Triple H: an absolute pseudo-legend in pro wrestling?

Triple H: pseudo-legend?

  • Yes, he's a pseudo-legend. Never great, just a guy bolstered by associations and hype.

  • No, he's a genuine legend, and one of the greatest of all time, as WWE says he is.


Results are only viewable after voting.
What a contentious discussion!

Regardless of what either side of the debaters claim, one has to have a neutral stand on this one. I disagree with the OP that he's a "pseudo-legend". Simultaneously, I have to agree with the essence of what the OP, ilapierre, and a few others have pointed out. HHH is a politicking, selfish, self-centred, egomaniacal SOB. It's a fact. It's a fact that isn't difficult to prove.

He was never at the level of Rock/Austin, and was always a background player. Ironically, a "B plus" player, the same epithet that they've bestowed on daniel bryan. He always got himself inserted into major storylines/factions/players. Brock Lesnar/CM Punk in recent years is a good example, as the OP/others have pointed out.

I also think he's not very original. This isn't something that others haven't claimed. Bret Hart was right when he said so. Sure, he had a persona, he had his DX Schtick, etc. He also had two catchphrases in the Era of catchphrases (Attitude Era). But do I think he was original, like how Austin and Rock were original, even though they prolliferated expletives and catchphrases like anything? No I don't. Just because you say "I am that damn good" and "The game", it doesn't add one bit to your talent. If anyone should've called themselves "The game", it should be a technically flawless and brilliant wrestler like Kurt Angle or Bret Hart. : )) : )) : )).

Did he put guys over? When it suited him, he did. Batista, Orton, and others. But he has also been an egomaniacal, self-serving, manipulative bastard for most of his career. I'd like to echo ilapierre when he made a brilliant distinction of how he pinned Brock and Punk, just before their reigns/milestones.

Finally, I think HHH has been/is/will always be a COPYCAT. It only emphasizes my prior point that he's unoriginal. Rock and Mankind steal the show at RR 1999 in a street fight or whatever it was. Fast forward to Royal Rumble 2000. It's HHH/Mick Foley. Wowwwwwww. HBK had two back-to-back matches with the Undertaker at WM? I'm going to have them too. Hell, I'll have a HIAC at WM.

I think the only reason HHH got over/got through with his mediocre talent was because he was positioned into those places, for whatsoever reason, and because of the guys he worked with, namely, Austin during Survivor Series 2000, The Rock throughout 1998 (When Rock was obviously far more talented and original than HHH could ever dream of being), and in 2000 when The Rock was a hot commodity, and when HHH was a boring, long-promo cutting, overrated heel.

It's really not that much of a mystery that HHH was/is a B level, mediocre wrestler with mediocre skills, but plenty of practical intelligence and politics that allowed him to carve his own niche and legacy. He was always an unoriginal spotlight stealer. Surrounded himself with HBK in 1997 when HBK was hot, Rock in 1998/2000 when THE ROCK was hot. Austin in 2000/2001. The only time when he was seemingly independent was 2002-2005 because he was the SOLE former champion from the attitude era with Batista, Flair and Orton to serve as his underlings. And obviously, in a situation like brand extention, without Rock and Austin, even a mediocre wrestler becomes a multiple-time champion and a "main-eventer".

His plus points are that he had a few "good matches" and speciality matches with almost every legend in this business, from Taker to HBK to Mick Foley to Kurt Angle. He was never an engaging or compelling talker, nor performer. But to deny him that credit and to say that he's not a legend would be a mistake. Legend, yeah. Original, No.
 
I think the poll shows pretty clearly that he is a genuine legend.

Even before he was involved with Vince's daughter - He was already very over a babyface in D-X and then as a top heel in mid to late 1999. He was already the WWF World Champion and headlining PPV's with Austin and The Rock. 2000 era Triple H was my favourite work of his.. until he came back as a babyface in 2002. I think he was already going down in the books as one of the best at this point.

Now - everything post 2002 can be debated that he "booked himself". He was definitely the top guy on RAW for years from 2003 - 2005 until John Cena emerged. Did he book himself into this spot? Constantly going over on guys like Booker T, Scott Steiner, Kane, Goldberg, etc. It's possible. But it's not like he was undeserving. He was always a reliable performer in the ring, he was always getting nuclear heat, so it's not like he was out of place. It wasn't like Jeff Jarrett pretending to be a main eventer when no one is buying it. HHH's heat is what put guys like Benoit and Batista so over, which is what a good heel does. And it continues to this day with guys like Daniel Bryan.
 
I don't get why people keep saying Triple H is a 'mediocre' talent. He has the promo skills, the charisma, psychology and in-ring abilities to be a main eventer- even NOW. If I have any issue with Triple H as a performer, it's when he tries to be act like the objective guy in the suit. He was at his most boring when the Authority was trying to be neutral in order to sell the network, since he wasn't really showcasing a personality. Stephanie did a better job at it. Do most people prefer Rock, Austin and so on? Sure, but remember their careers weren't as long. They never suffered the burnout, their use of backstage politics never became as notorious, etc. I thought Triple H>Rock and Austin in the ring, although they had more entertaining personalities.

