It's all about the Game...

Fozzy · 27-09-2007 12:39pm

The last time a tag team meant something was 24 hours before HHH buried the five guys on Raw, when Cade & Murdoch had the best match of the ppv with London & Kendrick

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 12:40pm

Translation - once in a blue moon. I guess what's seldom is wonderful!
I can't believe that nearly two weeks on and people are still in outrage over this. One would swear it was the Montreal screwjob!
VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 12:51pm

its a culmination of stuff over the years (hanging on to the coat-tails of nash, hall and michaels especially; inserting himself into the mcmahon family; putting over his friends, number of world titles won, number of WM's headlined in a short space of time) more than just that one incident, the burying of 5 guys in about 30 seconds just sent most smarks over the edge it seems

Vince135792003 · 27-09-2007 12:56pm

rossie1977 wrote:

the burying of 5 guys in about 30 seconds just sent most smarks over the edge it seems

No justifying/defending it does.

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 1:02pm

rossie1977 wrote:

its a culmination of stuff over the years (hanging on to the coat-tails of nash, hall and michaels especially; inserting himself into the mcmahon family; putting over his friends, number of world titles won, number of WM's headlined in a short space of time) more than just that one incident, the burying of 5 guys in about 30 seconds just sent most smarks over the edge it seems

Hold up a second. He debuted in 95 and headlined his first Mania five years later (sharing that accolade with 3 other guys!). Hardly a short space of time. Austin practically did that within his first year! Brock did it in a year!

So we have Mania 2000 he was in the main event, he was upper midcard for X7, was in the title match at Mania X8 but Rock v Hogan was booked as the main event. XIX he was midcard with Booker T, Shared the main event with 2 guys the year after that. Main evented the year after that. That's not as many as you're making it out to be!

Hanging onto the coat tails of Hall and Nash is grasping at straws as they were gone about nine months to a year after he joined the company. Michaels yeah. According to Michaels book, Hunter just came along asked if he could hang with the group. Nothing the Nasty Boys didn't do a few years earlier with the Rockers. How accurate that story is now, is debatable. I just love the way HHH's politicking comes into play every month, when the likes of Bret, Austin and Undertaker did more than their fair share of it.

I've no problem with people being sick of it. But what does piss me off is one set of rules for HHH and a different set of rules for everyone else as far as bitching is concerned.

VR!

Minto · 27-09-2007 1:38pm

^^^^What he said!^^^^

Also, I'm not sure if this was really touched on in this thread, but no matter who Triple H decides to bury, there is one man who is more to blame. Vincent K. McMahon. He is the one who buries these guys, he just uses Triple H as the method to do it. Its Vince's company and if he wants to bury these guys, he is gonna do it. If some other wrestler had married Steph, Vince would be using him to do all this. So do me a favor and lay off the Triple H bashing for a while.
Now, I do realise that Trips has Vince's ear, but at the end of the day, Vince will push who he wants and bury who he wants.

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 1:45pm

validreasoning! wrote:

Hold up a second. He debuted in 95 and headlined his first Mania five years later (sharing that accolade with 3 other guys!). Hardly a short space of time. Austin practically did that within his first year! Brock did it in a year!

Don't get me started on Lesnar :mad:

Austin was already an established star in WCW for years though (under-utilized yes, but still a star nonetheless, like Jericho, Benoit, Eddie etc), Trips was nothing more than a glorified jobber in WCW ala Adam Copeland.

So we have Mania 2000 he was in the main event, he was upper midcard for X7, was in the title match at Mania X8 but Rock v Hogan was booked as the main event. XIX he was midcard with Booker T, Shared the main event with 2 guys the year after that. Main evented the year after that. That's not as many as you're making it out to be!

Since joining with the McMahons he had headlined WM16, WM18, WM20, WM21, WM22 and was in line to main event WM23 before he got injured. He was second match at WM17, WM19 is the only time since 1999 he has been down the card.

Hanging onto the coat tails of Hall and Nash is grasping at straws as they were gone about nine months to a year

13 months to be exact but he learned alot about the politics of the business in that short space of time.

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 1:51pm

Minto wrote:

^^^^What he said!^^^^

Also, I'm not sure if this was really touched on in this thread, but no matter who Triple H decides to bury, there is one man who is more to blame. Vincent K. McMahon. He is the one who buries these guys, he just uses Triple H as the method to do it. Its Vince's company and if he wants to bury these guys, he is gonna do it. If some other wrestler had married Steph, Vince would be using him to do all this. So do me a favor and lay off the Triple H bashing for a while.
Now, I do realise that Trips has Vince's ear, but at the end of the day, Vince will push who he wants and bury who he wants.

I have chatted with two of the smackdown writers and what they said is that basically steph and trips have free reign over Raw. Why do you think pat patterson quit that time in 2004???

Vince135792003 · 27-09-2007 2:10pm

Oh yeah, wasn't that the time as a consultant he basically gave feedback saying "Less Triple H on tv?" Didn't go down to well at the time. Nobody made that mistake of giving their honest opinion since.

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 2:19pm

rossie1977 wrote:

I have chatted with two of the smackdown writers and what they said is that basically steph and trips have free reign over Raw. Why do you think pat patterson quit that time in 2004???

From what i remember, he had to. His health was in a bad way.
VR!

Vince135792003 · 27-09-2007 2:22pm

For what its worth:

Pat Patterson is resigning from WWE after 46 years.

It appears as if Pat Patterson has given notice to WWE that he will be leaving the company next week. He gave notice on October 5th, with Taboo Tuesday set to be his final day.

Patterson recently spoke out against how WWE is using Triple H, saying that he is being given too much power and too much storyline focus without creating new stars. Patterson was growing more and more upset with WWE's creative direction as a whole as well. Vince McMahon sent Patterson on the road with the RAW brand a few weeks back to observe and come up with ways to improve the product. Patterson spoke out about Triple H and his growing concern over the company's direction following his run with the RAW crew.

Patterson was always thought of as Vince's right hand man and top "yes man" so it took many by surprise when he spoke out against Triple H. Of course, most believe Triple H to be the second most powerful man in WWE now, behind only Vince himself.

1wrestling.com 2004

Just taken from another board who had this very same debate 3 years ago.

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 2:22pm

rossie1977 wrote:

Don't get me started on Lesnar :mad:

Austin was already an established star in WCW for years though (under-utilized yes, but still a star nonetheless, like Jericho, Benoit, Eddie etc), Trips was nothing more than a glorified jobber in WCW ala Adam Copeland.

He was a rising star, but not exactly at the top. Although you can blame Duthththy Rhodes for that.

Since joining with the McMahons he had headlined WM16, WM18, WM20, WM21, WM22 and was in line to main event WM23 before he got injured. He was second match at WM17, WM19 is the only time since 1999 he has been down the card.

