Triple H has the most questionable Wrestlemania record?

[The Rick Jericho]

After seeing the Booker T/Triple H match mentioned in another thread, I did a deep dive on his record and there actually were more than one questionable outcome for Hunter at Wrestlemania.

Wrestlemania 12: Right decision. To lose, but the way he did, did kind of suck, but we all knew Warrior was going over.

Wrestlemania 13: Debatable. Goldust turned face early in 1997 to build to towards this. Chyna and Hunter totally got the upper hand on Marlena and Goldust. If they truly wanted to solidify Goldust as a face he needed the win. I do not know if the plan at this time was to push Hunter or Goldust, hence debatable.

Wrestlemania 14: Right decision. Owen Hart was champion. This loss really solidified Owen for good as a lower mid-card. The build to this match was all over the place. Hunter's stock was rising, so it was clear they were going to push him, with HBK gone the next night.

Wrestlemania 15: Right decision. Hunter was going heel, so he definitely needed to go over Kane, albeit as a face, to make the turn later that night more shocking.

Wrestlemania 16: Wrong decision. The fans wanted Rock vs. Hunter one-on-one to climax this over 2 year feud in different reincarnations. Even in the 4-way that did happen, people wanted Rock to win at the big show to cement his status. WWF got greedy and wanted to stretch it to Backlash. Which worked to an extent, but Rock never got his face world title win on the big stage and this was his closest chance.

Wrestlemania 17: Right decision. Undertaker's streak was starting to get acknowledged more. Hunter was going to stay heel and team with Austin so a win was not needed at all.

Wrestlemania X-8. Right decision. We all knew he was penciled in to win the titles once he came back rom rehab. So no matter whatelse we may have wanted at that time, it was going to chance Hunter winning the titles on the big stage.

Wrestlemania 19: Wrong decision. Good lord, we all know this was wrong forever and ever.

Wrestlemania XX: Right decision. At the time Chris Benoit was going to be pushed as the guy and Hunter wanted to put him over.

Wrestlemania 21: Right decision. Probably honestly, the BEST job Hunter ever did putting someone over. When he wanted to, man, he could make a new star, and Big Dave got the rub. Phenomenal match!

Wrestlemania 22: Right decision. Okay, this technically should be debatable because people wanted Cena vs. Edge, but HHH shoehorned himself in this match instead. So taking it for what it is, he put over Cena and that was good enough for the right result. But Cena was really getting mixed reactions here.

Wrestlemania 24: Wrong decision. Finally a wrong decision in favor of Hunter. He should've gotten his moment and win the belt to get his moment as a face world champion. Would win it one month later in a forgetable 4 way.

Wrestlemania 25: Wrong decision. Randy Orton was super hot and over at this point. Fans were craving another world title run from Randy. He won the Rumble and he had so much momentum. This win would help almost as much as Batista winning at Mania 4 years earlier. Orton loses, momentum is cooled a ton and he wins a month later in stupid 6 man match for the title. Awful.

Wrestlemania 26: Wrong decision. Sheamus was up an coming and came off a WWE title run. This is where HHH was slowly converting to part-timer status. Sheamus had a ton of momentum heading into this match. He needed this win to stay strong in 2010. Hunter did not need this win at all. Sheamus needed to injure and right off Hunter until they have a rematch at Summerslam with tons of heat.

Wrestlemania 27: Right decision. Hunter was part-time and this win would've done nothing for him. Correct decision for Undertaker to win.

Wrestlemania 28: Debatable. Yes, I know it's a right decision because Taker keeps the streak. But, if Hunter ran with turning heel 18 months earlier, ending the streak? This is stuff heels gloat about and him and his "authority" stable would've had a ton of heat. Plus this opens Taker to come back for revenge on him.

Wrestlemania 29: Wrong decision. The whole series with Brock damaged him like crazy working this feud with Hunter. Up until Hunter, Brock was invincible. Especially coming off his return match at Extreme Rules. Brock legit felt scary and the aura of him "hurting people for real" was amazing before the Hunter feud. The Hunter win at this show cooled down Brock so much, they had to give him the streak win to rebuild him. The chain of events would be so different if Brock won here because he stays super red hot heading into the Punk feud. Undertaker gives off his streak loss to someone else who needed it more. And Hunter, well, in 2013, he didn't need to beat Brock, he needed to put him over. He was way past his time to get his "hero" victory.

