The Triple H "Burying" Myth

[H33LTurn]

The fact stands that many guys have gotten over while Triple H has been an active in ring competitor. If you want a reason for Triple H's rise to stardom you can look back at the Attitude Era days, before he was married to Steph and see he was destined for success. Being the big name that he is in the business, anyone who gets into the ring with him instantly gets the rub off him. Whether they can capitalize on that is up to them and creative. Sure, he might make it known to Vince that he doesnt see potential in some of the guys but as the man whos going to inherit the WWE in the future hes going to be more and more involved with the direction of the business. Thats just something the fans need to accept. You cant be fully ignorant to the fact that is a male and female are working in the same industry they have the opportunity to fall in love. I dont see how being with Stephanie has anything to do with the career. The two started dating in 2003. From 2000 to 2001 Triple H feuded with Foley, Big Show, The Rock, and Jericho. He held his 3rd WWE championship in that year. The man is a big name and has been way before him and Steph even dated. It only makes sense that as someone whos still physically fit, over with the fans, and not going on any other business ventures since the WWE is basically his after Vince's run is over, that Triple H be involved on screen in some capacity. If its good for business Vince lets it happen.

As far as Carlito goes, the man simply didnt have the passion for the business that everyone else had. He reached that point of creative having nothing for him and instead of sticking it out he decided not to get the rehab WWE offered him and walk away from it all. I really think he was getting his break with the championship title run with Primo but hey, if hes happier now then let him be. I just think its wrong for all these disgruntled stars who didnt make it in the business to point the finger at one man when they themselves offered little to nothing to the business. Carlito wasnt going to be a main eventer at that stage of his career and while its horrible what happened to his promising future, WWE isnt going to have pity for any of the minor stars while the bigger stars are still around. Its the individual and creatives responsibility to make a character something that interests the fans and can survive after losing to someone like Cena or Triple H. Its not Triple H's responsibility to hold back because Carlito still hasnt been able to get over despite getting in there with the likes of Cena and Ric Flair.

 

[scottyshowman82]

You're obviously oblivious to a lot of things, such as what the term buried means. Please tell me when Triple H buried Brock Lesnar. I'd love to know how he buried him, please. And as for going against any kind of counterargument- you are wrong yet again- nothing that legitimate has been presented to me as a counterargument, but nice try. Actually, it was a terrible try. All those shoot interviews you're talking about are low-level guys that I believe either Brain or Nate touched upon that're just complaining instead of looking in the mirror. Notice how all of them are mostly out of a job? HHH's fault though, I'm sure.

And there's plenty of people who have talked glowingly of HHH. Cena, Orton, Batista, Flair, Undertaker, and sooo many more have nothing but great things to say about him. And your comments about the Undertaking "unwillingly" going about their WM feud is absolutely laughable and suggests you know nothing about the inside of wrestling. If you actually think 'Taker gets forced into things at this stage of his career, your are delusional.

If Vince Mcmahon listened to HHH when he said Kurt Angle he was too small, it would have been a very sad day for wrestling. Imagine if Kurt Angle just had gone no further than the King of Ring. He would have had a legacy in the the WWE like Ken Shamrock. Pretty good but not at the level someone of his calibre truly deserves. For HHH to make such an ignorant statement about Angle, only reveals to me that at the time he was only looking out for his spot. Anyone with two eyes can see Angle is one of the finest wrestlers in the world. Who do you need proof from? Jim Ross? Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine.

Pro Wrestling Illustrated wrote an article a few years back calling saying Kurt Angle on the mat was better than Beniot, better than Guerrero, even better than Bret Hart and you know what, they're right. The guy had unprecedented learning curve when it came to wrestling he picked it up as fast as anyone could cause he's a natural. For Triple H to not want such a person to be pushed on his height reveals a lot of HHH's selfish character and I'll say it the guy sounds like a rat for saying that.

I'm under the opinion that guy like Kurt Angle, Big Show and Rob Van Dam should be pushed to the moon. Why because these guys are talents that don't come around not just once in a generation but once in a lifetime. Angle again the best mat wrestler in the history of the WWE. That's not an opinion that's a fact. Olympic gold metalist. What is Triple H the clear cut best at? Is he the best mat wrestler? No there's people better. Is he the best on promos? No there's better people. And for such a person to try and hold down one of true freaks when it comes to greatness is a terrible thing in my view. Thank goodness Vince didn't listen to him and Angle had a good career in the WWE. And about Anderson the difference between me defending him and you defending HHH is if Anderson does something to hurt the business I would say it. I said I sympathized over what happened to Orton. HHH has been seen to do things to hurt the business and you defend him.

Did HHH try to "bury" Kurt Angle by saying Angle was too small for a push. I'll admit, I don't know what was exactly said. HHH would eventually always do what he told and perhaps bury may be too severe a term or maybe it isn't I wasn't in the room. The degree of detail of what HHH said to Mcmahon on Angle is unknown but no doubt it was a dick move and a selfish move on HHH's part and a blow to fans and an industry if Angle did not get his due.

So forgive me if I'm a little sour at HHH for that.

 

[James]

[/B]

You're joking right? First of all you say straight from the horse's mouth. Well that's one side of the story. I guess since a wrestler said it in a shoot interview it must be true. Keep in mind this is a guy who got upset when Randy Orton starting using a very basic slam in his matches that supposedly Kurt Angle has a trademark on. Besides this is referring to the feud with Cena. So if it went the other way around we could blame HHH for burying Cena right? Sounds to me like Angle tried to bury Cena.


Yeah, there you go. 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.

LOL! this is my favourite right here:

CASE STUDY #5: HHH vs. Kane (2002).

