|
Post by mrtuesday on Jul 24, 2014 20:27:46 GMT -5
It's all just a continuation of WWE for some reason thinking that Triple H is some beloved star on par with Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan. I used to think they were trying to shove him down our throats, but I've come to believe that they really do think he's one of the best ever. I think it was because he didn't leave. Rock left. Austin left. HHH stayed. Even when he was no-longer a full-time wrestler, he started to work in the office. He's a lifer.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Jul 24, 2014 20:29:52 GMT -5
Let's not snipe, no need to get into back and forths, just leaving that out there. I will say that WWF/E has always done the "monster heel can't win matches" bit, where, as mrjl said, they get their heat in non-match situations, but Brock is NOT a typical monster heel. Brock is not a typical anything, never has been. He's a crossover star, a legit celebrity, and a guy who they felt so strongly about they fed Taker's streak to him. Realizing this, losses to Trips and Cena make ZERO sense. If you're going to feed a 21 year run to someone, then you have them murder everyone. Losing to "top guys" especially when he had just re-debuted, made him look like "just another wrestler" or "just another monster who underestimated the WWE superstars" when in reality he was none of those. He's a guy who came in and killed everyone, was an undisputed champion, then left and said "I'd like to join UFC". He then won their Heavyweight championship, which, let's be honest, is a very big deal for a "fake wrestler" to show up and just wreck shit in UFC. THAT is who returned, and THAT is a guy who, unless you're going for a "give somebody the rub, get a buyrate bump, and do an HoF induction" you do NOT have him look vulnerable and lose. Just the opposite, you have him win and win decisively, because then the win over Taker makes sense. Otherwise it doesn't. if he beats everyone, then there's no reason to watch either. Multiple wins over Trips, Cena and breaking the streak, do you think there's anyone who could believably beat him? Giving him those wins means no losses EVER make sense. And has there ever been a crossover study of UFC/WWE audiences and anyway, If he beats everyone there's no reason to watch. By that standard, WWE should have abandoned Cena or Hogan or Trips (during Reign of Terror) because it "didn't work". If you mean just heels, then I stand with Reign of Terror to prove that they WILL do it if it's the "right guy" and there is no more "right guy" at the moment then Brock because he's not cartoony, he's believable. Also, I'll show my age. Beating Andre was unbelievable at the time. The thought of Andre, as huge as he was, losign to anyone, was ridiculous. It happened, and it kinda worked out well.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 24, 2014 20:40:51 GMT -5
if he beats everyone, then there's no reason to watch either. Multiple wins over Trips, Cena and breaking the streak, do you think there's anyone who could believably beat him? Giving him those wins means no losses EVER make sense. And has there ever been a crossover study of UFC/WWE audiences and anyway, If he beats everyone there's no reason to watch. By that standard, WWE should have abandoned Cena or Hogan or Trips (during Reign of Terror) because it "didn't work". If you mean just heels, then I stand with Reign of Terror to prove that they WILL do it if it's the "right guy" and there is no more "right guy" at the moment then Brock because he's not cartoony, he's believable. Also, I'll show my age. Beating Andre was unbelievable at the time. The thought of Andre, as huge as he was, losign to anyone, was ridiculous. It happened, and it kinda worked out well. All those guys lost at least occasionally and they didn't face all the top guys. Andre didn't come in having destroyed all the top faces the company had including a previous win over Hogan
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jul 24, 2014 20:46:19 GMT -5
"I'll take 'Has no concept of the wrestling business' for $100, Alex." whatever Sean. what I do know about WWE's business is it's the land of the superface. Monster heels actually have a tougher time getting wins than regular ones, usually doing most of their damage in non-match situations, which Brock does plenty off Then you'd know that a monster attraction has to destroy some people to maintain the ultimate credibility so when the *right* guy beats him, and that guy looks to be Reigns, it'll mean the most and be huge box office. That's how it works. And that is WWE's intention. They didn't sacrifice a 21 year undefeated streak that will never be matched again so Brock could "always lose." Use your brain.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 24, 2014 20:48:23 GMT -5
Honestly, HHH feud shouldn't have even happened; or if it had to, the Summerslam tap-out should've been it.
Cena win, especially with the chain, would've been ok later on, but his first match back was goofy.
HOPEFULLY they've corrected the course with the Streak being broken, and the Devastator, the Annihilator, He Who Roams The Ring Like A Collosus, Tossing Lesser Men Aside And Hearing The Lamentations Of Their Women is back to being what he should be. Hopefully that carries over to him brutalizing Cena this go round and TAKING the titles.
