In the world of professional wrestling, the debate over who is more valuable - a wrestler who knows how to get themselves over or one who can elevate others - rages on. AEW star MVP has taken this discussion to a new level by calling out WWE Chief Content Officer Paul "Triple H" Levesque, or as he refers to him, "Triple Nose."
MVP's criticism of Triple H is not just about his own personal disdain for the WWE executive. It's a reflection of a broader sentiment within the wrestling community. MVP argues that Triple H's ability to get others over is severely lacking, and he uses The Undertaker as a counterexample to support his point.
The Undertaker, a legendary figure in WWE, has a long list of successful collaborations with other stars, including the likes of The Great Khali, who was not a top worker. In contrast, MVP questions how many people can remember Triple H getting over any significant star. He highlights Randy Orton and Batista as the only two names that come to mind, suggesting that Triple H's impact on the careers of others is minimal.
This leads MVP to a fascinating conclusion: the Undertaker, despite being a top guy who drew a lot of money and was a player, is more valuable to the company than Triple H. MVP's reasoning is that while Triple H may have been a top guy, his inability to elevate others undermines his overall value.
The article also delves into the idea of backstage politics, with MVP imagining how Triple H might have played a role in Vince McMahon's requests to lose and put others over. The implication is that Triple H's influence might have been more about personal gain than the betterment of the company.
While MVP's critique may be exaggerated, it highlights a deeper question about the nature of leadership and success in professional wrestling. It raises the idea that a true leader should not only be able to get themselves over but also create opportunities for others to shine. This perspective challenges the traditional view of Triple H as a legendary figure, suggesting that his reputation might be more about personal achievement than his impact on the careers of others.
In the end, MVP's article serves as a thought-provoking piece that encourages readers to question the criteria for success in professional wrestling and the role of leadership in the industry.
