The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 28, 2008 1:44:58 GMT -5
Exactly. The Wrestling/Baseball comparison falls flat, since baseball they're just looking for the best hitters, fielders, and whatnot. With wrestling, you factor in looks, marketability, and a lot of other things. You'll never hear of a baseball player not getting called up because he doesn't have "the superstar look". But here's where you're wrong. In professional wrestling, whether you want to accept this or not, your "look" is part of your ability. Because the ONLY thing that matters is your ability to get over. Not how many moves you know, not your ability to "work", not your moveset, not your psychology.... Simply your ability to make the masses care about you. Not the 1000 people who are wrestling-holics, but the joe schmo who may or may not choose to watch RAW over Monday Night Football. Who might pay for Wrestlemania on PPV if he's really interested. If you can't get those people to care about you, you're nothing in the wrestling business. Your "look" has a HELLUVA lot to do with that. You say in baseball they're just looking for the best hitters, fielders, etc. Well in wrestling they're looking for the best guys in look, mic, and ring skills. And likely in that order. Thats the name of the game. If WWE or even TNA thought that Danielson truly had what it takes to be the biggest star in wrestling they'd be making him the proverbial "offer he can't refuse." As it stands they offer him a developmental deal or whatever because they probably see him as a Benoit or Punk type who can appeal to the indy marks, work a good match with everyone, and be a solid mid card guy. Because in the big leagues thats what he'd be. So instead he's chosen to stay on the indy circuit as Indy God#910840198. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't insult mine or any other wrestling fans intelligence by telling us he's even in the same league as the Cena's, HHH's, Hardy's, and Edge's of the world. Because he's not even close, and he never will be. But when Bryan Danielson talks about being the best wrestler in the world, he's not talking about look, he's just talking about actual in-ring wrestling. And most of all, it's just his gimmick. Based on interviews and whatnot I've heard from Bryan, he's pretty humble.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Dec 28, 2008 1:47:51 GMT -5
"What? Someone in the WWE shoot on The Dragon? HA! No way in hell! NOBODY and I MEAN NOBODY in the WWE could shoot on AmDrag, he's got techincal wrestling coming out of his ass, so they'd be put down in a heartbeat. Nobody on the planet can beat AmDrag because even AmDrag can go to Japan and beat everyone. AmDrag is the greatest techincal wrestler on the planet, don't mind the fact that he's ugly as hell and pasty as glue, because it doesn't matter. NOBODY in the WWE will ever be as good as him, because he was ROH champion for a long time. And that never happens. It doesn't matter that every wrestler on the planet would want to main event Wrestlemania. Danielson has MAIN EVENTED RING OF HONOR PPVs MAN! That's some hardcore, real deal wrestling.
The Rock? Bush league. Chris Jericho? Couldn't beat AmDrag in a sack race. Triple H? 12 World Titles? Pshhh, how many times has he wrestled Morishima? huh? Never. None of them can hold a candle to the greatest technical wrestler on the planet. AmDrag can't even shoot on himself. Let alone a WWE guy doing it.
Unless of course it's CM Punk. Thank you." -ROHbot
|
|
|
Post by DamnYankee on Dec 28, 2008 1:50:36 GMT -5
Bryan Danielson is probably the best pure wrestler in the world, today. However, he will never succeed in the big leagues unless he is able to draw 20,000+ people and make them care about him. Wrestling is all about drawing money, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 28, 2008 1:51:45 GMT -5
But here's where you're wrong. In professional wrestling, whether you want to accept this or not, your "look" is part of your ability. Because the ONLY thing that matters is your ability to get over. Not how many moves you know, not your ability to "work", not your moveset, not your psychology.... Simply your ability to make the masses care about you. Not the 1000 people who are wrestling-holics, but the joe schmo who may or may not choose to watch RAW over Monday Night Football. Who might pay for Wrestlemania on PPV if he's really interested. If you can't get those people to care about you, you're nothing in the wrestling business. Your "look" has a HELLUVA lot to do with that. You say in baseball they're just looking for the best hitters, fielders, etc. Well in wrestling they're looking for the best guys in look, mic, and ring skills. And likely in that order. Thats the name of the game. If WWE or even TNA thought that Danielson truly had what it takes to be the biggest star in wrestling they'd be making him the proverbial "offer he can't refuse." As it stands they offer him a developmental deal or whatever because they probably see him as a Benoit or Punk type who can appeal to the indy marks, work a good match with everyone, and be a solid mid card guy. Because in the big leagues thats what he'd be. So instead he's chosen to stay on the indy circuit as Indy God#910840198. