dude the top guy means you are getting TOP BOOKING, it has nothing to do with popularity. Comparing HHH to Orton, Punk, and Jeff hardy is just stupid. Punk and Hardy have never main evented Mania, I honestly can't remember if Orton has. HHH received top booking for a huge portion of his career, especially in 2000 and 2002. Nobody can deny the fact that HHH has been booked as the top guy multiple times in his career and for long periods of time. Saying HHH was never the top guy is almost as dumb as when people were saying Cena wasn't successful.
-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
Was Triple H Ever the #1 Guy in WWE?
- Thread starter pepentorresHHH
- Start date
dude the top guy means you are getting TOP BOOKING, it has nothing to do with popularity. Comparing HHH to Orton, Punk, and Jeff hardy is just stupid. Punk and Hardy have never main evented Mania, I honestly can't remember if Orton has. HHH received top booking for a huge portion of his career, especially in 2000 and 2002. Nobody can deny the fact that HHH has been booked as the top guy multiple times in his career and for long periods of time. Saying HHH was never the top guy is almost as dumb as when people were saying Cena wasn't successful.
Triple H was THE top guy from mid 2002 until Wrestlemania 21. He was the guy who carried the companies #1 show during that time.
I will admit right before his injury in 2001 and after his feud with Batista he fell into the Kurt Angle territory.
But to actually say that HHH was never the top guy is complete ludicrous. I mean look at his initial World Heavyweight Title reign for starters as all the proof you need. That was truly the only time the World Title meant more than the WWE Title.
I will admit right before his injury in 2001 and after his feud with Batista he fell into the Kurt Angle territory.
But to actually say that HHH was never the top guy is complete ludicrous. I mean look at his initial World Heavyweight Title reign for starters as all the proof you need. That was truly the only time the World Title meant more than the WWE Title.
I will also make an argument that The Undertaker was never really "The Guy". He and HHH had very similar runs. HHH though I believe was more undisputedly the top guy then Undertaker ever was.
Undertaker is the most consistent and the more over of the two and had his longevity of being one of the top guys for basically his whole career in WWE but he never stood alone like HHH did for a few years after Austin and Rock left their full time roles and eventually their part time roles.
Undertaker is the most consistent and the more over of the two and had his longevity of being one of the top guys for basically his whole career in WWE but he never stood alone like HHH did for a few years after Austin and Rock left their full time roles and eventually their part time roles.
S.J. Maximus
Championship Contender
All these reasons for saying Triple H was never a top guy are ridiculous. Oh he turned face too late, heels can't be #1 guys, he was always in a shadow (whether it was Rock's, Brock's or Cena's), etc. I don't know if you guys ever watched WWE TV 13 years ago, or maybe you haven't watched since then so you've forgotten but there should be no doubt that Triple H was the top guy in the WWE.
I saw someone try to argue that he was the top guy in early 2000, which actually could be valid since he was one of the first heels in WWE history to leave WrestleMania as World Champion (and the only person to repeat this feat). I, however, would say that The Rock was the top guy then and Triple H didn't get his moment until his major face return in January 2002. Everyone on this site please look it up on YouTube, the reaction is deafening, and he easily got the best reaction of the night routinely throughout the first six months of 2002. There was nothing late about this face turn, and he wasn't in anyone's shadow seeing how he main evented WrestleMania X8 and won the Undisputed Title on a card that featured all-time greats like Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, The Undertaker, Ric Flair, and a returning NWO. There is no denying that he was the top guy in the WWE for 2002 but I will admit that the brand split made that fact way more debatable. Brock Lesnar took over in 2003 and with the addition of Goldberg it was hard to call Triple H the top guy in 2003, just as it was hard to say it in 2004 with the rises of Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, and Randy Orton. 2005 was pretty much the nail in the coffin for Triple H's top guy hopes, as Cena and Batista simultaneous rose above him that year but I'd still like to say that 2002 was his year as the man.