The Facts: Youd think the damn belts would have been enough. It was all set up for World champ HHH to battle IC champ Kane in a unification match that would effectively dissolve the IC strap. But Vince, Hunter, and God knows who else decided that that just wasn't enough incentive to get fans to push the "buy" button on their remote controls. So they concocted one of the WORST storylines ever, which saw HHH "out" Kane as a murderer who, as a teen, had killed his cheerleader girlfriend, Katie Vick. The Big Red Machine claimed that Katie's death was an accident when their car swerved off the road. (Yeah, right. Her and JYD, buddy.) Okay, so far, this was tasteless, but not really bad, right? Buckle up, Court Cadets. It's gonna get much, MUCH worse.

The culmination of this angle was a skit wherein HHH donned a Kane mask and visited a funeral home, complete with Katie mannequin lying restfully in a casket. HHKane then proceeded to hump Katie's mannequin corpse. Even by WWWFE "standards," this angle was so horribly offensive that fans tuned out by the thousands. It was selected "Gooker Of The Year" for 2002 by www.wrestlecrap.com (an award bestowed upon the worst of the worst).

The Prosecution: Necrophilia, for fucks sake??!! The Prosecution rests.

The Defense: Hey, you smarks were always complaining that Raw didnt do anything original anymore. Well, I dont know about you, but Id consider HHH putting on a Kane mask and slipping the shrunken testes to a mannequin dressed up to resemble a dead teenage cheerleader pretty freakin original. Theres no pleasing you people. Besides, HHH did the right thing here. After convincingly winning the big title vs. title match on PPV, Trips lost a non-title casket match to Kane on Raw when HBK interfered and cost HHH the match. Get off the guys back, will ya? Theres not enough room for you AND the acne.

The Verdict: "I screwed your brains out" Guilty. Like with Angle, Kane's career may have survived, but it was no thanks to Frankenschnozz. Oh, but HHHs Kaneophobia didnt end with a necrophilia angle. HHH was determined to kill the BRMs career at any cost. Stay tuned.

How bad did that make Kane's career? It truly destroyed some of the "seriousness" that he had. To this day there is no getting over the whole Katie Vick storyline. Every time I think of it, I cry of laughter.



Now Brain seriously get your brain out of your ass for a minute because you of all people know that the HHH and Booker storyline was complete buryfull(berry lol)


CASE STUDY #7: HHH vs. Booker T (2003).

The Facts: After the Steiner experiment turned out to be the equivalent of two trains crashing into a nuclear power plant, HHH needed a new victim on the biggest stage of 'em all in Seattle. Booker T was the best pick at the time, as Book-HHH was a fresh match and fans had really gotten behind the Bookerman after months of solid matches and camptastic skits with Goldust. Book won a battle royal on Raw to earn the WM title shot, eliminating no less than The Rock to start his road to WM. Everything was going great until Book's first angle with HHH.

HHH played the race card, stopping just short of trying to get over "Your name-AH is Kunta-AH Kinte-AH" as his new catchphrase. HHH did say stuff like "People like YOU exist only to entertain me" and did such great WM-level angles as attempting to tip Booker T upon encountering him in a mens room (!). Not enough for ya? Well, they trotted out the mug shot of a young Booker who legit did time for robbing a Wendy's in his misspent youth.

Needless to say, HHH pedigreed and pinned Booker at the big dance. At least there was no actual, factual dog crap involved this year.

The Prosecution: Triple-H? Triple-K is more like it. HHH finally books himself in a feud with a guy who can hold up his end of the promos and what does he focus on? The fact that Booker is black. Gamecocks may say that Hunter was just playing the "Million Dollar Man" type prickish heel who treats everyone like a servant, but the fact remains that he pulled this crap with THE ONLY OVER BLACK SINGLES WRESTLER ON THE WHOLE GODDAMN ROSTER. Calling attention to Booker's legit criminal past buried the guy, too. Were not condoning armed robbery, but the guy paid his debt to society and worked his ass off to better himself, both in his personal and professional life. Speaking as a fan, it was downright offensive to watch.

The Defense: Didn't HHH job to Booker in a tag match during the WM build? I'm not being smarmy here; I think he did, but I can't remember. Anyway, Booker should have thought about all of this before he robbed a Wendy's. Hunter was fighting for the honor of Dave Thomas. Um, yeah.


The Verdict: Guilty, sucka. (Just like a certain sports-entertainer who once knocked over a Wendy's!) It's a borderline case, but if Cripple-H was going to go "super heel" with the racial crap, he should have done the right thing in the end (i.e., a "job") to justify it. TWF mascot Booker Bear is still pissed about this. Cant blame the little guy.

 

[scottyshowman82]

I heard that when they decided to 2 titles in the WWE that the initial plans were to have the world title belt put on RVD but they wanted to give the title to someone already established to give the belt some firm credibility. So that's why they gave it to HHH and why he squashed everybody. They were trying to make the Raw belt look strong compared to the Smackdown belt (the WWE Title that Lesnar took over). It was like a story from a former WWE writer revealing reason why things happened in that era. I forget his name, but maybe that can clear some stuff up.

 

[heyhey]

I believe the beef with HHH is that he was the top performer in a time period when the wrestling business was declining (and still is declining). During this time it was extra important to put over young and/or upper mid card guys. For example, splitting the roster into two brands was suppose to make it easier to create new stars on the level of Stone Cold or HHH. But, top guys like HHH and the Undertaker, and "Mr. Kiss My Ass" Vince, continued to bury people, because most wrestlers do not fit the prototype that Vince loves. So, this inability to put stars over and to think outside the box, when it comes to the main event talent, has helped hasten the decline of the pro wrasslin business.

