Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Nov 30, 2007 14:14:15 GMT -5
Blah the only difference was RVD would stall and pose a lot more in ECW.
Seriously he's the only wrestler in history to get a crowd to pop for his stalling
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Nov 30, 2007 15:02:56 GMT -5
Wow I think you guys are reading into this way too much. I don't think RVD is bashing HHH. I don't think he's saying HHH held him down. I think Rob is just saying that yeah, HHH has a lot of backstage stroke and plays politics. And RVD doesn't have to like him for it. Hell, I'm sure RVD was politicked against just for being the most over accquisition at the time. I'm sure no one wanted to put him over.
But a lot of you who are against this make it seem like RVD is acting like HHH is the devil incarnate. He's not. The interviewer is obviously pushing RVD to say things against HHH. So RVD doesnt like HHH and feels he held people down? The reality is, HHH is probably not the most likeable guy in the world, and the reality is, HHH has a lot of political pull, and in this era (2002) he just got married to Steph and was the healthiest star from the Attitude Era. Of course they are going to listen to him more. And to say he has no pull is stupid. He basically admitted to convincing Vince to do the screw-job.
Also, the interviewer asked Rob about 2002. No where does it seem that Rob is still bitter about it. The question wasn't "What was your tenure in the WWE like?" it was "In 2002, you seemed to be in line for the title, but HHH hogged it. Your opinion?" What the f*** do you expect him to say? "Well, 2006 they gave me two titles!" that's not the answer to the question f***faces! So unless he goes out, makes a public statement on his own about how HHH held him down in 2002, don't read too far into this. He was asked a f***ing question about 2002, how the hell is he not gonna answer it?
|
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Nov 30, 2007 15:52:35 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever heard RVD be bitter about ANYTHING. He always seems upbeat, confident, and relaxed.
Maybe more wrestlers should smoke pot. I'm only half-kidding.
|
|
|
Post by normcoleman on Nov 30, 2007 16:33:15 GMT -5
RVD's title reign should have happened 2002-2003, he could have been close to Cena big
|
|
Kae
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,610
|
Post by Kae on Nov 30, 2007 16:47:22 GMT -5
Where have you been this year? Randy was named in two different steroid busts this year. Even though he wasnt prosecuted like he could have been, it was easily more serious than RVD getting a $50 ticket for pot possession. Sure. Randy was part of Sports Illustrated expose of steroids in the sport. They proved that he used them back in 2004. The WWE could easily claim that he is clean now. Again, we're not looking at reality; we're looking at perception. The WWE doesn't actually care how clean its performers are; they care whether or not they get caught doing drugs or steroids at the present moment.
|
|
Kae
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,610
|
Post by Kae on Nov 30, 2007 16:52:44 GMT -5
Also, the interviewer asked Rob about 2002. No where does it seem that Rob is still bitter about it. The question wasn't "What was your tenure in the WWE like?" it was "In 2002, you seemed to be in line for the title, but HHH hogged it. Your opinion?" What the smurf do you expect him to say? "Well, 2006 they gave me two titles!" that's not the answer to the question smurffaces! So unless he goes out, makes a public statement on his own about how HHH held him down in 2002, don't read too far into this. He was asked a smurfing question about 2002, how the hell is he not gonna answer it? The press always digs for dirt, especially about backstage politics. It's up to the wrestler whether or not to give it to them. In this case, RVD chose to go along with it and to claim that the reporter was ventriloquizing his own feelings about the situation. Of course he could have said, "Triple H had held the title for only three weeks. World championship reigns in the WWE are generally longer than that. It would have been strange if it had changed hands. As it was, I ended up winning the title a few years later, so it didn't affect my career in the long term." That would have been the diplomatic answer.
|
|
Warwolf
Unicron
Fear the Wolf
Posts: 2,541
|
Post by Warwolf on Nov 30, 2007 21:11:31 GMT -5
Just a couple of things: 1) RVD didn't screw up by smoking in his car and getting caught. He didn't mess up by getting it in the paper. WWE messed up by running from the situation instead of embracing it. If this had happened in 98, his old school smoker gimmick would've been brought back and he would've been a face. And since the illigalization of weed is a rediculous concept in and of itself to a GREAT deal of young people (myself included) it would've been over. Maybe so, but it wasn't and he screwed up. WWE wouldn't have just taken the belt off of him for no reason. I know a lot will say that's his gimmick and it is, but still it doesn't give him a green light to do as he wishes. Also, it bears repeating apparently, but he wasn't well-liked, so then his actions are under much scrutiny, so he should've been careful, which he wasn't. Refer to the post re: Orton, Randy, and the current steroid scandal after Benoit's death. WHERE is Orton right now? What title is he currently holding? Think about it.
|
|
Kyle
Team Rocket
It's Still Real To Me!
