WWE: Triple H Criticizes CM Punk; Says Fans Want Heroes, Not Ring Technicians

In the newest issue of WWE Magazine, with Triple H menacingly crinkling his brow on the cover, the new COO has some insightful, if not controversial, ideas about what the WWE fanbase responds to. Specifically, he draws a line between larger-than-life superstars and great in-ring wrestlers of the past and present.

According to "The Game," there is little correlation between ring technicians and the ability to sweep fans into a frenzy and draw money. He opines the "WWE Universe" wants to see performers who seem superhuman, are of an impressive physical stature and are able to effortlessly relate to the sensibilities of the WWE masses.

The "King of Kings" has a lot to say on the matter, so I'm going to break up his comments, piece by piece, followed by my analysis...

Let's start:

"

People don't pay just to see wrestlers, they pay to see stars, larger-than-life athletes, heroes and villains. Stuff they can't see in their own backyard. Punk misses the boat on Kevin Nash, and I'm not saying this to side with my friend, but Punk does look like the short order cook at Waffle House.

"

Say what? Kevin Nash might be a large athlete, but he's not larger than life, at least he hasn't been for the last 12-13 years. Let's not forget the former "Diesel" is the lowest-drawing WWE Champion in history, which, in one fell swoop, unravels Triple H's entire argument. Granted, Nash was a big star in WCW as part of the "Outsiders" and NWO, but he's also a prime reason why that company went under.

And even if CM Punk does look like a short order cook, it's not something a person of great influence in the organization (like Triple H) should be reminding the fans of. Did Vince McMahon or any other wrestler during Hulk Hogan's era remind fans of the "Hulkster's" receding hairline? Absolutely not. In fact, the edict then, which should also be strictly enforced today, was to highlight the strengths of the performers and conceal their weaknesses by the sleight of presentation.

Subsequently, Triple H elaborates:

"

I like Waffle House too, but I'm not sure I want to watch the cook. You can be the greatest at what you do. There has been a lot of phenomenal wrestlers. Ricky Steamboat was one of the best ever. But if he wasn't in a match with Ric Flair, tell me what else he headlined?

"

It's a mystery why Triple H is compelled to hammer the Waffle House comparison home (needlessly, I might add) after it was off-handily mentioned by Kevin Nash in a microphone duel with Punk in the weeks leading up to a match that never transpired at Night of Champions.

Again, even if CM Punk does resemble a cook in some remote town in the middle of nowhere, fans still want to see him in front of the camera. Is it any coincidence that the highest-rated segments on RAW usually feature the "Straight-Edge Superstar?"

Why do members of the "WWE Universe" continue chanting "CM Punk" even during parts of the show he isn't present in? Didn't The Money in the Bank PPV garner a 20 percent increase in buys over the previous year?

Additionally, the Ricky Steamboat example is also shortsighted. Steamboat arguably made his name with Randy Savage, in a match at WrestleMania III that is still upheld as perhaps the best ever, before feuding with Flair in WCW. Live spectators often ravaged their throats calling out for the man billed from Honolulu, Hawaii  during matches from ringside; he was like John Cena—the ultimate "good guy."

The shows he did headline drew great crowds, especially during his '86-'87 run with Savage, and he was even pegged by Vince McMahon for bigger and better things beyond the Intercontinental Title until a dispute about taking time off to be with his newborn resulted in exiting WWE in the late 80s.

Even if one were to use Steamboat's technical prowess against him, he is still a former World Heavyweight Champion, a Hall of Famer (not by just WWE standards, but according to his peers) and continues to be a benchmark for emoting vulnerability in the ring.

Triple H continues:

"

And this isn't a knock on Ricky, he's phenomenal. Punk's mentality is 'Do what I like.' He likes legit, technically gifted, skilled wrestlers. The fact is I do, too. I agree with what he's saying. Is John Cena the best technical wrestler? Absolutely not. Neither was Hogan, neither was Austin, neither was Mick Foley, neither was the Rock—neither was I!

"

Listen, even if John Cena isn't the most technically-gifted wrestler, he might actually be the most underrated. A below-average wrestler isn't going to be involved in a match that earns the coveted five-star match rating by Dave Meltzer (versus Punk at Money in the Bank) for the first time in 14 years (the last one being HBK vs. The Undertaker at Bad Blood 1997).

Upholding this assessment of Cena is Bret Hart, a top five ring technician of all time, who endorses the 10-time WWE Champion's ability in the ring despite "smart" fan opinion to the contrary.

Furthermore, although Hogan may have not been a technician in the WWE, he could demonstrate in-ring proficiency if the audience/culture demanded it, as his tour of duties in Japan prove. Steve Austin was one of the business' foremost workhorses before his neck injury, and Mick Foley, while not a technical wrestler, was the best brawler during his time.