So, it seem the reason why the very mention of HHH's name makes some fan so angry is that his continual burying of wrestlers represents an antiquated hierarchical system of talent; top stars too afraid of losing the grandeur of their stop atop the hierarchy, and a boss that has a very narrow defining of a "main event wrestler". So, to me the question is not if HHH buried wrestler at a rate higher than other top stars across the history of wrestling, rather I believe the question is why did HHH and Vince keep burying wrestlers in a time period that so desperately needed new top level stars. I believe this is the same issue today with John Cena and the Rock, why not someone new? Why not a new look? But, hey CM Punk and D Bry are getting shots at the top, and HHH still has the chance to prove how good he is running the show backstage. Things could change, but the refusal to adapt with the times has seriously hurt the profitability of the WWE. For example, smaller fighters in MMA are huge draws.

Of course thus bring up the issue of it the WWE system really is and has been broken or if the reason the E is declining is because the talent pool over the last 20 years just sucks and H and Taker really are the last of a dying breed. I believe it is the system and that HHH knows this, also.

But, I am a fan of Chikara Pro and they have the philosophy of never burying anyone in the way that the WWE does.

 

[WolfNyte]

All the hate at Trips he put over people who he believed EARNED the right to be put over by him. He could give a shit what others thought and put over those who he felt could carry the torch for a while.

So many forget he also got Jeff Hardy going on his singles rise till ole Drug Dealer Hardy screwed it all up.

He knows more than most about the business even when he was Terrah Rizing he was hanging with the Vets to learn...Ricky Steamboat called him motor mouth cause he never stopped asking questions.

Even now he pushed Ryder like the ICW wanted and he is helping Truth with his work and he does it with alot of other workers.

Problem is cause he fell in love with and married the HOTTEST bosses daughter ever. The IWC is JEALOUS of a few things when it comes to HHH. He has the job they all wish they had, He is banging the woman they wish they had and they WISH they had the ability to build the body he has with free time and trainiers in a Gym.

 

[JDtheDrunk]

2008: Edge is the king of Smackdown, single handedly boosting that shows ratings. The annual WWW draft is held and shockingly, HHH moves to Smackdown from Raw. Over the course of the next 2 months, this is what happens to the guy that made Smackdown relevant again.

- Gets attacked by Batista, CM Punk cashes in and he loses in WHC
- Has his wedding ceremony crashed and life ruined by of course, HHH(when it supposed to be Matt Hardy)
- Jobs to the all mighty HHH at GAB in the WWE title match
- Gets "sent to hell" by Undertaker at Summerslam. Thus leaving the big hero HHH the alpha male on Smackdown.

That right there folks is Hunter Hearst Helmsley in a nutshell.

 

[The Brain]

LOL! this is my favourite right here:

CASE STUDY #5: HHH vs. Kane (2002).

The Facts: Youd think the damn belts would have been enough. It was all set up for World champ HHH to battle IC champ Kane in a unification match that would effectively dissolve the IC strap. But Vince, Hunter, and God knows who else decided that that just wasn't enough incentive to get fans to push the "buy" button on their remote controls. So they concocted one of the WORST storylines ever, which saw HHH "out" Kane as a murderer who, as a teen, had killed his cheerleader girlfriend, Katie Vick. The Big Red Machine claimed that Katie's death was an accident when their car swerved off the road. (Yeah, right. Her and JYD, buddy.) Okay, so far, this was tasteless, but not really bad, right? Buckle up, Court Cadets. It's gonna get much, MUCH worse.

The culmination of this angle was a skit wherein HHH donned a Kane mask and visited a funeral home, complete with Katie mannequin lying restfully in a casket. HHKane then proceeded to hump Katie's mannequin corpse. Even by WWWFE "standards," this angle was so horribly offensive that fans tuned out by the thousands. It was selected "Gooker Of The Year" for 2002 by www.wrestlecrap.com (an award bestowed upon the worst of the worst).

The Prosecution: Necrophilia, for fucks sake??!! The Prosecution rests.

The Defense: Hey, you smarks were always complaining that Raw didnt do anything original anymore. Well, I dont know about you, but Id consider HHH putting on a Kane mask and slipping the shrunken testes to a mannequin dressed up to resemble a dead teenage cheerleader pretty freakin original. Theres no pleasing you people. Besides, HHH did the right thing here. After convincingly winning the big title vs. title match on PPV, Trips lost a non-title casket match to Kane on Raw when HBK interfered and cost HHH the match. Get off the guys back, will ya? Theres not enough room for you AND the acne.

The Verdict: "I screwed your brains out" Guilty. Like with Angle, Kane's career may have survived, but it was no thanks to Frankenschnozz. Oh, but HHHs Kaneophobia didnt end with a necrophilia angle. HHH was determined to kill the BRMs career at any cost. Stay tuned.

How bad did that make Kane's career? It truly destroyed some of the "seriousness" that he had. To this day there is no getting over the whole Katie Vick storyline. Every time I think of it, I cry of laughter.

It's pretty easy to win an argument when you're playing both the role of the prosecution and the defense, not to mention the judge. Of course the Katie Vick storyline was awful. I won't ever defend it. You want to hear a myth though. There is a big myth in the IWC that Kane was super over in the fall of 2002. He was popular but the way some people talk about him you'd think he was a new American hero storming Madison Square Garden to take the title of the evil Iranian champion. Kane was a face coming back from a hiatus due to injury. He immediately started feuding with the top heel in the company. Of course he was going to get some pops. Do you think he would have been able to sustain that? If so I don't know why. He never has before. Kane was always better as a challenger than a champion. It's hard to be the face of the company when that face is completely hidden by a mask.