I saw someone try to argue that he was the top guy in early 2000, which actually could be valid since he was one of the first heels in WWE history to leave WrestleMania as World Champion (and the only person to repeat this feat). I, however, would say that The Rock was the top guy then and Triple H didn't get his moment until his major face return in January 2002. Everyone on this site please look it up on YouTube, the reaction is deafening, and he easily got the best reaction of the night routinely throughout the first six months of 2002. There was nothing late about this face turn, and he wasn't in anyone's shadow seeing how he main evented WrestleMania X8 and won the Undisputed Title on a card that featured all-time greats like Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, The Undertaker, Ric Flair, and a returning NWO. There is no denying that he was the top guy in the WWE for 2002 but I will admit that the brand split made that fact way more debatable. Brock Lesnar took over in 2003 and with the addition of Goldberg it was hard to call Triple H the top guy in 2003, just as it was hard to say it in 2004 with the rises of Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, and Randy Orton. 2005 was pretty much the nail in the coffin for Triple H's top guy hopes, as Cena and Batista simultaneous rose above him that year but I'd still like to say that 2002 was his year as the man.
he was he was the number 1 heel in the compagny for a long time tough and heel can be the face of a compagny, I know in this day and age it's different then it used to be back in the days when Hogan was the number 1 guy in the WCW but to say Triple H was ever the number 1 guy if he would've been on top of his game in another era maybe but having The Rock and Austin at their best at the same time kinda held back a lot of major star from ever breaking out completly
There is so much silliness in this thread, specifically this post. To suggest that Triple H - the first heel to EVER leave WrestleMania as the champion - was never the top guy is ludicrous; to then continue by saying that Brock Lesnar, Randy Savage, Kurt Angle, Batista, Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, Ric Flair (WWE) or Jeff Hardy have arguments as former "top guys" is pure insanity. As "over" as those guys were, none of them came close to being the focal point of the show like Triple H was from 2000-2003.
There's a reason people got sick of Triple H; it's because no one was on his level for THREE years, and as a result, he dominated the WWE. While Hogan had Andre, Warrior and Savage to challenge for his belt; Hart had Michaels; and Austin had The Rock, The Undertaker and Foley - Triple H had guys like Booker T, Rikishi, Chris Benoit and Scott Steiner.
Go ahead, try to make the case that Austin was still the face of the company from 2000-03 when he was either injured or working as a second-rate comedic heel intertwined in a battle for Vince McMahon's affection with Kurt Angle. Make a case for The Rock who, while being the most popular star of that period, spent so much time away during it that the WWE couldn't focus the product on him. Tell me that Lesnar, Taker or Angle were somehow the focal point of Monday Night Raw despite being relegated to Smackdown during a period when wrestlers were exclusive to one show or the other.
I'm not a huge fan of a heel dominating the company for years at a time. I believe that hope must exist for a face to eventually overcome the heel - and that during Triple H's run, that hope ceased to exist. I believe this is a big reason why the WWE started to wane in the post Attitude era - long before it went back to the PG model. These are problems that exist when you make a heel the face of your brand. But still, to acknowledge that those problems existed is to acknowledge that a heel was, in fact, the face of the brand - and that guy was, without question, Triple H.
-----
For what it's worth, this thread about "who is/was a top guy" illustrates the big problem with Triple H's promo on Monday Night. What he said was true, and that's not a good thing to do as a heel. Heels are supposed to speak from a skewed truth, a twisted honesty that bends reality in their favor. We're not supposed to agree with them. We shouldn't turn off the TV after the show and think to ourselves: "Maybe Triple H is right about Bryan. After all, there were guys before him that were just as popular who couldn't carry the torch. Maybe Bryan really is just a B+ guy. " In a program built around Daniel Bryan trying to overcome the odds of an evil authority figure, we shouldn't find ourselves - six days before the pay-per view - suddenly seeing where the evil authority figure is coming from. If we have empathy for Triple H's position, then doesn't that take away some of the satisfaction or the joy we're supposed to feel for Daniel Bryan when he takes him down?
I think the problem is with this thread that so many people have differing opinions on what makes a face of promotion really is. To me a the face of a promotion is someone who changes the business and makes a difference to a company, not someone who is necessarily a great worker, or great talker, or main events shows because of a real lack of top guy.
In WWF history you have had guys like Sammartino, Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena who are really the only ones that have had significant effect on the business for a sustained period of time, or did so much business to drastically change the industry. This is where people start to construe good workers who main evented like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels into faces of the company when they were main eventers because of Vince needing guys he could rely on.
