|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 21, 2012 14:51:31 GMT -5
It's not really a proper example, but when Triple H beat the Hurricane easily after the Hurricane had been having competitive matches with Rock for weeks I felt it was a bit of a slap in the face to what Rock had been doing.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 21, 2012 14:53:31 GMT -5
Whenever someone talks about the great champions, he's always mentioned, but it's done in a way that makes it seem like a required tag on, and it's always the last name mentioned, as if he's the culimination of the compliment.
They'll say something like "I will one day be among the iconic WWE champions....such as Hogan....Austin....Rock....Bret Hart.........and HHH
|
|
|
Post by N E O G E O B O Y S on Jul 21, 2012 15:16:28 GMT -5
Like some wwe employee said some days ago, there is not luke skywalker without a darth vader, and while mcmahon played this role for austin, HHH was playing it for the rock
He is a third in the grand scheme of things, but that is still very big, there is a reason on why he got a massive pop where he returned, or even in the last wrestlemania where lots of casual fans watched the event for the rock, yet where happy to see HHH as ''one of the top guys when wrestling was cool'
That being said, I too think that the WWE overblown a lot about his legacy, but at this point I think that they are as delusional as lots of smarks, or hell, reading this post I think that some fans are more delusional than the WWE
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,658
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Jul 21, 2012 15:16:35 GMT -5
Triple H probably gets more credit than he deserves by WWE, but he also isn't getting enough by some of the posters.
He main evented 14 of the 19 pay per views from Summerslam 1999 to Wrestlemania 17 and was in a match promoted at the main event level in the other 5. During this stretch, they were averaging about 500,000 buys a show.
He might not have the main stream recognition as Rock, Austin, or Hogan, but he isn't as far behind as people are trying to say. I would say Triple H is more well known than Foley or the Undertaker. I hear him named dropped quite often in non-wrestling media, especially sports shows.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 21, 2012 16:12:19 GMT -5
Whenever someone talks about the great champions, he's always mentioned, but it's done in a way that makes it seem like a required tag on, and it's always the last name mentioned, as if he's the culimination of the compliment. They'll say something like "I will one day be among the iconic WWE champions....such as Hogan....Austin....Rock....Bret Hart.........and HHH I just look at it as he's probably the most recent of the guys he mentioned
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jul 21, 2012 16:18:01 GMT -5
I didn't mean to seem like HHH wasn't a big deal, but he ruled the era after, while mattering in the attitude.
He was behind Austin, Taker, Rock, and Foley. I'd say he's on par with Kane at that point. Hunter then went on to be a bigger deal than all of them except Austin and Rock.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jul 21, 2012 16:31:06 GMT -5
I wouldn't say Triple H is bigger than Undertaker. They're both pretty much the same. 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. I don't think they're comparable at all. Look at what Austin, and later Rock, drew in the Attitude era and compare that to what Triple H drew when he took over as the top name on Raw later on. Was he important? Yes. The Rock's run at the top of the company is nowhere near what it is without Triple H. But you can't really put him up there with any of them, not when he couldn't draw what they did, couldn't garner the mainstream attention they did (and in Rock's case, still does), and make the impact on the company that they did. He'll always on a level lower than them. Triple H (and this goes for names like Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, etc., too) will have his place as a WWE legend. It'd be idiotic to claim otherwise. He had his successes as a top heel, with DX, and is still one of the biggest guys on the roster today. But you can't put him up there with guys like them when he hasn't done anything close to what they did.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jul 21, 2012 16:40:21 GMT -5
From hearing a number of interviews with former writers, Triple H seemed to have issues when he was on top of Raw. Apparently, RVD, Kane and Booker T were all scheduled to win the World Heavyweight Title, with Triple H getting to keep it over them. The logic behind giving them the World Heavyweight Title was to help build bigger stars in the future after the big brand split. And in the end, HHH always seemed to make his way out of a situation.
