JustJeds Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 Triple H is easily in my Top 10 of All-Time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustacio Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 Early DX was great and ground breaking, 1999/2000 heel was one of the best runs I've ever seen from a character, 2002 face turn was good, 2002 onwards in Evolution carried RAW, even fat 2006 Triple H was a good heel and put people over. Then SmackDown, super lean and ripped, WWE champion Triple H had a great run and finally his part time work has always been top notch and his TV COO character and work in NXT is game changing. Basically, there has never been a bad era of Triple H. He's always been solid, great or better and always mattered. His potion as heel in 2000 got The Rock and Austin over even more than before. He understood being a heel and selling for the baby face. As much as Triple H was the guy who worked with the top draw, there ain't no top draws without a top heel. A top heel guides the story lines and maybe without being too obvious. Triple H was the king of making other people look good and taking a back seat while bring insanely integral. Oh and of course 2006 DX. The dude has done it all. Pretty much this. HHH has made a few careers, I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss KV Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 Definitely in my top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.ohno Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 Personally, as far as WWE goes, I put Triple H number one. I had this discussion with a friend while watching the Rumble. He can still have high quality matches. He's had some of the most memorable matches and moments I can remember. He always played his role great, and you just can't leave out the fact that he's turned NXT into a source of amazing wrestling, which most of us prefer over the main product. Along with his performance in the ring, his brain for this business is second to none. He knows what the people want. He truly does know what's best for business. Look at the greatness he's responsible (mostly) for bringing us within the past 3 years. Tie all of that together, I put him at number 1. Stone cold brought the publicity, as did Hogan and the Rock. But I don't believe personally, that those guys improved the business in the way that Triple H has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future™ Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 top 5. below Rock, Austin, HBK, and Undertaker in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 I feel like at this point in his career, any in-ring accomplishments he achieves are actually a detriment because he is 1)semi-retired, 2)a real life authority figure, and lastly 3)he is a member of the McMahon family. He shouldn't be winning the Royal Rumble, world title, and headlining WM yet he seems to put himself in that spot almost every year at the expense of younger guys. If it wasn't him vs Reigns it would probably be him vs The Rock as they hyped last year at WM, either way he was gonna put himself in the main event. I thin anything he's done after his WM matches with Taker are just padding his stats. I'd still place him in the top 10 of WWE, not top 5 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhunter Posted January 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 I feel like at this point in his career, any in-ring accomplishments he achieves are actually a detriment because he is 1)semi-retired, 2)a real life authority figure, and lastly 3)he is a member of the McMahon family. He shouldn't be winning the Royal Rumble, world title, and headlining WM yet he seems to put himself in that spot almost every year at the expense of younger guys. If it wasn't him vs Reigns it would probably be him vs The Rock as they hyped last year at WM, either way he was gonna put himself in the main event. I thin anything he's done after his WM matches with Taker are just padding his stats. I'd still place him in the top 10 of WWE, not top 5 though. As much as people don't like to say it, HHH made Daniel Bryan go from a flavor of the month pop superstar, to that mega star status. HHH did that to Orton, and Batista, and he will do it for reigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wallie B Posted January 27, 2016 Report Share Posted January 27, 2016 The Best heel of all time imo. There was never another star that was more fun to want to see my favorite take the championship away from. Always worked great feuds with all of the top faces besides Booker T. That one was pretty messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWF WrestleFest Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 In WWE history, I would put him below Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Steve Austin, the Rock, and John Cena. So top 10 of all time, but at the bottom of that list. I'm not including guys I was too young to see, like Bruno Sammartino, Billy Graham, or Bob Backlund. Most of that was before Vince owned the WWE anyway, so I won't count that history as WWE basically doesn't either. If we're talking wrestling history, not just WWE history, then I'd put him below guys like Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes, and Sting as well. So I'd say he's in the top 15, which probably does mean you're one of the all-time greats, even though some of you think he should be higher. He has done a lot of good backstage. He's rebuilt bridges that Vince burnt with guys like Warrior and Bruno Sammartino. NXT is great. But at the same time, I think a lot of you are overlooking his flaws. When WWE split the roster in two brands in 2002, they put him and Undertaker on separate shows because Taker didn't want to deal with him. Around the same time, Pat Patterson, who has been Vince's right hand man longer than most of us were alive, left the WWE mainly because he was fed up with HHH. In 2004 or 2005 when the Rock's WWE contract was up, WWE had the option to renew it. Considering the Rock was becoming a huge Hollywood star, and along with Austin was the biggest wrestling star WWE had since Hogan and Savage in the 80s, it would be an