|
Post by commond on May 25, 2022 8:44:47 GMT -5
WrestleTalk Magazine has a feature out asking who is the greatest wrestler of all time in WWE. It has excluded women wrestlers for now as it feels it’ll take a while before we can see what their legacies are. The writer of this article has come up with this list: Bruno Sammartino Andre the Giant Hulk Hogan Bret Hart Shawn Michaels The Undertaker Stone Cold Steve Austin The Rock John Cena Each day, I’m gonna sum up what the writer has written - and invite discussion. The writer has also listed the pros and cons of each of his choices. First up, Bruno Sammartino. The writer’s words: I appreciate how much the writer has tried to be objective. The length of Sammartino’s reigns are worthy of much respect, and he can be considered a trailblazer, but I take the points that it might not have continued had he entered the PPV era. Sometimes, though, comparing different eras is problematic. Should we compare a 1960s Porsche with one today? I don’t know. And we’ll never know. Perhaps Sammartino might have headlined WM III had he continued. Over to you. It doesn't really matter to me how Sammartino would have done on weekly TV, or how he would have fared in the PPV cycle. It also doesn't matter to me that he wasn't as big a worldwide star as some of the other names. He belongs on the WWE Mount Rushmore for the years he spent selling out the Garden. I don't think Bruno was ever a great worker, but he was charismatic and he knew how to work a feud.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2022 8:56:20 GMT -5
You’re right. You really are! You’ve given me much to think about. I focused too much on the less memorable cage matches, e.g. Bret and Shawn scurrying to the cage door - and others of that ilk - but, as I hopefully made clear in my initial post on this, there were some great ones. Hell, Roddy Piper VS Rick Rude in a steel cage should be on *any* greatest matches list, not just a list devoted to cage matches. Hogan VS Bundy was heated, as was Warrior VS Sgt. Slaughter. And, of course, Hogan VS Big Boss Man on SNME. Wow. Still can’t get over that superplex. Based on your very well-written posts, and ignoring some of the bad WWF cage matches I saw, I concur with your point(s)!
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 25, 2022 9:44:46 GMT -5
Bruno was THE guy for a long time... as someone of Italian ancestry, I can tell you my grandpa and father considered Bruno 'one of them' and a real working class hero.. I think that was his appeal, and why he was able to sell out the Garden and other East Coast venues. Would he have resonated nationwide? I honestly don't think so.
He was still THE star of the pre-national WWF though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2022 10:04:33 GMT -5
Although Bruno Sammartino’s tenure was before my time as a wrestling fan, I’ve seen a lot of VHS, DVD and Network footage of him. I can’t have a frame of reference pertaining to his prime years, but I am utterly absorbed by any match of his that I see.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 25, 2022 11:03:10 GMT -5
WrestleTalk Magazine has a feature out asking who is the greatest wrestler of all time in WWE. It has excluded women wrestlers for now as it feels it’ll take a while before we can see what their legacies are. The writer of this article has come up with this list: Bruno Sammartino Andre the Giant Hulk Hogan Bret Hart Shawn Michaels The Undertaker Stone Cold Steve Austin The Rock John Cena Each day, I’m gonna sum up what the writer has written - and invite discussion. The writer has also listed the pros and cons of each of his choices. First up, Bruno Sammartino. The writer’s words: I appreciate how much the writer has tried to be objective. The length of Sammartino’s reigns are worthy of much respect, and he can be considered a trailblazer, but I take the points that it might not have continued had he entered the PPV era. Sometimes, though, comparing different eras is problematic. Should we compare a 1960s Porsche with one today? I don’t know. And we’ll never know. Perhaps Sammartino might have headlined WM III had he continued. Over to you. I suspect the writer never witnessed Bruno's era, though neither did I, since I lived in the Midwest. Bruno was a massive draw in New York and Toronto; and...... that was about it. Of course, with that population density, that was all that was needed. The WWWF formula was an ethnic babyface fighting off challengers. Bruno drew the Italian crowds, which were significant in New York and Toronto. He also promoted Pittsburgh, with his own titles, angles and tv shows. Bruno did tour other promotions, from time to time. In some places he was a good draw; in others, is was a huge disappointment. In the Houston Back to the Territories, they discussed Paul Boesch bringing in Bruno and it really did nothing for business and the crowd didn't care for his style of working. He did so-so in the Midwest and I believe I read that he was