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

[theHeadliner]

I'm sorry but this type of revisionism doesn't hold up when you post it to people who actually watched WCW and WWF back then.

Few points.

- 1996 was the WWF's worst year and that entire year was based on HBK being the top dog.



From a business standpoint, according to Shawn, Vince, and Bret from his book-- 1996 was the best business year they had in 6 years.

In a shoot interview from 1997 on RAW right in the middle of their intense heat, Shawn said that in 1996, when Bret took it off "to see if the WWF would fall flat on it's face without him," it was the best business WWF did in 6years. Vince said "You're right," when he asked Vince "your the boss am I right or wrong?" And Bret in his book said, when referring to that specific shoot Shawn did cus he took personal shots at Bret in it, that when he took the torch it was under the harsh light of sex and steroid scandals, which resulted in the bad business for WWF. Bret put most of that whole interview Shawn did in his book, explaining his side of it after each part Shawn said.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

I agree with Bret on this one for the most part. I think Triple H has had a solid career that most performers would be happy with and many others wish they could have.
He is talented, good in the ring, ok on the mike, better as a heel than a face, imo, but to each their own.

He was a guy forced into the main event picture when the big stars were injured or had left, when it was useful to have him, or when he really wasn't needed and was more of a distraction from the matchups people really wanted to see.

Just because he gets pushed to the heavens by WWE management and given cool nicknames, doesn't make it true.

Taker vs. H was a let down, it had some good moments but it wasn't great.

H isn't innovative, all the moves he does and the way he does his matches have been done by a lot better and in some cases, underappreciated performers. Kurt Angle, Benoit, Bret,HBK, Mick Foley were innovators, H isn't/

Greatness is impact, and connection with fans, not the number of titles you've won or how much you're promoted by WWE. He never carried an era, he never carried the company (at least not successfully), he did play his part, but to say he's great is an exaggeration.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I agree with Bret on this one for the most part. I think Triple H has had a solid career that most performers would be happy with and many others wish they could have. He is talented, good in the ring, ok on the mike, better as a heel than a face, imo, but to each their own.

13 World title reigns, 5 Intercontinental title reigns, a Royal Rumble win, the 2nd ever Grand Slam champion, ranked as PWI's wrestler of the decade and leading two of the greatest factions in the history of pro wrestling. That is not a "solid career", that is a career worthy of the Hall of Fame. As a headliner. He is one of the most consistently good ring workers ever, is my personal favorite promo man ever, and has made a ton of money and had success as both a heel and face. I will agree that he's better at being a villain though.

He was a guy forced into the main event picture when the big stars were injured or had left, when it was useful to have him, or when he really wasn't needed and was more of a distraction from the matchups people really wanted to see.

At first, he was definitely a fill-in for main event talents. Aren't most guys when they first start to show up at the top of the roster? Everyone has to be replaced eventually. But I outright reject the idea that he was just thrown into the main event, and wasn't useful or need. He was the dominant heel of Monday Night Raw for almost two years. He lead Evolution to capturing all the gold on Raw, and participated in some of the greatest rivalries with all three of his Evolution partners. And that's to say nothing of his time with DX. Triple H made guys like Randy Orton, Chris Benoit, Batista; in smaller ways, even John Cena. He was a big deal, for a long time. To relegate him to unimportant or unnecessary is just ignorant.

Just because he gets pushed to the heavens by WWE management and given cool nicknames, doesn't make it true.

He was given the nickname "cerebral assassin" because he was a smart heel who liked to get in his opponent's heads. Is he really the "king of kings"? No, he's god damn pro wrestlers. Suspend your disbelief a bit. Of course it doens't make them true.

Taker vs. H was a let down, it had some good moments but it wasn't great.

I think it was great, albeit very predictable. Bret talks about being able to call every moment of that match in his head, and I get that. It was textbook. That doesn't make it 3 or 4 stars though. I'd say at worst it gets an average rating of 7/10.

H isn't innovative, all the moves he does and the way he does his matches have been done by a lot better and in some cases, underappreciated performers. Kurt Angle, Benoit, Bret,HBK, Mick Foley were innovators, H isn't/

Very few people are innovators. Kurt ANgle is fantastic, maybe the best wrestler ever, but he's just perfecting what other people have done as well. He's a suplex machine and submission specialist; did he create or invent any of his holds or throws? Shawn Michaels took the little man idea and brought it to the main event; wasn't the first small guy to wrestle, just the first to make it to the very top, and bust open the door for a lot of other people. And technically, Bret did it first. A lot of those guys you listed are just as innovative as Triple H, but all recognized for different things. So maybe he's not in the Top 5 of all time. Maybe he's not Shawn Michaels. But not being HBK doesn't mean he isn't still great.

