Analyze This: Greatest of All Times - Page 5 - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums
View Poll Results: Should Business factors and Drawing ability be a criteria for Greatness?
Yes 25 59.52%
No 15 35.71%
Others (Please elaborate) 2 4.76%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #41 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-17-2012, 08:55 PM
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
The Gorgeous One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
             
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walk-In View Post
Yes, perfectly. You want discussion for Greatest Wrestler to not include wrestling. That is your point.
'Wrestling' encompasses all the other points, always has. Been great in the ring doesn't matter in wrestling. 'Wrestling' isn't just in-ring. If in-ring performance mattered as much as people make out, Dynamite Kid would have been viewed by everyone as one of the greatest of all time. If in-ring performance mattered so much I'm sure over the years Vince would've had the business savvy to make Ricky Steamboat the face of the company. Great in-ring performance doesn't make money, wrestling is a business and the most important thing in a business is making money.
The Gorgeous One is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-17-2012, 08:59 PM
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
The Gorgeous One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
             
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chapo View Post
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.
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..
The Gorgeous One is offline  
post #43 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-17-2012, 09:03 PM
If I really don't like someone, I call them a Tony Schiavone.---Ron Funches
 
Elipses Corter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 10,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
                     
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gorgeous One View Post
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..
No, you just want us to leave out a key part of the discussion, as mentioned in the OP.

We have been discussing in the OP, but your whole argument is why drawing power should be the main criteria and why we shouldn't focus on in ring performance.


You know what, fuck it. I refuse to keep going on with you in this thread. Agree to disagree, I'm tired of debating with you on what we should discuss.
Elipses Corter is offline  
post #44 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-17-2012, 09:09 PM
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
The Gorgeous One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
             
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chapo View Post
No, you just want us to leave out a key part of the discussion, as mentioned in the OP.

We have been discussing in the OP, but your whole argument is why drawing power should be the main criteria and why we shouldn't focus on in ring performance.


You know what, fuck it. I refuse to keep going on with you in this thread. Agree to disagree, I'm tired of debating with you on what we should discuss.
I'm debating why you should leave that out when discussing GOAT. The bigger picture is what defines GOAT, and that is what I am discussing. This is a forum for discussion and that is exactly what we have been doing. There is no need to get worked up about someone disagreeing with your view. Maybe you just don't understand the argument I'm making, I honestly don't know.
The Gorgeous One is offline  
post #45 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-17-2012, 09:17 PM
If I really don't like someone, I call them a Tony Schiavone.---Ron Funches
 
Elipses Corter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 10,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
                     
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

Quote:
Originally Posted by What_A_Maneuver! View Post
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?
Elipses Corter is offline  
post #46 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-18-2012, 01:48 AM Thread Starter
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
theidealstranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
           
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

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?

Spoiler for Give the guy a break:

Last edited by theidealstranger; 11-18-2012 at 02:29 AM.
theidealstranger is offline  
post #47 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-18-2012, 03:27 AM
Moron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
                     
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

In-ring ability is subjective-While some people find Bret Hart as a great wrestler,I found him boring.
Drawing ain't subjective
austin316 G.O.A.T is offline  
post #48 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-18-2012, 03:30 AM
If I really don't like someone, I call them a Tony Schiavone.---Ron Funches
 
Elipses Corter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 10,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
                     
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by austin316 G.O.A.T View Post
In-ring ability is subjective-While some people find Bret Hart as a great wrestler,I found him boring.
Drawing ain't subjective
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.

Last edited by Elipses Corter; 11-18-2012 at 03:33 AM.
Elipses Corter is offline  
post #49 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-18-2012, 06:51 AM
L-DOPA ~
 
Melisandre of Asshai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
                     
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

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.



MUSTANG
Melisandre of Asshai is offline  
post #50 of 80 (permalink) Old 11-18-2012, 09:29 AM
Learning to break kayfabe
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
 
Re: Analyze This: Greatest of All Times

Like Corny said. WWE sells itself as a company, but they actually have less actual draws on thier roster then ever before. As in someone who can singlehandedly increase buyrates and attendance.
ROHWashingtonstate is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome