|
Post by moonlight on Jan 2, 2010 16:45:33 GMT -5
Naw, Santino. You guys forget, this is not wrestling, it's sports entertainment, and nobody entertains like Santino.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jan 2, 2010 17:27:04 GMT -5
That just says to me that he's been around for the longest, not that he's the best. I agree.. Longevity on top doesnt not necessarily equate to being the best. I look at this way.. Yes Trips may have had the longevity as opposed to guys like Austin and Rock.. But no one can say that Trips being on top was as successful as those two ( drawing wise, entertainment wise etc) even though Rock only had maybe 5 years or so on top, same as Austin. Hell for most of Triple H's reign of terror if anything it drove peopel AWAY not bring them in. Unlike Rock and Austin Consistency means.. Consistency.. Consistency doesnt mean you are the best at what u do.. It means you are consistent. I would rather take a guy who has a few short years but with unreal quality at the top, drew huge houses by sucking people in, and providing entertainment in the storyline he was in.. Opposed to someone who didnt reach the same success, yet was on top for a longer period of time because the real stars either quit or retired so he could take that top spot. I look at Triple H on top as a result more to due.. Yes marrying in the family.. It isnt the sole reason he got on top.. But you cant sit there and tell me it didnt help with his 40 million titles reigns and 10 years in and around the top spot when others could have been chosen especially in a down time for the business when people got sick of the triple H-steph show. .. And Guys like Angle leaving, Stone Cold Retiring, Lesnar leaving (which he could have been the next big thing possibly) and Rock leaving. Trips just kept around when guys above him left. Thats what it seemed to boiled down to it seemed to me I'd say he would be on top regardless of his family connections. If he didn't have them, he'd sitll be on an HBK/Taker level, only he doesn't have recurring injuries that require a lighter schedule, so he often gets the veteran champion role. He's over, one of the best heels ever, still really popular. Thing is, people will say 'He drove fans away' with his title reign, but the fact is, he never had a major face to work with in that 'reign of terror'. RVD, Kane and Booker were IWC favourites, but not the draws to sustain the level of business that Austin and Rock brought. Takes two to do big money. Austin vs any heel would be decent, Austin vs McMahon was awesome. Rock vs any heel would be decent. Rock vs HHH was awesome. For that period, HHH was only filling half the equation for big money (because he was still a great heel in that time) but there was no face with mass appeal. He's been on top for the decade because the fans have kept him there. If he wasn't getting the appropriate reactions, he wouldn't be there. People always say that the WWE could push anyone they choose hard enough and they'd get that same reaction, but they don't. Lashley proved it. Numerous failed pushes have proved it.
|
|
sloride
Unicron
Doesn't Suck Up. Or Does She?
The Greatest Entertainer to have ever Lived
Posts: 3,196
|
Post by sloride on Jan 2, 2010 17:43:57 GMT -5
HHH has been a main event player for the whole decade, has shown extra-ordinary commitment, has had some amazing matches and feuds, and put some of the company's biggest stars over. He shifts a lot of merch and is still insanely over. Wrestler of the decade, you betcha.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Jan 2, 2010 17:55:22 GMT -5
Angle #5 and Trips Number 1? That shows you right there. Angle is twice the wrestlers Trips ever was and then some I don't get it. #1 x 2 + "and then some" = #5 (?) Teacher Barbie says "Math is hard!"
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Jan 2, 2010 18:12:51 GMT -5
Really, from a kayfabe perspective, Triple H almost certainly is the wrestler of the decade.
Look at the rest of the list; the top 4 names are the big four main event babyfaces of the last several years, arranged equivalently to how prominently they're booked. The other six guys have all main evented at least one Wrestlemania.
This list isn't really about the quality of the performers themselves, so much as a look at the characters and how they've been booked.
|
|
|
Post by mauled on Jan 2, 2010 18:33:46 GMT -5
If he was so great for the product why was Pat Patterson let go in 04 for saying the reason ratings were low was because of Trips being champion And people who say he was over before he got with Steph seem to forget that he had a great relationship with Vince from the get go its why his punishment for the Curtain Call was more for forms sake then anything else (his own words on his DVD) and by 97 he was on the booking commite anyway. And besides his whole 2000 run was just him hanging on the Rocks coattails as he knew the Rock was over and it was just a question of who wrestled him.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Jan 2, 2010 18:37:18 GMT -5
Slow decade, huh?
