Measuring the greatest wrestlers!

[Troelar]

I was originally intending the statements made below as a reply in another thread - however it went on such a tangent with regards to the original topic, and became so lengthy that I figured I'd simply create an independent topic.

I realise the subject of the topic is hardly unfamiliar grounds for most. However I decided to create the topic anyway, simply because it seems to be creeping up in loads of other topics, which, to be honest, don't directly relate to it.
I've tried to list different perspectives on might take, with regards to stating that someone is a great wrestler.

Why bother you might ask. Because it seems that every time this discussion starts, it always ends up in a "Well obviously Cena is the greatest cause of $$$" - "Nooo, Jericho is better cause he's awesome and can actually wrestler" - "Nooo Hogan is actually best, cause he was the original $$$"
So I'm not making a statement as to who is/was the greatest wrestler, I'm merely trying to make explicit the various ways one can consider wrestlers great, which will hopefully make the endless discussions appear less, or go away entirely (fat chance).

Now if you look at wrestling from a business perspective, then the wrestler who rakes in the most cash is the best wrestler. The best wrestlers are the ones who makes fans buy PPVs, sells the most merch, and has appeal to get new people to become fans.
This perspective of course only applies when considering wrestlers who are/were engaged in a wrestling business of some sort.
However there are several other ways to look at wrestling.

How about seeing wrestling as something aesthetic? Surely some matches involve better moves, more impressive visuals, and fewer botches.
This perspective should also include build up. Who is able to get people interested in their matches, who makes their feuds believable?
Those are the more aesthetic perspectives, all culminating in a beautiful match, with a memorable build up.
Being able to put on beautiful matches must surely be a qualification for being a great wrestler.

Another perspective is purely technical. Not focusing on the choreography of a match, and it's beauty, nor on the money generated by a wrestler.
We could simply be looking at their technically prowess in different areas of wrestling. Who has the widest range of abilities, who botches up his moves less, what training has a person received and does it show?

As stated the objective of this topic is to attempt to make explicit the ways in which a wrestler can be great. As such I've highlighted three areas I think are obvious and important. Seeing as they are quite obvious, I would hope that people not reply "well duuh, that's obvious" - because even though it is obvious, the distinctions never seem to become relevant in discussion in other topics.
Also, I am not saying that a wrestler only fits in to one category. I'm not saying that because Cena makes lots of money, that he can't fit in to the other categories! Cena is currently the best wrestler from a business perspective, but he is hardly the best from a technical perspective.
I'm also not stating that the categories don't overlap. Of course they do. Nobody can become the #1 moneymaking wrestling, without being at least somewhat able to make people care about a match. However there isn't a 1:1 relationship. Being the #1 technically skiled wrestler, doesn't automatically make your matches the most aesthetically pleasing, just as doing the most aesthetically pleasing wrestling, doesn't automatically make you the #1 moneymaker. There's just too many independent factors for that to happen.

Opinions? Any other perspectives to be added? Flame me for making a thread (my 2nd) with only 170 posts behind (incl. this one)?

[Gertner]

$$$$$....because it's a BUSINESS, and it's not real. Money is the ONLY thing that matters.

[Rammsteinmad]

There's not really one particular thing, it's lots of things at once, that really, only wrestling fans can recognise.

Of course, money is one of them, but also looking at things in kayfabe mode, which titles have they held, and how many times? Which feuds and memories have the left us with? How great were they in the ring? Were their promos memorable?

Then there's the 'outsider' kind of perspective. How recognised is that person outside of pro wrestling. Back in the 80's/early 90's, EVERYONE knew who Hulk Hogan was, even if you didn't watch wrestling. Back in 2000, EVERYONE knew who Steve Austin and The Rock were.

Right now, not everyone knows who John Cena is, but you can't really fault that on Cena himself. It's todays climate. Wrestling isn't huge like it was during the Attitude era or the Hulkamania period. But then you'd recognise Cena's contributions to greatness by his title reigns, his Wrestlemania main events and him basically carrying the company for the last few years.

Of course, money and how much of a draw that person was is a huge factor, but, using Chris Benoit as an example, let's assume his life didn't end the way it did, Benoit wasn't exactly what you would consider a draw. He wasn't The Rock, or Steve Austin, and I doubt anyone outside of wrestling knew who Chris Benoit was. But because of that, you wouldn't deny him the greatness he had earned, by his in-ring accomplishments and work ethic.

[SaskatchewanChamp]

$$$$$....because it's a BUSINESS, and it's not real. Money is the ONLY thing that matters.