It should be noted that back when he was booking himself over everyone else, there wasn't really a 'top guy'. Goldberg and Steiner were still relatively new to the company and usually newbs won't be put over the main events- although I do think Goldberg should've won. Kane has always been midcard material, except for his occasional heel reign. Booker T's loss was probably Triple H lowest moment. But if memory serves, Booker T was considering retirement all the way back then. So if it was believed that Triple H had more longevity, then I can even understand that decision.
 
While I think he certainly does qualify as a legend, he is certainly not on the same level as guys like Austin, Rock or Hogan. Whether he is on the same level or is an even bigger star than guys like Shawn, Bret and Taker is debatable. But he was the best heel in the Attitude Era and his feuds with The Rock were highly entertaining. I think a lot of the hate for HHH comes from his title reigns in the 2002-2006 period when he held on to the title for so long. This is widely seen as one of the most boring periods in Raw History. While Brock and Angle were tearing the house down on Smackdown, HHH kept having boring one-sided feuds and Flair kissing his ass. That entire run felt like WWE was just shoving him down our throats to force us to accept he was the guy. Another example is HHH having two back-to-back matches against Taker at WM27 and 28. It felt like he was trying to prove that he was on HBK's level by facing Taker twice.
 
Triple H is a 100% legend in the business. Simple fact, the most prosperous time in wrestling history, he was a leader. Could you imagine the AE without him? DX wouldn't have existed without him. Evolution wouldn't have existed without him.

He put over 2 of the biggest stars of the most recent generation, clean, in the middle of the ring (via pinfall and tapout) in Mania main events.

He was the guy who held the WWF together during the transition period between Rock/Austin to Cena/Batista.

His marriage to Stephanie was a high risk situation. That marriage fails, where does he go? Love is love. You can't choose who you fall in love with, it just happens.

As for burying people and only wanting himself in the spotlight.....well see:

1) Wrestlemania 20,21,22,24,30 for that whole issue.
2) Watch how NXT is booked on a weekly basis (nothing goes on NXT that he doesnt bless)
3) Watch Stone Cold Podcast and see his thoughts on things he would do differently and how he would book talent today.

The "self booked titles and associations" made me laugh so hard lmao. Vince is the one who makes the decisions in everything but NXT and has for 40 years.
 
As for the "he politicked".....any wrestler who ever got to any level of notoriaty has politicked at some point in time. That goes for Hogan, Flair, Savage, HBK, Bret, Cena, Rock, Austin, Kane, Taker....they have all done it whether it be for personal or professional reasons. If you sit back and think anyone who has ever reached any level that matters in wrestling and didn't politick at some point and time to either hold someone down or elevate themselves, is naive beyond repair.
 
So a pop after being gone for a long time means you're a legend? Bubba Dudley must have been top tier after hearing the Philly crowd go nuts for him at the Rumble this year!!

Did you really just compare those 2 pops? Are you high? Lmao dude you are blinded man. That pop in MSG is almost unmatched by anything ever. Rock, Austin, Hogan are the only ones who had pops at that level. Daniel Bryan pops may sound loud now.....but thats only cause people have been sitting on their hands for so long, we are used to silence. Transport those pops into that era HHH got the standing ovation at MSG, you wouldn't be fazed by them
 
Triple H is a legend when you take into account his kayfabe accomplishments. Imo he comes off as a guy that is insecure about his spot and place in history. Hence why he gets overbooked to overcompensate. He is a decent talker but when a majority of your promos are shootish, then how good are you really? Anybody can look good cutting a bunch of shoot style promos. He is an above average worker in the ring. Overall he's a solid performer (in ring, talker, in and out ring charisma, look) but I feel he loses points because I got the feeling that he was shoved down our throats due to his insecurities. He's not on the level of Hogan, Austin, or Rock. He's not well respected like a Undertaker or Sting. He's not on the level of a Shawn, Bret, or Flair. He's not even beloved like a Foley. While he's been over and he works hard a lot of it feels manufactured. While the love for the above mentioned wrestlers felt more organic. Their legend status feels organic. Triple H is a legend but it was due to overbooking and a constant forcing down our throats. Then you look back and you see all these accomplishments and voilà he's a "legend".
 
The book, believe it or not, is still being written on Trips. We will see what he is made of once VKM steps aside, and lets Steph and Trips run the company. Call me back in about 20 years to see if he is a true legend of Professional wrestling. As a wrestler alone? No, he is not. But, add impresario to that? He could cross the line into Legend status.
 
As a wrestler alone? No, he is not. But, add impresario to that? He could cross the line into Legend status.

WTF lmao. As a wrestler alone he isn't a legend? Really? He is a Top 5 talent of his era and a Top 20 of all time. Yea he isnt Austin, Rock, or Hogan....but neither is Arn Anderson, Eddie Guerrero, Magnum TA, Owen Hart, Curt Hennig...do I need to keep going?

This is just another biased topic just like all the ones that involve John Cena. You take the word of a bunch of butthurt guys who do shoot interviews for a company run by a pedophile as the gospel, but when someone like Hurricane talks about how great HHH was, or Striker talks about how nice Cena is despite everyone trying to use him, nobody pays attention cause it doesn't suit your agenda.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,851
Messages
3,300,884
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top