Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
Join Date: Oct 2012
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times
But then that just turns it into favourites of all time. I personally as a fan don't rate in-ring performance (in the sense of what most smarks do), and then again what makes a great in-ring performer? Hogan had some great matches, Hogan vs Andre, Hogan vs Warrior, Hogan vs Savage, Hogan vs Rock. I would say at least 2 of those would be 10 greatest wrestlemania matches of all time. Or do you base it off technicality and Japanese or Mexican style wrestling. This just turns it into subjectively who are your favourites. Drawing is something that is essential to the business and with impact I believe those are the two most important factors when trying to decide objectively who is the greatest of all time. Warrior wasn't great in the ring, but he got over and therefore made a lot of money for Vince, surely if the view of fans was that technical wrestling is the be all and end all of what makes someone great then he would never of gotten over and guys like HBK would have been over massively, yet in reality HBK is one of the reasons that WCW was beating them in the ratings, because he wasn't that big of a draw.
Booking is provides the draw. And at the same time, that has a bigger effect on the company, not me as a fan. I don't see the need from a fans perspective of limiting GOAT talk to only those who draw big money.
You know what, it's just me. I refuse to call someone GOAT because of the gate, as a fan, it should be all about what happens in that ring and everything associated with performance. You can push a guy to the moon but if he can't perform at that level, he won't be a draw. But if he is a draw and makes money, it could be due to various factors that is a reflection of character, booking or popularity. I can't give someone that advantage because they made good money or a great wrestler who could work and tell a story in the ring.