Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

MARCH 2015 WRESTLING DISCUSSION


RIPPA
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

WWE is booking him as the Sting of 1996-1997 so he appears to be mute.

 

Like I said before, what Triple H is saying isn't bad. He's a villain so of course he'd try to frame it in a way that benefits him.

 

What he's saying would/will be fine if/when someone actually steps up to call him out on it. That's historically the issue with HHH's promos, though; he says what a heel is "supposed" to say, and presents himself as the strongest, smartest, toughest, most iconic star in the history of the WWE...and then the face responds with, "all of those things are absolutely true, but I'm going to beat you anyway!"

That's the biggest thing - HHH isn't a fucking icon. He'd like to think he is, but he isn't. And nobody has sat in their home fantasy booking a HHH-Sting feud. I'm sure the match will be good, but I could have lived with not seeing this matchup just fine.

 

 

I'll probably regret asking this question, but.... if Triple H isn't an icon, who does fit your definition?

 

Just curious.  I know a lot of people hate Triple H - I'm not a huge fan either - but I generally find the way people minimize his contribution to the past 15-20 years kinda odd.  I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that he carried the company while other stars on his level (Austin, Rock) went on to greener pastures, but a case can be made for that.  It's not an crazy idea. 

 

 

The thing about HHH for me is a sense of unearned invincibility. Even when he loses, he ends up on top long-term; I'd go so far as to say his character cannot be defeated long-term thanks to his use of bureaucracy as a cudgel.

 

It's something that diminishes the notion of him as an icon, in that others who would claim that status would perform at a higher level, thus seeming to earn it. Rock shows up, the crowd loses their shit and there's a palpable joie-de-vivre. Austin's glass shatters, and there's a simultaneous sense of righteousness and chaos in the air. 'taker was an unstoppable force that people bought into.

 

Motorhead starts up, and it's deflating: Bryan beats HHH, then Orton and Batista, then Kane, then is out for a while and the closest anyone comes to knocking the Authority (HHH by proxy) down is Ziggler-via-McFiat, and a month or two later, even with Sting, they're back.  The Shield takes down Evolution two shows in a row, and Seth breaks it up and joins the Authority. HHH is iconic in that he's been around the top of the card long enough to have a claim to it, but I don't really think longevity and card placement are sufficient- there has to be broader appeal. I think that HHH's narrative largely being unchallenged in the Sting build is severely hurting the match, and that the reason his narrative goes unchallenged is that his character has adopted a management position.

 

Even if we feel it likely HHH would lose the match, it does not seem that this would cause the character to display a sense of loss, or development from the loss.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

WWE is booking him as the Sting of 1996-1997 so he appears to be mute.

 

Like I said before, what Triple H is saying isn't bad. He's a villain so of course he'd try to frame it in a way that benefits him.

 

What he's saying would/will be fine if/when someone actually steps up to call him out on it. That's historically the issue with HHH's promos, though; he says what a heel is "supposed" to say, and presents himself as the strongest, smartest, toughest, most iconic star in the history of the WWE...and then the face responds with, "all of those things are absolutely true, but I'm going to beat you anyway!"

That's the biggest thing - HHH isn't a fucking icon. He'd like to think he is, but he isn't. And nobody has sat in their home fantasy booking a HHH-Sting feud. I'm sure the match will be good, but I could have lived with not seeing this matchup just fine.

 

 

I'll probably regret asking this question, but.... if Triple H isn't an icon, who does fit your definition?

 

Just curious.  I know a lot of people hate Triple H - I'm not a huge fan either - but I generally find the way people minimize his contribution to the past 15-20 years kinda odd.  I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that he carried the company while other stars on his level (Austin, Rock) went on to greener pastures, but a case can be made for that.  It's not an crazy idea. 

 

For me, I use "icon" in a very literal sense. If my "top of mind awareness" is like the desktop of a computer, then the the icon for wrestling on my "mental desktop" should be a picture of who I think of when I think of a company. When I think of WWE, I think of Hogan, Austin, the Rock, and Vince. Not Triple H. Not even close. With that said, when I think WCW (not NWA) I think black and white Crow-Sting,

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

WWE is booking him as the Sting of 1996-1997 so he appears to be mute.

 

Like I said before, what Triple H is saying isn't bad. He's a villain so of course he'd try to frame it in a way that benefits him.

