Times HHH put someone over

[Crimson]

Feb 7, 2014 15:01:58 GMT -5 cool guy said:

I'm confused at people even asking who Cena has put over, when both Punk and Bryan were elevated to the main event by beating him.

And Edge and Orton came off as credible heels after working with him.

[Johnny D]

I think he figured to himself why bother putting guys over when he got to the top after the 'Mania 12 match with Warrior. Not saying he didn't put anyone over since mind, because he did....though it was just a very select group of guys. Taka really was a one-off.

[Bear Skin Rug]

It's incredible how many high profile matches HHH has lost in which the other guy was made to look bad. An astonishing feat.

Say what you will about Cena's booking or how he shrugs off title losses, he definitely knows how to make someone look important.

[Gummydavidson]

D-Von.

[Woo]

Feb 7, 2014 1:13:09 GMT -5 @conebone69 said:

Feb 7, 2014 0:49:06 GMT -5 Jonathan Michaels said:

Not even slightly.

For one thing, Hulk Hogan.

For another, a solid 80% of promoters throughout the history of the business.

There is no way Hogan did more harm to his opponents than HHH. Hogan, just using one example off the top of my head, made Earthquake's career in a 10 minute Brother Love segment. He sold Quake's finish like it was death itself and contemplated retirement (kayfabe obviously) because he didn't know whether he could come back from that. If that same situation happened today with HHH, not only would he shove the officials away and walk to the back on his own power instead of doing a stretcher job, but he wouldn't even sell the beating verbally.

Hogan was selfish as far as keeping his top spot for as long as he could (he even admitted that on OTR as he explained it was before guaranteed contracts and you had to be cunning to stay on top), but I don't think he made guys look worse in the ring. Hogan's whole shtick was to sell a beating for 75% of the match and then Hulk Up at the end. As a heel in WCW I don't recall a match he won without blatant outside interference. HHH was a heel who won matches clean, outsmarted opponents, and was built as superior to most/all babyfaces. That never happens in wrestling.

HHH is on a whole other level when it comes to burials. We joke about it, and his supporters call it HHHate, but it is what it is.

While we both seem to agree that Hogan and HHH were very selfish I think Hogan was somehow even worse than HHH.

Yes he sold the Earthquake once. But he then no sold the Earthquake at the Royal Rumble 1991, he no sold a Perfect Plex which nobody had kicked out of at that point, he no sold a freakin Powerplex which again nobody had kicked out of, a Randy Savage elbow drop and even a Tombstone. Besides why was Hogan the one to end Earthquake? Shouldn't Warrior have been the one to vanquish the top heel in the company? It's very easy to put someone over when you know you are getting your win back.

When he lost to Warrior he made damn sure that the story afterwards was all about him, not the passing off the torch it should have been. I'm not a fan of HBK telling Earl Hebner in regards to Bret Hart "tell that piece of shit to get out of the ring" at Mania XII (something that I think was debunked in the HBK/Bret sitdown interview), but he had a point. Imagine if "the boyhood dream has come true for Shawn Michaels" had featured Bret Hart in the ring looking all sad before the camera follows him up the aisle. Then there was Mania IV where Hogan refused to leave the ring and let Savage have his damn moment with the belt and Elizabeth.

How many people did Hogan ever put over? HHH is awful, but not as bad as Hogan in my opinion.

HHH-Hunter Hearst Helmsley.
HHH- Hollywood Hulk Hogan

Thank God Hardcore Holly only had two H's...can you imagine him having a reign of terror?

[Toates Madhackrviper]

Feb 7, 2014 15:01:58 GMT -5 cool guy said:

I'm confused at people even asking who Cena has put over, when both Punk and Bryan were elevated to the main event by beating him.

Freaking JACK SWAGGER looked good against Cena on one of those draft RAWs. It never went anywhere but Cena is perfectly capable of making his opponents look good. Its his booking that makes him dominant, but I can't be the only person who's noticed that Cena always seems the most motivated when he's putting someone else over. I think Cena genuinly enjoys making new stars.