HHH for all the good he did and there was certainly a fair amount of it was never a guy that did these things on a regular basis. Was he a good worker? Yes and still is in many respects, despite never being the same worker after his 2001 injury... Being a good worker was never the reason that made Sammartino, Hogan, Austin, Rock or Cena a no.1 guy. They all had the *IT* factor. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying any of these guys were bad workers but their working ability didn't make the no.1
Sammartino was a decent worker nothing more nothing less. Hogan was passable and gets a lot of stick for a lot of bad matches, but if people actually took the time to look there are a fair amount of good matches too over the years. Austin by the time he won the WWF title in 1998 was not the same worker he was prior to his injury at Summerslam 97. Rock was decent enough and potentially great positioned with the right guy. Cena like Hogan gets a lot of stick for a lot of bad matches. However, over the years he's had too many good matches to be labelled a bad worker.
At the end of the day like so many over the years when positioned with the right guy HHH drew money, as proven though when the business started to decline HHH wasn't a face of the company that could halt the decline.
In WWF history you have had guys like Sammartino, Hogan, Austin, Rock and Cena who are really the only ones that have had significant effect on the business for a sustained period of time, or did so much business to drastically change the industry. This is where people start to construe good workers who main evented like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels into faces of the company when they were main eventers because of Vince needing guys he could rely on.
HHH for all the good he did and there was certainly a fair amount of it was never a guy that did these things on a regular basis. Was he a good worker? Yes and still is in many respects, despite never being the same worker after his 2001 injury... Being a good worker was never the reason that made Sammartino, Hogan, Austin, Rock or Cena a no.1 guy. They all had the *IT* factor. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying any of these guys were bad workers but their working ability didn't make the no.1
Sammartino was a decent worker nothing more nothing less. Hogan was passable and gets a lot of stick for a lot of bad matches, but if people actually took the time to look there are a fair amount of good matches too over the years. Austin by the time he won the WWF title in 1998 was not the same worker he was prior to his injury at Summerslam 97. Rock was decent enough and potentially great positioned with the right guy. Cena like Hogan gets a lot of stick for a lot of bad matches. However, over the years he's had too many good matches to be labelled a bad worker.
At the end of the day like so many over the years when positioned with the right guy HHH drew money, as proven though when the business started to decline HHH wasn't a face of the company that could halt the decline.
nwo1234life
Occasional Pre-Show
Why are people saying that a heel cant be the top guy HBK was the top guy from late 1997- early 1998 and he was heel. also Hogan was the top guy in WCW and he was in the NWO and Flair was the top guy in the NWA. so Triple H was the top guy from 2002-2005 as the leader of Evolution.
You just stole one of my post...read the thread before you comment.
As I read this thread I am starting to think that either people on here are very young and just talking dumb or people on here didnt watch wrestling 10 years ago. There is no way you can make a real argument against HHH being the top guy in 2000. He had a last man standing match with Cactus, was in TWO hell in a cell matches, an Iron Man Match, and main evented all FOUR of the big four ppv's. What else could he have done? The company ALWAYS has a top guy. It doesnt matter if they dont draw, there were still the top guy. HBK and Hart were top guys. HHH was the man for IMO a longer time period than Austin was. Austin was only the man or top guy from about 1997-1999. I would say HHH had 2000 and 2003-2005.
Main eventing all 4 of the Big 4 ppv's alone makes him the top guy. If you disagree, I challenge you to name any other wrestler in the HISTORY of the WWE that main evented all 4 of the big 4 in the same year and wasn't the top guy.
DarksideEric
Call me "Hadouken." I'm ââ fierce.
HBK was already the top guy as a face then he turned heel. His face popularity carried over. He was also an "anti-hero" until his departure.
Austin was the first real "anti-hero" top guy. He stopped being a real heel while he was building up to being the top guy.
Angle I don't remember his time as heel that much.
Hogan is Hogan. Hogan is a (or *the* top guy) because of what he's done for wrestling. He wasn't the top guy because he was a heel.
I don't think HHH's face popularity ever carried over enough when he became heel to keep the top guy spot during the heel run.
CrucifiedRaven
The Evenflow Effect
He was. Not for long. And during a transition period in the company. But he was.
He was right after the brand split and right after Brock Lesnar left to Smackdown. Basically, once he was given the World Heavy Weight Championship, I'd say Triple H was the #1 guy in the company. Maybe from late 2002 - to 2004 / early 2005.
You could make the argument that it was Brock Lesnar during 2003... But during 2004, it was Guerrero and JBL main eventing SmackDown while Triple H and Evolution were THE show on Raw. He became the #1 guy during this time, in my opinion, until Cena took over in 2005.
