Triple H the WCW Assassin

[quink987]

Ive just been watching matches from 2003-2004 and I got to say HHH really ruined former WCW talent in this time period for example

Scott Steiner: he returned in 2002 and at Royal Rumble 2003 he took on HHH for the World title and lost and lost at No Way Out the following month, so this ruined any type of momentum he had.

Booker T: they fought at Wrestlemania 19 and if Booker would of won he would of entered the main event alot then what he did and wouldnt of have to start all over again after this match.

Kevin Nash: Nash had so much hype when he returned but after his feud with the Game he lost that nig threat like he couldnt get the job done anymore.

Goldberg: well we all know after his feud with HHH Goldberg didnt seem as intense and intimidating anymore.

so would you say Triple H is the WCW assassin or was the WCW guys just all hype and just couldnt cut it in the WWE

 

[yevkassem]

hhh was the top guy in the company,just cause vince brought in the other guys doen't mean that they're the new top guys

 

[HardyHater]

Scott Steiner: he returned in 2002 and at Royal Rumble 2003 he took on HHH for the World title and lost and lost at No Way Out the following month, so this ruined any type of momentum he had.

By that time Steiner was D-U-N done. All he had left at that time , along with the majority of WCW "stars" was intro-hype. After their little act of the intro they had nothing that could carry them or the other wrestler in the ring . He was a bitter roid-rage knucklehead. Holla if you hear me???? Hello,hello, is this thing on,hello?

Booker T: they fought at Wrestlemania 19 and if Booker would of won he would of entered the main event alot then what he did and wouldnt of have to start all over again after this match.

Know the game -a career WCW wrestler coming into the Big League and having one of WWE's top shelf stars job to any of the above? Fagedaboutit, HHH or anybody . Wasn't gonna happen.

Kevin Nash: Nash had so much hype when he returned but after his feud with the Game he lost that nig threat like he couldnt get the job done anymore.

See the Steiner response D-U-N. Intro-power bomb-see ya.

Goldberg: well we all know after his feud with HHH Goldberg didnt seem as intense and intimidating anymore.

Intro-spear -done. Goldberg couldn't wrestle a Hulkster wrestling buddy.

so would you say Triple H is the WCW assassin or was the WCW guys just all hype and just couldnt cut it in the WWE

Bingo,we have a bingo!!!

 

[Y 2 Jake]

He either purposely went out and made them all like shit, or Triple H was having a couple of bad years due to him carrying too much weight.

It's a mixture of both and also none of the guys he were facing were super-workers. Steiner was in his prime, but that had long gone by 2003. Therefore, Fat Triple H + average workers + burying WCW names = a waste of everybodys time.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It's a mixture of all your theories I think...

Each WCW guy came with their own baggage, Steiner had his long term back complaint, so was not a good bet for a sustained push. Nash tore his quad seemingly the moment he debuted, which completely ruined the chance for him to do anything more. Booker was "tainted" with being the "last WCW champion" and had already lost to a lot of people as part of the Invasion, so Trips wasn't wholly to blame.

BUT

Yes, he was heavy as he was still recovering from the torn quad muscle, he was also re-establishing his own momentum, never mind helping anyone else. This was also the time his relationship with Steph really hit gear, so an element of favouritism was inevitable. I was far more outraged with how Chris Jericho was sacrificed for "The Game" than Booker was.

As for Goldberg, well he was done the moment Jericho beat him backstage... his fire went, his aura went and most importantly his credibility went. He was just another paycheck player.

 

[vampirek]

Th WCW Assassin? No.

Booker T was never a main event person in WWE, he was aways stuck in the upper midcard and was used

Nash was unreliable in these years

Goldberg actually got a reign which in that time when HHH dominated showed that Goldberg was given the push

Steiner? That entire feud was boring to watch

HHH was the on top of his game (no pun) in these years, his whole gimmick was about keeping hold of the World Title. Which actually gave that belt value. The problem is with that is who does HHH feud with to make him credible and not keep future talent down? Bring in older guys who a) only be there for a year b) injury prone c) won't be affected by losing.

On the side note of Goldberg, HHH had nothing to do with why Goldberg did not have that appeal after the feud. By the end of that feud Goldberg had a limited number of apperances left on his contract and could only be used sparingly.. which was basically the Lesnar feud.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

HHH became one of the greatest heel in those years. We saw one of the greatest stables in Evolution in 2003.

