How will history treat a Hunter...

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

Triple H.
Hunter Hearer Helmsley.
Paul Levesque.

Say one of those names, and you're generally guaranteed a few varying opinions.

From Kliq understudy, to Montreal bit-player, to a Cenaesque burier of talent (with the added benefit of nepotism by proxy), it's fair to say there's enough reasons to paint the man as a sinner in our Squared Circle utopia.

But moving forward to today: He's also set to be one of the main players in WWE when Vince dies.(Retire? No chance. He'd attempt to no-sell his final breath if he could.)

And... so far, so encouraging. He appears to want to bring back the physical wrestling element more to the forefront in WWE, while understanding the need to work with other media.

He seems to realise that more workers alongside the weightlifters can't be a bad thing. And Hell: Bruno at the HOF.
To even think of Vince managing that 3 years back... I'm reminded of Monsoon's words - "The irresistible force meets the immovable object".

Which brings me to Todays Question:

As of right now, has HHH done enough to "redeem" himself in the eyes of those who feel he needs to?
If not, what would redeem him?


The floor is yours...

[Cewsh]

He never needed redeeming in my book. So he's damn near perfection at this point.

[Beer-Belly]

History won't treat him nearly as well as Austin, Rock, Undertaker, HBK, or even Foley. The idea that he's "one of the most popular wrestlers of all time" only exists because WWE hammers that shit into the ground.

To clarify, I don't dislike the guy, but I don't ever find myself going back and watching a match or segment he was in solely because of his involvement.

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

History won't treat him nearly as well as Austin, Rock, Undertaker, HBK, or even Foley. The idea that he's "one of the most popular wrestlers of all time" only exists because WWE hammers that shit into the ground.

To clarify, I don't dislike the guy, but I don't ever find myself going back and watching a match or segment he was in solely because of his involvement.

I think I would disagree with Foley, for one reason:

In 2013, the reason why Foley's star shines as bright as HHH's is ironically for the opposite reason: Compared to the amount of love WWE give him, WE hammer it in.

As "smart" fans, we recognize Mick's legacy far more than a casual fan, who, given we're in the PG Era, most likely knows a lot less of the battle scarred warrior, and far more of the portly fellow with a borderline obsession for Christmas.

As "casual" fans, Joe Public knows a lot less of HHHs flaws, and far more of the WWE "Hammering in".

The other examples on your list shine brighter because, at least to some degree, there is a conaensus between the two groups.

Mick and HHH, if we're going in-ring.... I feel they'll be remembered fairly evenly.

[Cewsh]

I imagine that to anyone who has gotten into wrestling in the past 5 years, Mick Foley is roughly as much of a legend as The Big Show. He really diminished himself with all of the comebacks, and he's not someone that WWE heavily reflects on like his peers. I think Triple H's longevity across 4 different eras of WWE would make him a legend fondly remembered, whether he became part of the company or not. Not on the level of the top guys, but in the class just below.

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

A nice, varied couple of views to start with!

Leaving the past in the past, and looking forward: Cewsh, is there anything in the future he could do to lower his legacy in your eyes?
Conversely: Beer-Belly, is there anything he could do to raise yours?

[Cewsh]

A nice, varied couple of views to start with!

Leaving the past in the past, and looking forward: Cewsh, is there anything in the future he could do to lower his legacy in your eyes?
Conversely: Beer-Belly, is there anything he could do to raise yours?

Oh sure. Anything from promoting an intolerant workplace to just flat out sucking at his job would lower my opinion of him. But the entire reason that my opinion of him is so high is that, while he's never reached the heights of his peers, Triple H has never really failed at anything in the wrestling business.

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

I can't fault that argument Cewsh: The flaws attributed to him are in the main, due to his off-screen "shenanigans".

But, I'd say ANY wrestler in those positions would do the same.
I'm reminded of Scott Hall's words: "This ain't the wrestling friendship, it's the wrestling business".

If Steph, at some point in the 90s, fell inexplicably in love with a Mark Henry or a Billy Gunn... they'd probably do exactly the same. And If they were offered the amount of, shall we say career advancement oppurtunities, for argument's sake, they'd be a fool not to use them.


I guess, to an extent, that the disparities noted when discussing him (great at his work, though with questionable conduct in the view of some), is what led me to wonder how his legacy would be viewed.

For me... I think the chapter he's slowly entering into now will be what defines him.
Wrestling-wise, he appreciates a lot of the qualities seen in what he grew up watching, the NWA.

Personality-wise, bearing in mind the closest I'll ever get to a WWE curtain is dragging my old Hogan ones out of the loft... ;)

He certainly appears not to have the volatility of Vince. I would hope it's a fair bet to make that without said volatility, the ratio of decisions arrived upon by logic, rather than impulse would be a lot better.

Just as importantly, though he realised the need to venture into pastures new media-wise, in order to keep WWE the name it is - I don't believe he has Vince's hunger for "legitimacy", to escape being seen as a mere wrestling promoter.
On the contrary, I see a man who would see overruling the biggest wrestling company worldwide as not only a privelige (sp?), but an honour.

[The Law]

He's a second-tier legend in WWE history. Which isn't meant to demean him, because the second tier is damn impressive. The first tier is guys who changed wrestling: Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, Rock, Austin, Bruno.

The second tier is guys who were on top, but didn't transcend wrestling: Bob Backlund, Billy Graham, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, John Cena. Triple H was the top guy in WWE from 2002 to 2005, and the first heel to be on top since Billy Graham in the late 1970s.

With the smart marks, it's more complicated than that. Those that don't like him will never forgive him for his sins in the early-2000s. I'll always hold a grudge for a few things he did and continues to do (how did him pinning Brock at Wrestlemania help the company?). The worst thing I can say about him is that he had the Klique mentality of selfishness and always protecting his spot. I understand why the Klique guys were selfish in the mid-1990s when there were warring factions in the lockerroom. But the war ended years ago. The Klique guys won. Despite the fact that it's been peace time since 1998, Triple H always seemed to operate as if the lockerroom was still at war and he was one slip up from losing his spot. It seems like for every guy he put over he had to beat five other guys so that he could keep his credibility. The contrast between him and guys like Jericho and Michaels (late in his career) is kind of shocking. Did Michaels beat anybody after he came back in 2002? And Triple H can't even job to Punk when Punk was the hottest act the company had in years in 2011.

[Cewsh]

I know Triple H has a high profile company job, and has influence over things, but I think he gets wayyyyyyyy too much flak for decisions that he doesn't make. Triple H doesn't book the shows.