It's funny, because Triple H's peak in my opinion is late 1999 and 2000. But I never saw him as the #1 guy during this peak, (#1 heel, for sure) ... it was The Rock... and even Steve Austin again the second he came back.
And the #1 guy doesn't have to be a babyface. Sure, that's the way Vince had previously done it... But it doesn't mean it's the way he is ALWAYS going to do it. NWA/WCW did it with a heel in Ric Flair, and later with Hollywood Hogan. And I'd say Triple H's run from 2003-2005 was very Flair-ish. The show was booked around him as the top heel and Evolution as a modern day Horsemen. His opponents were always temporary face challengers like Booker T, Scott Steiner, Goldberg, Shawn Michaels and Chris Benoit. None of them were even really on Triple H's level. Sure, some of them were lucky enough to take the title off him... but just like Flair, he always got it back. During this time, I say they made the #1 heel the #1 guy for the first time.
He was right after the brand split and right after Brock Lesnar left to Smackdown. Basically, once he was given the World Heavy Weight Championship, I'd say Triple H was the #1 guy in the company. Maybe from late 2002 - to 2004 / early 2005.
You could make the argument that it was Brock Lesnar during 2003... But during 2004, it was Guerrero and JBL main eventing SmackDown while Triple H and Evolution were THE show on Raw. He became the #1 guy during this time, in my opinion, until Cena took over in 2005.
It's funny, because Triple H's peak in my opinion is late 1999 and 2000. But I never saw him as the #1 guy during this peak, (#1 heel, for sure) ... it was The Rock... and even Steve Austin again the second he came back.
And the #1 guy doesn't have to be a babyface. Sure, that's the way Vince had previously done it... But it doesn't mean it's the way he is ALWAYS going to do it. NWA/WCW did it with a heel in Ric Flair, and later with Hollywood Hogan. And I'd say Triple H's run from 2003-2005 was very Flair-ish. The show was booked around him as the top heel and Evolution as a modern day Horsemen. His opponents were always temporary face challengers like Booker T, Scott Steiner, Goldberg, Shawn Michaels and Chris Benoit. None of them were even really on Triple H's level. Sure, some of them were lucky enough to take the title off him... but just like Flair, he always got it back. During this time, I say they made the #1 heel the #1 guy for the first time.
jameyt2003
pro wrestling sux
I voted yes on the basis that he always shared a #1 status with someone else. Rather it was Brock during the brand split, or with Evolution, Shawn in DX, or Cena. I think it depends on who is fueds are with. Any fued that HHH has been in for the 20 years has been a draw, and for the most part a top or #2 draw. If he is fueding with a Cena, HBK, or Taker, he takes the passenger side. If it is with an Orton, Batista, Jeff Hardy, Edge, Jericho or anyone else he then becomes the Top Guy. This is dependent on time as well. CM Punk from 2011 to now, with no where near the exposure and experience as HHH could probably draw much better than what HHH could from 2003 to now given who each man is feuding with.
JoeyJoeJoe
Championship Contender
I would say Yes, but he was a very weak #1 guy. He was a step below guys like The Rock, Steve Austin, and John Cena. He also didn't deliver stellar matches like Shawn Michaels or Undertaker. If anything, he got a rub from working with all of these guys.
It was never really about Triple H. Trips was just a very savvy guy who knew how to play the game behind the scenes...pun intended. However, there was a period where there was no better option than Triple H. It was before Cena, and after Rock and Austin had left. The main event scene was a returning Shawn Michaels, Goldberg, Chris Benoit and Scott Steiner. As it turned out, it was a very soft playing field.
It was never really about Triple H. Trips was just a very savvy guy who knew how to play the game behind the scenes...pun intended. However, there was a period where there was no better option than Triple H. It was before Cena, and after Rock and Austin had left. The main event scene was a returning Shawn Michaels, Goldberg, Chris Benoit and Scott Steiner. As it turned out, it was a very soft playing field.
lowandmighty
lowandmightyer
I felt he was the main guy around the time he wrestled Cactus Jack. However when I think about it, The Rock and Austin were still the main stars but HHH was meant to be pushed as the main guy and I think he did achieve that but in hindsight of his career not really during a snap shot of time.
I never saw him as the main guy even though he would headline wrestlemania when he was main eventing raw 03 - 05 as world champion, mainly because he didn't have the wwe championship.