brought into LA and it was a disappointment. Similarly, Thesz and Gagne worked Madison Square Garden, but, by themselves, didn't really draw better than the normal crowds. You often had different audiences in different territories. Cornette has talked about how you even had different crowds in the same territory, in different towns. Some liked to get mad at the heels and would be quiet early on, until the heels really started cheating to rile them up, so they could yell and scream and throw things. He has talked about a couple of the Louisiana towns where drunken Cajun fishermen would try to get at the heels, every time they came through. Southern audiences were a bit different than the Midwest, which was different from the Southwest, which was different from the West Coast. Even there, LA was a bit different than San Francisco and neither was like Portland. The WWWF continued with the ethnic babyfaces, after Bruno gave up the title. Pedro Morales defeated Ivan Koloff and was a huge draw with the Puerto Rican population, in New York (which was massive). However, he wasn't as big a draw in other cities, unless he was paired with a good heel draw. In New York, the Puerto Rican fans were rabid and they had to be careful not to get the wrong kind of heat on Pedro or the crowds would try to attack the heels, with weapons. Business dropped off, which led to McMahon Sr putting the title on Stan Stasiak, to lose it to Bruno. The one time where they came close to breaking the formula was with Superstar Billy Graham, who was a big draw, even as a heel. He ended up holding the belt far longer than Koloff or Stasiak, who were just transitional champs. Graham lobbied to keep the title, but it had already been decided to try to mimic Jack Brisco, with an All-American athlete babyface, in the form of Bob Backlund. The problem of using longevity as a criteria is that there are various reasons for longevity, not all of them positive. Some champions held titles for long periods because they owned a piece of the territory and kept the belt on themselves, even when business was down and it made sense to create new stars. It could be argued that Hogan held the title too long; Backlund certainly did. If it is a reflection of how strongly they were drawing, then it has meaning. That is the case with Bruno and, to a certain extent, Graham. Previously, the heels only got a week or two (Koloff held it for 3 weeks, Stasiak held it for 9 days). That was a reflection that Graham was a draw, as champion, to a certain extent. In the 2000s, the titles got devalued by constant switches, until you got Cena with a longer reign, though even that had critics. Bruno definitely belongs on a list of greatest stars of the WWE, since he defined the promotion for over a decade and his shadow loomed over it, even after he retired (between reigns and then his actual retirement). Hogan is in there as a draw for the expansion era, and the biggest star of his era. Andre was the biggest box office attraction in wrestling, for nearly 2 decades. However, the rest, you will notice, skew to the last generation, which is pretty much how these things go. Not that I would necessarily put Backlund or Morales over Brett, Shawn, Austin or Rock; but, I suspect the writer had little familiarity with their eras. of the more recent era, Austin has to head the list as he was the biggest star of the Attitude era, with the Rock as a close second and the one who transcended the business. Bret and Shawn were on top when business was down. They are the best workers of that bunch; but, it didn't mean as much to business as Austin & Rock. Cena is a tougher one. he certainly means the most for post-Attitude era; but, business and ratings were down. His popularity was high with the audience they had and he got publicity beyond wrestling, even before the major Hollywood gigs. Now, he means more than when he wrestled. Hard to really say where that would put him on the list. Really, I think you have to judge each era on its own and that to compare Bruno's era to the Attitude Era doesn't really work, because the business was so different. With Bruno's generation, it was all about the crowds at the arenas, in the territory. Your revenue derived from the box office. In Bruno's area, that was the Northeast and only the Northeast, though Bruno was also big in Toronto and continued to work there, with the title. In the expansion era, you had merchandising, home video and PPV, as well as box office. You also had a larger number of arenas, over a much wider area. The Attitude Era could more easily be compared to the Expansion Era, except you had monthly PPVs, rather than quarterly, plus, the internet and e-commerce added to the mix. You also had global touring, which started in the Bret & Shawn years (well, they did do two joint promotions, in Japan, before that, with SWS). Bruno definitely defines the WWWF era. Hogan defines the WWF, through the early 90s. After that, it depends on the criteria you want to apply.
