Burst
El Dandy
*inarticulate squawking*
Posts: 8,599
|
Post by Burst on Jul 21, 2012 11:04:33 GMT -5
...Ultimate superiority which the WWE could do? Based off of the guideline against showing Triple H in a "prone or defenseless position" from SvR 2009, EVERYTHING to do with the walk-out, the "couldn't out-wrestle a broom", and more recently, this:  It'd seem that on a subliminal and not-subliminal route, they're still trying to show that Triple H is BETTER THAN EVERYONE EVER (except maybe the rock). It was posted in the Rock-ending-Raw-1000 thread, the possibility of it ending with Triple H standing tall over a pile of pedigree'd opponents. As much as it was in jest it's kind of bad it's not something you could totally rule out. |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jul 21, 2012 11:07:40 GMT -5
I honestly think a few of these things are so overblown.
Like how most of the roster brags about good they are but when HHH does its a "message from WWE" and a burial of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jul 21, 2012 11:08:21 GMT -5
any time they insinuate he's even in the same league as Hogan, Austin and The Rock. it just makes him look bad, because he deserves some accolades but they overstate his importance to an absurd degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Jul 21, 2012 11:13:52 GMT -5
any time they insinuate he's even in the same league as Hogan, Austin and The Rock. it just makes him look bad, because he deserves some accolades but they overstate his importance to an absurd degree. Exactly. WWE genuinely wants people to think he was one of the architects of the Attitude Era, from a wrestling standpoint. And he just wasn't. He was a solid performer who did a bunch of great stuff in that period, but that era belonged to Rock, Austin, and, to a lesser extent, Undertaker and Mick Foley. |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jul 21, 2012 11:15:51 GMT -5
Thats bs.
Rock, Austin, and HHH were the "Big 3" of 2000-2002. HHH was every bit as important as the Rock in 2000 while Austin was out. Thats not a WWE made thing either, that was a widely held belief, and the Triple Threat match everyone wanted to see. The difference is, the first two left and were glorified, while Trips stuck around and had his worst stretch ever right after.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
any time they insinuate he's even in the same league as Hogan, Austin and The Rock. it just makes him look bad, because he deserves some accolades but they overstate his importance to an absurd degree. Exactly. WWE genuinely wants people to think he was one of the architects of the Attitude Era, from a wrestling standpoint. And he just wasn't. He was a solid performer who did a bunch of great stuff in that period, but that era belonged to Rock, Austin, and, to a lesser extent, Undertaker and Mick Foley. There is no way that one can rate Mick Foley as more important than HHH in that period. HHH played his role perfectly and helped make the Rock and Foley. HHH used to be rated as one of the top performers in the world until he married Steph, now most everyone wants to forget just how good/important he was. Has his in ring level tapered off due to injuries/age? Sure, but barring Hogan in the 80s, HHH is every bit as important as any top star that the E has had. |
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Jul 21, 2012 11:40:30 GMT -5
Exactly. WWE genuinely wants people to think he was one of the architects of the Attitude Era, from a wrestling standpoint. And he just wasn't. He was a solid performer who did a bunch of great stuff in that period, but that era belonged to Rock, Austin, and, to a lesser extent, Undertaker and Mick Foley. There is no way that one can rate Mick Foley as more important than HHH in that period. HHH played his role perfectly and helped make the Rock and Foley. HHH used to be rated as one of the top performers in the world until he married Steph, now most everyone wants to forget just how good/important he was. Has his in ring level tapered off due to injuries/age? Sure, but barring Hogan in the 80s, HHH is every bit as important as any top star that the E has had. He really isn't. HHH never, in his career, had even a tenth of the mainstream penetration that Hogan, Austin, Rock, and yes, Mick Foley, had. He was known, sure, but he was nowhere near as important on a mainstream level as those guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jul 21, 2012 11:41:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jul 21, 2012 11:43:09 GMT -5
Exactly. WWE genuinely wants people to think he was one of the architects of the Attitude Era, from a wrestling standpoint. And he just wasn't. He was a solid performer who did a bunch of great stuff in that period, but that era belonged to Rock, Austin, and, to a lesser extent, Undertaker and Mick Foley. There is no way that one can rate Mick Foley as more important than HHH in that period. HHH played his role perfectly and helped make the Rock and Foley. HHH used to be rated as one of the top performers in the world until he married Steph, now most everyone wants to forget just how good/important he was. Has his in ring level tapered off due to injuries/age? Sure, but barring Hogan in the 80s, HHH is every bit as important as any top star that the E has had. Are we talking about the same Attitude era where Mick Foley was main eventing and HHH was wrestling Chyna and Shane? |
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,161 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jul 21, 2012 11:43:31 GMT -5
...Ultimate superiority which the WWE could do? Based off of the guideline against showing Triple H in a "prone or defenseless position" from SvR 2009, EVERYTHING to do with the walk-out, the "couldn't out-wrestle a broom", and more recently, this: It'd seem that on a subliminal and not-subliminal route, they're still trying to show that Triple H is BETTER THAN EVERYONE EVER (except maybe the rock). It was posted in the Rock-ending-Raw-1000 thread, the possibility of it ending with Triple H standing tall over a pile of pedigree'd opponents. As much as it was in jest it's kind of bad it's not something you could totally rule out. To be fair, I'm OK with that picture, as long as by "Double Underhook Facebuster", we mean the "slapjack" move Stevie Ray used to do. |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jul 21, 2012 11:44:02 GMT -5