Booker-T got a main event push, Kevin Nash was already dominant and didn't need the title and Goldberg did became the World Heavyweight Champion and got a clean win over The Rock before.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Steiner was done when he came to the WWE. He was so bad that during their matches, the crowd started cheering for HHH. Booker T can only be as good as his competition is and if he wasn't facing Benoit, he wasn't much use. Given the storyline they went with for Wrestlemania 19, it would have been nice for him to hold the title for a month or so. Kevin Nash was injured twice in the span of a few months so anybody who thought he was going to be a great challenger was kidding themselves. They messed up Goldberg from the start. Goldberg is all about no talking and quick matches and they couldn't get that right most of the time. I'll go with 25% HHH and 75% everyone else.

 

[TheLoneCharles]

Honestly by the time the Invasion ended it became fairly obvious that no former WCW stars were going to go over as huge stars while still being fresh to the company. This was particularly evident with RVD. While I agree he was generally unsafe (I saw him bust someones nose I forgot who it was), the pops he was getting were huge.

Even though Goldberg had a title reign, it was far from a memorable one. The WWE Goldberg just never had that aura of invincibility that he had during his WCW streak, and as a fan I thought HHH was the superior wrestler that deserved the wins even though I was bored to death of him squashing everyone at the time....kinda like how it is with John Cena now....but in 10 years we'll clamor for the Cena squash days just wait

Anyways, HHH deserved to be the WCW assassin because only Goldberg appeared to be any serious threat to him during his reign, and even that was iffy at best. Ultimately, HHH's long domination just made it that much sweeter when Batista finally slow turned into a face and dominated HHH for several matches. As a fan, that Evolution storyline especially as the faction died was truly a pleasure to watch.

 

[Headman]

Ive just been watching matches from 2003-2004 and I got to say HHH really ruined former WCW talent in this time period for example

Scott Steiner: he returned in 2002 and at Royal Rumble 2003 he took on HHH for the World title and lost and lost at No Way Out the following month, so this ruined any type of momentum he had.

Booker T: they fought at Wrestlemania 19 and if Booker would of won he would of entered the main event alot then what he did and wouldnt of have to start all over again after this match.

Kevin Nash: Nash had so much hype when he returned but after his feud with the Game he lost that nig threat like he couldnt get the job done anymore.

Goldberg: well we all know after his feud with HHH Goldberg didnt seem as intense and intimidating anymore.

so would you say Triple H is the WCW assassin or was the WCW guys just all hype and just couldnt cut it in the WWE

I'm tired of seeing Booker T put on the list of guys Triple H "Buried". Booker was plucked out of a comedy tag team to "co-headline" Wrestlemania with one of WWE's top stars. To say that he would have become a main eventer sooner is down right foolish because the match itself was a main event! How come losing in a world title match at Wrestlemania is ok if it's to anyone but Triple H? Booker T if anything was elevated by that match.

 

[lil bitch Kid]

Is it really assassination when the guys' careers were dead anyway?

Steiner: nuff said. The guy was a main in WCW due to lack of credible well known guys. His move set turned to crap after he started carrying 50 extra pounds of "perfectly natural" muscle.

Booker: should never, and I mean EVER, been a top guy anywhere. He was a good mid-card hand, but again, was the benefit of nothing else on the roster. When your main event picture has JJ, Booker, Steiner and DDP, you're in a lot of trouble.

Nash: he got put into it as a friendship angle. He couldn't go anymore and at least wasn't horrible.

Goldberg: a year too late. Had he come in right at the purchase, I think he could have been more credible. There was more that could have been done with Goldberg, for sure, but yes, it would seem because of limited feuds and time that he got 'ruined' by HHH, but really, when he takes the title and holds it for months, it's not that bad for him.

 

[Last Man Standing]

The sole purpose of that reign was to establish the importance of the World title. Many fans weren't sure if it was a step above or below the WWE Championship. And the WWE was trying to bring back the prestige it lost during the Russo & Arquette runs.

So the WWE built Evolution up as the new Horsemen and Triple H as the new Flair. Retaining the title through hook or crook. Needing back up and underhanded tactics to squeeze out that last second win. And to be honest... It worked. The belt felt like it meant something. And fans were dieing to finally see someone take Triple H off his pedestal.

But why would he have lost to Scott Steiner? His size & dropped foot plague his whole run. And he was a disappointment.

Nash, had a short term contract and was known to be injury prone. Hate to build the whole show and World title around him.

