Am I the only one???

[Guest Loss]

Deal with it. As long as they are putting out the quality of the matches they have - I'm happy.

 

Where's the consistency there? It was ONE MATCH. If it starts happening on a regular basis, I'll agree, but telling someone who has watched the product just as long or longer than you have to "deal with it" is ridiculous. We don't have to do anything.

 

No, its not. My problem is with the people who want them pushed in spite of these faults, Van Dam in particular.

 

Van Dam should have been pushed in late 2001 because he was the most over guy in the company. That's all there is to it. You can pick apart his flaws all you want -- they're readily evident -- but the fans wanted him on top and you can't really deny that.

[Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist]

Van Dam should have been pushed in late 2001 because he was the most over guy in the company.

He was pushed - he was a sloppy prick who injured several people as a result - he was depushed as punishemnt

[Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist]

Deal with it. As long as they are putting out the quality of the matches they have - I'm happy.

 

Where's the consistency there? It was ONE MATCH. If it starts happening on a regular basis, I'll agree, but telling someone who has watched the product just as long or longer than you have to "deal with it" is ridiculous. We don't have to do anything.

 

Summerslam 2002 ****1/4

Armageddon would have hit that had it not had a stupid gimmick annd been five hours long

[Guest JMA]

I motion that the phrase "deal with it" be banned from the WWE forum.

[Guest Loss]

Van Dam should have been pushed in late 2001 because he was the most over guy in the company.

He was pushed - he was a sloppy prick who injured several people as a result - he was depushed as punishemnt

Name one wrestler who was sidelined because of RVD. Just one.

 

RVD was busting wrestlers open, not costing them money. That alone is not reason to push him, although I think giving him a receipt to lay off is justified.

 

Every wrestler has strengths and weaknesses.

[Guest Loss]

Summerslam 2002 ****1/4

Armageddon would have hit that had it not had a stupid gimmick annd been five hours long

Summerslam was not a "****1/4" match, but even if it was, it was over a year ago. Jericho and Michaels had a better match than that both at Wrestlemania and on RAW in July.

 

The match saw Shawn's back get worked over like crazy all the way through, only for him to pop up at the end and do a miracle comeback like the first 20 minutes of the match never happened.

 

Shawn is great and I won't argue that. But HHH has had numerous chances to get results with other guys, but he doesn't sell nearly as much as he does for Michaels, so the matches have been subpar.

[Guest Dave O'Neill, Journalist]

Well then thats just anti-HHH bilge. And frankly, he's going nowhere D___ W___ I_

 

HHH - Rock, Judgement Day 2000****3/4

 

It's not my fault Booker is a substandard worker.

[King Cucaracha 0]

Van Dam should have been pushed in late 2001 because he was the most over guy in the company.

He was pushed - he was a sloppy prick who injured several people as a result - he was depushed as punishemnt

Name one wrestler who was sidelined because of RVD. Just one.

 

RVD was busting wrestlers open, not costing them money. That alone is not reason to push him, although I think giving him a receipt to lay off is justified.

 

Every wrestler has strengths and weaknesses.

Fuck putting people on the shelf, he nearly KILLED HHH at SS 02 with that sloppy 5 star frog splash.

 

I think the point was that he was cutting people open, and that was seen as reckless at the time by McMahon.

 

Jericho and Michaels had a better match than that both at Wrestlemania and on RAW in July.

 

The Raw match was not better than Summerslam. Hell, most people have probably forgetton about it. It was by far less meaningless than SS, and in my opinion not as good.

 

But HHH has had numerous chances to get results with other guys, but he doesn't sell nearly as much as he does for Michaels, so the matches have been subpar.

 

Selling isn't the problem. It's not that HHH didn't sell for, for example Booker T. He did. He did however make his friend look better than he did Booker, which is undeniable. Add to that the fact HBK is twice the worker Booker T is...

 

HHH's problem is the same problem main eventers have had for years. Trying to put himself over, even when he puts others over.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Fuck putting people on the shelf, he nearly KILLED HHH at SS 02 with that sloppy 5 star frog splash.

 

It was a fucking accident. Deal with it.

[Guest Loss]

Fuck putting people on the shelf, he nearly KILLED HHH at SS 02 with that sloppy 5 star frog splash.

 

And before that, he had already been buried and they had stopped using him in main events. Almost a year before that. It had been two months since he had been jobbed out and buried by HHH exactly. Why was this happening? The fans loved the guy. They still do actually.

 

I think the point was that he was cutting people open, and that was seen as reckless at the time by McMahon.

 

That didn't exactly stop the Ahmed Johnson push, did it?

 

The Raw match was not better than Summerslam. Hell, most people have probably forgetton about it. It was by far less meaningless than SS, and in my opinion not as good.

 

It actually played off of the Wrestlemania match by both of them learning each other's moves and countering them in new ways. It was underrated because so much of it went unnoticed. It was poorly booked, but very well worked.

 

A less meaningful match does not make a worse match.

 

Selling isn't the problem. It's not that HHH didn't sell for, for example Booker T. He did. He did however make his friend look better than he did Booker, which is undeniable. Add to that the fact HBK is twice the worker Booker T is...

 

HBK is better than Booker. I agree. But during the Flair and Michaels matches, which are generally the high points for him over the past 12 months, HHH sold the entire match and did not have an extended portion where he was on offense. HHH's offense is really bad. The less he does that, the better. He's a pretty good seller, though, and if he would do it as much for everyone as he does Michaels, his matches would be better.

 

HHH's problem is the same problem main eventers have had for years. Trying to put himself over, even when he puts others over.

 

Exactly.

[cabbageboy 0]

The whole RVD/HHH thing at Series 2002 was more about the goofy never before done Elimination Chamber and not being tall enough for RVD to do the move properly in. Even HHH has gone on record saying that he doesn't blame RVD for it, and in fact said that RVD did as good a job as possible of PROTECTING him or it could have been a lot worse.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I'd like to point out that, by now, people should stop using HHH's run of good matches in 2000 to justify anything HHH does.

 

Having one good run of matches FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO doesn't mean the guy is Jesus.

[notJames 0]

Thank you. I'm glad someone else can see through that tired, flimsy excuse.

[snuffbox 0]

you guys are still arguing with the gimmick boy?

[Guest Nater]

Do you think VKM hates it when his wrestlers get injured??

 

No, its part of the business. Why do you think they show clips of when it happens about 20 times before the wrestler comes back? Because its good for ratings; people like violence.

 

WWE isnt putting on a chairity for orphans, they are a business of entertainment through what would normally be barbaric acts. Guys who get injured are praised, as are the guys who injure.

 

Brock vs. Holly.

 

======================

 

Praising HHH is just about as pointless as insulting him.