Why Triple H was the first Raw Champion, why I fought for Rob Van Dam, and why they were right and I was wrong
Like most of the others writers on the creative team, I wanted RVD to be the first World Heavyweight Champion when we created that crown in September 2002. The thinking was that he and Brock Lesnar would be the fresh-faced champions to carry the titles through the following WrestleMania, building interest and a unique identity for each of the brands.
As you probably know, it didn't work out quite that way. Besides the fact that Brock actually lost the title just three months later, RVD never even got his moment in the sun, as Triple H actually was named the first champion, and went on to hold the title for 11 of the first 12 months of its creation.
At the time, it was disheartening to see the plans change so drastically (yes, the official plan at first was for RVD to win it). Yes, it only contributed to all the buzz and rumblings I'd heard about Triple H that I'd tried to keep an open mind about when I joined the creative team.
But here we are, years later, blessed with the gift of perspective, and I gotta say -- and you will probably disagree with me -- I was totally wrong.
Putting the title on Triple H was the best thing we could have done.
The start of 2002 was a trying time in Triple H's career -- after his return from his quad tear, he enjoyed success on-camera (winning the Royal Rumble and then the Undisputed Title at WrestleMania). But he was thrust into two roles that weren't exactly his strength -- he was a babyface (he's always been a better heel), and he was on his own (he's always thrived better when he had someone to play off of -- DX, Stephanie, Evolution, etc).
So heading into the summer, he wasn't exactly the Triple H he'd used to be.
But he was still the biggest star on the show. Rock was gone after SummerSlam, Austin was on his hiatus, Undertaker was on SmackDown, HBK was out with a worked injury from SummerSlam and Hogan was out of action.Triple H was your superstar.
So here you have this new World Heavyweight Championship, which, if introduced and portrayed correctly, is going to make you money and validate the Raw brand for years to come.
It's like Vince used to say -- spotlight. And the fewer things you spotlight at any given time, the more attention you can give to whatever's under the spotlight.
So the young superstar that Triple H needed to give the rub to, at least at that time, wasn't Rob Van Dam.
It was the World Heavyweight Championship itself.
By Triple H -- the biggest star on the show and the biggest attraction on the Raw brand -- holding that title, he made it mean something. Sure, we as marks may have hated it -- heck, I as a creative team member might have hated it at the time -- but there's no doubt that Triple H as champion gave the title instant legitimacy.
Heading into Unforgiven, it was explained to us that just awarding someone the belt is a heelish thing to do, which is why it was simply awarded to Triple H, rather than put up for grabs at the Pay-Per-View. And there were a whole bunch of reasons explained down the line -- I add the caveat that I was on the SmackDown creative team, so although we did have a lot of meetings in mixed company, I missed a lot of the discussion on the Raw title -- the main thinking is that it would mean more for RVD's (or any babyface's) win down the line if a heel were to hold it for any length of time. That's just Booking 101 -- you draw money with a babyface when they're in the thrill of the chase.
You want more proof? Think of how the early days and months of the World Heavyweight Championship were handled, and now think of how the early days of the ECW Title were handled (which, ironically enough, did start with RVD).
Both were pre-existing brands that had name recognition and a built-in fan following. Both had thin rosters, albeit with a few big stars (in September 2002, SmackDown was actually the bigger show than Raw, with Triple H being the biggest star). I'll give Raw the edge on the audience share -- Raw's timeslot was a lot more fan-friendly and established than the upstart ECW on Sci Fi.
But today the World Heavyweight Title is one of the two titles that dominate the wrestling landscape, while the ECW Title is not regarded by fans as being the prize it should be, or once was.
There's many reasons for that, not the least of which is that it's changed hands so often, and also that at one stretch, they tried to build the title concurrently with building Bobby Lashley, which didn't allow either of them enough of that "spotlight."
Let's say RVD had won the title at Unforgiven. Would he have become a big star? Maybe. In fact, probably. But when you're introducing a title that could become the flagship of your company, becoming a bigger star and drawing more money than any one individual in the longterm, you can't take that chance.
Another issue -- remember how, when Chris Jericho or Chris Benoit first became champion, and Stone Cold, Hogan, Rock and Triple H still felt like the biggest deal on the show? No knock on Jericho or Benoit, and a lot of it had to do with their positioning on the show, but it just didn't feel like the champion was the biggest thing?
That might be fine with an established title when you're trying to build something new. But Triple H was the biggest star on Raw, and giving RVD the title only meant that there was a good chance that your World Champion might not be the biggest deal going on Raw.
You needed that title next to Triple H, at least at first, to make sure that where the action was, the World Title was.
Add in the fact that he was a heel again and that we were developing this heel faction called "Evolution" for him to sink his teeth into, and it was a near foolproof plan to make sure that this new World Heavyweight Championship would be a success.
