Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 139 Posts

·
SmarkSlammer
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Triple H only buried one guy his entire career and that's Booker T. The Reign of Terror is a false narrative people made up because they were upset that a non smark favourite was on top. So here's a breakdown of his major feuds since the introduction of the WHC as that's when the narrative is said to of happened:

-Faced RVD in his first defence. Won after Flair interfered thus starting the formation of Evolution. It wouldn't of made sense for the inaugural champion to lose so soon. Plus, RVD just lost the IC title so it would've been a bit too much too soon. RVD wasn't buried, he merely lost. He was still a credible upper guy as seen by him being in the EC match later that year. RVD even admitted himself that he wasn't a dependable guy to make champion which he later proved to be correct.

-Kane:HHH took his IC title, embarrassed him with the Katie Vick storyline and took his mask. That being said, after all that, Kane was actually in his hottest storyline he ever had since the brand split when he went full psycho after being unmasked. Kane was actually main eventing over HHH and Goldberg when he was doing his crazed antics. It was Kane's poor storylines and booking WAY after his Triple H feuds that killed his momentum. I don't think Kane was buried by HHH even though he lost a lot to him, he wasn't ruined because the unmasking actually made him a more prominent feature.

-Loses the belt to HBK and then regains it. Back and forth feud at this point they're both legends so no one is buried.

-Steiner: His in ring performances declined so much that it became a liability to his popularity. At the Royal Rumble PPV, after Steiner botched moves and was performing poorly to begin with, the crowd started to boo him and cheer Triple H and that wasn't down solely to Triple H because the fans were cheering Steiner going into the match. He buried himself.

Booker T:This is the one case where I won't deny that it was a burial.

Kevin Nash:Was anyone crying out for Nash to be champion at that stage of his career? HHH winning was the right outcome.

Goldberg: Yes it would've been better if he won at Summerslam but he did get the title in the end and got clean victories over Triple H. Sure HHH won the feud in the end but what you have to remember is that Goldberg was only set to perform for a year and would leave after Mania. They couldn't build the program around him too much because he wasn't gonna stay long. Goldberg beat Triple H at back to back PPVs and at Survivor Series, he beat all 4 members of Evolution.

HBK again:Draw finish at Rumble. Not a burial.

Chris Benoit:Lost to Benoit every single time in all of his defences. He gave Benoit the biggest victory of his career. If you want to say that he was main eventing over Benoit, Benoit didn't have the skill set (mic skills and character) to carry storylines as the top star. There's a reason they didn't make him champion again and he was one of the lowest House Show draws ever.

-Randy Orton:From a straightforward perspective, it looked like a burial. But once you find out the reasoning behind what happened, it was necessary. Orton was struggling with alcoholism and he himself admitted that he wasn't ready to become champion and the original plan was for him to fight HHH at mania. Orton's problems were seen as a liability therefore they had to make the quick transfer to Triple H. Orton never had an amazing top face connection and there's a reason they waited 3 years for him to next hold a world title in 2007. Plus, he fought Undertaker at Mania so it's not as if he slid down the card.

Elimination Chamber match 2005:Wins the title but there was a story to it as the purpose was to further progress the story between him and Batista.

Batista:Loses to Batista 3 times straight and cementing him as a top star.

John Cena: Cena was WWE champion sure but he needed that little extra to be THE FRANCHISE PLAYER! Cena beating Triple H did just that.

DX reunions: Just some fun. The Spirit Squad were never gonna amount to much.

WWE championship reigns: Mostly feuded with well established guys and unless you wanted to see Koslov as champion I don't see any problems here. Umaga's substance abuse problems didn't make him a dependable top champion so he couldn't take the title from HHH.

Gets retired from being a full timer by Sheamus thus negating any damage caused by Sheamus losing to him at mania.

