|
Post by sternrogers01 on Dec 12, 2016 12:18:59 GMT -5
2002-2005
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 12, 2016 12:19:50 GMT -5
When exactly was the reign of terror? From like September 02 when he was given the world title to April 05 when he lost to Batista at Mania
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Dec 12, 2016 12:30:58 GMT -5
Oh ok thanks. I used to LOVE HHH from around 99-01 so maybe that's when I started to get sick of him. Makes sense I guess.
|
|
RIHT
Hank Scorpio
Wanted a title with "YOU'RE WELCOME!" Close enough.
Hey-yo.
Posts: 5,897
|
Post by RIHT on Dec 12, 2016 13:19:08 GMT -5
I really think 2003 was the worst of HHH's reign. If only they let Booker T beat him at Wrestlemania.
|
|
|
Post by government mule on Dec 12, 2016 16:37:58 GMT -5
I wonder what would have happened if the reign of terror had been head to head with Hogan in 96-99 during the MNW. Who would have gone bust first?
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Dec 12, 2016 19:10:38 GMT -5
I really think 2003 was the worst of HHH's reign. If only they let Booker T beat him at Wrestlemania. I still believe that if not for the Goldberg signing, Booker would've gone over at WM XIX
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Dec 12, 2016 19:10:47 GMT -5
I didn't mind Hogan's Reign cause most everything was booked so well that you did not notice it. And the nWo was so awesome you didn't want it to end.
In many ways people talk about Starrcade but the fact is, the nWo was still hot in late 97 and to me I think it was a mistake to book Sting vs Hogan so early. I would have turned Sting face and attack the nWo in early 1998 instead of early 1997. Do the blowoff at Starrcade 1998 instead of 1997.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Dec 12, 2016 22:00:27 GMT -5
I really think 2003 was the worst of HHH's reign. If only they let Booker T beat him at Wrestlemania. I still believe that if not for the Goldberg signing, Booker would've gone over at WM XIX He still could have gone over and dropped the belt back in time. The end game was Batista anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Dec 12, 2016 22:10:28 GMT -5
I wonder what would have happened if the reign of terror had been head to head with Hogan in 96-99 during the MNW. Who would have gone bust first? Raw was pretty good in 1996 and awesome in 1997 and they still got beat every week, so that war would've ended real fast with 40 minute Hunter promos.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 12, 2016 22:58:06 GMT -5
I didn't mind Hogan's Reign cause most everything was booked so well that you did not notice it. And the nWo was so awesome you didn't want it to end. This reason on the opposite side is why I would take HHH over Hogan any day of the week. Say what you will about the Reign of Terror, but Triple H at least always made sure that his matches happened in the flow of the storyline and the flow of a match. Even if the endgame is "Hunter gotta get his", at least he merely built up the story and the match so it doesn't seem blatant that "Hunter gotta get his", with only Booker and Goldberg coming close to "Hunter Ex Machina" instead of "THE GUY I LIKE LOST TO THE GUY I HATE!!!!" Hogan, on the other hand, LIVED ON "Hogan Ex Machina". Throughout- and especially in WCW, but Mania 9 was just as bad there- was the problem with Hogan- if Hogan wants something, he doesn't care if it makes sense, doesn't care if it could be explained in the storyline, doesn't care about satisfaction- all he cares about is "Hogan gets his", and a lot of the worst of Hogan could be seen as "Hogan gets his" beyond even giving the fans something they'd want.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Dec 13, 2016 1:52:54 GMT -5
I didn't mind Hogan's Reign cause most everything was booked so well that you did not notice it. And the nWo was so awesome you didn't want it to end. This reason on the opposite side is why I would take HHH over Hogan any day of the week. Say what you will about the Reign of Terror, but Triple H at least always made sure that his matches happened in the flow of the storyline and the flow of a match. Even if the endgame is "Hunter gotta get his", at least he merely built up the story and the match so it doesn't seem blatant that "Hunter gotta get his", with only Booker and Goldberg coming close to "Hunter Ex Machina" instead of "THE GUY I LIKE LOST TO THE GUY I HATE!!!!" Hogan, on the other hand, LIVED ON "Hogan Ex Machina". Throughout- and especially in WCW, but Mania 9 was just as bad there- was the problem with Hogan- if Hogan wants something, he doesn't care if it makes sense, doesn't care if it could be explained in the storyline, doesn't care about satisfaction- all he cares about is "Hogan gets his", and a lot of the worst of Hogan could be seen as "Hogan gets his" beyond even giving the fans something they'd want. Yea but watching the product of a man that can wrestle good technical matches but ultimately is not a very interesting character in mediocre storylines against guys you don't give two crap