Bret Hart calls out Triple H, says HHH vs Taker at Mania 28 was mediocre....

[Da Solo]

To say HHH never had a great match is a flat out lie. He's had some memorable matches in his career, like it or not. That being said, everything else Bret said or implied is right. HHH's greatness is kinda overrated in general.

The thing about HHH is his longevity granted him one of the best senses of in-ring psychology in the business. However, that's the only real positive. He's good in the ring, but he's not a real masterpiece like the other notable names in the business. He isn't innovative like a Rey Mysterio, he doesn't have an extensive moveset like a CM Punk, he doesn't really have an eccentricity or a distinctive charisma with it like a Booker T, he isn't a master seller like HBK, I could go on here. He could carry the match along, that's it. And if you notice, this kind of ties in with what Bret is saying: HHH has had a couple classics, yes, but HHH's best matches always depend on his opponent. HBK could make a match with anyone look worth watching, Taker made a feud with Mark Henry when he was at his worst and made it work, The Rock made a feud with the Hurrican of all people worth remembering, Hogan couldn't wrestle worth a shit but hyped the crowd like crazy to get them on their feet. My point being, the best wrestlers can have a good match at any time. Look at HHH's best matches: vs. Taker, vs. HBK, vs. Shelton Benjamin, vs. The Rock, vs. Jericho; all these matches had a great competitor. HHH is incapable of carrying a match, as evidenced by some of his worst main-event matches: vs. Vladimir Kozlov, vs. Cena, vs. Scott Steiner, vs. Kevin Nash, etc. Hell, he couldn't even have a good WM main event with a prime Viper version of Orton, which is kinda sad.

HHH has always seemed like the placeholder of legends. He's never done anything where I can say "Damn, only HHH." When Austin went and flipped off Mike Tyson and brawled with him, it was like "Wow, no one else could have pulled that off." When The Rock went and put the whole city of Sacramento on blast with The 1st Rock concert, "No one else." When CM Punk had the pipebomb, "No one else." When Hardy Swantoned off the scaffolding, "No one else." Hell, even Shane McMahon with his crazy Leap of Faith elbow that makes us cringe when he misses, "No one else." HHH never had that. HHH has never done anything that WWE couldn't have plugged someone else in to do. A heel Jericho or Angle could have just as effectively done an Evolution, a brawler like Batista could have made the Orton home invasion spot look just as badass, his only purpose for being in DX was because Shawn loves him; there is nothing he has ever done that made him as a character stick out. Anyone could have been HHH with the right push.

Bret makes a lot of sense here. The only reason his argument seems flawed is because of the common knowledge that he can't stand anyone in the Kliq.

 

[BlackOut10]

Bret doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Austin or Rock....he's not in that league.

I'm far from a HHH mark, but to say what Bret said, and epecially what you're saying, is stupidity.

Austin or The Rock... How old are you... Yes Austin and the rock are very big names no question about that, but in another league than the Hitman. That's stupidity. Bret brought one thing to the wrestling bussiness that very few if any did, and that is authenticity and prestige to the title itself which should be the backbone of the industry but isn't any more due to the high of storyline that bombed in the late 90s.. So Austin and the rock reaped the benifits of Bret harts labor, and killed the since of accomplishment for anyone who one the title after their historic feuded. Which is why the title match hasn't been the center of attention at wrestlemania since WM17... The Rock hogan 18 The Rock Austin 19 who even cares after that.

 

[RicSpade]

I will give Hunter this, he has come a long way from that guy in WCW, to being the whipping boy for the famous kliq incident to being the guy on top and the one to run the company. Here is the thing he has had some pretty intense matches. Cage matches with Mankind, Hell in a Cell with Jericho, the 3 stages of Hell with HBK, and WM 27 with Taker. Here is the thing... Hunter was never a high flyer or a submission specialist, and he was handed the reins by HBK for DX, but the reason he gets a bad rep is because he is a wrestling frankenstein, a cookie cut out of those who help molded him.

