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 27, 2013 10:02:17 GMT -5
I didn't mind when Trips beat Punk because even though I'm not a huge fan of Trips, he was a lot more likeable than Punk, who was basically the biggest brat in the world at the time with his constant complaining, I didn't care if it was Triple H or bloody Kerwin White, I just wanted someone to shut Punk up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 11:13:06 GMT -5
Over Goldberg at Summerslam 2003. Good god was that boneheaded. And he had a pulled groin at the time, which needed him to take time off, allow Goldberg to be built as a solid champion, and come back a few months later. When Goldberg did win the belt, nobody cared.
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,304
|
Post by Sam Punk on Dec 27, 2013 23:47:08 GMT -5
Surprised Tazz wasn't mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 0:05:53 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. I kind of get the thought process on that one. It was before Cena and Orton's Iron Man match, where the stipulation was that if Cena lost he had to leave Raw, so it was to make him look like he was able to be beaten and put his win in doubt, and Triple H (and Michaels) challenged him for the title at the PPV after that. By the same token, though, the actual storyline building up to that actually pretty awesome triple threat (which I really didn't expect much out of, given Cena and Triple H have no chemistry to speak of, and most Triple H vs. Michaels matches are overblown overly dramatic nonsense) was mostly just stupid Hornswoggle comedy that Cena was barely part of, and that match wasn't even brought up in the build I don't think. Though while we're on the subject, this seems to be something a lot of people kind of overlook but Triple H has basically never made Cena look like he's on his level. Sure, Cena won the Mania match, but it was basically by a fluke, and I think every single time they've faced each other one-on-one since then Triple H has beaten him.
|
|
|
Post by GEOLINK on Dec 28, 2013 0:31:50 GMT -5
The two I can think of right now is WrestleMania 16 and WrestleMania 19.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 28, 2013 0:49:55 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. If by clean as a sheet you mean winning by cheating and using interference, yes. I'll be the defender here on a couple of them. V.S. Booker at SUMMERSLAM 2007. (WrestleMania XIX hate is overblown, but he shouldn't have won. At least if he was going to win, it'd be better to cheat more) At SummerSlam in 2007, the promos were building up HHH's big return. To have him lose to Booker, who was on his way out, would be retarded. That was no burial, it was showcasing Trips on his return. Same show Mysterio came back as the bloated Silver Surfer. So no. And V.S. Punk at Night of Champions 2011.That match had so much interference and overbooking that even if Punk won people would complain that he didn't beat HHH clean because Hunner was afraid of looking weak. Nobody will admit this, but I've posted here long enough to understand enough of your attitudes to expect this. They kicked out of finishers and HHH didn't look strong in going over here. It was a case where nobody wins, because if HHH wins, people complain online. If he had lost, people would complain online. The match shouldn't have ever happened in the first place. I also don't get how he "destroyed" Wade Barrett by kicking him in the nuts. If all it took to "destroy" the guy was a ball shot, then he deserved to be "destroyed." Alright, have at it. *cracks knuckles* *cowers in fear*
|
|
|
Post by kamero00 on Dec 28, 2013 0:59:17 GMT -5
Surprised Tazz wasn't mentioned. Tazz finally gets some momentum, and BOOM buried
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 10:42:50 GMT -5
I didn't read the whole thread, but the time he and Shawn went over the entire tag division in one night, basically killing it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 11:20:02 GMT -5
I didn't read the whole thread, but the time he and Shawn went over the entire tag division in one night, basically killing it. I don't remember that, though that does remind me of that time they for some reason when they had Michaels and Cena lose the tag titles had to have them go through two full battle royals of people to do it, and the second time they only lost because Michaels turned on Cena. No idea why he didn't do that in the first match, but whatever. Fun thing about that, one of the teams in one of those matches was Miz and Johnny Nitro. Anyway, back to Triple H. The Jeff Hardy feud's a pretty good example - I've heard some people claim Triple H made him, but honestly, that entire feud was basically just Trips decisively beating him at every turn and in the end Jeff basically finally did get the title just by way of blindsiding him. No Mercy 2008's the big one - there was absolutely no reason outside of that stupid Kozlov build-up nobody was buying for Jeff not to win the title then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 15:58:43 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. I kind of get the thought process on that one. It was before Cena and Orton's Iron Man match, where the stipulation was that if Cena lost he had to leave Raw, so it was to make him look like he was able to be beaten and put his win in doubt, and Triple H (and Michaels) challenged him for the title at the PPV after that. By the same token, though, the actual storyline building up to that actually pretty awesome triple threat (which I really didn't expect much out of, given Cena and Triple H have no chemistry to speak of, and most Triple H vs. Michaels matches are overblown overly dramatic nonsense) was mostly just stupid Hornswoggle comedy that Cena was barely part of, and that match wasn't even brought up in the build I don't think. Though while we're on the subject, this seems to be something a lot of people kind of overlook but Triple H has basically never made Cena look like he's on his level. Sure, Cena won the Mania match, but it was basically by a fluke, and I think every single time they've faced each other one-on-one since then Triple H has beaten him. HHH hasn't made anyone look like they're on his level in the past 10 years other than Batista. Even when he loses. He even managed to have 2 matches at wrestlemania against Undertaker and make it look like a fluke that Undertaker won in both.
|
|
|
Post by crowwreak was WRONG on Dec 28, 2013 19:05:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't have minded him beating Booker, if he cheated, and didn't take 26 pissing seconds after the pedigree to go for the pin.
