Brets thoughts on Triple H

I have to say after reading this i completley agree with what he says on some level. I think hunter himself has never really had such a good match that you'd remember it for along time. Fair enough there was the elimination chamber he took part in which was a memorable one. But there were six other people in that match. Apart from this i can't think of a single one of the top of my head that i'd call a fantastic match up.

I mean you look at other careers like HBK and The undertakers and you can recall alot of good matches. You look at triple h and you think he tries to hard to be something he'll never be. He wanted in my opinion his career to be as good as Shawn Michaels. But Shawns talent is so diverse that he can have a good match with anyone. Triple H has to try and make a good match out of a big buy out and still doesn't manage to make it a perfect match up.

Bret Harts Thoughts on Triple H:

Credit to SESCOOPS

I have a certain amount of respect for Triple H. I remember when he first came in, I remember commenting on stuff that he did. Because Id usually give wrestlers my thoughts and try to help them on stuff Triple H has always been a good wrestler. But great? What is he now, a 1,000 time world champion? How great really is he?

I look at [CM] Punk I can look at certain wrestlers and I go, this guy is an innovator. Like a Rey Mysterio, whos done stuff that no one has ever thought of before. Punk has done stuff really unique moves and you go, gee Ive never seen anything like that before. They innovate all the time, and they create new sequences and moves and things.

Then you look at someone like Triple H. When I look at him hes always had a good look as far as his body went he always had a pretty muscular physique. But you look at someone like Hunter and you wonder, what has he really done. One move that he ever created that nobody ever saw before or some highspots or an idea for a match Hes mostly a guy that just showed up and they made him. Hes always been a decent wrestler I would consider him a good wrestler and pretty talented. But great? I dont know, I dont think so.

What has he ever done thats great? Hes never had a great match, I dont think ever. Whenever I look at Triple Hs matches, including the last one he had with Undertaker and I dont really mean it as a knock but I told myself before I watched it because Im trying to like Paul now these days, that I want to see him do something to make me think hes got greatness in him.

Before Triple H wrestled Undertaker last year, I remember watching it and going, I can picture the whole match in my head, I can tell you exactly what this match is going to be like and how its going to go. And I remember watching it and it went exactly how I predicted it I thought it was mediocre at best, maybe a 4 out of 10, or 3 out of 10.

I think Paul is a little overrated overrated for being great. I can sit here and tell you that there was one match that he ever had with anybody that I thought was great. Its kind of a shame, he should have a great match somewhere with somebody. And youd think that he would have had it by now, but I dont think hes a great wrestler.

Theres much more to the interview, including Brets thoughts on the Undertaker and CM Punk.

I respect and agree with a lot of what Bret Hart has said, but Triple H has had a fair lot of truly great matches.

Triple H vs Steve Austin - No Way Out 2001 'Three Stages Of Hell'
Triple H vs Cactus Jack - Royal Rumble 2000 'Street Fight'
Triple H vs Chris Jericho - Fully Loaded 2000 'Last Man Standing'
Triple H vs Chris Benoit vs Shawn Michaels - Wrestlemania 20
Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho vs Steve Austin and Triple H - RAW 2001
Triple H vs The Rock - Summerslam 1998 'Ladder Match'
Triple H vs Shawn Michaels - Summerslam 2002 'Unsanctioned'
Triple H vs Chris Benoit - No Mercy 2000
Triple H vs Stone Cold - No Mercy 1998 'No Holds Barred'
Triple H vs Cactus Jack - No Way Out 2000 'Hell In A Cell'
Triple H vs Batista - Vengeance 2005 'Hell In A Cell'

Now, in terms of a 'Wrestling' match, he has indeed never had a truly 'great' one. He has had some memorable and great encounters, though. Some of the matches I have listed had Triple H bring a certain tenacity that made the matches even better, but for the most part he is only usually 'good/mediocre'. His matches with Undertaker were good, but I have explained many times why they aren't as good as most others would say they are. The Undertaker vs Shawn Michael's Wrestlemania bouts are vastly superior in every way.

Am I the only one who thinks Bret is overrated? I mean, I won't deny that he was a great wrestler to watch back in the day, but seriously, who the hell is he to judge? He HAD the skills, and he can thank Vince McMahon for putting him at the top. While his opinion of Hunter is right, and he has had pretty good matches, he hasn't had that one match that defined his career. 

