Triple H Main Event Push

[wyleecyotee]

Its a strange one saying triple H wouldnt be as big if Austin didnt get injured. Take it back to 96, would Austin be as big if Triple H didnt do the MSG incident? and be taken out of winning King of the Ring? Funny how these things even out.

[Brad]

Apr 19, 2012 18:20:25 GMT -5 wyleecyotee said:

Its a strange one saying triple H wouldnt be as big if Austin didnt get injured. Take it back to 96, would Austin be as big if Triple H didnt do the MSG incident? and be taken out of winning King of the Ring? Funny how these things even out.

Valid point But who's to say that Trips would have had the same impact that Austin ultimately had?

[wyleecyotee]

Apr 19, 2012 18:34:51 GMT -5 Brad said:

Apr 19, 2012 18:20:25 GMT -5 wyleecyotee said:

Its a strange one saying triple H wouldnt be as big if Austin didnt get injured. Take it back to 96, would Austin be as big if Triple H didnt do the MSG incident? and be taken out of winning King of the Ring? Funny how these things even out.

Valid point But who's to say that Trips would have had the same impact that Austin ultimately had?

Its one of those we will never know scenarios, whos to say if HHH won KOTR in 96 he would have flopped, got canned and floated about in WCW whilst Austin never really got past being an upper midcarder with the occasional short world title reign and retired in the early 00's with fans calling him underrated..

Im sure its not too much different to what we already have, HHH basically got his push one year later and Austin was rated highly enough to replace HHh as the KOTR winner so he was bound to be pushed more at some point in 96/97.

Also around the time of Austin injury HHH was used a lot as HBKs buddy who followed him to the ring and rarely wrestled at PPVs (I'm pretty sure he was injured around this time) so he didnt really replace Austin.

I cant see HHH himself greatly affecting his career, he might have got a slightly better push but if it doesnt make Vince money then I dont think it would last.

I also disagree with HHH not being a big draw, it takes two to tango, people like heroes but they need villains to be superheroes, HHH was a great supervillian and helped the fans care more for the good guys as fans didnt like him in a good way.

[marino13]

Considering he was suppose to win the King of the Ring instead of Austin and was suppose to be the original Corporate Champion instead of Rock means WWE always had plans to push Triple H. But doghouses and injuries just delayed the inevitable.

I hate more than anything when topics about Triple H come up anymore. It's so biased it's not funny. His "Reign of Terror" was suppose to mirror Flair's title reigns of the 80's. They wanted you to hate him and hate the fact he kept squeaking by with the belt. So, much like I used to hate on Flair for not putting Luger or Windham over, you were suppose to hate on Triple H for not putting RVD or Booker over. And that's why WWE made Evolution identical to the Horsemen. It was a reused recipe, which is not uncommon to do in wrestling.

[Jamal]

I hate Triple H threads.

People either ridiculously underrate him or ridiculously overrate him.

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2012 17:56:22 GMT -5 JokerFC said:

Apr 19, 2012 17:13:59 GMT -5 @youknowhoiam said:

a

As far as Bradh84, I solely believe you are Steve Austin fan and nothing I can say even with the facts can change your opinion on the matter. Therefore I won't get into any further discussion with you. The other points you brought up Cord, are typical fan base opinions and not backed by any real information. Which is the reason I said I'm not sure if any of you actually remember this era. Teenager or not, if you were a causal fan during the time you weren't paying enough attention to the business to see what Triple H contributed. Which is understandable and I hope none of you take it personal. I'm just discussing some of my opinion and the actual facts of the WWF product. Do not take it personally.

.

for people not to take it personally the tone of your posts will have to change.saying "dont take it personally" wont change that.plenty of people differ in their opinion in here and do it without putting others down.

I remember this era verbatim and I know exactly what HHH contributed.I agree with you that he was very important but I will continue to completely disagree on your opinions about Austin.which I firmly believe to be incorrect.especially about the fact that he was a better tag wrestler.

you say Brad wont hear any bad about Austin-you are doing the exact same thing with HHH.

I'm not putting anyone down, I typed it exactly how I meant it. If you come to discuss the WWF on the business end and don't include the facts. There is no discussion it just simply becomes fan base chatter. But I respect your opinion, I just don't agree when it comes to Steve Austin. I liked Steve Austin in his prime but I was never a super huge fan. I wore the "3:16" shirts like everyone else but at the end the day, the facts are the facts. Steve Austin was a better entertainer than wrestler.

[Brad]

Apr 19, 2012 19:24:04 GMT -5 wyleecyotee said:

Apr 19, 2012 18:34:51 GMT -5 Brad said:

Valid point But who's to say that Trips would have had the same impact that Austin ultimately had?