[Deleted]

What I love about these threads is that it's the perfect opportunity for those who complain and snicker about HHHate to step up and explainwhy Triple H isn't like everyone says he is, and it just doesn't happen at all. A few may try, or make a snide comment about the thread existing, but as far as solid points, nothing.

[Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill]

Feb 8, 2014 0:28:23 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

What I love about these threads is that it's the perfect opportunity for those who complain and snicker about HHHate to step up and explainwhy Triple H isn't like everyone says he is, and it just doesn't happen at all. A few may try, or make a snide comment about the thread existing, but as far as solid points, nothing.

It's kinda like shouting at a brick wall at this point, so we just let the thread play out.
Besides, it's not like I have to justify being a fan of Haitch.

[Toates Madhackrviper]

Feb 8, 2014 0:47:51 GMT -5 Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill said:

Feb 8, 2014 0:28:23 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

What I love about these threads is that it's the perfect opportunity for those who complain and snicker about HHHate to step up and explainwhy Triple H isn't like everyone says he is, and it just doesn't happen at all. A few may try, or make a snide comment about the thread existing, but as far as solid points, nothing.

It's kinda like shouting at a brick wall at this point, so we just let the thread play out.
Besides, it's not like I have to justify being a fan of Haitch.

Try me though me because I'm curious. I don't like Triple H but I'm also open minded, and I've never seen a good defense of him at least not from the putting people over perspective. I imagine if you're a Triple H fan then you don't care that he doesn't put people over , and if thats the case thats fine, but do you have a defense of the guy for someone who considers the ability to make your opponent look good to be basically one of the top two or three qualities I appreciate in a wrestler because I AM genuinely curious?

[krozor]

The difference between Hogan and HHH: Hogan was at least theoretically earning money for himself while shitting up Wrestlemanias VII through IX. From Wrestlemania X8 through Wrestlemania 21, and again in Wrestlemania XXV, XXVI, 29 and now possibly even Wrestlemania XXX, HHH has only cost himself both viewers and money that he would theoretically inherit as the heir to his own company because he's too dumb to realize that winning matches should mean nothing to a guy who would eventually own the company and stand to make more by creating additional stars instead of making himself look kind of tough.

[SEAN CARLESS]

Feb 8, 2014 0:28:23 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

What I love about these threads is that it's the perfect opportunity for those who complain and snicker about HHHate to step up and explainwhy Triple H isn't like everyone says he is, and it just doesn't happen at all. A few may try, or make a snide comment about the thread existing, but as far as solid points, nothing.

That's what I enjoy too. The guy has an entire video catalog of references you can point to that will virtually counter every point a defender has. To me, it's like trying to play defense for O.J. if he showed up in court wearing Ron Goldman's glasses, the bloody glove and with both his Bruno Magli's up on the desk as he leaned back and whistled.

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2014 0:47:51 GMT -5 Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill said:

Feb 8, 2014 0:28:23 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

What I love about these threads is that it's the perfect opportunity for those who complain and snicker about HHHate to step up and explainwhy Triple H isn't like everyone says he is, and it just doesn't happen at all. A few may try, or make a snide comment about the thread existing, but as far as solid points, nothing.

It's kinda like shouting at a brick wall at this point, so we just let the thread play out.
Besides, it's not like I have to justify being a fan of Haitch.

Of course not, you can be a fan of whomever you like. If you like his matches/promos/character, and that's how you're looking at it, perfectly cool.

But, people have legitimate reasons not to like him, and they're often put in this box of "you got worked by the reign o' terror" or something. This thread is about how he never puts anyone over and always has to be the coolest smartest toughest sexiest badass Marty Stu character in the biz, and there's not much evidence to combat that. That's what I was pointing out. "HHHate" exists, but for good reason.

[Dave the Dave]

And the thread dies when someone wants real points and not just trolling HHH defense. Go figure.

