Where to begin? HHH isn't a wrestler I have particularly liked at all. Did like him coming up as a midcarder during the summer of 98 feuding with the Nation, but other than that not a big fan. Not to say he wasn't a great heel because he was. You just won't see me sporting merch of HHH or whatever. Not good explaination, but in any case:
You can't really compare his antics to others. HHH has just did it for a very long time. Shawn always comes back and gives back to the business. Granted he did some things that cost guys jobs in the 90s like Douglas, Vader de-push, Tatanka IC title reign, but overall he has helped make stars in the business today without wearing the world title. He isn't all about wins and losses. I mean his work with Mr.Kennedy, Benjamin, Orton, Batista, and so forth have been great. I mean, how many times did HBK challenge for the world title and lose to HHH in yet, HHH is still not recognized as on his level.
Go back to Taker, yes he cost Faker Taker his job in the past. Who cares? He helped elevate more stars than he hurt unlike HHH. Whether it be Batista, Edge, Foley, Kane, Heidenreich, among others. Taker too wasn't a glory hog like HHH, he went several years without a world title reign like HBK. Back to the CM Punk situation, Punk compared himself right off the bat to John Cena. All Taker did was ask him to dress better to present the company. Punk obviously was getting a big head because you don't disrespect the deadman. You take advice like you should. I wasn't happy either that Punk lost the world title to Taker, however, do you think Punk should dress better than he did in those days? I certainly do. If you want to be the man of a company you must dress how they want you to dress. This isn't 98 anymore, WWE is a public company. You must please people such as ads, tv, and so forth.
Who did Flair hold down? The reason he left for WWF back in 92 was because the big its promised Windham would be getting the world title. Not Luger, not sticking to their word along with being disrespectful to the Nature Boy he left. As far as putting people over, no one in the biz was better at elevating the game of whoever was in the ring with him. Flair has lost to everyone that I can remember. He was midcard guy for years in WCW and WWE. Even when he was on top, he lost to them all whether it be Sting, Steamboat, ect.
Other than Montreal, I couldn't tell you a time he didn't want to put over somebody. Maybe you can give me more info on Bret's politics because he always raised the game of others when they were in the ring with him. Remember the Raw match he had with 123 kid. Do I agree with Bret not putting over HBK? No, but I can understand why he didn't want to do it because Shawn not only making that comment that he wouldn't put him over weeks or months before Survivor Series. HBK also had the clique, Bret was worried about the other boys well at least I believe so anyway. HBK, Diesel, Razor overshadowing the main events like they did in the past.
Austin didn't put over Brock and went home because it wasn't best for business. It wasn't because he didn't want to lose to Brock. It was because he thought it should have build. Not just a main event for Raw. Do you believe Austin/Brock match would draw money? Even today, I think it would have. What pissed him off to was they advertised matches for King of the ring that year and didn't tell him anything about it. Personal issues to boot....As far as Hogan goes for Austin not wanting to put him over. Well, he thought it would be a bad match for us wrestling fans. Had nothing really to do with losing. Other than that, can't recall him not wanting to put someone over other than H in 99 at Summerslam.
Don't really care for the other 2 especially Hogan. Respond about HHHs career in a different comment.
Lol at "Orton cannot get over with the crowd as a heel"
The fucking man gets the biggest heat compared to anyone on the roster right now.
Have you listened to the reaction he's been getting the past weeks?
Great blog JJKH; diplomatic and i enjoyed the read.
I have to start off by saying i have never been a big fan of HHH; yes he's had great matches in his career and been involved in a lot of major angles (a little too many for my liking), and has undoubtedly earned the respect of millions of wrestling fans...BUT...
...for everything great he has done, there are always things that pop up every now and then; that make me question his attitude. Matches he didn't need to win, or comments that didn't need to be made. For example (and i know he is infamously known for allegedly doing this) there are many examples where he "buries" talent. I will never understand his win over Booker T at WrestleMania 19; Booker was gaining major support and he figuratively swiped him away like a fly. Why did he have to take an eternity to make the pin fall after the pedigree; there was no need. And its not as if Booker got the chance to make amends for the loss; he got swept under the rug. It just never made sense to me. And there are many other "victims".
