Rave
El Dandy
Perpetually Bored
Posts: 8,129
|
Post by Rave on Jul 23, 2011 13:50:25 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. Especially the point regarding the promos. He's still doing it, in fact. I couldn't have been the only one screaming for him to get to the point at the end of the last Raw. By the time he did, they likely could've fit that title match in too. They even edited him down in the recap version of it.
|
|
|
Post by crimsonwolf on Jul 23, 2011 13:53:57 GMT -5
Here's the thing about Triple H that I read online before that makes a lot of sense. Trips never broke out as a solo act during the Attitude Era, it was either Triple H with DX or Triple H with Stephanie and the Corporation. It's hard to consider him one of the "all time greats" when a good reason for his heat (or fan reaction was due being part of these groups. Not to mention his first real solo run (in 2002) was incredibly forgettable.
|
|
Jimmy
Grimlock
Posts: 13,317
|
Post by Jimmy on Jul 23, 2011 13:58:43 GMT -5
Triple H and Undertaker, for all of their accomplishments, were never on the same level as Rock and Austin in terms of popularity and drawing money. They contributed a ton to Rock and Austin's careers, but on their own they were not 'THAT' guy who was guaranteed to bring in ratings or money.
|
|
|
Post by gnr123 on Jul 23, 2011 14:06:51 GMT -5
I think it's becuase, like crimsonWolf said, during the Attitude Era he had people by his side alot. While The Rock and Stone Cold were on top of their game, Triple H was with DX, or the Corporation, or with Stephanie.
But, he may not be in the level's of popularity or draw of Austin or The Rock, but there's no denying he is a legend if this business. He is a first ballet Hall of Famer, one of the biggest star's in the last decade. He may not be on par with Austin or Hogan, but his is on par with HBK, Taker, guy's like that.
|
|
H-Fist
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,485
|
Post by H-Fist on Jul 23, 2011 14:09:41 GMT -5
Compare his place to the kind of arguments baseball fans have about the Hall of Fame. There's "sustained greatness" arguments, "peak value" arguments, and then arguments for guys largely on their ability to hit a certain quantitative milestone.
Quantitative milestones are pretty much irrelevant in wrestling. Otherwise, Flair, Trips and Edge would be more or less on the same level.
Peak value is what applies to The Rock, equivalent to the short but transcendent peak of Sandy Koufax. The Ultimate Warrior is the equivalent of Jim Rice in a similar vein. Austin, despite his long career between WCW, ECW and WWF/E, likewise had a shorter but transcendent peak. He's kind of like Sammy Sosa or, maybe, Jose Bautista if we ignore the Sosa/PED aspect. A versatile, useful guy who all of a sudden developed into a transcendent performer.
Triple H's peak value is largely based on his reign of terror, a quantifiable moment that occurred due to booking and existed only in kayfabe. What puts Hunter on a lesser level than Austin and The Rock in most people's minds is the lack of the transcendent peak. Instead, Triple H is more comparable to fellow wrestlers like Sting and Harley Race, who had sustained periods of greatness. A baseball equivalent to Triple H would be Henry Aaron, the erstwhile home run king who, despite his greatness, never hit 50 HR in a year and only led his league in HR four times.
People consider Aaron an all-time great, but Mays and Ruth and Mantle usually are considered his betters. Nothing against Aaron in such a comparison, but he, like Hunter find themselves on the "1-B" tier compared to the Hogan/Rock/Austin/Ruth/Mays "1-A" pantheon.
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,505
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jul 23, 2011 14:46:17 GMT -5
Around when Foley won the title for the first time he was on the level of Austin and Rock. The pop he got for winning the title may be the single loudest pop I've ever heard.
Granted, his popularity didn't last as long as theirs, but he reached a level of popularity for a while that very few even approach.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,586
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jul 23, 2011 14:48:55 GMT -5
^^^ He also got one of the biggest ovations ever when he made his return at MSG.
