Matte
"Family Man" 
Posts 8684
Registered 12-16-2008 Member Is Offline Mood: #BROKEN
|
| posted on 8-4-2016 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
merc is obviously a fan of the old school stuff which is cool, I just think he might put it on a little too high of a pedestal while dismissing some
of the "newer" stuff (90s and later). I think if you ask 99% of wrestlers and fans their opinion on Taker and HBK, they'd have them in their
top ten. merc is the 1%.
"I'm a professional. I know exactly what I'm doing." - Jeff Hardy
|
|
|
DKBroiler
SpeciASSl CUMedian 
Posts 1282
Registered 1-25-2008 Location One Inch Right of Philly on a Map Member Is Offline Mood: Old
|
| posted on 8-4-2016 at 09:05 PM |
|
|
The problem with this list is that they used the term "wrestler" in the first place when it's obvious it's supposed to be a list of
"performers who had the largest overall impact on the wrestling industry". Even more obvious is that some of our esteemed posters cannot seperate
the two either.
For example, you can make a really strong argument that He Who Shall Not Be Named is the greatest WRESTLER of all time but that whole no charisma,
killed his whole family thing kind of keeps him off the list.
Meanwhile you can make a really good argument that even way after his death Andre The Giant has had a bigger overall impact on the genre than HBK,
despite the fact that HBK is a better WRESTLER than ATG by a magnitude of about a billion.
At the end of the day I didn't see anything too egregious about the top 25 if you just changed it to "performers who had the largest overall
impact on the wrestling industry."
As for me, I used to edit the ratings of all of the guys in the WWE games based upon the following criteria. No real person could be more than a 99,
and a standard first time World Champion would be a 90. I believe the only people who I would have ever given a 99 to were 80s Hogan and Andre and
2014-2015 Lesnar. Lots of guys got 95s to 98s but in my 35 years only those 3 ever came across as truly dominant performers.
Get off my lawn.
|
|
|
merc
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1081
Registered 2-23-2006 Location New England Member Is OnlineMood: Really FN bad
|
| posted on 8-4-2016 at 09:58 PM |
|
|
DK, Wholeheartedly agree ; see my edit for more.
Punker, interesting take on Kahli, that was Andre in WWF as a heel. Fair call, that's part of why I think Wight is a better big man in the
ring- victim of being poorly promoted.
Matte, I grew up on 70's WWWF, fell in love with Florida & Georgia stuff I could find in magazines, and then on TBS. I gave up on it for a
while around '90 but found it again mid 90's.
So for the old guys lets take Strangler Lewis.
A 30 year career, with a 6 year comeback, for 36 years.
Sold out venues from France to Australia.
6 different heavyweight championships from 1920-1944, including 3x catch as catch can title
(The original World Heavyweight Championship title, that of Hackenschmidt & Gotch lineage)
So six different organizations across the USA saw the drawing power he had (although I dismiss the 1944 title as an accident, as he was basically
blind at the time and knocked the champion out. he refused to accept the belt, so he held it for a day.
At a time when they tracked $ by event he held the record for gate sizes for numerous venues, including the first reported $100k gate...KC or Chicago
IIRC.
Creator of "the sleeper hold"
Describe by Thesz & Gange as the best wrestler of all time and a guy who couldn't be beat unless he wanted to be.
Pro wrestling, Wrestling Observer & WWE HOF
So IMO, the history puts him in the top 10. There isn't anyone in the top 10 with those credentials.
ETA: Wrestling Observer Top 25 Draws from 12/2013
Described as people who maintained top positions in the business for a year over long periods as opposed to single years. (Merc: I've read the
description a few times and am not really sure what it means, but it is a lot more research than I'd ever do. Credit to Meltzer & his team)
1-Jim Londos
2-Bruno Sammartino
3-Lou Thesz
4-Bill Longson
5-Hulk Hogan
6-Ed :Strangler� Lewis
7-Antonino Rocca
8-Ric Flair
9-Buddy Rogers
10-Joe Stecher
11-Dick The Bruiser
12-The Rock
The Sheik
14-HHH
15-Killer Kowalski
16-John Cena
17-Bob Backlund
18-Andre The Giant
19-Whipper Watson
Stanislaus Zbyszko
21-Yvon Robert
22-John Pesek
23-The Undertaker
24-Frank Gotch
25-Konnan
[Edited on 8-4-2016 by merc]
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." D.
Adams
|
|
|
bigfatgoalie
The Man
Posts 6218
Registered 1-16-2002 Location Stratusphere Member Is Offline Mood: Stratusfied
|
| posted on 8-4-2016 at 10:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DKBroiler
The problem with this list is that they used the term "wrestler" in the first place when it's obvious it's supposed to be a list of
"performers who had the largest overall impact on the wrestling industry". Even more obvious is that some of our esteemed posters cannot seperate
the two either.
