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

[MattBrady425]

Bret Hart is one to talk about bad matches.
How come he doesn't bring up his horrible match with Vince McMahon at WrestleMania XXVI?
Bret Hart is not qualified to rate WM matches.

 

[dukes07]

Bret Hart is one to talk about bad matches.
How come he doesn't bring up his horrible match with Vince McMahon at WrestleMania XXVI?
Bret Hart is not qualified to rate WM matches.

Because Bret had suffered a couple strokes, and his insurance company refused to allow him to take any bumps. He was also facing a man pushing 70 who is not a trained wrestler. Also, HHH is younger and juices like a motherfucker as well as stays in ring shape.

 

[BlackOut10]

Bret Hart is one to talk about bad matches.
How come he doesn't bring up his horrible match with Vince McMahon at WrestleMania XXVI?
Bret Hart is not qualified to rate WM matches.[/QUOTE

Your not qualified to breathe....
That was not a bret hart match..
That was just for nostalgia for montreal.

 

[Jaffa]

Personally if you don't think that Summerslam 2002 was a great match something that I personally do not think I think HHH vs HBK at Badd Blood 2004 was a great match. They both lost a reasonable amount of blood early on but still managed to wrestle for 47 minutes and 25 seconds in what I thought was an absolute classic.

However in response to what Bret Hart he is allowed to have an opinion on whether or not he thinks Triple H is a great wrestler and shouldn't be attacked for expressing his opinion. On the other hand though Bret needs to realise that there are people who think Triple H is a great wrestler and that his style of wrestling is not the best style of wrestling as he seems to think it is.

 

[Jaffa]

Bret Hart is one to talk about bad matches.
How come he doesn't bring up his horrible match with Vince McMahon at WrestleMania XXVI?
Bret Hart is not qualified to rate WM matches.

I think there is a difference between a match between two guys who have worked consistently for the last 15 years+ than a guy who retired 10 years beforehand and a part time guy who was about 65. Bret Hart vs Stone Cold at wrestlemania 13 was great

 

[Da Solo]

No doubt Rock was over in 1998. I just think he and Triple H were on the same level. Of course Rock would eventually surpass Triple H. Rock was way more over than Triple H in 1999 but I think you're underestimating him in 1998 while possibly overestimating Rock a bit. When you overstimate one and underestimate the other you create a gap that's much further apart

I don't know... a lot of people (especially HHH himself) try to say that they've run parallel careers, but I feel as though Rock was far and away the bigger star by the time their feud rolled around. Mind you, Rock took over the Nation without a hitch, and had one of the best character changes of all time. I still fell that HHH was struggling, character wise, to separate himself from HBK in terms of leading DX, seeing as how the quick thing for a lot of people to do was judge him on the basis on "HBK was better and he's only here because he is injured", which, even I can admit, sounds like HHH hate rather than an honest observation.

I feel that you're doing the opposite of what you say I'm trying to do: you're underestimating Rock to overestimate HHH. I'm not saying HHH wasn't a star in his own right, but in terms of being over, he wasn't tying Rock.

Sorry to divert a bit, but ignore this last paragrahph if you aren't a conspiracy buff.

Spoiler

To be honest, and I'd hate to get into conspiracies, but I think the only reason they were so closely knit on camera is what a lot of the IWC thought and what Bret confirmed: Shawn and Trips tried to drag him down to get HHH up. Why else would they be paired together throughout almost all of Rock's career (especially when he was on the rise), and why else would HHH always do interviews acting like he wasn't eclipsed by Rocky (remember the whole thing about them both being offered the movies by Vince?) and why the hell else would HHH go over at WM 2000 when he really had no business doing so?

 

[MattBrady425]

1ST of all, VKM IS a trained wrestler.
Before becoming a promoter, he trained to become a wrestler.
Secondly, in pro wrestling, there are no excuses for poor matches, even for semi-retired wrestlers like Bret Hart or Hulk Hogan.
Undertaker vs HHH in a hell-in-a-cell was unique, because it featured some stuff that hasn't been seen in a while, like blood, for example, in addition to a match that had great ring psychology and constant suspense.
Also, whether or not HHH juices is not relevant to the case at hand. Scott Steiner obviously juices, but that does nothing for his actual in-ring ability, as he is still and always will be a crappy wrestler. Besides, pro wrestling is not even real athletic competition, so juicing is not even a factor in this case.
Anyways, WWE has a wellness policy, so there is no way that HHH could juice even if he wanted to.