BTW, Triple H vs Undertaker III was incredible. Best match of the night.

Also, in accordance to what Bret said...

Cena (especially Cena) and the majority of the roster sucks. 

Am I the only one who thinks Bret is overrated? I mean, I won't deny that he was a great wrestler to watch back in the day, but seriously, who the hell is he to judge? He HAD the skills, and he can thank Vince McMahon for putting him at the top. While his opinion of Hunter is right, and he has had pretty good matches, he hasn't had that one match that defined his career. 

BTW, Triple H vs Undertaker III was incredible. Best match of the night.

Also, in accordance to what Bret said...

Cena (especially Cena) and the majority of the roster sucks. 

Dark_Hylian8

^ Honestly, I always thought that Owen was better.TruthTellers

[QUOTE="TruthTellers"]^ Honestly, I always thought that Owen was better.JML897

I disagree with the notion that you have to be an innovator to be regarded as a great worker. Granted, the innovators are the ones who will always be most revered, but there have been plenty of excellent workers who weren't exactly "innovators", but simply had impeccable timing, great execution, and strong understanding of psychology moreso than other workers. Ironically, i consider Bret Hart one of those workers. Bret was an amazing worker, but i hardly consider him an "innovator". There were plenty of people who did exactly what he did well before he came around, like Nick Bockwinkel, Verne Gagne, Ric Flair, and Ricky Steamboat.

While im not exactly the biggest fan of HHH, i definitely consider him one of the finest workers of the last decade and a half, and almost find it annoying how anyone could suggest that he was merely carried through all of his great matches. I also disagree with the notion that he didn't earn his success. HHH got over, plain and simple. In wrestling, you either get over or you dont. Contrary to what some people may think, no amount of booking can actually "make" someone unless they have some ability to connect with the audience. Case in point, look at Ryback. Booked and pushed almost exactly the way Brock Lesnar and Goldberg were and not getting over a lick. Why? Because Goldberg and Lesnar were talented and Ryback isn't. Same with Bobby Lashley. Was given every opporunity, pushed to the moon... and where is he now?

Whether you like the guy or not, he did what every great worker can do - tell a story that the audience can relate to and connect with. He knows exactly what to do and whenit should be done. That's what it's all about. He gets the business very well, mostly because he's such a mark himself.

I think Bret's just being egotistical with a little bit of sour grapes, which is not uncommon for him.

I'm not at all surprised that Bret wasn't a fan of Taker-HHH III. He's a technical wrestler and that wasn't a technical match. It was still the match of the night and one of the most exciting matches I have ever seen, but still, not a technical match.

I have never been a huge Triple H fan, but this just seems like Bret being a d*ck to boost his own ego. It would be one thing for him to say that a current star like The Miz, Sheamus, or even Cena has never had a great match. But Triple H is nearing the end of his career and for anyone to say that he didn't have one "great" match is ridiculous. 

Bitter old man?mrgab

You know, while we are on the subject of Bret, I think the whole "Screwjob" was blown out of proportion. 

The entire thing was made into a huge thing because Bret thought he was entitled to everything and his **** didn't stink because he was given a top gimmick. Vince was 150% entitled to do whatever the hell he wanted to do with HIS title in HIS company. I sided with Vince then, and I still do to this day. Bret needs to shut up and go back to his Self-Centered Dungeon of Strokeitude. 

Owen was better. Hunter is a great worker in the ring. He may not pull off the best moves, but that's because he is a powerhouse. He tells a great story in his matches, such as Taker I-III, and his matches with Benoit, Orton, and Cena kept me on the edge of my seat. 

AND FURTHERMORE... Pointing towards a crowd, saying you are the best, and applying the sharpshooter doesn't make you the best. It makes you look like a douchebag. 

Triple H was never the top dog in the WWE at any point in his career. He followed lead from HBK in all of his matches and never could better the performance of Shawn Michaels in any wrestlemania he participated in. Near the end of Triple H's career you could tell how bitter "He" was about HBK's. He tried to re create something he never could with The Undertaker. He then tried again when he failed the second time and if he had full control i'm sure we'd see another match against Triple H and the Undertaker.

Hunter in the latter years of the WWE doesn't wrestle for us. He wrestles for himself and his ego because he has the ability to dictate his own career at this moment in time. And it's not working out very well for him at all.