|
|
|
Post by forgottensinpwf on Jan 2, 2010 18:39:55 GMT -5
I got no problem with this. When i think of the 2000's he's usually the first one that comes to mind.
|
|
reckoner
Tommy Wiseau
Kings Of The Midlands
Posts: 76
|
Post by reckoner on Jan 2, 2010 18:44:40 GMT -5
I agree with this. He's been the only constant in Wrestling, not just WWE, this decade. Let's see: Rock left, Austin left, Angle was alright, Jericho left in periods, Edge wasn't there all decade, Cena wasn't here for half of it, Lesnar bailed, Lashley left, Kennedy was a bust, Foley tarnished his legacy, Orton wasn't here for half of it, Benoit did whatever the hell you want to call it I don't care anymore, Eddie died, Big Show wasn't all that big, Golberg left, Taker has had injury issues, Kane is always yoyoed, Punk wasn't here for half of it, Jeff didn't make a big impact until the last 2 years, Christian hasn't made it big yet, RVD got busted, HBK wasn't here for the first 2 years and Booker T wasn't all that big. There's only been one constant, and despite all the poliKliqing, sucking up, and HHHate...Triple H has been the only constant Wrestling has been able to depend on since 2000. Pretty much this. HHH wins by default.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Diamond on Jan 2, 2010 18:47:06 GMT -5
I'd say he would be on top regardless of his family connections. If he didn't have them, he'd sitll be on an HBK/Taker level, only he doesn't have recurring injuries that require a lighter schedule, so he often gets the veteran champion role. He's over, one of the best heels ever, still really popular. Thing is, people will say 'He drove fans away' with his title reign, but the fact is, he never had a major face to work with in that 'reign of terror'. RVD, Kane and Booker were IWC favourites, but not the draws to sustain the level of business that Austin and Rock brought. Takes two to do big money. Austin vs any heel would be decent, Austin vs McMahon was awesome. Rock vs any heel would be decent. Rock vs HHH was awesome. For that period, HHH was only filling half the equation for big money (because he was still a great heel in that time) but there was no face with mass appeal. He's been on top for the decade because the fans have kept him there. If he wasn't getting the appropriate reactions, he wouldn't be there. People always say that the WWE could push anyone they choose hard enough and they'd get that same reaction, but they don't. Lashley proved it. Numerous failed pushes have proved it. I can see him being on the HBK/Taker level but best heel ever? It's easy to be a great heel when you are booked to beat practically everyone in the company. The nWo was a group of wrestlers and as dominant as they were they were still treated as cowards compared to HHH. It was a good gimmick at first but after a while a story must end and that ended up being his quad tear due to steroid abuse back in 2001. Even with that, most of the time he would win the title due to technicalities (if were going by kayfabe) or interference which isn't that great for a heel champion. He's popular because he's in DX, but on his own his reactions vary from cheers to getting "Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" chants. His matches at PPVs generally end in the audience giving a lukewarm reaction because it's almost inevitable that he will win and there's rarely if any drama behind anything he does because he is almost always booked stronger than his opponent whether face or heel. As for driving fans away, I wasn't a smart mark and I didn't consider myself or the people I knew who still watched WWE after the Invasion to be smart marks. The only wrestling sites I read were Wrestlecrap and another similar site called Xavier Doom's Slayground (think that's what it was called). I knew people who quit watching by the end of 2002 for various reasons but one common factor was HHH. As a face he was pretty unsympathetic due to all the BS he'd pulled for the past three years and as a heel his character was played out. RVD, Kane, and Booker T and even guys like Jericho would have actually been relatively new faces in the main event and had support from the audiences. You can not tell me that the people cheering (or booing) for guys like that were all from the IWC. This was the same excuse used by WCW and other dead promotions to justify not pushing newer talent on top and they paid for it in the end. I don't mean that they refused to push wrestlers approved by a select group of fans but rather that they would ignore the reactions that the fans gave to certain wrestlers because they didn't fit into their traditional ideas of who a champion should be. I think the only reason the same didn't happen to WWE was because they no longer had any competition so what happened instead is that more people quit watching and they lost millions of dollars that year. I don't think anyone said that they would be on the level of Rock or Austin but it would have been better for the WWE to try instead of sticking doing the essentially the same stuff that they did in 2000. Lashley never lasted as long as HHH and wasn't with the company that long so I'm not seeing the comparision. On the other hand I can compare HHH to someone like Jericho. When he was deemed not a draw (supposedly) as Undisputed Champion he lost the belt to HHH in 2002. The numbers did not support HHH being the main guy which is