[KofiMania]

There are defenses for Triple H, but since people just ignore them, people have stopped responding. Now HHH isn't perfect and he's been booked to make others look bad at time (or booked it himself) but he has put people over before.

By being invincible for so long, Triple H has made a win over him a huge deal- which is not the case for beating 90% of the roster. It's extremely valuable to keep certain people looking strong so they can eventually put people over.

He put over Benoit big-time in 2004 by tapping out right in the middle of the ring at WM XX.

He put over Batista big-time with the Evolution storyline and losing to him at WM 21.

He put over Cena big-time in 2006. He was the heel so him making fun of Cena was not "burying him"--it was him being a heel and then getting his comeuppance for the big match --he tapped out to the STF in the main event of the biggest show of the year.

He's put HBK over in his return match (though people will argue it's because he's friends with him, which somehow makes it "not count").

He made Shelton Benjamin look like a pretty legit threat. He made Taka look good (though they never followed up with a Taka push).

He made Lesnar look like an animal by breaking his arm twice, including getting annihilated in the main event of Summerslam (which many predicted/feared would NOT happen). He then "got his win back" at Mania, but got beat the following month to lose the feud.

He put Taker over at 3 different WrestleManias (you could argue he made him look weak at the 2nd Mania, but it was to set up the following year).

I'd imagine he's going to put Bryan over this year (if that's the direction they go in).

Is Triple H perfect? No, he's not and probably should have put over some people that could have been "given the ball" (like RVD, Jericho, Booker, and more recently Punk). But he's also not the devil like many try to make him out to be.

[angryfan]

Feb 8, 2014 13:40:57 GMT -5 KofiMania said:

There are defenses for Triple H, but since people just ignore them, people have stopped responding. Now HHH isn't perfect and he's been booked to make others look bad at time (or booked it himself) but he has put people over before.

By being invincible for so long, Triple H has made a win over him a huge deal- which is not the case for beating 90% of the roster. It's extremely valuable to keep certain people looking strong so they can eventually put people over.

He put over Benoit big-time in 2004 by tapping out right in the middle of the ring at WM XX.

He put over Batista big-time with the Evolution storyline and losing to him at WM 21.

He put over Cena big-time in 2006. He was the heel so him making fun of Cena was not "burying him"--it was him being a heel and then getting his comeuppance for the big match --he tapped out to the STF in the main event of the biggest show of the year.

He's put HBK over in his return match (though people will argue it's because he's friends with him, which somehow makes it "not count").

He made Shelton Benjamin look like a pretty legit threat. He made Taka look good (though they never followed up with a Taka push).

He made Lesnar look like an animal by breaking his arm twice, including getting annihilated in the main event of Summerslam (which many predicted/feared would NOT happen). He then "got his win back" at Mania, but got beat the following month to lose the feud.

He put Taker over at 3 different WrestleManias (you could argue he made him look weak at the 2nd Mania, but it was to set up the following year).

I'd imagine he's going to put Bryan over this year (if that's the direction they go in).

Is Triple H perfect? No, he's not and probably should have put over some people that could have been "given the ball" (like RVD, Jericho, Booker, and more recently Punk). But he's also not the devil like many try to make him out to be.

I like your list, and can actually agree with some of your points. Chiefly, he DID put over Benoit by tapping, he DID make Dave a main eventer in their storyline. He sold for Brock, though admittedly what choice did the man have? Brock was fresh out of UFC, and if you no sell a guy whose reflex is shoot fight, then that puts you in a dangerous spot where you have to trust that professionalism trumps instinct.

I disagree on Taker since he was a main eventer when Trips was still a blue blood. Same, in a sense, for Shawn actually.

The Benoit thing, it got me thinking though, and I really am curious. Is putting someone over a one night thing, or is it showing them and accepting them at your level of prominence?

What I mean is, when we acknowledge that Andre put Hogan over, is it because of Mania 3 in and of itself?

