|
Post by commond on May 28, 2022 20:49:57 GMT -5
I stopped watching wrestling in 1991 after it lost popularity in New Zealand and was eventually taken off the air. I know in the UK, the US wrestling boom was in the early 90s, but in New Zealand it happened in 1988-89. A few years later, my friends and I decided to rent some wrestling VHS tapes on a lark, and I ended up getting hooked again. Initially, we were surprised that Bret was the WWF champ, but he quickly became our favorite wrestler. I was a huge Bret fan. He was a much of a hero to me as my favorite rugby players or favorite musicians. I almost quit watching wrestling again in 1995 because of how bad the product was, and how poorly they'd treated Bret throughout the year. I didn't have the internet at the time, and only followed the WWF through renting VHS tapes. We had WCW Worldwide on Satellite TV, but no WWF television. So, I tended to watch the PPVs spoiler-free. To this day, Bret defeating Diesel at Survivor Series '95 was the biggest mark out moment I've ever had in wrestling. I don't remember if I cried, but it was as emotional as any moment in real sports. I was devastated when Montreal happened. By that stage, I had the internet so I knew everything that was going on behind the scenes. I guess the way I felt about Bret leaving the WWF is how American sports fans feel when their favorite player is traded or leaves in free agency. So, big Bret Hart fan, but... not on the WWF Mount Rushmore. As a worker, maybe, but not as a draw. Bret has his positives as a draw, and as a worker and character, but so did Backlund and Savage and they weren't included on the shortlist. Piper too, for that matter. Bret's greatest legacy, along with Michaels, is how they changed the perception that you had to be a huge bodybuilder type to reach the top of the business. Which is kind of ironic, as Vince spent most of their runs trying to replace them with big guys. They have an important place in WWF history just not at the head of the table.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 29, 2022 16:01:39 GMT -5
I was never a fan of Bret Hart.. he was a good worker, but in that era work rate wasn't really the thing. I never thought he was very good on the mic... found him to be pretty boring without Jimmy Hart to be honest. I remember as a teenager being surprised he got pushed (I didn't really pay much attention to back stage stuff then)... I kinda tuned out of wresting for a while after that (not because of Bret, but that was when I went to college) until the attitude era (mostly Rock, Jericho and Road Dogg) brought me back.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2022 18:05:55 GMT -5
Okay, here’s the writer’s thoughts on Shawn Michaels:
I agree.
Firstly, as a fan, I pay no attention to ratings and PPV buyrates. Such talk bores me, such as when Meltzer used to cover it. I don’t care. I’ll watch something. I don’t care if only ten other people are tuning in, if I enjoy it, I enjoy it. Other people can go on about ratings from 1996-98, but all that matters to me is the finished product. That’s it.
Michaels was golden. Whether he was a babyface involved in a brawl with Mankind, or a heel working a technical encounter with Bret Hart, he could do it all. I believe he adapted well to the styles of other wrestlers. A great all-rounder, equally at home as a face or heel, I truly believe he was the best in the WWF. In fact, I can tell you that from 1993 to 1997, I voted for him in the Match of the Year awards for both a UK and U.S. magazine (in ‘93, I voted for his cage match with Jannetty; in ‘94, the WM X ladder match, in ‘95, the SummerSlam ‘95 ladder match; in 1996, his brawl with Mankind; and in 1997, the first Hell in a Cell bout). A pleasure it was, too.
And to think he did it all over again during his comeback. I remember voting for him as Match of the Year in 2002 (the SummerSlam match) and 2005 (WM against Kurt Angle). Where did that second wind come from?
If it’s about match quality rather than pedantic analysis of TV and PPV data, Michaels is the GOAT for me.
These were the writer’s pros and cons:
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 29, 2022 18:45:26 GMT -5
As a huge Bret Hart fan, it was impossible for me to be a Shawn Michaels fan. You were either one or the other. I respect the things Michaels did. It's hard to imagine a guy from an AWA tag team reaching the heights that Michaels did. He was hugely charismatic, which is something I can appreciate even if I'm not a fan. I'm not a huge fan of his wrestling style, but I'll admit that it was hugely influential and that there are more Shawn Michaels inspired workers out there now than Bret Hart clones. He was an incredible dick backstage, and his 1996 babyface run bombed badly. I'm still salty about the crap he pulled where he "lost his smile." His comeback was impressive, especially since he missed out on being a part of the biggest Attitude Era years. Towards the end of the comeback, his matches became gratuitous at times (self-conscious epics, as an acquaintance of mine once coined them), and his acting was terrible. I would argue that his case is entirely built on whether you think he's the greatest WWE in-ring performer of all-time.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 29, 2022 20:33:45 GMT -5
I preferred Bret in-ring, since he had more of the technical style that I appreciated. I had followed his career since the late period of Stampede, just before he came into the WWF. Loved the Hart Foundation; but, when it came mic time, it was definitely Jimmy Hart and Jim Neidhart.. That worked fine, for me, as it was similar to Bobby Eaton in the Midnight Express (not that Dennis Condrey cut promos outside of Memphis or Continental) and Robert Gibson in the Rock N Roll Express: the quiet guy, who excelled in the ring and let it do his talking. As a single, I never cared for his promos; but, then, I wasn't a fan of a lot of WWF promos, compared to Crockett. Depended on individuals, obviously, as I could listen to anything Heenan said, any day. Savage was actually more coherent than ICW or Memphis (or even for Gulas); but, I kind of missed the more bizarre stuff from before.