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't insult mine or any other wrestling fans intelligence by telling us he's even in the same league as the Cena's, HHH's, Hardy's, and Edge's of the world. Because he's not even close, and he never will be. But when Bryan Danielson talks about being the best wrestler in the world, he's not talking about look, he's just talking about actual in-ring wrestling. And most of all, it's just his gimmick. Based on interviews and whatnot I've heard from Bryan, he's pretty humble. If we're talking about his best wrestler in the world gimmick then whatever. Its a gimmick. Cena's not really a rapper, Undertaker's not really dead. I can accept that. However the word "wrestler" when used in terms of being a pro wrestler doesn't just mean what they do inside the ring. And if someone is gonna say that Danielson is the best wrestler in the world they're wrong. If you want to say "ring technician" or something like that then fine. But he's not the best wrestler all-around.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 28, 2008 1:54:13 GMT -5
Exactly. The Wrestling/Baseball comparison falls flat, since baseball they're just looking for the best hitters, fielders, and whatnot. With wrestling, you factor in looks, marketability, and a lot of other things. You'll never hear of a baseball player not getting called up because he doesn't have "the superstar look". But here's where you're wrong. In professional wrestling, whether you want to accept this or not, your "look" is part of your ability. Because the ONLY thing that matters is your ability to get over. Not how many moves you know, not your ability to "work", not your moveset, not your psychology.... Simply your ability to make the masses care about you. Not the 1000 people who are wrestling-holics, but the joe schmo who may or may not choose to watch RAW over Monday Night Football. Who might pay for Wrestlemania on PPV if he's really interested. If you can't get those people to care about you, you're nothing in the wrestling business. Your "look" has a HELLUVA lot to do with that. You say in baseball they're just looking for the best hitters, fielders, etc. Well in wrestling they're looking for the best guys in look, mic, and ring skills. And likely in that order. Thats the name of the game. If WWE or even TNA thought that Danielson truly had what it takes to be the biggest star in wrestling they'd be making him the proverbial "offer he can't refuse." As it stands they offer him a developmental deal or whatever because they probably see him as a Benoit or Punk type who can appeal to the indy marks, work a good match with everyone, and be a solid mid card guy. Because in the big leagues thats what he'd be. So instead he's chosen to stay on the indy circuit as Indy God#910840198. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't insult mine or any other wrestling fans intelligence by telling us he's even in the same league as the Cena's, HHH's, Hardy's, and Edge's of the world. Because he's not even close, and he never will be. I would agree completely if it wasn't Dragon. Based on his own ability, I feel that he could get over very well if he was in WWE. Smaller guys like The Brian Kendrick, Evan Bourne and Rey Mysterio are perfect examples of great wrestlers who got over. Dragon knows how to work a good match, he can work a 5 minute squash or a 60 minute broadway, so he's the kind of worker that a company like WWE would want, and as said by others, if Dragon wanted to, he'd be in WWE now. Anyone, when given the opportunity, can get over, no matter what they're doing. And I feel that once Dragon does get his opportunity, he will get over.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 28, 2008 2:00:51 GMT -5
But here's where you're wrong. In professional wrestling, whether you want to accept this or not, your "look" is part of your ability. Because the ONLY thing that matters is your ability to get over. Not how many moves you know, not your ability to "work", not your moveset, not your psychology.... Simply your ability to make the masses care about you. Not the 1000 people who are wrestling-holics, but the joe schmo who may or may not choose to watch RAW over Monday Night Football. Who might pay for Wrestlemania on PPV if he's really interested. If you can't get those people to care about you, you're nothing in the wrestling business. Your "look" has a HELLUVA lot to do with that. You say in baseball they're just looking for the best hitters, fielders, etc. Well in wrestling they're looking for the best guys in look, mic, and ring skills. And likely in that order. Thats the name of the game. If WWE or even TNA thought that Danielson truly had what it takes to be the biggest star in wrestling they'd be making him the proverbial "offer he can't refuse." As it stands they offer him a developmental deal or whatever because they probably see him as a Benoit or Punk type who can appeal to the indy marks, work a good match with everyone, and be a solid mid card guy. Because in the big leagues thats what he'd be. So instead he's chosen to stay on the indy circuit as Indy God#910840198. