A thread in which Dylan compares various wrestlers to HHH

[El-P]

Not everyone wants to make a thesis nor react on every points made here, yet can still show appreciation for the thread despite some disagrements. I think this is a very good and fun thread to read, that's all.

 

That said, I think Levy vs Hunter is a kind of interesting argument since both guys are obviously big fans of wrestling and tried to emulate what came before.

Levy is the polar opposite of Hunter though, in that he doesn't think he's a great worker to begin with (and says himself he's a shitty athlete) and he's all about intricate long-term booking, crazy characters and entertaining clusterfucks as opposed to cosplaying Ric Flair/Harley Race in overlong putrid parodies of so-called "classic main events". I do think the "Hunter is a student of the game" is also way overblown and part of his gimmick. If he's a "student of a game", he sure didn't make any grade as far as working.

[JerryvonKramer]

Pretty funny thread. Some claims are totally outrageous (and I'm a HHH hater), but some really good points are made too. Also, I'm sick of the Raven bashing at this point, which is getting pretty ridiculous and totally overblown.

I can't even fathom the idea of having to go through the entire last decade of WWE TV with HHH on top. A nightmare of dullness on every front.

Can you let us know which claims you think are outrageous?

[Dylan Waco]

This might be one of the most, if not THE most ridiculous threads that I have ever seen. I feel like I've stumbled across a troll forum. I have been laughing pretty hard though, which I needed, so carry-on.

As usual you make points with the best of them.....

[NintendoLogic]

Great discussion. But then what are the very good (or great?) Haitch matches where he's not being massively put over by his partner? (like the Foley 2000 matches, which are as much Mick as anything) Someone mentioned Eugene at Summerslam 04. The Iron Man in 2000.

 

What else is worth tracking down or re-watching? It should just about all be on YT or DM.

I really like his Three Stages of Hell match with Austin. The first fall alone is probably the best sub-15 minute match in WWE history.

[Victator]

HHH had the best Great Khalli match ever at Summerslam 08. It was a really really good match and HHH got Khalli over as a monster, when Khalli's aura of invincibility had long since cracked.

[anarchistxx]

I just watched a match with Razor Ramon from Raw early in 1996, and it's hard to argue HHH isn't more than competent enough to warrant a midcard push at this stage. He bumps heavily, times the transitions well, looks good albeit unvaried on offence. He was entertaining to watch, which isn't something you can say about a lot of the guys in this thread. I know they usually stepped it up for Kliq v Kliq matches but it still shows he had it in him.

 

I think the most important point in this thread is the one about him not accepting his limitations, and going for epic intense all the time. I remember a match with HBK at Taboo Tuesday in 2004 when Michaels had injured his leg beforehand. They worked a simple, relatively short match based around dogged legwork and a desperate comeback and it's really one of the best matches they had together, far better than the 30+ minute Last Man Standing and Hell In The Cell matches.

 

Wrestling is subjective though, and the way in which Dylan comes at it seems to be different from a lot of people (judging by stuff he really digs). or maybe it's just because he's seen more than most people. I think you'd find very few casual viewers, and indeed very few forums who'd concur with his views on most of these guys being better than Trips, for whatever that is worth. It's intriguing to read him argue these contrarian opinions even if I've not really been persuaded by most of them.

[Mad Dog]

What do you guys think about the neverending series of HHH/HBK matches that went on from 2002-2004? I found the whole series of matches to be pretty underwhelming when they happened despite the hype. I know for a fact that their HIAC match at Bad Blood in 2004 made a lot of the local fans stop going to shows altogether.

[Chess Knight]

I don't love or hate the series as a whole. The late 03 was a favourite of mine years ago and I'd probably still like it if I watched it now. I liked SummerSlam and could tolerate the HIAC. Everything else is either "eh" (Royal Rumble 04) or terrible (Boot Camp from Troops Trbiute, 3 stages of hell).

 

Shawn and Trip worked a match in 96 where Shawn used Hunter's nose for this and that; that's probably the out-right funnest match they had againt each other.

[Jingus]

What do you guys think about the neverending series of HHH/HBK matches that went on from 2002-2004? I found the whole series of matches to be pretty underwhelming when they happened despite the hype.

I thought they started off as perfectly tolerable gimmick brawls, like Shawn's comeback match at Summerslam '02. But as time went on, they kept making the matches longer and more EPIC~! and shit like that. Those got pretty hard to watch, not just the length but also because Trips is nowhere near the sort of big bruising monster it takes to justify one of HBK's patented Fighting Spirit~! underdog performances. But they did improve about a thousand percent when they threw in Benoit as a third dance partner, those three-way matches have held up much better than the HHH/Michaels singles bouts.