Posts: 943
|
Post by Kyle on Dec 1, 2007 1:06:46 GMT -5
Triple H's 02/03 heel run was brilliant. Everyone wanted that prick to lose the title. THANK YOU! I've been saying this for years.... ~Kyle
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Dec 1, 2007 2:13:29 GMT -5
Also, the interviewer asked Rob about 2002. No where does it seem that Rob is still bitter about it. The question wasn't "What was your tenure in the WWE like?" it was "In 2002, you seemed to be in line for the title, but HHH hogged it. Your opinion?" What the smurf do you expect him to say? "Well, 2006 they gave me two titles!" that's not the answer to the question smurffaces! So unless he goes out, makes a public statement on his own about how HHH held him down in 2002, don't read too far into this. He was asked a smurfing question about 2002, how the hell is he not gonna answer it? The press always digs for dirt, especially about backstage politics. It's up to the wrestler whether or not to give it to them. In this case, RVD chose to go along with it and to claim that the reporter was ventriloquizing his own feelings about the situation. Of course he could have said, "Triple H had held the title for only three weeks. World championship reigns in the WWE are generally longer than that. It would have been strange if it had changed hands. As it was, I ended up winning the title a few years later, so it didn't affect my career in the long term." That would have been the diplomatic answer. So he's left to believe that he wouldn't have had a big boost if he won then and there and considering how over he was he shouldn't think that the boost right then and there at such an opportune time wouldn't have helped solidify him as the #1 babyface? You sir are smoking way more than RVD himself with your responce.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 1, 2007 3:11:18 GMT -5
Triple H's 02/03 heel run was brilliant. Everyone wanted that prick to lose the title. THANK YOU! I've been saying this for years.... ~Kyle Business plummeted in 02-03.
|
|
|
Post by Original Gansta - Charisma on Dec 1, 2007 3:15:50 GMT -5
You know I used to hate Triple H and I wanted him out of the business forever and ever but after listening to all the shoot interviews where he's discussed and after watching his ring work both live and on tv, I grown to really like and respect Triple H. I still think he's a horrible interview but I think all this stuff about him burying guys is such stupid propaganda. With that said RVD is one of my favorite wrestlers of all time and he always speaks his mind. Triple H is a notorious straight edge guy and we all know RVDs history so it's no surprise they wouldn't like each other. So yeah basically there's nothing to see here.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 1, 2007 11:14:04 GMT -5
I don't get this whole "If somebody says something bad about WWE/Triple H/whoever, they're automatically bitter whiners" line of thought.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 1, 2007 11:45:00 GMT -5
I don't get this whole "If somebody says something bad about WWE/Triple H/whoever, they're automatically bitter whiners" line of thought. True, but when a significant portion of every interview is revolving about how political is WWE's backstage and about certain people holding talent (ie. ME) down, the suspect of bitterness is legit I think. I understand they just answer to the questions they get asked, and that most of the interviewers love to dig into such dirty stuff, because that's what their audience want to hear/read. Nonetheless, it's not that difficult dodging the accusations of bitterness... guess how? stopping bringing up the same trite stuff while answering to the same trite questions.
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on Dec 1, 2007 11:57:49 GMT -5
Is there an opposite of smark bait? or does it work for both good and bad things? Well, as the guy who coined the term "smark bait," I've always envisioned it as a bad thing. Still, this type of thing does need a term. I'm going to go with "smark fluffing." Now to see if it becomes an IWC meme (it won't). So let me see If i got this straight... Smark Bait = A news story planted or posted designed to rile the IWC and foster an intense distasteful reaction. I.E.: According to backstage rumors the WWE may or may not be hunkering down for the Long haul with The Animal. Plans are being discussed to have Batista's current championship run rival Hulk Hogan's four year run in the 80s. ~Rajah.com Smark Fluffing = A news story planted or posted designed to rile the IWC and foster an intense near Orgasmic reaction. I.E.: Acording to backstage sources WWE are finally giving Paul London his due. The push will begin with london winning the Royal Rumble and may or may not include ending The Undertaker's Wrestlemania streak. ~Rajah.com I like it. Smark Fluffing it is.
