Wrestling Forum banner

Should Business factors and Drawing ability be a criteria for Greatness?

Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

7K views 79 replies 28 participants last post by  Hawksea 
#1 ·
Before the start, please do not bring in names and make this a debate why a wrestler A or B is great or not. This is about the bigger picture where I want to open a discussion on what is the generally accepted and your individual criteria for calling someone Greatest of All Times in pro-wrestling in your opinion and since when did business and drawing became a criteria for Greatness overshadowing in ring talent and entertainment factor?

To me, Greatness criteria include the following:
  • In Ring Ability
  • Promo Skills
  • Ring Psychology/Storytelling
  • Gimmick/Character performance
  • Longevity (A one year run as a great entertainer is not enough for me to call someone G.O.A.T)

P.S: Please do not make this a A vs B discussion and keep it generic.
 
#16 ·
Being a draw makes you important but I don't contribute that importance to my own idea of what makes someone great. Putting Hogan above Shawn Michaels would be like placing James Cameron ahead of Martin Scorsese. One's an entertainer, the other's an artist.

Then you get a guy like Austin who would be high on both lists. Important to the industry and an amazing performer to boot.
 
#62 ·
Okay, I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by that.


Wrestling today is obviously way different than it was. One of the biggest things I miss are characters. Most of them are generic fuckers. There is nothing much that really has someone stand out from the next guy (I mean as a character specifically, not so much other things, like charisma). It's just a bunch of guys in tights....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshi
#71 ·
Because Professional wrestling is a business environment and not a sport. It heavily comes down to drawing power (making the most amount of money) over anything else. You have to take it into consideration.

It's generally the wrestlers that make the company the most money (biggest draw) or has the potential to make lots of money are the ones that win titles and get pushed.

It depends if you mean Kayfabe or not to tbh.

But, it's very very objective.

Would you judge the best burger on the market by taste alone or would you look at volume of burgers sold? Value for money?

How are the best actors awarded? It's not necessarily just on how much their movies 'gross' but also a vote from their peers. An actor in a small low budget movie can still win the top honours and be looked at as being the best.
 
#2 ·
This is a question? Of course it is. Wrestling is a business, part of a business is making money. Therefore putting the most butts in seats and attracting the most people to watch you is part of what wrestling is. It always has been, in wrestling to wrestlers and promoters, drawing money is the most important thing, you can be the greatest in-ring, greatest on the mic and all the other things you said, but if you can't draw a god damn dime, you aren't going to be at the top very long for any promoter. I do agree with the rest of your criteria, maybe not so much on in-ring as I believe it is ridiculously overrated by internet fans, but I do believe you need to add drawing power to that list.
 
#3 ·
this is why verne gagne failed to run as a national promoter, he had hulk hogan but didn't push him to the max. Instead he wanted an inring technician as champion, he gave away the best babyface draw to vince mcmmahon who went national shortly after.
 
#5 ·
it doesn't matter. How much someone draws depends on the booking and the creative, it has little to do with the Superstars themselves.
 
#6 ·
I say no.

People have this weird notion that drawing is the only thing that matters. I don't include that at all, when speaking on the GOAT. For me, this about wrestling. I don't factually know how much money somebody made, other than from what they want you to know. The criteria for GOAT should solely be based on what you know and that is what happens in the ring. As a fan, that is all that should matter. It kills me when fans today call a particular guy a draw because of the money he's making but completely ignore a guy from 20, 30 even 40 years ago because the business wasn't as big. It's all a reflection of the economy but don't ignore the guy who did a lot in elevating the business simply because he wasn't setting attendance records or making millions.

Anything involving GOAT wrestler should solely be based on what happens in that ring, not at the ticket booth.
 
#7 ·
But how does in-ring wrestling matter? Wrestlers and promoters really don't care that much about in-ring style, so I don't know where this incessant need of internet "smarks" came from. If you are basing it solely on what happens in the ring then I guess you consider Dynamite Kid and Tiger Mask as two of the greatest of all time?

Of course you need good in-ring performance as well, because wrestling is a variety show, you need something for everyone. But in pro-wrestling being great in the ring doesn't make you a great pro wrestler, drawing money is a lot to do with the wrestler themselves, look at the territory days. Even before Hogan went to WWF he was a huge draw in AWA with his own gimmick. Even wrestlers like Pat Patterson say that it was both Hogan and McMahon that made WWF and not just the promoter. If it was just down to the promoter, why did Lex Luger not work? Why is Randy Orton still not a massive draw considering he has been rammed down fans throats since he started?

