Well I appreciate that you appreciate my effort, but from this paragraph, I thought we'd see some agreement and a few points argued. That isn't exactly what followed, is it? Actually, it look more like you criticized most points with the same argument and completely ignored some of my points by not even saying a word about them. It would have been nice for you to include even the points you can't disagree with. That would show that you can admit when someone makes a good point and still disagree with others.
My apologies, just eh way I debate. I get so worked up into, I wouldn't say posting, but more the competition. I do have a habit of being far too critical, not because I don't agree with some points, but Hell.... Why say when you're opponent's right?
In all seriousness, and I'll put this out there for everyone; I did invite you to the Debater's League we have going on here, and I did so, for all of the best posters, I feel, we have on this site, in terms of debating. I wouldn't do that if I didn't think you weren't good, trust me.
If you read the rest of my post, you'd kind of see why I believe these people aren't draws. Not to mention that you criticize Nash (and conceivably Hall because they are Triple H's friends), but you are lauding the NWO as huge draws. You do realize that Nash is one of the key cogs of the NWO right? As in, he and Hall started the group?
Well, yeah, as a collective. I agree with what you're saying,
however, I'd also like to point out you're taking the nWo as a collective unit, which absolutely sells. On their own? They're really nothing more than old men who have issues working at this point. Seen Nash on TNA lately?
No, I do agree with you here, that Hall and Nash
combined, as the nWo are draws. By themselves? Eh, I'm not exactly clamoring for Kevin Nash in the main event. And judging by the buy rates, nor were WWE fans.
So you can't say that "no one wanted to see Triple H vs. Kevin Nash" but say that they would want to see the NWO. Since you mention Hogan later, I'll expand upon him at that time. Same with RVD, who I don't think we will ever agree on.
Agreed, but again, if Nash were part of the nWo when he got his absolutely inconceivable main event push in 2002, I'd have no qualms, as the nWo collectively was one of the biggest draws in wrestling. Nash by himself? I'm sorry, I'm just not sold on him.
Not the point. The point is, Foley wasn't WRESTLING anymore. Meaning, he can't be a main event draw for a Pay Per View. He was a draw in that sense. Try and argue with me whether Foley (as Cactus Jack) vs. Triple H at Royal Rumble 2000 was a draw? It was, because that rivalry was done well. No longer though did Triple H have this big draw to work with though. He was Commish and making appearances, but he sure as hell wasn't main eventing shows anymore.
No, I get that there, I agree, that it takes away a worker. Taking away a worker is never a good thing. That said, even with Foley as commisioner, the WWE was still doing big numbers, meaning it wasn't absolutely necessary to have that big a star as Foley in a wrestling matter. Also, keep in mind that Trips was starting to work more with Angle and Jericho, and, really important, staying away from The Heavyweight Title. They let The Rock carry that capacity, and The Rock was the one on the marquee.
But not quite main eventing Pay Per Views. Again, the point I was making was that the men who main evented basically every Pay Per View for a 3 year period were all no longer doing so on a consistent basis, leaving a bunch of holes for main event performers.
I mean, yeah, we can agree here, I don't mind that. Still, Stone Cold was a regular member of the PPVs. They had him fight Bisch one time, they had him doing other things along those lines. Was he steal headlinging every PPV? Yeah, he wasn't, but he was still offered on the card, as well, more often than not.
I will never argue that Rock didn't put people over, because he always did. He also put over Goldberg right off the bat, mind you. And I don't think you'd argue that a win over Rock doesn't mean anything, because it always did. Thus, when Goldberg got that win, he wasn't "buried" as some on this thread have said. Goldberg started hot and had a better run than people give him credit for. By the way, this is what I was talking about earlier. You neglected my points about his run because you probably just didn't have an argument for it. That's fine, but at least say "I agree with you here".
Wait, which points, about Rock or Goldberg?
The only reason I threw out some Goldberg points were, well, it had nothing to do with our main point of argument, Triple H. We agree here that Goldberg was sorely misused in WWE, but that's really another thread for another time. Actually, that may be coming up as soon as I finish this thread.
If you are going to make points, at least be fair, bro. You criticize Nash and Steiner for being over the hill later but you are selling Hogan? I know he is the biggest star in history. I'm not a fucking idiot. Hell, I still have my Hogan cartoons with Nikolai Volkoff from my childhood. That doesn't make him 30 again in 2002. If you criticize Hall and Nash for being old, you must do the same thing for Hogan.
