WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News
Loading...


Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > The WrestleZone Forum Archives > The Wrestling Archives
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:02 AM
HBKperfect23 HBKperfect23 is offline
Registered User
Comedy Jobber For Life: AKA Santino
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 343
HBKperfect23 is looking to come up from OCW...HBKperfect23 is looking to come up from OCW...
Default

Quote:
Oh ya he's a regular Ric Flair the way he puts people over. I'm sorry I couldn't help myself with that one.
I put him just below Flair on that level. Flair being a main event jobber in the mid 90s is what puts him over the top with putting people over. HHH has put just as many guys over (or attempted to).
sendpm.gif
  #92  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:55 AM
ilapierre ilapierre is offline
Registered User
Comedy Jobber For Life: AKA Santino
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 325
ilapierre is looking to come up from OCW...ilapierre is looking to come up from OCW...ilapierre is looking to come up from OCW...
Default

Headman, just because you don't agree with all the posters on here doesn't make them stupid. There is a pretty big percentage of fans who have a problem with Triple H. The percentage of fans who have a problem with wrestlers who have similar accomplishments is a lot less. You don't see 30 to 40 percent of fans posting about how bad a worker Randy Savage was or how Chris Jericho couldn't deliver a promo. You don't see a mixed reaction about Shawn Michaels' legacy. Even though most fans hate Hulk Hogan, they cannot deny his importance to wrestling. But, with Triple H he's always been force fed to a lot of fans. The ratings of the late 90s were 5 and 5.5s. Now they are 2.5 and 3s. 2.5 to 3 percent of that rating haven't watched regularly since the Cena era where Triple H was most dominant. Rock and Austin were the reason for those doubled ratings. Without them, Triple H couldn't draw anything more than the wrestling obsessed who'd be watching even if Jarrett was the King of Kings instead. Since 2003, Shawn Michaels was the only reason I could sit through a Triple H segment/match. Am I stupid for feeling like that? No, that's how I felt and a lot of that 2.5 to 3 percent felt when they couldn't watch wrestling consistently anymore for the past decade. Triple H pushing himself as the best of the best just didn't hook that percent of wrestling fans. It only hooked the diehards. In my opinion, the stupid radar picks up those who actually bought Triple H as one of the best. Those who like stale stuck around like dumbasses and ate it up and those who realized the tremendous drop in entertainment value moved onto something else. I don't go around telling people on here that they are stupid for liking a wrestler I don't like though. That's an easy way to con yourself and others who share the same belief that you're right and anybody who opposes you is wrong. That's what's wrong in the world in general. TV caters to the lowest common denominator more than at any time in history and WWE's PG product is no better example of that. Disagree with me all you want, watch an old episode of Raw from the late 90s or early 00s and pay attention to the atmosphere and intensity of the fans, wrestlers, commentators. That was real entertainment. Sure, Triple H was part of that. But he wasn't responsible for it. He was along for the ride, right place at the right time and he put himself into a position of lifetime job security. In my opinion, he's a better politicker or businessman than he is an entertainer. Similar to Dusty Rhodes, Kevin Nash or Hulk Hogan. Although Hogan had that extra something that made him deserving to be shoved down our throats. Triple H never had that, never will. Half the old wrestling audience doesn't give a shit about Triple H and half of it still does. But the half on my side don't see it. That doesn't make us stupid. That just makes us a percentage of people who don't see things the same way. And we're not a small percentage.

I don't think that Triple H 'buried' wrestlers the way some posters here think he did. I don't think that burying another wrestler means pinning them or winning the feud. A younger or less established guy can get a big rub by losing most of the time to a bigger star and finally getting that elusive pin. They can gain big time from participating in a main event feud to see if they have what it takes. My definition of Triple H burying isn't that he beat them and always looked stronger so therefore 'buried' guys like Booker T or Kane. I think Triple H really had no business being the guy to beat. I have no problem with a guy like Hogan or Flair or Savage or Michaels rarely ever losing. I think that's what makes wrestling credible, when one of the best guys rarely loses. I just don't think Triple H was in that league where he should rarely ever lose. Michaels spent a great deal of the 2000s wrestling great matches but losing and never winning world titles. Didn't matter, although I'm sure he would have come across even more larger than life had he been almost unbeatable. It would have been better for business but Triple H and Stephanie had other plans. Make Triple H look dominant because he continuously needs to get over but make Michaels look weak so people will look back and be able to argue who was the better wrestler. Hands down Micheals is eons beyond Triple H in any category measurable. But in career achievement, fans will look back and think Triple H was just as good because he won 13 world titles. If Michaels only won 4 world titles, then Triple H should have won no more than 2. Fans of the future will look back at Triple H's world titles and view him differently than those of us that were forcefed him.

