|
Post by Loki on Dec 2, 2007 17:54:55 GMT -5
Best post-kayfabe heel, by a mile.
Taking into account: longevity, impact on the biz and charisma (the 3 main qualities to "rank" pro-wrestlers IMO) he's definitely top 10 material, especially speaking strictly of WWF/E.
Top Three being Hogan, Austin and (begrudgingly) Rock. Then there's the "lacking something" legends: Piper, Andre, Taker, Bret, Shawn, Flair... So Triple H can easily be ranked among them.
Triple H is indeed lacking a "defining" moment, or, if you will, a unique trait that can make people think of him as "the best in that department".
I think his run as mega-heel is good enough to qualify him up there. His detractors will take it as a negative trait, thus invalid to make him elegible for such an high ranking, but in a way they're giving him credit anyway.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Dec 2, 2007 17:57:10 GMT -5
Herein lies the problem. Does this consists of pre 1980 WWE to include the WWWF? And for a lot of people putting him top 5 or top 10 how long have these people been actually watching wrestling to legitimately compare him to others? No question HHH has been a top main event wrestler for the WWE for the greater part since the Attitude Era but let's not forget that a lot of people may only rank him so high because he is one of the few main event people they have actually seen wrestle. With that said I actually like HHH but I don't think he is top 10 alltime in the WWE. I might put him around number 15 to 20. I think being world champion is a major factor but there are other factors to consider. If HHH were to retire today than a decade from now people might still remember the Ultimate Warrior more for example.
|
|
|
Post by skillz on Dec 2, 2007 17:57:17 GMT -5
HHH was never a big draw and he doesn't have that one historical match that people will remember one or two decades from now. He didn't have a memorable promo style or something that set him apart either. He's just been a guy that has been pushed to the moon non-stop for 8 or 9 years.
I agree with Kevin Nash's opinion as far as what constitutes a good worker. Either you draw money or you don't. Either you are popular/memorable or you aren't. Either you wrestle in front of red hot crowds every night or you don't. HHH being in the top 5 or 10 is absurd, even if you're discounting WCW/NWA.
I don't know where I would rate him because I honestly don't view him as a significant part of wrestling history.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Dec 2, 2007 17:59:25 GMT -5
HHH was never a big draw and he doesn't have that one historical match that people will remember one or two decades from now. He didn't have a memorable promo style or something that set him apart either. He's just been a guy that has been pushed to the moon non-stop for 8 or 9 years. I agree with Kevin Nash's opinion as far as what constitutes a good worker. Either you draw money or you don't. Either you are popular/memorable or you aren't. Either you wrestle in front of red hot crowds every night or you don't. HHH being in the top 5 or 10 is absurd, even if you're discounting WCW/NWA. I don't know where I would rate him because I honestly don't view him as a significant part of wrestling history. You said what I wanted to better than I did. Thanks. Like I said, HHH has always been solid, but I don't think he's worthy of top 10 mention, and when he retires, most fans will probably forget about him as quickly as they do anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Dec 2, 2007 18:00:04 GMT -5
Best post-kayfabe heel, by a mile. Taking into account: longevity, impact on the biz and charisma (the 3 main qualities to "rank" pro-wrestlers IMO) he's definitely top 10 material, especially speaking strictly of WWF/E. Top Three being Hogan, Austin and (begrudgingly) Rock. Then there's the "lacking something" legends: Piper, Andre, Taker, Bret, Shawn, Flair... So Triple H can easily be ranked among them. Triple H is indeed lacking a "defining" moment, or, if you will, a unique trait that can make people think of him as "the best in that department". I think his run as mega-heel is good enough to qualify him up there. His detractors will take it as a negative trait, thus invalid to make him elegible for such an high ranking, but in a way they're giving him credit anyway. HHH is nowhere light years close to being in Flair's league. Hogan and Flair are the two top wrestlers overall the past 25 years. How then can HHH be mentioned in the same breath as Flair legend wise?
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Dec 2, 2007 18:00:36 GMT -5
Below: Bret, Hogan, Rock, Taker, Flair, Austin, Piper, Andre that's for sure. HHH's problem is that he's never really had a match or a moment or a period in his career where he's had the eyes of the world on him. Think what you like about the Warrior his WM 6 match was a seminal moment in the industries history, none of HHH's matches etc have been that. I think his return at MSG in 2002 would be his "moment"...the crowd was so pumped as was he.
|
|
mainsupreme
Unicron
World Wildlife Entertainment
Posts: 3,463
|
Post by mainsupreme on Dec 2, 2007 18:01:07 GMT -5
let's see
he's not on the level of a: hogan, undertaker, bret hart, HBK, Rock, Austin, Andre, Piper, Warrior, Goldberg, Foley, Flair.
