View Poll Results: Should Business factors and Drawing ability be a criteria for Greatness?

**Cloverleaf** · 11-21-2012, 11:09 AM

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.

**Dopesick** · 11-21-2012, 12:31 PM

Wrestling fans shouldn't care about drawing power/ratings/buyrates etc. A lot of wrestling fans these days are starting to sound like WWE shareholders with their 'oh yah yah the WWE is a business' and thinking they're a knowledgeable wrestling encyclopaedia with their stupid words like 'climate' and 'product'. What is happening to wrestling fans nowadays?

There is no way in hell you can give a legitimate reason as to why you think Wrestler A is the best in the business, as mentioned before it's all subjective and makes for good discussion, but claiming that 'he's the best because he draws the most' is utterly stupid. It's a factor, but then there's about eight or nine others as well.

kennedy=god · 11-21-2012, 08:05 PM

Of course. Pro Wrestling is a business, they're there to make promoters money. Of course other factor's come into it, but if you're going to be honest about it the first you've got to look at is who made the most money in their career.

**Greenlawler** · 11-22-2012, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theidealstranger

Rocca was practically the first north american cross over star and featured with Superman on the cover throwing out superman which is something which says how over he was at that time. I also came across that he made MSG big bringing in the crowd for a period of 7 years.

That is the point I would like to highlight here now. Inspite of being that big, Rocca or Gagne or Sammartino are not as revered as Lou Thesz and the reason Lou Thesz is revered is more because of his abilities than him being a draw. While we forgot Hogan, Flair or Lawler, you guys forgot Rocca, Gagne while the next set will forget Rock and Austin and would call Cena and Ryback the greatest of all times. Drawing is more important for the promoters for running the day to day business while the fans will move on to the then draw, the wrestlers with talent will remain etched forever, remembered as one of the greatest long after they are gone; all in my humble opinion.

Actually I would have to disagree a little here, but I am not just trying to knit pick....What seperated Thesz from Gagne and Rocca was his longevity and the fact that he toured the world many times over. So longevity and exposure, impact then ability. Really Gagne was every bit Thesz's equal in the ring according to what I have seen and heard.
You made a really strong argument but who will be remembered...Hogan or Brisco? In ring ability certainly helps a wrestlers legacy...i.e. Stemaboat, but the guys who have longevity and heavy exposure will trump the in ring worker everyday.

blackage316 · 11-22-2012, 07:59 AM

No,That's up to the writers and creative how they book the champion and how he becomes a draw depends on his charisma,mic skills,and lastly his in ring work.

Because charisma and mic skills is what draws people to watch so no i don't care if my favorite wrestler is not draw these things only the company should worry about.

The Gorgeous One · 11-22-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenlawler

Actually I would have to disagree a little here, but I am not just trying to knit pick....What seperated Thesz from Gagne and Rocca was his longevity and the fact that he toured the world many times over. So longevity and exposure, impact then ability. Really Gagne was every bit Thesz's equal in the ring according to what I have seen and heard.
You made a really strong argument but who will be remembered...Hogan or Brisco? In ring ability certainly helps a wrestlers legacy...i.e. Stemaboat, but the guys who have longevity and heavy exposure will trump the in ring worker everyday.

Don't forget that Thesz was a huge draw himself. I do have to disagree on your point on longevity though. Just because someone has a long career doesn't make them better than someone who had quite a short career but had a lot of impact. Many people will probably know of Lou Thesz because of the Lou Thesz press, sad but true. Gorgeous George had a much shorter career than Thesz but you could argue that he had a bigger impact on wrestling than Thesz. Reports have said that there was a sudden flood of people buying tv's when George started, because of his character, and his influence has been massive, you wouldn't have Buddy Rogers, Ric Flair or countless other modern day heels if it wasn't for Gorgeous George.

In-ring ability in terms of importance is down to a fan. I personally don't rate in-ring ability to a standard that other fans do, I think great in-ring work is needed for one wrestler, but maybe not another. The Greatest of all time should be looked at objectively, but it never will be. Greatest musicians, historical figures are looked at objectively, I don't see why wrestling is an exception.

**Greenlawler** · 11-22-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gorgeous One

Don't forget that Thesz was a huge draw himself. I do have to disagree on your point on longevity though. Just because someone has a long career doesn't make them better than someone who had quite a short career but had a lot of impact. Many people will probably know of Lou Thesz because of the Lou Thesz press, sad but true. Gorgeous George had a much shorter career than Thesz but you could argue that he had a bigger impact on wrestling than Thesz. Reports have said that there was a sudden flood of people buying tv's when George started, because of his character, and his influence has been massive, you wouldn't have Buddy Rogers, Ric Flair or countless other modern day heels if it wasn't for Gorgeous George.

In-ring ability in terms of importance is down to a fan. I personally don't rate in-ring ability to a standard that other fans do, I think great in-ring work is needed for one wrestler, but maybe not another. The Greatest of all time should be looked at objectively, but it never will be. Greatest musicians, historical figures are looked at objectively, I don't see why wrestling is an exception.

That is why I said longevity plus exposure.

RyanPelley · 11-22-2012, 11:05 PM

I am much more concerned with in ring ability, mic skills, technical skills, etc. than I am with drawing power or ratings.

I could care less if a certain wrestler drew horribly as a World Champion as long as he was entertaining to me. If I worked for the company and my job relied on someone drawing well, it'd be different. But I'm just a fucking fan. Ratings and drawing power should mean shit to fans.

austin316 G.O.A.T · 11-23-2012, 12:02 AM

Entertaining is subjective,so when someone draws well it means more people were entertained.

Hawksea · 11-23-2012, 05:47 AM

YES!!

Let's face it, most of us wouldn't even have been into wrestling of it wasn't the guys that were massive draws.

View Poll Results: Should Business factors and Drawing ability be a criteria for Greatness?

Thread Tools