Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Random Hypothetical Question


Guest kidd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest kidd

Just a random question I was thinking about the other day. Obviously when Vince McMahon dies there will be a shift in power and things could change dramatically in the WWE, but what if more than Vince dies. I know the president and vice president fly on different planes so if something happens they aren't both taken out, but i don't think most businesses do that though i could be wrong. We may not know the actual answer to this, but who is usually on the WWE jet lets say when they are on there way to a Pay per view location? If the WWE jet crashed and everyone died who would that leave in charge? I know it's a bit morbid but i often wonder about worse case scenerio situations like this.

 

I'm assuming passengers on the plane would be Vince, Steph, HHH, Michael Hayes, and Brian Gertwitz or whoever the head Raw writer is. Anyone else?

 

I'm assuming that would leave Linda and Shane. Linda and Shane would probably get Vince's stock, not sure what would happen with Steph and Triple H's stock since their kdis are young. Linda probably wouldn't want to go back to working for WWE especialy with Vince and Steph gone. Do you think Shane would return to the family business? How badly would taking out the whole top rung of the company effect WWE short term and possibly long term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably more likely to happen in WWE than in most companies since the inner circle all travel in the same plane. According to the tales of past WWE writers on Lagana's podcasts it seems that the top guys from each brand (which now I believe are Hayes and Gewirtz) travel with Vince, Steph, and Hunter. An accident involving that plane would take out pretty much all the decision makers on the creative side of the company leaving only any McMahon family not on board and the bulk of the writing staff.

 

I would probably guess if that happened Shane would come back and handle things at least until his and/or Steph's kids reach the age where they decide if they want to be in the business or not. Either that or WWE folds/gets sold to an outside entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without wanting to wish death on anyone, I think the product would be improved. People would have to pull out all the stops to prove that the company is still alive, and some fresh ideas would come into play. Plus, the public sympathy with the WWE about what happened would be great publicity, and the viewing figures would likely increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Vince is not getting younger, and Triple H is supposed to get more importance backstage anytime soon now. Really, what has Vince done that was really positive in the last 10 years ? He's living off his reputation, off the power of the RAW and WrestleMania brand, off the huge footage library and off an overseas market that is better now that it's ever been (as far as I can judge). Creatively, Vince is totally spent and set in his ways to the point I don't think he has much to offer really. That said, he's the one holding the pieces together. There's no telling what would happen if all of a sudden he wasn't able to do what he does. But at this point, I couldn't care less about what happens to WWE, since to me wrestling as I enjoy it is pretty much dead already in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince hasn't done much, but the few things that have been done that have worked can be credited to Vince. I agree that he's lost the Midas touch, but he's one of very few people in the company who has any degree of understanding wrestling.

 

The idea of HHH having more influence being a good thing is laughable every time someone says it. (I know you weren't saying that.) If anything, the past decade has shown us what happens when HHH gets more influence.

 

I agree that wrestling is done. There's enough footage of good and great wrestling that has already happened to keep anyone entertained for a lifetime, so it doesn't really sadden me all that much anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince hasn't done much, but the few things that have been done that have worked can be credited to Vince. I agree that he's lost the Midas touch, but he's one of very few people in the company who has any degree of understanding wrestling.

I agree. You would think guys like Michael Hayes do, but apparently not that much.

 

The idea of HHH having more influence being a good thing is laughable every time someone says it. (I know you weren't saying that.) If anything, the past decade has shown us what happens when HHH gets more influence.

Agreed. I don't remember who said it, but I thought it was the most pertinent thing ever written about Triple H, that the guy spent the last decade "cosplaying NWA touring champion Harley Race". To me that's it, for a guy who supposedly loves wrestling and is a student of the game, he really has shown exactly nothing to me as far as wrestling knowledge except how to bury people politically. Plus he's a bodybuilding fan, it's not like he's gonna push *workers*.

 

I agree that wrestling is done. There's enough footage of good and great wrestling that has already happened to keep anyone entertained for a lifetime, so it doesn't really sadden me all that much anymore.

