Triple H Putting People Over

[pepentorresHHH]

I didnt know where to put this if in the WWE section or Raw section but since HHH is on raw then well....sorry if i made a mistake....

so we all know the reputation that Triple H has when it comes to putting a lot of people over.... HE DOESNT....

But is that really a bad thing?

there is two sides of the argument of course so lets see both sides:

Triple H not putting a lot of people over is a GOOD thing:
Just with John Cena, when you beat Triple H it is a BIG deal.... a victory over the game proves your maybe one of the best in the roster and guarantees your spot as a main eventer....
Triple H Put Over Goldberg.... that proved he was the most dominant man on raw in 03.... then he tapped out to Chris Benoit ,aka blank, at WM 20 which made his title win more important because he beat the man at the biggest stage of them all.... then he put over Shelton twice ....then he put over batista at wm 21, backlash and Vengeance ....therefore MAKING Batista, because before that who did he really beat? .... Y2J and Benoit?.....He put over a Ric Flair in his 50s in Taboo Tuesday in the cage match but Flair is a bigger legend than HHH..... then at WM 22 he tapped out to John Cena which proved that Cena was here to stay......then at then he has put over Orton .... true he Orton hasnt beaten HHH decisevely in a one on one match but he has dropped the title to him....he put over jeff hardy at armageddon at 07 .........he put over legacy when they fueded....and finally he put over sheamus.. solidifying him as a main eventer in the process.....
after this you can see that the people thay actually went over HHH have become stars.....
excuse me but if they give me the choice of either beating hhh for a title or lets say Y2J for the title.... i definetively would choose HHH because a victory over him can make you!

Triple H not putting Over a lot of people is a BAD thing:
this is the part where most people concentrate.....because its the truth because HHH doesnt put a lot of people over...... lets go back when HHH was the man carrying raw whic was about when stone cold and the rock left so summer 2002....he was given the title..... feuded with RVD and most people say he should have put him over but RVD is a career midcarder and everyone knows it......he is pretty over but ive never seen him as THE GUY.....proof of that was just seen in TNA.....then Kane.... he was MEGA over in their fued and at the time i thought he should have put him over at no mercy but i understandthat HBK was comming back and MAYBE the title was necessaryfor their fued so hhh not putting over kane doesnt bother me that much.... then came the "reign of terror"... in which HHH beat everyone for the next 10 months....Steiner, Bookert T, Nash and Goldberg... basically WCW.... all those guys were past their prime....Steiner is bitter and Nash well he just came back for one last run.... and Goldberg actually beat him.... but Booker... oh Booker... he was mega over as well heading into their match at wm 19 where everyone thought he would get the fairy tale ending and beat hhh for the title.... but hhh didnt put him over....that didnt bother me as i have never been a big fan of booker but still he was over a that time....
the feud with Benoit came and people complained even thought hhh was beaten by benoit.... but because hhh was the focus of the show.... then randy came along... and hhh took his title and didnt put him over....then came the DX comeback.... they didnt put over the spirit squad or the Mcmahons(shocker).....and he went down with injury against rated rko.... he came back and beat randy orton in 20 minutes to take his title and hhh only lost the title back to him the same night because he was "injured" and had a match with umaga the same night..... he didnt put over umaga in their fued....took the title from orton at backlash 08 and didnt put him over in their fued... then he beat edge at GAB, the great khali(shockers as well).... and then he didnt put over Jeff in their fued for the title and Edge had to come in and put over jeff..... then WM 25 came and HHH didnt put over randy while everyone else said that Randy NEEDED the win to finally beat HHH at the big stage but no such luck.... then when he came back randy was made look like a coward in their fued.....then HHH didnt take a pinfall in their fued against legacy...and ended up going over Sheamus at their WM match.....

HHH has beaten more guys than some could say needed the win than putting guys over... but lets see.... are those guys like RVD or Kane or Booker or even to an extent Jeff and Randy..... really deserved to go over at the time of their fued??

Personally i think that while its true that HHH could put a little more people over, when you beat him IT IS A BIG DEAL!......a victory over him can solidify your status or even make your career...

so whats your opinion .... do you think that HHH puts enough people over?
and does HHH not putting a lot of people over is a good thing or bad thing???