 

[dukes07]

1ST of all, VKM IS a trained wrestler.
Before becoming a promoter, he trained to become a wrestler.
Secondly, in pro wrestling, there are no excuses for poor matches, even for semi-retired wrestlers like Bret Hart or Hulk Hogan.
Undertaker vs HHH in a hell-in-a-cell was unique, because it featured some stuff that hasn't been seen in a while, like blood, for example, in addition to a match that had great ring psychology and constant suspense.
Also, whether or not HHH juices is not relevant to the case at hand. Scott Steiner obviously juices, but that does nothing for his actual in-ring ability, as he is still and always will be a crappy wrestler. Besides, pro wrestling is not even real athletic competition, so juicing is not even a factor in this case.
Anyways, WWE has a wellness policy, so there is no way that HHH could juice even if he wanted to.

Jesus, Bret had two or three strokes and was told that he could not take any bumps. It was about the story and not the mat skill anyway. Sure it was way too long but it did the job.

You just said that WWE has a Wellness Policy but then stated that Steiner juices. He was in WWE. Steiner was actually a pretty decent wrestler back in the day. WWE chooses who to test and they are certain as fuck not going to test the incoming owner of their company. Look at HHH pre-quad and post-quad too. That hurt his wrestling skills as he became too big.

 

[Athena]

Bret Hart is one of the most knowledgeable people in the wrestling industry today, but he's gone completely off base with this. I don't think anyone would argue that Taker-HHH at WM28 was an amazing technical match, but it was brutal and told an excellent story. With the Undertaker in his current medical state, you aren't going to be able to get technical matches out of him like you could 4 or 5 years ago (which is why I'm a bit hesitant to see him potentially face Punk this year).

As far as HHH NEVER having a "great" match, it's a completely ridiculous statement. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few that are excellent matches:

HHH vs. Steve Austin at No Way Out '01
HHH vs. Shawn Michaels at Summerslam '02
HHH vs. Foley at Royal Rumble '00
HHH vs Michaels & Benoit at WM 20

I'm sure I'm leaving a few out. Are any of those all time classics? I'd argue that the '02 SS match it, maybe even the 3 stages of hell match with SCSA. I just think the IWC gets blinded by HHH's dominate title runs just before, during, and after Evolution and thus tend to forget some of the great matches he had before that. As a fan, I enjoyed that point in his career, because that's when I think he was at his best as a heel, but I can see how frustrating it would be for someone to see their favorite guys or even up and comers get squashed/buried by HHH during that time

 

[Lockard23]

I like HHH and even thought his reign of doom was warranted in getting the WHC over as credible when the IWC wanted his head. However, I think guys like Bret Hart rank things a way by their push. You noticed he said at the start that HHH was a 1000 time champion or something? Then brought up his position behind the scenes?

I think Bret is saying in accordance to his push he isn't as great. I think it's an arguable point. He was pushed harder than a lot of legends and the return may not equal or warrant it in terms of matches and box office(although he was not talking about box office).

As far being innovative to be a great wrestler, I think this is a fair argument, but I can understand the man that his father in law called the greatest story teller of all-time is coming from when he was involved in creating matches like the ladder match, ironman match, I quit match, and then matches like Hart/Austin at Survivor Series.

I think HBK and Hart are really the biggest contributors to the main event scene turning into the workrate levels that their predecessors didn't do like Hogan, Bruno, Warrior and so on didn't.

With that said he baffles the whole thing by praising Cena so much.

The only guys who can say they were innovative work rate wise in the main event scene before Hart was the all-time great Mr. Randy Poffo aka Savage. Backlund had the wrestling technique before that though in the main events before Hogan took over which was ironic as the man he took it from was the innovator of Hulk Hogan's style.

With that said I think HHH does have great matches under his belt though.

