Bret comments on HHH

Bret was recently interviewed and shared his candid feelings on Triple H. Here is what he had to say...

"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 I'd 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, who's done stuff that no one has ever thought of before. Punk has done stuff -- really unique moves and you go, 'gee I've 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 -- he's 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... He's mostly a guy that just showed up and they made him. He's always been a decent wrestler -- I would consider him a good wrestler and pretty talented. But great? I don't know, I don't think so.

"What has he ever done that's great? He's never had a great match, I don't think ever. Whenever I look at Triple H's matches, including the last one he had with Undertaker -- and I don't really mean it as a knock -- but I told myself before I watched it because I'm trying to like Paul now these days, that I want to see him do something to make me think he's 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 it's 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. It's kind of a shame, he should have a great match somewhere.

So I guess you went back and watched Wrestletalk after I mentioned it!

If it makes you feel better yes.

In truth no, it was on a dirt sheet.

Comes across a bit bitter if I'm honest.

Bret's been bitter a long long time, I thought he'd put it all in the past when WWE and he made amends but obviously there's still some resentment.

The quote is from the Patrick Lennon interview from the show last week.

I think this would be a great topic for next week's podcast!

Dont think its bitterness, he's being honest and i agree with him

While HHH hasn't been the same since the knee injury, this def smacks of bitterness.

bretmeharty wrote:Dont think its bitterness, he's being honest and i agree with him

And you'd give the Taker v Trips match a 3/10?

Hero wrote:

bretmeharty wrote:Dont think its bitterness, he's being honest and i agree with him

And you'd give the Taker v Trips match a 3/10?

3 - 3.5

bretmeharty wrote:Dont think its bitterness, he's being honest and i agree with him

I might be way off target here, but something tells me you're a little bit biased

Just because you don't agree with Bret's opinion on triple H it doesn't mean he's been bitter.

VoiceOfTheVoiceless wrote:Just because you don't agree with Bret's opinion on triple H it doesn't mean he's been bitter.

I think that's a very fair point. He's entitled to his opinion and I think it's unfair and simplistic to dismiss that opinion as bitterness.

I wouldn't say I'm biased, its good see that even tho Bret has made up with the WWE family he can still say things and still give his opinion objectively. A lot of the guys on WWE legend contracts say alot of crap to stay in with them.

And besides what's he got to be bitter about, at a guess I'd say he has got a ton of money and is consider a great.

Bitter? Maybe not. Arrogant? I think it comes across as really arrogant.

Notable that hes said hes 'trying to like Paul'. It seems some of it is fair and some of it is just unnecessary.

He probably still has some bitterness. Hero and Crips are far better placed to remember all that, especially as two people who loved his book.

I always think of HHH as rather underappreciated because people think hes a Muppet.

well I'm a HHH mark so I am biased but I think he has had great matches and I think he did innovate. His feud with Mick Foley is very memorable, loved his street fight at the 2000 Rumble as well as his HIAC match too. Also his sledgehammer spots were unique and iconic. His match against Taker last year was definitely worth more than 3/10.

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:

He probably still has some bitterness. Hero and Crips are far better placed to remember all that, especially as two people who loved his book.

His book Is great I have read it twice and remember it well, his opinion hasn't seemed to changed on hhh since back then which is good to see him sticking to what he really thinks even after the make up with everyone

I thinks there's also knowing when to bite your tongue and keep your opinions to yourself which is what most adults can do and often Bret just simply fails to get a grasp of how being an adult works and resorts to this petulant child needing the last word.
Yes he's a far superior ring worker than HHH, he's studied the craft and he could put on one of the best wrestling matches going, but to declare that another guys match that for a vast number of people was thought as MOTY was a 3/10 is pretty much a slap in the face, and not only to HHH, but also to Undertaker who Bret was meant to be a friend of. Bret may think that, we all sometimes think things but have tact, and realise by saying these inner thoughts aloud then often it opens a can of worms or upsets someone.
I loved Bret as a wrestler, he was my idol as a kid, far more so than HBK and their feud is still for me the greatest ever feud, his book too is by far and away the best wrestling autobiography to read and I abandoned my wife and kids on my birthday to spend several hours in a queue with sweaty nerds to get Bret to sign a copy but there's time when I really want to give him a good slap and tell him that no one died in Montreal that night, get over it.