Triple H buried people with backstage politiking. Kevin Nash did a similar thing in WCW in the late 90s. What Nash did to Goldberg is similar to what Triple H did to almost any wrestler who was a legitimate threat to Triple H's standing in the company. Sure, Trips didn't prevent Cena from reaching the top. Cena is the best promoter's slave of all time though. The work Cena does, his natural ability to do promos makes him undeniable. Triple H has always needed a top face in order to be a top heel so burying Cena wouldn't have helped his career. Thing is, Triple H needed there to be as few big stars as possible in order to stay near the top of the pile. He saw future top heels like Hardy or RVD or Booker or Angle or Kennedy or CM Punk or whoever and basically screwed their potential. He didn't do that by beating them in wrestling matches or by winning his feuds. He did it in real life through his position in the company. Him sticking his nose in business affairs is a conflict of interest. He had about as much say in the career direction of wrestlers as Hulk Hogan did. Thing is Hogan only had this power for about 7 years. Triple H is going on double that. In Hogan's day, there weren't that many wrestlers or main eventers. Today there is two brands and Triple H has stood in the way of probably 400-500 wrestlers who either made it big, just made it or never made it at all. Whoever rubs his back and works out with him gets the big push no matter how fucking retardedly stale or pale he is. Michaels and Hall never needed a clique or friends to be charismatic superstars. Guys with little to no potential but massive business savvy like Triple H and Kevin Nash have just been smart enough to attach themselves to these guys in order to get to the top. Triple H never quit climbing ladders and setting them up for younger guys. He let those who befriended him a chance to make it big and those who didn't he politicked against until they gave up and left before their image was tarnished, like Steve Austin, or were fired like Jeff Hardy. Sure, Hardy's a druggie and has screwed up. Randy Orton is too though yet he doesn't get the same treatment. He gets a 30 day suspension. Orton has three incidents in WWE, I believe Hardy's only about three too. Main difference is Orton is Trips buddy. Triple H had to stay on top of him in main event matches and feuds. Orton was basically groomed to take over when Triple H got old enough to be off TV. Orton wasn't allowed to be the big heel when Triple H was a heel. When Triple H comes back to TV, a guy like Orton has to take a backseat so not to get in the way of the almighty Trips. Batista figured out his place in Triple H's pecking order and left. He was never gonna be as good a friend as Orton and would thus spin his wheels unless Orton fucked over their best buddy.

Triple H was behind the decision to bury Bret Hart so he was therefore a major player in the Montreal screwjob. Guys like Kurt Angle had to leave WWE because the whole focus was on Triple H being front and center. Mr. Kennedy is fired because he is outspoken about backstage bullshit. We all know how he feels about Triple H. Shawn Michaels seemed to be biting his lip since 2002. Some think it was because he's a reformed Christian watching his language, but perhaps it was because he realized he was being booked as second in command to Triple Z. Guys like Jericho and Edge were able to flourish but they knew their role was second to Triple H. They kept their mouth shut and accepted his status as the way the world goes round. Jericho leaves and comes back so much and you can tell he leaves because he knows he would be stale if he stuck around and jobbed to Triple H's new clique of main event nobodies. Chris Benoit wrestled with brain damage after years of carrying guys with little entertainment value and wrestling ability like Triple H. We all know what happened to him. Eddie Guerrero and Benoit worked themselves to an early death making Vince McMahon dirty rich. Triple H just had to stick his hand in daddy's back pocket and put a ring on his daughter. Goldberg comes to WWE and ran into the same thing with Triple H as he ran into with Kevin Nash in WCW. Fans wanted to see Goldberg run wild, instead we have Goldberg run wild until he runs into the undefeatable wall that is Kevin Nash or Triple H. Rock went onto Hollywood before Triple H got enough backstage clout to have the booking team of hacks book him a shitty legacy. Randy Savage didn't end up in WWE in 1998 because WWE wouldn't guarantee him a title win in his contract. Triple H gets 13 title wins and get to be front and center on WWE TV into his mid 40s but Savage in his early 40s was reduced to commentating? Savage won 2 WWE titles and Triple H won 13. We all heard what Savage had to say about Triple H. Triple H brings his buddy Nash back for a pointless angle just to beat him and he disappears. Lame. Triple H walks in and beats CM Punk and the angle is over? Lame. Triple H takes Taker to the limit, doesn't win the match but wins the war? Super lame. Monsters like Yokozuna, Giant Gonzales, Kane have given Taker a run for his money. Michaels did it twice. Michaels is perhaps the best wrestler of all time. But Triple H gets to do it three times and be booked to be more dominant? I can't even begin to describe the lameness of this. The only more continuous and absurd push of all time is the one Vince McMahon gave himself as a legitimate threat to the biggest stars of wrestling history. Thing is Vince McMahon is after Hollywood Hogan the best heel in the history of wrestling. Due to his authority position and the impossibility of him being forced off TV like Hulk Hogan, Vince may even be regarded as the best heel.

