Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 On September 2, 2002 the RAW title will have been around for one solid year. And in that time only 2 men have held it. HHH, and Shawn Michaels. As we know HHH got the belt just for the hell of it, held it for 2 months, loaned it to Shawn for a month, then got it back. And has had it for another 8 months. Every ppv the thinking is "well he has to lose it this time." His opponents are usually more over, or his buddies. And at the next ppv HHH wrestles Goldberg, with dumb stipulations that pretty much says HHH will lose the belt...but he should have lost it before and didn't. Did he just want the belt for a year? I know it hasn't been a full year, since he loaned it to his buddy Shawn (when you knew he'd get it right back) So, the belt's been around a year (in a few days anyway), how could it have been handled better? Who else should have gotten it in that time? And will HHH ever lose the goddamn thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry Blossom Viscount 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 HHH will lose it for good eventually. Whenever he does, it's going to be awhile before he gets another one. Once he looses it, he's going to probably take some time off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Eagan469 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 I was almost positive RVD was going to get it last year. I know he'll most likely never get the WWE Championship, so this would be the next best thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 I thought RVD was going to win it...then I thought Booker was going to win it...then I thought his buddy Nash was going to win it. From now on I just assume that HHH always goes over in a title match. It's a safe bet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iggymcfly 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Thank god we actually have credible titles again. I hope we never again see the days of Jericho->HHH->Hogan->Taker->Rock->Brock in five months again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Cause credible is HHH putting on shit matches and going over on everyone despite the fact that he's not that over as a heel? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 bah, double post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Wow, the bitter HHHaters never stop whining around here, do they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hayabusa Moleman Report post Posted August 26, 2003 I hope HHH holds the belt forever. I always anticipate the great laughs to be had coming online an hour after RAW to read the same complaints I've heard for nearly a year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry Blossom Viscount 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Some people on this forum remind me of the stupid women that stay with their abusive boyfriends, complaining all the way, yet doing nothing to end the cycle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ultra Violence 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 personally I would have preffered the belt being passed around daily than put up with the kilq reign Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Real Nosferatu Report post Posted August 26, 2003 From what I think, HHH has MADE EVERYONE interested in the title matches just so we can FINALLY SEE HIM lose it. So technically anticipating him LOSING the title means he and/or the title is over with the fans. Maybe in the wrong way, but it still is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zetterberg is God 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 From what I think, HHH has MADE EVERYONE interested in the title matches just so we can FINALLY SEE HIM lose it. So technically anticipating him LOSING the title means he and/or the title is over with the fans. Maybe in the wrong way, but it still is. I totally agree. When HHH finally does job, it will be a big moment because this has been building for some time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 If ratings and show attendence was as high as it was a couple of years ago I would have no problem with him going over on everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Wow, the bitter HHHaters never stop whining around here, do they? How is our "whining" not justified? His title reign has been terrible....terrible ratings, terrible buyrates, terrible matches, terrible storylines, etc.... He's a stale, boring, injured wrestler who isn't over and doesn't draw yet his reign continues month after month. An owner with common sense would remove him from the top spot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Real Nosferatu Report post Posted August 26, 2003 HHH is actually entertaining now and then. At least the crowd is AWAKE for most of his stuff. ::Went from HHH Hater to HHH Supporter for some reason:: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Apparently most of the people on here are assuming Triple H has to lose at Unforgiven, due to the stipulations. While I sincerely hope he does, with all the talk of Goldberg's performance being a 'disappointment' and maybe not what the WWE had in mind, would it be entirely out of line to think Goldberg could be gone before the end of the year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ray Report post Posted August 26, 2003 HHH is actually entertaining now and then. When was this? At least the crowd is AWAKE for most of his stuff. I don't see this. He gets an entrance pop and then.....not much else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Real Nosferatu Report post Posted August 26, 2003 everyone ASSUMES HHH sucks all the time like everyone (most people) assume Angle rules all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tawren 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 HHH's one year reign begins on December 15th, 2003. He LOST the belt to HBK, idiot. Just because he soon won it back didn't mean it didn't happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Real Nosferatu Report post Posted August 26, 2003 The Clique is HBK & HHH. They are best friends, and he reffered to the reign as the Clique reign in the title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hayabusa Moleman Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Why do you all care about buyrates, ratings, etc.? Do you all own WWE stock? More importantly, why do you assume someone else with the belt would do better? Smackdown doesn't seem to be blowing RAW away as far as ratings and buyrates go, yet most people would consider it the better show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ultra Violence 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 HHH's one year reign begins on December 15th, 2003. He LOST the belt to HBK, idiot. Just because he soon won it back didn't mean it didn't happen. STFU n00b the point is that the belt has been in the hands of the kilq and therfore HHH a whole year Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tawren 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 HHH's one year reign begins on December 15th, 2003. He LOST the belt to HBK, idiot. Just because he soon won it back didn't mean it didn't happen. STFU n00b the point is that the belt has been in the hands of the kilq and therfore HHH a whole year Hey, wow, you can call me a n00b Want a medal? Learn to use grammar and how to spell and then maybe I'll care. The fact is, they planned to give Kane the belt but he wasn't over enough. They wanted to give Steiner the belt but he sucks. They wanted to give Booker T the belt but he was talking about retiring. While I would like to see the belt on somebody other than the Clique, there wasn't anybody ready. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 everyone ASSUMES HHH sucks all the time like everyone (most people) assume Angle rules all the time. I don't assume anything. He hasn't done any better than the people he claims aren't "main event material" so why does he get to be god over them? And this thread was "The Clique's" one year title reign last time I looked so it's accurate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 It's very much like HHH to keep out of the spotlight, isn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Real Nosferatu Report post Posted August 26, 2003 HHH's one year reign begins on December 15th, 2003. He LOST the belt to HBK, idiot. Just because he soon won it back didn't mean it didn't happen. STFU n00b the point is that the belt has been in the hands of the kilq and therfore HHH a whole year Hey, wow, you can call me a n00b Want a medal? Learn to use grammar and how to spell and then maybe I'll care. The fact is, they planned to give Kane the belt but he wasn't over enough. They wanted to give Steiner the belt but he sucks. They wanted to give Booker T the belt but he was talking about retiring. While I would like to see the belt on somebody other than the Clique, there wasn't anybody ready. Funny...I remember nothing about WWE saying "we're giving Steiner or Kane or Booker the title" I'm sure Booker was a possible winner in WWe's eyes, but as far as Kane and Steiner....LMFAO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Well I guess WWE's answer to not having someone credible enough to win the title is to just say "fuck it" and let HHH stay champ until they get off their butts and push someone in a way that will make them look credible? So basically instead of fixing the problem they just let it fester? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tawren 0 Report post Posted August 26, 2003 Well I guess WWE's answer to not having someone credible enough to win the title is to just say "fuck it" and let HHH stay champ until they get off their butts and push someone in a way that will make them look credible? So basically instead of fixing the problem they just let it fester? I never said I agreed with it, in fact I said I agreed that HHH should lose the belt. I agree that they are just letting the problem grow instead of stopping it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Real Nosferatu Report post Posted August 26, 2003 I'm not trying to say the 9 month long reign from HHH is a good thing, just stating the obvious. Just a defense for any arguments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
