"Political Hit"

[Slasher]

About Reigns moving over from being a Hunter guy to Dunn's guy, wasn't it Reigns who the office demanded to be included in the planning and formation of the Shield? That would explain how there is an investment in Reigns beyond just being a Triple H guy.

 

About Vince being in the middle of the tug of war they got going on, well Dunn has been with Vince for like 30 years now. Their relationship is way too developed for Triple H to break apart. Also Vince has been known to disagree with Triple H on things like War Games being introduced that Vince rejected, and all the ideas that Vince either rejected or revised to be more to his comfort. Triple H is obviously not going anywhere else and that his job is his for life, but Triple H still isn't the go to guy for Vince in operations of the company. Dunn is. So it would be impossible for Triple H to manipulate Vince into thinking Dunn has run his course and it is time to move on. Also I am not sure Vince is oblivious to this struggle. He's been known to enjoy playing two sides against each other. For all we know, Vince considers it a healthy competition that can only be good for having multiple options for Vince, the ultimate decision maker, to choose from.

[MoS]

I am intrigued about how Shane attempted to "take the advice" about stabbing Vince in the gut. I have never heard of that before. What's the story?

[Jmare007]

I'm trying to not be lazy and work on a longer piece about this theory to come out sometime in the next 5 or 6 days.

 

That said I will say two quick things

 

1. I don't think Stomper's point that is highlighted by Parties is wrong or misplaced. In fact to a large degree that's my theory. I would absolutely say that I've accepted that this is a combination of incompetence and HHH being HHH, the difference is I believe much of the incompetence has been managed, encouraged, or at the very least enhanced by HHH's actions. The "conspiracy theory" tag is something people are latching on to and I get why. I can see how the term itself, and some aspects of the theory come across as cloak and daggery to people. That said, no one seems to object to the idea that HHH has done things to undermine people in the past, though in many cases the arguments are at least as conspiratorial as what is being posed here. I also strongly doubt people will disagree with my other contentions, some of which were outlined by Loss, though I plan to go into more detail.

 

2. I am by no means an "insider," but over the last couple of years I have gotten closer to people in and around the wrestling business than I ever intended. The closer I have gotten the more I believe this theory to be true. Not necessarily because of any inside knowledge or backstage political shit I've heard about, but because as you see how the wrestling culture works up close the idea of deliberate sabotage as a means of solidifying or taking control really doesn't seem far fetched at all.

 

Hopefully I'll get my shit together and knock out something readable and coherent in the next few days. I'll do my best to answer any objections or challenges people have to my argument, as long as they are actually challenges to my argument and not to an argument I'm not making.

 

Then I guess my problem with the "Political Hit" theory was just about semantics. Political Hit, and the way you guys make it sound on the reaction shows, sounds way more like a conspiracy plan than the "part incompetence-part HHH being HHH sabotaging people" situation you are explaining right now.

 

Still, I don't see Roman's situation being that different from other occasions were Hunter schemed his way to put himself in a position of power. I guess my problem with the theory was "why call this situation a political hit NOW and not before?".

[Luchaundead]

I'm not going to push my Paul Heyman counter theory but, isn't it convenient that if Roman fails Punk will probably be the final "break out star" that you could attribute to Vince?

[The Chief]

For those that don't believe he's the victim of a political hit, would you at least admit he's a victim of political attrition?

[WingedEagle]

For those that don't believe he's the victim of a political hit, would you at least admit he's a victim of political attrition?

 

Seems more like standard wrestling booking. Just the latest who management wouldn't get behind 100%. There will be others to follow.

[Parties]

Regarding Laurinaitis being pushed out by Triple H, it wasn't just that, he gutted the whole talent relations department and did the same in developmental, replacing all the key people with his own hires. That's his MO. That's a mixture of both good and bad, as clearly Hunter picked some people wisely (William Regal has obviously been a hugely important influence in widening WWE's search for talent and being less closed minded), while also making his own blunders (making Bill Demott WWE's head trainer was a disaster waiting to happen and he didn't disappoint). I don't think it's making a jump that he'll do exactly the same with other departments when Vince is out of the picture, particularly someone who if the whispers are true he dislikes.

 

 

For the record, this makes him no different than 75% of C-level executives in America right now. You're brought in to "fix" a failing department, you fire everyone above a certain pay grade, and you bring in your team of past people you've worked with at other companies. It is common practice. And to his credit: developmental has gone from being a glaring sore spot (and detrimental to growth) into what many customers view as the company's best asset. The Performance Center, the worldly new approach to Talent Relations: he had to break some eggs to get a much improved end result. (People with jobs and livelihoods are not eggs. But for the sake of this argument, they are line items on a budget.) I love Reigns, but if he ends up being the martyr who allows Biff Busick, Nakamura, and Asuka to enter the kingdom of heaven, then that's a fair trade.

 

HHH has made a number of bad crony hires, but there are only so many cognitively functional members of the Clique left. Demott was terrible and I've never heard anyone who's worked there have any love for him or explanation of why he got the gig. It'd be interesting to hear how Matt Bloom's doing at it now.

