|
|
Post by mike2789 on Feb 1, 2013 9:15:42 GMT -5
I agree with Bret 50/50 on the situation.
To my the first tier of wrestling loyalty is Bruno, Austin, Rock, Flair, Hogan and Michaels.
Michaels is in it because his performances were great, sure he didn't sell a lot of seats compared to the others, but the man was only second to Ric Flair in entertainment.
Second Tier would be Triple H, Undertaker, Savage, and Piper (others would be included)
Triple H from 99-01 like previously stated was awesome. His matches with Mick Foley were legendary and he performed well.
If I had to pick someone who was overrated it is and always will be Bret Hart. Hart never entertained me. He was at the right place at the right time. The only time Bret was entertaining was in 97 and that's it.
He just seems bitter and hates wrestling now more than ever
|
|
|
|
Post by Branimal on Feb 1, 2013 9:27:41 GMT -5
Bret Hart is easily in my top 3 of all time (along with HBK and Austin) but I have to say I disagree with him here. The fact that he rated that HIAC match so low is confusing. Those three guys had the crowd in the palm of their hands and delivered a dramatic match that blew most people away.
Sure, Triple H may have been overexposed but he certainly isn't overrated. The guy has had a lot of great matches and is a better worker than people give him credit for.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Feb 1, 2013 11:11:22 GMT -5
I sort of agree with what Bret has to say here. His main criticism of HHH was that he never really did anything special, never took any daring chances, and just never impressed him with anything he did in the ring. I get the feeling Bret is someone who doesn't have much use for gimmick matches and garbage wrestling (though Bret excelled at a violent brawl). And let's face it here...how many great 1 on 1 singles matches has HHH really had? I don't mean a no holds barred brawl. Or HIAC. Or Last Man Standing. I just mean a MATCH. Bret likely views HHH somewhat the way I do, although I think he's had great matches. HHH is someone who is at heart a boring wrestler without much of a move set, but he can sell pretty well when he wants to. When you put him in a gimmick match against a top opponent the bookers can put it together well and it can be a very good to great match. But sorry, when it comes to a basic singles match I'm having a hard time recalling many great HHH outings.
|
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Feb 1, 2013 13:36:42 GMT -5
Oh wow. This is a great parody of those blind haters ;D Not a parody, it is reality. He is decent at everything, but not great at anything. Always has been, and his career reflects that. If anyone wants to name all the great matches, promos, segments, etc he has had, then feel free to list them. It will hard to list things that don't exist, but have at it. . Great matches off the top of my head: vs. Cactus Jack (1997 Raw and RR 2000) vs. HBK (SS 2002, Armageddon 2002) vs. HBK vs. Benoit (WM XX and Backlash) vs. Cena (WM 22) vs. Undertaker (WM 17, WM 27, WM 28) And he has a great way of selling a match's importance with his promos. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 13:49:55 GMT -5
Bret Hart could have a better match with Papa Shango than Triple H could with almost anyone. Triple H can have a good BIG match, but his average match without all the hype...not that great.
|
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Feb 1, 2013 14:09:10 GMT -5
Not a parody, it is reality. He is decent at everything, but not great at anything. Always has been, and his career reflects that. If anyone wants to name all the great matches, promos, segments, etc he has had, then feel free to list them. It will hard to list things that don't exist, but have at it. . Great matches off the top of my head: vs. Cactus Jack (1997 Raw and RR 2000) vs. HBK (SS 2002, Armageddon 2002) vs. HBK vs. Benoit (WM XX and Backlash) vs. Cena (WM 22) vs. Undertaker (WM 17, WM 27, WM 28) And he has a great way of selling a match's importance with his promos. Cactus and HBK are perhaps the two best guys at putting people over, so it's more of a case that those were their matches, not H's. The Cena mania match is average, the Taker ones over rated. The reason he can sell a match with his promos is because they give him a 20 minute promo every Raw to do it. That's the only reason. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 1, 2013 14:19:21 GMT -5
Hell, I'm pretty on board with his take on the Undertaker matches. Near falls are wonderful, but it was almost all exactly what you'd have expected.
