>>12892490At the time, it was true. Even the match with HHH had far more heat than Roman vs HHH, which nobody gave a shit about and people were leaving.
Say what you want about now (desu, fucking Seth tries more than the other two), but from 2014-2016, Dean had the most charisma of the three and he was the one people wanted to see with the title.
But, I also agree with
>>12891414I think 32, should've been Roman vs Brock and Haitch vs Dean. Then you can build to Roman vs Dean. Part of the reason Dean's run died is it came after his hottest point so people cooled off and then they put him against the guy that just beat Cena when it still mattered. I think building Roman vs Dean would've done more for both of them at the time. Especially because Roman would've been a heel or atleast a tweener and shown some of the stuff that did eventually get him over.
All in all though, considering the huge investment in all 3, I think they all kind of failed in their own way. The company is far more important than any of them and Dean is out. Roman eventually got to that level but it took him seven years to get there. Austin and Rock's entire full time WWE run was seven years. Reigns failed for the length of Austin and Rock's runs until he got over as heel.
Rollins had a run on top that was legendarily terrible and led to what mean consider as the worse match of the last decade.
Dean's run completely flopped and he kind of just floundered around the card until he left. Not before jobbing out to everyone on his way out.
Like, that's seven years on three guys that didn't get over. Imagine all the people they could've at least tried something new with. And now, again, both main companies don't actually have a new guy because they invested so much time on people who can't really get over.