There is no way that one can rate Mick Foley as more important than HHH in that period. HHH played his role perfectly and helped make the Rock and Foley. HHH used to be rated as one of the top performers in the world until he married Steph, now most everyone wants to forget just how good/important he was. Has his in ring level tapered off due to injuries/age? Sure, but barring Hogan in the 80s, HHH is every bit as important as any top star that the E has had. He really isn't. HHH never, in his career, had even a tenth of the mainstream penetration that Hogan, Austin, Rock, and yes, Mick Foley, had. He was known, sure, but he was nowhere near as important on a mainstream level as those guys. By what measure can you say that? Trips was heavily involved in DX and that was huge main stream wise. |
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Jul 21, 2012 11:44:17 GMT -5
There is no way that one can rate Mick Foley as more important than HHH in that period. HHH played his role perfectly and helped make the Rock and Foley. HHH used to be rated as one of the top performers in the world until he married Steph, now most everyone wants to forget just how good/important he was. Has his in ring level tapered off due to injuries/age? Sure, but barring Hogan in the 80s, HHH is every bit as important as any top star that the E has had. Are we talking about the same Attitude era where Mick Foley was main eventing and HHH was wrestling Chyna and Shane? Moreover, "New York Time's Number 1 Bestseller". Those words alone eclipse anything HHH has ever done on the mainstream stage. |
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jul 21, 2012 11:45:27 GMT -5
Disagreed about that, personally. Those matches with Foley helped make HHH, not the other way around. That trio of matches at the start of 2000 from Royal Rumble to Wrestlemania solidified him as somebody to take seriously. I honestly never really gave much of a crap about the guy or anything he did sans the Ladder Match at Summerslam '98 prior to those.
They're all as important as each other, but in my eyes Foley and The Rock were already on top by the time HHH was tangling with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 13:06:07 GMT -5
. Based off of the guideline against showing Triple H in a "prone or defenseless position" from SvR 2009 Wait, what? |
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jul 21, 2012 13:10:19 GMT -5
. Based off of the guideline against showing Triple H in a "prone or defenseless position" from SvR 2009 Wait, what? There was a memo to a game review magazine from WWE via THQ that leaked online a few years ago, and it was WWE's guidelines for what they could and couldn't show in their review. Not showing Triple H in a vulnerable state in screenshots was one of them. And yes, it specifically said "Triple H". Not his name in with a bunch of others like Undertaker, John Cena, and Batista. Just Triple H. |
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319 
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 21, 2012 13:15:55 GMT -5
Disagreed about that, personally. Those matches with Foley helped make HHH, not the other way around. That trio of matches at the start of 2000 from Royal Rumble to Wrestlemania solidified him as somebody to take seriously. I honestly never really gave much of a crap about the guy or anything he did sans the Ladder Match at Summerslam '98 prior to those. They're all as important as each other, but in my eyes Foley and The Rock were already on top by the time HHH was tangling with them. Foley maybe, but the Rock and Triple H both jumped up a level after Austin won the title and they began feuding with each other. But it was that feud with Rock as leader of the Nation and Trips as leader of DX that pushed Rock up to face Austin |
|
|
|
Post by crowwreak was WRONG on Jul 21, 2012 13:26:25 GMT -5
So, you all miss the fact that they picked an image of him pedigreeing the current WWE champion?
|
|
Psychoblue
Don Corleone
WrestleCrap #1 Kona Crush mark (probably)
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by Psychoblue on Jul 21, 2012 13:30:20 GMT -5
Triple H was VERY integral to the Attitude Era, but not in the same way Austin or Rock was. HHH's main thing was that he became the main villain once the Rock turned face. At any given time, he was butting heads with Rock, Austin, Foley, and Taker, who were all faces around this time barring the time HHH was face and the Rock was heel.
He wasn't the main hero, but he was definitely one of the main villains, even to a point where Mr. McMahon was a face against him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 13:40:30 GMT -5
any time they insinuate he's even in the same league as Hogan, Austin and The Rock. it just makes him look bad, because he deserves some accolades but they overstate his importance to an absurd degree. I think it's arguable in a certain context. In the grand scheme of things, in the world as a whole, Triple H's star power doesn't come close to Steve Austin, the Rock or Hogan. In the WWE world though I think he stands up right next to them. But to compare Triple H to the rest of those guys in terms of importance to the WWE I think he deserves a place in that company. The video game publication thing is weird and unnecessary but I don't hold that against Triple H. It's just one of those odd behaviors that's typical of WWE. |
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Jul 21, 2012 13:56:13 GMT -5
any time they insinuate he's even in the same league as Hogan, Austin and The Rock. it just makes him look bad, because he deserves some accolades but they overstate his importance to an absurd degree. Exactly. WWE genuinely wants people to think he was one of the architects of the Attitude Era, from a wrestling standpoint. And he just wasn't. He was a solid performer who did a bunch of great stuff in that period, but that era belonged to Rock, Austin, and, to a lesser extent, Undertaker and Mick Foley. You're delusional if you think Taker played a bigger part in the Attitude Era than Triple H. Triple H was more over as a heel, had WAY better matches (Taker was at his absolute laziest during this period), and he had far more of a mainstream following with D-X. |
|
helped $lim jinx NXT. Woops