And Goldberg never quite clicked with WWE's crowd. His short term contract showed he wasn't committed so why hand him the keys to the castle?

 

[dman1373]

Booker T just like rvd were both over at that time, both were very over, but they had to start at the very bottom because of the influx of talent. I get it to a point, but if hhh would have put over rvd or booker t, then you would have had 2 more legit super over main eventers. And i challange anyone to tell me any different.

 

[czar76]

WCW talent was not going to get a big push at that time. It didn't matter who it was. Vince had just bought out the company that went out of its way to destroy him and WWE. No matter how good or bad the talent was they had to be shown as lesser then the WWE stars to put the final nail in the coffin so to speak. Not saying it was the right move but it was clear from day one that the WCW stars were going to have to earn anything they got. So jobbing to HHH, or in Goldberg's case deflating the character, was a given.
Plus the idea at the time was to set HHH up as THE champion. Put him over everybody on the roster and then everybody from what used to be the competition. They wanted him to dominate like the old school champs did. So destroying everyone in his path made sense. The WCW guys just got caught in the shuffle.

 

[IT Factor]

There are valid points to be made for each name on the WCW list;

Scott Steiner: Although Steiner was never a true technician in the ring, he was a big name from WCW. I actually enjoyed his program with Triple H and thought it was easily the best out of all of his feuds with former WCW talents. Anytime WWE has the opportunity to take big name stars from WCW and book them in main event dream matches with WWE guys, its a shame when they don't do so. The fact is, Scott Steiner's whole gimmick & character were ten times more entertaining than most main-eventers in WWE or TNA today. I thought his promos were hilarious and he definetely deserved a final World Title run before leaving WWE.

Kevin Nash: He's a big legit guy who can get over just on his size alone. He's a believeable badass as we saw this last time in WWE with his feud with Triple H. Although unlike Steiner, I think Nash's better days in wrestling were already over.

Goldberg: Although WWE were smart enough to put the World Title on him, they still half-assed his entire WWE career. It showed. They should've had him dominate in WWE until they properly built Goldberg vs. HHH. And although their matches were great, it was still a major flop. WWE never capatilized on Goldberg's popularity and never really put him into dream matches either. How about Taker vs. Goldberg? Goldberg vs. Austin[especially after Wrestlemania 20 when Austin stunned both Goldberg & Lesnar]? Goldberg vs. Jericho?[properly this time and not the half-assed attempt like WCW did]. Anyway you look at it, WWE failed and it wasn't all Goldberg's fault.

Booker T: I think Booker T is the exception to this list. While he didn't get to have multiple title reigns, he did get over eventually and feud with big names[unlike Steiner, Goldberg, and Nash].

While WWE may have had legit reasons not to put titles on these guys, they didn't have any real excuses for not building dream matches around them. And honestly, I think Triple H wanted to see these guys fail. He was partial to WWE since they won the Monday Night wars and I don't think he liked the idea that WCW guys would come in and start holding top spots. Just my take on it, though.....

 

[lil bitch Kid]

Let's not compare RVD and Booker. RVD was the top guy in a company that built top guys and had a plethora of guys waiting to take spots. RVD came to WE and had one of the top 3 matches on every card and got some of the biggest pops of the night. WWE runs One Night Stand and RVD gets the biggest pop at the first one, and didn't work a match, and carried the second one. IF WWE did a WCW ONS, Booker should jerk the curtain, at best. Booker got tht e best for 2 reasons: Time Warner was being sued by Sonny Ono for racism, and they needed someone, yes, anyone, to give the strap to.

 

[schaeffershawn]

Let's not compare RVD and Booker. RVD was the top guy in a company that built top guys and had a plethora of guys waiting to take spots. RVD came to WE and had one of the top 3 matches on every card and got some of the biggest pops of the night. WWE runs One Night Stand and RVD gets the biggest pop at the first one, and didn't work a match, and carried the second one. IF WWE did a WCW ONS, Booker should jerk the curtain, at best. Booker got tht e best for 2 reasons: Time Warner was being sued by Sonny Ono for racism, and they needed someone, yes, anyone, to give the strap to.