Undertaker feud: Loses that

CM Punk: Yeah him winning was a bad move but CM Punk wasn't buried. If he was buried he would've slid down the card. Punk went on to have the longest WWE Title reign in modern history. Losing to Triple HHH really didn't derail him.

Lesnar: Yeah him winning at mania wasn't the best but the thing is Lesnar actually won that feud in the end and is 2-1 against Triple H.

Loses to Bryan, Reigns and Rollins at Wrestlemanias thus giving them some of their biggest wins.

Sting was a bit iffy but he was already a legend at that point and was retired after his next match.In hindsight, that may of been the best move but with Sting, he simply came into the company far too late to warrant more.

I'm not counting one off moments like him beating up London and Kendrick (were those guys ever gonna amount to more than tag guys and cruiserweight champions?) and Ryder (his rivalry with Kane and association with Cena did more damage).

I just don't see it when people say that Triple H buries everyone. I'd actually argue that he's good at putting people over seeing how he made Batista's career, cemented Cena as the next top guy, gave Benoit his biggest moment, helped give Bryan his biggest moment, cemented Sheamus as a top guy and has lost to the 2 top guys today in Roman and Seth. Most of Triple H's victories in 2002-2005 weren't even clean. The only feuds he won clean were with HBK and Nash, 2 guys who had already cemented their place as legends.

I definitely see why people think the Reign of Terror was so bad because he did hold the title for the majority of the time but the thing was, there weren't many top guys to capitalise on at the time. Goldberg couldn't stay long, HBK didn't need the title, sure Y2J and RVD could've been pushed more but that's not down to Triple H burying them and both flopped as top champion anyway (Y2J due to being unremarkable and RVD getting himself in trouble) and Orton bombed on his own account.


I am convinced most people haven't actually watched RAW during that time period and are just quoting narratives spawned by Meltzer and Smarks revisionist history. Triple H didn't even hog that much spotlight. The Austin/Bischoff feud took more of RAW's screentime, when Kane was unmasked, his antics took priority over the title scene and The Rock/Austin conclusion also took priority. The only time period that he really became the big priority for RAW was when he feuded with Orton and Batista AKA when you need to build new stars.

To summarise, I don't think Triple H deserves this reputation as a burying machine. You can't even say that he used his marriage to boost his status when he was already a multiple time WWE champion before he started dating Stephanie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Triple H vs Roman Reigns at WM was the best "I'm putting you over...(but not really)" since Hogan lost to Ultimate Warrior at WM6. It was so subtle Vince probably didn't even notice his son in law buried his top guy.

He beat Lesnar in front of 70,000 people and then Lesnar beat Triple H in a cage match on a B-PPV that most people don't even remember. etc.
 

·
SmarkSlammer
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Roman was getting booed out of the building long before Triple H was even a factor. Triple H wasn't responsible for Roman's shortcomings. How did Triple H bury Roman?

Lesnar beat him at Summerslam prior which is the 2nd biggest event of the year. Lesnar won the feud 2-1 end of story.

You gonna make an actual counter argument and respond to my points or just post memes lol?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Roman was getting booed out of the building long before Triple H was even a factor. Triple H wasn't responsible for Roman's shortcomings. How did Triple H bury Roman?
In that specific match Triple H was supposed to work heel and Roman was supposed to be the top face. But instead he just played to the fans and took the cheers instead of being professional. It was entertaining to watch but Roman mustn't have liked getting played like that (if he even knew what happened).

Heard a story about Dusty Rhodes and a celebrity(I forgot who), and Dusty insisted on his entrance being last because it made him look like the bigger star. Triple H getting owned at Summerslam and then triumphantly returning and beating Lesnar in front of 70,000 fans makes him look like the bigger star. Even though technically Lesnar won the feud. etc

Triple H is like the only guy who complains about trailers for their video games showing him in "compromised situations" or whatever he said. Guys' a control freak for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,418 Posts
I mean the term burial is overused in general. It seems things go like this

Main eventer I like beating someone = they gave them a rub and made them look good.