Trips is a lot like Dusty Rhodes in regards to his creative abilities and talent recognition. He's good at his job, but if he's in control of his own programs, it's a disaster because he's only in it for himself. That's why I hate it when he's on TV because it seems to be about him and he has to be one of the bigger stars on the roster. When he's off air, he makes great talent acquisitions and has a great knowledge of the wrestling business. This was the problem with Hulk Hogan having creative control in WCW. Giving anyone creative control and having someone as close as Triple H in Vince's ear is the worst thing that could happen in wrestling.
I'm almost certain he's going over Brock Lesnar as well. It would make sense for him to start putting talent over, but after the whole CM Punk deal, I doubt that's going to happen. As long as he's off TV and behind the scene, he's great for business.
He's got the talent, and he has helped some talent like Batista and Chris Benoit. But for the most part, it's been a pretty rough go and it's almost tainted his great accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 21, 2012 16:41:17 GMT -5
There are way more reasons why WWE's drawing was bottoming out than Triple H being champion.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jul 21, 2012 16:44:11 GMT -5
There are way more reasons why WWE's drawing was bottoming out than Triple H being champion. Of course, but that still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't the solution to bringing back the fans that WWE had been losing at the time.
|
|
ronin705
Dennis Stamp
All Might
Posts: 4,277
|
Post by ronin705 on Jul 21, 2012 17:06:27 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. Triple H was NEVER one of the 3 kings in WWE before austin and rock left, and lord did they try to shove him down people's throats as "uber badass". Austin, Rock, and VINCE were the top dogs (then Taker, Foley, Hunter) So, you all miss the fact that they picked an image of him pedigreeing the current WWE champion? I noticed, Punk's also the only other person on the roster who you can track back as USING said Double Underhook Facebuster as a finisher (of course from the top ropes). Quite interesting lol
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 21, 2012 17:18:01 GMT -5
There are way more reasons why WWE's drawing was bottoming out than Triple H being champion. Of course, but that still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't the solution to bringing back the fans that WWE had been losing at the time. Because no-one was. No one drew back then. They brought back Hulk Hogan and he didn't even draw.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jul 21, 2012 17:37:01 GMT -5
Of course, but that still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't the solution to bringing back the fans that WWE had been losing at the time. Because no-one was. No one drew back then. They brought back Hulk Hogan and he didn't even draw. Hogan was past his prime at that point, so of course he wasn't the solution either. I find the "no one drew" statement to be a bit of a cop-out. Someone was eventually going to (and eventually did), it was just a matter of finding that person. And that person wasn't Triple H. And don't get me wrong, I DO think Triple H was (and is) a draw, but not on the level of Rock/Austin. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jul 21, 2012 17:43:50 GMT -5
Triple H was NEVER one of the 3 kings in WWE before austin and rock left, and lord did they try to shove him down people's throats as "uber badass". Austin, Rock, and VINCE were the top dogs (then Taker, Foley, Hunter) This is pure revisionist history. It was Austin/Rock/HHH as the Big 3 of WWE for a good two year stretch. From 2000 to whenever it was Austin/Rock left. Rock and HHH were portrayed as equals, on a much closer level than Rock and Austin were, up until WM X-7. Taker was periphery. The company didn't revolve around his storylines, he was just a big presence who could match up with any of those 3. There was a lengthy stretch of time where he didn't even win the title. He was a more protected version of what Kane or Big Show is now. Guys, the attitude era isn't just 1998. Watch any show from 2000 and it'll tell you exactly who the fulcrum was.
