Interview with HHH

[iggymcfly 0]

I usually don't bother breaking down quotes bit by bit, but I think this time I might just have to.

 

My God you are an idiot. Please just shut up because you don't have a clu eabout ANYTHING. You prved that when you said Rock and Eddie Guerrero don't have good chemistry, when yuo said Triple H vs Shawn Michaels was a ***** match and the best WWE match this decade, and when you said Undertaker was a better team player than the Rock. SERIOUSLY, just SHUT UP. You are a fool.

 

First off, Eddie Guerrero and Rock only worked together once, and they had one of the longest, most boring, rambling promos in the history of Raw. That makes me say they have no chemistry. We've argued about the HHH/HBK match in at least seven or eight thtreads, so I'll just leave that one alone, but as for the Taker/Rock comparison, it's absolutely true.

 

The Rock never put anyone over until he was semi-retired, making movies. He put over Brock Lesnar because he knew that he didn't need the WWE anymore, but before that he hadn't jobbed clean in over 3 years. HHH jobs clean at least every month or two, and it's completely dismissed, but when Rock does it after he's retired, he's a fucking saint. People talk about how HHH cut the legs off of Jericho, but really Rock had already completely buried him before HHH even had a chance. He rubbed it in Jericho's face for months that he couldn't beat him clean and that none of his wins meant anything, and then in the blowoff to the feud, he made Jericho set a record for number of cheating methods to beat him.

 

Undertaker jobs to people that have talent, (Angle, Brock,) and sometimes when he's facing crappy midcarders with a lame gimmick (Cena) he wins. Huge difference between that and Rock squashing the entire roster for years, usually in handicap matches.

 

No one ever gave a shit about him at all

 

I guess I've just imagined Booker's entire career.

 

First off, I was referring to his time in WWE. He did seem somewhat interesting in the hell that was WCW, and he's even carved out a niche as a formulaic midcard player in the WWE. But since joining WWE, he has never been over at anywhere near the level of HHH, RVD, or even Batista at their peaks. The fans resented him instantly after WCW came in and he and Buff Bagwell had one of the worst matches the WWE has ever seen. And they continued to resent him for quite a while. He had get off my TV heat for quite a while. Finally, he got teamed up with Goldust. He played the straight man for Goldust's skits which happened to be the funniest stuff that Goldust has ever done in his career. He got over, but it wasn't due to anything that he did, and it had nothing to do with his personal skill whatsoever.

 

Booker T was the most over face on Raw (RVD, at times, the exception) for close to a year, up until his World Title rematch with Triple H. THE FEUD WITH TRIPLE H KILLED HIS HEAT! He didn't gain ANYTHING from it, so for you to claim otherwise is absurd.

 

OK, now you're completely wrong. He was the straight man to a midcard joke. This is like saying Regal was the most over face on Raw when Eugene was getting his push. Even though you apparently hate him, HBK was much more over than Booker T during his feuds with HHH, and RVD was more over as well. Shit, Steiner was more over until the fans actually saw him wrestle. And that's only over about a seven month period after the shows split.

 

I don't know whether you're a troll, a gimmick or just a complete fucking putz, but you are, without a doubt, the WORST poster I've ever seen on these forums. WHAT did Triple H do to put him over? Please... tell me. Job in a meaningless little tag match? Beat him completely clean at WRESTLEMANIA? Make Booker seem below him? Triple H did SHIT for Booker's career. He helped NOTHING. The feud achieved NOTHING. It did NOTHING for NO ONE. It served NO purpose.

 

When Booker first won the little mini-rumble to get the shot, he had very minimal heat. It was only when HHH started turning the feud into the rich snob versus the common man (the gimmick that got Austin over), that Booker started getting heat. HHH actually cut great promos to build up Booker as well, and if it wasn't for Booker's terrible wooden acting, the fans probably would have gotten behind Booker enough for him to get the belt. However, Booker's "angry" act is about as believable as Torrie Wilson's so WWE management wisely decided to pull the plug without ever letting him win the title. I'll agree that the feud didn't end up accomplishing anything, but that was 100% Booker's fault. I really believe that if he'd done a decent acting job during the feud, they would have given him at least a short reign with the belt.

 

How on EARTH would it have destroyed the credibility of the title? Oh wait - IT WOULDN'T, that's just you being a shithead yet again. But, maybe you're right. Who'd want Booker Vs. Jericho for the title when you can have Nash Vs. Triple H?

 

The fact that Jericho's a better wrestler than Nash is terrible justification for why Booker should have won the title. The thing is, since Nash never won the title, once the feud was over, we could just forget it ever happened, and the title still had lots of respect going into the next feud. However, in a case like Eddie and JBL on Smackdown over the last year, people just think "Oh, there's no one decent to fight for the title, this show sucks, that title doesn't mean anything anymore."

 

Oh, of course, the latest for RVD was SummerSlam. A month before Triple H faced him. That way, we can rid any blame of Hunter.

 

The point is that RVD was hot in the fall of 2001. Then he lost his title match, got brought down to the midcard, and then just when they were teasing a return to the top of the card (his fake title win against Taker), he oses to Brock Lesnar. All the heat that he got by going undefeated through his first few months in the WWE was completely dissipated. When they're trying to establish a new title, the last thing they want to do is transition it to someone who's got the stigma of a "mid-card loser" only three weeks after its formation.

 

You can call me names in ALL CAPS if you want, and act like you're making a point, but really all you're doing is saying that your argument's right because it's right. You might as well just say HHH sucks because he's GAY. He makes Raw BAD. You're a LOSER if you like him. Booker T's COOL! And HHH beat him. That's BULLSHIT! Booker should have winned because he's BETTER. HHH is a STUPIDHEAD! I mean really, the only thing more annoying than you're complete lack of logic is your writing style.

[Precious Roy 0]

Mick Foley is not a great wrestler, but he was great at what he did.

 

And the same can be said for HHH. HHH is not a great WRESTLER, he's a great SPORTS ENTERTAINER, which in this day and age in the WWF may as well be the same thing. Paul London is a greater WRESTLER than HHH has ever been or will ever be. HHH sabotages his own point by trying to seperate what he does from what Foley does by acting like his shit doesn't stink and putting his "wrestling" style on a pedestal, because they basically work the same psych, crowd manipulation & spot heavy SE style, and HHH got over wrestling FOLEY matches.

 

What a pretentious cunt.