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't insult mine or any other wrestling fans intelligence by telling us he's even in the same league as the Cena's, HHH's, Hardy's, and Edge's of the world. Because he's not even close, and he never will be. I would agree completely if it wasn't Dragon. Based on his own ability, I feel that he could get over very well if he was in WWE. Smaller guys like The Brian Kendrick, Evan Bourne and Rey Mysterio are perfect examples of great wrestlers who got over. Dragon knows how to work a good match, he can work a 5 minute squash or a 60 minute broadway, so he's the kind of worker that a company like WWE would want, and as said by others, if Dragon wanted to, he'd be in WWE now. Anyone, when given the opportunity, can get over, no matter what they're doing. And I feel that once Dragon does get his opportunity, he will get over. I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. I've said many times I have little doubt Danielson could get over. I think he could easily get over to the levels of a Kendrick, Bourne, or Mysterio I just don't think he could get over to the levels of Cena or HHH which is where he would need to be to be considered the best. Danielson has turned down WWE, but I don't think WWE has been putting on the full court press to try to get him either. Trust me if WWE wanted him bad enough they'd have him. If WWE felt he truly had the ability to be the "best in the world" he'd be in WWE.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 28, 2008 2:34:16 GMT -5
Amen. I hate when people post Danielson in the same level as Benoit, Flair, Hart etc., WTF has Brian Danielson done only put on a couple of "MOTY's" with some nobodies not even the casual WWE audience would recognize? Until you make it to the WWE, you have nothing. No matter how many smarks say otherwise. What an extremely condescending thing to say. I guess indies may as well not exist and all wrestling should be brought to you by Vince McMahon. At this point, the name WWE is the entity that draws fans in, not individual wrestlers. Bryan Danielson can be a great wrestler without ever stepping foot in a WWE ring. It isnt about whether you happened to be in a ring in front of 80,000 people and they liked it. Its about if Bryan Danielson entertains YOU.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Dec 28, 2008 2:41:53 GMT -5
Amen. I hate when people post Danielson in the same level as Benoit, Flair, Hart etc., WTF has Brian Danielson done only put on a couple of "MOTY's" with some nobodies not even the casual WWE audience would recognize? Until you make it to the WWE, you have nothing. No matter how many smarks say otherwise. What an extremely condescending thing to say. I guess indies may as well not exist and all wrestling should be brought to you by Vince McMahon. At this point, the name WWE is the entity that draws fans in, not individual wrestlers. Bryan Danielson can be a great wrestler without ever stepping foot in a WWE ring. It isnt about whether you happened to be in a ring in front of 80,000 people and they liked it. Its about if Bryan Danielson entertains YOU. No, no he doesnt.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Dec 28, 2008 2:44:22 GMT -5
I would agree completely if it wasn't Dragon. Based on his own ability, I feel that he could get over very well if he was in WWE. Smaller guys like The Brian Kendrick, Evan Bourne and Rey Mysterio are perfect examples of great wrestlers who got over. Dragon knows how to work a good match, he can work a 5 minute squash or a 60 minute broadway, so he's the kind of worker that a company like WWE would want, and as said by others, if Dragon wanted to, he'd be in WWE now. Anyone, when given the opportunity, can get over, no matter what they're doing. And I feel that once Dragon does get his opportunity, he will get over. I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. I've said many times I have little doubt Danielson could get over. I think he could easily get over to the levels of a Kendrick, Bourne, or Mysterio I just don't think he could get over to the levels of Cena or HHH which is where he would need to be to be considered the best. Danielson has turned down WWE, but I don't think WWE has been putting on the full court press to try to get him either. Trust me if WWE wanted him bad enough they'd have him. If WWE felt he truly had the ability to be the "best in the world" he'd be in WWE. No one has said that he's as good as or better than Cena or Triple H. They've just stated that he has a gimmick where he claims to be the greatest ring general in wrestling today. Your argument over him using the word wrestler over something like "ring technician" is pretty much a moot point. Especially when you make comparisons between the guy and people in a company that have eliminated the word wrestler from their vocabulary. Just because to you the word wrestler means image, hype and worth first doesn't take away from the guys gimmick. When people say wrestling, generally the first thing that comes to their mind is two guys grappling on the mat. If we're going to scrutinize the gimmick to such a degree then why don't we do the same with Mark Henry? The guy didn't win his strongman competition, and yet he was introduced and billed as the "World's Strongest Man". We don't because it's just a gimmick, just like Bryan being called the "Greatest Wrestler in the World. Danielson is also considered by many to be one of the top wrestling prospects in the world today. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be main eventing Wrestlemania in the next few years, but that he's got such a great mind of the business that's so rare to come across. Even if he didn't have the gimmick, I'm sure people would rave about his raw ability and matches. It's just how good he is. It's not his fault he's good enough to the point where people genuinely believe the title is true.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 28, 2008 2:52:28 GMT -5
