Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
Join Date: Oct 2012
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times
Because drawing power is more factual than in-ring performance. The GOAT threads on here are people arguing The Rock vs Austin because they look at it subjectively, I'm saying they are wrong for doing that. Obviously looking at it objectively takes a lot of time an research, but isn't that the whole point of evaluating something?
But, why should GOAT have a basis of drawing power? It's automatically going to be biased because if it wasn't, these recent GOAT threads and conversations would be drastically different. People only base it on what they know or their own opinions. Like I said with Japanese wrestlers, it's easy to say those guys don't draw when you're not familiar with them. But fact is, if you base it more on drawing, that allows guys like Konnan, Mistico, Bruno and so many others that deserve to be considered.
Yet on the wrestling side, these guys probably wouldn't be mentioned at all. Answer me this, if drawing was major criteria in determining who was GOAT, do you feel The Sheik is considered 1 of the GOAT? I just want people to realize that if you at least base it on drawing power, look beyond American wrestling after 1984.
Of course the guys you mentioned should be considered, because they were massive draws, but you evaluate that. On the wrestling side? I wouldn't consider The Sheik a GOAT contender since comparatively speaking he didn't draw at levels of Hulk Hogan or El Santo. When looking at drawing power you look at drawing in terms of that market, whether it be Mexican, Japanese, American and compare them and also look at internationally, how they draw.
Last edited by The Gorgeous One; 11-17-2012 at 09:09 PM.