Evolution and the whole suit thing happened because of him and his relationship with Flair, he wanted to be like Flair.
DX was him and Shawn being themselves, but when HBK was gone HHH tried to be more like Shawn to get over.

Now in terms of his matches being mediocre I think HHH gets the same bad rep Cena gets sometimes because after a while its the same cookie cutter match the same moves or same sledgehammer spot. Triple H I think had his best matches before the 2000's, with the exception of a few HIAC matches, but I think the wrestler helps make the match, Rock, Foley, HBK, Jericho and Taker do bring the best out of HHH. HHH had a better match and told a better story with Taker at 27 than 28. and I think the reason the HIAC match may be considered mediocre is because the match the year before was so much better

 

[RyanCallaway]

lol, that cracked me up Kong. As to Bret's comments... Bret Hart is my favorite wrestler of all time. That being said, I think he's dead wrong when it comes to Triple H, and particularly H's match with Taker. That was a great match in my opinion and although there are some who disagree - I know I'm not in the minority. I believe H has done more than enough to be considered a Great, even if I was less than pleased with his 02-03 run.

 

[BlackOut10]

The Rock vs Triple H backlash... is that the one one when austin came back
The Rock vs Triple H iron man match was good but only good...
Triple H vs chris Jericho anything not worth remembering
Wrestlemania 27 28 WTF was the that finisher match for the streak
only Triple H vs foley match worth anything was summerslam 97 that was real good...

Stop naming main events from yesturyear that no one cares about.. None of those matches are industry changing... hes a good wrestler nothing wrong with being a good wrestler.. Jeff jarret, kevin nash, rick rude, lol even goldust were good wrestlers..
they worked well but never really left a lasting mark on the industry.

 

[jholcomb22]

I like both HHH and Bret, but part of me is trying to figure why Bret would bring this up now.
HHH is hard to judge because we don't really know how his career would have ended up without his association with Steph and Vince. However, he is a workhorse. Even if he didn't invent a move, or have a business changing match, he still has plenty of moments that everyone remembers.
I also find it odd that Bret is taking shots at HHH late career. If HHH/Taker was a 3 or 4 out of 10, Bret Hart/Vince McMahon was a 0 or 1 out of 10.

Like I said, I'm curious to see if this leads anywhere, otherwise, why say something now?

 

[rasslin]

I agree entirely.. Undertaker has had way better matches with many many other people. That whole match was a spot-fest with just an insane amount of ego.

 

[theHeadliner]

I have always thought to myself that HHH never did anything that stood out or was different or fresh, especially his matches or moves. Not to say he didn't have good matches or moves or spots or whatever, but they just seemed average Joe, plain Jane, vanilla matches and moves or something, I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[BlackOut10]

I like both HHH and Bret, but part of me is trying to figure why Bret would bring this up now.
HHH is hard to judge because we don't really know how his career would have ended up without his association with Steph and Vince. However, he is a workhorse. Even if he didn't invent a move, or have a business changing match, he still has plenty of moments that everyone remembers.
I also find it odd that Bret is taking shots at HHH late career. If HHH/Taker was a 3 or 4 out of 10, Bret Hart/Vince McMahon was a 0 or 1 out of 10.

Like I said, I'm curious to see if this leads anywhere, otherwise, why say something now?

Yes Brets match with Vince might have been lower then even that lol... But in no way is he expected to be judged on that at age 53 or sumthin and Vince in his 60s.. But triple h needs a match, that's all I'm saying.. I don't think his match with taker was a 3 or 4 but it sure wasn't 8 9 or 10... It was better then all matches on the card at 27 but that doesnt say much.. But the The Rock CENA match up staged them in 28. Yes I said Cena. Even I hate the fact that I had to say that. Triple H needs a person who is just as over or underrated as he is to be moved to that status.. Someone like Jeff jarret.. Sadly that will never happen because of legal things.. But that would be it.. Can't be a new talent and can't be someone who was already put over years before he was.. It would have to be someone in his league like Jeff jarrett...