When people say he's the best wrestler in the world they mean he's the best WRESTLER in the world. Not the best draw, not the best entertainer, not the best character, not the most marketable...the best WRESTLER. Whoever's saying that he can't work a match is an idiot, he's one of the finest ring storytellers out there. John Cena is no doubt a bigger star, but that doesn't mean Bryan isn't a better WRESTLER than him just because he's not in the WWE. It's ridiculous to say that you can't be the best at something unless you're big in the mainstream. Are you telling me that if a guy in an indie band is an incredible guitarist, we can't say he's better than the guy in Nickelback because he's in an indie band? More fans does not equal better. John Cena is better at drawing a mainstream crowd than Bryan Danielson. That doesn't make him a better wrestler. And quite frankly...no one can say he doesn't have the ability to draw in the mainstream because it's never been attempted. The man knows how to work a fantastic, dramatic match, and can hold his own on the mic. Who's to say that with a tweaked look and the right push he couldn't get over? He's already proved that he can be a massive indie draw. He very well could be made into a mainstream draw as well. Well if we're using "wrestler" in the purest form of the word, the best in the world is someone like Brent Metcalf (google it kids). Now then if we're using "wrestler" in the term of professional wrestler, which is a completely fictional sport, then the best draw is the best. Thats the only purpose to what they are doing. They are entertainers and their number one goal is to get people to pay to see them perform. Now then Brian Danielson is not a bigger draw than John Cena, because it hasn't been attempted. Thats a true statement. You absolutely can say it. I might be a bigger draw than both of them, but no one has tried. If WWE signs Danielson, gives him a legit chance to get over, and he does get over in a massive way then I'll be happy to call him the best in the world. Until that happens, I'm still going with Cena. You can think Bryan Danielson is a better wrestler than John Cena. Hell I can even think he's a better wrestler than John Cena. But he certainly isn't better at being a professional wrestler than John Cena, if that makes sense. Just compare their bank statements. Eddie Murphy is the greatest movie draw of all time. Is he automatically the best actor? Or is the criteria somehow different?
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 28, 2008 6:23:28 GMT -5
About the analogy with Real Sports and Music...
Danielson reminds me of one of those athletes who get praised and touted as future Top Stars because they are the proverbial big fish in the small bowl, yet again they often fail to reach their full potential once they're part of the Big Team, because there's too much competition. For every Leo Messi there are 100 Riquelme, 1000 D'Alessandro and 10000 No-Name kids who got totally lost in the shuffle.
So, no, it's not granted the "best technical performer" will inevitably have a great career in the Big Leagues. There are so many factors. Otherwise, please explain me how Antonio Cassano has failed pretty much everywhere and he's now the "star" of a mid-table act. While many mediocre players are piling up International Caps for both Club and National teams.
About music. Technique =/= success. Actually technique doesn't mean crap if you can't "give" something more to the crowds.
Malmsteen was arguably THE most technical, quick and pseudo-innovative guitar player ever. Yet he's not even close being among the Top 10 guitar players in history, while a ton of mediocre, less technical, less imaginitive, less gifted and dedicated players are EASILY in the Top 10 of both Average Joe and Jim Musicbuff.
So?
Wrestling is, like any other for of "art", subjective. What's awesome to you, may as well be deadly boring to me. There isn't "better" or "worse" there. It's a matter of who clicks with the audience, why, how long does it take for him to make them care etc...
And analyzing the past trends in wrestling, I dare say Danielson, as awesomely technical as he may be, could be more than happy to reach a midcard status in WWE.
The comparison with Mysterio doesn't work. Rey has 10+ years of semi-global exposure, he's still a flashy performer, and the kids love him. Danielson, I have my doubts he could get to that level with a non-stop sequence of submission moves...
The average fan of WWE would start a BOOOOOOOOOO-RIIIIIIIIIIIIIING chant in a matter of seconds. Have you paying attention to how easily bored the fans get with a match? And you REALLY think AmDrag could get himself over with his aresenal of submissions? Against guys who make him look like a 6th grader at an high-school party?
