|
Post by Robbymac on Jul 25, 2011 14:44:27 GMT -5
So, you mind telling me what your all time favorite Ed "Strangler" Lewis match is? Seriously, I'm guessing at least 15 of the guys on the list you've at best only seen clips of. So how can unequivocally rate them ahead of Michaels? They made more of an impact to the business and drew more money and were bigger stars in their respective primes. I guess with your criteria we can only make a list of guys we have had first hand knowledge with and guys we have only seen live and totally IGNORE the past? Should we put Shawn ahead of someone like Lou Thesz just because we didn't see Thesz live or witness his era? When you are going "all time" then it means ALL TIME as in right up to this point in the entire history of wrestling. Not just picking and choosing who we grew up watching. Thats not objective. And thats the problem with fans today of any sport. They only choose greatness based on who they have watched. Without doing any research on those who came before their favorites and paved the way. Its as if people today just think wrestling never existed before the 80s or 90s The problem is wrestling isn't a sport. I can say Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time without seeing him play, because I can look at the statistics. You can't do that with wrestling. It's virtually impossible to compare eras because of how much things change, and there is no statistical data. It's all subjective. Me saying Shawn Michaels is one of the greatest ever is no more objective than you saying that about Thesz. The only difference is I actually saw Michaels wrestle, and you just heard Thesz was really good.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Jul 25, 2011 15:03:40 GMT -5
They made more of an impact to the business and drew more money and were bigger stars in their respective primes. I guess with your criteria we can only make a list of guys we have had first hand knowledge with and guys we have only seen live and totally IGNORE the past? Should we put Shawn ahead of someone like Lou Thesz just because we didn't see Thesz live or witness his era? When you are going "all time" then it means ALL TIME as in right up to this point in the entire history of wrestling. Not just picking and choosing who we grew up watching. Thats not objective. And thats the problem with fans today of any sport. They only choose greatness based on who they have watched. Without doing any research on those who came before their favorites and paved the way. Its as if people today just think wrestling never existed before the 80s or 90s The problem is wrestling isn't a sport. I can say Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time without seeing him play, because I can look at the statistics. You can't do that with wrestling. It's virtually impossible to compare eras because of how much things change, and there is no statistical data. It's all subjective. Me saying Shawn Michaels is one of the greatest ever is no more objective than you saying that about Thesz. The only difference is I actually saw Michaels wrestle, and you just heard Thesz was really good. My son has never seen Andre, Hogan, Rock, or Austin wrestle. He's 11. Do they no longer count because this generation of fans only "heard that they were really good"? Heck, Andre died in 1993. There are adults that have probably never seen an Andre match. When do we stop counting Andre? How about Inoki? Backlund? Bruno? I'd be willing to bet that 95% of the people on this board have never seen a Gorgeous George match. But I think those same 95% would agree that he's one of the all time biggest draws in this business and revolutionized the industry. Given his mainstream appeal and his contributions not only to wrestling but to entertainment in general, I think I can safely rank him above HBK despite never having seen a Gorgeous George match. As others have said....wrestling did exist before the modern/TV era. And in previous eras, there are wrestlers who greatly eclipse HBK in terms of ability, drawing power, and contributions to the industry.
|
|
|
Post by Robbymac on Jul 25, 2011 15:17:07 GMT -5
The problem is wrestling isn't a sport. I can say Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time without seeing him play, because I can look at the statistics. You can't do that with wrestling. It's virtually impossible to compare eras because of how much things change, and there is no statistical data. It's all subjective. Me saying Shawn Michaels is one of the greatest ever is no more objective than you saying that about Thesz. The only difference is I actually saw Michaels wrestle, and you just heard Thesz was really good. My son has never seen Andre, Hogan, Rock, or Austin wrestle. He's 11. Do they no longer count because this generation of fans only "heard that they were really good"? Heck, Andre died in 1993. There are adults that have probably never seen an Andre match. When do we stop counting Andre? How about Inoki? Backlund? Bruno? I'd be willing to bet that 95% of the people on this board have never seen a Gorgeous George match. But I think those same 95% would agree that he's one of the all time biggest draws in this business and revolutionized the industry. Given his mainstream appeal and his contributions not only to wrestling but to entertainment in general, I think I can safely rank him above HBK despite never having seen a Gorgeous George match. As others have said....wrestling did exist before the modern/TV era. And in previous eras, there are wrestlers who greatly eclipse HBK in terms of ability, drawing power, and contributions to the industry. Oh, I agree with you. I'm not even arguing that HBK is the best of all time. I think you can research certain wrestlers, and there is a certain point in which you can go back. We have video that exists of Bruno...but Ed "Strangler" Lewis was on his list. The guy wrestled in the 20's and 30's. There's no real footage you can even look back on, and if there was what we'd see would be so wildly different than what we see today it would be startling. The point is there is a certain point in which wrestling went through a complete re-invention. Gorgeous George was a big part of that, and deserves a lot of credit. I just find it very difficult to compare a guy like Shawn Michaels to a guy like Ed Lewis or Frank Gotch because what they did was completely different.
