Neoseeker.com Forum Thread: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ? - page 1

reprinted from http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/
original thread: http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/92/t1991121-was-triple-right-this-era-of-excuses/


Author:   GTS
Date:   Mar 06, 14 at 4:53pm (PST)
Subject:   Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------








One part of RAW that interested me was the confrontation between Daniel Bryan, Triple H and Stephane McMahon. Triple H mentioned how being a "B+ player" is still pretty damn good, and how this was now an "Era of Excuses". Well, did he have a point?

Daniel Bryan is a former two time WWE champion, one time World Heavyweight champion, Money in the Bank winner 2011, one time Tag Team champion and one time United States champion. Hands up anyone who followed his career through the indys or even when he got fired in 2010 that thought he'd achieve any of that? That's a genuine question that I'd be interested to see what the response is. Because it's a very impressive resume, even taking the lengths of his WWE title reigns into consideration.

There's others too that Triple H could easily of been hinting at. Dolph Ziggler? No matter what side of the fence you sit with Ziggler, whether you think he's merely venting his fustrations of his spot or he's whining and bitching, the fact is that the guy is very vocal on social media on his circumstances. Let's look at his resume - Former two time World Heavyweight champion, former Intercontinental champion, former United States champion, former World Tag Team champion (apart of the Spirit Squad) and Money in the Bank winner 2012. Even taking his first World title reign which only lasted a few minutes on a SmackDown in 2011, again, a very impressive resume.

Then there's CM Punk who currently walked out of WWE because of his spot and perhaps of his anger of the situations of the likes of Ziggler and Bryan. Before his famous pipebomb his resume read as former three time World Heavyweight champion, former Intercontinental champion, former World Tag Team champion, former ECW champion and two time Money in the Bank winner 2008 & 2009. That's when CM Punk was being mis-used. After his pipebomb of 2011, add in two reigns as WWE champion, the latter of which is the longest reign of the last 25 years. The kind of resume that boyhood dreams are made up of right?

Even Zack Ryder, who most would agree isn't a potential main eventer by any means (I'll throw his fans a bone by saying in his current gimmick) yet he's a former United States champion and former Tag Team champion, which is good for a man of the midcard.

Take into account that there are Hall of Famers, proper ones like Ted DiBiase and Roddy Piper, who never held onto a world title in WWF. Did DiBiase even hold the IC title? Nope. CM Punk's resume is better than Ultimate Warrior's. I don't exactly see the problem if you compare.

Or is the problem that they never got put into the same spotlight as John Cena did? Well, John Cena, love him or hate him, is the face of the company. He's "The guy" - only other wrestlers to be "The Guy" in history are Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock. Not even the likes of Triple H, The Undertaker or Kurt Angle were ever "The Guy". Yet you'd be a fool to say their careers were anything but successful. So should it really matter that Daniel Bryan or CM Punk arn't "The Face" of the WWE? Yeah they can get loud reactions from the crowd like no other on the current roster, but back in 2000 Too Cool could get such a reaction (check Royal Rumble 2000) - should Scotty 2 Hotty of been WWE Champion? Rikishi never was WWE champion. Look at Kane, he only had a WWE title reign that lasted a night. Undertaker was always lurking in the background for guys like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin and The Rock. I think there should be some context.

So, I believe Triple H did have some point on RAW. And as you know, I'm no fan of Triple H so please don't excuse me of bias (I'm also a CM Punk and Daniel Bryan fan). Is it wrong to say that these guys should be grateful for their spots and resumes that are more than impressive when you can compare to names I mentioned above, and stop making excuses for the reasons why they're not in the same spot as John Cena or why The Rock can come back and be in a main event of WrestleMania?



Author:   The Hazard
Date:   Mar 06, 14 at 7:47pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------
If this is what they're going with(I haven't watched Raw in weeks so I can only interpret with this), then that would also slightly be a case of them being hoist by their own petard. I'll give Cena all the props in the world, but the very fact they oversaturated and over-relied on one guy has caused of a polarizing change in how we perceive pushes and getting treated right.