And the internet coming to the aid of HHH. Never thought I would see the day lol. Bizzaro world.

On another note no one is speaking on Bret's commentary on Bryan, Cena, and Punk? 2 internet darlings and the devil on the internet.

If I didn't know better I think Bret knew exactly what kind of heat he wanted to generate with this interview.

I said in another forum somewhere that we may start seeing Attitude Era/Golden Era stuff popping up more in the weeks leading into Mania. I have some reasons for this. I'll give a hint that the video game promotion may actually lead into wwe programming of this generation against past wwf/e with different legends taking sides.

The Rock and Cena II at Mania with Rock being 3rd generation and the quintessential sports entertainer against the face of this era.

Madison Square Garden with a HOF that may actually be headlined with the man who sold it out the most along with Bob Backlund. Two of the greatest champions of the old guard before Hulkamania.

Trish Stratus being proclaimed as the greatest Diva of all-time. Moolah was considered the greatest woman's champion of all time.

DX maybe being inducted and we know their part in the attitude era and breaking of the kayfabe wall.

Bret gives props to guys like Rey Mysterio, Daniel Bryan, CM Punk and of all people I would think he wouldn't John Cena.

I don't think Sammartino or Thesz would ever praise John Cena, but I could be wrong. As for HHH it is interesting to see the IWC's response as it was his biggest detractor during his best matches(notice not too much stuff listed past WM XX). I also wonder if Bret has seen some of HHH's better matches?

 

[dman1373]

While i do thing that taker and hhh had a good match last year, i cant help but agree with bret. HHH is a good wrestler that got credit for being one of the greatest of all time. Hes just not that good. While hes had great matches with michaels(who is the best of all time in the ring), he really hasn't had any others.

 

[Wald]

Jim Cornette said it best about Triple H when he said that Triple H is the guy that works with the guy who makes money.

I disagree and agree with Bret on some of this, as I do think Triple H is a very good wrestler but I don't believe he is a great one. He certainly isn't at the level of Flair, but that is where WWE history will rank him unless he screws up his marriage to Stephanie and that, I think, is where people have a problem with him.

It's clear that the guy was a dedicated worker and had enough talent to warrant a push to the top. But if Stephanie wasn't his wife he wouldn't have been on top for anywhere near as long and wouldn't have held the amount of world titles he did. I remember a noted columnist on a different wrestling site producing a graph back around 2006 that showed that ratings consistently fell whenever Triple H had the title. I don't know if that changed with his DX face turn but it shows that he would have been depushed had he not become a McMahon.

That said, Bret is wrong to say Triple H has never had a great match. He has had some very good to fantastic ones against Foley, HBK, Undertaker and Rock, but I think that just proves that he needs to a very good worker to go up against to get a great match out of him. The saying 'he could wrestle a broomstick and get a match out of it' simply doesn't apply to him.

I will agree with Bret that Taker vs Triple H from last year was over-rated, but it wasn't as low as a 4/10 match.

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

WOW! I have to be honest - I am massive Bret Hart fan. I have been for 22 years, and have followed his career all the way back to the stampede days.

But - I can't say HHH is not one the best - he is that DAMN good! I thought the HHH v Undertaker match last year was the best match in WWE for 2012, just after Bryan V Punk.
I know HHH did have a hand in the incident at Montreal but to that is 16 years ago now... and HHH has had some fantastic matches in his time - 3 stages of hell with SCSA, Hell in a cell with Cactus Jack, Hell in a Cell with Batista, Hell in a cell with Taker last year, HBK at Summer Slam 2002, his numerous bouts with Kurt Angle and the Rock, Randy Orton etc. his work with Cena was what made their feud work.

I actually think HHH is a great wrestler and one of my all time favourites. Bret is still my favourite ever...

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The man's entitled to his opinion like everyone else. I disagree with Bret Hart wholeheartedly here though. I thought their match at WM 28 was a fantastic example of storytelling. It wasn't the best "wrestled" match on the card, but it certainly told the best story in my eyes.