Really RVD was a in a company that built top guys. I mean I love ECW and I was there and grew up on them and with them really. I mean I get Foley and Austin and even RVD to a lesser degree but lets stop this revishonist history. Gurrero was not a top guy in ECW, nor was Benoit, Mysterio or Jericho. Now Lets look at the guys whowere top guys in ECW. Douglas forever the big fish in the small pond, but could never get over in the big leauges. Taz great in ECW, a joke in WWE. Raven, Sandman, Rhino, Jerry Lynn, Justin Credible, Sabu, Tommy Dreamer. The combination of all those guys outside of ECW has ammounted to less then nothiong. No one paid to to see any of them. And Finally there is the late Mike Awsome who was a fat chick thriller in WCW. Do you see my point yet. You cannot say a company has produced top guys the way you said, when in reality they produced a bunch of midcarders.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I do think Triple H was booked too favourably during these years, and I am a big fan of The Game. He was constantly going over everyone, and didn't really elevate anyone in this period.

However, I do not think he is to fully to blame here. Kevin Nash resigning with the WWE was a big deal. Nash was a big star, with alot of hype behind his return with the nWo. However, a 2002 onwards Nash was slow and immobile and very injury prone. He was already past his best at this point, and although Triple H was not at his best during their fued, Nash did not perform at all well, then he got injured again so that was the end of that. I am not buying into Triple H burying Nash, they are very close friends.

Scott Steiner was in awful physical shape when he joined the WWE, his back was a wreck and he was roided out of his mind. Its probably fair to say he is actually in better shape now, ten years later, than he was during his WWE run. There was no way he would have been able to carry the company and champion, and I have never seen him perform as badly as he did against HHH in their feud. However, before we dump all this blame on Triple H...what did Scotty do after this feud? Did he have a single good match with anyone? I can't remember one. He was not good enough at the time to go over The Game.

Goldberg was never going to get booked in the same way as he was in WCW, you don't get squash main events in WWE, you have to wrestle a different way. As entertaining as Goldberg was- and I DO think he should have got a bigger title run, I think it was as much Bill's lack of selling abilty, and lack of actual wrestling skill that held him back just as much as Triple H not wanting to put him over. He was still booked pretty well though, and held the title, so it's not like he had a bad run at all.

Now, Triple H was the golden boy at the time no doubt about it. He was always booked to go over, but when the time was right like with Batista and Orton, he put them over. The failings of Nash, Steiner and less so Goldberg, was as much them not stepping up and performing, or suffering injuries as it was Triple H or the office holding them back.

 

[GameOver]

Trips was the face of the company, Once again copping all the blame for everything that ever happens. Sure he had sway but ya ever think the reason the "WCW" talent got left behind which is not the case btw, the ones that converted to the WWE way of doin g things were pushed and Goldberg wasn't buried in the least, he pummeled Triple H numerous times, just not when it counted.


Anyway i digress, the "reason" was cause they were the competition that nearly ran WWF into the ground and most of those that were left were just working out there contracts that WWF had to acquire. Soon as those contracts expired they were sacked or quit. Why would you invest in that?

 

[peter_midnight]

Scott Steiner: The guy had surgery on his foot and was clearly not in shape to wrestle. HOWEVER, to say that the guy was (like some have said) a main eventer in WCW only because of a lack of better guys is a bit of an overstretch. The guy had huge amounts of heat throughout his heel run in WCW and even got cheered heavily as a babyface in 2000 in the New Blood. When he won the title as a heel the fans cheered. Even HTM who hardly ever compliments anyone said to Dave Meltzer in an interview that WCW was doing the right thing by making Steiner a killer in the dying days of the company. You don't get praise from the Honky Tonk Man if you're doing things wrong and anyone that has ever watched a shoot of his knows what I'm talking about. With that said, Steiner got me to watch WWE at this time as I was already bored w/the HHH show. Was anyone else ever just "given" the world title? lol

Booker T: Anyone that doesn't think Booker was main event material really needs to go back and watch his WCW run, he was easily one of the most over guys on the roster. Kevin Sullivan even said that one of his regrets was not giving Booker T the belt sooner than Russo gave it to him. IMO, Booker T got a raw shake in WWE because someone (probably named The Rock) saw this interview in 2000 and couldn't wait to bury Booker because of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z07bhr446h8

Nash: If HHH deserves to go over one person from a workrate POV, it's Nash, but as far as I'm concerned HHH could never hope to be as over w/the crowd heel or babyface than Nash so I'll agree with this, but only because Nash is that bad.

Goldberg: It seemed like putting him in 20 min main event PPV matches was done as sabotage. Everyone knew that he wasn't good enough to pull that off and it would seem to me that you would play to a guy's strength rather than his weakness if you wanted him to be over. Still, HHH may have lost to Goldberg, but the way he did it didn't seem like he was putting Goldberg over.