Michaels I enjoyed in the ring; but, never cared for on the mic and the more he acted like an immature high school jock, the more I muted the tv. I never found his promos to be as clever as some of the other guys and the persona didn't grab me the way some other heels did. Some guys you just wanted to see get beaten, some guys you wanted to see kick ass, verbally or physically. Shawn, I just wanted to see wrestle and keep his mouth shut. It wasn't much of a surprise when I started hearing more openly about his antics, behind the scenes and it just made me not want to see him. It was pretty well known, in the AWA (and their first go-round in the WWF) that he and Marty Jannetty were boozing, pill-popping jerks who needed a swift kick in the pants and to grow up quickly. Shawn didn't seem as much like that, when he was a rookie, in Southwest and Kansas City (Marty neither). Don't know if they were like that in KC, before coming to the AWA, but never heard much of that (then again, you don't get a lot of Central States stories, from anyone, except crowds were small and pay was bad). I saw a few of their matches, on the Central States All-Star Wrestling show (local station had it for a short period of time); but not much, until they turned up in the AWA.
By the early 90s, I was only sporadically watching wrestling, mostly just sampling the odd match from WCW or WWF. I'd tune in for the Steiner Brothers or if Flair was in a decent program, or when Austin and Pillman were put together; or, Scott Hall and Sean Waltman, Bret &/or Shawn and Madusa, when she came in as Alundra Blayze and brought some of the All-Japan Women with her. It was probably 1996 before I was tuning in regularly, again, after catching Eddie and Malenko on WCW, after they arrived. I knew of them, from the magazines; but, didn't have a source for Japanese tapes, yet.
I never cared as much about promos, except where they really fed a good angle; but, appreciated the really good talkers, like Flair, Dusty, Piper, Foley, Austin, Rock, Lawler (Memphis, not WWF), Cornette, Bob Armstrong, Bill Eadie (more as Masked Superstar than Demolition Ax), Nick Bockwinkel, Heenan, etc. I was always more interested in the in-ring action, with or without angles. That's probably why I liked guys like Brad Armstrong or the New Breed (Chris Champion & Sean Royal), Rick Martel and some of the Japanese wrestlers and some of the luchadores (more from Silver King and Dr Wagner Jr's generation than, Rey & Juvie or the older guys). Guys like Negro Casas, any of the Guerreros (Hector is massively underrated and was a great heel), Cien Caras, Blue Panther, Eddie & Art Barr, Hiroshi Hase, Muta, Liger, George Takano/Cobra, Misawa, Tsuruta, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 5:38:15 GMT -5
The writer’s view on The Undertaker:
The writer’s pros and cons:
Quite a write-up, eh?
Three decades of longevity and reinventing yourself has to count for something, right? Undertaker didn’t always get great feuds/opponents, but that’s hardly his fault. His underwhelming feud with IRS in 1994/95, and the poor matches with Giant Gonzalez, shouldn’t be held against him. When it mattered, he brought it to the table, whether battling Ultimate Warrior on TV/house shows, taking on Bret Hart in solid matches, or battling Kurt Angle at No Way Out 2006.
I did appreciate his constant reinvention, whether it be subtly changing the gloves from grey to purple, or his change of persona in 2000.
He has stood the test of time. I won’t count it against him that his reigns were relatively brief. Wrestling is different now.
