|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jan 3, 2010 3:12:24 GMT -5
I like how pissed off people get at these lists. You have to factor in, they generally aren't about match quality as they are overness over a period of time. The IWC may seem to want Tripple H's head on a platter, but live crowds pop for the guy, week in and week out. That means he's over. It's not like he goes out to the sounds of silence. I love Kurt Angle, but let's face it. He's a liar and a drug addict, get off his nuts already.
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
Member is Online
|
Post by spagett on Jan 3, 2010 10:17:10 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. Triple H did tag along off the back of The Rock. In 1998 when he was struggling to get over as a babyface on his own, without DX with him he was getting lukwarm reactions, he was put into a feud with the red hot Rock who was getting huge heat. It got Triple over as a mid card babyface even though by the time they had their epic ladder match at Summerslam 1998 The Rock was getting cheered and the Peoples Elbow spot on the ladder got the biggest pop of the entire night. The same happened in 1999 when trying to get Triple H over as a mega heel. The Rock was fed to him time and again because From the summer of 1999 onwards The Rock was overtaking Austin in terms of popularity. The Rock didnt need any help to be more loved from that point on. You are talking about a guy who sits alongside Austin and Hogan as being an absolute icon of the business. In 2000 he was getting spine chilling reactions every time he stepped through the curtain, the guy was as over as anyone has ever been. Triple H filled his role as the heel very well but it was the popularity of The Rock which helped drive the WWE not the hatred of Triple H.
|
|
|
Post by coolkevthedude on Jan 3, 2010 10:28:50 GMT -5
At least they didn't give it to Cena or Orton
|
|
|
Post by taylorandborland on Jan 3, 2010 10:28:54 GMT -5
HHH should not be above Kurt Angle.
Don't get me wrong, I think Angle's a loser, somebody should really kick his ass, but even taking HHH's early years of main eventing into account, and Angle's horrible feuds with Brock Lesnar and Booker T, Angle has him beat overall.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jan 3, 2010 10:29:33 GMT -5
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. Triple H did tag along off the back of The Rock. In 1998 when he was struggling to get over as a babyface on his own, without DX with him he was getting lukwarm reactions, he was put into a feud with the red hot Rock who was getting huge heat. It got Triple over as a mid card babyface even though by the time they had their epic ladder match at Summerslam 1998 The Rock was getting cheered and the Peoples Elbow spot on the ladder got the biggest pop of the entire night. The same happened in 1999 when trying to get Triple H over as a mega heel. The Rock was fed to him time and again because From the summer of 1999 onwards The Rock was overtaking Austin in terms of popularity. The Rock didnt need any help to be more loved from that point on. You are talking about a guy who sits alongside Austin and Hogan as being an absolute icon of the business. In 2000 he was getting spine chilling reactions every time he stepped through the curtain, the guy was as over as anyone has ever been. Triple H filled his role as the heel very well but it was the popularity of The Rock which helped drive the WWE not the hatred of Triple H. Of course they used Rock to help make HHH, it's how the business always works. What I'm refuting is the point that HHH was merely 'there' and it could have been anyone in his spot. There's a spectrum. Let's say they put Charlie Haas in that spot in 2000 against Rock. Business wouldn't be as good. Let's say they put Knox in that spot. Business would be better, but still not as good. Let's say Ziggler - better still but still not as good. Miz - better but still not as good. They could put Orton there and it would have been great, but HHH as a heel then was better than Orton as a heel now. What made that such a great period was a great heel going against a great face.
