HHH is in the WON HOF

[Sass 0]

Well, is he?

[Adam 0]

I would assume so, but not at this point in his career.

[Guest Brian]

Most of his body of work hasn't held up well (or maybe wasn't as good to begin with), his "drawing ability" is iffy, and his impact on the sport is largely negative, if any (though that could lead to something much later with Steph). He has a long period as a headliner, and he does have some good matches to his credit, but I don't feel it's enough at this point. It's be interesting to see a Gordy List on him.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Most of his body of work hasn't held up well (or maybe wasn't as good to begin with), his "drawing ability" is iffy, and his impact on the sport is largely negative, if any (though that could lead to something much later with Steph). He has a long period as a headliner, and he does have some good matches to his credit, but I don't feel it's enough at this point. It's be interesting to see a Gordy List on him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. His drawing power wouldn't seem to be adequate enough for the HoF, and he certainly doesn't deserve recognition based on his in-ring abilities. But if Kurt Angle's in, why not Triple H, I guess.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I hate the reasoning. If the one guy who is suspect by many (Angle) doesn't mean another wrestler without the body of work must of except from a WON HOF should be in?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Verne, could you repeat that in english?

 

I think Dave really screwed the Hall with Kurt Angle. Not that Angle's in, but that he was eligible so early into his career. Triple H shouldn't be held up for election until he's well past the prime of his career. Candidacies need to be examined in retrospect, not as they happen.

[Guest Brian]

35 generally does get you at least ten years work, and is a reasonable age to retire in this environment (though a lot of people like to defy reason). I don't know how I feel, but I think the important thing is the fifteen-year benchmark.

[Vern Gagne 0]

All i'm saying is you shouldn't put HHH in because Kurt Angle was elected to the WON HOF.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Most of his body of work hasn't held up well (or maybe wasn't as good to begin with), his "drawing ability" is iffy, and his impact on the sport is largely negative, if any (though that could lead to something much later with Steph). He has a long period as a headliner, and he does have some good matches to his credit, but I don't feel it's enough at this point. It's be interesting to see a Gordy List on him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Brian. Hunter is a good worker, and can be very smart in the ring, but I feel that gets offset by his laziness/selfishness when it comes to working with people he doesn't want to really put over; both Scott Steiner and Kevin Nash had the same weaknesses in that they couldn't do long matches without gimmicks to hide those weaknesses, but it was only his friend that he played it smart with, while Steiner was exposed right off the bat. His drawing ability is solid too, but while he was on top during the WWF's best financial year, on his own, he hasn't had that HoF-level juice. For me, though, the biggest negative is his largely negative impact when it comes to business. Hunter has derailed and squashed numerous wrestlers, and squandered away the money that went with them, that I don't think he should be in any worthwhile HoF. While you can say the same of someone like Hulk Hogan, at least Hogan was a mega draw for an extended period, and helped put wrestling on the map.

[Fro 0]

HHH is surely going in at some point just because he has the only big company in the US as his playground.

 

I agree that it's too soon for him to go in, but that's not how the marks see it who vote.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Like Al said set some guidelines. Like either retired or over the age of 40 before becoming eligible.

[Guest Joe_G]

Like Al said set some guidelines. Like either retired or over the age of 40 before becoming eligible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The WON HOF has guidelines--it's 15 years in the business or reaching the age of 35 (I think), whichever comes first. The problem is that compared to say, football or baseball, where nearly everyone starts their career in their 20's, it's not inconceivable for a wrestler to start in their late 30's. Look at the Boogeyman, who's starting past the age of 40, and who I guess is already eligible.

 

HHH is definitely getting in this year. He missed being inducted last year by a few votes, it's a weak crop this year and he's got a big Wrestlemania main event under his belt since last year.

 

If he does take over the WWE when Vince steps down, he'll definitely go down as probably the most pivotal figure for the industry in the years to come. Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen.

 

EDIT: Had to correct the HOF requirements

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Are we being relative? Cause the numbers HHH draws in comparison to numbers that were drawn in the 60's, 70's, and 80's would be outstanding, first ballot HOF level stuff. But compared to what the WWE was drawing at their peak, which has since declined a significant amount while HHH was "on top", then HHH's drawing power becomes downplayed.