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 25, 2022 18:24:50 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Bruno was a draw throughout the Northeast not just New York. One thing that hurts Bruno is that we don't have a lot of footage of him from the 60s outside of some of his JWA matches against Baba. We have footage of his 70s work and his awesome feud with Larry Zbyszko, but nothing that lets us gauge how good he was during the 60s. It's actually a problem with US wrestling in general as there's more footage available from the 50s than there is from the 60s.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 25, 2022 21:31:42 GMT -5
If we're debating the list, no way Hart and Michaels are on it over Savage... and hard to say they're more signifigant than Curt Hennig and Ted Dibiase. Then there's guys that were huge, but for a short time, like Warrior or Sgt Slaughter.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2022 2:01:34 GMT -5
Okay, let’s look at the writer’s view on whether Andre the Giant is the GOAT:
The writer’s pros and cons:
For me, there’s no denying Andre as a larger-than-life spectacle, but after 1987/88, he did seem (relatively) lost in the shuffle at times. Not his fault, and I appreciate his health issues, too. Judged purely on his WWF tenure, is he the GOAT when compared with the others on the list?
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 26, 2022 7:21:59 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who remember Andre from the WWF haven't seen his 70s and early 80s work where he was a lot more agile. He was pretty incredible in the mid 70s. We managed to get access to some of his French matches from the late 60s/early 70s and that was amazing too. He worked the French catch style and was nothing like the Andre we know. I'm not sure you can really call him the GOAT WWE worker. Since Vince Sr used him as a special attraction, he was more like the Undertaker of his day. You should watch Andre vs. Stan Hansen from New Japan if you've never seen a mobile Andre before.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2022 7:31:52 GMT -5
The Andre/Hansen match is one I have not yet seen. I’d say I’ve seen about 5% of his pre-WWF stuff.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 26, 2022 22:30:21 GMT -5
Here's one from France, from 1968, as Geant Ferre, after a folk hero. Some fun in Florida, from 1974... In Dallas, with the Mongolian Stomper (Archie "Stomper" Gouldie), from a news piece..... I believe the manager there is JJ Dillon, but I didn't get a complete look at him. It's what he looked like, in the 70s. Andre vs Harley Race, for the NWA World title, in Houston... Andre wasn't usually put in title matches, as they weren't going to put a title on him and they were not going to have him do a clean loss, either. Usually, it was either battle royals or he would be a surprise opponent for a heel, or the surprise partner for a babyface, against a heel team. Harley is also one of the guys that Andre would let slam him and he did it more than once. They had a match at the Decatur Civic Center, near where I grew up, where Race slammed him (it was a Central States card, as they did a few shows at the DCC, after it was built). Some footage from a documentary.... From a French piece, in 1971... And in a match with Steve Austin..... I only saw him as Bigfoot, in the 70s. The first match I saw was in 1982, in Madison Square Garden, against Blackjack Mulligan. Andre actually did a job for Ronnie Garvin, in Knoxville. They did show it on tv, though I think it was edited to look like a clean win; but have only seen brief clips that were used in the ICW opening footage, so I don't know the actual finish. I've always heard it as an actual loss, not a countout or DQ.. Andre liked Ronnie Garvin and did it, because it wouldn't be seen elsewhere. He also did jobs for El Canek, in Mexico (for the UWA) and two in Japan (Strong Kobayashi and Antoni Inoki). I believe he also did one for Don Leo Jonathan, in Montreal. Clips with Stan Hansen & Andre.... Hansen talking about it..... From the footage I have seen and talk from people who saw him in the 70s, it sounded like his mobility issues started around 1984 (give or take) and just got worse. You watch him in the Hogan era and he is definitely slower than he was in the earlier 