why they had to start pushing Lesnar and eventually Cena. It took Jericho about six years to see a major title again whereas HHH has seen the title constantly despite no evidence of him being a big draw on his own and having terrible matches in 2002 and 2003 and even years after that (HHH vs. Kozlov, HHH vs. Orton, etc.). However HHH is a part of management and apparently has been so for years so that means he won't be held accountable for that. Yes, it takes two to make money but generally one or the other is going to get more credit. People don't play Mario to fight Bowser. People didn't go to see the Dark Knight to see the Joker (hated Ledger's Joker by the way) otherwise it would have been called The Laughing Man. The Rock and Austin didn't need HHH nearly as much as HHH needed them along with Foley, Undertaker, Benoit, and Jericho in 1999-2001. A truly great wrestler would have made his matches matter no matter who the opponent was. Ric Flair was great at that. He understood the importance of making his opponent look great but it seems HHH either doesn't realize this unless if it's his friends or he doesn't care.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jan 2, 2010 19:02:54 GMT -5
In terms of total influence and power over the industry, he's easily the most powerful since Hogan, and the 00s were the decade where he began to utilize his influence, so yeas, he deserves it, even if the 2003 Reign of Terror wasn't a great moment in WWE booking. I can't think of the 00s without HHH, whereas Orton, Bats (who he pushed) and even Cena were ultimately replaceable.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jan 2, 2010 19:11:51 GMT -5
If he was so great for the product why was Pat Patterson let go in 04 for saying the reason ratings were low was because of Trips being champion And people who say he was over before he got with Steph seem to forget that he had a great relationship with Vince from the get go its why his punishment for the Curtain Call was more for forms sake then anything else (his own words on his DVD) and by 97 he was on the booking commite anyway. And besides his whole 2000 run was just him hanging on the Rocks coattails as he knew the Rock was over and it was just a question of who wrestled him. Cornette was recently let go by TNA for not agreeing with their creative direction. If the WWE had decided that they needed HHH with the belt so they could make Benoit, and then so they could make Batista, then if Patterson says something that disagrees, after the plans had been clear and agreed upon, and the reasonning explained, then it could be the same situation as Cornette. Patterson's back, isn't he? Why does having a great relationship with Vince matter? If anything, you bringing up that the punishment was for shows purpose really just shows that Vince is willing to put business ahead of personal relationships. And hanging on Rock's coat tails? LOL. Statements like this are why marks probably are the best barometer as to what the wrestling fanbase thinks. No probably about it actually. People HATED HHH back then, there's no denying it. He totally brought what he needed to do as a heel, which was to make Rock even more loved.
|
|
|
Post by robferatu on Jan 2, 2010 19:17:10 GMT -5
Depends on what this is based on. If it's based on accomplishments, then Triple H probably is the wrestler of the decade. If it's based on drawing power, then probably not.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Crow T. Robot
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 40,357
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Jan 2, 2010 19:22:36 GMT -5
While I'm not his biggest fan, I have no problem w/HHH as #1, personally I would've picked Angle. Actually my only real problem w/ the list is Angle being 5th, but I can see those guys as the top 5, just not in that order, mine would go Angle, HHH, Cena, Taker, HBK. I wouldn't disagree with that. Hell, I'd say the only issue I have is that Triple H and Kurt Angle ought to be the first two in the list, and whichever was picked for that I would of agreed with. Exactly, my only problem was Angle at #5 & the guy who made the list didn't really make good arguments why Angle is only the 5th best wrestler this decade, I mean HHH is the only guy on the list w/ more World Titles this decade. Maybe it's just me, but it seems the main reason he was 5th instead 2nd or even 3rd is because he went to TNA.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jan 2, 2010 19:36:53 GMT -5
I'd say he would be on top regardless of his family connections. If he didn't have them, he'd sitll be on an HBK/Taker level, only he doesn't have recurring injuries that require a lighter schedule, so he often gets the veteran champion role. He's over, one of the best heels ever, still really popular. Thing is, people will say 'He drove fans away' with his title reign, but the fact is, he never had a major face to work with in that 'reign of terror'. RVD, Kane and Booker were IWC favourites, but not the draws to sustain the level of business that Austin and Rock brought. Takes two to do big money. Austin vs any heel would be decent, Austin vs McMahon was awesome. Rock vs any heel would be decent. Rock vs HHH was awesome. For that period, HHH was only filling half the equation for big money (because he was still a great heel in that time) but there was no face with mass appeal. He's been