If so, then we can say, safely, that Trips put Benoit (and anyone else he lost to on a PPV card or in a tv main event) over. However, if we view putting someone over as a more long-term acknowledgement of them being on an established main eventer's level, then I would argue that he did not put Benoit over, or many others.

Dave beat Trips, and was from that point forward seen and acknowledged as being on Trips' level. That is the long term example. Benoit, or Shelton, got a win and beat Trips clean, but were afterwards shown and reinforced as being not at his level. I don't just mean in heel promos, I get that, I mean more wide reaching.

Flair was always the cocky heel, and would come out and say "It doesn't matter if you get lucky once, you can't beat the man" and so on. The announcers would then call bullshit and play up that the babyface kicked Flair's ass, and that Flair, while great, was delusional not to mention hiding behind his goons. They acknowledged the greatness of the established main eventer, but also acknowledged the babyface as being great too.

Trips will say "you suck and are beneath me", and while the announcers say "listen to him run the challenger down, how despicable" they will also make sure to repeat the "best ever" mantra. Then, when Trips wins, they say "no shame in losing to the King of Blah Blah, the Cerebral Yackity Schmackity". In a win, the babyface is beneath him due to a fluke or a "career night", in a loss they "should be proud to lose to such a legend".

We kenw how great Flair was, but while announcers would say how talented he was when a heel, they would just roast him over the coals. They woudlnt' take his damn side.

Flair MADE people to the point that people started saying that Flair getting people over didn't matter since he was good at it and "did it too much". Not sure how "He made people stars, any title he touched was important, any feud he was in the other guy came out looking better than he did going in" can ever be bad.

[KofiMania]

Feb 8, 2014 14:52:36 GMT -5 angryfan said:

Feb 8, 2014 13:40:57 GMT -5 KofiMania said:

There are defenses for Triple H, but since people just ignore them, people have stopped responding. Now HHH isn't perfect and he's been booked to make others look bad at time (or booked it himself) but he has put people over before.

By being invincible for so long, Triple H has made a win over him a huge deal- which is not the case for beating 90% of the roster. It's extremely valuable to keep certain people looking strong so they can eventually put people over.

He put over Benoit big-time in 2004 by tapping out right in the middle of the ring at WM XX.

He put over Batista big-time with the Evolution storyline and losing to him at WM 21.

He put over Cena big-time in 2006. He was the heel so him making fun of Cena was not "burying him"--it was him being a heel and then getting his comeuppance for the big match --he tapped out to the STF in the main event of the biggest show of the year.

He's put HBK over in his return match (though people will argue it's because he's friends with him, which somehow makes it "not count").

He made Shelton Benjamin look like a pretty legit threat. He made Taka look good (though they never followed up with a Taka push).

He made Lesnar look like an animal by breaking his arm twice, including getting annihilated in the main event of Summerslam (which many predicted/feared would NOT happen). He then "got his win back" at Mania, but got beat the following month to lose the feud.

He put Taker over at 3 different WrestleManias (you could argue he made him look weak at the 2nd Mania, but it was to set up the following year).

I'd imagine he's going to put Bryan over this year (if that's the direction they go in).

Is Triple H perfect? No, he's not and probably should have put over some people that could have been "given the ball" (like RVD, Jericho, Booker, and more recently Punk). But he's also not the devil like many try to make him out to be.

I like your list, and can actually agree with some of your points. Chiefly, he DID put over Benoit by tapping, he DID make Dave a main eventer in their storyline. He sold for Brock, though admittedly what choice did the man have? Brock was fresh out of UFC, and if you no sell a guy whose reflex is shoot fight, then that puts you in a dangerous spot where you have to trust that professionalism trumps instinct.

I disagree on Taker since he was a main eventer when Trips was still a blue blood. Same, in a sense, for Shawn actually.

The Benoit thing, it got me thinking though, and I really am curious. Is putting someone over a one night thing, or is it showing them and accepting them at your level of prominence?

What I mean is, when we acknowledge that Andre put Hogan over, is it because of Mania 3 in and of itself?