The wwe was trying to make smackdown more recognised by having the true champion (wwe champion) on that show and I felt Lesnar, Guerrero and JBL really were the true champions. Smackdown actually was the better product during those few years even if they didn't make their matches the main events of wrestlemania. It was the one period of time where I would look forward to watching smackdown more than raw and I think that feeling was the same for most.
This hurt HHH's legacy in my opinion.
I also believe the reason for having the WHC matches main event wrestlemania during that time was largely to boost the prestige of the WHC belt. It didn't work in my opinion and probably sabotaged HHH's chance of having a stand out period as the main guy. I think HHH's probably was the main guy then, it just didn't feel like it basically because although he was on the right brand, he had the wrong belt.
So I voted yes.
I never saw him as the main guy even though he would headline wrestlemania when he was main eventing raw 03 - 05 as world champion, mainly because he didn't have the wwe championship.
The wwe was trying to make smackdown more recognised by having the true champion (wwe champion) on that show and I felt Lesnar, Guerrero and JBL really were the true champions. Smackdown actually was the better product during those few years even if they didn't make their matches the main events of wrestlemania. It was the one period of time where I would look forward to watching smackdown more than raw and I think that feeling was the same for most.
This hurt HHH's legacy in my opinion.
I also believe the reason for having the WHC matches main event wrestlemania during that time was largely to boost the prestige of the WHC belt. It didn't work in my opinion and probably sabotaged HHH's chance of having a stand out period as the main guy. I think HHH's probably was the main guy then, it just didn't feel like it basically because although he was on the right brand, he had the wrong belt.
So I voted yes.
Triple H said in a in-ring promo a few weeks ago on RAW towards Daniel Bryan that Bryan could never be the "face of the company". And then he threw in other superstars names like Chris Jericho and Edge into the mix on the same matter. With that phrase "the face of the company" being thrown around lately by Triple H. When was he ever "the face of the WWE"? Triple H has been in the WWE since 1995 simply as Hunter Hurst Helmsley, and I have never seen him as a poster child of any kind little alone of the WWF/E.
Back during the infamous attitude era, guys like Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Rock held the title to that claim. Not a Triple H. But when Stone Cold re-injured his neck and retired and the Rock left for Hollywood to make movie's, Triple H had the WWE kingdom to himself as their top star. Triple H ran shot on RAW from the beginning of 2003 to 2005-6 around the time John Cena was drafted to RAW. So to Triple H's credit alot was put on his shoulders at that period in time in the WWE. But he was never really looked upon as the face of the company. He was just that guy who married the bosses daugther.
But in my opinion, Triple H was never the face of the WWE. Then & now. What do you think?
Back during the infamous attitude era, guys like Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Rock held the title to that claim. Not a Triple H. But when Stone Cold re-injured his neck and retired and the Rock left for Hollywood to make movie's, Triple H had the WWE kingdom to himself as their top star. Triple H ran shot on RAW from the beginning of 2003 to 2005-6 around the time John Cena was drafted to RAW. So to Triple H's credit alot was put on his shoulders at that period in time in the WWE. But he was never really looked upon as the face of the company. He was just that guy who married the bosses daugther.
But in my opinion, Triple H was never the face of the WWE. Then & now. What do you think?
WWEWrestleFest
Pre-Show Stalwart
The period of time after the Attitude era, but before Cena became "the guy."
Basically, the time period where business started to go down for the WWE.
Basically, the time period where business started to go down for the WWE.
He was positioned as the face of Raw immediately following the brand split and was a failure as it.
Ratings before and after the brand extension hovered around 4.5 to 5 and within months they had fallen to an average of about 3.5 and Raw was getting beat by Smackdown in the ratings regularly. That average rose to about 3.7 by 2005 when Cena definitely took over as the man but Triple H's era as the face of Raw saw a huge decline in the business.
In the year following the brand split PPV buyrates dropped across the board too. From PPVs like Backlash and Armaggedon having their numbers halved (1.1 down to .52 for both) to the big 4 PPVs losing numbers too.
Shouldn't have been surprising. Wrestlemania 18's (main evented by Triple H vs Jericho) buyrate was a big disappointment, Wrestlemania 20 & 21 (headlined by Triple H with a combo of Benoit, HBK and Batista) were also poor.
As soon as Cena gets handed the ball in 2005 you see PPV buyrates pick up pretty dramatically.