Truth

 

[The Brain]

I love Bret Hart. I enjoy watching his matches more than anyone else’s. Even though Bret Hart put on the best matches for my personal taste to suggest that Triple H has never had a great match is ridiculous. I can name several great Triple H matches and even though I don’t find them to be as great as the greatest Bret Hart matches I still think they are great.

Five great Triple H matches off the top of my head

vs. Cactus Jack: Royal Rumble 2000
vs. Chris Jericho: Fully Loaded 2000
vs. Steve Austin: No Way Out 2001
vs. Shawn Michaels: SummerSlam 2002
vs. Shawn Michaels & Chris Benoit: WrestleMania XX

There are plenty more but those are five great ones without even thinking about it.

 

[Chrome]

I agree with Bret, Triple H isn't GREAT by any means to me.. I mean I think the REAL reason behind that is.. he's never had a true anti-triple H.. or Nemesis to solidify him.

Example:
Hogan/Savage,
Hogan/Andre
Flair/Steamboat
Flair/Sting
Hogan/Flair
Savage/Flair
Bret/HBK,
Undertaker/Mandkind/Kane,
Rock/Stone Cold
Cena/Orton
Cena/Rock??

When you think of Triple H who's his career long nemesis???? who elevated him to heights never seen before?? (Mick Foley was used as a stepping stone for HHH not a long time nemesis like those listed above.) He's never had that one marquee match.. YES he's had a series of GOOD (Like those mentioned in previous posts from 2000-2002) matches like Bret said in the interview but none of them have made him great or special.. all that said I like Triple H but I have a hard time saying "Bret is wrong" because the more I think about it, the more I believe has opinion has merit.

I can't even say HBK/HHH was a feud they didn't feud even a year, if anything it was more memorable for HBK than Trips.. and Rock/HHH feud elevated the Rock more than Triple H..... I dunno he's never had a long lasting feud with anyone that they can call themselves his life long nemsis.

 

[The Brain]

I agree with Bret, Triple H isn't GREAT by any means to me.. I mean I think the REAL reason behind that is.. he's never had a true anti-triple H.. or Nemesis to solidify him.

Example:
Hogan/Savage,
Hogan/Andre
Flair/Steamboat
Flair/Sting
Bret/HBK,
Undertaker/Mandkind/Kane,
Rock/Stone Cold
Cena/Orton
Cena/Rock??

When you think of Triple H who's his career long nemesis???? who elevated him to heights never seen before?? (Mick Foley was used as a stepping stone for HHH not a long time nemesis like those listed above.) He's never had that one marquee match.. YES he's had a series of GOOD (Like those mentioned in previous posts from 2000-2002) matches like Bret said in the interview but none of them have made him great or special.. all that said I like Triple H but I have a hard time saying "Bret s wrong" because the more I think about it, the more I believe has opinion has merit.

I can't even say HBK/HHH was a feud they didn't feud even a year.. and Rock/HHH feud elevated the Rock more than Triple H...

How about the guy in your sig? Triple H had a rivalry going with the Rock pretty much since Rock debuted through the year 2000. They feuded over the IC title and rose to the main event together feuding over the world title. They wrestled in ladder matches, strap matches, iron man matches, among several other matches. They became stars together.

You could say the same about Foley. An awesome mid card feud in 1997 to a main event feud in 2000. Steel cage matches, no holds barred street fights, hell in a cell. Both Foley and Rock were great rivals for Triple H.

 

[The Brain]

Good matches I agree but great?? Do any othese matches add up to..

Hogan vs Andre WM3
Savage vs Steamboat WM3
Warrior vs hogan WM6
Warrior vs Savage WM7
Bret hart vs british bulldog Summerslam 92
Mr. Perfect vs Bret hart Summerslam 91
Shawn michaels vs razor Ramon WM 10
Shawn Michaela vs Bret Hart. Iron Man
Bret Hart vs Steve Austin WM13
Kane vs Austin WarZone June 98
The Rock vs Steve Austin WM15

All the matches you listed are great (except that awful match from WM15)but the match from SummerSlam 2002 can match up to any of these. Even if you think the matches you listed are better doesn't mean Triple H's matches haven't been great. I used to think there were hardly any great matches that didn't involve either Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels because they were my favorites to watch. Once I realized it wasn't fair to hold everyone to that standard I found myself enjoying other matches a lot more. One doesn't have to be the best to be great. Charles Barkley wasn't as good as Michael Jordan but that doesn't mean he wasn't great.