At the time, I, and many of the other writers, fought back on this, wanting to see the fresh face atop the company, and to Vince's credit -- he listened to every one of us. He was really good at listening to everyone and putting stock in what everyone had to say. But the longrun, I think he just really felt that the title itself needed to succeed above all else, and he knew Triple H was the guy who ensure the best chance of that happening.
Much as I hate to admit it, Triple H was the right guy for that job. And he did it. Say what you want about other things he's done, but he made the World Heavyweight Championship mean something, and that alone is something he deserves props for.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (41)
Hey Seth!
I just wanted to thank you for all the insight that you are providing into the WWE and the thinking behind some of the decisions that they have made. Everything seems to make sense now!
Thanks!
Joel
Did he make it mean something? All I remember from that title reign was being bored to death of seeing him as champion. Add in the fact we had that god awful Katie Vick storyline and watching promising guys like Van Dam, Booker T and Kane being destroyed professionally. Think about this, if Triple H hadn't beaten those guys, would they be where they are now?
We would have four stars instead of just one top guy at the top of the company. That one top guy being Triple H.
I think you provide a very valid point. If RVD was to win the belt, it shouldn't have the importance it and during that intital Evolution run. Whenever my friends complain that RVD was misussed, I tell them that at one point or another RVD held every title there was to hold, and as much as I like RVD, I never saw him as the guy that could run the company. Same thing happened with Jericho, (I am the biggest Jerichoholic in existences) and Benoit, they were in my opinion perhaps amongst the best overall wrestlers WWE ever had, but their title reigns left a lot to be desired.
However, all that prestige and "spotlight" HHH might have given the belt, it has since completely dissappeared. That same belt has been relegated to secondary status once it was moved to smackdown (ironically, right after Triple H's last title reign). The last WM that i can remember that had a big match feel for both titles was XX, since then the big gold belt WM match has always been the other match in the show. And after dreadful title reigns by Rey Mysterio and the Great Kahli, it has taken smackdown quite a while bring credibility back to the belt. Edge and Undertaker should have enough starpower, but for some reason WWE hasnt put the necessary spotlight behind it to give it the big fight environment it so desperately needs
"but there's no doubt that Triple H as champion gave the title instant legitimacy." COMPLETLY disagree.
1: He was given the belt and never won it in a match of any sort. Instantly stupid.
2: Before the Benoit-HBK angle of 04, the fueds that Mr Helmsly was a part of were RVD, Kane, HBK, Stiener, Booker T, Nash and Goldberg. Other than his best friend HBK, who looked good in a "last run after carrer-ending injury" kind of way, every single person looked like DOG SHIT vs HHH. RVD never once looked like a threat, Kane was treated as a joke and Booker T had slave jokes made at him. Nash was obviosuly a fued asked by Trips, so even though he sold like a champ for him, doesnt matter when no one cares. A very WCW thing for HHH to do, get your buddy in the Main Event and no one cares. O yah, Trips did to Goldberg what HBK did to Vader in killing a WCW monster. How utterly useless did Triple H make those 16 months?
Triple H wanted to be the big bad Baby after his quad blew up, so sympathy to him sucking ass as a face is un warrented. You know what the loudest pop of the 2003 rumble was next to HHH entrance? RVD's, and RVD's shitty, after-thought elimination got more boos than HHH's eventual win. People always cared about RVD, despite his glaring flaws. Hell, you could have even put the title on Trips in a tourney, do the HBK flip flop, and have Trips job to RVD at Mania. Instead, Trips is squashing Booker there (remember, multiple F5's to beat Angle, multiple Rock Bootoms to beat Austin, 1 Pedigree to beat Booker) and RVD is losing to a elbow drop on HEAT.
You were right from the start sir, don't let anyone tell you diffrent!
"but there's no doubt that Triple H as champion gave the title instant legitimacy." COMPLETLY disagree.
1: He was given the belt and never won it in a match of any sort. Instantly stupid.
2: Before the Benoit-HBK angle of 04, the fueds that Mr Helmsly was a part of were RVD, Kane, HBK, Stiener, Booker T, Nash and Goldberg. Other than his best friend HBK, who looked good in a "last run after carrer-ending injury" kind of way, every single person looked like DOG SHIT vs HHH. RVD never once looked like a threat, Kane was treated as a joke and Booker T had slave jokes made at him. Nash was obviosuly a fued asked by Trips, so even though he sold like a champ for him, doesnt matter when no one cares. A very WCW thing for HHH to do, get your buddy in the Main Event and no one cares. O yah, Trips did to Goldberg what HBK did to Vader in killing a WCW monster. How utterly useless did Triple H make those 16 months?
