|
Post by BSR on Aug 14, 2016 14:18:42 GMT -5
Seems like this list was purposely put together to make some look good.
They've counted independent matches for some, yet only counted wwe matches for others.
Kind of pointless.
|
|
|
Post by sitruC on Aug 14, 2016 14:43:27 GMT -5
All these numbers are just confusing for me, but I'm sure I'd find it interesting if I understood it. Adding spaces between each statistic or making a graph would help. Right now it's just a jumble of crap that my a.d.d-addled brain couldn't get through. I probably still wouldn't get it All I know is Cena is on top
|
|
weaseltv
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 22, 2013 18:57:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,672
|
Post by weaseltv on Aug 14, 2016 16:43:51 GMT -5
Seems like this list was purposely put together to make some look good. They've counted independent matches for some, yet only counted wwe matches for others. Kind of pointless. some just didn't have any televised independent matches... you know where Kevin Owens would be on the list if I only used WWE matches?
|
|
weaseltv
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 22, 2013 18:57:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,672
|
Post by weaseltv on Aug 14, 2016 16:46:23 GMT -5
Where did you get these numbers? Because Bret has wrestled more matches than anyone else had for WWE. At least until a couple years ago, I don't know if Cena topped it since or something. I was just gonna say the same thing! On the Bret vs. Shawn blu ray for the extras, Shawn asked Bret, "how many matches do you think you've had in your career??" and Bret said, "in wrestling, or just in WWE??" and Shawn said, "in wrestling" and Bret said, "Around 1000 or so. I remember a few years ago, someone did a chart and I believe I came right behind Bruno for WWE matches, so if you put my WCW stuff and my stuff for my father on that, I have had well over 1000 matches in my career." yea, the database doesn't count house shows, only tv matches/ppv's otherwise the win loss ratios would get really skewed because they repeat the same matches in most cities...
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 6, 2024 17:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2016 18:58:13 GMT -5
Triple H has 414 wins & 315 losses!? Not bad for a guy who supposedly refuses to lose. Bret Hart has the least amount of loses. Even Hogan has lost more!! Cena win/loss numbers are mind blowing! Triple H gets a ton of flack for reasons that almost don't even exist.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Aug 14, 2016 19:56:59 GMT -5
Triple H has 414 wins & 315 losses!? Not bad for a guy who supposedly refuses to lose. Bret Hart has the least amount of loses. Even Hogan has lost more!! Cena win/loss numbers are mind blowing! Triple H gets a ton of flack for reasons that almost don't even exist. Most of it is for assumptions people make up in their own minds.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Aug 15, 2016 9:29:45 GMT -5
Triple H gets a ton of flack for reasons that almost don't even exist. Most of it is for assumptions people make up in their own minds. 98-00 Triple H is one of my favorite wrestlers of all time, but his 03 to 05 run was pretty insufferable on a John Cena, mid to late 2000s, level. He cut long, repetitive, nauseating promos every single week and went over everyone. On the off chance he did lose to someone, he just won the belt right back. I think a big problem was how he was booked against the WCW talent, which I know people took issue with at the time. Now, with that being said, Triple H has never been a guy that hasn't taken a loss. I do think he should have lost to Sting, but that's neither here nor there. He was a huge part in Orton and Batista reaching the main event because of that stretch though. It's one of those things where I think he deserves his fair share of criticism but also it gets amplified because of his relationship with Stephanie and by extension Vince. I think he's done a ton of damage control. NXT is obvious, but even his DX reunion run and working with Legacy, the matches with Taker, the matches with Brock, and obviously the Daniel Bryan stuff. He had it in for Punk though imo. They were oil and water in personality and he definitely shoehorned himself into that situation in 2011, which brought up a bunch of old feelings in fans. HHH is just polarizing, no matter which way you fall on the debate. Like all things in wrestling, or in life, that projection of him has taken on a life of its own. Even as a fan of the guy, I don't think his booking over the years has been without fault.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Aug 15, 2016 10:00:51 GMT -5
Most of it is for assumptions people make up in their own minds. 98-00 Triple H is one of my favorite wrestlers of all time, but his 03 to 05 run was pretty insufferable on a John Cena, mid to late 2000s, level. He cut long, repetitive, nauseating promos every single week and went over everyone. On the off chance he did lose to someone, he just won the belt right back. I think a big problem was how he was booked against the WCW talent, which I know people took issue with at the time. Now, with that being said, Triple H has never been a guy that hasn't taken a loss. I do think he should have lost to Sting, but that's neither here nor there. He was a huge part in Orton and Batista reaching the main event because of that stretch though. It's one of those things where I think he deserves his fair share of criticism but also it gets amplified because of his relationship with Stephanie and by extension Vince. I think he's done a ton of damage control. NXT is obvious, but even his DX reunion run and working with Legacy, the matches with Taker, the matches with Brock, and obviously the Daniel Bryan stuff. He had it in for Punk though imo. They were oil and water in personality and he definitely shoehorned himself into that situation in 2011, which brought up a bunch of old feelings in fans. HHH is just polarizing, no matter which way you fall on the debate. Like all things in wrestling, or in life, that projection of him has taken on a life of its own. Even as a fan of the guy, I don't think his booking over the years has been without fault. But were those long promos because Triple H was forcing his way onto TV. Or was it because Vince felt they had too few top stars? We don't know. Did Triple H defeat Sting because Triple H forced Vince into letting him win? Or was it because Vince wanted Hunter to look stronger going into his potential feud with Rock? Don't know. Did Triple H purposely bury Booker? Or did Goldberg signing with WWE change the plans? No idea. Point being, fans have built it up in their mind that Triple H is an evil dictator that has plans for global domination. But none of us know for a fact that he has forced himself into any of these scenarios. But fans always assume the worse. I've read people claiming Triple H forced Taker into two WM matches because he wanted to outdo Shawn. Even after Taker has said otherwise. People still blame him for Sheamus getting a push. But others blame Triple H for Sheamus' de-push. More recently after the CWC moment with Cedric Alexander (one of the greatest things ever IMO) there were people claiming Triple H was yanking Cedric Alexander off stage for hogging the limelight. Such a magical moment, yet people still ruin it by making assumptions without any facts. Nobody here knows anything for sure. That is what I mean by "assumptions people make up in their own minds".
