Okay guys, here is why HHH is bad and you should feel bad.
Wrestling basically boils down to two guys fighting over something. One wrestler is the heel, the guy you hate. He tends to be in the position of dominance for as long as possible in order to keep people coming back to see him get his comeuppance. The other wrestler is the face, the guy you cheer for. He tends to be the guy fighting the uphill battle, either against the heel's superior ability to cheat or be ruthless, or in his ability to stack the odds against the face. While stories have ebbs and flows, there is one constant that should happen: the fans have to believe that the face CAN win, can overcome the insane odds against them and win.
This brings us to the concept of "putting someone over." In the strictest sense, that's when someone lets the other guy "win." Bear in mind, and this is something that HHH in particular seems to forget, no one is actually "winning" and "losing." The storyline and writers determines which character has the position of strength, but there is no actual competition. "Putting someone over" also means that even if you win, you make the other guy look like a million bucks doing so. Ric Flair was pretty bad in terms of the former-his constant insistence on holding onto the belt for long stretches and going over when he clearly shouldn't have was a major part of the decline of Jim Crockett Promotions back in the 80s-but he was brilliant at the latter.
Lastly, the heel's job in promos is to cast themselves as being better than the face not because he actually IS, but because he thinks he is. The heel is supposed to ignore that it takes desperately levels of cheating, foreign objects, and a small army of bad guy henchmen, and say, in cocky fashion "I'm better than you." The heel has to suggest though that his opponent is better than him, and that despite the fact that the face is always losing, he CAN win. The job of the face is to reassure the audience that he really is better than the heel, that he CAN win, and that the crowd is right to back him.
Here's where Triple H goes wrong. He not only beats the face, he does so decisively. No one will buy tickets to see the rematch because they already know the bad guy won and the hero has no chance in hell of winning. He doesn't show weakness. He's rarely beaten clean in a one on one match. He's never given his in ring comeuppance. This is compounded by his promos. Triple HHH is given twenty minutes of air time to make the opponent look like utter shit. His promos, which tend to be so long they wind up going unchallenged by the face. His victory is a foregone conclusion.
If you want a perfect study in how the storytelling in Triple H matches and angles goes wrong, look no further than his rematch with the Undertaker. WWE actually kind of backed their way into a long running arc at Wrestlemania that worked like this: Shawn Michaels beats Ric Flair in a retirement match. Then Michaels loses in an awesome match against the Undertaker. Michaels, mindful of what Ric Flair did, and maybe wanting to do what Flair couldn't, challenges the Undertaker to a match where if he lost, he'd retire...and Michaels lost. HHH challenges the Undertaker to attempt to beat the man who retired his friend, the man who retired Ric Flair...and LOSES.
The logical follow up should have been "and then HHH challenges the Undertaker to a retirement match, to do what both Flair and Michaels couldn't do, doubly so. Beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania AND win a retirement match at Wrestlemania." What did we get? We got the Undertaker...the guy who WON, remember...practically begging HHH, the man who LOST, for a WM rematch, and HHH refusing because wrestling him meant the Undertaker would get hurt. The story telling was upside down and made HHH look invincible. It happens all the time in his angles. He doesn't lose. He doesn't put the guy over. There's never a CHANCE he can lose. There's your problem right there.