He didn't main event X8 though. A main event is what sells the show and usually what's advertised on the poster. HHH v Jericho was not that match, that was Rock v Hogan. So that clears that up.

So thats still only four Wrestlemanias in seven years. That's less than Hogan!
VR!

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 2:23pm

Vince135792003 wrote:

For what its worth:

Colour me wrong!

VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 2:39pm

i beg to differ; final match at WM18, title match = main event

thats 5 manias headlined in 7 years, would have been 6 manias in
8 years only for the injury.

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 2:44pm

rossie1977 wrote:

i beg to differ; final match at WM18, title match = main event

thats 5 manias headlined in 6 years, would have been 6 manias in 7 years only for the injury.

Regardless of if it's five or six, it's still less than Hogan so enough of the "he's had so many manias in such a short space!" Hogan has had ten! Hogan put even fewer people over than HHH ever did, tried to bury Bret's career in 1993 and worked nowhere near as hard as HHH has done!

VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 2:55pm

hogan headlined WM1, WM2, WM3, WM5, WM6, WM7, WM8 (kind of), WM18 (kind of). Might have left out a few

Hogan is still the biggest star this business has or probably ever will see. I grew up with Hogan everywhere and hated his guts

But again ask most non-wrestling fans do they know know triple h is, i bet they don't. Most of my non-wrestling fan friends know the Rock and Hogan because they transcended the business.

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 2:58pm

rossie1977 wrote:

hogan headlined WM1, WM2, WM3, WM5, WM6, WM7, WM8 (kind of), WM18 (kind of). Might have left out a few

Hogan is still the biggest star this business has or probably ever will see. I grew up with Hogan everywhere and hated his guts But again ask most non-wrestling fans do they know know triple h is, i bet they don't. Most of my non-wrestling fan friends know the Rock and Hogan because they transcended the business.

According to your logic - last match + title match = main event. Which would also include Hogan v Yokozuna at WM 9 too, i forgot he didn't main event IV, altho the way he hogged the spotlight, he may as well have had. He still got his mug in there.

And you'd be very surprised how many people know who Triple H is, try asking some of the younger generation

VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 3:07pm

well if that is the case then Adam Copeland headlined New Year's Revolution 2006. That yoko/hogan joke of match was just another piece of bad booking on a terrible card.

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 3:15pm

Just going by your logic, as i said, Rock v Hogan was booked as the main event for Mania X8, hell you practically said it yourself!

VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 3:25pm

yes but people bought the WM9 ppv on the basis that yoko/bret was headlining (it was sold as such), similar to NYR06 people bought it on the basis of Cena in an elimination chamber match.

the edge money in the bank thing made sense, hogans title match made no sense; maybe they had extra time to spare or something

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 3:27pm

rossie1977 wrote:

yes but people bought the WM9 ppv on the basis that yoko/bret was headlining (it was sold as such), similar to NYR06 people bought it on the basis of Cena in an elimination chamber match.

the edge money in the bank thing made sense, hogans title match made no sense; maybe they had extra time to spare or something

Exactly my point dude, People bought Mania X8 on the basis that it was Rock v Hogan, not Jericho v HHH. In fact, nobody gave a crap about that match, despite the fact that it was actually solid. Making Rock v Hogan the main event of that entire PPV.

VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 3:51pm

its true more people bought WM18 on the basis of Rock/Hogan because they are bigger stars than jericho or trips can ever hope to be. Hogan/Rock cast a huge shadow over that main event for sure.

it was the same thing with WM23, alot of people bought that on the basis of Trump/Vince, Summerslam 2002 on the basis of HBKs return etc (that match is why i spent IR£700 on a flight out to NY)

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 4:00pm

rossie1977 wrote:

its true more people bought WM18 on the basis of Rock/Hogan because they are bigger stars than jericho or trips can ever hope to be. Hogan/Rock cast a huge shadow over that main event for sure.

it was the same thing with WM23, alot of people bought that on the basis of Trump/Vince, Summerslam 2002 on the basis of HBKs return etc (that match why is why i spent IR£700 on a flight)

I will agree with Trump v Vince but not for HBK's return for Summerslam. Rock v Brock was built up so well and everyone knew Brock was taking it as Rock was headed off to Hollywood again (in a move that made a lot of the crowd boo him for his entrance at that event).

Bigger names sell PPV's, that's a known fact. Problem was Vince was hoping that HHH would become one after returning from injury. He also wasn't expecting the fans in Toronto to cheer for Hogan either. Meanwhile Austin got the shaft facing Hall in a midcard match on the card in a match where he was supposed to put Hall over but refused, hence the run in finish. Whereas i do agree Austin shouldn't have to considering Halls history with WWE, but he could have settled his differences a lot better. Things really spiraled downhill after that PPV.

VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 4:39pm

nah, i remember it like it was yesterday. I arrived about 3 hours before summerslam started to get my tickets at the box office. Then we joined the queue about 1.5 hours before start-time. All of a sudden about 1 hour before start-time the queue was a mass of noise, everyone was talking about the Rock, at first i couldn't hear what they were talking about but soon it arrived by our end, chants of "die rocky die", you sold out (usual crap) was everywhere, even from guys wearing rock shirts.

the news of rock's departure spread like a virus that night in Long island

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 5:00pm

rossie1977 wrote:

the news of rock's departure spread like a virus that night in Long island

Yeah it wasn't national security or anything. Everyone knew by that point that he was moving on for a while, rumour sites were burning that entire week.

Bad idea to start that PPV off with Angle v Mysterio though, after such a hot opener, it was such a downer to have to watch crap like Undertaker v Test!

VR!

rossie1977 · 27-09-2007 5:21pm

must have just broke a day or so beforehand because i heard nothing until i was in the queue that night. Complete contrast with lesnar and goldie, flying out on the wednesday morning before WM20 everyone knew both were leaving. Both were banished to other hotels (WWE were all staying in the Hilton) which was hilarious, lesnar wasn't even allowed into the hall of fame on the saturday night

with regards SS02 undertaker/test was stinker that night for sure; still there was some fine matches that night like angle/mysterio, van dam/benoit, rock/brock (in person it was v good, atmosphere played a big part though) and of course michaels/trips which is probably the best WWE match i have seen in person.

Vince135792003 · 27-09-2007 6:05pm

rossie1977 wrote:

was some fine matches that night like angle/mysterio, van dam/benoit, rock/brock (in person it was v good, atmosphere played a big part though) and of course michaels/trips which is probably the best WWE match i have seen in person.

Awesome ppv was Summerlsam 2002. Compare that card to this years and its sad in many ways but specifically if you just look at the roster depth.

