Wrestling Forum banner

Legend of indies is legend of pro wrestling

4K views 63 replies 22 participants last post by  Crona 
#1 ·
A legend of indies as Bryan Danielson(without his WWE career) or Nigel McGuinness is a legend of pro wrestling or to be a legend of pro wrestling a wrestler have to compete also the major federation of wrestling, WWE?
 
#3 ·
If I am understanding your question correctly then IMHO in order to be a "legend of pro wrestling" then a person would need to have overall mainstream exposure in the WWE, WCW, former NWA territories in the territorial system, AWA, or major Japanese promotions to go along with their respective success.

I think one could reasonably argue that there might have been some talented guys that were or are now in the indies that giving the opportunity could be just as good as established wrestling legends. However, what good is talent when the majority of wrestling fans have no idea or have not seen what a person has done. It may not seem fair but logically in order to be a "legend of pro wrestling" then a person needs to have their name have much recognition amongst a large fan base.
 
#4 ·
I'm somewhat torn on this question because the WWE is now far removed from pro wrestling. However the general public still see's it as such despite Vince's best efforts.
Its funny you mention Bryan Danielson aka Daniel Bryan because I read an excerpt from his book where he said the "WWE is a parody of pro wrestling". Which is true. The WWE is not a wrestling company it is a variety hour type program that features wrestling.
There are a ton of great independent wrestlers and if were talking in ring ability alone I wouldn't bat an eye to say some of the top Indy promotions inring product is far far superior to the WWE.
All that said a wrestler in 2015 has two options WWE and TNA if they want national recognition.Its not the 80's or 90's when wrestlers had the options of places like the NWA or WCW.
WWE and TNA are more sports entertainment then wrestling. So unfortunately id say yes you do have to have a run in a major US promotion, its a necessary evil
 
#17 ·
I don't think you can be a legend on the indies and be considered a legend if professional wrestling if your career never reached beyond the indies.

Being a legend in the indies is one thing but being legend, overall, in wrestling is another. The indies don't have much of a reach outside of their usual following. So, most guys are relatively unknown to the masses.

Take the late Trent Acid, for example. He'd be considered a legend in the northeast indie scene, based on how good he was and the level of success, by indie standards, he was able to reach. But, it's beyond hard to make a case for him as a legend in professional wrestling because outside of maybe a one-off in TNA's beginning stages, he never worked outside those small promotions, be it here, Europe or Japan. And that has an effect on how much of a true legend in wrestling, in general, one is.


If you have an indie guy in a company full of people who have virtually no chance of amounting to anything in the business, that doesn't make you a legend. What makes you a legend is working side by side with the best the business has to offer and being able to keep up, elevate yourself, elevate them and possibly elevate the company and business. An indie guy that works in front of 500 people is going to have a hard time doing that, while having an easier time looking like he's that much better than those he's surrounded by.
 
#18 · (Edited)
First of all, it seems to me that the word "legend" is thrown around too freely in these threads and its concept has been considerably watered down on Wrestling Forums.

Secondly, despite the delusions of many younger fans, there are very few TRUE legends in mainstream wrestling. So, how can a wrestler who has only participated in the Indies with limited local exposure ever ascend to the stature of a "legend." That would be like a baseball player who spent his entire career in Triple A in the minors becoming a "legend???" It's nonsense!

- Mike
 
#20 · (Edited)
It depends on how many people you influence, I guess.

If Bryan Danielson never made it to the WWE but influenced the style of top indy stars who did make it over the span of 10-15 years, then I'd call him a legend. Especially if a Finn Balor or Sami Zayn is main eventing Wrestlemania and their primary influence to get into the business wasn't Hogan or Austin but hypothetically Bryan Danielson.

For me, it's all about impact. And we all know, sometimes WWE has a thing for revisionist history and I wouldn't put it past them to try and decide who qualifies as a "legend" based on their (WWE) opinions and not the fans'.
 
#28 ·
Only a small group of people have heard of people like The Dusek Riot Squad, Sandor Szabo and Wladek Zbyszko, does mean that they aren't legends? You shouldn't be judged on who likes you the most, you should be judged on what you brought to the business and what you left in the ring. Nigel McGuinness and Bryan Danielson are fucking legends. They gave their lives to pro wrestling and were part of a shift in this business to the indy promotions gaining more popularity. Those two men, along with many others were part of a movement that changed this business yet people say they aren't legends? If John Cena gets to go down as a legend for his run as Superman, then Nigel McGuinness gets to be a legend for being one of the best in the fucking world.
 
#31 ·
I have to disagree.

No offense but to me, it's a cheap way of giving somebody a label. It's like saying because a guy is one of the best wrestlers of his generation, that automatically makes him a legend. Hell, 20 years ago, a case could be made that Scorpio was one of the best workers on the planet. But, can you really place him in the same legendary class as a Lou Thesz or Buddy Rogers?