|
|
|
Post by EmptyEYE DUNNOOOOOOOOO on Dec 1, 2007 11:59:49 GMT -5
I don't get this whole "If somebody says something bad about WWE/Triple H/whoever, they're automatically bitter whiners" line of thought. I do, at least as regards Triple H. It's part of the inevitable cycle, essentially a backlash against 2002-2004 or so wherein HHH was blamed for pretty much EVERYTHING from holding (Wrestler X) down to the United States' inability to find and capture Osama Bin Laden. Seriously. Does HHH have SOME backstage pull? I don't know, but I'd say "probably". Does he, or did he ever, run the whole damn show behind the scenes like some of his detractors want you to believe? Again without knowing for sure, I'd say "almost certainly not". People talk about his influence as a direct result of A. his friends or B. Marrying the boss's daughter, but they forget that he was world-title-level BEFORE B, and A once got him a cushy little 18-month losing streak (The Kliq incident). Maybe he's just, *GASP* a good enough wrestler to be on top on his own merits! As for the RVD/Benoit comparison, I don't think anyone saw clues to what Benoit ultimately did until it was too late and we all had the benefit of hindsight. In contrast, you would've had to be an idiot not to know that RVD liked to, um, indulge in and consume plant life during pretty much his entire career.
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on Dec 1, 2007 12:06:24 GMT -5
RVD was as over as anybody i think thats why he feels he shouldve got a run, and i agree.The guy was getting Austin pops during the invasion. RVD annoys me. He keeps acting like the WWE and HHH held him down. When ECW was relaunched, he had two titles, including the WWE title! TWO! He then smoked weed with Sabu and got caught by the police, so they obviously had to strip him of them. Basically, RVD screwed RVD, and I wish he would man up and stop blaming Triple H. Well I heard the cops would have never have pulled him over if it weren't for a tip off from Caslgary. So Brett screwed RVD.
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on Dec 1, 2007 12:11:06 GMT -5
RVD didn't really say much of anything here. He kind of avoided giving a straight up answer. People seem to forget that even though they'd LOVE him to, HHH doesn't run creative and I truly believe that if Vince wanted to say no to an idea he would. Look at HHH right now. He's in a mid-card storyline with Jeff Hardy. That's true, but I'm sure he does have some influence. Steph: Please honey, I need it bad. C'mon Hunter (giggle,giggle) slip me that sledge hammer of love. Hunter: I don't know dear, I'm not feeling particularly manly right now. Now maybe if I had a Title run...
|
|
|
Post by Adam Pacman Khan (akkilla) on Dec 1, 2007 12:43:52 GMT -5
pro wrestling decline begins 2002....
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 1, 2007 12:53:22 GMT -5
pro wrestling decline begins 2002.... ... because: A) RVD didn't get the WHC title? B) Triple H held the WHC title a bit too much? C) the Attitude Era Wrestling Fad died and WWE came back into its little niche where it had been since the end of the Rock 'n' Wrestling Fad? I vote C
|
|
|
Post by David Troy a.k.a legendmythman on Dec 1, 2007 16:54:01 GMT -5
RVD didn't screw up by smoking in his car and getting caught. He didn't mess up by getting it in the paper. WWE messed up by running from the situation instead of embracing it. If this had happened in 98, his old school smoker gimmick would've been brought back and he would've been a face. And since the illigalization of weed is a rediculous concept in and of itself to a GREAT deal of young people (myself included) it would've been over. Except it wasn't 1998. The WWE had a lot of bad press about drug problems in the company after the death of Eddie Guerrero. They simply could not have kept the belt on a man who was busted for smoking pot AND had used it to push him as a face. Can you imagine the headlines? The backlash? Yeah. The media coverage would've been huge. They used to have the idea that ANY coverage is good coverage. They built they're biggest era off being counter culture and then they hipocritcally ran from the same ideal here. Even if they took the belt from him, they could've kept him around the picture for a while. He had some hellacious momentum and the picture with him and Edge as the counters for "Super Cena" would've been pretty damn good to watch. RVD had momentum and had it since ECW days. And WWE wasted it time and time again. The drug thing, granted, wasn't a cut an dry case of they totally wasted him for NO reason, they still could've handled it different. The HHH thing though, they did waste RVD... BIG TIME
|
|