|
Post by Topher is Human on Nov 1, 2013 22:46:57 GMT -5
Top heel of the number one wrestling company for approximately 6 years. I don't see how it's even an option to not consider him in a list of top 50 in 28 years. Definitely belongs on there, as does Cena, and I've never liked the guy
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Nov 1, 2013 22:54:39 GMT -5
Wow really? You'd put him above Hogan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Taker, Bret, HBK, Foley, Flair, Sting, Piper, Savage? Sting, Foley, and Bret, absolutely. Foley I can see why you say that, but Sting & Bret I completely disagree. Sting was the #1 guy in WCW for years & a better wrestler than Triple H in my opinion. And Bret is leagues above Triple H in wrestling talent. To me Triple H realistically only had 1 very good year which was in 2000. In 99 he was the #4 guy behind Austin, Rock, & Foley. And in 2001, he got injured in the first half of the year. Than in 2002 he came back and was never the same again. Not because of the whole reign of terror, but because he just physically wasn't the same as a wrestler starting in 2002.
|
|
bob
Backup Wench
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 80,603
|
Post by bob on Nov 1, 2013 22:56:37 GMT -5
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 1, 2013 22:57:30 GMT -5
Sting, Foley, and Bret, absolutely. Foley I can see why you say that, but Sting & Bret I completely disagree. Sting was the #1 guy in WCW for years & a better wrestler than Triple H in my opinion. And Bret is leagues above Triple H in wrestling talent. To me Triple H realistically only had 1 very good year which was in 2000. In 99 he was the #4 guy behind Austin, Rock, & Foley. And in 2001, he got injured in the first half of the year. Than in 2002 he came back and was never the same again. Not because of the whole reign of terror, but because he just physically wasn't the same as a wrestler starting in 2002. By the same standard, I'm not sure how many 'very good' years Bret had. He wasn't the same again after Montreal, and while a great worker I don't think he was great overall for much of his career.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Nov 1, 2013 22:59:56 GMT -5
It's hard to make Top 50 lists. Each person has their own criteria and preferences. One person might put Hulk Hogan at number one and would be very much justified. Someone else who uses a different criteria would be justified leaving Hogan off the list. Some might put Ricky Steamboat in the top five, while others would have him near the bottom. Unless you really spell out the criteria, people are going to bring their own interpretations. It's hard when you simply say, "Top __" or "Greatest of All-Time" or "All Time Best."
|
|
EyeofTyr
Hank Scorpio
Strange and Mystical
Posts: 5,744
|
Post by EyeofTyr on Nov 1, 2013 23:04:16 GMT -5
In regards to the WWE/F? Definitely.
Across the globe? That's...really hard to say, honestly. And, I say that as a fan of his.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Nov 1, 2013 23:08:14 GMT -5
Wow really? You'd put him above Hogan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Taker, Bret, HBK, Foley, Flair, Sting, Piper, Savage? Sting, Foley, and Bret, absolutely. What about Frank Gotch? George Hackenschmidt? Buddy Rogers? Lou Thesz? Danny Hodge? This is why any sort of list falls apart because there's always a good reason to add or eliminate a criterion. Why just recent wrestling? Why just WWE? Why just X type of wrestling versus Y type of wrestling? I mean, we'll never see Triple H on the top 50 lucha wrestlers of all time, yeah? Kevin Nash, sure, but not Triple H.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Nov 1, 2013 23:09:20 GMT -5
