Greer
Unicron
Points. Don't. Matter.
Posts: 3,199
|
Post by Greer on Feb 13, 2012 1:59:19 GMT -5
The fact that he never left and continued to unselfishly help build stars only makes his star shine brighter. The list of people he either made or laid the foundation for extends from The Rock all the way down to Sheamus. Looking back at 1997 when he was in the midcard working his way up to the top reminds me of this guy named Phil...
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Feb 13, 2012 2:03:18 GMT -5
Austin needed Hart, McMahon, Shawn and Taker Rock needed Austin, Foley and Hunter Foley needed Rock, Austin, Vince, Taker and Kane Hart needed Flair and HBK HBK needed Hart and Diesel In short everyone needed multiple people and talent to help them get over and stay there. To condemn Triple H for that is just silly. Those guys didn't "need" any of them. Hart and HBK got over with their wrestling styles, Foley, Rock and Austin got over with their promos and characters. Obviously they need opponents but I don't see how you think they helped them get over. Having chemsitry with someone will result in good matches, but that's a small part of getting over. You don't see how Austin need the matches with Hart to get over? Hart not doing the double turn and working with him aking him something in the fans eyes? Or how McMahon gave Austin something to rebel against instead of just being directionless? Rock doing nothing in wrestling outside of his work with the 3 mentioned? Being absolutely nothing until the feud over the IC belt with Austin and the Nation v. DX stuff? Foley just being a midcard monster until his double cross with Vince, being one of the first to actually beat Taker or the world title wins with Rock? Yeah, HBK and Hart got over based on their wrestling but, it wasn't until their feud with each other they stayed over. Nevermind them needing Flair (for Hart) and the feud with Diesel (for HBK) to even get a serious look from most fans. They got noticed thanks to talent, it took others to get them over and stay there.
|
|
|
Post by Manute Bol on Feb 13, 2012 2:11:57 GMT -5
I was willing to hear your argument out until this line. In an era that saw Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Vince McMahon, Mick Foley and The Undertaker all at the peaks of their careers, you're going to try to convince us that Triple H was the star? Triple H didn't become THE star until 2002 and he did so at the expense of Chris Jericho, Scott Steiner, Booker T, Bill Goldberg, Shelton Benjamin, Eugene and plenty of others. At the expense of Steiner who was a physical wreck that couldn't do s***, Goldberg who Trips either lost to or only beat thanks to using a sledgehammer, Shelton who Trips lost to 900 times, and Eugene who despite being a comedy gimmick, he put over like crazy and only finally beat thanks to some screwy stuff happening? Really? I don't disagree with any of that but all four of those guys, as well as Chris Jericho and Booker T, were at points in their careers where the crowd was ready to buy into them and really get behind them. Rather than elevate that talent, Triple H was always booked to look stronger, smarter and cooler than all of them. Sure, maybe some screwy booking was involved with sledgehammers and what not, but if you don't think Triple H looked after himself at the expense of all these men, then I think we were watching different shows.
|
|
Greer
Unicron
Points. Don't. Matter.
Posts: 3,199
|
Post by Greer on Feb 13, 2012 2:16:47 GMT -5
Still remains a dark day. I was so behind Booker after he got crapped on for weeks and all of the promos about his past. Kick, pedigree, crawl, 1 2 3.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Feb 13, 2012 2:18:01 GMT -5
Matt Hardy was the most important star of the Attitude Era and all other eras that followed it.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Feb 13, 2012 2:18:59 GMT -5
At the expense of Steiner who was a physical wreck that couldn't do s***, Goldberg who Trips either lost to or only beat thanks to using a sledgehammer, Shelton who Trips lost to 900 times, and Eugene who despite being a comedy gimmick, he put over like crazy and only finally beat thanks to some screwy stuff happening? Really? I don't disagree with any of that but all four of those guys, as well as Chris Jericho and Booker T, were at points in their careers where the crowd was ready to buy into them and really get behind them. Rather than elevate that talent, Triple H was always booked to look stronger, smarter and cooler than all of them. Sure, maybe some screwy booking was involved with sledgehammers and what not, but if you don't think Triple H looked after himself at the expense of all these men, then I think we were watching different shows. Again, how did he look smarter, stronger or cooler than Steiner? Goldberg? Shelton? He put over all them like crazy while being a classic heel. Hell, he tried twice to get people to care about Steiner but, Steiner failed, how is that Trips fault? He lost to Shelton multiple times but Shelton stayed crap on the mic, caring more about playing video games than getting better in the ring or getting over with the crowd outside of doing highspots. How is that Trips fault? Goldberg dominated Trips at every turn only getting screwed thanks to Evolution but, still got over on Triple H in the end. How did Trips screw him over? I'll give Eugene but Trips should have because Eugene was a damned comedy character. I also agree with Jericho looking bad constantly against Trips. Booker? Well, I despise him so I am not the best to talk to about him