Greatness is impact, and connection with fans, not the number of titles you've won or how much you're promoted by WWE. He never carried an era, he never carried the company (at least not successfully), he did play his part, but to say he's great is an exaggeration.

He never carried the company? Evolution. Triple H. World Heavyweight Champion. Feuds with Shawn Micahels, Chris Benoit, then on to Randy Orton, Batista, John Cena. He was, if not the sole company carrier for at least two years, a part of one or two other guys who you can credit. He was also only on Raw for a very long time; you can't fault him for the brand split. If it weren't for Triple H post-Attitude Era, I would have stopped watching Raw all together.

As for connection with the fans? I want you to listen to something:
[YOUTUBE]dO0RRmdaYlE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I have to agree with Bret Hart's views on HHH to an extent. HHH was the best wrestler on the planet in 2000. You can't deny his track record that year with great matches with Foley, Rock, Angle, Jericho, and Benoit. Other than 2000, he's been pretty medicore. He was never the same after his first quad tear and the majority of his matches in 2002 and 2003 stuck up the joint. I don't put him on the level of guys like Hogan, Austin, or even Cena.

 

[mace87]

Triple H is a true great and it suprises me that anyone would think otherwise granted he does use the same set of moves in every match but every wrestler does(undertaker old school, snake eyes, leg drop on apron, chokeslam, tombstone etc). The first ever PPV main event I saw was Triple H V Cactus Jack in the hell in a cell match at no way out 2000 and from that moment he was my favourite wrestler.
He's been in two of the biggest stables in wrestling in DX and Evolution had great rivalries and matches with HBK, Rock, Austin, Undertaker, Orton, Angle and Foley to name a few. Even now in the latter stages of his career help put over the likes of Rhodes & Dibiase as legacy with DX in 09 (Summerslam 09, Breaking Point 09 & Hell in a Cell 09) and Sheamus when they had a pretty good rivalry around WM 26 etc.
He is strong on the mic selling stories and matches as both a face and a heel oh and imo is a deserved 13 time world champ and I would have happily seen him equal or even surpass Flairs 16 times as champ but that won't happen now. So like I said at the beginning of this comment I'm surprised that anyone wouldn't consider him a legit great.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

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.

Yet both Austin and Rock consider it an honor to be mentioned in the same breath as Bret Hart.

Don't be such a mark.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

No. Rock was massively over before 1999. It was painfully obvious when they cheered him, still a heel, over Foley and Shamrock in that triple threat steel cage, which was before 1999 if I remember correctly.

Just wanted to say that I was at that show and I remember that. The crowd was huge into the Rock that night. I remember more though, that my section, and the one beside mine pretty much turned Ken Shamrock heel that night. (well he was still face, but after getting booed as loud as he did on PPV, and how he didn't seem to be able to handle it, then turned him heel a few weeks later).

Beyond that, as far as Hart's comments... they are what they are. Hart is more critical than any fan... partly because he knows what he's talking about more than any fan possibly could. He's also a guy that's not afraid to say something negative about a guy like Triple H, because he was good with his money, and he doesn't need the WWE.

I didn't even really see him being that negative though. Just more shocking because we're not used to seeing guys be critical of Triple H. Hunter is/was a very good wrestler. Hart freely admits that. He just wasn't one of the all time greats, which is where Hart gets critical because that's how Hunter is viewed today.

I mean HHH is second all time in number of World titles won (WWE,WWF,WCW,NWA,WWE World). Is HHH the guy that should have received THAT push? Absolutely not.

When you think of the all time greats. The absolute best of the best... does Triple H have a place on that highest rung of the ladder, or is he one or two rungs down? When you rank the greatest matches ever, how many do you list before you get to a Triple H match, and how many do you rank before you get to a match that Triple H was the star in?

That's what I see Hart saying more than anything. Just keeping things in perspective. He's a good performer. I enjoy watching him. He tells a good story in the ring. He does everything good. But to me at least, that's about it. He's always been very good. Never great.

 

[Wrestling101]

Yet both Austin and Rock consider it an honor to be mentioned in the same breath as Bret Hart.

Don't be such a mark.

By the look of it, you're the mark......don't be mad just because someone pointed out that Hart isn't on that level. He said some stupid things the other day that were very wrong. His opinion pretty much means nothing now. I thought he was smarter than that, but I guess not.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

By the look of it, you're the mark......don't be mad just because someone pointed out that Hart isn't on that level. He said some stupid things the other day that were very wrong. His opinion pretty much means nothing now. I thought he was smarter than that, but I guess not.

