|
Post by Lance Uppercut on Jan 31, 2013 16:51:39 GMT -5
I think wrestling fans and "journalists" use the word "Bury" and "shoot" wayy too liberally.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 31, 2013 16:56:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Socko's Brother on Jan 31, 2013 17:09:00 GMT -5
Trips' douchiness during the screwjob may be clouding Bret's judgement a bit, but the guy does have a bit of a point. Can't really blame him if it is either. Hunter once said that the Screwjob never would have happened to HBK or him because " [W]e're not that stupid." Between that and Hunter never having tried to make amends for Montreal at any point the way Shawn did (at least as far as I know), Bret's got no reason to talk him up. Why praise a guy like that? As far as HHH's ability is concerned, I'd say Bret has it about right. He's not a bad wrestler or talker, but it's a stretch to put him up there with Flair or Rocky or HBK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 17:22:46 GMT -5
Trips' douchiness during the screwjob may be clouding Bret's judgement a bit, but the guy does have a bit of a point. Can't really blame him if it is either. Hunter once said that the Screwjob never would have happened to HBK or him because " [W]e're not that stupid." Between that and Hunter never having tried to make amends for Montreal at any point the way Shawn did (at least as far as I know), Bret's got no reason to talk him up. Why praise a guy like that? As far as HHH's ability is concerned, I'd say Bret has it about right. He's not a bad wrestler or talker, but it's a stretch to put him up there with Flair or Rocky or HBK. While I'll give you Flair and Michaels, as well as certainly Rock on the mic, I'd say Rock's never been nearly as good in the ring as Triple H is.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,079
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jan 31, 2013 17:26:25 GMT -5
Personally, I think Triple H left a bigger mark on wrestling, but we're talking about Bret here, so we're talking a pretty big mark.
|
|
Essential1
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Essential1 on Jan 31, 2013 17:33:30 GMT -5
I think if you've seen one Bret match you've seen them all. Triple H had tons of different matches and some great ones too.
|
|
|
Post by BiloxiParish on Jan 31, 2013 17:47:55 GMT -5
I think if you've seen one Bret match you've seen them all. Triple H had tons of different matches and some great ones too. You know I have to agree with you. My favorite match he was in was against Roddy Piper and thats because Roddy Piper is my favorite wrestler of all time.. I love technical greats, Chris Benoit, Jericho, Regal, Malenko, Bryan.. But f*** Hart bored me to tears most matches.
|
|
|
Post by Manute Bol on Jan 31, 2013 17:55:25 GMT -5
Harsh, but he does have a point. When I think of "must see" Triple H matches, I think of his Ladder Match against The Rock in 1998, the two Foley matches from 2000, the 3 Stages of Hell against Austin in 2001, Shawn Michaels' return match in 2002, the WrestleMania XX main event, and MAYBE the HIAC against The Undertaker.
Bret Hart, on the other hand, has a laundry list of must see matches against The British Bulldog, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Mr. Perfect, Jerry Lawler, Shawn Michaels, Owen Hart, The "1-2-3" Kid, Bob Backlund, Steve Austin, and so on and so on. Hell, I'd recommend Bret's less famous matches against the likes of Bam Bam Bigelow, Hakushi, and Jean Pierre LaFitte, than I would 90% of Triple H's most well-known matches.
|
|
|
Post by Metalheadbanger Man on Jan 31, 2013 18:06:03 GMT -5
I think HHH has had a few great matches. The ladder match against Rock in '98 is still one of my favourites.
I also think Bret's argument is a little flawed in as much as HHH is essentially a power wrestler, but he is known to throw interesting holds into matches for the purpose of psychology- Indian Deathlocks, dragon sleepers etc etc.
Bret was basically a technical wrestler throughout his career, so he would've used more holds and mat wrestling. I love Bret, bt he's too harsh on HHH here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 18:07:22 GMT -5
Harsh, but he does have a point. When I think of "must see" Triple H matches, I think of his Ladder Match against The Rock in 1998, the two Foley matches from 2000, the 3 Stages of Hell against Austin in 2001, Shawn Michaels' return match in 2002, the WrestleMania XX main event, and MAYBE the HIAC against The Undertaker. Bret Hart, on the other hand, has a laundry list of must see matches against The British Bulldog, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Mr. Perfect, Jerry Lawler, Shawn Michaels, Owen Hart, The "1-2-3" Kid, Bob Backlund, Steve Austin, and so on and so on. Hell, I'd recommend Bret's less famous matches against the likes of Bam Bam Bigelow, Hakushi, and Jean Pierre LaFitte, than I would 90% of Triple H's most well-known matches. I can think of a few more Triple H matches I'd throw in there - the other two Mania matches with Taker (yeah, I know a lot of people don't like the 27 one, but I f***ing love it and it's easily my 2011 match of the year) and his series with Batista - particularly Hell in a Cell offhand. Is good to see the Hakushi match called out, though, damn is that one awesome. Though really I don't think most Michaels / Bret matches at very good - ladder match is solid, but the Iron Man and Montreal both are among the most boring matches I've ever seen. Though then again, Triple H has plenty of those to pick from himself. Isn't that right, Vladimir and Randy? And the Punk match, though that one's not so much boring as it is an utter train wreck. Though yeah, Bret undoubtedly has better chemistry with a wider range of people. Triple H, most of his best matches are with just a handful of people he faced repeatedly. And even then, any non-Mania match with Taker he's had is completely awful.