on top for the decade because the fans have kept him there. If he wasn't getting the appropriate reactions, he wouldn't be there. People always say that the WWE could push anyone they choose hard enough and they'd get that same reaction, but they don't. Lashley proved it. Numerous failed pushes have proved it. I can see him being on the HBK/Taker level but best heel ever? It's easy to be a great heel when you are booked to beat practically everyone in the company. The nWo was a group of wrestlers and as dominant as they were they were still treated as cowards compared to HHH. It was a good gimmick at first but after a while a story must end and that ended up being his quad tear due to steroid abuse back in 2001. Even with that, most of the time he would win the title due to technicalities (if were going by kayfabe) or interference which isn't that great for a heel champion. He's popular because he's in DX, but on his own his reactions vary from cheers to getting "Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" chants. His matches at PPVs generally end in the audience giving a lukewarm reaction because it's almost inevitable that he will win and there's rarely if any drama behind anything he does because he is almost always booked stronger than his opponent whether face or heel. As for driving fans away, I wasn't a smart mark and I didn't consider myself or the people I knew who still watched WWE after the Invasion to be smart marks. The only wrestling sites I read were Wrestlecrap and another similar site called Xavier Doom's Slayground (think that's what it was called). I knew people who quit watching by the end of 2002 for various reasons but one common factor was HHH. As a face he was pretty unsympathetic due to all the BS he'd pulled for the past three years and as a heel his character was played out. RVD, Kane, and Booker T and even guys like Jericho would have actually been relatively new faces in the main event and had support from the audiences. You can not tell me that the people cheering (or booing) for guys like that were all from the IWC. This was the same excuse used by WCW and other dead promotions to justify not pushing newer talent on top and they paid for it in the end. I don't mean that they refused to push wrestlers approved by a select group of fans but rather that they would ignore the reactions that the fans gave to certain wrestlers because they didn't fit into their traditional ideas of who a champion should be. I think the only reason the same didn't happen to WWE was because they no longer had any competition so what happened instead is that more people quit watching and they lost millions of dollars that year. I don't think anyone said that they would be on the level of Rock or Austin but it would have been better for the WWE to try instead of sticking doing the essentially the same stuff that they did in 2000. Lashley never lasted as long as HHH and wasn't with the company that long so I'm not seeing the comparision. On the other hand I can compare HHH to someone like Jericho. When he was deemed not a draw (supposedly) as Undisputed Champion he lost the belt to HHH in 2002. The numbers did not support HHH being the main guy which is why they had to start pushing Lesnar and eventually Cena. It took Jericho about six years to see a major title again whereas HHH has seen the title constantly despite no evidence of him being a big draw on his own and having terrible matches in 2002 and 2003 and even years after that (HHH vs. Kozlov, HHH vs. Orton, etc.). However HHH is a part of management and apparently has been so for years so that means he won't be held accountable for that. Yes, it takes two to make money but generally one or the other is going to get more credit. People don't play Mario to fight Bowser. People didn't go to see the Dark Knight to see the Joker (hated Ledger's Joker by the way) otherwise it would have been called The Laughing Man. The Rock and Austin didn't need HHH nearly as much as HHH needed them along with Foley, Undertaker, Benoit, and Jericho in 1999-2001. A truly great wrestler would have made his matches matter no matter who the opponent was. Ric Flair was great at that. He understood the importance of making his opponent look great but it seems HHH either doesn't realize this unless if it's his friends or he doesn't care. I meant one of the best heels of the decade...but if he's in that category, why not best ever? There's been 2, maybe 3 other decades that any of us could fairly count, and if he's one of the best heels from one of them...why not ever? Winning the titles the way he did at that time was a great way to keep him heel, I hated the way he would claim he was the best and then have to cheat. Someone that dominating who doesn't cheat ends up looking like Goldberg, and they didn't want the fans behind him. It worked. Stories do end with him as a heel, unfortunate he was injured, but when he's been able to see one through...Benoit and Batista got to dethrone him properly. Infact Batista's win was probably the perfect example of a story going exactly as perfect as can be. On driving people away, it really is impossible to know. Heck, I remember even thinking that I stopped because of HHH. But you look back on it now, and I'm a bit more learned, and can look at things more rationally. I hated him in 2000, but always wanted Rock to beat him. I was willing to take HHH on