This should be fun.

Please, since I'm the one that's the mark here... enlighten me as to how Hart isn't on their level? He's a guy that would get as much fan mail as Hulk Hogan. He was the biggest International draw that the WWF had. Just like Austin and later the Rock, he was the guy that the company picked to carry it on his back. Just like Austin and later the Rock, he was the cataclyst for one of the biggest angles that the companies ever done (Canada vs USA). He's crafted some of the greatest matches ever seen. Many of the people he worked with, when you look back at their best work, it was with Hart.

Please explain how what he said was 'very wrong'? If you look above, I've already explained how I feel he was right on the money. How exactly was it so very wrong?

Please. Take me to "wrestling 101" like your name says.

 

[Wrestling101]

He's a guy that would get as much fan mail as Hulk Hogan.

Link?

He was the biggest International draw that the WWF had.

Link?

Just like Austin and later the Rock, he was the guy that the company picked to carry it on his back.

Yup, we're in agreement here. WWE did pick him, and I never said he wasn't the biggest draw of his era....but I think we can all agree the roster was incredibly weak during that time, through no fault of his own. That doesn't mean he was on Austin's and Rock's level.

Just like Austin and later the Rock, he was the cataclyst for one of the biggest angles that the companies ever done (Canada vs USA).

Link? That storyline was just another one, not 'one of the biggest angles that the companies ever done'. Just because you yourself marked out for the storyline enough to make it your sig doesn't mean it was one of the biggest angles ever.

He's crafted some of the greatest matches ever seen. Many of the people he worked with, when you look back at their best work, it was with Hart.

Yeah, I like many of his matches. I never said that. He's a great wrestler.....but let's not fool ourselves. It's been pointed out in this thread that he was very predictable and his matches were too.

Please explain how what he said was 'very wrong'? If you look above, I've already explained how I feel he was right on the money. How exactly was it so very wrong.

I didn't bother to read what you posted earlier...I imagine it was similar to the other couple of guys that tried to say he was right from earlier in the thread. And they have already been proven wrong. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it can't be wrong. HHH has had great matches and great feuds. Hart just comes off as extremely bitter when he's quoted as saying what he said. Let me just put it like this.....HHH has done and will do more for the business than Hart ever did.

And about the specific comment about Hart not being on Austin's and Rock's level.....it's not meant as a dis to Hart....the people on that level are very few. Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Cena are on that level. That's it. On the level right below that is probably HBK, Hart, HHH, Savage....I don't know, I'm probably forgetting a couple.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

13 World title reigns, 5 Intercontinental title reigns, a Royal Rumble win, the 2nd ever Grand Slam champion, ranked as PWI's wrestler of the decade and leading two of the greatest factions in the history of pro wrestling. That is not a "solid career", that is a career worthy of the Hall of Fame. As a headliner. He is one of the most consistently good ring workers ever, is my personal favorite promo man ever, and has made a ton of money and had success as both a heel and face. I will agree that he's better at being a villain though.

The number of title reigns he's had comes nowhere close to the impact that Austin, Rock, Hogan had. Neither does his PWI ranking or his running two great factions. Austin, Rock, HHH and Foley could all wrestle for 3 years, give HHH the title that entire time, and two more factions to lead and he still would be the shadow of Austin, Rock, and Foley. Hogan, Austin, Rock, Bruno Sammartino didn't have 13 world title reigns and I think they're more significant than H. And you said it yourself, 'he is one of the most consistently good workers ever ....'

At first, he was definitely a fill-in for main event talents. Aren't most guys when they first start to show up at the top of the roster? Everyone has to be replaced eventually. But I outright reject the idea that he was just thrown into the main event, and wasn't useful or need. He was the dominant heel of Monday Night Raw for almost two years. He lead Evolution to capturing all the gold on Raw, and participated in some of the greatest rivalries with all three of his Evolution partners. And that's to say nothing of his time with DX. Triple H made guys like Randy Orton, Chris Benoit, Batista; in smaller ways, even John Cena. He was a big deal, for a long time. To relegate him to unimportant or unnecessary is just ignorant.


When Austin was gone, Rock, Foley and H were there. The Rock was the better option not H, yet he held the title more often than Rock did. The company didn't need that. He carried the title after Rock Austin and Foley were gone and he did an okay job, but there were a number of people who were over and denied the opportunity to get the title because H played the politics. He puts over Benoit, who loses the title to Orton, who loses the title back to H. He puts over Batista, a friend or member of Evolution. There was no one else who was better in the ring or just as over as Batista ? Doubt that's the case. To ignore the role politics played in his career and his number of reigns isn't just ignorant, it's delusional.

