Triple H and His Imitation of greatness...

[humongous2002 0]

Ok, none of these comparisons are accurate. You wanna compare HHH to someone, compare him to Dusty Rhodes -- an overrated piece of garbage who had the benefit of being in the right place at the right time working with the right people who managed to latch on to more talented people to become a star before booking the entire company around themselves when others were far more over.

You took the words out of my mouth, HHH is this generation's Dusty.

[Guest Trivia247]

So im guessing HHH's Randy Savage was.... Hulk Hogan?

 

oooo the Irony

[Guest Repo Man Reborn]

Triple H's Steve Lombardi is Flair's Randy Mulkey.

[pochorenella 0]

The Question is though, Ric Flair had his Dusty Rhodes (guy he didn't really have great matches with but perfered above all others) and HBK is HHH's Rhodes

 

So you're saying HHH never had a great match with HBK?

 

If anything Shawn Michaels is HHH's penis

 

That's really mature and intelligent for a Mod.

[Guest Choken One]

Good matches, one even going ***3/4 but the rest were **-*** level...I'm sure Flair even took Rhodes over *** once but the matches were mainly **3/4 levels everytime.

 

The reason I considered Shawn to be HHH's rhodes was mainly because Trips had his best matches with others but shawn is still his favorite to work with, just flair, whom had much better matches with others...has gone on record saying Rhodes was his favorite guy to work with, that Steamboat was his greatest opponet and Sting was his greatest rival.

 

I can't believe I forgot the most instramentual person aside from The Rock in making HHH...Mick Foley but there isn't a real comparison.

[pochorenella 0]

Good matches, one even going ***3/4 but the rest were **-*** level...I'm sure Flair even took Rhodes over *** once but the matches were mainly **3/4 levels everytime

 

Personally, I give their SummerSlam 2002 match ****1/4, their December RAW match ****1/2, same for the Backlash 3-way, and ***** for the WM Main. The latter two, even though they had Benoit in them, should also be considered within the HHH vs HBK feud. Of course Flair had maybe one or two 3-ways in all his life but none with Rhodes, but still those 2 matches (WM and Backlash) should be taken into account IMO.

[Guest Loss]

Personally, I give their SummerSlam 2002 match ****1/4, their December RAW match ****1/2, same for the Backlash 3-way, and ***** for the WM Main. The latter two, even though they had Benoit in them, should also be considered within the HHH vs HBK feud. Of course Flair had maybe one or two 3-ways in all his life but none with Rhodes, but still those 2 matches (WM and Backlash) should be taken into account IMO.

I'm more inclined to go *** for Summerslam, *** for RAW and ***3/4 for Wrestlemania. Still, I feel like I'm being far too generous.

[Guest Goodear]

Ok, none of these comparisons are accurate. You wanna compare HHH to someone, compare him to Dusty Rhodes -- an overrated piece of garbage who had the benefit of being in the right place at the right time working with the right people who managed to latch on to more talented people to become a star before booking the entire company around themselves when others were far more over.

I really don't want to get into this but Dusty was a brilliant wrestling mind with a tremendous grasp of how to get the crowd behind him and use that association to get over numerous younger talents both as 'foils' and as 'friends'. Dusty was one of the few bookers that actually liked to push younger guys only to have his decisions vetoed religously by World Champion Flair. Oh and by the way, I don't seem to remember Dusty ever holding the World title for more than three months with two of his reigns going something like two to four weeks. Dusty is far more of a early Mick Foley or Rock than a Triple H and he played to those strengths all the time.

[Guest Choken One]

Good matches, one even going ***3/4 but the rest were **-*** level...I'm sure Flair even took Rhodes over *** once but the matches were mainly **3/4 levels everytime

 

Personally, I give their SummerSlam 2002 match ****1/4, their December RAW match ****1/2, same for the Backlash 3-way, and ***** for the WM Main. The latter two, even though they had Benoit in them, should also be considered within the HHH vs HBK feud. Of course Flair had maybe one or two 3-ways in all his life but none with Rhodes, but still those 2 matches (WM and Backlash) should be taken into account IMO.

