|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Jun 28, 2018 1:39:18 GMT -5
I did vote Booker for the reasons everyone has already said but it baffles me that when they heard the response to Goldberg at Summer 03 that they didn’t call an audible and give him the victory, even if HHH had to win it back the next month. Fans were so ready for it.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,612
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Jun 28, 2018 2:46:27 GMT -5
I swear, it seems like people think Hunter should lose every match.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Jun 28, 2018 2:47:21 GMT -5
Booker, and making that win worse was that at that same show, it took 3 Rock Bottoms to keep Austin down, 3 F5s to keep Angle down, and Hogan hit Vince with 3 Leg Drops, but it took 1 Pedigree to keep Booker down, after a long pause.
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on Jun 28, 2018 4:02:45 GMT -5
Booker T aside, what about Orton? He was the hottest he had ever been at that point and suffered a massive derail.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,534
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jun 28, 2018 4:15:47 GMT -5
I swear, it seems like people think Hunter should lose every match. These are 16 matches over a what? 22 year career in WWE? Only 1 or 2 of them are even in the same year as another one on the list. People don't wish he'd lost every match, rather not won some that derailed someone else. Even then, look at the winner, by a vaaaaaast margin.A match that derailed someone where he played a racist heel, there is no argument in the world for him winning that match. |
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,612
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Jun 28, 2018 4:23:32 GMT -5
I swear, it seems like people think Hunter should lose every match. These are 16 matches over a what? 22 year career in WWE? Only 1 or 2 of them are even in the same year as another one on the list. People don't wish he'd lost every match, rather not won some that derailed someone else. Even then, look at the winner, by a vaaaaaast margin.A match that derailed someone where he played a racist heel, there is no argument in the world for him winning that match. Yeah, but he’s spent the last six plus years putting people over, and I still hear complaints that he beat Brock and Sting, and that’s frankly crap. Brock kicked his ass twice, and Trips still needed Shawn’s help to get that one win over him, and Sting INSISTED on letting Hunter win at 31. |
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,534
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jun 28, 2018 4:29:56 GMT -5
These are 16 matches over a what? 22 year career in WWE? Only 1 or 2 of them are even in the same year as another one on the list. People don't wish he'd lost every match, rather not won some that derailed someone else. Even then, look at the winner, by a vaaaaaast margin.A match that derailed someone where he played a racist heel, there is no argument in the world for him winning that match. Yeah, but he’s spent the last six plus years putting people over, and I still hear complaints that he beat Brock and Sting, and that’s frankly crap. Brock kicked his ass twice, and Trips still needed Shawn’s help to get that one win over him, and Sting INSISTED on letting Hunter win at 31. When you build a reputation, takes a lot to undo it. Brock coming back was meant to be unstoppable, but even dirty, HHH in the twilight of his career beat him. Personally, I don't mind that as much, but when you have history that will play into how people saw it. Not knowing he was injured, Sting should have won no matter his wishes. You want to establish someone, they need to win. The whole "WCW was trash" narrative, well, if the guy who symbolises them because he never crossed over loses,then it's shown to be accurate, the guy can't hang so why care about him? Again, that one I don't personally care about, it was an old timers match for novelty value, hence all the run ins.But I can see why people hated the choice. Also,those kinds of throwaway feel good matches, the face normally wins because, well, it's a feel good throwaway match. But once again, the man with the perception of winning against all logic does, so it'll just add to that image. |
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jun 28, 2018 4:33:40 GMT -5
My top three:
1. Booker T
2. Still Booker T
3. Seriously, who books a racist to look stronger than the minority?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Barber on Jun 28, 2018 5:22:28 GMT -5
3. Seriously, who books a racist to look stronger than the minority? Most wrestling promoters...EVER! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 7:01:34 GMT -5
It probably hurt Booker T the most. But the CM Punk angle could have been huge, but it was obvious that the WWE didn't like something being so out of their control and somehow managed to have the angle turn into HHH vs Kevin Nash.
|
|
|
|
Post by chronocross on Jun 28, 2018 9:58:44 GMT -5
I would say definitely Booker.T and CM Punk, the others like Rock I felt needed to happen to take away that predictability of babyfaces always winning at Mania and plus it led to an awesome match at Backlash later that month where Rock went over huge in front of a rabid crowd. Can't forget about Goldberg either as he was over huge at Summerslam and by the time they actually had the title switch at Unforgiven, the crowd was mild and didn't seem to care as much.