[Death From Above]

 

For those that don't believe he's the victim of a political hit, would you at least admit he's a victim of political attrition?

 

Seems more like standard wrestling booking. Just the latest who management wouldn't get behind 100%. There will be others to follow.

 

 

The thing is, as Dylan/Loss describe the theory, I think both what they say and what you say here are true. I don't see it as an either/or thing. This IS how wrestling works. It's that kind of business.

[kjh]

I think it would be wrong to call developmental / talent relations a failing division when Triple H formally took charge, although it did have a turbulent history. Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, Roman Reigns, Alberto Del Rio, Cesaro, Sheamus, Wade Barrett, Ryback, etc. were all signed and developed in FCW before he took over. Not sure who to credit with that success though. It's possible that Triple H was already heavily involved in the talent acquisition process at that stage. It's also true that when someone new takes power they often clean house. Plus Triple H does deserve a lot of credit for taking things to the next level with the establishment of the WWE Performance Centre and turning developmental into a hot brand.

 

That said, the Bill DeMott scandal was so predictable and handled so badly internally that it was arguably a bigger blunder than anything Laurinaitis ever did. The same can be argued about Alberto Del Rio's firing.

[Loss]

Yeah, Bill DeMott was a fall guy for merely executing the directive he was given.

[sek69]

Yeah, Bill DeMott was a fall guy for merely executing the directive he was given.

 

 

I do think he went above and beyond what he was asked to do. Was he asked to be rough with the newbies? I'm sure he was. I doubt there was any directives to do naked wrestling though.

[Luchaundead]

 

Yeah, Bill DeMott was a fall guy for merely executing the directive he was given.

 

 

I do think he went above and beyond what he was asked to do. Was he asked to be rough with the newbies? I'm sure he was. I doubt there was any directives to do naked wrestling though.

 

 

Imagine the job description including his "Jelly Donut drill"

[Parties]

For what it's worth, from the Mailbag segment of today's WOR:

BRYAN: "This person says, 'Dave, a few months back you said I was way off with my thoughts on HHH intentionally overselling Roman Reigns' chairshots, but now with him playing to the crowd multiple times during segments with Reigns, is it fair to say HHH may be partially trying to sabotage him?"

DAVE: "Um... I don't think he's trying to sabotage him. I think he's trying to get himself over."

BRYAN: "Yeah, here's the problem with that theory. Why would HHH want to sabotage Roman Reigns and ensure that when he goes out there in the main event of Wrestlemania, no one cares?"

DAVE: "Exactly."

BRYAN: "Doesn't make any sense."

DAVE: "Plus, it's his company. And they've already made the call. Why would you want to sabotage a guy when you were one of the people that made that call? I mean, it isn't as if Vince McMahon made the call for um, for Roman Reigns and HHH was out there going, 'Oh no, we should do Dean Ambrose.' They were in agreement. Everyone was in agreement, that Roman Reigns, for years, that Roman Reigns was the guy. They all have the same mentality of what the top guy needs to be, and he's what they think he needs to be. So no, if anything, you know... I get how people would watch that thing from last week and think that, but it's more him trying to get himself over, as opposed to um, him trying to bury Roman Reigns. I never thought it was that. HHH wants to get himself over, and at the same time, you know, I can see, you're in the main event of Wrestlemania, uh, you need to get yourself over, to a degree. But he didn't need to do what he did. Like the crotch chop. I mean, the circumstances did dictate that he did need to beat him up and smash his face in. That was because they needed to cover for the nasal surgery."

[kjh]

It's an odd argument by Dave. Trying to get cheers when you are supposed to be the villain and your opponent is supposed to be the hero is by definition sabotage if you take the meaning to be "any undermining of a cause". Here the cause is to make Roman Reigns the next Hogan/Austin/Cena. How does Triple H's actions help that cause? There's trying to get yourself over, then there's trying to get yourself over at the detriment of your opponent. Clearly this veered into the latter category. It may not be an outright burial, but shows that Hunter's priorities are not where they need to be.

[Slasher]

I took it to mean that he thinks that they know they are trying to push Reigns but that Triple H has prioritized getting himself over and the expense for that push (making Reigns look bad for now) is an acceptable price to pay. If you wanna get crazy illogical about it, it could be argued that Triple H is getting himself over to a higher level so it means something impressive when Reigns does beat him. It's the basis of Mick Foley dusting off the Cactus Jack gimmick which is associated with barbarism, to get Triple H over as a guy who could hang with a psychopathic brawler. I don't think its effective in this case obviously, but wouldn't be surprised if that is the internal reasoning for all this.

[sek69]

So even if you accept at face value that Hunter is trying to get himself over to make it a bigger deal when Roman beats him, it's still worth pointing out that he only seems to do it against Reigns. I don't recall him do anything to get face pops when he was beating up Ambrose.

[JerryvonKramer]

I tell you they are trying to do this weird thing where HHH is the babyface "for the hardcores" and Reigns is the babyface for the kids and women.

