TRIPLE H - 'He was never a great wrestler'

[Jizzlobber]

 

 

All this pre-conceived "epic" shite against guys like Michaels and Taker is some of the most groan inducing bullshit I have ever seen in wrestling.

I don't know what this means, in the slightest. So I interpret it as "Some people think these matches were great, I don't, so they must be wrong."

And putting it all down to injuries and muscle mass is quite frankly embarrassing.

I said he had "some poor matches" because the time frame when he was having the matches I thought were poor, was mostly between 2002 and 2003 when he was hurt a lot, and too big/lumbering/methodical. When he lost some mass and got smaller in 2004, he started having better matches again. What's the problem?

 

My opinion being different from your is "embarrassing"? To who? Because it sure as fuck doesn't embarrass me.

I'm talking about matches where two guys go out there intending to have an epic classic and the commentators bigging it up as such, rather than actually having one come about originally. They usually involve Triple H and most of the time fall flat on their face.

 

If you read my post correctly you'd see I said it was embarrassing for you to make excuses for his bad performances and saying they're all down to injuries and muscle mass. That's not an excuse for someone who's been bland, underwhelming or actively bad for longer periods of his career than he has been good.

[stumobir]

Triple H's matches against Taker were epic, the most recent two anyway. Are you suggesting that a pro-wrestling commentator shouldn't be hyping a match that has two of the biggest stars in the modern era as being epic? If so then I don't think you really understand what the commentators are there for.

 

Anyway, while I'd agree that Triple H was pretty terrible in DX and for a good few years from 02 onwards he has had some belting matches. His match against Catus Jack at Royal Rumble is my favourite Foley match and favourite hardcore gimmick match of all time. The real reason I have a bit of a soft spot for Trips is because if it wasn't for him then the first, and so far only, Mania (27) I was at would have had no redeeming matches at all. Don't get me wrong, I had a topper of a week but I would've had a real sour taste in my mouth after the actual event if it wasn't for that match.

[Statto]

 

I'm talking about matches where two guys go out there intending to have an epic classic and the commentators bigging it up as such, rather than actually having one come about originally.

 

 

Pro wrestling is a performance art, requiring co-operation and at least a degree of planning - at very least, how long the match is roughly going to last. It's very difficult to have a lengthy classic match by accident, one would imagine.

[NEWM]

I was really not a fan of post-2001 HHH (despite some arguable bright spots), but his surprising run as established top boss of Smackdown in 2008 really changed my mind.

 

That was a proper Main Eventer clean up job he did over there, he was more of a Ric Flair-style champion carrying the show on his back with any opponent, than he ever was dicking about in a suit and no beard in Evolution. It was a treat to see him mix it up with new faces, with some really superb matches on TV and PPV, including have a tit around with a load of midcarders in the Scramble and briefly having his title nicked by Brian Kendrick. And for those that argue he needs somebody great in there with him, I'd point you towards his match with The Great Khali, where he does everything in his power to draw genuine drama and excitement from a forgone conclusion match with an extremely limited performer. It's a 90s HBK-quality carry job that doesn't get half the love it should.

 

He was the closest he ever came to being a real traditional babyface - the fans genuinely loved and respected him, he held the belt with honour, and he fought off the villains. And crucially, it felt somehow more organic. Which cannot be said for a lot of other moments in his career, for lots of reasons.

 

From that point I sort of just accepted the good and bad of his work, because I think that small spell highlighted the complete performer he'd finally become. When he tries to orchestrate that emotion in you, it feels forced, so it was a bit of a revelation for it to be so natural.

[Jizzlobber]

 

Triple H's matches against Taker were epic, the most recent two anyway. Are you suggesting that a pro-wrestling commentator shouldn't be hyping a match that has two of the biggest stars in the modern era as being epic? If so then I don't think you really understand what the commentators are there for.

 

I don't want commentators telling me how great or epic something is during a match when what I'm watching is clearly not reaching that level. Triple H's big matches are contrived and filled with hollow emotion as it is anyway.

 

Go back to Wrestlemania 3 and around three quarters into the IC title match Ventura says something along the lines of "This is the greatest match I've ever seen, Gorilla" and you think "Fuck, he's right. This is great". When it happens in these Triple H matches you've got the commentators spouting off about how great it is when they've barely locked up. It's complete nonsense. 

 

 

 

I'm talking about matches where two guys go out there intending to have an epic classic and the commentators bigging it up as such, rather than actually having one come about originally.

 

 

Pro wrestling is a performance art, requiring co-operation and at least a degree of planning - at very least, how long the match is roughly going to last. It's very difficult to have a lengthy classic match by accident, one would imagine.