|
|
Haulk
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by Haulk on Jul 25, 2011 15:26:48 GMT -5
I think he is top 3 or 4. He actually tainted himself with DX Comedy and becoming Hunter's sidekick in my opinion. And it depends if the greatest is determined by making the business money or just everything else, because Bobby the Brain (I think) said Hogan is the best because he put the most butts in seats.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Jul 25, 2011 15:40:51 GMT -5
Oh, I agree with you. I'm not even arguing that HBK is the best of all time. I think you can research certain wrestlers, and there is a certain point in which you can go back. We have video that exists of Bruno...but Ed "Strangler" Lewis was on his list. The guy wrestled in the 20's and 30's. There's no real footage you can even look back on, and if there was what we'd see would be so wildly different than what we see today it would be startling. The point is there is a certain point in which wrestling went through a complete re-invention. Gorgeous George was a big part of that, and deserves a lot of credit. I just find it very difficult to compare a guy like Shawn Michaels to a guy like Ed Lewis or Frank Gotch because what they did was completely different. You're talking about in-ring product. Of course there's no comparison between HBK's work and the work of people like Ed Lewis or Frank Gotch. Their work would be all but unrecognizable by today's standards. But then again, the work of 20 years ago is completely different than the product that's on TV today. Watch any old-school card on WWE classics. Today's fans would consider all but a handful of those matches "boring" when compared to today's product. But there are some things that will never change; you either put asses in seats or you don't. You either become a "household name" or you don't. You either have crossover appeal, or you don't. You either revolutionize the industry, or you don't. People like Lewis, Gotch, etc. put asses in seats by delivering a product that the people of the 20s and 30s wanted to see. They had mainstream crossover appeal in their era. They were household names. The fact that we're still sitting here talking about wrestling from 90 years ago in 2011 is proof that they were long-term contributors to the industry. Sure, footage may be exceedingly rare and 99.9% of people have probably never seen their matches, but it doesn't change the fact that their contributions to the industry still make them leading candidates for "greatest of all time" conversations like the one we're having.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,050
|
Post by repomark on Jul 25, 2011 15:52:50 GMT -5
He is either number 1 or number 2 for me. Between him and Austin in my book.
Definitely the greatest in ring performer though, of that I am decisive. He is one half of so many of my favourite matches it is very hard for me to argue with that rhetoric.
Even out with Wrestlemania, his classic matches are plentiful. The first Hell in a Cell, the Street Fight with Triple H at Summerslam 02, his Good Friends Better Enemies match with Diesel, his Mind Games match with Mankind, his ladder match with Jericho, his London match with Cena (to name a few of the top of my head)
Then you get into Wrestlemania and he flies off the chart - the ladder match with Razor Ramon, the Iron man match, the Austin match at WM14 with a bad back, the Jericho show stealer at 19, the triple threat at 20, the greatest match of all time in my book against Kurt Angle at 21, the Cena match at 23, the great now tarnished send off for Flair at 24 and of course the two Undertaker matches. Even those i have not mentioned were good!
And this doesn't even mention the Rockers!
In my view, there has never been a better in ring performer.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,305
|
Post by The Ichi on Jul 25, 2011 17:51:39 GMT -5
So, you mind telling me what your all time favorite Ed "Strangler" Lewis match is? Seriously, I'm guessing at least 15 of the guys on the list you've at best only seen clips of. So how can unequivocally rate them ahead of Michaels? They made more of an impact to the business and drew more money and were bigger stars in their respective primes. I guess with your criteria we can only make a list of guys we have had first hand knowledge with and guys we have only seen live and totally IGNORE the past? Should we put Shawn ahead of someone like Lou Thesz just because we didn't see Thesz live or witness his era? When you are going "all time" then it means ALL TIME as in right up to this point in the entire history of wrestling. Not just picking and choosing who we grew up watching. Thats not objective. And thats the problem with fans today of any sport. They only choose greatness based on who they have watched. Without doing any research on those who came before their favorites and paved the way. Its as if people today just think wrestling never existed before the 80s or 90s Okay, you completely ignored his question. Have you even SEEN the matches of the men you listed?
|
|
|
Post by Old Jack Burton on Jul 25, 2011 18:23:12 GMT -5
I consistently see people on various boards say that Shawn was never a top draw, and then somebody will bring up his runs in 96 and 97. okay, but...hello? Wrestlemania 26?