Same thing here. I think I would enjoy current japanese wrestling to a degree, but there's so much older puroresu from the golden days I haven't seen... The availability of the footage makes it easy to watch shitloads of *new* wrestling without having to care about what happens today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Vince is not getting younger, and Triple H is supposed to get more importance backstage anytime soon now. Really, what has Vince done that was really positive in the last 10 years ? He's living off his reputation, off the power of the RAW and WrestleMania brand, off the huge footage library and off an overseas market that is better now that it's ever been (as far as I can judge). Creatively, Vince is totally spent and set in his ways to the point I don't think he has much to offer really. That said, he's the one holding the pieces together. There's no telling what would happen if all of a sudden he wasn't able to do what he does. But at this point, I couldn't care less about what happens to WWE, since to me wrestling as I enjoy it is pretty much dead already in the US.

Vince has done a lot of great stuff over the past ten years, and has been very successful as a result. It's easy to say he's living off of his brand name, but WCW and New Japan had really strong brand names too. Or just look at the way business crashed in 2001. If he were putting out a product that no one wanted to see, they wouldn't make any money. He doesn't get enough credit for the success they've had in this Cena run, especially 2005-2008.

 

Last ten years: Created John Cena, Batista, Randy Orton, elevated Edge, CM Punk and Jeff Hardy to main event status, WM23 was the biggest show ever, a bunch of big money Manias, Batista-HHH feud, Jericho-HBK feud, Hardy-Punk feud, Hogan-HBK doing big business at SummerSlam, Taker-HBK Mania matches, Royal Rumble 2007 overall PPV greatness, Foley-Orton feud, some great Hall of Fame moments including Bobby Heenan and Ric Flair speeches, Guerrero beating Lesnar for the title, Benoit and Guerrero sharing the ring at the end of WM20 (was good at the time), allowing ECW ONS 05 to happen, SummerSlam 2002, Bret Hart night at MSG, Flair tribute the night after Mania 24, Manias 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, brought Finlay back, brought Goldust back, etc.

 

Things could be much worse. The great thing about Vince is his durability. Someone may be able to come in and freshen things up, but can they last for several years, much less 27 years like Vince?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't have any real interest in having the same old debate Jerome and I always have over modern WWE and I don't think there is any real reason to suppose that HHH would be a good influence on the product or has been up to this point having said that...

 

1. Is the argument that HHH isn't a mark for old school guys/wrestlers, or that he is and doesn't understand it? And if he is a mark for them, what does it matter if he likes bodybuilding?

 

2. Speaking of which based on what has been reported about Trip and his influence so far the "he is a body building fan and will only push those guys" thing doesn't really work. Sheamus is supposedly close to Trip as is Drew Mac. Both are big though neither has a true body builder look in the way that say Mason Ryan or Ezekiel Jackson do. Sheamus has one of the more unique looks on the roster in fact. It's also worth noting that among people who regularly watch WWE both guys are regarded as near the top of the heap for in ring talent - In fact I think you could make a case that MacIntrye is the best wrestler on Earth right now.

 

3. Spinoff of point two but allegedly Sin Cara is a HHH pet project. If that's the case that puts the lie to the notion that HHH is only interested in "big guys" if that is what is meant by body builder types. Of course that also puts the lie to the notion that he can recognize talent since Mistico is utter dogshit based on what I have seen of him in the WWE. Still it doesn't fit the narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no real "debate" about modern WWE between you and I at this point. To me it's unwatchable. If you enjoy it, then you are right to enjoy it really. I already stated in long boring details why I think WWE's product is turgid and dull as dirt. At this point and after many tries to get back into it, the last WWE matches I'll probably watch now are maybe The Rock vs Cena next year and without a doubt Taker's retirement, because I became a fan about one year before Taker's debut and he has been a big part of my wrestling fandom at one point. Outside of that, really, I'm done once and for all at this point.

 

1. Is the argument that HHH isn't a mark for old school guys/wrestlers, or that he is and doesn't understand it? And if he is a mark for them, what does it matter if he likes bodybuilding?

Obviously, Triple H didn't get shit from being an old school mark.

 

3. Spinoff of point two but allegedly Sin Cara is a HHH pet project. If that's the case that puts the lie to the notion that HHH is only interested in "big guys" if that is what is meant by body builder types.

Isn't this mostly a PR thing? I really have a hard time believing Triple H, who probably knows as much about lucha as I do, is the one responsible for signing Sin Cara.

