Wrestling Forum banner

81 - 100 of 133 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,188 Posts
Most overrated: Nash. Trash no talent crapfest who was lucky and smart to suck up to the right people. Remove him from history and things actually change for the better.

Most under valued: Foley. He created and elevated many stars and gave them top 5 career match (Rock, Austin, HBK, Taker, Edge, Orton, Sting)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
The first wrestler that comes to mind when I hear 'undervalued' is Owen Hart. He was moderately successful and certainly achieved a few accolades, but he could've been a solid main eventer and world champion easily. His 1994 heel run against Bret was great, and I'll never understand why they bounced him back to tag team work in 1995-1996. I recently watched a load of stuff from 1997-1998 as well, when Owen was the 'Black Hart' and gunning for DX. That pissed off, vengeful version of Owen was pretty damn good. There was a lot of potential there for a decent main event run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Overrated:
Christian. Good wrestler and good talker, but people often act like he deserved to be THE guy. I think he was used well as an upper midcarder. He just didn't have star power or IT factor enough to compete with Cena, Angle, Batista, Orton, Jericho, Michaels, Taker etc in his prime.

Flair. I respect his long tenure, ability to have good matches night after night (in the 70's-80's of course) and his promo ability. But he was a big fish in a small pond. 90% of the PPV's he main evented in WCW drew less than 10.000 people, and ironically most of the ones who drew more, was when he faced Hogan. His whole schtick is also ripped from so many other wrestlers, the robes, the bleached hair, the nature boy, the figure four leg lock, to be the man, you got to beat the man. All taken from other wrestlers. And in 2019 people mega bitched because Kevin Owens used the stunner XD

Undervalued:

Scott Hall. I know his demons got the better of him by 1999. But from 93-97 he was fantastic. I don't think he could be THE guy, but he certainly deserved more matches and feuds for the top titles. He should have challenged for the WWF title in 95, instead of still being stuck in the IC title scene.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,786 Posts
But isn't this like saying that a professional Boxer sucks at MMA? I mean, Hogan was working for a promotion where it wasn't required of him to put on a technical clinic. Hogan mastered the art of one (or several) aspects of wrestling that were necessary to draw interest. Floyd Mayweather probably knows shit about Sambo or BJJ, but who cares?
It could be seen that way, but personally I think being able to do more than the basic requirement it's what distinguishes a good worker from a great one. And I think you're comparing apples and oranges there: you shouldn't see it as a boxer being unable to perform MMA, but rather as a MMA fighter proficient just at wrestling/striking compared to a MMA fighter proficient at both.

Granted, if I'm not asked to do anything more it's not really my fault I never developed/showcased other skills. But still, when I have examples of workers who could do more than the basics, why would I say the best of the best is a guy who kept his act limited?


Hogan vs Muta in Japan... now THERE was an instance of Hogan showcasing a broader range of wrestling skill. Both of them trained under Hiro Matsuda, and wanted to do that type of match for a specific audience. If Hogan tried wrestling that way in America during the 80s then he'd probably leave his fans scratching their heads.
This is a good point. As I said earlier, the fact that Hogan didn't have to schowcase anything more than the basic might not have been his fault, and perhaps if given the occasion he could have been rated differently in certain areas of his work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Overrated:
By Company: Roman Reigns - main evented 5 wrestlemania events and hasnt drawn a dime.

By fans - Owen Hart - Nearly killed Stone Cold with a reckless piledriver. Some people actually think he's a better worker than Bret, which is completely obsurd because he hasn't got the runs on the board that Bret has.

Underrated
By Company - Mick Foley - Broke the down door, was handed nothing. Was always disrespected, never promoted by it can be argued he MADE the careers of Undertaker, HHH, Orton and Edge, four wrestlers who set the company up for 20 years. Foley is very very underrated.