Foley I can see why you say that, but Sting & Bret I completely disagree. Sting was the #1 guy in WCW for years & a better wrestler than Triple H in my opinion. And Bret is leagues above Triple H in wrestling talent. To me Triple H realistically only had 1 very good year which was in 2000. In 99 he was the #4 guy behind Austin, Rock, & Foley. And in 2001, he got injured in the first half of the year. Than in 2002 he came back and was never the same again. Not because of the whole reign of terror, but because he just physically wasn't the same as a wrestler starting in 2002. By the same standard, I'm not sure how many 'very good' years Bret had. He wasn't the same again after Montreal, and while a great worker I don't think he was great overall for much of his career. Bret had a lot of terrific years. 1996 & 1997 probably being at the very top. Also, even as a mid-carder he had all-time classic matches with Mr. Perfect & British Bulldog. Business was down when he was the #1 guy, but that's not fair to say that's his fault. It was the out of touch direction Vince was going with at the time. With almost half of the roster being cartoon characters back in the mid 90's when no one wanted to see that anymore. The times were changing. Triple H just happened to start main eventing at the right time when business was at it's hottest because of the whole Vince/Austin fued & The Rock & Foley being extremely popular. Let's be realistic here, Triple H wasn't the reason why the company was doing as good as it was. He was one of the main supporting players, but he was probably the 5th or 6th top guy in the second half of 1999 when he started main eventing. People were coming to the arenas to see Austin, Vince, Rock & Foley mainly.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Nov 1, 2013 23:11:48 GMT -5
Sting, Foley, and Bret, absolutely. What about Frank Gotch? George Hackenschmidt? Buddy Rogers? Lou Thesz? Danny Hodge? This is why any sort of list falls apart because there's always a good reason to add or eliminate a criterion. Why just recent wrestling? Why just WWE? Why just X type of wrestling versus Y type of wrestling? I mean, we'll never see Triple H on the top 50 lucha wrestlers of all time, yeah? Kevin Nash, sure, but not Triple H. Because hardly anyone of us seen those guys wrestle. So it's too hard to add guys from way back in the day to add into a list. It wouldn't be fair. That's why I said from 1985-present across all promotions.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Nov 1, 2013 23:17:31 GMT -5
Um, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 1, 2013 23:21:40 GMT -5
Top 15 I could see some serious discussion.
Top 50 is really a no-brainer. He fits on there.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 1, 2013 23:22:24 GMT -5
By the same standard, I'm not sure how many 'very good' years Bret had. He wasn't the same again after Montreal, and while a great worker I don't think he was great overall for much of his career. Bret had a lot of terrific years. 1996 & 1997 probably being at the very top. Also, even as a mid-carder he had all-time classic matches with Mr. Perfect & British Bulldog. Business was down when he was the #1 guy, but that's not fair to say that's his fault. It was the out of touch direction Vince was going with at the time. With almost half of the roster being cartoon characters back in the mid 90's when no one wanted to see that anymore. The times were changing. Triple H just happened to start main eventing at the right time when business was at it's hottest because of the whole Vince/Austin fued & The Rock & Foley being extremely popular. Let's be realistic here, Triple H wasn't the reason why the company was doing as good as it was. He was one of the main supporting players, but he was probably the 5th or 6th top guy in the second half of 1999 when he started main eventing. People were coming to the arenas to see Austin, Vince, Rock & Foley mainly. I think this is a misunderstanding -- you dismissed a good part of Triple H's better years early in the decade by saying he was no better than the fourth guy on the roster. He had some pretty darned good matches in that time. And I think Bret was no better than the fourth (or lower) guy on the roster for a lot of his best years, even though he was having good (and great) matches.
|
|
Injustice45
Fry's dog Seymour
Consider me the Athena/Yoshimitsu of Avatars and Signatures.