I gave

 

Summer Slam 2002-***

Armageddon 2002-**

12/29/03-****

Rumble 04-**1/2

Blood 04-**1/2

 

The three ways do not count...but to add

WMXX-****1/2

Backlash-****1/2

 

So really HHH/HBK hasn't been that great of a series.

[pochorenella 0]

I gave

 

Summer Slam 2002-***

Armageddon 2002-**

12/29/03-****

Rumble 04-**1/2

Blood 04-**1/2

 

The three ways do not count...but to add

WMXX-****1/2

Backlash-****1/2

 

So really HHH/HBK hasn't been that great of a series

 

No problem, those are your tastes. But why not include the three-ways? Benoit was the winner of both but surely HHH and HBK had a hand in making both matches great. They can't exist in a vacuum.

[Guest Choken One]

It wasn't a HHH/HBK match.

 

Just like you can't count the numerous 4 Ways Rock/HHH were involved in as a part of their epic series.

[pochorenella 0]

Fair enough. But then, by that argument, I don't want to hear Benoit fans saying he's had 3 ****+ PPV matches so far this year (Rumble, WM, Backlash) when it's clear none were one-on-one matches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Guest Choken One]

Ummm...regardless of it being a 3 way or rumble...a ****+ match is still a ****+ match that he was involved in.

[pochorenella 0]

Yes, I know. Just messing with you, man.

[Guest 2pacallyps]

The Backlash match was worse than the WMXX match by alot and you seem to overate both.(that's your taste I guess) The WMXX match had tighter pacing inovative spots and never really dragged like the Backlash match did. They both had no deep psychology but that's to be expected from WWE matches. Also the storyline told throught the WMXX match was superior to the Backlash match.

[pochorenella 0]

When you say the Backlash match was "worse" than WM, are you implying WM was bad?

 

I'd say yes, WM was better than Backlash (in fact, is my favorite of the year so far) and stand by my ratings. Sorry you don't share them, but what can I do.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Summerslam 02 falls really flat when you're not dealing with the novelty of Michaels wrestling. The match also gets quite boring when Triple H takes offense. **3/4

 

Arm 02 was terrible for the most part as neither could use the gimmicks well at all. Plus everyone knew Trips was getting the belt back. **1/4

 

Raw was good. ***1/2

 

RR was boring as they were selling how tired they were despite working a shorter match than Raw. **1/2

 

WMXX was good but Benoit went a long way in holding the match together. So this really doesn't count toward the total. ****1/4

 

Backlash was a drop in quality as it was a tired concept by this point and you didn't have the proverbial carrot on a stick with Benoit winning the title. ***1/2

 

Bad Blood. Horribly boring and the cage barely factored into the actual match. Was at the very least 15 minutes too long and they totally worked against the crowd. Also way oversold but the whole feud really was as they never had a great match together. **1/2-**3/4

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Re: HHH / HBK Feud

 

Their RAW 1996 match was pretty good. A very excellent match for what both men put on back then since Michaels was the loved champion and HHH was just your modest heel.

 

SummerSlam is still the best out of their series just because of the story it told and the effort put in by both men. I didn't like HBK no selling the back later on, but that's HBK for you.

 

Armageddon was okay, nothing special to brag about.

 

San Antonio was tremendous, everything just seemed to click together. A very good match just ending with a suck ass finish.

 

RR was the worst, just take everything good about the match the previous month and take a shit on it.

 

I'm one of the few who enjoyed the HIAC match, I agree it went on way too long (WWE's fault for not sending Hurricane out to get his ass whipped for 5 - 10 minutes as somebody posted in the BB thread) and I would have had HBK win since a face should always win the blow-off match, IMO and the fact HBK never got his JOB back from HHH since HBK lost the title (Granted, HBK did beat HHH after that here and there, but it was never a singles match from what I can remember).