Also, would it have killed him to let (the extremely over) RVD win the belt in late 2002?
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 28, 2013 19:29:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't have minded him beating Booker, if he cheated, and didn't take 26 pissing seconds after the pedigree to go for the pin. Also, would it have killed him to let (the extremely over) RVD win the belt in late 2002? 17 seconds. I can't wait until people let the Booker match go. It's boring to have weekly threads. It makes me want to remind people that wrestling is fake and Booker didn't lose a real fight and him and H are probably friends irl. Shit booking, could have used a kickout, but not worth the hate. And NO. Not one person in the world thought at the end of the match "you know what? That racist was right, Booker really isn't good enough and that wrestling match proved it." Stop it. Its a rube simpleton strawman that doesn't exist. Booker had the pin after the Houston Hangover. Flair f***ed him by putting H's leg on the bottom rope. In fact, Booker was inches away from hitting the scissors kick but his leg (That HHH worked on the whole match) gave out and HHH barely had the energy to hit a Pedigree. If there was a kickout, I don't see the hate being this bad. Booker hardly looked like a geek, and the booking after this is what really hurt him.
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Dec 30, 2013 10:39:56 GMT -5
Booker was supposed to go over Trips...until he told management that he was intending to still retire before '03 was up. They wanted him to be a longer term main eventer and when he wouldn't change his mind rightly or wrongly we ended up with that infamous match ending at WM 19.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Dec 30, 2013 11:13:33 GMT -5
WM2000 springs to mind. They still could have had Austin involved at Backlash, instead stopped the corporation from taking back the title from Rock.
Reminds me that of all the top guys that there has ever been, Rock is one of the few who's never won the big one at Wrestlemania. He's 0-4 in WWE championship matches at Mania.
Could never dream of HHH having that stat under him. I think Jim Cornette said it right, when he said "Triple H is the guy who works with the guy who makes money". He's good, but has been blown higher than he should have been but whatever.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 30, 2013 12:38:27 GMT -5
WM2000 springs to mind. They still could have had Austin involved at Backlash, instead stopped the corporation from taking back the title from Rock. Reminds me that of all the top guys that there has ever been, Rock is one of the few who's never won the big one at Wrestlemania. He's 0-4 in WWE championship matches at Mania. Could never dream of HHH having that stat under him. I think Jim Cornette said it right, when he said "Triple H is the guy who works with the guy who makes money". He's good, but has been blown higher than he should have been but whatever. Overall I think that's what eats at Hunter's ego the most. He knows that when fans or wrestling critics remember history, there's no way he'll be mentioned in the same breath as a Hogan, Flair, Rock, Austin, Bret, Taker, Shawn, or even Cena. So he tries and tries to leech heat off of other talents greatness and either suceeds in ruining their momentum or fails miserably. Unless it's a WWE produced WWE with all of Hunter's friends and revisionist history he'll never receive that respect. He just needs to accept that he's not as great as he thinks he is. I will say that as a heel, he's one of the best, and especially in 2000-2002, there wasn't a better heel at that time in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 30, 2013 12:42:30 GMT -5
I didn't mind when Trips beat Punk because even though I'm not a huge fan of Trips, he was a lot more likeable than Punk, who was basically the biggest brat in the world at the time with his constant complaining, I didn't care if it was Triple H or bloody Kerwin White, I just wanted someone to shut Punk up. The problem is that for the most part Punk was right, and HHH was the worst possible person to play the sympathetic role. WWE booked that as the poor hard-done corporation being bullied by the nasty and ungrateful Punk, which defied all storytelling logic.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 30, 2013 12:48:09 GMT -5
I didn't mind when Trips beat Punk because even though I'm not a huge fan of Trips, he was a lot more likeable than Punk, who was basically the biggest brat in the world at the time with his constant complaining, I didn't care if it was Triple H or bloody Kerwin White, I just wanted someone to shut Punk up. The problem is that for the most part Punk was right, and HHH was the worst possible person to play the sympathetic role. WWE booked that as the poor hard-done corporation being bullied by the nasty and ungrateful Punk, which defied all storytelling logic. Exactly. Punk, at least according to the logic of booking, he shouldve been proven right when it came to Hunter. The end result should've been Hunter turning heel and still feuding with Punk, along with Ace as his stooge, and I think it would've been a great feud honestly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 14:23:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't have minded him beating Booker, if he cheated, and didn't take 26 pissing seconds after the pedigree to go for the pin. Also, would it have killed him to let (the extremely over) RVD win the belt in late 2002? 