Big difference.... Hogan, by himself, will always draw fans. He's always going to get some sort of nostalgia pop. Hall and Nash, alone? They don't have that same ability. They can;t get fans to care about them individually.
So yeah, I'm sticking to my guns on Hogan, here. People cared, and loved, that he was back, and for a good while, people paid to see Hogan. People might have paid to see Nash and Hall together, but not by themselves. And, well, people just don't pay for Steiner, period.
And by the way, Hogan got a run with the undisputed title despite being on his last legs. And who put him over? Oh yea, Triple H!
Agreed here. He gave Hogan one last run with the title
Again, you are being a gigantic hypocrite.
Glad to see we're getting into name calling here.
In another post, you said that Benoit and Guerrero should have NEVER been given the title, yet you are somehow applauding their pushes as evidence against Triple H in this one? Pick a side buddy!
Where did I ever say they didn't deserve a main event push? Did I ever say that?
I said, they probably didn't deserve long runs with the titles. At least, that's what I meant. Which is true, Benoit as champions for a while would have been good, but not for six months. Benoit and Guerrero could have been in the main event, they were well over enough. I just wouldn't make them the face of the company, as Paul Heyman was pushing for them to be.
Only Lesnar should count in this argument, and Paul Heyman was behind this one. We all know that Heyman had "his guys", and this is the one that clicked more than the others. Although, I think you must admit that Lesnar was marketable from the start. A man that size with that athletic ability had to be worth something right? I think even your nemesis, Triple H saw that. If you are going to argue that Trips shipped him off to Smackdown because of this, I will laugh at you. Over on Smackdown, there were main eventers like Angle, Taker, and Big Show to feud with. On Raw, there was Kane and Trips. Where do you think he had more to do? Blind hatred can make you think funny things.
I'm going to also say that I think the Brand Extension was a horrible decision, and very short sighted for the WWE. Again, if you have main eventers over on Smackdown, why would you keep them all on Smackdown, your supposed "B" show. If Raw is your "A" program, the one you divulge most of the time, effort, and resources to, wouldn't it make sense to actually, you know, put your top star on that program. That's more my point. Brock Lesnar was the face of the company, period, and only appeared on the Company's top show for three months, before being sent away. Besides that, I also fail to see why it makes more sense to put the face of the company on the show with more main event superstars. If a show is lacking in superstars, why would you send away one of your biggest, who theoretically could draw in bigger numbers, to the other show?
Right, because Trips had it all set over on Raw
I said that Benoit main evented one show, but you are the one saying he shouldn't because he never deserved to be a champion. I think we can both agree that Benoit was best served in the upper midcard, stealing the show with great matches. without needing to be fighting for the title. As for Big Show, I never argued that he's not a main eventer, but I could certainly argue that he's not seen as a draw. He was pushed like crazy in 2000 and built up to main event Wrestlemania, but it was felt that he couldn't do it alone, so Rock and Foley were added to the mix. That's neither here nor there, because we both know that a 500 pound man at over 7 feet is going to be in the main event or near it. He just shouldn't be there all the time.
Why shouldn't a seven footer be in the main event? Andre always was, in his heyday. Still, again, this has nothing to do with Trips, just quanitfying other wrestlers, so this is another topic, another day.
I agree that stars are made off the back of other stars.......usually. You could argue that most big stars have a tough time with it, and I'm not saying Triple H isn't included. My point has been that he isn't exactly this evil man on the level of satan that you are making him out to be. As for Orton and Batista, these are 2 guys who were quite different. Orton was destined to be a star from day 1 and most within the company knew it. However, he was destined to be a "man of destiny" babyface, as it didn't work very well, thus the reason why his push was derailed until he turned heel again. Batista is different though. He was not necessarily seen to be a moneymaker but Trips and Flair must have seen something, because he became a big money player. Had nothing to do with Batista kissing ass, but had everything to do with Triple H seeing potential in him and helping elevate him. Calling him "in the clique" is stupid because he was picked to be there. He earned that and got the ultimate rub from "the jerk" in your eyes with 3 straight wins over Trips. By the way, this is at the time Cena becomes champ and I argue that the business starts to build younger stars (or at least newer ones).
