HHH taking over from Vince on RAW

[kjh]

Running it now...well, it's still a cool idea in theory but....

 

1. It needed more time to build up.

2. It's too soon after they inevitably blew their last cool idea for an angle. You need time for us to forget that they always blow these things.

3. It's an angle where - as it stands - the central figure is Triple H. It's really, really hard to get me psyched up about that. Especially when you remember #2.

Hasn't that been the case with most of the "out of the box" angles that WWE's done over the past few years, except that the central figure is sometimes other members of the McMahon family? I think that with their writing team full of soap opera writers who have little understanding about booking wrestling and Vince's fickle, volatile nature meaning that they're booking on the fly that this cycle is doomed to repeat itself.

[El-P]

So, more McMahon vs McMahon vs McMahon for the decades to come. Oh joy.

[cm funk]

I have to preface this by saying I didn't watch the show and have just been seeing people's reactions to it online. I did see the ending of Hell in a Cell which was really, really well done.

 

The way I see it is HHH levied a massive fine on and fired Truth and Miz for doing essentially the same shit wrestlers always do. How many times did Trips run in on matches and put hands on referees? So right there he looks like a hypocrite to all the boys. Then he really crosses the line and beats the shit out of them while they are handcuffed. Clearly showing that he can't control his temper and be levelheaded.

 

Combine this with all the shit with Nash and Johnny Ace and Stephanie and inserting himself into a match with Punk and nobody knows where he's coming from and when he might fly off the handle. Also consider that HHH has always been a pretty big dick who hasn't made many friends in storyline. He's always been a dangerous egomaniac and essentially a loner who manipulates and uses people around him. John Cena, #1 babyface and presumed leader of that side of the lockerroom, immediately had issues with him. Why would any of the babyfaces trust HHH any more than the heels would?

 

And Vince might have been a nut, but he's Vince McMahon, the guy who built the company. HHH is essentially a peer to most of these guys, or maybe an older brother figure, it's natural they won't have the same respect for him as they would Vince.

 

I don't know, it just seems totally logical to me that everybody would quickly revolt against him.

[Ricky Jackson]

Honestly, I really do hope something like this is the logic behind it all. It's relatively simple and makes more sense than some convoluted conspiracy swerve type thing. That said, I don't think this is how those doing the booking have envisioned the angle.

[jdw]

That makes logic... except Cena and the other faces didn't have issues with Trip or walk out on him on Monday. Wasn't Punk online essentially sucking Trip's dick to put him over?

 

Need to redo the logic to make Trip the babyface in all this.

 

John

[FLIK]

Also consider that HHH has always been a pretty big dick who hasn't made many friends in storyline

On that note, it sucks that WWE gives fuck all about story consistency now. I saw a lot of ppl saying it made no sense for JR to walk out and all I could think was, well, HHH did break his arm once and beat him up & publicly humiliate him on several other ocasions, it's stupider that he would support HHH. Course in a world whear what happens a few months ago barely mean anything, something like that is long since forgotten.

[jdw]

The second WON of the week has Dave doing was almost a message board style post responding to Triple H's comments in the WWE Mag. Literally old school online of quoting text and then responding to it.

 

John

[El-P]

The second WON of the week has Dave doing was almost a message board style post responding to Triple H's comments in the WWE Mag. Literally old school online of quoting text and then responding to it.

 

John

Sounds awesome !

[jdw]

Well... there really wasn't anything in the piece that is "fresh". The exception would be Dave's love of Trip as a great technical worker. I couldn't do justice to paraphrasing Dave, so I'll leave it to someone like Rovert to give it a go.

 

John

[Cox]

I didn't get the point of Dave responding line-by-line to a HHH column in WWE Magazine, of all places, as the lead story in the second Observer this week, but honestly, I don't get a lot of the stuff that goes into the Observer anymore.

[Loss]

This is the angle they should have run after Punk left with the belt. Running it now...well, it's still a cool idea in theory but....

 

1. It needed more time to build up.

2. It's too soon after they inevitably blew their last cool idea for an angle. You need time for us to forget that they always blow these things.

3. It's an angle where - as it stands - the central figure is Triple H. It's really, really hard to get me psyched up about that. Especially when you remember #2.

This was my thought too. Mass walkouts over not having a championship to compete for would have been great. As for this time, I need to watch it before I form an opinion. I've been on a work trip and living in a bubble for a couple of weeks, so I want to see it before I comment.

