Bret Hart says that Triple H "isn't great" and that "he's never had a great match"

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight He's had plenty of great matches. That's what you get when you feed the greatest talent of three eras to one mediocre wrestler.

And therein lies the rub.

We can romantisize or villify Bret's words, but in the end, Hunter was more of a guy who was able to make the best of everything he's been handed. Without Shawn, or The Kliq, or Steph, a freak injury, or possibly even Owen's death (if that whole "Owen was supposed to be The Game" thing has truth in it), he likely would have been one of those guys not able to catch a break... or get a push, and then just have it sort of trail off. I still am not fond of when he dominated the first and last 15 minutes or so of both RAW and Smackdown for weeks on end, but he more than likely would have been used (or unused) akin to someone like Zack Ryder is now. However, I think his stock would have gone up- that is to say, he would be viewed in a better light- if he wasn't around other people who were, for lack of a better term, freaks of nature.

He's better than mediocre, but being constantly surrounded and outshone by guys like Austin or The Rock or Taker or even his own buddy Shawn...

In short, he's more of an Arn Anderson than a Ric Flair. I don't mean that as a slight against either him or Arn, either. The same thing that Bret says about Hunter not having a match that stands out as memorable can also be turned around to not recalling any match of his that shit the bed... even back in his "Conneticut Blueblood" gimmick days.