Triple H wanted to be the big bad Baby after his quad blew up, so sympathy to him sucking ass as a face is un warrented. You know what the loudest pop of the 2003 rumble was next to HHH entrance? RVD's, and RVD's shitty, after-thought elimination got more boos than HHH's eventual win. People always cared about RVD, despite his glaring flaws. Hell, you could have even put the title on Trips in a tourney, do the HBK flip flop, and have Trips job to RVD at Mania. Instead, Trips is squashing Booker there (remember, multiple F5's to beat Angle, multiple Rock Bootoms to beat Austin, 1 Pedigree to beat Booker) and RVD is losing to a elbow drop on HEAT.
You were right from the start sir, don't let anyone tell you different!
Seth,
I agree with the concept of having a heel champion being chased by top babyfaces. However, my issue is with the way it was executed in the case of HHH and the World Heavyweight Championship.
You mentioned HHH being the biggest star on Raw when compared to RVD, et al, but you didn't mention why was he positioned as the biggest star on Raw in the first place, and that is his influence on the creative team, thanks to his relationship with Stephanie McMahon, which was one of the worst-kept secrets in wrestling at the time. Most fans knew about his status behind the scenes, so when he was handed the World Heavyweight Championship, a lot of us just rolled our eyes because we saw it as him pulling strings behind the scenes rather than a "heel move."
You also have to look at the way the babyface challengers were handled. When you look at Ric Flair's run during the '80s, it was compelling because his babyface challengers were treated as legitimate threats, even if in reality, they weren't. Just about everyone Flair faced was strong before and during the match, and stayed strong after the match, even though Flair usually won.
By comparison, RVD, Booker T, Kane, Jericho, Steiner and even Goldberg were booked to look like chumps in the weeks leading up to the match with HHH. And as such, not only was the outcome of the match never really in doubt, but the challengers had no momentum coming out of the match to keep the angle going strong. The only people HHH faced during that time that avoided looking weak were Shawn Michaels (HHH's buddy) and Kevin Nash (also HHH's buddy).
So I agree that HHH was the best option, but that's because, technically speaking, he was the ONLY option.
You know I've always felt that the WWE is doing it wrong with the top babyfaces chasing the heels title. Since they split from the NWA by giving Bruno Smmartino an eight year run they have always been the land of the dominant face. Doing it with Hulk Hogan helped them destroy the territory system. And during the Attitude era even when Steve Austin wasn't champ he hadn't lost the belt legitimately so he was uncrowned champ. That helped them get rid of WCW.
DOing it any other way is following the losers formula.
If Triple H was the biggest star on Raw and the man you wanted to have the belt was Rob Van Dam then the thing to do is make RVD the bigger star.
I was a huge Rob Van Dam mark when he worked in ECW. The smaller ring really benefited his character as a wrestler. He could gain more air on his moves with a shorter distance to cover and he was closer to the audience so he interacted more with the fans while he was wrestling.
ECW's "attitude/policy/athletic form of expression" (whatever you want to call it) benefited Van Dam's character as well. He was very exciting when he was landing on the back of his head and kicking guy's square in the jaw. He looked like he gave as good as he got even if a lot of the hits he took were self propelled drops to the ground.
I thought Van Dam was king in ECW for his level of innovation, risk-taking and in-ring personality. I think too many factors in the WWE worked against Van Dam ever being able to recreate the same level of significance for them that he had in ECW.
By the way, whose idea was it for Van Dam to point at himself all the time? He did it quite a bit in ECW, but he went into overdrive when he hit the WWE.
I was a huge Rob Van Dam mark when he worked in ECW. The smaller ring really benefited his character as a wrestler. He could gain more air on his moves with a shorter distance to cover and he was closer to the audience so he interacted more with the fans while he was wrestling.
ECW's "attitude/policy/athletic form of expression" (whatever you want to call it) benefited Van Dam's character as well. He was very exciting when he was landing on the back of his head and kicking guy's square in the jaw. He looked like he gave as good as he got even if a lot of the hits he took were self propelled drops to the ground.
I thought Van Dam was king in ECW for his level of innovation, risk-taking and in-ring personality. I think too many factors in the WWE worked against Van Dam ever being able to recreate the same level of significance for them that he had in ECW.
By the way, whose idea was it for Van Dam to point at himself all the time? He did it quite a bit in ECW, but he went into overdrive when he hit the WWE.
I think Seth is just saying things to rile up the Smarky Smarks.
"It was a GREAT IDEA to make Triple H champion, and here's all the reasons why!!!!"
Seriously lame.
Yeah, I think this is the case of someone on the inside not seeing the forest for the trees. Awarding the belt outright was a mistake. At the very least, they could have gotten a month of TV out of a tournament, and given the dull TV we've seen over the past few years out of WWE, that's something that I think would have been desirable.
Awarding the belt could conceivably be seen as the heelish thing to do, but it just made me not care about the Big Gold Belt. It also hurts both belts that they're each a world title for a TV show, not their own promotion.
Seems like a necessary evil, I agree with Seth. Of course, most of the reign was boring and the belt had been "legitimized" long before HHH finally jobbed, but that's the corner you're backed into when there's only one big star on the roster.