Shawn's real peaks were after his comeback. In the last 4 years the WWE had two top stars. One of them was John Cena, and the other one wasn't Randy Orton.
Shawn wrestled Cena (the biggest guy of the last decade) at Wrestlemania 23 at Ford Field in front of 80,103 people for the WWE championship. That's the biggest wrestlemania crowd of all time if you accept the figure of 78,000 for Wrestlemania III. That's got to stand in Shawn's mind as his biggest match. And I'm gonna guess his payday on that match was WAY more than anything he made in 96 or 97.
And then last year he headlined WM again with the Undertaker in the rematch from their classic the previous year. That was in front of 72,000, and certainly eclipsed Cena vs Batista as the main draw of the show.
So yeah, he was a top draw.
To me in the last few years WWE had Cena for the kids and the women, and Shawn for the guys.
|
|
babyfootball
Don Corleone
At least as good as Ron Garvin!
Posts: 1,320
|
Post by babyfootball on Jul 25, 2011 19:07:26 GMT -5
Like I've said, I only have one criteria when ranking the greatest wrestlers, and that's my own personal opinion. I'm not denying who the biggest draws are, but I'm not answering for the general public, I'm answering for me. I've never heard someone answer Titanic when asked what they think the best movie is based on it's huge box office numbers (unless Titanic happens to be thier favourite movie). They're gonna answer with the movie that gave them the most enjoyment. Shawn Michaels has given me the most enjoyment in wrestling over the years, along with The Rock and Chris Jericho, so naturally my answer to who I think is the greatest would be him. Get it now? I understand the perspective from which you're viewing the question, I'm just saying that to me, the question of "Best Ever" is not a subjective one. Sure, it's impossible to look at pro wrestling in a completely objective way, as greatness can't be measured in stats and wins/losses in the same way that it can in actual sports. However, I still think that "Best Ever" and "Favorite" are two separate questions with two separate answers (though there's probably bound to be some overlap, in most situations). Not many folks are going to claim that Titantic is the greatest movie ever, but I'm sure that on some lists, it'll be up there. Just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't mean it's not good, and vice-versa; just because you love something doesn't mean that it's good either. I love the first Ke$ha record, but I'd never try to claim that it belongs on any kind of "Best Ever" list. It's horribly cheesy with little artistic merit, but damn if I don't jam out to it. I understand that a lot of people are going to disagree with me on the way that I interpret this subject, but I don't think I'm wrong. I do, however, realize that this is way off-topic, so to bring it full-circle, let me say that while Shawn is definitely in my top 5 or 10 favorites of all-time, he's probably a bit lower on my list of best of all-time. I'm partial to him (and Bret) since the early and mid 90s were really my heyday of fandom.
|
|
|
Post by kingbookermark on Jul 25, 2011 19:12:04 GMT -5
HBK is definitely the pinnacle for me. He was the total package, even more so then flair, or hogan or bret. My reason is Shawn had no problem putting others over no matter who or what the circumstance in his second run here. He did not hang on to glory. He spent his time letting other have it.
|
|
babyfootball
Don Corleone
At least as good as Ron Garvin!
Posts: 1,320
|
Post by babyfootball on Jul 25, 2011 19:14:14 GMT -5
My son has never seen Andre, Hogan, Rock, or Austin wrestle. He's 11. Do they no longer count because this generation of fans only "heard that they were really good"? Heck, Andre died in 1993. There are adults that have probably never seen an Andre match. When do we stop counting Andre? How about Inoki? Backlund? Bruno? This is a fantastic point. Just because wrestling is not a "real sport" does not mean that one can't objectively look at the past. It just means that it's a little more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Jul 25, 2011 19:23:09 GMT -5
Actually, it means that we can't have GOAT discussions. Because when we do, some guy is always gonna come in and throw out the name of a dude he's never watched because some other dude told him that dude was good. And that other dude got it from Wikipedia, because there's no video available because that dude wrestled at the turn of the century. Just like GOAT actor discussions, you have to look at all the source material available if you want to have an unassailable opinion. Opinion, I say, because even once you've watched every actor and every actress in every role they ever played, your GOAT pick is still gonna be completely subjective. And even then, someone will bring up an actor from Shakespearean times that none of us possibly could've ever watched and say, "Hey, what about him? What about him, huh, you young whippersnapper?" The point is this. None of you will ever have an objective answer to "Who is the GOAT?" And none of you will ever have a fully informed subjective answer, either. You have two choices here: an uninformed answer that points to someone whose career you've watched (uninformed because you're missing the wrestlers you haven't seen) or an uninformed opinion that points to someone whose career you haven't watched (uninformed because you're taking someone else's word that that guy was better than all the guys you HAVE seen).