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Aug 15, 2016 11:04:49 GMT -5
98-00 Triple H is one of my favorite wrestlers of all time, but his 03 to 05 run was pretty insufferable on a John Cena, mid to late 2000s, level. He cut long, repetitive, nauseating promos every single week and went over everyone. On the off chance he did lose to someone, he just won the belt right back. I think a big problem was how he was booked against the WCW talent, which I know people took issue with at the time. Now, with that being said, Triple H has never been a guy that hasn't taken a loss. I do think he should have lost to Sting, but that's neither here nor there. He was a huge part in Orton and Batista reaching the main event because of that stretch though. It's one of those things where I think he deserves his fair share of criticism but also it gets amplified because of his relationship with Stephanie and by extension Vince. I think he's done a ton of damage control. NXT is obvious, but even his DX reunion run and working with Legacy, the matches with Taker, the matches with Brock, and obviously the Daniel Bryan stuff. He had it in for Punk though imo. They were oil and water in personality and he definitely shoehorned himself into that situation in 2011, which brought up a bunch of old feelings in fans. HHH is just polarizing, no matter which way you fall on the debate. Like all things in wrestling, or in life, that projection of him has taken on a life of its own. Even as a fan of the guy, I don't think his booking over the years has been without fault. But were those long promos because Triple H was forcing his way onto TV. Or was it because Vince felt they had too few top stars? We don't know. Did Triple H defeat Sting because Triple H forced Vince into letting him win? Or was it because Vince wanted Hunter to look stronger going into his potential feud with Rock? Don't know. Did Triple H purposely bury Booker? Or did Goldberg signing with WWE change the plans? No idea. Point being, fans have built it up in their mind that Triple H is an evil dictator that has plans for global domination. But none of us know for a fact that he has forced himself into any of these scenarios. But fans always assume the worse. I've read people claiming Triple H forced Taker into two WM matches because he wanted to outdo Shawn. Even after Taker has said otherwise. People still blame him for Sheamus getting a push. But others blame Triple H for Sheamus' de-push. More recently after the CWC moment with Cedric Alexander (one of the greatest things ever IMO) there were people claiming Triple H was yanking Cedric Alexander off stage for hogging the limelight. Such a magical moment, yet people still ruin it by making assumptions without any facts. Nobody here knows anything for sure. That is what I mean by "assumptions people make up in their own minds". I don't know that we landed on the moon because I've never been to space but I have to look at the evidence available and decide for myself. I'm not arguing that people aren't crazy in their blind hatred though. It's what society does. Triple H is never going to be fairly judged on his career because he married Stephanie. At the same time, I honestly can't say that his marriage didn't come with special treatment either. I think that would be incredibly naive.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Aug 15, 2016 12:11:01 GMT -5
But were those long promos because Triple H was forcing his way onto TV. Or was it because Vince felt they had too few top stars? We don't know. Did Triple H defeat Sting because Triple H forced Vince into letting him win? Or was it because Vince wanted Hunter to look stronger going into his potential feud with Rock? Don't know. Did Triple H purposely bury Booker? Or did Goldberg signing with WWE change the plans? No idea. Point being, fans have built it up in their mind that Triple H is an evil dictator that has plans for global domination. But none of us know for a fact that he has forced himself into any of these scenarios. But fans always assume the worse. I've read people claiming Triple H forced Taker into two WM matches because he wanted to outdo Shawn. Even after Taker has said otherwise. People still blame him for Sheamus getting a push. But others blame Triple H for Sheamus' de-push. More recently after the CWC moment with Cedric Alexander (one of the greatest things ever IMO) there were people claiming Triple H was yanking Cedric Alexander off stage for hogging the limelight. Such a magical moment, yet people still ruin it by making assumptions without any facts. Nobody here knows anything for sure. That is what I mean by "assumptions people make up in their own minds". I don't know that we landed on the moon because I've never been to space but I have to look at the evidence available and decide for myself. I'm not arguing that people aren't crazy in their blind hatred though. It's what society does. Triple H is never going to be fairly judged on his career because he married Stephanie. At the same time, I honestly can't say that his marriage didn't come with special treatment either. I think that would be incredibly naive. Not sure I'd compare historical events to something I've seen on a scripted television show, but I get what you were going for. I never claimed Triple H was 100% innocent. I'm sure he's not. All I'm saying is assumptions do not equal facts. I assume I'm Becky Lynch's type, doesn't make it true. I think we're derailing the thread a bit.
|
|