top because I still wanted to see Rock, and if he was able to beat him...amazing. HHH was still on top in 2003, but I didn't care enough about Booker T, I didn't care enough about RVD, and I didn't care enough about Kane. Not even Goldberg kept my interest. I watch back now, and HHH was a phenominal heel still, he was still doing his job. WWE create new stars. Even Jericho, IWC favourite, knows that WWE's mission statement is to create new stars, he's said so himself. I look at John Cena, when he does his media appearances, his promo in Iraq, and all the other things that make Cena great at what he does, then I look back and think - could Booker T do that? Would you want RVD doing that? Kane - no way. Vince will always create new stars, but he also knows what makes a star. He kept HHH on top because he was the best he had. Vince does what's best for business. He built his company around Lesnar as soon as he could because Lesnar was someone who could be a star. And not just a star, but a WWE star. And not just a star in WWE, but someone who can carry the company. As soon as Batista was ready, he was made. As soon as Cena was, so was he. Jericho got the title again because he was better in his career at that point than he ever had been - he was finally a worthy main eventer rather than an upper-mid carder. He wasn't good enough in 2002/3. When I said it takes two to tango, I was talking about making big money, not having good matches. HHH has had good matches with a variety of opponents. In wrestling, it's slightly different to video games. They could make a new villain for Mario but what sells Mario is the new innovations and the gameplay. What sells a wrestling match is a mega face going against a mega heel, and that'll do great money. It's why time is invested in making them both as liked and disliked as possible respectively. A face vs heel who both aren't over won't do good money. A mega face vs a normal heel will do ok, a normal face vs mega heel will do ok. When you've built them up so much that they are both so good, and the crowd responds accordlingly, that's mega money. HHH was a mega heel. As for making others look good, HHH's whole moveset is designed to make others look good. I'll bet it's why he doesn't work as well as a face, except when he's with HBK who is designed to look good himself. HHH's moveset is not flashy in the slightest, reason being because he knows how to make others look good.
|
|
|
Post by foreveryoung on Jan 2, 2010 19:42:49 GMT -5
Triple H one of the best heels of all time? When you think of ALL TIME, you have to go all the way back to the early 1900's. Guys like Rogers, Flair, The Sheik and down the line could litterally make fans want to waffle them out back with a baseball bat after the show. Heels in the old days would come back to their cars with their tires deflated and windows smashed. That was the "white heat" back in the day the old timers would call. I dont think Triple H ever had this type of red hot heat. Triple H no doubt was a very good heel through the 00's. But its arguable if he was even the best of his own era. You have Edge there who is a candidate, Angle, and even The Rock if we want to consider his early 00's heel work. The list is long and distinguished but I dont even think Triple H would make the short list of the greatest heels ever. There have been WAYYY too many above him. Dibiase, Hogan, Piper, Stone Cold (96-97), Jake, flair, The Rock, Buddy Rogers, The Original Sheik.. All greater than Triple H as heels. Thats just a few.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 2, 2010 19:52:50 GMT -5
HHH had a great run from 00-02 and then again during Evolution. The supersquash tour of 03 was garbage, his mania events with Jericho, Booker, and Orton sucked, his DX 06 run was an embarresment. Sorry, half the decade doesn't count. Kurt Angle on the other hand, was good for all ten, as was Christian, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, AJ Styles, Danielson, and others.
HHH would make the top ten but he'd be somewhere on the bottom half.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Jan 2, 2010 20:04:17 GMT -5
HHH had a great run from 00-02 and then again during Evolution. The supersquash tour of 03 was garbage, his mania events with Jericho, Booker, and Orton sucked, his DX 06 run was an embarresment. Sorry, half the decade doesn't count. Kurt Angle on the other hand, was good for all ten, as was Christian, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, AJ Styles, Danielson, and others. HHH would make the top ten but he'd be somewhere on the bottom half. Are you saying that Danielson deserves to be on the list above Trips?
|
|
Parrish
El Dandy
Banana Man Wouldn't Book That!!!
Posts: 8,729
|
Post by Parrish on Jan 2, 2010 20:37:57 GMT -5
If your picking from WWE then Shawn Michaels was wrestler of the decade.
He produced a match of the year candidate in every year that he has come back from injury. He consistantly puts on great matches and could carry just about anyone to a pretty damn good match. Now I know he hasn't had the title reigns of most people but I would choose him over Triple H.
|
|
|
Post by Curt Hawkins Fan on Jan 3, 2010 2:57:29 GMT -5
Despite what anybody may think about him, he has always been there for the WWF/WWE. For the past ten years he has been the only guy who hasn't taken some huge break or left and returned 20 times.
|
|