Booker T. vs HHH at WM XIX

Lowdown

Lowdown

Ooh baby I like it roooaaaaw!
I think this might've been discussed before, and if it has then my apologies.

Anyway I was talking to my boy earlier about this match. We all know how it ended up, with Trips getting the win despite the buildup of Booker being the favorite in most fans' eyes. Rumor has been that Booker was supposed to win the belt at WM, but the outcome was changed the day of the event. There has been speculation to why HHH won, usually the case being his ego. So I did a little research, though way late. Apparently the outcome was based on WWE signing Goldberg, and it wouldn't have been beneficial for a potential Booker vs. Goldberg title match. So this was all about Goldberg vs. HHH.

Now this is what puzzles me about all this, and correct me if I'm wrong. WM was on March 30 that year. Trip didn't meet Goldberg in the ring until the Elimination Chamber match at Summerslam. Goldberg had feuds with Rock and Jericho up to that point so he was involved in two programs prior to SS. Now isn't it possible that Booker could've won the strap and then dropped it back to Trip at Backlash or Judgement Day? Or an episode of Raw afterwards? Keep in mind that before the Goldberg/HHH feud Trip had it out briefly with Kevin Nash.

So what do you think? Could or should Book have won at WM 19?
 
Indeed he should have. If nothing else for a breath of fresh air in the title scene. Change the title back a month later or whatever, but give the fans that moment.
 
The sheer stupidity and backstage politicking is plain to see with that one. Booker hit that sweet Top rope 360 leg drop and should've connected, and won.

Booker was getting over as fuck in that one month build and you could've done a Booker Vs Goldberg match at SSlam. Imagine that, two top faces colliding at SSlam. They fucking did that 5 years later at SSlam.

To be honest I wanted RVD to have his revenge at Mania for his loss at Unforgiven 02. But Booker had the crowd behind him and absolutely should've won. Trips was an asshole back then. And I usually am the one defending him, but even I can't digest that one.
 
I never minded Triple H getting the win. Over the years some on this site (I think mostly Nate) have convinced me Booker should have won. I could see WWE wanting to keep the title on Triple H with the signing of Goldberg. Sure there was time to put the belt back on HHH between mania and the showdown with Goldberg but then the Goldberg match wouldn’t have meant as much. The point was for months no one was able to take the title off HHH and now he was about to meet his match in Goldberg. It would have taken a little away from that feud had Booker even briefly interrupted HHH’s reign. I’ve been persuaded to agree that Booker probably should have won the match but I’m not as bothered by the actual result as most.

As for the awkward finish I always thought it was because HHH got hurt from the Harlem Hangover. The replay looks pretty brutal with Booker coming down hard on HHH’s head. I think he was just trying to get his bearings after taking that hard hit.
 
I hear what you're saying Brain. But couldn't the same be said for Scott Steiner? I wonder at some of the possibilities of '02/03. RVD came close, and that stupid ass Katie Vick thing slightly put Kane over. Yet Trip dropped the belt to Shawn at Survivor Series. Look I know jack shit about the business, but I don't think it would've hurt to give Book his moment for a month. Folks knew Trip wasn't really dominant against opponents as he was an opportunist (though I remember him beating the shit out of Nash in the cell at Bad Blood). I still think the Goldberg/HHH match up would still have went off without a hitch if Book had won at WM.
 
With all the quick title changes over the past several years giving Booker a brief run wouldn't have taken too much away from the HHH vs. Goldberg showdown but I still prefer longer reigns. I'm old school that way. I'm guilty in believing the old IWC cliche that giving so many guys brief regins takes away from the prestige of the title. Title changes don't feel like such a big deal when that happens. Given the evolution (no pun intended) of the business and how long title reigns died at the turn of the century a brief Booker reign would have been acceptable. The storyline was certainly built for him to get the win.
 
Point taken. Even with a long reign, one of the arguments that have been made was Trip was literally "given" the title in the first place. Doesn't that hurt the prestige as well?
 
ProWrestlingFan said:
No. It was one of the best years for WWE.


As for the topic,

Why would they(WWE) let a WCW guy beat their company's top guy?

Doesn't that make WWE look weak?
Click to expand...

These don't all apply to title matches, but here's a brief list of former WCW talent that had beat Trips. Keep in mind Trips is WCW alumni himself:

Goldberg
Booker T.
Chris Jericho
Chris Benoit
Steve Austin
Undertaker
Big Show
 
ProWrestlingFan said:
No. It was one of the best years for WWE.

As for the topic,

Why would they(WWE) let a WCW guy beat their company's top guy?

Doesn't that make WWE look weak?
Click to expand...

No because WCW had been dead for two years. Booker T was a WWE guy. Besides, Goldberg evetually beat HHH and he was more associated with WCW than Booker was.

Lowdown said:
Point taken. Even with a long reign, one of the arguments that have been made was Trip was literally "given" the title in the first place. Doesn't that hurt the prestige as well?
Click to expand...

Maybe so but it was Triple H's nice long reign that gave the belt the prestige it needed after a weak introduction. I just wish he didn't drop it to Michaels for a month at the end of 2002.
 
ProWrestlingFan said:
No.Because HHH was the No.1 Contendor for the Undisputed Title.
Click to expand...

Um recall when Bischoff handed the re-instated heavyweight title to Trip in September of 02? There was no match involved whatsoever. Brock Lesnar was the undisputed champ and became exclusive to Smackdown. Read up on it. That was the start of Trip's "dominant" year.
 
Dude should won. I've always been a big Booka fan, and wondered why nobody has adopted his Harlem hangover finisher since, because that move was awesome beans.
 
Lowdown said:
Um recall when Bischoff handed the re-instated heavyweight title to Trip in September of 02? There was no match involved whatsoever. Brock Lesnar was the undisputed champ and became exclusive to Smackdown. Read up on it. That was the start of Trip's "dominant" year.
Click to expand...

A week prior, HHH defeated Undertaker to become the No.1 Contendor.

Eric Bischoff was the heel GM and HHH the top heel on Raw. To gain more heat for both, HHH was awarded the title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

That N Word
WrestleMania 34's Obligatory Legend vs. Legend Match?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Big Nick Dudley
B
W
Brock Lesnar vs. Lennox Lewis
Replies
2
Views
2K
Wolf Pac
W
B
Let's Rebook Wrestlers at WrestleMania #1 - Booker T
Replies
0
Views
2K
BestSportsEntertainer
B
W
Austin vs. Goldberg at Wrestlemania XIX?
Replies
13
Views
8K
The Jeff
T
S
Undertaker Vs. HHH again at Wrestlemania: Will it be as good as the first?
Replies
10
Views
2K
FunKay the Inevitable
F

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 149 (members: 0, guests: 149)

Forum statistics

Threads
174,838
Messages
3,300,748
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo

Share this page

Back
Top