|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 20, 2006 16:22:29 GMT -5
HHH is one of the best wrestlers in the history of the sport. I'd hate to hear what you think of Ric Flair...
|
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Nov 20, 2006 17:04:33 GMT -5
Trips did some decent work, yeah. But when pro wrestling historians look back at 97-01 will his stuff stick out? Most likely not. I'd have to totaly disagree: --January 2000 - Royal Rumble: Triple H defeated Cactus Jack in a "street fight".. --February 27, 2000 - No Way Out: Triple H defeated Cactus Jack in a brutal "hell in a cell" match to retire Mick Foley! --May 21, 2000 - Judgment Day: Triple H beat The Rock in a "60-minute iron man" match to recapture the WWF title! --February 25, 2001 - No Way Out: Triple H beat Steve Austin in a 3-match-series grudge match.. ~~~1) SCSA beat HHH in a regular match 2) HHH beat SCSA in a "street fight" 3) HHH beat SCSA in a "cage" match.. I don't know about wrestling "historians" but as a fan those will always be some of my favorite matches. |
|
|
|
Post by JED-SE on Nov 20, 2006 17:36:58 GMT -5
As people on this board know, I am a Jarrett fan. However, he's just not as good as Triple H. That includes draw value and in-ring ability. Triple H had a similar "get him off my TV" type heat, but Triple H was over as a heel and face before and after that point. Like I said before, I like Jarrett, but if you look at PH's post of HHH's matches, I have not remembered Jarrett having matches at that level. THat's not to say Jarrett can't wrestle. I think he's a decent performer, but does not compare to Triple H on any level. (IMO)
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 20, 2006 17:46:24 GMT -5
First off, I see a lot of the same "see two guys names in the same sentence so ignore the rest of the post because those two should never be mentioned in the same sentence" action going on... Secondly, a lot of people are willing to so easily forget that Triple H kept so many stars down, and killed so many stars' momentum (Kane RVD and Booker T come to mind) because he's given up (temporarily I'm sure) the World Title and let Cena and Edge take the "spotlight"...You guys say "He hasn't kept anyone down in a long time", I say "He's not keeping anyone down at the moment"...Leopard, spots, all that... Thirdly, this is going to come off VERY presumptuous of me, (but then, what doesn't  ) but I think H61R and Swarm need to refrain from talking to each other...Not because they're fighting, but because their opinions are incompatible...The former focuses almost exclusively on Workrate, and the latter focuses almost exclusively on "the bottom line"...Neither of them will ever agree, and every time they post in the same forum, it always comes back to "Talent vs. money" and trying to convince one another why they feel that way... Not being a jerk...Just making an observation...Maybe they enjoy disagreeing so...Ubiquitously...it just seems to be the same discussion all the time...  [/presumption] Lastly, I'm not a huge Triple H fan...Ever since the Rock and Austin left, there's been only Triple H...He really doesn't have any competition anymore...Given his history, I actually found it a HUGE stretch that Cena even beat him...Batista, yes...Batista made beating Triple H believable...But Cena never really seemed to be in Triple H's league... All that being said, I don't know what the comparison is anymore, but Jarrett doesn't give off anywhere NEAR the aura of invincibility that Triple H does...When Triple H steps into the ring, 9 times out of 10 you know he's going to win...Jarrett is kinda the same way, except that his out is a lame guitar and Triple H's is a sledgehammer...Triple H just makes being invincible more believable than Jarrett... And this is a long post... |
|
|
|
Post by BDS on Nov 20, 2006 17:54:03 GMT -5
it just seems to be the same discussion all the time... You mean you don't enjoy hearing the same arguments over and over again? |
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 20, 2006 17:55:38 GMT -5
it just seems to be the same discussion all the time... You mean you don't enjoy hearing the same arguments over and over again? That's enough out of you Big Daddy NOT CANADIAN..!!! Now there's an argument that never gets old.. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by BDS on Nov 20, 2006 17:57:10 GMT -5
You mean you don't enjoy hearing the same arguments over and over again? That's enough out of you Big Daddy NOT CANADIAN..!!! Now there's an argument that never gets old.. ;D I figured if anyone would enjoy bickering about the same things over and over again in an endless circle, it would be you Canadians. I don't know specifically why, mind you, but it sounds good and I'm going with it. |
|
|
|
Post by PureHatred on Nov 20, 2006 18:07:51 GMT -5