As for the others like RVD, I didn't mind too much only because HHH had just turned heel the month before and needed to establish himself as the big heel on Raw and RVD only lost when Flair turned on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Jun 28, 2018 10:00:39 GMT -5
1. Booker t 2. Sting 3. Punk This right here. |
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Jun 28, 2018 17:59:35 GMT -5
Rock should have won at WM 16 (I still haven’t watched that match because it pisses me off that they deliberately held off for a month later), but Rock didn’t lose anything by it. Goldberg at Summerslam, Booker at WM, and Sting at WM were definitely the top answers to this question. Hmm, I sense a theme with those three. I don't think the Rock has ever beaten HHH. Maybe once at backlash due to interference? |
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Jun 28, 2018 20:35:16 GMT -5
Wrestlemania 16 - The Rock: No, because the blow off the next month at Backlash still made a ton of money
Fully Loaded 2000 - Chris Jericho: No, Jericho winning would've been worse. Their would've been nothing for him after.
Unforgiven 2002 - Rob Van Dam - No, RVD should not have been champ at that point.
Wrestlemania 19 - Booker T: Yes, he could've lost it back the next month in that six-man.
Summerslam 2003 - Goldberg: Yes, I quit watching for a while because I didn't care about Berg winning anymore.
Unforgiven 2004 - Randy Orton: No, but the match should've been a triple threat with Benoit, who takes the pin.
No Mercy 2008 - Jeff Hardy: No, see Jericho in 2000.
Wrestlemania 25 - Randy Orton: Yes, just put Cena winning the WHC as the main event. Orton was on a roll as a great heel.
Wrestlemania 26 - Sheamus: Yes, with Triple H wining at Extreme Rules makes more sense.
Night of Champions 2011 - CM Punk: No, but they should've had a rematch at HiaC with Punk winning.
Wrestlemania 29 - Brock Lesnar: No, it didn't matter
Wrestlemania 31 - Sting: I'm in the minority of supporting a HHH win based on the story.
|
|
Shark
Hank Scorpio
The world's only Samurai Ninja Pirate
Posts: 7,045 
|
Post by Shark on Jun 28, 2018 22:14:03 GMT -5
While Lesnar worked out in the end, he definitely didn't need to lose to Triple H at Mania. And maybe there was more to the backstage Jeff Hardy 08-09 run, but I feel like a win of him could have been huge but they skipped around that. Jeff had a point to it though. It was the "You can't win the big one" kind of thing. It culminated when Jeff won the title a couple months later. Plus, Jeff did get a win over Hunter on PPV at the end of 2008. |
|
JCBaggee
Hank Scorpio
Writer, streamer. I used to write for CBR but then they fired everyone who cared about their writers
Posts: 6,792
|
Post by JCBaggee on Jun 28, 2018 22:39:35 GMT -5
Sting. Booker T is a close second because his WWE time is still favorably remembered in spite of this. Sting's brief WWE run is always going to be tainted by that bad booking choice.
Honorable mention for Punk, who would probably take this but a victory over Triple H wouldn't have changed anything if the story was still inexplicably derailed by Triple H and Kevin Nash having a sledgehammer match for reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Jun 29, 2018 3:16:31 GMT -5
Who deserved it most Booker. Who needed it... RVD. Everyone else on that list rebounded and had memorable title reigns(or are Sting who was a bonafide legend already) and were/are main eventers. RVD coulda been catapulted to legit main eventer but just kinda floated around until ECW was about to be brought back almost 5 years later and then he blew it and is now just remembered as an upper midcard mainstay.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jun 29, 2018 7:39:57 GMT -5
I simply cannot fathom voting for anybody other than Booker.
Booker jobbing wasn't just an over babyface's heat being wasted, it was a racist character saying racist shit for weeks and then being proven right by beating the guy from another race.
That is colossally damaging for reasons other than financial. We have not had many world champions of colour, and Booker wouldn't be one in WWE for three years, after a two-year drought.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Jun 29, 2018 12:13:03 GMT -5
For future reference, any time "worst" or "most unfair" etc comes up, don't put Booker T as an option. That is the prime example always. It will always top polls, so just accept that and put "other than" Booker T.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wrestling Curmudgeon on Jun 29, 2018 12:28:05 GMT -5
Booker. Easy. The racist undertones of that entire program were ABHORRENT. The fact that HHH went over still, that’s inexcusable. That was as much of a feel good “good triumphs over bad” as any I’ve seen in that era.
|
|
