ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jun 7, 2016 10:49:27 GMT -5
Regal had everything to be a great heel and he proceeded to destroy his own career and kill the biggest push he ever had. What did he do? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Jun 7, 2016 10:51:18 GMT -5
Regal had everything to be a great heel and he proceeded to destroy his own career and kill the biggest push he ever had. What did he do? When he won King of the Ring the rumor was he was going to be given a big push. Possibly a world title program but then he got busted by wellness and was suspended. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jun 7, 2016 10:51:32 GMT -5
Regal had everything to be a great heel and he proceeded to destroy his own career and kill the biggest push he ever had. What did he do? Drugs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 11:24:08 GMT -5
William Regal. A* wrestler, talker, anything really, and his career is about as accomplished as Billy Gunn's. Seriously, you stop to look at his career, realizing that he only made 2 WrestleMania cards, and the last one was 14 years ago. That's incredible, though to be fair, he didn't help himself sometimes with some of his choices, which he has regretted, but nonetheless a great talent. I'd also chime in on Arn Anderson. Yeah, he was a Horseman, but he was often utilized as a mechanic and never really was in any significant world title programs as far as I can remember. |
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jun 7, 2016 11:43:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jun 7, 2016 11:44:56 GMT -5
He got caught by wellness and sent to rehab during the Mad King of the Ring push was the biggest and last real push he got. |
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Jun 9, 2016 16:25:24 GMT -5
Regal blowing his King of the Ring push in 2008 is the most I have ever been disappointed as a wrestling fan. He's my all time favourite, and at the time he was on fire in ring and on the mic, had just grown his hair out and looked about 10 years younger than he'd looked 10 years earlier, he was just the man of the moment, and it all got pissed away. So yeah, he's got to be up there for the most unaccomplished talents because he had everything in spades.
Burchill is another. Followed him from his early days on the British indies, was pumped to see him get a WWE run...he was a forgettable jobber, then a comedy pirate, then back to forgettable jobber. He was basically Brit Lesnar on the indies and he was nothing in WWE, such a shame.
Cesaro is one for me, because if I ran WWE I would push him to goddamn Jupiter. He's dangerously close to toppling Regal as my favourite ever.
Kanyon is another. I could have bought him as a world champion in WCW, and even at a time when everyone was getting a go Kanyon wasn't even close. In WWE...less said the better really. He should have been a Benoit/Guerrero/RVD level guy in 2001-03, but he was a jobber even on Velocity. Such a waste.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,016 
|
Post by chazraps on Jun 9, 2016 18:22:37 GMT -5
William Regal. A* wrestler, talker, anything really, and his career is about as accomplished as Billy Gunn's. I mean, Gunn's had a very lengthy decorated career with memorable matches and feuds over several generations of the medium, as has real. Don't really see how you can say either "accomplished the least." |
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,016
|
Post by chazraps on Jun 9, 2016 18:23:35 GMT -5
Jeff Hardy is a pretty good answer. Not that he wasn't accomplished, He was/is very accomplished, and that makes him a bad answer. |
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,016
|
Post by chazraps on Jun 9, 2016 18:39:07 GMT -5
I'd like to put in another vote, this time for Shane Douglas. The Attitude Era was built on his back as his character inspired Austin, ECW and the Attitude Era in general, but he was nowhere to be seen in the big two until the very end, ravaged by injury and a shell of what he once was. If he could have gritted his teeth and played nice with the Kliq and BSK, or gotten close to the Harts, he would have been a mainstay of the WWF upper midcard/main event scene once Diesel and Razor were off to pastures new, instead he slummed it in a company that was smaller than TNA at it's peak, getting more and more beat up for the promise of a paycheque and by the time WCW offered him fistfuls of cash it was too late. Whatever you think of him as an in-ring talent, the guy had 'it', even with the crappy teacher gimmick he came off as more than just another <occupation> JTTS. The thing I always had a problem with Shane Douglas was he can cut a damn good shoot promo but a lot of people can do that. Shane Douglas a character cutting worked promos is something we really never got to see. However, his talent is undenied and he was a guy u knew always had something to say. I think Shane's "the Franchise" character gets mistaken as a "shoots only" guy because he played the