By fans - Hulk Hogan - constantly talking about workrate and politics, but Hogan knew how to bring the big match feel, knew how to be mainstream and has the runs on the board, with some of the most iconic main events in wrestling history. Dude is the GOAT and built the kingdom everyone profits off to this day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,534 Posts
Granted, if I'm not asked to do anything more it's not really my fault I never developed/showcased other skills. But still, when I have examples of workers who could do more than the basics, why would I say the best of the best is a guy who kept his act limited?
Then we'd have to define what he's rated as being the best at. I don't think anyone on the planet Overrated Hogan as a masterful technical wrestler. He WAS, however, the most successful worker in getting butts in the seats, and also getting the most emotion out of the crowd. People adored him for that reason. The definition of "Overrated" is one's opinion that someone or something gets more adulation than they actually deserve, but I'm saying that for the job he was doing his level of popularity made perfect sense. The promotion wasn't pushing him despite the audience's contempt or apathy, and he wasn't positioned in a role that was beyond his skillset. Again, Hogan wasn't on top in AJPW.

Robert DeNiro isn't Overrated because he couldn't perform his own stunts in the movies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,786 Posts
Then we'd have to define what he's rated as being the best at. I don't think anyone on the planet Overrated Hogan as a masterful technical wrestler. He WAS, however, the most successful worker in getting butts in the seats, and also getting the most emotion out of the crowd. People adored him for that reason. The definition of "Overrated" is one's opinion that someone or something gets more adulation than they actually deserve, but I'm saying that for the job he was doing his level of popularity made perfect sense. The promotion wasn't pushing him despite the audience's contempt or apathy, and he wasn't positioned in a role that was beyond his skillset. Again, Hogan wasn't on top in AJPW.
I think the confusion usually stems from the interpretation of overrated/underrated. I think most people in threads like this don't really include how much people liked a certain guy, but rather what was his skillset in comparison to what he achieved.

They sort of evaluate talent "in a vacuum"; I mean, I don't think people here consider Hogan's achievements in the business small, but rather can't understand why someone so (purposefully or not) limited would achieve such a gigantic success.

Robert DeNiro isn't Overrated because he couldn't perform his own stunts in the movies.
Again, I don't think that's an apt comparison. You're not comparing two departments of acting, you're comparing two different professions which, in some cases, can be performed by the same person; a better comparison would be: if DeNiro was only capable of starring in comedies, he'd be a limited actor, regardless of how good as a comedy actor he is. Or better yet, he'd be limited in comparison to another actor who proved himself capable of starring in comedies, dramas and other genres. Hogan and Steamboat (just to name someone renowned for his wrestling skills) are just wrestlers with different styles, they aren't artists who performs in two different disciplines. Which means that, if I'm ranking them, I'd put them both behind a guy like Austin who was good at both aspects of wrestling.
 

·
rasslin
Joined
·
2,825 Posts
Overrated: Cena. Had some great promos but was awful on a weekly basis on the mic. Had some great matches but again had more awful matches than good matches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,534 Posts
I think the confusion usually stems from the interpretation of overrated/underrated. I think most people in threads like this don't really include how much people liked a certain guy, but rather what was his skillset in comparison to what he achieved.

They sort of evaluate talent "in a vacuum"; I mean, I don't think people here consider Hogan's achievements in the business small, but rather can't understand why someone so (purposefully or not) limited would achieve such a gigantic success.
That's the thing. His skillset vs what he acheived. He wasn't missing anything in his skillset to achieve what he did. The skills that he mastered were all that was necessary. I am willing to bet that him being a great technical wrestler might've actually taken away from his performance because he would've been distracted by the choreography. The aspect that he mastered was something that very few others could achieve, which is why he was so successful where so many others failed. That's why Bob Backlund saw nowhere near the same amount of adulation while he was their top babyface.

@Chris JeriG.O.A.T doesn't like that style of wrestling which is absolutely fine, but him getting over in that environment wasn't for lack of skill. The skills that he lacked would only be effective in a workrate-centric promotion like those in Japan. Hell, NWA/WCW put Lex Luger on top, and the guy was far less charismatic than Hogan and could only get through a passable wrestling match if Flair was involved. The WWF wasn't a "rasslin'" promotion, it was being the real life equivilent of a little kid playing with their He-Man toys on the kitchen table


Arnold Shwarzenegger was never going to win an Oscar, but he had so much charisma and presence that it didn't matter. He was the go-to guy for over-the-top action movies and crazy comedies.