Anyway, my point is that Triple H 'buries' wrestlers by politiking for their firing or stalling their career advancement in order to have his character pushed in a main event angle. He doesn't need or deserve the airtime or exposure that Hulk Hogan had his whole career because he is not charismatic enough. Most wrestling audiences have been moved by Hulk Hogan or Shawn Michaels at one time or the other but i'd argue only half to three quarters have given a shit about the Triple H character. There is still a big enough percentage of fans who don't buy him, and will never buy him, as top dog. They see him for what he is. A guy who used his connections to get to the top and stay there while everyone else were used up and let go or died to make wrestling entertainment the big business it has evolved into. Vince and Trips reap the rewards while the idiot slaves do their doing. It's an imitation of life and the work world. The only difference between this era and the Hogan-Vince era is that Hogan had the mainstream audience. The Austin-Vince era, Austin had the mainstream audience. Although this is the Cena-Punk era, it still feels like the Triple H-dictates-what happens era. A much smaller audience buys this era.

Last edited by ilapierre : 02-26-2012 at 11:21 AM.
sendpm.gif
  #93  
Old 02-26-2012, 12:38 PM
Headman's Avatar
Headman Headman is offline
I'm laughing at you right now.
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Parts unknown
Posts: 1,080
Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...Headman worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilapierre View Post
Headman, just because you don't agree with all the posters on here doesn't make them stupid. There is a pretty big percentage of fans who have a problem with Triple H. The percentage of fans who have a problem with wrestlers who have similar accomplishments is a lot less. You don't see 30 to 40 percent of fans posting about how bad a worker Randy Savage was or how Chris Jericho couldn't deliver a promo. You don't see a mixed reaction about Shawn Michaels' legacy. Even though most fans hate Hulk Hogan, they cannot deny his importance to wrestling. But, with Triple H he's always been force fed to a lot of fans. The ratings of the late 90s were 5 and 5.5s. Now they are 2.5 and 3s. 2.5 to 3 percent of that rating haven't watched regularly since the Cena era where Triple H was most dominant. Rock and Austin were the reason for those doubled ratings. Without them, Triple H couldn't draw anything more than the wrestling obsessed who'd be watching even if Jarrett was the King of Kings instead. Since 2003, Shawn Michaels was the only reason I could sit through a Triple H segment/match. Am I stupid for feeling like that? No, that's how I felt and a lot of that 2.5 to 3 percent felt when they couldn't watch wrestling consistently anymore for the past decade. Triple H pushing himself as the best of the best just didn't hook that percent of wrestling fans. It only hooked the diehards. In my opinion, the stupid radar picks up those who actually bought Triple H as one of the best. Those who like stale stuck around like dumbasses and ate it up and those who realized the tremendous drop in entertainment value moved onto something else. I don't go around telling people on here that they are stupid for liking a wrestler I don't like though. That's an easy way to con yourself and others who share the same belief that you're right and anybody who opposes you is wrong. That's what's wrong in the world in general. TV caters to the lowest common denominator more than at any time in history and WWE's PG product is no better example of that. Disagree with me all you want, watch an old episode of Raw from the late 90s or early 00s and pay attention to the atmosphere and intensity of the fans, wrestlers, commentators. That was real entertainment. Sure, Triple H was part of that. But he wasn't responsible for it. He was along for the ride, right place at the right time and he put himself into a position of lifetime job security. In my opinion, he's a better politicker or businessman than he is an entertainer. Similar to Dusty Rhodes, Kevin Nash or Hulk Hogan. Although Hogan had that extra something that made him deserving to be shoved down our throats. Triple H never had that, never will. Half the old wrestling audience doesn't give a shit about Triple H and half of it still does. But the half on my side don't see it. That doesn't make us stupid. That just makes us a percentage of people who don't see things the same way. And we're not a small percentage.

