Joined
·
2,691 Posts
This has been pointed out by literally everyone in the IWC at least 5,000 times. So, yes, we've all noticed.
It's because HHH is being billed as the best chance there has ever been for someone to beat Taker at Mania, and by pointing out that he was already defeated by Taker at 17 doesn't make that billing seem so credible.I reckon its either: A) it was the attitude era time, and they try to cut out a lot of that nowadays.
B) It was his American bad-ass gimmick, and their trying to put so much emphasis on his deadman gimmick, they completely remove any mention of his past.
Its probably a mixture of these two things.
No need to be rude.OP, GTFO!
- Vic
Numerous? They had the match at WM 17, then a tag match at Backlash the following month. Then HHH got injured in May or something, and he was out the rest of the year. He returned, this time he was the face end Taker was the heel, they had a match at Insurrextion I think, which almost nobody remembers, after that, I don't think they have ever faced of one on one at a PPV.They've been around so long it only makes sense that they would have feuded with each other extensively. From 2001 to 2003 they had numerous PPV matches against each other, its not just WM 17.
King of the Ring 2002 and six man Hell in a Cell at Armageddon 2000.Numerous? They had the match at WM 17, then a tag match at Backlash the following month. Then HHH got injured in May or something, and he was out the rest of the year. He returned, this time he was the face end Taker was the heel, they had a match at Insurrextion I think, which almost nobody remembers, after that, I don't think they have ever faced of one on one at a PPV.