 

I know for a fact that their HIAC match at Bad Blood in 2004 made a lot of the local fans stop going to shows altogether.

Oh god yes. 52 FUCKING MINUTES, half of it spent with them motionless on the mat. I call that one "lay down and sell in a cell". It's easily the worst HIAC match that either man has ever had; heck, it might be the worst Cell match period, if 1.you don't count Kennel From Hell and 2.you don't hate Bossman/Taker as much as most people.

[anarchistxx]

I'm still pissed off they did a rerun of the Wrestlemania triple threat at Backlash 2004 instead of a straight Benoit/Michaels match. Not only would it have been fantastic in ring, the heat would have been off the charts, the Canadian crowd adored Benoit and despised Michaels, I always felt HHH was such a pointless addition to the mix, especially since he;d be wrestling Benoit one on one for the belt in the next month.

[Jingus]

I thought it made sense from a booking standpoint. Benoit won the belt off HHH, so it would be weird to follow that up with a Benoit/HBK match instead of HHH getting the traditional rematch at the next PPV. And since it was in Montreal, the obvious perfect finish was having Michaels tap out to Benoit's sharpshooter (with the hilarious addition of a ref bump, causing Earl Hebner to run in and make the call). So a triple threat rematch was the most logical thing to book there.

[Dylan Waco]

Ill dig more into specific names later, possibly tonight as I have a lot of stuff on my plate. Just wanted to note that I think HHH basically hangs his hat as a worker on three periods - 97/98 period where he had some good matches and looked good in spurts, the late 99-01 period where I think he was overrated but he definitely had his hottest matches, and smatterings of time in 05 and 08 where I thought he had solid enough performances. I've already run down his peak years v. the peak years of others at the DVDVR, but my point is that he doesn't have this huge body of work DESPITE the fact that he has had tons more opportunities.

[ohtani's jacket]

I was a Hunter fan during the '98-00 period, but the thing that really killed him for me was when it was revealed he was behind the Austin hit and run. That was almost as underwhelming as the Higher Power.

[Loss]

I get outrageous reactions every time I say this, but I still think HHH's 2002-2003 heel run is a big reason for WWE's decline. RVD, Kane, Michaels I, Steiner, Booker, Nash, Goldberg -- each of those feuds was uniquely bad and business did decline quite a bit during this time. Seven failed main event programs in a row tend to do that.

 

It's possibly the worst main event run a top heel has ever had in a major promotion.

[Marty]

Ill dig more into specific names later, possibly tonight as I have a lot of stuff on my plate. Just wanted to note that I think HHH basically hangs his hat as a worker on three periods - 97/98 period where he had some good matches and looked good in spurts, the late 99-01 period where I think he was overrated but he definitely had his hottest matches, and smatterings of time in 05 and 08 where I thought he had solid enough performances. I've already run down his peak years v. the peak years of others at the DVDVR, but my point is that he doesn't have this huge body of work DESPITE the fact that he has had tons more opportunities.

Pretty much agreed. 97/98 I think you can throw a lot of credit to Owen and Rock for that. Heck, Rock was probably developing more as a worker in the summer of 98 then most might give credit to him for. Rewatched his KOTR final with Shamrock and it hasn't aged too badly.

 

Curious about 2005, though. Aside from the HIAC match with Batista, what else is there? I wasn't a fan of the other Batista matches particularly, nor was I of the stuff with Flair. And this was a year in which others in WWE were producing some pretty good stuff (Eddie/Rey, Edge/Hardy, arguably Shawn/Angle, etc.). That year feels pretty glaring as far as HHH being behind the others as far as quality of work goes.

[KB8]

Can't/won't speak for Dylan, but I think a good deal of the case for his '05 being strong hangs on the Flair stuff. I also liked the HIAC with Batista and I loved the cage match with Flair. If you're not particularly fond of the Flair stuff then you probably won't go to bat for Helmsley being all that good that year (at least from a "work" standpoint. The fact he more or less made Batista is a plus even if one doesn't like the matches).