Secondly, a lot of people are willing to so easily forget that Triple H kept so many stars down, and killed so many stars' momentum (Kane RVD and Booker T come to mind) because he's given up (temporarily I'm sure) the World Title and let Cena and Edge take the "spotlight"...You guys say "He hasn't kept anyone down in a long time", I say "He's not keeping anyone down at the moment"...Leopard, spots, all that... I don't think anyone was arguing that Trips hasn't held people down. I mean, if you throw in Jericho and the way Benoit was put on the backburner after his title win to your list, Triple H probably had some infleunce in guys having their push cut short for about 5 years...from 2000 late 2004. And you could even argue that the only reason he elevated Batista was because that's his boy and that he HAD to do the job for Cena; Cena's mounting popularity made it inevitable. The gist of the argument comes down to the fact that I think Triple H was a better worker than Jarrett even before he was given preferential treatment, that I honesltly believe Trips was/is better in the ring than Jarrett ever was, he cut money promos that JJ never could, and that ultimately while the WWE made a mistake keeping Trips at the top of the card for so long, at least there was some justification for him being a main eventer in the first place. Jeff Jarrett has never done anything to justify him being the main event of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Nov 20, 2006 18:55:10 GMT -5
We have a winner. You're really at the top of your game today. This reminds me of one of the most rampant fallacies found on pro wres (and really any) discussion board...the false concept of possessing 'aesthetic truth'. Example: Statement 1: "A good 'worker' in pro wres is someone who draws 'money'...because the purpose of their work is to generate revenue....wrestler X does that consistently so he's 'good'" Elaboration: If a pro wres promoter (ex. Vince McMahon) has a public policy that states the goal of his company is to turn a profit...and wrestler X is selling tickets, merch and whatever else that helps the promotion to turn a profit...then in that context Statement 1 can be said to be a statement of fact. In other words it's an objective reality that can be measured and proven. You can do this with any other aspect of anything that has objective measurement capability. Statement 2: "Just because wrestler X generates money...that doesn't make him a 'good worker' or make the overall product good...because (proceed to tally off a list of words and meanings tied to aesthetics)" Elaboration: Statement 2 is neither true or false. It is a subjective assertion. Unlike Statement 1 which has a clearly defined line of thinking and a means of objective measurment...the types of comments that can come from Statement 2 are as infinite as the human imagination. Comments can range from "the Brian Danielson vs Samoa Joe match that 'almost' sold out the farm house last night epitomizes 'good' pro wres"...to "the Farmer's Daughter vs Spanish Red program from late 80's GLOW featured the greatest series of matches of all time" or "I watched camcorder footage of two kids from my local Indy promotion and they put on a 'five star match' that is better than anything that was on Raw this week...and nobody can tell me different." None of the above individual statements are any more 'true' or 'false' than the other. No one version of Statement 2 invalidates any other version of Statement 2 because we are not dealing with facts...but with opinion. Danielson vs Samoa Joe is not 'really' better or worse than the back yard wrestlers or the Farmer's Daughter vs Spanish Red...or vice versa. They only become so when a person choses to internalize them as such. Furthermore Statement 2 never invalidates the elements of truth found in Statement 1....nor does Statement 1 ever prevent Statement 2 from preserving it's own subjective efficacy. Yet you'll rarely see people politely agree to disagree along those lines. I'd add there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with fans developing their own tastes about what constitutes good/bad or better/best elements of the content...it can be fun and healthy for discussion. It's only when people go past that and try to pass off their aesthetic theories and evaluations as statements of 'fact' and the opinions of others that run counter to said theories as 'false' or 'wrong' that it starts to get wacky. The merits of any aesthetic discussion always begins and ends in the realm of the subjective...and never 'really' extends beyond that.
LWPD (who has a long time appreciation of 'Good' Pro Wres from a variety of genres and eras and has even pro-actively made some of the most highly acclaimed matches in the history of the business readily available to everyone on this forum in streaming form...but has also purposely put quotes around the word 'good' in the The 'Good' Pro Wres Project)
|
|
welsh
Midcarder
Born in the USA...