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on Jan 31, 2013 18:08:26 GMT -5
Someone doesn't like HHH.
Big shock.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 31, 2013 18:21:41 GMT -5
He said that Triple H vs. Undertaker was between a 3 or 4 out of 10? What a crock of shit
|
|
|
Post by IMPRESSIVE knightwing1047 on Jan 31, 2013 18:26:49 GMT -5
I've always felt like in WWE history, there's 2 Tiers of Greatness. The top tier is the true, legen(wait for it)dary wrestlers. The A+ crew. Then there's the A group.
I feel like Sammartino, Hogan, Austin and Undertaker make up the A+. (Flair would be in this group, too)
Rock, Foley, HBK, HHH and Bret make up the A. I know people love Rocky, but I don't think he was greater in his prime than the others in this group. Maybe if Austin weren't around. In fact, I feel like Bret and HHH led very similar careers. 8 of every 10 matches were solid to near-perfection. 2 of every 10 were boring stinkers.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Jan 31, 2013 18:27:36 GMT -5
Isn't Bret not liking HHH already a well known thing? He's tried to be more noncommittal about it since reconciling with HBK, but yeah, this is par for the course of how Bret's always talked about HHH. I remember an interview with Bret shortly after he hugged Shawn on RAW, talking about what a relief he felt it was for both of them to finally clear the air between them, and the interviewer asks him about Triple H, and Bret just shrugs and goes "We're trying to stay out of each other's way." or something like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 18:33:42 GMT -5
He said that Triple H vs. Undertaker was between a 3 or 4 out of 10? What a crock of s*** How is that s***? It was more like a bad play than a match. Oh wait. I forgot about the DRAMA of HBK spazzing out after near falls.
|
|
|
Post by cahuette on Jan 31, 2013 18:40:22 GMT -5
My hating of Bret Hart makes me think it's just the bitter guy who's always playing victim talking, but my hating of HHH makes me think that he's right, so I'm gonna have to be neutral here, and I'll just quote family guy "You're both just... just terrible".
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 31, 2013 19:39:37 GMT -5
"I usually give wrestlers my thoughts on what they do, try to help them and stuff."
I'm guessing Hart's input is most often unsolicited.
I wonder how Bret would have taken the same:
"You're way too much of a mark for yourself, you need to get over this idea that when you lose to someone that isn't in your family that it doesn't make sense, when you do lose it's not important for the other guy to shake your hand and put the guy who DIDN'T get over into the spotlight, and it might be a good idea to, you know, just every once in a while, NOT do the exact same moves in the same sequence. Just wanted to help you out a little there, buddy."
I'm sure Bret Mark would be open to that.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 31, 2013 19:43:27 GMT -5
Harsh, but he does have a point. When I think of "must see" Triple H matches, I think of his Ladder Match against The Rock in 1998, the two Foley matches from 2000, the 3 Stages of Hell against Austin in 2001, Shawn Michaels' return match in 2002, the WrestleMania XX main event, and MAYBE the HIAC against The Undertaker. Bret Hart, on the other hand, has a laundry list of must see matches against The British Bulldog, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Mr. Perfect, Jerry Lawler, Shawn Michaels, Owen Hart, The "1-2-3" Kid, Bob Backlund, Steve Austin, and so on and so on. Hell, I'd recommend Bret's less famous matches against the likes of Bam Bam Bigelow, Hakushi, and Jean Pierre LaFitte, than I would 90% of Triple H's most well-known matches. And look at the difference in match styles. The classic matches you listed for HHH rely heavy on stunts and props, whereas Bret's (aside from the Stone Cold WM13 match) are all pure wrestling that relies on wrestling skill and psychology. That said, Bret is too full of himself and HHH is often underrated when it comes to pure skill, he just got derailed by that quad injury.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Jan 31, 2013 19:54:45 GMT -5
He said that Triple H vs. Undertaker was between a 3 or 4 out of 10? What a crock of s*** Not really. The "match" felt more like a segment then a match. It was too overbooked. The match they had at WM 17 was way better.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 31, 2013 20:27:04 GMT -5
He said that Triple H vs. Undertaker was between a 3 or 4 out of 10? What a crock of s*** Not really. The "match" felt more like a segment then a match. It was too overbooked. The match they had at WM 17 was way better. 3/10 is the equivalent of *1/2, that's considered pretty bad What happened to the love this match used to get? I remember a year ago everyone loved it, now it seems to be the opposite
|
|