|
|
|
Post by BME on Jul 25, 2011 19:40:11 GMT -5
I think Eddie Guerrero was a better wrestler than HBK. Anyone here agree?
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jul 25, 2011 21:21:14 GMT -5
He's not in the "household name" category like Hogan, Austin, Rock, Andre, and maybe Savage. However, he is in the "best wrestlers of all time" category with Bret and Flair. I think this sums it up. Though I wouldn't put Savage in the "household name" category. I think that's reserved for relatively successful crossover stars: Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Andre. I could also see top pre-TV era stars like Bruno in that group as well. Piper is also a candidate. WWE is trying to force John Cena into this category come hell or high water. The next tier down are the greatest of all time, but don't have the mainstream popularity of the above category. Undertaker, Bret, Savage, and HBK fall into this category. I don't know where I'd put Flair. I would actually rank him above Taker/Bret/Savage/HBK, but I don't know if he had the mainstream appeal to be considered on par with Hogan/Rock/Andre/Austin. Savage definitely had more mainstream appeal than HBK. Everyone knows the "Oooh yeah!" catchphrase. He was in Spiderman! His death was huge news.
|
|
|
Post by lemonyellowson on Jul 25, 2011 21:28:30 GMT -5
hbk is the greatest in ring performer of all time, no amount of arguing will convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Jul 25, 2011 21:52:12 GMT -5
Of the Modern Era.....I'd say he'd JUST miss the Top 5......of all time, he'd probably just miss the Top 10.
|
|
|
Post by foreveryoung on Jul 26, 2011 0:52:28 GMT -5
Going back to Shawn.. I am a bit surprised he didn't have that mainstream appeal.. At least more then he did. He had the look.. Maybe it was the boy toy heartbreak kid character.
Flair as well. He looked like a million bucks even though Flair did have more crossover appeal then Shawn did.
It is a bit surprising Shawn or Flair didn't have more. I always wondered if Shawn didn't get injured in 98 when he seemed to be at the height of his career and reach towards the mainstream appeal with DX if he wouldn't of had more.
|
|
|
Post by foreveryoung on Jul 26, 2011 0:55:58 GMT -5
Actually, it means that we can't have GOAT discussions. Because when we do, some guy is always gonna come in and throw out the name of a dude he's never watched because some other dude told him that dude was good. And that other dude got it from Wikipedia, because there's no video available because that dude wrestled at the turn of the century. Just like GOAT actor discussions, you have to look at all the source material available if you want to have an unassailable opinion. Opinion, I say, because even once you've watched every actor and every actress in every role they ever played, your GOAT pick is still gonna be completely subjective. And even then, someone will bring up an actor from Shakespearean times that none of us possibly could've ever watched and say, "Hey, what about him? What about him, huh, you young whippersnapper?" The point is this. None of you will ever have an objective answer to "Who is the GOAT?" And none of you will ever have a fully informed subjective answer, either. You have two choices here: an uninformed answer that points to someone whose career you've watched (uninformed because you're missing the wrestlers you haven't seen) or an uninformed opinion that points to someone whose career you haven't watched (uninformed because you're taking someone else's word that that guy was better than all the guys you HAVE seen). I don't think you can argue an absolute GOAT candidate in any phase of sports or entertainment really. We all have our favorites. But you can't ignore the contributions of past greats when talking "all time". Shawn for sure is one of the greatest of the MODERN era. But I just don't see how he could be considered "elite" when talking the entire history of wrestling. There has been quite a few guys who have drawn more, made more of contribution, was more over, better in the ring then Shaw. Shawn's an all time great.. But is he ELITE? when considered everything? I don't think so. Out of the modern era, Only Hogan, Rock and Austin are in the argument of all time
|
|