But - and this is actually a compliment - maybe he, like Bret Hart, was more the steady, reliable hand, the solid mid-carder/occasional main eventer, who needed to be in that role, rather than a top guy. Compared with others on the list, he may be the greatest character ever, but the GOAT? I’m not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 30, 2022 11:22:39 GMT -5
If they are classifying "Never had an extended run as the face of the company," to mean that he didn't hold the WWF title for an extended period, that is true; but, he was a main event attraction for close to 30 years. If that isn't the face of the company, I don't know what is. Like Andre, he transcended the title; he didn't need it, which is why he didn't hold it much. His gimmick was beyond a championship scenario. He was an attraction. That is something beyond a star.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 11:24:49 GMT -5
If they are classifying "Never had an extended run as the face of the company," to mean that he didn't hold the WWF title for an extended period, that is true; but, he was a main event attraction for close to 30 years. If that isn't the face of the company, I don't know what is. Like Andre, he transcended the title; he didn't need it, which is why he didn't hold it much. His gimmick was beyond a championship scenario. He was an attraction. That is something beyond a star. I agree. I feel that way about a lot of wrestlers. For me, Jake Roberts didn’t need a title. Nor did Piper. Hogan almost felt incomplete when he wasn’t in the title picture. I guess it differs (and it’s always subjective, of course).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2022 11:25:42 GMT -5
Really, it feels like GOAT should be two categories: Greatest Attraction Of All Time, and Greatest Wrestler Of All Time.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 30, 2022 18:42:06 GMT -5
If they are classifying "Never had an extended run as the face of the company," to mean that he didn't hold the WWF title for an extended period, that is true; but, he was a main event attraction for close to 30 years. If that isn't the face of the company, I don't know what is. Like Andre, he transcended the title; he didn't need it, which is why he didn't hold it much. His gimmick was beyond a championship scenario. He was an attraction. That is something beyond a star. I agree. I feel that way about a lot of wrestlers. For me, Jake Roberts didn’t need a title. Nor did Piper. Hogan almost felt incomplete when he wasn’t in the title picture. I guess it differs (and it’s always subjective, of course). Hogan was the traditional WWF Champion, but for a new age. He was the babyface hero, taking on all comers. The main difference was that he was a babyface superhero, while Bruno and Pedro were ethnic, hometown boys (or home region) and Backlund was the All-American sports hero. Hogan was more of a fantasy hero, a character you wanted to be, but wasn't particularly a real world type. He needed the title to anoint him as the superhero, though, after a few years, the title was more of a prop and a reason for the villains to come after him; his cape, if you will (or "if you weel," to quote Dusty). Piper didn't need titles and didn't hold many, in his career; his job was to stir s@#$ and sell tickets and he excelled at it, everywhere he worked. Jake was better as a heel, in my opinion, as he never came across as someone to emulate. Just a bad man, come to town. As such, he was like a gunfighter brought in by the villain to face down the marshal. I never really bought him as a babyface as he still acted the same and you knew he would turn on you in an instant, like a snake. He was good for a babyface to chase, for something like the National Heavyweight title, in Georgia (with Bret Sawyer); but, he wasn't the type you necessarily wanted to keep it on long. Title chases usually worked best when it was a babyface chasing the heel; but, it was rare to keep it on them, as the chase was usually more interesting than the hero defending the title, with the obvious exception of the WWWF model for the champion. However, that format required a constant turnover of heels, which is why they tended to rotate in and out of the WWF (and Triple W F), more than some of the babyfaces. There were several guys that never needed a belt. Dusty didn't really; but, Eddie Graham orchestrated his World Title win to show him getting to the mountaintop, which made him more of a hero; but, he wasn't really the model for the touring champion, of that era. You had to work other territories and often the top stars would be babyfaces and the NWA World champion's job was to make the local star look bigger, to increase or cement their drawing power within the territory. Even guys like Jack Brisco did subtle heel stuff, when they were the touring champion, outside of the home territory. Flair and the Funks were babyfaces in their home promotion, but usually heels elsewhere and it usually worked well. Lawler did that, too, to a certain extent, playing heel in Georgia, Hawaii, and a couple of other spots, while still the hero of Memphis. He came in to face Roddy Piper, in Georgia, as a heel and they were just getting the angle going good, when Ole Anderson fired Piper, after he missed an event, because he was working a Mid-Atlantic card (he was working both, at the time). That pretty much sent Lawler back home. They had a great initial set of promos, as you had two of the best talkers in the business, both able to work babyface or heel, so they could play it in both markets and it worked for each home audience. Then, Ole lost his temper and killed the angle and Piper was gone. Lawler needed a title, because he wasn't going to win the world title. So, they had to keep the Southern title on him, to keep him the top dog in Memphis, either fighting off the monster or fighting to retake the title. It worked for a long time; but, it was also pretty cyclical and Memphis went through several hot and cold periods, with Lawler on top. In the AWA, Verne needed the title as the centerpiece of the promotion, as it was built around sports-oriented matches and fights. He ran it like it was real competition and kept the title as the ultimate prize. Within that, certain guys were over with the crowd, without the title. Bruiser and Crusher would hold titles; but, drew just as well, without them. The Road Warriors didn't really need the AWA belts; but, it was the reason for booking tag matches, as it was the prize that every team sought. Crockett kept them without titles, since they didn't need it and used the 6-Man title as more of a gimmick than a real title, as it was rarely defended, unless they had a good threesome for them to face, like the Russians. You often forget they had a belt for that, until they would bring it out for a big show or would see a picture in one of the magazines. Austin was another I don't think really needed the title, except it was wrapped up in him confounding the boss, Evil Vince. I think Bret and Shawn needed it more to help drive their individual and opposing matches.