Now Brain seriously get your brain out of your ass for a minute because you of all people know that the HHH and Booker storyline was complete buryfull(berry lol)


CASE STUDY #7: HHH vs. Booker T (2003).

The Facts: After the Steiner experiment turned out to be the equivalent of two trains crashing into a nuclear power plant, HHH needed a new victim on the biggest stage of 'em all in Seattle. Booker T was the best pick at the time, as Book-HHH was a fresh match and fans had really gotten behind the Bookerman after months of solid matches and camptastic skits with Goldust. Book won a battle royal on Raw to earn the WM title shot, eliminating no less than The Rock to start his road to WM. Everything was going great until Book's first angle with HHH.

HHH played the race card, stopping just short of trying to get over "Your name-AH is Kunta-AH Kinte-AH" as his new catchphrase. HHH did say stuff like "People like YOU exist only to entertain me" and did such great WM-level angles as attempting to tip Booker T upon encountering him in a mens room (!). Not enough for ya? Well, they trotted out the mug shot of a young Booker who legit did time for robbing a Wendy's in his misspent youth.

Needless to say, HHH pedigreed and pinned Booker at the big dance. At least there was no actual, factual dog crap involved this year.

The Prosecution: Triple-H? Triple-K is more like it. HHH finally books himself in a feud with a guy who can hold up his end of the promos and what does he focus on? The fact that Booker is black. Gamecocks may say that Hunter was just playing the "Million Dollar Man" type prickish heel who treats everyone like a servant, but the fact remains that he pulled this crap with THE ONLY OVER BLACK SINGLES WRESTLER ON THE WHOLE GODDAMN ROSTER. Calling attention to Booker's legit criminal past buried the guy, too. Were not condoning armed robbery, but the guy paid his debt to society and worked his ass off to better himself, both in his personal and professional life. Speaking as a fan, it was downright offensive to watch.

The Defense: Didn't HHH job to Booker in a tag match during the WM build? I'm not being smarmy here; I think he did, but I can't remember. Anyway, Booker should have thought about all of this before he robbed a Wendy's. Hunter was fighting for the honor of Dave Thomas. Um, yeah.


The Verdict: Guilty, sucka. (Just like a certain sports-entertainer who once knocked over a Wendy's!) It's a borderline case, but if Cripple-H was going to go "super heel" with the racial crap, he should have done the right thing in the end (i.e., a "job") to justify it. TWF mascot Booker Bear is still pissed about this. Cant blame the little guy.

I've already disucssed Booker plenty. I have acknowledged that based on the way the feud went it probably would have been better had he won the title. I've also explained my opinion as to why he didn't. Either way Booker got a high profile match on the biggest show of the year and despite coming out on the losing end he was not buried.

 

[ilapierre]

I love the title of this thread. The 'myth' of Triple H burying people. It would be like me creating a thread called the 'myth' that Vince McMahon made the WWE successful.

Triple H IS the worst "burying" culprit of all-time. This is no myth. This 'myth' idea is coming from a big time Triple H mark trying to defend his hero.

I am not an angry IWC member. I'm not angry about Triple H. I'm pretty indifferent about him. He's not the worst wrestler or entertainer. He's an average wrestler, an average entertainer. On his own merit, he would have been a two or three time world champ. If he wrestled in the era of Hogan and Savage, he'd be lucky to get is hands on the Intercontinental title. I remember thinking it odd years ago when he actually beat Owen Hart for that belt. To me, Triple H should have been Shawn's lackey and nothing more. There was nothing about the guy that intrigued me. WWE was in bad shape, Shawn left, Triple H was in the right place at the right time. Enter Stephanie. There is no myth when it comes to why Triple H became successful and then held others down. If you were to marry your boss or your bosses daughter then in life you would climb the ladder. There's no ifs, ands or butts about it. Marrying into the company proves your loyalty, it means you've invested for life and you will be rewarded for life unless you fuck up. Triple H got to reach the top because of his entrance into the McMahon family. Shane and Stephanie would never have made it on TV if they weren't Vince's kids. Neither would Linda. If Vince wasn't Vince, he wouldn't have won the world title, main evented Wrestemania with Hogan, Michaels, Hart etc. Triple H is family and by default got to have almost as many world titles as Ric Flair. Sure, Trips could have won a few on his own. But there is huge job security and ladder climbing that comes with partnering up with Stephanie and becoming a McMahon family friend beyond business. Even Santino would climb the ladder of success had he been the lucky guy. It's not cliche to say Triple H got what he got by getting with Stephanie. To think otherwise, is closing your eyes to how things work in reality. Bottom line, Trips without Stephanie and Shawn isn't a 13 time world champ who main events for 13 years. Without them he doesn't main event all those Wrestlemanias he had no business main eventing, whether he lost or not. The guy lost some of his Wrestlemania matches, sure, but the other 364 days a year he rarely lost. The guy was booked like Diesel during his world title run, or the way Hogan was booked in 89-90, the way Goldberg was in WCW. Triple H was pushed as an undefeatable monster and he didn't look like one. It was like the guy just kept getting pushes every time he'd come back from injury. Stone Cold or Rock or whoever would just end up coming back and feuding for a bit before a title run. Not Triple H. He'd return at the Royal Rumble or on RAW and challenge for the world title and win it. Then he'd lose it two weeks later, only to win it again at the next PPV. Snore. I'm all for old guys looking strong and not jobbing although the IWC cries whenever the young guys have to lose. But Triple H has always been the exception. He's the one old guy who goes the limit and never looks weak and almost never gets pinned.