[Fökai 0]

As a note, Tenay, Dory Funk, Meltzer and Alvarez all agreed that the only "gimme" on the ballot this year was Helmsley.

[Guest drdrainoscott]

For those that don't think he belongs in the HOF at this point in his career, you are just being jaded. Look at his credentials:

 

- Headliner for the past 6 years during the biggest money period in wrestling history, including headlining the highest grossing PPV in history

- Above average worker who has been in numerous ****+ matches

- 10 time (?) World Champion

- Probably the most influential wrestler of the past four years

 

 

Now I know people are going argue that he only is an above average worker when in with another above average worker and that the only reason why he is a headliner is because of his relationship with Stephanie and titles mean nothing since they are fake, yada yada yada. The fact is though, there is nothing Triple H is going to do in the next three years or whenever that is going to make him more qualified then he is now. So if you are going vote for him in 2008, he is just as deserving now.

 

And by the way, in regards to Fro's comment..."marks" do not vote (except for people who are marks for themselves). The voting pool consists of current and past wrestlers, wrestling journalists and office personel. If marks were voting, Shawn Michaels wouldn't have taken a few ballots to be elected and Sting would get more then 20% of the votes, or whatever he gets, each year.

[Guest Brian]

I think you need to first justify what he did that was a four-star match, and then look at his time on top and the negative impact he's had there. You look back at Triple H's career and you're going to be hard pressed to find a handful of good (or, as you said, ****+) matches he had without the use of gimmicks , props, or other of an assorted number of advantages that Triple H and only Triple H seem to possess and use to build drama and such.

 

As for his time on top, I think you have to compare the numbers that he came into versus the numbers he's drawn over time.

[stahl 0]

He drew a pretty good buyrate with Batista this year at Wrestlemania.

 

I dislike Triple H but even I think Hunter should get in. It's a no brainer. Look at his credentials like drainoscott mentioned.

 

How can a 10 time champion and someone who I believe has main evented the most pay per views in history not be in the hall of fame?

 

Anyone discrediting someone from the hall for always having good matches because of the use of gimmicks doesn't get it. Wrestling is a gimmick in itself. Regardless if you wrestle a technical match, garbage match or gimmick match, if a match is good a match is good. The WON hall isn't based on "techincal matches without use of gimmicks". Anyone who tries to discredit hunters matches because he uses a lot of gimmicks is making up their own criteria for him not getting in.

[Guest *KNK*]

He drew a pretty good buyrate with Batista this year at Wrestlemania.

 

I dislike Triple H but even I think Hunter should get in.  It's a no brainer.  Look at his credentials like drainoscott mentioned.

 

How can a 10 time champion and someone who I believe has main evented the most pay per views in history not be in the hall of fame?

 

Anyone discrediting someone from the hall for always having good matches because of the use of gimmicks doesn't get it.  Wrestling is a gimmick in itself.  Regardless if you wrestle a technical match, garbage match or gimmick match, if a match is good a match is good.  The WON hall isn't based on "techincal matches without use of gimmicks".  Anyone who tries to discredit hunters matches because he uses a lot of gimmicks is making up their own criteria for him not getting in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While Triple H and Batista main evented this year's event, it's a reach to say it drew the big buyrate when you consider that Cena/JBL and Austin/Piper were equally built up for this show and factor in that WM, alone sells WM.

[stahl 0]

While Triple H and Batista main evented this year's event, it's a reach to say it drew the big buyrate when you consider that Cena/JBL and Austin/Piper were equally built up for this show and factor in that WM, alone sells WM.

 

That makes sense to some degree. The wrestlemania name does draw but how can you discredit Hunter from drawning when this years wrestlemania was very close to being the best drawing PPV of all time? He deserves a lot of credit for that. Cena and JBL didn't add any significant buys to the PPV and Austin/Piper didn't really add much either. What they did add was marginal.

[Guest *KNK*]

While Triple H and Batista main evented this year's event, it's a reach to say it drew the big buyrate when you consider that Cena/JBL and Austin/Piper were equally built up for this show and factor in that WM, alone sells WM.

