Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2012 19:23:40 GMT -5
I think he was a useful part of the Attitude Era and it wouldn't have been quite the same without him.
In no way was he more important than Rock and Austin though.
|
|
|
Post by Manute Bol on Feb 13, 2012 19:25:08 GMT -5
Do people truly believe that anyone could've been Triple H and had his success in this business? Are you the same people that think any huge guy with a smidgen of charisma could've been Hulk Hogan? I don't think anyone in this thread alluded to ANYTHING even close to this. Nobody's denying the guy did well for himself and has certainly carved his place in wrestling history. But to say he was THE most important star of the Attitude Era when you've got Steve Austin, The Rock, Vince McMahon, The Undertaker and Mick Foley all to consider, well....you're just plain wrong. Sorry bud.
|
|
|
Post by Drink Up Me Cider on Feb 13, 2012 19:26:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't say Attitude era, but I'm not a historian so may be it was, but from 2002-2005, he was the main star on Raw. Could some one else of done a better job? It's debatable.
I'd also like to point out that on Smackdown, the main star from 2002-2004 was Brock Lesnar, a rookie.
It's open to debate is all I'm saying. In my opinion, Trips did a good job but was not untouchable as the top guy.
*edit* The early 2000s don't really have an official name right? Or is it still the pre-pg era?
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Feb 13, 2012 19:29:16 GMT -5
According to the latest Stone Cold DVD, Triple H himself says it was Austin.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Feb 13, 2012 19:31:37 GMT -5
It just starts off bad. "arguably" ?
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 13, 2012 19:37:20 GMT -5
According to the latest Stone Cold DVD, Triple H himself says it was Austin. That's because Triple H isn't delusional. He'd have to be nuts to consider himself the top guy of the era. His overinflated sense of self-worth seems to have grown out of outlasting the Austin's and Rock's and Foley's. I mean, once they were all gone and he was still there, he could definitely make the argument that he was then the top dog. Problem is, he clung to that spot by burying Chris Jericho.
|
|
|
Post by Drink Up Me Cider on Feb 13, 2012 19:39:48 GMT -5
According to the latest Stone Cold DVD, Triple H himself says it was Austin. That's because Triple H isn't delusional. He'd have to be nuts to consider himself the top guy of the era. His overinflated sense of self-worth seems to have grown out of outlasting the Austin's and Rock's and Foley's. I mean, once they were all gone and he was still there, he could definitely make the argument that he was then the top dog. Problem is, he clung to that spot by burying Chris Jericho. ...also Kane and RVD in 2002, in my opinion, before I get roasted. lol
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 13, 2012 19:42:36 GMT -5
That's because Triple H isn't delusional. He'd have to be nuts to consider himself the top guy of the era. His overinflated sense of self-worth seems to have grown out of outlasting the Austin's and Rock's and Foley's. I mean, once they were all gone and he was still there, he could definitely make the argument that he was then the top dog. Problem is, he clung to that spot by burying Chris Jericho. ...also Kane and RVD in 2002, in my opinion before I get roasted. lol Also true. What I don't understand is why he buried any of those guys when he was the heel and they were babyfaces. As the top heel, you should want mega-over babyfaces to go up against and get a even program going with. How great of a heel would Ric Flair have been if he always beat Dusty Rhodes, Magnum T.A., and Ricky Steamboat at every turn? Triple H's insecurity really just hurt the business he claims to care for so much.
|
|
|
Post by Drink Up Me Cider on Feb 13, 2012 19:51:42 GMT -5
...also Kane and RVD in 2002, in my opinion before I get roasted. lol Also true. What I don't understand is why he buried any of those guys when he was the heel and they were babyfaces. As the top heel, you should want mega-over babyfaces to go up against and get a even program going with. How great of a heel would Ric Flair have been if he always beat Dusty Rhodes, Magnum T.A., and Ricky Steamboat at every turn? Triple H's insecurity really just hurt the business he claims to care for so much. I'm glad some one else agrees. The Kane baby face challenge is always remembered because of necrophilia, of all things, and I know RVD just lost clean against Trips. You can add Booker T in 2003 as well. In my uneducated (never wrestled, managed a TV Show in my life) opinion, a top star does not have to have the belt. Heck WWE current is doing the right thing. Every one and his mom knows that Cena is the top dog, but he doesn't have to be in the main event, or have the strap. Wow, I actually complemented Cena and the current program...That's a first. But in seriousness, my point is that in MY opinion, Trip's position was extended and prolonged way too far.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Feb 13, 2012 20:44:46 GMT -5
How did Punk's legendary promo end up being nothing more than the spark plug for a HHH/Nash Ladder Match? Cause Hunter saw Punk had the hottest wrestling angle the company's had in years and couldn't keep his big nose out of it. Why did Punk never get revenge on Nash for costing him the title, yet Hunter did? Because Nash bitched out to losing to Punk, hiding behind Wellness until he had a movie that wouldn't let him wrestle. They filled it with the Trips feud (admittedly handled poorly) but I think that was more on them booking themselves into a corner by having Punk run down Hunter, who was going to prove himself to Punk by giving him Nash which didn't work out, and having nothing else to do. By the time he came back, Punk was on to bigger and better things thankfully. ...also Kane and RVD in 2002, in my opinion before I get roasted. lol Also true. What I don't understand is why he buried any of those guys when he was the heel and they were babyfaces. As the top heel, you should want mega-over babyfaces to go up against and get a even program going with. How great of a heel would Ric Flair have been if he always beat Dusty Rhodes, Magnum T.A., and Ricky Steamboat at every turn? Triple H's insecurity really just hurt the business he claims to care for so much. First, Flair would lose non-title matches, use the Horsemen to beat up his opponents (Evolution beating down everyone, Batista breaking Goldberg's ankle only for him to no sell it) or just be made to look stupid (Trips running away in his underwear or trying to use a forklift to block someone in and failing anyone?) and then only retain in title matches if he was lucky, much like how they booked Hunter during that time. Second they didn't trust RVD outside or inside the ring. He was constantly injuring people and they fear what kind of trouble he'd get into and were proved right. They wanted Kane as a monster heel and used Triple H to get him there? How is that a burial?
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Feb 13, 2012 23:32:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Feb 13, 2012 23:33:43 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. QFT.
|
|