Posts: 94
|
Post by welsh on Nov 20, 2006 19:26:16 GMT -5
Very good post Splattercat. As I sit here trying to drink my beer/popsicle that I left in the freezer too long  I think you have hit the nail on the head. I really don't know why Triple H seems more believable than Jarrett, given that jarrett has probably had more wins as champ. Triple H still makes me go "woah" when he comes out (not as part of DX) because you know he can beat anyone. He is the last surviving true heavyweight champion. I think Triple H just had more 5* matches like the Iron man vs. the Rock etc |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 20, 2006 20:10:47 GMT -5
We have a winner. You're really at the top of your game today. This reminds me of one of the most rampant fallacies found on pro wres (and really any) discussion board...the false concept of possessing 'aesthetic truth'. Example: Statement 1: "A good 'worker' in pro wres is someone who draws 'money'...because the purpose of their work is to generate revenue....wrestler X does that consistently so he's 'good'" Elaboration: If a pro wres promoter (ex. Vince McMahon) has a public policy that states the goal of his company is to turn a profit...and wrestler X is selling tickets, merch and whatever else that helps the promotion to turn a profit...then in that context Statement 1 can be said to be a statement of fact. In other words it's an objective reality that can be measured and proven. You can do this with any other aspect of anything that has objective measurement capability. Statement 2: "Just because wrestler X generates money...that doesn't make him a 'good worker' or make the overall product good...because (proceed to tally off a list of words and meanings tied to aesthetics)" Elaboration: Statement 2 is neither true or false. It is a subjective assertion. Unlike Statement 1 which has a clearly defined line of thinking and a means of objective measurment...the types of comments that can come from Statement 2 are as infinite as the human imagination. Comments can range from "the Brian Danielson vs Samoa Joe match that 'almost' sold out the farm house last night epitomizes 'good' pro wres"...to "the Farmer's Daughter vs Spanish Red program from late 80's GLOW featured the greatest series of matches of all time" or "I watched camcorder footage of two kids from my local Indy promotion and they put on a 'five star match' that is better than anything that was on Raw this week...and nobody can tell me different." None of the above individual statements are any more 'true' or 'false' than the other. No one version of Statement 2 invalidates any other version of Statement 2 because we are not dealing with facts...but with opinion. Danielson vs Samoa Joe is not 'really' better or worse than the back yard wrestlers or the Farmer's Daughter vs Spanish Red...or vice versa. They only become so when a person choses to internalize them as such. Furthermore Statement 2 never invalidates the elements of truth found in Statement 1....nor does Statement 1 ever prevent Statement 2 from preserving it's own subjective efficacy. Yet you'll rarely see people politely agree to disagree along those lines. I'd add there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with fans developing their own tastes about what constitutes good/bad or better/best elements of the content...it can be fun and healthy for discussion. It's only when people go past that and try to pass off their aesthetic theories and evaluations as statements of 'fact' and the opinions of others that run counter to said theories as 'false' or 'wrong' that it starts to get wacky. The merits of any aesthetic discussion always begins and ends in the realm of the subjective...and never 'really' extends beyond that.
LWPD (who has a long time appreciation of 'Good' Pro Wres from a variety of genres and eras and has even pro-actively made some of the most highly acclaimed matches in the history of the business readily available to everyone on this forum in streaming form...but has also purposely put quotes around the word 'good' in the The 'Good' Pro Wres Project)
see, LWPD gets it... |
|
|
|
Post by blueraider2 on Nov 20, 2006 20:25:56 GMT -5
it's the keeping the fans happy is what generates the moolah. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Nov 20, 2006 21:08:12 GMT -5
For a stretch of about three-plus years prior to his injury, Triple H did not have a bad match. Period. The Game had great matches with everyone he was in the ring with during the period of about late 1997 until 2001when he blew his quad, regardless of the opponent. Even after his return, it took putting H in the ring with a nearly-immobile Scott Steiner for him to have a bad match. To say Jarrett is in the same arena as Triple H, in any capacity, is simply wrong. Really? You mean the match vs. UT at KOTR '02 was good? The putrid selling in the SummerSlam '02 match was ok because it was Shawn and Trips, right? The match versus RVD will stand in time as one of the greats? It took Scott Steiner? Clearly you need to get in better contact with Jarrett's work. His