I don't think that Triple H 'buried' wrestlers the way some posters here think he did. I don't think that burying another wrestler means pinning them or winning the feud. A younger or less established guy can get a big rub by losing most of the time to a bigger star and finally getting that elusive pin. They can gain big time from participating in a main event feud to see if they have what it takes. My definition of Triple H burying isn't that he beat them and always looked stronger so therefore 'buried' guys like Booker T or Kane. I think Triple H really had no business being the guy to beat. I have no problem with a guy like Hogan or Flair or Savage or Michaels rarely ever losing. I think that's what makes wrestling credible, when one of the best guys rarely loses. I just don't think Triple H was in that league where he should rarely ever lose. Michaels spent a great deal of the 2000s wrestling great matches but losing and never winning world titles. Didn't matter, although I'm sure he would have come across even more larger than life had he been almost unbeatable. It would have been better for business but Triple H and Stephanie had other plans. Make Triple H look dominant because he continuously needs to get over but make Michaels look weak so people will look back and be able to argue who was the better wrestler. Hands down Micheals is eons beyond Triple H in any category measurable. But in career achievement, fans will look back and think Triple H was just as good because he won 13 world titles. If Michaels only won 4 world titles, then Triple H should have won no more than 2. Fans of the future will look back at Triple H's world titles and view him differently than those of us that were forcefed him.

Triple H buried people with backstage politiking. Kevin Nash did a similar thing in WCW in the late 90s. What Nash did to Goldberg is similar to what Triple H did to almost any wrestler who was a legitimate threat to Triple H's standing in the company. Sure, Trips didn't prevent Cena from reaching the top. Cena is the best promoter's slave of all time though. The work Cena does, his natural ability to do promos makes him undeniable. Triple H has always needed a top face in order to be a top heel so burying Cena wouldn't have helped his career. Thing is, Triple H needed there to be as few big stars as possible in order to stay near the top of the pile. He saw future top heels like Hardy or RVD or Booker or Angle or Kennedy or CM Punk or whoever and basically screwed their potential. He didn't do that by beating them in wrestling matches or by winning his feuds. He did it in real life through his position in the company. Him sticking his nose in business affairs is a conflict of interest. He had about as much say in the career direction of wrestlers as Hulk Hogan did. Thing is Hogan only had this power for about 7 years. Triple H is going on double that. In Hogan's day, there weren't that many wrestlers or main eventers. Today there is two brands and Triple H has stood in the way of probably 400-500 wrestlers who either made it big, just made it or never made it at all. Whoever rubs his back and works out with him gets the big push no matter how fucking retardedly stale or pale he is. Michaels and Hall never needed a clique or friends to be charismatic superstars. Guys with little to no potential but massive business savvy like Triple H and Kevin Nash have just been smart enough to attach themselves to these guys in order to get to the top. Triple H never quit climbing ladders and setting them up for younger guys. He let those who befriended him a chance to make it big and those who didn't he politicked against until they gave up and left before their image was tarnished, like Steve Austin, or were fired like Jeff Hardy. Sure, Hardy's a druggie and has screwed up. Randy Orton is too though yet he doesn't get the same treatment. He gets a 30 day suspension. Orton has three incidents in WWE, I believe Hardy's only about three too. Main difference is Orton is Trips buddy. Triple H had to stay on top of him in main event matches and feuds. Orton was basically groomed to take over when Triple H got old enough to be off TV. Orton wasn't allowed to be the big heel when Triple H was a heel. When Triple H comes back to TV, a guy like Orton has to take a backseat so not to get in the way of the almighty Trips. Batista figured out his place in Triple H's pecking order and left. He was never gonna be as good a friend as Orton and would thus spin his wheels unless Orton fucked over their best buddy.