obvious choice to renew his contract. But HHH got in Vince's ear that they didn't need the Rock, and the contract wasn't renewed. Undertaker, Pat Patterson, and the Rock aren't some bums that don't matter. For those guys to have issues with you, that speaks volumes. The politics are no joke. And that's not even mentioning all the times he's been champion or in the main event when he shouldn't be, including this very moment. He has been consistently decent in the ring and the mic for almost two decades, which is pretty impressive. But he doesn't have a lot of "special" moments like Hogan slamming Andre the Giant or Austin going face to face with Mike Tyson or the Rock going face to face with Hollywood Hogan. HHH has a lot of moments that WWE paints as important, but in reality, they weren't nearly as big as WWE pretends they were. I don't think too many people who aren't wrestling fans know who he is. Is he one of the all time greats? Like I said, I'd put him top 10 WWE history, top 15 if we're including other promotions (well, mainly NWA/WCW). But I do think a lot of his success is based on the fact that guys like Austin and the Rock (and even guys like Brock Lesnar) left for whatever reason, and also that he married into the McMahon family and is in a position of power and can make sure he never looks bad. For example, someone who worked for one of those video game magazines once said that WWE asked them not to print any screenshots in their previews of the game that showed HHH getting beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsHallGood Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 I'll put him in my top 10, in the following order: 1. HBK 2. Undertaker 3. Flair 4. Austin 5. Rock 6. HHH 7. Jericho 8. Edge 9. Hogan 10. Bret Hart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 I'll put him in my top 10, in the following order: 1. HBK 2. Undertaker 3. Flair 4. Austin 5. Rock 6. HHH 7. Jericho 8. Edge 9. Hogan 10. Bret Hart In WWE history? Because if so Flair shouldn't ever be in the top ten. He was mostly NWA/WCW and then was past his prime when he got to WWE aside from that 2 years stint in the early 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glchitman Posted January 28, 2016 Report Share Posted January 28, 2016 Not super high on my list because who knows where he would have ended up in the last 10-15 years if he hadn't been with Steph. He obviously would not be in the position of power he is in now and he probably wouldn't have had the creative say he had when he was wrestling full time. Don't think you can really compare him to guys who didn't have that sort of creative pull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhunter Posted February 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 The worst part is that he will always get the bad rap for marrying Stephanie and when the time comes to put him in the hall of fame, folks will no doubt say he's getting it just because he married the boss daughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Not super high on my list because who knows where he would have ended up in the last 10-15 years if he hadn't been with Steph. He obviously would not be in the position of power he is in now and he probably wouldn't have had the creative say he had when he was wrestling full time. Don't think you can really compare him to guys who didn't have that sort of creative pull. So basically, you can't compare him to midcarders and lower, because I'm sure most main eventers like Hogan, Warrior, and Austin had creative pull to a degree. Pretty unfair to make Triple H look like he even came close to the success he has because of whom he dated and married. He was a rising star and became one of the top heels, and while maybe he may not have become a multiple times world champion, he would have won the title at least once after AE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 For me it's not what he did in the past that bothers me, it's what he is doing now. He shouldn't be the guy that won the rumble and the belt, and he wouldn't have it at this point if he wasn't in the executive position he is in now. He seems to think he is the "big match" guy for the company but it really doesn't work. His feuds with Brock Lesnar have been disappointing, he put himself in a match vs Sting when it was completely unnecessary and on top of all he won that match for no good reason, and now he is seemingly going to headline WM against Reigns. Even last year he seemed to tease a match vs Rock which would have been the main event no doubt. If he still wants to part-time then that's fine, but he should be doing it while not taking away from the younger guys on the roster. No rising star will be able to benefit from winning the rumble and heading to WM as champion for another year because he decided to do that. His feud with Reigns didn't really need any belts on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhunter Posted February 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 For me it's not what he did in the past that bothers me, it's what he is doing now. He shouldn't be the guy that won the rumble and the belt, and he wouldn't have it at this point if he wasn't in the executive position he is in now. He seems to think he is the "big match" guy for the company but it really doesn't work. His feuds with Brock Lesnar have been disappointing, he put himself in a match vs Sting when it was completely unnecessary and on top of all he won that match for no good reason, and now he is seemingly going to headline WM against Reigns. Even last year he seemed to tease a match vs Rock which would have been the main event no doubt. If he still wants to part-time then that's fine, but he should be doing it while not taking away from the younger guys on the roster. No rising star will be able to benefit from winning the rumble and heading to WM as champion for another year because he decided to do that. His feud with Reigns didn't really need any belts on the line. To me, reigns vs HHH was the only real way to go. It made sense storyline wise. His fueds with lesnar weren't great, but at that point lesnar hadn't turned ufc down and so he wasn't as committing