|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Jul 23, 2011 2:16:26 GMT -5
He's a second tier superstar talent that the WWE tried to convince everyone that he was on the 1st tier. He's on par with Taker, Foley, HBK and others, but he's not on the Hogan/Rock/Austin/Cena tier, yet with all the title wins and bodies buried, they try to put him up as an all time great.
|
|
|
Post by triplezs on Jul 23, 2011 2:35:36 GMT -5
I think it's unfair to say Triple H wouldn't have reached the Main Event without Stephanie. He would have simply because he would have been "the guy" by default after Austin and Rock left.
Three primary things bothered me:
1. His crazy paranoia about things. The whole deal about him and the WWE not wanting him to look weak in promotions for SvR 2009. Him squashing the Hurricane later in 2003 following an entertaining feud the Hurricane had with The Rock. The times where he would occasionally shoot on fellow wrestlers during promos and him insisting on Main Eventing with Jericho at Wrestlemania 18 when Rock/Hogan was clearly the main attraction. Even Jericho acknowledges this on his DVD. Triple H, for all the advantages he had and title reigns, just seems (or seemed) very insecure about his standing in the business. Meanwhile, Rock jobbed to guys like the Hurricane and his Wrestlemania record is really horrible if you look at it. Rock was the only Main Eventer to never leave Wrestlemania with the championship. Oddly, you never hear stories about Rock complaining or wanting the cameras on him with the belt at the end. Rock was great for the business in this aspect.
2. He just bored me too much. His promos were incredibly long and he never sucked me in as a fan of his. I was far from an Austin and Rock mark (my favorites were Bret and HBK), but whenever they were doing promos, I watched for sure. It might be unfair, but promos are important for me and The Game's promos wore me down more than a 30-minute jog.
3. This is the wrestling historian coming out of me – I HATED when Ric Flair basically became his leg-humping poodle. Maybe Flair deserves the blame for that, but Triple H is no where near Flair's level in history. Flair's promos were awesome back in the day. Also on the history end – Triple H has won the WWE/F title 8 times. HBK, Savage and Andre combined for 7 runs and really with Andre selling his belt, it was 6.
Triple H would have won titles without Stephanies influence. But he shouldn't have four times the reigns Savage had. He shouldn't have five more reigns that Michaels.
Triple H is a good wrestler, but to me he never reached the peak. Some of it was his fault and the fault of a weaker era.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Truant on Jul 23, 2011 4:05:57 GMT -5
Triple H is one of my all-time favorites, without a doubt, and he is/was massively over, but he just doesn't have "it" in spades, like Austin and The Rock do, and there's no shame in that. The fans still love him, and so do I.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Jul 23, 2011 5:46:00 GMT -5
I liked him too and have ever since he was in WCW. How could anyone not like a wrestler who genuinely loves wrestling? That said, working next to a guy like Shawn Michaels and alongside Austin and Rock, he's probably always going to be underrated.
|
|
Mista T
Unicron
THAT'S HARDCORE!!!1
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by Mista T on Jul 23, 2011 6:07:24 GMT -5
He was when he was in DX...kinda
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jul 23, 2011 6:11:36 GMT -5
Because he didnt have the crossover appeal that Rock and Austin did. But to HHHs credit, he has stayed relevant and hugely over for over 10 years in the main event.
|
|
|
Post by AndyUK on Jul 23, 2011 6:40:42 GMT -5
Rock and Austin were the faces of the company, whereas he was their big rival. He was just as important as them because every hero needs a villain to work with but he was the person ''the man'' got put up against rather than ''the man'' himself.
I honestly think it is a little unfair to put all of his title reigns down to his marriage to Stephanie. I'm not saying he would have the same amount of reigns as he does now but the guy was the last really big star to stay from the hottest era in wrestling history, it was only natural that they would keep him on top for so long.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jul 23, 2011 6:50:47 GMT -5
I think people just use the Steph thing as an excuse. In 2000/2001 he was one of the most hateable men in wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Jul 23, 2011 6:57:31 GMT -5
I think people just use the Steph thing as an excuse. In 2000/2001 he was one of the most hateable men in wrestling. Somewhat yes. But certainly during 2000, he wouldn't have been anywhere near as hate-able had he not had Stephanie by his side with her damn voice.
