Wrestling Forum banner

101 - 120 of 134 Posts

·
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been do
Joined
·
52,225 Posts
Not a comparison. Actors don't play 1 role their whole life, actors have time to rehearse and do scenes over, so they can actually play a role, SE's just get pushed through the curtain like 'hey do this for 20 minutes'. Actors get to play different roles, for different audiences and show versatility, SE's just play black & white good/bad guys.
Acting is a much a part of Sport Entertainment as doing your own stunts is a part of acting and those two don't crossover (most actors are cringeworthy in the ring and most Sports Entertainers are terrible in movies).
+ If movies or shows are based upon a book an actor can be measured alongside the book to determine how good he portrays that role, in SE you never know what Vince told them to do or how he wants the part to be played.
So again, there is no objective criterium to judge SE's by, except kayfabe.
Acting is a big part of wrestling, especially these days. That makes up at least half of the job. And while they might have the same name their entire careers, their characters evolve over the years many, many times with many different twists and turns. Sometimes they are faces, sometimes they are heels (except for Cena of course), sometimes there are shades of gray. But characters evolve over time (again, except for Cena, of course). Wrestlers play a role, as do actors. I mean, promos are scripted word for word these days, just like an actor with a script. Tons of similarities, very comparable.

Having said all that, when adults discuss the best actors of all time, best wrestlers of all time, you don't go just by what their characters achieved. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many different aspects to judge the best actors and best wrestlers of all time on. People have been discussing who the best wrestlers of all time are for decades, and what the character achieved is just one small aspect of that conversation.
 

·
WWE plant
Joined
·
3,888 Posts
There's a lot of criteria to be the GOAT of WWE or Pro Wrestling and kayfabe accomplishments is one of them.

Just because Cena is one of the best in that category doesn't make him the GOAT.
Yes that's what I was waiting for because nobody ever wins this argument.

Name me all the other OBJECTIVE (if you don't know what that means, look it up first) criteria for being the 'best sports entertainer' besides kayface.

@ShowStopper
That would work if there was any sort of consistency in WWE's character work, but there isn't. If someone bombs a promo you simply cannot know if he's a bad actor, has to portray a left-field character change (that gets dropped a week later), just got send out there and has to improvise or if Vince is humbling him. If 2 people are in the ring and both deliver a good promo but one is written by Vince and the other one improvised (which you also can't know) which one is the better actor? The one that improvised, or the one who didn't get a chance to show off his improv?

And that's just the start. It basically comes down to the fact that in every entertainment form (acting too btw, Oscars are a sham) there are no objective criteria to measure skill by.
In entertainment, the one that entertains you the most, is the 'best' too you. If you want to argue with others that one is better than the other the only fair criteria is kayfabe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,141 Posts
You guys stating Ric said it to please the WWE don't know shit, he likes Cena, he said in his Highspots DVD back in 08 that he partied along Cena and that he loved the kid.

Think before embarrasing yourselves.
 

·
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been do
Joined
·
52,225 Posts
Yes that's what I was waiting for because nobody ever wins this argument.

Name me all the other OBJECTIVE (if you don't know what that means, look it up first) criteria for being the 'best sports entertainer' besides kayface.


@ShowStopper
That would work if there was any sort of consistency in WWE's character work, but there isn't. If someone bombs a promo you simply cannot know if he's a bad actor, has to portray a left-field character change (that gets dropped a week later), just got send out there and has to improvise or if Vince is humbling him. If 2 people are in the ring and both deliver a good promo but one is written by Vince and the other one improvised (which you also can't know) which one is the better actor? The one that improvised, or the one who didn't get a chance to show off his improv?

And that's just the start. It basically comes down to the fact that in every entertainment form (acting too btw, Oscars are a sham) there are no objective criteria to measure skill by.
In entertainment, the one that entertains you the most, is the 'best' too you. If you want to argue with others that one is better than the other the only fair criteria is kayfabe.
If you want to argue who is better between two wrestlers and you are using kayfabe...that is one of the oddest things I've ever heard since the outcomes are pre-determined. The outcomes are decided by someone else. No one is legitimately "beating" anyone else. So, to use kayfabe as the deciding factor in a discussion of who is better than who is beyond ridiculous and completely nonsensical.
 

·
WWE plant
Joined
·
3,888 Posts
If you want to argue who is better between two wrestlers and you are using kayfabe...that is one of the oddest things I've ever heard since the outcomes are pre-determined. The outcomes are decided by someone else. No one is legitimately "beating" anyone else. So, to use kayfabe as the deciding factor in a discussion of who is better than who is beyond ridiculous and completely nonsensical.
What? Of course not. It's a make-believe world with make-believe characters who live in this 'kayfabe world'.
They aren't 'fighters' in real life, so the only way to rank these characters is in that world. The best Saiyan or Pokémon trainer is the one who's been made the biggest in that fairytale world, not the best (voice)actor portraying them.
The fact that it's the only measurable thing is the reason it's the only objective criterium. That's not even disputable, just basic statistical science. (yes I just used my science background in sports entertainment, this is some serious shit)
 

·
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been do
Joined
·
52,225 Posts
What? Of course not. It's a make-believe world with make-believe characters who live in this 'kayfabe world'.
They aren't 'fighters' in real life, so the only way to rank these characters is in that world. The best Saiyan or Pokémon trainer is the one who's been made the biggest in that fairytale world, not the best (voice)actor portraying them.
The fact that it's the only measurable thing is the reason it's the only objective criterium. That's not even disputable, just basic statistical science. (yes I just used my science background in sports entertainment, this is some serious shit)
Not sure if it is. Especially among adults. When a group of adults discuss who the greatest wrestlers of all time are, their kayfabe accomplishments is one of many different aspects of what makes one great. Does it have a place in the discussion? Absolutely. Is it the only aspect, or the biggest aspect of the discussion? Amongst kids? Sure. Although, even alot of kids these days even know wrestling is fake. Amongst adults? Absolutely not. Just one aspect of many different aspects that people use to decide who is great and who isn't. When talking about the greatest actors of all time, we talk about the skills these actors do and do not possess. Same with wrestlers, who are performers/actors, as well.