 

[Miss Flawless]

He has put over other wrestlers, and I don't get why people think he doesn't. I think it's because he kept getting the title in the early 00's, but remember that was because of this storyline with Stephanie...I think, I have to jog my memory, correct me if I'm wrong.

At least he's not the 90's HBK who REFUSED to job to anyone. I think the IWC thinks they know HHH's personal life and they think they know that HHH get's all the world titles, and doesn't 'put people over' because he's the son-in-law to Vince. How the hell do they know that? If you are a true wrestling fan, you know for Vince, 'business comes first.' Montreal Screw Job is an example.

HHH put over Jeff Hardy, Randy Orton, Sheamus, Goldberg, ect.

I think that he still has some enigma left in him, and he will put more people over.

I think for now, he put enough people over, so I don't think it's a bad thing. He's no Christian or Matt Hardy, they put a lot of people over, as well as Chris Jericho, but sometimes you need those guys who don't put a lot of people over.

 

[The Brain]

Everyone seems to think wrestlers should trade off wins and losses equally so everyone would get a fair chance. What would this accomplish? If Triple H was constantly putting people over why would it matter? I know a lot of people here liked RVD, Kane, and Booker in 2002/2003, but come on. Those guys should not have beaten HHH at that time. They just weren’t on his level. It’s certainly fair to argue that they could have been raised to that level if HHH put them over. That doesn’t mean HHH needs to put over everyone on the roster. If Hulk Hogan lost to King Kong Bundy, Big John Studd, and Paul Orndorff in the mid 80s there would be no legend of Hulkamania. The top stars should win the majority of the time. That’s what makes them the top stars.

Actually I think HHH did put some guys over despite not losing to them. Who ever said you had to lose to put someone over? Take Booker for example. In 2002 he was tagging with Goldust. That was fun, but Booker wasn’t exactly at the top of the roster. Out of nowhere he won a battle royal and got to wrestle Triple H for the world title at WrestleMania. It was a good feud and a good match. I’d say just getting a match with HHH at mania was putting Booker over regardless of the outcome. Same with Sheamus this year. I think HHH did a great job putting Sheamus over at WM26 even though Sheamus took the loss.

As the op said HHH dominating from 2002-2004 made eventual victories against him more meaningful. If HHH lost to RVD, Kane, and Booker in 2002/2003 Batista and John Cena’s wins in 2005 and 2006 wouldn’t have been as big.

 

[I_Am_Electro_Boy]

Triple H has put a few people over in the past; Jeff Hardy, Sheamus, Randy Orton, Batista just to name a few. He maybe should from now on put more people over instead of winning the title because he's won enough, and if I were Vince I would want him to put people over for the fact that whoever Triple H does put over normally becomes a star just look at the names I previously mentioned. But on the other hand you do need them guys who don't put people over as Isha said, also it might (probably not though) hurt Triple H's legacy also it might become less of a big deal to beat Triple H. But all in all I would have to say Triple H putting people over as a good thing because the people he does put oer becomes stars, I just don't think he should put too many people over.

 

[The Encore]

The one person I disagree with of HHH putting over is Jeff Hardy, sure he was a fan favourite and all. But after the world titles and what not. Look how loyal Jeff was to the WWE. I'm a big Hardy fan both when he's in and out of the ring. I just don't think he deserved that. But it's all about the merch and the money to vince. Maybe this is something that bit him in the ass, or who knows maybe it was just a nice cash cow.
HHH putting over Sheamus was actually the right choice, it cemented him as a high carder and look, he's a WWE Champion now which is even better. He put over someone who add's a nice dynamic to the RAW Locker room and is currently in a very interesting storyline.

 

[CyDeez]

I don't really agree with him NOT putting people over. I mean, I can see why people would say he doesn't, he is Triple H. After all he has won numerous World Championships. So he gets the rep of not helping others, only himself.

But with that I disagree fully. IMO I think he has put over A LOT of people.

Like guys that were mentioned in other posts, among others...

Goldberg

Benoit

Orton

Batista

HBK in 02-03 - Triple H worked his ass off for HBK when he came back.

Ric Flair - When Flair was considered DONE, after Evolution, HHH let Flair go over him a few times.

Jeff Hardy

Sheamus

John Cena

He put over each one of those guys above in 1 on 1 Feuds...