80s, under Vince Sr. Watching him between Wrestlemania I and III and you can definitely see things have taken their toll. His back is in bad enough shape he is wearing a brace (the reason for switching to a singlet) and he's in real bad shape by the time he has the quick matches with Warrior. The actors on The Princess bride have all talked about the accommodations that had to be made because of his physical issues. They all loved him dearly and could see the pain he was in. He did a lot more in the ring early in his career, then kind of learned to work as a "giant" under Vince McMahon Sr's watch (it had started in Canada, though) and he did more strength stuff, unless he was in with someone of decent size, like Mongolian Stomper or Blackjack Mulligan, or Killer Khan. He also did more physical stuff in Japan (as did Hogan, when he had his matches with Inoki, in 1983). Funny enough, I used to have the WCW Nintendo wrestling game, where the climax of the game was your wrestler vs a masked giant, who is obviously supposed to be Andre; but, he is not under contract (hence the mask). I could beat him as Mike Rotunda, by hitting him with knee lifts, constantly, then knee drops off the top rope. I don't think I was able to beat him with any other character (certain characters had better fight options and Rotunda's knee lift tended to land more and was easier to time than one of the other's dropkicks).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 3:13:28 GMT -5
Okay, today, Hulk Hogan. The magazine writer’s words:
The racism scandal was also mentioned.
The writer’s pros and cons:
I *am* going to be objective in my post despite the fact that it’s Hogan who attracted me to the WWF in the late 80s. I always had a good time watching his matches. He did elicit much emotion out of me. And while one can engage in cynical adult introspection when revisiting the past (once you know behind-the-scenes stuff), I did feel the magic during WrestleMania IX when Hogan won his fifth world title.
But is he the GOAT as far as the WWF is concerned?
One cannot deny his initial impact. Of course, it takes two to tango. Just like a superhero needs a good villain, for Hogan to be the successful All-American hero, he needed the likes of Piper, Orndorff and Andre to be good opponents in order to be that hero. No wrestler exists in a bubble. No wrestler wrestles himself week after week.
Objectively, one could argue about some of his acts. I was horrified when I read his autobiography to learn that, following his loss to Ultimate Warrior at WM VI, he stepped back into the ring and gave Warrior the belt in order to steal the spotlight. A candid recollection, sure, but awful. Warrior was probably not gonna be the most successful WWF champion ever anyway, but what reason was there for Hogan to do such a selfish act?
The writer is right about how some of Hogan’s actions may have come at the expense of other talent. Hogan seemed more giving in 2002. He lost to the Rock (while stealing the spotlight in some ways), and allowed the likes of Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar to beat him. But one magazine I read claimed that Hogan wanted to gain a rematch win over Brock, which Vince McMahon vetoed.
I know the article is about Hogan’s WWF tenure, but even I, as a Hulkamaniac, was fed up with some of the WCW nonsense, such as Hogan’s non-title matches while world champion, beating Vader in a strap match by dragging the interfering Ric Flair from corner to corner, not appearing on PPVs to defend his belt, etc. He should have been more giving in WCW, being ready to pass the torch. Even his return to the babyface ranks in 1999 seemed to be about him thinking of himself as usual.
So much to pick apart, one could write a book, eh?
The racism scandal has tainted him. He was booed at last year’s WrestleMania. At times, it did seem there was one thing lacking in his apologies: contrition. Seemed to be a bit of doubling down at times (“People use that word here in Florida” or something like that). Just admit the word is wrong, that racism is wrong, that he was wrong to say it, etc.
Is he the GOAT in WWE terms? It can be hard to compare. Can we compare the era of monthly PPVs and weekly 3-hour and 2-hour shows with the era of irregular PPVs and syndicated TV?
He has been eclipsed by Austin and others.
