|
Post by Savage Gambino on Nov 2, 2013 13:05:54 GMT -5
>Not in the top 200 >Not better than Jeff HardyIt is legitimately hilarious how pissed people still are about the Reign of Terror. Who would've imagined one bad booking decision could override someone's entire career.
|
|
isink
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by isink on Nov 2, 2013 13:06:59 GMT -5
I can't think of any match with HHH I enjoyed watching.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,552
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Nov 2, 2013 13:13:38 GMT -5
This thread... wow. In what goddamn universe is Paul London better than Triple H? And saying he's not even top 200? Wow. If we're talking work rate, then in what universe is John Cena better than Triple H?
|
|
ASYLUMHAUSEN
Fry's dog Seymour
GIFs | Shitposts | Fun
Posts: 24,759
|
Post by ASYLUMHAUSEN on Nov 2, 2013 13:36:30 GMT -5
This thread... wow. In what goddamn universe is Paul London better than Triple H? And saying he's not even top 200?Wow. There's a NUMBER of people I've seen listed in this thread as being better than Triple H...it would be mind-numbing if it wasn't for the fact that I have personally become numb to the "Triple H is the suxxxors!" rhetoric over the last 12 years or so... But, yeah, I agree with you whole heartedly.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Nov 2, 2013 13:49:26 GMT -5
If we're talking work rate, then in what universe is John Cena better than Triple H? Considering the amount of great matches Cena's had during his career, I think one could easily argue either way.
|
|
|
Post by pepsitwist on Nov 2, 2013 14:01:12 GMT -5
I heard he only made 4/10 on Bret Hart's list.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Nov 2, 2013 14:11:39 GMT -5
1985-Present
Top 50 - Sure
Top 10 - No
|
|
|
Post by thuschongswing on Nov 2, 2013 14:20:09 GMT -5
Given the criteria, you'd have to be absolutely delusional to say he's not top 50 overall.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Nov 2, 2013 14:27:49 GMT -5
I'm going to see if I can name 50 guys from the past 30 years who I truly think are better than Triple H when you combine overall ability.
1. Hulk Hogan 2. Steve Austin 3. The Rock 4. Ric Flair 5. Shawn Michaels 6. Bret Hart 7. Undertaker 8. Sting 9. Roddy Piper 10. John Cena 11. Mr. Perfect 12. Owen Hart 13. Chris Jericho 14. Kurt Angle 15. Dusty Rhodes 16. RVD 17. Edge 18. Jake Roberts 19. Brock Lesnar 20. DDP 21. Terry Funk 22. Mick Foley 23. Rey Mysterio 24. Eddie Guerrero 25. CM Punk 26. Daniel Bryan 27. Ricky Steamboat 28. Randy Savage 29. Arn Anderson 30. Scott Hall 31. Kane 32. Booker T 33. Million Dollar Man 34. Rick Rude 35. Andre the Giant 36. Chris Benoit
Okay, so I guess Triple H would be near the bottom of a top 50 for me even without being biased. There's a bunch of other wrestlers who I didn't put on this list that I like more, but with being realistic they either never made it to the main event, didn't have the greatest accomplishments, or weren't the greatest in the ring or have the best mic skills.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,401
|
Post by BRV on Nov 2, 2013 15:24:29 GMT -5
I don't need to cobble together a top 50 list to know that he belongs in it. He's not top 10, top 20, or even top 30, but there's nothing wrong with being in the 31-50 range, which is about where he'd be on my own list.
His run from March 1998 through his quad injury in 2001 is among the best out of anyone in the WWE during the Attitude Era. The guy was night-in and night-out arguably the best heel the company had for almost two full years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. And despite his immobility following the injury, he was still capable of putting on above-average matches up until his first semi-retirement in 2012.
It appears as though some people are allowing his "reign of terror" in 2003, his inability to leave well enough alone and the stories of backstage politics cloud their judgment when they say he's not a top-200 wrestler or he was just another bodybuilding stiff. He wasn't the technician that Bret Hart was, he wasn't the workhorse that Eddie Guerrero was, he wasn't the showman that The Rock was and he didn't transcend the industry like Hulk Hogan, but he did all of those things in small doses. Triple H as a character and a wrestler did all the little things and did them well.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,822
Member is Online
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Nov 2, 2013 15:29:19 GMT -5
I'm by no means his biggest fan, but claiming he isn't top 50 is absurd. He's probably just around the edge of my top 25.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Nov 2, 2013 15:32:52 GMT -5
He's EASILY Top 20.