[Guest krazykat72]

RAW '96 *** 1/2 - I've always liked this a lot

SummerSlam '02 ***3/4 - I remember being so amped for this and the last 10 minutes or so, while spotty were incredibly engrossing. It was fun and a really good comeback match

Elimination Chamber ***1/2 -the last 10 minutes or so, wityh just the two of them was quite good

Armageddon **1/4 The nadir of the series, too plodding and too much time spent on the first fall.

RAW 12/03- ****1/4 excellent match, the ending takes it down a notch, but a hot crowd, good story, and great tv match

Rumble '04 ***1/2- I rewatched this the other night (I was also there live), and I don't get the hate for this. The crowd was really into it, especially towards the end. No doubt the ending hurts it, but I really liked the match. It worked in the concept of the Last Man Standing, and while not an all time classic or anything, it was very good (IMO)

Mania '04 ****1/2- being there live, probably the best live memory (and I've been going to events since '88) rewatching it, it's still a great match, all 3 guys busted ass.

Backlash '04 ***3/4 very, very good match, but to me it fell a little flat compared to Mania

Bad Blood ***1/2 - I appreciated the effort, and enjoyed the selling of exhaustion near the end. I would have cut it by about 10 or so minutes, but obviously, this was supposed to be some sort of war of attrition. My views may change upon rewatching it, but overall I was into it.

 

-Paul Jacobi-

[pochorenella 0]

RAW '96 *** 1/2 - I've always liked this a lot

 

Well, this is from way back so it figures I forgot about it. Still, pretty good match for TV, Shawn gave Trips tons of offense and the crowd loved HBK.

 

Mania '04 ****1/2- being there live, probably the best live memory (and I've been going to events since '88) rewatching it, it's still a great match, all 3 guys busted ass

 

Krazykat, I was there live too. I felt an atmosphere for the ME that reminded me of WMX-7 (which I was also lucky to attend), without saying the former had the same heat as the latter (I'd be foolish to). Still, having rewatched the match on DVD at least 4 times, I'd dare to say it was the best ME I've seen since WMX-7.

[Guest 2pacallyps]

Pochorenella, I wat talking about the Choken One rating. He rated WMXX and the Backlash match the same. Clearly the WMXX match is much better. About the overating Althought the WMXX match to me is the best tripple threat match ever in the WWE and the match of the year I wouldn't rate it ****1/2.

[pochorenella 0]

Fair enough, 2pacallyps. Match ratings are all subjective anyway, depending on personal tastes more often than not. The WMXX ME is the best triple threat match I've ever seen, superior to the famous ROH one many people tout as the best ever. But again, is my personal opinion, and I'm game for discussing it in an intelligent manner with anyone.

[iggymcfly 0]

I think a lot of personal bias comes into these star ratings. All the Benoit marks give the WM XX main event a lot higher star rating just because it's the match where Benoit finally won the title. Personally, I thought that match was fairly weak for a WM main event, and lagged behind both the Raw title match and the SS 2002 match in terms of quality.

 

Here's my star ratings for the matches I saw.

 

Summerslam 2002- *****. I know no one's with me on this one, and it probably wouldn't be the same today if they'd just had the match, but at the time it was just so electric. The story was great, the crowd was about the hottest they've ever been, and the match at the time was so emotionally charged. You can say that HBK didn't sell the back, but I prefer to think of the kipup as HBK originally moving to try to protect the back before giving up, taking all the pain and doing whatever he could to take the fight to HHH, including using his aerial maneuvers. The thing is he really suspended disbelief, as everyone in the crowd forgot that it was fake, and was just cheering for him to survive his back injury and win. (Well, except for the HHH marks anyway.) Then, finally he broke away from the pure fighting, and showed he still had wrestling skill, in about the only good rollup finish of all time. This is my favorite WWE match ever.