 

That makes sense to some degree. The wrestlemania name does draw but how can you discredit Hunter from drawning when this years wrestlemania was very close to being the best drawing PPV of all time? He deserves a lot of credit for that. Cena and JBL didn't add any significant buys to the PPV and Austin/Piper didn't really add much either. What they did add was marginal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How can you properly determine what drew WMXXI's big buys? It's virtually impossible to determine in a case like this one whereas both world title matches and the Austin appearences were significantly advertised on a equal level.

 

WMX7 is clearly credited to Austin/Rock (as strong as that card was and the company as a while, Austin/Rock was clearly the attitude generation's Hogan/Andre)

WMX8 is clearly credited to Hogan/Rock

WMXIX drew a poor buyrate (for mania) and it's hard to honestly pinpoint the cause of it, but Hogan/McMahon was the central focus of the promotion along with Rock/Austin, while the title matches took a back seat.

WMXX drew on the strength of the "anniversary" and a loaded card, no one credits Benoit with WMXX's draw but the event itself was the draw.

 

WMXXI has to be credited to the two title match main events and the Austin spot in addition to the WM name itself not solely on Triple H and Batista

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

21's biggest draw was clearly Triple H Vs. Batista.

 

Look at the facts:

 

January 2005 PPV "New Year's Revolution", PPV poster featuring Batista, main event teased their upcoming struggle.

 

January 2005 PPV "Royal Rumble", internet and marks both hoping Bastista won, and he did.

 

Central focus of Raw (and Smackdown, to some degree) became Batista's "decision".

 

February 2005 PPV "No Way Out" has a horrible main event, with the "push" from Raw in that Batista would be showing up.

 

Batista now showing up on Raw and Smackdown until WM.

 

The Hogan and Austin announcements added some buys, but without live appearences to hype their return. The WM show was built around Batista and Triple H for months.

[stahl 0]

Even if you credit in the other factors, it's still a testiment to Hunter to draw the second highest PPV of all time.

 

I can let Austin slide for part of WM21's buyrate but Cena and Bradshaw had basically no buildup.

 

Either way, give the man the credit he deserves.

[Guest drdrainoscott]

Brian, if you are making the argument that **** matches that use gimmicks or props don't count, would you then say that Mick Foley doesn't belong in the HOF due to him not having quality matches? This is a terrible argument to use against him.

 

In regards to Batista/HHH not being the major draw at WM this year, if you think that you are nuts. From Survivor Series, when the Batista turn began, to Wrestlemania, Raw buyrates and TV ratings were the highest they had been in a long time. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers. This is 100% fact. Did Austin and Hogan being there add some buys? Sure. But the major draw was the Raw title match.

 

Should the point that he didn't allow talent, such as Jericho, RVD, Booker, etc., to be elevated be used against him? Perhaps. But then you would have to hold that against Hogan, Michaels, Austin, and countless others as well.

 

Finally, in no way am I contributing the major boom of wrestling (99-01) to HHH, but he was on top during that period, and when Austin was out for almost all of 2000, Hunter and Rock led the WWF to their most profitable year ever.

[Karc 0]

I'm not going to question that he should be in. HOW he got in saddens me as a werstling fan.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

WMXXI has to be credited to the two title match main events and the Austin spot in addition to the WM name itself not solely on Triple H and Batista

 

Wrong. HBK-Angle had a lot to do with the high buyrate as well. I don't think JBL-Cena drew a fucking dime.

[Guest drdrainoscott]

WMXXI has to be credited to the two title match main events and the Austin spot in addition to the WM name itself not solely on Triple H and Batista

 

Wrong. HBK-Angle had a lot to do with the high buyrate as well. I don't think JBL-Cena drew a fucking dime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well let's not get carried away. For smart fans, I'm sure that match got buys from those that were on the edge of whether to buy it or not. But you have to remember, only about 5% of WWE fans are on the internet. There is no way more people wanted to see Angle and Michaels wrestle than wanted to see Cena win the belt. Anyways, it is all moot because neither of those matches had any significant effect on the buyrate (if you don't believe me, compare each of those rematches to the buyrates that the HHH/Batista rematches drew. For whatever reason, people will pay to see Cena live, but they aren't interested in buying PPV's that he headlines)

[Guest Brian]

Brian, if you are making the argument that **** matches that use gimmicks or props don't count, would you then say that Mick Foley doesn't belong in the HOF due to him not having quality matches?  This is a terrible argument to use against him.

