This has just come up on another forum, and I'd love to know what you think of it.

 

- When HHH Pedigreed Booker T, Booker lay on the mat for 23 seconds before HHH went to pin him. During this time, he rolled onto his back. So why didn't he have the strength to kick out?

 

In the Austin/Rock match, Rock hit two Rock Bottoms, and covered immediately, but Austin still kicked out.

 

Choose one of the following options:

 

- HHH was scheduled to win the match with one Pedigree, and deliberately delayed the pin to make himself look good and Booker look bad

 

- Booker didn't hear HHH's instruction to kick out, because he was too injured after the Pedigree

 

- That was the end of the allotted time for the match

 

I'd love to know your opinion :)

50p paid to the first person that makes the anti-HHH comment :roll ................ c'mon, the threads asking for it!

Originally posted by Cactus Jack

50p paid to the first person that makes the anti-HHH comment :roll ................ c'mon, the threads asking for it!

 

Hit the nail on the head there Cactus

Originally posted by Cactus Jack

50p paid to the first person that makes the anti-HHH comment :roll ................ c'mon, the threads asking for it!

 

You're absolutely right there Cactus. I voted for 'other', that being... THAT WAS HOW THEY BOOKED THE END OF THE BLOODY MATCH! All of this 'Triple H booked it to make Booker T look bad deliberately' is getting really tedious and (and I can't overstress this point enough) BORING. So that was how the match finished, big deal. Doesn't the fact that Triple H took so long to cover Booker T make it look like Triple H was spent as well? I didn't like the finish to the match either, but only because it was so random rather than because someone else was made to look bad, the thought didn't even cross my mind at the time. If Triple H really wanted to make Booker T look weak with his influence, wouldn't it have been more of a squash match? People really need to let go of this one, it wouldn't matter what Triple H did, it's at the stage where somehow it is his fault whenever he wins or gets anything to his advantage.

 

The more derisory stuff I read about him, the more I am convinced to like him, and to defend him. A lot of what you read on the internet is all bullshit anyway, bitching about him no matter what happens. OK, so he doesn't job as much as he should, but even that is taken out of hand. When The Rock jobbed to the Hurricane with Austin's interference, no-one expected him to job and he was praised for it. Then suddenly when Triple H has a match with Hurricane and doesn't job, large sections of the internet wrestling community call him worse than shit. He's the Raw champion, not one of their favourites like Booker T. Get over it.

while HHH getting blamed may be a bit tedious and boring...he does (seemingly) deserve some of it

 

so yeah it was to make HHH look good, i mean come on yeah he can lay there for a bit but 23 secs- that's like near eternity.

the bookers are looking to pleae Vince and to a lesser extent HHH and so they make him look like some god damn hero by just managing to beat Booker T. he's been the raw champ for bloody ages and lets not forget to get ready for the kliq's version of "pass the parcel" with the RAW title.

 

 

now where's my 50p

Edited May 13, 200321 yr by Seabass

I dont think HHH would be that dumb to just squash one of Raw's top faces, he's smarter than that, either way I'm sure he just took however long, after some talks with Vinnie and Steph. Probably put a little in his favour, as a little goes a long way.

When I seen the match I didn't notice anything about Trippers taking a long time to pin. I think both men were genuinely tired and in pain at the end of the match, explaining the slow pinfall, but I still didn't notice Triple H taking that long to pin.

Originally posted by Seabass

now where's my 50p

 

Errr, it was............................it was Pab's idea! Yeah, Pab's idea! He told me to inform the winner to contact him through MSN to collect there winnings ;)

I honestly don't see all this "Bookers making him look good to please Vince" malarky. If HHH is not drawing, why would Vince risk his business to *please* Steph? She's not that scary!

 

Oh yeah, HHH is banging the bosses daughter :roll

 

I'm sorry, but that argument is too original.

I'm sure Triple H didn't intend to make Booker T bad. But at the end of the day that isn't really a factor - the finish DID make him look bad regardless of whether anyone wanted him to look bad, which I seriously doubt anyway.

 

I think it was the finish of the match, just Triple H didn't cover him very quickly. I don't particularly think anyone was at fault, just Booker came out looking badly and well, Triple H didn't.