From what you're saying, there's about 20 guys that came through ROH's doors that should be considered legends of professional wrestling for nothing more than being great workers and generating popularity for a company that, in spite of that, is still an indie company. To me, doing that completely kills the concept of the word "legend".


What guys like Danielson and Nigel brought to the business is no different than what guys like Jerry Lynn & Lance Storm brought to the business and unless you're (not you, in particular) an uber ECW fan, you likely won't consider Lynn and Storm as legends.
 
#30 ·
They don't induct garage bands into the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame, you don't have to be multiplatinum but you have to have achieved some level of prominence in the industry to get recognized, wrestling is the same way.

Sometimes a band is inducted into the RNRHOF that people disagree with, that never become super-popular but they achieved something worthy of remembering and I believe wrestling is the same way.

Some Indy wrestlers are big enough and well known enough to be considered legends, others are just garage bands even if people do like them.
 
#32 ·
A 'Legend' is a wrestler who breaks barriers and sets standards by being among the first to achieve an unprecedented accolade but that can not be said for an Indies wrestler who has gained the Titles wherever they wrestled or for being involved in Japanese tournaments because there are many who have achieved this. A 'Master' of the wrestling craft maybe so.
 
#33 ·
so your saying the first guy to do something is a legend? What about the people who later do that same thing and do it better? Take it to another level.

point is just because someone is the first do something doesn't mean much. Its because they were alive in the 50' 60's whatever and were in the right spot at the right time with some talent.
 
#40 · (Edited)
#42 ·
Batko, what about Ric Flair? :smile2:

Otherwise, I really like your list. I think that maybe there should be a distinction between a wrestling "star" and wrestling "legend". I think a lot of younger fans think that popular wrestling stars that they see today must be by default automatic wrestling legends. When in all reality wrestling is always going to have current stars. I agree with you that the term legend gets thrown around too much.
 
#41 · (Edited)
Stinger Fan stated: "The NWA isn't a promotion , like the IWGP they are a governing body . While I agree with the notion that Japan isn't a "minor league", people still look at success outside of the WWE as irrelevant. Hansen wrestled for AWA , NJPW and AJPW. His legendary status came directly from his work over in Japan. Most people don't really know who he even is, same with Bruiser Brody who both got "famous" from their work outside of the USA while in the USA they were virtual unknowns , even for the time."


I was using the term NWA as a generality in my premise to simply describe the territorial system as "big time wrestling". Of course in all technicality the NWA itself was the governing body that governed the vast majority of the territorial system.

I respectfully disagree about Bruiser Brody. He was a draw in southern American territories and the Missouri area and also in World Class. He was well known in American wrestling circles.
 
#46 ·
so your saying the first guy to do something is a legend? What about the people who later do that same thing and do it better? Take it to another level.
Even though I originally said 'among the first', which is not the same as saying the first, I'll attempt to answer your question.
Naturally the first person to achieve an unprecedented accolade is considered a Legend because that person has set a standard, a Level to attain and/or a record within his/her era or lifetime; an obvious example is Bruno Sammartino's epic WWWF title reigns while a lesser considered but just as deserving is Albert's record 8 IWGP tagteam & simultaneous GHC tag reigns as Bad Intentions with Karl Anderson during his spell in Japan. Another precedent would be Undertaker's WM streak, the Dudleyz capturing all promotions tagteam belts they've competed in within USA and Ric Flair's 16 WHC reigns. There are plenty more but idw be typing a novel.

Why you say this is baffling to me :
point is just because someone is the first do something doesn't mean much. Its because they were alive in the 50' 60's whatever and were in the right spot at the right time with some talent.
As for the wrestlers who, in later decades/eras, manage to equal or surpass a Legend's achievements it means they had that Legend in mind when aiming to defeat the record, take for example Cena who wants to equal or beat 16 title reigns; now say he does become 17 time champion does that automatically mean everyone should forget Flair's record? Imo no it means Flair is still a Legend and Cena would've set a new standard for title reigns while another lesser example would be when Santino Marella attempted to beat HonkyTonk Man's IC record which failed miserably YET HTM's legendary achievement was seen as a challenge to AIM for.
Without Legends who set accolades there are no Aims for those in later era's to set themselves, after all champions want to be the best and for them to say they are they need to best their peers who are the Legends.
The fact you so easily dismiss these wrestlers who set the standards for this generation I can guarantee every wrestler alive today would say how insulting that statement is.
 
#52 ·
No. People need to stop comparing the indy circuit to the territorial era.

Here's the difference: the WWE.

In the territorial era there was no WWE. If you were a big star of a territory/region then you were a big star period. Because the ceiling was much lower. That's all there was.

The WWE raises this ceiling.

Now, if you're a big star of an indy promotion.... Good for you.

Territorial stars hit the ceiling of their time.

Indy stars mostly fail to hit the ceiling of their time.

THAT is the difference. Now enough of this Indy = territory nonsense.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top