There were others too that he helped put over... Edge, The Rock etc...

 

[sleamey316]

Thank god people are sticking up for Triple H. As a big fan I get fed up with people saying he doesn't put people over. He has done it loads. As people have already mentioned, Triple H made Batista a main eventer and he has put over a load of others. Look where Orton is now. Remember last year, the feud with Triple H helped Orton become the character he is now and you could argue that Orton is now more over than Cena.
That is a good list above of who has beaten HHH, but don't forget midcard guys like Shelton Benjamin and D-Von Dudley have beaten Triple H. And DX lost to Debiase and Rhodes. You also need to realize that putting someone over isn't just about losing to them either.

 

[johnbragg]

I'm going to half-defend HHH, and half-defend the HHH haters.

I think that the HHH hate doesn't just come because HHH used to beat everyone. It's how the feuds ran. It began with castrating the title reign of Chris Jericho, setting him back five years. HHH, or the booking that he was blamed for, turned potential main eventers into midcarders. He didn't just beat Kane, RVD and Booker. Those feuds severely hurt the credibility of those wrestlers for a long time.

If you remember Raw from that time period, it seemed every HHH challenger had to spend the first half or third of his promo talking about how much he respected HHH, how HHH was the Game, etc. And then HHH came on and went through devastating criticisms of that wrestler, making him look like shit. And then Booker T or RVD lost, and got shuffled back down into the midcard. (We don't need to go into the damage that the Katie Vick storyline did to the Big Red Machine, do we?) Kane, RVD, Booker all went from being credible title challengers, to not.

We remember Benjamin's wins over HHH to this day. But top stars regularly have mini-feuds like that that build up midcarders. No one is going to remember Kofi-Orton in a year or two if Kofi fades away--because stuff like that happens.

I think that over time, HHH learned a bit and figured out how to start getting other people over. He flat-out made Batista. He's helped a bunch of guys since then.

(I don't count Nash and Steiner against HHH, they failed because it was painfully obvious they couldn't perform in the ring. Steiner was limited to things like pushup contests in his feud with HHH)

 

[Chardee Macdennis]

I just don't get the HHHate. Just look at his WM record and you'll see the guy puts guys over on the grandest of all stages. I don't have the energy to get into this again, but the popular belief that he puts no one over is a fallacy!

 

[Da Solo]

I don't know, Trips is just bitchy when it comes to putting someone over. As someone said before, he wasn't like 90's HBK, but still bad. The Evolution HHH just had to be champ ALL the time.

People who HHH "put over":

Goldberg: Goldberg already had mad respect after his WCW run. And think about it: before he even feuded with HHH, Rock put him over first. When the Rock puts you over, nobody else needs to (see Brock Lesnar's 3-4 years of domination), so HHH didn't do anything for Goldberg except lose the title to him (and guess who won it from Bill?)

Sheamus: HHH put Sheamus over because he needed a break and Sheamus was his friend. I'll give him props for this one, but look who's next...

Randy Orton: Are you kidding? If anything, HHH almost killed his push altogether. Randy was put over by Benoit, winning the title from him. Then we expect a big Randy/Evolution feud, but HHH wins the belt about a month later and that's it. Then it takes Undertaker putting Randy over for almost a whole year before he gets a memorable title run

Jeff Hardy: Jeff fought with HHH for the belt on two occasions before winning: Cyber Sunday and when they were the final 2 in the chamber. It would make more sense to say that Edge put him over since it was a triple threat when Hardy won, and then an amazing feud for it last summer. Now if Edge, who has a legit personal history with the Hardy's that needs no mentioning, could do that, couldn't Hunter just let Hardy win the belt Cyber Sunday? Think about it, fans were waiting so long to see Hardy as champ, so why not give it to him on the night where fans have the power?

HBK in 2002: HBK didn't need putting over, he was HBK.

Rock: Rock and HHH were on about the same level when they feuded, so whoever said that HHH had to put him over, what were you smoking?

Shelton: Yeah, we saw how well that worked out. Years later, and Shelton has yet to win a world title and has been let go. Although this wasn't HHH's fault, it was creative's.