Drawing isn't the only thing that matters but without guys who draw money you wouldn't have any wrestling at all.
 
#10 ·
And that is the thing. GOAT is subjective, based on what fans prefer. There is no consensus that GOAT should only be based on certain things. Just so happens, I feel like the OP and GOAT should be based on the things he mentioned, not how much money a certain wrestler made.

Drawing is simply a reflection of booking. The right booking can make anybody a draw but the right booking can't make you appear superior in all other aspects, only in the box office.
 
#12 ·
How is there a debate if it is subjective then? It is just a difference in opinion. I could say Hornswoggle is the greatest of all time, and that would be contended as a legitimate answer if it's subjective.

Drawing isn't a reflection of booking. Maybe to a certain point, but like I said why wasn't Lex Luger as big of a draw as Hogan or why wasn't Goldberg? Why isn't Jeff Jarrett the biggest draw of the 2000's? Since he constantly booked himself amazingly.

Taking on Walk-In's point, I think the most difficult thing about addressing greatness is comparing between generations. For example it is very difficult to compare someone like Frank Gotch to a modern day wrestler considering how much wrestling and society has changed. If it is subjective, what is the point? There isn't an argument if it is just different opinions. Obviously there has to be objectiveness to it, otherwise you could say that well gays shouldn't have equal rights to everyone else since it is just two contrasting opinions, when in reality you have to look at it objectively. (This is probably a terrible example, but it was the most relevant one in today's society I could think of)
 
#11 · (Edited)
I actually do think it is subjective. All of it, sans definite numbers. Like, if promo ability for you is a factor, how does that weigh-in for non-English speaking workers?

Jeff Hardy is a bigger draw than Stan Hansen. Am I going to say that Jeff Hardy is better than Stan Hansen? Fuck no.

So it's all subjective, to a degree. There's not some weighted scale in place where you judge the criteria based upon percentages of what matters more between work/promo/drawing power, etc.

Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin & The Rock are three of the biggest stars and draws ever and none of the three are even in my top ten. So there ya go.
 
#15 ·
Another thing to consider is that someone is only as good as the stuff of theirs that you have seen. It sort of ties-in with the generation point that was brought up. At the same time though, if all of the Kawada stuff you have seen is incredible (let's say because you bought compilation tapes/DVDs which obviously won't include the bad stuff) from a pure sampling size, he is going to appear a lot greater than say someone like Shawn Michaels (just as an example as Kawada is better) whom you might have seen the entire WWF career of, all the good and bad.
 
#18 ·
Doesn't that make drawing power in the argument more meaningful? Just by watching old Japanese wrestling or watching a dvd of someone's greatest matches and then saying this guy is the greatest makes it less useful to use in-ring performance. Drawing is a more accurate criteria since it shows who people at the time would pay to see. Obviously Meltzer's ratings probably aren't 100% accurate but they are a hell of a lot more accurate than using memory of wrestlers matches, since instinctively you are going to remember the better ones if you personally like someone, and the bad matches if you dislike them. At least drawing gives a realistic look at what fans would pay to see and who they would pay to go see.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Your examples are pretty bad, to be fair, but what is wrong & right differ by location, religious beliefs and culture. For example, the recent gay ban in Uganda leading to death or life imprisonment. Is it wrong? Well, it is to people in the United States that have differing beliefs. But it's right to the majority of people in Uganda.

But I don't see how the white male shit ties-in at all, honestly. Like I legit don't know what point you're trying to make. Anything that can not be proven is not a fact. Thus, if it can not be proven, it is either an opinion or a theory. Which leads to subjective ideals and differing viewpoints. Math can be proven factually. Who is the best pro-wrestler can not.

Who is the biggest draw in wrestling? That is not an opinion.
Who is the best in wrestling? That is an opinion.
 
#24 ·
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.
 
#27 · (Edited)
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?

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.
 
#25 ·
Because otherwise you're just wanting to know who is the biggest draw ever and that's not a message forum question. That's go fuckin' look up the numbers because there's no discussion or debate to be had there. So, yeah, what's the point of that at all?
 
#29 ·
Maybe I should have clarified that drawing power is the most important criteria, not the only criteria. Impact is the second criteria, which should be looked at objectively. It's a hell of a lot better than saying guy A is better than guy B because guy A is better in the ring.

