 |
| One of Triple H's great matches... they do exist Photo Credit: WWE.com |
As you may or may not know, I am an aficionado of wrestling matches in particular, so the parsing and analysis of the actual wrestling part of wrestling is something that is relevant to my interests. I've always been on the train that Triple H's in-ring ability has far been overblown, even in the time of his career when he was at his physical peak (between the end of Vince Russo's disregard for match length and the time he tore his quad). However, even as the preeminent Triple H hater OF OUR TIME (you know this to be true, n00bs), I even have a bit of a question as to the severity of Hart's implication. So, let's break down what Hart actually said and the implications of it.
Firstly, there's the claim that Triple H never wrestled in any great matches. I think that's a stretch, mainly because I thought he had two great matches in the same year. In 2001, Trips had really memorable, well-wrestled matches against Undertaker at WrestleMania X-7, and in that infamous tag match where he tore his quad teaming with Steve Austin against Chris Jericho and He Who Shall Not Be Named. To me, both are indisputably classic matches for different reasons. The Taker brawl was one of the craziest matches of a post-Attitude Era that still had way too much hardcore tossed in "just because." In fact, I'd say they whimsically poked fun at all those strains of excess that marked the late '90s without taking any of the pure hatred in the atmosphere of the match. The latter match had such a big fight feel, one that deigned to put two "vanilla midgets" on the same pedestal as the two biggest remaining stars in the WWF at that point.
There were other matches in other years that I thought could be great. I'm sure if I was watching around Mania XX, I'd have lavished similar praise on the three way match. He had a lot of stuff that bordered on great before he became "The Game" as well, most notably the SummerSlam '98 Intercontinental Championship ladder match against The Rock. All those matches have a couple of things in common. One is that if they had a grandiose feel to them, it was purely organic. It wasn't fake seeming like the Three Levels of Hell match that Trips and Austin had at No Way Out '01, where it felt like Trips was making Austin prove he deserved the title shot at Mania despite the fact that he had just won the Rumble.
The second thing is that Triple H gave a lot in those matches. People point to the Mick Foley matches from '00 as "great." Yeah, they were spectacles, but at any point, I never thought that Foley had a shot in them. Those matches were any semblance of good because Foley did crazy things to his body for the sake of making Trips look like a goddamn killer. It was a great public service by Foley no doubt, but I need to believe that both guys have a chance of winning if you're putting them on in a main event title match. It was the same reason why I had a problem with the Christian/Randy Orton feud in '11 after Christian turned heel. All the matches were Christian taking all the big bumps and Orton coming out like the result was never in doubt.
Obviously, there's an implication there of political scheming. I'd be lying if I didn't spend a lot of my time on the commentary circuit pushing those accusations in my younger days. Now, I'm not sure I care how Triple H got his stage. However, it's clear that his matches always had an obnoxious theme where he always felt like he had to be the best guy in the ring by far. If you're going to be dominant, you had better be Goldberg, Ryback, or the fucking Undertaker.
I think it also bears mentioning that Hart is on record as having strict criteria when it comes to grading wrestling matches. He's not a fan of brawling, as referenced by his vocal slagging of the Memphis style (which was based and rooted in throwing haymakers and emulating the most cantankerous of last calls around Tennessee bars). He does show his work on why he thinks Triple H is overrated. Some of it is fair, namely, the things I reiterated in my own words above. Other stuff really isn't. Basically, one of his knocks against Trips is that he rarely innovated. Dylan Hales is on record as saying that innovation to him is one of the least important traits of a great wrestler, and I'd be inclined to agree. Wrestling is about taking tried and true story elements and rearranging them into a different story every night. Some of the best hardly ever "innovated" but were still remembered as great pioneers, especially in the ring.
To say that Triple H isn't as good as, say, Rey Mysterio or CM Punk because he didn't innovate as much as them to me is arriving at a valid conclusion without the right reasoning. Obviously, I'm a huge fan of both Rey and Punk, but I hardly think it's because they've innovated more. Obviously, Mysterio is an icon in lucha-American fusion as well as helping create the modern free TV style, but a lot of what he does that's so great isn't exactly reinventing the wheel. He goes to the top, bumps like a pinball, and is able to play on a lot of the classic underdog notes that successful babyfaces have utilized since Frank Gotch and Georg Hackenschmidt pretended that it was still real to everyone. Punk himself isn't as much of an innovator as some his brethren like Bryan Danielson or Low Ki were in the ring, but that hasn't stopped him from becoming an absolute ring general in his own right.
I'd say that the reason, at least for me, why Mysterio and Punk smoke Trips in the ring is that they make organic, visceral connections with crowds, while Triple H's connectivity has been spotty at best. Wrestling is about way more than imaginary things called "workrate" or how tight a wristlock is (although things like that can help). Hart is onto something when he says that Triple H "showed up and they made him." I always got the feeling that he was a square peg that finally fit in the round hole after years of hammering, but even now, the emotional reactions he's gotten against some opponents (most notably Randy Orton... RANDY ORTON... at Backlash '09 and against Brock Lesnar at SummerSlam last year) have been more backlash than connection.
More to the point, the spirit of Hart's comments are spot on. I don't want to say there's a pervasive consensus that Triple H is a phenomenal wrestler, or was between 1998 and 2001 either, because I've seen a lot of people agreeing with Hart on this issue. However, there are still enough people who seem to rally behind this idea that Trips is some elite wrestler, and that any disagreement means you pay too much attention to politics. I can't really stop you from believing that Trips was the best in WWE back then, or that his series with Undertaker in the last two years was a sublime duo of big stage classic wrestling. Opinion is opinion, and everyone has one.
However, the burgeoning nature of this "Trips as a ring general" meme can sometimes restrict real debate about the actual art that was produced. People like Hart speaking their minds on the subject and providing a measure of acid to cut through the richness of opinion is needed much like citrus or vinegar is appreciated in an especially fatty, braised meat dish. Whether you agree with the Hitman or not, he provides a reminder that for every widely held opinion, there is a counterweight to it, no matter how popular.