Take Brock Lesnar for example. A complete waist of half a million dollars to try and benefit hunters career by the end of the year. We saw how boring their feud was at Summerslam, but because Hunter know's he failed to capture a positive feed back then he'll try again. No one wants to see another match with Brock and Hunter because we all know how much of a waste it would be. Especially to throw away another match at the grand event.

But HHH will benefit himself after looking like a d'ck trying to re create HBKS moment when he left the WWE and tried to gain the same wave from the audience as Shawn did. That just didn't happen at all, and if it did then Triple H would of left it at that and there would be no need for another match between Brock and himself.

As long as Shawn Michaels were in the WWE, all Triple H did was follow like the rest. Shawn Michaels was the only person that held a position of "Top Dog" in the industry for years. Triple H is an apperance of a top dog because everyone knows he's part of the McMahon family. So with a suit and tie he'll take on that image. But as a wrestler Triple H was NEVER considered to be the man of the buisness.

The only people in the WW"E" that have been the top dog are CM Punk, John Cena and Shawn Michaels. And that doesn't mean they're better wrestlers than anyone else. It just means the WWE have relied on them at some point in time to headline most matches. Even if they aren't the main event.

I just don't see why you all think Bret is bitter about Triple H's career at all. He's only sharing his opinion like anyone else would.

Kurt Angle has surley shared his opinion on other peoples careers such as CM Punks. But that doesn't mean Kurt Angle is bitter about his career. And in my opinion CM Punk has had a much more respectable career than Triple H has.

Two superb wrestlers Angle and Hart have shared their opinions with us. And both of those people have had the best careers you could possibly encounter when watching a sport like wrestling.

And if you lot can't see that then you must be watching something completley different from the rest of us. No one should be bitter about someone elses career when theirs were so much better.

You know, while we are on the subject of Bret, I think the whole "Screwjob" was blown out of proportion. 

The entire thing was made into a huge thing because Bret thought he was entitled to everything and his **** didn't stink because he was given a top gimmick. Vince was 150% entitled to do whatever the hell he wanted to do with HIS title in HIS company. I sided with Vince then, and I still do to this day. Bret needs to shut up and go back to his Self-Centered Dungeon of Strokeitude. 

Owen was better. Hunter is a great worker in the ring. He may not pull off the best moves, but that's because he is a powerhouse. He tells a great story in his matches, such as Taker I-III, and his matches with Benoit, Orton, and Cena kept me on the edge of my seat. 

AND FURTHERMORE... Pointing towards a crowd, saying you are the best, and applying the sharpshooter doesn't make you the best. It makes you look like a douchebag. 

Dark_Hylian8

This is debatable in many different ways. Firstly, from a business standpoint it would have made much for sense for Bret to win in Canada. He has openly admitted he would drop the Title at any time other than Survivor Series, and considering he earned the Title with all the work he did, it is as much his than Vince's. Vince may own the company, but without people like Bret and Shawn at the time, he would have nothing. Bret asked for one thing which not only made sense from a business standpoint, but considering what I am about to explain in my next reason (Paragraph below), he was completely justified to do whatever he wanted.

Secondly, considering Shawn Michael's acted completely unprofessionally around this time and even he admits to this, Bret had no reason to drop the belt. And Vince had no reason to give the belt to someone who was being an unprofessional, otherwise that is unprofessional in itself. So what Bret did was completely reasonable, considering the circumstances around the incident. If he is going to be around people that make their own rules up and act in such ridiculous ways, then he can decide to do whatever he thought was right. Bret was (And still is) a respected Wrestler and he explained many times on how he WAS going to drop the belt to Shawn at any time, but after what Shawn said regarding this and the way Shawn acted towards him (On multiple occasions), he knew he wan't being treated with respect. So, why should Bret be a professional at an unprofessional time? It wasn't as though he asked for anything that was completely unjustified. It was a simple request that was actually a good call, yet he got f ** ked over when he was not doing anything worse that what Shawn was pulling off.