Taker, Trips & HBK are three highly respected legends and fans have been constantly interested in whatever their programs have been. That respect & interest are two key elements to make a great match from the start. Taker's streak and the ending of it is a simple and easily sustainable angle that can keep people engaged in Taker's feuds. Part of that is because so many people know about Taker's medical problems and the fact that he's getting older. Many want to see the streak go on & on but, at the same time, there's keen interest in seeing when or if WWE will put an end to it, thus putting an end to Taker. Knowing Taker's age & medical issues and seeing him take large amounts of punishment in these matches, people easily become emotionally invested.

I've said it numerous times that if the fans aren't interested and don't care about the wrestles involved, then nothing else really matters. Fans care about The Undertaker, Triple H and Shawn Michaels. In my opinion, there's damn good reason to do so.

I do agree with the statements that people sometimes go a bit overboard in their praise of anything & everything involving Taker, Trips & HBK. The same is also true in regards to Bret Hart. Just because Bret Hart says something doesn't mean that it's rock solid gospel.

 

[Spencesc11]

I think maybe Bret isn't quite over the Montreal thing and that's why this came up. If you look at their careers their isn't really much difference and from just a mere ratings issue when Bret was on the top of the card it was the lean years in WWE. But when HHH and HBK had the DX thing going and the attitude Era was in effect the ratings soared and ended up basically putting an end to WCW. HHH has been very willing to put over superstars on the rise on the big stage as well. The Game has a sub .500 record at Mania for goodness sakes. He is 7-9 I believe and took losses to Randy Orton, Batista, and John Cena thus putting them over as serious main eventers. He also didn't let his ego get in the way and end the Undertaker's streak. As for Bret Hart he couldn't even drop the title to HBK out the door on his way to WCW??? C'mon Vince took very good care of you for years and this is how you wanted to leave his product??? HHH may not be the best of all time but neither is Bret Hart as you can see clearly from the buyrates of PPV's that the Hitman main-evented.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Here's the thing and there really is no argument to this... even Taker was a pretty average worker until 97-98, when the calibre of opponent he faced started to rise... His first 6 years consisted of feuds with monsters like Mable, Gonzales and Yoko... he was better than them but he wasn't learning or near to becoming a legend at that time.

Once he started working with Bret, Shawn, Trips, Foley - he and the quality of his matches improved... he was able to learn from these guys and it's this period where the streak and his aura as a worker developed. Trips had a similar thing, he was protected by the Kliq and only when he had to go out there and jockey for position in 98-99 when he was Shawn/Nash/Hall-less did he really begin to learn and improve. The difference between Taker and Trips is Taker continued to learn and improve even from newer guys like Kane... Taker could take what he had learned in his early big man matches and then what he had learned from Bret and Foley and it made the Kane feud legendary... Where as as I mentioned in my earlier post, Trips got with Steph and took his foot off the gas in terms of his development as his place was assured by his relationship with Steph, he didn't have to rise above the others in the ring anymore...if only he had fought to still do so...

Bear in mind Mark Calloway had been around at least 5-6 years longer than Trips had career-wise but was developing as a worker more than the supposed "sponge" that is Triple H. At heart I think this is what Bret is getting at rather than saying "Trips is not a great wrestler".

 

[Uncle Sam]

Let's see, where have we got to here? Right, OK.

I don't think Undertaker's last four matches at WrestleMania have been that great. This isn't a new thing from me either; I was downplaying Michaels/Undertaker about a minute after it first happened. For matches which are praised so highly for their "storytelling," they quite closely represent what Ring Of Honor style matches are so often derided for: big spots, finishers, millions of near falls, no cartilage in between. Even the builds - "Undertaker, I've come back and brought an even more impressive video package with me!" - have quite badly missed the aura of awe and mysticism which they've been aiming for.

So, on that front, fair play, Bret.

 

[berlinbrawler]

This is pretty typical Bret. Make peace, then later publicly piss on the guy. Just like in the good old days with Shawn.

Everyone is entitles to their opinion. And in mine, Bret's comments are pretty laughable. On a very abstract level I can sense what Bret is trying to say. Triple H was never as talented a grappler as the likes of Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Benoit or Daniel Bryan. Mat wrestling was never his strength or style. Nor was he ever overly creative in coming up spots nobody had ever thought of before, like performing the figure four leglock around a turnbuckle (which, by the way, made no sense whatsoever). Also he was never big in the high risk department, jumping off turnbuckles or ladders or whatever.