 

What he's saying would/will be fine if/when someone actually steps up to call him out on it. That's historically the issue with HHH's promos, though; he says what a heel is "supposed" to say, and presents himself as the strongest, smartest, toughest, most iconic star in the history of the WWE...and then the face responds with, "all of those things are absolutely true, but I'm going to beat you anyway!"

That's the biggest thing - HHH isn't a fucking icon. He'd like to think he is, but he isn't. And nobody has sat in their home fantasy booking a HHH-Sting feud. I'm sure the match will be good, but I could have lived with not seeing this matchup just fine.

 

 

Triple H is a heel. He's supposed to say outlandish things. We are supposed to want to see Sting kick his ass. I think they've done an okay job with it. The only thing I don't understand is why they didn't just run Taker/Sting. They dedicated an episode of MNW to those two.  It'd be somewhat intriguing with Taker coming off a loss.

 

Also, there was a report that Triple H and Stephanie were asked to come back to television and their segments do well ratings wise.

 

You can't ask most hardcore wrestling fans to be objective about Triple H.  They will tell you the Undertaker/HHH series at WrestleMania was the worst thing of all time but meanwhile you look at the stadium crowd and everyone is on their feet and the place is going crazy. Whether HHH was huge during The Attitude Era is irrelevant now because he is one of the more over people on their roster today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the argument against Triple H carrying the WWF/E after Austin & Rock left, though? He probably didn't set business on fire, but I'm pretty sure Undertaker's title reign in 2002 didn't either, and that's the only other "name" at that time that was the main focus of the shows. And even then, 'Taker was doing stuff with Tommy Dreamer and Jeff Hardy. 2002-2005 was a dark time for WWE, they didn't have near as much top talent as in years past. Then Cena came along and changed everything.

 

Am I missing some names? Was Angle or Lesnar at the time considering needle or ticket movers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last twenty years, I wonder who we could agree are bigger stars than Triple H.  Obviously Austin and Rock. John Cena. Hogan and Flair. Maybe Undertaker though I would say they are probably about even. I don't think I could argue Michaels or Bret over Triple H. They are probably all in the second tier. Lesnar is an interesting case. He was so huge as UFC champion.

 

Since 1995 I'd go Tier one.. 

 

1. The Rock

2. Stone Cold

3. Hogan

4. Cena

5. Lesnar

6. Goldberg

 

Then (no particular order) Sting, Taker, Flair, Bret, HBK, HHH.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last twenty years, I wonder who we could agree are bigger stars than Triple H.  Obviously Austin and Rock. John Cena. Hogan and Flair. Maybe Undertaker though I would say they are probably about even. I don't think I could argue Michaels or Bret over Triple H. They are probably all in the second tier. Lesnar is an interesting case. He was so huge as UFC champion.

I remember a Tribute to the Troops match between Michaels and Triple H being interesting for the reactions. Michaels went in babyface but crowd didn't really react to him. Triple H was treated like a star. It makes sense since Triple H was around and in a good spot during a much hotter period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HHH has been near the top for over 15 years. You would expect him to be an all time great money promo. (He's not) You would expect him to have an endless list of classic matches (He doesn't). You would expect him to be an all time draw. (He isn't) He's a solid hand and a solid promo with a good look who somehow parlayed it into a career where he's been booked stronger and more protected than just about anyone.

Instead of putting him in the conversation with taker, hbk, bret, etc I would compare him more to Randy Orton.

If Orton has another 5-10 years in him, is he an icon? Is he an all time Great? Are we going to have cena v Orton end of an era matches?

That being said. I do think HHH is doing the best he can with the Sting feud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like HHH was a top guy by default. Yes, he has X amount of main events under his belt but a lot of people, including me, don't think he got there by by sheer talent. When Trips isn't around do people chant for him or hope he returns soon? No. And I get that he's predominantly been a heel so maybe those reactions won't come naturally, but Flair was a heel and people still wanted him back.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is PWG doing a DDT4 this year?

 

I assume they will.  It's been all over the place, timing-wise, since 2011.  Maybe the April show?

 

Gotcha thanks.  Seems the last couple of years it was in January, good to know it should happen.  My favorite tourney.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the argument against Triple H carrying the WWF/E after Austin & Rock left, though? He probably didn't set business on fire...

