|
Post by nickcave on Jan 17, 2013 4:06:45 GMT -5
If it was 2000-2005 possibly but 2005-2010 is John Cena. I would split it between the two of them.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,429
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jan 17, 2013 4:10:42 GMT -5
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 29,099
|
Post by Sephiroth on Jan 17, 2013 10:43:23 GMT -5
I would not put him at the very top, but he would be among them. He was the top man in the company for a period, but that period also saw a considerable retraction of the company's fortunes. This was not completely his fault, btw, although I doubt that taking part in things like Katie Vick helped any. My vote would actually go to Cena, who was not just the top many in the company-he was the FACE of the company. Even though Triple H was at the top of every show for a while, he was nowhere near as prominent in the mainstream as Cena has been; Cena has done all kinds of guest appearances and charity work and has pretty much been THE guy you associate with WWE during that time. And while I acknowledge Triple H as a great star, this is another one where I do feel I can safely say he got it because he is Vince's son in law-sorry if that is beating a worn out drum, but lets be honest, he has had first dibs on a lot of things for that very reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 10:52:49 GMT -5
I would not put him at the very top, but he would be among them. He was the top man in the company for a period, but that period also saw a considerable retraction of the company's fortunes. This was not completely his fault, btw, although I doubt that taking part in things like Katie Vick helped any. My vote would actually go to Cena, who was not just the top many in the company-he was the FACE of the company. Even though Triple H was at the top of every show for a while, he was nowhere near as prominent in the mainstream as Cena has been; Cena has done all kinds of guest appearances and charity work and has pretty much been THE guy you associate with WWE during that time. And while I acknowledge Triple H as a great star, this is another one where I do feel I can safely say he got it because he is Vince's son in law-sorry if that is beating a worn out drum, but lets be honest, he has had first dibs on a lot of things for that very reason. Given it's a kayfabe award I think it makes sense really, even if he's written himself to be top of the card for 5 years or more, he's still held a ton of titles/won a ton of matches against big kayfabe stars etcetera for that entire decade. I don't disagree with you albeit, but for the fiction of pro-wrestling results I get why he won it.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jan 17, 2013 10:55:03 GMT -5
I agree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 10:58:13 GMT -5
I'd agree
|
|
|
Post by Bishblast on Jan 17, 2013 11:20:18 GMT -5
Not best necessarily, but I'd say he's their number one guy from that period, the only guy who was consistently in main events from the beginning of 2000 until the end of 2009 (given a break here and there, of course, but he seldom ever moved down the card.
A good argument can be made for Cena, especially from 2005 onward. But, when I think of WWE in those years, I get strong memories of Cena in the last 7 or so years as a Hogan-esque superhero (much how Hogan was for WWE from 84 until 92 or 93), but as a guy who has been at or very near the top of the cards for the entire decade, HHH is the only guy, and he was booked in such a way in the first 4 or 5 years of the decade, that most fans pretty much knew he was the most trusted guy... it's only to make room for Cena that his role of importance on TV was somewhat and only very slightly toned down (IMO).
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Jan 17, 2013 12:24:37 GMT -5
Rock dominated 2000. Austin and Rock dominated 2001, while HHH was injured for almost all of that year. Triple H might have been one of the top guys throughout those years, but he was still below those two. HHH dominated Raw 2002-2004, he shared the top spot with Cena and Michaels in 2005 and 2006, and was clearly below Cena from late-2006 onwards. Cena dominated Raw as the undisputed top guy even longer than HHH did. It's a kayfabe article. I was talking kayfabe. Triple H was more dominant as WWF Champion that year than anyone else. Not really. He held it until Backlash, held it for one month following Judgement Day and didn't see another WWF title reign until 2002 (which lasted until the next PPV).