to the work. HHH vs Daniel Bryan a few years ago at 30 is the crowning moment for Bryan. That made his career. HHH is still a big push feud for guys to be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirky Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 For me it's not what he did in the past that bothers me, it's what he is doing now. He shouldn't be the guy that won the rumble and the belt, and he wouldn't have it at this point if he wasn't in the executive position he is in now. He seems to think he is the "big match" guy for the company but it really doesn't work. His feuds with Brock Lesnar have been disappointing, he put himself in a match vs Sting when it was completely unnecessary and on top of all he won that match for no good reason, and now he is seemingly going to headline WM against Reigns. Even last year he seemed to tease a match vs Rock which would have been the main event no doubt. If he still wants to part-time then that's fine, but he should be doing it while not taking away from the younger guys on the roster. No rising star will be able to benefit from winning the rumble and heading to WM as champion for another year because he decided to do that. His feud with Reigns didn't really need any belts on the line. To me, reigns vs HHH was the only real way to go. It made sense storyline wise. His fueds with lesnar weren't great, but at that point lesnar hadn't turned ufc down and so he wasn't as committing to the work. HHH vs Daniel Bryan a few years ago at 30 is the crowning moment for Bryan. That made his career. HHH is still a big push feud for guys to be in. Agreed but it didn't need the WWE Championship involved nor did it require Trips to win the Rumble. In 2016 there is no excuse for that happening. Bit of a cop-out answer tbf. They could have put Lesnar in there with anyone because of his stance with UFC. Not sure why they insisted on dragging it out for so long either because it clearly wasn't working. This one was the only one that I'm willing to support HHH's involvement in. Fair play to them for the way they handled it. Interesting you skipped out on him unnecessarily beating Sting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhunter Posted February 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 For me it's not what he did in the past that bothers me, it's what he is doing now. He shouldn't be the guy that won the rumble and the belt, and he wouldn't have it at this point if he wasn't in the executive position he is in now. He seems to think he is the "big match" guy for the company but it really doesn't work. His feuds with Brock Lesnar have been disappointing, he put himself in a match vs Sting when it was completely unnecessary and on top of all he won that match for no good reason, and now he is seemingly going to headline WM against Reigns. Even last year he seemed to tease a match vs Rock which would have been the main event no doubt. If he still wants to part-time then that's fine, but he should be doing it while not taking away from the younger guys on the roster. No rising star will be able to benefit from winning the rumble and heading to WM as champion for another year because he decided to do that. His feud with Reigns didn't really need any belts on the line. To me, reigns vs HHH was the only real way to go. It made sense storyline wise. His fueds with lesnar weren't great, but at that point lesnar hadn't turned ufc down and so he wasn't as committing to the work. HHH vs Daniel Bryan a few years ago at 30 is the crowning moment for Bryan. That made his career. HHH is still a big push feud for guys to be in. Agreed but it didn't need the WWE Championship involved nor did it require Trips to win the Rumble. In 2016 there is no excuse for that happening. Bit of a cop-out answer tbf. They could have put Lesnar in there with anyone because of his stance with UFC. Not sure why they insisted on dragging it out for so long either because it clearly wasn't working. This one was the only one that I'm willing to support HHH's involvement in. Fair play to them for the way they handled it. Interesting you skipped out on him unnecessarily beating Sting though. Sting coming to WWE was unnecessary, there was no Benefit to anyone there. If sting had came and lost to anyone else they'd catch just as much bs heat for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glchitman Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 For me it's not what he did in the past that bothers me, it's what he is doing now. He shouldn't be the guy that won the rumble and the belt, and he wouldn't have it at this point if he wasn't in the executive position he is in now. He seems to think he is the "big match" guy for the company but it really doesn't work. His feuds with Brock Lesnar have been disappointing, he put himself in a match vs Sting when it was completely unnecessary and on top of all he won that match for no good reason, and now he is seemingly going to headline WM against Reigns. Even last year he seemed to tease a match vs Rock which would have been the main event no doubt. If he still wants to part-time then that's fine, but he should be doing it while not taking away from the younger guys on the roster. No rising star will be able to benefit from winning the rumble and heading to WM as champion for another year because he decided to do that. His feud with Reigns didn't really need any belts on the line. Totally agree with everything you said there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNFNS Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Trips I would put solidly in the top 10, but probably not much higher. And since this is apparently the second part to the question, I would put HBK ahead of him without even thinking about it. This is exactly what I was going to say, he would be in my Top 10 but not high at all, probably 9 or 10 itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glchitman Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Not super high on my list because who knows where he would have ended up in the last 10-15 years if he hadn't been with Steph. He obviously would not be in the position of power he is in now and he probably