For next: 4912
Since last post: 4119 days
Last activity: 3998 days
|#21 Posted on 23.9.03 0317.56 |
Reposted on: 23.9.10 0318.06
Hunter doing long matches when he or his opponent is too limited to do them is not an anomaly either. HHH works long matches even when it's against best interests. How is that untrue?
Right, because he did it with Scott Steiner. In January. Nine months ago. And what happened after that? They learned and the rematch was shorter, did more to cover Steiner's weaknesses, and was a better match by the slimmest of standards.
Then, in May, they only did a seven minute match at Judgment Day. Then they did a longer match at Bad Blood, put it in a gimmick where they can bleed and use weapons, and HHH actually pulled something decent out of Nash. Hardly against anyone's best interest.
Meanwhile, Goldberg was booked over ten minutes in April. And in June. In fact, he's been booked that way every time he's been on PPV.
So which is the more likely reason? What HHH wanted to do 9 months ago, something WWE clearly learned from, or what they've been doing with Goldberg for every PPV match he's been involved in?
Now that we've dealt with this, what I said has yet to be addressed, though I'm not holding my breath.
Should it go --- fourteen? Answering questions with questions, how fun.
HHH is the one who decides how long they're going to be (e.g. hey I'm gonna do 25 minutes with Kevin Nash)
That's right, but his wanting extra time meant that the match with Flair and HBK got less time than planned. Meaning that while HHH can get more time for a Hell in the Cell main event if he wants it, your apparent theory that nothing on the card is booked until HHH decrees how much time he wants doesn't seem to be how it works. Unless you're going to share a tape of HHH demanding that the Goldberg match go longer than anyone wanted it to, I don't think there's much more to cover here. Hopefully repeating over and over how "HHH lays out his matches" is as exciting to say as it is to read, but if Vince tells him his match is going five minutes, it's going five minutes.
Considering their respective reputations, historically, Rock comes off as just a tad less selfish.
The Rock, on his way out of the company to make millions of dollars as a movie star, was put into a program with a new superstar freshly signed for a big chunk of money. Rock, who pushed for Goldberg to be signed and was personally involved in the booking of how the angle went, made sure to show him up verbally at every opportunity, beat him up physically, turned the crowd on the man who was expected to carry the top babyface role, played into their cheers even though he was the heel, and ultimately did nothing to put him over. This, it bears repeating, was a sabotage of the man who was to help carry the company without Rock and without Austin. Which, more or less, would be like sabotaging the company itself just before Rock left.
On top of this, during the same period, Rock allegedly badmouthed Goldberg's aptitude and ability to some workers acting as security, meaning there could have been some personal issue behind what he did. And what's more? Recent talk is that Rock did all that with the understanding that the job he did to Goldberg would be paid back come WrestleMania.
I'm anxious to hear of something HHH has been accused of that even comes close to rivaling this blatant act of selfishness, score-settling, whatever it was. For every guy HHH has held down, he has never tried to sabotage someone so blatantly, so publically, as important a person, at as important a time, as Rock did with Goldberg. For even the worst sounding HHH offense, someone could at least try a flimsy reason, like that HHH had the company in mind when saying an RVD couldn't be a world champion. You couldn't even take a shot at defending Rock in this case.
The only thing more mind-boggling about what Rock did is that someone like Dave Meltzer has virtually ignored it, which should tell you all you need to know about his selectiveness when it comes to who to blame and who not to. How can you deny this? Do you think Meltzer is some blinding light of unbiased truth? When he wrote a front page story about how WWE failed with Goldberg, the only criticism --- actually, the only mention at all of the Rock was that his promos didn't put Goldberg over. That was it! Are you kidding? "Historically the Rock wasn't as selfish as HHH was", that's supposed to explain why the Rock was barely mentioned?
The only reason this isn't a bigger deal, or a historical mark on Rock's reputation if that's what you want to call it, is because Meltzer hasn't made it into one. The other two news sources have talked about what Rock did, but they don't beat this kind of thing into the ground the way Meltzer does. But when it comes time to write another article about why Goldberg didn't take off like he could have, I'm sure that HHH poking fun at him on commentary or the Unforgiven match time will have been key ingredients.
For next: 441469
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
|#22 Posted on 23.9.03 1428.14 |
Reposted on: 23.9.10 1429.02
| "And what happened after that? They learned and the rematch was shorter, did more to cover Steiner's weaknesses, and was a better match by the slimmest of standards."|
The rematch was only like 4 minutes shorter, still too long, and still horrible. I don't think that's an indication of a lesson clearly learned in the slightest.
"Then they did a longer match at Bad Blood, put it in a gimmick where they can bleed and use weapons, and HHH actually pulled something decent out of Nash. Hardly against anyone's best interest."
Going 25 minutes with Nash is still ego. That particular time, it did not get the best of him and he pulled it off. Kudos.
"Now that we've dealt with this, what I said has yet to be addressed, though I'm not holding my breath."