character so well. Sure, his stuff swearing and talking about other promotions all falls under the "shoot banner," but the way he carried himself as someone who should be the focal point in the company in '96 ECW when, truthfully speaking, he kayfabe was the guy who thought he was the premiere athlete that the television show and company should be centered around. There's a guy like that in every industry, probably every place of work. Just as Vince was the boss you hated, Shane was the co-worker you despised. I'd suggest a few of the following names--almost all of them had the pure talent to be successful, but were not for a variety of reasons: Literally every name you mentioned was successful. How are you judging success? Jannetty's a good choice, because he's specifically remembered as a joke (the unsuccessful tag team loser guy!) which is worse than being forgotten. Sean Waltman, maybe, for the same reasons? No way to both. The Rockers are rightfully considered one of the greatest and most influential teams ever. To say that being a part of Marty's legacy is worst than some unnamed jobber is ridiculous. Same goes for Waltman, who really seems to have earned back all the good will he had temporarily lost during his darker years. Stevie Richards had the skills, the looks and the versatility to be far higher up the card than he was for most of his career but it never really panned out. Let's not downplay Right to Censor's legit memorable heel run. That was all Stevie's baby. Jake Roberts. Zero titles. That's more because of the time period than anything else. I'm guessing the Jake Roberts post was a joke. Colt Cabana. The guy accomplished absolutely dick in WWE, but he's a good wrestler and very charismatic. Easily could have been as successful as Santino. Yeah, especially considering his mishandling was no fault of his own. All things considered, he's contributed so much to the industry following his firing which has benefitted the business so much as a whole that his legacy might be pretty different had fate had other plans. I'd also chime in on Arn Anderson. Yeah, he was a Horseman, but he was often utilized as a mechanic and never really was in any significant world title programs as far as I can remember. How does that matter? He's probably the guy solely behind Ric Flair as the most associated with being a Horseman. He was perpetually featured on television and was a tag team success absolute everywhere he went. |
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Jun 9, 2016 19:12:52 GMT -5
chazraps I think it depends on how you define accomplished, a lot of the guys mentioned did some stuff sure but the feeling is they could have been so much more. Be it main event champions or federation headliners. Marty Janetty is the half of the rockers that didn't go anywhere. The Rockers for all there skill as a team didn't win any titles. While as a singles competitor his patchwork run was blighted by drugs and injury. The guy had great in ring talent and could have been a top guy in the doldrums of the mid-90s wrestling era but it wasn't to be. I'd say he is a prime example of someone who had huge potential and accomplished very little (Matt Hardy and Christian have both done far more than Janetty and they could be fairly compared as the less successful side of there respective tag teams.) My own personal pick would be Scott Norton, had the tools and threat to be a main event heel but it just never happened.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Jun 9, 2016 19:24:41 GMT -5
chazraps I think it depends on how you define accomplished, a lot of the guys mentioned did some stuff sure but the feeling is they could have been so much more. Be it main event champions or federation headliners. Marty Janetty is the half of the rockers that didn't go anywhere. The Rockers for all there skill as a team didn't win any titles. While as a singles competitor his patchwork run was blighted by drugs and injury. The guy had great in ring talent and could have been a top guy in the doldrums of the mid-90s wrestling era but it wasn't to be. I'd say he is a prime example of someone who had huge potential and accomplished very little (Matt Hardy and Christian have both done far more than Janetty and they could be fairly compared as the less successful side of there respective tag teams.) My own personal pick would be Scott Norton, had the tools and threat to be a main event heel but it just never happened. Norton remains my favorite power wrestler of all time. His powerbomb was just nasty. Every time he did it to Ernest "The Cat" Miller, it was a thing of joy and beauty. Edit: Apparently spellcheck turned "Norton" in to "Not." |
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,731 
|
Post by nisidhe on Jun 9, 2016 20:17:09 GMT -5
I think we need to define success in this context. Jake Roberts may not have won any titles, but he drew and was absolutely unforgettable both on the mic and in the ring - he didn't need titles to succeed with the crowd or with the booking crew.