Even WWE themselves uses more than just kayfabe accomplishments to judge wrestlers on. Look at that stupid 50 greatest Superstars of All Time DVD they made. They named HBK the number one superstar of all time and his kayfabe accomplishments pale in comparison to alot of other greats because he simply did not care to win titles in the 2000s. WWE, which is all about the "work", doesn't even use kayfabe to decide who is the best, but you are? Come on, man. That's embarrassing. Even WWE is working you. They themselves don't even give a shit about kayfabe accomplishments. :lmao
 

·
WWE plant
Joined
·
3,888 Posts
You missed the entire point even though I explained it several times

It really isn't, though. At least not among adults. When a group of adults discuss who the greatest wrestlers of all time are, their kayfabe accomplishments is one of many different aspects of what makes one great.
Because most people don't make the distinction between 'favourite' and 'best', or they're just having a subjective discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

When talking about the greatest actors of all time, we talk about the skills these actors do and do not possess. Same with wrestlers, who are performers/actors, as well.
You can't just switch out real and fake whenever it fits you argument. The best sport entertainer is different from the 'actor' portraying it.
WWE is one long movie, if you want to judge them by 'real life person portraying a character' then you're ranking Phil Brooks, Michael Shawn Hickenbottom and Paul Levesque. CM Punk, Shawn Michaels and Triple H get ranked inside this make-believe world because they don't exist in real life.

For instance:

Hulk Hogan is an American icon, has a devastating finishing manouvre and is the second greatest sports entertainer of all time.
Terry Bollea is a real life failure, a terrible actor whose wife fucks his son's friends, he fucks his daughter's friends and is a racist towards the guys that gangbanged Brooke.

Chris Benoit is a 2-time World Champion and a Triple Crown winner.
Christopher Michael Benoit is a childkiller.

If you want to have any fair way to rank them (fair =/= subjective), the only thing you're left with is kayfabe. Like I said general statistics, impossible to argue.

If you want to have any kind of validation for your crooked argument you should have another objective criterium besides kayfabe, just one would do really. Not suprised nobody has been able to name one though since they don't exist in the entertainment industry (except one-man performances).
 

·
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been do
Joined
·
52,225 Posts
Because most people don't make the distinction between 'favourite' and 'best', or they're just having a subjective discussion. Nothing wrong with that.
Maybe the people you have discussions with don't. But that's certainly not how it is for, or everybody else. It's very easy to decipher the difference between favorite or best. :shrug



You can't just switch out real and fake whenever it fits you argument. The best sport entertainer is different from the 'actor' portraying it.
WWE is one long movie, if you want to judge them by 'real life person portraying a character' then you're ranking Phil Brooks, Michael Shawn Hickenbottom and Paul Levesque. CM Punk, Shawn Michaels and Triple H get ranked inside this make-believe world because they don't exist in real life.

For instance:

Hulk Hogan is an American icon, has a devastating finishing manouvre and is the second greatest sports entertainer of all time.
Terry Bollea is a real life failure, a terrible actor whose wife fucks his son's friends, he fucks his daughter's friends and is a racist towards the guys that gangbanged Brooke.

Chris Benoit is a 2-time World Champion and a Triple Crown winner.
Christopher Michael Benoit is a childkiller.

If you want to have any fair way to rank them (fair =/= subjective), the only thing you're left with is kayfabe. Like I said general statistics, impossible to argue.

If you want to have any kind of validation for your crooked argument you should have another objective criterium besides kayfabe, just one would do really. Not suprised nobody has been able to name one though since they don't exist in the entertainment industry (except one-man performances).
I literally cannot believe this is even a discussion at this point. You are taking something very simple and making it extremely complex and completely out there beyond the point of return. To go back to the actors analogy earlier, you made it seem like they are completely different from wrestlers, when outside of the physical element, they have alot in common. Like I said, when adults discuss who are the best actors of all time, they don't judge it on just the characters they've played over the years. They also judge it on skill, adaptation, giving a convincing and believable performance, ability to play different roles/range, charisma, speaking ability, etc. That's just one example. Same can and IS done for wrestlers. We are basing on it on the skill of the performer. It has nothing to do with the "real life person" and their "real life names." What a completely and utterly ridiculous tangent that was. There are many different aspects to judge wrestlers on, as well. Kayfabe accomplishments is one aspect, but it's nowhere even near the top of the list. There are high school kids out there who have discussions about the great wrestlers of today and very little of their discussion has to do with kayfabe accomplishments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,970 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
APPLES to ORANGES.

There is technically no record to be broken here. From a logical perspective the only thing that can OBJECTIVELY and factually be stated is that Cena would have won more world titles in his respective entity/organization than Flair had in his respective entity/organization. One cannot objectively equate world titles when you are talking different companies with different philosophies and different eras in time.

A person can only subjectively state that Cena would have more world titles.
Comparing the NWA and WWE titles is akin to trying to correlate and compare stats from two different sports leagues of the same sport. You can make a subjective argument but you can't objectively equate the two as the same and make a direct comparison.
 

·
Damn Fine Cup of Coffee
Joined
·
12,952 Posts
When you think about it, it's only 16 worlds titles that are recognized by the WWE for Flair. In reality, he's won more than that. 24 time World Champion. Wish the WWE would acknowledge this. Cena would have to win the word 9 more times to match Flair and 10 more times to surpass him.
 
101 - 120 of 134 Posts
Top