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 28, 2008 6:42:17 GMT -5
I would agree completely if it wasn't Dragon. Based on his own ability, I feel that he could get over very well if he was in WWE. Smaller guys like The Brian Kendrick, Evan Bourne and Rey Mysterio are perfect examples of great wrestlers who got over. Dragon knows how to work a good match, he can work a 5 minute squash or a 60 minute broadway, so he's the kind of worker that a company like WWE would want, and as said by others, if Dragon wanted to, he'd be in WWE now. Anyone, when given the opportunity, can get over, no matter what they're doing. And I feel that once Dragon does get his opportunity, he will get over. I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. I've said many times I have little doubt Danielson could get over. I think he could easily get over to the levels of a Kendrick, Bourne, or Mysterio I just don't think he could get over to the levels of Cena or HHH which is where he would need to be to be considered the best. Danielson has turned down WWE, but I don't think WWE has been putting on the full court press to try to get him either. Trust me if WWE wanted him bad enough they'd have him. If WWE felt he truly had the ability to be the "best in the world" he'd be in WWE. See, it's the last part of the argument that loses me. "if they wanted him, they'd have him, but they don't have him, so he can't be the best" is what I see, and I have trouble wrapping my brain around it. I see comments all the time about "oh, this guy only wrestled in front of a few hundred people, that's not a big deal", when, in fact, isn't that how most people who are on top right now started? When Flair was starting in the Carolinas, was he working in front of 20,000? F*** no. The main eventers that were world famous in many regards during the 1950's and 1960's? Nope, they worked smaller crowds than the average RAW. I look at the guys coming off the indy scene this way, they're doing things the way the guys before them always say it should be done, paying dues, traveling from town to town to learn the craft. That, last I checked, is supposed to be positive. It's supposed to be one of those "character building" deals. Yet, I guess times really have changed, since now all it takes is six months in developmental to have a rocket up the ass to the main event.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Dec 28, 2008 7:10:52 GMT -5
"his lack of knowledge of how to actually "work" holds him back from making steps towards the next phase of his career."
Work the crowd, I would guess, since he is a beloved technician.
I don't really see it, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:24:14 GMT -5
"his lack of knowledge of how to actually "work" holds him back from making steps towards the next phase of his career." Work the crowd, I would guess, since he is a beloved technician. I don't really see it, but that's just me. I agree, that has to be the meaning, though it doesn't make total sense to me either. I do believe he gets reactions fromt he crowds he works in front of, which would constitute knowledge or ability to garner said reactions. Now, if the argument is that small crowds inherently react differently than larger ones, I'm not sure that makes sense either, so it must be that the WWE crowd reacts differently form crowds he's worked in front of in the States, Japan, or Mexico. While I do think that is the case, the whole "best in the world" argument, to me, would be more applicable to someone who does not work for WWE, as they work in front of crowds who are more expectant in terms of differing styles. A crowd in Mexico City, for instance, may react better to one type of match, while a Tokyo crowd would be more favorable towards a different style. Thus, being able to draw reactions from both crowds despite the overall preferences they may have, would make one more well-rounded and, in terms of marketability on a world-wide scale, "better". Compare that to WWE, where a top main eventer may be on top for, say, five years, but in that time only work matches reguarly aganst maybe six or so people. That, to me, seems far more narrow in terms of skill.
|
|
|
Post by Red 'n' Black Reggie on Dec 28, 2008 7:29:14 GMT -5
to be fair, saying someone isn't the best because they haven't been in "the big leagues" is like saying that soulja boy is one of the best hip hop artists in the world just because of his sales. mainstream success in a subjective field doesn't necessarily mean much. people calling him the best in the world aren't saying he's the best draw, or the biggest star, they're saying he can put on better matches than anyone, and given the fact that observers from several drastically different sources have given him critical acclaim, they have a strong point. you find me someone else who can make shawn michaels, jim ross and dave meltzer all go nuts. in that regard i think his success in one specific company is irrelevant.
and also, dragon HAS been offered a shot with WWE, but turned it down because he wants to do everything he can on the indies before moving on, so it's not like he tried and failed, he hasn't grasped the chance to go to he big leagues, nor may he ever, so i think that argumen't moot.
everyone's entitled to their opinion, but just because an actor has never worked under the world's greatest director, doesn't take away their talent.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Dec 28, 2008 10:34:37 GMT -5
Maybe Danielson isn't in WWE because there is a chance, no matter how small, that he'll be "Pushed" the way Colt Cabana has(I know HBK has his back, but look at what happened to Cade).
