|
Post by cool14 on May 26, 2008 16:43:12 GMT -5
give triple h a rating out of 10 based on wrestling ability (in-ring skills) and then name matches that prove your rating. for example, if u give triple h an 8 based on wrestling ability (in-ring skills), name matches that are proof of why you gave him an 8
u could simply use this way if u like: i would give triple h a (number)/10 based on wrestling ability/in-ring skills because of matches like: (insert list of matches here)
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 26, 2008 16:50:04 GMT -5
It depends in 2000 he was a 10/10
mATCHES? cACTUS jACK REALLY...a MATCH WITH TAZZ
|
|
|
Post by sycho1warrior on May 26, 2008 16:52:33 GMT -5
Yeah, it all depends the era, 2000 10/10 now i would say between 5-8/10.
|
|
|
Post by cool14 on May 26, 2008 16:58:03 GMT -5
Yeah, it all depends the era, 2000 10/10 now i would say between 5-8/10. well any matches to prove why u would give triple h's wrestling ability (in-ring skills) 10/10 from 2000?
|
|
T1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 23, 2008 11:51:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,511
|
Post by T1 on May 26, 2008 17:08:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't give him more than a 6/10.
|
|
|
Post by cool14 on May 26, 2008 17:11:53 GMT -5
guys remember to name matches that prove why you give triple h's wrestling ability (in-ring skills) that number out of 10. so far only mark did
|
|
|
Post by sycho1warrior on May 26, 2008 17:24:50 GMT -5
I think his matches against Cactus Jack in 200 were really good, i don't feel like going into much more detail.
|
|
|
Post by American Phenom on May 26, 2008 17:25:19 GMT -5
6.
|
|
|
Post by Heresy on May 26, 2008 17:54:26 GMT -5
You're asking us to prove our subjectivity with further subjectivity? I could explain why Triple H is a 10 and his match with WM17 with Undertaker was a 10 all day long and it won't prove much of anything.
From '99 to '01 I would've given Triple H a 9/10... he was in top athletic shape, his character was amazing, the ultimate bad ass... nowadays his act is pretty stale and I look to other guys to fulfill my need for pro wrestling entertainment... probably a 6/10.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlingfan228 on May 26, 2008 19:14:06 GMT -5
You're asking us to prove our subjectivity with further subjectivity? I could explain why Triple H is a 10 and his match with WM17 with Undertaker was a 10 all day long and it won't prove much of anything. From '99 to '01 I would've given Triple H a 9/10... he was in top athletic shape, his character was amazing, the ultimate bad ass... nowadays his act is pretty stale and I look to other guys to fulfill my need for pro wrestling entertainment... probably a 6/10. Perfect answer. Back when the attitude era really was alive and well, Hunter was probably the most entertaining guys you could watch, and probably one of the top heels in the business at that time. His matches were also great. As of today, I still find Hunter entertaining, but as of late his matches have been somewhat of a lackluster. Also I've always enjoyed Hunter's work as a heel more than I have when he was a face. So, '99-'00: 9/10 Present: 6.5/10
|
|
|
Post by 49% Motherf**ker, 51% SOB on May 26, 2008 19:14:55 GMT -5
9
|
|