|
Post by Captain & Diet on Apr 20, 2015 2:05:32 GMT -5
It's not like he booked himself to win. That's all on Vince. I'm convinced that Vince lives vicariously through Hunter the Destroyer.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Apr 20, 2015 2:16:12 GMT -5
I'm convinced that Vince lives vicariously through Hunter the Destroyer. Disturbingly, that includes his love life.
|
|
|
Post by Captain & Diet on Apr 20, 2015 2:25:41 GMT -5
I'm convinced that Vince lives vicariously through Hunter the Destroyer. Disturbingly, that includes his love life. Insert gif of Vince oogling his own daughter's breasts here
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Apr 20, 2015 2:57:19 GMT -5
So? Half of those guys were well past their prime. Is anyone really going to complain about beating The Big Show and child killer? I think people overvalue Booker T. The only guy that would have a gripe would be Goldberg. Even then, it took a lot of shady business to beat him. Going into WM XIX, Booker T. was white hot and probably the most over babyface in the company at the time. The build-up to the match was essentially race-baiting with rich white guy HHH positioned as poor black guy Booker's superior. The logical conclusion to that program was Booker winning the heavyweight title and sticking it to HHH, but instead, HHH went over and essentially proved every awful thing he said in the lead-up to WM was true. They had the chance to turn Booker into a top, top star and, instead, he did a nonsensical job to HHH. Meh. You don't need to, nor shouldn't, put the belt on someone just because they are over.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,644
Member is Online
|
Post by The Ichi on Apr 20, 2015 3:46:53 GMT -5
Going into WM XIX, Booker T. was white hot and probably the most over babyface in the company at the time. The build-up to the match was essentially race-baiting with rich white guy HHH positioned as poor black guy Booker's superior. The logical conclusion to that program was Booker winning the heavyweight title and sticking it to HHH, but instead, HHH went over and essentially proved every awful thing he said in the lead-up to WM was true. They had the chance to turn Booker into a top, top star and, instead, he did a nonsensical job to HHH. Meh. You don't need to, nor shouldn't, put the belt on someone just because they are over. ...That's pretty much the #1 reason TO put a belt on someone.
|
|
|
Post by Speedy Cerviche on Apr 20, 2015 3:52:44 GMT -5
How else can you expect the man to acquire a jobbing harem full of top stars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 5:28:26 GMT -5
Going into WM XIX, Booker T. was white hot and probably the most over babyface in the company at the time. The build-up to the match was essentially race-baiting with rich white guy HHH positioned as poor black guy Booker's superior. The logical conclusion to that program was Booker winning the heavyweight title and sticking it to HHH, but instead, HHH went over and essentially proved every awful thing he said in the lead-up to WM was true. They had the chance to turn Booker into a top, top star and, instead, he did a nonsensical job to HHH. Meh. You don't need to, nor shouldn't, put the belt on someone just because they are over. You serious? What other reasons are there?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Apr 20, 2015 6:36:21 GMT -5
Meh. You don't need to, nor shouldn't, put the belt on someone just because they are over. Keeping the belt around the waist of someone that the audience despised who never got his comeuppance when it actually mattered was much better than putting it on a red hot face and did wonders for Raw's audience and buyrates. It helped the careers of those around him no end and made the World Heavyweight Title so valuable it ended up on Smackdown as the second tier belt while a star built there up ended up the face of the company because he'd climbed off the scrapheap and revived his fortunes, something he could never have done on the Triple H show. It's not like he booked himself to win. That's all on Vince. I'm convinced that Vince lives vicariously through Hunter the Destroyer. Hunter has had a say in his booking and the booking of others since 1997. If he didn't want to win, he would have said no but former members of the creative team have said that Hunter's primary concern is 'am I *bleeping* going over, and if he found out he wasn't, the match ending would be changed so he goes over clean before the next writers meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Fuji's racist salt on Apr 20, 2015 7:05:07 GMT -5
At least he didn't beat El Dandy. Who is he to beat El Dandy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 7:21:16 GMT -5
He's never defeated Terra Ryzing.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Apr 20, 2015 7:35:46 GMT -5
He's never defeated Terra Ryzing. HHH was too busy Terra Ryzing the WWE roster to bother.