HHH looks awful, doesn't draw, and is boring, yet still goes over the top faces, cleanly I may add, with those faces looking bad while he looks.. well, I wouldn't say good, cas he still comes out boring, awful, and non-drawing. But he comes out better than the faces do.

 

Now, whether that happened because of HHH or not is a different story, but for the love of God, WHY IS BULLSH*T LIKE THAT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN?

 

Why is HHH 'allowed' to put over guys like Kevin Nash yet not deserving guys, guys who fans WANT to see, like Booker T or Jericho. Before WM, it was all "Oh, I think HHH will make Booker look good and put him over.". Yet did he? Hell no.

 

 

 

Personally, I think Droz hit it BEAUTIFULLY in his WWE column last week when he said "Why even think that HHH would lose". Even Droz knows it. HHH and WWE p*ss me off no end. Hide behind the "you don't know what happens backstage" crap all you want.. it's clear as day in the ring to see what's going on.

 

 

Get the F out? I got a better idea... Get the H out... HHH that is.

This new Clique Gestapo that seems to have appeared at TWO isn't to my liking.

 

Whenever HHH, HBK or Nash's name appear on the forums, we have 20 people jumping in and saying "Leave them alone! You've all made jokes about them, it's getting tired!". Well, I'm getting tired of the fact that criticising a wrestler on here is a hangable offence.

 

Not everyone is going to like HHH, HBK or Nash. If you find them enjoyable, super, great, continue to do so. Just don't forget that other people don't like these guys, and shouldn't be afraid to voice their opinions.

 

If we're not allowed to criticise wrestlers, why bother trying to have discussions?

 

Oh, and it's no accident that HHH went over at Wrestlemania, while making Booker T look like another schmoe who gets 5 minutes of offence in against the champ, then a Pedigree later it's all over. Vince and Steph see him through rose tinted glasses- he's family, he gets the benefit of the doubt. And because Booker isn't a close friend of HHH, he won't be allowed to have a one month title run before Hunter regains his belt.

 

Maybe everyone's not paranoid. Maybe there's not a smear campaign. Maybe the guy's just an arse?

Originally posted by Russ

This new Clique Gestapo that seems to have appeared at TWO isn't to my liking.

 

Whenever HHH, HBK or Nash's name appear on the forums, we have 20 people jumping in and saying "Leave them alone! You've all made jokes about them, it's getting tired!". Well, I'm getting tired of the fact that criticising a wrestler on here is a hangable offence.

 

Not everyone is going to like HHH, HBK or Nash. If you find them enjoyable, super, great, continue to do so. Just don't forget that other people don't like these guys, and shouldn't be afraid to voice their opinions.

 

If we're not allowed to criticise wrestlers, why bother trying to have discussions?

 

Point taken, but just as everyone should have the right to criticise them, other people should also be allowed to defend them. Whenever anyone does put in a word defending Triple H, Nash or HBK (I'm no Nash or HBK fan but I don't go overboard against them, maybe HBK but at least I don't think so) there is always someone else having further digs at them afterwards. It's not even so much the argument, it's the repetitiveness of it.

 

Opportunities to bash Triple H in particular are never missed on internet forums. Take what happened a while ago when a new member, Huntersledgehammer, tried to start a couple of threads about whether Triple H was a good champion and asking who he could feud with that would make for some good viewing. His threads were absolutely HAMMERED worse than Dunfermline Athletic on a Saturday afternoon at Ibrox. By virtue of starting a thread about Triple H, those who don't like him took yet another opportunity to spout bile and hatred about him when all they had to do was say whether or not he was a good champion (OK, that thread maybe invited that kind of response) or who he could feud with that would make good viewing (that thread certainly didn't warrant that kind of response).

 

If you did the same threads about Brock Lesnar, who has dominated more than Triple H since he came to the WWF/WWE, people would give reasoned responses about who Lesnar could feud with and whether or not he is a good champion. What are the chances of Lesnar jobbing cleanly in any match right now? I'll tell you, none whatsoever. Triple H, for all that I don't like this trait leading up to title defences at PPVs, at least jobs in tag matches, and can appear slightly vulnerable to other fans who don't scour the internet for 'backstage' information. Does everyone hate Brock Lesnar? No. So for people like Huntersledgehammer, that is to say anyone who is a Triple H fan, why should they be encouraged to come to wrestling forums at all? The answer: they have no reason to come here unless they want to spend their whole time trying to defend themselves and explaining why they like Triple H over and over again. Is it any coincidence that we haven't seen this guy come back since his threads that he started, which ought to have been perfectly innocuous, degenerated (no pun intended) into a 'who can slag off Triple H the most comprehensively' competition.