Triple H was behind the decision to bury Bret Hart so he was therefore a major player in the Montreal screwjob. Guys like Kurt Angle had to leave WWE because the whole focus was on Triple H being front and center. Mr. Kennedy is fired because he is outspoken about backstage bullshit. We all know how he feels about Triple H. Shawn Michaels seemed to be biting his lip since 2002. Some think it was because he's a reformed Christian watching his language, but perhaps it was because he realized he was being booked as second in command to Triple Z. Guys like Jericho and Edge were able to flourish but they knew their role was second to Triple H. They kept their mouth shut and accepted his status as the way the world goes round. Jericho leaves and comes back so much and you can tell he leaves because he knows he would be stale if he stuck around and jobbed to Triple H's new clique of main event nobodies. Chris Benoit wrestled with brain damage after years of carrying guys with little entertainment value and wrestling ability like Triple H. We all know what happened to him. Eddie Guerrero and Benoit worked themselves to an early death making Vince McMahon dirty rich. Triple H just had to stick his hand in daddy's back pocket and put a ring on his daughter. Goldberg comes to WWE and ran into the same thing with Triple H as he ran into with Kevin Nash in WCW. Fans wanted to see Goldberg run wild, instead we have Goldberg run wild until he runs into the undefeatable wall that is Kevin Nash or Triple H. Rock went onto Hollywood before Triple H got enough backstage clout to have the booking team of hacks book him a shitty legacy. Randy Savage didn't end up in WWE in 1998 because WWE wouldn't guarantee him a title win in his contract. Triple H gets 13 title wins and get to be front and center on WWE TV into his mid 40s but Savage in his early 40s was reduced to commentating? Savage won 2 WWE titles and Triple H won 13. We all heard what Savage had to say about Triple H. Triple H brings his buddy Nash back for a pointless angle just to beat him and he disappears. Lame. Triple H walks in and beats CM Punk and the angle is over? Lame. Triple H takes Taker to the limit, doesn't win the match but wins the war? Super lame. Monsters like Yokozuna, Giant Gonzales, Kane have given Taker a run for his money. Michaels did it twice. Michaels is perhaps the best wrestler of all time. But Triple H gets to do it three times and be booked to be more dominant? I can't even begin to describe the lameness of this. The only more continuous and absurd push of all time is the one Vince McMahon gave himself as a legitimate threat to the biggest stars of wrestling history. Thing is Vince McMahon is after Hollywood Hogan the best heel in the history of wrestling. Due to his authority position and the impossibility of him being forced off TV like Hulk Hogan, Vince may even be regarded as the best heel.

Anyway, my point is that Triple H 'buries' wrestlers by politiking for their firing or stalling their career advancement in order to have his character pushed in a main event angle. He doesn't need or deserve the airtime or exposure that Hulk Hogan had his whole career because he is not charismatic enough. Most wrestling audiences have been moved by Hulk Hogan or Shawn Michaels at one time or the other but i'd argue only half to three quarters have given a shit about the Triple H character. There is still a big enough percentage of fans who don't buy him, and will never buy him, as top dog. They see him for what he is. A guy who used his connections to get to the top and stay there while everyone else were used up and let go or died to make wrestling entertainment the big business it has evolved into. Vince and Trips reap the rewards while the idiot slaves do their doing. It's an imitation of life and the work world. The only difference between this era and the Hogan-Vince era is that Hogan had the mainstream audience. The Austin-Vince era, Austin had the mainstream audience. Although this is the Cena-Punk era, it still feels like the Triple H-dictates-what happens era. A much smaller audience buys this era.

Holy hell that's a long post. But to answer the first part, yes it actually does make them stupid. We're not talking about opinions, we're talking about bored fanboys spouting their mouths about something they are factually incorrect on. The cases and examples they pointed out of Triple H burying something were misuses of the term "Bury" yet they argue it anyway. These are the same things people were crying about 10 years ago and it's gotten very old.

As for Triple H being "Pushed down our throats" you can say that about every single main eventer to ever grace the ring. If one thing internet fans do it's complain about the same thing over and over again even if it doesn't make a lick of sense. So no sir, I'm afraid my first post was correct. Forgive me if it seems hostile, but with all the misinformation, urban legends and flat out lies being passed around the internet it is important to make my points as direct as I can.
__________________
sendpm.gif
  #94  
Old 02-27-2012, 08:32 PM
FlairFan2003 FlairFan2003 is offline
Registered User
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,001
FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

"Buried" doesnt mean you win a match vs someone. To be buried you have to lose, either be absent or seriously marginalized on TV, and not get a major win for some time. Simply winning a match or winning a feud isnt burying.

Heck, Sting and Luger became household names by losing match after match to Flair. Granted, they had plenty of on top moments in their feuds, they were given high profile matches with lots of competitive moments. Essentially, they lost those feuds and failed to win Flair's title.

Randy Savage ultimately lost his two biggest feuds in his early WWE run, 86 vs Hogan & 87 vs Steamboat. He was not marginalized on TV, the matches were very good, he actually gained heat with the audience through his performance in those fueds. He wasnt buried though.

Now you can bury a guy even after he wins. Hogan spearheaded a creative booking team that made Goldberg World Champ, then proceeded to downplay his dominance during his winning streak, and continued to book him underneath Hogan's feuds on the next three PPVs. Goldberg took a backseat to Hogan's celebrity tag match in Aug, War Games in Sept, and shared main event status in Oct at Halloween Havoc with Hogan-Warrior. Even with the belt his matches and feuds got short thrift to Whatever Hogan was doing until he took time off. That is burying folks, Goldberg looked less important as champ than Sting & Luger did as title match losers a decade earlier.