Main eventer I don't like beating someone= burial because they're a selfish asshole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
987 Posts
I’ve been saying this for years.

Wrestlemania 20- Put over Chris Benoit
Wrestlemania 21- Put Over Batista
Wrestlemania 22- Put over John Cena
Wrestlemania 30- Put over Daniel Bryan
Wrestlemania 32- Put over Roman Reigns
Wrestlemania 33- Put over Seth Rollins

6 new guys Triple H put over at WrestleMania, but the haters won’t say anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
I thought The Rock should've wrestled HHH at WrestleMania and gone over strong. In saying that, we got two more great matches at Backlash and Judgment Day out of it. I just hate how The Rock regained the title at King of the Ring by pinning Vince.

I also hate how HHH won the Elimination Chamber at Summerslam. Goldberg should have gone over in that match. Instead HHH cut the legs out from under him and killed his heat.

OP made a good point about stuff like the RVD match, and in hindsight there's a case to be made both ways about the Sting match.

Back to The Rock, I think he should've been more of a politician sometimes. HHH went over in the vast majority of their matches, even in multi-man matches he was pinning The Rock.

I guess The Rock was a lot more secure about his place in the business than HHH and knew he could always get his heat back with stellar character work.

The main thing that has always annoyed me about HHH is worming his way into the Kliq and manipulating Shawn in his dealings with Bret Hart, and trying to get The Rock written out of the WM main event in 1999.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,492 Posts
At the time I definitely thought Triple H was burying everyone because he's a selfish asshole, but I was 13 and new to the Internet (and IWC) at the time. I still think there were times where Triple H was simply looking out for his best interests- like the Booker T thing and also Ric Flair constantly saying HHH is the best wrestler alive today, which simply wasn't true. One, Flair's greater and two, the roster at the time was loaded with amazing talent, not so much on the Raw brand, but a lot of guys on Smackdown could run circles around The Game. But big picture, Triple H did good business.

You need to have bad guys looking strong so that it's a bigger deal when a babyface finally beats him. A heel that constantly does the job isn't effective, because a win over them doesn't mean as much. Triple H occupied the "final boss" role from 2002-2005. That meant he had to beat some of our faves and upset us short-term. Beating guys like Booker and Kane made sense, same with Nash and Steiner, and yeah, Triple H beating RVD sucked but was necessary. One of the more egregious ones was Summerslam 2003. HHH was always going to job to Goldberg, but extending the story another month didn't add anything positive. Having Goldberg win the Chamber would have been a legitimate star-making moment for Big Bill, but the standard match a month later at Unforgiven where he captured Big Gold was really "meh", which unfortunately came to epitomise Goldberg's first WWE run.

Triple H being this dude that ran roughshod through the Raw roster made him a meaningful threat to overcome. It was a huge moment when Benoit beat him at Mania XX. It wouldn't have been as big had HHH dropped the belt a couple of times in the years prior. He made Batista a star. The coronation of The Animal at WM21 was about as perfect as it gets. Triple H had the equity to really make people when he did take the rare losses. If anything, he gave up some of that equity going 0-3 to Batista in 2005 PPV matches. When we came around to Cena vs. HHH at WM22, it was fairly obvious that Cena was going over to cement his spot as the top face on Raw. I never really felt like Hunter had a chance of winning that Mania.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,558 Posts
Booker T. Case closed.

P.S. Did I seriously see someone suggest that Triple H putting over Roman at Mania 32 as an example of him doing the right thing? He shouldn't have been in the fucking main event in the first place, lol.

Also, losing does not mean "putting over." People need to draw a distinction between the two. You can lose to someone and not put them over. You can put them over without losing to them. Who has beaten Triple H at a WrestleMania, just to use that show as an example, and looked better for it? Chris Benoit? The Triple Threat and the Kane program were there to sink him. A case of clever and subtle sabotage. I'll give you Batista. John Cena? Nope. Daniel Bryan didn't need to beat Triple H -- he was already more over. Also, the next year Bryan's opening the show while Triple H is in a heavily promoted match with Sting and segment with Rock and Ronda Rousey. Seth Rollins? Exact same thing. Triple H "loses," then the next year he's the story and the guy that beat him is winning a mid-card belt in the opener.