Then when you have him lose the belt to whoever, it's a MUCH bigger deal.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 24, 2014 21:28:49 GMT -5
whatever Sean. what I do know about WWE's business is it's the land of the superface. Monster heels actually have a tougher time getting wins than regular ones, usually doing most of their damage in non-match situations, which Brock does plenty off Then you'd know that a monster attraction has to destroy some people to maintain the ultimate credibility so when the *right* guy beats him, and that guy looks to be Reigns, it'll mean the most and be huge box office. That's how it works. And that is WWE's intention. They didn't sacrifice a 21 year undefeated streak that will never be matched again so Brock could "always lose." Use your brain. If Brock always lost they wouldn't have sacrificed a 21 year undefeated streak, now would they? I'm speaking in retrospect as well. And look at Reigns push. Ever since it started all anyone talks about is how he isn't ready, how limited he is, etc, etc. You think he'd be believed as beating the guy who absolutely destroyed EVERYONE he'd been in the ring with? Hogan beating Andre may have been unbelievable as angryfan said but people had seen Andre beaten down and embarrassed. When Austin beat Kane and the Undertaker Kane had already lost to Taker and Taker had had years of guys taking him down even if they couldn't get a clean 1-2-3
|
|
|
Post by Pillman's Pencil on Jul 24, 2014 21:31:38 GMT -5
They had to have Triple H go out there and cut a retirement esque promo the next night because of the bad reaction after the match, The problem is that HHH as much of a student of the game he is and how much of a creative mind he has, he was not a star, he was there because he made the likes of Austin/Rock/Undertaker/Michaels look good, that was it, he was never a star.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jul 24, 2014 22:00:32 GMT -5
Then you'd know that a monster attraction has to destroy some people to maintain the ultimate credibility so when the *right* guy beats him, and that guy looks to be Reigns, it'll mean the most and be huge box office. That's how it works. And that is WWE's intention. They didn't sacrifice a 21 year undefeated streak that will never be matched again so Brock could "always lose." Use your brain. If Brock always lost they wouldn't have sacrificed a 21 year undefeated streak, now would they? I'm speaking in retrospect as well. And look at Reigns push. Ever sense it started all anyone talks about is how he isn't ready, how limited he is, etc, etc. You think he'd be believed as beating the guy who absolutely destroyed EVERYONE he'd been in the ring with? Hogan beating Andre may have been unbelievable as angryfan said but people had seen Andre beaten down and embarrassed. When Austin beat Kane and the Undertaker Kane had already lost to Taker and Taker had had years of guys taking him down even if they couldn't get a clean 1-2-3 First, it was YOU who said he SHOULD always lose. Verbatim. In this very thread. And it was that (completely naive) statement that I replied to because it is fundamentally incorrect on every level from a business perspective. So much so, that to argue it would be insane. Secondly, Andre/Hogan was sold on the complete premise that no one had ever beaten Andre in fifteen years (that being untrue aside). Andre "being embarrassed" in the past played exactly zero percent into the allure and question of the outcome. The match was positioned, built and wrestled on the premise of what would happen when two guys who never lost wrestled for the WWF title. It became a question of whether, despite all of Hogan's then accolades, if he could in fact do what no one had ever done before (in kayfabe). In many ways, it would have been like booking Undertaker against Cena at Mania in an "I quit" match before they botched the streak. That match, like Hogan and Andre, would have seen (and did with Andre) the end of one's selling point. One man would lose. That was it. There was nothing else to it other than a sprinkle of Heenan weaselry and betrayal that made sure everyone knew Hogan was the hero. Thirdly, Kane meant nothing then. It did not have remotely the gravitas that Brock had coming in, or has back after Mania. Or Hogan/Andre had. So it's completely moot and insignificant as a point. It's apples vs. solid gold oranges. Not even remotely on the same level, now that Brock conquered the streak. And fourth: Yes, that's what