If so, then we can say, safely, that Trips put Benoit (and anyone else he lost to on a PPV card or in a tv main event) over. However, if we view putting someone over as a more long-term acknowledgement of them being on an established main eventer's level, then I would argue that he did not put Benoit over, or many others.

Dave beat Trips, and was from that point forward seen and acknowledged as being on Trips' level. That is the long term example. Benoit, or Shelton, got a win and beat Trips clean, but were afterwards shown and reinforced as being not at his level. I don't just mean in heel promos, I get that, I mean more wide reaching.

Flair was always the cocky heel, and would come out and say "It doesn't matter if you get lucky once, you can't beat the man" and so on. The announcers would then call bullshit and play up that the babyface kicked Flair's ass, and that Flair, while great, was delusional not to mention hiding behind his goons. They acknowledged the greatness of the established main eventer, but also acknowledged the babyface as being great too.

Trips will say "you suck and are beneath me", and while the announcers say "listen to him run the challenger down, how despicable" they will also make sure to repeat the "best ever" mantra. Then, when Trips wins, they say "no shame in losing to the King of Blah Blah, the Cerebral Yackity Schmackity". In a win, the babyface is beneath him due to a fluke or a "career night", in a loss they "should be proud to lose to such a legend".

We kenw how great Flair was, but while announcers would say how talented he was when a heel, they would just roast him over the coals. They woudlnt' take his damn side.

Flair MADE people to the point that people started saying that Flair getting people over didn't matter since he was good at it and "did it too much". Not sure how "He made people stars, any title he touched was important, any feud he was in the other guy came out looking better than he did going in" can ever be bad.

I was talking more about putting people over in a feud, not making their whole careers--so he did put over Taker and HBK in my examples above. Making their whole careers has to do with the follow-up booking, which as far as I know fell on Vince's shoulders for guys like Benoit--I don't see how that can be an example of Triple H not putting someone over just because they were booked poorly afterwards.

I also never said that he was on Flair's level of putting people over--no one has said that. I was saying much of H's rep (esp in this thread) is a little more overblown than reality.

[JTH]

Feb 8, 2014 15:21:13 GMT -5 KofiMania said:

Feb 8, 2014 14:52:36 GMT -5 angryfan said:

I like your list, and can actually agree with some of your points. Chiefly, he DID put over Benoit by tapping, he DID make Dave a main eventer in their storyline. He sold for Brock, though admittedly what choice did the man have? Brock was fresh out of UFC, and if you no sell a guy whose reflex is shoot fight, then that puts you in a dangerous spot where you have to trust that professionalism trumps instinct.

I disagree on Taker since he was a main eventer when Trips was still a blue blood. Same, in a sense, for Shawn actually.

The Benoit thing, it got me thinking though, and I really am curious. Is putting someone over a one night thing, or is it showing them and accepting them at your level of prominence?

What I mean is, when we acknowledge that Andre put Hogan over, is it because of Mania 3 in and of itself?

If so, then we can say, safely, that Trips put Benoit (and anyone else he lost to on a PPV card or in a tv main event) over. However, if we view putting someone over as a more long-term acknowledgement of them being on an established main eventer's level, then I would argue that he did not put Benoit over, or many others.

Dave beat Trips, and was from that point forward seen and acknowledged as being on Trips' level. That is the long term example. Benoit, or Shelton, got a win and beat Trips clean, but were afterwards shown and reinforced as being not at his level. I don't just mean in heel promos, I get that, I mean more wide reaching.

Flair was always the cocky heel, and would come out and say "It doesn't matter if you get lucky once, you can't beat the man" and so on. The announcers would then call bullshit and play up that the babyface kicked Flair's ass, and that Flair, while great, was delusional not to mention hiding behind his goons. They acknowledged the greatness of the established main eventer, but also acknowledged the babyface as being great too.