I also disagree with HHH not being a big draw, it takes two to tango, people like heroes but they need villains to be superheroes, HHH was a great supervillian and helped the fans care more for the good guys as fans didnt like him in a good way.

This is a very true. It does take two. Maybe I've became jaded because he's so different now. I need to go re-watch that era.

[cordless2016]

I completely disagree with the points you made about Randy Orton Cord. I understand he was over during his feud with Mick Foley but at no point was he even remotely over during his rise to become the youngest champion.

Go back and watch the pops Orton was getting as a heel. He was cheered over both Edge and Shelton during their feuds for the IC title, and was definatly more over than the stale HHH by the summer of 2004. People were just plain bored w/ HHH around then, while Orton was the fresh new heel the fans were getting behind.

Steve Austin was mediocre at best in WCW. He will always be a better tag team competitor in my eyes. Once Austin won the championship in a disastrous Wrestle Mania 14 match with an injured Shawn Michaels. He was completely over with the fan base and his feud with Vince McMahon only pushed him further into it. Bret Hart only helped Steve Austin become a soiled main event contender. Steve Austin was no technical wrestler, I understand he used certain holds but at no point was he anywhere near someone like Kurt Angle ability's.

Gon ahave to disagree again. Comparing Austin to Angle and Bret is a joke. They are the greatest technical wrestlers of all time. But in his early days, Steve was very, very solid in the ring and managed to put on some clinics w/ guys like Steamboat and Pillman. And to say Bret only turned him into a solid main eventer is simply not true. Austin went to from a new heel on the rise to a star after feuding w/ Bret. They put on two 5 star classics and Austin became the most over guy in the company after WM13. Bret made Austin a star, and then Vince made Austin a superstar. HBK and DX didn't do much to elevate Steve, as he was already the top guy when he got to them.

As far as Bradh84, I solely believe you are Steve Austin fan and nothing I can say even with the facts can change your opinion on the matter. Therefore I won't get into any further discussion with you. The other points you brought up Cord, are typical fan base opinions and not backed by any real information. Which is the reason I said I'm not sure if any of you actually remember this era. Teenager or not, if you were a causal fan during the time you weren't paying enough attention to the business to see what Triple H contributed. Which is understandable and I hope none of you take it personal. I'm just discussing some of my opinion and the actual facts of the WWF product. Do not take it personally.

What facts? You have not proved anything w/ facts. Your simply stating your opinions. The bottom line is that w/out Rock and Foley jobbing to HHH a bunch in 99/00, HHH wouldn't have gotten over as much as he did. W/out those two guys helping to legitimize him, his title runs then would have been as stale as they were from 2002-2005. HHH was w/out a doubt the top heel at the time, but you are giving him far to much credit. He contributed to the business, but Rocky was already a household name by mid-2000, and he was the reason the WWF was doing such great business back then, and not HHH.

Now for Ric Flair, I've watched nearly ever big match he had. I've watched him for well over a decade. But at no point was he a better in ring competitor than Triple H. Was he more flamboyant and flashy? Yes. Was he an amazing story teller? Yes. Was he a good interviewer? Yes. But in the ring he cannot touch Triple H's skills. However he was way over exposed in the media in early NWA/WCW years and he was not that great once he returned in the WWF. Which I understand why due to his age and personal problems. But if those two could wrestle in their prime Triple H would come out the better man any night.

What made Flair so great was that he could literally make anybody look like a star, something HHH really has never been able to do. And I'll give you that 99-01 HHH would gives Flair a great run in the ring, but anything after that is not even close to the stuff Flair was putting out. The guy was literally going 45 minutes a night for five nights a week at one point and was constantly putting on great matches.

Like I have said I loved HHH from 97-01. Anything after that has mostly been crap. But the guy was an amazing heel in his prime. But the bottom line is that he was never the draw like other top stars had/have been. To be considered in the elites with guys like Hogan, Flair, Bret, HBK, Austin, Rock, and Cena, you had to have changed the industry and left a huge mark on it. HHH simply has not achieved the level of success that those other top stars did/have.

[Deleted]

I'm adament and always will be that Billy Gunn was the better heel.

[cordless2016]

I hate more than anything when topics about Triple H come up anymore. It's so biased it's not funny. His "Reign of Terror" was suppose to mirror Flair's title reigns of the 80's. They wanted you to hate him and hate the fact he kept squeaking by with the belt. So, much like I used to hate on Flair for not putting Luger or Windham over, you were suppose to hate on Triple H for not putting RVD or Booker over. And that's why WWE made Evolution identical to the Horsemen. It was a reused recipe, which is not uncommon to do in wrestling.

