So and So is the One of the Best Wrestlers in the World

[Teemu]

One thing that irks me with the IWC is when people treat is an objective fact that someone is a "good wrestler". Or "one of the best wrestlers" and all that. Any variation of that.

The way it goes is:

"I've never liked so and so."
"Are you crazy? Are you ACTUALLY out of your mind? So and so is only one of the best wrestlers in the world!"

And the flamewar begins.

How do you quantify wrestling ability? What does it mean when someone is a "good wrestler"? Wrestling is fake; it's an entertainment performance art, and the only job of a wrestling match is to entertain. If someone doesn't entertain a viewer, that wrestler, to that viewer, is not good. It's that simple. There is no objective wrestling skill. It's not a sport, it's fake. Wrestling is not even important, it is simply scripted entertainment and acting. Your opinion are not an objective fact. Your favorite wrestler is not objectively good, he or she is only good in your opinion.

Wrestling is not real.

There are actors in the world - such as Brad Pitt - that most people like, and most people agree that this actor is good. But there can still be people who feel like they are not entertained by Brad Pitt's acting and movies. These people are not insane, or mentally handicapped, or dumb, or "not true movie fans" - they just have a different taste, is all.

Wrestling is not objective. It is a form of subjective entertainment.

[Bo Rida]

In any medium there's artists and performers where you can recognise the skill, the fundamentals, the technique but their work isn't to your taste.
Singers especially, it might be an objectively good voice but not your kind of music.

Wrestling is no different. We've all seen truely bad wrestlers. Some are objectively good in that they're safe, believable, don't get lost, get some type of reaction etc. Doesn't mean everyone will be a fan. Doesn't even mean that there's no place for "bad" wrestlers.

The very upper echelon is different, best in the world can only ever be subjective and everyone has different criteria.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

If one is either constantly injuring others and/or can’t put a story together or can’t position themselves right, then yeah, they’re a bad wrestler.

You don’t need a big moveset or have to be super smooth on the mat for me to consider you good. I think what you’re talking about is style preferences, and that’s easy to understand because it’s not as if technical or aerial wrestling is inherently superior to a really good brawl or power match. And even the all time greats have moves they do better than others.

But I’ve seen plenty who couldn’t do the basic bare minimum, and yeah, they sucked.

[1 Free Moon-Down with Burger]

This is a hyper specific example for me but Kefon Mahon on the Attitude Era podcast is CONSTANTLY saying people are one of the best of all time and one of the best in the world.

Like. Dude. Brian Pillman Jr is ok but pump the brakes

[David-Arquette was in WCW 2000]

I always respect the general consensus of 'X' is the best in the world, or one of the best, etc. but the things people like about wrestling can be very subjective, and as such, defining the best can be subjective.

If someone is a fan of larger than life performers, and likes the over-the-top theatrics of Pro wrestling, they might argue that Undertaker is THE best. However, someone who favours technicality and the 'art' of Pro wrestling might instead point to Bret Hart.

Objectively, it's hard to argue that certain wrestlers don't fit the criteria, like Hogan for example. Household name, huge draw, led an era, larger than life character. Or Shawn Michaels, one of the best in the ring and on the mic, inspired the next generation, had, essentially two separate careers that can be called Hall of Fame worthy.

Both very different, but both fit the bill of 'one of the best in the world'.

[tafkaga]

Making it look real is pretty much my top criteria. If it doesn't look like a real fight, it's not a wrestling match to me.

So, great: Bret Hart, Bam Bam Bigelow, Randy Savage, Barry Windham, Paul Orndorff, Bobby Eaton

Terrible: Ultimate Warrior, Sid, Johnny Impact/Nitro/Morrison, Lex Luger, tons of modern dudes

Some wrestlers on my terrible list have enough going for them that I still enjoy their work, in spite of being terrible wrestlers.

[Teemu]

May 17, 2022 9:43:11 GMT -5 tafkaga said:

Making it look real is pretty much my top criteria. If it doesn't look like a real fight, it's not a wrestling match to me.

So, great: Bret Hart, Bam Bam Bigelow, Randy Savage, Barry Windham, Paul Orndorff, Bobby Eaton

Terrible: Ultimate Warrior, Sid, Johnny Impact/Nitro/Morrison, Lex Luger, tons of modern dudes

Some wrestlers on my terrible list have enough going for them that I still enjoy their work, in spite of being terrible wrestlers.

And there you go: Warrior and especially Sid are two of my all-time favorites.

[Kalmia]

There's a world of difference between "best" and "favorite" when it comes to any form of media, and wrestling is no different. To quote an extreme example, if someone says Kenny Omega or Roman Reigns are terrible wrestlers, then by every measure of wrestling (match quality, crowd involvement, merch sales, PPV sales, ticket sales, success) they're wrong. If they say that they don't like Omega or Reigns, then that's a subjective opinion and you're just wasting everyone's time by arguing something that can't be argued.

