Re: is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanford
So you found Bret Hart matches boring, and you say Steve Austin is more entertaining. So why are you so afraid to say that Austin was better at pro wrestling?
And on what planet is Tom Cruise more entertaining than Robert freaking Deniro? You've got this weird dichotomy of "better" and "more entertaining", when the two should be, in the entertainment industry, exactly the same thing.
1.Wrestling-
Who has better in-ring skills-Bret Hart
Who was better at promos and who was better entertainer-Stone Cold
This is a general opinion
My personal feeling-
Bret was a great technician but he was boring to me.
Austin was an out and out brawler but I enjoyed him more
2.Acting-
My opinion :
Cruise has had more entertaining movies than De Niro
De Niro had more talent in acting skills than Cruise.
But Tom Cruise>De Niro
__________________
Stone Cold on CM Punk's epic promo-CMPunk just melted my 52 inch TV with a scorching hot
promo...delivery, content, and attitude...one of
the best promos I've ever seen.
Hulk Hogan on CM Punk-I think CM PUNK has stepped up and proved he can hold his own with anybody in the ring and anybody on the mic,he's on a roll. HH
My favourite wrestlers:
1.Stone Cold Steve Austin
2.HHH
3.CM Punk
4.Brock Lesnar
5.The Rock
Re: is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by austin316 G.O.A.T
Who has better in-ring skills-Bret Hart
Who was better at promos and who was better entertainer-Stone Cold
This is a general opinion
I know. People are afraid to criticize Bret's place at the top the the "in ring ability" list, but are totally willing to call his matches boring. It's ridiculous; especially when you put him up against Austin, who holds just as much of a place at the top of that list, and then come up with only "he's a brawler" as evidence to why his "ring skills" weren't great.
Quote:
Cruise has had more entertaining movies than De Niro
As a whole? Eh, alright. You're entitled to your opinion. Give me DeNiro's body of work over Cruise's any day of the week though.
Re: Is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanford
Fine, then just put it that way. If you think Tom Cruise is a better actor than Marlon Brando, just come out and say it. A little more honesty, and a little less ambiguity. Please.
Brando was more talented.
Harrison Ford was a bigger star.
Something like this-Ric Flair was a better performer but Hogan was bigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanford
So you found Bret Hart matches boring, and you say Steve Austin is more entertaining. So why are you so afraid to say that Austin was better at pro wrestling?
And on what planet is Tom Cruise more entertaining than Robert freaking Deniro? You've got this weird dichotomy of "better" and "more entertaining", when the two should be, in the entertainment industry, exactly the same thing.
I think he meant De Niro was more talented while Tom Cruise has been at better and more successful movies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeee
Drawing ability is the only objective criteria by which you can judge a wrestler.
Re: Is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeee
Because otherwise you can only have a personal G.O.A.T. list or someone else's personal G.O.A.T. list.
Well, god forbid! That might involve discussing your beloved hobby with peers, studying your beloved hobby on recorded tape, or, hell, maybe even a little introspection! We definitely wouldn't want that.
Re: is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion Lannister
I'll put it this way. When I say Austin is the best ever, I'm not using his drawing as the criteria whatsoever, I say it because I legitimately believe he's the best, most entertainer performer ever, but I'll use the drawing to benefit an argument.
Also, comparing wrestling to acting is apples and oranges. The reason the biggest drawing actors aren't considered the GOAT's is because films aren't one giant company that will live or die based on revenue like a wrestling companies will.
Wrestling and acting are two sides of the same coin. It's all about money and entertainment, it's about drawing power, good script and deliverance, it's showbiz.
Re: is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmadankumar
Wrestling and acting are two sides of the same coin. It's all about money and entertainment, it's about drawing power, good script and deliverance, it's showbiz.
Except for the fact that the man just explained to you why they're different... In the post you responded to.
Re: Is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat?
Ric Flair id definition of Goat who got the whole package and drawing power but just below Rock-Austin-Hogan.
Daniel Bryan could be GOAT when he retired. decent on mic but great in ring and people really behind him. for the last decade you could not see anyone like Bryan who have put in every situation and in any fued still over...
Last edited by apokalypse : 09-29-2012 at 02:18 AM.
Re: Is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat?
Yes because drawing people into the business is what keeps it going on and reaching for new successes
I'm in disagreement with comparing wrestling to the film business, because the movie industry doesn't need an attraction seen as it will keep going on no matter what , it's not like people are gonna lose interests in movies , that will never happen unlike wrestling which lost a significant amount of viewers within the years
and @ Austin316G.O.A.T , that smoking scene from Robert Deniro in Goodfellas trumps any movie Tom Cruise did , or will do , aside maybe from A Few Good Men (but that was because of Nicholson)
__________________
^that badass roster^
"Every single thing you're doing right now in the wwe john , going to every show , The Rock has already done it . Every single thing you're thinking about doing , outside of the wwe , The Rock has already done it , as a matter of fact The Rock has done it better !"
is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat ?
Re: is being the biggest draw a good enough reason to be considered the goat ?