Like I said before I don't believe there is a definitive GOAT, I just think there are levels of wrestlers in terms of greatness, which still allows discussion.
 
#26 ·
And that is why I feel GOAT discussions are either biased, opinionated or based on assumptions. Because at the end of the day, people are going to be biased in favor of the type of wrestling they prefer, opinionated because they base their argument on the opinions of others or assumptions because they look at reports from guys like Meltzer or whatever the media is presenting and assume that because this guy was a big draw, he's automatically the GOAT.

It all boils down to different preferences, which leads me to believe there is no definite basis for who GOAT is. And in the end, it all becomes an opinion.
 
#28 ·
When my friends & I compiled our lists, we used a numerical system broken down by category.

On a scale of 1-10, give each guy a number under each category (this way, you can still include drawing power if you want but it doesn't necessarily make someone the greatest).

(1) Ring Work:
(2) Longevity:
(3) Drawing Power:
(4) Charisma And/Or Verbal Skills/Promos: (this category was rough cause we tried to present it in a way that wouldn't exclude non-English speaking performers, hence the lumping of charisma with promo):
(5) Memorable Feuds/Matches:

So then you would answer with, as an example:

Hulk Hogan
(1) - 4
(2) - 8
(3) - 10
(4) - 10
(5) - 10
Total: 42

Someone else might have Hogan at like:

Hulk Hogan
(1) - 6
(2) - 7
(3) - 9
(4) - 9
(5) - 7
Total: 38

So then you get the average of the totals. In this case 40. Then when you write down the popular opinion at the end you would have:

#1 SOME GUY W/ MORE THAN 40 & MORE THAN #2
#2 SOME GUY W/ MORE THAN 40
#3 HULK HOGAN - 40 POINTS
#4 SOME GUY WITH LESS THAN 40 BUT HIGHER THAN #5
#5 SOME GUY WITH LESS THAN 40, LESS THAN #4 & MORE THAN #6
ETC.

If you so desire, you can even make certain categories be more weighted than others, if for example you feel promos mean less and drawing means more.
 
#33 ·
I feel like you just want a different thread altogether. You don't want a "Who is the greatest of all-time" thread, you want a "who are the biggest draws in wrestling" thread. Two completely different things. Go make that thread, dude! People can talk about Hogan, Flair, Austin, Rock,, Hardy, etc. all day! Then you can even factor in inflation. Sounds like fun!
 
#35 ·
Maybe, you didn't take in what I said in the last few pages, but I'm arguing that drawing power is the main criteria in the greatest of all time. Btw, I can't believe you just put Hardy in the same sentence as those other guys.

Just get rid of in-ring performance in GOAT discussion, because that is what makes it subjective like yourself and El Chapo have been saying. Promo's are linked with drawing, for example Dusty Rhodes is known for talking people into the building. Impact is evaluating the effect said person had on wrestling, which again is linked with drawing. Longevity links with drawing as how long you stay at the top is usually based on drawing. And memorable feuds is part of the reason why guys become big draws, for example Hogan was elevated to that next level of drawing power due to his rivalry with Andre and Austin was brought to that next level due to his feud with McMahon.

Do you understand how the picture is being painted now?
 
#36 · (Edited)
You want us to quit discussing something that the OP first mentioned?

In case you didn't read, he asked us our opinions of what the criteria is for discussing GOAT, which gives us that right to mention in ring performance. If you don't like that, maybe you should go join the GOAT discussion thread in General WWE.

All we're saying is that we don't feel drawing power should be a main basis on who was a draw and gave reasons why. Instead of you giving reasons why it should, you tell us to leave in ring performance out of it.

I don't think I'm going to continue this argument with you. Keep reading Observer and post your drawing power argument in the GOAT discussion thread. This thread is about the bigger picture, such as what we think GOAT should be based on and when & why did the emphasis on drawing power begin.
 
#39 · (Edited)
I'd add in 'Impact On The Business' as a factor.

For me, the GOAT is someone who has a mix of EVERYTHING. They are literally the perfect wrestler (or as close as you can get to perfect).

So I'm pretty happy to say the GOAT is Stone Cold Steve Austin, because he was a good enough wrestler, amazing character, excellent promos, he drew a lot of money and he had a big impact on the business.