But also, it's pretty counterproductive to have only one huge star on the brand, then giving him a long title run where he buries everyone in his path.
i think putting the title on hhh was the right thing to do. what went wrong was how his challengers were treated. kane...rvd...booker t. the three men were buried after facing hhh. the wwe did a very poor job of building up the aforementioned three men and their careers took years to get back to being a top tier challenger for the title.
since wrestlemania x7 when wwe jumped the shark, the wwe has done a horrible job of making solid world title feuds. i miss the times when there was 3 or 4 guys who at any time could come in and beat the champ because they were built up. that time is long gone.
long live hhh
I completely understand your point on everything....but I think a huge tournament, like 32 wrestlers played out almost like a "March Madness" type thing would not only have made great television, but would have given the title a sense of legitimacy that fans would definitely have bought into.
I liked the decision of the belt handed to HHH. I understand how they wanted the belt to mean something. It makes sense why Evolution was formed to help him keep the title. What didn't make sense was the booking the challengers.
-RVD looked stronger by the way he lossed. After RVD loss, they didn't keep him strong. If you keep losing, people stop caring about a character.
-Kane looked strong until the words "Katie Vick" came out and everybody stopped caring. It took Kane a while (without a mask & heel to get him over again)
-Scott Steiner came into WWE strong but looked like crap because of "pose downs". He didn't work well as face and they booked him bad. They should have had matches against jobbers beating them bad to put over how strong the steiner recliner can be. He shouldn't have gone against HHH to start either (I've never been a fan of a wrestler getting a title shot when they just come into a promotion unless you are Hogan or Flair).
-Booker T was never build to a real challenger. I mean look at when HHH laughed at Goldust's stupid gimmick (which was Booker's friend). No one bought Booker as a challenger at all.
-Goldberg was ruined as his wasn't hard challenger to put over. All you had to do was do exactly what WCW did to build him into a champion. Let his action speak for him. Even that was screwed up.
I always use WWF 2000 time. If you look at when the Rock won the belt at King of the Ring, here are the list of challengers the Rock can face:
Undertaker
Kane-both were on his winning side of that match
HHH-He really didn't lose, Vince loss the match
Kurt Angle-won King of the Ring
Chris Benoit-former IC Champ, can be a good challenger
Chris Jericho-Beat HHH on Raw for belt (although we are supposed to not remember)
Rikishi-if built with a few big wins, he can be a challenger
That's at least 7 challengers for 1 belt! This was exactly how you build a credible challengers. This makes your belt meaningful. Plus there are a lot of "fresh" matchups there against the Rock. I don't understand why the WWE can't get this right. If a newer wrestler beats a challenger for the belt, it makes it meaningful too and he could be a challenger for the belt too. Its not only building that match for the title, but its building future challengers for the belt to make it exciting, otherwise it becomes repetive. This is why the WWE needs to have long term plans for wrestlers. They need another Chris Kreski to come in and take over and do it correctly.
I'll ignore all of the Triple H stuff to focus on this little buried gem about why the ECW title fails to get over as a major championship:
"There's many reasons for that, not the least of which is that it's changed hands so often, and also that at one stretch, they tried to build the title concurrently with building Bobby Lashley, which didn't allow either of them enough of that "spotlight."
The problem with that was that Lashley was no good in the ring, horrible on the mic (sounded like Mike Tyson's kid sister), and was completely devoid of charisma. BUT, he had a huge, impressive physique so he was what the man in charge was looking for. A title should never need to be "built" if it is treated like a prize and not a prop. Then, if a guy wins the belt and does it the right way, he is instantly "made" in the eyes of the fans.
AND another thing, if something doesn't seem like the right thing "to the marks" as you say in your blog, then IT IS NOT THE RIGHT THING! The "marks" are the ones paying for tickets, buying merchendise, and tuning in to the shows. Telling them something is the "right thing to do" because the powers that be in the WWe say it is the right thing is the reason the ECW title never has gotten over: they had to push the guy the boss said was the "right guy" even though the fans never bought it instead of just giving the paying fans what something they would have accepted.
First of all, I realize that it's stupid to complain about a 5 year old angle.
But, you know, this whole "HHH is the only star so we HAD to put the title on him" is a load of BS. You make stars by BEATING other stars. If HHH is the only star, then he puts over RVD, then RVD is a star.
I mean, by this logic, was Brock a star on the other show? Who on the other show was a "star" besides The Undertaker? Why didn't The Undertaker get the title and bury Brock, Edge, Angle, Benoit, and Eddy the way HHH buried Booker, RVD, Kane, and Flair? You could argue that the WWE title was a fractured as the Big Gold Belt.
But I mean, that title was meaningless, anyway. I don't think the Big Gold Belt meant anything until the Benoit/Michaels/HHH storyline made it worth something. Similarly, I don't think it means anything now that it's pretty much being used to hold up Edge's pants, and he's just basically holding onto it so he can give it to Undertaker at WrestleMania. That's meaningless.