Ratings before and after the brand extension hovered around 4.5 to 5 and within months they had fallen to an average of about 3.5 and Raw was getting beat by Smackdown in the ratings regularly. That average rose to about 3.7 by 2005 when Cena definitely took over as the man but Triple H's era as the face of Raw saw a huge decline in the business.
In the year following the brand split PPV buyrates dropped across the board too. From PPVs like Backlash and Armaggedon having their numbers halved (1.1 down to .52 for both) to the big 4 PPVs losing numbers too.
Shouldn't have been surprising. Wrestlemania 18's (main evented by Triple H vs Jericho) buyrate was a big disappointment, Wrestlemania 20 & 21 (headlined by Triple H with a combo of Benoit, HBK and Batista) were also poor.
As soon as Cena gets handed the ball in 2005 you see PPV buyrates pick up pretty dramatically.
He was never "face of the company" as I would describe a Hogan or Cena but for a few years in the Ruthless Aggression Era (2003-07) he was the number one guy. Although that was only short-lived because Cena became a star just a few years later.
I know many disagree, but I quite liked Evolution. I think it provided us with some decent storylines and helped to make Orton and Batista. Triple H was a fantastic heel during that period and he continued his great work as a face through DX and then on Smackdown (when Cena really became the guy).
I would say that from 2003 to about 2006 he was the top guy in the company. He was still a top superstar from then all the way to his semi-retirement but Triple H was number one during the aforementioned period. Whether or not that made him the "face of the company" is a different matter. To be honest, I can't think of anyone else who could take the title so, if there was a face of the company, it was Triple H.
I know many disagree, but I quite liked Evolution. I think it provided us with some decent storylines and helped to make Orton and Batista. Triple H was a fantastic heel during that period and he continued his great work as a face through DX and then on Smackdown (when Cena really became the guy).
I would say that from 2003 to about 2006 he was the top guy in the company. He was still a top superstar from then all the way to his semi-retirement but Triple H was number one during the aforementioned period. Whether or not that made him the "face of the company" is a different matter. To be honest, I can't think of anyone else who could take the title so, if there was a face of the company, it was Triple H.
I was asked this exact question on another forum and this is what I said:
Kayfabe wise, I think HHH never being the face of the WWE is why he resents Daniel Bryan. Here's a guy who is smaller than him, less defined than him, and who doesn't "look" like a face of the company. In HHH's eyes, he's jealous and bitter.
However kayfabe or not, he's never been THE face.
Kayfabe wise, I think HHH never being the face of the WWE is why he resents Daniel Bryan. Here's a guy who is smaller than him, less defined than him, and who doesn't "look" like a face of the company. In HHH's eyes, he's jealous and bitter.
However kayfabe or not, he's never been THE face.
Ont ever recall him being the face of anything...Austin was the top face up until his injuries started to get the best of him..then Rock was the top face by default because of this...once Rock left for Hollywood he put over Brock who in my mind will always be the face of that time period because he beat damn near everyone..Triple H didnt face Brock because he was above him, he didnt face him because he knew he would have had to put him over..Brock was the top guy...he beat Rock, Angle, Undertaker, headlined WM 19 as the last match..Brock left for football and then there wasnt a top face..guys like Eddie and Benoit were used strong, and a guy like Bradshaw was given an opportunity. During this time they experimented with Orton who was too young to be given the ball, and then the following Mania they created Cena and Batista. That was the start of Cenas era. So no, Triple H has never been top face because he wasnt booked as such, and his popularity never eclipsed anyone. Not to mention that he was the top heel during this period, so it was impossible.
born_of_fire
Dark Match Jobber
I think kayfabe is the key word here, no matter how many times Mark Madden insists that it's all a shoot. HHH's legacy is that of the best heel WWE has had in the last several decades. As such, he's never been on the level of Cena, Austin, or Rock, i. e. THE guy whose presence on the card makes the majority of the fans feel like they got their money's worth when they bought their ticket. He's a legend and a future hall-of-famer and well-deserving of those accolades, but the only active wrestler who can legitimately claim to be the face of the WWE is Cena. HHH is just a notch below in terms of sheer drawing power.
This is something that everyone in the WWE is well aware of, including HHH. If anyone thinks that the WWE marketing machine really believes Randy Orton can hold that spot, they're buying into the story a little more than they should. First of all, Orton's a heel. It just doesn't work that way. But even when he eventually goes back to being a face, it still won't be the case. Have you seen his promos? He just doesn't have that kind of charisma. His best bet would be to try to carve out a legacy similar to HHH's, as a top heel, as that's truly where he's best.
