HHH/ Podcast Discussion of the week

Hi,

Podcast will be going up later but I thought I would start a thread in the meantime to let you all talk about the third part we discussed which was namely "Where does HHH stand in the all times great list"?

To make this a bit of fun, I suggested that the three people mentioned in the discussion (namely HHH, The Undertaker and Bret) to be ranked by our opinions of what we thought.

So let us know what you think about HHH as a GOAT and where he ranks in comparison to Undertaker and Brett.

To start the discussion I ranked the 3 in the following order:

1. HHH
2. Undertaker
3. Brett

Lets hear your thoughts (and listen to the podcast when it goes up to find out why)

For me HHH is a top 9-10 all rounder, he's not exceptional at anything but he's very good in all areas, I think the period where Austin, Rock and Foley left and he was billed as the top star will always tait his legacy, should always be used as the support to the top star as he just lacks an X-factor but dosn't take away from his overall abilty.

Undertaker is a difficult one to rank, he pretty much lives his gimmick and he's been around so long there has been times when he's been better in some areas then faded again, I don't think there can be any debate that in his early days his wrestling was either restricted or improved massivly over time, but he has always been able to tell a story and 6 MOTY candiadates in a row at Wrestlemania's tells it's own story, he can talk, again he's probably restricted by his gimmick, but he talks well within those confines and he had an oppertunity to exercise a bit more charisma as the ABA.

It might be because I didn't get into wrestling until 05, but I've never been Bret's biggest fan, he's undoubtedly a phenomenal technitian arguably the greatest of all time but for me his style has always seemed very clean and sanitised (as a contrast I feel you get a more realism of a blood and thunder fight from say someone like Benoit), and perhaps controversially I've never rated Bret on the mic, people talk about his Hart Foundation period but for me that while it was better he was working with the bare bones of an anti-american gimmick which seems to be one of the easier heel gimmicks to promo off.

Anyways to sum up

HHH
Taker
Hart

I think all 3 guys are very hard to compare in truth. Bret Hart was the top guy before the attitude era emerged and he got over mainly because of his respected, best there is, was, will be, technical wrestling gimmick. When the attitude era kicked in and it became 'cool' to like wrestling i think Hart was deemed a bit bland and couldnt reinvent himself to be more relevant to that era. He wasnt edgy enough. I also didnt like him on the stick at all.

That era however was when HHH was born and his character whether its with DX, Evolution, The Cerebral Assassin or King of Kings, he's always been edgy and relevant to the current audience which is why for me he's always been over. He's always kept himself relevant. He's good and reliable in ring but that alone would never have gotten him over without the gimmicks but he's a good talker, is charasmatic and i enjoy watching him.

The Undertaker is a different beast. He's played the same gimmick (albeit apart from a brief ABA spell) for the vast majority of his career and has stayed relevant, remained over and has kept the fans interested in his gimmick. But that doesn’t mean I like him. Because of his gimmick creative are very limited in how they can book him. I don’t think Taker has done a great deal for others in his tenure and its ironic how his ABA gimmick often referred to ‘making people famous’ because Taker has never been one to put others over. Possibly because his character doesn’t allow it. Credit to him for making the 'Deadman' last so long but for me he needs to allow someone to take the streak and truly 'make someone famous'. Id respect him alot more for that.

1. HHH
2. Taker
3. Hart

Really tough question. I rate them in this order:

1. Taker
2. HHH
3. Hart

I put Taker at 1 due to his work from 97 onwards, where he has shown enough adaptability to keep himself relevant. Due to his character, his promos come across with an authority which is unmatched.

Taker number one for me due to his willingness to adapt in the ring, and not rest on his laurels. His use of a more MMA style has allowed him to become more interesting in the ring.

Initially I was going to put Bret above HHH, but the more I thought about it, I couldn't justify it. Hunter's been involved in two of my favourite matches (triple threat vs Benoit and Michaels, and street fight vs Michaels), and the intensity of his matches/promos put him a shade ahead of the Hitman in my opinion.

Hart's the best technician of the three, and best pure babyface. Maybe it's because he's been away from the ring the longest that I rate him at three, as I have clearer memories of the other two.

Wow, I'm surprised Bret came last once, let alone 4 times.
Bret Hart is not the best there is, was and will be, but he's damn close.

As for the ranking, part of me wants to put Taker at the top simply for his longevity. But when did Taker truly become a great? I'd argue it wasn't until the Attitude era was in full swing that he became one of the big big players in the WWF. Before then he wasn't because they had Hart, Michaels and Nash. WWF had more faith in Nash over Taker. Says a lot to me. And now he's at the point where he's out-staying his welcome.

HHH? nah. He did his thing, and he did it well. But really, an all time great? In 10 years time people will be saying the same of Cena. No one really liked him when he was around, and now he's at an end all of a sudden he's one of the greats. There's been far better.

So...
Bret Hart
Undertaker
HHH

1. HHH
2. Hart
3. Taker

HHH for all the politicking and burying he is accused of in his career has a genuine love the industry and wasn't just the stereotypical bodybuilder type, Vince is prone to signing. HHH paid his dues in WCW and in the midcard of WWF before really getting his breakthrough as a multiple time world champion. HHH is a ring general, he knows how to work a match and can command an audience. He is also a very polarizing figure, something I think is important in wrestling - love him or hate him he gets people talking about him. Although he is criticised for his 13 world title reigns he has not won the world title the most and there are other wrestlers who have won similarly large number of titles as well so he is not alone and I don't think it should be held against him. HHH also knows when to put someone over and makes stars - he helped make Orton, Batista and put over Taker at Mania when it was right for business.

Hart - great technical wrestler in an era before the rise of MMA/UFC. Hart really personified the sport of wrestling; he was believable as a grappler, something Daniel Bryan has not managed to do imho since signing for the WWE. Guys like Bryan will always have a harder time now that the UFC has exploded and MMA is so popular. Hart however, was one of the wrestlers that really inspired me to get into grappling based martial arts before I knew anything about BJJ. Hart's matches with HBK were fantastic and he was the ubber face of the WWF.

Taker - Taker for me has always had the advantage of his gimmick - when Paul Bearer would shake the urn and Taker would sit up like the undead it was pure theatre, it helped create his legend that eventually evolved into the streak; but I've always had an issue with how strongly he was booked. Taker's own evolution to incorporate more MMA was a good touch and made him more 'human' or believable; I prefer his hell's gate submission hold to the chokeslam just for realism (although the tombstone is his most iconic move). But I think in the latter years of his career to date he has survived on his gimmick and has had very talented performers such as HBK & HHH to support and protect him in the ring. I don't think Taker could wrestle a feud with some of the newer members of the roster because either they are too green to be safe with him or it would be too unbelievable for him to go over them due to his age/injuries. So I do have some issues with Taker as a character.