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
Member is Online
|
Post by spagett on Jan 3, 2010 10:42:22 GMT -5
Triple H did tag along off the back of The Rock. In 1998 when he was struggling to get over as a babyface on his own, without DX with him he was getting lukwarm reactions, he was put into a feud with the red hot Rock who was getting huge heat. It got Triple over as a mid card babyface even though by the time they had their epic ladder match at Summerslam 1998 The Rock was getting cheered and the Peoples Elbow spot on the ladder got the biggest pop of the entire night. The same happened in 1999 when trying to get Triple H over as a mega heel. The Rock was fed to him time and again because From the summer of 1999 onwards The Rock was overtaking Austin in terms of popularity. The Rock didnt need any help to be more loved from that point on. You are talking about a guy who sits alongside Austin and Hogan as being an absolute icon of the business. In 2000 he was getting spine chilling reactions every time he stepped through the curtain, the guy was as over as anyone has ever been. Triple H filled his role as the heel very well but it was the popularity of The Rock which helped drive the WWE not the hatred of Triple H. Of course they used Rock to help make HHH, it's how the business always works. What I'm refuting is the point that HHH was merely 'there' and it could have been anyone in his spot. There's a spectrum. Let's say they put Charlie Haas in that spot in 2000 against Rock. Business wouldn't be as good. Let's say they put Knox in that spot. Business would be better, but still not as good. Let's say Ziggler - better still but still not as good. Miz - better but still not as good. They could put Orton there and it would have been great, but HHH as a heel then was better than Orton as a heel now. What made that such a great period was a great heel going against a great face. Am not arguing that Triple H wasn't really good in his role. He obviously was. What I am saying is that Triple H wasn't used to make the people love The Rock as you argued. In 2000 The Rock as I have said before was so incredibly over he didn't need the help of anyone to become more beloved. Charlie Haas vs The Rock wouldn't do as well of course but it would do better than Triple H vs Charlie Haas. The Rock was used to make people hate Triple H not the other way round. Their 2000 feud was a great heel going up against quite possibly the greatest babyface of all time.
|
|
|
Post by American Dragon on Jan 3, 2010 10:59:36 GMT -5
Is everyone forgetting about those two quad tears Triple H had that kept him out a year at a time?
tsk tsk, shame on all of you.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jan 3, 2010 11:40:18 GMT -5
Of course they used Rock to help make HHH, it's how the business always works. What I'm refuting is the point that HHH was merely 'there' and it could have been anyone in his spot. There's a spectrum. Let's say they put Charlie Haas in that spot in 2000 against Rock. Business wouldn't be as good. Let's say they put Knox in that spot. Business would be better, but still not as good. Let's say Ziggler - better still but still not as good. Miz - better but still not as good. They could put Orton there and it would have been great, but HHH as a heel then was better than Orton as a heel now. What made that such a great period was a great heel going against a great face. Am not arguing that Triple H wasn't really good in his role. He obviously was. What I am saying is that Triple H wasn't used to make the people love The Rock as you argued. In 2000 The Rock as I have said before was so incredibly over he didn't need the help of anyone to become more beloved. Charlie Haas vs The Rock wouldn't do as well of course but it would do better than Triple H vs Charlie Haas. The Rock was used to make people hate Triple H not the other way round. Their 2000 feud was a great heel going up against quite possibly the greatest babyface of all time. Ok...he wasn't used to make people love Rock. I mis-used my words. What I meant was that HHH was just as important in doing big money that year as Rock was. Because a big heel going up against a big face does more than a poor/average heel going up against that same big face. Rock would always be loved that year, it's just that when he beats HHH, the moment is all the sweeter than if he had beaten someone who the fans expected him to beat anyway. The less you can predict who will win, the more money you will draw. Mayweather vs Manny will do huge money because it's two of boxings best, you can't predict it. HHH was so good, and Rock was so good that it worked to make more money. An example in this era would be if they do Cena vs Batista, and they keep booking Batista as unstoppable, while keeping Cena unstoppable. You won't be able to pick a winner, but something will have to give. If Batista wasn't as good, and they booked him more as a lumbering buffoon, then the match wouldn't do as much money. I could say for example that Batista was just hanging on HHH's coat-tails. But that goes against the obvious idea of how the business has always worked, that you use each other to make more money. Batista finally beating Charlie Haas wouldn't have been as sweet a moment as Batista finally beating HHH etc. Same for when Benoit beat him. I was just talking about making money. HHH being a great heel helped the company make money just like Rock being a great face did. Hogan would always be loved in his era, but you make more money putting great heels up against him than you do putting average ones. HHH is a great heel.