I think I could make the case that he is the GOAT of the WWF if we’re talking 1983-1990. The GOAT of all time from 1983/84 to the modern era? I don’t think I could objectively state that.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 27, 2022 11:29:11 GMT -5
Okay, today, Hulk Hogan. The magazine writer’s words: The racism scandal was also mentioned. The writer’s pros and cons: I *am* going to be objective in my post despite the fact that it’s Hogan who attracted me to the WWF in the late 80s. I always had a good time watching his matches. He did elicit much emotion out of me. And while one can engage in cynical adult introspection when revisiting the past (once you know behind-the-scenes stuff), I did feel the magic during WrestleMania IX when Hogan won his fifth world title. But is he the GOAT as far as the WWF is concerned? One cannot deny his initial impact. Of course, it takes two to tango. Just like a superhero needs a good villain, for Hogan to be the successful All-American hero, he needed the likes of Piper, Orndorff and Andre to be good opponents in order to be that hero. No wrestler exists in a bubble. No wrestler wrestles himself week after week. Objectively, one could argue about some of his acts. I was horrified when I read his autobiography to learn that, following his loss to Ultimate Warrior at WM VI, he stepped back into the ring and gave Warrior the belt in order to steal the spotlight. A candid recollection, sure, but awful. Warrior was probably not gonna be the most successful WWF champion ever anyway, but what reason was there for Hogan to do such a selfish act? The writer is right about how some of Hogan’s actions may have come at the expense of other talent. Hogan seemed more giving in 2002. He lost to the Rock (while stealing the spotlight in some ways), and allowed the likes of Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar to beat him. But one magazine I read claimed that Hogan wanted to gain a rematch win over Brock, which Vince McMahon vetoed. I know the article is about Hogan’s WWF tenure, but even I, as a Hulkamaniac, was fed up with some of the WCW nonsense, such as Hogan’s non-title matches while world champion, beating Vader in a strap match by dragging the interfering Ric Flair from corner to corner, not appearing on PPVs to defend his belt, etc. He should have been more giving in WCW, being ready to pass the torch. Even his return to the babyface ranks in 1999 seemed to be about him thinking of himself as usual. So much to pick apart, one could write a book, eh? The racism scandal has tainted him. He was booed at last year’s WrestleMania. At times, it did seem there was one thing lacking in his apologies: contrition. Seemed to be a bit of doubling down at times (“People use that word here in Florida” or something like that). Just admit the word is wrong, that racism is wrong, that he was wrong to say it, etc. Is he the GOAT in WWE terms? It can be hard to compare. Can we compare the era of monthly PPVs and weekly 3-hour and 2-hour shows with the era of irregular PPVs and syndicated TV? He has been eclipsed by Austin and others. I think I could make the case that he is the GOAT of the WWF if we’re talking 1983-1990. The GOAT of all time from 1983/84 to the modern era? I don’t think I could objectively state that. I just don't think you can say X was the greatest of all time, for anything, particularly a performance endeavor. You have to have context and the time period is a big factor. Acting in the turn of the century (19th to 20th) was vastly different than from the 20th to 21st. Sure, many of the same techniques are done and works are performed; but, audiences changed in their expectations and actors changed in how they learned and applied their craft. Movies and radio came into play, things like Method Acting took hold. The same is true in professional wrestling. Pro wrestling has evolved in presentation and what it meant to be a top star in one era isn't the same as another. If your criteria is drawing power, than the modern guys can't touch people like Jim Londos; but, the only way you saw Londos was in person. PPV is different. Booking is different. TV was built around getting people to buy tickets to live shows. TV set up the matches that would occur at the arenas and you bought tickets to see how they would play out. Then, it became about selling the PPV cards. Then, about ratings for the tv show itself. Booking went from longer programs to what happens next week. To my mind, all you can say is Bruno defined the WWWF days, Hogan defined the WWF era and Austin the Attitude Era. They were the biggest stars and had the most impacts, in all areas, at that time. But, you can't compare Bruno's era to Hogan's; too much had changed for it to have similar context for comparison. It's hard to say one was a better worker than another as that is subjective, too. They were both excellent at the style they used. Both drew sellout crowds, both held the title for long periods of time, both were the key to success of the promotion. After that, it coems down to your preference. How can you be objective about a performance-based field, anyway? It's all about your emotional reaction. It's why I never put much stock in figure skating judging or talent shows or the Oscars. Either a performance creates a response within you or it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 27, 2022 16:54:50 GMT -5