I guess what I'm saying is you can call it the Western States Heritage Title, and if there are good wrestlers fighting over it and I can suspend my disbelief, it's going to make me watch. And if you call it the Universal World Championship of the Galaxy, but the feuds over it are being dictated by the guy who's also doing the head booker... well, it will look as illegitimate as the fake title we know it is.
"By the way, whose idea was it for Van Dam to point at himself all the time? He did it quite a bit in ECW, but he went into overdrive when he hit the WWE."
....ummm... I just want to point out you're completely out in left field on this one.
If anything, RVD toned DOWN the "pointing at himself" in a HUGE way when he was in the WWE.
If you have it, throw in the RVD dvd (that WWE released) and go back to his ECW stuff. He used to stop, pose, "point at himself", and in general "ham it up" after EVERY spot!!
I think you probably just need to refresh your memory.
If you really wanted to give the title legitmacy, than hold a tournament and book it to mean something beyond anyone would've imagined. HHH did not want the IC title because it was "beneath" him, based on what I've read.
I never thought RVD had a chance at winning the title that early. Who I did expect and hope to win was Kane at that year's No Mercy pay per view. It's interesting how you glance past all the other talents that HHH was made to look inferior besides RVD, such as Booker T, Kane, Bubba Ray Dudley, The Hurricane, etc. Kane should have left No Mercy the champion. The Raw before NM he plowed through most of the roster to show how dominant he was, and then he loses thanks to a crowbar and Hurricane's interference backfiring? It was EXTREMELY disappointing. That was as hot an opportunity as you were ever going to get to put the title back on Kane, and the McMahons blew it.
And say what you will about Jericho's reign, but Benoit DOMINATED while he was champion. I can't get anyone who complains about Benoit's six month reign. I had friends who started accusing Benoit of holding talent down the same way Trips did. They nicknamed him 'The Trippler'. Benoit's reign was awesome and unparalleled. Six months of foiling HHH's masterplans, making fun of Kane, going toe to toe with Orton. It was GREAT. Then, you went right back to HHH after Orton gets it for three weeks!? I will continue to say that HHH is the reason Raw sucks, even now in 2008. Seriously, I will never forgive him for the mediocrity he's produced since 1999 and on through his DX reunion and recent singles run.
And say what you will about Jericho's reign, but Benoit DOMINATED while he was champion. I can't get anyone who complains about Benoit's six month reign. I had friends who started accusing Benoit of holding talent down the same way Trips did. They nicknamed him 'The Trippler'. Benoit's reign was awesome and unparalleled. Six months of foiling HHH's masterplans, making fun of Kane, going toe to toe with Orton. It was GREAT. Then, you went right back to HHH after Orton gets it for three weeks!? I will continue to say that HHH is the reason Raw sucks, even now in 2008. Seriously, I will never forgive him for the mediocrity he's produced since 1999 and on through his DX reunion and recent singles run.
Maybe it was because Benoits title reign was simultaneous with Eddie's (which I enjoyed tremendously), but I really never thought it was anything special.
HHH reign, if anything, served the purpose of getting the belt on Benoit in such a worthy manner, with a properly built feud and beating two of the biggest superstars in WWE history at the main event of the years biggest event. They're gonna have to try real hard to have a better "Wrestlemania Moment" than having Eddie and Benoit embracing at the end, both of them as champions. That wrestlemania, with disappointing performances by the rock and mankind and a lackluster return for the undertaker, gave me hope that WWE was taking things in a new direction, with two of the most technically gifted wrestlers in their roster leading the way.
The problem I had with benoits title reign was that they never gave him that big match environment to work in. Even the rematch at backlash felt forced and unimportant. He might have had great matches, specially if compared to the garbage HHH has been spewing out for years (trips took a page from flairs book on taking it easy and working on the strength of what he had previously done, except trips only had like 3 years of solid performances instead of say,more than a decade like natch) But in the end, he lost it, cleanly, to a guy who lost it a few weeks later, and he never got another chance to run the ball.
Of course, Benoit never really needed the belt to shine, and did his job at helping out up and comers, and was about to bring prestige to the new ECW belt before tragedy unfolded. And unfortunately for him, he hasn't become a hero of sorts like Eddie or Owen after his death.
Meanwhile, HHH continues hogging the spotlight and working his magic with his reverse midas touch, crapping all over Raw for years to come. At least he helped, for better or worse, to turn cena into what he has become.
I find it funny that five and a half years later, although most fans here would say they now like HHH as a wrestler, the venom still flies when we think back to 2002 and HHH's reign as WWE champion. Like many I think the HHH title reign back then was flawed... way flawed... for many of the same reasons that have been presented here by some posters. For one, a champion is only as good as his challengers and HHH's challengers at the time, although good, were never booked credibly in a way that made you get emotionally attached and believe they could truly win.