[MMH]

I know Triple H has a high profile company job, and has influence over things, but I think he gets wayyyyyyyy too much flak for decisions that he doesn't make. Triple H doesn't book the shows.

Do people actually blame him for bad booking at all? Common consensus seems to be that he is more in touch with the fans than anybody else.

Stephanie gets the slack more.

[Beer-Belly]

A nice, varied couple of views to start with!

Leaving the past in the past, and looking forward: Cewsh, is there anything in the future he could do to lower his legacy in your eyes?
Conversely: Beer-Belly, is there anything he could do to raise yours?

The stuff he's doing in his behind the scenes role is great. He should keep that up. I doubt NXT would have gotten such a big revamp without him taking the initiative. He's also the only reason that Bruno is in the Hall of Fame. The faster he takes the reigns from Vince, the better. He seems way more open minded and less egotistical than Vince. I mean, obviously I have no way to verify that, but it seems like a pretty safe assumption.

[Cewsh]

Well, for example, The Law just said:


And Triple H can't even job to Punk when Punk was the hottest act the company had in years in 2011.

[MMH]

Well, for example, The Law just said:

Thats one person...

He obviously has power to change anything he doesnt fancy doing if he wanted to. That said I dont think the result of the Punk match made a blind bit of difference either way.

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

With regards to the subject of booking:

I accept both sides of the coin - he can change what he sees fit, but does not take overall control.

However, I personally hope that this "retirement" angle does turn out to be that: a definitive step away from the action, and towards the running of WWE. Otherwise, I could see The Law's point continuing to be valid: while I'm sure neither of us would see HHH as being shortsighted enough to develop Kevin Nash Syndrome, I still feel there may be the odd occurence of him making choices as a wrestler, rather than more removed from that position.

I guess, if you'll pardon the pun, we'll have to see if the squeaky Axel gets the grease...

[JP]

Is he as good as the majority of those he worked with? No. Is he still a very good hand who appears to be an incredibly good choice to continue on when Vince steps down - obviously along with Steph - hell yes.

[ReDPath]

How can anyone say HHH, or anyone involved in anything worth merit has any pulse on what the fans want? When the focus is everywhere but the squared circle usually?

For instance, the over reliance/total sucking up of social media like people are going to care when Santino takes a shit or something idk, etc.

Do they really think fans want Barrett/Sheamus/Rhodes/Generic guy 12 jobbing to Orton every week? Do they really think fans want HHH always showing up just time to usually derail the top guy on the card? Like he did Punk before? Or how it realllllllyyy looked like that was going to happen with a part timer in Lesnar?

I mean had Lesnar lost that...you'd really have to say he was the biggest disaster/wasteful signing the company's had in years. Bring in a guy who was at one time supposed to be guy whose going to lead the next big era...only to have him come back, and job to the usual criminals (Cena/HHH/still time for Orton).

It would've been comedy gold, sure.

Regarding HHH himself.

Its the tale of 2 careers.

1996-2001 gets him a great nod. He was a great prick heel during this time period, and a decent face there for awhile.
2002 - current gets him the flack he does from the IWC...I mean really...he had what I think was a boring set of feuds with HBK (should've been so good), Hogan, Nash, Booker T, etc. Who did he actually help put over? Benoit (not technically), Jeff Hardy (arguably), really only Bats.

[JP]

I can't have been the only person to always have enjoyed HHH and Nash when paired against each other, surely?

[MikeHunt]

Hhh vs hbk boring......funny.

[Hero!]

I can't have been the only person to always have enjoyed HHH and Nash when paired against each other, surely?

i dont even know about you sometimes.

[Beer-Belly]

How is it even debatable as to whether or not he put over Benoit and Jeff Hardy? He tapped to the crossface at Wrestle fucking Mania, and lost to Jeff in a long feud that cemented him as a main eventer.

[JP]

i dont even know about you sometimes.

Always good on the mic, nice HiaC match, great Ladder match to finish off Nash's career.

They dids good.

[Kimura Kid]

It's so crazy to me that people complain about him keeping guys down. But never mention the times he put guys over in a major fucking way.

He made Benoit, Batista, Hardy & Cena legitimate stars.

There was at least a 2 year span where HHH was losing to guys simply to put them over.

About WM20-WM22

Maybe even longer...I couldn't tell ya I wasn't watching hardcore. But I remember being in disgust that he lost to Benoit, Batista and Cena at WM.

Top guy losing 3 straight Wrestlemania Main Events's was a major turn off to me.

[Jimmy Zero]

How is it even debatable as to whether or not he put over Benoit and Jeff Hardy? He tapped to the crossface at Wrestle fucking Mania, and lost to Jeff in a long feud that cemented him as a main eventer.

B-but, JERICHO!

I never was fond of HHH the character back in the early 2000's because he just kind of bored me. It was always, "I'm the game, I'm so tough, you can't beat me." Just never really did anything for me. For a top guy, I never felt like he had very much charisma. He wasn't devoid of charisma, but he never ever held my attention like Austin, Rock, Foley, Jericho. That said, I never bought into most of the backstage crap about him. It's not like he didn't have skill, or value to the company. It's not like it was a Gillberg caliber talent being put over every one because he happened to be friends with HBK, or nailing the boss's daughter.

As far as what he's doing in terms of running the company right now, I love it.

[lotjx]

Being married to the boss' daughter is going to put him in a weird circle. Yes, people don't like him, because is part of the WWE corporate machine more so than any active wrestler ever. Yes, he had a great career especially his 1999-2001 run. He is one of the greatest of all times? Fuck, no. No matter how many posts Cewsh puts up to defend, it doesn't change the fact, that for a good chunk of his career he was not that good. Granted, in 2002 when he came back from injury, it took awhile to get his sea legs back. Even when he was 100% in 2003, he was terrible. The booking around him was God Awful, his PPV matches were substandard and a lot of them had to with protecting him in stipulation matches. He had great matches with Benoit, but you had to go out of your way not to have great matches with child murdering fuck as well as Jericho, Rock and HBK. Even when Cena era started, he was just ok. DX Daddies gave his career a nice jump start, but that was mainly due to the fans loathing Cena, no Austin or Rock and really HBK is pretty funny. He had great matches with Taker at Mania, but again who hasn't since they made a big deal of the Streak.

To me, he has a troubled history. Too many times, he jobbed people out for no good reason since he married Steph. Too many storylines around him that were awful or boring to watch. He is also not someone that I care to watch again in a match. To me, he is a second tier wrestler that did an first tier job of politicking his way to the top.