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Jan 3, 2010 11:42:39 GMT -5
Is everyone forgetting about those two quad tears Triple H had that kept him out a year at a time? tsk tsk, shame on all of you. More like 8 months at a time, but unlike other people (ahem ANGLE), Trips took the time to fully recover and rehab the injuries. He doesn't look to be the person who will go down too early because of injuries that never heal.
|
|
|
Post by foreveryoung on Jan 3, 2010 12:16:37 GMT -5
How many great years did Trips really have in the 00's though? Guys like Angle and Shawn all had pretty good match of the year candidates each year in the 00's and each year they were involved in something pretty memorable.. Triple H had a huge run in 00-02 but everything thereafter with his 1st quad injury and 2nd one wasnt all very memorable. Then he ends the year back doing these terrible unfunny DX skits in 2006 with the make cheerleaders and now. You had his reign of terror which sucked and drove people away where he destroyed everyone.
At the end of the day you add up Trips great years compared to his ok to pretty forgettable years. He had less great years in the 00s
|
|
|
Post by American Dragon on Jan 3, 2010 12:27:31 GMT -5
Does anyone care enough to break down the last 10 years of his career year by year so this can be settled?
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Jan 3, 2010 12:52:36 GMT -5
If you're going based on kayfabe I dont see why theres any doubt that it should be Triple H, outside of the injuries hes had on and off hes been at the top of the card most of the decade, was in the world title matches at most of the wrestlemanias, seems like a slam dunk to me.
Wrestling wise Ive always thought Triple H was mediocre at best. Hes certainly capable of being in a great match, especially with the WWE PPV Main event formula, but I dont normally see a Triple H match as a sure fire hit. If hes in their with junk the matches are junk, guys like Angle, HBK and Guerrero were usually going to have good matches, as were about a half dozen other main eventers over the decade.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Jan 3, 2010 19:12:28 GMT -5
Is everyone forgetting about those two quad tears Triple H had that kept him out a year at a time? tsk tsk, shame on all of you. More like 8 months at a time, but unlike other people (ahem ANGLE), Trips took the time to fully recover and rehab the injuries. He doesn't look to be the person who will go down too early because of injuries that never heal. Angle was damaged goods from the beginning (broken neck from the 1996 Olympic Trials). It's amazing he's acomplished all that he has in his career. Both men have had a tremendous decade and almost mirror each other in accomplishments in the WWE, but if we're talking best wrestler of the decade, I'd say it would be Kurt, because he's more versitile in the ring and makes other wrestlers, whether he wins or loses. Triple H can do it too, but besides Batista and Orton, he hasn't really done that in this decade like Kurt has. Don't get me wrong, a win over Triple H is a huge shot in the arm, but a solid program with Kurt Angle can build your career in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jan 3, 2010 20:00:00 GMT -5
Considering Kurt has spent the lat few years in a far behind second place promotion kind of damages his overall impact I think.
|
|
|
Post by The Verdict on Jan 3, 2010 20:10:44 GMT -5
if going by match quality HBK would be the obvious answer
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Jan 3, 2010 20:15:29 GMT -5
I think Triple H deserves to be the wrestler of the decade. And I'm not even a fan of his. He's dominated WWE both backstage and in the ring for many years.
|
|
Psychoblue
Don Corleone
WrestleCrap #1 Kona Crush mark (probably)
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by Psychoblue on Jan 3, 2010 20:52:12 GMT -5
I think for the 2000 era overall, it really comes down to HHH and Angle. I think Angle's diminished exposure now that he's in TNA, as well as the negative exposure he's received for his recent Kraziness, is the reason why he's not No.1. HHH and Angle had about the same drawing power in WWE when they were together, but HHH's greater exposure as well as his ability to stay away from potentially bad press outside of IWC accusations and the shoots of Bitter Wrestler #x is what makes him a deserving #1.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Jan 3, 2010 22:47:59 GMT -5
If it is based on kayfabe success, then it's Triple H. If it is based on drawing power and merchandise sales, then it's John Cena. If it is based on promos and in-ring delivery, then it's a toss-up between HBK or Angle.
Everybody has their own definition of what makes a great wrestler, so mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Jan 3, 2010 23:00:23 GMT -5
Alot of people are mentioning Kurt's out-of-the-ring problems as a factor against him being the wrestler of the decade, but that shouldn't have anything to do with the decision.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 4, 2010 0:41:22 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? Not necessarily. I'm not familiar enough with his work, but I've heard enough about him that I imagine he'd be a serious contender. In WWE alone I would put HBK, Angle, Christian, Mysterio, Undertaker and Jericho ahead of HHH.
|
|