Not to mention The Rock was another underrated wrestler, and for Triple H to deprecate his own legacy as a technical wrestler is laughable at best. This is the same man who was voted "best wrestler" in the year 2000 by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter and was dubbed the "Cerebral Assassin" by Jim Ross for his ingenuity in the ring.

Next, Triple H tries to bolster his argument using generalizations:

"

Make me a list of technical wrestlers who were huge stars, and I'll make you a list of terrible wrestlers who were huge stars. I guarantee my list is a mile longer than yours. But who am I to say for the 90 percent of the WWE Universe, who don't give a crap about that and like Cena, that they're wrong and they should change, and be force-fed something they don't want?

"

The list of technical wrestlers who were huge stars is longer than one might think. Off the top of my head: Ricky Steamboat, Randy Savage, Ted Dibiase Sr., Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle,  Steve Austin, Eddie Guerrero, Brock Lesnar, Nick Bockwinkel, Lou Thesz, Buddy Rogers, Ric Flair, just about every Japanese wrestler and even Triple H fit both molds.

Of those who don't have a reputation for being a master technician but were (are) big stars, like Sting, The Undertaker, John Cena, Hulk Hogan, Lex Luger, Goldberg and so on, they were (are) capable of having stellar matches with certain opponents at heavily promoted events.

As for his position on not trying to force-feed another in lieu of John Cena, whom members of the "WWE Universe" are "universally" enamored with, is narrow-minded and preposterous. Have my ears deceived me the last six years, or has a large contingent of male fans not vehemently jeered and pooh-poohed the over-saturation of Cena?

In some cities, it's half the audience, and in many East Coast locales, a majority of the live audience disdains Cena's act. Even if Mr. "Hustle, Loyalty and Respect" isn't going anywhere anytime soon, a more rational approach to take would be to feature performers who cater to men and more mature audiences as much as Cena appeals to women and children.

A variety of characters can and should be able to co-exist on the WWE platform, ingratiating different segments of the audience, as opposed to pandering to some and alienating others.

In other words, the distinction Triple H makes is far from black and white; it's gray and more complex than he contends:

"When I grew up, I hated Hogan. I thought he was terrible and didn't like to watch him. I was like Punk in a way, I liked the Steamboats and Flairs and the ones that could go. Would I be right in saying that Hogan was the wrong guy to go with, and they should've changed direction and gone with Steamboat because he was the better wrestler? Ludicrous."

It sounds like Triple H is singling out Hogan to argue his point that a great wrestler is not what a huge star makes, since there were others, both before and after, who fulfilled the criteria of possessing both in-ring savvy and marketability.

Ricky Steamboat's name is once again erroneously invoked when it was the "one-dimensional" Steamboat whose triumph over Savage at WrestleMania III arguably elicited a louder crowd ovation than at any point in the main event between Hulk Hogan and Andre The Giant, both of whom exemplify the larger-than-life prototype.

Also, Triple H is quick to overlook the fact that his father-in-law's first choice for leading the WWE into the 1990s was not Hulk Hogan—it was "The Texas Tornado," Kerry Von Erich. Luck, happenstance and timing are responsible for Hogan leaving the AWA, citing irreconcilable differences with Verne Gagne, affording Vince, the infamous opportunist, to snatch up the charismatic "Real American."

In wrapping up his rant, Triple H ignores history, brushes off the sentiments of many current fans  and gives CM Punk a departing shot:

"

That's the problem. That's where Punk is misguided. Punk thinks everyone else is out of touch. I'm a big believer that the Internet is the bane of our business. Any talent can go on there and find someone telling people that they're the best in the world, and yet they can't get the crowd to make a peep when they're in the ring.

"

If Punk is so out of touch, why are fans so responsive towards him? If anyone wants to argue that audiences have cooled off on him, then look no further than Triple H's sudden involvement in a storyline, ironically enough, that would've catapulted Punk as the next breakout star.

As far as the talent that do go out there and proclaim to be the "best in the world," to the exclusion of everything else, Chris Jericho and CM Punk, and before them the man who shall not be named, evoked impassioned cheers or boos from fans, were "moving" in their own way and were rarely met with apathy.

Lastly, Triple H's vendetta with the Internet is not only misguided, it is a counter-intuitive and antiquated approach entrenched in stubbornness. Without this medium, fans, like on this website, would not have an avenue to banter ideas, news and opinions.

The WWE and Triple H should be thankful of a relatively new advancement that has not only united followers of the product, but sustained interest in the business, with backstage stories which have more often than not sustained interest in the company when the dreadfully boring happenings in front of the camera have not.