Wrestlemania XXX: Right decision. Probably outside of putting over Big Dave, he put over Bryan here perfectly.

Wrestlemania 31: Wrong decision. We all know.

Wrestlemania 32: Wrong decision. Not wrong in terms of putting over Roman, he had to, he had nothing to achieve. Wrong decision in that he was put in this match in the first place. The heat was more there with Ambrose vs. Triple H, title or non-title match. Completely wrong pairing here.

Wrestlemania 33: Right decision. Putting over the young guy to give him the rub, this honestly should've been his last match. So Seth can say he retired Triple H.

Wrestlemania 34: Right decision. He did it for Ronda of course and the tag match was the right idea. Thankfully he lost or Ronda's momentum would've cooled so fast if she lost.

Wrestlemania 35: Right decision. Dave wanted to put him over. Two old guys who wanted one last memory at Wrestlemania. No complaints.

So Hunter had a long history at Mania and after doing a deep dive on his matches, he definitely had A LOT of matches that should've went the other way. Probably more than any other talent in WWE history.

Wins over Rock in 2000, Booker in 2003, Orton in 2009 and Sting in 2015 are the biggest ones without a shadow of a doubt.

Does anyone come as close as Hunter for having questionable outcomes at Wrestlemania as he does?

[Nosnorb]

Apr 1, 2024 17:57:46 GMT -5 The Rick Jericho said:

Wrestlemania 22: Right decision. Okay, this technically should be debatable because people wanted Cena vs. Edge, but HHH shoehorned himself in this match instead. So taking it for what it is, he put over Cena and that was good enough for the right result. But Cena was really getting mixed reactions here.

Wrestlemania 32: Wrong decision. Not wrong in terms of putting over Roman, he had to, he had nothing to achieve. Wrong decision in that he was put in this match in the first place. The heat was more there with Ambrose vs. Triple H, title or non-title match. Completely wrong pairing here.

If 32 is the wrong decision because Trips shouldn't have been in that match to begin with, then so is 22. That match should have been Cena vs Edge.

[thechase]

I think Hunter should have gone over Cena at 'Mania 22, the anti-Cena heat was becoming increasingly notable to the point it had to finally be acknowledged on screen by commentators. It wasn't one of their strongest matches either and was a poor closer to a mid 'Mania card. It should have went on one or two matches before the faster paced Orton/Angle/Mysterio match.

[TWERKIN' MAGGLE]

Apr 2, 2024 2:07:49 GMT -5 thechase said:

I think Hunter should have gone over Cena at 'Mania 22, the anti-Cena heat was becoming increasingly notable to the point it had to finally be acknowledged on screen by commentators. It wasn't one of their strongest matches either and was a poor closer to a mid 'Mania card. It should have went on one or two matches before the faster paced Orton/Angle/Mysterio match.

Mania 22 is pretty much a dud. There is one good match, and given what we know about Mick's health these days, was it worth it?

[Mozenrath]

A lot of this is just a consequence of being around for so long, honestly.

[ppl591]

Outside of the results he has to have the one of the most interesting and varied opponents at wrestlemania. I mean he has warrior and sting. If only he didn't have so many repeat matches

[JCBaggee]

Apr 1, 2024 17:57:46 GMT -5 The Rick Jericho said:

Wrestlemania XXX: Right decision. Probably outside of putting over Big Dave, he put over Bryan here perfectly.

Man, I don't think there is an asterisk big enough to call this match the "right decision." This whole angle was one they were more or less bullied into, and this match wouldn't have happened as it did if not for the whirlwind of circumstances

[Citizen Snips Has Left]

I’d say his win at 13 was the right call. The addition of Chyna really gave his act a boost and he was about to get the KOTR win he was scheduled for in ‘96. Hunter being on a roll going into KOTR coincided perfectly with Foley being presented as a more sympathetic figure after the JR interviews and really juiced that feud up as well.

[Nosnorb]

Apr 2, 2024 2:16:16 GMT -5 TWERKIN' MAGGLE said:

Apr 2, 2024 2:07:49 GMT -5 thechase said:

I think Hunter should have gone over Cena at 'Mania 22, the anti-Cena heat was becoming increasingly notable to the point it had to finally be acknowledged on screen by commentators. It wasn't one of their strongest matches either and was a poor closer to a mid 'Mania card. It should have went on one or two matches before the faster paced Orton/Angle/Mysterio match.