As for the argument HHH only puts over his friends, I say "says who?" - Where is the evidence of his deep friendship with Cena (who has surpassed him in popularity and drawing power), or Chris Benoit for that matter ?

Ultimately Vince has final say on everything, do you really think he puts Trips on top for a long time if he doesnt draw and make money ? In fact hasnt Vince pushed Cena over Trips in recent years, and when you look at his success can you blame him ?

Where are the stories about Trips being asked to lose a match or feud and refusing ? You know, like Hart refusing to put over HBK in Montreal, multiple stories about HBK vacating titles with injuries because he refused to lose in the ring, Hogan refusing to cleanly put over Hart in 93, changing a planned title loss to Flair in 94 to retain the title via a countout decission, Nash no showing Starrcade 97 to avoid putting over Big Show, the list goes on. I dont remember one story where Trips was asked to put over someone and refused. If such a story exists please enlighten me.

As far as the matches he didnt lose, did Taker bury Edge, Batista, or HBK by going over at Wrestlemania ? Again simply winning a match doesnt mean you are ruining another guys career. In many instances the talent that didnt ultimately down Trips were mid carders and not legit main eventers. Do I think Hogan held back top guys who were a threat to his status like Savage and Flair, in some instances yes. Do I think he should have been forced to put over Kamala, Zeus, King Kong Bundy, etc ? Not at all

Even if Trips did see $$ on Batista and Orton Vince would not have given them sustained pushes if he didnt think they could make money ?

Remenber this is the same guy who sent Stone Cold packing when he refused to put over Lesnar, tired of his biggest star dictating to him who wins and loses.
sendpm.gif
  #95  
Old 02-27-2012, 08:46 PM
FlairFan2003 FlairFan2003 is offline
Registered User
WWF Hardcore Champion
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,001
FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...FlairFan2003 worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

As far as HBK "biting his lip" since he returned in 02 again says who ? HBK, like Flair during that time, did not want to work a full time schedule and therefore was not booked as "The Top Guy" for an extended period of time, certainly he wasnt treated horrible, but he wasnt going to dominate the main event scene working half as much time as Edge, Batista, etc.
sendpm.gif
  #96  
Old 03-18-2012, 06:17 PM
MrExcitement's Avatar
MrExcitement MrExcitement is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 18
MrExcitement is looking to come up from OCW...
Default

I believe this whole thing is somewhat in a grey area. Yes, he did bury lots of ex WCW talent, Nash, Steiner, Goldberg, but those guys were mainly on the wane anyway. As for Booker, RVD, Kane and Jeff Hardy, those were guys who were incredibly unfortunate not to get title reigns in the period 2002-2004. Yeah he buried a few guys, but he has also put many guys over, such as Sheamus, Jeff Hardy (in 2008-9?), Randy Orton and Batista.
sendpm.gif
  #97  
Old 03-21-2012, 08:03 PM
UltimateHitman's Avatar
UltimateHitman UltimateHitman is offline
Old School Legend
Comedy Jobber For Life: AKA Santino
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 386
UltimateHitman is looking to come up from OCW...UltimateHitman is looking to come up from OCW...UltimateHitman is looking to come up from OCW...UltimateHitman is looking to come up from OCW...UltimateHitman is looking to come up from OCW...UltimateHitman is looking to come up from OCW...
Default

This is why I don't come on this forum anymore.

The people that defend HHH ask for "facts". You cannot get more factual than people that have worked with the man. Even his friends have stated he's "buried" people. I will take the word of people that associate, and have associated, with him over somebody that just wants to try to post some loss records. Period.

And as for the loss records, it also depends "how" you lose. All of the examples that people would give to defend their position in another post are somehow discredited when somebody else uses them in a different post. Absurdity.

It also does matter how you're booked. If you ignore that argument by giving just a few examples of people that were able to "rise above it", you're nitpicking for your defense. You can just as easily show numerous examples of people that did not. Does the fact that some people got through it mean that the way people are booked can't have a negative effect? No, it doesn't. It can, and it has.

Facts are facts, period. What is apparent can be seen. You can say "he was allowed to do what he did because of who he was", but that's an asinine response. People are not bigger than the whole, and certainly not above the place that provided them the opportunity to become who they were in the first place.

Best example I can think of is that a movie is not made up entirely of one person. Sure there may be a marquee name or two that gets top billing, but there would be no movie without opposing characters and a supporting cast.