about vs a legendary wrestler in the best storyline of all the time facing fantastic challenges and matches so well hyped that you did not notice were not technical marvels, I'll take the second example. Basically it's what wrestling is really about, the selling vs what made the industry fell into the abyss with guys a little too focused on the workrate. (and I say this even if on a technical level HHH was better in 2000 than he was in 02-05). Also watching guys lose to Hogan was less annoying than seeing guys lose to Hunter. Cause the nWo was cool, cause the swerves were shocking and compelling. While with Hunter winning, when you turned on Raw the next night you still had boring Hunter delivering the same boring crap. Also the payoff of Hogan losing were just better than the Hunter losses. Sure he dropped it to Benoit and Batista but I'll take Hogan losing to Luger and Goldberg.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 13, 2016 2:31:35 GMT -5
This reason on the opposite side is why I would take HHH over Hogan any day of the week. Say what you will about the Reign of Terror, but Triple H at least always made sure that his matches happened in the flow of the storyline and the flow of a match. Even if the endgame is "Hunter gotta get his", at least he merely built up the story and the match so it doesn't seem blatant that "Hunter gotta get his", with only Booker and Goldberg coming close to "Hunter Ex Machina" instead of "THE GUY I LIKE LOST TO THE GUY I HATE!!!!" Hogan, on the other hand, LIVED ON "Hogan Ex Machina". Throughout- and especially in WCW, but Mania 9 was just as bad there- was the problem with Hogan- if Hogan wants something, he doesn't care if it makes sense, doesn't care if it could be explained in the storyline, doesn't care about satisfaction- all he cares about is "Hogan gets his", and a lot of the worst of Hogan could be seen as "Hogan gets his" beyond even giving the fans something they'd want. Yea but watching the product of a man that can wrestle good technical matches but ultimately is not a very interesting character in mediocre storylines against guys you don't give two crap about vs a legendary wrestler in the best storyline of all the time facing fantastic challenges and matches so well hyped that you did not notice were not technical marvels, I'll take the second example. Basically it's what wrestling is really about, the selling vs what made the industry fell into the abyss with guys a little too focused on the workrate. (and I say this even if on a technical level HHH was better in 2000 than he was in 02-05). Also watching guys lose to Hogan was less annoying than seeing guys lose to Hunter. Cause the nWo was cool, cause the swerves were shocking and compelling. While with Hunter winning, when you turned on Raw the next night you still had boring Hunter delivering the same boring crap. Also the payoff of Hogan losing were just better than the Hunter losses. Sure he dropped it to Benoit and Batista but I'll take Hogan losing to Luger and Goldberg. I'm not even talking about "technical or non-technical, but how it worked in the story. HHH and Hogan were both politicians, but they went about it in a world of difference. Even through technical matches- just the explanations were viable there show it. Triple H was heinous in his worst two (Booker T at Mania 19 and Goldberg in the Chamber)...but in kayfabe, you could at least explain the end of Booker T at Mania 19...POSSIBLY, as "well, Booker T was close, he had enough reason to hate Triple H that he could fight him...but he just wasn't good enough right now to pull it off, even though he got closer than he really could", or "Goldberg could dominate everyone, but Triple H was fresher and cheated him out of it" as...well, not good reasons, but reasons. By contrast, there is no reason for the ending of Starrcade '97 to work in kayfabe that didn't boil down to "Hogan gotta get his way, he will use creative control to get his way, and honestly he doesn't really give a damn about entertaining the fans as long as he GETS HIS WAY"...and it's the same with Mania 9's finish boiling down to the exact same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Cvslfc123 on Dec 13, 2016 5:03:49 GMT -5
I didn't start watching wrestling until near the end of Hogan's WCW run so I would have to say that. My god the reign of terror! Some of my worst wrestling memories were going onto WWE.com the day after a PPV only to find out that Triple H had won/retained the World Heavyweight title YET AGAIN.
By the time he had won his 10th title at New Years Revolution 2005 I thought they were just taking the piss out of us. It was even worse knowing he was only in that position because of who he was married to.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthings on Dec 13, 2016 12:34:18 GMT -5
I've always been a huge mark for Evolution so would take the HHH reign of terror any day. The only time it got to the point where I really just couldn't enjoy it was when Nash got involved in 2003. His comeback was exciting, but it all just became a bit difficult to watch.