I really wish more people would just say "I don't like this guy" and others would understand it as an opinion and not a statement of fact. Reigns bores me to tears but I'd never call him a bad wrestler because I can see that he isn't.

[tafkaga]

May 17, 2022 9:47:13 GMT -5 Teemu said:

May 17, 2022 9:43:11 GMT -5 tafkaga said:

Making it look real is pretty much my top criteria. If it doesn't look like a real fight, it's not a wrestling match to me.

So, great: Bret Hart, Bam Bam Bigelow, Randy Savage, Barry Windham, Paul Orndorff, Bobby Eaton

Terrible: Ultimate Warrior, Sid, Johnny Impact/Nitro/Morrison, Lex Luger, tons of modern dudes

Some wrestlers on my terrible list have enough going for them that I still enjoy their work, in spite of being terrible wrestlers.

And there you go: Warrior and especially Sid are two of my all-time favorites.

Sid and Luger are two of my all time favorites, and both on my terrible wrestler list.

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

May 17, 2022 10:00:23 GMT -5 Kalmia said:

There's a world of difference between "best" and "favorite" when it comes to any form of media, and wrestling is no different. To quote an extreme example, if someone says Kenny Omega or Roman Reigns are terrible wrestlers, then by every measure of wrestling (match quality, crowd involvement, merch sales, PPV sales, ticket sales, success) they're wrong. If they say that they don't like Omega or Reigns, then that's a subjective opinion and you're just wasting everyone's time by arguing something that can't be argued.

I really wish more people would just say "I don't like this guy" and others would understand it as an opinion and not a statement of fact. Reigns bores me to tears but I'd never call him a bad wrestler because I can see that he isn't.

The Young Bucks are the biggest example of this for me. For the most part, I tend to agree a lot with people who don't like them - I think their matches are overstimulating, over-indulgent, and exhausting. They really bring it in the big matches, but the energy they bring to most of their matches is overwhelming.

But I stand very firm in this opinion: the idea that the Young Bucks don't know psychology or don't know what they're doing is asinine.

The Young Bucks never lose the crowd. They are a draw by every measure. Every one of the eleventy nearfalls in a Bucks is meticulously timed and executed in order to get the audience on the edge of their seat - and it's almost never just that the move is cool, it's that they've constructed a scenario that fulfills expectations of a finish down to the meta level.

They know what the hell they are doing, and they do it that way because it works. I don't have to like it. I don't like it. But by every measure of wrestling skill, they are succeeding at what they're setting out to do.

[Push R Truth]

To me, a lot of it is based on why you watch.

I love the goofball shit that you get in wrestling. I'd rather have SID scream about his car getting smashed or watch The Boneyard Match than see a 25 minute wrestling clinic (with zero mistakes) between two dudes in black trunks with slightly different facial hair in a best of 7 series.

That said: I can appreciate all of it for what it is. But when it comes to be personal best list, dudes like CM Punk or Drew McEntyre don't even sniff it. But dudes like Heath Slater and Jurassic Express are in the top 10 of active wrestlers.

[salz4life]

May 17, 2022 12:02:34 GMT -5 Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby said:

May 17, 2022 10:00:23 GMT -5 Kalmia said:

There's a world of difference between "best" and "favorite" when it comes to any form of media, and wrestling is no different. To quote an extreme example, if someone says Kenny Omega or Roman Reigns are terrible wrestlers, then by every measure of wrestling (match quality, crowd involvement, merch sales, PPV sales, ticket sales, success) they're wrong. If they say that they don't like Omega or Reigns, then that's a subjective opinion and you're just wasting everyone's time by arguing something that can't be argued.

I really wish more people would just say "I don't like this guy" and others would understand it as an opinion and not a statement of fact. Reigns bores me to tears but I'd never call him a bad wrestler because I can see that he isn't.

The Young Bucks are the biggest example of this for me. For the most part, I tend to agree a lot with people who don't like them - I think their matches are overstimulating, over-indulgent, and exhausting. They really bring it in the big matches, but the energy they bring to most of their matches is overwhelming.

But I stand very firm in this opinion: the idea that the Young Bucks don't know psychology or don't know what they're doing is asinine.

The Young Bucks never lose the crowd. They are a draw by every measure. Every one of the eleventy nearfalls in a Bucks is meticulously timed and executed in order to get the audience on the edge of their seat - and it's almost never just that the move is cool, it's that they've constructed a scenario that fulfills expectations of a finish down to the meta level.

They know what the hell they are doing, and they do it that way because it works. I don't have to like it. I don't like it. But by every measure of wrestling skill, they are succeeding at what they're setting out to do.