He was given the nickname "cerebral assassin" because he was a smart heel who liked to get in his opponent's heads. Is he really the "king of kings"? No, he's god damn pro wrestlers. Suspend your disbelief a bit. Of course it doens't make them true.


He was given the nicknames to make him cool to his fans. To make him more marketable to their base. To sell more t-shirts, more posters, etc. Some of you just think that makes him better than he really is.

I think it was great, albeit very predictable. Bret talks about being able to call every moment of that match in his head, and I get that. It was textbook. That doesn't make it 3 or 4 stars though. I'd say at worst it gets an average rating of 7/10.


I wish you'd given me grades in school, if you think that match was a 7 out of 10. It had some good moments but it really could have been better.

Very few people are innovators. Kurt ANgle is fantastic, maybe the best wrestler ever, but he's just perfecting what other people have done as well. He's a suplex machine and submission specialist; did he create or invent any of his holds or throws? Shawn Michaels took the little man idea and brought it to the main event; wasn't the first small guy to wrestle, just the first to make it to the very top, and bust open the door for a lot of other people. And technically, Bret did it first. A lot of those guys you listed are just as innovative as Triple H, but all recognized for different things. So maybe he's not in the Top 5 of all time. Maybe he's not Shawn Michaels. But not being HBK doesn't mean he isn't still great.


He isn't the athlete that HBK, not as charismatic as the Rock, not as profitable as Hogan, Austin or Rock, not as technically sound as Bret, Benoit or Angle, not as great on the mike as Rock, not as innovative as Hardy, Savage, or others, so what is he great at ? Politics, is the only thing I can think of.

He never carried the company? Evolution. Triple H. World Heavyweight Champion. Feuds with Shawn Micahels, Chris Benoit, then on to Randy Orton, Batista, John Cena. He was, if not the sole company carrier for at least two years, a part of one or two other guys who you can credit. He was also only on Raw for a very long time; you can't fault him for the brand split. If it weren't for Triple H post-Attitude Era, I would have stopped watching Raw all together.


H did carry the Raw brand and the company but nowhere as well as others and when Cena came to Raw and he outperformed H. Now Evolution was good but if H didn't have political clout it might have been even better. Evolution having a stranglehold on the Raw brand wasn't helpful when more over performers were denied the shot to unseat him. Maybe RVD, Booket T, Jeff Hardy -performers rumoured to take the belt from H - may have flopped, they might have succeeded, but it could have been tried. Evolution's run had as much to do with H's politicking as much as their ability to draw or perform in the ring.


H is good, one of the all time greats ? Far from it. Bruno carried WWWF to success in his era. Hogan carried the 80s through the cartoon era. Bret had nowhere near the same success during his era as top of the company, even H made more more money, but few could compete with Hogan or Bruno. Austin carried the attitude era with Rock a close second and honourable mention to Foley and DX. Triple H had his run but it was short, Cena was the one who really carried the Post Attitude Era more than any one else.

 

[BlackOut10]

By the look of it, you're the mark......don't be mad just because someone pointed out that Hart isn't on that level. He said some stupid things the other day that were very wrong. His opinion pretty much means nothing now. I thought he was smarter than that, but I guess not.

Bret told the truth... No one in wwe seems to do that these days.. Triple H is a good wrestler that's it.. He should be proud.. 13 time world champ.. Soon Cena will be able to be 13 time world champ and they will be exactly the same.. Pushed down our throats with no great results..

 

[ilapierre]

I`d just like to add to my previous comments that many Triple H marks are missing the point when it comes to being objective. I used to hate Triple H when he was the entire focus of WWE last decade. It was hard to be objective about him because I couldn`t stand him and the way he reached the top. I stopped watching WWE regularly when Rock and Austin left the `Triple H show`when his wife was actually trying to diminish their legacies in favour of her husband.

These days I try my hardest to be objective about Triple H`s contribution to wrestling and I think I`m able to do that and maybe perhaps give him a little more credit than he deserves. He will be remembered as one of the best because of his 13 titles. Without that number of titles, Triple H ranks perhaps top 40 ever instead of top 20 as an overall main event entertainer. Shawn only had 4 titles but he on his own as an entertainer transcends the title or main event. Like Ricky Steamboat. Guys like Triple H needed all those titles to create his legacy. But real talents like Piper never needed a belt to be considered among the all time best. Objectively speaking, without the world titles and dominant role he played for over a decade due to his security blanket, Triple H doesn`t have a career any better than Scott Hall or Kevin Nash. That`s no knock to him. It just means he wouldn`t be headlining today without his connections. He`d be long gone like a Marc Mero or, at best, be an off again on again guy with three times less the charisma of Chris Jericho.

