Triple H or Bret Hart?

[theBusiness]

Who ranks higher in the list of all time greats?

I have a feeling most will say Bret, but i respectfully disagree.

Bret is without a doubt the better wrestler, but Triple H is the better overall performer. Much better mic skills, way more charisma, and I believe he also has more draw power than Bret.

 

[Long Island Iced D]

Im going to have to agree with you. Although Bret was a better technician and will leave a bigger legacy Triple H in my eyes has been more entertaining and has had great feuds a a heel and face. He's really not better by much though since Bret has also had amazing feuds with Michaels, Owen, Austin, etc. Bret's legacy was also made much bigger than it should have been because of the Montreal Screwjob. Love them both but im given it to Trips.

 

[123NewChamp]

Well as far as lists for all time greats on who ranks the most, I'ma be the one to say Bret Hart simply because, hands down he's the better wrestler and in ring technician. And as far as mic skills go, it's about wrestling, either u can wrestle or u can't. But honestly in the then WWF, back in 1996-1997 Mic Skills and promos weren't stressed as much or seen as relevant as they are today. And yeah Triple H cut alot and some long promos, but as far who will get ranked on the all time list gotta give it to Bret.

 

[Rammsteinerteen]

Honestly, just because HHH has better mic skills, drawing power, and charisma does NOT make ANYBODY a better overall wrestler. John Cena shares these traits with Triple H, but does this make him better than Bret Hart?

I usually rank wrestlers overall, and Bret Hart is more of a technician and his mic skills aren't that good, and is usually carried by his opponent in feuds. But if anybody has actually been watching wrestling in the early 90s KNOWS how much of a draw Bret Hart was when he won the title. Not to mention I enjoyed so much of his matches, and I always found Triple H to be a generic wrestler, making only a few great matches.

I don't see why so many people love Triple H. I'm not going as far as to say he was overrated, because he worked his ass off to make WWE good, but Bret Hart did exactly the same in his run, but was more fun to watch, in feuds and matches. And I always seemed more excited about watching Bret Hart matches back in the early and late 90s, than with Triple H, all through the attitude era and today. So I'm giving this to Bret.

 

[rpsulli85]

It depends on the question being asked. If you are talking about the better wrestler, then hands down, it is Bret Hart 100% of the time. He was putting on 5-star matches with people who weren't exactly known as particularly strong wrestlers and was in what, in my opinion, is the greatest wrestling match of all time against The British Bulldog at SummerSlam '92 (with all due respect to Ricky the Dragon Steamboat and Macho Man Randy Savage [RIP] from WrestleMania III).
Now as for who is the better performer/Superstar, I am going to go with Triple H. He cuts a better promo, garners a bigger reaction than Hart did during his prime years, and has had a bigger impact on shaping the future of the business and what it means to be a performer in the WWE. Oh, and he also got a lot more exposure cause he was layin the wood to the boss's daughter, so that has to count for something.

 

[holdingholder]

I'm going to have to agree with the op. Triple H catches a lot of crap but the man was one of the yop guys during the most successful time in the history of the business, he's probably had more big time fueds than anyone ever in the game (pun intended)The Rock, Stone Cold, Undertaker, HBK, Hulk Hogan, Mick Foley, Goldberg, Cena, Orton, he's been aprt of some of the best WWE has ever had to offer and never missed a beat. Whle Bret was great, A lot of people will look at his time on the top as sort of a down time for WWF, even though I'll chalk that up to a lesser overall talent pool than just on Bret.

 

[Loveless]

Bret Hart in every conceivable way. HHH had 3 good years in his entire career and might just be one of the most overrated performers in WWE history. To put it into clearer terms, Bret is just about equal with HBK in terms of overall ability, HHH is nowhere near Shawn's level.
Better fueds, better matches, better draw and never starred in multiple truly dreadful wrestlemania main events This might be the easiest question I've ever been asked on this forum.

 

[jstroud14]

My personal opinion is Bret Hart, from a wrestling standpoint. Triple H from an entertainment standpoint wins. It just leaves to question: Would HHH have gained this love, respect, and overall popularity if not for his connection to the BOSS??? So, I am going with Bret here.