Mania 22 is pretty much a dud. There is one good match, and given what we know about Mick's health these days, was it worth it?

Nope. And Edge should have been the one to face Cena, not Trips. Edge was absolutely molten and he and Cena had insane chemistry.

[Limity (BLM)]

Apr 2, 2024 12:04:20 GMT -5 Nosnorb said:

Apr 2, 2024 2:16:16 GMT -5 TWERKIN' MAGGLE said:

Mania 22 is pretty much a dud. There is one good match, and given what we know about Mick's health these days, was it worth it?

Nope. And Edge should have been the one to face Cena, not Trips. Edge was absolutely molten and he and Cena had insane chemistry.

So much this. I was an avid watcher during this period, bejng able to catch the PPVs at a nearby Buffalo Wild Wings, and Edge cashing in and the resulting feud between he and Cena was awesome. And like so much else, Triple H had to come along and ruin it.

[tirtefaa]

I've made a similar argument in the past. Seems like many times he won when he shouldn't have or he lost when I would have preferred if he won.

[4real]

Slight nit pick but HHH did lose to Kane at Mania XV by DQ although Kane hardly looked like a winner at the end of the match.

[Woo]

I don't see how cementing red hot Owen Hart, who was probably second only to Austin at the time, as a lower midcarder can be called the right decision.

[CMWaters]

Apr 2, 2024 14:34:54 GMT -5 Woo said:

I don't see how cementing red hot Owen Hart, who was probably second only to Austin at the time, as a lower midcarder can be called the right decision.

Considering Shawn was going into temporary retirement later on in the show, and how the birth of the next version of DX happened the next night with HHH taking over and Waltman coming from WCW, you kind of needed HHH to have a title to be seen as a leader, at least IMO.

Now what they did with Owen after Mania, that's a different story.

[David-Arquette was in WCW 2000]

Apr 2, 2024 14:34:54 GMT -5 Woo said:

I don't see how cementing red hot Owen Hart, who was probably second only to Austin at the time, as a lower midcarder can be called the right decision.

Owen was over at that point, but second to Austin?

[CMWaters]

Apr 2, 2024 14:55:41 GMT -5 David-Arquette was in WCW 2000 said:

Apr 2, 2024 14:34:54 GMT -5 Woo said:

I don't see how cementing red hot Owen Hart, who was probably second only to Austin at the time, as a lower midcarder can be called the right decision.

Owen was over at that point, but second to Austin?

I mean on the face side...maybe third after Austin and Taker (at least if you don't count Sable).

[papagiorgio]

Maybe I would have booked it a little different, but Triple H over Sting was the right call. Triple H defended the title in the main event at the next Wrestlemania and needed the win.

[tirtefaa]

Apr 2, 2024 14:57:22 GMT -5 CMWaters said:

Apr 2, 2024 14:55:41 GMT -5 David-Arquette was in WCW 2000 said:

Owen was over at that point, but second to Austin?

I mean on the face side...maybe third after Austin and Taker (at least if you don't count Sable).

I mean I would put even Shamrock above Owen, but you also have to look at how incredibly weak the midcard was at the time. It was only after WrestleMania, you start seeing these lower acts get super over. So it's not like Owen was on this verge of being a major face, albeit it was probably his best chance.

That said, it was kind of stupid to have him get goaded into coming out injured a couple weeks before Mania to lose the title to Hunter, only for him to lose again. At least have him lose the title AT Mania.

[KingPooper]

I’m way to forgetful to remember what half these matches were and their outcomes.

[ghost]

Some of the builds to those later matches were ridiculous. The most obvious way to set up the HHH/Batista match a few years ago was to have HHH challenge Batista to finally beat him in a 1-on-1 match. Instead, Batista comes back and has to beg (or spit heavily into a mic) for a match with a guy who he did nothing but beat in his prime. Like, what motivation would Batista's character have to want to wrestle HHH again? Then you have the 2nd Undertaker match where Taker has to shave his head and beg for a rematch with HHH, which HHH didn't want because he kicked Taker's ass too much the first time (or maybe I'm misremembering that). HHH's character, especially in the late 2000's, early 2010's, was the most obnoxiously booked character of all time.