Agreed, this is the point where new stars were created for the future. That said, I don't know how you can;t call him a part of Triple H's clique, when even today, Batista still cites Triple H and Flair as the men who saved his career. Batista was nothing more than a strong guy on Smackdown before he cozied up to HHH and Flair, and because HHH saw this as a guy who could stay close, and keep him at the top of the company, he brought in him to the fold, in spite of his weak promo skills, and the fact that he just wasn't that good a worker. Of course, he'd still never be a great worker, and his promos did eventually get better, but I'm not sure how you can;t see Triple H's influence with backstage helping out the guy that, quite frankly, was on the brink of getting released before he made quick friends, real fast.
Right, and we discussed this. The NWO guys were older and you don't like Nash because he's Trips' buddy, Flair is old, but served to elevate talent with evolution (but you probably hate that because it's with Trips), and Goldberg got a big year out of the WWE. Remember that WCW had built no new stars of their own sans Goldberg, so many of their stars were former WWE stars who were now into their 40s or 50s. If you want to argue that DDP or Steiner were stars, fine, but at the end, those "stars" were drawing 2's in the ratings and ridiculously awful PPV buyrates. Thus, you can say that "people can tell" in regards to Booker, but he had never proven it. Argue that he couldn't since he was on a sinking ship, but I will counter that he only got that push because of being the best of a mediocre crop. Keep in mind his big feud in WCW was with Jeff fucking Jarrett! I like Booker, but let's not confuse him for being bigger than he was.
I am going to argue he was going down with a sinking ship, Booker that is, and that it may not have been a great bunch, but still better than you make it out to be. Sting was still an available choice as champion, Flair could have always been brought back if needed. Still, agreed that WCW was not a deep talent pool, but again, that's a WCW thing. I'd also argue that WCW did make stars out of Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, The Big Show, even Eddie, in that people were mostly unaware of them before WCW, and they became big enough to warrant championship runs (eventually) in WWE. The fact that they didn't get them in WCW doesn't mean they weren't stars, just horribly misused.
So Taz couldn't say "F the world", but Stacy Carter could flash her titties on pay per view? Do you not remember what era this was? The problem was absolutely at least partially his size. Goldberg can be a monster anywhere because he's like 6'5" and jacked. Taz had the music, the towel, and everything else to be a badass, until he gets in the ring and is staring UP at every other superstar. Visually, it's a tough effect to sell. Again you bring up Benoit but again I have to remind you that he shouldn't be a main eventer. Taz is quite similar to Benoit in that sense. I would have had no problem with Taz as a midcard champion, but anything more would have been tough. Great debut though, and he beat the one guy who he didn't look as puny next to (a 5'10" Angle).
Again, we're probably never going to agree on Benoit; I say he's fine in the main event, and a transitionary champ. Still, did Stacy ever flash her tits on PPV? Fuck me, I wish I saw that PPV. I'll agree, size would make it so he couldn't get a push in the WWE, because the WWE loves size, which is bullshit. You don't have to a tall man to prove people shouldn't fuck with you. Bruce Lee was only 5'7", and no one would think to mess with him. Again, I get, different form of media, but my point is that the idea that you
have to be tall to be a bad ass just doesn't work with me. Again, I'm not the booker.
I agree actually that he could have easliy been ECW champ, but he was never given that opportunity and thus, just because some fans believe it to be true, doesn't mean it was reality. Even if it was, we're still talking about a smaller promotion.
Smaller, financially? Yes, and that's the only way I'd give context to ECW being a smaller company. That said, I have to agree here, though we all know that RVD was the face of a company that, whether you like it or not, had a huge following, that eventually went national because of huge it was. Think about that; an indy promotion became a national promotion, just because of how huge it was, without the benefit of a large benefactor. Have you ever considered that for a second? No other promotion ever had done such a thing.
Now, I have a huge problem with the "over during the invasion" argument. To me, that actually proves why RVD should NOT be pushed. Hear me out. Every performer needs to have range in what they put out there. RVD was supposed to be an invader who was trying to take down the WWE who never gave him a chance. He should have been angry and vicious. He was not. He presented himself as a face and was treated as such, but he needed to be a heel. I would argue that his inability to play a role had a role in fucking up that entire angle. I mean if ECW's biggest invader can't get over as a heel, how is the angle going to work? Call it what you will and say that "people just couldn't boo him", but remember that just because me and you watched ECW (and yes, I did watch it, I'm from NY and actually have been to the bingo hall in Philly), doesn't mean most of the WWE audience did, so if he came in a vicious heel, he would have been treated as such by 90 percent of the fans, if not more
.