 

[reed214]

who is better,hhh or bret hart?? is this real?? bret hart is top 5 of all time while triple h would be top 25,maybe top 20. Bret hart was head and shoulders better than triple h in the ring (although both liked to end matches with the same four moves).

bret hart was just thrown together in a tag team, but went on to "lead the next generation" and huuuuuugely popular around the world. and he had to follow hulk hogan, which is more impressive. and he helped make hbk a big time player.if you compare the list of guys who faced both, B.H had waaay better matches with the same people.

hhh was alright on the mic,but he deff wasnt great. his career was pushed b/c he carried hbk's bags (say what you will, hbk carried hhh to the main event and made him),and i think he married someone with a little pull too (although i will not say he stayed on top b/c of it,but he deff got way too many world titles).

bret hart and the hart family already had a great legacy,and to say it was b/c of the screw job just blows my mind.hhh has had a great career, but bret hart is a legend.

no contest---Bret the Hitman Hart

 

[Shilon006]

No competition when it comes to actually wrestling ability, Bret Hart hands down. That can not be debated with these two. Now, overall...HHH. Yeah Bret can wrestle his ass off against any one person & put on a clinic. After that, everything else has got to to go HHH. Bret was good with promos but HHH can really bring a feud to a different level. HHH has put on a good amour of matches in his prime. Yeah, a few bad ones (ex. WM against Orton was a nightmare but come on the build up was amazing). Even if HHH never married the bosses little girl but everything else was the same, Vince wouldn't even consider letting him go to WCW. We all know Bret's & HHH resumes so we can go on & on. My vote goes with The Game.

 

[safeco1999]

Who ranks higher in the list of all time greats?

I have a feeling most will say Bret, but i respectfully disagree.

Bret is without a doubt the better wrestler, but Triple H is the better overall performer. Much better mic skills, way more charisma, and I believe he also has more draw power than Bret.

Keep in mind that Triple H also had the benefit of a great supporting cast of wrestlers to feud with regularly. Meanwhile, Bret Hart was buried and facing guys like Lawler and Hakushi while backstage politics had the Kliq taking main event spots.

Both these guys are legends, and even though Triple H arrived in the WWE in the mid-90's, I'd say both these guy's best years occured in different eras, ~10 years apart.

 

[ilapierre]

Well i'm gonna disrespectfully disagree with the OP about Triple H and his top 5 ever..Anyone who grew up watching both generations knows that Bret Hart was the better overall entertainer and wrestler. Triple H was NOT interesting unless with Stephanie or Shawn or DX by his side. Bret Hart wasn't exactly the most charismatic wrestler but he was the top guy. He wrestled better than anyone and he was a legit top guy. Triple H never, even in a weak decade of wrestling, was the top guy. He was just shoved down our throats and it never felt real. Yeah, he's had some great feuds and he is great on the mic, but he's not that great. There are very few wrestlers who entertained and wrestled better than Bret Hart. Triple H is in the top 20 of all time, maybe, but Hitman is top 5. Flair, Hart, Savage (can't stand people who leave him out of their lists) Michaels, Hogan are the best wrestling entertainers in wrestling history. Rock and Stone Cold are legendary icons but 5 year careers in the main event hardly makes you one of the top 5 wrestlers in wrestling history.

You kids here don't realize Bret Hart was BETTER than Shawn Michaels who was in turn leagues beyond Triple H. I just don't get it, it's like the last 10 years of crap wrestling
makes you think one of the greatest of all time is less of an entertainer than a guy who married his way up the career ladder. You can say Triple H had the 'it' factor, i'll argue he didn't, anyone given his position could have ran with the ball just as well.

The last 10 years of wrestling has only attracted young fans and maintained diehards who live and die by the crap they're spoonfed. There are SO many wrestling fans out there who can't even watch wrestling anymore because it's not what they remember anymore. Like me, they'll watch old wrestling on youtube or they'll try and tune in for a few weeks and catch up. But, wrestling just sucks and Triple H represents the era of suck. It's all just buttkissing and climbing up a ladder for him. Hitman 'lived' wrestling. Triple H lived 'business' and found a way to climb a ladder in a sport he could care less about.

 

[CaptainZaltan]

I'm going to go with Bret. In-ring, Bret was by far the superior wrestler. As far as mic skills go, Trip's is definitely well spoken and sounds more natural on the mic than Bret (although Bret was competent, and skilled at putting over his matches and opponents believably; something which goes sadly unappreciated).

