Re: Whose reign of terror is worst?
For those of you saying HHH’s reign wasn’t that bad, and that he was over and that no one else was good enough to dethrone him, I think you’re only saying that because they never dethroned him and were never allowed to go over him.
So because of that, they were never given the chance to be more over than HHH and because history is written by the winners, the perception suddenly shifted to “they were never good enough anyway”.
I mean, imagibg if Booker did go over HHH for example and was allowed to become a big main event star. In an alternate world, he could’ve been a name in the line of Batista or Randy Orton, but because HHH beat him, he was never given that chance. So people start justifying it by saying he was never good enough anyway.