A dominant is different to completely dominant though. Also, the length of the runs matter. HBK was portrayed as this unstoppable babyface for like 8 months before they pulled the plug on that. And even there, he had the match with Mankind where he put him over basically. And even Goldust. I just dont think you get anything from a Triple H 2002-2005 or Lesnar 201X kinda runs. You always have dominant superstars but making them look this invincible this often just makes it boring, for me. Even Cena at his peak of fruity pebbles run made others look strong now and then. Those were the better runs IMO.There has always been a dominant superstar though. Certainly in the WWF/E anyway. It's just that during some periods they've done better/worse jobs of managing strength in depth.
I think this is indeed key. I also think it's harder to have a dominant heel on top for a long period of time, so no surprise you've picked HHH and Lesnar as your examples of a dominant star working out badly. (I don't think it's such a problem for a top face like Cena/Austin/Hogan etc. to have a long run.)Also, the length of the runs matter.
It is a real shame Joe never held either of the big WWE titles. He had some great main event feuds
Watch the Stone Cold interview with Jericho and/or the Undertaker.have the network for another few days,,,what is the best non PPV stuff on it?
Just heard that New Jack died. Good ****ing riddance.
Context?Well he was unique at least.
"That's two less we got to to worry about" is an all time line.