Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 15:06:46 GMT
From like 2000-2003, WWE had both Rock and Austin as their top two guys, but both "retired" in 2003. John Cena didn't officially take over until he won the title in 2005. So who was the face of the company between those times?
|
|
|
|
Post by Carlos_Tigro on May 3, 2017 15:21:48 GMT
From like 2000-2003, WWE had both Rock and Austin as their top two guys, but both "retired" in 2003. John Cena didn't officially take over until he won the title in 2005. So who was the face of the company between those times? I think Lesnar was in the WWE between 2003 and half of 2004 so he was one of the top guys. Goldberg was also there almost entire 2003. But I think Triple H was the top guy 2003-2005 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 6:09:24 GMT
Yeah I think you HAVE to say it was HHH. That was in the period of time when HHH would open RAW with 30 minute segments and just truly dominate screen time. A lot of people hated WWE at that time because of how prominent HHH was featured. To me he wasn't the top guy because he deserved it, he was simply the top guy because he was what was left.
|
|
kaasa
Sophomore
@kaasa
Posts: 283
Likes: 72
 
|
Post by kaasa on May 4, 2017 6:16:15 GMT
Yeah I think you HAVE to say it was HHH. That was in the period of time when HHH would open RAW with 30 minute segments and just truly dominate screen time. A lot of people hated WWE at that time because of how prominent HHH was featured. To me he wasn't the top guy because he deserved it, he was simply the top guy because he was what was left. Triple H was already doing that stuff in the Attitude Era though. And whether or not he was in his spot due to nepotism doesn't mean that he didn't deserve it. I can't think of anybody else who could have carried RAW the way Triple H did during that time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 6:45:44 GMT
Yeah I think you HAVE to say it was HHH. That was in the period of time when HHH would open RAW with 30 minute segments and just truly dominate screen time. A lot of people hated WWE at that time because of how prominent HHH was featured. To me he wasn't the top guy because he deserved it, he was simply the top guy because he was what was left. Triple H was already doing that stuff in the Attitude Era though. And whether or not he was in his spot due to nepotism doesn't mean that he didn't deserve it. I can't think of anybody else who could have carried RAW the way Triple H did during that time. Not really though, Austin and McMahon always dominated the TV time during the Attitude Era. It was the HHH Evolution days where you'd really get sick of him starting every single RAW with the same bullshit promo for 30 minutes. He was simply one of the only top guys left and it's why he carried the load. You can say he deserved it for his consistency but does anybody outside of the WWE programing really hold him in that high regard? In my eyes the face of WWE at that time should of been Kurt Angle. But since he was on Smackdown instead of RAW during this time he wasn't going to be seen as that. |
|
kaasa
Sophomore
@kaasa
Posts: 283
Likes: 72
|
Post by kaasa on May 4, 2017 8:04:13 GMT
Kurt Angle was never even the top guy on SmackDown. Nor should he have been, as he had drug and injury problems. Outside of his first Title run the rest of his reigns were forgettable and pretty transitional. Kurt was never truly treated as an A+ player until he became a big fish in a small pond.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 11:26:06 GMT
Kurt Angle was never even the top guy on SmackDown. Nor should he have been, as he had drug and injury problems. Outside of his first Title run the rest of his reigns were forgettable and pretty transitional. Kurt was never truly treated as an A+ player until he became a big fish in a small pond. Kurt Angle will forever and always be held in a higher regard than HHH. Kurt Angle was just flat out better than HHH at everything, charisma, in ring ability, mic skills. It just furthers my point. HHH was the guy because everybody else left. He was put in that situation because he was "safe". Kurt Angle was far better and he returned in this time frame from his injury concerns within 2 months because of how determined he was to be great. Did they treat him as the top guy? No. Should he have been over HHH? Yes is my point. It's undeniable that HHH was the top guy from 03-05. I have stated that. I however don't think that he was as deserving of it outside of people leaving and him simply being left to hold the belt. It wasn't so much that he deserved it as it was that he's just what was left and he was the "safe" choice. HHH has never been anything THAT special. |
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on May 5, 2017 2:13:34 GMT
HHH from 2002-05 was similar to Bret Hart from 1993-97. Most of the time be had the belt they were trying to put it on someone else. But, like Hart, he was the reliable default choice that they could go back to every time one of the guys given a chance to establish themselves either failed or proved unreliable. Both guys ultimately benefited from being reliable headliners in a star vaccuum.