|
|
Jimmy
Grimlock
Posts: 13,317
|
Post by Jimmy on Jul 23, 2011 15:02:03 GMT -5
Compare his place to the kind of arguments baseball fans have about the Hall of Fame. There's "sustained greatness" arguments, "peak value" arguments, and then arguments for guys largely on their ability to hit a certain quantitative milestone. Quantitative milestones are pretty much irrelevant in wrestling. Otherwise, Flair, Trips and Edge would be more or less on the same level. Peak value is what applies to The Rock, equivalent to the short but transcendent peak of Sandy Koufax. The Ultimate Warrior is the equivalent of Jim Rice in a similar vein. Austin, despite his long career between WCW, ECW and WWF/E, likewise had a shorter but transcendent peak. He's kind of like Sammy Sosa or, maybe, Jose Bautista if we ignore the Sosa/PED aspect. A versatile, useful guy who all of a sudden developed into a transcendent performer. Triple H's peak value is largely based on his reign of terror, a quantifiable moment that occurred due to booking and existed only in kayfabe. What puts Hunter on a lesser level than Austin and The Rock in most people's minds is the lack of the transcendent peak. Instead, Triple H is more comparable to fellow wrestlers like Sting and Harley Race, who had sustained periods of greatness. A baseball equivalent to Triple H would be Henry Aaron, the erstwhile home run king who, despite his greatness, never hit 50 HR in a year and only led his league in HR four times. People consider Aaron an all-time great, but Mays and Ruth and Mantle usually are considered his betters. Nothing against Aaron in such a comparison, but he, like Hunter find themselves on the "1-B" tier compared to the Hogan/Rock/Austin/Ruth/Mays "1-A" pantheon. I disagree that Austin is Sosa and Triple H is Hank Aaron. Austin was more like Mickey Mantle in that injuries hampered his ability to be THE all-time greatest but he still will go down as a legend. If we're talking pitchers, I'd say Austin is like Sandy Koufax and Triple H is like Steve Carlton.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 23, 2011 15:06:18 GMT -5
Part of it, too, is that HHH is just a wrestler. He looks like a wrestler, he talks like a wrestler, he acts like a wrestler. If someone on the street were asked to just describe a generic pro wrestler, it'd pretty much end up being something just like HHH.
Hogan wasn't just a wrestler, he was a superhero for kids. Bruno wasn't just a wrestler, he was a champion for the common man. Rock wasn't just a wrestler, he was a movie star (and also being the most charismatic person ever born helped). Andre wasn't just a wrestler, he was a gentle monster. Austin's a little weird, because I dunno if HE had crossover appeal, or if WRESTLING just had crossover appeal at the time he was on top. But even he had the rebelliousness working for him. HHH just.... I mean, he's Wrestler Dude. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jul 23, 2011 15:51:57 GMT -5
He has "it" but he doesn't have "superit".
|
|
H-Fist
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,485
|
Post by H-Fist on Jul 23, 2011 16:21:08 GMT -5
Compare his place to the kind of arguments baseball fans have about the Hall of Fame. There's "sustained greatness" arguments, "peak value" arguments, and then arguments for guys largely on their ability to hit a certain quantitative milestone. Quantitative milestones are pretty much irrelevant in wrestling. Otherwise, Flair, Trips and Edge would be more or less on the same level. Peak value is what applies to The Rock, equivalent to the short but transcendent peak of Sandy Koufax. The Ultimate Warrior is the equivalent of Jim Rice in a similar vein. Austin, despite his long career between WCW, ECW and WWF/E, likewise had a shorter but transcendent peak. He's kind of like Sammy Sosa or, maybe, Jose Bautista if we ignore the Sosa/PED aspect. A versatile, useful guy who all of a sudden developed into a transcendent performer. Triple H's peak value is largely based on his reign of terror, a quantifiable moment that occurred due to booking and existed only in kayfabe. What puts Hunter on a lesser level than Austin and The Rock in most people's minds is the lack of the transcendent peak. Instead, Triple H is more comparable to fellow wrestlers like Sting and Harley Race, who had sustained periods of greatness. A baseball equivalent to Triple H would be Henry Aaron, the erstwhile home run king who, despite his greatness, never hit 50 HR in a year and only led his league in HR four times. People consider Aaron an all-time great, but Mays and Ruth and Mantle usually are considered his betters. Nothing against Aaron in such a comparison, but he, like Hunter find themselves on the "1-B" tier compared to the Hogan/Rock/Austin/Ruth/Mays "1-A" pantheon. I disagree that Austin is Sosa and Triple H is Hank Aaron. Austin was more like Mickey Mantle in that injuries hampered his ability to be THE all-time greatest but he still will go down as a legend. If we're talking pitchers, I'd say Austin is like Sandy Koufax and Triple H is like Steve Carlton. I wasn't so much trying to say that wrestler = player. I was just looking for an equivalent in terms of the three types of greatness. That's as deep as the comparison goes for me. I just wanted to use big names of guys who had either long-and-great careers, or short-but-transcendent peaks.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jul 23, 2011 16:35:20 GMT -5
I think it basically boils down to the fact that Triple H was a heel during the Attitude Era whereas Austin, Rock, Taker, and Foley were faces for most of that time. Triple H would probably have been just as big if he had continued his face character that he had in 1998. He was over huge as the leader of DX.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Jul 23, 2011 18:42:14 GMT -5
I think it basically boils down to the fact that Triple H was a heel during the Attitude Era whereas Austin, Rock, Taker, and Foley were faces for most of that time. Triple H would probably have been just as big if he had continued his face character that he had in 1998. He was over huge as the leader of DX. Rock first found his place as a heel, and was in fact was at his most recognizable as *the* number one heel of the company as Vince's Corporate Champion. In fact Triple H pretty first started getting into the main event scene as, basically, a Rock expy.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Jul 23, 2011 19:36:21 GMT -5
Who says he isn't? Rock/Austin no although I personally have enjoyed him way more than the Rock. And he's easily on the level of Taker, Foley, Hart, HBK, etc. /insert bitching about "Reign of Terror", which in all reality was awesome Maybe in your reality. It pushed me away from WWE for over 18 months when he was dominating everything.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,725
|
Post by nisidhe on Jul 23, 2011 19:51:46 GMT -5
In my view, Triple H will always have the taint of politics against him. Like Michaels, his career will be remembered as tinged with controversy - a spot he's tried his damnedest to erase, but never with total success. He was in on the Montreal Screwjob with Michaels; his marriage to Stephanie, at the outset, seemed a blatant grab for power from backstage. Technically, he was no Dungeoneer, and nobody was going to confuse him with the Rock or Ric Flair on the mic.