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Apr 20, 2015 10:38:56 GMT -5
Meh. You don't need to, nor shouldn't, put the belt on someone just because they are over. ...That's pretty much the #1 reason TO put a belt on someone. The Junkyard Dog should've been the WWF Champion. Jake Roberts should've been WWF Champion. Tito Santana should've been WWF Champion. Nikita Koloff should've been NWA Champion. Lex Luger should've been NWA Champion in 1988. I can go on and on, you totally missed my point. Just because you're over does not mean you need, nor deserve, a run with with one of the top belts.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,644
Member is Online
|
Post by The Ichi on Apr 20, 2015 10:45:26 GMT -5
...That's pretty much the #1 reason TO put a belt on someone. The Junkyard Dog should've been the WWF Champion. Jake Roberts should've been WWF Champion. Tito Santana should've been WWF Champion. Nikita Koloff should've been NWA Champion. Lex Luger should've been NWA Champion in 1988. I can go on and on, you totally missed my point. Just because you're over does not mean you need, nor deserve, a run with with one of the top belts. Regardless, the logical conclusion for Triple H/Booker was for Booker to win, or at the very least to get A win. This is one of those things that can't even be defended. And I'm not even a Booker T fan.
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Apr 20, 2015 10:47:54 GMT -5
Meh. You don't need to, nor shouldn't, put the belt on someone just because they are over. Keeping the belt around the waist of someone that the audience despised who never got his comeuppance when it actually mattered was much better than putting it on a red hot face and did wonders for Raw's audience and buyrates. It helped the careers of those around him no end and made the World Heavyweight Title so valuable it ended up on Smackdown as the second tier belt while a star built there up ended up the face of the company because he'd climbed off the scrapheap and revived his fortunes, something he could never have done on the Triple H show. You honestly thinking f***in' Booker T would've been the face of the company? Gimme a break. Batista had star written all over him and got his chance when they botched Orton's face turn. Both Batista and Cena were pretty much on equal footing on popularity, but Cena was much younger and thus was someone the company could mold into the face of the company. But saying the World Title became a secondary title, because of Triple H is laughable. If anything, have that long stranglehold made Batista finally ending Triple H's run a lot more important. It wouldn't have been as important if Triple H dropped the title to every flavor of the month. I'd hate to see people complain in the 70s and 80s due to heels having long reigns with top titles, because the bookers were smart enough not to give the title to any flash in the pan babyface that had fan followings. We would've seen freakin' Ricky Morton as NWA Champion in 1986 by some of this logic I'm seeing.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Apr 20, 2015 10:52:57 GMT -5
The Junkyard Dog should've been the WWF Champion. Jake Roberts should've been WWF Champion. Tito Santana should've been WWF Champion. Nikita Koloff should've been NWA Champion. Lex Luger should've been NWA Champion in 1988. I can go on and on, you totally missed my point. Just because you're over does not mean you need, nor deserve, a run with with one of the top belts. Regardless, the logical conclusion for Triple H/Booker was for Booker to win, or at the very least to get A win. This is one of those things that can't even be defended. And I'm not even a Booker T fan. I'd been happy with a Mania win and a screw job loss at Backlash. A month on Booker wouldn't have done any damage
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Apr 20, 2015 11:01:41 GMT -5
Regardless, the logical conclusion for Triple H/Booker was for Booker to win, or at the very least to get A win. This is one of those things that can't even be defended. And I'm not even a Booker T fan. I'd been happy with a Mania win and a screw job loss at Backlash. A month on Booker wouldn't have done any damage What would be the point? I thought people hated hot potatoing of the title? Just giving Booker T the title for a few weeks isn't helping anyone. If anything, it would've made Booker's win look like a fluke.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Apr 20, 2015 11:07:32 GMT -5
I'd been happy with a Mania win and a screw job loss at Backlash. A month on Booker wouldn't have done any damage What would be the point? I thought people hated hot potatoing of the title? Just giving Booker T the title for a few weeks isn't helping anyone. If anything, it would've made Booker's win look like a fluke. BECAUSE IT WAS A RACE ANGLE. That's why. They may not have intended it to be that way but the second HHH started making "people like you" comments, it became a race angle. Any time race becomes involved, the heel has to get his comeuppance. That's booking 101. Nah, f*** that. That's storytelling 101. Even if he lost it back the next month, at least he proved that yes, people like him did deserve to be champion. In what world is a story where the racist wins a good story?
