Does HHH have it in him?

[Guest RickyChosyu]

His macth with Austin at NWO 2001 was given 5 Stars by Keith and Meltzer. Now, I wouldn't go that far it was not sleep inducing. That sounds pompous to me.

What's pompous is suggesting that because Keith and Meltzer rated it highly I somehow have to follow suite. I don't have to, and in this case, I choose not to.

 

Keith is a morron. He throws out star ratings like he's got a million of them, and he never explains why, beyond a few lines like "this was intense, and brutal, so it's five stars." He doesn't know shit about working, work rate, or what makes good work possible. Or, it's possible that he does know and just chooses to never discuss it, but looking at the crap he's given *****, I have hard time believing that.

 

Meltzer is similar in this way. He'll give a match five stars but hardly explain why. I've disagreed with plenty of his reviews ever since I started reeding them. He's been following wrestling for decades, but he has his favorites and his biases just like everyone else. Just because he's treated as a God around this place doesn't mean everyone has to agree with him.

 

And the match literally put me to sleep last time I watched it. It's a terribly flawed match, if you bother to pay attention. Maybe, in the future, you should try arguing *why* you think it's deserving of that rating instead of quoting the Usual Suspects, or in Keith's case, the Usual Goofballs.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

His macth with Austin at NWO 2001 was given 5 Stars by Keith and Meltzer. Now, I wouldn't go that far it was not sleep inducing. That sounds pompous to me.

What's pompous is suggesting that because Keith and Meltzer rated it highly I somehow have to follow suite. I don't have to, and in this case, I choose not to.

 

Keith is a morron. He throws out star ratings like he's got a million of them, and he never explains why, beyond a few lines like "this was intense, and brutal, so it's five stars." He doesn't know shit about working, work rate, or what makes good work possible. Or, it's possible that he does know and just chooses to never discuss it, but looking at the crap he's given *****, I have hard time believing that.

 

Meltzer is similar in this way. He'll give a match five stars but hardly explain why. I've disagreed with plenty of his reviews ever since I started reeding them. He's been following wrestling for decades, but he has his favorites and his biases just like everyone else. Just because he's treated as a God around this place doesn't mean everyone has to agree with him.

 

And the match literally put me to sleep last time I watched it. It's a terribly flawed match, if you bother to pay attention. Maybe, in the future, you should try arguing *why* you think it's deserving of that rating instead of quoting the Usual Suspects, or in Keith's case, the Usual Goofballs.

It's pompous, because neither you or I have ever done anything like that, and because Keith and Meltzer know a hell of a lot more about wrestling than you do. (Example: Last month you stated Shawn Michaels had been responsible for the lowest period of business in WWF history. This of course happening while Diesel was fighting Mabel for the world title while everyone was clamoring for Shawn to get a run with the title.)

 

You didn't explain your rating either. You just said it was boring. Why?

 

So you're not just pompous, you're hypocritical as well.

 

You don't work for DVD by any chance?

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Chosyu WHY was it flawed? You never went into any depth.

 

 

Seems you fail to practice what you preach.

[Guest red_file]

And if Austin/HHH is *****, then so is that Goldust/Christian match from Raw.

 

Though I understand what you're trying to say, let's not get absurd. Statements such as this are merely foolish.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Chosyu WHY was it flawed? You never went into any depth.

 

 

Seems you fail to practice what you preach.

Well, no arguments that he is a bit pompous and a little over the top in his hatred of this particular match but to be fair to Ricky I've seen him state his case against Austin-HHH numerous times. he had many complaints, as I recall a major one was that they were both done by the third fall and just falling about. He also didn't like the garbagey aspects and the fact that the limb work in the first fall didn't go anywhere whatsoever. I agree both that the falling to sleep thing is bollocks, but also that the match is quite over-rated. I've seen Ricky have this argument a fair few times, so its a bit pointless(not to mention boring) to have him go through the entire argument again.

[Guest caboose]

Stating whether or not we think Triple H is a good worker is not the point. The evidence is there that Triple H can perform to some degree. Whether or not he ever performs at this degree again is the question?

I think he will if he ever needs to.

Which im sure, my dear friend caboose, won't ever occur. As long as Roid Boy is still porking the 2nd in command while mind fucking the owner every week, he has NO need to worry about ever needing to improve his work ethic.

 

Why bust your ass when you can make just as much having others do it for your benefit? Seems to be the motto of Mr.Helmsley if you ask me.