 

[Da Solo]

It was understandable for HHH to go over Nash and Steiner. Nash, in-ring wise, wasn't really prepared to be the World Champion in hindsight, especially considering his knees. And plus, I doubt HHH would politic his way out of losing to Nash. Aren't they like best friends or something?

Steiner could have gotten the strap if they wanted to, but it's no big loss if he didn't get it, which he didn't. He wasn't really in a position where he could justifiably win the WHC off of Triple H anyway. Though I'm one of the people who believe HHH buried a lot of people unnecessarily from 2002 to 2005 (Evolution days), It was ok for him to go over on Steiner.

Now Booker and Goldberg are different stories. Goldberg won the title initially, sure, but like always they had to find a way to get the strap back on HHH. That was bullcrap. And regardless of people saying "Goldberg wasn't booked well enough" or "He couldn't put on lengthy matches", he was over, he was fresh with the crowd, and he did not need to drop the title that early, or at least not back to HHH that early. It defeats the purpose of HHH losing the title in the 1st place. That's the slick way he played it. Sure, he lost to Goldberg, but he got it right back pretty quickly, so it all works out for him.

Now I don't care what anyone says: There was NO good reason for Booker to lose to HHH. The whole scenario was set up for Booker to win on the grandest stage of them all, and he was going to before HHH politicked again (last minute veto. research it). Booker was over as hell and primed to be one of the company's biggest ME babyfaces. Think about it: what would have happened if he won? Anything would have been better than what we got: an undeserved loss that led to another shitty angle between HHH and his friend Nash. Booker got robbed of his WM moment for one man's ego, plain and simple.

 

[dman1373]

Let's not compare RVD and Booker. RVD was the top guy in a company that built top guys and had a plethora of guys waiting to take spots. RVD came to WE and had one of the top 3 matches on every card and got some of the biggest pops of the night. WWE runs One Night Stand and RVD gets the biggest pop at the first one, and didn't work a match, and carried the second one. IF WWE did a WCW ONS, Booker should jerk the curtain, at best. Booker got tht e best for 2 reasons: Time Warner was being sued by Sonny Ono for racism, and they needed someone, yes, anyone, to give the strap to.

First of all rvd wasn't the top guy in ecw, ever. Thats a fact. I don't even remember him being in an ecw championship match. He probably would have been world champion if he didn't brake his ankle. And to say he got the biggest pop in the first ons and carried the second one is total bullshit, look back at both (even though the latter was really great).

And Booker t has always been really over. He is a completely original character, and has always been talented(besides on commentary.) So your completely full of shit.

 

[HBsam31]

I have seen other threads on this topic, and in this case I gotta agree with the majority. It wasn't all HHH's fault. Steiner was a big star in WCW, but was really beat up and roided out when he came to the WWE. I do think his feud with HHH was my favorite though of the ones mentioned. Steiner never really did much after his feud with HHH either. Nash was another big signing, but honestly I think by that time he was slowing down and I believe he got injured right away to. I was just watching some Goldberg matches the other day on some of my old dvds, and you could see that his character did not translate well in the WWE. I think they could have tried to push him a bit harder, but I still don't think it would have worked. Even though Booker T was beaten by HHH he still went on to have a really good WWE career, and even eventually won the world title. HHH was the top start at that time, and even then I didn't see anything wrong with him going over these guys.

 

[IT Factor]

Goldberg: It seemed like putting him in 20 min main event PPV matches was done as sabotage. Everyone knew that he wasn't good enough to pull that off and it would seem to me that you would play to a guy's strength rather than his weakness if you wanted him to be over. Still, HHH may have lost to Goldberg, but the way he did it didn't seem like he was putting Goldberg over.

At that point, I'm not quite sure where WWE stood on the whole Triple H issue. He had gotten a Hulk Hogan-like reputation for not wanting to job. It's kinda the same deal with HHH/Goldberg that it was for Hogan/Billy Kidman. They didn't pass the torch unless they knew it would light that motha' on fire.......

 

[braveh]

HHH has made the point, and I agree with him, that he carried the company during those years after Rock/Austin/Lesnar left. Look at HHH's track record. He jobbed for Batista, he jobbed for Cena. He essentially created those stars. Vince and creative probably didn't believe in any of those WCW stars....with good reason.

Do think it was realistic to think that Goldberg would job to Cena for a year?