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 30, 2022 19:49:33 GMT -5
The Undertaker is undoubtedly the best gimmick the WWE has ever produced, and Calaway and Vince have been exceptionally loyal to one another over the years, which is a rare commodity in professional wrestling. I don't think Undertaker is the GOAT, but he deserves a spot in the top 10. Calaway deserves credit for getting the gimmick over in the first place, and then he deserves even more credit for adjusting his ring style to the point where he was having legitimately good matches. I don't think the Undertaker gimmick would have survived for as long as it did if he hadn't made that in-ring adjustment. I think eventually his sabbaticals, and the way he'd return as a special attraction for big matches, and the way he would shelf the supernatural aspects of the gimmick only to return to them when the storyline demanded it, added to the mystique of the character. You couldn't really use him as the main guy in your company, and he was very much a foil for the top guys, but his longevity in the business was impressive and he certainly earned his place as a legend. He was a physical wreck at the end, but they gave him a nice sendoff which is more than you can say for most wrestlers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2022 6:45:03 GMT -5
The writer’s thoughts on Austin:
The writer’s pros and cons:
It is hard to think that Austin did so much in such a brief period of time, but one thing often not mentioned in GOAT debates is the pace of modern wrestling.
I try and think about how the Federation/Hulkamania Era initially only had one PPV a year, then 2, then 3, then 4 - and then five in 1993 once KOTR was added to the calendar. Would Hogan have burnt out quickly, and had a four-year title run, if the WWF had presented monthly PPVs in the 80s and 90s?
People often discuss human years and dog years. Well, the Attitude Era is about “dog years” with at least 12 PPVs a year. Austin’s time was brief, but he fitted a lot in that period, even taking into account injuries and hiatuses.
For me, Austin has eclipsed his own legacy. Rarely do magazines mention his stellar technical work while WCW TV champion, such as that match on WCW Worldwide, where he regained the championship from Barry Windham. Yes, the magazine we’re discussing is about who is the GOAT in the WWF, but I would hate to see pre-Attitude Era Austin forgotten about. Although he adapted his style for that era, he had solid technical skills.
For what he did in a short period of time, and given the $$$s he brought to the WWF, I would definitely consider him in the running for GOAT.
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 31, 2022 9:07:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure why the author thinks Austin's best period was between '97-99. Austin's best work was from '96 to the injury at SummerSlam '97 and during his heel run in 2001. I guess he's referring to Austin's best years business-wise, but the quality of the product in 1999 was terrible and Austin was involved in some awful storylines. Austin makes the WWF Mount Rushmore for being the biggest draw in the WWF since peak-Hogan and for defining the Attitude Era. I give him a lot of credit for coming back from a neck injury like that and still managing to wrestle to a high standard. He created the template for the WWE main event brawl, which is still used by wrestlers today. His heel turn in 2001 may have been a poor business decision, but it gave us better matches and better performances than we would have gotten from an extended face run. He was already wearing out his welcome as a babyface after the whole hit and run angle. The fact that he didn't return until this year's Mania is, in fact, quite admirable when you think about it. The WWE constantly bringing back older stars for Wrestlemania hasn't helped to develop new stars. At least Austin has stayed out of the limelight and let other guys shine.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 31, 2022 21:54:32 GMT -5
Totally agree Undertaker is the best WWF/E character ever (we'll just pretend the 'American Badass' version never happened, shall we?)
I was much more a fan of the Rock/Mankind than Austin... Stone Cold was very one note to me. He did his thing really well, but I got sick of it fast.
Similarly, I always liked the later version of DX (With the Outlaws and X-Pac) than the Shawn Michaels version... HBK always just radiated ego-manic in a bad way to me. HHH did too, but not as much somehow. And I love me some New Age Outlaws. Road Dogg to me is just behind Rock and Jericho on the mic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2022 3:21:22 GMT -5
Okay, the writer’s thoughts on The Rock:
And the writer’s pros and cons:
Can’t think of much to add.
There’s no denying The Rock’s charisma, success and talent. But the GOAT when compared with others on the list? I’m not so sure.
|
|