Then there's the constant need to throw himself into everything. One example being The Summer of Punk. CM Punk, coming off of the famous "pipe bomb" and the match of the year (one of my favorite matches ever) defeating John Cena at Money in the Bank 2011 is then nonsensically thrown into a feud with HHH. The potential for Punk was there, staring WWE in the face and instead of capitalizing on it....here comes HHH. There was no need for this; none. And there is a case that Vince may have demanded HHH be inserted into it, but if HHH really knew what was best for business, he would have steered clear and kept his fellow quadriceps killer away as well. I mean, how bad was Nash vs HHH at TLC 2011? It was rotten.
The one thing that really annoyed me this past year was in one of elongated promos, he mentioned how he was an A plus player (yes, i know he was playing the heel at this point) but then he mentions the likes of Edge and Chris Jericho (a Hall of famer and future hall of famer) and inexplicably says that if they where the face of the WWE, then everyone would have been working for Ted Turner. Why did he say that? Was there really any need to broadcast such a pretentious statement? He was doing the heel work just fine; it wasn't necessary.
I completely agree that his work within the performance center is fantastic to see, as a fan it's refreshing and i have no qualms about his dedication to the business; he has a head for the business and no doubt he will make mistakes (in my opinion he already has), but i hope that he starts to fade out of the in ring action. For me his (unnecessary) 3 match feud with Brock was very boring; the No Holds Barred at WrestleMania 29 being the best of the three. I would like to see him take a step back once the Authority angle comes to its conclusion and continue his good work in building the future.
Amen TheGreatOne. I have never liked Batista; never!!!!. I thought his feud with HHH was good, but, for me, there was always something more interesting on the card when it came to the PPV's. WrestleMania 21 had many matches that made theirs look average; HBK vs Angle especially. At Backlash 05, i was more interested in HBK and Hogan teaming together and when it came to Vengeance 05, Angle and HBK stole the spotlight again. I know it gets a lot of acclaim, and in ways it deserves it, but for me it wasn't anything special.
I think his matches with Undertaker where the best he's done and will ever do. I enjoyed their matches.
Like you, i was also positive about his return; i was eager to see a Evolution Reunion. But WWE's perception of him was a complete oversight and it has lost steam as quickly as Batista in the ring. The much needed change in the main event at WrestleMania XXX was inevitable and wither it ends up a triple threat or a fatal 4 way (if by some chance HHH vs Bryan ends in no contest; then having them both in main event) nothing could have been worse than Batista vs Orton; i have a strong suspicion you would have been editing out your top 10 worst WrestleMania main events and putting it straight in at number 1.
I am on board with all your choices and understand the reasons you gave; although, like Richard Becerra, i also think the WWE title should be the focal point and should main event every WrestleMania. That being said there has been clear examples of that falling on its face as you have mentioned.
The one match that i think belongs there (as Sandy Ravage pitched) was The Rock vs Cena for the WWE Championship at WrestleMania 29. The match was incredibly dull and i had no interest in it whatsoever. I thought the first encounter was lackluster and didn't want to see it again. I was hoping for Punk to be thrown in the mix, but of course he ended up stealing the show with Taker.
That is the only addition i would make; good list and enjoyed the read TheGreatOne.
Not since Wrestlemania 14 has the build up to(the biggest show of the year) sucked soooooooooo much @$$!! The only match on the card that I might want to see is Triple H VS. Daniel Bryan & that isn't worth $60. Yes, I would prefer to have it on TV.
Originally Posted by Richard Becerra
Two that are WAY too high on your list and I question if they belong on this list at all are Triple H vs Jericho (X8) and Randy Orton vs Triple H (25).
The primary reason you cited for both is that you felt the Hogan-Rock and Taker-HBK matches should have gone on last, and with this I'll respectfully disagree. Not because I'm trying to diminish the importance of those matches, but rather because I do not think that the WWE Championship should be diminished in any way, at the biggest show of the year. I'm an "old school" fan - and so I always have felt that the champion should go on last at Wrestlemania, no matter what else is on the card. I think this would retain the importance of the title, and would (hopefully) keep the title off less worthy performers (yes, Miz, I'm talking to you).
I don't agree that either match "failed" as the main event because they didn't belong at the top of the card. In hindsight, its easy to point at both Hogan-Rock or Taker-HBK and say they should have gone on last. But at the time, I think the company was giving the proper recognition to the championship.
Having watched it again recently, I don't feel Jericho-Triple H was a flop by any stretch. The return of Triple H was very well done, as its regularly mentioned as one of the biggest returns in WWE history. Jericho was a top talent at or near the top of his game. The breakup of Triple H and Stephanie was also well done. Her pairing with Jericho was a natural heat magnet. I won't say that they had a 5 star classic, but I thought the match was very good. Triple H hitting the pedigree on Stephanie and winning the title was a nice exclamation point to a good show. I don't recall at all, the crowd being dead or flat for that main event at WMX8. If anything, they were ready for Stephanie to get hers, and they got the payoff.