Man, you can't blame the fans for how they feel about a guy. RVD could have killed puppies in the ring, and would have gotten a face pop. If anything, it was the fault of WWE booking, for not realizing what they had, and outright turning him face. Even though Stone Cold could become a turncoat and turn on his promotion, and Kurt Angle could for a little while and join the Invasion. RVD couldn't... Why? Again, the double standard that if it didn't come from Vince's mind, it can't be good.
I do know what I'm talking about, and I shared my credentials before. It's irrelevant and a judgment on your part so we'll just move on.
What credentials? A wrestling fan? Did you, like, have a backstage pass or something? Irrelevant. But no, I'm not share of your credentials. Please, feel free to enlighten the audience on exactly what those "credentials" are. What programs have you been watching, and what exactly were you a fan of?
Again, irrelevant. I know ECW influenced WWE, we all know that. That doesn't mean that because ideas and perhaps the "attitude" were from ECW that all ECW stars were bigger than they actually were. It just doesn't. And I'm not a WWE mark. I'm actually a bit of a wrestling historian, so even if I missed shows over the years, I have done reading, research, and the like to make sure I am educated for this sort of matter. Hell, I write about wrestling for a living. If I didn't have the knowledge off at least the 3 main competitors of the 90s, I'd be out on my ass in that regard.
Fair enough, we have that cleared up. That said, I sense a large tendency to favor a WWE product, which is cool, but again, it's a very revisionist history, one in which the WWE has erased some of the more important names of our time. Harley Race, Terry Funk? Don't mean jack shit because the WWE created them. Dusty Rhodes? Well, he was mad over as the simple common man of America, but we're gonna dress him up in polka dota, and have him dancing with an overweight black woman.
Sorry, had to rant there. Feel free to disregard this from the argument, it's unnecessary.
We're not going to agree on this. RVD was fun to watch in the ring, but I'm not sure about being a big star. Maybe a title run in 2003 could have worked, but I'm not so sure. If you want to say he's such a big star, then why wasn't he shipped off to Smackdown so as not to overshadow Triple H as your conspiracy theory states? Again, I put RVD in the same category as Benoit and Guerrero. Career midcarders who work fun matches, but lack something more to be considered top draws.
Because, quite simply, if you read my first post, Triple H needed someone like an RVD. He needed someone to work good matches with, but if the buy rate turned out low, he could blame it on RVD. Again, you're right in saying that RVD hadn't been given the chance to draw. You'll say that he wasn't a draw, I'll say he wasn't given the chance to prove he was a draw. Triple H could point to the fact he was an ECW guy, and again, because Vince didn't create it, and Vince is the paragon of all wrestling knowledge, it was believed to be true. Not that it was true, because it wasn't, but again, it made the fact that Triple H wasn't a draw that much easier to justify. It wasn't Triple H's fault the PPVs weren't drawing, it was his opponents. Which, mind you, is exactly what you're going to argue. I'm going to get this out of the way right now, in that someone can draw when they're able to put up consistently good numbers with the people they wrestle, if there's interest. There was clearly an interest in RVD, Kane, and the like, in that they were still getting huge pops at the time. The common constant throughout all of this period of bad business for the WWE is Triple H at the time.
We're on this again, huh. You sure use Benoit and Guerrero a lot for a guy who says they shouldn't be champions and weren't good champions. It's the same as RVD as I've been saying. And if that is the best the product had to offer at that time, you know the product was lacking stars. Creating THOSE guys as stars wasn't going to do the business any wonders. Give me numbers all you want, but once Cena and Batista and Orton got to the main event, there just weren't a ton of great main eventers.
Again, we're going to have to come to agree to disagree here. Which we will have to. I don't mind seeing either at the top of the card, and a tiny run with the belt. Again, not six or seven month, but a run with them at the top isn't a bad thing to me.
Not sure what the point of this was, other than to show Triple H getting handed the title, which I have never agreed with myself. A tournament would have made sense, and I have argued that for years. And I like how at the beginning, you said that my thoughts were cohesive and well thought, but now I am royally fucking up. Wow, the tune has changed.
I call them like I see them.