 

Illusion

That was my point.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I was actually dissappointed in the HHH/Austin NWO 01 match too. As I was with the whole ppv.

 

I've always thought HHH was a mediocre worker who got taken to a good match against good wrestlers. His matches that aren't with good wrestlers tended to be slow and boring even back in 1999-2000, but he is carryable, which is good. That means when put in the right program he can be just fine. Problem is after coming back from his quad injury he's slower than before. While he's had a couple of good matches...even those seemed like they could have been better if it was 2000 HHH.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

"It's pompous, because neither you or I have ever done anything like that, and because Keith and Meltzer know a hell of a lot more about wrestling than you do."

 

Oh YAY! The two-hit punch of the ~You've Never Taken a Back Bump~ and ~You Never Went to a Live AWA Event~ arguements! I love reading stuff like this because it reminds me how cool it is to be able to think for yourself and not give two shits what Distinguished Morron X or Supposed Journalist Y have to say about anything! "Because Keith and Meltzer have watched wrestling longer than you have, you must agree with them, or face the terror of the COMBINE~!" I don't know about you, but I enjoy using the soft tissue in my skull for thinking instead of just following the opinions of others. Especially if those others happen to be guys like SKieth who I couldn't disagree with more on pretty much everything.

 

"(Example: Last month you stated Shawn Michaels had been responsible for the lowest period of business in WWF history. This of course happening while Diesel was fighting Mabel for the world title while everyone was clamoring for Shawn to get a run with the title.)"

 

Diesel vs. Mabel was '95. Michaels long title run was '96. You can disagree with my opinions all you want, but please don't change them.

 

And hey, I actually sited a source for my arguement when I said that!Here it is!

 

"Chosyu WHY was it flawed? You never went into any depth."

 

To sumarize:

 

1) *really* sloppy wrestling from two who were supposed to be proficent.

 

2) Complete disregard for selling except for one ultra-contrived moment by HHH, which could have been buil-up to but was instead replaced by...

 

3) Borring brawling with no purpose.

 

4) Gross bumps that didn't have any bearing on the match because they weren't sold for more than fifteen seconds.

 

5) It wenty thirty minutes too long, with neither guy doing anything but their usual tactics to kill time.

 

That's the general gist of it. I'm a broken record on this subject, as I've been saying this about the match since I re-watched it eight months ago. I'm sure you can find several threads where I discuss, if you want further validation. Not that I'm expecting you to respond in this thread after I post this anyway. Not like this thread had much of purpose to begin with.

 

"Seems you fail to practice what you preach."

 

Seems you haven't read the countless threads I just mentioned. I've argued this point more times than I'd like to remember, so if you want to make a point, feel free. I've been more than outspoken enough to make mine.

 

"Well, no arguments that he is a bit pompous and a little over the top in his hatred of this particular match but to be fair to Ricky I've seen him state his case against Austin-HHH numerous times. he had many complaints, as I recall a major one was that they were both done by the third fall and just falling about. He also didn't like the garbagey aspects and the fact that the limb work in the first fall didn't go anywhere whatsoever. I agree both that the falling to sleep thing is bollocks, but also that the match is quite over-rated. I've seen Ricky have this argument a fair few times, so its a bit pointless(not to mention boring) to have him go through the entire argument again."

 

Pompous seems to be the word of choice around here for someone who disagrees. "Instead of trying to discuss the subject at hand with him, lets just say that he's full of himself - that should do the trick!"

 

And like I said, I literally fell asleep last time I watched it. Is posting past experiences synonomis with "bollocks", or is that just some word people like to throw around these days without knowing what it means?

 

And it is annoying going through the arguement again. That's why it's be nice if people listened from the get-go, or actually presented an arguement before challenging someone else's. But then, I don't expect much from a person who calls me pompous because I disagree with Keith the Supreme Lord of Idiots.

 

I mean, Meltzer knows more about wrestling than I do, so I should probably ask him what he thinsk about all this before I try to go and have an opinion, right? ;P

 

"Oh, but I assure you, your honor, the right to think IS on trial!" - Henry Drummond, Inherit the Wind

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

HGH obviously feels he can lie, politic and fuck his way into staying on top, so why should actually make an effort in his matches when he doesn't need to ?

[Guest BionicRedneck]

HHH now is the same HHH as always. Only heavier, slower, Less motivated, Without a beard, Less giving and more injury prone.

 

I never really rated him anyways, and now he is a complete waste.