2004 was on the whole pretty ok for me as well. The back end of 2004 going in to early 2005 was great with all the tension on screen with Batista, some of Flair's most entertaining moments in Evolution came at this time. As far as his matches at PPVs in 2004 are concerned I enjoyed a hell of a lot of them: HHH/HBK Last Man Standing (RR), Triple Threat (WM + Backlash), HHH/HBK HIAC (Bad Blood), HHH/Benoit (Vengeance). Hogan's matches from that era in WCW don't come anywhere near, sorry but they just don't at all.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,727
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Dec 13, 2016 12:56:08 GMT -5
Yea but watching the product of a man that can wrestle good technical matches but ultimately is not a very interesting character in mediocre storylines against guys you don't give two crap about vs a legendary wrestler in the best storyline of all the time facing fantastic challenges and matches so well hyped that you did not notice were not technical marvels, I'll take the second example. Basically it's what wrestling is really about, the selling vs what made the industry fell into the abyss with guys a little too focused on the workrate. (and I say this even if on a technical level HHH was better in 2000 than he was in 02-05). Also watching guys lose to Hogan was less annoying than seeing guys lose to Hunter. Cause the nWo was cool, cause the swerves were shocking and compelling. While with Hunter winning, when you turned on Raw the next night you still had boring Hunter delivering the same boring crap. Also the payoff of Hogan losing were just better than the Hunter losses. Sure he dropped it to Benoit and Batista but I'll take Hogan losing to Luger and Goldberg. I'm not even talking about "technical or non-technical, but how it worked in the story. HHH and Hogan were both politicians, but they went about it in a world of difference. Even through technical matches- just the explanations were viable there show it. Triple H was heinous in his worst two (Booker T at Mania 19 and Goldberg in the Chamber)...but in kayfabe, you could at least explain the end of Booker T at Mania 19...POSSIBLY, as "well, Booker T was close, he had enough reason to hate Triple H that he could fight him...but he just wasn't good enough right now to pull it off, even though he got closer than he really could", or "Goldberg could dominate everyone, but Triple H was fresher and cheated him out of it" as...well, not good reasons, but reasons. By contrast, there is no reason for the ending of Starrcade '97 to work in kayfabe that didn't boil down to "Hogan gotta get his way, he will use creative control to get his way, and honestly he doesn't really give a damn about entertaining the fans as long as he GETS HIS WAY"...and it's the same with Mania 9's finish boiling down to the exact same thing. I don't quite agree on the Hogan assessment. The kayfabe could be "this man has beaten every challenger that's faced him for a two decades and, while he has begun taking shortcuts to get ahead without as much effort, he still is a very dangerous man - especially when cornered the way Sting has cornered him". Saying its a surprise that Hogan could beat up and dominate Sting is blatantly ignoring nearly 20 years of kayfabe prior to that point. Hogan had physically overpowered everyone he ever faced. Why would Sting be different? In a real sports sense, "Hogan wins again because he's the best" isn't the preferred story, but it's not unrealistic.
|
|
Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,317
|
Post by Woo on Dec 13, 2016 13:05:27 GMT -5
Hogan during that time frame was abysmal and makes 2003 HHH or 1996 HBK look generous.
I still can't believe that Hogan changed the booking for the WW3 battle royal during the match and playing his creative control clause.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 13:32:36 GMT -5
I actually like the matches of Triple H's Reign Of Terror for the most part. It's the never ending promos that made it suck.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Dec 13, 2016 13:32:36 GMT -5
I'm not even talking about "technical or non-technical, but how it worked in the story. HHH and Hogan were both politicians, but they went about it in a world of difference. Even through technical matches- just the explanations were viable there show it. Triple H was heinous in his worst two (Booker T at Mania 19 and Goldberg in the Chamber)...but in kayfabe, you could at least explain the end of Booker T at Mania 19...POSSIBLY, as "well, Booker T was close, he had enough reason to hate Triple H that he could fight him...but he just wasn't good enough right now to pull it off, even though he got closer than he really could", or "Goldberg could dominate everyone, but Triple H was fresher and cheated him out of it" as...well, not good reasons, but reasons. By contrast, there is no reason for the ending of Starrcade '97 to work in kayfabe that didn't boil down to "Hogan gotta get his way, he will use creative control to get his way, and honestly he doesn't really give a damn about entertaining the fans as long as he GETS HIS WAY"...and it's the same with Mania 9's finish boiling down to the exact same thing. I don't quite agree on the Hogan assessment. The kayfabe could be "this man has beaten every challenger that's faced him for a two decades and, while he has begun taking shortcuts to get ahead without as much effort, he still is a very dangerous man - especially when cornered the way Sting has cornered him". Saying its a surprise that Hogan could beat up and dominate Sting is blatantly ignoring nearly 20 years of kayfabe prior to that point. Hogan had physically overpowered everyone he ever faced. Why would Sting be different? In a real sports sense, "Hogan wins again because he's the best" isn't the preferred story, but it's not unrealistic. That's a decent point. I thought Sting should've won clean but after a brutal war, not a squash match like so many others though (or had impressed upon them by the authors of The Death of WCW). It's the same vantage point Jim Ross used in one of my favorite calls five years later when Hogan hit Rock with his legdrop. To younger fans seeing a old guy simply drop a leg on the Rock and not be too concerned, hearing JR yell out " He beat Andre the Giant with that move!!!" had to impress on them just what they were seeing and the real trouble Rock was in. In kayfabe, Hogan was always seen as what Gorilla Monsoon dubbed him at Wrestlemania 3, The Unstoppable Force.
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Dec 13, 2016 13:46:46 GMT -5
Hogan during that time frame was abysmal and makes 2003 HHH or 1996 HBK look generous. I still can't believe that Hogan changed the booking for the WW3 battle royal during the match and playing his creative control clause. Wait. How he do that?!
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 13, 2016 14:18:54 GMT -5
Hogan during that time frame was abysmal and makes 2003 HHH or 1996 HBK look generous. I still can't believe that Hogan changed the booking for the WW3 battle royal during the match and playing his creative control clause. Wait. How he do that?! Macho was going over regardless so during the match he made a stink about how he was never eliminated and he should be champion. This was at the end of the match Making a big stink and taking away from Machos moment.
|
|