ShawnRaven · 27-09-2007 8:47pm

Vince135792003 wrote:

Awesome ppv was Summerlsam 2002. Compare that card to this years and its sad in many ways but specifically if you just look at the roster depth.

Yeah for sure. Taker v Test was the only sh*t match on the card really, but Summerslam really wasn't Takers PPV was it. Let's run through it

91 - Invades Savage's Wedding
92 - V Kamala
93 - V Giant Gonzales
94 - V DiBiase's Undertaker
95 - V Kama
96 - V Mankind
97 - V Bret
98 - V Austin
99 - w/ Big Show v XPac & Kane
00 - V Kane
01 - w/ Kane v Jersey Boys (DDP & Kanyon)
02 - V Test
03 - V A Train
04 - V JBL
05 - V Orton
06 - Benched
07 - Benched
08 - Probably benched! (ok, so i made that one up!)

Pretty grim list there really, with Mankind, Bret, Austin and Orton only likely to give good matches in all of those. Impressive looking run from 91-06 considering the time he took off in between, too bad his Mania run doesn't run like clockwork like his Summerslam run (and i'm not being sarky with that).

VR!

blackbelt · 27-09-2007 9:43pm

You're not a Taker fan are you?:D

Mr.Nice Guy · 27-09-2007 9:57pm

validreasoning! wrote:

Oh it's on like Donkey Kong, beyotch!

Rock had the Scorpion King movies and thats it. Everything else he did after that was utter crap. Even the Blade sequel did better Welcome To The Jungle, Walking Tall and Be Cool, all of which were total abortions. He wasn't even as funny as he could be in Be Cool apart from that afro.

Hold on, you realise in these movies Rock is the LEAD? In the Blade sequel Triple H was SUPPORTING CAST. Sorry but when it comes to movies Rock has accomplished far more than Triple H has and indeed more than any other wrestler. As for the quality of those movies, I would only call that Doom monstrosity a terrible movie. The others weren't THAT bad. That Blade sequel sucked big and I'm not referring to the vampires.

validreasoning! wrote:

What? You tell me exactly how Rock transcended the industry. By doing sh*t that the likes of Billy Graham and Hulk Hogan did before him? Not exactly ground breaking stuff i'm afraid. Rock got over with his mic skills and bugger all else.

How did Rock transcend the industry? Because he became bigger than it! Hence why he's no longer there. The TV appearances, the lead roles in movies, getting to appear on a single with Wyclef Jean etc. All examples of him transcending the industry and all examples of him doing far, far better than Triple H has or will.

validreasoning! wrote:

I'm not doubting that. My point was HHH stuck with the business that made him. HHH back between 2000-2002 could have easily quit Wrestling and gone down the bodybuilding route if he really wanted to. (WBF jokes aside please), he'd have earned a rake of a contract just for his status alone (and in 2000 that would have been pretty big as he skyrocketed that year). Rock took his ball and went home, (much like Austin only injuries forced him out more than anything else although Austin is more of an egomaniac these days).

Sorry this is laughable for the simple fact that Triple H never had the opportunities that Rock did due to HHH possessing less charisma. Rock didn't take his ball and go home - he decided to take his ball and play in the big leagues. Good luck to him.

You think Triple H deserves credit for sticking in a job which was his only source of employment? I mean, come on bodybuilding? Clutching at straws there. Let's face it he wasn't going to get lead roles in movies so wrestling was his next best option not bodybuilding. By this logic let's hail Funaki and Scotty 2 Hotty for staying with WWE too!

validreasoning! wrote:

Austin wasn't the draw everyone likes to believe he was in 2002. Granted that wasn't entirely his fault. As for HHH refusing to work with people, again, i'll get back on that subject when the same whiners complain about Undertaker and Hogan doing the same thing, instead of referring to them as 'Legends'.

I don't understand your point here in saying Austin wasn't the draw everyone likes to believe? Fact is he was (and still remains) bigger than HHH.

validreasoning! wrote:

And even then, that was best known for it's finish than anything else and it was about the only thing that saved that abortion of a PPV. Both Austin and Bret have said on different occasions that the Survivor Series 96 match was ten times beter. And if you can't appreciation HHH's Ladder and Ironman match with Rock (and guess who carried that? it wasn't Rock!) Triple H's performance has decreased over injuries, but he's not the three move wonder Austin became! Something that angers me as i loved his WCW stuff!

None of this alters the fact that Austin took part in one of the great wrestling matches of all time. In terms of wrestling ability I don't think they're all that different.

validreasoning! wrote:

Undertaker during his comeback had a belly like a pregnant whale! He would continue to have this until he pissed off in 2003.

I can't say I ever noticed that. If we're going to compare physiques though then Triple H won't come off too great as there have been periods where he had so much muscle it looked like he'd burst.

validreasoning! wrote:

It's not always about the title. Let's go back to 2000, Triple H put Jericho and Benoit over a few times that year. Undertaker subsequently buried Angle, (putting him over once out of several matches), Jericho and Benoit also got the same treatment from Undertaker.

First off, you're using JERICHO to defend Triple H?

Do you need to be reminded what Triple H did for his career? And Benoit? Funny because I remember him getting pinned in one of his first ever matches on Smackdown by Triple H. And Undertaker didn't bury Angle - he was the bigger star and it made sense that he'd get most wins. Did Angle suffer? No unless you call getting the belt and retaining it in a 6 man Hell in a Cell match suffering. Taker didn't refuse to lose to Angle when the time came for him to do so nor did he ruin Angle's title run when he got his chance.

PS more often than not it IS about the title and I suspect the only reason you say otherwise is because you're trying to defend a guy who has acquired TEN REIGNS already!

validreasoning! wrote:

As for putting over Maven, please? He got eliminated from Rumble, and then proceeded to go back in and physically descimate Maven for a course of ten minutes! If that's your definition of putting someone over, i'd hate to see your definition of a burial!

My definition of a burial can be seen in what Triple H has done to Carlito these past few months as well as his descimation of him in the cage on Raw. Triple H couldn't even bring himself to look inferior to him in a handicpa match. Instead he allowed his f*cking father-in-law (who owns the company) to get the credit for the win. Taker beat the sh*t out of Maven AFTER he put him over and remember - Taker wasn't involved in booking meetings the way Triple H is now!

validreasoning! wrote:

Lesnar i will give you, would HHH have done the same? Yes, if Vince had ordered it. And Vince was hell bent on getting Brock over one way or another.

We'll have to agree to differ here as I do not believe Triple H would have done this for Brock. He did it for his buddy Batista in '05 but usually if you're not mates with him you won't get much of a rub.

validreasoning! wrote:

I saw him at the point. Yeah, people went completely nuts for his entrance while i stood there wondering what the big deal is. Maybe i'm not an ubermark or something. It would take him 3 years because he'd probably get injured again. If i recall correctly he had a nagging knee at that show even then but kept putting the surgery off and off.

