Triple H behind the push for Bruno Sanmartino to go into WWE HOF

[TrueEpic08]

No one is the locker room was drawing like Taker/HHH, that isn't burying the locker room it's facts.

"Burial/burying" gets used way too loosely around here imo I'm starting to think dudes don't even know what it means.

1. You have anything to back up that statement in the 2000s-2010s? Because I KNOW H's Raw ratings from 2002-2005 weren't that good at all.

2. Even if this IS true, consider 2 things: 1. We're in the post-Benoit era, and the WHOLE of wrestling is in a rut. Of course they're not going to draw on the level of the biggest boom period in the history of North American wrestling. 2. Why the fukk should we even watch when you have a company have 2 wrestlers go out and basically say "We're the last of the old school, the TRUE school. Everyone else sucks, we're all that matters," then trot out said new schoolers and expect them to draw like that. As a company, YOU JUST SAID that they're lesser stars! That's the exact opposite strategy to help someone draw.

Only to a certain extent is drawing ability an individual thing, which is something that the Kliq fans on the board should know very well. They were successful because they put themselves in a position to be featured and pushed (Yeah, I'm generally not a fan of them, and their status in history as wrestlers is VASTLY overrated at times, but they were damn smart. You can't deny this). Cena wouldn't be in his current position unless he was put in a position to succeed, despite his charisma (He's corny, but he DOES have charisma). Same with CM Punk, Randy Orton, Batista and whomever else you can name. As a matter of fact, this exact point was made in the Punk/Bryan/AJ thread.

I mean, it's basic booking. If you're blatantly pointing out the weaknesses of the people that you are supposed to rely on specifically to tear them down on some level, then that's a burial. Period. Whether it be on an individual or mass level. And Triple H is the undisputed MASTER of this.

 

[krackdagawd]

1. You have anything to back up that statement in the 2000s-2010s? Because I KNOW H's Raw ratings from 2002-2005 weren't that good at all.
.

Taker/HHH were consistently the highest rated segments leading up to Mania.

 

[Henzo]

1. You have anything to back up that statement in the 2000s-2010s? Because I KNOW H's Raw ratings from 2002-2005 weren't that good at all. Ratings actually gradually went up from 2002-2005

2. Even if this IS true, consider 2 things: 1. We're in the post-Benoit era, and the WHOLE of wrestling is in a rut. Of course they're not going to draw on the level of the biggest boom period in the history of North American wrestling. 2. Why the fukk should we even watch when you have a company have 2 wrestlers go out and basically say "We're the last of the old school, the TRUE school. Everyone else sucks, we're all that matters," then trot out said new schoolers and expect them to draw like that. As a company, YOU JUST SAID that they're lesser stars! That's the exact opposite strategy to help someone draw. This is regurgitating Meltzer carebear talk. I didn't see anything false in what H/Taker said in that promo

Only to a certain extent is drawing ability an individual thing, which is something that the Kliq fans on the board should know very well. They were successful because they put themselves in a position to be featured and pushed (Yeah, I'm generally not a fan of them, and their status in history as wrestlers is VASTLY overrated at times, but they were damn smart. You can't deny this). Cena wouldn't be in his current position unless he was put in a position to succeed, despite his charisma (He's corny, but he DOES have charisma). Same with CM Punk, Randy Orton, Batista and whomever else you can name. As a matter of fact, this exact point was made in the Punk/Bryan/AJ thread. What is your point here?

I mean, it's basic booking. If you're blatantly pointing out the weaknesses of the people that you are supposed to rely on specifically to tear them down on some level, then that's a burial. Period. Whether it be on an individual or mass level. And Triple H is the undisputed MASTER of this. Maybe the guys should shower/weights/clue and Triple H won't have to state facts like this.

 

[TrueEpic08]

So let me get this straight as far as wwe era's goes centrepieces were Bruno, then Andre, then Hogan, then Bret/HBK, Austin/Rock. Then it was Brock then it switched to Batista/Cena now just Cena right?

Andre was more of a special attraction than anything. The guy after Bruno was supposed to be Backlund, if I'm not mistaken, but it didn't exactly fully take, and he got increasingly Cena-esque backlash for being such a goody-two-shoes (funny how WWE never learns from mistakes), which led to Iron Sheik getting the belt, then Hogan winning it from him.

As for post-Attitude, they were building Lesnar for it, then they split the shows, which led to an agglomeration of top stars, rather than any one guy. RAW was supposed to be the flagship, and Triple H/Evolution was supposed to be THE centerpiece there, but SmackDown was getting more eyeballs (Network TV and all) and average ratings dropped like half a point when H became the centerpiece (still more than SmackDown's Nielsens, but not the vindicating metrics that H probably wanted there). SmackDown had Lesnar as the guy, and you could add Angle, Guerrero and Undertaker as additional centerpieces. Much more of an ensemble than RAW.

Batista was actually supposed to be the next guy (being Hunter's project after Orton was given a piece of shyt to run with), but they decided to switch Cena over to the flagship, where he's been ever since. (Interesting fact: When Cena went to RAW, average ratings stayed stable throughout 05, even through the beginning of his backlash. When Batista went to SmackDown, average ratings for the rest of 05 dropped like three tenths of a point. Maybe not relevant, but just interesting to note).