Posts: 23,917
|
Post by Injustice45 on Nov 1, 2013 23:31:10 GMT -5
All of the stuff about burials and shovels makes me question whether he should even be kept in mind for a top 50 list, let alone any list.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Nov 1, 2013 23:46:12 GMT -5
Bret had a lot of terrific years. 1996 & 1997 probably being at the very top. Also, even as a mid-carder he had all-time classic matches with Mr. Perfect & British Bulldog. Business was down when he was the #1 guy, but that's not fair to say that's his fault. It was the out of touch direction Vince was going with at the time. With almost half of the roster being cartoon characters back in the mid 90's when no one wanted to see that anymore. The times were changing. Triple H just happened to start main eventing at the right time when business was at it's hottest because of the whole Vince/Austin fued & The Rock & Foley being extremely popular. Let's be realistic here, Triple H wasn't the reason why the company was doing as good as it was. He was one of the main supporting players, but he was probably the 5th or 6th top guy in the second half of 1999 when he started main eventing. People were coming to the arenas to see Austin, Vince, Rock & Foley mainly. I think this is a misunderstanding -- you dismissed a good part of Triple H's better years early in the decade by saying he was no better than the fourth guy on the roster. He had some pretty darned good matches in that time. And I think Bret was no better than the fourth (or lower) guy on the roster for a lot of his best years, even though he was having good (and great) matches. Triple H did have pretty good years in 97 & 98 but in 95 & 96 he really didn't do much. His only truly great year was 2000. Bret had great years from 1993-1997. And he was the #1 guy in the company in 1994 & 1995. And was the #2 guy in 1996 & 1997 just behind HBK. Bret was a tag wrestler for a lot of his earlier years in the company. But he still had a lot of success. Bret definitely had a longer period of his career where he was at his peak. Triple H at 33 years old, was already past his best while Bret was only just getting started at that age. Triple H had a lot of accomplishments from 2002-2010, but after he came back from his quad injury in 2002 he was never the same again as a wrestler.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 1, 2013 23:58:45 GMT -5
I think this is a misunderstanding -- you dismissed a good part of Triple H's better years early in the decade by saying he was no better than the fourth guy on the roster. He had some pretty darned good matches in that time. And I think Bret was no better than the fourth (or lower) guy on the roster for a lot of his best years, even though he was having good (and great) matches. Triple H did have pretty good years in 97 & 98 but in 95 & 96 he really didn't do much. His only truly great year was 2000. Bret had great years from 1993-1997. And he was the #1 guy in the company in 1994 & 1995. And was the #2 guy in 1996 & 1997 just behind HBK. Bret was a tag wrestler for a lot of his earlier years in the company. But he still had a lot of success. Bret definitely had a longer period of his career where he was at his peak. Triple H at 33 years old, was already past his best while Bret was only just getting started at that age. Triple H had a lot of accomplishments from 2002-2010, but after he came back from his quad injury in 2002 he was never the same again as a wrestler. Whether he was ever "the same again" or not, he was still a longterm main eventer and one of the top three guys in the company for a VERY long time -- it was Cena/HHH/Orton for so long I can't even count how many PPVs he headlined or co-headlined in some combination of that. Even in more recent times, he had a really good feud that eventually put Jeff Hardy over as a main eventer during his Smackdown run. I put HHH above Bret, largely because he had a long run as the most hated heel in wrestling. I'm not a big fan of either, but to write off everything Triple H did after his injury in 2002 is not giving him proper credit whether he was quite as good as before or not.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Nov 2, 2013 0:00:17 GMT -5
Chucking out all of his inflated booking and his backstage position/connections, just as an overall performer? Yeah, probably.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Nov 2, 2013 0:00:22 GMT -5
If we're talking just WWf/E from '85, then yes he is, but he's not very high on the list, if anything in the twenties. If we're talking all federations since '85... then he's at least 45-50 if he's very lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Nov 2, 2013 0:09:15 GMT -5