It took him 3 years because he doesn't have this burning desire like HHH does to reach the magic number 16. His entrance was phenomenal and I find it hard to beleive you weren't caught up in it.

validreasoning! wrote:

Again, comparing timeframes. HHH was putting people over in 2000 when Undertaker was burying them. People conveniently forget this though.

You want to compare time frames? Triple H did not have the influence back then which he has now. Do you dispute this? Undertaker meanwhile has never misused the influence he holds hence why he is so respected.

validreasoning! wrote:

Given how you conveniently ignore or forget times when Underseller did the exact same stuff, i really can't agree there. Same for HHH putting talent over, which we've already done to death in a previous rant so there's no point in even going there again.

I think you are the one ignoring and forgetting the difference in the INFLUENCE that the two have. Undertaker never used politics to the extent that Triple H has and that is a simple fact.

validreasoning! wrote:

Sadly you left out a load of those facts and concentrated on building up taker when he was a complete selfish, no money drawing sack of sh*t on his return.

Sadly I think you have no argument and are resorting to insults about Taker as a result of that.

validreasoning! wrote:

Has he changed his attitude since then, yes he has. But saying HHH hasn't put anyone over and refering to him as a "burial machine", especially when you're using Carlito, London, and Murdoch, who quite frankly have no chance of being main eventers anyway (in my opinion due to their size and look alone. After all, would you want your daughter to have an f*ck ugly gob****e like Trevor Murdoch on her wall?).

I think all of those guys (and Brian Kendrick) have the potetnial to do very well in this business if given a chance. You might be right that they have no chance though if Triple H continues to treat them with contempt.

HHH IS a burial machine and you acknowledged his burials on that other thread. I never said Triple H hasn't put anyone over - what I am saying is that he buries far more talent than he helps elevate, unlike Undertaker.

validreasoning! wrote:

So the fact's really don't speak for themselves.

If the facts don't speak then what does? Your own personal opinions? Come on, man. Look at things objectively.

validreasoning! wrote:

And never will until every card is laid out on the table. Sadly, as far as Undertaker goes, you're playing with far from a full deck.

VR!

I think the cards have been left out on the table. Who has been more selfless in putting over young talent - Undertaker or Triple H? The Undertaker. Who became a bigger star from wrestling - Rock or Triple H? The Rock. Who has achieved greater status from pro wrestling - Stone Cold or Triple H? Stone Cold.

The original issue was whether or not Triple H could be compared to these guys and I think it's been shown quite conclusively that he is nowhere near these guys. :cool:

ShawnRaven · 28-09-2007 2:35am

I just am gonna skim through this because we're obviously gonna agree to disagree here. It's too fu*kin' late and i'm too ill to go into detail which you're obviously going to ignore.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Hold on, you realise in these movies Rock is the LEAD? In the Blade sequel Triple H was SUPPORTING CAST. Sorry but when it comes to movies Rock has accomplished far more than Triple H has and indeed more than any other wrestler. As for the quality of those movies, I would only call that Doom monstrosity a terrible movie. The others weren't THAT bad. That Blade sequel sucked big and I'm not referring to the vampires.

Blade still drew bigger box office numbers than all bar one of Rock's movies, as listed earlier in the thread.

How did Rock transcend the industry? Because he became bigger than it! Hence why he's no longer there. The TV appearances, the lead roles in movies, getting to appear on a single with Wyclef Jean etc. All examples of him transcending the industry and all examples of him doing far, far better than Triple H has or will.

That single was bloody terrible. Savage produced an album, Lilian produced an album. Stacy Kiebler did TV appearances after wrestling. Did they transcend the industry? I don't think so.

You think Triple H deserves credit for sticking in a job which was his only source of employment? I mean, come on bodybuilding? Clutching at straws there. Let's face it he wasn't going to get lead roles in movies so wrestling was his next best option not bodybuilding. By this logic let's hail Funaki and Scotty 2 Hotty for staying with WWE too!

Actually not grasping at straws there, theres a lot of money to be made from bodybuilding contracts and a lot less heavier work schedules. When you consider magazine appearances, endorsements etc. Ok obviously from 2003 onwards he wouldn't have fit in that category, but i did say from 2000-2002.

I don't understand your point here in saying Austin wasn't the draw everyone likes to believe? Fact is he was (and still remains) bigger than HHH.

I said in 2002 (again, you fail to quote that and make it sound like i said in general, which with all due respect, is really f*cking frustrating), because he wasn't. He was an egomaniac who didn't want to put anyone over, and when he didn't get his way with Vince, he took his ball and walked. Again, thats not my personal opinion, the fact he didn't want to work with Eddie Guerrero isn't my opinion, the fact that he didn't want to work with Brock or Hall is not my personal opinion. The statement that he was an egomaniac however is my personal opinion, and well justified I believe.

None of this alters the fact that Austin took part in one of the great wrestling matches of all time. In terms of wrestling ability I don't think they're all that different.

I will agree with you there, each in their own right. And in a couple of years, HHH will be added to that list regardless if you like it or accept it. Just keep watching.

I can't say I ever noticed that. If we're going to compare physiques though then Triple H won't come off too great as there have been periods where he had so much muscle it looked like he'd burst.

You've got me here, i've almost forgotten what we were talking about. Oh yeah, Undertaker. Find some of his PPV stuff from late 2000-2001. He's huge. Someone else on this board has even noticed his weight loss. When he came back in 2004 he trimmed down a lot and ended up in better shape.

First off, you're using JERICHO to defend Triple H? Do you need to be reminded what Triple H did for his career? And Benoit? Funny because I remember him getting pinned in one of his first ever matches on Smackdown by Triple H. And Undertaker didn't bury Angle - he was the bigger star and it made sense that he'd get most wins. Did Angle suffer? No unless you call getting the belt and retaining it in a 6 man Hell in a Cell match suffering. Taker didn't refuse to lose to Angle when the time came for him to do so nor did he ruin Angle's title run when he got his chance.

Yeah and you hit the nail on the head. When the time came for him to do so. The difference is i will admit that it's Vince who decides that. You and other smarks worldwide (and just to be clear, i'm not calling you a smark), are hell bent on believing that HHH is the one who's making every decision to date.

PS more often than not it IS about the title and I suspect the only reason you say otherwise is because you're trying to defend a guy who has acquired TEN REIGNS already!

I would happily settle for any of those ten reigns then any of Cena's reigns! I'm no HHH fanboy. I just enjoy his matches from the entrance to the end of it. As opposed to Cena, or Undertaker.