 

[TrueEpic08]

Taker/HHH were consistently the highest rated segments leading up to Mania.

Actually, I think you're right about that. Doesn't make what I wrote about 02-05, and especially the rest of that post any less true, though. In fact, you could even call that a symptom of the burials.

Ratings actually gradually went up from 2002-2005

Almost right, actually. 2004 had a mild drop. Unlike you, I can concede a point.

Cena had higher averages than any of that in 2006, though. And 02 pre-Hunter kills anything he did in the years afterward, which was my point to begin with.

This is regurgitating Meltzer carebear talk. I didn't see anything false in what H/Taker said in that promo

What is your point here?

What do you think my point is? Yeah, Shawn and Hunter are talented, but they had to be pushed and put in a position to succeed. When you use alder stars to tear them down, then basically all you create is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stars will be lesser because they are perceived as lesser.

And if you act like being in the post-Benoit era doesn't have any effect on anything, you're truly more myopic than I thought.

The last statement is so stupid that it doesn't deserve a response.

 

[Henzo]

Who are the stars that were lesser as a result of that promo?

Cena main evented, Punk main evented, Bryan was the champ and is getting the push of a lifetime for a guy his size and time in the company. No other full-timer is a star, and I wouldn't even put Bryan in that category just yet.

Even still, it's not like you watch Raw and see Bryan and Punk do something good and think "boy I like these guys but HHH said they weren't as good as him."

 

[krackdagawd]

Actually, I think you're right about that. Doesn't make what I wrote about 02-05, and especially the rest of that post any less true, though. In fact, you could even call that a symptom of the burials.

Oh so when he didn't draw it's because he buried everyone else but when he does draw it's because he buried everyone else.

Cool.

Him and Taker having a great match last year and building on that storyline had nothing to do with it.

All that other stuff you are writing about doesn't have anything to do with this thread it was originally about the great stuff he has done as an executive.

Dudes need to get over shyt that happened a decade + ago, you would think some of you guys got personally buried by HHH.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Oh so when he didn't draw it's because he buried everyone else but when he does draw it's because he buried everyone else.

Cool.

Him and Taker having a great match last year and building on that storyline had nothing to do with it.

All that other stuff you are writing about doesn't have anything to do with this thread it was originally about the great stuff he has done as an executive.

Dudes need to get over shyt that happened a decade + ago, you would think some of you guys got personally buried by HHH.

I never said anything about the bolded, other than a point that I made that hasn't really been responded to all that much.

1. Yeah, they had a hyped match which contributed to its success in the ratings (personally, I wasn't much of a fan of either of their matches, and I PROMISE it isn't because H was in it or because he's a Kliq member. It just didn't connect with me in the way that Michaels/Taker I, a stone cold classic, or Michaels/Taker II did. The first of the series had a great, hell, a fantastic first half, a drawn out second half, and a horrendous finish. The second of the trilogy was barely a wrestling match), but that doesn't mean that not trying to eliminate the nostalgia filter by not burying (or ribbing on the square, or commenting on shyt irrelevant to the feud, or whatever you want to call it) had nothing to do with it. You have to make your newly built stars seem like they're on or beyond the level of the ones that you're supposedly phasing out, and H never does that. They're both factors. Weigh whichever one however you would like.

2. Blame somebody else for that. (OK, the 02-05 thing is my fault. Whatever) I pretty much already said that I liked H in his front office role.

I'm done with it though. I made my point :shake:.

 

[krackdagawd]

You have to make your newly built stars seem like they're on or beyond the level of the ones that you're supposedly phasing out

According to who? Dirt sheet guys that never ran a wrestling organization let alone made money in one?

What if the stars were not ready?

Who on the roster do you think was ready for that push at the time?

Bryan was still developing at the time and the feud between Punk and Jericho was meh.(the match was good though)

So like I said earlier who was buried during the Taker/HHH stuff. You can't give me an answer because it's no one.

If you don't like him cool doesn't bother me at all but dude has been great in this role as an executive/part time wrestler.

 

[TrueEpic08]

According to who? Dirt sheet guys that never ran a wrestling organization let alone made money in one?

What if the stars were not ready?

Who on the roster do you think was ready for that push at the time?

Bryan was still developing at the time and the feud between Punk and Jericho was meh.(the match was good though)

So like I said earlier who was buried during the Taker/HHH stuff. You can't give me an answer because it's no one.

If you don't like him cool doesn't bother me at all but dude has been great in this role as an executive/part time wrestler.

I think I answered that question already: He buried everyone who came up after the Attitude era by essentially saying that His and Taker's generation was the only one that mattered. If that's not a burial to you, just say so. That's fine. I just thought it was really unnecessary.

And wrestling promotions have ALWAYS used older stars to build younger ones. That's all I'm saying with that. It's not punditry, I'm actually looking at real events (Austin, Misawa, Brock, Punk, Sting, Steamboat, etc. got their pushes that way. It's tried and true. Not the ONLY way, but tried and true). And if they're not ready, well shyt, you miss some then. It happens. I just think that the reward of creating a deeper set of stars outweighs the risk of them not being ready as long as you're judicious about it).