Try casting Tom Hanks in The Predator or The Terminator and see what happens, lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,786 Posts
That's the thing. His skillset vs what he acheived. He wasn't missing anything in his skillset to achieve what he did. The skills that he mastered were all that was necessary. I am willing to bet that him being a great technical wrestler might've actually taken away from his performance because he would've been distracted by the choreography. The aspect that he mastered was something that very few others could achieve, which is why he was so successful where so many others failed. That's why Bob Backlund saw nowhere near the same amount of adulation while he was their top babyface.

@Chris JeriG.O.A.T doesn't like that style of wrestling which is absolutely fine, but him getting over in that environment wasn't for lack of skill. The skills that he lacked would only be effective in a workrate-centric promotion like those in Japan. Hell, NWA/WCW put Lex Luger on top, and the guy was far less charismatic than Hogan and could only get through a passable wrestling match if Flair was involved. The WWF wasn't a "rasslin'" promotion, it was being the real life equivilent of a little kid playing with their He-Man toys on the kitchen table
I don't think @Chris JeriG.O.A.T, or most of the other people in here, meant that Hogan doesn't have skills, but rather that compared to other wrestlers he lacked a certain technical ability, either because he never required it to use it or simply because that wasn't his style.

I understand that this might sounds very philosophical and/or elitist, but being the best one trick pony of all time tends to get people to call you overrated. The fact that it was perfectly fine for the time is irrelevant; I don't think people ever take context in consideration when they make threads such as "who's the best of all time?"

Arnold Shwarzenegger was never going to win an Oscar, but he had so much charisma and presence that it didn't matter. He was the go-to guy for over-the-top action movies and crazy comedies.

Try casting Tom Hanks in The Predator or The Terminator and see what happens, lol
It goes badly, of course. But whether Hanks can replace Arnold in an action movie or not is irrelevant: the point is that, assuming that we rate both actors at the same level of skill, I'd give an edge to the one that could, if asked, portray more than just one role.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,534 Posts
I don't think @Chris JeriG.O.A.T, or most of the other people in here, meant that Hogan doesn't have skills, but rather that compared to other wrestlers he lacked a certain technical ability, either because he never required it to use it or simply because that wasn't his style.

I understand that this might sounds very philosophical and/or elitist, but being the best one trick pony of all time tends to get people to call you overrated. The fact that it was perfectly fine for the time is irrelevant; I don't think people ever take context in consideration when they make threads such as "who's the best of all time?"
The "one trick pony" thing is a hell of a trick, considering that it was more effective than any other technique at the time.

Charisma and presence isn't only a trick. Charisma is something within you, and presence is crafted. Hogan had those, and he had an amazing ability to read a crowd and play them emotionally throughout a match, and captivate through promos. That shouldn't be taken lightly, because it's arguably the most important trait to have as a professional wrestler. Otherwise, you're wrestling for World of Sport in the UK to a very niche audience. The idea that Hogan needed a minimal amount of wrestling moves to get the job done isn't really considered a problem to anyone but the wrestling purist. Most wrestlers can only wish to accomplish this. Even Daniel Bryan started incorporating Hogan-like mannerisms at the height of the YES movement because he understood it was needed to take him to the next level.

It goes badly, of course. But whether Hanks can replace Arnold in an action movie or not is irrelevant: the point is that, assuming that we rate both actors at the same level of skill, I'd give an edge to the one that could, if asked, portray more than just one role.
What's better, a guy that can portray 2 roles adequately, or a guy that can only portray the role that will draw the most amount of interest and portray it masterfully? That's why Arnold's stock was greater than Hanks', and every Broadway-trained method actor around at the time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,786 Posts
What's better, a guy that can portray 2 roles adequately, or a guy that can only portray the role that will draw the most amount of interest and portray it masterfully? That's why Arnold's stock was greater than Hanks', and every Broadway-trained method actor around at the time
Well, first and foremost, Arnold's stock would have been even greater if he could do what he did AND more. That's the whole point.