My definition of a burial can be seen in what Triple H has done to Carlito these past few months as well as his descimation of him in the cage on Raw. Triple H couldn't even bring himself to look inferior to him in a handicpa match. Instead he allowed his f*cking father-in-law (who owns the company) to get the credit for the win. Taker beat the sh*t out of Maven AFTER he put him over and remember - Taker wasn't involved in booking meetings the way Triple H is now!

The booking meetings (again!)

Who makes the decisions at the end of the day? It's one thing to suggest an idea and another to approve it. And a Royal Rumble elimination doesn't mean squat regarding Maven. They had Kane eliminate about 10 guys in 2001. How many title reigns did he achieve after that? Try 0. Bear in mind he's on Smackdown now. Are you gonna blame HHH for holding him down over the last year?

We'll have to agree to differ here as I do not believe Triple H would have done this for Brock. He did it for his buddy Batista in '05 but usually if you're not mates with him you won't get much of a rub.

Triple H, will do what Vince tells him to do at the end of the day dude. It's business, it's how employment works. Your boss tells you to do something, you'll do one of two things. You'll either do it, or come up with an alternative and put it to him and see what works better from a company standpoint. Thats how any business works.

It took him 3 years because he doesn't have this burning desire like HHH does to reach the magic number 16. His entrance was phenomenal and I find it hard to beleive you weren't caught up in it.

I'm not the biggest Undertaker fan, his Mania streak is over-rated especially when you consider past their prime Jake Roberts, Jimmy Snuka, Ric Flair and King Kong Bundy for their time as part of it. His entrance nearly puts me to sleep every time. I wasn't always that way about him. I loved the way WWE developed his character over time, especially from 97-99. It was interesting, it was reason to watch. Now for no apparent reason he goes from Bikertaker to "deadman" again after losing another buried alive (logic says stop getting involved in these matches when you don't win them!). There's nowhere left for the character to go, hence why i feel it's stale. Of course, that's just my opinion.

You want to compare time frames? Triple H did not have the influence back then which he has now. Do you dispute this? Undertaker meanwhile has never misused the influence he holds hence why he is so respected.

Undertaker has never misued the influence? I'm sure Rene Dupree would disagree after he knocked the crap out of him. Triple H would have had influence in 2000 for sure as he was banging the bosses daughter then. No?

I think you are the one ignoring and forgetting the difference in the INFLUENCE that the two have. Undertaker never used politics to the extent that Triple H has and that is a simple fact.

But he has used politics though. Which was my point.

Sadly I think you have no argument and are resorting to insults about Taker as a result of that.

And i think you're wrong

I think all of those guys (and Brian Kendrick) have the potetnial to do very well in this business if given a chance. You might be right that they have no chance though if Triple H continues to treat them with contempt.

I will agree with you if HHH does it week after week. But a once off turn when it wasn't even a proper match is something i don't see as a burial. Others do and that's fine with me. I'll laugh it off because in a few weeks it'll be forgotten about.

HHH IS a burial machine and you acknowledged his burials on that other thread. I never said Triple H hasn't put anyone over - what I am saying is that he buries far more talent than he helps elevate, unlike Undertaker.

To an extent I agree with you, but i feel they're both even, given the different timeframes, but again, we'll agree to disagree there.

If the facts don't speak then what does? Your own personal opinions? Come on, man. Look at things objectively.

I'm doing my best, but when you bend my words to suit your own needs rather than acknowledging my points, you don't make it easy. You just make yourself sound forceful and oppressive. And i'm not the only one who has said that about your posts. I admit i am opinionated. But i do list previous facts. You may not agree with them, but they did happen.

I think the cards have been left out on the table. Who has been more selfless in putting over young talent - Undertaker or Triple H? The Undertaker. Who became a bigger star from wrestling - Rock or Triple H? The Rock. Who has achieved greater status from pro wrestling - Stone Cold or Triple H? Stone Cold.

Undertaker we'll agree to disagree, he's been an ass on more than one occasion in the past (and you know it), Regarding Rock, he became one faster, but HHH will get there in time. Hogan did movies before both, granted i wouldn't be proud of them! and Austin i give you there, i just don't like how he pissed on his own name before he died out.

The original issue was whether or not Triple H could be compared to these guys and I think it's been shown quite conclusively that he is nowhere near these guys. :cool:

No, i think you believe he's nowhere near it. But the only thing that has been proven out of this is that we have a huge difference of opinion on the subject matter. And until HHH either retires or is forced into retirement, we're never gonna know.

VR!

Mr.Nice Guy · 28-09-2007 4:29am

validreasoning! wrote:

I just am gonna skim through this because we're obviously gonna agree to disagree here. It's too fu*kin' late and i'm too ill to go into detail which you're obviously going to ignore.

Fair enough man I'll skim through it too then. I haven't ignored anything though.

validreasoning! wrote:

Blade still drew bigger box office numbers than all bar one of Rock's movies, as listed earlier in the thread.

What's your point though? The Blade sequel drew due to Wesley Snipes not Triple H. Or are you actually trying to suggest that Triple H is a bigger movie star than Rock?

validreasoning! wrote:

That single was bloody terrible.

It doesn't matter what you think!

validreasoning! wrote:

Savage produced an album, Lilian produced an album. Stacy Kiebler did TV appearances after wrestling. Did they transcend the industry? I don't think so.

This doesn't alter the fact that The Rock did. And Keibler did transcend the industry to an extent. She's left wrestling behind for better things. Starring on TV shows has got to be better than lifting up her panties whilst watching a Test match...for her anyway.

validreasoning! wrote:

Actually not grasping at straws there, theres a lot of money to be made from bodybuilding contracts and a lot less heavier work schedules. When you consider magazine appearances, endorsements etc. Ok obviously from 2003 onwards he wouldn't have fit in that category, but i did say from 2000-2002.

Would it have left him better off than wrestling? No. Therein lies the difference. Rock had an opportunity which would leave him better off than wrestling and he took it. Smart man!

validreasoning! wrote:

I said in 2002 (again, you fail to quote that and make it sound like i said in general, which with all due respect, is really f*cking frustrating), because he wasn't. He was an egomaniac who didn't want to put anyone over, and when he didn't get his way with Vince, he took his ball and walked. Again, thats not my personal opinion, the fact he didn't want to work with Eddie Guerrero isn't my opinion, the fact that he didn't want to work with Brock or Hall is not my personal opinion. The statement that he was an egomaniac however is my personal opinion, and well justified I believe.

I don't see why you have pulled out the year 2002 though? When comparing the two shouldn't we look at both men's entire runs and not just pick out a bad year for Austin?

validreasoning! wrote:

I will agree with you there, each in their own right. And in a couple of years, HHH will be added to that list regardless if you like it or accept it. Just keep watching.