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Jan 17, 2013 15:22:50 GMT -5
Triple H had a five year head start in the main event. If the question of biggest superstar of the last ten years ('03 to '13) then Cena easily wins.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Jan 17, 2013 16:34:49 GMT -5
Triple H had a five year head start in the main event. If the question of biggest superstar of the last ten years ('03 to '13) then Cena easily wins. Wouldn't that be like saying Hogan doesn't qualify for the Eighties as he wasn't champ until 84 while Andre was already established as the special attraction. Andre was technically active more of the decade then Hogan but that decade belonged to Hogan. In the 5 years Cena was on top I bet he beats Trips in drawing and merch for the full ten years you can credit to Trips even if you give Trips full credit for the DX merch, it still won't add up. I know it isn't all about merch but that's a good indication of who the fans are invested in. I mean Trips had a great decade but he was kinda just the placeholder from the Rock/Austin Era to the Cena era. There isn't really a Triple H era.
|
|
|
Post by lewis1711 on Jan 17, 2013 22:43:12 GMT -5
I'd put Shawn Michaels, Chris Jerico, or the Undertaker above him.
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Jan 17, 2013 22:55:56 GMT -5
I agree with HHH as the man of the decade.
|
|
|
Post by SeVeN: #TheBadGuy. on Jan 18, 2013 1:00:54 GMT -5
It should have been for best ever...
|
|
Spec_Sun
Trap-Jaw
No disrespect Cody, but that's dashing.......
Posts: 406
|
Post by Spec_Sun on Jan 18, 2013 1:10:19 GMT -5
I'm fine with it too. Besides his injury prone year of 2001, he was pretty much the top mainstay performer in the company for a good 5 years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and perhaps even 2006 although Cena and Edge can make a good claim for that year). He was in the main event for several WrestleManias during the decade and had a plethora of memorable matches. I agree with this choice. If Cena was a main event star in 2003 and 2004, I'd have him over Triple H, but Triple H had the longevity. The Undertaker and Randy Orton are two more names that are up there in consideration.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Jan 18, 2013 1:20:14 GMT -5
Triple H had a five year head start in the main event. If the question of biggest superstar of the last ten years ('03 to '13) then Cena easily wins. Wouldn't that be like saying Hogan doesn't qualify for the Eighties as he wasn't champ until 84 while Andre was already established as the special attraction. Andre was technically active more of the decade then Hogan but that decade belonged to Hogan. In the 5 years Cena was on top I bet he beats Trips in drawing and merch for the full ten years you can credit to Trips even if you give Trips full credit for the DX merch, it still won't add up. I know it isn't all about merch but that's a good indication of who the fans are invested in. I mean Trips had a great decade but he was kinda just the placeholder from the Rock/Austin Era to the Cena era. There isn't really a Triple H era. I don't think Andre would be a good example. Even by the end of the 2000s, Triple H was still hovering around the main event scene. He's the only guy that stayed around the top of the cards that entire decade. Triple H's place as wrestler of the decade is solely predicted that this 10 most successful years in the business happened to be literally from 1999 to 2009. If it started three or four years earlier, he wouldn't be considered. Whereas Cena's super push didn't happen until 2005. And while I certainly would put him above Triple H from that point forward, I can't say he is the best of an entire decade when literally half of it he was either a midcarder or in developmental. Once again, it's a really arbitrary argument, but I give Triple H the nod under the premise that his consistently is the one thing he's got over Austin, Rock, and Cena who only dominated for half of that time span.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Jan 18, 2013 1:23:09 GMT -5
I'd have to give it to Cena.
While he wasn't a top guy until 2005, his impact for those 5 years probably surpassed everything that Triple H did over the course of the decade. Cena had more diverse feuds, better title runs and more classic matches than Triple H did. If anything, after 2006, Triple H only hurt his legacy by sticking around for too long and having meaningless title reigns during this time. While Triple H did have some really great moments, I'd say he had even more embarrassing ones, if by his own hand and offhand remarks.
|
|
Shazam
Mephisto
And then there's this ***hole...
Posts: 727
|
Post by Shazam on Jan 18, 2013 15:24:31 GMT -5
I understand the "Cena didn't start rolling until '05" argument, but I'd be willing to state that Cena's 5 is better than Hunter's 10.
Hunter just never was that great. He was the Bret Hart of the 00's. Right place, right time, that's about it. I'd be willing to state Shawn Micheals over Triple H, as I think he had more definitive moments and feuds.
|
|