[JP]

There are only two examples I can think of where the wrong call was made, without question, in putting HHH over; Booker T and RVD.

[Beer-Belly]

B-but, JERICHO!

I never was fond of HHH the character back in the early 2000's because he just kind of bored me. It was always, "I'm the game, I'm so tough, you can't beat me." Just never really did anything for me. For a top guy, I never felt like he had very much charisma. He wasn't devoid of charisma, but he never ever held my attention like Austin, Rock, Foley, Jericho. That said, I never bought into most of the backstage crap about him. It's not like he didn't have skill, or value to the company. It's not like it was a Gillberg caliber talent being put over every one because he happened to be friends with HBK, or nailing the boss's daughter.

As far as what he's doing in terms of running the company right now, I love it.

His 2003-04 run as the mega heel was rough. The 15 minute promo shit got real old real quick.

[lotjx]

There are only two examples I can think of where the wrong call was made, without question, in putting HHH over; Booker T and RVD.

He really didn't do any favors to Orton and even Cena's run where it seemed like he was doing everything in his power to get the fans to cheer him. Not jobbing to Punk and Brock is just bad business.

[JP]

Punk was probably a mistake, but Lesnar? He did job to Lesnar, big time. And had his arm broken, twice. That literally makes no sense bab.

[lotjx]

The Mania match was dull and boring. I know I was there live and it was the piss break match. Its easy to do the job on a show no one watches like Extreme Rules.

[Cewsh]

Summerslam?

[Kyle_242]

HHH will always be regarded as the guy that married the boss' daughter. His legacy is always going to have that asterisk. For better or worse, it's going to become unavoidable to discuss his career in retrospect without mentioning that, unless he kicks Steph to the curb and books Jericho to win all the titles at the same time.

[JP]

Summerslam?

Doesn't count, apparently.

[lotjx]

Doesn't count, apparently.

Not when you try to get the sympathy applause and are meet with You Tapped Out! Honestly, it should have ended there, but someone wanted his high profile win back. Kyle is dead on.

[Slare]

When talking about putting over RVD and Booker T, I actually agree with how they done it.

The Booker T thing made sense because, well, they were clearly building up Booker to win the title - fair enough. But in amongst that Goldberg gets signed and it's obvious that he's going to Raw and going to win the WHC.
Now is he better winning a title that's been hot-shotted to HHH - Booker - Back to HHH, or is he better toppling the giant that was HHH's monster title run. In theory it made sense for HHH to hold the strap until Summerslam and drop it to Goldberg. Obviously HHH got injured and it all ended up diluted, but putting yourself in their mind right before Mania and Goldberg being the one to finally beat HHH is a lot more lucrative than Booker T in the mid-card at mania.

The RVD thing I can understand too. The WHC was new, needed established and needed solidified as their top belt. It going to Kane/RVD or whomever else a month after HHH wins it is never going to do that. RVD was good but he wasn't at the level he needed to be at to carry the whole brand and that title on his back. HHH was.

The whole burial thing annoys me. It wasn't all his decision, and even if he did have a part in it, there are decent arguments for it.

I love HHH

[Slare]

Not when you try to get the sympathy applause and are meet with You Tapped Out! Honestly, it should have ended there, but someone wanted his high profile win back. Kyle is dead on.

They needed star power at Mania. Lesnar needed an opponent. HHH is a star. Lesnar is a star. Hunter getting his win back made sense in the story and also gave them another match out of it.

Jesus christ its basic basic wrestling booking that's happened a million times but because HHH won the match then its OH NOEZ EGOMANIAC.

[Slare]

He really didn't do any favors to Orton and even Cena's run where it seemed like he was doing everything in his power to get the fans to cheer him. Not jobbing to Punk and Brock is just bad business.

The Orton thing never worked because Orton never got over as a face. Again, AT THE TIME, the story makes sense for the face to chase the heel in the lead up to Mania and get a huge rematch out of it where Orton gets redemption. Their only crime was hot-shotting it. Then Batista comes out of nowhere and HHH puts him over THREE TIMES.

Also, he tapped clean in the middle of the ring to Cena in the main event of wrestlemania.

BUT OH NO HE SAID SOME THINGS THAT MADE FANS CHEER HIM WHEN HE WAS THE BAD GUY HES A MONSTER

[son_of_foley]

When talking about putting over RVD and Booker T, I actually agree with how they done it.

The Booker T thing made sense because, well, they were clearly building up Booker to win the title - fair enough. But in amongst that Goldberg gets signed and it's obvious that he's going to Raw and going to win the WHC.
Now is he better winning a title that's been hot-shotted to HHH - Booker - Back to HHH, or is he better toppling the giant that was HHH's monster title run. In theory it made sense for HHH to hold the strap until Summerslam and drop it to Goldberg. Obviously HHH got injured and it all ended up diluted, but putting yourself in their mind right before Mania and Goldberg being the one to finally beat HHH is a lot more lucrative than Booker T in the mid-card at mania.


Don't agree. They played the race card in the storyline. They called Booker a petty criminal and instead of getting his moment in the sun he got fucked. Now I'm not saying that's hhh's fault but it didn't make sense.

They booked themselves into a corner and aborted it at a cost to Booker T's credibility. Even if they had him win the title only to lose again the next month that would have given a way out of the storyline.

[The Rogerer]

They needed star power at Mania. Lesnar needed an opponent. HHH is a star. Lesnar is a star. Hunter getting his win back made sense in the story and also gave them another match out of it.

Jesus christ its basic basic wrestling booking that's happened a million times but because HHH won the match then its OH NOEZ EGOMANIAC.I was completely disinterested in the match as a result. It's clear that Lesnar is coming back as a draw but you know the match doesn't really matter to him, and then you put him up against someone else who you don't buy him caring that much. The match and rematch then had a feeling of people going through the motions. It goes both ways though, they didn't hide that Lesnar was just there to collect a cheque, but Heyman didn't have any real direction for him, and then the fact that it's sort of publicly acknowledged that he's been brought in by the WWE for the attention, then to try and sell it as a grudge feud doesn't quite work. They needed to play up Lesnar as pushing some sort of agenda.

I can see what they were going for with treating him like a gun for hire, but it didn't work. Triple H just looked like a punch happy moron beating up Heyman. The wrestlemania match was one thing, but following up for the rematch was the bridge too far, considering it seemed to centre around Lesnar snapping a 1997 IBM Thinkpad in half. Wrestlemania was cripplingly predictable and managing to come out of that with something that felt even more so was quite something.