People saying they would put a guy like Samoa Joe ahead of him is a bit ridiculous. I know opinions and all but...YEAH OKAY.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,003
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 2, 2013 15:35:37 GMT -5
I'm going to see if I can name 50 guys from the past 30 years who I truly think are better than Triple H when you combine overall ability. 1. Hulk Hogan 2. Steve Austin 3. The Rock 4. Ric Flair 5. Shawn Michaels 6. Bret Hart 7. Undertaker 8. Sting 9. Roddy Piper 10. John Cena 11. Mr. Perfect 12. Owen Hart 13. Chris Jericho 14. Kurt Angle 15. Dusty Rhodes 16. RVD 17. Edge 18. Jake Roberts 19. Brock Lesnar 20. DDP 21. Terry Funk 22. Mick Foley 23. Rey Mysterio 24. Eddie Guerrero 25. CM Punk 26. Daniel Bryan 27. Ricky Steamboat 28. Randy Savage 29. Arn Anderson 30. Scott Hall 31. Kane 32. Booker T 33. Million Dollar Man 34. Rick Rude 35. Andre the Giant 36. Chris Benoit Okay, so I guess Triple H would be near the bottom of a top 50 for me even without being biased. There's a bunch of other wrestlers who I didn't put on this list that I like more, but with being realistic they either never made it to the main event, didn't have the greatest accomplishments, or weren't the greatest in the ring or have the best mic skills. Like I know opinions all that jazz, but I don't see how you can rate guys like Kane and Edge above HHH. Unless you value comedy a lo,t in your equation for best overall wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 2, 2013 15:43:09 GMT -5
I don't need to cobble together a top 50 list to know that he belongs in it. He's not top 10, top 20, or even top 30, but there's nothing wrong with being in the 31-50 range, which is about where he'd be on my own list. His run from March 1998 through his quad injury in 2001 is among the best out of anyone in the WWE during the Attitude Era. The guy was night-in and night-out arguably the best heel the company had for almost two full years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. And despite his immobility following the injury, he was still capable of putting on above-average matches up until his first semi-retirement in 2012. It appears as though some people are allowing his "reign of terror" in 2003, his inability to leave well enough alone and the stories of backstage politics cloud their judgment when they say he's not a top-200 wrestler or he was just another bodybuilding stiff. He wasn't the technician that Bret Hart was, he wasn't the workhorse that Eddie Guerrero was, he wasn't the showman that The Rock was and he didn't transcend the industry like Hulk Hogan, but he did all of those things in small doses. Triple H as a character and a wrestler did all the little things and did them well. We agree in our placement, but as for people not being able to separate the "backstage" part, or being put off by the reign of terror, well that has to be taken into consideration. Hell, THAT is precisely why I won't rank him higher than I do. He's an Oscar worthy supporting actor, who has been able to take the lead in some "movies" and do very well. However, when many of his roles over the last few years have gleefully noted his involvement with the "studio heads", to not let that color my opinion of his performance would be ridiculous. It doesn't mean he's worse becase of who he associates with, of course, but one can't say "don't forget THIS" and then be upset when it is not forgotten. He's not the Michael Jordan of wrestling, I might be generous enough to say he's the Scottie Pippin of wrestling, but that might be a stretch. With Jordan, Pippin was one of the 50 greatest of all time. When he "got his own team" how did that go? His work in the Two Man Powertrip was fantastic, but he had Austin to play off of. His work with Foley toward the end of Foley's career was great, but Foley was already established at that point. His legacy set. Hell, his work with Cena was good, but at that point Cena was (despite the fans booing him) already The Guy. On his own, with no supporting cast that are "on his level", I think he would fall flatter than Orton headlining Smackdown. Give him a supporting cast that is strong and charismatic, and the man is money. Nothing wrong with it in the least. I guess my problem is I don't put much stock in the "cool heel" that always wins. Flair always said he could wrestle a broomstick and make it look good. Trips has stolen that line, so let's compare. Flair would wrestle the broomstick, and have you believing