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Apr 20, 2015 11:23:58 GMT -5
What would be the point? I thought people hated hot potatoing of the title? Just giving Booker T the title for a few weeks isn't helping anyone. If anything, it would've made Booker's win look like a fluke. BECAUSE IT WAS A RACE ANGLE. That's why. They may not have intended it to be that way but the second HHH started making "people like you" comments, it became a race angle. Any time race becomes involved, the babyface has to get his comeuppance. That's booking 101. Nah, f*** that. That's storytelling 101. Even if he lost it back the next month, at least he proved that yes, people like him did deserve to be champion. In what world is a story where the racist wins a good story? Trips didn't even win via shenanigans from what I remember. Just pedigree long time between and pin. If Trips had to go full on Flair style cheating to get the pin at least then it could be interpreted that Booker forced Triple H to win by underhanded tactics. (It still wouldn't have been as good as Booker beating Triple H but it'd be something other than pedigree 1-2-3.) If anything, have that long stranglehold made Batista finally ending Triple H's run a lot more important. Booker T winning hte title at 19 wouldn't have meant a damned thing in Batista's build. HHH dropped it to Goldberg in September of that year. Not to mention Chris Benoit at Wrestlemania 20. And the title was vacated December 2004. Triple H's reign that Batista ended was like 3 months long.
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Apr 20, 2015 11:39:28 GMT -5
What would be the point? I thought people hated hot potatoing of the title? Just giving Booker T the title for a few weeks isn't helping anyone. If anything, it would've made Booker's win look like a fluke. BECAUSE IT WAS A RACE ANGLE. That's why. They may not have intended it to be that way but the second HHH started making "people like you" comments, it became a race angle. Any time race becomes involved, the heel has to get his comeuppance. That's booking 101. Nah, f*** that. That's storytelling 101. Even if he lost it back the next month, at least he proved that yes, people like him did deserve to be champion. In what world is a story where the racist wins a good story? I'm not saying it was a good storyline. For all we know, something happened that caused the company to get cold feet with Booker T and thus caused the outcome of the match to be changed. All it did was become some "let's blame Triple H" for this moment. I'm just saying, at the end of the day, Booker T not winning the belt is irrelevant. Booker T loses it a month or two later. What does that prove? Nothing. He was already a 5 time World Champion and ended up winning it again a few years later.
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Apr 20, 2015 11:51:59 GMT -5
BECAUSE IT WAS A RACE ANGLE. That's why. They may not have intended it to be that way but the second HHH started making "people like you" comments, it became a race angle. Any time race becomes involved, the babyface has to get his comeuppance. That's booking 101. Nah, f*** that. That's storytelling 101. Even if he lost it back the next month, at least he proved that yes, people like him did deserve to be champion. In what world is a story where the racist wins a good story? Trips didn't even win via shenanigans from what I remember. Just pedigree long time between and pin. If Trips had to go full on Flair style cheating to get the pin at least then it could be interpreted that Booker forced Triple H to win by underhanded tactics. (It still wouldn't have been as good as Booker beating Triple H but it'd be something other than pedigree 1-2-3.) If anything, have that long stranglehold made Batista finally ending Triple H's run a lot more important. Booker T winning hte title at 19 wouldn't have meant a damned thing in Batista's build. HHH dropped it to Goldberg in September of that year. Not to mention Chris Benoit at Wrestlemania 20. And the title was vacated December 2004. Triple H's reign that Batista ended was like 3 months long. I already brought up those reigns and said that they didn't need to tack on additional short term reigns just to prevent any possible backlash the net might have on Triple H if they didn't give the title to RVD and Booker T. It was already bad enough they gave two very short reigns from it and at least they gave Benoit the Wrestlemania moment fans on the net were clamoring for so long. Hell, Booker T, The Rock, and Sting (The Rock and Sting both lost due to interference and weapon shots) were the only guy Triple H didn't put over at Wrestlemania during his runs as a top heel. Shouldn't that say more about Booker T than anything? And this is coming from someone who likes Booker.
|
|