Fair enough and I wouldn't rule it out.

validreasoning! wrote:

You've got me here, i've almost forgotten what we were talking about. Oh yeah, Undertaker. Find some of his PPV stuff from late 2000-2001. He's huge. Someone else on this board has even noticed his weight loss. When he came back in 2004 he trimmed down a lot and ended up in better shape.

Well I guess getting buried alive does wonders for the body.

validreasoning! wrote:

Yeah and you hit the nail on the head. When the time came for him to do so. The difference is i will admit that it's Vince who decides that. You and other smarks worldwide (and just to be clear, i'm not calling you a smark), are hell bent on believing that HHH is the one who's making every decision to date.

I'm not hell bent on believing HHH is making "every decision". I do however believe - and I'm sure you'll agree - that when it pertains to his character, Triple H is VERY MUCH involved. I don't know if you will agree with me on this point but I believe Undertaker is not as involved in the direction of his character. If he is then the decision to put over guys like Heydenreich and Khali is most bizarre.

validreasoning! wrote:

I would happily settle for any of those ten reigns then any of Cena's reigns! I'm no HHH fanboy. I just enjoy his matches from the entrance to the end of it. As opposed to Cena, or Undertaker.

Well we'll have to differ on this point too!

validreasoning! wrote:

The booking meetings (again!)

Yes the ones HHH is very much a part of!

validreasoning! wrote:

Who makes the decisions at the end of the day?

His wife and father-in-law!

validreasoning! wrote:

It's one thing to suggest an idea and another to approve it.

True which is why he could have easily said "Hey, maybe me burying 5 guys on an episode of Raw is NOT the right thing for business!"

validreasoning! wrote:

And a Royal Rumble elimination doesn't mean squat regarding Maven.

You underestimate how huge it was at the time. It ranks as one of the biggest upsets ever in that event.

validreasoning! wrote:

They had Kane eliminate about 10 guys in 2001. How many title reigns did he achieve after that? Try 0. Bear in mind he's on Smackdown now. Are you gonna blame HHH for holding him down over the last year?

Kane is a red herring. Kane's career flatlined long ago, though I will say Triple H could have done more for him than he did.

validreasoning! wrote:

Triple H, will do what Vince tells him to do at the end of the day dude. It's business, it's how employment works. Your boss tells you to do something, you'll do one of two things. You'll either do it, or come up with an alternative and put it to him and see what works better from a company standpoint. Thats how any business works.

This is not any old business though. You're forgetting that when Triple H was recuperating from his injury Vince was helping him oversee the managerial side of WWE. It's likely that Steph and Triple H will take over when Vince passes on. He's being groomed as a successor. This is far from normal stuff.

validreasoning! wrote:

I'm not the biggest Undertaker fan, his Mania streak is over-rated especially when you consider past their prime Jake Roberts, Jimmy Snuka, Ric Flair and King Kong Bundy for their time as part of it. His entrance nearly puts me to sleep every time. I wasn't always that way about him. I loved the way WWE developed his character over time, especially from 97-99. It was interesting, it was reason to watch. Now for no apparent reason he goes from Bikertaker to "deadman" again after losing another buried alive (logic says stop getting involved in these matches when you don't win them!). There's nowhere left for the character to go, hence why i feel it's stale. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Fair enough. At least you're honest. But I think you know yourself that your opinion on him is not the typical viewpoint.

validreasoning! wrote:

Undertaker has never misued the influence? I'm sure Rene Dupree would disagree after he knocked the crap out of him.

Huh? Never heard of this. Sure you're not thinking of Bob Holly?

validreasoning! wrote:

Triple H would have had influence in 2000 for sure as he was banging the bosses daughter then. No?

I'm sure he had a lot of influence as he was a big time player that year but he's locked into the family now so his influence is now far greater.

validreasoning! wrote:

But he has used politics though. Which was my point.

I think most top guys have to use politics. Not all of them abuse it though and I think it's fair to say Triple H has and still does. I don't believe Undertaker has or does.

validreasoning! wrote:

And i think you're wrong

It doesn't matter what you think!

validreasoning! wrote:

I will agree with you if HHH does it week after week. But a once off turn when it wasn't even a proper match is something i don't see as a burial. Others do and that's fine with me. I'll laugh it off because in a few weeks it'll be forgotten about.

I don't know if it will be forgotten as I can't remember when a guy has decisively won a handicap match against the tag team champions before then beating up another top tag team post-match. That was some segment! It will be interesting to observe the next few weeks though, particularly the road to Wrestlemania when it kicks off...

validreasoning! wrote:

To an extent I agree with you, but i feel they're both even, given the different timeframes, but again, we'll agree to disagree there.

Well we'll have to agree to differ here as I think the different timeframes work against Triple H. Undertaker was never "hands on" with his political power the way the Kliq were or the way Triple H has been since hooking up with the McMahon family. Taker just does what's asked - HHH does the asking.

validreasoning! wrote:

I'm doing my best, but when you bend my words to suit your own needs rather than acknowledging my points, you don't make it easy.

How am I bending your words? We've both been quoting each other's views.

validreasoning! wrote:

You just make yourself sound forceful and oppressive. And i'm not the only one who has said that about your posts. I admit i am opinionated. But i do list previous facts. You may not agree with them, but they did happen.

That's a bit personal. I don't see how I'm being "forceful and oppressive". I don't think what you've listed have been facts but rather your opinions on certain incidents. For instance, you hated Rock's films and his song therefore you determine he was not bigger than HHH in these areas. You hated Austin's behaviour in 2002 therefore you determine that HHH's career exceeds Austin's. You dislike Undertaker's character therefore you determine that he is no better than Triple H with regards to using political power when it's blindingly obvious that he is.

The Undertaker is often hailed by his peers. Triple H isn't. We've mentioned Kurt Angle and it's interesting that he's said nothing but positive things about Taker whilst at the same time claiming Triple H never wanted to put him over.

validreasoning! wrote:

Undertaker we'll agree to disagree, he's been an ass on more than one occasion in the past (and you know it),

No I do not as I have argued all along!

validreasoning! wrote:

Regarding Rock, he became one faster, but HHH will get there in time.

I'm 99% certain he will never reach the level that Rock reached. Barring a miraculous turnaround I'm sure that will remain the case.

validreasoning! wrote:

Hogan did movies before both, granted i wouldn't be proud of them! and Austin i give you there, i just don't like how he pissed on his own name before he died out.

Fair enough.

validreasoning! wrote:

No, i think you believe he's nowhere near it. But the only thing that has been proven out of this is that we have a huge difference of opinion on the subject matter. And until HHH either retires or is forced into retirement, we're never gonna know.