Second, the feuds that HHH were in not only did nothing to build up his opponents but failed to build up HHH up either. Look back to the John Cena/Kurt Angle feud that went on forever and saw fans start to boo Cena more and more. Why? Because after awhile they get sick and tired of seeing the same guy always win the big match. They want and need progression and build-up in a storyline. HHH's feuds did not have that, with the exceptions of Batista, Benoit and Cena.
Was HHH probably the best choice to be WWE champion at the time? Possibly. But the execution of the plan could have been done a WHOLE lot better.
Seth,
First of all, I'd love to interview you on my radio show. It's called the Daily Suplex. Click my name and send me an email if you'd be interested at all.
Anyway, I agree that putting the belt on HHH was the right thing to do. When you first revealed in a previous blog that the plan was for RVD to win it, I started to think back on what wrestling was like at the time. If Van Dam had won it then, I think it would've flopped within a matter of a couple months.
Vince was right in saying that building the legitimacy of the championship was the most important thing. I believe that they did a great job of that. Sure, H held the belt for a year with a bit of a break in there, but it added prestige. In the first two months of HHH's reign, he beat RVD and Kane, who were arguably RAW's two biggest babyfaces at the time. That makes both the belt and HHH look stronger.
Then HBK wins it. A legend and former World champion like Michaels gives the championship yet another boost. After HHH won it back in December, the months that followed seemed to feel like HHH overkill at times, and it definitely was for the HHH character, however it was necessary for the World championship.
I've always been a big fan of both RVD and HHH, but I do agree that making HHH RAW's first World champion was the right move.
By the way, Seth, my name is Big Luther on the website. If you'd be interested in some kind of interview, just click "Contact TDS" and then the name Big Luther.
Triple H holding the title made it legit, but just giving it to him was not legit. It happened again with Orton last year (who went from a 1 time WWE/World Champion to 3 time in one night!) It diminishes the value.
Regarding the recent WWE title situation, it didn't help the matter either that Cena had to relinquish the title after a reign of over one year. Had he not lost it, he may still have been champion today! If you push a worker too much, eventually they'll cave, and become injured (I bet they wanted him to break Hogan's reign, of nearly 4 years; this will probably be more truthful if Cena wins at 'Mania).
All in all, as has been said before, the man makes the championship, not the other way around.
If you believe putting the title on HHH the way they did was the right thing to do, I now REQUIRE you to read the book Wrestling's One Ring Circus - The Death of the World Wrestling Federation by Scott Keith...your tune will change REAL quick.
Yeah, you all are right...lets put the title on someone who is just gonna get suspended for drugs instead. Someone who was his own biggest enemy. I am personally thankfully H was the champ cause it was eventual that goldberg would bail out, cause he's one of the greediest and hardest to work with. Booker T was ok but he never was a "top dawg" like the rock or H, and steiner was just a joke. Kane, yes he shouldve gotten pushed, but his character has been in destruction for years now, and thats not vinces fault, its mostly his own for being content where he's at in the company, like he has said in many interviews. If he was as vocal as taker is, He wouldnt be where he is. H was the man for the job at the time and ushered in as one of the best heels of all times.
I totally agree with Seth.
The fact that some people are still annoyed with awarding HHH the title shows what an effective move it was. Whether you hate it from a 'marks' point of view or you hate it because you think you're 'smart' and think it's the wrong decision, the fact is you hated it. That means you hate HHH. That means it's absolutely the right decision.
HHH was the biggest star. It's not his fault Austin left. It's not his fault The Rock left. It's not his fault Foley left. What made HHH's title reign boring wasn't the fact that HHH had it for so long, it was the fact that he didn't have enough true main event challengers to compete with him. RVD and Kane are not those guys, neither is Booker and neither is Jericho. People say that 'well they should have put RVD over HHH to make him the star' but does RVD have that mass appeal to carry the flagship show of the company. Are people going to cheer for the RVD title run 3/4/5 months down the line as much as they would hate the HHH run? They'd hate the HHH run more. RVD is no Hogan or Austin. To be a babyface who has the long reign they need to have mass appeal. I don't think a laid-back 'dude' like RVD would have been the right impression to give to world. There was no viable long reigning babyface champ, so they make a heel champ.
Really there was nothing wrong with the way HHH won his matches. It's still basic booking. HHH would look convincing beating the guys that are beneath him, and making them look like they were beneath him, because THEY WERE beneath him! They were just in the position HBK, Jericho and Jeff Hardy have been in this year. They are building up Orton's legitimacy as champion. When there was someone viable to take the title off of HHH, they did it. HBK wasn't beneath HHH like Booker et al were, so he would be a good choice to end the reign. Goldberg wasn't. Benoit wasn't, because he was a guy they wanted to use as one of the top guys as they believed he would have enough appeal.