Anyway, I'm not saying Triple H will only push bodybuilder types, but he sure shares that hobby with Vince, which is not exactly promising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the entire Batista storyline from 04/05 HHH's? If he is not trying to protect his spot I see no reason to think he would not be really good at booking. Road Dogg put him over as being a guy who comes up with great finishes. This was between calling him a two faced motherfucker so he was not sucking up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not the thread for it, but I would be interested to see who people think is better. There are a few guys I would consider but no one has been as impressive to me against such a wide variety of guys this year as Drew has

In America or worldwide? I still think Chris Masters is better but Drew has improved a lot. He even got a good match out of Kofi Kingston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the entire Batista storyline from 04/05 HHH's? If he is not trying to protect his spot I see no reason to think he would not be really good at booking. Road Dogg put him over as being a guy who comes up with great finishes. This was between calling him a two faced motherfucker so he was not sucking up.

Wrestlemania 18: Win (Vs Chris Jericho)

Wrestlemania 19: Win (Vs Booker T)

Wrestlemania 20: Loss (Vs Chris Benoit/Shawn Michaels)

Wrestlemania 21: Loss (Vs Batista)

Wrestlemania 22: Loss (Vs John Cena)

Wrestlemania 24: Loss (Vs Randy Orton/John Cena)

Wrestlemania 25: Win (Vs Randy Orton)

I don't get the HHH hate still. Yeah, he has been a dick for a very long time, but he had his shoulders pinned or has submitted a lot too. He has more losses than the Undertaker at WrestleMania. He's lost TWICE to the Undertaker AT WrestleMania. When does Taker ever really job? In fact, when was his last clean pinfall loss? How about submission loss?

 

Wrestlemania 18: Win (Vs Chris Jericho)

The Jericho Experiment had failed. Hunter had returned from quad surgery. Hunter was hot, Jericho was not. Obvious business choice. Obviously did not work, though. Hogan was around and wanted a title reign. He got one.

 

Wrestlemania 19: Win (Vs Booker T)

Booker T was never that big. His program with the Rock was good, but never the main attraction. Booker T held the WCW World title after Russo and Arquette got their turns with it.

 

Wrestlemania 20: Loss (Vs Chris Benoit/Shawn Michaels)

Okay, obvious here. He submitted in the center of the ring, at Madison Square Garden, to a workrate monkey, in the main event of the twentieth anniversary of the WWF's biggest show of the year.

 

Wrestlemania 21: Loss (Vs Batista)

He put over Big Dave. Batista went on to be a multiple time World Champion. Did Batista win his feud against the Undertaker? Or at WrestleMania for that matter?

 

Wrestlemania 22: Loss (Vs John Cena)

Put over Cena. By submission to boot.

 

Wrestlemania 24: Loss (Vs Randy Orton/John Cena)

He wasn't the one pinned, but he didn't make the pin either.

 

Wrestlemania 25: Win (Vs Randy Orton)

They had been trading the strap back and forth for some time. The feud that would not end. Not all HHH's fault either.

 

This kind of argument pisses me off, though. You guys are supposed to be the smart fans. Hunter does nothing different from what any one of you people would do in a business that unforgiving. Just because he is or has buried your favorite wrestler, so what. That dude you would screw over to make more money or keep your position longer, your screwing over someone’s favorite too. And it’s not like you personally know Chris Jericho, or Booker T, or whoever else Triple H has buried. Many say Orton was and has been buried by Hunter. But it was fine for Misawa to kick the dog shit out of Kawada and Kobashi for years, let alone Akiyama and Taue. Hypocrisy pisses me off, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A large part of the reason no one takes wins and losses seriously anymore and it's harder to build up new guys is that HHH made a career of putting people over in meaningless fashion. Doing a banana peel job then belittling the guy on promos for weeks on end isn't really anything to claim in his favor.

 

A few points:

 

* HHH was a big part of the reason Jericho wasn't hot.

* HHH was a big part of the reason Booker wasn't hot.

* HHH doing the job to Cena was to get over his face turn.

 

This kind of argument pisses me off, though. You guys are supposed to be the smart fans. Hunter does nothing different from what any one of you people would do in a business that unforgiving. Just because he is or has buried your favorite wrestler, so what. That dude you would screw over to make more money or keep your position longer, your screwing over someone’s favorite too.

(1) Not everyone would do that, and it's overly cynical to suggest otherwise. There are plenty of people in wrestling who have had success who haven't been quite like that.

(2) HHH wasn't really entertaining enough to ignore it.

(3) Who cares who knew who personally? If you're a fan of someone who seems like they're about to break through, only to see them lose to HHH, then it's disappointing as a fan.

