The W
Views: 178986821
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.3.17 0449
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - No New Stars? BAH. Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(9624 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
Evil Antler God
Potato korv
Level: 60

Posts: 404/703
EXP: 1678832
For next: 93956

Since: 10.1.02

Since last post: 6383 days
Last activity: 4509 days
#21 Posted on 28.6.03 1058.36
Reposted on: 28.6.10 1059.01
It's funny though.....the man that finally beats Honky Tonk Helmsley will be the most over man in the history of the universe, bar none

Really should have happened at Wrestlemania though.....that's your big show, that's where everything should end and begin. For the past couple of years, they've been treating Wrestlemania like it was a random Nitro.....
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1540/7062
EXP: 53474466
For next: 638767

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1927 days
Last activity: 1496 days
#22 Posted on 28.6.03 1222.39
Reposted on: 28.6.10 1222.44


    Now take Triple H. Without the title, Triple H's character is empty. His character is obsessed with the title. That's why he has it. Brock is a monster that can't be beaten. The guys on top right now are guys whose characters NEED to be on top. All the net darlings are characters that don't need the title to be content or over; or they're so shallow that they don't even have what could be called characters.


Then I'm going to create a character for myself as The Champ, and thus demand that WWE give me the belt because my gimmick is that I'm the greatest titleholder of all time. In fact, I'll also demand the WWE title, IC belt, US belt, Cruiserweight belt, both sets of tag titles and (what the hell) the women's belt, just so I can walk around like Ultimo Dragon and the J-Crown.




    It's funny though.....the man that finally beats Honky Tonk Helmsley will be the most over man in the history of the universe, bar none


I beg to differ. Had Booker, RVD or even Kane or Steiner won, they would've been monster over. But not Nash.

Evil Antler God
Potato korv
Level: 60

Posts: 406/703
EXP: 1678832
For next: 93956

Since: 10.1.02

Since last post: 6383 days
Last activity: 4509 days
#23 Posted on 28.6.03 1229.55
Reposted on: 28.6.10 1231.48
That's probably just because Nash has no storyline reason to even be doing anything anymore. No one remembers the initial sledgehammer shot, none of the announcers even bring it up. Why does he even dislike HHH in the context of the story?

It's very hard for anyone like that to get over
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 106

Posts: 1201/2679
EXP: 12276294
For next: 395690

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 6706 days
Last activity: 6706 days
#24 Posted on 28.6.03 1320.32
Reposted on: 28.6.10 1322.18
I think the problem with Triple H's long title run is the booking of RAW. It's not really centered around the title. There's no real title hunt going on and it's making the title look nothing more then a vanity belt.

Take NWATNA for example and Jarrett's long title run. They faced similar problems with Jarrett having so much stroke in the company but everyone was chasing the title so when he beat people, it wasn't so negative. They remained in the title picture and kept on chasing, fighting for that title so when Styles finally beat him, the place went nuts. It even turned Raven into a face in the process with him being denied his dream.

On RAW, there is not title hunt. Nobody talks about going after Triple H. No one is chasing him. Everyone from RVD to Kane to Steiner to Michaels, Nash, Booker, Jericho, etc should be feuding with each other to try and get a shot at the gold. Instead they lose to HHH and never go back after him, never mention it, they just kinda float off to the midcard. It makes them look weak but it also makes Triple H's title look weak.

Having a strong champion is a great idea but you can't have a strong champion/title without a strong division of challengers, a point which has been lost on Gewirtz. But I guess that's too much of an "old school" mentality for him. All those tried, tested and true booking rules are outdated and can't work even though whenever WWE does slip back into them (Rock/Brock), they still work.
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 145

Posts: 207/5537
EXP: 37175525
For next: 428647

Since: 12.12.01

Since last post: 1764 days
Last activity: 1416 days
#25 Posted on 28.6.03 1859.45
Reposted on: 28.6.10 1903.16
No new headliners. (1 - Brock. 2- Cena, oh wait, nevermind.)
Evil Antler God
Potato korv
Level: 60

Posts: 407/703
EXP: 1678832
For next: 93956

Since: 10.1.02

Since last post: 6383 days
Last activity: 4509 days
#26 Posted on 28.6.03 2042.32
Reposted on: 28.6.10 2042.59
Cena's a headliner....?
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 110

Posts: 735/2942
EXP: 14379778
For next: 29154

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 1336 days
Last activity: 1 day
#27 Posted on 28.6.03 2116.07
Reposted on: 28.6.10 2118.05


    And I'm not disputing 'Taker never puts people over. But as long as the guys he's squashing are the FBI I'm fine with it.

Aw, man, the FBI never gets any love. I'm an FBI mark, so watching them job to Taker week after week has me a bit miffed.



    I don't like it, but at least he's not making a fool out of Benoit and Angle (tho he came close being in the crossface and the ankle lock as a heel and still not tapping).

He didn't exactly make Cena look like a million bucks (or even 100 bucks) in the tournament to determine Brock's #1 challenger.

But, more importantly, what's the point of having him work w/ the midcard if he's not going to help make some new stars? How is anyone supposed to rise up if they have to run into Marky-Mark?
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Smackdown with marks
Next thread: Quick Question...
Previous thread: Where is Lita?
(9624 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - No New Stars? BAH.Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.38 seconds.