Batista: Evolution needed to break up, and Batista needed to do something big or else he'd be lost in the shuffle. HHH happened to be world champ at the time, and for once, he wasn't greedy with it. This was another one I give HHH props for, which makes 2 out of 8, which isn't that impressive

Now let's look at who he didn't put over:

RVD: To be honest, I wouldn't have had Van Dam go over HHH at that time either, but you could have at least let Van Dam lose at a PPV rather than RAW.

Jericho: Every match I remember with these two involved HHH taking his title
(Wrestlemania, TLC, and there was one episode of RAW where Y2J actually beat HHH for the title, but Triple H, in the middle of McMahon/Helmsley atm, used his kayfabe power to overturn the referees rule.

Booker T: The one I'm most upset about. I could write an article about this one, but here's the breakdown: Booker was over like mad after a big push, and was originally going to win at WM and take trips title in a perfect cinderella moment, but at the last minute, HHH vetoed the idea, and it would take several years before Booker finally won a world title

Umaga: I'm convinved that Umaga didn't actually feud with HHH, he was just playing the role of his bitch for a couple months so that creative had less work to do.

 

[Gura "The Lock" Gill]

Yet another one of these threads,

Triple H is the man, they can just have him lose everytime, it would make him seem less than dominant.
Because, we all know, Triple H isnt the exactly "The King of King's" inside of the ring.

Yet, he has put over some stars, one of the most dominant stars on raw right now, Sheamus, has been created by Triple H.

 

[CJ The Pirate]

People really need to learn the true meaning of 'Put Over.' It seems that even Wikipedia (can you believe it?) has also got it wrong. Perhaps back in the day, putting someone over meant to either allow someone to beat you or to endorse them in an interview. But for me, it is now acceptable to make someone look good without letting them win.

I'm gonna go to UFC again and the most talked about match of the year, Sonnen/Silva. Silva was getting beat by a physical and tireless Sonnen for four rounds and over a minute of the final round. Sonnen then let his guard down for a moment and was locked in a submission and forced to tap out. Silva walked out of that fight beaten and battered but still the champion. Sonnen walked out without the belt but a hell of a lot of new fans. Sonnen is at the moment one of the most over guys in UFC. The fact that there can't be a Sonnen/Silva rematch until next spring due to the injuries Sonnen inflicted on Silva in that match just says a lot about how impressive he was.

Back to wrestling. I have one simple example that backs up my claim.

John Cena


What was the match that made people stand up and notice John Cena? I'd have to say his debut against Kurt Angle. A match Cena nearly won on several occasions. But Cena lost. That wasn't the end though. He went from strength to strength and is now possibly more popular than Angle ever was (not in my eyes as I heart Kurt). If Cena had begun his WWE career in the manner Randy Orton did then we could be watching an entirely different show. Kurt Angle put John Cena over without losing.

 

[Dibil]

I really agree with you on this,HHH has put over little and buried many.Also I also wanted HHH to put Booker T over.AND NO ONE can deny that HHH is a fan of backstage politics.disagree with that and you are HIGH lol

 

[WhyTravisFelt]

I think that the HHH hate doesn't just come because HHH used to beat everyone. It's how the feuds ran. It began with castrating the title reign of Chris Jericho, setting him back five years. HHH, or the booking that he was blamed for, turned potential main eventers into midcarders. He didn't just beat Kane, RVD and Booker. Those feuds severely hurt the credibility of those wrestlers for a long time.

This is pretty much my exact opinion about HHH. Being mostly a WCW/ECW mark by the time I came back around to watching WWE in 2001-current, I've felt that it had been mostly the HHH show until Cena blew up. And it wasn't JUST that he didn't put over those three guys, but also that I just can't stand him in the ring. I've never enjoyed a HHH match, even when he wrestles guys like Jericho, I've never liked him on the mic (although penis jokes as a face are marginally better than boring bad guy routine), and he just sat at the top forever. I just plain don't get how he became a "top star" to begin with. When he finally started putting over guys like Cena, Batista, Sheamus, it's like, great, so he finally puts over people I hate about as much as I hate him. I think that's where the angst comes from. At least that's where I come from.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Another thread about Triple H putting or not putting people over...He has, end of..and to counter someone who said in the first page he never put over Jeff Hardy? What you smokin' mate? Jeff beat HHH at Armageddon 2007 in a number 1 contender match for Orton's title at Rumble!