stuff in Memphis is solid. Most of the first WWF run, solid. Most of his WCW work? Solid. A handful of second WCW run and TNA and he's got a body of work very comparable to Trips' magical run. This idea that Trips was one of the best workers in the world prior to the injury is sickening. The dude has always been average and had PLENTY of bad matches. Hell from the time period you alloted from 97-mid 98 alone most of his stuff was average-decent. So your condescending tone really holds no merit of anything. Trips did some decent work, yeah. But when pro wrestling historians look back at 97-01 will his stuff stick out? Most likely not. He is what he is and that's an average worker. I was not being condescending. I just stated something that was my opinion. If I was trying to talk down to you or be condescending with you, I would have just called you a ho like the last guy I talked down to on here. Really, I don't know where you got that I was being condescending. Anyway, on to the subject at hand. PH already named some of Triple H's jewels from the period of time I cited, so I'm not going back through that, but I will adress the post-quad matches you mentioned. Was the Undertaker match one of his best? No. Did I enjoy the match? Yes. His match with Michaels at SummerSlam was damn good. So was his epic HIAC match with Michaels. Yes, the matches he had with RVD were entertaining. Not great, but far from bad. Finally, it is worth noting that, while you blast me for being condescending, you did nothing to take away from my statement that H went damn near four years without having a bad match. You just said, "No, he didn't!" As for JJ, I'm familiar with his Memphis work. I remember being Evansville watching him every Wednesday night during summers growing up. I remember him in the USWA. I remember him sucking donkey balls in WWE with his terrible charisma and his weak-ass feuds with Road Dogg and Chyna. I remember his ridiculous Flair knock-offs in WCW and his debacle of a championship run as the Chosen One. The only thing the guy ever did that entertained me was when he dressed up like Dusty Rhodes and cut the "Fruit of my Loins" promo. That shit was classic! Since he has been in TNA, he has had a couple decent matches with AJ Styles and been involved in some horrible angles and matches. I wasn't being condescending this time, either, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 20, 2006 21:25:22 GMT -5
strong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Highway61Revisited on Nov 20, 2006 21:37:27 GMT -5
I was not being condescending. I just stated something that was my opinion. If I was trying to talk down to you or be condescending with you, I would have just called you a ho like the last guy I talked down to on here. Really, I don't know where you got that I was being condescending. Anyway, on to the subject at hand. PH already named some of Triple H's jewels from the period of time I cited, so I'm not going back through that, but I will adress the post-quad matches you mentioned. Was the Undertaker match one of his best? No. Did I enjoy the match? Yes. His match with Michaels at SummerSlam was damn good. So was his epic HIAC match with Michaels. Yes, the matches he had with RVD were entertaining. Not great, but far from bad. Finally, it is worth noting that, while you blast me for being condescending, you did nothing to take away from my statement that H went damn near four years without having a bad match. You just said, "No, he didn't!" As for JJ, I'm familiar with his Memphis work. I remember being Evansville watching him every Wednesday night during summers growing up. I remember him in the USWA. I remember him sucking donkey balls in WWE with his terrible charisma and his weak-ass feuds with Road Dogg and Chyna. I remember his ridiculous Flair knock-offs in WCW and his debacle of a championship run as the Chosen One. The only thing the guy ever did that entertained me was when he dressed up like Dusty Rhodes and cut the "Fruit of my Loins" promo. That shoot was classic! Since he has been in TNA, he has had a couple decent matches with AJ Styles and been involved in some horrible angles and matches. I wasn't being condescending this time, either, by the way. You want me to seriously deconstruct Trips' work? It's all completely formulaic. It's the usual WWE style that's lacking in story, pacing, psychology, and selling. It generally has an epic feel--but very few of his matches post-quad have lacked that as well. It's not like I'm saying Jarrett is the Jumbo of our generation, I said he was slightly better than HHH. It took Foley, the Rock, and Austin (even though I'm not the biggest fan of Austin/HHH NWO'01) to give Trips a "big match" feel. The matches are all let's go through the motions, let's throw in a punch/kick, ok, let's roll with some contrived finisher spots. The man has no idea how to pace a wrestling match and it took an iron man for him to do so. Sorry I misconstrewed your post earlier, I'm under a tremendous workload and I'm on edge. But there you go, there's a short deconstruction of my big problems with Trips' work. for the record: I enjoyed both Foley/HHH and HHH/Rock (The iron-man) immensely. That's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 21, 2006 2:59:02 GMT -5