His wife oversees all the booking. The bookers book Triple H to be dominant and rarely ever lose in order to keep their jobs and move up in the company. Triple H has been groomed to take over WWE with Stephanie. He was given all he got so that he'd
stay with Stephanie. Had he fucked the McMahons over and treated Stephanie like Chyna, his career story would be re-slanted and they would be making the "Rise and Fall of Triple H" DVD where they'd pay pocket change to old hacks like Ted Dibiase to come and say what a douchebag Triple H was.

By competing in so many Wrestlemania main events Triple H has buried superstars. He really wasn't needed in that triple threat match with Benoit. He beat Sheamus. But Sheamus had no business being in a high calibre match with Triple H. Sheamus was there because he is Triple H's close buddy. By pushing a guy with average talent that came out of nowhere like Sheamus,
Triple H was holding back other guys perhaps more deserving. His feuds with Randy Orton and Batista, two of his closest friends, didn't hold anyone down. But the thing is Triple H only wants to push his closest of friends. Imagine if Hulk Hogan would only lose to Brutus Beefcake and Bryan Knobs and would never let Warrior or Goldberg get clean pins. Hogan wasn't stupid enough to let his friendships get in the way of business, he knew those guys couldn't cut it, yet Triple H never seemed to get that Batista was a boring big guy and that Sheamus really doesn't have it. The OP posted that Triple H 'put over' the Undertaker. Hahaha..Undertaker puts over Triple H by wrestling him at three different Wrestlemanias. Triple H should never have been able to take Undertaker so close to the limit. Of all the wrestlers Taker has fought in the past, how is it Triple H at his age is the one that gets the closest to ending the streak? There are so many more deserving guys that could gain cred by facing the Undertaker at Wrestlemania. But Triple H just needs to be the guy, cause in his mind no one else can do the streak justice. Triple H rushed back late last summer and completely ruined the CM Punk/Kevin Nash angle. The whole focus has been on Triple H when it should have been on CM Punk. Triple H has never been Hulk Hogan, he's never been The Rock, or Austin, or Savage, or Michaels. The guy, his wife, and the whole booking team they hold hostage cannot push Triple H any further and make us believe he is in the same league. No matter if he wins 26 World Titles, no matter how many times they allow him to main event wrestlemania, no matter how many times he gets to take Taker to the limit. Triple H is limited, he doesn't have the charisma or personality or wrestling skills or mic skills to be where he's at overall in his career. Triple H has always thought he was the show when in reality WWE Raw was Rock and Austin, in between was Shawn Michaels and is now Cena and Punk. Whether he wins or loses all his matches, the reality is he is not Hulk Hogan, Rock, Austin etc so therefore has no business being such a dominant wrestler who never leaves the main event limelight. It is no myth that his lifelong push has held a lot of wrestlers down. By only pushing your friends, by marrying the bosses daughter and inheriting the ultimate position of authority in the company, by deciding who gets pushed and who doesn't, by main eventing every PPV when you're not even interesting enough to be main eventing for 13 years, by being behind the firing or letting go of or demise or the screwing over of a number of more interesting superstars like Bret Hart, Jeff Hardy, RVD, Mick Foley, Marc Mero, Chyna, etc etc, by vetoing any angle that puts anybody, even Shawn, in a higher light than himself...this is all holding down the career of others and holding down ratings.

I think a more appropriate title to this thread should be the 'myth' that Triple H worked his way to the top and 13 world titles and 13 years of domination through blood, sweat and tears with absolutely no connections.

 

[Nate DaMac]

2008: Edge is the king of Smackdown, single handedly boosting that shows ratings. The annual WWW draft is held and shockingly, HHH moves to Smackdown from Raw. Over the course of the next 2 months, this is what happens to the guy that made Smackdown relevant again.

- Gets attacked by Batista, CM Punk cashes in and he loses in WHC
- Has his wedding ceremony crashed and life ruined by of course, HHH(when it supposed to be Matt Hardy)
- Jobs to the all mighty HHH at GAB in the WWE title match
- Gets "sent to hell" by Undertaker at Summerslam. Thus leaving the big hero HHH the alpha male on Smackdown.

That right there folks is Hunter Hearst Helmsley in a nutshell.

So basically, you're saying that being a main eventer and never even coming close to losing that status is somehow getting buried now? How fucking ridiculous can you get?

Also, The Edge Taker Cell match MAIN EVENTED THE GOD DAMN SHOW! That's right, he was placed higher on the card than Hunter and had a way more meaningful match.

I don't know how his career ever recoverd.

 

[PlayTheGame]

It's pretty easy to win an argument when you're playing both the role of the prosecution and the defense, not to mention the judge. Of course the Katie Vick storyline was awful. I won't ever defend it. You want to hear a myth though. There is a big myth in the IWC that Kane was super over in the fall of 2002. He was popular but the way some people talk about him you'd think he was a new American hero storming Madison Square Garden to take the title of the evil Iranian champion. Kane was a face coming back from a hiatus due to injury. He immediately started feuding with the top heel in the company. Of course he was going to get some pops. Do you think he would have been able to sustain that? If so I don't know why. He never has before. Kane was always better as a challenger than a champion. It's hard to be the face of the company when that face is completely hidden by a mask.



I've already disucssed Booker plenty. I have acknowledged that based on the way the feud went it probably would have been better had he won the title. I've also explained my opinion as to why he didn't. Either way Booker got a high profile match on the biggest show of the year and despite coming out on the losing end he was not buried.