In other words, and as another example, sure, Hogan may have been a phenomenon in the 80's (for whatever reason I cannot fathom and yes, I was there), but he wouldn't have been who he was without great "villians" opposing him, and a great supporting cast. Hogan, contrary to popular belief, didn't do it himself. He'd have fizzled a lot quicker if he was beating jobbers every night and not taking on other established names.

Politicking was done, pure and simple. Even guys that did it and denied it back in the day have admitted doing it later on in their careers. So now, their words are fabricated because a "dirtsheet" happened to post the interview or their comments? That's utterly f'n ridiculous. The people here would call a person a liar to his or her face even if they did verify they said something and had it on video camera, simply because it didn't suit their argument.

HHH did bury talent. As for the ones that did end up making something of themselves regardless of any attempts, then the way the statement is worded changes to "attempted to bury". Simple as that. He attempted and did not succeed. It was the people that ultimately determined that in some cases. In other cases, they weren't given the chance to invest in a person before it happened. In some cases they were booked to look so terrible, people couldn't, in good conscience, get behind them.

Nothing changes the fact that HHH, and others, "buried", or ATTEMPTED to "bury", talent.

If you continue to refuse to admit that HHH politicked backstage, you are a sad, naive, deluded soul and I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell you at a bargain of a price.
__________________
Old School Is Cool
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Cutter View Post
Posters like you are the reason I made this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Natural View Post
Lets go Hitman! Lets go Hitman!
sendpm.gif
  #98  
Old 03-22-2012, 01:35 AM
The Brain's Avatar
The Brain The Brain is offline
Global Moderator
X-Division Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,533
The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...The Brain is getting phone calls from TNA...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateHitman View Post
This is why I don't come on this forum anymore.
Because people disagree with you?

Quote:
The people that defend HHH ask for "facts". You cannot get more factual than people that have worked with the man. Even his friends have stated he's "buried" people. I will take the word of people that associate, and have associated, with him over somebody that just wants to try to post some loss records. Period.
You don't see the flaw in your logic? People that worked with the man said he buried them. Isn't it possible they are just looking to place blame on someone for their own failures? I don't doubt that his friends have said he's buried people but could you give specific examples?

Quote:
And as for the loss records, it also depends "how" you lose. All of the examples that people would give to defend their position in another post are somehow discredited when somebody else uses them in a different post. Absurdity.
It depends how you lose? Ok, how about tapping out to Chris Benoit clean in the middle of the ring in the world's most famous arena at the 20th anniversary of the company's biggest show? How about losing clean to Batista three pay per views in a row including WrestleMania? How about once again tapping out clean at WrestleMania to John Cena?

Quote:
It also does matter how you're booked. If you ignore that argument by giving just a few examples of people that were able to "rise above it", you're nitpicking for your defense. You can just as easily show numerous examples of people that did not. Does the fact that some people got through it mean that the way people are booked can't have a negative effect? No, it doesn't. It can, and it has.
I listed a few examples for my side. You have not done the same for yours.

Quote:
Facts are facts, period. What is apparent can be seen. You can say "he was allowed to do what he did because of who he was", but that's an asinine response. People are not bigger than the whole, and certainly not above the place that provided them the opportunity to become who they were in the first place.
I think you're rambling here. I'm not following your point.

Quote:
Best example I can think of is that a movie is not made up entirely of one person. Sure there may be a marquee name or two that gets top billing, but there would be no movie without opposing characters and a supporting cast.
WWE wasn't made up of one person either. For a while Triple H was the marquee name and guys like Kane, RVD, and Booker T were the supporting cast.

Quote:
In other words, and as another example, sure, Hogan may have been a phenomenon in the 80's (for whatever reason I cannot fathom and yes, I was there), but he wouldn't have been who he was without great "villians" opposing him, and a great supporting cast. Hogan, contrary to popular belief, didn't do it himself. He'd have fizzled a lot quicker if he was beating jobbers every night and not taking on other established names.
So are you saying Triple H was beating jobbers every night? Hogan went over a lot more people than Triple H did so again I don't see your point.

Quote:
Politicking was done, pure and simple. Even guys that did it and denied it back in the day have admitted doing it later on in their careers. So now, their words are fabricated because a "dirtsheet" happened to post the interview or their comments? That's utterly f'n ridiculous. The people here would call a person a liar to his or her face even if they did verify they said something and had it on video camera, simply because it didn't suit their argument.
Politicking was done. So what? If Vince thought someone was going to be a success and draw money for his company Triple H would not have been able to hold them down. I swear some people think the guy never should have won a match.