*sigh* Michaels, to be fair, had tremendous talent and charisma, though he squandered much of his early career because of his ego and personal demons, first with his numerous title drops through forfeitures and strips, then with the events leading up to Wrestlemania XIV. His redemption required a lengthy period of injury followed by the close scrutiny of a company who couldn't afford to keep him as he was; alongside Austin and the Rock, he was no longer essential to the company's success.
However Triple H was booked, however, I felt that he, too, was surplus to requirements; there always seemed to be someone who deserved the title and the top spot more than he did. If anything had happened to Triple H, there were a number of others who were ready to take his place and could do so without many fans batting an eye. His legacy, sadly, is based on qualities that were exercised most often and most effectively in the back.
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Jul 23, 2011 20:46:14 GMT -5
...beat Goldberg at Summerslam in a match where Goldberg needed to win to get over... You forgot one HUGE important piece of info: both men were injured at that point in time. Originally, it was going to be Goldberg vs. Triple H in a ONE ON ONE match, but then the injuries went down and it changed to the Chamber. Keeping the feud going into Unforgiven made Triple H look even more despicable thus making their encounter seem that much more important.
|
|
|
Post by rchi84 on Jul 24, 2011 0:09:23 GMT -5
See, my problem with HHH is the same I have with a guy like Sting or Goldberg.
To be considered truly great, in my book, you have to have the ability to be the best face or worst heel in a company. There are tons of guys like Steamboat(as the ultimate face) or Orton (who works best as a heel, not so much as a face), but very few people can carry both off.
Flair is the GOAT of this, as is Hogan (Watch the heat he got as Hollywood Hogan for three years), Austin was great as the heel against Bret, Jake Roberts, Heel Rock as Corporate champ was a great foil to face Austin.
Taker and HHH work best as faces and heels respectively. Face Hunter has always had to revive DX when he wasn't pulling in numbers, because there's nothing great about it. As a heel, I would argue that Hunter is in the top 10 heels of all time easily.
That's what separates the truly elite in wrestling, from the great ones.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Jul 24, 2011 0:12:13 GMT -5
See, my problem with HHH is the same I have with a guy like Sting or Goldberg. To be considered truly great, in my book, you have to have the ability to be the best face or worst heel in a company. There are tons of guys like Steamboat(as the ultimate face) or Orton (who works best as a heel, not so much as a face), but very few people can carry both off. Flair is the GOAT of this, as is Hogan (Watch the heat he got as Hollywood Hogan for three years), Austin was great as the heel against Bret, Jake Roberts, Heel Rock as Corporate champ was a great foil to face Austin. Austin flopped as a heel and Hogan only worked as a heel because the WCW crowd never really liked him in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by perpetualn00b on Jul 24, 2011 5:32:13 GMT -5
See, my problem with HHH is the same I have with a guy like Sting or Goldberg. To be considered truly great, in my book, you have to have the ability to be the best face or worst heel in a company. There are tons of guys like Steamboat(as the ultimate face) or Orton (who works best as a heel, not so much as a face), but very few people can carry both off. Flair is the GOAT of this, as is Hogan (Watch the heat he got as Hollywood Hogan for three years), Austin was great as the heel against Bret, Jake Roberts, Heel Rock as Corporate champ was a great foil to face Austin. Austin flopped as a heel and Hogan only worked as a heel because the WCW crowd never really liked him in the first place. And 'Taker probably qualifies among the best heels in the company's history. Ministry and Booger Red both got huge heat.
|
|
|
Post by chris16 on Aug 17, 2011 11:46:53 GMT -5
He was over when Rock was a heel in '98. The problem was that when he turned heel he completely changed his character and the fans didn't know how to react to it at the time.
Also during HHH's first couple title reigns, Austin usually got the upper hand on him almost all of the time. It wasn't until after Survivor Series and especially after Armageddon that year that HHH was taken more seriously as a heel main eventer.
|
|