Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,070 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It is constantly debated (and dare I say generally agreed) that a lot of people saw Triple H's World Heavyweight Championship reign in 2003/2003 as drawn out and unnecessary. A number of times during his reign as champion, there were stars on RAW who could've been elevated to that "next level" by winning the title, namely Rob Van Dam, Kane, and Booker T. However, for one reason or another Triple H ended up dropping the title to Goldberg, who in turn left the company roughly six months later; and whose character didn't really allow for many other characters to be put over him.

As much as Kane and RVD would've benefitted from winning the title, (and, considering both their individual and collective popularities at the time, they were pretty damn over), I think the right decision was made to have neither man win the title. For Van Dam at Unforgiven, it was too early into Triple H's reign to have him drop the title. Had the plan been for Van Dam to eventually win the title, I think it could've happened at Survivor Series or maybe even in early January of 2003, but not as early as Unforgiven 02.

Kane returned from injury with a surge in popularity in 2002, but with the "Katie Vick" storyline, I don't think it would've been possible for him to win the title. WWE messed up big time with that storyline, and even today, it is still regarded as one of the worst in history. Perhaps, if that angle hadn't been introduced, Kane could've won the title and held it for a little while before either dropping it back to Triple H, or losing it to RVD or Booker T, thus putting them over by promoting the fact that they beat "a monster" to win the belt. I think if there were ever a time for Kane to win the title in that run, it was Survivor Series. The gimmick of the Elimination Chamber match was perfect for him to be displayed as a monster, but obviously, WWE wanted to focus on the Shawn Michaels/Triple H feud.

Booker T at WrestleMania XIX is the only scenario where I just don't see how Triple H shouldn't have finally dropped the title. It's the biggest show of the year. Your top heel, the reigning world champion, has beaten everybody else there is to beat. On the other hand, the ever popular face, finally earning himself the chance to win the title and beat the heel on the grandest stage of them all. It HAD to happen. Reports from the time suggest that because Goldberg was coming in to the company, WWE wanted the title on a heel like Triple H for Berg to take it from. My question is this: instead of completely killing Booker T's momentum by having him lose to Triple H at WrestleMania and then not get another title shot, why couldn't Booker have won the title, then dropped it back to Triple H a few months later? Even a short title reign would've been better than no title reign.

So, my question is, how would YOU have booked the title scene from September 02 to September 03, when Goldberg won the title? Would you have had Rob Van Dam win the title at Unforgiven 02? Kane at No Mercy? Booker T at WrestleMania XIX? Or maybe one of those but at another given time?
 

·
Celestial Messiah
Joined
·
33,587 Posts
I liked Shawn winning the belt. I mean Triple H was injured at the time anyways.

How bout letting Shawn getting the belt at Survivor Series as earlier then going head to head with Jericho at Wrestlemania over the belt? Woulda been cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
I wouldn't really chance much, of course it would have been nice to see Booker T, Kane and Rob Van Dam with the strap, and I'm sure they all could carry the show, but I'm not pissed about how it all turned out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
The Goldberg-Hunter feud was lame & unneccesary for me..

I'd have given Kane a run with the strap only to loose it to Michaels at the Elimination Chamber.

In that case Jericho-Michaels would have head-lined Mania or I'd have Michaels drop it to Hunter so that hunter drops it to Booker at Mania..

It was great to see HBK with the run.Booker & Kane should had a small run with the strap & RVD was JUST not ready for me at the moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,537 Posts
Booker T deserved a decent run. He's a great worker, was over with the crowd, and deserved to main event Wrestlemania.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,438 Posts
Personally I liked Triple H's reign. Long reigning dominant champions are the best. I don't think he should have lost it to that prick Goldberg either. He should have held it all the way from Dec 2002 until WrestleMania 20, making Benoit's victory that much more special.

However if Kane ever should have gotten a 2nd reign it was when he first unmasked and was dominant. Before he became a jobber for about 6 years and then randomly got another reign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,374 Posts
This is the year that made me sick of HHH, I can still appreciate him but I just never liked him as much since 2003
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,156 Posts
Triple H's first reign in 2002 was necessary to establish the belt as a World Championship, dropping the title RVD in a little over three weeks at Unforgiven would've hampered it's credibility and dropping it to Kane at No Mercy would've done no good either. HBK's title win however, made sense with how the championship was at stake - in the first ever elimination chamber match.

Now I'm not too sure how this thing goes but in the summer of 2003, Kane was on fire with his newly unmasked and psychotic monster heel persona, and if I were booking, then I would have definitely made him the World Champion at the time, but the reason he was unmasked in the first place was because he lost in the World Title match so yeah, I'm not sure. Maybe I'd have Goldberg go over Triple H first then have Kane go over Goldberg?
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top