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 28, 2008 11:09:26 GMT -5
Well if we're using "wrestler" in the purest form of the word, the best in the world is someone like Brent Metcalf (google it kids). Now then if we're using "wrestler" in the term of professional wrestler, which is a completely fictional sport, then the best draw is the best. Thats the only purpose to what they are doing. They are entertainers and their number one goal is to get people to pay to see them perform. Now then Brian Danielson is not a bigger draw than John Cena, because it hasn't been attempted. Thats a true statement. You absolutely can say it. I might be a bigger draw than both of them, but no one has tried. If WWE signs Danielson, gives him a legit chance to get over, and he does get over in a massive way then I'll be happy to call him the best in the world. Until that happens, I'm still going with Cena. You can think Bryan Danielson is a better wrestler than John Cena. Hell I can even think he's a better wrestler than John Cena. But he certainly isn't better at being a professional wrestler than John Cena, if that makes sense. Just compare their bank statements. Eddie Murphy is the greatest movie draw of all time. Is he automatically the best actor? Or is the criteria somehow different? Assuming that number making him number 1 is adjusted for inflation, then I'd say that Eddie Murphy is better at being an actor than any other actor. For the same reason that Hulk Hogan is better at being a wrestler than any other other wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Dec 28, 2008 11:12:54 GMT -5
Eddie Murphy is the greatest movie draw of all time. Is he automatically the best actor? Or is the criteria somehow different? Assuming that number making him number 1 is adjusted for inflation, then I'd say that Eddie Murphy is better at being an actor than any other actor. Sorry, but thats just sad.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Dec 28, 2008 11:19:53 GMT -5
I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. I've said many times I have little doubt Danielson could get over. I think he could easily get over to the levels of a Kendrick, Bourne, or Mysterio I just don't think he could get over to the levels of Cena or HHH which is where he would need to be to be considered the best. Danielson has turned down WWE, but I don't think WWE has been putting on the full court press to try to get him either. Trust me if WWE wanted him bad enough they'd have him. If WWE felt he truly had the ability to be the "best in the world" he'd be in WWE. See, it's the last part of the argument that loses me. "if they wanted him, they'd have him, but they don't have him, so he can't be the best" is what I see, and I have trouble wrapping my brain around it. I see comments all the time about "oh, this guy only wrestled in front of a few hundred people, that's not a big deal", when, in fact, isn't that how most people who are on top right now started? When Flair was starting in the Carolinas, was he working in front of 20,000? F*** no. The main eventers that were world famous in many regards during the 1950's and 1960's? Nope, they worked smaller crowds than the average RAW. I look at the guys coming off the indy scene this way, they're doing things the way the guys before them always say it should be done, paying dues, traveling from town to town to learn the craft. That, last I checked, is supposed to be positive. It's supposed to be one of those "character building" deals. Yet, I guess times really have changed, since now all it takes is six months in developmental to have a rocket up the ass to the main event. Simple. World Wrestling Entertainment has forgotten more about drawing money in the pro wrestling business than anyone on this forum will ever know. Are they perfect? No, but they seem to know what they're doing. There's nothing wrong with working in the indy's to perfect your craft. Its no different than minor leagues in sports. They certainly serve a purpose. I don't care for them, but I also don't watch Minor League Baseball, or follow high school football recruiting, etc. Its just my cup of tea. I take a "talk to me when they get to the big leagues and actually accomplish something" approach. However just like some hot prospect in baseball, or top football recruit they can get their shot very soon. A kid in A Ball gets fast tracked to the big leagues. Or hot shot some High School Quarterback starts his freshman year in college. WWE does the same thing, if they have a guy they think can get over right away (see Lesnar, Brock) they fast track him. So that brings us back to Danielson. WWE has offered him a spot. I'm not sure if it was a developmental deal, or if it was a spot on the main roster, but regardless I"m sure it was a low level take it or leave kind of deal. My understanding is Danielson is one of the top draws on the indy circuit and actually does pretty well for himself so he made the decision to turn WWE's offer down, because lets face it, while he may be the pearl of the indies, he'd be just another guy in the WWE unless he could somehow improve his look, gimmick, and mic skills ten fold to overcome his inferior look. If Danielson went to WWE and became their biggest star, thus proving me wrong, I'd be willing to call him the best ever. Because he will have to DRASTICALLY change his style and look to get over on the national stage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2008 11:22:38 GMT -5
The only measure for success in wrestling is how much money you make or draw.
It's not like in baseball where you could be playing on a team with no fans, but still hit 50 homes runs.
Whether you can do two moves or 2000. It doesn't matter unless someones willing to watch you.
That doesn't mean at some point Danielson couldn't be a draw and one day be considered "The best in the world". But at this point he's proven nothing.
|
|