How Good Was Triple H Actually?

If you view some of his best traits in isolation, Triple H was a magnificent professional wrestler. 

His flat-back bump was incredible; he could throw himself down to the mat with lightswitch quickness, putting over a fiery babyface comeback brilliantly. His footwork and timing was great. He could blow a babyface away with his high knee, making it seem as though they’d never see it coming. When he was in the mood to do it, Triple H was fantastic at flailing in the pain of a submission hold. The mood did not strike him nearly enough. 

The best of his big match catalogue is excellent. Vs. Cactus Jack (Royal Rumble 2000, No Way Out 2000); Vs. Shawn Michaels (SummerSlam 2002), Vs. Undertaker (WrestleMania 28); Vs. Daniel Bryan (WrestleMania 30), Vs. Batista (Vengeance 2005), Vs. Chris Jericho (Fully Loaded 2000), Vs. Ric Flair (Survivor Series 2005), Vs. Steve Austin (No Way Out 2001). That’s an impressive (and incomplete) record. 

He might have wrestled the very best match in WWE Raw history alongside Steve Austin against Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, and he knew his way around a TV match generally. Older fans still rave about that Taka Michinoku match from Raw in 2000. 

But here’s the thing: is there a single wrestler who is either considered great, or was pushed to the main event level for as long, who has entered so many dud performances? Who has wrestled countless bad, boring, or counterproductive matches? 

The Undertaker is competitive in this particular field, but ‘Taker, burdened with more terrible opponents and stipulations, was never explicitly marketed as a ring general. 

Vs. Randy Orton (WrestleMania 25), Vs. Brock Lesnar (WrestleMania 29), Vs. Booker T (WrestleMania 19), Vs. the Undertaker (King Of The Ring 2002), Vs. Shawn Michaels (Armageddon 2002, Bad Blood 2004), Vs. Goldberg (Unforgiven 2003): these matches were disasters. Triple H’s attempts to engage a crowd over a sizeable length of time were often dreary in the extreme. 

Even his more acclaimed matches weren’t even that special for such a pushed, supposedly legendary wrestler. Some of them while not undeniably great were very good - but this is the longest-tenured WWE wrestler who’s meant to be great we’re talking about here. Beyond the two extremes, Triple H racked up several matches that were strong without being close to Match of the Year contenders (Vs. Dean Ambrose, Roadblock 2016, Vs. Jeff Hardy, No Mercy 2008). 

Then, there’s the tier of matches that could and should have been a lot better - matches where you can’t be sure whether chemistry issues or an unwillingness to truly make it work explain the muted crowd reaction and sense of missed opportunity (Vs. Kurt Angle, Unforgiven 2000, Vs. Rob Van Dam, Unforgiven 2002). It wasn’t as if Triple H was in there with two duds. Also, as good as Triple H’s best work is, is it up there with the very best of WWE? 

Is the Cactus Jack match at Rumble 2000 a better brawl than Bret Hart Vs. Steve Austin at WrestleMania 13? Is the Batista Hell In A Cell match better than Undertaker Vs. Shawn Michaels at In Your House: Badd Blood? Is his technical chess match with Daniel Bryan better than Randy Savage Vs. Ricky Steamboat at WrestleMania 3, or even Bryan’s wars against CM Punk (Over The Limit 2012) or AJ Styles (TLC 2018)? Has Triple H wrestled a match that you could argue is the very best in WWE history? Even in the top 5?

Wrestling psychology is hard to define, particularly since a lot of people are so tribal about it, but broadly, it’s about making people make noise. Wrestling psychology is the successful manipulation of a paying audience. How else to measure that, other than by volume/atmosphere? 

At WrestleMania (and beyond), Triple H was a specialist in silencing a crowd. It’s truly staggering, given how much time he was allocated, over and over again, how often Triple H failed to deliver on the grandest stage. Who else gets that many chances without being connected? 

Chris Jericho (18), Booker T (19), Randy Orton (25), Brock Lesnar (29), Seth Rollins (33), Batista (35): Triple H might as well have wrestled them all at a funeral. This list doesn’t even factor in Triple H’s disaster against Roman Reigns (32), because the vocal rejection of it was not exactly silent. 

Again: even when he was great, has Triple H ever wrestled a match you could put up there with the loudest in WWE history? He never generated an atmosphere as special as the Rock Vs. Hollywood Hogan, or any prime Steve Austin match.

Ultimately, Triple H was an almost defiantly uninteresting pro wrestler even when he was actively trying to produce something worthy, and if you believe the more cynical wrestling fans, he sometimes wasn’t. 

He slowed it down against Goldberg, who Triple H knew relied on a shorter, intense rush. He made suspicious babyface choices against Roman Reigns. In matches against Edge and Kurt Angle and the like, he rarely thrust into a higher gear. He knew how to build a match to peak at the finish, and yet, those matches and certain others seemed to feel flat - as if he was trying not to create something blow-away great with guys he might have felt threatened by. That was the old message board accusation, anyway. 

More often than not, Triple H did the right things in the right order. For a wrestler so divisive and discussed, many of his matches lacked emotion. 

6.5/10