|
|
|
Post by flatsdomino on Jul 21, 2012 17:50:54 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. The only year of the Attitude boom period that Trips was on the very top tier was 2000, and that was AFTER his first main event run in Fall '99 flopped. He wasn't there for most of '01, and when he was, he was playing second fiddle to Angle and then Austin as heels. Not a knock on Trips, but by the time he became THE GUY (as in, after his MSG return) the boom period was all but over. The free-fall of ratings and popularity during the period where he was the unquestionable #1 guy is also something to be pointed out, even though of course the blame isn't all on him. But it says something that when Stone Cold, The Rock, and Mick Foley were gone, people weren't turning in with the same fervor to see Triple H.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jul 21, 2012 17:54:33 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. The only year of the Attitude boom period that Trips was on the very top tier was 2000, and that was AFTER his first main event run in Fall '99 flopped. He wasn't there for most of '01, and when he was, he was playing second fiddle to Angle and then Austin as heels. Not a knock on Trips, but by the time he became THE GUY (as in, after his MSG return) the boom period was all but over. The free-fall of ratings and popularity during the period where he was the unquestionable #1 guy is also something to be pointed out, even though of course the blame isn't all on him. But it says something that when Stone Cold, The Rock, and Mick Foley were gone, people weren't turning in with the same fervor to see Triple H. He didn't play second fiddle to Angle. He was to Austin, but that was because the guy was coming off what was supposed to be the biggest heel turn since Hogan. WWE was on the downturn in 2002 anyway. Austin leaving and Rock only having a handful of matches left only meant that they got out before it could happen under their watch. Lets not forget, WWE had almost every big name in Wrestling history from the Monday Night Wars under their roof in 2002-03 and still couldn't do anything. They had a Wrestlemania with Hogan, HBK, Taker, Rock, Austin, and HHH among others pretty much bomb in 2003.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jul 21, 2012 18:01:18 GMT -5
The only year of the Attitude boom period that Trips was on the very top tier was 2000, and that was AFTER his first main event run in Fall '99 flopped. He wasn't there for most of '01, and when he was, he was playing second fiddle to Angle and then Austin as heels. Not a knock on Trips, but by the time he became THE GUY (as in, after his MSG return) the boom period was all but over. The free-fall of ratings and popularity during the period where he was the unquestionable #1 guy is also something to be pointed out, even though of course the blame isn't all on him. But it says something that when Stone Cold, The Rock, and Mick Foley were gone, people weren't turning in with the same fervor to see Triple H. He didn't play second fiddle to Angle. He was to Austin, but that was because the guy was coming off what was supposed to be the biggest heel turn since Hogan. WWE was on the downturn in 2002 anyway. Austin leaving and Rock only having a handful of matches left only meant that they got out before it could happen under their watch. As said above, it's not that Triple H was to blame for the decline in business during 2002, it's that he wasn't the solution to pick things up again. And that's what separates from him guys like Austin. And that's where the problem lies in comparing him to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2012 18:25:32 GMT -5
I didn't mean to seem like HHH wasn't a big deal, but he ruled the era after, while mattering in the attitude. He was behind Austin, Taker, Rock, and Foley. I'd say he's on par with Kane at that point. Hunter then went on to be a bigger deal than all of them except Austin and Rock. No way in hell is Trips a bigger deal than the Undertaker in any situation, be it real life or kayfabe. No way.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jul 21, 2012 18:40:34 GMT -5
In terms of drawing power (as I posted in the newest Kenny thread), Triple H has actually been big. He was the top drawer in all of wrestling in 2004, the second highest drawer in 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2008, and the third highest drawer in 1999 and 2002. And that is for the entire world, not just America. That's pretty damn big.
If you ask where Undertaker has ranked on the drawing lists (I only have up to 2008), you'll find that he was: 8th in 1991, 2nd in 1997, 2nd in 1998, 6th in 1999, 7th in 2000, and 4th in 2001. That means that Triple H drew better than Taker in 1999, 2000, and 2001, while Undertaker drew better than him in 1991, 1997, and 1998; although 1998 is really the only logical year to compare the two out of those 3.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jul 21, 2012 18:49:03 GMT -5
I didn't mean to seem like HHH wasn't a big deal, but he ruled the era after, while mattering in the attitude. He was behind Austin, Taker, Rock, and Foley. I'd say he's on par with Kane at that point. Hunter then went on to be a bigger deal than all of them except Austin and Rock. No way in hell is Trips a bigger deal than the Undertaker in any situation, be it real life or kayfabe. No way. Sorry, I was hyperbolizing to try to see it from the other point. I agree with you. I actually agree with you, I just mistyped when I excluded Taker.
|
|