Triple H did have pretty good years in 97 & 98 but in 95 & 96 he really didn't do much. His only truly great year was 2000. Bret had great years from 1993-1997. And he was the #1 guy in the company in 1994 & 1995. And was the #2 guy in 1996 & 1997 just behind HBK. Bret was a tag wrestler for a lot of his earlier years in the company. But he still had a lot of success. Bret definitely had a longer period of his career where he was at his peak. Triple H at 33 years old, was already past his best while Bret was only just getting started at that age. Triple H had a lot of accomplishments from 2002-2010, but after he came back from his quad injury in 2002 he was never the same again as a wrestler. Whether he was ever "the same again" or not, he was still a longterm main eventer and one of the top three guys in the company for a VERY long time -- it was Cena/HHH/Orton for so long I can't even count how many PPVs he headlined or co-headlined in some combination of that. Even in more recent times, he had a really good feud that eventually put Jeff Hardy over as a main eventer during his Smackdown run. I put HHH above Bret, largely because he had a long run as the most hated heel in wrestling. I'm not a big fan of either, but to write off everything Triple H did after his injury in 2002 is not giving him proper credit whether he was quite as good as before or not. He was a long term main eventer, but he was never the face of the company, never "The Guy". He was a steady hand when guys were leaving the company, but wasn't a draw like the others. Hell, Brock and Cena leapfrogged him in popularity when he was the WHC and was gobbling up tv time on RAW with Ric Flair fawning over him. Bret was "The Guy" for a few years, was the face of the company and was a draw, and on that alone he's above Hunter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 0:15:57 GMT -5
I'll try and list who I think is/was better, in no particular order:
Steve Austin Bret Hart Owen Hart Mick Foley The Rock Undertaker Shawn Michaels Chris Jericho Chris Benoit Eddie Guerrero CM Punk Hulk Hogan Ric Flair Randy Savage Ted DiBiase Mr. Perfect Dynamite Kid Jake Roberts Goldust Daniel Bryan Sting Rick Rude Arn Anderson Rey Mysterio John Cena Rob Van Dam Ricky Steamboat Big Show Vader Kurt Angle Brock Lesnar William Regal Scott Hall
I'd say he's in the bottom third of the top 50 just based on people I've actually seen. But there are so many I haven't seen, so my educated guess says no, he is not in the top 50 since 1985. There's a lot of other guys who's work I definitely prefer (Ron Simmons, Cody Rhodes, Umaga, Raven, Ultimo Dragon) but I'd feel weird including them because they haven't seen a certain level of success. But at the same time, the criteria isn't specified, so it's hard to exclude those guys because they haven't won as many kayfabe matches/titles.
I'm just not a fan of Triple H, I don't think he's a very special talent. To me, he's a solid but unspectacular wrestler that ascended to god-mode in 1999 and had a few very strong years, then has coasted on over-inflated reputation/promotion since.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Nov 2, 2013 0:17:08 GMT -5
Triple H did have pretty good years in 97 & 98 but in 95 & 96 he really didn't do much. His only truly great year was 2000. Bret had great years from 1993-1997. And he was the #1 guy in the company in 1994 & 1995. And was the #2 guy in 1996 & 1997 just behind HBK. Bret was a tag wrestler for a lot of his earlier years in the company. But he still had a lot of success. Bret definitely had a longer period of his career where he was at his peak. Triple H at 33 years old, was already past his best while Bret was only just getting started at that age. Triple H had a lot of accomplishments from 2002-2010, but after he came back from his quad injury in 2002 he was never the same again as a wrestler. Whether he was ever "the same again" or not, he was still a longterm main eventer and one of the top three guys in the company for a VERY long time -- it was Cena/HHH/Orton for so long I can't even count how many PPVs he headlined or co-headlined in some combination of that. Even in more recent times, he had a really good feud that eventually put Jeff Hardy over as a main eventer during his Smackdown run. I put HHH above Bret, largely because he had a long run as the most hated heel in wrestling. I'm not a big fan of either, but to write off everything Triple H did after his injury in 2002 is not giving him proper credit whether he was quite as good as before or not. Yeah, he was on top, but at that point in time he was using his backstage power to stay on top for so long. He was successful before being with Stephanie, but it's common sense that starting in 2002 he was keeping the top spot regardless of the shitty quality of his work due to his political connections. If it was anyone else, they would haven't stayed in that spot. I guarantee if his work rate was the same in 1998-1999 as it was in 2002-2004 there's absolutely no way he would have became a main eventer. In 2002-2004 the quality of his matches were just atrocious. Only when he worked with someone like Jericho or HBK did he have good matches because they carried him to a good match. 2005-2009 he was decent at best, but he still was nowhere as good as he was back in the late 90's-2000.
|
|