Kurt Angle is a cocky heel champion. So was Ric Flair. They exaggerate their own accomplishments but can back them up. They make false critcisms of their opponents, ones that the fans can brush off.
They don't go out and expose guys real faults because then the fans go - You know what? Rob Van Dam DOES lack intensity. Booker T IS just an entertaining midcard act and his past accomplishments are worthless.
They may talk a big game, they may back some of it up, but you can see the fear they have of their opponents. Triple H showed no fear of Booker T or that perceives him as a threat.
Maybe that's fine if Triple H was defending against say, Steve Austin but Booker T is a midcard act that they're trying to elevate. Maybe his time as WCW Champ isn't all that impressive, maybe he hasn't been a major player in WWE, maybe his biggest win is throwing Rock over the top rope, but it's all he and his fans have! It's the only shred of credibility he has to go off and to be built up from. He's not an established Main Eventer so if they want to make him one, exposing his real faults on TV isn't the best way to go about getting him to the next level.
Again, they are trying to show him as an underdog, a midcarder that HHH doesn't respect. Remember Goldust talking about how he was holding Booker back from reaching that next level. That is what this is about. Booker has never gotten the credit he is due even with the WCW titles he held. WCW was a joke at the time, a fact that Hunter pointed out.
All this will make a Booker win all the sweeter and HHH's loss that much more humbling. Now, if Hunter wins at Mania then Vince can join the kiss MY ass club and I will even join the He-Man HHHaters Club.
Bubbles? Oh come on Sharon! Iím Ozzy Osbourne the Prince of Fucking Darkness. Evil, evil, more fucking evil not a boatload of fucking bubbles man.
That's not the way to make Booker T a Main Eventer though because there's a BUT attached to his victory. He beat HHH BUT it was only because HHH wasn't taking him seriously. If they want to truly elevate Booker T to the same level as Triple H then it has to come off like he beat HHH at his best. If they go half-ass with it then it'll fail miserably.
If Booker upsets HHH at Mania then beats him again the next month, I'll eat my words but I just don't see any signs that WWE has enough faith in Booker T to really run with him all the way.
Originally posted by fuelinjectedIf Booker upsets HHH at Mania then beats him again the next month, I'll eat my words but I just don't see any signs that WWE has enough faith in Booker T to really run with him all the way.
I'll second that, with a "clean pinfall" rider attached to that WM win. Somehow, I still don't think that the WWE has any serious plans for Booker other than at-best a Ron Garvin-type reign just to cough up the title back to Trips in short order. However, I'll be glad to be proven wrong in this case...
"I don't care what people think. People are stupid." -- Charles Barkley
I really think that HHH starting to take Booker T seriously will begin half way through their WM match. Booker will be whiping HHH around the ring and Triple H will give us a great facial which says all at once, i've underestimated this man, and from there the real match will begin.
Another thing, this match seriously could headline Wrestlemania, because as the only fully planned out title match it should, and Booker closing the show standing over HHH will be one of THE MOMENTS that are remembered for ages. Much like HBK winning at WMXII and SCSA at WMXIV, when a superstar wins his first world title at WM (technically his first real world title in the WWE) then it should be a momentous occasion, not a third from top semi-main event
...But remember this. ROCK...CRUSHES...SCISSORS...but scissors cuts paper...and paper wraps rock...KIFF, we have a conundrum. (Yes, eat all of our shirts!)
Originally posted by Swordsman YenWell, anybody who's played any sport or entered any competition knows that you NEVER let your weaknesses show. Booker did just that by admitting that maybe Trips was right in what he said instead of just throwing it back at him.
Except, of course, that pro wrestling is not a sport and barely a competition. And Booker didn't say "maybe you're right". He said some of the things he said were true. Which they were. David Arquette and Vince Russo were champions around the same time as Booker was. Booker has been playing the "entertainer" more than the "wrestler" of late. And yes, jakegnosis, he does have some nappy hair on him.
Booker T looked like the bigger man, plain and simple. HHH walked away from him, not the other way 'round. HHH didn't show fear, but then again, when has he? I can think of three opponents that he's actually acted a bit afraid of, and that's stretching it. It's part of his character to completely blow off his opponent. He's the Game, he's the best in the biz, etcetera.
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!
When did it become common knowledge that Booker T is going to win at Wrestlemania and thus make all this underdog business OK? Who really knows? All I know is last year Jericho got the same treatment and did not maintain the title belt. This year may be different, it may not.
Rock-Austin appeared to be all one-sided for Rock at first glance as Austin barely got to say anything. But he did get to stun the 3 jobbers and have Rock back down from their staredown. Sure Austin is a certified bad ass in the fans' eyes, but both guys got to look good in this confrontation. Booker did not.
They have another golden opportunity to make Booker look legit. Have the "monster" Batista attack him and have Booker take out his arm. This makes T look tough, explains the upcoming absence of Batista, and sets up a feud when Batista does return. Again maybe this is the plan for next week's Raw, but I have my doubts.
As I said before, if this is a TOP match for 'Mania, BOTH guys have to have the legit champion sizzle. The scrappy, nappy mid-card spinning fool getting a shot at the awesome, unbeatable cerebral assassin just doesn't create that sizzle.
Originally posted by UbermonkeysI think there's a big difference in a heel giving minor props to a face and the face giving them to the heel. When the heel does it, it's saying that they know the face is good, but they are better and serves to buld cockiness. When the face does it, it makes him look weak.
Eh? Since when did heel's start giving respect to face opponents?
When Kurt was responding to talk of Brocks NCAA career he didn't say, "Kudos Brock. Great achievement. But while I respect what you've done, I am an Olympic champion and still have upmost confidence I will defeat you"
He totally belittled Brock and told said he was winning titles when Brock was playing Hungry, Hungry Hippos.
In the build up to the recent Rock/Hogan fight Rock gave Hogan absoultely no respect when he said "In one corner we'll have a living legend, the greatest wrestler of all time, the man who revolutionised sports entertainment. And in the other *shrug* Hulk Hogan"
Giving props to your opponent is an act of integrity, the act of a face. This was the first week of build to the WM feud, and one that was more than likely reworked at short notice due to injuries to Batista and Orton. All things considered I think it was done pretty damned well.
"You dont appreciate a lot of stuff in school until you get older. Little things like being spanked every day by a middle aged woman: stuff you'd pay good money for these days."
I get a kick out of Honky Tonk's site - take a look at his latest nonsense: DAVID SCHULTS is the "real creator of Wrestlemania?" How far down the goddamn food chain are these morons going to go? First (and most rightly), it was Vince.