For example, you can make a really strong argument that He Who Shall Not Be Named is the greatest WRESTLER of all time but that whole no charisma,
killed his whole family thing kind of keeps him off the list.
Meanwhile you can make a really good argument that even way after his death Andre The Giant has had a bigger overall impact on the genre than HBK,
despite the fact that HBK is a better WRESTLER than ATG by a magnitude of about a billion.
At the end of the day I didn't see anything too egregious about the top 25 if you just changed it to "performers who had the largest overall
impact on the wrestling industry."
As for me, I used to edit the ratings of all of the guys in the WWE games based upon the following criteria. No real person could be more than a 99,
and a standard first time World Champion would be a 90. I believe the only people who I would have ever given a 99 to were 80s Hogan and Andre and
2014-2015 Lesnar. Lots of guys got 95s to 98s but in my 35 years only those 3 ever came across as truly dominant performers.
I am confused.
If this is a "performers who had the largest overall impact list" how can you say there's nothing wrong with the top 25. Shouldn't Hogan
or Austin be #1? Bruno had less impact than Orton?
You openly question how others are confused by the list, and follow it up with a description that just doesn't fit the list.
|
|
|
CCharger
The Rowdy One 
Posts 2746
Registered 7-21-2010 Member Is Offline Mood: Obtuse
|
| posted on 8-4-2016 at 10:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkerhardcore
I do firmly believe this, though, and I'm not joking at all- if you swapped Andre the Giant and The Great Khali's places in wrestling
history, then everyone now would be heralding Khali as one of the best of all time. They were basically the same damn thing.
This opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.
When it Reigns, it bores.
|
|
|
Fifth Horseman
Man of a Thousand Holds 
Posts 1489
Registered 1-15-2006 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 8-4-2016 at 10:55 PM |
|
|
I think what we're all saying is, is that we should create a list of the top 101 wrestlers that did NOT make the SI list. 
|
|
|
the goon
Sister Act
Posts 5783
Registered 3-13-2004 Location Charlotte, NC Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 8-5-2016 at 12:17 AM |
|
|
I think it's kind of impossible to do these types of lists just because there's too much different criteria. Does Hogan's
unparalleled success trump Shawn Michaels' in-ring ability? Does John Cena's longevity trump Steve Austin's bigger but briefer
impact on wrestling? Does Andre the Giant's mainstream recognition trump Kurt Angle's portfolio of great matches? There's just too
many factors involved to make everyone happy; if Hogan was number one you could argue "well he's not half the wrestler Michaels is!" and if
Michaels was number one you could argue "well he didn't have half of the importance or impact that Hogan did!"
Nash is only a few inches bigger than JBL and depending on how stiff he gets Punk should be able to take it. -JB King, meant in a totally non-sexual
way
|
|
|
williamssl
Steers and Queers
Posts 7142
Registered 1-11-2004 Location Hippieville Member Is Offline Mood: Fuck USC
|
| posted on 8-5-2016 at 02:44 AM |
|
|
Breaking news: list gets published on the internet, readers disagree with list.
Don't Mess With Texas
|
|
|
Wickedfrost
I LOVE RVD 
Posts 820
Registered 2-14-2006 Member Is Offline Mood: Cranky!
|
| posted on 8-5-2016 at 03:40 AM |
|
|
It's fucking bullshit that they buried Becky Lynch. She's obviously top 3.
Stay wet my friends.
|
|
|
First 9
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1913
Registered 1-22-2013 Member Is Offline Mood: Doing the Emma Dance
|
| posted on 8-5-2016 at 06:53 AM |
|
|
I agree with punker on Michaels. Andre was a box office draw, made money, and has a huge legacy like a handful of other but Shawn Michaels impacted
the very essence of wrestling. Almost every single goddamn wrestler in the last ten years has said Michaels was their inspiration, set the bar and is
their dream opponent. Every single ladder match is measured to his ladder match, every match in the biggest stage of them all is measured to his
classics, the idea of being a all around great in terms of workrate and charisma is done by seeing how somebody stacks against Shawn.
Shit son, WWE polled their roster asking who was the greatest of all time and the no.1 answer was Shawn.
|
|
|
Slade
The Great One
Posts 3714
Registered 11-10-2002 Location Fredericton, New Brunswick Member Is Offline Mood: Cero Miedo!
|
| posted on 8-5-2016 at 01:29 PM |
|
|
Andr� The Giant also impacted the very essence of wrestling, but he did it to a different generation. While this generation is all about smaller and
more athletic athletes, following the influence of Shawn Michaels, the 1980s was all about filling the ring with as many giants as possible, following
the influence of Andr� as a major box office draw. His emergence as a big star in the 1970s led to a wave of big men becoming a major focus of
professional wrestling: Big John Studd, King Kong Bundy, Bam Bam Bigelow, Kamala, One Man Gang, Vader, Yokozuna, Earthquake, Typhoon, etc.