If I'm not mistaken, RVD, Edge, and Kane were all faces at that time, right? Thus, Shawn would have to have face/face matches in the midcard, which isn't typical of the WWE. Hell it's not typical anywhere. Hindsight is 20/20 though, but you forget that Shawn had just come back and no one knew how long he'd hang on. This was a guy who main evented for a couple of years and retired in what should have been his prime, and his name value was greater than anyone on Raw, perhaps even Triple H. That return was the biggest thing of that time period, but after ONE feud, you want him to be mediocre?
I never want Shawn Michaels to be mediocre. What's so mediocre about the mid card? I mean, fuck, you can argue all you want him being a big name, but the truth was, he had his nostalgia run, which was great, but once that was done, the only thing he has left to do in the business is put over other people. That's really all he was of worth after about January 2003, because the WWE wouldn't do any good having him being the face of the company. Also, I'm going to mind you to be consistent yourself. Hogan can;t have another run at the top, though he's a proven draw, while Shawn, who at his absolute best was
never a draw, gets to have one? Right.
Seems odd. I'll give you Kane if you want, because Kane is always right there near the main event, but even still, all you are arguing is that a Shawn/Kane feud could have been good in 03? Maybe, but you could say that feuds are missed every year ever. That doesn't mean that a guy is completely misused though. I wish you were running WWE back then, though. Would have been interesting to see you explain using one of your huge names making a huge return to job to midcarders and lose credibility
.
What credibility? Shawn was always a guy who put on great matches, and was a great performer. When people describe Shawn, they describe him as a great performer, not as a major winner in wrestling. Have him wrestle great matches, and let other people get over on the fact that they outwrestled one of the greatest ever. It's really not hard. Brock Lesnar had it with Hulk Hogan. Hell, Hulk Hogan had it with Andre the Giant back in the day, man. It's really not that hard a concept.
I actually don't think Jericho is a bad draw. I never said that. In fact, I'd argue that he's a good draw with the right pairing, like Rock. His stuff with Rock was great and I'm pretty sure, though I don't have the numbers, that their stuff did well. However, now you are using Austin which is completely irrelevant to your "Triple H is evil" thesis. I agree that PPV matches on TV are stupid, but my argument is that the time period in question was a bad drawing period in general due to lack of stars, while you are arguing that Triple H is responsible for that. Let's stay on target here.
Fine, then throw it out.
Booker is debatable, and I do think he had something to offer, but I still don't think he is nearly on the level of someone like Rock, who he was certainly emulating. He was good, and probably should have gotten more of a shot in 2003, but shit happens. That's one guy that they could have given a shot, and if he flopped, you take the title off and move on. As for Kane, I didn't' question his drawing, you did! You said that Raw was devoid of drawing power. You said "all the big stars were on Smackdown because Triple H didn't want to be overshadowed". Now you are arguing that Kane is a huge draw. Hypocrisy is running wild, brother!
If you could excuse me a minute, I have to take out the words you just tried to shove down my throat. Again, I'm arguing that it was wrestlers the fans wanted to see go over, and not because of the typical storyline "good guy bad guy" stuff, but because no one wanted to see Triple H on top. Kane and the likes were stars, but hadn't had much of a chance to be proven as main event quantities, and didn't have numbers to prove themselves as draws, due to either working in a different company, or just not getting as many chances. Even you admit Kane probably did deserve more chances. Seeing that there was a large contingent of over wrestlers, but not over to the point that they can't be blamed for low buy rates, because they hadn't had the same chance someone like Triple H, Trips picked these men to work with, and when buy rates came low, he could blame them.
What's not to get there?
I like Kane, and he always seems to do a good job with whatever feud he is given, and I believe it was right to give him that main event program. Should he have won? Maybe. We can argue for the rest of time who should have won EVERY PPV title match over the last 30 years, because builds are often there and not capitalized on. Hell, people STILL argue about MDM never getting the WWE title, but sometimes it doesn't happen. Keep in mind though, when a face is built up, you are SUPPOSED to believe and want them to win. A good heel prevents that by any means necessary and gets more heat as a result. Perhaps that is the case here.
So the WCW main eventers were big draws, but now no one wants to see it?
Scott Steiner? Oh Dear God, no. Yes, I will say absolutely no one wanted to see Scott Steiner at the top, either in WCW, or in the WWE. And, I don't think anyone will disagree with me. WCW had spent an entire year killing off most of the potential heels with comedy gimmicks, or factions. Scott Steiner was literally their last option over at WCW. So yes, I'm going to say absolutely no one wanted Scott Steiner at the top of any company. He's a man who's best days happened in 1990, as part of a tag team. Consider that for a second.
