Paid Members garynysmon Posted August 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted August 7, 2015 I enjoyed DX when he got together with Shawn in late 97,so at least he ended up being entertaining. But the blue blood character was boring and shite. Even the decent angle with Mr Perfect teasing coming out of retirement was all about Perfect and Marc Mero and sod all to do with HHH really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizzlobber Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015  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.    Are you honestly crediting Triple H for the boom period of the attitude era? That's some serious WWE level revisionism right there. If he was "THE main event" and as "big money" as you claim, why didn't business stay hot when he was presented as the undisputed ace of the company a few years later? He's not even one of the top five most important stars of the attitude era. Austin, Rock, Vince, Taker and Foley all played a far bigger role than Triple H did.  He sticks around through to 1999 without doing much of anything either, even X Pac is more over than him.  Until he interrupts the Stephanie/Test wedding, I would say he was the least over of anyone in DX, and that includes Chyna. He spent the first four years of his WWF tenure latching on to other people's heat, whether that be the Kliq backstage, Shawn Michaels, the New Age Outlaws, Vince and Stephanie.  And I don't want to criticize his 2000 run, but who else was there to work as the top heel in the promotion? Absolutely no one. Again, I'm not trying to criticize his work over this period, but he benefitted huge from the complete lack of heels suitable of working on top. It's very telling that for the one month he was preoccupied facing Vince at Armageddon 1999, they had to elevate Big Boss Man to the title picture because there was literally no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted August 7, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted August 7, 2015 Are you honestly crediting Triple H for the boom period of the attitude era? Â Â No, he isn't crediting Trips for the boom at all. What he said, word for word, was "He was the main event during WWE's best and hottest period, business-wise." And he's right. The WWF had its best year in 2000, and the main event was essentially Rock VS Triple H for most of that year, and Hunter working the top match with Cactus or Austin most months he wasn't working. To put words in Colin's mouth like that is quite frankly embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizzlobber Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015  Are you honestly crediting Triple H for the boom period of the attitude era?   No, he isn't crediting Trips for the boom at all. What he said, word for word, was "He was the main event during WWE's best and hottest period, business-wise." And he's right. The WWF had its best year in 2000, and the main event was essentially Rock VS Triple H for most of that year, and Hunter working the top match with Cactus or Austin most months he wasn't working. To put words in Colin's mouth like that is quite frankly embarrassing.   Given my initial comment was phrased in the form of a question, no, I wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth. It seems you're still butthurt over my criticisms earlier in the thread by once again jumping on a minute aspect of my argument and ignoring all of the valid points made.  I really don't think Triple H was an integral drawing card during this period whatsoever, irrespective of whether he was working in the main event for most of the year 2000. The Royal Rumble is sold on the Rumble match, No Way Out drew marginally less than the previous year's February show even though business was still on the up and hadn't peaked at that point in 1999, Wrestlemania sells itself. Backlash drew a huge buyrate but was also heavily advertised as the return of Steve Austin. Here's the kicker, Judgement Day the next month, with the same main event as Backlash, drew over 200,000 fewer buys than Backlash. I guess the prospect of seeing 2000's greatest wrestler for an hour was far less appealing than a non-wrestling cameo from Austin.  Fully Loaded drew an almost identical buy rate to Judgement Day, meaning Triple H not being in the main event didn't negatively impact on business at all. I don't remember the Summerslam card but it obviously saw an upturn in business just for being Summerslam. Then Austin comes back and Unforgiven and No Mercy draw more than any of the PPV's headlined by Triple H outside of Mania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Wrestlemania sells itself. Â It's mad that nobody has told them that. What fools they are for paying the likes of Rock, Lesnar and Undertaker to wrestle those shows. WrestleMania 26 drew exactly the same buyrate as 27, 28 and 29 and had a much smaller wage bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizzlobber Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Â Â Wrestlemania sells itself. It's mad that nobody has told them that. What fools they are for paying the likes of Rock, Lesnar and Undertaker to