I'd say that 99% of the Triple H detractors that have posted in this thread do not understand what the term "buried" means, as they apply it to practically any person Triple H has ever pinned. They use this as the crux of their argument, and they don't even realize that they're just throwing around terms that they obviously don't understand. I'm not saying Triple H has never buried anyone ever in the past (I don't want to overgeneralize), but I definitely know that it is no more than any other top guy, and it is certainly not a long list. For those that have wrongly used the term in their argument, and for those that undoubtedly will in the future of this thread, let's clarify the definition of the wrestling insider term "buried"- to be "buried" is to continuously lose/continuosly be degraded, lowering the quality of one's career in a particular promotion, damaging their credibility in the process. This can often happen via being placed in squash matches, degrading storylines, etc. Look around the internet, that's the common consensus definition. Thus, a victory, or even a few victories as long as they aren't squashes, does not equal being "buried".

Thus, that long list of people HHH "buried?" I don't think so. A popular name that somehow keeps coming up is CM Punk. Apparently HHH buried him. Whether you like HHH's insertion into the storyline or not, people are mistaking their dislike for it by claiming Punk was buried. Punk was not degraded in any way or lowered- he's still the man and the champ. If he were buried, he'd have lost the belt and be in a love triangle with the Bella twins. But he's still the champ, and is still highlighting Raw on a weekly basis. Probably the worst example a HHH detractor can use, as it immediately exposes that you don't know what you're talking about by foolishly trying to push a horrid example.

But people still don't want to ackowledge what the term actually means, and I know there will still be plenty of ignorant people that will continue to post in this thread throwing around the word "buried" as if it means "won a match against".

 

[HBKperfect23]

Even by their definition of "burying" its still ridiculous to even being discussing this. Triple H has elevated more talent then anyone.....maybe ever. Why would he not do whatever it takes to make the company he will be running one day better? Triple H is no dummy, hed put over whoever to boost the ratings.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I love the title of this thread. The 'myth' of Triple H burying people. It would be like me creating a thread called the 'myth' that Vince McMahon made the WWE successful.

Well one is true, the other is not.

Triple H IS the worst "burying" culprit of all-time. This is no myth. This 'myth' idea is coming from a big time Triple H mark trying to defend his hero.

Oh, fuck off. As if this isn't coming from some straight up anti-Triple H guy.

I am not an angry IWC member.

I'm not angry about Triple H. I'm pretty indifferent about him.

He's not the worst wrestler or entertainer. He's an average wrestler, an average entertainer. On his own merit, he would have been a two or three time world champ.

First off, he's not the worst. He's one of the best wrestlers of the past 15 years. He's a ring general, an excellent promo guy, and he's one of the top draws in the business.

Second, Also I'm pretty sure Triple won the World Title 3 times before he and Steph were together, at least 6 times before they were married.

If he wrestled in the era of Hogan and Savage, he'd be lucky to get is hands on the Intercontinental title. I remember thinking it odd years ago when he actually beat Owen Hart for that belt.

He was over. That is the end all be all when it comes to winning matches and championships in the WWE. If you're over, you deserve a higher spot.

To me, Triple H should have been Shawn's lackey and nothing more. There was nothing about the guy that intrigued me. WWE was in bad shape, Shawn left, Triple H was in the right place at the right time. Enter Stephanie. There is no myth when it comes to why Triple H became successful and then held others down. If you were to marry your boss or your bosses daughter then in life you would climb the ladder. There's no ifs, ands or butts about it. Marrying into the company proves your loyalty, it means you've invested for life and you will be rewarded for life unless you fuck up.

Tsk tsk. You really are quite the revisionist. Triple H blew up at a time when WWE was in bad shape? You mean to tell me that when The Rock and Austin were literally the top draws in the world and he was constantly their biggest opponent?

This is such a pile of shit. Yeah Triple H married the bosses daughter and yeah, that certainly led to a fair share of perks. The fact is that Triple H deserved those perks. When you're one of the best at what you do and you're a proven commodity, you get a certain level of respect from the higher ups. Whether or not Hunter was married to Steph had little to no effect on his career.

Look at like this, Undertaker never married into the business. You think he doesn't get his way when it comes to feud directions and creative ideas? Hogan? Austin? Rock? Cena? Hell, even Shawn Michaels did and he wasn't shit as a draw compared to the other guys. It's a perk of being great at your job and he would have had it regardless of who he married.

Triple H got to reach the top because of his entrance into the McMahon family. Shane and Stephanie would never have made it on TV if they weren't Vince's kids. Neither would Linda. If Vince wasn't Vince, he wouldn't have won the world title, main evented Wrestemania with Hogan, Michaels, Hart etc. Triple H is family and by default got to have almost as many world titles as Ric Flair.

Yes yes, none of his family would have been on TV without Vince. They also wouldn't have stayed on TV if they didn't get over. It doesn't matter anyway, the whole thing is irrelevant because Triple H was quite over well before he got involved with the McMahon family.

Sure, Trips could have won a few on his own.

He won more than a few on his own, you putz.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this nonsense. You just regurgitate the same bullshit over and over with no semblance of coherency. Triple H is a fucking legend, he would have been with or without Stephanie McMahon receiving the dick. The only two people anyone can truly have a claim to being held back by him are Booker T and Kane and even those a flimsy at best.

He put over Benoit, Orton, Batista, Cena, and Sheamus right off the top of my head. 3 of those guys were/are the top draws in the business, one of them is quickly becoming the next big thing(kind of throws your dumbass argument about someone undeserving getting a chance huh? Apparently Hunter knows what he's doing because Sheamus is incredible at his job,) and the other one was a legend but had his legacy tarnished because he went nuts.

You, sir, are a fucking twit.