 

You're missing the point. The point is not that those props and gimmicks don't count, but they give an illusion of a better match. You can have props and still have a decent match; but if you need the props and such to compensate for your obvious shortcomings, and then prohibit other wrestlers from doing the same so they have that much more value in an otherwise pedestrian match, then your obviously are falling short in the quality match department. How often has blood been used, solely for the main events, to add to the lack of drama and decent selling? I've seen countless Foley brawls with far more depth, better selling, and story than HHH. Trips is a decent worker who has a lot of benefits of being in his position and controlling the wya things work.

 

In regards to Batista/HHH not being the major draw at WM this year, if you think that you are nuts.  From Survivor Series, when the Batista turn began, to Wrestlemania, Raw buyrates and TV ratings were the highest they had been in a long time.  If you don't believe me, look at the numbers.  This is 100% fact.  Did Austin and Hogan being there add some buys?  Sure.  But the major draw was the Raw title match.

 

Is that a credit to Batista or HHH? And what of the other poor PPV numbers?

 

Should the point that he didn't allow talent, such as Jericho, RVD, Booker, etc., to be elevated be used against him?  Perhaps.  But then you would have to hold that against Hogan, Michaels, Austin, and countless others as well.

 

And it no doubt has been held against them, but their contribution to the sport and/or good matches have put them above Hunter's place.

 

Finally, in no way am I contributing the major boom of wrestling (99-01) to HHH, but he was on top during that period, and when Austin was out for almost all of 2000, Hunter and Rock led the WWF to their most profitable year ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But you also have to consider that HHH was a part of the downslide. Negatives have to be weighed against the positives before you put him in the Hall.

[Guest Brian]

And personally, I think Triple H will go in at some point. He'll have enough years at the top to offset the decline while on top, while he'll also make a large impact in the scene with Steph. I don't think his body of work is quality enough; he's a decent worker who was a good bumper and got smarter over the time, but also became more effective at using his power and leveled out in that respect. Most of his 2000-1 work that people love doesn't hold up as well; matches with Benoit tend to stay better. If someone wants to argue over this aspect, pop the tape in and give me your analysis.

[Guest drdrainoscott]

You're missing the point. The point is not that those props and gimmicks don't count, but they give an illusion of a better match. You can have props and still have a decent match; but if you need the props and such to compensate for your obvious shortcomings, and then prohibit other wrestlers from doing the same so they have that much more value in an otherwise pedestrian match, then your obviously are falling short in the quality match department. How often has blood been used, solely for the main events, to add to the lack of drama and decent selling? I've seen countless Foley brawls with far more depth, better selling, and story than HHH. Trips is a decent worker who has a lot of benefits of being in his position and controlling the wya things work.

I don't know what you mean by "give an illusion of a better match". I mean, every single match is an illusion. There are numerous ways to do so, and to say that using blood and weapons is some kind of shortcut to doing so is rediculous in my opinion. Yes, HHH has more leverage to use those gimmicks then others because of his position, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

Is that a credit to Batista or HHH? And what of the other poor PPV numbers?

Oh it is equally as much of a credit to Batista as it is to HHH. I'm not sure what PPV numbers you are referring to. Survivor Series, NYR, Rumble and WM all did better than in years past.

 

But you also have to consider that HHH was a part of the downslide. Negatives have to be weighed against the positives before you put him in the Hall.

I know what you mean, but look at things as a whole. Obviously WWE isn't as hot as it was four years ago, but they are still a very profitable organization. I mean, 2001-2004 were something like the 4th-7th most profitable years in WWF history. So I wouldn't necessarily put too much weight into this argument either.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

It would be interesting to see the decline in business the WWE has done since HHH has been on top.