We're also in an era where resumes speak differently. the reason why guys like Ultimate Warrior and roddy piper are less decorated was because the industry wasn't as axed on that aspect as they are today. title reigns lasted much, much longer in average. there were still occasional quick title changes but champions then held on to the brass so much that other stars would receive spotlight in equal grounds, just not same stature. they were involved in high-profile storylines, memorable moments and their cool swagger to boot. jake the snake never even held a *bleep*in title and he's remembered like no tomorrow

Today, title changes are considerably more frequent, especially with the inclusion of MITB. and coming back to the fact they've pushed Cena so hard, for so long... deservedly so, but it comes to a point where either the big stars of tomorrow will feel they're merited to some Cena treatment... or we will. in this regard, I may think Triple H has a point. maybe that is the trap Punk fell into, though the fact is he did reach WWE's top brass even if for a while, he sure ain't the first outspoken top star in the locker-room and won't be the last

it comes to a point whether resumes really do speak that much, touting Ziggler as a two-time World champion is considerably more rewarding to him than the actual reigns we witnessed him live. So are Christian's. If he were to feel sour one day about how he's been treated the last few years , it would all come back down to this. The other factor is many title reigns are profoundly less memorable today, they will make anyone look good on paper but when it comes all back down to the moments.. different story. That said, guys like Ziggler did have memorable stories through their IC/US title reigns. and I think Daniel Bryan's story is being written as we're seeing it, even putting his resume aside we can see he's destined for a lotta things, championship gold ablaze or not.



Author:   Lazzara
Date:   Mar 06, 14 at 10:17pm (PST)
Subject:   re: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------
tbf, i don't think it's amount the amount of the title.


piper, ted di biase and ultimate warrior probably don't have as much titles in comparison to the current generation of wrestlers, but they definitely were getting more air time than the new guys. Even when Ryder, Ziggler and even Punk held the title, they weren't given the spotlight. I'm pretty sure those guys would take more air time over winning a title. Kofi Kingston held several titles, but I doubt people give a *bleep* about his reigns.

Which is exactly why I think the way they handle Daniel Bryan is perfectly fine. The feud w/ the authority is already bigger than the title feud, imo. And I feel like this will have a bigger pay off than Bryan winning the royal rumble and compete in wrestlemania.



Author:   Salt and Pepper
Date:   Mar 07, 14 at 4:09am (PST)
Subject:   re: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------
WWE are hypocrites.

I wonder what their reason excuse is for their creative and booking being so lackluster and abysmal?



Author:   Demonfurby
Date:   Mar 07, 14 at 4:11am (PST)
Subject:   re: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------
their stocks just keep rising, im sure they feel pretty good about themselves.



Author:   Fifth Column
Date:   Mar 07, 14 at 7:12am (PST)
Subject:   re: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------
Everyone wants to be John Cena but nobody wants to be John Cena. All these guys get butthurt because they're not the center of the universe in WWE, but never in a million years could I see someone like Punk, Ziggler or Orton opening and closing every show, doig every PR event under the sun, main eventing every house show even the shit ones, staying true when the fans got sick of you, etc. All they want is the glory but the work that will never be mutually exclusive in WWE today.

Bryan I could see doing it, but even then in a few year's time. The only guy who I ever really felt capable of being in that Cena spot was Miz back in 2011, when he was champion and doing every single guest appearance, ad spot, interview, etc for the company. But we all know how that worked out for him. If these guys are truly willing, then they need to make their social interaction with their fans a little more than bitching about their spot in the card.



Author:   M_N_M48060
Date:   Mar 07, 14 at 10:07am (PST)
Subject:   re: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------
The problem isn't the title reigns or the fact that none of them have reached John Cena's spot. It's that every time they get something going the creative completely ruins it and hamstrings them. Summer of Punk v2 started as the potentially hottest angle since Austin vs McMahon and it ended up with a convoluted mess of a story involving Kevin Nash and Triple H. Ryder had a great feud going with Kane that ended with Cena taking over that feud and Ryder disappearing from TV. Bryan's current storyline just doesn't seem to have a payoff. We have been waiting for eight months for a payoff and instead we get Orton vs Batista as the main event of Wrestlemania.

The creative team seems unable to put together a coherent storyline from start to finish for anyone except John Cena and Randy Orton. That is where the problem lies.



Author:   GTS
Date:   Mar 07, 14 at 11:21am (PST)
Subject:   re: Was Triple H right - is this "The Era of Excuses" ?
-------------------------------------------
But should they be more grateful for what they do have? Punk never seems to be happy with anything.


Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2014.
All Rights Reserved.