[sideon]

What exactly makes a legend or? Whenever they induct someone into the hof you always hear about their career spanning 20 or 30 years, but how many of those years were they actually hof worthy? I look at rock/austin now austin had been wrestling since 89 but he only became famous in 97 and peaked in 01, as for rock he started in 95 but by 98-03 he was legendary.

I guess what im saying is what's more important years or impact, because i'll take an austin/rock career over a hhh/benoit/jericho career any day. Miz said something on raw a few weeks ago like "old gets mistaken for legend" or something like that i know he was in character but i think he had a point.

 

[SILUS]

"old gets mistaken for legend"

Thats true

 

[Bronx Bomber]

I would tend to agree with you. I think the impact someone makes and what they do during their career is more important. But at the same time, longevity is also something that "makes" a legend. Really if you're in the sport for a long period of time, most likely, you're first few years aren't going to be you're best. Their going to be when you work your way up through the ranks. Then you have you're "impact" years.

So really, to answer your question, I would have to say its a combination of both.

 

[Dice Darwin]

Sperm.

 

[It's True]

Austin peaked long before 2001

 

[BambiKiller]

For me a legend is someone who can connect with the crowd no matter what. Nothing to do with titles or who is the flavor of the month, but somebody who no matter what has fans out there, who appreciate their hard work and longevity.

 

[TheLuchador129]

To me, a legend has to be relevant for a long period, you can't just have 4-5 really good years and be a legend. During that long period (10+ years or so) you have to be a big draw, connect with the fans and have a few memorable matches. It also helps if you've had mainstream exposure outside of wrestling, but it's certainly not imperative.

 

[TIP Punk]

Someone who has progressed something immensley... But you already knew that

 

[sideon]

Austin peaked long before 2001

Well if you look at it in the sense of his last great match imo was rock at x7 that's why i say he peaked in 01, because after that the whole alliance thing was pretty much his downfall. The only thing that came out of austin in 01 was great comedy angles with angle and some decent matches.

 

[hitfan]

There are different tiers of legends. The top tier to me are people like:

-Lou Thesz
-Gorgeous George
-Bruno Sammartino
-Ric Flair
-Hulk Hogan

Any of these names should be synonymous with the pantheon of all time great. I think that Steve Austin and The Rock might be considered in their league someday when fans still reminisce about them.

I think that any wrestler who is remembered years after they stopped competing can be considered a legend as well, though in the second tier. The following names certainly fit the bill:

-Andre the Giant
-Roddy Piper
-Sting
-Ultimate Warrior
-Bob Backlund
-Harley Race
-Dusty Rhodes
-Bruiser Brody
-Nick Bockwinkel
-Shawn Michaels
-The Undertaker
-Randy Savage
-Bret Hart
-Mick Foley

Perhaps Andre might belong up there in the top tier, but he was never booked as a champion until the very end of his career (Hogan dropping the title to him after a 4 year reign).

Third Tier legends are those wrestlers who had long careers and were excellent, but are really only remembered in the long run by fans of wrestling. Names from the top of my head:

-The Iron Sheik
-Honky Tonk Man
-Jake The Snake Roberts
-Curt Hennig
-Kerry Von Erich
-Jerry Lawler

Of course I struggle between placing Lawler in the second or third tier. I'm certain that fans from Memphis would place him in the second.

You may disagree with my creation of tiers and where the wrestlers should be placed. But my point is that some legends are greater than others.

Frank Gotch and George Hackenschmidt are probably top tier as well, but only people like Dave Meltzer or Bill Apter really know about them.