Titles are an important measurement of a wrestler's success but, again, drawing power is essential both to the decision to give someone the belt and, to an greater extent, to how frequently a title could change hands. The McMahons preferring keeping the big belt on one guy for longer periods because the champ drew in the markets that mattered most - MSG, for example - and because then they could be free to book the undercard to drive the gates of the B tour. WCW tended to hot-potato the World title but did so in a way to keep the interest on whether Ric Flair would get his comeuppance. Success for Flair had to be independent of how many titles he had because, as the count climbed, some quarters began to question the worth of each title reign. For Hogan, already as big a draw as they came, he could hang on to the title and put down the challenges of bigger and meaner opponents, creating some drama but not on the level of, say, Savage-Steamboat (or Savage-Honky Tonk Man) or the Hart Foundation - British Bulldogs feud.
Then there are the gimmick wrestlers who people loved and who brought entertainment to the crowd - the Hillbilly Jims, JYDs, Koko B. Wares, Brutus Beefcakes, etc. who made a bundle or a living without needing to win a title. They were successful in leaving their mark on fans' memories.
So, really, if we're going to evaluate success in a wrestling career, we need to think about more than titles held or money drawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jun 9, 2016 20:26:06 GMT -5
Jeff Hardy is a pretty good answer. Not that he wasn't accomplished, He was/is very accomplished, and that makes him a bad answer. I don't know, when you think about how much more he could have accomplished had he not had his drug issues, I think it is good one. I mean dude was scheduled for a major push with MITB and got suspended and he was bigger than Cena at one point but the knew they could not trust him (this is ignoring his first run as well). Jeff could have gone down as one of the top in WWE history but is left as a huge what if. |
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jun 10, 2016 7:39:13 GMT -5
I'd suggest a few of the following names--almost all of them had the pure talent to be successful, but were not for a variety of reasons: Literally every name you mentioned was successful. How are you judging success? I never said they weren't successful in general. I said they were unsuccessful if you base it upon one set of standards. You're missing my whole point if you're focusing on that sentence. In fact, in the very first part of my post I wrote: It's difficult to define who accomplished the least with the most amount of talent, because we're dealing with the concept of unrealized potential. For example, did Billy Gun have a great career? Yes. Better than most professional wrestlers who've ever laced up a pair of boots. He was a popular, featured part of a program during the height of its popularity, he made a whole lot of money, and he's still remembered today. You can't ask for much more than that. However, you can say that perhaps he had the potential for a lot more--a longer run higher up on the card. He never broke into the main event as a single competitor. He could have been a whole lot more than he was. Unsurprisingly, this is difficult to argue effectively because the counter argument is that he was what he was and he should be pretty happy with that It all depends on how: A) We measure success. (For some it's strictly how far up in the card they got and how much money they made. However, this will change from person to person. How I will judge success will not be the same as how you judge success.) B) We evaluate unrealized potential (By the very virtue of it being unrealized, it's impossible to prove it one way or another) If you look at the big picture, it's hard to say that anybody who makes it to the WWE level is unsuccessful--considering they vast majority of wrestlers in the business never make it to that level. You can also make a decent claim that almost anybody, once at that level, had the chance of being more successful than they were due to the simple fact that most wrestlers only need to be presented in the right light to get over. Despite this fact, many are given gimmicks and spots that they are ill-suited for. So I chose my list based on my personal category, which was very specific to my personal viewpoint mentioned briefly in my post. The point I argued within my post--and that I'm arguing here--was that ultimately it's a difficult topic to discuss and that it's probably backwards and futile to do so. But it can be kind of fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jun 10, 2016 23:25:43 GMT -5
The original Goldust was main event material. Then as the 2000s rolled around they turned him into a comedy act.
|
|