|
|
jaynadiah
Freshman
@jaynadiah
Posts: 75
Likes: 22
|
Post by jaynadiah on May 10, 2017 19:17:22 GMT
Thought it was Lesnar around that time no? I certainly remember him on the cover of the best wrestling game ever 'Here comes the pain' in 2002. I think it was 2002.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 10, 2017 23:02:22 GMT
HHH from 2002-05 was similar to Bret Hart from 1993-97. Most of the time be had the belt they were trying to put it on someone else. But, like Hart, he was the reliable default choice that they could go back to every time one of the guys given a chance to establish themselves either failed or proved unreliable. Both guys ultimately benefited from being reliable headliners in a star vaccuum. This, exactly. It was HHH, but he was (ironically) the DEFINITION of a "B+ player" during this time. |
|
kaasa
Sophomore
@kaasa
Posts: 283
Likes: 72
|
Post by kaasa on May 11, 2017 10:00:45 GMT
HHH from 2002-05 was similar to Bret Hart from 1993-97. Most of the time be had the belt they were trying to put it on someone else. But, like Hart, he was the reliable default choice that they could go back to every time one of the guys given a chance to establish themselves either failed or proved unreliable. Both guys ultimately benefited from being reliable headliners in a star vaccuum. This, exactly. It was HHH, but he was (ironically) the DEFINITION of a "B+ player" during this time. The major difference being Triple H was a HEEL. The classic traditional story is the underdog, white hot babyface going after the heel and their Championship. Triple H was by no coincidence his generations Ric Flair. There's no B+ when it come to these two. They were the A players at the top of their game. The year 2000 ring a bell? Triple H was objectively Superstar of the year over The Rock. The Game took the ball and ran with it when Shawn Michaels dropped it, and he did the same thing when Steve Austin dropped the ball. Just remember, the original plan for WrestleMania X8 was for Austin to finally drop the Title to Triple H. After the year 2000 there was no playing second fiddle to the Super Austin bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on May 13, 2017 20:42:07 GMT
And not having Austin vs Triple H for the belt at WM X8 remains a poor decision for me. However it's in many ways a false equivalency. Flair was a travelling champion who would go to various territories to wrestle the top star. It made sense to put the belt on a heel. He also had numerous turns in there and was always cheered in certain locales. He was the babyface at Starrcade 83 and a bit of a tweener at 84 and was cheered over babyface Koloff at 86. His fued with Steamboat started off as face vs face. I'm something of a mark for Flair and am enjoying watching the old JCP shows on WWE Network but, Like Hart and Triple H he was a b-level draw, as was shown when he went to the WWF in 1991 and drew b level business working house shows with Hulk Hogan.
Triple H was given a massive pysh as a babyface in 2002, huge return, rumble win, title victory at WrestleMania in the main event, but he wasn't The Guy, quickly lost the belt, had a couple of sub par PPV matches with Jericho and then Taker, and then he was heel again having awful matches with everyone apart from HBK for about 18 months until Benoit cane into the picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 3:42:56 GMT
This, exactly. It was HHH, but he was (ironically) the DEFINITION of a "B+ player" during this time. The major difference being Triple H was a HEEL. The classic traditional story is the underdog, white hot babyface going after the heel and their Championship. Triple H was by no coincidence his generations Ric Flair. There's no B+ when it come to these two. They were the A players at the top of their game. The year 2000 ring a bell? Triple H was objectively Superstar of the year over The Rock. The Game took the ball and ran with it when Shawn Michaels dropped it, and he did the same thing when Steve Austin dropped the ball. Just remember, the original plan for WrestleMania X8 was for Austin to finally drop the Title to Triple H. After the year 2000 there was no playing second fiddle to the Super Austin bullshit. lol trips this generations ric flair. ohhhhhhhhhhhh. my sides. ouch................  |
|