And for the millionth time in this thread: I'm fine with Hunter as an executive. I'm not the histrionic type like some on this board. He's done good shyt, especially with recently reorganizing developmental. I just want him to retire completely from the ring, as I think he does more harm than good at this point. He's much better focusing on running WWE at this point. That's all.

(I thought I said I was done with this...)

 

[krackdagawd]

Oh so his wrestling promo is what you consider a burial?

It's just selling the match man, do you honestly feel like the kids and woman in the crowd are like "fukk the rest of the roster, they suck" because of a promo selling a match, c'mon.

When CM Punk yells "best in the world" is he burying the whole roster?

He yelled it when it didn't have the title as well so was that burying the champion at the time?

We clearly have different ideas of what a burial is.

HHH/Booker T was a burial.

You like him as an exec cool, that's what this thread was about.

This other stuff is just the IWC doing what the IWC does.

 

[DANJ!]

"Burial/burying" gets used way too loosely around here imo I'm starting to think dudes don't even know what it means.

I think that throughout the IWC, the term "burying" has been changed completely from what it actually means.

I think that HHH/Taker promo shyt got taken waaaay outta proportion. Granted HHH has verbally devalued some people before, but I feel like ONLY because it's HHH saying it do people get all in an uproar. If it was Rock, Austin, or hell, even D-Lo Brown saying it, nobody would care half as much. Saying that they're the last two of an era that's gone just sells the match and makes it seem like something people have to see.

It's no different than (as pointed out earlier) how CM Punk and Jericho were having their feud over who's the real Best In The World at the same time. Looking at that analytically would make it seem like they're the two best and that their match is what's important... so why watch everyone else?

If you wanna go back further than that, how about Rock and Hogan, the match that Rock said was the match that would transcend the WWF and determine once and for all who's the best ever? If you looked at that promo analytically, it would suggest "fukk anyone else currently, fukk anyone else in the past, this match is THE one that matters because it's between the only two that truly matter and no one else does". Of course he didn't mean it like that, but it sold the match.

A burial is when someone goes from being pushed to being made to look inferior to damn near everyone... some of the people HHH has been viewed as "burying" haven't been buried at all. You think CM Punk, WWE champion of the last 8 months, has been buried?

 

[That_One]

Okay. From watching interviews former wrestlers made it seem like Andre was the man internationally and Hogan was his tag a long until Hogan won the belt.

 

[Notorioushnic]

But you can take that "If you ran the company" and jump off a bridge with it, preferably one suspended above an interstate.

YOU DON'T RUN THE COMPANY

You're just a dude posting on the internet about wrestling, so don't talk from a perspective that you`ll never be in.

I know exactly what sells, but I also could care less. Twilight sells. Justin Bieber sells. 50 Shades of Grey sells.

A bunch of trash sells to idiots, so when I say the product is better, and you come back with "The shytty product drew more" I can't help but look at you as one of three things.

A) A hoe
B) A slut
C) A bytch

This is getting disrespectful

 

[R=G]

I think that throughout the IWC, the term "burying" has been changed completely from what it actually means.

I think that HHH/Taker promo shyt got taken waaaay outta proportion. Granted HHH has verbally devalued some people before, but I feel like ONLY because it's HHH saying it do people get all in an uproar. If it was Rock, Austin, or hell, even D-Lo Brown saying it, nobody would care half as much. Saying that they're the last two of an era that's gone just sells the match and makes it seem like something people have to see.

It's no different than (as pointed out earlier) how CM Punk and Jericho were having their feud over who's the real Best In The World at the same time. Looking at that analytically would make it seem like they're the two best and that their match is what's important... so why watch everyone else?

If you wanna go back further than that, how about Rock and Hogan, the match that Rock said was the match that would transcend the WWF and determine once and for all who's the best ever? If you looked at that promo analytically, it would suggest "fukk anyone else currently, fukk anyone else in the past, this match is THE one that matters because it's between the only two that truly matter and no one else does". Of course he didn't mean it like that, but it sold the match.

A burial is when someone goes from being pushed to being made to look inferior to damn near everyone... some of the people HHH has been viewed as "burying" haven't been buried at all. You think CM Punk, WWE champion of the last 8 months, has been buried?

When Rock said who was the greatest ever during the Hogan build, who was gonna argue since it was drawing the event and carried the whole industry as a whole? It was a true statement and no one could argue since it outdrew EVERYTHING BY FAR evidenced by their interaction outpopping Austin and the rest of the NWO every single week. Taker vs Taker didn't draw WM 28 or 27. It was just a deal that got some high rated segments but they never meant anything to the bottom line because they always needed a gimmick to add to their matches for Mania to get people hooked. That's why it was loaded with all of that extra shyt they usually save for middle of the year PPVs that needed it.

CM Punk hasn't been buried but he damn sure has lost considerable momentum since that Cripple H and Nash fiasco.