 

As an example, look at draVen's post. We have had enough posts from dra on the subject to know that what he has said there is how he genuinely feels about the subject. The same is true for a lot of other people. However, that is exactly my point. While dra was well within his rights to say what he did, that post embodies what I see every damn day on internet wrestling forums, constantly reiterated and beaten to death over and over and over again. You could say, 'if you don't like it then don't come here'. Why should any Triple H fan have to do that though? Just for being a Triple H fan? Not everyone who likes Triple H defends everything he does, it's just that they enjoy what he does on the shows, same as Jericho marks enjoy his contributions, or Booker T marks, or whatever. The difference is that if someone says that they enjoyed Booker T's match or something, that comment is left alone. If someone says they enjoy Triple H's match on a show, or his vignettes or whatever, it is virtually guaranteed that someone will reply slating Triple H's performance, although sometimes they may stop short of asking the guy who dared to post in praise of him 'how could you actually enjoy that crap?'. Sometimes though, the Triple H basher will actually come out and ask that question and at least be honest about it.

 

I'm not having a dig at dra, who is a better poster than I am anyway (as I've proved by writing another long-winded essay for you!), but I was just using that post as an example of everything that is one-sided about the internet wrestling community, where you can challenge someone for liking Triple H, but challenging the bashing brings out the 'you shouldn't be like that about it because we have a right to criticise' argument. We do have a right to criticise, but there's a fine line between criticising and looking for excuses to put the boot in, and I think that line is often crossed especially where Triple H, Nash, Goldberg and HBK are concerned. When the criticism keeps coming all the time, you can't expect there to be no backlash from those of us who have grown weary of it.

If there's nothing good to say about him, how can we say anything but bad things?

Originally posted by draVen

If there's nothing good to say about him, how can we say anything but bad things?

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that you should suddenly like him and praise everything he does, but just that the bad things need only be mentioned when the topics of the threads call for them to be mentioned. When a thread appears like 'Triple H + ??? = good feud?' and you don't like Triple H, then either don't post on it if you don't have anything positive to offer to that debate or simply say that you don't really like Triple H's work so you don't know who could carry him to a good feud, or something to that effect. That would be a negative comment but would be a reasonable point of view within the thread. That is the difference between criticism and putting the boot in along the lines of 'what's the point when Triple H will only use his backstage powers to put down whoever he faces unless it's Nash or HBK, he can't have a good feud with anyone and it's time he gave it up, he only gets to where he is by banging the boss's daughter'. It often starts as criticism but when someone then tries to say a good word after that, that is pounced on to go into the usual rant along the lines of what I've just described.

 

So far we've even had the Curt Hennig memorial thread with Triple H bashing in it, I can't think of any way to defend that. Little digs have been made within various random topics here and there in other places as well. This is what I mean by taking it too far.

 

If you only have bad things to say, then say them when a thread invites you to share those views, but just don't look for excuses to slag off the usual wrestlers who are repetitively villified on the internet wrestling community. I'm not defending Jef Hardy marks, but although he's not with the WWE anymore when was the last time you had a Jeff Hardy fan at TWO? Not since I've been here anyway, and I suspect the reasons for that are much the same as the reasons why there are few Triple H or Nash fans on wrestling forums, because they would get ripped to pieces in about five minutes simply because they like someone who the internet wrestling community doesn't deem worthy of their approval. If the thread asks for the negative comments, or someone replies to you sayin 'hey, how come you hate Triple H/Nash/HBK/Goldberg so much?', then say what you have to say. Otherwise, leave it alone.

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, and try not to start threads like 'Why I hate Triple H' if it's a new thread, that would also count as looking for an excuse to bitch about him.

Edited May 13, 200321 yr by MillionLiraMan

Cheap jokes or overused jokes about Trippers aint a valid point, and to start threads JUST so you can see people bitch about him is very pathetic.