"Love is making out with someone after you've blown a load on his/her face." - Dan Savage
|
|
|
GodEatGod
Showstopper 
Posts 911
Registered 1-14-2004 Location Monroe, LA Member Is Offline Mood: Weird
|
| posted on 8-5-2016 at 03:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slade
Andr� The Giant also impacted the very essence of wrestling, but he did it to a different generation. While this generation is all about smaller and
more athletic athletes, following the influence of Shawn Michaels, the 1980s was all about filling the ring with as many giants as possible, following
the influence of Andr� as a major box office draw. His emergence as a big star in the 1970s led to a wave of big men becoming a major focus of
professional wrestling: Big John Studd, King Kong Bundy, Bam Bam Bigelow, Kamala, One Man Gang, Vader, Yokozuna, Earthquake, Typhoon, etc.
Well...yeah, but that sucked.
Like - if one of the major side effects is Kamala, something bad has happened. Of the wrestlers you listed, two (Vader and Bam Bam) were actually any
good.
[Edited on 8-5-2016 by GodEatGod]
"It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don't like something, it is empirically not good. I don't like
Chinese food, but I don't write articles trying to prove it doesn't exist." - Tina Fey
|
|
|
DKBroiler
SpeciASSl CUMedian
Posts 1282
Registered 1-25-2008 Location One Inch Right of Philly on a Map Member Is Offline Mood: Old
|
| posted on 8-5-2016 at 04:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
quote:
Originally posted by DKBroiler
The problem with this list is that they used the term "wrestler" in the first place when it's obvious it's supposed to be a list of
"performers who had the largest overall impact on the wrestling industry". Even more obvious is that some of our esteemed posters cannot seperate
the two either.
For example, you can make a really strong argument that He Who Shall Not Be Named is the greatest WRESTLER of all time but that whole no charisma,
killed his whole family thing kind of keeps him off the list.
Meanwhile you can make a really good argument that even way after his death Andre The Giant has had a bigger overall impact on the genre than HBK,
despite the fact that HBK is a better WRESTLER than ATG by a magnitude of about a billion.
At the end of the day I didn't see anything too egregious about the top 25 if you just changed it to "performers who had the largest overall
impact on the wrestling industry."
As for me, I used to edit the ratings of all of the guys in the WWE games based upon the following criteria. No real person could be more than a 99,
and a standard first time World Champion would be a 90. I believe the only people who I would have ever given a 99 to were 80s Hogan and Andre and
2014-2015 Lesnar. Lots of guys got 95s to 98s but in my 35 years only those 3 ever came across as truly dominant performers.
I am confused.
If this is a "performers who had the largest overall impact list" how can you say there's nothing wrong with the top 25. Shouldn't Hogan
or Austin be #1? Bruno had less impact than Orton?
You openly question how others are confused by the list, and follow it up with a description that just doesn't fit the list.
BFG, you make a good point. Admittedly I only looked at the top 25 so guys like Bruno were more out of sight, out of mind. He clearly belongs in the
top 10 at least. That said, when I made the comment about nothing egregious I was more thinking along the lines of they didn't put someone like
Kurrgan in the top 25. Orton, for example, while many of us might not like him he does have a dozen World Championships, several WM main events, and
has been WWE's number 2 draw for most of the last 5 to 10 years. I personally wouldn't put him above a guy like Angle but it's not
crazy either.
That's all I really meant. Arguing over a few spots in the rankings is mostly subjective, but yes, Bruno should be in the top 25 for sure.
Also, if it were me here would be my rankings.
1 Hogan
2 Austin
3 Rock
4 Cena
5 Flair
6 Undertaker
7 HBK
8 Andre
9 Bruno
10 Lesnar
11 Macho Man
12 Someone I'm not thinking of that makes me look like an idiot.
Get off my lawn.
|
|
|
williamssl
Steers and Queers
Posts 7142
Registered 1-11-2004 Location Hippieville Member Is Offline Mood: Fuck USC
|
| posted on 8-6-2016 at 12:00 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
Breaking news: list gets published on the internet, readers disagree with list.
News Update: people still disagreeing with list, expand disagreeing to other people's lists.