So I ask some of you Triple H marks who jump to his defense aggressively and annoying to remember this. Bret Hart is secure financially. He has little to lose and is at a point in life where he can speak his mind without having his career ruined. Hart`s saying what he thinks. He`s not saying what he`s suppose to or what he thinks people want to hear. And he`s being pretty damn objective about what he`s saying. That`s something to respect. The Hitman is one of the all time greats. He`s had some of the best matches of all time, he understands the business and he`s had to work with, and now for, Triple H. If you don`t like that he calls Triple H a good wrestler well tough shit. Hart`s definition of good is the same as what many of you consider great. He`s just saying Triple H wasn`t one of the best 20 ever and he`s right if you`re gonna be objective. Bret Hart is, objectively, one of the best 10, maye 5 and he`s one of my all time favourites but he definitely wasn`t the greatest or close to it on the mic. His matches were always great but they weren`t quite as great as the best Savage or Michaels matches although there`s so many of them at about that level. Hitman objectively looks at everything Triple H accomplished and then compares it to his drawing power, ring ability, creativity, overall look and can`t understand how someone so average held double the amount of world titles and was front and center for over a decade. Bret`s points are valid and we should all appreciate such objectivity.

 

[BlackOut10]

Link?



Link?



Yup, we're in agreement here. WWE did pick him, and I never said he wasn't the biggest draw of his era....but I think we can all agree the roster was incredibly weak during that time, through no fault of his own. That doesn't mean he was on Austin's and Rock's level.



Link? That storyline was just another one, not 'one of the biggest angles that the companies ever done'. Just because you yourself marked out for the storyline enough to make it your sig doesn't mean it was one of the biggest angles ever.



Yeah, I like many of his matches. I never said that. He's a great wrestler.....but let's not fool ourselves. It's been pointed out in this thread that he was very predictable and his matches were too.



I didn't bother to read what you posted earlier...I imagine it was similar to the other couple of guys that tried to say he was right from earlier in the thread. And they have already been proven wrong. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it can't be wrong. HHH has had great matches and great feuds. Hart just comes off as extremely bitter when he's quoted as saying what he said. Let me just put it like this.....HHH has done and will do more for the business than Hart ever did.

And about the specific comment about Hart not being on Austin's and Rock's level.....it's not meant as a dis to Hart....the people on that level are very few. Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Cena are on that level. That's it. On the level right below that is probably HBK, Hart, HHH, Savage....I don't know, I'm probably forgetting a couple.

I don't think any real wrestling fan can any of what your writing seriously. Bret told it like it was.. Triple H has had no feud worth remembering he's had no match worth watching again. And he will never make a fraction of the impact that Break Hart has made on the business Ring wise.. Maybe as a booker behind the curtain and thats only because Bret will never book an event.

Brutus beefcake - Cena. Bad
Bam bam Bigelow - Triple H. Good
Randy Savage - Bret Hart. Great

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Link?



Link?



Yup, we're in agreement here. WWE did pick him, and I never said he wasn't the biggest draw of his era....but I think we can all agree the roster was incredibly weak during that time, through no fault of his own. That doesn't mean he was on Austin's and Rock's level.



Link? That storyline was just another one, not 'one of the biggest angles that the companies ever done'. Just because you yourself marked out for the storyline enough to make it your sig doesn't mean it was one of the biggest angles ever.



Yeah, I like many of his matches. I never said that. He's a great wrestler.....but let's not fool ourselves. It's been pointed out in this thread that he was very predictable and his matches were too.



I didn't bother to read what you posted earlier...I imagine it was similar to the other couple of guys that tried to say he was right from earlier in the thread. And they have already been proven wrong. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it can't be wrong. HHH has had great matches and great feuds. Hart just comes off as extremely bitter when he's quoted as saying what he said. Let me just put it like this.....HHH has done and will do more for the business than Hart ever did.

And about the specific comment about Hart not being on Austin's and Rock's level.....it's not meant as a dis to Hart....the people on that level are very few. Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Cena are on that level. That's it. On the level right below that is probably HBK, Hart, HHH, Savage....I don't know, I'm probably forgetting a couple.

Don't need links. Try reading the guys book. It's all in there.

As far as the sig goes... would you listen to me more if I threw up one of my Cena sigs? Maybe the Jim Morrison one? It's just a graphic. Nothing more.