There is no reason for it. Bret nor HHH is relevant anymore. Where is this opinion coming from? Its pure bitterness. Angle and Punk are still the big dogs in their companies. Its like Wilt Chamberlain belittling Michael Jordan out of nowhere. Or a Pedro Martinez saying Curt Shilling was overrated. Why?! Feeling so little about yourself?mrgab

Triple H has been actively wrestling recently and that is a fact. He is currently behind the scenes and in charge of certain aspects of the WWE, which is another fact. The latter is current events, while the former was not that long ago and very likely going to happen again. So your point makes no sense. Bret Hart was not actively advertising these comments out either, it was whoever interviewed him. I also just watched the interview and the interviewer ASKED what his thoughts were on Triple H's journey in the WWE. That was the subject that was brought up and Bret responded to it.

''I said his opinion was irrelevant.''

Your opinion of his opinion is irrelevant, because he was merely sharing what he thought and he is obliged to talk about anything he wants to, whether it was a worked shoot or not. You can't tell him when he can or cannot state what he wants, and his opinion is as relevant to a person as they want it to be. Same way us even being on a thread is (From your view) 'irrelevant', but we do it anyway, because we like sharing and expressing our opinions on the Wrestling business.

There is no reason for it. Bret nor HHH is relevant anymore.mrgab

This is getting funny. So you finally say that the interviewer asked the question, about time. You are right, you're opinion is irrelevant. He can say whatever he wants whenever he wants, just that this time he is answering about a topic bitterly. Plain and simple. You can not change that fact.mrgab

You obviously didn't even watch it. He didn't say any of his comments in a horrible way, nor was he trying to demean Triple H in a spiteful manner. He was just expressing his thoughts and even mentioned that he has respect for Triple H, near the beginning of the interview. Considering that you based most of your argument on him 'bringing the topic up for no reason', when it was the interviewer, I think most of what you're saying holds little water.

'' just that this time he is answering about a topic bitterly. Plain and simple. You can not change that fact.''

Based on the evidence shown in the video, Bret seems pretty respectful in sharing his views on Triple H. You're clearly bitter over what Bret said, though.

If anybody is Vince's "golden boy" its Cena.TruthTellers

Nice that you showed us the interview, where is this video? I am basing everything on what is posted here. So that makes you the glass with holes in it that can not hold water. And dont you be bitter too, just because someone points out that Bret is bitter as well. What a shame. Dont be mad... bitter bro.mrgab

I thought it was in Cryceaye's original post, but here it is anyway:

http://www.sescoops.com/bret-hart-says-triple-h-is-overrated-never-had-a-great-match/

There you go, no holes and you have still been proven dead wrong. Considering that you thought Bret was bitter with zero evidence behind your accusations, showed that your argument was empty in substance. Then you got all defensive and started having your little hissy fit over what he said, even though he is very calm and respectful during this interview.

''And dont you be bitter too, just because someone points out that Bret is bitter as well.''

What is this? The copy-cat game that I used to play as a kid. Gotta love how riveting your mentality is here.

All my evidence came from the topic and all the posts. So based on everything said, I was correct. You or the topic maker basically withheld the video/evidence. Defensive, thats you with your admiration of Bret. Dont be immature. You can make a post without insulting others that dont agree with you. Based on your posts now, you have lost so much creditability and respect. mrgab

How can you be correct based on evidence i took from the interview taken from the video written into the exact words i have copied and pasted. Not only that but i did mention the source SEScoops where the video came from in the first place.

Based on the interview, coming from the interview itself, Bret clearly states he has respect for Triple H. Take this factor away and you can't make an assumption based on what is written in words. If i told you this came from an interview like i did in the first place, then common knowledge is to know he was asked a question along the basis of something to do with Triple H in the first place. It's not like out of no where Bret decided to tell the interviewer he didn't perceive Triple H to be a great wrestler. He clearly shared his opinion given to him via a question asked.

Anyway what is wrong with being honest? Just because you don't think someone is a great wrestler doesn't mean their not any good. And it doesn't mean Bret Hart holds any grudges against Triple H or feels bitter sweet about his career. All of this is coming from how  "you" perceived this interview and how "you" think Bret Hart feels about Triple H.

You can't possibly be right about someone elses opinion written into words. Then have a video shown to you and still come up with a bull sh't excuse that somehow this small forum page tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about the interview itself.