I do believe when HHH was king of Raw, he went over a lot of people without really giving them a chance e.g. Booker T, but before that from 1999-2002, 2006- now, he has put over a lot of guys! most recently Sheamus!

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Since when did feuding with Jeff Hardy, beating him at every turn, and losing ONCE with a quick pin mean putting him over? He didn't even drop the title to him, he had Edge win the title, then drop it the next month to Hardy - wherein Hardy pinned EDGE, not HHH, after HHH had used HIS finisher on Edge. A month later, Edge wins the title back at the Royal Rumble, the next month, HHH pins Jeff Hardy in the Elimination Chamber...once again to establish dominance. Face it, guys...HHH didn't put over Jeff Hardy with that cheap little pinfall victory over him. That pinfall was a MERCY move that they need to throw in there because Hardy had lost so many times to HHH and if he didn't at least JUST BARELY win once, it would be him losing every single time. So what do they do, instead of having him flat out win? They have him get a quick pin so HHH looks like it was a fluke. It's then followed up with him stealing HHH's win over Edge, and then the next time the two meet, HHH soundly beats him.

HHH not putting people over does good for the people that eventually beat him, and you can't argue that if you LEGITIMATELY and CLEANLY BEAT Triple H, that it makes you look good. But winning by DQ, interference, count out, or through incredibly stupid situations doesn't put you over as having been better than HHH. It puts HHH over as having been better than you and that you needed to cheat to win or win by a fluke...which almost always ends up with HHH beating you clean several times to solidify that he is in fact better, rendering the whole thing pointless.

Look at Randy Orton. He wins the title from Benoit, which is huge. He then loses it quickly to HHH. The next time Orton is the champion, he drops it within 20 minutes to Triple H. Triple H later on that night defends against Umaga and beats him (rendering the monster a threatless enemy). Then, only after HHH goes into his THIRD match of the night, INJURED, where it's LMS rules, does Orton JUST BARELY get the win over Triple H. Is that putting Orton over as better than you? No. You beat him earlier, then you beat a monster, then you almost beat him again. That's saying HHH could come very, very close to beating TWO Randy Ortons and an Umaga in a 3-1 handicap match, with an injury. If it were anybody else, people wouldn't overlook that. Orton only ever really gets the upper hand on HHH at all during their latest feud when Legacy gangs up on him, making it 3 on 1. How did Orton eliminate HHH in the Royal Rumble? By JUST BARELY (see a trend here?) eliminating him after HHH was taking on ALL THREE Legacy members and had thrown out two of them. HHH takes a loss, if you can really call it that, and follows it up the next month by not only winning the championship, but then beating Orton at WrestleMania. Orton wins the title later on, but in a tag match, TNA style.

There was a win/loss ratio of matches in I think 2008, where Triple H had wrestled roughly 220 matches and lost only about 15 of them. You want to know the worst part about that? Those losses count if he lost by disqualification, if he lost by count-out, if he lost by interference, if he lost in some 20-man handicap match, or if he lost in a tag match where someone else took the pin (like always). I guarantee you out of the 15 or so matches he lost that entire YEAR, that at best, 3 of them were clean true "putting the other guy over" situations, and I bet they were against people like Cena who didn't need it.

To say that HHH doesn't use his power to keep himself on top and always in situations where he isn't taking the fall is just turning a blind eye. You can literally just sit there and watch and see the evidence for yourself. If he's in a tag match, he's not the one that's being beaten up on the majority of the match and he's not going to be the one to take the pinfall. If he's losing, he's damn sure losing from interference or through some other bullshit where he doesn't just simply get straight-up defeated, and he'll assuredly beat that person several times clean in the near future to help erase that blotch. Hell, people, there were even talks about the WWE refusing to have HHH ever look bad on Smackdown vs Raw pictures and commercials for fuck's sake, and if that's true, then c'mon, dismissing that is just ignorance.