Gotta love people trying to act like Bret Hart isn't legitimately an all time great and didn't influence an entire generation of guys coming up after him. It's totally fine not to be a fan of a guy, different strokes and all, but ignoring a guy's impact is silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Feb 1, 2013 14:19:56 GMT -5
Great matches off the top of my head: vs. Cactus Jack (1997 Raw and RR 2000) vs. HBK (SS 2002, Armageddon 2002) vs. HBK vs. Benoit (WM XX and Backlash) vs. Cena (WM 22) vs. Undertaker (WM 17, WM 27, WM 28) And he has a great way of selling a match's importance with his promos. Cactus and HBK are perhaps the two best guys at putting people over, so it's more of a case that those were their matches, not H's. The Cena mania match is average, the Taker ones over rated. The reason he can sell a match with his promos is because they give him a 20 minute promo every Raw to do it. That's the only reason. Seems like blind HHHate to me. Triple H is on the same tier as Bret, below Austin, Hogan, Rock. And it takes two to tango-- most great matches have both guys putting on a great show; you can't just say "oh he's never had a great match" and then whenever someone points out a great match just say "Oh well that wasn't great because of HIM" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 14:24:50 GMT -5
Cactus and HBK are perhaps the two best guys at putting people over, so it's more of a case that those were their matches, not H's. The Cena mania match is average, the Taker ones over rated. The reason he can sell a match with his promos is because they give him a 20 minute promo every Raw to do it. That's the only reason. Seems like blind HHHate to me. Triple H is on the same tier as Bret, below Austin, Hogan, Rock. And it takes two to tango-- most great matches have both guys putting on a great show; you can't just say "oh he's never had a great match" and then whenever someone points out a great match just say "Oh well that wasn't great because of HIM" And that's why Bret's better. It didn't matter who he was in the ring with, he would have the best match that guy was capable of. For a few years, the fabled 99-01 run when he really was awesome, Triple H was that guy. Bret was that guy for 10 years. |
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Feb 1, 2013 14:32:50 GMT -5
Seems like blind HHHate to me. Triple H is on the same tier as Bret, below Austin, Hogan, Rock. And it takes two to tango-- most great matches have both guys putting on a great show; you can't just say "oh he's never had a great match" and then whenever someone points out a great match just say "Oh well that wasn't great because of HIM" And that's why Bret's better. It didn't matter who he was in the ring with, he would have the best match that guy was capable of. For a few years, the fabled 99-01 run when he really was awesome, Triple H was that guy. Bret was that guy for 10 years. I don't think many would argue that Bret isn't the better technical wrestler than Triple H. But star-power wise, they're at least on the same level with a chance Triple H is ahead. And to say Triple H has never had a great match is ridiculous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 16:49:15 GMT -5
And that's why Bret's better. It didn't matter who he was in the ring with, he would have the best match that guy was capable of. For a few years, the fabled 99-01 run when he really was awesome, Triple H was that guy. Bret was that guy for 10 years. I don't think many would argue that Bret isn't the better technical wrestler than Triple H. But star-power wise, they're at least on the same level with a chance Triple H is ahead. And to say Triple H has never had a great match is ridiculous. Oh yeah, star power I'd say Triple H wins. I'd also never say Triple H has never had a great match, because yes, that is ridiculous. You take any match at complete random though, from either of their careers? Bret's match will be better 90% of the time, and he was working with a lot less. I was under the impression that the dicussion was all about match quality, not how big a star etc. |
|
babyfootball
Don Corleone
At least as good as Ron Garvin!
Posts: 1,320
|
Post by babyfootball on Feb 1, 2013 16:52:40 GMT -5
Hell, I'm pretty on board with his take on the Undertaker matches. Near falls are wonderful, but it was almost all exactly what you'd have expected. Gotta love people trying to act like Bret Hart isn't legitimately an all time great and didn't influence an entire generation of guys coming up after him. It's totally fine not to be a fan of a guy, different strokes and all, but ignoring a guy's impact is silly. Thank you for saying it so I didn't have to. I don't agree with Bret here that they were "bad" matches per se, but they were nowhere near as "great" as the Taker/Shawn matches the 2 years prior (especially the first of the two, which is think is still the best Taker Wrestlemania match of all-time). I understand why Bret is a polarizing figure, I think that sometimes what he says and what he means to say aren't one-in-the-same, but I also appreciate that he's honest and says what he really thinks. Sometimes he takes it a little far but oh well, I think the guy's at least earned the right to a valid opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Feb 1, 2013 17:11:51 GMT -5
Great matches off the top of my head: vs. Cactus Jack (1997 Raw and RR 2000) vs. HBK (SS 2002, Armageddon 2002) vs. HBK vs. Benoit (WM XX and Backlash) vs. Cena (WM 22) vs. Undertaker (WM 17, WM 27, WM 28) And he has a great way of selling a match's importance with his promos. Cactus and HBK are perhaps the two best guys at putting people over, so it's more of a case that those were their matches, not H's. The Cena mania match is average, the Taker ones over rated. The reason he can sell a match with his promos is because they give him a 20 minute promo every Raw to do it. That's the only reason. Yeah and Bret's two most talked about matches were with Stone Cold Steve Austin and Shawn Michaels so that argument means nothing |
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,782
|
Post by Legion on Feb 1, 2013 17:23:15 GMT -5
Hell, I'm pretty on board with his take on the Undertaker matches. Near falls are wonderful, but it was almost all exactly what you'd have expected. Gotta love people trying to act like Bret Hart isn't legitimately an all time great and didn't influence an entire generation of guys coming up after him. It's totally fine not to be a fan of a guy, different strokes and all, but ignoring a guy's impact is silly. But it's ok for him to do exactly that to HHHunter? |
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Feb 1, 2013 17:38:17 GMT -5
You know, I hate HHH. Find him tedious, narcissistic, and only around due to inherited nepotism.
