Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Likes wrestling....
Joined
·
9,363 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I understand I am new to these boards, and I do not want to offend anyone, but I do not understand how anyone without a basic history of wrestling knowledge can even comment on polls and threads relating to the greatest of all time.

It is ridiculous to see all of these "greatest this, greatest that" when all of the responses are Rock, Taker, Austin, and whoever else has been an icon since the year 2000. Wrestling as we the fans know it has been around for almost 100 years. I understand that most of us were not alive for much of this 100 year run but there is just very little respect for the guys who paid there dues before 1984.

No WWF list should void Sammartino....no NWA list should leave out Thesz.

Taker is great but seriously best big man talker?....What a load of crap....Ladd, and dozens of others make him look illiterate. Taker is great but it took him a dozen years to actually have a voice.

All of these "greatest this, greatest that" lists are just driving me crazy...everyone on there wrestled within the last 20 years.

No offense I understand we are all partial to what we grow up with, but come on guys would it hurt to read up, watch you tube? Okay off the soap box now...I eagerly await your rebukes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,549 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

agree to that...talking about greatest all i see people mention guys during the 90's but so many guys back in territories off the list and forgotten...one of example is greatest on mic or mic work and Rock on top of the list which is fucking shocking..

if Mark Calaway wasn't on Undertaker grimmick/character where he could be?
 

·
Its Yer'sel
Joined
·
6,148 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Mae Young is the GOAT everyone knows that.

Young holds the distinction of being the only professional wrestler to wrestle documented matches in nine different decades, having her first in 1939 and her latest match in 2010.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Mae Young is the GOAT everyone knows that.

Young holds the distinction of being the only professional wrestler to wrestle documented matches in nine different decades, having her first in 1939 and her latest match in 2010.
Jesus, that's wild. Unbelievable. Wow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

I understand I am new to these boards, and I do not want to offend anyone, but I do not understand how anyone without a basic history of wrestling knowledge can even comment on polls and threads relating to the greatest of all time.

It is ridiculous to see all of these "greatest this, greatest that" when all of the responses are Rock, Taker, Austin, and whoever else has been an icon since the year 2000. Wrestling as we the fans know it has been around for almost 100 years. I understand that most of us were not alive for much of this 100 year run but there is just very little respect for the guys who paid there dues before 1984.

No WWF list should void Sammartino....no NWA list should leave out Thesz.

Taker is great but seriously best big man talker?....What a load of crap....Ladd, and dozens of others make him look illiterate. Taker is great but it took him a dozen years to actually have a voice.

All of these "greatest this, greatest that" lists are just driving me crazy...everyone on there wrestled within the last 20 years.

No offense I understand we are all partial to what we grow up with, but come on guys would it hurt to read up, watch you tube? Okay off the soap box now...I eagerly await your rebukes.
Just because old guys may have been some of the original greats doesn't make them the greatest. Most of the greatest all around (not just in the ring) have come in the 1980s or later. It's just a fact. In what universe are Lou Thesz, Ernie Ladd, and Bruno Sammartino (with all due respect) better than Austin, Rock, or Taker?
 

·
Likes wrestling....
Joined
·
9,363 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Just because old guys may have been some of the original greats doesn't make them the greatest. Most of the greatest all around (not just in the ring) have come in the 1980s or later. It's just a fact. In what universe are Lou Thesz, Ernie Ladd, and Bruno Sammartino (with all due respect) better than Austin, Rock, or Taker?
Wow! This is a perfect example of how many of the newer wrestling fans have no idea just what Thesz, Gourgeous George or Sammartino meant to the sport. For wrestling to evolve it takes some of these "old timers" to evolve the sport. This is like a baseball fan saying Babe Ruth was insignifigant, or a basketball fan extolling Kobe but ignoring Magic, Bird or Jordan.

Do you even understand what guys like Buddy Rodgers did for men like Flair? Without Superstar Billy Graham there was no Hogan? Just because a guy made a mark in 1974 does not mean that someone who made that mark in 1994 is better. Bockwinkle, Funk, Race, and others dominated the 70's. To me just because the Rock was an icon for 6 years, well Bruno dominated for almost 2 decades. This is the falacy of the current wrestling fan, no knock on current fans just a little persepctive is needed. Bruno, Verne Gagne, Thesz they laid the groundwork for what we have today. Without heels like Kowolski there is no HHH. Baron Von Rashcke, Mr Wrestling 2, these were men whose conributions to the sport should not be forgotten.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Unfortunately, wrestling goes through changes. As do it's fans. Most fans today wouldn't appreciate a Sammartino match, not that the match wouldn't be great, and not that it's their fault, but thats just how wrestling has evolved over the years. There was a point where Sammartino, Graham, Rogers, etc., were viewed as the best, then it was your Hogans, Steamboats, Flairs, then your Austin, Rock's, Goldbergs, Each of those groups played an important part in the evolution of pro wrestling. Should they all be considered? Of course. Is that gonna happen today, or in the future? Probably not.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,283 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

If you don't like their elementary level of wrestling insight to join this forum and start that kind of a thread then you don't have to post in it. It's as simple as that. Eventually the thread will get lost in the shuffle and you can start your 5 star discussion on whatever it is that makes your thread better. For me personally I could make a thread about anything interesting and remember that this is a forum where other people can post lists too so it's not like OP is all that counts.
 

·
Rolex Bomb Defuser
Joined
·
410 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Wrestling is not an organized sport. Therefore we can't judge solely off of championships, wins etc. Most of the time lists are based off of popularity, draw power etc and since Steve Austin and The Rock are bigger draws than any other wrestler in history not named Hulk Hogan they deserve to be in the top 5.