That's the point though hero, why do people assume it's got anything to do with Montreal?

If this was, say, Roddy Piper talking about John Cena, and he said the exact same things, we wouldn't be looking for an ulterior motive. We would discuss the merits of that opinion but I don't think you'd be saying you want to slap him and I don't think you you've be saying he should keep his opinions to himself. So why isn't Bret Hart entitled to an opinion of Triple H?

I think that, partly through his own fault, people can't look past the screwjob when talking about Bret, and it clouds their judgment of him. He didn't mention Montreal in the interview, as far as I can tell, so why assume that has got anything to do with his opinion of Triple H?

Hero wrote:
Yes he's a far superior ring worker than HHH

But is/was he though? I always wondered what would have become of Hart had he stayed on throughout the whole of the Attitude Era. I actually think that the screwjob did him and his legacy no harm whatsoever and deep down he probably knows this.

Hart was very pleasing on the eye but as a ring general was he even in the same ballpark as HHH? I'm not so sure.

I'll be buying this book and giving it a damn good read.

To some extent thats fine, but it would then be like letting Hero give his opinion on a matter to do with Dean Ambrose and then ignoring that he may have motives of love for Ambrose and those comments could be clouded. What with Bret's history and Triple H's role within WWE and the McMahon's there is a certain amount of assumption you can make. It may or may not be correct, but its certainly valid.

I just think hes wrong, mainly. Similar to when we debated how good Angle was in the ring, theres a good few wrestlers who put on great matches without being all about technique. I think the composite of styles between the two would make a hell of a good match in their primes.

Talkingpoint mentioned the Foley stuff, I think hes put on cracking matches with The Rock too, and his work with Taker was top notch. Taker and Foley would be the two that could be assigned as great.

Im mainly worried cos Bret was a hero of mine as a child. Im not in Hero's age bracket, no way no how!

FreekShow wrote:

Hero wrote:
Yes he's a far superior ring worker than HHH

But is/was he though? I always wondered what would have become of Hart had he stayed on throughout the whole of the Attitude Era. I actually think that the screwjob did him and his legacy no harm whatsoever and deep down he probably knows this.

Hart was very pleasing on the eye but as a ring general was he even in the same ballpark as HHH? I'm not so sure.

Have a word

bretmeharty wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

Hero wrote:
Yes he's a far superior ring worker than HHH

But is/was he though? I always wondered what would have become of Hart had he stayed on throughout the whole of the Attitude Era. I actually think that the screwjob did him and his legacy no harm whatsoever and deep down he probably knows this.

Hart was very pleasing on the eye but as a ring general was he even in the same ballpark as HHH? I'm not so sure.

Have a word

I just did.

FreekShow wrote:

bretmeharty wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

Hero wrote:
Yes he's a far superior ring worker than HHH

But is/was he though? I always wondered what would have become of Hart had he stayed on throughout the whole of the Attitude Era. I actually think that the screwjob did him and his legacy no harm whatsoever and deep down he probably knows this.

Hart was very pleasing on the eye but as a ring general was he even in the same ballpark as HHH? I'm not so sure.

Have a word

I just did.

What was it

I get Bret Hart's point, but I'm also inclined to agree with some of the comments on here regarding Bret as a person.

Bret Hart, as most wrestling fans understand, came from an era saturated with superstars. He stood out in this time and was well on the rise when the exodus of '92 occurred. HHH on the other hand, came in during a dry spell and politicked his way into position. It was those politics (that Bret was also fond of) that ultimately screwed Bret.