 

[BlackOut10]

How about the guy in your sig? Triple H had a rivalry going with the Rock pretty much since Rock debuted through the year 2000. They feuded over the IC title and rose to the main event together feuding over the world title. They wrestled in ladder matches, strap matches, iron man matches, among several other matches. They became stars together.

You could say the same about Foley. An awesome mid card feud in 1997 to a main event feud in 2000. Steel cage matches, no holds barred street fights, hell in a cell. Both Foley and Rock were great rivals for Triple H.

Great point never really looked at it that way..
Only problem is mankind and the rock were both over before triple h. which is why people only really think of their mid card feud..mankind got over With taker and the rock with Austin... Where does triple h fit..

 

[sanefan_har]

I can honestly sit here and agree about the Taker vs Trips match last year at Wrestlemania. It just wasn't that great. Nothing but chairs, Interference and very little wrestling. I enjoy a good brawl when its scripted well but I don't think this was. Chris Jericho vs CM Punk had me rolling and sitting at the edge of my seat. That match destroyed HIAC. I would go as far as John Cena vs The Rock was even better.

The last sentence is just wrong. Punk - Jericho was a better match but not Rock-Cena.

Back to the OP, I can only agree with 2 things Bret Said about HHH :
1. Triple H was a good wrestler(and storyteller). Not a great wrestler
2. The HIAC match at WM 28 was an intense emotional match. Wrestling wise, however, 4/10.

 

[BlackOut10]

All the matches you listed are great (except that awful match from WM15)but the match from SummerSlam 2002 can match up to any of these. Even if you think the matches you listed are better doesn't mean Triple H's matches haven't been great. I used to think there were hardly any great matches that didn't involve either Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels because they were my favorites to watch. Once I realized it wasn't fair to hold everyone to that standard I found myself enjoying other matches a lot more. One doesn't have to be the best to be great. Charles Barkley wasn't as good as Michael Jordan but that doesn't mean he wasn't great.

You right triple h doesn't have to be the best to be great ,but triple h would be more like a penny hardaway and not Charles. I don't think anyone would agree that hhh vs HBK can live up to the magnitude of hogan vs andre... Never.. The match was better no question ,but not the value..

 

[The Brain]

You right triple h doesn't have to be the best to be great ,but triple h would be more like a penny hardaway and not Charles. I don't think anyone would agree that hhh vs HBK can live up to the magnitude of hogan vs andre... Never.. The match was better no question ,but not the value..

Of course HHH vs. HBK doesn't match the magnitude of Hogan vs. Andre, but it's still a great match. When you make a list of the best matches of that era HHH vs. HBK has to be on it, and pretty close to the top. Keep in mind the comment that sparked this discussion. It was that Triple H NEVER had a great match. Literally never had a great match. That's just ridiculous. Even if you named fifty better matches before naming Triple H's best match that doesn't mean Triple H has never had a great match.

 

[BlackOut10]

Of course HHH vs. HBK doesn't match the magnitude of Hogan vs. Andre, but it's still a great match. When you make a list of the best matches of that era HHH vs. HBK has to be on it, and pretty close to the top. Keep in mind the comment that sparked this discussion. It was that Triple H NEVER had a great match. Literally never had a great match. That's just ridiculous. Even if you named fifty better matches before naming Triple H's best match that doesn't mean Triple H has never had a great match.