What do you want me to address? That WWE books Goldberg in long matches and shouldn't? Yes, I know/agree/realize/acknowledge. But I don't think it negates anything about Hunter's ego in doing long matches either (which is where this all originated), since Hunter decides how long his matches go. Are you saying it's wrong to say that HHH has an ego, or overestimates his own ability as a worker? Isn't he the guy who told everyone else that they don't know how to work?
">Should it go forty?<
Should it go --- fourteen? Answering questions with questions, how fun."
(It went forty, and there was no forty minute requirement in the 2 out of 3 stips that require a match longer than 10 minutes, is my point, but since this happened a whopping 10 months ago under the same circumstances [injured H], it probably isn't relevant.)
"your apparent theory that nothing on the card is booked until HHH decrees how much time he wants"/"if Vince tells him his match is going five minutes, it's going five minutes."
My 'apparent theory' is merely that HHH decides how long his matches will go, and rather than telling him how long it's going to go, Vince probably just says "Hey dude how long do you want to go?" Or Vince says "it's going five" and Hunter says "I was thinking fifteen" and Vince is like "righteous." I don't think this is a crazy thing to think in the slightest -- their relationship clearly extends beyond boss/employee.
"The only reason this isn't a bigger deal, or a historical mark on Rock's reputation if that's what you want to call it, is because Meltzer hasn't made it into one."
I think this is a very valid point, but what I had meant was that if Rock had spent the last four years undercutting people and not putting any one over, or Hunter had spent the last four years doing things like clean jobs to unproven Brock Lesnar or tapping out to Chris Benoit, then it would be reflected in how they're written about. (Unless each guy's reputation over the last four years is also 99% agenda-spin in your opinion, in which case forget it.) Self-fulfilling prophecy? In a way, but if you're one of the two or three most influential people in a company where just about the only thing that gets accomplished is keeping those two or three people strong, then you're ripe for and deserving of plenty of criticism. Is this particular criticism, about Hunter having an ego, off-base? I don't think so at all.
(edited by JMShapiro on 23.9.03 1240)
For next: 9086
Since last post: 3819 days
Last activity: 3819 days
|#23 Posted on 23.9.03 1629.22 |
Reposted on: 23.9.10 1629.35
| If Triple H is so into long matches one has to wonder why he is always in feuds with guys who have a hard time working 5 minute matches when he really should be feuding with the guys from Smackdown who can GO forty minutes and carry him to boot. I don't know if one could say, but one has to wonder, no? |
For next: 271263
Since last post: 3446 days
Last activity: 3446 days
|#24 Posted on 23.9.03 2131.46 |
Reposted on: 23.9.10 2133.42
| That would be admitting his own limitations which he seems in capable of doing. That's where the Hogan's and Nash's have him beat in the 'smartest man' category. |
For next: 4912
Since last post: 4119 days
Last activity: 3998 days
|#25 Posted on 24.9.03 0153.43 |
Reposted on: 24.9.10 0154.23
I think this is a very valid point, but what I had meant was that if Rock had spent the last four years undercutting people and not putting any one over, or Hunter had spent the last four years doing things like clean jobs to unproven Brock Lesnar or tapping out to Chris Benoit, then it would be reflected in how they're written about.
But even these examples you're giving are influenced by how they're written about. The Rock did tap out to Chris Benoit, but if Meltzer wrote about him like he does about HHH, all we'd remember is how the Rock quickly got that win back and Benoit was never elevated from it.
All we remember now is that HHH never lost to anyone, but there was actually a period of time on Smackdown where he lost to a handful of wrestlers including, of all people, Rev. D'Von. If Meltzer wrote about him like he does about the Rock, we'd all remember the period in 2002 where HHH was trying to help elevate other talents on the show.
I don't know how or why, if it's agenda or if it's even done on purpose, but the Rock example with Goldberg makes it clear that Meltzer will write certain ways about certain people. Everything he says about HHH may be the complete truth, but while he's unloading on one person, he'll hold back on another. And to justify his selectiveness by saying "look at what we know about these people", when much of what we know is based on what Meltzer has written on them, doesn't hold up. When something as blatant and public as what Rock did to Goldberg is swept under the rug, making the Rock barely a footnote in Meltzer's own recap of the forces that hurt Goldberg early on, doesn't it make you wonder if there's anything else under that rug?
For next: 83550
From: New York
Since last post: 3165 days
Last activity: 1852 days
|AIM: || ||#26 Posted on 24.9.03 1422.04 |
Reposted on: 24.9.10 1422.33
| Just to throw my two cents into this crazy argument, let me just say that even though Meltzer says certain things, it has no effect on me personally at all when it comes to my opinions of certain wrestlers. I can understand he's "famous" in internet wrestling circles, but just from watching the damn show, I can figure out for myself that I like what Rock has done for the company a lot more than what Triple H has done. Rock is the one who did quite the bit of jobbing to "lesser" people, and Triple H is the one who beat everybody for a year, making them look bad. I don't care who's to blame for the booking, but Meltzer's opinion of the two have nothing to do with the point that all you have to do is watch the damn show and you can see for yourself why people hate Triple H and support the Rock (for the most part). |
|ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE