In the latest episode of his podcast named “1 of a Kind”, Rob Van Dam had a conversation about fellow professional wrestlers, particularly Paul London, blaming Triple H for their careers not taking off in WWE.
He had some interesting takes to share in his podcast, some of which are highlighted here:
Regarding whether Triple H was playing a double role as both a wrestler and creative head, Rob commented that it’s impossible to say what goes on in another person’s mind. He noted that being in a dual role can indeed seem like an unfair advantage, with critics saying Triple H may tend to push himself over others with less talent. Rob said that all those points may have some validity, but ultimately the power in such a role can also be seen as just. He explained that if one believes their own promotion could generate more revenues than promoting others, even with mounting opposition, then it is a fair business decision.
When discussing accusations from wrestlers who have blamed Triple H for their career’s stagnation in the past, Rob opined that as an executive with decision-making power, Triple H has the authority to decide against pushing certain talent. The implication here is that this power is a legitimate aspect of his role.
As for his own experiences with Triple H, Van Dam speculates that Triple H may have felt that he wasn’t a great investment for the company. His suspicions were based on rumors that Triple H would oftentimes vote against plans for him. He also mentioned Paul London’s belief that despite attempts to obstruct his career’s progression, fans still cheered for him extensively. Others thought he should have received more limelight and thought Triple H’s decision to not favor him was due to jealousy or preference for his own way, either of which Rob couldn’t confirm. Overall, he believes people’s perceptions of his experiences may have been influenced by his strenuous relationships with Triple H and Vince.