 

And it’s not like you personally know Chris Jericho, or Booker T, or whoever else Triple H has buried. Many say Orton was and has been buried by Hunter. But it was fine for Misawa to kick the dog shit out of Kawada and Kobashi for years, let alone Akiyama and Taue. Hypocrisy pisses me off, man.

It's not really hypocritical. "Be pushed strongly all you want as long as it's what people want to see and you are enjoyable to watch. If you're not, don't" is a consistent position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racist HHH going over Booker T, in the ridiculous fashion he did it to boot, was a *good* thing ? Really ?

HHH has been the king of doing a job while not really putting the opposition over. He learned from the best (Micheals - Hall - Nash).

HHH has always been an average worker with average charisma, mediocre promo skills and tons of political pull. And boring as dirt as early as 1999. The biggest fraud in wrestling history really at this point. Without the political games and ties, this guy would have never passed midcard. It took the biggest stars of the hottest era in wrestling all putting him over for months and months before he finally kicked off, and that after years of being shoved down people's throat. Most un-entertaining guy pushed on top for so long in a major promotion. At this point it's accepted by the fans that he's "great" because it's been the WWE gospel for 12 years straight. Looking back at his work in 15 years, I think people will scratch their head at how such a boring guy with average ability on all front was considered a really good worker and a big star.

That was my last HHH rant, I've been criticizing the guy since 2000, and it's only got worse with the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To El-P's point, which I agree with, there's nothing wrong with pushing someone until they get over. In fact, that's a good thing. It took a while, but HHH did eventually get over, and good for him. The problem is after HHH made it to the top, they never really stuck it out that long with someone again. If they didn't catch on immediately, that was it. (Sometimes, if they did catch on immediately, that was still it.)

 

HHH got a huge push. The company got a return on their investment. Good for everyone involved. The reason that gets brought up is that HHH is usually the first to point out when someone isn't getting over big immediately.

 

It's hard to argue everyone in wrestling does it the same way when not everyone in wrestling does it the same way. Flair? A little bit of a headcase as he became more insecure, but never had problems selling for people or making them look strong. Savage? Got tired of being beaten up every week by the NWO for months, but didn't make a career out of making everyone else look bad. Rock? Kept himself strong through his promos and could do an infinite number of jobs and retain his heat. Austin? Very selective about when and how he lost, but didn't go so far as everyone who worked with him coming out looking worse. Hogan? Not exactly known for his selflessness, but most of the time, what was right for Hogan was what was right for the company. Admittedly, there were times it wasn't, but overall, Hogan being pushed strong and winning most of his matches was the right decision far more often than it was the wrong decision.

 

He's not quite as bad as Hall and Nash. He and Michaels are pretty much the same, the only difference being Shawn was much more blatant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To El-P's point, which I agree with, there's nothing wrong with pushing someone until they get over. In fact, that's a good thing. It took a while, but HHH did eventually get over, and good for him.

I agree. The issue with Triple H is that it took forever and all the big legit stars for him to get over, and despite the infinite sustained push, he never got over to the point of becoming a huge star himself. No matter whow they twist the reality, Triple H was never on the same level with Austin, Rock, or even Foley or Taker during the Attitude era. And the only reason he kept his position as The Man after most of them left or retired, is because he had the political stroke. Such a huge push, sometime at the detriment of other, didn't create a megastar. Triple H was only the Man by default once Austin and Rock were nowhere to be found. And when the Cena experiment got off the ground, it was obvious Cena was on another level than Triple H altogether. Triple H's neverending push didn't result in him becoming a huge star at the level he's supposed to be. You can argue that pretty much anyone with the same ability and charisma would get over after years and years of push.

 

The problem is after HHH made it to the top, they never really stuck it out that long with someone again. If they didn't catch on immediately, that was it. (Sometimes, if they did catch on immediately, that was still it.)

Yep. And why is that?;)

 

He's not quite as bad as Hall and Nash.

I dunno. Hall was infamous was his comical jobs, but he was never in position to hurt someone that badly either.

 

He and Michaels are pretty much the same, the only difference being Shawn was much more blatant.

Michaels was worse since basically, he didn't do jobs. It's amazing how many titles he won and didn't lose between 1993 and 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has more losses than the Undertaker at WrestleMania. He's lost TWICE to the Undertaker AT WrestleMania.

Considering the entire gimmick of The Streak, this isn't a good example.

 

When does Taker ever really job? In fact, when was his last clean pinfall loss? How about submission loss?