 

 

Well, that's another example of my issue (and it really is my only issue with him - I think he's a fine worker and an important guy in the grand scheme of things). He didn't do great business on top, but cut a promo on a retired Edge where he made a shitty comment about him not drawing as champ. That's exactly my point - he says outlandish, hyperbolic stuff because it's "what a heel character should do," but then pretty much everyone - his opponents, the announcers, other wrestlers - agree with him that all that stuff is true. If Edge gets to come back with, "Might want to check the numbers on you and your buddy HBK before you go throwing insults like 'didn't draw on top' around there, buddy," there's no problem. If Sting - or someone close to him - says "I don't think you're the iconic figure of the Attitude Era, pal - I just think you're a douchebag," there's no problem. When that kind of thing almost never happens, though, it's less "obnoxious heel runs his mouth" and more "guy with a lot of power gets to rewrite his historical position in the company he now runs."

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that HHH wasn't anointed the top guy until guys like Rock, Austin, Taker, and HBK, he'll add Foley and Lesnar to that list weren't available or were shipped to SD to help build the brand... Shouldn't that say enough as to where he stands in history? Not saying he was pushed out of necessity, but it sure as hell looks like it looking back IMO.

If anything, Ziggles is a better comparison to HHH: got early main event success that no one really remember but didn't make a splash most remember until people started dropping like flies around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2000 was one of WWE's most profitable years and Trips spent most of the year on top. 2001 Trips is gone during the InVasion. 2002 he returns at MSG and the crowd goes absolutely fucking bonkers.

 

I'm not saying this really proves much. Obviously, The Rock was the top draw in 2000. But to compare Trips to Edge and Orton is laughable. He's a way bigger star than either of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Rock in 2000 wouldn't have done the same business with 2006 Edge or Orton if they had Vince and Steph around them to draw the real heat? I don't think there would be much difference at all. The angles and promos probably would've been better with Edge, and the matches would've been better with Orton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows. Orton couldn't stay healthy his first couple years in the company. Edge was never a good singles wrestler. He relied on gimmicks more than Triple H did. Triple H can definitely put a match together and tell a more compelling story than he can. I'd say Triple H is better on the mic than either of them also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah he "accomplished" more, but was he better? If you put prime Edge in HHH's spot in 1999, 2000 he would've been just as successful imo. He showed he could be led by Folley to a great hardcore match, and that was with a way more broken down Folley than HHH worked in 2000. Then after Folley makes him you give him a nuclear hot Rock, and the biggest heel in company history by his side. Yeah he would've "accomplished" every bit as much as HHH, and probably wouldn't have derailed Angle and Steph's great work to build that feud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the last twenty years, I wonder who we could agree are bigger stars than Triple H. Obviously Austin and Rock. John Cena. Hogan and Flair. Maybe Undertaker though I would say they are probably about even. I don't think I could argue Michaels or Bret over Triple H. They are probably all in the second tier. Lesnar is an interesting case. He was so huge as UFC champion.

Since 1995 I'd go Tier one..

1. The Rock

2. Stone Cold

3. Hogan

4. Cena

5. Lesnar

6. Goldberg

Then (no particular order) Sting, Taker, Flair, Bret, HBK, HHH..

I go Cena and then Foley, and then the other people. YMMV but your list is sound otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah he "accomplished" more, but was he better? If you put prime Edge in HHH's spot in 1999, 2000 he would've been just as successful imo. He showed he could be led by Folley to a great hardcore match, and that was with a way more broken down Folley than HHH worked in 2000. Then after Folley makes him you give him a nuclear hot Rock, and the biggest heel in company history by his side. Yeah he would've "accomplished" every bit as much as HHH, and probably wouldn't have derailed Angle and Steph's great work to build that feud.

If I had a choice, I would rather watch a loop of Triple H matches rather than the best of what Edge has to offer. He's just so boring. Great outside of the ring in everything he did, whether it be backstage skits or on the mic, but in the ring... well, it was a big reason why I didn't watch Smackdown when he was on the top of the card.

 

When you start getting into discussions about "yeah, but was he better?", you're going into the territory of opinions and it doesn't really prove any point besides some people prefer Triple H's ring work, and some prefer Edge's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...