Hogan is another guy on the WWF Rushmore. I'm not sure why the author mentioned his racism scandal. Wrestling is a scummy business filled with scummy people. Most of the people on this list have done scummy things. If you're going to go that route, then you shouldn't celebrate any of them. Several years ago, I was involved in a couple of different projects that revisited WWF matches from the 80s. Among the discoveries we made was that there was a period early on in the Hulkamania run where Hogan was having decent house show runs with guys. In those days, WWF workers went "around the horn" with the same opponent, so you got the same match in different WWF cities (New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, Toronto, etc.) For that reason, we have various different versions of Savage vs. Steamboat or Savage vs. Tito Santana. The matches can get repetitive at times, as they reuse a lot of the same spots and work the matches with the same basic layout, but it's a fascinating insight into what the WWF was like before the monthly PPV cycle. Hogan had a lot of good house show matches. In part because it was a big pay day for the heels, but also because Hogan was more invigorated and energetic. He was clearly more inspired on the way up than he was once the movie offers starting rolling in. Some of the matches are against opponents you'd expect Hogan to have good matches against like Orndorff. Others are against surprising opponents like Kamala.
So, that's the positive for me. I actually started watching the WWF when Hogan was on one of his sabbaticals shooting a movie. I didn't see him for the first time until weeks after I began following wrestling, and didn't seem him wrestle for a good few months. He became incredibly formulaic during the period I'm talking about -- '88-90 -- with the Hulks ups, etc. There was a lot of fuss over his entrance, t-shirt ripping and posing. All of the ear cupping and finger pointing. The prayers and vitamins. The Hogan from '86-87 is more interesting than that. And the Hogan from the early 80s is even more interesting. To answer the GOAT question, I would say he has a better claim to it than anyone outside of Rock and Austin.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2022 1:57:54 GMT -5
Here’s that writer’s view on whether Bret Hart is the GOAT of the WWF:
Pros and cons:
I believe that’s a great write-up.
I often wonder whether some (not all) give enough credit to Bret Hart for “steering the ship” between 1992 and 1997. He had a hard act to follow, one that the charismatic and larger-than-life Warrior couldn’t quite do in 1990. And he did indeed pave the way for what came afterwards.
I’d describe him as a steady hand, but that would seem to do a disservice to him. Lex Luger wasn’t the “next Hulk Hogan” that McMahon appeared to be looking for (not blaming Luger entirely, of course, that lame count-out win at SummerSlam ‘93 was unhelpful). Hulkamania II failed in 1993, so I believe it says a lot about Bret’s talent that the WWF relied on him and returned to him once a disinterested Hulk Hogan disappeared again - and, as stated, Luger didn’t work out.
I certainly thought 1994-97 was a magical period, with Bret having solid and spectacular matches, both on TV and PPV.
I accept he has been eclipsed. I also accept his time was brief, but that was hardly all down to him. Had he not gone to WCW, who knows what would have happened? Might he have been wrestling well into the early-to-mid 2000s? Hart VS Kurt Angle, anyone? WCW couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery, so it’s no surprise they misused him 99% of the time. Would he have been eclipsed had he remained with the WWF? I could certainly imagine him having matches well into 2004/05, he always struck me as someone who wouldn’t want to become “Father Time” and keep wrestling.
(An interesting question is this: had he stayed with the WWF, what need would there have been for Heel McMahon? How different might the Attitude Era have been?)
All in all, I think a case could definitely be made for him being the GOAT of the 90s.
|
|