wouldn't have had the creative say he had when he was wrestling full time. Don't think you can really compare him to guys who didn't have that sort of creative pull. So basically, you can't compare him to midcarders and lower, because I'm sure most main eventers like Hogan, Warrior, and Austin had creative pull to a degree. Pretty unfair to make Triple H look like he even came close to the success he has because of whom he dated and married. He was a rising star and became one of the top heels, and while maybe he may not have become a multiple times world champion, he would have won the title at least once after AE. Not really, Hogan out of those three really was the only one with any sort of creative pull and even he always did what Vince wanted. Warrior tried to have creative pull and he got fired for it and had to fight Vince in court for rights to his character. Triple H was slowly rising as a star but to say he would have had the career he had without his creative pull (and being with the bosses daughter does get you in good graces) is rather a stretch. He might have won a world title or two but to say he'd be a 14 time world champ is def a stretch. He wouldn't have had nearly as much success and he was known for pushing certain guys down through backstage politics in order to keep himself on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creepy Bro Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Growing up as a kid, there was no one I loved (and loved to hate) more then HHH. Whether it was with degeneration x or evolution or even after (he still had the best feud Orton ever had back in 08) I've always thought he was the best of the best, and I didn't think he got the credit from people he has earned. So im curious; where do you put HHH in your list of all time greats? I'll put him over HBK any day. He was a champion in every sense of the word He's in my top 10 list, no question... HHH was the primary reason I always tuned in to watch Raw during the 1990s. And the part that I put in bold? I couldn't agree with you more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPC Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Not super high on my list because who knows where he would have ended up in the last 10-15 years if he hadn't been with Steph. He obviously would not be in the position of power he is in now and he probably wouldn't have had the creative say he had when he was wrestling full time. Don't think you can really compare him to guys who didn't have that sort of creative pull. So basically, you can't compare him to midcarders and lower, because I'm sure most main eventers like Hogan, Warrior, and Austin had creative pull to a degree. Pretty unfair to make Triple H look like he even came close to the success he has because of whom he dated and married. He was a rising star and became one of the top heels, and while maybe he may not have become a multiple times world champion, he would have won the title at least once after AE. Not really, Hogan out of those three really was the only one with any sort of creative pull and even he always did what Vince wanted. Warrior tried to have creative pull and he got fired for it and had to fight Vince in court for rights to his character. Triple H was slowly rising as a star but to say he would have had the career he had without his creative pull (and being with the bosses daughter does get you in good graces) is rather a stretch. He might have won a world title or two but to say he'd be a 14 time world champ is def a stretch. He wouldn't have had nearly as much success and he was known for pushing certain guys down through backstage politics in order to keep himself on top. He would have won more than 1 or 2 World titles because he had the look, the charisma, the talent and the mic skills to carry the main event. If anything I think his career would have ended around 2010 with about 5 or 6 World title reigns under his belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creepia Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 I put him over Bret for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Not super high on my list because who knows where he would have ended up in the last 10-15 years if he hadn't been with Steph. He obviously would not be in the position of power he is in now and he probably wouldn't have had the creative say he had when he was wrestling full time. Don't think you can really compare him to guys who didn't have that sort of creative pull. So basically, you can't compare him to midcarders and lower, because I'm sure most main eventers like Hogan, Warrior, and Austin had creative pull to a degree. Pretty unfair to make Triple H look like he even came close to the success he has because of whom he dated and married. He was a rising star and became one of the top heels, and while maybe he may not have become a multiple times world champion, he would have won the title at least once after AE. Not really, Hogan out of those three really was the only one with any sort of creative pull and even he always did what Vince wanted. Warrior tried to have creative pull and he got fired for it and had to fight Vince in court for rights to his character. Triple H was slowly rising as a star but to say he would have had the career he had without his creative pull (and being with the bosses daughter does get you in good graces) is rather a stretch. He might have won a world title or two but to say he'd be a 14 time world champ is def a stretch. He wouldn't have had nearly as much success and he was known for pushing certain guys down through backstage politics in order to keep himself on top. Hogan had no reason to go against Vince though, did he? I'm also sure Warrior had some kind of creative pull too, but he probably went too far? I thought the issue was his wanting more pay. I'm not disagreeing that he wouldn't have had as much success that he did, just that he'd still have plenty of success on his own merit. He'd have at least been a multiple times world champion, if not more than five times. That's most stars though. Hogan did that, Austin did that, Cena did that, and Shawn did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.