Only one slight difference...Flair made his opponents look like gold while most of HHH's opponents ended up in worse shape after feuding w/ him. For example, Flair made Sting into a star before ever droping the title to him. As for RVD, Booker T, Kane, and Goldberg, there value decreased dramatically after having faced off w/ The Game during his "reign of terror."

[marino13]

Apr 20, 2012 7:19:33 GMT -5 cordless2016 said:

I hate more than anything when topics about Triple H come up anymore. It's so biased it's not funny. His "Reign of Terror" was suppose to mirror Flair's title reigns of the 80's. They wanted you to hate him and hate the fact he kept squeaking by with the belt. So, much like I used to hate on Flair for not putting Luger or Windham over, you were suppose to hate on Triple H for not putting RVD or Booker over. And that's why WWE made Evolution identical to the Horsemen. It was a reused recipe, which is not uncommon to do in wrestling.

Only one slight difference...Flair made his opponents look like gold while most of HHH's opponents ended up in worse shape after feuding w/ him. For example, Flair made Sting into a star before ever droping the title to him. As for RVD, Booker T, Kane, and Goldberg, there value decreased dramatically after having faced off w/ The Game during his "reign of terror."

But needing three other guys and a sledgehammer to defeat an opponent does make them look good. If Triple H was jumping up from Frogsplashes & Choke Slams and started to "Hulk Out" then you might have a point. But unless I missed something he cheated in 95% of his matches.

[Deleted]

I watched HHH vs Cactus jack @ RR2000 today.

me what a match.lets use this thread to discuss HHHs ME highlights.

[Jamal]

Apr 20, 2012 14:37:38 GMT -5 JokerFC said:

I watched HHH vs Cactus jack @ RR2000 today.

me what a match.lets use this thread to discuss HHHs ME highlights.

To me, this is the best HIAC match ever.

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2012 15:37:37 GMT -5 Jamal said:

Apr 20, 2012 14:37:38 GMT -5 JokerFC said:

I watched HHH vs Cactus jack @ RR2000 today.

me what a match.lets use this thread to discuss HHHs ME highlights.

To me, this is the best HIAC match ever.

RR2000 was the street fight man.Hell in a Cell came one month later at No Way Out.

and yeah its excellent.defo in my top 3 HIAC matches.In fact I think Ill go watch it now.

[Brad]

The RR2000 match is absolutely awesome for sure

[marino13]

My favorite match of Triple H's from that era was the 3 Stages of Hell match against Austin. At the time I was so surprised to see Hunter win. But after seeing Austin turn heel a month later it all made sense.

And how can anyone say that Street fight against Foley wasn't a masterpiece? It was a perfect blend of hardcore wrestling with good old fashion wrestling storytelling.

[wyleecyotee]

Apr 20, 2012 17:52:36 GMT -5 marino13 said:

My favorite match of Triple H's from that era was the 3 Stages of Hell match against Austin. At the time I was so surprised to see Hunter win. But after seeing Austin turn heel a month later it all made sense.

And how can anyone say that Street fight against Foley wasn't a masterpiece? It was a perfect blend of hardcore wrestling with good old fashion wrestling storytelling.

As a kid who didnt know about Triple H "sleeping" his way to the top or the supposed power he had this was and awesome match that really made me go . At the time Austin was THE toughest guy around, winning the Rumble and going into Mania as basically the top guy at that point and the Triple H bests him cleanly in 3 matches just made them both seem tougher but gave HHH a bit more edge to him like he could beat anyone. One of my favourite matches.

[Deleted]

the 3 Stages of Hell was an effin masterpiece......no doubt.his match with Angle at the Rumble was a beaut too.

Austin was to go over but they(correctly) decided to give it to HHH to build his match with UT and of course it made perfect sense......the suspense in the UT/HHH match was killer.

[Deleted]

Triple H vs. Cactus Jack from Royal Rumble 2000 was for sure the peak of Triple H's run as champion in my opinion.

[The Sexy Psychotic]

Having been watching alot of 99/00/01 stuff lately, I have to say, amn trips was a dick, but he had great matches. Every match he was in was good, every fued he was in was good, now sure he may have 'buried' some later, but damn, he's a heel. It gets boring seeing the heel reign for a month then lose to the next biggest face. Keep the heel going, then for the person that does beat him, its massive, it means something.
Say Bryan's run was much more aggressive over the coward thing (that we get with every heel title run now), everyone would be hating him winning, but then when Sheamus won (not in 18 seconds, but in a real match) it would have done wonders for him and Bryan aswell.