What was Vince upto????

[THTRobtaylor]

Ok, so 2 of the 3 had MAJOR heat with Vince before WCW folded...

Scott Steiner - Go back to 1993, the Steiners were given a major tag push with a view to one end... Scott fighting Rick and taking a main event push thereafter... The brothers chose to stick together and refuse to fight each other... hence their swift release... Vince had no need for Rick, but he saw Scott as the main eventer even then... Scott, like Shane Douglas before him chose not to play ball...they then fought each other in WCW... gonna piss Vince off? Just a bit...

Kevin Nash... Vince took a WCW jobber, made him a bodyguard, made him IC/Tag champ and then World Champ within 18 months.... Nash CHOSE to go to WCW for the money after causing the biggest ruckus in WWE to that date at MSH... do you really think there would be no blowback when he came back? He lost to Trips just as Trips jobbed for him for a year...

Booker got shit on... it was wrong but it happened... the problem was Jericho and Benoit had already come over and was established.... had it been Booker who jumped in 1999/2000, I think he'd have had a whole different career and be one of the true legends of WWE... but..

[HBsam31]

Originally Posted by 2Sweet_4Life

look at it this way before wwe bought wcw hhh was 1 of the top 3 guys in the best era in the history of wrestling. he was better and bigger than booker,steiner,nash obviously goldberg was bigger and that is why he went over hhh. but of course it helped being vince's future son in law and a big ego but he should of beaten steiner,booker,nash so i think he was built right in 2003. he was the main guy who was an unstoppable heel.

I kinda like this take on it. I think people forget that HHH was one of the top three during the attitude era. HHH losing to Booker and Steiner at that time just wouldn't have sat well with me. Steiner was over, but at the same time very overrated. Booker was the main event of WCW during its darkest days. Not saying he wasn't good, but he didn't exactly carry the company to new heights by any means. Nash is the one that I thought would have got the best of HHH. They are friends, and Nash was WWE champ as Deisel so I could have seen him at least beating HHH once. Goldberg was huge and I agree with a previous poster that he had the Lesner match in mind from the beginning. All in all I think it played out as it should have and maybe some special treatment was given, but I don't think the intent was to finish the burying job of WCW.

[abhilash81]

Originally Posted by Burrows94

Triple H didn't run rampant through Scott Steiner, he was completely dominated by him the entire feud and got out with a cheap win at the end. Rewatch the feud and you will see how silly this thread is.

You really can't say that steiner ruled throughout the feud.yes he dominated triple h on a few raw episodes and triple h got a few ups too over him, courtsy Evolution and it was necessary to build Evolution as a threat to all the faces on raw. But if u go check the no way out match in its entirety, u'll see that triple h won that match preety easily.... Yes evolution interfered again but the interference didn't proved to be the match decider. Same thing happened at 'mania where triple h won without much resistance from booker.

[mdj2010]

HOW MANY TIMES???

How many times do we have to ask this quesiton before the answer sinks in. Did Vince favour his own guys over those who came in with the huge oinflux of talent after WCW was bought? Yes. Of course he did.

I think the WCW storyline showed that Vince had no long-term plans for the company and as such, was more than happy to use their roster to build his own stars, even if they didn;t really need it.

As Vince said when speaking of HHH going over Tazz in a WWE Champion vs ECW Champion Match - I'm sure he thought it was the right thing to do at the time, even if retrospectively it seems highly questionable in judgment. But, simply put, we have always known that loyalty and your word means a hell of a lot to Vince.

[Dmbfantomas]

Booker T, of those three, is the only one that should have beaten HHH. I have always hated that booking decision. Booker T going over would have been a major moment, and would have made total sense. Those other two? pfft, HHH went over because it was the best decision for business.

[Jonyboyuk2]

To be fair, the WCW brand was severely damaged by Bischoff, Russo etc. The booking of WCW was so poor it was beyond a joke after early 1999 onward. I feel that in those days, NWO was 3 years old and it just ruined the WCW brand. They had no idea where to go once that idea had burned out. When the WCW stars arrived in WWE to start the invasion angle, there was no stars amongst them apart from with Booker T. If Vince had shelled out money for Hogan, Nash, Hall and Goldberg at that time, then the invastion angle could have been used to push younger stars.

By the time 2003 rolled around, HHH had to go over the WCW stars (apart from beating Booker T at WM - that was a mistake).

[Smokeydogg7]

people love to talk shit about vince and what he did to ecw and wcw but what would you have done wcw tried to put him out of business and he won he had every right to make them look like shit but he really didnt booker has had a great run in wwe king of the ring world title and just recently given at spot in the match at mania goldberg beat the rock and hhh why would vince if he wanted to make wcw guys look like shit let one of wcw's top guys beat 2 of his top guys ya makes no sense

and if you think vince is out to make wcw guys look bad just remember someone named y2j great wwe career that has totally overshadowed anything he did in wcw

vince is about making money and at the time HHH was the guy on raw why would he lose to any of those guys their not in his league maybe booker but the rest lmao please