Quote:
HHH did bury talent. As for the ones that did end up making something of themselves regardless of any attempts, then the way the statement is worded changes to "attempted to bury". Simple as that. He attempted and did not succeed. It was the people that ultimately determined that in some cases. In other cases, they weren't given the chance to invest in a person before it happened. In some cases they were booked to look so terrible, people couldn't, in good conscience, get behind them.

Nothing changes the fact that HHH, and others, "buried", or ATTEMPTED to "bury", talent.
So Triple H tried to bury every single guy he ever worked with? That sounds a little far fetched. You still haven't given one example of someone Triple H buried.

Quote:
If you continue to refuse to admit that HHH politicked backstage, you are a sad, naive, deluded soul and I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell you at a bargain of a price.
There is a difference between politicking and burying everyone he ever worked with. Triple H was a main event guy. Like it or not there weren't a whole lot of people in his league. The ones that were went over him or at the very least got a solid and competitive program with him. The ones that weren't still benefited from working with him. They simply didn't get the win. I keep forgetting though, there are certain people that think Triple H never should have won a match in his whole damn career.
sendpm.gif
  #99  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:08 AM
PlayTheGame's Avatar
PlayTheGame PlayTheGame is offline
The Cerebral Assassin
WWE Diva's Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Jersey
Age: 22
Posts: 483
PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...PlayTheGame worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

I think what this thread has proven more than anything else is that most of Triple H's detractors don't really comprehend the definition of the wrestling term "buried", and throw it around. Thus, Triple H receives unfair criticism in terms of supposedly "burying" so many of his opponents. Which is obviously not the case, because I don't believe that anyone's actually been able to name someone he's actually buried. A few people have put forth Booker T on Raw several years ago, but if that's the best example, then it's not a concrete one, nor a good one- HHH certainly did not bury Booker T at that time. Booker T stayed relevant and popular, enjoyed success in the tag division around that time, and soon after went on to re-create himself as King Booker and win the World Heavyweight Championship. Buried? I think not. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible that Triple H has never buried anyone in his career, but so far no one's put together much of an argument.

Lastly, I wanted to agree with one of Brain's statements. He said that it's almost as if people don't think Triple H deserves to win over anyone, and see his win streaks as burying streaks. I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty much what he said. I agree with this. Many people seem to think this, and it's wrong, as they're just letting their personal distaste for him cloud their vision on the matter. Like him or not, Triple H deserved to be a top guy and was the top guy for numerous years. No different than a Hogan, Rock, Austin, and Cena currently. While top guy, Triple H had a dominant streak and won often , as all top guys do. It's kinda what makes them top guys. You could even say that some of his heelish wins weren't even all that dominant anyway, thus making his opponent look better, as many of them involved interferences from Evolution, cheating, etc. Point is, he was a top guy and won like one for some time. Doesn't mean he was on a burying streak, he was just a top guy. If you're gonna badmouth him for that, then you also have to bad mouth any top guy who's ever put up a streak, like Hogan, Rock, Austin, Cena, etc.

I think we can officially declare this myth debunked, unless anyone actually has some evidence otherwise.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by iSpunky View Post
Mine was a train wreck. I plowed through her, And there was blood everywhere.
sendpm.gif
  #100  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:22 AM
Peoples_Champ's Avatar
Peoples_Champ Peoples_Champ is offline
Bra & Panties match winner & NEW...
WWE Diva's Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 551
Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...Peoples_Champ is looking to come up from OCW...
Default

I've never liked Triple H, but I'll give him credit where it's due. He put over many wrestlers, he lost cleanly in the ring many times and he wasn't as manipulative as say Hogan. He was beloved by many fans and at the peak of his career he was the most entertaining and the best in-ring performer in the WWE.

I don't think Triple H has "buried" any talent. That being said, he's most likely co-opted some heat or momentum for his own. It's also probably true that he's made backstage decisions that have been more beneficial to his career than someone else's. The angle last year with Punk comes to mind, where Punk generated his own heat, revolutionized the industry almost, and when he came back he started feuding with HHH, HHH's buddy Nash and HHH's colleague Johnny Ace. In my opinion, this hurt Punk's momentum and it's one of a few examples where HHH has co-opted someone else's momentum (I'm sure other people have better examples than I do). Another example is his influence during Bret Hart's exodus from the WWF (there's more about this in Bret's biography than I can mention here). Cronyism and nepotism are rife in professional wrestling, so why not WWE?

I don't think it's fair to say HHH buried talent. HHH put over talent time and time again and was professional about it for the most part. But I wouldn't say he's an angel either.
__________________

You Can't See Me
sendpm.gif
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 AM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WrestleZone.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.