Trips will say "you suck and are beneath me", and while the announcers say "listen to him run the challenger down, how despicable" they will also make sure to repeat the "best ever" mantra. Then, when Trips wins, they say "no shame in losing to the King of Blah Blah, the Cerebral Yackity Schmackity". In a win, the babyface is beneath him due to a fluke or a "career night", in a loss they "should be proud to lose to such a legend".

We kenw how great Flair was, but while announcers would say how talented he was when a heel, they would just roast him over the coals. They woudlnt' take his damn side.

Flair MADE people to the point that people started saying that Flair getting people over didn't matter since he was good at it and "did it too much". Not sure how "He made people stars, any title he touched was important, any feud he was in the other guy came out looking better than he did going in" can ever be bad.

I was talking more about putting people over in a feud, not making their whole careers--so he did put over Taker and HBK in my examples above. Making their whole careers has to do with the follow-up booking, which as far as I know fell on Vince's shoulders for guys like Benoit--I don't see how that can be an example of Triple H not putting someone over just because they were booked poorly afterwards.

I also never said that he was on Flair's level of putting people over--no one has said that. I was saying much of H's rep (esp in this thread) is a little more overblown than reality.

HHH did not put Taker over, HHH did not put HBK over. He just let Taker beat him, he just let HBK beat him.

The answer is Batista and that's it. Benoit was put over by HBK in their RAW match leading up to WrestleMania, so it would look believable if Benoit won. HHH did not put Cena over, Cena was already main eventing a WrestleMania, I don't believe a guy needs to be put over by then.

HHH is a guy that will only work with guys until others have made them, Batista was the only exception and Sheamus to a lesser extent.

[KofiMania]

Feb 8, 2014 15:32:35 GMT -5 JTH said:

Feb 8, 2014 15:21:13 GMT -5 KofiMania said:

I was talking more about putting people over in a feud, not making their whole careers--so he did put over Taker and HBK in my examples above. Making their whole careers has to do with the follow-up booking, which as far as I know fell on Vince's shoulders for guys like Benoit--I don't see how that can be an example of Triple H not putting someone over just because they were booked poorly afterwards.

I also never said that he was on Flair's level of putting people over--no one has said that. I was saying much of H's rep (esp in this thread) is a little more overblown than reality.

HHH did not put Taker over, HHH did not put HBK over. He just let Taker beat him, he just let HBK beat him.

The answer is Batista and that's it. Benoit was put over by HBK in their RAW match leading up to WrestleMania, so it would look believable if Benoit won. HHH did not put Cena over, Cena was already main eventing a WrestleMania, I don't believe a guy needs to be put over by then.

HHH is a guy that will only work with guys until others have made them, Batista was the only exception and Sheamus to a lesser extent.

Pointless arguing with people on this subject.

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2014 16:41:00 GMT -5 KofiMania said:

Pointless arguing with people on this subject.

I say it's pointless because the HHHaters have done a damn good job of defining what "put over" means, establishing a pattern with Hunner feuds and promos then connecting it all to the assumption that if Hunner really wanted to make a guy he's got the power and clout to make it happen.

Which does look reasonable considering his connection to the people who run the company.

It's all connected to the amount of clout people believe Hunner to have.
Like, you gotta convince people Hunner didn't really have power like that.
I mean, nobody buys Hunner not having that power now so arguing that is pointless.


I find Jericho to be a fascinating counterbalance to this though.
Here's a guy who doesn't seem to have a problem putting people over even though he's part-time, but a lot of people here grumble about how pointless it is.

It's pointless because follow-up booking never emphasizes the fact they beat the first ever Undisputed Champion and a WWE legend like Chris Jericho. It's just something you do, which considering Jericho is a part-timer anyway makes a lot of his matches seem pointless. The cynical part of me believes that to be deliberate, but that's another topic for another day.

[percymania]

I can think of quite a few guys HHH helped get over:

Steve Austin
The Rock
Mick Foley
Chris Jericho
Chris Benoit
Randy Orton
Batista
John Cena
Brock Lesnar
Undertaker