WWE wants with Reigns. And it doesn't matter if you believe or I believe Roman can. Roman will, if WWE continues its plan, and that will be that. Taker sacrificed his streak to bow out believably to a legit guy, and now because of that, Brock is white hot, and will now destroy Cena to add a few extra embers to that fire before setting the stage to pass all that heat onto Roman. It's classic wrestling 101. With no one left, Roman will be positioned as the gallant warrior that will attempt to take down the human juggernaut, he will do so, and he will inherit all that aforementioned heat and momentum. Whether it takes or not, is anyone's guess. But that is the plan. And that is Brock's sole purpose. He's an eater of worlds that will somehow, someway be stopped in the end. And that story can only be told if he gets to eat a few popular planets along the way.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 24, 2014 22:07:25 GMT -5
If Brock always lost they wouldn't have sacrificed a 21 year undefeated streak, now would they? I'm speaking in retrospect as well. And look at Reigns push. Ever sense it started all anyone talks about is how he isn't ready, how limited he is, etc, etc. You think he'd be believed as beating the guy who absolutely destroyed EVERYONE he'd been in the ring with? Hogan beating Andre may have been unbelievable as angryfan said but people had seen Andre beaten down and embarrassed. When Austin beat Kane and the Undertaker Kane had already lost to Taker and Taker had had years of guys taking him down even if they couldn't get a clean 1-2-3 First, it was YOU who said he SHOULD always lose. Verbatim. In this very thread. And it was that (completely naive) statement that I replied to because it is fundamentally incorrect on every level from a business perspective. So much so, that to argue it would be insane. Secondly, Andre/Hogan was sold on the complete premise that no one had ever beaten Andre in fifteen years (that being untrue aside). Andre "being embarrassed" in the past played exactly zero percent into the allure and question of the outcome. The match was positioned, built and wrestled on the premise of what would happen when two guys who never lost wrestled for the WWF title. It became a question of whether, despite all of Hogan's then accolades, if he could in fact do what no one had ever done before (in kayfabe). In many ways, it would have been like booking Undertaker against Cena at Mania in an "I quit" match before they botched the streak. That match, like Hogan and Andre, would have seen (and did with Andre) the end of one's selling point. One man would lose. That was it. There was nothing else to it other than a sprinkle of Heenan weaselry and betrayal that made sure everyone knew Hogan was the hero. Thirdly, Kane meant nothing then. It did not have remotely the gravitas that Brock had coming in, or has back after Mania. Or Hogan/Andre had. So it's completely moot and insignificant as a point. It's apples vs. solid gold oranges. Not even remotely on the same level, now that Brock conquered the streak. And fourth: Yes, that's what WWE wants with Reigns. And it doesn't matter if you believe or I believe Roman can. Roman will, if WWE continues its plan, and that will be that. Taker sacrificed his streak to bow out believably to a legit guy, and now because of that, Brock is white hot, and will now destroy Cena to add a few extra embers to that fire before setting the stage to pass all that heat onto Roman. It's classic wrestling 101. With no one left, Roman will be positioned as the gallant warrior that will attempt to take down the human juggernaut, he will do so, and he will inherit all that aforementioned heat and momentum. Whether it takes or not, is anyone's guess. But that is the plan. And that is Brock's sole purpose. He's an eater of worlds that will somehow, someway be stopped in the end. And that story can only be told if he gets to eat a few popular planets along the way. yes, I did say he should always lose, that's exactly what I was pointing out. You said they don't break 21 year old streak to book a guy to always lose and I pointed out if he always lost then he wouldn't have beaten the streak. And maybe Andre's past setbacks weren't played up in the story but they had to be there in the minds. They were asking could Hogan beat Andre. Well if you can look back at Andre's setbacks then you've got evidence he can. But with no evidence to that effect, then the answers pretty obviously NO, so why bother?
