The Trial of Triple H

[JaymeFuture]

So, for our next podcast, we're doing a court case format, where we have a judge, a prosecution and a defense, doing a point-counterpoint on Triple H. The charge is that his political maneouverings as a wrestler and his insistence on being pushed so strong has been more of a detriment than a benefit to the wrestling business.

 

That's the key point, and whether the point is provable is what I find interesting about this - finding the major moments where his influence was a tangible negative on the product and the business over the course of his run. The defense is going to argue that he's been more of an asset than a liability, and that his stroke and influence has worked out more times than not.

 

If you were trying to argue this (whichever way you swing on the debate), what examples would you point to in order to back up your case?

We're going to read all the feedback on the show (as we always do), so this should make for a fun debate on the show, and I'm keen to see what people think, since this goes a little deeper than standard smark Hunter bashing - this is about the details and why or why not HHH's in-ring career has been bad for the industry.

[Loss]

He had a string of brutally bad main event programs in a row in 2002-2003.

 

- Rob Van Dam

- Kane

- Shawn Michaels

- Scott Steiner

- Booker T

- Kevin Nash

- Goldberg

[JaymeFuture]

What do you think the effect that had on the company at that time was?

[sek69]

Well wether intentional or not, he got a rep for going out of his way to make his opponents look bad. In hindsight, it probably was him thinking he was better at carrying guys than he really was, and trying to get guys to do more than they were capable of.

 

I will say he has been much much better business-wise as an executive. Building the Performance Center alone will go down as one of the most positive things in recent history.

[Guest Eduardo James]

I don't think he ever went out of way to make people look bad in the ring. Closest things I can think of is taking forever to pin Booker at WM19 and kicking right out of Nash's powerbomb in the HIAC (though Nash blames Mick for that.) People point to stuff like pinning Goldberg in the EC as ruining him which makes no sense. Say what you want about the absurdity of using a sledgehammer as a signature weapon, getting smacked with one should put anyone down regardless of offense prior. You can definitely say he should have won, but how he lost wasn't the issue. Other than that, he was standard cheating heel #19093 who relied on Flair to break up pins or run interference. Most have (or should have) an issue with his annoyingly long reigns and promos.

[The Man in Blak]

I can't speak for anyone else, but Triple H's 2002-2003, which included the Katie Vick angle, was one of the biggest reasons that I withdrew from wrestling and eventually stopped watching altogether for 10+ years. It was a painful run and it came at a time when it seemed like the backstage politics were starting to get incredibly poisonous: WCW getting buried as a whole, Austin leaving instead of being hotshotted into a TV loss to Lesnar, Shawn Michaels coming back to work specifically with Triple H at SummerSlam '02.

 

Maybe it's unfair, but Triple H's push at that time seemed symbolic of a new stubbornness with WWE; they were going to do things their way with their guys, even if it wasn't all that good, because they were the only show in town and they could get away with it. Triple H returning from his quad tear as a face after two solid years of heeling, complete with inspirational U2 music to commemorate his return, is a great example.

[Dylan Waco]

Not trying to be discouraging to the idea of others doing a show with this theme, but Will, Scott and I did something very similar and extremely detailed not that long ago.

 

http://placetobenation.com/wrestling-with-the-past-10-the-great-hhh-debate/

[Loss]

What do you think the effect that had on the company at that time was?

 

Decline in popularity and in interest. Loss of faith in the company to build new stars. Does anyone even really talk about 2003 WWE very much?

[Mad Dog]

That Goldberg situation is pretty damning evidence against him. They finally get Goldberg over in the Elimination Chamber by just having him destroy everyone and then HHH pins him and cools that off. Then Goldberg gets the belt and won't step aside for a Goldberg/Kane program that I think would have drawn money.

 

There's also Eugene and the Spirit Squad. The Spirit Squad was their entire mid-card future that they had spent years training and he chewed them up and spit them out in a month,

[tim]

I think the jury has to still be out on his overall effect on the business until we get a better idea of what exactly he's going to do with the company as he gets more and more control/influence, eventually presumptively taking over and running most of the wrestling side (assuming Vince ever retires). Things look promising and it could be great. Then you have to deal with an "ends justifying the means" sort of thing -- Triple H politicked like hell to get to his position, made himself the centerpiece of the show and seems to have actively hampered other acts from getting over to the point of being able to challenge for his spot. This obviously negatively effected the product. But this also got him into a position of influence in the company, and we need to see how that really works out to say if that was "worth" it or not. If Triple H doesn't politic, he doesn't end up in control, and maybe the long term quality and prospects of the WWE post-Vince look worse. It could well be that Trips is the kind of guy whose main goal is to get himself into power and damn anyone in his way, but once in power and totally secure he actually cares about creating a good product. Just look at the big NXT specials vs. WWE main shows. Or NXT vs. main shows in general.