Taker's last clean loss was to Kane last year, where they did an entire program based around the idea that washed-up old Taker wasn't strong enough to kick the crap out of TheMonsterKANE anymore. He'll do that at least once a year, random jobs in situations where you're not really expecting it out of him.

 

And it's a different situation with Taker, since he's long been a part-time attraction who wasn't around half the time. And he's the seven-foot-tall supernatural zombie. It makes a lot more sense for him to lose less often than anyone else, just by his gimmick and position in the company. It means that on the rare occasions that he does put someone over, it actually means something. And he's one of the even rarer guys who can actually elevate their opponent through beating them; consider the ladder match with Jeff Hardy, for example. How often has Trips been able to beat a guy without making the other guy look like shit?

 

But it was fine for Misawa to kick the dog shit out of Kawada and Kobashi for years, let alone Akiyama and Taue. Hypocrisy pisses me off, man.

A big difference there is that Misawa was a babyface. Much of Triple H's super-dominance of the roster came when his character was the biggest piece-of-shit heel in all of wrestling. Never before or since has the WWE pushed any heel so strong for so long, and that really stuck out as an inexplicable exception to their usual booking pattern.

 

He's not quite as bad as Hall and Nash. He and Michaels are pretty much the same, the only difference being Shawn was much more blatant.

Nash is definitely worse, by consistently getting himself booked in a too-high position on the card where he's never an effective draw. And, also, being a horrible goddamn wrestler who rarely if ever did meaningful jobs. Hall, it's hard to say, his career was more sporadic, with him down in the midcard most of the time. He was never really a top guy, so it's hard to accuse him of keeping others down. Half his matches had an NWO run-in as a finish, he wasn't out there beating guys decisively.

 

I'd argue that Michaels is better than Triple H at that, at least besides from his me-no-job days of '97 and thereabouts. Consider Shawn and HHH's feuds with the same guys. When Triple H "put over" Cena at Wrestlemania, it was posed as being a complete fluke where the worse competitor just happened to get lucky. Look at the "what the hell?!" expressions of the fans in the crowd afterwards. That finish was custom-designed to let HHH officially put Cena over, while not actually making Cena look like the better man. Compare that to the Cena/HBK match the next year, where Shawn (despite his usual rockstar grandstanding of lasting in a submission hold forrrrevvvverrrrrr) just had Cena cleanly, decisively, definitively beat him in the middle of the ring. There was no question about who won that, Shawn had no "but if this one thing hadn't happened..." excuse, he just went out there and made Cena look like the superior fighter.

 

Also: Shawn once put over freakin' Kennedy in a clean match, which is something Hunter would never ever do. Then there's the Flair matches, where Michaels went out of his way to make the old man look tough, while HHH usually just pounded him into bloody submission every time. Or look at the structure of their DX tag matches in recent years, where it's almost inevitably Shawn getting the crap beat out of him until Hunter comes in on the hot tag and destroys everything in sight. The Spirit Squad could use the numbers game to kick Shawn's ass, but that generally didn't apply to Hunter. Even their double-team finisher was designed to make HHH look like the stronger guy, with Shawn's superkick suddenly getting weaker so that the guy who gets kicked just stumbles around right into a Pedigree rather than knocking him the fuck out like it's supposed to. In the past decade, the company definitely made damn sure to keep Triple H more protected than almost anyone else, including Shawn Michaels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trip's goofiness with jobs, his cutting people off at the knees, and all of his other games has been detailed to death over the years. We've had a ton of threads here on it. What usually happens early on is that a Trip Hater points to one or two things. Then a Trip Defender points to a few more things that "balances out" the picture, but still leaves an incomplete story. Then someone runs in and drops about another dozen examples of Trip being a cocksucker. After that, Trip Defenders slink off, though on occassion they'll man up and say, "We forgot about those other ones... sorry about that."

 

I'm not trying to say that every Trip Defender cooks the books in these discussions. I actually think quite the opposite: they probably don't get the depth and width of Trip's stuff over the years, have heard just enough defenses of him over the years to think there's a point, and then when faced with a mountain of Trip's power games, they grasp that they were wrong.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that Anti-Trip folks can point to quite a bit of fucking over Cena stuff to balance out tapping to Cena at Mania.

 

Folks liked to point to Shawn putting over Cena and that Cena "won" the feud. Others walked through the feud/series, and it was quite a bit less clear than Shawn was as giving as folks tried to say.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...