Whether or not you consider him to be on the level of Austin or the Rock... that's all subjective. Fans opinions will always be different on that stuff. My original point, which led me to tell you to stop being a mark, is that Austin and Rock themselves, guys who's opinion hold a little more weight than yours or mine, do consider Bret Hart to be on their level, and they're not looking at the kayfabed accomplishments of their worked sport.

Not really surprised you didn't actually read anything. Really I'm not surprised at all. Kinda funny though, because your last comments about Hart there, how you're not dissing Hart, are pretty much echoing what I said Hart was saying about HHH...

except when you say that HHH has done far more in the business than Hart ever did. I don't even know that Hunter would agree with that statement. You're just proving you know next to nothing about either of their careers when you say that.

Like you said, just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean that it's not wrong. The thing is... I don't mind being wrong at all. You're just doing nothing to actually prove that I am. Most likely because what Hart was saying went completely over your head.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

I don't think any real wrestling fan can any of what your writing seriously. Bret told it like it was.. Triple H has had no feud worth remembering he's had no match worth watching again. And he will never make a fraction of the impact that Break Hart has made on the business Ring wise.. Maybe as a booker behind the curtain and thats only because Bret will never book an event.

Brutus beefcake - Cena. Bad
Bam bam Bigelow - Triple H. Good
Randy Savage - Bret Hart. Great

It's actually a shame that Hart won't ever book an event... because I think he's a guy that could do a pretty good job. Or at least, in the old Pat Patterson position of coming up with the finishes or laying out matches.

He did book back in Stampede, and he wasn't that bad with it.

Probably better laying out finishes though.

 

[The Brain]

So I ask some of you Triple H marks who jump to his defense aggressively and annoying to remember this. Bret Hart is secure financially. He has little to lose and is at a point in life where he can speak his mind without having his career ruined. Hart`s saying what he thinks. He`s not saying what he`s suppose to or what he thinks people want to hear. And he`s being pretty damn objective about what he`s saying. That`s something to respect.

Except Bret Hart has always had a problem with Triple H. Even before he returned in 2010 I always thought Bret hated Triple H even more than he did Michaels.

The Hitman is one of the all time greats. He`s had some of the best matches of all time, he understands the business and he`s had to work with, and now for, Triple H. If you don`t like that he calls Triple H a good wrestler well tough shit. Hart`s definition of good is the same as what many of you consider great. He`s just saying Triple H wasn`t one of the best 20 ever and he`s right if you`re gonna be objective. Bret Hart is, objectively, one of the best 10, maye 5 and he`s one of my all time favourites but he definitely wasn`t the greatest or close to it on the mic. His matches were always great but they weren`t quite as great as the best Savage or Michaels matches although there`s so many of them at about that level. Hitman objectively looks at everything Triple H accomplished and then compares it to his drawing power, ring ability, creativity, overall look and can`t understand how someone so average held double the amount of world titles and was front and center for over a decade. Bret`s points are valid and we should all appreciate such objectivity.

I'm not saying Triple H is the greatest. In my opinion he isn't as good as Bret Hart was. That doesn't mean he wasn't great. Does a wrestler have to be just as good as the very best to be considered great? Lou Gehrig wasn't as good as Babe Ruth. Does that mean Lou Gehrig was not a great baseball player? Why can't people just say Triple H has had some great matches even if they weren't as great as Bret's and Shawn's?

Can you honestly tell me Triple H has never had a great match?

 

[ilapierre]

Blackout: I agree with a lot of what you say about Triple H. Not some of the minor points but definitely the overall argument. Just an observation on your last post though. Cena`s definitely no Beefcake. He probably would be Beefcake in the 80s had he wrestled then. But objectively Cena has had far more of an impact than Beefcake. Cena isn`t bad, he`s not just good either. He`s great. Not amazing or excellent or one of the best ever. He`s in the same category as Triple H. Triple H is far better than Bam Bam Bigelow although Bigelow had a ton of potential that was never realized. Bam Bam would be in the good category along with Beefcake. Triple H would be more like Jake Roberts or Ted Dibiase caliber. Unlike them, he overachieved rather than underachieved but, like them, was a top heel. As much as I don`t want to say it, objectively Trips would be in the great category. The great category would be guys who never became icons and Trips would be somewhere in that category. Savage and Hart would be in the excellent category consisting of maybe 20 wrestlers. I agree with you there.