Everyone has to share the blame there, but it wasn't a gripping story.

[Slare]

Don't agree. They played the race card in the storyline. They called Booker a petty criminal and instead of getting his moment in the sun he got fucked. Now I'm not saying that's hhh's fault but it didn't make sense.

They booked themselves into a corner and aborted it at a cost to Booker T's credibility. Even if they had him win the title only to lose again the next month that would have given a way out of the storyline.

As far as I remember, Goldberg wasn't confirmed until a few weeks before mania, so they were setting it up for Booker to get his moment, but in came Goldberg, plans changed and they had to do the best with what they thought would work long term. Obviously it didnt work great for Booker but thats hardly HHH's fault that they signed Goldberg is it?

As I said, it's a much bigger deal for Goldberg to beat HHH in the midst of a 12 month reign rather than a hotshotted reign with Booker T.

Booker was never going to be the man, Goldberg should've been. Correct choice at the time for me, despite how badly it played out.

[Slare]

I was completely disinterested in the match as a result. It's clear that Lesnar is coming back as a draw but you know the match doesn't really matter to him, and then you put him up against someone else who you don't buy him caring that much. The match and rematch then had a feeling of people going through the motions. It goes both ways though, they didn't hide that Lesnar was just there to collect a cheque, but Heyman didn't have any real direction for him, and then the fact that it's sort of publicly acknowledged that he's been brought in by the WWE for the attention, then to try and sell it as a grudge feud doesn't quite work. They needed to play up Lesnar as pushing some sort of agenda.

I can see what they were going for with treating him like a gun for hire, but it didn't work. Triple H just looked like a punch happy moron beating up Heyman. The wrestlemania match was one thing, but following up for the rematch was the bridge too far, considering it seemed to centre around Lesnar snapping a 1997 IBM Thinkpad in half. Wrestlemania was cripplingly predictable and managing to come out of that with something that felt even more so was quite something.

Everyone has to share the blame there, but it wasn't a gripping story.


90% of the audience (they think anyway) are marks and wouldn't be seeing it like that.

It's the Ass kicker, turned corporate stooge HHH after being beaten and broken by Lesnar deciding to go back to his bad assery days and take out the destructive Lesnar who took out his father-in-law.

The crowd killed the mania match but the story was there and it made sense, sometimes these things just don't work, hardly his ego ruining anything.

[son_of_foley]

As far as I remember, Goldberg wasn't confirmed until a few weeks before mania, so they were setting it up for Booker to get his moment, but in came Goldberg, plans changed and they had to do the best with what they thought would work long term. Obviously it didnt work great for Booker but thats hardly HHH's fault that they signed Goldberg is it?

As I said, it's a much bigger deal for Goldberg to beat HHH in the midst of a 12 month reign rather than a hotshotted reign with Booker T.

Booker was never going to be the man, Goldberg should've been. Correct choice at the time for me, despite how badly it played out.

I never said it was HHH's fault but I don't agree it made sense. Goldberg was still Goldberg. If you gave Booker a 1-2 month reign before giving the belt to HHH you wouldn't have lost any momentum with that title at all.

[The Rogerer]

I was talking all in character there. I know there was Brock taking out Vince, but there wasn't really a convincing reason for all of that to happen, and this came off the back of Heyman colluding with the Shield which ended up going nowhere, so you didn't really have a clear reason as to what Heyman and Lesnar were up to. The story was that Guerrero had signed Lesnar, and that didn't really go anywhere either.

[Slare]

I think we can all agree that it wasn't HHHs fault, which was all I was trying to say. It was shoddy booking, poor circumstances and the like, but I was only trying to put across the point that these decisions weren't made to stroke Hunters ego, but that there was reason behind them (widely reported and confirmed reason at that). The booking was wrong and they made the wrong decisions, but it WASNT BLOODY HHH RIGHT SO JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE. LEAVE HIM ALONE.

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

I must make some mitigation regarding Lesnar:

It is indeed logical that the second match of a feud should be the Rubber match, to even the score, and keep the interest going.

Given that Lesnar's first match back was the NONSENSICAL loss to Cena (Which HHH may or may not have played a part in), once the stage was set for Summerslam, it would have been equally as nonsensical to have Lesnar lose again on the trot, given the deal he's on, and the part he came in to play.

There will be the argument of "Ok, so have HHH win at Rumble/Chamber, and end with a Brock win at Mania".

In my mind...

Certainly, the above scenario will have used the same amount of his limited dates.
But what we got was a better use of them, business-wise.

It's exactly the same reason he (plus any big new/returning star in ANY year: Goldberg, Brock's first run, etc) debuted after Mania last year: as a way to continue interest at the start of a new "season", right after the biggest night in the year.

The Road to Wrestlemania, in my mind, may have been just as good if following the above scenario.
But post-Mania, historically has needed the boost more.

So, while what we got wasn't the greatest in some eyes... it was foreshadowed before Summerslam.

[lotjx]

90% of the audience (they think anyway) are marks and wouldn't be seeing it like that.

It's the Ass kicker, turned corporate stooge HHH after being beaten and broken by Lesnar deciding to go back to his bad assery days and take out the destructive Lesnar who took out his father-in-law.

The crowd killed the mania match but the story was there and it made sense, sometimes these things just don't work, hardly his ego ruining anything.

As a member of that crowd, fuck you, it was a bad match. Fans don't want to see the legit UFC bad ass lose to part timer pushing 45 corporate boss. HBK was the only heat getter in that match. You want stars at Mania make one with Brock. Bryan and Ziggler did nothing of note at Mania put them against Brock instead the old man past his prime.

[JP]

As a member of that crowd, fuck you, it was a bad match.

:lol:

Not, 'I have to disagree' or even a 'are you mental' but a good old fashioned FUCK YOU! You stay classy, San Diego.

[Slare]

Hahaha HE WAS IN THE CROWD JP he knows better than me that It wasn't a good match. It's not like its objective and different people took different things from it or something like that. It's not like I've seen people on here absolutely love it (Cewsh for one). It's not like I'm allowed an opinion. Just a nice big - it was shit FUCK YOU. Lovely.

[Slare]

As a member of that crowd, fuck you, it was a bad match. Fans don't want to see the legit UFC bad ass lose to part timer pushing 45 corporate boss. HBK was the only heat getter in that match. You want stars at Mania make one with Brock. Bryan and Ziggler did nothing of note at Mania put them against Brock instead the old man past his prime.