So if one or all of those aspects are an absolute requirement for you to consider someone great then Triple H really isn't your guy. But in my humble opinion you have forgotten what rasslin really is all about. It's a performance piece designed to captivate and to pump up emotions, not to be judged like figure skating. And please don't tell me Triple H never managed to get a rise out of the crowd. That's why immobile oafs like Hulk Hogan could become stars. It's about who connects with the crowd, not who performs the best. Triple H had me on the edge of my seat far more often than Bret ever did and that was at a time when I was already a much more jaded fan than at the time when I watched the Hitman.

To say Hunter never had a great match is just stupid. That's not even an opinion, it's just plain wrong. Then again, if you consider his last match with Taker bad then there have been only about 30 good matches in all of wrestling history anyway and you are impossible to please.

Bret has always believed in his own hype that he is the best there ever will be. He is not. Not even close. I'll admit that I was never that biggest fan of his anyway. Yes, sure, there were some exceptional matches. Piper, Bulldog, Austin to name a few. But the character was boring. And as a matter of fact, most of the criticisms he expresses towards Triple H apply very well to himself. Bret the innovator? Gimme a break. Bret was a routine man like most every star becomes sooner or later.
Even HBK had a formula, even though he played with it more than most. But most of Bret's matches went as rigid as if he were driving on tracks.

My opinion on Bret had climbed in recent years. Now he had to pick up old habits and go bitching around again...

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Bret Hart has his reasons to be mad at Triple H. It's being said that the Montreal Screwjob was his idea, although that statement was never confirmed by anyone.

On to the point, Bret Hart did it again? In this bussiness you don't have to be the best in the ring in order to be at top. You must be a draw and able to tell a good story, build up a match etc. Triple H was all those things.

Saying that the Triple H vs The Undertaker match form last year was mediocre was harsh. 3 out of 10? For only, and just only, in-ring wrestling, yeah I agree. That wasn't a wrestling match. It was a hard hitting brawl which kept the fans on their feet. What was needed to be accomplished was accomplished. Fans were entertained, it told a story and gave The Streak some extra value. Not that it needed more.

Triple H also had enough good matches at his career. Okay, he is not someone who you can depend on to carry a match, he needs someone else in order to step up his "game". He is no Jericho, or Hart, or Angle, or Bryan, or CM Punk. He is not the kind of guy that will make other talent look good in the ring. But his matches against Foley, HBK, Undertaker, The Rock, Stone Cold from No Way Out 2002 were really good. Who can also forget the tag team match between HHH & Stone Cold vs Jericho & Benoit? Pure classic. Best match on RAW history.

I'm not going to bash Hart or anything, but he needs to stop considering himself "The best there is, the best the was and the best there ever will be".

And who knows? Maybe the hatchet between Hart and HBK & HHH was never really buried. That's an injury that can be healed. It will always be there at some degree..

 

[Mustang Sally]

This is pretty typical Bret. Make peace, then later publicly piss on the guy.

True. Whether or not you agree with what Bret said, you have to wonder why he said it. Things between he and WWE were finally okay, he said he liked the way he has been treated since he, HBK and Vince McMahon buried the hatchet.....so why is he opening his mouth in such fashion at this point in time?

After all, he wasn't just claiming the two WM matches with Undertaker were ordinary; he was essentially belittling Levesque's entire career. Yes, I know he claimed Paul was a "good" wrestler.....but in the context of everything Trips has done in his storied career, I would say good isn't good.

All this immediately after WWE honors Bret with an appearance at the Royal Rumble; one that had no practical purpose behind it, just a star vehicle for an old-time performer.

It's tough to judge a person's character on only one incident, but this unnecessary trashing of Triple H makes me wonder how certain other facets of Bret's career actually went down, as opposed to how he told us they occurred.

And if Paul Levesque takes this personally and chooses to not invite Bret back for any more appearances, will we be reading more whining from The Hitman about how unfairly he's been treated?