[NintendoLogic]

I re-upped my WON subscription just so I could read Dave's analysis of the HHH piece. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. He grants that HHH and all the other names he mentioned (and Punk, for that matter) weren't great technical wrestlers in the Karl Gotch/Billy Robinson sense, but that definition is too narrow. He says that HHH was a great technical wrestler because his timing and positioning in the ring were excellent. That's a rather curious definition of technical wrestling, but OK. Except he goes on to say the following:

 

"But if you line up the biggest drawing cards in history and have one list of great technical wrestlers and one list of terrible wrestlers, he’s way wrong on which list is longer. But the list of great workers who drew is longer than either list."

 

So "great worker" is presumably a broader term than "technical wrestler." And a good technical wrestler is someone whose in-ring timing and positioning is great. So what's the difference between that and a great worker? Can you be a great worker and not have good timing and positioning?

[jdw]

It would have made for a better board post so that someone could follow up and ask Dave (i) for examples, and (ii) what exactly he was saying.

 

John

[kjh]

I didn't get the point of Dave responding line-by-line to a HHH column in WWE Magazine, of all places, as the lead story in the second Observer this week, but honestly, I don't get a lot of the stuff that goes into the Observer anymore.

It must have pushed his buttons, though I'm surprised he held back until the Observer came out.

[El-P]

The exception would be Dave's love of Trip as a great technical worker.

Hum... what ?

 

He says that HHH was a great technical wrestler because his timing and positioning in the ring were excellent.

Oh man... JR was right then, HHH was the cerebral assassin...

[Dylan Waco]

Someone C/P tomk's post on "technical wrestler" as purely a gimmick term please.

[sek69]

The way I read it, HHH was pointing out that great workers =/= main event drawing power and vice versa. Dave was quibbling on who would qualify as a great worker, but more or less was agreeing with the premise.

 

Key quote:

 

“Make me a list of technical wrestlers who were huge stars, and I’ll make you a list of terrible wrestlers who were huge stars. I guarantee my list is a mile longer than yours. But who am I to say for the 90 percent of the WWE Universe, who don’t give a crap about that and like Cena, that they’re wrong and they should change, and be force fed something they don’t want?”

Other than overestimating the percentage of people who like Cena (this was an interview with WWE Magazine after all, can't expect them to be all SHOOTY~! in that regard), Hunter's dead right in this regard. This has been something that always upsets the technical wrestling enthusiasts who make up a majority of the internet scene, and hearing it come from their Public Enemy #1 will only cause more OUTRAGE.

[NintendoLogic]

I've never claimed to have my finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, but I don't think that a majority of Internet fans are clamoring for a return to Verne Gagne vs. Billy Robinson-style matches. As for the broader point, he's way off. If you were to list the huge draws who were great workers and the huge draws who were terrible workers, the former list would absolutely dwarf the latter.

[Strummer]

from what I gather H is just echoing Bobby Heenan's definition of good work

[Dylan Waco]

Heenan claimed Ray Stevens was the best worker he ever saw.

 

Stevens was a draw, but he wasn't Hogan.

[NintendoLogic]

Didn't Heenan say that Kurt Angle vs. Shawn Michaels was the greatest match he'd ever seen?

[sek69]

I've never claimed to have my finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, but I don't think that a majority of Internet fans are clamoring for a return to Verne Gagne vs. Billy Robinson-style matches. As for the broader point, he's way off. If you were to list the huge draws who were great workers and the huge draws who were terrible workers, the former list would absolutely dwarf the latter.

 

I don't know about Gagne-Robinson, but a lot of the complaints I see about guys like Cena is how terrible he is at times in the ring. I don't think I'm speaking out of turn by suggesting most of the popular wrestlers among Internet fans tend to be toward the Bryan Danielson/Samoa Joe (when he gave a shit) variety. Unless you're talking about the segment of DVDVR type folks who will occasionally like bad workers ironically in what sometimes seems like an attempt to troll the board into liking someone they normally wouldn't.