I felt then (and even more so since) that putting Hogan and Rock in the main event would have been a mistake. That sends a bad message. WWe would basically be telling the egomaniacal Hogan (fresh off the demise of WCW and the Monday Night Wars), that all he had to do was come back and he would always be in the Wrestlemania main event. The match was certainly a top attraction but it shouldn't have been the main event. Hogan needed to see that he was a part of the show, he was no longer THE show. Nostalgia has its place certainly - but in 2002 - it shouldn't have been in the main event of Wrestlemania.
As for WM25 - I was in a unique position, cause I was actually in Reliant Stadium for this show. The Taker-HBK match was obviously an instant classic and certainly among the best Wrestlemania matches of all time. But at that time - going INTO that event - I don't think anyone could have guessed that it would be THAT good.
Still, the Orton-Triple H match had a much, much better build than Taker-HBK. In fact, that was one of the better main event builds I can recall in a long time. The story with Orton and the McMahons was extremely well done and compelling, and it made the story more dramatic, even though we'd seen them face off in the past. What hurt that match was the stupid gimmick of Triple H losing the title if he got DQ'd. This story was so well built, that what the payoff should have been, was a physical match that turned into an all-out brawl between these two. It would have generated the payoff we wanted, which was to see Orton get his ass kicked once and for all. So the creative of that actualy did it no favors, it was poorly constructed. But that entire second half of the show was affected by the brilliance of the Taker-HBK classic.
The crowd was exhausted. It was such an emotional roller coaster and had us all on the edge of our seats. By the time it was over, the crowd was drained. And every match that followed it suffered in comparison. I remember walking out and everyone was still talking about Taker-HBK.That was a unique, once in a lifetime moment that nobody could have predicted. We all expected them to have a great match, but I don't think anyone felt going in, that it would be what it was. Its easy to say that in hindsight now, but not on that day.
Some of your choices are fairly obvious no-brainers, but I don't agree with those 2 matches being amond the "worst" main events of all-time. They were in unique positions for sure, having to follow two extremely popular matches, but they were where the WWE championship should always be - the main event.
The fact HHHH/Jericho and the majority of wrestling fans would tell you what match should have went on last. Pretty much speaks for itself. Jericho/Steph combo was unsuccessful as Jericho said in his documentary. Jerichos work with The Rock during 01 certainly helped elevate him to main event status. However, I believe the main reason for him winning the undisputed title and being in the main event at Mania was because he injured HHH in the first place. The spot was originally, HHHs, but he wasn't yet ready to return. That Jericho acknowledged in the past.
Ah yes, the great return of HHH that is still talked about today. In yet, his babyface turn lasted all, but how many months? HHH wasn't ever on the level of a babyface that Austin, Rock, or Taker ever was. At the time he wasn't either. Neither was the top heel or babyface in the company which is another reason it is where it is on the list. Hell, Jericho wasn't even the top heel in the match(steph). Shouldn't the top guys be in the main event. What match does everyone talk about when looking back at WM18? Want to talk about the build? The build was Jericho injured H in the first place so many months ago. Steph became partners with Jericho. Why? H was through with her after the prego lie. She could help him because she saw the X-rays of the knee stacking the deck against H. Rock/Hogan had build, but it didn't need any. No matter the story they tried to tell with the promo, no match on the card should have went after Hogan/Rock. You said the build was all about H getting his hands on Steph and giving her the pedigree. You looked more forward to that then Rock/Hogan 1? You gotta be kidding me.
Championship argument "it should go last". How many times has the title not go last not only in the last few years, but in history of Mania? What hurts the match everyone is looking most forward to going last? Classic faceoff of Hogan/Rock, Andre/Hogan, ect. Shouldn't that be in the main event.
You put Taker/HBK two Texans to faceoff for the first time since their casket match in 98. That along with the fact Mania is in the state of Texas. Not in the main event? Following year is being in Arizona? Whats up with that? The fact that they faced so many times in recent years.....I didn't care to see the match. Granted, it was a great story.....I looked more forward to see Mr.Wrestlemania challenge the streak. Some folks feel MR.Wrestlemania should be Taker's nickname not HBKs. Two of the biggest superstars this business has ever seen(actually are according to top 50 list which I don't agree with). re in
© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.