I don't agree (shock horror!). I think you can measure the respect of peers, fans and critics when judging a person's attitude and I think by doing so you easily determine that Undertaker was much more admirable with his influence than Triple H was. I think you can measure a wrestler's impact based on the money made and the impact on fans and I think it's easy to determine that Austin was thus the bigger star. And I think you can very easily measure Rock's impact on the entertainment industry and compare it with Triple h and cocnlude that Rock was definitely the bigger star.

While I admire your effort to make a strong defence of Triple H (a guy we clearly view very differently) I think you have let your personal feelings cloud your judgement and have let your heart rule your head. I'm of the view that Triple H, whilst deserving of his place in wrestling history, is nowhere near the level of the guys mentioned above and I think looking at things objectively one reaches that conclusion.

I think it's abundantly clear though we have irreconcilable viewpoints on this at the end of the day.

rossie1977 · 28-09-2007 9:19am

in fairness both taker and triple h are very similiar in more ways than one:

1.Both have alot of pull backstage, taker not as much as Triple H but taker gets to do what he wants, when he wants; most of the time. When the WWE brought in the dress code last year, the only one allowed to waive it was taker. Taker also had a big say in keeping Van Dam down at the start, just because he accidentally kicked him in the mouth.

2.Both are as injury prone as two old grannies with osteoporosis

3.Neither will ever reach the superstar level in the WWE imo. Ok fair enough only a select few ever reach this stage (hogan, rock, austin). But Taker and Trips will always been considered at the same level of Bret, Michaels, Angle, Foley etc (those guys that tried their hardest but were never able to reach the echelon for one reason or another).

4.Both have their own ego runs, taker with his WM run and Trips with his 10 titles.

having said all that, both have brought their own uniqueness to this business and I have been entertained at different periods by both, Triple H (especially his DX runs), Undertaker (his character especially the old stuff pre-satanic/ministry gimmick).

ShawnRaven · 28-09-2007 10:36am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

While I admire your effort to make a strong defence of Triple H (a guy we clearly view very differently) I think you have let your personal feelings cloud your judgement and have let your heart rule your head. I'm of the view that Triple H, whilst deserving of his place in wrestling history, is nowhere near the level of the guys mentioned above and I think looking at things objectively one reaches that conclusion.

I've snipped through the rest as it was going around in circles and the thread was starting to turn into a headache for the pair of us. Quoting and quoting works to a certain degree but it was getting silly. Also you're not The Rock, so "It doesn't matter what you think!" doesn't exactly suit you

Triple H is nowhere near the end of his career yet. My judgment isn't clouded, it's just not final on Triple H and it won't be for a while. It's easy to make judgment on someone's career when they're retired. One knows they're no longer going back to the ring. For Triple H, that time hasn't happened yet. When it does, THEN, and only then you can definitely say my judgment is clouded because my mind will have been made up once and for all. This time next year my opinion may change on Triple H (wouldn't be the first time). But until then my position still stands. You obviously don't agree, and that's fair enough. But i'm not going to judge a guy's full career while it's still in mid swing. If we were gonna do that with your boy Rock in 1998, then he'd be buried because he sucked the meat missile at that point.

I think it's abundantly clear though we have irreconcilable viewpoints on this at the end of the day.

We certainly do, made for great discussion though...
... and for the record, i haven't ignored or forgotten anything either! And i'm sure this subject will come up more than once (like RVD/ECW has done)

VR!

ShawnRaven · 28-09-2007 10:38am

rossie1977 wrote:

in fairness both taker and triple h are very similiar in more ways than one:

1.Both have alot of pull backstage, taker not as much as Triple H but taker gets to do what he wants, when he wants; most of the time. When the WWE brought in the dress code last year, the only one allowed to waive it was taker. Taker also had a big say in keeping Van Dam down at the start, just because he accidentally kicked him in the mouth.

2.Both are as injury prone as two old grannies with osteoporosis

3.Neither will ever reach the superstar level in the WWE imo. Ok fair enough only a select few ever reach this stage (hogan, rock, austin). But Taker and Trips will always been considered at the same level of Bret, Michaels, Angle, Foley etc (those guys that tried their hardest but were never able to reach the echelon for one reason or another).

4.Both have their own ego runs, taker with his WM run and Trips with his 10 titles.

having said all that, both have brought their own uniqueness to this business and I have been entertained at different periods by both, Triple H (especially his DX runs), Undertaker (his character especially the old stuff pre-satanic/ministry gimmick).

What can i say, i'm not the only one who thinks the way I do?

I couldn't agree more. With the exception of the echelon bit. But i'm sure if Bret, Michaels and Angle had the choice of being remembered for their wrestling skills, than being able to make a crowd roar with a dumb eyebrow. I'm pretty sure i know what they would choose.

VR!

Bubs101 · 28-09-2007 6:26pm

Sorry Rosie, did you just say that HBK isn't in the same club as Hogan and The Rock?????? NWO and D-X, two of the WWE's most popular stables ever would disagree not to mention the fact that he probably has had two of the best rivalries the WWE will ever see (with Hunter and Bret) and he's still out wrestling everyone on the company

ShawnRaven · 28-09-2007 7:48pm

Bubs101 wrote:

Sorry Rosie, did you just say that HBK isn't in the same club as Hogan and The Rock?????? NWO and D-X, two of the WWE's most popular stables ever would disagree not to mention the fact that he probably has had two of the best rivalries the WWE will ever see (with Hunter and Bret) and he's still out wrestling everyone on the company

To be fair, putting HBK and NWO in the same sentance is somewhat insulting. NWO 2002 was a shambles and is generally never spoken about in public again.

VR!

rossie1977 · 01-10-2007 2:30pm

Bubs101 wrote:

Sorry Rosie, did you just say that HBK isn't in the same club as Hogan and The Rock??????

in terms of drawing power and transcending the business like hogan and rock, no way, not even close.

in terms of wrestling ability shawn wiped the floor with hogan and johnson, but pro-wrestling usually has nothing to do with wrestling ability, if it had, kurt angle would have held the WWE title for 90% of his WWE run

NWO and D-X, two of the WWE's most popular stables ever would disagree not to mention the fact that he probably has had two of the best rivalries the WWE will ever see (with Hunter and Bret) and he's still out wrestling everyone on the company

I will admit to being a huge Shawn Michaels "mark", but his NWO run lasted all of 4-5 weeks (the only memorable bit i can remember is him superkicking booker t). As for DX, arguably it become more popular in mid 1998 when Shawn left after injuring his back.

Having said that, shawn did more for the WWE than most give him credit for. The main thing was having the fans believe a 5'11 190lb guy could actually be the top star in the business around about the same time 280-300lb muscle bound freaks like Sid Eudy, Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior etc were the main eventers. Hogan turned pro-wrestling into a circus, shawn brought back a little sense of reality.