 

 

Let's take a look at huge draws in the WWF/E in the last 20 years or so. 1991-2011. Who would you consider as huge draws who were great workers? Certainly guys like Shawn, Bret, Angle, Lesnar. I would argue that Randy Orton may be close if he isn't there already (but I still remember all the "Blandy Orton" complaints not that long ago). Who were draws that were terrible? Hogan, Taker (not always his fault, but still), Warrior, Austin (tricky since he was a great worker but when he was a huge draw he was primarily a brawler), Kane, Big Show, Cena. Then there are guys like HHH and Rock who did improve but were largely not that great wrestling wise the majority of their time as a top draw.

 

Now you can make an argument that the difference in length between lists isn't as big as Hunter contends, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but I don't really think there's an argument that there were considerably more guys with tons of charisma who didn't light the world on fire in the ring on top than there were guys who tore the house down wrestling wise.

[El-P]

“Make me a list of technical wrestlers who were huge stars, and I’ll make you a list of terrible wrestlers who were huge stars. I guarantee my list is a mile longer than yours. But who am I to say for the 90 percent of the WWE Universe, who don’t give a crap about that and like Cena, that they’re wrong and they should change, and be force fed something they don’t want?”

From HHH no less. Oh, irony.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't know about Gagne-Robinson, but a lot of the complaints I see about guys like Cena is how terrible he is at times in the ring.

The only people I see still hating on Cena's in-ring abilities are commenters on Youtube videos. The F4W types generally will grudgingly admit that he's at least carryable. Their criticisms of Cena tend to concern his push and the staleness of his character.

 

I don't think I'm speaking out of turn by suggesting most of the popular wrestlers among Internet fans tend to be toward the Bryan Danielson/Samoa Joe (when he gave a shit) variety.

That's probably true. But Joe isn't exactly a technician either. Danielson is, but there I don't remember a lot of chain wrestling in Danielson/Morishima.

 

Unless you're talking about the segment of DVDVR type folks who will occasionally like bad workers ironically in what sometimes seems like an attempt to troll the board into liking someone they normally wouldn't.

 

This caricature of DVDVR as a bunch of Armond Whites who pimp crappy workers for the lulz is really quite tired. It wasn't long ago that people were making fun of DVDVR for pimping Mark Henry. Now virtually everyone agrees that he's the best thing going in the WWE right now. Even Bryan Alvarez wrote in his HIAC recap that "If Henry loses F4W riots."

 

Let's take a look at huge draws in the WWF/E in the last 20 years or so. 1991-2011. Who would you consider as huge draws who were great workers? Certainly guys like Shawn, Bret, Angle, Lesnar.

Of that group, I'd only regard Bret as a significant draw, although Shawn might have crept up there with his second run since DX moved a shit-ton of merch.

 

I would argue that Randy Orton may be close if he isn't there already (but I still remember all the "Blandy Orton" complaints not that long ago).

I don't know about Orton as a draw. The only guys in the WWE right now who I'd consider big draws are Cena and Rey, both of whom can go.

 

Who were draws that were terrible? Hogan,

I'll grant that he's on the lower end, although someone like Victator would dispute that Hogan in his prime was a terrible worker. Regardless, he's the exception rather than the rule.

 

Taker (not always his fault, but still),

Not a draw. He was in a few money-drawing programs, but he was never someone whose presence or absence significantly impacted the bottom line.

 

Warrior,

He was a notorious flop when pushed as the top guy.

 

Austin (tricky since he was a great worker but when he was a huge draw he was primarily a brawler),

Who says a brawler can't be a great worker? His peak year from an in-ring standpoint is generally regarded to be 2001.

 

Kane, Big Show,

I've never seen either of these guys regarded as big draws.

 

Cena. Then there are guys like HHH and Rock who did improve but were largely not that great wrestling wise the majority of their time as a top draw.

Their drawing peak was during their 2000 feud, which was also HHH's peak as a worker. The Rock was also well above average by that point.

 

Now you can make an argument that the difference in length between lists isn't as big as Hunter contends, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but I don't really think there's an argument that there were considerably more guys with tons of charisma who didn't light the world on fire in the ring on top than there were guys who tore the house down wrestling wise.

As it so happens, some guy at WC compiled a list of the guys who had headlined the most shows drawing 10000 or more going back to the 1800s:

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimate...c;f=10;t=002127

 

Feel free to divide everyone listed into "good worker" and "bad worker" and see which list is longer.

[rovert]

Didn't Heenan say that Kurt Angle vs. Shawn Michaels was the greatest match he'd ever seen?

He may but Pat Patterson is normally the guy attributed with that view point.