When there were new babyfaces ready to take the title of HHH, they did it. Goldberg, Benoit, Batista. It's the reason wrestling is cyclical though, because there is a timespan between the new being created and the old ones leaving. So in that time you try and keep the biggest stars you can in the spotlight as much as possible. You can't just build any old guy though, it has to be the right guy. If Vince didn't have confidence in RVD being the franchise player on the flagship show, then they weren't going to do it. Ditto Jericho, ditto Booker, ditto Kane.
I'd think not making the biggest star on the roster the focus of the show would be quite a stupid move, especially at a time when the other big stars have left. RVD wasn't big at the time, they would have had to build him. So they have HHH sitting around in the mid/upper card, while RVD is trying to build himself in the main event, and trying to sell matches and make money with a new title at the same time? Nah, doesn't sound feasible to me.
HHH was the right choice, and it wasn't his fault the reign wasn't very exciting. It was still the best thing for business, because putting guys who weren't as big in his spot right off the bat with a new belt may have seen an even bigger ratings dive. The initial buzz will wear off if you thrust the babyface who isn't even an established main eventer as the biggest star in the company very quickly. HHH was the safe bet, but he was also the right one.
I agree with you, because Triple H did make the title more legit. Regardless of what these other characters say down here, I know everyone hates HHH which makes them biased and the Evolution time of Raw was the thinnest the roster had ever seemed, with no built up stars. Batista back then was the equivalent of Carlito, with Kanes move set. Even if the Kane story line was stupid, HHH beating him steiner and goldberg put legitimacy into the title, and arguing that it sucks on smackdown now is not right. You aren't really talking about the belts themselves, half the time I don't even notice which belt it is, but you refer to the brand champion. Despite WWE's wishes, I consider the belt Cena has held to be the same one HHH had back then, even though Edge is carrying that piece of gold. You think of smackdowns world champion history, or raws, not the world heavyweight title, or the WWE championship. No difference, even if you love those belts, as I do the former WCW one.
I'm not a huge Triple H fan but the options were pretty limited at the time and Triple H was the best choice available. I was an RVD fan going back to the ECW days but he was never going to be a top level guy regardless of how many people like to chant his initials. Much like Jeff Hardy he's just WAY too non-threatening to, you know, appear as a threat. I just don't believe either one of them could beat ME up let alone a big, established guy like Trips. You can put guys like RVD and Hardy over guys like HHH, JBL or even Austin all you want and all you've accomplished is bringing HHH, JBL or Austin DOWN to the level of RVD or Hardy, you've promoted no one. There was really no one else available.
Lets make one thing clear. I watched Smackdown and not RAW during this era and only went back when Benoit won the Rumble. Don't use this "The fact that some people are still annoyed with awarding HHH the title shows what an effective move it was" crap. I remember and am annoyed The Rockers getting screwed out of the Tag Titles, still don't like it.
The ratings started its monumental noise dive because of HHH pathetic run. That is the allmighty bottom line. He started the sinking ship that is the 3.5 raating we have today.
Vince Russo and HHH are the reasons why TV sucks now, never forget that.
I don't think Russo has anything to do with WWE TV sucking right now, as WWE was good after he left, it's only since they went back to USA that they started to really suck. Main reasons for this are Vince McMahon and Stephanie more than HHH, who is still the best on Raw but is in a really awkward position.
HHH was the best guy to put the world title on, I agreed at the time and still do. They probably should have had a battle royal though or a one-night tournament though to decide it, Flair could have helped him win it. Then they should have made RVD a more threatening contender.
As for the Kane fued, I agree it was stupid, I found it quite funny but totally pointless if Kane wasn't going to win the belt.
Shawn winning the title was horrible, he had no right holding that title at that time after just 2 matches. Either RVD should have won it or HHH retained cleanly proving after the tainted title win he was the worthy champion.
RVD and HHH could then have battle up to Wrestlemania perhaps adding HBK for a triple threat.
The Steiner fued was awful and I wouldn't have ever done it.
Booker T was the man HHH should have lost the title too, probably not at Wrestlemania as I don't feel the fued was far along enough at that point, but maybe at Backlash with a still-buddy Nash screwing up and costing Trips the belt.
Then Booker could have battled with RVD, Jericho, Steiner and Kane whilst HHH fueded with Nash, a fued which had nothing do with the world title.
Seth,
My problem at the time with Triple H being World champion didn't have much to do with Triple H himself, but it had a lot to do with the manner he was just "given" the belt. I didn't like it when Nick Bockwinkle was just "given" the AWA title when Stan Hansen no-showed, and I didn't like it in 2002. The better story (and it's always about the story) would've been if Triple H had cheated his way to win a tournament or an elimination match or whatever, and then used every underhanded tactic to hold onto that belt. I always liked the storyline of the babyface challenger chasing the heel champion better (see: Flair, Ric).