 

 

Sure, just almost every time Triple H tries this it falls flat, because he's not a great wrestler. 

[King Pitcos]

Best heel WWE have ever had, with the possible exception of Piper, although HHH gets the nod for me because he did actually let the babyfaces beat him now and again. He's definitely in the Flair/Hart/Michaels/Undertaker category rather than the Hogan/Austin/Rock/Cena category, though. He's the guy that works with the megastar to give a classic match/feud. There are few in wrestling with a stronger body of work. Cena, maybe Michaels. Perhaps Bret and Flair, if you're into them. Very few have had a stronger six-month period than Hunter did in the first half of 2000. And near enough every year since, he's had at least one of the top contenders for match of the year.

 

It seemed like there was no way he could live up to the Michaels-Undertaker matches, but he did. Twice. He's definitely made some wrong calls on that stage as well, though. The Mania main events with Jericho and Orton were just flat. His form on the grandest stage is a bit iffy.

 

On the whole, he's overrated within WWE. Underrated on the Internet. His weird Internet babyface turn over the last year or so as the foil to Evil Kevin Dunn is quite funny, though. If he masterminded that, fair play to him.

[Seratonin]

He is a great technician but personally found his work pretty boring. A great heel but as a babyface found his character too heelish which I personally don't get into. Also what Jizzlobber said about him putting his career first is absolutely true, he totally killed the 2002-2005 scene by holding many newer stars down except a few exceptions, and he seldom made inferior opponents look strong. I don't think he was a GREAT wrestler due to the aforementioned.

[herbie747]

I like Triple H as a promo and he has charisma - but I agree with Bret. I actually don't like any match he's ever had. I find him boring. I mean - he's okay, but really slow and boring. 

[LEGIT]

I actually don't like any match he's ever had. 

Really?

[garynysmon]

Triple H's lasting legacy I think, was that he was hated in a way heels should be hated. But what made his feat even better was that this was in a post-attitude era when the internet was up and running.

I can't say that I enjoyed his act, but he was successful in getting over as a heel and not into the 'tweener' trap that so many after him have fallen into.

Who, in modern day wrestling, is hated in such a way? Brock Lesnar, I suppose, is supposed to be the number one 'heel' in the company right now, but he receives as many cheers as he does boos. Even Seth Rollins has his fans. No so with Trips, which was his job to be fair.

[herbie747]

 

I actually don't like any match he's ever had. 

Really?

 

Yeah, wouldn't class any match he's ever had as something I'd ever watch again. Okay some I "liked" - like his first cage match with Cactus, and his Undertaker WM matches - but they were just good. Not great. The Cactus match was only good because it was a bloody spectacle and had a big bump - so it could have been with anyone.

[fraserbee]

Best heel WWE have ever had, with the possible exception of Piper, although HHH gets the nod for me because he did actually let the babyfaces beat him.

I like HHH but I cannot agree with this. I'd rate Jake Roberts, Randy Savage, Million Dollar Man, Mr McMahon and Honky Tonk Man off the top of my head as better baddies. I don't mean any were better all-round performers in that statement, just better at playing the heel role.

[ColinBollocks]

He was the main event during WWE's best and hottest period, business-wise. Speaks for itself, really. Not only was Triple H big money, back then, he was also the best US-based wrestler on the planet too.

 

It's also why that awful 2003 period is rightfully panned by everybody. In terms of quality, he fell off a cliff, and it felt more prominent because of the heights he was performing at only a couple of years before. Wasn't all his fault, but he was also the Raw main event when I decided wrestling wasn't for me anymore (and he/WWE scared me off for a solid 5 years).

 

When I started watching again in 2008, I was surprised at how palatable (and slimmer) Triple H was. NEWM post on his Smackdown run is pretty spot on. Aye, DX can piss off, but for the most part he was super reliable when I started watching again.

 

I bloody loved his feud with Daniel Bryan. For whatever reason, Triple H seemed to role back the clock to the days when Andy Goram was a United player, and was selling and bumping like the good old days again. It felt like he was going above and beyond what he would usually do, during that period. Not a fan of this current tweener role, but everybody not named Cena or Heyman is getting drowned in the WWE tedium these days.

 

He's everything Chris Jericho wishes he could be.

[garynysmon]

I've been slowly working my way through 1996 episodes of Raw on the WWE Network, and looking back, the transformation from the blue blood character to what he became is astounding.

If truth be known, I've reached October '96 and I'm sick of the sight of him (and the Smoking Gunns). Don't think I've enjoyed a single thing he's done so far during the year.

[FLips]

He sticks around through to 1999 without doing much of anything either, even X Pac is more over than him.