Oh, and before I'm done...the issue of Sheamus. I'll say it right now, I absolutely don't find him anywhere near worthy to be a ONE time champ, let alone two, and it's obvious that he got there because of sucking up to HHH...but....where's this "HHH put him over" stuff? As I recall, Sheamus has wrestled HHH three times on ppv. The first, he was eliminated by HHH in the Elimination Chamber. The second, he lost to HHH at WrestleMania. The third, he had to jump HHH ahead of time and they played up an injury for him to be able to barely beat him in their street fight. None of those are clean victories wherein the guy that's supposed to be really tough (Sheamus) beat him. It's two instances of this previously unstoppable guy being beaten by HHH and then only being able to beat him by cheating.

 

[johnbragg]

IT's not just about wins and losses, and unless a title is involved it's definitely not about record-book wins by DQ or cheap pins. It's about looking strong.

Look at Randy Orton.

Great example, actually.

He wins the title from Benoit, which is huge. He then loses it quickly to HHH.

It's not just that he lost the title to HHH. It's that he spent his entire one-month title reign being made into HHH's prison bitch by Evolution. Even if Orton had retained at the next PPV, pinning HHH clean, he would have been a weak champion.

The next time Orton is the champion, he drops it within 20 minutes to Triple H. Triple H later on that night defends against Umaga and beats him (rendering the monster a threatless enemy). Then, only after HHH goes into his THIRD match of the night, INJURED, where it's LMS rules, does Orton JUST BARELY get the win over Triple H. Is that putting Orton over as better than you?

No, but bottom line, Orton got the job done. I had to go to the WWE.com writeup to remember exactly what happened, and their webmonkeys said it well. "He outsmarted The Cerebral Assassin, and the WWE Championship was his." It's not just about who's better, it's about who is able to survive, who is standing at the end of the night and who is lying on the ground, wounded and beaten.

If it were anybody else, people wouldn't overlook that.

Not if it were SuperCena, true. If it were the Undertaker, a lot of people would defend it.

I'd say from 2008, Orton didn't need anyone to put him over, he was established as one of WWE's top-tier players.

 

[DeathClutch]

HHH doesn't get a lot of credit for putting guys over, but when you see some of the guys he has put over it's pretty impressive and a win over HHH probably means more then a win over just about any other wrestler on the roster, the other guys like Undertaker, Orton, Cena etc who seem to job to HHH so a win over HHH in my opinion seems to be the guy a win means more over.

 

[RIPRKO1005]

I'll admit that HHH has put some people over and hasn't others but there are only a few examples of him not putting people over that i really didn't like.

Randy Orton- Every time there in that ring one on one Orton never wins. Considering that HHH helped him jump start his wwe career with evolution Triple H Never takes the fall to him!

Booker T-I really wanted to see him win the title at wm 19. He was on fire at the time and i felt like he deserved it considering he was a 5 time wcw champ

Goldberg- I was alittle pissed that after they finally had triple h drop the title to Goldberg they gave him a bitch title run and had him drop it back to HHH the next month

 

[SpoodBeest]

I am going to argue the fact that Triple H did not put Jeff Hardy over as a legit challenger and let me explain to you why. At the end of 2007 Triple H and Jeff Hardy had their little spat at who would be the number one contender to the WWE title. They have their little match at Armageddon which in itself was a very good match but Hardy won by pinning Triple H with a quick bridge pin. So that makes Jeff look like he used a lucky pin to defeat The Game, instead of what should have happened with Hardy pinning Triple H with a straight up finisher. How does that make Hardy look legit to Triple H?

Then along comes 2008, and Hardy and Triple H are on SmackDown. They would go on to have many encounters for the WWE title throughout the fall and until the year ended. Starting with the Championship Scramble where Triple H almost made every competitor in that match look like his bitches. Then he defends the title against Hardy one-on-one at No Mercy and that match was great I will admit, but the ending was total ass. Hardy hits a Twist of Fate and then follows it up with a Swanton Bomb and you would think that would be the match right? No, when Hardy pinned Triple H, Trips immediately countered Hardy's pin into a pin of his own to win the match. What the fuck is that all about? The man took two finishers that usually keep every other wrestler down but yet he still had enough stength to roll Hardy's shoulders down for a three count? Very ridiculous ending to match if I ever did see one. Then he defends the title against Hardy again at Cyber Sunday and defeats him even more decisively then in their last match. Then Triple H "dropped" the belt to Edge when he was inserted in the WWE title match against Triple H and Vladimir Kozlov and pins Trips after Hardy interfered and nailed him with a chair. Then a month later in a triple threat match for the title Hardy pinned Edge to finally win it. The Game did fuck all when it came to putting Jeff over as legit main eventer.