I guess.. I didn't think that Summerslam match was that great.. Triple h vs mankind summerslam97 best thing he's put in the ring. 17yr career... Nothing about triple H's body of work jumps off the page.. Workhorse definitely. Great worker. Not great wrestler.. 10yrs from now he'll have nothing that is must see.. No timeless matches.. That's wat Bret is getting at.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

I am one of the people who claimes that HHH will never be this big of a wrestler and had this kind of career if he wasnt "son-in-law". But to say that he wasnt great and that never had great matches is just silly. Certified "Hall of Famer" and he is gona be there because he deserved it. "Son-in-law" or not, he had great career and he could be considered as great wrestler based on that career and his feuds and matches in it.

Now, I agree, it depends what Hart considered as a "great match" but to give last years HHH-Taker just 4/10(with a tendency to be 3/10) is a blasphemy. Not a perfect match to rate it 10 but certanly deserves at least 7...

 

[dukes07]

Of course HHH vs. HBK doesn't match the magnitude of Hogan vs. Andre, but it's still a great match. When you make a list of the best matches of that era HHH vs. HBK has to be on it, and pretty close to the top. Keep in mind the comment that sparked this discussion. It was that Triple H NEVER had a great match. Literally never had a great match. That's just ridiculous. Even if you named fifty better matches before naming Triple H's best match that doesn't mean Triple H has never had a great match.

Well he is ultimately trolling. I am no fan of most of Hogan's career, as well as Trips and Cena and I can attest that all three have had some kick-ass matches; matches where I have been really into it. It may have been obvious that they would win but I still on the edge of my seat....Sure, he dismantled WCW guys on a weekly basis 2000 onwards, and especially in 03. I am not sure how much that it politicking or Vince or both. But, undoubtedly HHH has had a huge impact on the business and he has had some high quality matches. Even if they are not four or five star matches, you know that he is going to work his ass off (I have yet to see the Steiner match).

Funny thing is, I really enjoyed Trips' brief feud with Hogan. The match was not great and the build up was done quickly, but I thought it was well done.

 

[BlackOut10]

King of kings Triple H vs chosen one Jeff Jarrett Wrestlemania 30

Both self proclaimed non deserving name titles..

Only way I get interested in a triple h match that doesn't already have legend/HOF in it

 

[ilapierre]

Bret Hart`s the man. Finally, someone of his stature came out and said what many of his peers think. The only thing I disagree with Bret on is that Triple H has had some great matches..but only where he was carried by his opponent i.e. Mick Foley, i.e. Shawn i.e. Taker. I think when Bret means truly `great`matches he means top 30 or top 50 all time. Cause there`s no disputing Triple H has participated in great matches, angles and rivalries. The one excellent match Triple H participated in that Bret fails to mention is the one with Michaels and Benoit at WM20. Don`t know if you can dispute the fact that this match was epic. Thing is Triple H was carried by the two best all time pound for pound wrestlers in that match. The match could have been just Shawn vs Benoit alone though. So I think that`s what Bret means. Triple H brought a great heel character to the match but he didn`t really bring any innovation or anything absolutely awe inspiring. There are not a lot of future wrestlers who will say they watched WWE and crafted their wrestling style on watching Triple H. Maybe their heel gimmick but definitely not their actual ring style. Because it`s generic.

Yeah, Bret wasn`t completely knocking Triple H. He felt that he was a good wrestler with a great look. Triple H was destined to be a top heel with or without Shawn or Stephanie. I`ve heard this many times before from other Triple H haters but Triple H really should have had a career similar to Jake Roberts. Roberts was completely underrated. He could have been the world champ once or twice. In this day and age maybe three or four times. But he played the perfect heel. He had that heel psyche. So does Triple H. People hated Roberts and he was fantastic at elevating fan hatred as a heel. He was one of the best at that. Trips has a bit of that in him although nowhere near as innovative as Roberts. I`d definitely prefer an old school Roberts match to a Trips match any day.

One of the things that diminishes Triple H to a lot of us is he won way too many title in proportion to his drawing power. He had no business having the world title 13 times. As Bret said, Triple H didn`t have the ìt`factor that CM Punk or Shawn Michaels had. He was a big body and his matches weren`t technically innovative or all that interesting. Most wrestlers never make it to the top without being technically innovative or having just average charisma.