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Feb 13, 2012 3:23:55 GMT -5
Triple H made stars out of guys like Batista and Orton, and to an extent attempted to do so with others like Shelton Benjamin. However, this is also the guy who took Cody Rhodes and Ted Jr.'s finishers back to back and within 30 seconds got on the mic and said "Ow, that hurt", almost making a joke of it. If he really wanted those guys to get over, he should have had to have been walked to the back by agents after that. He also stopped MVP's momentum dead in it's tracks with a 5 minute clean victory when putting the guy over would have almost certainly created a new star at a time when the company needed that. He's done things I support and agree with and things I do not, therefore I am neither 100% pro nor anti Triple H. I also have no idea which of these decisions, if any, he may have had significant influence over. Basically, I don't have enough information to call him a star maker or someone who buries guys. I do dislike it a lot when a guy who is past his prime and in a primarily non-wrestling role goes out and says he's better than anyone else in the locker room. That's crap, and the primary reason I prefer Johnny Ace as the GM to Triple H as the COO.
I do not consider him the most important star of the Attitude Era. I tend to agree with Raven, who characterized Triple H as "the guy who works with the guy who draws the money". They have attempted to present him as the equal to guys like Rock and Austin in terms of star power when that is obviously not the case. I do feel that in some cases he has been unfairly assigned blame for questionable booking decisions that he was involved with as a worker but likely not as a decision maker. I think some of the criticism is valid though and that he has at times been given more than his share of the spotlight.
One thing I will give him credit for is that the hiring has improved dramatically since he took over talent relations.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 13, 2012 6:10:54 GMT -5
Austin, Rock, Mick Foley, and Undertaker would all like a word with you.
|
|
DragonMasterP
King Koopa
Wait, I turned 30? How'd that happen?
Posts: 11,989
Member is Online
|
Post by DragonMasterP on Feb 13, 2012 6:34:54 GMT -5
Well, I guess you could make a case for this, but I don't see any reason to agree...
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Feb 13, 2012 7:25:00 GMT -5
As much as I like the guy, he's in my top ten all time favorites; nah, he's not.
Yes, he's been a mainstay of the company, and the 'franchise' so to speak since the Attitude Era, but as good as he is, if he wasn't there, they could've had someone else in that role.
Rock, Austin are leaps and bounds ahead of him, whether they stayed or not, and I say that as a really big fan of the guy.
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Feb 13, 2012 7:39:03 GMT -5
Triple H made stars out of guys like Batista and Orton, and to an extent attempted to do so with others like Shelton Benjamin. However, this is also the guy who took Cody Rhodes and Ted Jr.'s finishers back to back and within 30 seconds got on the mic and said "Ow, that hurt", almost making a joke of it. If he really wanted those guys to get over, he should have had to have been walked to the back by agents after that. He also stopped MVP's momentum dead in it's tracks with a 5 minute clean victory when putting the guy over would have almost certainly created a new star at a time when the company needed that. He's done things I support and agree with and things I do not, therefore I am neither 100% pro nor anti Triple H. I also have no idea which of these decisions, if any, he may have had significant influence over. Basically, I don't have enough information to call him a star maker or someone who buries guys. I do dislike it a lot when a guy who is past his prime and in a primarily non-wrestling role goes out and says he's better than anyone else in the locker room. That's crap, and the primary reason I prefer Johnny Ace as the GM to Triple H as the COO. I do not consider him the most important star of the Attitude Era. I tend to agree with Raven, who characterized Triple H as "the guy who works with the guy who draws the money". They have attempted to present him as the equal to guys like Rock and Austin in terms of star power when that is obviously not the case. I do feel that in some cases he has been unfairly assigned blame for questionable booking decisions that he was involved with as a worker but likely not as a decision maker. I think some of the criticism is valid though and that he has at times been given more than his share of the spotlight. One thing I will give him credit for is that the hiring has improved dramatically since he took over talent relations. Apart from the 'making a star out of Orton' comment I agree with pretty much all of this. Triple H is excellent in the ring and has had some of my favourite matches, he is an old school wrestling guy who I think will make a solid head booker once Vince finally steps aside....but he is not the most important star of the Attitude era, that is Austin without a doubt. While Triple H has admittedly done some really dumb things in the past, whether they were intended as burials or not (e.g. the DiBiase/Rhodes thing above, pedigrees for both London & Kendrick, calling John Cena a bad wrestler before their WM22 match, 'people like you' promo) he does seem to catch a lot more flak for it than guys like Austin and Rock who did similar things.