It is here that I'm inclined to agree with Bret Hart. A lot of the guys coming through in the mid-90's, not only HHH, just didn't have the same pedigree (ahem) as what had come before. But where I disagree with Bret, is that during that spell, HHH along with Austin and The Rock were the guys chosen to take it forward. Surely he can see that he must've had something?

It probably all come down to politics. Bret has consistently clashed with anyone that got in his way. He wasn't exactly Captain Popular backstage and eventually couldn't distinguish himself from Bret Hart the man and Bret Hart the wrestler. With HHH being the backstage worm he always has been and as a member of the opposing team, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that they may have clashed at some point over the years.

That said, Bret is quite reserved here compared to many other of his ramblings. And the line "Paul is a little overrated... overrated for being great" is in my opinion, pretty much spot on.

I don't agree that Bret was fond of politics. I'm not aware of him politicking a great deal.

He wasn't political in the HHH sense, but he knew how to play the system.

crippledtart wrote:I don't agree that Bret was fond of politics. I'm not aware of him politicking a great deal.

I agree with this, I always saw Bret as the anti politic-er if you like, Bret being the spokesman and standing up for the little guys in the locker room

crippledtart wrote:I don't agree that Bret was fond of politics. I'm not aware of him politicking a great deal.

But do you that think he should have though Crips? Played the game and all that..

FreekShow wrote:

crippledtart wrote:I don't agree that Bret was fond of politics. I'm not aware of him politicking a great deal.

But do you that think he should have though Crips? Played the game and all that..

Why, what more could he have got out of his run at the top.

Multi time champ
First king of the ring winner
Went over the likes of Flair and anyone who was challenger at the time, except for Hogan and Michaels because of their politicing.

i get what hes saying. however, i wasnt watching when bret was around, but when triple was at his peak, it was about story telling as much as the wrestling, and triple h was one of the greatest. its not all about the moves in the ring bret

bretmeharty wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

crippledtart wrote:I don't agree that Bret was fond of politics. I'm not aware of him politicking a great deal.

But do you that think he should have though Crips? Played the game and all that..

Why, what more could he have got out of his run at the top.

Multi time champ
First king of the ring winner
Went over the likes of Flair and anyone who was challenger at the time, except for Hogan and Michaels because of their politicing.

Didn't he go over Michaels at Survivor Series 92? Obviously HBK had nowhere near the stroke he had in 97.

Speaking hypothetically, if he had played politics in WCW, could he have made more of his run there?

it was bret who had the stroke.. oh, i see what you, yeah

Just because someone went over someone, it doesn't automatically mean they played politics. It would have made no sense to put the title on Michaels in 92. It was the obvious and sensible booking decision. It's like saying Austin was playing politics when he went over Dude Love in 98.

As for WCW, he was in a shark tank with seasoned politicians like Hogan and Nash, who were both very close to Bischoff. I'm not really sure what politics he could have played.

Cheers for the response Crips. I wasn't saying that Bret played politics in 92, just pointing out that he did get a Win over Shawn at some point.

Bret isn't backing down. HHH's not in his top 1000 wrestlers...

Spoiler:

I want to see him now list his top 1000 wrestlers in a Chris Jericho style.

Love how he says he only really saw him for a few years and it'd be unfair to judge him, then in a few seconds calls him mediocre, never originating any new ideas and out of his top 1000.

Brett Hart vs HHH

The end of a perfect storm one in a life time era

Book it now.

Bret Hart was pish, give me HHH anyday over him.

I can't wait to talk about this on the podcast!

Id say that as a total package HHH ticks more boxes than Bret actually. Sure he's not the most gifted guy on the roster, he's not got a huge move range but he can promo a damn sight better and Id argue the case his long term shelf life was a bigger draw than Bret.

crippledtart wrote:I can't wait to talk about this on the podcast!

About your top 1000 wrestlers, now that would be a long part 3 lol

At the start of the interview i think Bret was trying to say does HHH deserve to be the top Title holder in the WWE, which in a way would make him the greatest wrestler the company has had.But he seemed to go of on a tangent and forgot what his original point was.