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jul 24, 2014 22:32:37 GMT -5
First, it was YOU who said he SHOULD always lose. Verbatim. In this very thread. And it was that (completely naive) statement that I replied to because it is fundamentally incorrect on every level from a business perspective. So much so, that to argue it would be insane. Secondly, Andre/Hogan was sold on the complete premise that no one had ever beaten Andre in fifteen years (that being untrue aside). Andre "being embarrassed" in the past played exactly zero percent into the allure and question of the outcome. The match was positioned, built and wrestled on the premise of what would happen when two guys who never lost wrestled for the WWF title. It became a question of whether, despite all of Hogan's then accolades, if he could in fact do what no one had ever done before (in kayfabe). In many ways, it would have been like booking Undertaker against Cena at Mania in an "I quit" match before they botched the streak. That match, like Hogan and Andre, would have seen (and did with Andre) the end of one's selling point. One man would lose. That was it. There was nothing else to it other than a sprinkle of Heenan weaselry and betrayal that made sure everyone knew Hogan was the hero. Thirdly, Kane meant nothing then. It did not have remotely the gravitas that Brock had coming in, or has back after Mania. Or Hogan/Andre had. So it's completely moot and insignificant as a point. It's apples vs. solid gold oranges. Not even remotely on the same level, now that Brock conquered the streak. And fourth: Yes, that's what WWE wants with Reigns. And it doesn't matter if you believe or I believe Roman can. Roman will, if WWE continues its plan, and that will be that. Taker sacrificed his streak to bow out believably to a legit guy, and now because of that, Brock is white hot, and will now destroy Cena to add a few extra embers to that fire before setting the stage to pass all that heat onto Roman. It's classic wrestling 101. With no one left, Roman will be positioned as the gallant warrior that will attempt to take down the human juggernaut, he will do so, and he will inherit all that aforementioned heat and momentum. Whether it takes or not, is anyone's guess. But that is the plan. And that is Brock's sole purpose. He's an eater of worlds that will somehow, someway be stopped in the end. And that story can only be told if he gets to eat a few popular planets along the way. yes, I did say he should always lose, that's exactly what I was pointing out. You said they don't break 21 year old streak to book a guy to always lose and I pointed out if he always lost then he wouldn't have beaten the streak. And maybe Andre's past setbacks weren't played up in the story but they had to be there in the minds. They were asking could Hogan beat Andre. Well if you can look back at Andre's setbacks then you've got evidence he can. But with no evidence to that effect, then the answers pretty obviously NO, so why bother? Your first post makes no sense. You really need to let it go. You're talking in circles. He should always lose, but wouldn't have beat the streak if he always lost. What is the point here? Do I have to post the Billy Madison clip? And again, you were told exactly what the selling point of Hogan vs Andre was. Two guys who don't lose. Then: One guy loses. That was the whole story, and had been the whole story in every fight between unbeaten guys. You can headcanon the f*** out of it all you want, but at the end of the day, that was the story. Hogan beat everyone, but here was a guy that maybe he could not -- because no one ever had, and it was beaten over our heads until the match transpired. And that is why Brock too has to just straight up not lose until the big match. It only means something if he looks near invincible. It'll mean the most that way when Reigns beats him. To be honest, the whole Lesnar deal kind of reminds me of Theokoles on Spartacus. This huge monster of a gladiator so feared and brutal, and presumed unbeatable. He, like Lesnar with Taker, even ended the career and "unbeaten" record of the beloved house doctore, Oenomaus, who was unable to ever compete again due to the injuries he suffered at the monster's hand. Then, Spartacus faced him, and despite being nearly destroyed, found a way to slay the beast, and was instantly a hero and even perceived as a godsend from the crowd for doing the imposable. Hell, his nickname was the bringer of rain, lol. And at Mania, WWE's bringer of Reign will follow in Sparty's foot steps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 22:43:24 GMT -5
I understand exactly one half of whats being argued here.
But to stay on topic, that moment was pretty hilarious. Just to see the guy in charge basically assuming he'd get a big hero reaction only to see the exact opposite happen... It was kind of delicious.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 24, 2014 22:45:09 GMT -5
I've posted this before, but what the hell, here it is again: www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4L6F4KLThAThe entire lead-up to Mania 3 (great watch btw). At NO time is Andre seen as anything other than the Immovable Object that may finally be able to stop Hogan's Unstoppable Force. There weren't any setbacks brought up. No weaknesses were discussed. You have Hogan betrayed, concerned, maybe a little fearful; then decide Andre's mortal, and that he's the one to beat him. He does all this, and it's built to be impressive BECAUSE Andre is such a force of nature. For his part, Andre in the build-up doesn't sweat Hogan AT ALL. He's booked to be unconquerable. Zero setbacks talked about on Andre's side in all of that. There are no maybes there. It simply didn't happen. The video footage above spells it out.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 24, 2014 22:46:58 GMT -5
All I'm going to say is that I wish I had a time machine so that I could get circa 1993 Vader to face current Brock Lesnar.