And to some of you smarky smarks who think everything Taker`s involved in is gold, let me tell ya: Hart`s right. I love Taker but there`s only so much writhing and laying around and overselling I can take in a Taker streak match. Yeah I saw it vs Michaels the first and second time. It was epic the first time, the second time a little less so. Against Taker the third time it was completely overdone and ridiculous. Last year it was just flat out annoying. Taker`s the deadman. He`s suppose to be able to sit up and withstand punishment. I get he`s old and worn down but c`mon. How could Triple H take more out of him than anyone in his entire career combined. It doesn`t make sense. If Taker`s gonna take 20 minutes to get up, shouldn`t that be after a match with someone as young and physically superior as perhaps Brock Lensar. Ultimately, last WM both Taker and Trips sold being broken down to an annoying level which diminished the match. Technically a 3 or 4 like Bret said. Overall entertainment value I`d give it a 6 or 7 as there was a lot of good in between all the writhing around the ring. Don`t want to get into a smark fight, I love Taker`s streak matches. I get that Taker and Michaels and Taker and Trips were trying to recreate in their epic matches the same magic of worn down Randy Savage at Wrestlemania 7. But really, enough`s enough. I want to see Taker show up at Wrestlemania and just obliterate his next opponent. None of this writhing around the ring bullshit unless it`s epic like vs Shawn in rounds 1 and 2 or against someone as put together as Brock Lesnar.

As a poster above said, Trips will never be remembered on the same level as Bret or Shawn. He will always be remembered as the second or third choice who was forced. Not as a natural innovator like Austin or Rock or an amazing mat technician like Hart or Michaels or a charismatic entertainer like Savage or Flair. He`s basically that guy everyone knows at work who buttkisses their way to the top and makes way too much money and gets way too much credit than he really deserves.

 

[WWEIsLife2]

As much as I love Bret Hart I disagree with him here. Last year's HHH/Taker Match was awesome and it told a Story much like The Hitman did in every Match he was involved in. Who cares how much Wrestling it had,it wasn't about the Wrestling part of it. It had a Story and Emotion with the HIAC along with it. HBK also playing his part as Referee added to the Story.

 

[CaptainZaltan]

I agree with Bret 100% (or, lets say 90%). I really don't understand what people saw in either HHH/Taker match. I watched both with a group of wrestling fan friends and not one of us thought it was a great match, certainly not worthy of the praise it received. Technically, it was dull, consisting of mostly brawling, rest holds, and over selling. Did it tell a story? Sure. A story I found to be Shatner-esque (meaning it was cheesily over dramatic). That doesn't mean it was bad, it just wasn't great. Which is what Bret is saying about Hunter, although he probably could have been less blunt about it.

The problem with what Bret is saying is that he's failing to define what he considers greatness, which makes his exclusion of Hunter sound like a slight (when really, he might just be excluding Hunter from a group of a half dozen wrestlers that he calls great. We don't know). IMO, Hunter is an above average talent with a good look and good mic skills, but nothing about him has ever screamed "great" to me. I mean, who can we honestly say is GREAT? Only a handful of wrestlers. Title wins aside, does anyone really think he is in the same league as Michaels, Austin, The Rock, Hart, or Flair? Every one of those wrestlers is superior to Hunter in the ring, and only Bret has inferior mic skills to him. Personally, I think HHH has always been just behind that level of 'greatness' (but in his defense, I also place some of my favorite wrestlers of all time, like Jericho and Guerrero, on that tier). And if we are talking in terms of pure in-ring skills/innovation (which I think Bret is), HHH would also come in behind Angle, Jericho, Punk, Daniel Bryan, Benoit, Henning, Guerrero, etc etc. Those guys are/were pure wrestling innovators, whereas HHH is and always has been mainly a brawler. Mind you, that's not to say that Trips isn't talented or doesn't have a respectable ratio of strengths vs weaknesses. To his credit HHH has run with the skills he has, whether in the ring, on the mic, or behind the scenes, and has managed to reach the upper echelon of talent in his industry (a level never reached by many wrestlers with more talent than him, but less determination/focus/brains). Do we really need to falsely credit him as a wrestling innovator to pad his already lengthy list of accomplishments?