For the casual -

HHH vs. Brock = Buys.

Ziggler vs. Brock = No buys.

Not fair, just reality.

[Kimura Kid]

Slare is fucking ripping it up in this thread. :yes:

[Slare]

Thanks bud.

I hate HHH hate, who the fuck hasn't politicked better their positions in work and life?

Also, side note on the RVD thing. Look what happened when they gave him the ball.

[lotjx]

For the casual -

HHH vs. Brock = Buys.

Ziggler vs. Brock = No buys.

Not fair, just reality.

Really, wasn't Raw ratings terrible in 2003 to 2004 and also this Monday night.

[Slare]

I don't see how that has anything to do with people paying to watch Wrestlemania in 2013.

Ratings reflect the product as a whole, the general interest in wrestling, cable trends, other sports influencing them (the 2.6 this week was expected to be a lot worse btw due to the Basketball game), as well as the time of year, other storylines and what stars they have on top. Also lets add the point that there's an extra hour of the show now and I think everyone here can quite happily agree that the fact that Raw ratings were 'terrible'...

In fact, I just checked ratings. Even though it doesn't matter in any way whatsoever because the argument itself is redundant, just for funzies.

Sample Raw rating from June in 2003 - 4.1
Sample Raw rating from June in 2004 - 4.2

Average raw rating this year - 2.9


Obviously none of this has ANYTHING to do with HHH or Brock Lesnar.

Casual wrestling fans on the whole would pay to see HHH over paying to see Dolph Ziggler in the year 2013. I swear to god if you even try and argue a point against that my head will explode.
Lol u so sillyyyyyyyyy

[Cewsh]

I never said it was HHH's fault but I don't agree it made sense. Goldberg was still Goldberg. If you gave Booker a 1-2 month reign before giving the belt to HHH you wouldn't have lost any momentum with that title at all.

I don't agree with that at all. What does a one month title reign do for Booker T? It hardly solidifies him as a main eventer, and due to Goldberg coming in, it's not like he was going to get another chance to solidify himself that year. So you give him a fluke one month title reign, and then what? Not to mention that you're throwing away a reign of dominance for Triple H that the fans badly wanted to see the end of. If you have Goldberg run through him at Summerslam that year, then Goldberg is one of your top 3 stars from that point on. Momentum is incredibly hard to engineer in wrestling and incredibly easy to squander.

Also, Slare is KILLING IT in this thread.

[Cewsh]

As a member of that crowd, fuck you, it was a bad match. Fans don't want to see the legit UFC bad ass lose to part timer pushing 45 corporate boss. HBK was the only heat getter in that match. You want stars at Mania make one with Brock. Bryan and Ziggler did nothing of note at Mania put them against Brock instead the old man past his prime.


Really, wasn't Raw ratings terrible in 2003 to 2004 and also this Monday night.

Your grip on reality seems tenuous at best here.

[Morrison]

i always love the notion that you 'make stars' by just throwing a lower card guy against an established main eventer.

[Cewsh]

i always love the notion that you 'make stars' by just throwing a lower card guy against an established main eventer.

The weird thing is that when that happens in reality, and the main eventer wins, people lose their minds.

See: Randy Orton vs. the entire midcard, John Cena vs. Dolph Ziggler, Triple H vs. the entire midcard.

[Slare]

Right ok, so I think we've pretty much established that;

The Booker T thing was the right decision at the time, but probably not in hindsight due to events outwith HHH's control.

The RVD thing was a controversial decision at the time, but correct in retrospect.

HHH vs. Lesnar was a solid story with good matches that just suffered from poor reception, which can happen sometimes and certainly isn't forseeable when they're sitting planning the matches out in the booking room.

HHH is doing tremendous things with developmental and is yet to put a foot wrong with the majority of his creative decisions.

Look at the guys HHH has chosen to properly put over in the past decade or so;

Jericho (to an extent)
Angle (was shown on his level when HHH was at his peak)
Batista
Cena
Jeff Hardy

Probably five of the biggest guys and biggest stars in the last decade. They were so big and so hot partially due to their involvement with HHH, which - to casuals - is seen as a big thing. If he puts all sorts of guys over just for the fuck of it, then that becomes diluted and Jeff Hardy finally beating him or Cena making him tap doesn't really sound as big does it?

But Grrrrr something something 2003 title reign of doom something something spirit squad something.

[Matthew]

you forgot to mention his big nose

stick with golf bro

[MMH]

For the casual -

HHH vs. Brock = Buys.

Ziggler vs. Brock = No buys.

Not fair, just reality.

Its a tough one that. Ziggler vs Brock my = no buys but if done correctly it could results in Ziggler vs whoever = many buys in the future.

[Slare]

you forgot to mention his big nose

stick with golf bro

I :heart: golf


Its a tough one that. Ziggler vs Brock my = no buys but if done correctly it could results in Ziggler vs whoever = many buys in the future.


That's absolutely true, but with the limited star power they have and their desperation to have the biggest Mania ever, they had to go with the biggest matches available to them at that point.

Putting someone like Bryan or Ziggler in there with Brock at Summerslam in an Eddie-esque role and even having them get beat would certainly bring them up a level, but unless the groundwork has properly been put in, Wrestlemania wasn't the place to do it.

[Cewsh]

You can't get Ziggler over with one match. That's not how it works. And Lesnar only does 3 all year.

[The Rogerer]

HHH vs Brock probably didn't guarantee a lot of buys when they introduced the Triple H isn't going to lose, even a casual fan knows that, clause.

[Slare]

People can buy into a match while having a very good idea what the outcome was. Everyone knows Undertaker is going to win every year, but they suspend their disbelief and get involved in the match because of the spectacle.

Also, don't give the casual fan too much credit...

[The Rogerer]

What is all this casual business. Casual fans know who Triple H is but they don't care that much about him. They're certainly not gagging to see another Triple H match because they will have not been watching his recent abscence. Only someone who had been watching every week would find it interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UngkJ2hdsgo

[Andy]

Great stuff from Slare in this thread.

Here's my two cents on it. Triple H will go down as one of the best ever. Not on the same top level as the likes of Austin, Rock, HBK and Undertaker, but still one of the absolute best. He had his initial run which built him up to be a main event star and it was pretty damn amazing. Great feuds and matches with Rock, Austin, Foley, Jericho, Angle and others really cemented him as a top guy. The problem for me was, the brand split then happened and Raw was shit for a long time. The feud with Booker was crap, his matches with Shawn were so disappointing. As Slare says, in retrospect, the result against Booker was the right decision, even though the end of that match was bullshit. Problem is, the end to that match combined with Trips' reign being so fucking boring is what put me off wrestling, or at least Raw, for a few years. But that wasn't all his fault. Poor booking, a lack of new stars etc, they were the big problems.

