Plenty of people on this forum vehemently believe that Triple H buries people to no end and is the worst "burying" culprit of all-time. However, many people such as myself don't believe this to be true, and see it for what it is: a phony myth created and pushed largely by ignorant and angry IWC members. I created this thread to address this myth and have a discussion about to hopefully talk some sense into people, and see if anyone actually has any kind of valid counterargument.
First off, let me say this: I understand that Triple H beats a lot of people, and probably has buried some in the past. But here's the thesis of this thread: Triple H has not buried any more people than any normal superstar of his caliber/position in the company as a top guy.
In order to prove my point, I'll attack the main argument of the believers of the myth- they believe that Triple H never puts anyone over and is constantly burying people in his way. Well, that's obviously not true, and I'll give you plenty of examples to support my claim. Let's start this off by taking a look at some of the past Wrestlemania's:
Wrestlemania 20- put over/lost to Benoit
Wrestlemania 21- put over/lost to Batista
Wrestlemania 22- put over/lost to Cena
Wrestlemania 23- (injured, did not compete)
Wrestlemania 24- put over/lost to Orton
Wrestlemania 25- defeated Orton (but he built up Orton during the preceeding feud, as Orton had dominated him, attacking him at his home; plus, Triple H was the face- it made sense for him to finally notch the win)
Wrestlemania 26- defeated Sheamus (but eventually lost the feud to him culminating at Extreme Rules, leaving after that due to an injury at Sheamus' hands)
Wrestlemania 27- put over/lost to Undertaker
Wrestlemania 28- most likely will put over/lose to Undertaker
So, on the biggest stage of the year, Triple H has largely (if not entirely) put over guys, often younger, and made them look great the past several years. A lot of these were title matches that HHH lost to his opponent, making them look like gold in the process. He & HBK gave Benoit a career-defining moment, he cemented Batista as a bonafide main-eventer, he tapped to Cena, he put over and added credibility to Orton in a surprise loss, he was involved in high-profile, elevating feuds with Orton & Sheamus that made them look great and they came out of them for the better, and, most recently, has added to the legacy of Undertaker's streak, providing him with yet another credible win (and he's most likely about to put him over for the third straight time at Wrestlemania this year, making 'Taker 3-0 against HHH at WM all-time).
Next, let's take a look at all of the talent that Triple H has personally built up over the past several years. Here are just a few BIG names that come to mind:
Batista-Groomed him in Evolution until he was ready to go over him in a high-profile, elevating feud. Helped him get to where he eventually got. Gave him A LOT of credibility. Personally showed him the ropes of the business, aiding him in getting to the top. Batista has stated in the past that Triple H & Flair were INTEGRAL in the success of his career.
Randy Orton- See Batista.
John Cena-Although they didn't interact that much, Cena always seemed to get the edge more often than not, often getting the wins. Furthermore, Cena ALWAYS looked good. Got a key win against HHH during his more formative main-event years at WM22 as previously mentioned with a very impressive submission victory.
Sheamus-Although he was beaten at 'Mania, he eventually took out HHH at Extreme Rules, winning the feud, gaining championship credibility, & putting HHH on the shelf for quite some time in the process. HHH has been a key supporter of Sheamus behind the scenes as well, aiding him in getting to the top.
I could go on and state more names, and I could probably even go on further in my argument, but I believe I've stated enough solid evidence in this opening post. Triple H often gets a bad rap for this "burying" myth, but it's simply unfounded and baseless. Like I said, he's definitely not done it any more than anyone else, like the Rock, Stone Cold, Brock Lesnar, HBK, Bret Hart, Goldberg, and pretty much every other top guy. And don't even get me started about TRUE buriers like a Hogan or Nash. Guys like that are in their own class. Triple H is no where near those guys and has the best interest of the business/the future of the WWE in the forefront of his mind at all times because he truly loves it. That's why he's currently a WWE executive in charge of scouting talent, because he wants to aid the WWE in its future.
The whole Triple H "burying" myth is just that- a myth.
Personally speaking, I am with you on a variety/majority of your points, so much that despite my disagreement on a few minor things I'd have to give you a green rep. But here's my take on the whole notion of accusing a wrestler of burying this guy or that guy and so on. We as the IWC can only speculate on what really goes on behind the "creative curtain" of the wrestling world, yes I know we all have varying degrees of experience with the business, some people that post on here are indy workers, bookers and what have you.
Some of us here are just ordinary fans that have probably met quite a few of pro wrestling's most prominent figures and know some people in the business and have read all the tell all books and watched all the retrospective DVDs and shoot interviews that are out there. I put myself in this category, the "ordinary fan". While I do have some suspicions and have indeed read up the various rumors and news tidbits that float around on the internet, I still remain a skeptic about much of what I hear, I even suspect sometimes that folks in WWE and TNA themselves stir things up by helping to get some of these rumors out there. Call me a conspiracy nut or a lunatic if you must, but think about it like this the business of professional wrestling is built on false pretenses, and these days with so much of it being "exposed" via the internet, things have to be said and done to work around such a thing.
In the past, I would just lash out at folks and make assumptions but this time I am not going to do that, I thought you made some very good points, a lot of people want to vilify Triple H at every free opportunity they can get. And he's definitely had quite a few major losses at WrestleManias to prove that his character doesn't always come out the very best. In my mind though, I don't care if he is married to the boss' daughter, the guy is a physical phenomenon and one of the most determined people I've ever seen get into a wrestling ring. I've actually become a bigger fan of his in recent years than I was when I was younger but even back then through the less than bright times in his career like the Terra Ryzing persona, feuds with mid-90s embarrassments like Duke Droese and Henry Godwinn, and of course the squash against the Ultimate Warrior at WrestleMania XII, the guy has convinced me that he belongs where he does in the pantheon of other wrestling legends.