Honestly, I don't remotely believe the rumors that Bryan is being pushed down the card because WWE just doesn't see him as a top player anymore. (And I'm not a Bryan mark, more of an Undertaker guy myself, but that's a different topic.) Personally, I think Bryan vs. HHH at Mania is where this is all headed. I don't think they would make it a point to have HHH (despised heel) say Bryan (adored face) is not high-calibur enough to warrant HHH getting in the ring with him if the plan was not to have a pay-off down the road. Nor was Bryan's attack on HBK just a random, one-off event. I think they just knew they couldn't build that story for 8 straight months (Summerslam to WrestleMania) without a break at some point to keep it fresh.
Bryan (as well as Punk and Cena) are being kept out of the prime spotlight for now only so they can be thrust back into it when it's really show time. If you think Orton, Big Show, and Kane are being positioned to be some of the main stars that are going to sell WM XXX, just because they're big, you're sorely mistaken. WM XXX will be sold by Bryan, Punk, Cena, HHH, Lesnar, and Taker. Those will be the faces on the posters. They will occupy the main event slots.
Jack-Hammer
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
In my opinion, the answer is definitely no. Aside from John Cena, the only three guys in WWE that could ever really be classified as THE ONE singular guy, THE MAN if you will, are Hulk Hogan, Bob Backlund and Bruno Sammartino. Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan & Cena are the four guys in the history of WWE that could truly be classified as the truly definitive "face" of the company.
Even guys like Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock and The Undertaker were all huge stars, but none of them were ever really booked along the same near godlike lines of Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan & Cena. Those four men were/are protected, booked and built in a manner that's consistently stronger than any other big name in the history of the company. Winning the WWE Championship or winning it a boatload of times alone doesn't make you the true "face" of the company. That ultimately became the line of thinking in WCW and it's the line of thinking in any number of other wrestling companies.
Triple H is a major star and a major player in WWE, has been really since the very early 2000s. But when it comes to being THE #1 guy in WWE, he was never that. In all honesty, neither really was HBK, Bret Hart or Attitude Era stars like Austin, Rock & Taker. When Hogan left WWE, WWE didn't have another singular #1 guy until John Cena came along. Just as with Hogan, WWE frequently puts most of its eggs in the proverbial basket that is John Cena.
Even guys like Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock and The Undertaker were all huge stars, but none of them were ever really booked along the same near godlike lines of Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan & Cena. Those four men were/are protected, booked and built in a manner that's consistently stronger than any other big name in the history of the company. Winning the WWE Championship or winning it a boatload of times alone doesn't make you the true "face" of the company. That ultimately became the line of thinking in WCW and it's the line of thinking in any number of other wrestling companies.
Triple H is a major star and a major player in WWE, has been really since the very early 2000s. But when it comes to being THE #1 guy in WWE, he was never that. In all honesty, neither really was HBK, Bret Hart or Attitude Era stars like Austin, Rock & Taker. When Hogan left WWE, WWE didn't have another singular #1 guy until John Cena came along. Just as with Hogan, WWE frequently puts most of its eggs in the proverbial basket that is John Cena.
Goldie
Getting Noticed By Management
There can be a strong case for Tripper being the premier heel for a long time period.... but top guy overall? I'm not so sure.
Maybe a case can be made in the period when Austin, Rock left... and before Cena was pushed to the top, but thats about it.
As mentioned earlier... Tripper (much like Taker) has been a steady draw over a long time period.... without being the mega-draw that Vince would want to build his company around.
2002-2004 was not an easy time for wrestlers to break out... as the ruthless HHH push was at its peak. This was the period where HHH may have been the top guy... but business sharply declined once Austin/Rock were out of the picture.... and it was more of a transitional period before Cena took over the mantle in 2005.
Maybe a case can be made in the period when Austin, Rock left... and before Cena was pushed to the top, but thats about it.
As mentioned earlier... Tripper (much like Taker) has been a steady draw over a long time period.... without being the mega-draw that Vince would want to build his company around.
2002-2004 was not an easy time for wrestlers to break out... as the ruthless HHH push was at its peak. This was the period where HHH may have been the top guy... but business sharply declined once Austin/Rock were out of the picture.... and it was more of a transitional period before Cena took over the mantle in 2005.