Either we'd get a great match, or a team-up that would destroy the entire wrestling industry.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 24, 2014 22:53:14 GMT -5
The ovation after a match only happens if
A) its an amazing f***ing match
B) the audience believed the scrappy underdog (Daniel Bryan style scrappy) was going to step up and beat the big bad but fell a bit short.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 7:19:33 GMT -5
HHH is the least sympathetic character in wrestling, and the company that he partly runs makes tapping out seem like a sign of weakness, so I'm not sure what he was expecting. Let Cena tap out for once, and then end this BS concept of "tapping out = wuss". wouldn't work What wouldn't work? Cena tapping out? Why not? Brock Lesnar tapped out in a real fight within minutes. This isn't the 80's anymore where submitting rarely happened (at least in the WWF). With MMA being as big as it is, tapping out is not a big deal anymore, so I'm not sure why wrestling can't follow that trend. The Rock tapped out to Benoit's Crossface at the peak of his (Rock's) babyface prime. It didn't make him look bad at all. Cena tapping out would not only humanize him to a fanbase that despises him (at least half the audience in every arena) but also end this stupid stigma of tapping out is a sign of weakness. It's so unrealistic and stupid nowadays.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jul 25, 2014 7:25:50 GMT -5
What wouldn't work? Cena tapping out? Why not? Brock Lesnar tapped out in a real fight within minutes. This isn't the 80's anymore where submitting rarely happened (at least in the WWF). With MMA being as big as it is, tapping out is not a big deal anymore, so I'm not sure why wrestling can't follow that trend. The Rock tapped out to Benoit's Crossface at the peak of his (Rock's) babyface prime. It didn't make him look bad at all. Cena tapping out would not only humanize him to a fanbase that despises him (at least half the audience in every arena) but also end this stupid stigma of tapping out is a sign of weakness. It's so unrealistic and stupid nowadays. Plus it'll put the guy who made him tap over like a mother "The guy who made Cena give up"
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Jul 25, 2014 7:35:37 GMT -5
The WWE pretty much only had themsevels to blame as for years they have told their audience that tapping out is for pussies which is bloody stupid when you consider what has happened to MMA fighters who have gotten arms and legs broken by not tapping out.
That and how idiotic the build up to the match was. HHH refused to show any sort vulnerability it just felt like a ego trip for himself because he wanted to look like he was just as a tough as a UFC heavyweight champion (even though in real fight Brock would murder him with ease).
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Jul 25, 2014 7:48:52 GMT -5
That whole expectation of fan sympathy and applause has to be one of the biggest headscratchers I've ever seen. HHH hardly looked vulnerable during the build-up, Shawn was on the receiving end of the heel beatdown, and him and Steph acted remarkably smug toward Heyman time and time again. Instead of a sad moment of the valiant babyface being just not being enough against the monster, the arm-break, loss, and sad walk to the back came across as the overconfident jerk getting a dose of reality. Pretty much it. Look at Lesnar's match with Cena, Lesnar just beat the shit out of Cena the entire match, Cena got some shots in but it was obvious Lesnar was too much for him, yet he wouldn't stop fighting, and the Chicago crowd actually got on Cena's side and popped when Cena hit Lesnar with the chain, the Attitude Adjustment and won. Cena got sympathy because it looked like Superman was way out of his league, and this monster wasn't going to stop, and he'd destroy everyone. Lesnar was the unstoppable psychotic vicious monster, he was the Destroyer of Worlds, and Cena was actually the underdog. Fans responded to that, and wanted to see Cena slay the monster. On the other hand Triple H got in way too much offense against Lesnar. Trips was the ass kicker, going against another ass kicker. If you have a fight between 2 ass kickers, fans will choose the cooler one, and the one that's the bigger ass kicker. Trips should have been overmatched against Lesnar. The most offense he should have gotten is if Steph ran down and Lesnar started to threaten her. There's no sympathy for a guy that makes himself as big of an ass kicker as the Destroyer of Worlds.
|
|
|
Post by wallabylikeyou on Jul 25, 2014 8:22:03 GMT -5
I always remember heel Cody Rhodes getting the exact reaction Triple H was looking for a few months prior to this, when Big Show stepped through the table in the tables match and beat up Cody afterwards.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 25, 2014 9:57:34 GMT -5
What wouldn't work? Cena tapping out? Why not? Brock Lesnar tapped out in a real fight within minutes. This isn't the 80's anymore where submitting rarely happened (at least in the WWF). With MMA being as big as it is, tapping out is not a big deal anymore, so I'm not sure why wrestling can't follow that trend. The Rock tapped out to Benoit's Crossface at the peak of his (Rock's) babyface prime. It didn't make him look bad at all. Cena tapping out would not only humanize him to a fanbase that despises him (at least half the audience in every arena) but also end this stupid stigma of tapping out is a sign of weakness. It's so unrealistic and stupid nowadays. all it would do would be make people chant "You tapped out" at Cena. And they'd do it at everyone who gave up in a big angle, same as always. They made submitting a bad thing not by chanting at the guys who refused to do it but by cheering the guys who refused to. Like Stone Cold passing out instead quitting to the sharpshooter anyway, another reason it wouldn't work is the simple fact the fans chanting it wouldn't work. Just like people randomly chanting WHAT? the people who do it want excuses to be smartasses. Acknowledging tapping out as an acceptable action removes that.
|
|