As far as charisma goes, I guess it depends on how you define it. I don't think it's quite the same thing as having mic-skills. IMO, it's an intangible; it doesn't necessarily require that you be well-spoken, or funny, or able to get a crowd to repeat a catch-phrase. Rather, it involves having a strong presence which itself can draw a crowds interest. An intensity, confidence, energy, and/or believability. Something that people just connect with. Bill Goldberg was charismatic, even when his only mic work consisted of "You're Next!" Rey Mysterio was charismatic long before he was cutting promos. Hulk Hogan always sucked on the mic; he made a career out of being charismatic. Hell, the Ultimate Warrior had loads of charisma, and he was terrible all around. And while Bret was nowhere near as flexible or well-spoken on the mic as HHH, overall he just seems to have a deeper and more enduring connection with the fans.

So yeah, both men are charismatic in their own ways. But I'm going to give the edge to Bret in charisma. HHH just isn't likable. He still feels like something that was forced on us. Whereas Bret feels like something that was taken away too soon.

 

[Mazzaroti78]

Man people like to rewrite history in the favor of their favorite wrestlers. Bret Hart is a great wrestler as is Triple H. Bret Hart is NO WHERE NEAR HUNTER AS A DRAW! It isn't even close. Hunter in 2000, Rock was beginning his filming career and Austin was injured, had one of the best drawing years in the history of pro wrestling. Don't take my word for it, go read about it in the Observer or Torch.

The IWC hate of HHH is really annoying because he really was great in his prime. The last time the WWE belt was worth a damn, HHH held it. I could care less about who he is married to. Bret was a HUGE international draw but was only ok in the US. Don't sell HHH short because you feel some way about him personally.

 

[Mazzaroti78]

Rock and Stone Cold are legendary icons but 5 year careers in the main event hardly makes you one of the top 5 wrestlers in wrestling history.

Really? I think it does because Rock/Austin made WWF go from being on the brink of bankruptcy to raking in hundreds of millions and being worth a BILLION dollars after the initial IPO. I'm sorry but please tell me who the hell in the HISTORY of wrestling did that? BTW 5 years as a main event draw is an eternity in wrestling. Neither Bret Hart nor Shawn Michaels had 5 consecutive years as main event, top draws so remove them from your list.

 

[classicviolence]

HHH is not on Bret's level. Sorry to burst your bubble OP.

Bret got to the top by out wrestling himself night after night. HHH got to the top, by climbing Stephanie night after night.

 

[classicviolence]

Bret main evented from 92-97. Diesel's year long reign of terror almost bankrupted WWE.

 

[Mazzaroti78]

No Bret Hart did not main event from 92-97 exclusively. He took almost 8 months off after dropping the belt to HBK who had nearly a year run then Diesel has a year run. But bottom line is Bret wasn't THE top guy. In 1992, people say Bret became a Main eventer at Summerslam '92 but the Savage/Warrior/Flair story was the THE top draw. Hart got the belt in september I believe but dropped it by Mania and Hogan was put on top because Bret wasn't drawing or their was no faith he would. After dropping the belt he was showcaed at King of the ring but then placed in a mid card feud with Lawler and later Owen. So Bret wasn't a main eventer in '93 at all. Bret's real run as THE man began in 1994 at Wrestlemania 10. He was a legit Main Eventer from '94-'97. in 1995 he dropped to HBK at Mania and didn't return until survivor series. Bret just didn't get the consistent run at the top.

 

[Mazzaroti78]

1995 he dropped to HBK at Mania and didn't return until survivor series. Bret just didn't get the consistent run at the top.

Thats wrong Breat wasn't champ in 95 because he dropped to Bob Backlund of all people who lost the belt to Diesel.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

Bret Hart was the bigger draw by far. Internationally no one comes close. In the U.S. it's a lot closer.

Bret did the one thing Hunter could never do and that was to get guys over. Paul was always too worried about making himself look good. While Bret made Austin look like a million bucks.

Man people like to rewrite history in the favor of their favorite wrestlers. Bret Hart is a great wrestler as is Triple H. Bret Hart is NO WHERE NEAR HUNTER AS A DRAW! It isn't even close. Hunter in 2000, Rock was beginning his filming career and Austin was injured, had one of the best drawing years in the history of pro wrestling. Don't take my word for it, go read about it in the Observer or Torch.