 

[ratedxaussie]

I feel like people are jumping to huge conclusions about what Bret is saying. Bret is rating the match a 4/10 based on wrestling ability, which is indisputable. The match wasn't a wrestling clinic, it wasn't supposed to be, Bret was just commenting on the wrestling aspect of the match. Yes, it was good for storytelling and was exciting but it wasn't a wrestling match and anyone who tries to convince us that it is should go back and re-watch it.

Triple H hasn't had many "wrestling" matches since his rise to the top. Think about it, the majority of the matches he is known for as 'great matches' weren't just regular wrestling matches.
vs Jericho, Mankind & Undertake Hell in Cell
vs Cactus Jack, Undertaker (Twice at wm) in No Dq/Street fight type matches
vs Shawn Three Stages of Hell

The only real wrestling matches he has had off the top of my head which can be considered classics are at Wrestlemania 25 and vs Shawn at Bad Blood LMS match.

Take away the thirteen of his world titles and is he really "that great?" Cena basically has the same title amounts but we wouldn't consider Cena in his level. Bret is basically saying that we aren't going to look back and think "hey, remember what a good wrestler Triple H was?" To me, he hasn't had that defining match either, so I can relate to Bret's perspective.

Everyone remembers Bret/Shawn Iron Man, Rock v Austin, Hogan/Andre, Undertaker/Mankind, etc but a lot of Triple H's matches are indeed forgetable, and that doesn't make it his fault its just the circumstances surrounding it.

 

[TheImpactPlayer]

I think Bret's comments on the Triple H-Taker match are fair. I think the fact that that match was so praised is more on an indictment on today's product and lack of good story telling in feuds and in matches. Whenever a remotely good program or match comes along its highly praised because of the lack of quality in today's product.

 

[deslok]

I rememebr a period of time, pretty much from his match with Cactus at Royal Rumble 2000, until his chain? match with kane, he was the best thing going.
Every pay view was awesome at that time. You'd have a great undercard, the Rock or Stone Cold in the main event with the title, and then a HHH match. The HHH match was always the one that stood out and would usually get the best reviews. It was his adapable style as well that was really great before he tore his quad. I remember him being in a match with cactus I think the retirement match, and then the next day on raw working a technical style mat clinic with I think Taka Michinoku.
I'd say he was pretty great. He'd bring back a lot of old school moves too that a lot of guys wouldn't do, like the drop toe hold, indian leg lock. He also was good at adding some things to matches, like covering a guy again that just kicked out at 2 (which Jim Ross would sometimes add to saying that's got to take a little something out of him, or something along those lines)
So, to me, he wasn't a spot fest guy, a super innovater, or best technically, but he used the tools others had, and worked it. He was a wrestler, a darn good one.
Watch Brock and HHH steal the show at mania in a HHH kind of way. He's not Michaels or Bret, but who is? Imagine a Bret vs. HHH match with a HHH from say the year 2003, that would have been pretty sweet! Keep in mind, Bret has had concussions, he probably doesn't have a lot of choice over how bitter he gets some days.

 

[Wald]

If you look at their careers their isn't really much difference and from just a mere ratings issue when Bret was on the top of the card it was the lean years in WWE. But when HHH and HBK had the DX thing going and the attitude Era was in effect the ratings soared and ended up basically putting an end to WCW.

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.

- HHH & HBK's DX ended in March 1998, Raw didn't beat Nitro in the ratings from Sept 1996 until April 1998, meaning that Raw with HBK & HHH's DX never beat Nitro, not even for a week.

- HHH's DX lasted properly from 1998 to 1999 as a midcard act (sure it came back for a couple of weeks here and there, but really this is the focal point of that group). WCW didn't go out of business until 2001, and it most certainly wasn't because of HBK & HHH.

I mean you may as well have said Val Venis started doing his thing in 1998 and all of a sudden WCW disappeared for how accurate a statement yours is.

 

[fenderjapan]

Tripsky is better than Bret will give him credit for. I think Brets got such a sour taste in his mouth over HHH that he can't see what is actually going on. The pedigree may not hvae been invented by Triple H but he's certainly the most prominent guy to use it...and Bret didn't invent the Sharpshooter either.

I love Bret but he's wrong here.