 

Wouldn't put him anywhere near a guy like Eddie or Rey in '05, but I definitely do agree with Dylan in that there were points in '05 and '08 (I liked the Hardy matches a good deal at the time (especially No Mercy), thought the Cena match from Night of Champions was a good WWE Main Event, etc.) where he looked a billion times better than he did in that awful run post-quad tear. In '08 I thought he at least looked "good," whereas in '04 I'd rather have watched psycho geriatric Flair and even thought Batista was more interesting in a bunch of tags they were both involved in. Shit, you could probably say he was the weakest guy in his stable in '04, despite being "the ace" of it.

[JerryvonKramer]

You know when people say that HHH was like a 10th rate Flair knock off, what do they mean? Did HHH work "from the bottom" ever? I always remember him being booked as a kind of dominant monster heel. When was Flair ever booked in this way? When did he ever work like that?

 

I don't see that comparison at all, and I see it time and time again? Is it just because he does a knee drop?

[Loss]

Long blond hair and bleeding, and because WWE has marketed HHH as the second coming of Flair. That's really it.

 

Plus, when they were paired on camera, HHH started trying to dress like him.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I get outrageous reactions every time I say this, but I still think HHH's 2002-2003 heel run is a big reason for WWE's decline. RVD, Kane, Michaels I, Steiner, Booker, Nash, Goldberg -- each of those feuds was uniquely bad and business did decline quite a bit during this time. Seven failed main event programs in a row tend to do that.

 

It's possibly the worst main event run a top heel has ever had in a major promotion.

Reasons behind WWE's post-2001 business decline might be an interesting topic for a thread. I'd rate the HHH push as a main factor, though certainly not the only one. I'm not really good at making first posts in threads, though, so someone else probably should.

[Victator]

Long blond hair and bleeding, and because WWE has marketed HHH as the second coming of Flair. That's really it.

 

Plus, when they were paired on camera, HHH started trying to dress like him.

I watched a Hardcore Holly match from 2000 that was Flair like. With HHH taking on a brash mid carder who he underestimates.

[Mad Dog]

I get outrageous reactions every time I say this, but I still think HHH's 2002-2003 heel run is a big reason for WWE's decline. RVD, Kane, Michaels I, Steiner, Booker, Nash, Goldberg -- each of those feuds was uniquely bad and business did decline quite a bit during this time. Seven failed main event programs in a row tend to do that.

 

It's possibly the worst main event run a top heel has ever had in a major promotion.

I don't think you can argue that at all. Just look at Goldberg, they could've made some money off of Goldberg starting at the Elimination Chamber. Instead Triple H beat him at the most critical point to him being a draw. Goldberg then won the belt but couldn't get out from Triple H when Goldberg/Kane could've done some big business.

 

And look at Lesnar. Lesnar gets pushed huge for 5 months, goes over Rock clean and then the next night he flees in terror when HHH and Taker start brawling. HHH then gets his own belt. In fact, I think HHH was one of the only guys that didn't put over Lesnar at all.

 

HHH also pissed the Rock off. There was that whole thing where the Rock put over the Hurricane and HHH made sure to completely squash him like the very next episode of Raw. And HHH had done that with Jericho and Lesnar as well.

 

And if you want to go back to where the WWE really started to decline. He was part of fucking Angle over in 2000 at the end of the love triangle.

[Victator]

And look at Lesnar. Lesnar gets pushed huge for 5 months, goes over Rock clean and then the next night he flees in terror when HHH and Taker start brawling. HHH then gets his own belt. In fact, I think HHH was one of the only guys that didn't put over Lesnar at all.

Brock pinned him clean in a Triple Threat match with Rock at the Global Warning show.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Rock pinned HHH in that three-way, but Brock did beat HHH at a house show on 9/6/02.

[Victator]

Oh yeah he did, I just remember Brock hitting the F5 on him and HHH never getting back at him.

[El-P]

Pretty funny thread. Some claims are totally outrageous (and I'm a HHH hater), but some really good points are made too. Also, I'm sick of the Raven bashing at this point, which is getting pretty ridiculous and totally overblown.

I can't even fathom the idea of having to go through the entire last decade of WWE TV with HHH on top. A nightmare of dullness on every front.

Can you let us know which claims you think are outrageous?

 

Saying New Jack being easily better than about anyone is outrageous to me, although I haven't seen any of his SMW work. Still, New Jack in ECW was crap, pure and simple. FF material every time. I didn't even think he was a particulary good promo there (and really, I have a hard time enjoying any promo when I know the match will be pure shit).

That would be it as far as "outrageous" goes. Yeah, I really don't care for Triple H after 1997...