The only reason I feel the need to disagree with you on that point is that your subjective bias against Trips weakens your overall argument. It lessens your credibility to some around here if you don`t give the guy a little credit where it`s due. Not meaning to detract because I agree for the most part but, as Brain said earlier, Triple H and The Rock had a very memorable feud. Sure, Trips has had a feud with Foley and Shawn but they aren`t that memorable for me anyway. But the Rock and Trips was huge. Anyone who was paying attention to WWE at the turn of the century remembers the McMahon-Helmsley era and how awesome this feud was. Stephanie being by Trips side made Trips an awesome heel. And of course The Rock carried him. But Trips was fantastic at getting under your skin sort of like how he gets under the skin of his haters in real life. He was what he was suppose to be and stay from 98 till his injury in 2001. His character became way too forced when he came back without Stephanie as Hulk 2.0 and won the Royal Rumble as a face and went on to beat Jericho in the main event at WM 18 (when the main event shoulda been Rock vs Hogan). When it started becoming all about Triple H like it had been all about Hogan 10 years before, that`s when I threw the towel in on WWE. Triple H should never have been anything more than a transitional heel champ a few times. He should never have been the company face from 2002 till Cena.

As for your statement about Triple H never having a match worth watching again, I was gonna try to argue that too but I don`t know if I can. There`s no denying the heat he generated at the time in which he wrestled. But looking back and watching those old matches, I don`t feel the heat I felt toward him back then. I just despise the way he`s accomplished what he`s accomplished and I have a hard time taking all his title wins and main event placements seriously. I don`t know if that counts as real heat or artificial heat. Regardless, his matches where he wasn`t carried leave much to be desired. If you ever going to go and rewatch one of his matches it would be to rewatch the guy he was in the ring with. I watched his matches with Taker because he was facing Taker. I watched a pretty good match between him and Flair years back because of Flair. I was also curious to see for the first time his match with Warrior because I wanted to see how awkward a match that would have been. I`ve never sat there and thought to myself `hmm I`m bored i`m gonna go youtube an old Triple H match.`I youtube tons of old matches but I`d only watch a match involving him if it was to see the guy he was in the ring with. I do remember some of his matches that were pretty good. I remember his Summerslam match with Michaels for what Michaels brought to that match. I remember his matches with Foley for Foley`s contributions. I remember his rivalry with Jericho because of Jericho. I remember his three way match with Michaels and Benoit because it was unbelievable that Benoit actually won. It was an epic match. I remember him in a good light only when he had Stephanie or Shawn with him in DX. But he couldn`t carry a match. Besides heel heat, he brought nothing to the table somebody else couldn`t. So in a way you are completely right. There are no Triple H matches I`ve ever seen that I ever feel like rewatching except the three way at WM20. The only thing I can think of rewatching involving Triple H is some of the old school DX moments with Shawn or that infamous episode where DX showed up at WCW headquarters. And that`s pretty pathetic considering the guy`s a 13 time world champ and been in more big time pay per view main events than anyone in WWE history.

 

[ilapierre]

Brain, of course Triple H has had many great matches. Hart was saying that Triple H never really had that one outstanding match or moment on his own. I know he said he never had a `great match or moment`. I don`t agree with his usage of the word great. But I think Bret meant `fantastic`. As for your belief that Bret had a problem with Triple H, that`s my gut feeling too. But he never ever came out and said something about it. I`ve seen interviews over the past decade where Hart only says complimentary things about Triple H while he would bash Shawn. Triple H was behind the screwjob so it would make sense that Bret would hate him. But Bret hated Shawn more than almost anyone for years and he could still admit Shawn was one of the greatest in the ring. Bret can`t say that about Triple H because it wouldn`t be true. Even if Bret has had a problem with Triple H, how does that diminish his opinion? Can Bret not be objective about someone we assume he personally doesn`t like? I`m sure it`s not impossible.

I don`t feel Triple H is comparable to Lou Gehrig. If Hogan`s Babe Ruth, Savage or Hitman would be more like Gehrig. Triple H and his 13 titles would be more like Rafael Palmero and all those home runs. Both are known for their one dimensional contribution and relied on something a little more than talent. There`s no denying both had talent. They just both had an unfair advantage over their peers which somewhat detracts from their legacy.

 

[dukes07]

Hart just stated that Trips is not in the top 1000 wrestlers: Of course this could all be a work. A feud brewing between Hart and HHH. Not sure what they could do with it. But it is wrestling....

 

[#hamler]

I have learned to let everything Bret says go in one ear and out the other. Why, because he overrates himself. He's become another Ric Flair where he worships the ground he walks on; his contributions to the wrestling industries outrank everyone else's. From a man who once bitched about Stone Cold being ranked higher than him on WWE's top 50 Stars list...

I beat Steve Austin everytime I worked with him thoughout my career and yet he's graded above me, so figure that out. I could give you a list of 50 wrestlers and it would have credibility because I would have an idea but some guy that's working for WWE Magazine that makes it up, frankly, he can kiss my ass, he doesn't know anything.