Triple H has made one person in his entire career by losing to them. That's Batista. That's it. No one else gets anything from beating The H's, so they don't look like a star and then they had their chance and they failed. Time to go back to The H's.

The best work Triple H did that ever put anybody over, outside of Batista, is probably his heel work in 2000. And the guys who got the most out of that, no joke, were probably Taka Michinoku and Earl Hebner. I'm not lying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
Reminder that--in 2001--HHH demanded Vince and co. that Angle was too small to be champ, and that he should beat Kurt for the WWF title at the Royal Rumble that year. Pat Patterson told him to fuck off and challenge Angle to a legit wrestling match.

HHH did not talk shit after that, but he certainly undermined him and Jericho in the first half of 2002.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
HHH is 10-13 at Wrestlemania. Not exactly Undertaker's streak.
12; loss to Warrior (0-1)

13; win over Goldust (1-1)

14; win over Owen Hart (2-1)

15; loss to Kane via DQ (2-2)

16; win over Rock, Foley, and Big Show. Main event (3-2)

17; loss to Undertaker (3-3)

18; win over Jericho. Main event (4-3)

19; win over Booker T. (5-3)

20; loss to Benoit. Main event (5-4)

21; loss to Batista. Main event (5-5)

22; loss to Cena. Main event (5-6)

24; indirect loss to Orton. (5-7)

25; win over Orton. Main event (6-7)

26; win over Sheamus. (7-7)

27; loss to Undertaker. (7-8)

28; loss to Undertaker. (7-9)

29; win over Brock Lesnar. (8-9)

30; loss to Daniel Bryan. (8-10)

31; win over Sting. (9-10)

32; loss to Roman Reigns. Main event (9-11)

33; loss to Seth Rollins. (10-11)

34; indirect loss to Kurt Angle and Ronda Rousey. (10-12)

35; win over Batista. (11-12)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,558 Posts
Na triple h was always going over the rock which made no sense since rock was the face of the company when Austin went down. I never understood how hhh was hogging the wwf title in 2000 when the rock was by far the biggest star in the company.
They were pretty desperate on the heel side and Trips had signed on for five years. He was a perfectly fine in-ring worker -- he was just dull and boring as fuck -- which is why he got all the bells and whistles and Cactus Jack's career thrown at him. But there were early comparisons to DDP as a champion that wasn't going to draw.
 

·
SmarkSlammer
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I did. People really overstate how bad he made it. He didn't even hog that much screen time. In 2002-2003,he wasn't even the main focus of the show. Austin/Bischoff was. When Kane got unmasked, he got more screen time than the World title scene. When Rock had his feuds with Austin and Goldberg, he got more focus than Triple H did. The only time Triple H took up a lot of screen time is when they were doing storylines to build stars in Orton and Batista which is necessary for building the future.

He didn't bury The Rock which was my point in the post. Rock beat HHH on several occasions too so it's not like it was one sided.

Why do you care about what goes on backstage? The point was Angle wasn't buried because Angle went on to be a multiple time world champion and main venter. You're a fan not some backstage politician so judge what you see on TV.

Jericho was failing as champion before HHH's rivalry started. He never felt like a credible top guy, he felt like a mid carder in the main event.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,142 Posts
He made Raw so unbearable to watch from 2003-2005 that I basically stopped watching. Also SD was awesome at that time. Oh and even after that there was Sting as well, he and Vince just had to piss on WCW's corpse again, because they're the only ones who still care at this point. And beating CM Punk for no good reason and then going back into retirement as well.
 
1 - 20 of 139 Posts
Top