That said, I love the blog. I've always wondered what went on in the inner workings of WWE creative. Great blog!
K. Fabe,
Parts Unknown
LOL, I can't believe some people are saying it was HHH's fault for the ratings slide. It wasn't HHH's fault, it was the fact that established main event stars that could hold mainstream interest had all left in quick successsion, and there would have been a gap before the new stars got built up. Add the fact that there is no way wrestling could have sustained the ridiculously high numbers they were doing, it really isn't HHH's fault. If he had exciting, true main event challengers coming at him every week, the show would have been better.
RVD as champion could have been even worse, and probably would have been. What does it look like for Raw when you try and put the main belt on someone who has only previously been IC level, with no sustained built up? It makes the whole brand look weak, and as Seth says, it was the belt that needed the rub, because the belt sells matches, and matches make money. HHH gave that belt the rub. RVD wouldn't have.
RVD could have been a fine champion down the line, if the company had confidence in him and pushed him appropriately to get him there. Giving him the belt straight off, and then putting him over HHH doesn't make RVD look any better, it just makes HHH look weak, and as the last of the great attitude stars still full time, that would have been a stupid move. For RVD to truly look better than HHH and carry the brand, he would have probably needed 4/6 months of build up, gradually going over the established guys until he is the top guy. Giving him the belt straight off though, when trying to estbalish the belt, just brings the belt down. It makes the belt looks weak, it makes the biggest star on what was a thin roster look weak. Ratings would have gone further down had that happened.
A weak roster was the reason for the lack of excitement on the programming, not HHH.
While I agree that HHH was the perfect guy to put the new title on, I disagree that simply awarding it to him was a good move. Sure, it was heelish, but I also think it made HHH's job all that harder getting the title over as legitimate.
I think the entire WHC thing thing was handled pretty poorly. It seemed to have the same problem that a lot of WWE angles have, which is that sometimes they seem so focused on the eventual place they want to be that they forget to think up an interesting way to get there.
Awarding the title to a random person seems the very worst way to build credibility for a title. A tournament for a world title on a PPV seems like it would be an exciting event that would draw well. Or going with a championship match controversy where the title was split seems like it could have worked well also. Plus it would have added some much needed rivalry between both brands.
I Totally Agree,Handing the title to Triple H was Great.It was a good Heel Storyline for one with a Heel General manager involved(Bischoff).All the guys who Triple H fueded with during His Title Run in 2002-03 RVD,KANE,STEINER,BOOKER T,NASH. none of them Should ever have been Champ.The Title means alot less when it gets passed around like it did in the Late 90's(Mick Foley comes to mind).So I think Making Triple H champ was the only real thing that could've been done.In the Fall of 02' HBK came out of the Fued with Triple H looking like roses,Pinning him cleanly at summerslam and Survivor Series,and in the Fall of 03' He put Goldberg of clean twice(unforgiven 03 and Survivor Series 03). I don't know anything about what goes on behind the scenes but perhaps Triple H regaining the title at the end of 03' had as much to do with Goldberg being one foot out the door as it did with HHH cause Goldberg left 3 months Later
I thought HHH beat Undertaker in a #1 contenders match for the WWE Champiobship the night Lesnar jumped to Smackdown? Kinda explains why HHH had the WHC title handed to him
I'm not a smart or mark but I can definitely say that i'm a big wrestling fan since I was a kid and its pretty tiring reading and hearing all those things that HHH killed WWE. Coz I dont see why he killed it coz quite frankly, HHH is one of the reasons why i STILL watch WWE becoz eversince the Brand Extension it pretty quite sucked. But not always since after the Brand Extension there was the RAW vs SD hypes and all. For that stuff about RVD and HHH and who can the belt be handed to, of course i'd go for HHH. And not just because i'm an HHH fan but becoz RVD sure has the moves and the athleticism and charisma, but he lacks one thing and this is just my opinion. The mic skills. I dont remember any time back in WWE that RVD had this in-ring promos that I was actually amazed at his mic work. And for me, if you're gonna be a champion you better have the moves, the charisma, the flair, the ability and of course the ability to work the audience not just by your wrestling moves but most importantly you have to put yourself over with the audience with your on-screen presence and with your mic skills. RVD lacks with that. Becoz IMO HHH makes you glued to the tube whether he has a backstage segment, promo or vignettes. But RVD? I dont remember much about his segments but only his awesome and over the top wrestling moves. So, HHH was the only option because he had it. The skills and all and it may suck to some and he has all them haters but why hate on him? because he is that damn good and he has proven it time and time again whether some may like it or not.
WWE is sports-entertainment right? We see live and raw wrestling action and the entertainment side, the wrestlers should also entertain the crowd and what does The Rock, Austin, Foley, Triple H, Shawn Michaels have in common, the superstars who have been born with the Attitude Era? They have the ability to move the crowd whether they're heels and faces.