Agree with your assessment of the Bucks. I'm indifferent on them (although I kind of enjoy them as the douchebag heels). I do think their matches are just way too "high-spotty" for my tastes. But I get that is a big part of the overall pro wrestling landscape (maybe moreso in AEW right now but that's a different discussion) and they are very good at what they do.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

The first thing I look for in the best wrestlers in the world is how hot they can get the audience through the body of a match. Big moves don’t hurt but it’s more about if they can time everything they do into an enjoyable rhythm and jelling with the opponent, and maintain a high crowd volume.

ZSJ is technically brilliant, but it’s all about how he implements his holds to create the most drama. AJ Styles and Tanahashi are amazing athletes but they’ve only gotten better in how they can adjust their style based on who they’re facing.

John Cena will admit himself he’s no Lou Thesz hold for hold, but his freak show power mixed with the nuances in his selling and expressions keep fans engaged in everything he does. Guys like Bret and Ishii have this tenacity where you’re fascinating by how they’re breaking down the opponent.

There’s been superheavyweights like Yokozuna who was no Young Buck, but he moved his mass around for deadly quick attacks and thus he was a great final boss for New Generation.

It’s sometimes hard to determine the best because Teemu’s right in saying it’s subjective, but style preferences aside I can tell when someone is really clicking.

[wildojinx]

I disagree, now Whats-His-Name,,he's the GOAT.

[sportatorium]

The question always comes down to "are they over?". Companies and creative can stifle, but great wrestlers will always get over. In ring is a big part, promos/talking also. Versatility is key- can they work both face & heel? Can they have a great match with different styles of opponents? Can they lose as well as they win? How much does the audience care?

[1 Free Moon-Down with Burger]

May 17, 2022 13:33:04 GMT -5 wildojinx said:

I disagree, now Whats-His-Name,,he's the GOAT.

Rollerball Rocco

[tafkaga]

My issue with "X was over/very successful and therefore a great wrestler" is the same as "William Shatner was very popular/successful and thus a great actor". I love William Shatner. I love his movies, his TV series, and even his damn albums, but he's not a great actor. He's just very popular/successful in spite of his limitations as an actor. William Shatner and Daniel Day-Lewis can be equally popular, equally famous, equally successful, but that doesn't make Shatner just as good of an actor as Daniel Day-Lewis.

[sungod2020]

In kayfabe, guys like Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund, and Hulk Hogan are great wrestlers because they constantly won and even kept their WWWF championships for years on end. Brock Lesnar and Roman Reigns are the modern equivalent to that.

But yeah, before I became part of the IWC, I really didn't know exactly what a "good/bad" wrestler was. I just saw them as wrestlers doing moves that reflected their characters. If guys like Hogan and Warrior got me excited when they "hulked-up/got offense," then they did their job with me.

I guess when it comes to standing out on "wrestling ability" alone, I noticed guys like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels brought emotion to their matches with their fighting spirit.

If there's anybody I saw as "bad wrestlers," well unless he was in a gimmick matches like Royal Rumble or Survivor Series, Greg "The Hammer" Valentine bored me big time. Even as a young mark, I skipped through his Royal Rumble 90 match with Ronnie Garvin(also on the bland side). Maybe I never saw him really get "warmed up" like the commentators keep bringing up.

[tafkaga]

May 17, 2022 17:39:35 GMT -5 sungod2020 said:

In kayfabe, guys like Bruno Sammartino, Bob Backlund, and Hulk Hogan are great wrestlers because they constantly won and even kept their WWWF championships for years on end. Brock Lesnar and Roman Reigns are the modern equivalent to that.

But yeah, before I became part of the IWC, I really didn't know exactly what a "good/bad" wrestler was. I just saw them as wrestlers doing moves that reflected their characters. If guys like Hogan and Warrior got me excited when they "hulked-up/got offense," then they did their job with me.

I guess when it comes to standing out on "wrestling ability" alone, I noticed guys like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels brought emotion to their matches with their fighting spirit.

If there's anybody I saw as "bad wrestlers," well unless he was in a gimmick matches like Royal Rumble or Survivor Series, Greg "The Hammer" Valentine bored me big time. Even as a young mark, I skipped through his Royal Rumble 90 match with Ronnie Garvin(also on the bland side). Maybe I never saw him really get "warmed up" like the commentators keep bringing up.

 This just goes to show how ridiculously subjective it is, because I really enjoyed Valentine's matches with Garvin, and Valentine as a whole is a wrestler that I enjoy.  

[lucas_lee]

To me wrestling is subjective as long as they aren't drizzling doo doo like Raja Lion and One Warrior Nation. Then we all can admit we just have difference in opinion and a difference in styles and prefrences