What Triple H has done to keep his spot in the business though, well there's a lot of room for speculation on what really goes on behind the scenes, and again I'm not going to assume things here PlayTheGame so I'm going to ask what your relationship to the wrestling business is? I mean all your good points aside, we can speculate all we want about who the true saboteurs of the wrestling business are however there's a lot of room for debate on what you said about Hulk Hogan. Same goes for Kevin Nash, and I will get to that after I speak on Hogan.
Yes, I'm a fervent Hogan mark, so much that it might strike irony with some that my display name is not the "HulkAMark" or some other variation on his name, and while I do scratch my head at some of the feuds he's had in the past i.e. Billy Kidman, I don't believe that he's this saboteur to the degree people say he is. Do I disagree with those that say he has an ego? Absolutely not. I do think Hogan has an ego but he's just one ego amongst many others in a realm where egotism is a prerequisite for the job. Anything where you are a public figure and you're seen on a television screen or in other media you can bet ego will be involved. Most people don't pay for pay-per-views, merchandise or live event tickets to get modesty, we want to see people who have personalities that are bigger than ours and physical abilities that are greater than ours.
The reason I defend a lot of the things said about Hogan is because from what we hear on the internet and what people are so quick to believe just boggles my mind. Such as Hogan's creative control clause, while I don't doubt he had the ability to veto a lot of calls that were made involving him, I also think that if he had creative control to the ability that it was rumored, then incidents like The Bash At The Beach 2000 controversy would never have happened. And to be honest, I don't think he'd have ever lost the WCW World Title after winning it from Ric Flair in the first place, with a creative control clause, I am sure he could have held that World Title for every day he was contracted to that company. People who also state how Hogan prevented the rise of stars like Steve Austin should also stop and think for a second about other stars that could have helped Austin's case in that company. Ric Flair and Randy Savage could have at any time given Austin the rub in WCW but that never occurred either. In fact Austin and Savage wrestled in a US Title tournament back in 1995 (when Vader got stripped of the title) with Austin going over. Savage advanced to wrestle Flair in the tournament and both were double DQd from the tournament.
In the first place, I wondered why Flair and Savage were competing for a secondary title in the first place, but think of it like this, imagine the momentum boost Austin could have gotten by going over both Savage and Flair in that tournament. Yes, I do think it sucks that Austin didn't go any further in WCW, but when you look at how other big names were going over him towards the end of his run there, I find it very hard pressed to point a finger solely at Hogan. Yes things worked out better for Austin in the long run (as we all know of course) but people like to act as if the WWF immediately capitalized on WCW's supposed ineptitude when they signed him. Which we all know isn't the case because by the time Austin came to WWF, he was given a tired prop in the form of the Million Dollar Belt and had they kept him in that role as The Ringmaster for too long, who knows if "Austin 3:16" would have ever become a colloquialism in pro wrestling.
Incidents like Hogan's feud with Billy Kidman, I will admit were weak, the whole booking of that WCW Millionaires Club Vs New Blood angle was sub-par to say the least. In my mind if Hogan was booked as a heel again in his Hollywood persona and Kidman as the underdog face, we could very well have seen something intriguing. Could Hogan have vetoed going heel again? It's very possible, but when you look at all the other veterans being pushed as faces, who really knows what was going on behind the scenes. Nothing annoyed me more than seeing these young guys being pushed as spoiled brat heels when that should never have been the case, but considering that this was towards WCW's end who really knows who was calling what shots. Whenever people bring up Hogan's creative control and how he uses it to run roughshod, I always call them out and tell them that places like WWE and TNA shouldn't ever hire him or bring him back if they are that concerned. In fact since his post WCW career, Hogan's gotten more accolades in WWE (title wins and victories over big name stars) than he ever has in TNA, and supposedly he's the guy calling all the shots in TNA. Go figure, right?
Which leads me to my point about Kevin Nash I wanted to get to. Some people and I am not saying this you're one of them, but I swear that when some people watch Rey Mysterio in action in WWE, they think that this whole underdog persona with him was a WWE plot invention. It was absolutely not.
Back in WCW during the late 90s, Nash and Mysterio got into a feud and while yes there were instances where Nash got over on Mysterio, in the long run Mysterio was able to gain measures of revenge on Nash and also hold his own against other larger opponents like Scott Norton and Bam Bam Bigelow. Mysterio's tenacity against larger opponents started in WCW and granted while they didn't do as much with him as maybe some would like, he had competed against guys like Ric Flair for the World Title and had some notable moments in that company. Had he never received that type of push in WCW, who knows if WWE would have ever tried to utilize that quality in his character. Yes, I also know some people hate the idea of him losing his mask during that time but hey he agreed to it, a lot of people make these decisions themselves and we can't just go and blame WCW, NWA, TNA, WWF/E every time something like this happens. I think if Nash truly wanted to bury Mysterio, he'd have never given him the time of day to have a feud in the first place.
Overall, I really do like your post, really do. But my philosophy is this, the wrestling business like anything else that one can be a fan of is a little too oversimplified and what really goes on behind the curtain is uncertain. Being just the ordinary fan, all I can say about what goes on behind the scenes is I know that I don't know what's REALLY going on.
Anyway a good read and I have to give it a positive rep, even with the few and very minor disagreements I had.
With less than one year under his belt Angle got to work a program with the top guy and the owner's daughter. This feud in no way buried Angle. You said it yourself, he was champion a month later. This is when there was only one champion. How could that possibly be called a burial? Angle went on to be champion multiple times and was one of the biggest stars in the WWE in the 00s. If you're going to use an example of Triple H burying someone don't make it one of the most successful stars of the decade.