I always saw him as the best of the rest.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Dec 2, 2007 18:06:57 GMT -5
let's see he's not on the level of a: hogan, undertaker, bret hart, HBK, Rock, Austin, Andre, Piper, Warrior, Goldberg, Foley, Flair. I always saw him as the best of the rest. I would respectfully say that he is way better than Foley. The way I see the tiers as someone who has watched since the late 1970s it would be: Hogan, Andre, Flair Rock, Austin, Warrior, Piper Hart, Goldberg, HBK If we are talking about overall terms of legacy and memorable wrestling impact and drawing ability.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 2, 2007 18:10:53 GMT -5
HHH is nowhere light years close to being in Flair's league. Hogan and Flair are the two top wrestlers overall the past 25 years. How then can HHH be mentioned in the same breath as Flair legend wise? I said, speaking strictly of WWF/E. Of course NWA Flair is Top 3 Material (with Hogan and Austin), but his runs in WWF/E weren't that great, and I still rank Triple H better than WWF/E Flair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2007 18:13:38 GMT -5
id say for me... because its only out of what i have watched and i never watched early years...
Hogan, Flair are the 2 top guys
then Austin and Rock
then HBK, HHH, Piper, taker, Guerrero, Jericho people who could wrestle extremely well and talk well etc
Then those who could wrestle extremely well but didn't exactly have the best mike skills... id put Benoit in this category along with many others
then Batista, Goldberg, Warrior and a bunch of others who were champions and were over but weren't great wrestlers.
although i must say this is a definate limited source of wrestling info so disregard this if you please
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Dec 2, 2007 18:15:31 GMT -5
HHH is nowhere light years close to being in Flair's league. Hogan and Flair are the two top wrestlers overall the past 25 years. How then can HHH be mentioned in the same breath as Flair legend wise? I said, speaking strictly of WWF/E. Of course NWA Flair is Top 3 Material (with Hogan and Austin), but his runs in WWF/E weren't that great, and I still rank Triple H better than WWF/E Flair. I will agree with you on that although overall Austin is behind Flair. A very solid WCW run plus an explosive mega popular Attitude Era run still does not compare with Flairs legacy. I do agree that HHH has been more successful in the WWE than HHH but that is only because Flair has been a non WWE guy 90 percent of his career.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 2, 2007 18:18:49 GMT -5
Top 5 for me.
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Dec 2, 2007 18:33:54 GMT -5
Between Gillberg and David Flair:P
|
|
|
Post by a1TheEnigma1a on Dec 2, 2007 18:40:44 GMT -5
Kinda off topic...but great thread.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,934
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 2, 2007 18:45:08 GMT -5
When people say Triple H was a bad draw, it screams "selective memory" to the heavens, at the top of their lungs.
Rock? Now, who was that funny little fellow he was fighting on most of his top selling matches? You know, dude with the nose, who is just as responsible for the buyrate, being the heel?
|
|
J is Justice
Patti Mayonnaise
Will now be grateful.
Hi.
Posts: 31,479
|
Post by J is Justice on Dec 2, 2007 18:50:54 GMT -5
HHH was never a big draw and he doesn't have that one historical match that people will remember one or two decades from now. He didn't have a memorable promo style or something that set him apart either. He's just been a guy that has been pushed to the moon non-stop for 8 or 9 years. I agree with Kevin Nash's opinion as far as what constitutes a good worker. Either you draw money or you don't. Either you are popular/memorable or you aren't. Either you wrestle in front of red hot crowds every night or you don't. HHH being in the top 5 or 10 is absurd, even if you're discounting WCW/NWA. I don't know where I would rate him because I honestly don't view him as a significant part of wrestling history. You said what I wanted to better than I did. Thanks. Like I said, HHH has always been solid, but I don't think he's worthy of top 10 mention, and when he retires, most fans will probably forget about him as quickly as they do anyone else. This
|
|
|
Post by romafan87 on Dec 2, 2007 19:06:07 GMT -5
Top 20 in the US.
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Dec 2, 2007 19:23:07 GMT -5
Over the last 7 years or so, se's been in the top 5. I say that HHH today is one of the last in a dying breed of guys that came up through the bisiness the hard way through the 90's, and that's what makes him stand out in today's environment. I say that if he were around in the late 80's/early 90's, he'd be average.
|
|
|
Post by skillz on Dec 2, 2007 19:32:48 GMT -5
When people say Triple H was a bad draw, it screams "selective memory" to the heavens, at the top of their lungs. Rock? Now, who was that funny little fellow he was fighting on most of his top selling matches? You know, dude with the nose, who is just as responsible for the buyrate, being the heel? Well, then I guess King Kong Bundy and Paul Orndorff are top 10 material too, since they were drawing with Hogan in the 80's. Guys like Hogan, Rock, and Austin drew with a wide variety of guys. Some times it takes one good heel for them to take off (Piper, McMahon, etc), but HHH was not that type of foil to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by phenomphan on Dec 2, 2007 20:11:15 GMT -5
Triple H is a tough one to rank. I don't think he's on the level of Hogan, Austin, Rock, Undertaker, Flair, HBK, but I certainley think he's above Foley. If the above guys are 1-6 (no particular order), then I'd put Triple H at #7 and Foley behind him.
|
|