But.
I am far more entertained by his matches than anything Hart has ever done.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 1, 2013 17:45:18 GMT -5
Hell, I'm pretty on board with his take on the Undertaker matches. Near falls are wonderful, but it was almost all exactly what you'd have expected. Gotta love people trying to act like Bret Hart isn't legitimately an all time great and didn't influence an entire generation of guys coming up after him. It's totally fine not to be a fan of a guy, different strokes and all, but ignoring a guy's impact is silly. But it's ok for him to do exactly that to HHHunter? Are you arguing that Trips has had nearly the impact on a generation of young wrestlers that Bret has had? Because that'd be blatantly false. Also, are you arguing that Bret just completely wiped away any of Trips' accomplishments? He does go out of his way to say he's "very good", just that he isn't "great". Also, Bret is a long time veteran with a good mind for the industry (something, admittedly, that Trips has as well); I see nothing wrong with guys with a decent amount of experience and perspective giving honest opinions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 17:47:07 GMT -5
Hell, I'm pretty on board with his take on the Undertaker matches. Near falls are wonderful, but it was almost all exactly what you'd have expected. Gotta love people trying to act like Bret Hart isn't legitimately an all time great and didn't influence an entire generation of guys coming up after him. It's totally fine not to be a fan of a guy, different strokes and all, but ignoring a guy's impact is silly. But it's ok for him to do exactly that to HHHunter? Bret didn't say anything of the sort if you watch the video in the opening post. He said he was a good wrestler, but not a great wrestler, purely in the in-ring technical moves/innovation aspect, which is pretty much his own barometer for all time greats. He wasn't saying anything about Triple H's influence on the industry, he was saying for how he's promoted as an all time great (I don't mind that he is) like Steve Austin he just wasn't on that level. Good but not great is NOT burying someone. If someone told me I did a good job I'd be pretty happy even if there's room for improvement. Note: I don't agree with Bret in his comment about Triple H having no great matches but if you look at it from his angle it does contain logic so isn't worth completely ignoring. My other thoughts on great matches Triple H has had/reasons Bret may have not been watching around Triple H's hot period can be found on the first page. |
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Feb 1, 2013 18:15:31 GMT -5
Cactus and HBK are perhaps the two best guys at putting people over, so it's more of a case that those were their matches, not H's. The Cena mania match is average, the Taker ones over rated. The reason he can sell a match with his promos is because they give him a 20 minute promo every Raw to do it. That's the only reason. Yeah and Bret's two most talked about matches were with Stone Cold Steve Austin and Shawn Michaels so that argument means nothing "Most talked about" and great matches are two different things. As already said, you could fill up page after page of great Bret matches, from his Mr Perfect feud up to the Owen tribute with Benoit and they're all due to wrestling ability. He's like HBK where you can't name one stand out match because 99 percent of them are great. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 18:44:04 GMT -5
But it's ok for him to do exactly that to HHHunter? Are you arguing that Trips has had nearly the impact on a generation of young wrestlers that Bret has had? Because that'd be blatantly false. Hmmmmmm..... put over the two next big WWE stars at WrestleMania in back to back years. Yeah, no impact at all  |
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 1, 2013 19:13:11 GMT -5
Are you arguing that Trips has had nearly the impact on a generation of young wrestlers that Bret has had? Because that'd be blatantly false. Hmmmmmm..... put over the two next big WWE stars at WrestleMania in back to back years. Yeah, no impact at all I hate how everyone thinks HHH "put over" John Cena. Batista, sure. Without a doubt. Made his career. But Cena? The whole feud was predicated on HHH saying Cena was a terrible wrestler, (which crowds started to harp on from there with the 'you can't wrestle' chant), and in the end, the entire crowd turned on John in favor of Trips, and forced a HHH babyface turn soon after. No one had any more positive a feelings for Cena after that match. He wasn't better off. And he was more hated than he was before. HHH did a job. There's a difference. |
|