Shawn's athletism and size has been an inspiration to many that have followed like Eddie, Mysterio, Jericho, Hardys etc; imo none of these guys would have been top stars in the WWE had it not been for Shawn Michaels leading the way.

ShawnRaven · 01-10-2007 2:53pm

rossie1977 wrote:

Having said that, shawn did more for the WWE than most give him credit for. The main thing was having the fans believe a 5'11 190lb guy could actually be the top star in the business around about the same time 280-300lb muscle bound freaks like Sid Eudy, Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior etc were the main eventers. Hogan turned pro-wrestling into a circus, shawn brought back a little sense of reality.

On top of that, he carried WWE on it's back for the guts of a year from around Survivor Series 95-Survivor Series 96. Austin's character was still developing at the time, Bret was off sulking for most of that year (nearly jumping to WCW in the process!), Nash drew no money as champion and then f*cked off to WCW after nearly sending WWE bankrupt. So Shawn had to carry Sid, and Vader for most of the summer that year. He also had an amazing match with Mankind that year, and carried Davey Boy to a really good match midway through the year.

VR!

JohnMc1 · 01-10-2007 4:34pm

Bubs101 wrote:

Just out of interest, does Hunter have creative control or is it a case of no need for it

HHH is married to Stephanie McMahon. Vince's daughter and the head writer. And he has been known to sit in on meetings [Ie. To bury wrestlers. Have you noticed CM Punk became a jobber after getting a bigger reaction than DX] So technically HHH does have creative control one way or another

ShawnRaven · 01-10-2007 4:41pm

JohnMc1 wrote:

HHH is married to Stephanie McMahon. Vince's daughter and the head writer. And he has been known to sit in on meetings [Ie. To bury wrestlers. Have you noticed CM Punk became a jobber after getting a bigger reaction than DX] So technically HHH does have creative control one way or another

Yeah because i'm really sure HHH feels threatned by CM C*nt or Carlito for that matter. :rolleyes:

VR!

JohnMc1 · 01-10-2007 4:47pm

validreasoning! wrote:

Yeah because i'm really sure HHH feels threatned by CM C*nt or Carlito for that matter. :rolleyes:

VR!

He got a bigger reaction than the 2 man power trip known as DX they probbaly did feel threatened. Their Dx act was nothing more than 40 years olds trying to act like their teenagers. It was pathetic.

ShawnRaven · 01-10-2007 4:50pm

JohnMc1 wrote:

He got a bigger reaction than the 2 man power trip known as DX they probbaly did feel threatened. Their Dx act was nothing more than 40 years olds trying to act like their teenagers. It was pathetic.

Nothing that Hogan didn't do with the NWO ten years earlier. What do they both have in common?

Something to do with putting asses in the seats and selling a ton of merchandise. Something Carlito or Punk have yet to do.

VR!

JohnMc1 · 01-10-2007 4:53pm

validreasoning! wrote:

Nothing that Hogan didn't do with the NWO ten years earlier. What do they both have in common?

Something to do with putting asses in the seats and selling a ton of merchandise. Something Carlito or Punk have yet to do.

VR!

Merchandise sales doesn't give any of those guys the right to be a douchebag. And how ironic that HHH and HBK used to blast Hogan for being selfish and now here they are doing the exact same thing.

ShawnRaven · 01-10-2007 4:58pm

JohnMc1 wrote:

Merchandise sales doesn't give any of those guys the right to be a douchebag. And how ironic that HHH and HBK used to blast Hogan for being selfish and now here they are doing the exact same thing.

How exactly are they being "douchebags" exactly? They draw money, they sell main events and they sell merchandise. As far as Vince is concerned, like Cena, he makes him money. Punk doesn't, Carlito doesn't, Cade and Murdoch dont! That's business, like it or not. HHH and HBK have a right to their place given like Austin, Undertaker and Rock (at the time), they stuck with the company through hard financial times, while the likes of Hall, Nash and Hogan jumped to the competition for more money. Did they do the right thing?, for themselves probably. HHH and HBK have put over young and up and coming talent several times over the past few years. Hogan very very seldom did it. He certainly didn't want to do it with Bret as he was being pushed.

So how you can compare DX to Hogan in terms of selfishness is way beyond me!

VR!

JohnMc1 · 01-10-2007 5:02pm

validreasoning! wrote:

How exactly are they being "douchebags" exactly?

I have to explain it to you? Either your really dumb or a huge mark for DX.

HHH and HBK have a right to their place given like Austin, Undertaker and Rock (at the time), So how you can compare DX to Hogan in terms of selfishness is way beyond me!

VR!

You blew your case. Rock outsold all of those guys and he didn't have to be a selfish douchebag like the guys you mentioned to do it.

ShawnRaven · 01-10-2007 5:19pm

JohnMc1 wrote:

I have to explain it to you? Either your really dumb or a huge mark for DX.

Neither and that sounds like a copout to me

You blew your case. Rock outsold all of those guys and he didn't have to be a selfish douchebag like the guys you mentioned to do it.

Rock outsold all of them? Rock outsold Hogan? Show me the proof there, buddy. That is HIGHLY unlikely.

VR!

JohnMc1 · 01-10-2007 5:23pm

validreasoning! wrote:

Neither and that sounds like a copout to me

Their being douchebags because they are two broken down has beens hogging the spotlight. Much like they used to cry about Hogan doing. Pot meet kettle.

Rock outsold all of them? Rock outsold Hogan? Show me the proof there, buddy. That is HIGHLY unlikely.

VR!

He was a big seller and he didn't have to be a douchebag and bury people to do it.

Vince135792003 · 01-10-2007 5:25pm

To answer the question that MNG asked 8 pages ago "WHAT WAS THE F*CKING POINT (of Triple H angle with 5 other guys)?

There was none. It achieved nothing except bad tv. It's been said a few times but its gotten lost in about 50 other things!

ShawnRaven · 01-10-2007 5:31pm

JohnMc1 wrote:

Their being douchebags because they are two broken down has beens hogging the spotlight. Much like they used to cry about Hogan doing. Pot meet kettle.

Essential difference is both of them have put younger talent over in the past. Maybe not in the last 2-3 years or your favourites, but they have done it, and a lot more than Hogan.

He was a big seller and he didn't have to be a douchebag and bury people to do it.

I still find it hilarious that people see it as a burial when 1) it wasn't even a match they were involved in, 2) half of them have no chance to be main eventers (if you think Kendrick, Carlito and Murdoch are gonna be main event players, you're dreaming. Wake up, it's over!) and 3) nobody even knows if the effect is long lasting enough.

VR!

It's all about the Game...

Comments