Don't Mess With Texas
|
|
|
merc
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1081
Registered 2-23-2006 Location New England Member Is OnlineMood: Really FN bad
|
| posted on 8-6-2016 at 12:09 AM |
|
|
Damn these news briefs! It interrupted my Axis TV show. Now I'll never know what relocated Texans mix with their vinegar...
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." D.
Adams
|
|
|
First 9
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1913
Registered 1-22-2013 Member Is Offline Mood: Doing the Emma Dance
|
| posted on 8-6-2016 at 12:44 AM |
|
|
I don't get putting Hogan over Austin, besides Hogan being a bigger nostalgia factor for older folks. Everybody, even Hogan himselfd, agreed
that the nWo was his renaissance and it was just as big as his first golden era and Austin took that head on and won. And then come the comparisons to
the original Hulkmania vs the Austin era, Stone Cold sold more merch, and it was overall bigger money making years than the Hulk years.
|
|
|
Count Zero
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1274
Registered 1-29-2013 Location Canada East Member Is Offline Mood: Universal
|
| posted on 8-6-2016 at 04:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
Breaking news: list gets published on the internet, readers disagree with list.
News Update: people still disagreeing with list, expand disagreeing to other people's lists.
Can we get some film on this? Or maybe
next update, attack it from a different angle? Gotta keep things fresh in the 24-hr news cycle of List Debating.
Originally posted by williamssl
"That hasn't stopped us from doing this shit before!"
"Checkmate, sir. Checkmate"
|
|
|
punkerhardcore
American Dream 
Posts 7730
Registered 7-16-2005 Member Is Offline Mood: Lickable
|
| posted on 8-6-2016 at 04:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
This opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.
Two giant dudes who couldn't wrestle, could barely move and whose promos nobody could understand. Interchangeable.
Just because Andre did a dropkick 15 years prior to all his WWE success, doesn't mean I'm impressed, either. His hook and his appeal was
that he was fucking huge, and nobody had seen anything like him in professional wrestling before. That's it. People want to romanticize stuff
from their era, or their childhood/fond memories too much. Which is fine, but sometimes you also have to call a spade a spade.
Is everyone mad here?
Of course they are, and you are too... otherwise, you wouldn't have come here.
|
|
|
merc
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1081
Registered 2-23-2006 Location New England Member Is OnlineMood: Really FN bad
|
| posted on 8-6-2016 at 04:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by First 9
I don't get putting Hogan over Austin, besides Hogan being a bigger nostalgia factor for older folks. Everybody, even Hogan himselfd, agreed
that the nWo was his renaissance and it was just as big as his first golden era and Austin took that head on and won. And then come the comparisons to
the original Hulkmania vs the Austin era, Stone Cold sold more merch, and it was overall bigger money making years than the Hulk years.
I think it's twofold.
1. Austins time at the top was roughly 96-00 maybe into 01. 5 years.
Hogan held titles before WWF including AWA, but 84-93 at the WWE Top, then 94-00 at the top of WCW (give or take). So it's roughly 3-1 on time
as one of the company leaders.
Compound that with supporting cast strength- Austin's 5 years is much stronger I think.
2. Austin benefited from a business war & transition of the business to more mainstream.
Hopefully that helps put the "other side" into perspective.
Punker, your take on Andre is 100% correct. He was an attraction. And in a business where the performers job is to sell tix he did.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." D.
Adams
|
|
|
CCharger
The Rowdy One
Posts 2746
Registered 7-21-2010 Member Is Offline Mood: Obtuse
|
| posted on 8-8-2016 at 02:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkerhardcore
quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
This opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.
Two giant dudes who couldn't wrestle, could barely move and whose promos nobody could understand. Interchangeable.
Just because Andre did a dropkick 15 years prior to all his WWE success, doesn't mean I'm impressed, either. His hook and his appeal was
that he was fucking huge, and nobody had seen anything like him in professional wrestling before. That's it. People want to romanticize stuff
from their era, or their childhood/fond memories too much. Which is fine, but sometimes you also have to call a spade a spade.
How many of us watched Andre wrestle in the 1970's? Most of us remember the old, lumbering man who began sweating profusely while climbing into
the ring.
It's like Backlund. Most of us remember Backlund best for his crazy gimmick. Meanwhile Backlund was arguably the best technical wrestler of his
era.
It goes both ways.
When it Reigns, it bores.
|
|
|
GodEatGod
Showstopper
Posts 911
Registered 1-14-2004 Location Monroe, LA Member Is Offline Mood: Weird
|
| posted on 8-10-2016 at 05:44 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
It goes both ways.
Much like Backlund in the 70s!
"It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don't like something, it is empirically not good. I don't like
Chinese food, but I don't write articles trying to prove it doesn't exist." - Tina Fey
|
|
|