If that was Brets point than I would have to agree, HHH holds the most World titles for the WWE but would you class him as the greatest.

crippledtart wrote:I can't wait to talk about this on the podcast!

didnt we already do that or am I going senile?

We didn't talk about the things Bret said about triple h!

I watched the interview on WrestleTalk last week, I felt it was a good open and honest interview until he said he didnt consider HBK to be an all time great either, i kinda got what I think Bret was trying to say, HHH has never done something that was fresh, what he did do though was take something many people had done before but did it better than the vast majority who done if before him, I think Bret in his own mind believes you have to create something new, something fresh with your character that stands the test of time, with that in mind I'd be inclined to agree with him, I felt his Iron Man match with Rock was better than Bret's with Shawn, I felt his Hell in a Cell match with Cactus Jack was better than Undertaker's with Mankind, however while those matches where better, did he do something different? Or did he simply take ideas from previous matches of that type and better them? I'd say it was the latter

I think there is still some resentment and bitterness towards Triple H, that doesn't mean though that that any criticism of HHH is merely down to business, however when he lumps Shawn in that catagory it doesn't do him any favours in justifying his opinion, I feel Shawn was an innovator and he did bring things to the table that others didn't/couldn't, i think Bret's judgement on this is clouded by the whole ladder match schtick

Regarding Bret's comments on the WM28 match, I wonder if Bret's scoring so harshly as he is coming at it from a totally different perspective to us,

It's realistic that if we sat down to watch a football match with Jose Murinhio or Sir Alex or a Film with Robert DiNero, they would probably have a much more in-depth and critical look at the tactics/acting than we would.

By then the same token Bret, who is commonly regarded as one of the greatest ever in-ring and a master storyteller, probably looks with a much more knowlegable eye on that match. It has been said that Bret had the ability to plan a match out in his head before it had happened and having worked frequently with 2/3rds of the men who constructed that match (HBK and 'Taker) he probably had a good idea of what sort of things they would throw in, which may have contributed all in all to the predictabilty and lack of surprise he experienced.

Personally I thought it was brilliant which is the main thing.

As for HHH as a great wrestler, I'd say yes he is/was and a much more complete wrestler, the guy can wrestle well (as well as posessing the ability to bring lesser wrestlers up to his level), can sell well, looks good and can comfertably hold a promo.

My only problem with him is that he lacked any true money-drawing charisma, Jim Cornette summed it up best for me, saying if wrestling were a movie HHH would play the lead guy's best friend, by that he meant that HHH was an excellent foil for top money drawing guys, and I don't think it's a coincidence that HHH's most fondly remembered period was when he faced true mega-stars like Austin, Rock and Foley. The problem for me was when these top guys moved on, HHH was pushed more and more into the limelight (by chance or by poiltics is irrelevent) becoming the top guy, rather than the foil for the top guy, and it is there where I think his legacy will suffer.

So to some up, I like HHH, I think he's a great wrestler but he has his limitations, and while I can see merits and reasons for Hart's point of view, I unlimatly disagree with them.

Quite simply Bret Hart is off his rocker if he thinks the Hell in a Cell match was a 3.5 out of 10. It doesnt matter how you want to analyse the match, if you ask 100 people to rate it out of 10 i dont think anyone would give it 3.5.

He says HHH is 'overated for being great'. Who actually thinks HHH is 'great' though? When we do our GOAT lists on here i dont recall seeing HHH featuring in many Top 10s? HHH is very good but i dont think he can be 'overated for being great' when he's not widely regarded as being 'great'.

For me it's obvious that Bret still has personal issues with HHH and airing them publicly by playing down his match with The Undertaker only makes Bret look the fool.

For the record, and i know alot of you wont agree, i actually think HHH is more charasmatic and enjoyable to watch and listen to than Bret Hart.

Tbf, heel HHH back with evolution was pretty good.

Don't really like him as a face, loses his edge.