 

It is hideous but that is what they are going for.

[sek69]

I tell you they are trying to do this weird thing where HHH is the babyface "for the hardcores" and Reigns is the babyface for the kids and women.

 

It is hideous but that is what they are going for.

 

They've already done it. He's the evil heel authority figure on Raw and he's lovable ol' Dad on NXT.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I tell you they are trying to do this weird thing where HHH is the babyface "for the hardcores" and Reigns is the babyface for the kids and women.

 

It is hideous but that is what they are going for.

They've already done it. He's the evil heel authority figure on Raw and he's lovable ol' Dad on NXT.

 

I mean it's not entirely without precedent. Flair was face in the Carolinas while he was heel everywhere else.

 

There is the Bret and Austin fued, which worked well.

 

I think the problem with this is that it is just so horribly handled. They don't seem to realise that Triple H doing the DX chops just totally buries Roman, no matter who the audience is. This may well be one of the worst booked main event feuds in the history of the WWE. I can't really think of a worse one.

[Rah]

That's pretty much the booking pattern for Cena since Punk came along. He goes a bit more to bat on the heel side when he's opposite a universally cherished babyface like Bryan, though. I wouldn't be surprised if they go with the same formula for Reigns. The casuals love him, while his programmed opponent gets a bit of an easier ride to getting over if there's some hope he can dethrone the "chosen one".

[Jingus]

I don't see how what Trips is doing now is any different from his usual methods. He almost always makes himself look overwhelmingly strong, to the point where we're supposed to believe him going 50-50 with Brock or Taker in the laughable idea that Hunter is the same level of badass as those characters. It's stupid and selfish and especially damaging to the booking whenever he's a heel, but that's just what HHH does in the 21st century. Even during his one genuine attempt to permanently build a new superstar, the feud with Batista, he still took the majority of the offense in those matches, brawls, and beatdowns with Big Dave spending more time down and selling than not.

[Luchaundead]

I don't see how what Trips is doing now is any different from his usual methods. He almost always makes himself look overwhelmingly strong, to the point where we're supposed to believe him going 50-50 with Brock or Taker in the laughable idea that Hunter is the same level of badass as those characters. It's stupid and selfish and especially damaging to the booking whenever he's a heel, but that's just what HHH does in the 21st century. Even during his one genuine attempt to permanently build a new superstar, the feud with Batista, he still took the majority of the offense in those matches, brawls, and beatdowns with Big Dave spending more time down and selling than not.

 

I'm trying to understand if this is an argument for or against Dylan's theory because as I understand it this is essentially what Dylan is saying as well. That being HHH is intentionally making Reigns look bad to make himself look better both on screen and backstage leaving himself in the predominate position to personally anoint all future "Superstars" and take over control of the company.

 

Here's a counterpoint that more clearly argues against Dylan or a guess a "What if". Is it completely out of the question that Vince is actually involved in this. It's not a secret coup but a plan to make wall street more comfortable with the idea of HHH taking over the company. Vince already gives HHH his worked NXT "conference calls" which seem to clearly be training wheels for when he has to be on the real investor calls. Is it really so out of question that Vince would sacrifice Roman and his own credibility on the way out to help with a smooth transition to his next in line.

[Slasher]

I don't see how what Trips is doing now is any different from his usual methods. He almost always makes himself look overwhelmingly strong, to the point where we're supposed to believe him going 50-50 with Brock or Taker in the laughable idea that Hunter is the same level of badass as those characters. It's stupid and selfish and especially damaging to the booking whenever he's a heel, but that's just what HHH does in the 21st century. Even during his one genuine attempt to permanently build a new superstar, the feud with Batista, he still took the majority of the offense in those matches, brawls, and beatdowns with Big Dave spending more time down and selling than not.

Remember that time when Triple H tried to argue that Kurt Angle wasn't credible enough for people to buy him losing to? It was so absurd Pat Patterson piped up that Kurt was a freakin' gold medalist in wrestling for christ's sake. Judging by how their careers have gone before Angle left, it would seem like Triple H won that argument. So yeah of course he sees himself as badassed as Brock and Taker are.

[sek69]

What makes the Roman deal slightly different is that now instead of being a delusional and or insecure rassler trying to keep his spot, he's office now (both kayfabe and real life) so those tactics come off even worse now.

 

 

It's funny to see Dave argue "well they had to do the beatdown to cover for Roman's surgery", which is kind of beside the point since him needing surgery didn't mean Hunter had to pound his head to the table in a cadence the crowd to chant along to or do crotch chops.

 

No one denies Hunter's smart business wise, are we really supposed to believe he doesn't know what he's doing here?

[kjh]

I tell you they are trying to do this weird thing where HHH is the babyface "for the hardcores" and Reigns is the babyface for the kids and women.

 

It is hideous but that is what they are going for.

 

Definitely. It's what they did in 2006 with Cena in Reigns' current position. Cena was just much better equipped and better established to handle the blowback. Plus, the company a decade ago at least had some strong heels being groomed for Cena to work with after the Triple H program was over.