17 seconds. I can't wait until people let the Booker match go. It's boring to have weekly threads. It makes me want to remind people that wrestling is fake and Booker didn't lose a real fight and him and H are probably friends irl. Shit booking, could have used a kickout, but not worth the hate. And NO. Not one person in the world thought at the end of the match "you know what? That racist was right, Booker really isn't good enough and that wrestling match proved it." Stop it. Its a rube simpleton strawman that doesn't exist. Booker had the pin after the Houston Hangover. Flair f***ed him by putting H's leg on the bottom rope. In fact, Booker was inches away from hitting the scissors kick but his leg (That HHH worked on the whole match) gave out and HHH barely had the energy to hit a Pedigree. If there was a kickout, I don't see the hate being this bad. Booker hardly looked like a geek, and the booking after this is what really hurt him. I mean, what? You even agree with it being shit booking. I'm confused as to why you're all swollen in the chest over other people (myself included) saying that adding Hunner being a complete racist in the feud, meant that he had to lose. That yeah, the fact Hunner won by hook or by crook, was cocked up to the Nth degree. Dude, the fact Booker didn't win isn't just shit booking and shit storytelling, how the hell you book a storyline with the racist jerk being right against all logic when the whole world is watching? So what if the dude was going to retire anyway? So what if they wanted to push a Goldberg/Hunner feud? You don't book the angle like this if you aren't willing to follow through with the result. Maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself though. For me it sticks out because for ages, unless you were The Rock a Black dude wasn't challenging for the title at WM. Now WWE has their one dude in a main event angle, which is a plus. They book him in an angle where the dude is blatantly racist against him, that's a minus. It's Hunner (minus) so odds are I've got to hear weeks of this damn fool throwing out "subtle" racist jabs (big-assed minus) and have to distance myself from a fandom that generally swears in their heart-o'-hearts Hunner wasn't being racist (unforseen, gargatuan MINUS). Booker clearly gets the better of him (plus) Hunner is scurred (plus). Now, if you're keeping score: The angle is +3/-4. This isn't even considering the minuses that are there already outweighed the majority of the pluses, which is a sign for me to completely check out of the angle emotionally and unmercifully mock the company. I didn't though, because you know why? I was personally invested in not just Booker beating the crap out of Hunner, but honestly a Black dude winning the top title off the racist white dude when everything was on the line. It's the type of fantasy I rarely ever get to vicariously live through in fiction let alone wrestling, despite my nearly two decades of watching it. With all that context behind the result of that match, there's a reason I don't give any of the shits with how he lost. He lost. That's not a slight against you. However, I don't like being implied to be an idiot because I got emotionally invested; that's the type of shit WWE likes to do then wonder why nobody cares about their angles. For once WWE was going to do some version of a fantasy that's very specific to my life and they ****ed it up. As you might've already guessed, I kinda imply I'm an idiot for getting invested in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Dec 31, 2013 14:10:57 GMT -5
WM2000 springs to mind. They still could have had Austin involved at Backlash, instead stopped the corporation from taking back the title from Rock. Reminds me that of all the top guys that there has ever been, Rock is one of the few who's never won the big one at Wrestlemania. He's 0-4 in WWE championship matches at Mania. Could never dream of HHH having that stat under him. I think Jim Cornette said it right, when he said "Triple H is the guy who works with the guy who makes money". He's good, but has been blown higher than he should have been but whatever. Overall I think that's what eats at Hunter's ego the most. He knows that when fans or wrestling critics remember history, there's no way he'll be mentioned in the same breath as a Hogan, Flair, Rock, Austin, Bret, Taker, Shawn, or even Cena. So he tries and tries to leech heat off of other talents greatness and either suceeds in ruining their momentum or fails miserably. Unless it's a WWE produced WWE with all of Hunter's friends and revisionist history he'll never receive that respect. He just needs to accept that he's not as great as he thinks he is. I will say that as a heel, he's one of the best, and especially in 2000-2002, there wasn't a better heel at that time in my opinion. Indeed. There is no doubt in my mind that he was the best heel in the company at that time. I know to many it sounds like I'm crapping all over HHH's achievements and I'm really not. But I guess there will always be part of me that wonders how far he'd have really gone if he hadn't married into the family so to speak. Personally I think he'd have been gone by the mid 00's.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Jan 1, 2014 8:32:14 GMT -5
You know what I was reminded of last night when watching old stuff on YT? HHH trying to put over that everyone is scared and falls to the pedigree (no questions asked) and he will use it to defeat Batista in the build to Backlash 2005 (after the Mania match). Not necessarily a burial but unnecessary for a rematch build off Mania, which is pretty simple to do.
Then (here is where the burials would come in) he would attack Hurricane/Rosey/Tajiri and other midcard babyfaces in the build just so he can, putting over how the pedigree "as the most brutal finishing move ever". He defeated Hurricane and Rosey in a handicap match in one of the weeks, even though he should have been weakened due to them getting revenge for the week beforehand and attacking him before the match begun.
|
|