Then we have a period where Trips puts loads of people over for the good of the company and their next stars. Batista, Orton (kind of), Cena, Hardy etc. Some damn good matches in there too. Now in the latter stages of his career we've seen him have decent to good matches with Punk and Brock (the cage match was really excellent), as well as the best match of his career against Taker. The series against Brock made perfect sense in terms of wins and losses, that much is obvious. Brock got the first win, Trips evens the score in what was meant to be an epic rematch and Lesnar wins the series in the last match. Overall that made Brock look fucking amazing, just a shame the damage had been done with a disastrous match against Cena previously which not only hurt his credibility but also made the results against Trips very obvious. Again, not his fault.

Basically I love Trips. He has a collection of absolutely brilliant matches to his name and there's only been a period of about two years where I thought his character so totally boring that I've been turned off the product, which is more than I can say for Cena.

[Slare]

Yeah I'm pretty much right down that line with Andy.

I think he's really divisive right now, but as time goes on, he'll be remembered as one of - if not the - most important figure in modern wrestling for all the right reasons.

[Slare]

Also, really enjoying these daily topics. Even though most have been done many times, there's a good group of wrestling posters and its always nice to get a fresh perspective and spark a debate. W-Forums have been fantastic lately.

[Cewsh]

Big credit goes to The Law for getting the trend started, and to a number of our new posters like Bully and Kimura for really getting involved quickly. :yes:

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

Also, really enjoying these daily topics. Even though most have been done many times, there's a good group of wrestling posters and its always nice to get a fresh perspective and spark a debate. W-Forums have been fantastic lately.

I'd like to thank everyone involved for debating, not just on this, but on the other couple of threads too.
For the grizzled vets among you, extra thanks for indulging this rookie regarding subjects you may have covered several times over!

I'll stop, before it gets all emotional... ;)

[son_of_foley]

I don't agree with that at all. What does a one month title reign do for Booker T? It hardly solidifies him as a main eventer, and due to Goldberg coming in, it's not like he was going to get another chance to solidify himself that year. So you give him a fluke one month title reign, and then what? Not to mention that you're throwing away a reign of dominance for Triple H that the fans badly wanted to see the end of. If you have Goldberg run through him at Summerslam that year, then Goldberg is one of your top 3 stars from that point on. Momentum is incredibly hard to engineer in wrestling and incredibly easy to squander.

Also, Slare is KILLING IT in this thread.

He gets to defeat the person who suggested someone from his background would never make good. They put him in a no lose situation by having his past brought up and you're right about momentum and that's 100% percent what they did with Booker T. They killed his momentum massively.

You have him win the title. You get Lawler or someone else to pay some lip service on commentary as they had buried his past for so long. Then you have HHH beat him for the title and possibly put him out while Goldberg comes in. Then when you want to seperate Goldberg and HHH after 3-4 months you have Booker come back in and his position is what it was before instead of the aimless directionless character he then was.

Goldberg is a special case. There's so much built around him coming in nobody cares if who he's facing has had the belt 3 months or 7-8 months. He should've been one of the top 3 stars no matter what. Triple H beating Booker didn't alter the fan reaction to Golberg one iota.

Revisionist history does not change what a hatchet job they did on Booker T.

[lotjx]

He gets to defeat the person who suggested someone from his background would never make good. They put him in a no lose situation by having his past brought up and you're right about momentum and that's 100% percent what they did with Booker T. They killed his momentum massively.

You have him win the title. You get Lawler or someone else to pay some lip service on commentary as they had buried his past for so long. Then you have HHH beat him for the title and possibly put him out while Goldberg comes in. Then when you want to seperate Goldberg and HHH after 3-4 months you have Booker come back in and his position is what it was before instead of the aimless directionless character he then was.

Goldberg is a special case. There's so much built around him coming in nobody cares if who he's facing has had the belt 3 months or 7-8 months. He should've been one of the top 3 stars no matter what. Triple H beating Booker didn't alter the fan reaction to Golberg one iota.

Revisionist history does not change what a hatchet job they did on Booker T.

This is killing it.

[Cewsh]

This is killing it.

It was an excellent post. Your endorsement on the heels of your performance in this thread does it no favors.

[Tainted Eclipse]

as far as how history will actually treat him, it will be very very well. putting aside the issue of how much he deserves it, he will be treated as an all-time wrestling god in WWE wrestler mythology in every respect, on par with rock, austin, michaels or anyone else. largely fans will accept that at face value. for the vast majority of people who watch wrestling in the future i imagine the name "triple h" will be to them as "ric flair." he's already being somewhat treated on that level. probably even a large segment of "smarks" will consider him an all time great worker, and it looks like thats the trend a lot of the internet is already going in.

as for me, im not a fan. i dont hate him particularly and recognized that he has talents, not least of which is clear star power and charisma/presence, but i think he's an entirely mediocre worker.

[VHS]

I'm usually fairly blunt when it comes to HHH, but this thread has been a joy to read. Great perspectives all around.

I'm in love with HHH's work backstage, but I have so much hate when he's put storylines like the one he's in now. It's just an excuse for fans to tell him "No, Hunter. You're awesome. You're a bad@$$. You're the greatest of all time."

It really feels like he's trying to make himself a bigger legend than HBK or Steve Austin, but in actuality he still doesn't hold a candle to them. And he never will, no matter how many times he gratuitously panders for crowds to chant his name.

[Cewsh]

It's weird to me to see people laying that layer of egotism on Triple H's matches and actions. Beyond the narrative that smarks have crafted for him, is there any reason to see what Triple H does in that light more than, say, Mick Foley?

[Jimmy Zero]

Beyond the narrative that smarks have crafted for him, is there any reason to see what Triple H does in that light more than, say, Mick Foley?

It probably has a ton to do with the perception that HHH was a coat tail rider and never really earned his spot with his ability and dedication, so much as he did with cozying up with the right people and ultimately marrying the bosses daughter. It's an absurd assumption to make, but it definitely feels like that's been the dominant view of HHH for most of his career. Not so much now, but definitely during his prime years. Whereas the perception with Foley is that he spent time all over the world doing the most insanely violent garbage wrestling you can think of and destroying his body before he even made it to WWE because he didn't have those ins with Shawn/Hall/Nash, or the opportunity to wine and dine Stephanie McMahon. He also just comes off as a likable oaf, big brother goofball type, particularly during his WWE main event run.

