Wrestling Forum banner

Most important parameter to evaluate the historical importance of wrestlers

1K views 20 replies 17 participants last post by  Truthbetold 
#1 · (Edited)
What is the most important parameter to evaluate the historical importance of wrestlers?
Drawing power or innovations and influence of style or quality?
If you choose drawing power and for example you compare Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton, Orton will win easy. But I don't think that Bryan is less important,on the contrary is more important than him.
The same thing can be do if you evaluate the importance of Dynamite Kid or Benoit: They never were great Drawer but they were more and more important than Orton, Batista, Lesnar, ecc
Can you explain about the impact in the business of these wrestlers:
Daniel Bryan
Edge
Randy Orton
Ultimate Warrior
Rey Mysterio
Thanks very much
 
#2 · (Edited)
The only parameter to evaluate historical importance and a wrestler's place in an all the time list, is the wrestler's impact in the industry. Drawing power, skills, main event status etc...are all part of evaluating that impact and how compares with others. Austin, Hogan aren't at the top of modern WWE history because their drawing power, but the impact they had in the company.
 
#3 ·
Does the historical importance have to be positive? Does it have to be actual importance? How many wrestlers in history were actually important? Plenty were impactful, but outright important? And important to what? Ian Rotten is important to IWA Mid-South because it's his company; the company wouldn't exist without him. Edge in the grand scheme of things is really not important to WWE; they would have done fine without him.

If it's just overall importance to wrestling, then, again how many wrestlers can be considered important?
 
#6 ·
The impact they made on the business i'd say. You can laud a guy with kayfabe accomplishments but if nobody really remembers them with any fondness/they deliver no real memorable moments through their own ability, then i don't think they'll be remembered pretty fondly.
 
#8 ·
I think it depends on how many wrestlers in future generations you've inspired. Whether it be Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan or even Hayabusa, top performers that succeeded them probably wouldn't be where they are today if they hadn't seen those legends as kids.
 
#12 ·
Drawing power, influence COMBINED with longevity. Hogan is the goat because he was a huge draw in 3 different companies, and for 20 years.

You guys always putting rock and austin at the very top is laughable. Neither were on top long enough to be considered above hogan, and rock especially benefitted from a national monopoly when he was on his biggest run.

Gorgeous george drew higher tv viewers than both rock and austin, but is barely mentioned on atg lists because, like rock and austin he burned hot for only a couple of years, like a comet he came, lit up the world then left.

Guys like hogan though, had staying power, and were bigger stars
 
#16 ·
Austin & Rock are not even close to Goat Hogan.

Not only is Hogan's 80's run alone bigger than Austin and Rock's prime.

But then he made wrestling popular again in the 90's with the NWO.

Austin & Rock didn't even get popular until Hogan was in his late 40's.

Then Hogan came back in 2002 and he was still more popular than Rock & Austin.

WM18 proved that.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Hmmmm. Probably if they can wrestle a match safely; not hurting themselves or another.

I know you had something else in mind like "charisma" or "in-ring psychology", but honestly, the safety of wrestlers comes before any and all of that. You said "the most important parameter", so safety obviously preceeds anything else. If you dont like my answer, hey — you dont have to. When you're in the same elevator as me ill rip a nasty wet fart.
 
#14 · (Edited)
It's a hard question to answer, as there are numerous ways in which a performer can be labelled as historically significant.

Influence, in particular, is hard to gauge. Some of the greatest of all time may have been directly influenced by someone who was never a draw, or that is largely an obscure figure.

All in all, I don't think there's really a "most important" parameter in evaluating historical significance. It's just too difficult to gauge some of the parameters that have been discussed.
 
#18 · (Edited)
quality of feuds, really

When it gets down to drawing power, wrestling and promo skills (which all are important factors as well), you have to look at which wrestler had the more impressive feuds, and I mean feuds that were memorable and made a name and an impact

If a wrestler blew up at one point of time, then spent the next majority of his career having forgettable feuds and fillers, well (imo) that devalues him, that's why longevity means shit for someone like Triple H, who had legendary feuds in his prime but spent the last decade or so in abysmal rivalries, although he did have his moments during then

I find that the best way for a measure, because it combines drawing power, wrestling/promo skills, and impact at the same time, as the biggest feuds in wrestling history showed that
 
#19 ·
Alot of subjective things, but two concrete barameters imo. would be relevant longevity and generating for lack of better term "buzz" (drawing inofitself can be a tricky one often with many factors going beyond the control of one wrestler). You look at generating "buzz" like a Gorgeous George who people literally bought television sets to watch and ended up drawing so many crowds he ended up with a decent portion of his gates (in an era of cuthroat promoters unheard of) and even the driving force for James Brown to switch up styles and even a cultural icon like Ali once he saw a Gorgeous George promo decided to stop being humble Cassius Clay and adopted his trash talking style or a guy like Rock who while having a relatively short time on top generated a heap of merchandise and tv record ratings/house buyrates. I look at guys who undeniably we all can agree are great that have both like a Taker with his tenure as a cornerstone over two decades and these last 12 years becomming as synonymous with the Superbowl of wrestling/Wrestlemania as anybody: even Hogan. Hogan himself an arguable GOAT him and Piper largely responsible for taking Vince to the top of the mountain: still holding the record for a wrestling television share at over 33 percent for SNME (the same night 80s Madonna was on SNL by the way) and then in the Mid 90s Hogan backed by that awesome production and a historic angle nearly putting that same man out of business and having the longevity to at age freaking 48 putting on in my opinion the greatest showmanship performance in company history at WM 18. Jerry Lawler so many decades on top in Memphis and legendary feuds from Funk to Kauffman etc.
 
#21 ·
Hogan himself an arguable GOAT him and Piper largely responsible for taking Vince to the top of the mountain: still holding the record for a wrestling television share at over 33 percent for SNME (the same night 80s Madonna was on SNL by the way) and then in the Mid 90s Hogan backed by that awesome production and a historic angle nearly putting that same man out of business and having the longevity to at age freaking 48 putting on in my opinion the greatest showmanship performance in company history at WM 18.
 
#20 · (Edited)
Id like to know how those saying impact are defining it.

Imo its crowd/audience reaction. Positive or negative I think its the ability to engender and sustain emotion from the audience. Stronger the emotion the more invested people are, the better you are doing your job.

The consistency with the greats that i see are not kayfabe achievements, but their ability to make fans feel something (anger, sadness, excitement etc).

I think this has to be intended btw. So go away heat doesnt count. But through great stories, great wrestling, great acting fans cared about SCSS, The Rock, HHH, Taker, Michaels etc etc.
 
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