You either make your list based off of popularity or technical skill. Either way both lists will have more wrestlers from post-1980s than pre-1980s.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
852 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

The problem with things like this is that wrestling being a scripted form of entertainment, everything comes down to personal preference. There is no way to tell who is really the greatest, as they are all putting on a show. There are no meaningful figures(drawing aside), and there really is no way to have a right answer for any question pertaining to favorite wrestlers. My favorite in-ring is Dean Malenko, but who am I to shoot down somebody that can't get enough of The Great Khali? Just because it isn't my cup of tea doesn't make my opinion any more valid than theirs. I appreciate the territory days and the older wrestlers, as you can see by the inclusion of Blackwell and Brody in my top 10 all-time list, but I also appreciate the superstars of today, and I will respect anybody else that feels any other way.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,787 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

I agree but greatest or best threads should just stop being posted in general.
 

·
The Loose Cannon
Joined
·
5,833 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

This thread should be in Rants if anything!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Great post OP :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,549 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

we should judge on their in ring and mic skills, impact and importance to wrestling...guys like Austin-buddy Rogers-Lou Thesz-Flair have it all the package...

Hogan ooze with charisma that's why he's The Guy but beside that he got nothing that's why he playing politics and depend on other great worker to put him over..on Jericho book have said this, Hogan considered Edge to be his boys because they make him look great.

if you ask greatest in modern era from 90's, it seems people to be brainwashed by WWE mostly name guys from WWE but guys like Sting forgotten...i watched Sting promo another day his stuff is incredible, Drawing Power? in comparison Sting is major drawer and he's not in WWE doesn't mean he can't draw like or abit below Rock-AUstin..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

I understand I am new to these boards, and I do not want to offend anyone, but I do not understand how anyone without a basic history of wrestling knowledge can even comment on polls and threads relating to the greatest of all time.

It is ridiculous to see all of these "greatest this, greatest that" when all of the responses are Rock, Taker, Austin, and whoever else has been an icon since the year 2000. Wrestling as we the fans know it has been around for almost 100 years. I understand that most of us were not alive for much of this 100 year run but there is just very little respect for the guys who paid there dues before 1984.

No WWF list should void Sammartino....no NWA list should leave out Thesz.

Taker is great but seriously best big man talker?....What a load of crap....Ladd, and dozens of others make him look illiterate. Taker is great but it took him a dozen years to actually have a voice.

All of these "greatest this, greatest that" lists are just driving me crazy...everyone on there wrestled within the last 20 years.

No offense I understand we are all partial to what we grow up with, but come on guys would it hurt to read up, watch you tube? Okay off the soap box now...I eagerly await your rebukes.
As a person who has watched wrestling since 1979 I agree with this post. I grew up during the revolution of wrestling from the territorial system to a more national scene with more of a major promotions approach. I was brought up on the NWA Mid Atlantic territory, the NWA Florida territory with Solie as the announcer and of course the WWE with the emerging "Hulkamania". I am also new to this forum and it is sort of amusing that a lot of people think that the Attitude Era is old school when in the grand scheme of things the modern era of wrestling is the decline of the territories and emergence of the WWE circa early 1980s. It is amusing when in the greatest talker of all time thread you just have the Taker, Nash, Show, etc. when none of them could even come close to the universe that Ladd was in when it comes to mic skills.

However, to be fair a lot of fans are younger and they do not know any better. I know a lot of wrestling history because my father loved wrestling with a passion and had been watching it since the mid 1950s and taught me a lot of history as he loved to talk about wrestling. He quit watching in the Monday Night Wars era after 40 years because he said wrestling became too Hollywood like. I think the problem is that many fans think that just because a wrestler performs in front of millions of people as opposed to yester years that they are more of icons or better. That is not true. Wrestlers of yester years did not have the advantage of today's technology and easy media access.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Just because old guys may have been some of the original greats doesn't make them the greatest. Most of the greatest all around (not just in the ring) have come in the 1980s or later. It's just a fact. In what universe are Lou Thesz, Ernie Ladd, and Bruno Sammartino (with all due respect) better than Austin, Rock, or Taker?
That is not a fact. Wrestlers like Thesz, Ladd, and Sammartino did not have the advantage of having being on pay per views, cable television, etc.
Believe it or not but cable television itself has only been around mainstream for thirty years as once upon a time the television had only 3 to 4 channels and wrestling was relegated to the local territory weekend shows. Yet, these wrestlers even with limited television exposure still sold out venues and arenas. Thesz was a legitimate tough wrestler as well as being a superb wrestling tactician because the NWA champion had to be a legitimate tough guy in case a wrestler in a territory tried to go counter to the script and pin the champion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

agree to that...talking about greatest all i see people mention guys during the 90's but so many guys back in territories off the list and forgotten...one of example is greatest on mic or mic work and Rock on top of the list which is fucking shocking..

if Mark Calaway wasn't on Undertaker grimmick/character where he could be?
Having Teddy Long as his manager/mouthpiece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

Wrestling is not an organized sport. Therefore we can't judge solely off of championships, wins etc. Most of the time lists are based off of popularity, draw power etc and since Steve Austin and The Rock are bigger draws than any other wrestler in history not named Hulk Hogan they deserve to be in the top 5.

You either make your list based off of popularity or technical skill. Either way both lists will have more wrestlers from post-1980s than pre-1980s.
An important variable in popularity is media access and technology. I guarantee that wrestlers of yester years would be more entertaining and popular than today's roster if they had a chance to showcase their talents in front of millions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
Re: If you are going to start a "greatest" thread you should probably have some histo

So basically you're pissed that people have a different opinion to you and we should all follow yours?
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top