Post by General Zod on Nov 25, 2007 0:15:25 GMT -5
How can you truly determine that, though? Some of us weren't alive for the time of Heenan/Ventura so how can someone tell you 'Well, JBL is good because he's slightly better than everyone else we get?' unless that's their view?
That depends. Are you talking about JBL the wrestler, or JBL the "heel" color commentator? I hate to answer a question with another question, but that's what it comes down to, doesn't it? His title run was abysmal and his work on commentary isn't nearly as impressive as some people make it out to be. Again, there's no accounting for taste, but if you've ever managed to get your hands on a copy of old footage, you too might agree - Ventura and Heenan blows anything JBL has ever done away, hands down. They were great. Again, no amount of hyperbole and timber can make up for legitimate charisma, timing, and the ability to sell the product. In my opinion, JBL has little, if any of the aforementioned skills.
Zod, ratings and sales don't always mean quality.
Quite true. I never stated otherwise.
May I point you to Hulk Hogan, Britney Spears, Chingy, and Nickelback?
You may, but only one of the people on that list is an appropriate comparison point. And truthfully, it's not a very good comparison. Hulk Hogan was never a full time color commentator, and if he ever became one, he would be horrible at it. Let's please stay away from comparing apples to oranges.
If we're talking about JBL's ability to draw a crowd (for whatever reason) vice Hogan's ability, nobody can deny, Hogan wins, hands down. And if the goal of any company (wrestling or otherwise) is to make money, then Hogan over-achieved what JBL only wishes he could. Granted, I'm not the biggest Hogan fan in the world, but he had an unmatched ring charisma that allowed him to be "the guy". JBL, however, was just in the right place at the right time. So sorry, your comparison falls a bit flat with me.
"Most popular" does not mean "the best"
In an odd way, you've just made my point for me. Thanks.
JBL certainly isn't the best, and his popularity bewilders me. I may never understand it.
Brian Danielson is a better wrestler than 99% of the WWE roster. Yet he doesn't draw the money that even a WWE midcarder does.
Let's assume that you're right. Brian Danielson is a better wrestler than 99% of the WWE roster. The first questions running through my mind are 1) why hasn't he been hired yet and 2) who exactly are you comparing him to? Now, I'm no dummy. I fully realize that any number of reasons could be keeping him from landing a job in McMahonland. Maybe he doesn't want to work there. Maybe he enjoys where he's at. You know what? That's cool. I'd never fault a guy for his career choices as long as he's in control of them. And for that matter, you're more than welcome to watch all the Brian Danielson matches you like. You can sit at home and buy all of the ROH tapes you like, but in the end; at the end of the day, until he's had his chance to prove you right in that arena, on a stage where ticket sales, buyrates and merchandise matter more than the in-ring product (sadly), you'll never be able to prove that point.
But like the others have said, buyrates do not necessarily translate into quality. Eddie Guerrero was hugely popular, yet ratings and buyrates were lower than average. Are you telling me that Eddie Guerrero was mediocre? The same could be said about Chris Benoit, who was regarded as the best technical wrestler in the world at the time.
Yes. As a WWE champion, Eddie Gurerro was mediocre. He might have been insanely popular to the wrestling fanbase, but the casual fan can only tell you one of two things. Either he's the guy that died, or he was a midcard guy.
It's just the way things are. Take Ricky Steambot, for example. Hugely popular mid-card guy. Fantastic ring technician. He did OK in most interviews. He was certainly better all around than JBL in the ring. Yet he drew crap. Fans loved to see him chase the title. However, fans didn't want to see him defending titles. His style didn't suit that environment. He was always better in the other role, as the hungry challenger. To date, his two biggest career moments (WMIII and his 89 series with Flair) culimated with him winning the title after chasing it for so long, only to lose the belt and slink back down to the midcard. His title runs were terrible. But as a lower guy, he always helped fill out the upper mid-card. That was where he belonged. That's what he was good at. Much like Eddie Gurerro. Much like Chris Benoit. Ultimately none of those guys had the juice to bring the company into an era of true prosperity, because ultimately, while it's fun to watch those guys win the title, once they do, they have nothing left. They become one-dimensional, either due to lack of charisma, or skill (certainly not in any of the aforementioned cases, but assuredly in others), and the stone cold truth is, nobody wants to see the underdog - Rey Jr., for example, continue defending a belt when it appears that his retention of said belt is due to luck rather than skill. It's just the way it is. You don't have to like it, but that's the truth. That's reality.
Even with all of that said, one must ask themselves the serious question. If you're going to start comparing JBL to the likes of Eddie Gurerro and Benoit, and so forth, you're *still* not making a fair comparison. JBL was a terrible wrestler.
I said it. Terrible. Horrible. When he won the title, I stopped watching Smackdown, and I haven't tuned in for a full episode ever since. He's *that* bad. He couldn't put a good pimple on Eddie Gurerro's ass where his in ring work is concerned.
Now on the mic, he's passable. But only in short doses. In short doses, he does what he's supposed to be able to do - put himself over. However, given the daunting task of (God forbid) putting anyone else over at the expense of absolutely nothing, he can't do it. No amount of hyperbole; no cool catchphrase cadence can hide the fact that when he's out there, he sucks so hard that light cannot escape his inherent suckiness. It's so aggrivating listening to him blather on durring a PPV (where I'm forced to listen to both him AND Michael Cole) that I just turn the volume down.
The fact that he can cut a decent promo for himself does not make him a good preformer. Nor does it mean he has any business on the mic for two hours every Friday night.
I state again, it is my beleif that many people here think he is "good" because they've either never been exposed to anything better, or they're so hungry for anything that appears to be exceptional (despite being incredibly average), they'll cling to anything in hopes of it turning into something worthwhile.