|
|
ASYLUMHAUSEN
Fry's dog Seymour
GIFs | Shitposts | Fun
Posts: 24,417
|
Post by ASYLUMHAUSEN on Feb 13, 2012 9:32:04 GMT -5
I'm a longtime fan of the guy and...no. Just no.
|
|
Urethra Franklin
King Koopa
When Toronto sports teams lose, Alison Brie is sad
Posts: 11,090
|
Post by Urethra Franklin on Feb 13, 2012 10:03:38 GMT -5
At the expense of Steiner who was a physical wreck that couldn't do s***, Goldberg who Trips either lost to or only beat thanks to using a sledgehammer, Shelton who Trips lost to 900 times, and Eugene who despite being a comedy gimmick, he put over like crazy and only finally beat thanks to some screwy stuff happening? Really? And Booker T only lost because they were bringing in Goldberg and they wanted to do HHH/Goldberg. To come by it honest, during the entire "Reign of Terror", Chris Jericho and maybe Randy Orton were the only legitimate burials. Booker T lost so that HHH could feud with Goldberg in five months' time? That's some specious reasoning.
|
|
Dang!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,277
|
Post by Dang! on Feb 13, 2012 10:09:03 GMT -5
He is the most consistent wrestler since the attitude era, but that is really just him being married to that McMahon thing.
|
|
Urethra Franklin
King Koopa
When Toronto sports teams lose, Alison Brie is sad
Posts: 11,090
|
Post by Urethra Franklin on Feb 13, 2012 10:09:59 GMT -5
You want proof of what I'm saying about Triple H? Look no further than HHH/Taker 2. From the buildup to the continuation that is happening on our screens right now. Their first encounter happened during a time when Wrestling was arguably at it's hottest on one of the top 10 favorite PPVs of all time. Yet, flash forward several years later and the WWE decides to try it again and the fans couldn't care less if it happened before. They wanted to see it because no one can resist the drama and suspense of a modern day epic. Forget all this talk about Kane or Mick Foley, Triple H is the only person that the fans truly believe actually has what it takes to defeat the Undertaker. Triple H is the only person that the fans would accept breaking the streak and why? Because the fans accept him as a legit badass and they buy into the fact that Triple H is LEGENDARY STATUS son. On the subject of CM Punk, he had the entire world's eye on him and he dropped the ball because he was too busy trying to become a tumblr meme. Triple H didn't do anything to Punk last year except be who he is...someone that the fans respect and admire. Okay, now, you're trolling for sure. If the fans couldn't care less that HHH/'Taker happened before, then why did the WWE do a helluva job sweeping that match under the carpet and barely, if at all, acknowledging it? Nobody believed that HHH was beating 'Taker last year and nobody thinks he's going to do it this year. The idea that HHH is greatest threat to the streak is only perpetuated by the knowledge of HHH's politicking. The only people who see HHH as a threat to the streak are smarks who know HHH's track record. Admittedly, he hasn't been nearly as bad in recent years, but you can't just brush all that history aside. And CM Punk dropped the ball? Really, because I could have sworn that his angle cooled off soon as the Kliq became involved. Did CM Punk drop the ball or was it taken from him?
|
|
Urethra Franklin
King Koopa
When Toronto sports teams lose, Alison Brie is sad
Posts: 11,090
|
Post by Urethra Franklin on Feb 13, 2012 10:13:00 GMT -5
Still remains a dark day. I was so behind Booker after he got crapped on for weeks and all of the promos about his past. Kick, pedigree, crawl, 1 2 3. Booker T finally winning the title from Rey Mysterio did far more for him in hindsight. The King Booker stuff was critically acclaimed at one point. That is absurd. The angle leading up to WM featured thinly veiled race-baiting and Booker winning would have been a huge emotional and moral victory. And wait a second...if HHH is the biggest star of the Attitude Era, as you claim, then why would a victory over Rey Mysterio mean more than a victory over the GOAT?