|
|
|
Post by Protest the Chris Hero on Jul 23, 2011 8:09:43 GMT -5
He's like HBK, they aren't known name wise outside the ring but in the wrestling world they are two of the greats. To be a great imo, your character has to be bigger than wrestling essentially. Andre, Hulk, Savage, Flair, Austin, Rock, Cena.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2011 8:26:50 GMT -5
I think it's unfair to say Triple H wouldn't have reached the Main Event without Stephanie. He would have simply because he would have been "the guy" by default after Austin and Rock left. Three primary things bothered me: 1. His crazy paranoia about things. The whole deal about him and the WWE not wanting him to look weak in promotions for SvR 2009. Him squashing the Hurricane later in 2003 following an entertaining feud the Hurricane had with The Rock. The times where he would occasionally shoot on fellow wrestlers during promos and him insisting on Main Eventing with Jericho at Wrestlemania 18 when Rock/Hogan was clearly the main attraction. Even Jericho acknowledges this on his DVD. Triple H, for all the advantages he had and title reigns, just seems (or seemed) very insecure about his standing in the business. Meanwhile, Rock jobbed to guys like the Hurricane and his Wrestlemania record is really horrible if you look at it. Rock was the only Main Eventer to never leave Wrestlemania with the championship. Oddly, you never hear stories about Rock complaining or wanting the cameras on him with the belt at the end. Rock was great for the business in this aspect. 2. He just bored me too much. His promos were incredibly long and he never sucked me in as a fan of his. I was far from an Austin and Rock mark (my favorites were Bret and HBK), but whenever they were doing promos, I watched for sure. It might be unfair, but promos are important for me and The Game's promos wore me down more than a 30-minute jog. 3. This is the wrestling historian coming out of me – I HATED when Ric Flair basically became his leg-humping poodle. Maybe Flair deserves the blame for that, but Triple H is no where near Flair's level in history. Flair's promos were awesome back in the day. Also on the history end – Triple H has won the WWE/F title 8 times. HBK, Savage and Andre combined for 7 runs and really with Andre selling his belt, it was 6. Triple H would have won titles without Stephanies influence. But he shouldn't have four times the reigns Savage had. He shouldn't have five more reigns that Michaels. Triple H is a good wrestler, but to me he never reached the peak. Some of it was his fault and the fault of a weaker era. I was going to make this post, but without as much talent. I agree with all of the above.
|
|
Matt
El Dandy
Posts: 8,725
|
Post by Matt on Jul 23, 2011 8:29:56 GMT -5
I think he was second to Austin during the attitude era overall. The Rock gets overrated into second even though he was only Cenaesqe on the mic and decent in the ring. I think the heel thing and missing time for both Quad injuries hurts him some historically though.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Jul 23, 2011 8:40:59 GMT -5
I think he was second to Austin during the attitude era overall. The Rock gets overrated into second even though he was only Cenaesqe on the mic and decent in the ring. I think the heel thing and missing time for both Quad injuries hurts him some historically though. Triple H may have been a better wrestler than Rock and promo tastes vary of course...but there is pretty much no objective or realistic way to say Triple H was bigger/more important than The Rock during the Attitude Era.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2011 9:01:29 GMT -5
Pretty much what everyone else is saying. He IS on the level of Foley and Taker, and he just wasn't interesting enough to be on the level of Austin or Rocky. He's just not a star the way they were stars. There was just something about him that didn't click with a lot of fans. I think his "look". Just a little over one year earlier, he had a body like Alex Wright or Rick Rude; nicely-toned musculature, but he wasn't huge like he became later on. He got "big" yet his wrestling style never really changed. His matches were nothing special. He still wrestled an old-school style in an era of "more action, more spots". (That said, he does evoke the legacy of Killer Kowalski and his matches are a fine example of that type of wrestling. If Superstar Billy Graham was "20 Years Too Soon", then Triple H could be considered "10 Years Too Late".) His interviews were just okay. He was a fine sidekick for guys like Shawn (guys with charisma), but as a leader or on his own, I couldn't take it seriously. Not saying the guy wasn't good. He had his moments. He was just kinda "meh" to me. Bland, dull. He was a nameless body in a sky full of stars.
|
|
|
Post by lewis1711 on Jul 23, 2011 9:02:17 GMT -5
Management was never hot on him so they held him back.
|
|
|
Post by papagiorgio on Jul 23, 2011 9:29:32 GMT -5
My parents know who Taker, Hart, and Michaels are because they were a part of different WWE eras. They have no clue who Triple H is. Hart and Michaels go back to the 80s and Undertaker 1990. They basically caught both the 80s boom and Attitude eras, while Triple H only caught the Attitude era and he isn't as well known as the two big stars of that era, Stone Cold and the Rock. He is more like a Foley.
|
|
daymon
Tommy Wiseau
MoH, Libertarian, Atheist, \m/
Posts: 56
|
Post by daymon on Jul 23, 2011 9:30:08 GMT -5
Hes done way more good then harm overall, I would of put him with Michaels & Taker after the big 2.
|
|
zing
Don Corleone
Talk about him more!
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by zing on Jul 23, 2011 9:39:02 GMT -5
His gimmick isn't as immediately recogniseable and digestable - he doesn't have the same iconography as guys like Rock or Austin or Taker or even Foley His look isn't as unique either,which is an extension of that point.
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
|
Post by spagett on Jul 23, 2011 10:28:01 GMT -5
I think a lot of people are forgetting just how huge Foley was during the attitude era. His star has fallen a lot in recent years but I'd argue Foley at his peak was a bigger name in terms of mainstream exposure than Triple H ever has been.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Jul 23, 2011 10:30:23 GMT -5
I think a lot of people are forgetting just how huge Foley was during the attitude era. His star has fallen a lot in recent years but I'd argue Foley at his peak was a bigger name in terms of mainstream exposure than Triple H ever has been. Triple H was definitely never in Foley's league in terms of fame and exposure. I mean...the dude's a freaking best-selling author.
|
|