[Mad Dog]

I'm going to defend him on one front. If Vince dies and the WWE goes tits up with HHH at the helm, that might not be his fault. Vince kept that company around because he was a legit crazy person. I don't know if his successor should necessarily take all of the blame if they can't follow that act.

[Gregor]

Maybe it's unfair, but Triple H's push at that time seemed symbolic of a new stubbornness with WWE; they were going to do things their way with their guys, even if it wasn't all that good, because they were the only show in town and they could get away with it. Triple H returning from his quad tear as a face after two solid years of heeling, complete with inspirational U2 music to commemorate his return, is a great example.

I don't know if this was a mistake. It looks bad in retrospect, but when he made his return the crowd went crazy for him and he felt like the second-most over face in the company (Austin was incredibly stale at that point). The booking of face HHH was the bigger problem, and how much he was involved with that I don't know.

[Log]

I don't know how this fits in here, but I've always been amazed at how well HHH (and WWE) have convinced younger fans that he is an all-time great. I really think a lot of them would list him with Hogan, Austin, Rock, Flair, etc.

 

Pretty impressive, really for a guy that has a pretty weak resume.

[kjh]

Not trying to be discouraging to the idea of others doing a show with this theme, but Will, Scott and I did something very similar and extremely detailed not that long ago.

 

http://placetobenation.com/wrestling-with-the-past-10-the-great-hhh-debate/

 

It's arguably worth a re-look, given he's put over Daniel Bryan and The Shield strong, and presented two excellent NXT live specials on the WWE Network since then.

[Dylan Waco]

I think it's easy to overrate the NXT to specials in terms of what they mean big picture, and I actually think the presentation of The Shield feud is really telling for a few reasons.

[SomethingSavage]

I'd be interested in hearing a more in-depth analysis of that, Dylan. Granted, if it's covered in the Half Year Review episode of your latest Culture podcast, I haven't had the chance to listen yet.

 

This is a neat format, guys. Going full-fledged "judge with defense and prosecution" is a cool concept in my view. Could possibly see similar things done for other "controversial" figures, moments, and topics. Very much looking forward to how it all irons out.

[Petey]

While I've enjoyed the NXT specials and the other few NXT episodes I've watched, I almost feel like they're impossible to screw up. The shows are an hour long, take place in front of a small but enthusiastic audience that wants everything to get over and have simple storylines with talented wrestlers who excel in going all out. Granted, I sometimes wish WWE only had an hour of weekly television because I almost prefer too little time and always left wanting more rather than too long and feeling burnt out, but I feel like anyone could be in charge of NXT at the moment and have similar success.

[sek69]

I don't think he ever went out of way to make people look bad in the ring. Closest things I can think of is taking forever to pin Booker at WM19 and kicking right out of Nash's powerbomb in the HIAC (though Nash blames Mick for that.) People point to stuff like pinning Goldberg in the EC as ruining him which makes no sense. Say what you want about the absurdity of using a sledgehammer as a signature weapon, getting smacked with one should put anyone down regardless of offense prior. You can definitely say he should have won, but how he lost wasn't the issue. Other than that, he was standard cheating heel #19093 who relied on Flair to break up pins or run interference. Most have (or should have) an issue with his annoyingly long reigns and promos.

 

 

I was thinking of his idea of having a 20 minute WWE Main Event Style match with Scott Steiner when there's no one else on the planet but him that thought that would be a good idea. It seemed to me he thought it would prove he was a super worker like his hero Ric to get a decent long match out of the big lug.

[Eduardo]

Re: Making people look bad in the ring, I haven't seen the match in ten years, but I remember people on DVDVR thinking that HHH sandbagged Eddy Guerrero in the 2004 RAW draft episode.

[JaymeFuture]

This is a neat format, guys. Going full-fledged "judge with defense and prosecution" is a cool concept in my view. Could possibly see similar things done for other "controversial" figures, moments, and topics. Very much looking forward to how it all irons out.

 

 

Got a good few ideas for candidates and situations to put on trial, but yeh, this is something we're going to do every few shows.

 

As a quick point to explore, what were the peaks and valleys of Triple H in terms of effect on business? The Batista Mania 21 buyrate comes to mind as part of the positives, but how much or little do you credit him for various 2000 buyrates, and beyond Loss' 2002-2003, do you feel there are any other obvious failures?

[Loss]

I would be interested in hearing a breakdown of other upper card post-Austin/Rock guys during the early 00s and doing a comparison to HHH. Would WWE have been better off building around them for 2-3 years instead?

 

- Chris Jericho

- Kurt Angle

- Eddy Guerrero

- Booker T

- Rob Van Dam

- Brock Lesnar

- Chris Benoit (If you want to go there)

 

There are plusses and minuses compared to HHH with each guy, but I think it would make for some interesting conversation.

[Petey]

I don't know if business would have been much different had they built around the aforementioned guys instead of HHH. I loved most of those guys and at the time, that was when I was at my peak smark obnoxiousness levels so I personally would have rather seen any combination of them instead of Triple H, but I just don't see it mattering.

