 2013 20:47:53 GMT -5
The biggest one to me is
Vs. The Rock -Ironman Match- Judgment Day 2000
When Taker made his return. It was beyond f***ing stupid and pointless.
|
|
Injustice45
Fry's dog Seymour
Consider me the Athena/Yoshimitsu of Avatars and Signatures.
Posts: 21,968
Member is Online
|
Post by Injustice45 on Dec 26, 2013 20:50:22 GMT -5
The biggest one to me is Vs. The Rock -Ironman Match- Judgment Day 2000 When Taker made his return. It was beyond f***ing stupid and pointless. Even the crowd hated the outcome. Coincidentally, it was also HBK's final appearance for two years.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 26, 2013 21:49:40 GMT -5
Yeesh, I quit watching WWE over Trips winning the Elimination Chamber title match at New Years Revolution 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 26, 2013 22:24:58 GMT -5
Losing the match poorly doesn't mean he was booked terribly up until that point. That's the point I'm trying to make. Go back to those Raws, specifically either the go-home or the one before, when Ric Flair tells Triple H something along the lines of Booker not being able to beat Triple H and Hunter, out of breath and pouring sweat following a confrontation with Booker, "Somebody forgot to tell him that." If 2003 Triple H is scared of you, you're booked alright. That was a theme during the Reign of Terror. Challenger pops up, Triple H is scared! Chickenshit heel mode engaged. Challenger looks like he's going to finally divest HHH of the title, but come the PPV, Hunner switches gears to 'Wresling God' and wins. Clean as a sheet. Don't forget the part where Trips verbally undermines the face only to then be put over by said face as being something equivalent to the greatest man to ever wrestle.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Dec 27, 2013 2:36:35 GMT -5
- Booker T at wm 19, it would of be aright if Trips won had via outside interference and cheating and if they hadn't used the stupid racism angle during the build up. But by having HHH pin Booker after taking forever to cover him with just a single pedigree they had a finish where the racist came out on top being correct... way to go WWE.
- Punk NOC 11, Again there was no point to this other than HHH injecting himself into the hottest angle that was going on at the time and benefited no one whatsoever.
- Brock at WM 29, Honestly this whole entire feud was pointless as after the first match HHH made Brock look like a total bitch for months pretty much killing off whatever aura Lesnar had left.
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Dec 27, 2013 3:02:56 GMT -5
Triple H was the only one ever to retain his title in Scramble match
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 9:22:14 GMT -5
The sad thing about the Punk storyline is that HHH is now playing the character he should have been playing in 2011. Why do it now and not then? I'm guessing he knew he had Taker at Mania again and didn't want to turn before that, but then don't do the storyline with Punk at all then. Or delay it until after Mania.
Beating Lesnar was also pointless and makes anything Lesnar does now kind of pointless since he can't beat the Ass Kicker and King of Kings in a fair fight. Just seemed like a HHH ego booster.
As far as ruining low/mid-card acts, I'd include Hurricane and Eugene, not so much because HHH went over, but because he didn't need to be involved with them at the time in the first place.
|
|