Foley's always been seen as the common man that actually made it to the top, whereas, rightly or wrongly, HHH has been painted (by the IWC, at least, particularly in the early 2000's) as a brown nosing suck up who never deserved to be where he was in the first place. That perception has followed HHH among smarky crowds for his entire career, and is unlikely to ever go away completely.

It's like someone else in this thread already posted, HHH's relationship with Steph will taint his legacy and always cause murkiness as to whether he actually ever deserved his spot. Right or wrong, that stigma is always going to be there for him.

[The Law]

It's not unreasonable for people to be suspicious of Triple H getting a better push than he deserved based on his connections. He came in and immediately became part of the Klique, the most powerful group in the WWF at the time. Then he married the daughter of the owner of the company who was also the head of the creative team. If you looked at those facts objectively, it wouldn't be unreasonable to guess that those connections would result in him getting a bigger push than he deserved on his merits. As it stands, he was pretty damn awesome and deserved a top spot.

If anyone wants to claim that he never used his connections to get ahead, they'd be being naive. Nepotism is a real thing in society. We've probably all worked with an incompetent person who happened to be related to someone important. Bobby Kennedy wouldn't have been Attorney General if he wasn't JFK's brother. George W. Bush wouldn't have gotten into Yale if his dad hadn't gone there. And Triple H wouldn't have had quite so many title reigns or wrestled in so many main events if he weren't married to the owner's daughter. He still would have won a lot of titles and wrestled in a lot of main events, but not as many.

[BullyRayStoleMyLunch]

I'd add to Jimmy Zero: While Foley may have done exactly the same as HHH, and made choices based on his own interests, he's always appeared to me to own his choices.

This is the man who, returning 3 weeks after HHH, had one of his first statements involve mocking himself for not coming back in 6 weeks, but 3 instead.

Both have made choices made on personal interest. But it's much easier to rag on someone who rarely addresses those choices. A person who can use their openness, self-depreciation to address those choices is much harder to hit. What can you say about a person, if they've already got their own shot in on themselves first?

[Cewsh]

It's not unreasonable for people to be suspicious of Triple H getting a better push than he deserved based on his connections. He came in and immediately became part of the Klique, the most powerful group in the WWF at the time. Then he married the daughter of the owner of the company who was also the head of the creative team. If you looked at those facts objectively, it wouldn't be unreasonable to guess that those connections would result in him getting a bigger push than he deserved on his merits. As it stands, he was pretty damn awesome and deserved a top spot.

See, but you're cherry picking his biography for what fits the narrative. He walked into WCW and was immediately an interesting prospect. At the end of his first year, WWE hotly recruited him and put him on television in a prominent role immediately. He became part of the Klique, but was utterly secondary until all of them had left the company, at which point he achieved his greatest success on his own. Stephanie didn't gain any significant power until 2003 or so, and she had no power over a show that Triple H was actually on until several years after that. It just doesn't make sense to penalize him based on things that don't even seem to have been factors. If he had never married Stephanie, does anyone here think that he doesn't keep getting pushed into the 00s? Even though he and the Undertaker were the only two Attitude Era main eventers left? The argument makes no sense.

[Jimmy Zero]

See, but you're cherry picking his biography for what fits the narrative. He walked into WCW and was immediately an interesting prospect. At the end of his first year, WWE hotly recruited him and put him on television in a prominent role immediately. He became part of the Klique, but was utterly secondary until all of them had left the company, at which point he achieved his greatest success on his own. Stephanie didn't gain any significant power until 2003 or so, and she had no power over a show that Triple H was actually on until several years after that. It just doesn't make sense to penalize him based on things that don't even seem to have been factors. If he had never married Stephanie, does anyone here think that he doesn't keep getting pushed into the 00s? Even though he and the Undertaker were the only two Attitude Era main eventers left? The argument makes no sense.

But perception is reality. None of that stuff matters as to how HHH will be remembered. At the end of the day, people are going to harp on his marriage to Stephanie and his relationship with the Klique when he first came to WWE. It's unfair and undermines HHH's actual hard work and achievements, but it's not like he didn't put himself in the position to be judged that way in the first place.

[lotjx]

It was an excellent post. Your endorsement on the heels of your performance in this thread does it no favors.

Your constant and somewhat naive approach to this subject is also endearing.

[Cewsh]

Your constant and somewhat naive approach to this subject is also endearing.

What's naive? He's a guy who has used his influence and skill to get to the top and while there he has done everything he could to make money for himself and his new family's business. Some of the things he wants to do are no doubt wrong and have resulted in people being depushed, or buried or what have you. But whether that was his intention or just a byproduct of him learning the business so he could one day take it over is something that none of us here are qualified to say. And honestly, it doesn't make any fucking difference whatsoever if he's the biggest scum on the planet or not, because he was talented enough and hard working enough to have gotten there without it.

Holding on to this kind of nonsense is one of the most frustrating about smarks. I don't expect better from you, but it'd be nice to see some more thought put into things before we spend decades burying people's professional reputations.

[Andy]

Plus the very idea of people holding this grudge is so bizarre, even if it is true. Who wouldn't be a little selfish in that position?

It's not like he was some crap wrestler who was punching above his weight because he married the owner's daughter. I look back and think did he hold anyone back? Nope. Did he hold the title when others were more deserving? Maybe at a push Booker T. In hindsight it was the right call to leave it off RVD and take it off Orton so soon. And HBK didn't want it.

I think people used it as an excuse to hate him from about early 2003 for a few years when in reality his boring character and crap matches at that time were more than enough reason. That's one small blemish in an otherwise exceptional career though.

[son_of_foley]

I dont wan't the posts about Booker to seem like a commentary on the HHH though. I just thought that was a horrendous storyline which at the time (and I haven't rewatched) seemed to have racial overtones about people like Booker and his background etc etc and I just felt the result was horrendous.

In terms of HHH, and this comes from the position of a typical arrogant attitude era fan, I think he's good but won't be remembered as one of the real greats in 15 years time by people who no longer watch. I think WWE will continue to promote his legacy and maintain it in the future because of his position in the company and I guess the family too but I think to most even though they really thought he was very good at being the big heel he was no Rock, no Stone Cold and no Taker.