that he legitimately feared the broom at points. He would bump, he would sell like crazy, the Horsemen would run in to save him. Maybe Flair would prevail, but at the end of the day you'd say, "That broom almost had him if those damned Horsemen didn't show up" or if Flair lost "Flair is one of the greats, and that broom bested him. I want to pay to see what else that broom can do". Trips would wrestle broom. he would lead up the match by mocking the broom openly, just as flair would. He would call himself "The Woodchipper" or something, and have Lemmy write a song about it. He would bump for the broom, but then turn it around and be "that much more vicious". He would destroy the broom, he would then hit the Pedigree and the announces would proclaim it "the era of the woodchipper" and wonder openly if anyone could beat him. There would be no run in, there would be the ref bump and sledgie, or there would be only "kick, pedigree". THAT is the difference.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Nov 2, 2013 16:04:49 GMT -5
I found a post of mine from 3 years ago in which I attempted to rank the top 25 wrestlers of all time among all promotions. I had Triple H #15, though looking over the list again I think I would drop him a few spots. I ranked him ahead of Angle & Andre at the time, which seems ridiculous. Dunno what I was thinking then, but HHH is definitely a top 50 wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Nov 2, 2013 16:38:17 GMT -5
I'm going to see if I can name 50 guys from the past 30 years who I truly think are better than Triple H when you combine overall ability. 1. Hulk Hogan 2. Steve Austin 3. The Rock 4. Ric Flair 5. Shawn Michaels 6. Bret Hart 7. Undertaker 8. Sting 9. Roddy Piper 10. John Cena 11. Mr. Perfect 12. Owen Hart 13. Chris Jericho 14. Kurt Angle 15. Dusty Rhodes 16. RVD 17. Edge 18. Jake Roberts 19. Brock Lesnar 20. DDP 21. Terry Funk 22. Mick Foley 23. Rey Mysterio 24. Eddie Guerrero 25. CM Punk 26. Daniel Bryan 27. Ricky Steamboat 28. Randy Savage 29. Arn Anderson 30. Scott Hall 31. Kane 32. Booker T 33. Million Dollar Man 34. Rick Rude 35. Andre the Giant 36. Chris Benoit Okay, so I guess Triple H would be near the bottom of a top 50 for me even without being biased. There's a bunch of other wrestlers who I didn't put on this list that I like more, but with being realistic they either never made it to the main event, didn't have the greatest accomplishments, or weren't the greatest in the ring or have the best mic skills. Like I know opinions all that jazz, but I don't see how you can rate guys like Kane and Edge above HHH. Unless you value comedy a lo,t in your equation for best overall wrestler. Edge to me is a much better in ring worker overall & better on the mic. The thing with Triple H to me is he really only had 1 excellent year which was 2000. 97, 98, & 99 he was good too. But the last 8 years or so of his career his work was very mediocre for the most part. He had some good matches here & there, but his promos got worse & his in ring work got very bad. I don't care how much he did story line wise from 2002-2010, his promos & ring work sucked with the exception of a few good promos & matches here & there. I guess you could put Triple H above him. But Kane definitely cuts better promos & is still a good worker at 46 years old. Triple H was past his best already at 32 years old.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Nov 2, 2013 18:32:07 GMT -5
Meh, he's a 4 out of 10. Is he a top 1,000 guy? Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Nov 2, 2013 18:35:07 GMT -5
The guy's pretty boring, one dimensional, and has been pretty damn sluggish over the past 10 years.
2000 Triple H was great. But forget everything after that.
|
|
|
Post by airraidcrash on Nov 3, 2013 8:00:42 GMT -5
If we're talking purely about match quality, then HHH should be nowhere near a top 50 for WWE. I mean Cesaro and The Shield have had much better 2013's than HHH's 2000. And they're just getting started in the company.
Cena, Bryan, Punk, Big Show, Lesnar, Taker, Goldust, Regal and Rey are definitely a level above him. You could easily argue that Sheamus, Del Rio, Ziggler, Henry, Christian and Orton are better workers. This is all just from the current roster.
HHH is good, but there are just plenty of wrestlers better than him.
|
|
|
Post by Mc Mc Mannequin on Nov 3, 2013 9:14:01 GMT -5
Some people really have a bee in their bonnet when it comes to Triple H and it always makes for hilarious reading.
|
|