Secondly, I never implied you should take a guy adequate at two things instead of a guy perfect at one thing. I said I'd take a guy perfect at two things rather than a guy perfect at one. Which is why I've been using Austin as the counterpart to Hogan, and not a random Seth Rollins or Jack Swagger. It doesn't really take anything away from Hogan's achievement and skill, it's just the way some people rate quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
Overrated. Shinsuke Nakamura. literally don't get the appeal. His offence looks fake when he's not kneeing people in the face for real, he sells like he's dead the first move he takes then miraculously recovers out of nowhere.

plus his whole persona makes me cringe and reminds me of an autistic Otaku trying to be cool
Classy move asshole! Got anymore jokes about people with Autism???

I'll trade if you wanna be Autistic for a week, I always wondered what its like to be "Normal"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,534 Posts
Well, first and foremost, Arnold's stock would have been even greater if he could do what he did AND more. That's the whole point.

Secondly, I never implied you should take a guy adequate at two things instead of a guy perfect at one thing. I said I'd take a guy perfect at two things rather than a guy perfect at one. Which is why I've been using Austin as the counterpart to Hogan, and not a random Seth Rollins or Jack Swagger. It doesn't really take anything away from Hogan's achievement and skill, it's just the way some people rate quality.
Let's be perfectly fair though, Austin's wrestling ability wasn't what got him over to the extent that he got over. In fact, he was a shell of his former self when his run at the top even started.

I get it. Having a preference for someone that can put on a technical clinic. One of my favorite matches ever was Austin/Hart at WM13, which was primarily sold on the emotional sincerity that both men brought to it. It was another layer of what made a good feud.

I still don't see how any of this makes Hogan Overrated simply because he couldn't work a match like Steve Austin before his neck injury. Hogan was a game-changing face in the Golden era, AND a game-changing heel in the late 90's. He did his job perfectly. Austin did his job perfectly in the Attitude Era, and it had little to do with his added set of technical wrestling skills. Both guys connected to the Audience and knew how to work emotions during their runs better than most, Both guys BELIEVED their characters which made the fans jump on board
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,034 Posts
This is the type of thread to piss people off. Let’s see if I can.

Underrated

Batista- Doesn’t get the credit he deserves for being the Face of Smackdown 06-09.

Vickie Guerrero- I thought she was a great Heel.

Big Show- I remember geeks getting upset with Big Show in 2015 when he said he was one of the greats on TV when he was a Heel. Don’t think he gets enough love from fans. One of the greatest big man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
Surely wrestling fans could understand both are as important as each other as every great wrestling show a variety show to please everyone
Nah I only watch the matches. I watch tv & movies if I want dialogue & storylines. I can understand that people enjoy the promos, but I can only bother with my favorites.

Because wrestling ability doesnt draw. It never has. If it did, Bret and Shawn would have been kicking the NWOs ass in the ratings before Austin got hot.

And Jay White is shit on constantly because of his workrate. Lol.
Wrestling ability may not draw, but why do you care? You're not a promoter, so why do you care about ratings & profit? Do you actually prefer Goldberg matches to HBK or Hart?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
Golden Bill is what wrestling is all about. A big, charismatic, violent, insane, blood thirsty, unintelligent, barbaric monster. With a great theme song, he marches to the ring like a roman gladiator as the crowd chants his name. Gets to the ring, hits a spear, jackhammer, 1 2 3, BAM! Match is over. Everyone is happy with that short 1 minute yet extremely violent and satisfying match to those people who came to this show wanting to see just THAT! The star that is Golden Bill kicking ass. And him being green as shit adds to the fun and the ridiculousness of the whole thing, you as a viewer know that he can legit hurt his opponents. It's so good.

I'm really sorry, man, but If you don't understand the greatness of The Berg, you don't understand wrestling.
If you don't like Goldberg, you don't understand wrestling? Lol gtfo.

I guess I've been misguided these past 27 years, since I can rewatch any HBK or Styles match. Never even watched a Goldberg match start to finish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
If you don't like Goldberg, you don't understand wrestling? Lol gtfo.

I guess I've been misguided these past 27 years, since I can rewatch any HBK or Styles match. Never even watched a Goldberg match start to finish.
The general perception of Goldberg being overrated was justified the moment Brock Lesnar appeared on RAW and started wilin' out on half the roster with suplexes and amateur wrestling-derived moves.
 
81 - 100 of 133 Posts
Top