However, just because I think he's the GOAT, doesn't make him my favourite wrestler. Shawn Michaels is my favourite because he ticks all of the boxes you mentioned, but he was never the draw that Austin,Hogan,Rock were.

So in short, yeah, I do think drawing is as important as any other factor when it comes to the criteria for GOAT because the GOAT has to be pretty much perfect in EVERY area.
 
#45 ·
So in short, yeah, I do think drawing is as important as any other factor when it comes to the criteria for GOAT because the GOAT has to be pretty much perfect in EVERY area.
But, if you lack in other characteristics a wrestler should have, would the fact that you're a draw instantly make you GOAT?

Because I can name numerous guys who were draws that lacked in other departments and why they are not considered GOAT. But at the same time, I can name numerous guys I've seen people refer to as 1 of the GOAT who weren't massive draws like others but were strong in other departments.

And at the end, it's all formed on opinions. I mean, is there a definitive, factual basis on calling someone GOAT that isn't completely biased or based on assumptions?
 
#40 ·
See, people must not be reading the OP. Because guys are constantly dropping names and making comparisons when the OP clearly said not to and we're looking at the bigger picture and the business in general.

I think I'm done with this thread. Some of you are better of in the GOAT discussion thread because you're completely missing the point of this one.
 
#42 ·
The OP said to discuss whether they thought drawing power should be a criteria for GOAT. Every single post I have argued that is should. The bigger picture is what makes up the GOAT, which I'm saying is drawing power and that in-ring performance should be left out? Just because someone doesn't agree with me doesn't mean I leave a thread..
 
#46 · (Edited)
Well, when we say drawing power as a criteria, as you have put for in-ring ability, there is no measure even though there is a number. Any territory guy who was a huge massive draw in his territory would be left out of G.O.A.T discussion just because national promotion was not such a in thing in 60's in the scale of WWE/F and with a wider coverage, the current wrestler who drew in a national scale would always look bigger than the classic guy who was GOD in his territory when it comes to drawing. There are other factors as well like inflation when we talk money which by the way is becoming a factor when they talk highest grossing films and the times, fashion and culture.

Post the Wrestling boom, it got coverage like never before and the same goes for Attitude Era and guys from those times would obviously be bigger draws than those Gods of territorial wrestling.

While I acknowledge the same can be said about in ring ability or ring psychology but it is in a much smaller scale compared to drawing ability because it does not involve as much external factors as others for drawing power includes economic situation as well. A depression era great would not draw as much in money as a guy today for no fault of his. But he would be able to put in as much ring psychology or storytelling as a guy today.

Ultimately, it is purely subjective for someone to take anything as a criteria. Even the height and build be a criteria for that matter. If, for me, a guy more than 6'2'' does not work simply because he has this being bigger advantage, then it is also perfectly fine. Can you please list your criteria while we are at it.

To add to this, say tomorrow WWE manages to rope in a A-list action star for a couple of years run in the programming, he would be a big draw for surely people would come to see him in person and his impact also would be great which was evident from various boxing cameos with good storylines that helped sell PPVs, do you think he would have in him what it takes to stake a claim in being the greatest wrestler of all times?
 
#48 · (Edited)
My criteria is:

Wrestling ability
Main event presence/longevity as a main event talent
Charisma
Storytelling
Mic skills (not a main requirement but it helps)

IMO, those are somewhat legit in discussing GOAT. As ^ said, drawing power leaves guys before the wrestling boom at a disadvantage because wrestling wasn't nowhere near as popular. And I listed mic skills as not being a main requirement because it would eliminate any foreign talent from being considered on my behalf.

The above is what I base GOAT on, as it's more about the actual wrestler and has nothing to do with era or the state of the economy, which both affect whether or not you can credit someone as being a draw.




Based on this logic, The Sheik is greater than Bret because he was a bigger draw for a longer period of time, despite not being on the level of Bret, wrestling wise. It's completely unfair to base it on drawing power for reasons I've previously listed. If you look at some of the guys that Meltzer has claimed were the biggest draws over the past 100 years, it would be quite biased based on the state of wrestling in those times and the economy.
 
#49 ·
Yes but it shouldn't be the ONLY criteria. Like for example when some people on this forum talk about the best wrestlers of today many will say Punk is awful and the only argument they can come up with "OMGZ HE CAN'TZ DRAWZ!" like its a completely legitimate argument when they like wrestlers who aren't even proven draws themselves.
 
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