Granted, the list is incredibly biased, Bret belongs nowhere near Steve Austin on this list. He’s lucky he even in the top ten. Everything that leaves Bret's mouth sounds incredibly bitter and his comments about Triple H are no different. He's blind if he cannot see the number of great bouts Triple H has had over his long career. Bret's vision is blurred by what looks like some unsettled hate between the two – maybe unresolved issues stemming from Shawn Michaels and Triple H's close relationship but Bret is totally wrong here. An opinion on a match is one thing but even a blind hater can see Triple H has had numerous of bouts where he's shined. Steve Austin even said on his old DVD, (paraphrasing) "A match with Triple H is a good day at the office."

 

[i'm a cm punk girl]

I don't agree. But everyone has a right to their own opinion.

Personally, I can name a good amount of Triple H matches I think are great. Bret's thoughts on the subject doesn't change that. His words ani't gospel.

 

[Wrestling101]

I don't think any real wrestling fan can any of what your writing seriously. Bret told it like it was.. Triple H has had no feud worth remembering he's had no match worth watching again. And he will never make a fraction of the impact that Break Hart has made on the business Ring wise.. Maybe as a booker behind the curtain and thats only because Bret will never book an event.

Brutus beefcake - Cena. Bad
Bam bam Bigelow - Triple H. Good
Randy Savage - Bret Hart. Great

Wow.....you've lost all credibility to have an opinion. Bret is so delusionally full of himself that his opinion is irrelevant too. I don't know what you're trying to do there with the bolded part, but I don't think I want to know.....just go back and try again.

 

[Wrestling101]

Don't need links. Try reading the guys book. It's all in there.

Hold up...your source for talking about fan mail and biggest international draw is his own autobiography? That's funny....And you had the nerve to call me a mark? Who's the mark now?

Whether or not you consider him to be on the level of Austin or the Rock... that's all subjective. Fans opinions will always be different on that stuff. My original point, which led me to tell you to stop being a mark, is that Austin and Rock themselves, guys who's opinion hold a little more weight than yours or mine, do consider Bret Hart to be on their level, and they're not looking at the kayfabed accomplishments of their worked sport.

Of course they're going to say that....they respect the business and their peers, especially those that came before them, enough to not flat out come out and say 'I'm one of the 4 biggest wrestling stars ever'......plus, they respect Hart because he helped get Austin, and by extension Rock, get to the level they got to. But make no mistake about it, Hart is not as big a star as they were. And the only people saying anything about the kayfabed accomplishments of anybody is the guy you're agreeing with, blackout, so have fun with that.

Not really surprised you didn't actually read anything. Really I'm not surprised at all. Kinda funny though, because your last comments about Hart there, how you're not dissing Hart, are pretty much echoing what I said Hart was saying about HHH...

Except that I do like Hart and I have no axe to grind.....Hart is clearly dissing HHH when he says he's not among the top 1000 wrestlers, he's never had a great match, etc. He's so fucking bitter it's ridiculous and sad.

except when you say that HHH has done far more in the business than Hart ever did. I don't even know that Hunter would agree with that statement. You're just proving you know next to nothing about either of their careers when you say that.

Like you said, just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean that it's not wrong. The thing is... I don't mind being wrong at all. You're just doing nothing to actually prove that I am. Most likely because what Hart was saying went completely over your head.

It's just the truth...you can choose to blind yourself to it if you want, makes no difference to me. Hart did well for himself at a time when wrestling was at a lowpoint. He got lucky that his time coincided with the steroid scandal that Vince was going through at the time, or Hart would've never gotten above the mid card. Just HHH's stuff with DX has left a bigger footprint in the wrestling world than Hart left. I can't believe you're forcing me to take HHH's side, because I'm not a HHH mark or a HHH apologist, but Hart's comments are so stupid, out of line, and ridiculous that I'm forced to take HHH's side. But I can believe that it came from Hart, because he's so bitter towards HHH and HBK. What I can't believe is that there's a few people like you that actually put any weight into what Hart is saying. Yes, some people's opinions are so dumbed down that they can be wrong, and yours (and Hart's) is wrong (and stupid) now.

 

[clare houghey]

i can see where Bret is coming from as yeah HHH can do a half decent promo but is in ring abilaties are mediocre too say the least and im seriously dreading the day Vince retires as the will be the end of the WWE. As seriously HHH has no vision and btw whats wrong with WM mark twos we had HBK vs Taker 1 and 2 HHH vs Taker 1 and 2 and now Rock Cena 1 and 2 and probley brock vs HHH 2 WTF HHH SHOW SOME VISION KID