 

[ilapierre]

Nate, buddy, you don't agree with me so I'm a twit. Whatever. You are right, I am anti-Triple H. He doesn't make me extremely angry though. I just don't really care about his segments, his promos, his matches, etc etc. The only time I can say I'd sit through watching him is if he had Chris Jericho or Stephanie or Triple H or Road Dogg and Billy Gunn carrying him. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way about the guy. Most of my friends feel pretty indifferent toward Triple H. Of course Trips is gonna be considered a legend and one of the best the way he was portrayed. I just never bought it or felt it. A lot of people did, way more than who didn't. But still a lot less people buy Triple H than say 10 other guys from that era. Triple H has accomplished more than almost any wrestler in history but I don't think there is another wrestler who has accomplished so much in a career without really getting the majority of the audience buying him. Flair, Michaels, Savage, Hitman, Hogan, Taker, Sting, Austin, Rock, Bruno, Thez, fuck even Warrior. Perhaps it was because Triple H often played the heel. He was a really good heel in the late 90s and in 2000. I really enjoyed watching what he was involved in up until about 10 years ago. I still didn't think he deserved so much TV time but I did buy him till he faced Chris Jericho and beat him at Wrestlemania 18. Hogan and Rock was the real main event yet this match ended the night. Chris Jericho can entertain and wrestle and deliver a promo 10 times better than Trips and really should have had as an accomplished career as Trips. That's no knock on Triple H, that's just me feeling Jericho didn't realize his full potential because someone thought the belt should be on Triple H more often than Jericho. Ahem.

Triple H won the title three times before Stephanie and another 3 before they were married. Ok. The three when they were together still count. The three before though.
Why wouldn't they count? I'm sure Triple H was 'seeing' Stephanie secretly near the end of his time with Chyna in 99. Trips didn't win his first title till near the end of the summer of 99. That was probably about the time Triple H and Stephanie were getting it on. Maybe not officially. Trips was on his way to a title or two anyway. That's a given. I just feel that without Stephanie he wins the title as many times as Mick Foley as a transitional champ to Rock and Stone Cold. He doesn't become the Immortal King of Kings circa 2002 and onward.

WWE was in bad shape around the time of the screwjob. Things were looking pretty good around the time that Shawn left and Austin took the ball. Thing is, WWE didn't have a whole lot of guys that were big time. Triple H had his hand in Vince's back pocket even before he and Stephanie got together. Trips had the authority to sway Vince into 'screwing' Bret. He was able to maneuvre himself into the world title picture and he became interesting when Stephanie joined his character. Which was right around the time he won his first world title in August/September 99. I'm not revising history. I have my own slant of what I perceived and it's a bit different than the way you perceive it.
I'll grant you that more people out there perceive Triple H as one of the best. I would argue though that he was pushed down our throats undeservedly. Jeff Jarrett was pushed on WCW fans in 99 and on TNA fans for the past decade. Double J is the Triple H of WCW/TNA. Average ring ability, average promos, average to below average charisma, average draw who relies on a sound machine to make it look like he's getting above average pops.

Where I really have to argue is that Triple H wasn't really a 'proven' commodity in the same breath as Rock or Austin. Triple H was over big time as a heel and then as a face
in 2002. My problem is that he was over like Chris Benoit was over, he wasn't over like Shawn Michaels. He was kind of bland and pushed yet fans would go beserk for the guy like he was almost as important as Rock or Austin. I think he got the pops he did in the 2000s because a lot of fans missed Rock, Austin, Foley etc and Triple H reminded them of the hey day. He was one of last big remnants from that period in WWE. And when you're pushed as one of the best, fans will come to pop for you like you are one of the best. WWE could have pushed Jeff Jarrett like Triple H if he married Steph.

Undertaker never married into the family business but ended up with the gimmick of a lifetime. Anybody who inherited the Taker gimmick would have big. If Mark Calloway wasn't at the right place at the right time it could have been another big tall scary looking guy. I don't think there will ever be a better gimmick than the Undertaker gimmick. Calloway did not have to marry into the family to accomplish what he accomplished. It's his gimmick and he had the look and the determination and loyalty to WWE. Triple H definitely had all those things but he needed a great face to feud with and he needed charismatic people around him to make his feuds more interesting. You pit Triple H up against Nash and it just sucks. That's because two average guys were pitted up against each other. The same thing wouldn't have happened if it was Nash and Punk as Punk could carry Nash in the charisma department and Nash could carry Punk in the menacing heel department. Trips and Austin worked well because Austin brought the charisma and Triple H brought the snobby arrogant personality to the table. Trips worked so well as a heel because fans really wanted to see him get his overrated ass handed to him. When Austin was gone, his haters became his fans by default because they were classically conditioned to associate the hero of the attitude era with one of that eras most overachieving villains.

If I'm a revisionist then at least I'm a revisionist that actually remembers the 80s and 90s like it was yesterday. I grew up thinking Andre was the most undefeatable legend of legends the way he was built up. I was young and that's all I knew when I got into it. A lot of fans who reminisce look back to when they were young and what they knew was the undefeatable Triple H. I was old enough to remember him as Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Shawn Michaels right hand man. A mid carder. A time when it was 50 50 if he or Billy Gunn would get that IC title push. I remember a weak WWE even though WWE was pulling ahead in ratings. WWE's stars were mainly new stars. They needed a new heel now that Michaels was gone. Rock was a heel but everyone loved him. WWE needed a heel that the fans couldn't help but hate and Triple H fit the job description. If I was 5 to 10 years younger in 1999 I might have drank the Triple H kool aid. But I didn't, and I haven't really been able to watch regularly since 2003. I saw Triple H face Kevin Nash at a house show and it may have been the worst match I ever saw and it was by far the most boring on the card. Most the fans that come on here watch regularly and they see wrestling history differently because they bought Triple H as the go to guy. They come on here and defend him because the past 13 years of watching WWE has hinged on this guy being rammed down their throats. The thing is, Triple H was the go to guy in the worst era of wrestling. Even when he was pushed at the top of the card with more titles than Michaels, it was Michaels who won the marks and smarks over with his charisma and amazing matches. Michaels was the only funny member of DX. Michaels didn't have to say much to be more interesting than Triple H. He just put him on his back and made him relevant. Although all their segments you have Triple H dominating like he's the leader and he's the guy people give a shit about. I like Triple H when his hot wife was running around in short skirts acting ****ty. As soon as she left him, he became pretty dull to watch.