 

Armageddon 2002- ***1/2. Yeah, this one was nowhere near as good as Summerslam, and it was kind of a spotfest, but it was still a really exciting match. You can say that the first fall should have been shorter, but it wouldn't really make sense for the first fall to go 15 minutes when it was contested under the same rules that went 35 minutes at Summerslam. The story wasn't as good as the one at Summerslam, but just the idea that they were trying to do whatever they could, (be it flaming barb-wire bats, etc.) to destroy the other main is a pretty good story on its own.

 

Raw title match, Dec 2003.- ****1/4. This was a very solid pure wrestling match between the two, with them both just fighting for the title. There wasn't anything extraordinary about it, but what they did was executed perfectly. While the finish was a screwjob, it was at least a different screwjob then we're used to, and made for an excellent match.

 

WM XX main event- ***3/4. This was basically just a good formula triple threat match. Rather than trying to do something a little different and have an overriding story to go with the match, they just broke up each other's pinfalls and submissions like normal. This match was also hurt by it being painfully obvious that Benoit was going to win. With HBK blowing his shot two months before, there was no way he could win, and HHH had been champion way too long to retain against someone who had won the Rumble from the #1 position. While it was well-executed, there were no believable false finishes, and it just lacked the special quality of say the Vengeance Triple Threat from the year before.

 

I don't expect people to actually agree with these star ratings, but that's the way I feel about the matches, and I defended them as best as I could.

[Guest Monday Night Jericho]

Ignoring the rest of your post...

 

in about the only good rollup finish of all time.

 

You're kidding, right??

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

I think a lot of personal bias comes into these star ratings.

As it is for your SS 2002 "it was electric at the time" rating. Nope, no personal bias there; purely objective all the way.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The Summerslam 02 match doesn't age at all. There's no novelty to HBK wrestling now and with that removed the match loses it's key strength. Now what's left is the slow and boring portions where Triple H is on offense, HBK no selling the back at the end and destroying the whole point of everything that happened. HBK winning only to have Triple H immediately get his heat back on HBK and then proceed to dominate the whole feud from then on.

[iggymcfly 0]

Well, I'd have to watch the match again some time to see the perspective on it I guess, which I haven't done. Maybe if I saw it again, I'd drop it to ****1/2.

 

As for the feud, I wouldn't say that HHH immediately got his heat back, and then dominated the feud though. The very next time they wrestled was at Survivor Series where HBK took away HHH's title.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

In a gimmick match with 4 other guys. And the Summerslam match wasn't even considered ****1/2 when it happened. When you erase the HBK novelty it's a sub *** match.

[Guest 2pacallyps]

I think you should drop it to less than ***. That would be the correct rating. I'm a mark for Shawn but that match was a slow garbage match with bad selling from Shawn( Shawn almost never sold an injury long term). Their Raw match was very well done and had a 70's feel to it ***1/4. The last man standing match was slow with no finish and they were selling at five minutes like half an hour had gone by **. Armageddon was worse than the SummerSlam match being that it was slower and they used the dumbest reverse psychology(Shawn attacks the back, Trip focuses on the leg) **1/2 and that's for the flaming barbed wire 2 by 4 and Shawn taking the bump through the table. That's me being objective as Shawn is my favorite wrestler but obviously he's no where near being the best. He had the talent to be better than Flair it just never materialized.

[Guest Loss]

Perhaps we should look at what we're discussing.

 

When you say a match is ****-*****, you're saying the match is one of the best matches of all time. Do you feel comfortable saying HHH/HBK/Benoit or any of the HHH/HBK singles matches would be in the top 20 or so matches of all time? Would you even put them in the top 100? I don't know that I could put them in the top 500 quite honestly.

 

HHH/HBK/Benoit DEFINITELY doesn't hold up to the best matches on an international level, and isn't even a ***** match in the world of WWE alone, when it's competing with the Hart/Austin matches, Foley/HBK, Michaels/Ramon II and others. I'd say even most of the Hogan/Savage matches are better.

 

This is probably the best perspective to use when giving a match snowflakes.