I think you could fairly say that Steiner got a similar push to Booker on WCW, and while Steiner was a little older and a lot more out of shape in comparison to Booker, his name value was similar, if not greater than Booker.
Hm... going to go with no on that one. Booker was seen as a credible face who cut good promos, who had a connection to the fans, and held the WCW Title with respect and dignity. Scott Steiner... He was anything but.
Steiner was around for years, and was a key name in the NWO period. I think people DID want to see it, even if you didn't. It was one of those WCW/WWE matchups that people always pictured. True, it was a few years after it would have been greater, but still.
No, it wouldn't have been. Steiner was going to break down, anyway.
Ok, Mr. facts and figures, I think you missed MY WHOLE POINT.
Yes, yes, all the main stars were gone, blah blah. I heard you, don't worry. I get where you're about to go, for the sake of the reader, I'm going to just sum this up by saying you talk about how all of the superstars like Rock and Stone Cold were gone. Mind you, they weren't really gone, and were still advertised to appear on events, so I'm not sure why you believe they're gone. Oh, that's right, they weren't wrestling anymore, right? Is that the point? Look, if Triple H was nearly as good as you make him out to be, and in that upper elite class, people would have paid, and tuned in, to see him. You also talk about the Brand Draft spreading them too thin, and that we agree on. But again, a good drawer can turn around bad business. Steve Austin single handedly turned around business by himself from late 1997 on in, and you can argue that it was all the "superstars" around him, but it was Stone Cold. Speaking of which, The Rock didn't have Stone Cold for the longest time in 2000. As a matter of fact, he also didn't have The Undertaker, he didn't have Mick Foley, much like you talk about with Triple H, and he didn't have Mr. McMahon, really, but his son and daughter. How did The Rock respond? He pulled off numbers in the mid to high five range. Triple H's average rating for a program? 3.62. An entire two points down. A good drawer is one that can work and elevate talent to his level, make them credible, to the point that people care. The Rock was capable of that, in spite of all the same names you complain about Triple H not having. Face facts; Triple H just isn't a draw.
Again, you are all about figures, but you forget that figures don't mean a whole hell of a lot when you actually consider the landscape. Business was down anyway and it had little to do with just one man. That's like blaming baseball losses on the best player who is playing well but the rest of the team stinks. That's simply not fair. But you could say "well figures show that the team has stunk", but ignore the fact that this guy has played well and should not factor into why they stink. That's why I'm not a figures guy. Never have been, never will be.
Again, figures don't lie. I don'e deny that Triple H is not a good worker, never said that. Just that he isn't a draw, and no matter what, there's no way you, or anyone else, can conclude why.
Opinions are opinions. Figures don't lie.
Simply look at the product of that time. Tell me if there was immense star power. I understand that the other 2 biggest stars were on Smackdown, but that's it. Other than that, it's all speculation as to who could get built up and who couldn't or didn't.
And, the fact that when these stars were out of Triple H's megalomaniac stance of building himself and no one else, when Vince finally put his foot down, and ended his run of dominance somewhere around Wrestlemania 21, the superstars we just mentioned did come to World Title Victories themselves. Kane, Booker T, RVD, (Ok, maybe not Scott Steiner) they all came to greater success than they had under Triple H's "wing"
This is just Triple H hatred directed at the time period for when he garnered most of it. Now, I'm no Triple H mark. Hell, I think he's a great worker but he's never been one of my favorites. But I can't blame him for most of these things. If you honestly believe that more talent was on Smackdown, that's fine and that can be your argument. Don't then claim that Raw had just as much talent but was buried though.
See, they had all the potential to be draws, though, and were never given the chancem under Triple H's wing. That right there is burying, plain and simple.
Those are conflicting statements. Either the talent was evenly distributed or it wasn't. Your original argument was that it wasn't but now you are telling me that Raw had RVD and Booker which are talented. You need to pick a side and stay with it. I respect your opinion, but you aren't true to one argument.
No, I've picked one. Smackdown had more stars, which Triple H sent away. Raw then had the responsibility to build new stars, who were already over with the fans, as they were. Triple H would not allow that.
Hell, even if you were, I still don't think I'd agree with you, but at least you put forth a great effort to try and prove your point to me. I respect that, but that doesn't mean we'll ever agree on this.
That's cool, and don't get me wrong, you put in a Hell of an effort yourself. We just don't agree, at all.