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Feb 13, 2012 10:23:09 GMT -5
The guy making lame jokes about ice cream, pipe bombs, hahaha your wife and trying to become a gif at every turn vs Triple H who was in the right the whole time if you look at the entire angle. You're kind of conveniently leaving out the fact that those lame ice cream jokes, pipe bombs, and haha your wife stuff was all getting huge reactions. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean that Punk dropped the ball.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Feb 13, 2012 10:33:45 GMT -5
I'm seeing a bit of revisionist history here. I (and I thought this was the prevailing sentiment at the time) found the build of Taker/HHH last year to be pretty lackluster and underwhelming until the last segment.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,976
|
Post by BRV on Feb 13, 2012 11:15:32 GMT -5
While I do give Triple H credit for staying around through thick and thin, I cannot make the argument that he's the single most important WWE superstar since the dawn of the Attitude Era. While The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin both took their metaphorical ball and went home, they were also integral factors in the rise and overarching success of the WWF in the late 1990s. Without either of those two, WCW probably continues to win the Monday Night Wars and wrestling as we know it today is completely different.
That being said, I've never heard a Triple H story as damning as Stone Cold Steve Austin refusing to job to Brock Lesnar in the summer of 2002. While his reasons were noble, that, yes, it would have been a much more significant encounter had it been saved for a pay-per-view event and not just a random Monday Night Raw, the facts are the facts, that Stone Cold refused to do the job and when pressed, went home. If a story like that ever broke about Triple H, you'd have to shut these Forums down for a few days to allow for cooler heads to prevail.
If I had to rank the WWF on-screen talent in order of importance during the rise of the Attitude Era, I'd list them as follows: Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Vince McMahon, Mick Foley, The Undertaker and Triple H. Hunter is not THE guy, but he's one of the few that are most directly responsible for the success of the company during that era. Whether it was D-Generation X in its initial or second incarnate or if it was his phenomenal run as the company's top heel in 2000, he was hugely important in the grand scheme of things.
There's a reason why 2000 is looked upon so fondly in terms of in-ring performance, and Triple H is a huge part of that. He would consistently put on some of the best matches of the night, and, as the company's primary heel, it was usually in the main event. The only real stinker I can recall is the main event of WrestleMania 2000, and that was just an overbooked mess that no single performer was capable of saving.
So, what I'm saying, is that he might not be the be-all, end-all of the Attitude Era that some are making him out to be, he's also not on the level of midcarders that some want him to be. He was an elite talent, in the ring and on the microphone, and he was one of a handful of superstars that were most crucial in the WWF overtaking WCW in the late 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by moneyman20 on Feb 13, 2012 11:17:53 GMT -5
While I do give Triple H credit for staying around through thick and thin, I cannot make the argument that he's the single most important WWE superstar since the dawn of the Attitude Era. While The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin both took their metaphorical ball and went home, they were also integral factors in the rise and overarching success of the WWF in the late 1990s. Without either of those two, WCW probably continues to win the Monday Night Wars and wrestling as we know it today is completely different. That being said, I've never heard a Triple H story as damning as Stone Cold Steve Austin refusing to job to Brock Lesnar in the summer of 2002. While his reasons were noble, that, yes, it would have been a much more significant encounter had it been saved for a pay-per-view event and not just a random Monday Night Raw, the facts are the facts, that Stone Cold refused to do the job and when pressed, went home. If a story like that ever broke about Triple H, you'd have to shut these Forums down for a few days to allow for cooler heads to prevail. If I had to rank the WWF on-screen talent in order of importance during the rise of the Attitude Era, I'd list them as follows: Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Vince McMahon, Mick Foley, The Undertaker and Triple H. Hunter is not THE guy, but he's one of the few that are most directly responsible for the success of the company during that era. Whether it was D-Generation X in its initial or second incarnate or if it was his phenomenal run as the company's top heel in 2000, he was hugely important in the grand scheme of things. There's a reason why 2000 is looked upon so fondly in terms of in-ring performance, and Triple H is a huge part of that. He would consistently put on some of the best matches of the night, and, as the company's primary heel, it was usually in the main event. The only real stinker I can recall is the main event of WrestleMania 2000, and that was just an overbooked mess that no single performer was capable of saving. So, what I'm saying, is that he might not be the be-all, end-all of the Attitude Era that some are making him out to be, he's also not on the level of midcarders that some want him to be. He was an elite talent, in the ring and on the microphone, and he was one of a handful of superstars that were most crucial in the WWF overtaking WCW in the late 1990s. What? Sense, logic, and reason when talking about HHH? You sir, are awesome. Great post that sums up my feelings for Hunter as well.
|
|