 

For just about all of those guys, except Lesnar, I think they all had a ceiling that was clear to the fans that was basically, "these guys are good, but they're not at the level of Austin/Rock/HHH." Jericho never getting his win over Triple H in 2000 hurt and by the time they made him Undisputed Champion, they presented it as a fluke title win and that he wasn't really as good as the 'big three'. Angle got really over but I thought that the nature of his first title run was also presented as more luck than that he was legitimately good. I loved Eddy, Booker, RVD and Benoit (before, you know), but they were either lacking the look/size (which was more relevant in 2003 than it is now), charisma/mic skills or both. Even Lesnar, for as freakish as he was in terms of size and athletic ability, didn't really have the ability to cut 20 minute promos which had become a staple of the previous era.

 

Perhaps if Jericho, Angle and Benoit were presented as equal stars in 2000 and had more momentum carrying them into the post- Austin/Rock era, business would have been better focusing around them, but assuming history played out as it did and WWF/E decided to build around them instead of HHH, I don't think much changes except for us enjoying the company more.

 

And I know people can cite the great Raw tag match with Austin/HHH vs. Jericho/Benoit as a way to put over Jericho and Benoit as Austin and HHH's equal, but it got lost in the shuffle with Triple H tearing his quad and the Invasion angle starting almost immediately after.

[funkdoc]

yep, count me as another person who completely quit watching WWE because of the katie vick angle. hell, ever since then i've typically just watched rumble + mania and it was only this year that i watched raw semi-regularly (though i'm already done with that).

 

RVD was the most over guy in the company among people i knew at the time, but i will say that between the weed and busting people's noses, i can't really fault them TOO much for not pulling the trigger on him. booker t was inexcusable, though. if it weren't for katie vick i would say that was the worst thing HHH was ever involved in, just by virtue of the angle they took and the end result.

 

i forget who on here said that the bulk of HHH's career was one giant ric flair cosplay, but it's an apt summary of his various failures. the heel title reign from hell, matches like the scott steiner one...

[Dooley]

 

This is a neat format, guys. Going full-fledged "judge with defense and prosecution" is a cool concept in my view. Could possibly see similar things done for other "controversial" figures, moments, and topics. Very much looking forward to how it all irons out.

 

 

Got a good few ideas for candidates and situations to put on trial, but yeh, this is something we're going to do every few shows.

 

As a quick point to explore, what were the peaks and valleys of Triple H in terms of effect on business? The Batista Mania 21 buyrate comes to mind as part of the positives, but how much or little do you credit him for various 2000 buyrates, and beyond Loss' 2002-2003, do you feel there are any other obvious failures?

 

 

I've said this before, but HHH's supposed "great" 2000 is one of the great white elephants of the wrestling industry. Rock was far and away the top star in the WWF and the anchor at the time. He was on magazine covers, appeared on songs with popular and respected artists and even spoke at the Republican national convention. HHH just happened to be the head of Vince's corporate goon squad at the time. In a larger sense, the main feud in WWF at that time was Rock vs Vince, the same way it had been Austin-Vince prior.

 

The best comparison for Rock-HHH is Hogan-Kamala. Hogan-Kamala did boffo business at the time and set some gate records. But who were people going to see? They bought tickets to see Hulk Hogan, Kamala just happened to be the beneficiary of being his opponent when Hogan was red hot.

 

Looking at HHH's main programs of 2000. You have the Foley matches with Foley killing himself to get HHH over and the added drama of Foley's retirement saga; Y2J where Jericho got really hot but had his legs sufficiently cut out from under him at the end; ditto Kurt Angle; and then Austin's return which was nowhere as hot as it should have been.

 

If you have to point to things like the Taka match (as some do) to prop up HHH's 2000 then you're really digging. 2000 sowed the seeds of the next couple of years where anyone who worked with HHH came out much worse than they did going in. It's Hogan in 95-esque.

[Ryan Faulconer]

I could write a small book on what was wrong with HHH during his main event stay. The story in most of HHH's feuds didn't make a lot of sense. He wrestled matches that were almost always much too long. He was a musclehead that didn't work within his own limitations. He didn't bother to work around or with his opponent's limitations either. As a face he would rescue other faces like Kendrick and London...and then hit the stone col...I mean the pedigree - which as a move lacks the excitement and unpredictability that Austin and his finisher always had. Austin did the same thing but HHH was not Antonio Pena's new Steve Austin who and wasn't supposed to be exactly like Austin's babyface character. That could be more of a criticisism for WWE and their myopic view of how their top bread winner should act like. Austin broke the mold.

 

I know this is a minor thing but it bugs me every time HHH has a big match. His signature prop was too dangerous to use the way a sledgehammer should be swung so he used some cumbersome and unorthodox motions whenever he used it.