Nate, if you think Sheamus is incredible at his job then you must really buy this era of dull PG entertainment. In no other era in wrestling history could some random like Sheamus ever surpass the achievements of a Lash Leroux. Lash Lawho? Exactly. I'll give Sheamus this, fans that like the product seem to like Sheamus. I just think WWE could do so much better but they never seem to recruit guys with entertainment value. They just find dull Triple H-like guys and ram them down our throat the same way. I'm not buying it. Sheamus isn't gaining WWE a new audience. He's just another guy who could disappear and no one would give a shit. Excellent worker my ass.

 

[Headman]

I like this thread. It's like a stupid people radar that gets the people who believe Triple H is guilty of "Burying" their favorite midcarder or jobber to speak up and prove how dumb they really are.

Booker T wasn't buried at Wrestlemania... He worked a world title match at Wrestlemania and lost.

Rob Van Dam wasn't buried by Triple H. He was elevated to his first main event program and lost.

Kane was not buried by Triple H in their title vs title feud. Kane was the lead in the main storyline on RAW and lost.

None of these guys were buried. They actually got to work main events with one of the WWE's top guys even though they were for the most part run of the mill midcard talent. Kane wasn't going to go on to be the next Stone Cold Steve Austin had he beaten Triple H. Booker T wasn't going to be the new Rock had he beaten Triple H. Rob Van Dam wasn't going to become less lazy, wreckless or stoned because he beat Triple H. If you think Triple H did anything other than make these guys relevant for 15 minutes you're wrong.

 

[HBKperfect23]

Oh ya he's a regular Ric Flair the way he puts people over. I'm sorry I couldn't help myself with that one.

I put him just below Flair on that level. Flair being a main event jobber in the mid 90s is what puts him over the top with putting people over. HHH has put just as many guys over (or attempted to).

 

[ilapierre]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Headman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for Triple H being "Pushed down our throats" you can say that about every single main eventer to ever grace the ring. If one thing internet fans do it's complain about the same thing over and over again even if it doesn't make a lick of sense. So no sir, I'm afraid my first post was correct. Forgive me if it seems hostile, but with all the misinformation, urban legends and flat out lies being passed around the internet it is important to make my points as direct as I can.

 

[FlairFan2003]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remenber this is the same guy who sent Stone Cold packing when he refused to put over Lesnar, tired of his biggest star dictating to him who wins and loses.

 

[FlairFan2003]

As far as HBK "biting his lip" since he returned in 02 again says who ? HBK, like Flair during that time, did not want to work a full time schedule and therefore was not booked as "The Top Guy" for an extended period of time, certainly he wasnt treated horrible, but he wasnt going to dominate the main event scene working half as much time as Edge, Batista, etc.

 

[MrExcitement]

I believe this whole thing is somewhat in a grey area. Yes, he did bury lots of ex WCW talent, Nash, Steiner, Goldberg, but those guys were mainly on the wane anyway. As for Booker, RVD, Kane and Jeff Hardy, those were guys who were incredibly unfortunate not to get title reigns in the period 2002-2004. Yeah he buried a few guys, but he has also put many guys over, such as Sheamus, Jeff Hardy (in 2008-9?), Randy Orton and Batista.

 

[UltimateHitman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you continue to refuse to admit that HHH politicked backstage, you are a sad, naive, deluded soul and I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell you at a bargain of a price.

 

[The Brain]

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

Because people disagree with you?

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

You don't see the flaw in your logic? People that worked with the man said he buried them. Isn't it possible they are just looking to place blame on someone for their own failures? I don't doubt that his friends have said he's buried people but could you give specific examples?

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

It depends how you lose? Ok, how about tapping out to Chris Benoit clean in the middle of the ring in the world's most famous arena at the 20th anniversary of the company's biggest show? How about losing clean to Batista three pay per views in a row including WrestleMania? How about once again tapping out clean at WrestleMania to John Cena?

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

I listed a few examples for my side. You have not done the same for yours.

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

I think you're rambling here. I'm not following your point.

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

WWE wasn't made up of one person either. For a while Triple H was the marquee name and guys like Kane, RVD, and Booker T were the supporting cast.

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

So are you saying Triple H was beating jobbers every night? Hogan went over a lot more people than Triple H did so again I don't see your point.

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

Politicking was done. So what? If Vince thought someone was going to be a success and draw money for his company Triple H would not have been able to hold them down. I swear some people think the guy never should have won a match.

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

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

So Triple H tried to bury every single guy he ever worked with? That sounds a little far fetched. You still haven't given one example of someone Triple H buried.

If you continue to refuse to admit that HHH politicked backstage, you are a sad, naive, deluded soul and I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell you at a bargain of a price.

There is a difference between politicking and burying everyone he ever worked with. Triple H was a main event guy. Like it or not there weren't a whole lot of people in his league. The ones that were went over him or at the very least got a solid and competitive program with him. The ones that weren't still benefited from working with him. They simply didn't get the win. I keep forgetting though, there are certain people that think Triple H never should have won a match in his whole damn career.

 

[PlayTheGame]

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

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

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

 

[Peoples_Champ]

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

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

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