The man along with Shawn Michaels did put forth an effort to put over Legacy in a feud. The first time the two teams faced was at SummerSlam and I thought they did good job of making Rhodes and Dibiase look solid in a great tag match. Then the next time they face at Breaking Point Legacy look very dominant over DX and win. Only for a month later for Triple H to dominate them basically all by himself in a Hell in a Cell match with Shawn Michaels incapacitated for the majority of the match. Look at Legacy now, they're rebuilding themselves on separate shows in the mid-card basically starting from scratch. So I guess that didn't help like it should have.

Then the most recent superstar he has helped put over was Sheamus. The two have a feud leading up to WrestleMania after Triple H eliminated Sheamus from the Elimination Chamber match for the WWE title. At WrestleMania the two have a good match that Trips scores the victory in but makes Sheamus look good in the process. Then the next month afterwards Triple H puts Sheamus over as a monstrous and dominant brute as Sheamus blindsided and attacked him before a match and during their match decimated him until Triple H had to be taken out on a stretcher.

So all in all since Batista in 2005, Triple H has only successfully put over one wrestler in Sheamus. Well I guess that's better than putting no one over at all. It's not that we try and knock him purposely for not putting over any one proper because for the most part it is something thats has been lacking in his repertoire for quite some time now. I also find it fucking hilarious that some people actually credit Triple H for putting Jeff Hardy over a legit main eventer.

 

[LigerBomb]

so whats your opinion .... do you think that HHH puts enough people over?
and does HHH not putting a lot of people over is a good thing or bad thing???

Fuck, you LOVE TO USE ellipses don't'cha? Though I'm not one to talk as I prefer me a good ol' em dash from time to time.

Anywhoo… I see where you're going with this stuff and I somewhat agree. However there is a fine line between being selective about who you job to vs. being a guy know for standing directly on top of the proverbial glass ceiling (w/ feet firmly planted of course).

I think you'd really have to look at it on a case by case basis. Even then it's hard to do as you're basically playing a game of "what if…"; you'd be forever speculating on what "could've been" had Hunter put "this guy" or "that guy" over and honestly unless there was later evidence that wrestler X would eventually became a star it's really too hard to say (at least with any kind of certainty).

At this stage of Trip's career he should perhaps be even more selective about who he gives the rub too as it will inevitably mean more if he does it less. Look at his ol' adversary Mick Foley if you need proof of the contrary (who hasn't beat the "Hardcore Legend"?). By this point beating Mick in a hardcore match practically means fuck-all.

Good? Bad? Eh, it is what it is. HHH putting you over will not be the make it or break it moment of your career if you really have the talent to be a big time WWE superstar. Will it help? No doubt. I'm not implying otherwise, but the cream tends to rise to the top in due time regardless of… well, you know what I mean.

 

[XXJJ]

IMO Benoit was the one that put Orton over. Triple H made him look weak most of the time.

Triple H in his prime is a main event wrestler. So you cant really expect him to lose a lot. Now that he is getting older you hope when he returns he really helps with putting over the younger wrestlers like Jericho does. Instead of making himself look good all the time.

 

[LongLiveTheStreak]

I do think HHH has put over his share of talent in his career. I used to hear so much talk about HHH using his marrige into the MCMahon family to stay on top and bury young talent. But I really dont see it-Not when he lays down for John Cena almost every time they meet. HHH has put over Cena, Batista, sheamus ,Orton, Benoit. etc..... And I do think his marrige has played a small role in him winning 13 world titles; but Ill bet you this, it would be the same story if it was another wrestler married to Stephanie McMahon.

Yet I can also see why some are down on HHH. Because he has buried some young talent along the way. He buried MVP on Raw in a short match in which MVP did every move except the Pedigree. Vladmir Koslov was moving toward a huge push going into the `09 Royal Rumble. But all within the first 10 entries, Vladmir Koslov singlle-handedly emiminated Great Khali but was then elim. by HHH in just a few seconds after Trips entered.

As for HHHs "reign of terror": he had several title defenses agianst superstars who were not ready for a world title. Like Stiener, Nash, and IMO Booker T