It took Foley, the Rock, and Austin (even though I'm not the biggest fan of Austin/HHH NWO'01) to give Trips a "big match" feel. The matches are all let's go through the motions, let's throw in a punch/kick, ok, let's roll with some contrived finisher spots. The man has no idea how to pace a wrestling match and it took an iron man for him to do so. Quoted for truth. Far be it for me to tell anyone not to enjoy a match, but as someone who was there live for two Triple H PPV main events mentioned in this thread ('Taker at KOTR '02, HIAC with Michaels) I cannot begin to tell you how HORRIBLE both matches went over with the live crowd. Even tossing aside opinions on pacing, selling, and such, both of these supposed epic PPV main events ended in front of completely dead-silent crowds sitting on their hands. In a live setting, both matches were unquestioned objective failures. Maybe Columbus is just a crappy market for wrestling--most of the state fell outside the realm of the territories of the '70s and '80s and the WWF has never drawn particularly well here regardless of its popularity. But the crowd at KOTR was about 20 times more interested in the Rock sitting at the commentary table than they were in the match. The crowd for Badd Blood was waiting for someone to climb up onto the roof. Getting back to the issue of pacing, the HIAC match featured some of the worst I've ever seen--the last ten minutes saw one guy hit a move, both guys lay there for a full minute, other guy hits a move, repeat. It was the most mind-numbingly boring finishing sequence I believe I've ever seen. I guess it was supposed to come across as "epic," but because the brawling earlier in the match wasn't up to the standards set by HHH in previous matches with guys like Cactus Jack, it looked like two tired guys laying around. Not all of it is HHH's fault--the match with Undertaker was a heel vs. heel match in which fans were never given any reason to get behind a favorite. It was Michaels' absurd selling ("Oh, my aching, crippled back...oops, time for my comeback, gotta ignore all of that while I do the 3 moves I still know how to do...") that killed the SummerSlam match. Regardless, Highway61's point stands that HHH has not brought the goods for a major PPV match since that quadrucep tear*. This is not to say that Jeff Jarrett is particularly good, either. Frankly, his babyface stuff in the USWA was his best work. He's been given some gimmicks that were not his fault and he's always been quite good on the stick, but he is absolutely not a guy you build a major company around. (*I haven't seen his HIAC with Batista, which I've heard good things about.) |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 21, 2006 9:42:27 GMT -5
I disagree. HHH was having big time feel matches with The Rock when DX feuded with The Nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 21, 2006 10:48:01 GMT -5
I disagree. HHH was having big time feel matches with The Rock when DX feuded with The Nation. EDIT: Okay okay, I'll comment...I'm a Rock Mark, so it was worth it... It took Foley, the Rock, and Austin (even though I'm not the biggest fan of Austin/HHH NWO'01) to give Trips a "big match" feel. That should pretty much sum it up...  |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 21, 2006 10:56:37 GMT -5
Right I got that part cat, but he was clearly talking about his matches vs. Rock for the WWF Title, not the I-C Title, like I was...
He insinuated that HHH never had that "big time feel" until he was fighting Rock, Austin and Foley for the WWF Title...
and I disagree...he was doing that vs. The Rock long before that time period...
sometimes you gotta do this little thing in life called "reading between the lines"...
for example...
Splattercat, you are a genius. You are my favorite poster on the board.
Swarm
|
|
|
|
Post by Splattercat on Nov 21, 2006 10:59:37 GMT -5
Hmmmm......This one's actually hard to figure out......
Not seeing much between those lines.....
...............
Nope, you're pretty much spot on there.... ;D
|
|
) but I think H61R and Swarm need to refrain from talking to each other...Not because they're fighting, but because their opinions are incompatible...The former focuses almost exclusively on Workrate, and the latter focuses almost exclusively on "the bottom line"...Neither of them will ever agree, and every time they post in the same forum, it always comes back to "Talent vs. money" and trying to convince one another why they feel that way...
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I really don't know why Triple H seems more believable than Jarrett, given that jarrett has probably had more wins as champ. Triple H still makes me go "woah" when he comes out (not as part of DX) because you know he can beat anyone. He is the last surviving true heavyweight champion. I think Triple H just had more 5* matches like the Iron man vs. the Rock etc