The IWC hate of HHH is really annoying because he really was great in his prime. The last time the WWE belt was worth a damn, HHH held it. I could care less about who he is married to. Bret was a HUGE international draw but was only ok in the US. Don't sell HHH short because you feel some way about him personally.

Hunter's reign in 2000 means nothing because he was riding the coattails of the Rock and Austin. If a pile of shit was champion in 2000 it would draw money for the WWE. That was a big year for the WWE not because of Hunter but because wrestling was so big.

 

[hhhfansince1999]

Wrestling ability i will have to say bret hart.But everything else HHH! I respect bret hart as much as anybody.But hhh has had a better career.He can really get people to hate him or get him to love him.He was an awesome heel.He's had some of the greates fueds in the wwe.And on top of that he helped the careers of guys like randy orton,batista,cena,sheamus,etc.And of course he's been part of the 2 greatest factions dx and evolution.Not to mention the fact he draws money whether people pay to see to get his ass kicked or for people to see hhh kick someone else's ass.
So overall hhh is the better of the two and ranks higher than bret hart

 

[ajwebber1985]

For me it's Bret Hart. Triple H is good, but Bret is even better. When you think about the best matches of all time Bret's name comes up alot. I don't even know if i can think of a match that Triple H had where i can say yep that match should be considered up there as one of the greatest of all time. Not to say he hasn't had good matches it's just to say that Bret has had all time greatest matches. I really don't like comparing who is the better draw because to me that is not really a good argument. Should we disregard everything Ric Flair did from 1988 to 1991 in the WCW/NWA because they were losing fans like crazy and disregard that time because Crockett Promotions failed? Or should we disregard Shawn Michaels 1st title run because the WWF Slipped to No. 2 and were getting their butts handed to them by WCW which had never happened before? I don't think so. I would also argue that Bret revolutionized the idea in the WWF that the World Champion doesn't have to be 6'5 or taller, ripped and that the champ doesn't need some sort of cartoonish comeback that involves shaking of the head and or ropes. Bret was the man really from 91 to 97 in the WWF. Even though he was not the Main Event all the time he was consistently having the best matches of the night not only in terms of Pay Per View, but House Shows too. Following a Legend like Hulk is damn hard to do (in many ways no one has really been able to sucessfully follow up Hulk ....maybe Stone Cold and Rock, but it didn't last long) and considering the WWF was up to its nose in the steroid and sex scandals he did the best he could do or anyone could under the circumstances.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Hunter's reign in 2000 means nothing because he was riding the coattails of the Rock and Austin. If a pile of shit was champion in 2000 it would draw money for the WWE. That was a big year for the WWE not because of Hunter but because wrestling was so big.

Your profile says you're 38, which, besides being really sad, is also proof that you were 27 in the year 2000, and this were well within your mean to purchase and watch WWF PPV's.

If you had done so and watched with your eyes open, it would be clear to you that HHH was the best he has ever been during this period. Foley/HHH at the Rumble, Jericho/HHH at Fully Loaded? Are you kidding me? Watch any of his matches from 2000, and you'll see that it wasn't him "riding the coat tails" of The Rock or Austin (who was injured) but rather the fact that he was simply one of the best wrestlers in the world at this point.

It was a big year for wrestling BECAUSE you had guys like HHH putting on phenomenal matches, not vice versa.

 

[theBusiness]

Wow, I almost forgot how much hate Hunter gets. To whoever said Triple H was riding Austin and Rock's tail in 2000...I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. First of all, Austin was injured pretty much the entire year. 2000 Triple H is very arguably the greatest heel of all time. And if you can't see the pure talent in Triple H, then with all due respect, you are a horrible judge.

I respect Bret a tremendous amount and there is absolutely no denying that he is perhaps the greatest in-ring performer of all time. But the fact of the matter is...this is an entertainment company more than it is a wrestling company. Just my opinion, but Triple H is the better overall entertainer. That is why no one can compare to Hogan or Stone Cold. They are the biggest draws in the most popular times of wrestling history, period. It doesn't matter if you are the best in the world at wrestling, that's not what this business is all about. If there was no storylines, no promos, and just pure wrestling, this business would be nothing. It may be sad to say, but draw power and charisma will get you much farther than in-ring wrestling skills. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. HHH > Bret....not by much, but by just enough.

 

[Danny84]

HHH everyday he has won more world titles than bret and was the co-creater of the biggest and best faction of all time and had better matches through his career so with out a dobt its the game HHH