You do get the feeling, and this cannot be backed up and is not coming from a place of fact, that he is insanely insecure about his position in history though. I think most wrestlers are but they don't have any pull to correct that. I think his continued returns at the minute seem really flat and a bit dull, the fact he's still seen as this powerhouse that can beat Lesnar despite retiring seems odd. I felt the marketing of him vs taker as "end of the attitude era" seemed really weird considering Rock was on the same frigging card and Kane is still around. It feels like they want to mark the Attitude Era as the "HHH" era because he's still around the company.

[The Rogerer]

I agree with what sof says there. I don't hold anything against Triple H and he's done a lot of good things, but he was overexposed for a very, very long time and as a result it's hard to hold any sense of fondness about him. The returns do seem indulgent, and not that interesting to a casual fan (which I probably qualify as now) because in the time I haven't been watching, I haven't noticed the absence of Triple H. I appreciate that some of it comes from building up a career as a heel, but I find it hard to look at him something more than a safe pair of hands. The trailer of him recovering from his quad injury to U2's Beautiful Day felt strange enough at the time.

I feel the reappearances are an attempt to create a sentimentality that isn't entirely natural. When the booking is so dire, that failure is amplified.

[MMH]

You can't get Ziggler over with one match. That's not how it works. And Lesnar only does 3 all year.

Well obviously you dont just throw him in there without any backstory. You build towards it.

[lotjx]

Well obviously you dont just throw him in there without any backstory. You build towards it.

Could have easily had him do something with Lesnar at Royal Rumble and build from there. The same way they book almost every match at Mania, shit they now book after Elimination Chamber. There is a locker room full of guys who could use that match. HHH is not one of those people. Mania is all about Rock. Cena and Taker for the last three years if not longer. Mania sells itself, there is so many people and businesses that buy it that if it doesn't do over a million buys then something is wrong same goes for SummerSlam to a lesser extent. I doubt HHH/Lesnar put a lot of asses in those seats, actually a lot of asses were leaving those seats. The fans were screaming for Dolph and Bryan, why not give them something they want to watch?

This is the major I have with HHH putting himself over the locker room. There is no need for him to be part of Mania let alone one of the large spots. WWE has a midcard full of good guys who need to break out. They won't if they are being sacrificed to the alter of Cena and pushed aside for the ego of the Boss' Son in law.

[Cewsh]

Could have easily had him do something with Lesnar at Royal Rumble and build from there.

Except that due to the limitations of his contract, he very likely couldn't have been at the Royal Rumble.


The same way they book almost every match at Mania, shit they now book after Elimination Chamber. There is a locker room full of guys who could use that match. HHH is not one of those people. Mania is all about Rock. Cena and Taker for the last three years if not longer. Mania sells itself, there is so many people and businesses that buy it that if it doesn't do over a million buys then something is wrong same goes for SummerSlam to a lesser extent.

Dude, not to be mean, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Only like 6 wrestling shows have EVER gone over a million buys. Rock/Cena has made for two of the most successful wrestling events ever held on this planet.


I doubt HHH/Lesnar put a lot of asses in those seats, actually a lot of asses were leaving those seats. The fans were screaming for Dolph and Bryan, why not give them something they want to watch?

A) Not all fans like what you like.
B) Both Bryan and Ziggler are getting enormous pushes in the months after Wrestlemania.


This is the major I have with HHH putting himself over the locker room. There is no need for him to be part of Mania let alone one of the large spots. WWE has a midcard full of good guys who need to break out. They won't if they are being sacrificed to the alter of Cena and pushed aside for the ego of the Boss' Son in law.

Sigh.

[lotjx]

Except that due to the limitations of his contract, he very likely couldn't have been at the Royal Rumble.



Dude, not to be mean, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Only like 6 wrestling shows have EVER gone over a million buys. Rock/Cena has made for two of the most successful wrestling events ever held on this planet.



A) Not all fans like what you like.
B) Both Bryan and Ziggler are getting enormous pushes in the months after Wrestlemania.



Sigh.

Yes, sigh. As you said Mania is making millions off of Cena/Rock not HHH. And two of the last 6 over million buys have been Wrestlemania, I don't see it ever changing. I actually stayed in my seat for the match, it was about a good chunk of the fans leaving, so its not fans like me. Ziggler and Bryan could have easily had those pushes prior to Mania. They could have Brock shown up at Royal Rumble and saved one of his HHH beatdowns or DX beatdowns for another night. They could have worked with his schedule. Its not like we are moving mountains. You are being naive to think that HHH has never used his political powers to push himself instead what is good for the company.

[Kyle_242]

Someone throw up the bat-signal for Hacksaw.

[Slare]

lotjx is just throwing assumptions and made up figures and the likes all over the place here. really sussed himself. nice to see two good camps and very strong trains of thought here making for a good debate though.

[Slare]

Your constant and somewhat naive approach to this subject is also endearing.

Just saw this post. Trying to play the consescending card towards Cewsh of all people is probably the most naive thing you could do on here. Absolutely baffling collection of posts from you in here. Really strange.

[Ringo]

It's lotjx!

[Slare]

I genuinely had no idea who he was until this thread. Under my radar. Noted for future though haha.

[Hacksaw]

Someone throw up the bat-signal for Hacksaw.

I'm the hero Rajah deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

Anyhow, Poochie's legacy will be mixed, obviously. Whatever shortcomings he had as a worker don't necessarily auger what sort of promoter he'll be. If he's a good one, his wrestling career will be looked upon more happily. This happens in all areas of life. It's hard to remember how awesome a pitcher Curt Schilling is because he's such a blowhard douchebag fraudster in his current life.

It's hard for me to consider myself a wrestling fan anymore, and I haven't watched a full show in years now. While that has more to do with changes in real life, the mid-00's, including the Triple H-dominated Raw era and all of the other awful booking of that period, is when my interest waned. When it came to a point where I needed to cut things out of my life, wrestling was an easy choice. Triple H played a large part in that. Was it the character HHH or the person? The lines are blurred, I think.

On the other hand, Triple H sort of made me famous on here, didn't he? I mean, I had a lot of strong opinions in those days and there was a ton of stuff I loved, but it seems to be my high-epicicity anti-HHH rants that people remember me for. So I guess I have to thank him for that. I "got over" on a wrestling forum by arguing that HHH was a failure at getting people over. There has to some irony in that. Maybe he was a better heel than I gave him credit for. You know, if being a good heel means getting a nameless 2x4 on a wrestling forum over by methodically being really quite good at making a television program entirely unwatchable.