Has HHH had great matches? Personally, I'd say he's been in a few near-great contests, and maybe even one or two great ones. However, I haven't seen one where I'd give him majority credit for said greatness. Hunter has just happened to cross paths with some of the most talented wrestlers of all time, and has been good enough to hang with them. However, his matches against those talents have always been inferior to when such truly great talents have faced each other (either HBK vs Undertaker match easily trumps either HHH vs Undertaker match, for example). But really, it all depends on what your opinion of 'great' is. Once again, HHH has always been primarily a brawler, which doesn't do it for me. I'm also not a fan of the rampant over-selling in HHH matches ( you know, where after a few basic moves he and his opponent are crawling around struggling to get to their feet for the rest of the match). But again, it depends on what you like.

At the end of the day, Bret isn't insulting Hunter; he even says Hunter is good, which coming from Bret Hart is high praise. He's just bluntly stating that he doesn't think Hunter is great. Big deal. The world will still turn, and HHH will still go down in history as one of the most successful wrestlers of all time. Bret's entitled to his opinion, and personally I think it has merit. Others will disagree, and hell, HHH probably doesn't consider Bret great either. I just hope Bret hasn't burned any bridges by giving his honest opinion.

 

[AhSpicyDrop]

Last year it was just flat out annoying. Taker`s the deadman. He`s suppose to be able to sit up and withstand punishment. I get he`s old and worn down but c`mon. Taker sells being broken down to an annoying level. I get that he and Michaels and he and Trips are trying to recreate worn down Randy Savage at Wrestlemania 7 every time they square off. But really, enough`s enough. I want to see Taker show up at Wrestlemania and just obliterate his next opponent. None of this writhing around the ring bullshit unless it`s epic like vs Shawn in rounds 1 and 2.

The whole thing with Taker sitting up and being practically immune to damage was tied into the urn. They covered that story immensely during his feud with the Million Dollar Corporation, Yokozuna, and even Mankind. He's pretty much been a regular worker with a high threshold for pain since the Mankind feud. And it makes sense that the older he gets the less pain he can take. Again, it's all about suspending the disbelief and getting into the characters. The story of the streak is obviously one of the biggest attractions when it comes to Mania so why would they tarnish it by having Undertaker just thrash his opponents... The whole thing that makes it exciting is believing that someone will FINALLY beat him.

Trips will never be remembered on the same level as Bret or Shawn.

He`s basically that guy everyone knows at work who buttkisses their way to the top and makes way too much money and gets way too much credit than he really deserves.

You come off as sounding like one of those marks who got angry with Triple H for "holding people back", which is debatable. Most of the people he supposedly held back were most likely never going to make it anyway or they would have achieved it in spite of him, or anyone else. The fact of the matter is Triple H has done a lot for the business, and continues to do so considering this in flux of bright stars that keep showing up in the WWE these days.

You can say a lot about Triple H but he was already at the top before he married into the McMahon family... DX opened the door for Triple H, and he refused to let that door close.

Triple H helped bring Randy Orton and Batista to the Main Event scene first through the Evolution stable and then through feuding with both of them. He opened the door for those two like Michaels opened the door for him; but he gets no credit for that.

He also helped make Benoit look like a credible champion in spite of having no microphone skills. Triple H tapped for him on the biggest stage, in one of the biggest matches of that era. There's countless other selfless things that Trips has done along the way, but he's only remembered for the "holding people back"... Kind of makes you wonder why Steve Austin doesn't take criticism like this considering he made a hell of a lot more money than Triple H and made a hell of a lot less stars than Trips has

You're right though, Triple H probably won't be remembered in the same light as Bret or Shawn, because he's going to transcend them as eventually owning the company along with Stephanie. That's the ultimate win in the end. Case closed.