All my evidence came from the topic and all the posts. So based on everything said, I was correct. You or the topic maker basically withheld the video/evidence. Defensive, thats you with your admiration of Bret. Dont be immature. You can make a post without insulting others that dont agree with you.
Based on your posts now, you have lost so much creditability and respect. mrgab

Then you're a very easily lead individual and should actually put thought and effort into your accusations if you want to be taken seriously. You basically summed up the entire thing by saying 'I based my evidence from what I'm told'. The evidence that was presented showed NOTHING on if Bret was bitter or not, therefore you had no reason to base anything on it. Considering the fact that I know what Bret is like from interviews and videos in the past, I could picture what he said and I knew before I watched the video that he was going to very calm and respectful with his opinion.

''Defensive, thats you with your admiration of Bret. Dont be immature. You can make a post without insulting others that dont agree with you.''

First off, you insulted Bret by calling him 'bitter' before I said anything that you would consider 'insulting'. Secondly, I have posted reasons to how I respect his opinion, yet I don't entirely agree on it. Go back and take a look. I'm not completely defending the context of what he said, I'm defending that he clearly is not bitter and has no reason to be bitter. Let's take a look at all the things you wrote, though:

''Feeling so little about yourself?''

''Or is Bret trying to get attention for himself?''

''I said his opinion was irrelevant. No need for it.''

You directed all of this at Bret Hart, yet complain that I am being insulting to you. Nice double standards you have set yourself there, but maybe you should be a bit more consistent with your logic next time.

And what's all this bolox about telling pokajabba "Based on his previous posts in this topic he has lost all credibilty and respect." Where exactly do you get this from? And what does it even mean?

Is it just you being proved wrong on a topic taken from an interview and you don't like it. There for you'll call someone else out on being immature with no explanation, but after reading back this quote you'll soon find out how hypocritical you're.

And what's all this bolox about telling pokajabba "Based on his previous posts in this topic he has lost all credibilty and respect." Where exactly do you get this from? And what does it even mean?

Is it just you being proved wrong on a topic taken from an interview and you don't like it. There for you'll call someone else out on being immature with no explanation, but after reading back this quote you'll soon find out how hypocritical you're.

cryceaye5

Next time give the link, which then can have all the facts. Anyone can be honest with their opinion, still can sound bitter. Its like saying "I respect Random person, but since the boss liked him better, he is worthless and a jerk. But I respect said jerk." Yeah, no bitterness there. lmao Doesnt matter who is saying what about anyone else, its has its reasons.mrgab

I don't need to do anything. Is it that hard for you to go to the source this came from and look for yourself? What am i saying of course it is.

Your opinions on Bret Hart being bitter over someone else's career is fck'n ridiculous anyway. Bret Hart had a far better career than Triple H ever did and ever will. Why you think that Bret Hart feels this way is beyond me and makes no sense what so ever.

And just to stipulate here that the words in writing had everything coming from the mouth of Hart himself. It's the way you heard it in your own little head described it to yourself falsley. And then you decided how Hart really felt about Triple H "Yourself."

Next time give the link, which then can have all the facts.
Anyone can be honest with their opinion, still can sound bitter. Its like saying "I respect Random person, but since the boss liked him better, he is worthless and a jerk. But I respect said jerk." Yeah, no bitterness there. lmao
Doesnt matter who is saying what about anyone else, its has its reasons.mrgab

Just look it up yourself. Cryceaye gave you the website he got it from and then you can do your own research. Why don't I get a link that proves Bret is being bitter? How is that fair? And he didn't even say what you said in your quote, so that's ridiculous to even use in context to our discussion. Even if we did pretend to use it for a second, calling someone all of that can still be just an opinion being expressed, and doesn't always constitute with being 'bitter'. Which again, is not the point because he did not say that. According to you, it is impossible to give negative criticism and opinions about someone unless you are ONLY being bitter. Basically, are we both bitter over each other right now, yes or no? I certainly don't feel bitter, but your logic dictates that I must be. Even though I was going against some of what Bret Hart had written and do not completely agree with what he said.

''Stating that a person who complains is bitter is now an insult? I dont care what he said about whomever, it all sounded bitter. Plain and simple. Keep reading.''

Accusing people of being something they are not can be considered an insult. Especially when you said it in such a demeaning and spiteful manner (You know, the mirror opposite of how Bret was being in that interview). There was no reason to keep throwing the accusations around like that, as though it was a fact. Then keep forcing your opinion even after it doesn't make sense in context to what the evidence has presented. So yes, if I was Bret Hart and had read your comment, I'd feel a bit insulted. So you can't start pretending that I started insulting you from out of nowhere, when you did it a while before me.