wrestle those shows. WrestleMania 26 drew exactly the same buyrate as 27, 28 and 29 and had a much smaller wage bill. I have no idea what you're getting at here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 How silly WWE brass are for loading up WrestleMania with top talent when the card is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizzlobber Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Ah I see, I couldn't tell at first if there was an element of sarcasm there or not. They could probably get by with one returning star a year and even if the buyrate was lower there's a good chance the profit margin would be higher. It made sense to bring Taker in when the streak was alive, as that was legitimately a huge part of the Mania appeal. Lesnar, on the other hand, is a colossal waste of money when you look at the figures, regardless of how successful his run has been from an artistic standpoint. He's barely moving the needle at all anymore. Getting back to the original topic, it's entirely possible the tedious Triple H feud caused great damage to Lesnar's drawing ability. Losing his first match back to Cena was probably a mistake on wwe's part, but spending a year fannying about and trading wins with Triple H was far worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 They could probably get by with one returning star a year  They could get by with none, considering the event sells itself. Heath Slater vs Fandango could be the top match as long as the banner says WrestleMania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 If that was the top match, the next year would sell next to nothing. People buy tickets before matches announced based on expectations of top matches being on the show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 In retrospect, it was a bit silly to try and justify a weird grudge against Triple H by saying "WrestleMania sells itself" and trying to negate the role of talent in the show's success. Embarrassing, even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizzlobber Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015 Yeah, I'm very embarrassed to have used statistical evidence to prove a point, rather than relying on broad generalisations, falsities or pure nonsense. Â Weird grudge? I don't think he's a great wrestler and don't think he's much of a draw. It's as simple as that. I'm not a wrestler he's buried. I don't hate Triple H the person. In fact, I respect him for playing the political game well and for his carnyness, which is really what being a wrestler is all about. The purpose of this thread was to discuss Triple H. Â The ability debate has an element of subjectivity behind it, the drawing argument less so. I used the figures from his most successful year to prove that. Of course there can be other factors which can explain a high buyrate or be used as an excuse for a low one. But there's a reason Wrestlemania is the most bought PPV almost every year since 1985. WWE spend far more on marketing Wrestlemania as the biggest show of the year than any other. It's ingrained in people's minds. If you only watch one show a year, chances are it's Wrestlemania. Triple H was one of four wrestlers in the Mania 16 main event, a show that was given 12 straight hours of build up leading to the show. They don't do stuff like that for Fully Loaded or No Mercy. Wrestlemania is the Champions League final, the Super Bowl, the Wimbledon final. People watch it because it's the biggest one of the year, the most important. It's always been that way. It didn't pop a huge buyrate in 2000 because people were desperate to see that fatal four way. The Rock vs. Triple H would have drawn the same, if not more, because fatal four ways should be reserved for B shows as it is. If anything, running a shoddy four way proves that Mania gets a spike in business regardless. Â Would 2000 have been as successful as it was without The Rock? Not a chance in hell. Without Triple H? Eh, they could have gotten by pretty well. They could have run The Rock against Jeicho, Angle and Benoit and been just fine. As I've already discussed, The Rock vs. Benoit at Fully Loaded drew the same as The Rock vs. Triple H at Judgement Day. Â And the crazy thing is, this is his most successful year, and it's still not very impressive at all. Triple H is not a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted August 8, 2015 Share Posted August 8, 2015  They could probably get by with one returning star a year  They could get by with none, considering the event sells itself. Heath Slater vs Fandango could be the top match as long as the banner says WrestleMania.   Right, earlier I edited my post because I thought you were being sarcastic, but now we're so far into Inception levels of depth that I dont' know if you are or not. So I'll just state, as you may already know, that 'Mania 26 did 880,000 buys, whereas each of the following three gained over a million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Yes, I was being sarcastic. I referenced WrestleMania 26 and 27 because they annihilate the "talent doesn't matter, Mania sells itself" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.