Being the Coolest in the Room Doesn't Entitle You to Your Own History

Not even a robotic arm can make me feel sorry for this douche
Photo Credit: WWE.com

It's well known that I hate Triple H. I make no bones about it. Therefore, the following coming from me might be taken with a grain of salt. It might even be expected. However, I really think it's deserved, because not even Paul Heyman could save that awful, dreadful first segment last night. Part of it stems from the fact that once again, Triple H had to be the coolest, toughest, smartest guy in the room from jump. Yes, he shrugged off his arm injury like it was nothing. I might've respected him more if he actually came out and no-sold his arm being hurt by saying it in Internet chat shorthand. "Brock Lesnar, I'm mad you broke my arm... lol j/k nah, it's cool bro."

If it was only that, I'm not sure I'd be writing this. It's when he went into his rant about Lesnar's history in UFC that I started shaking my head. Granted, he was making what resembled a sound argument, but then he threw in the point about Lesnar turning tail and leaving at the first sign of losing. For those who have no idea what UFC is, that might sound like a "RAH RAH YEAH!" argument, but with this whole plot point to restore "legitimacy" to WWE, they're trying to attract people who generally have an idea of what the company is, what MMA is and what Brock did there.

So, how are they going to reconcile the fact that Triple H was flat out wrong? Lesnar's first fight was against Frank Mir, which he lost. The turning-of-the-tail and quitting at the end of his run didn't come at the "first sign of losing". He got knocked the fuck out by Cain Velasquez and then fought once more after that against Alistair Overeem, both fights where Lesnar was in the throes of a massively protracted battle with diverticulitis. So while Lesnar's UFC career may very well have been fodder to attack by a more able promo than the COO, it wasn't done very well by a guy who's supposed to be WWE's viking warrior hero.

In fact, coupled with Trips "being a star" towards Heyman, the only way that segment makes sense is if he's the bad guy in this. If I could even convince myself that they were doing some kind of twist storytelling where the payoff shows that Lesnar was right all along and that the entire narrative has been thrown on its head, it still wouldn't reconcile that the people in Lesnar's camp are clearly being presented as awful, awful people. I mean, did you SEE Lesnar booster #2 (#1 is Heyman) make a man grovel for his job before firing him? If I'm supposed to be choosing to root for the side with the evil dictator of a boss or the one with the other evil dictator of a boss? I thought noir cinema as wrestling was TNA's bag?

Maybe I'm being pedantic, because even going back to Hulk Hogan, the good guys were never always good and the heels were the ones who told the truth. That being said, Hogan was at least charismatic and able to mask his shittiness to me. Maybe it's a combination of Trips being flat out wrong and not being charismatic enough to make me not care about it. But whatever it is, it would be nice if WWE trotted out someone that didn't make me want to defend Lesnar's career in a field that I border on hating from time to time.