Absolutely 100 % THIS

There is no room for debate on this. If we are talking about something that is real, such as UFC, then yes, you could debate the technical skills or whatever you want to bring in to the discussion as a contribution to the greatness of the individual. However, this is wrestling, it is FAKE, I will not say wrestling doesn't involve great athleticism, but anyone that can jump, and deliver a drop kick, take bumps ect.. can wrestle. What gets them to the main event, is the ability to draw MONEY, what gets the championships is the ability to draw MONEY.

No one outside of the IWC gives a shit about workrate or what someone did outside of the WWE. Daniel Bryan is a perfect example, he is an excellent technical wrestler, but it is very apparent that no one gives a shit about that because you can hear a mouse taking a shit when he comes out for his entrance. He lacks DRAWING POWER and without that, you might as well go work at a bottle recycling plant because the future endeavor slip will be in your locker very soon.

[The Show Off]

$$$$$....because it's a BUSINESS, and it's not real. Money is the ONLY thing that matters.

Yep greatest movie ever made is Avatar and greatest book ever written is The Bible.

[Jeritron]

I fully recognize and respect drawing power as a measurement for the "greatness" and accomplishment of wrestlers within the business, but it's completely irrelevant to one's own personal rankings of their enjoyment.
The fan watches for entertainment.

[Jordan]

Yep greatest movie ever made is Avatar and greatest book ever written is The Bible.

The whole drawing business thing is what wrestlers worry and talk about, we shouldn't really care about that, how many time have we all bitched about Hogan? And do you really have such a pussy that you can still proclaim him the greatest of all time?

In the 90's, we bitched about Flair's man tits, in 2005 he had plastic surgery. In 2011 he's running out of money, hair, and working for TNA.

Do you really want to call him the greatest of all time?

How about Stone Cold Steve Austin, a man who did nothing but entertain and create a buzz, who responsibly decided to go out on top and not force it like a Hulk Hogan or a Ric Flair. The same story goes for Steamboat, who has had some of the highest acclaimed matches in the history of wrestling, and entertained for over 20 years, he left before he destroyed his legacy.

Those guy, Steve Austin, Ricky Steamboat, Shawn Michaels, they will go down as the best of all time, they finished strong.

[Swiss Ultimate]

$$$$$....because it's a BUSINESS, and it's not real. Money is the ONLY thing that matters.

Yeah, but is your favorite wrestler your favorite because of his paycheck or because of how he entertained you personally?

[CSL]

That seems like more of a question for the 'Measuring the favourite wrestlers! thread.

[Swiss Ultimate]

My favorite wrestler is obviously the greatest.

[Aguakate]

Anything containing the phrase "greatest wrestlers" refers to Shawn Michaels.

[Rammsteinmad]

My favorite wrestler is obviously the greatest.

http://www.canoe.ca/WrestlingImagesM/miller_ernest_aug00.jpg

[The Show Off]

The whole drawing business thing is what wrestlers worry and talk about, we shouldn't really care about that, how many time have we all bitched about Hogan? And do you really have such a pussy that you can still proclaim him the greatest of all time?

In the 90's, we bitched about Flair's man tits, in 2005 he had plastic surgery. In 2011 he's running out of money, hair, and working for TNA.

Do you really want to call him the greatest of all time?

How about Stone Cold Steve Austin, a man who did nothing but entertain and create a buzz, who responsibly decided to go out on top and not force it like a Hulk Hogan or a Ric Flair. The same story goes for Steamboat, who has had some of the highest acclaimed matches in the history of wrestling, and entertained for over 20 years, he left before he destroyed his legacy.

Those guy, Steve Austin, Ricky Steamboat, Shawn Michaels, they will go down as the best of all time, they finished strong.

Not to get into a debate with anyone but I think of Ric Flair as the greatest of all time. But that's not really the point of this post.

The point of this post is to say that I don't care whether someone goes out strong or not. Paul McCartney has but out some embarassing shit for the last decade (or more) but when he dies no one will remember him as the guy on the Starrbucks label they'll think of him as a fucking Beatle. No one remembers Willie Mays as a New York Met. I think going out on top is a nice thing but it doesn't effect whether I think someone is the greatest or not.

But that's all just me. I can see why others feel different.

[Kane Knight]

I like who I like. Measuring drawing power is fine and dandy, but there are few people one can consistently measure in that fashion reliably. People will selectively attribute the successes to their favourites and the failings to others. That's the way it works, unfortunately.

Unless you're a Hogan or an Austin and at their peak, what draws and what doesn't really comes down to too many factors to ever honestly pin on one person.

But judging entertainment based on their benefits as corporate assets seems kind of silly. Although, to be fair, most do. Championships? Well, they're a joke in terms of actual acheivement. Awards? They're a joke even in fields where things aren't staged.

"Greatest" either has to resonate personally or it's kind of hollow, anyway.

More importantly, I'll shoot myself before I acknowledge Twilight as a better book than any I've read this year.

[Aguakate]

Aside from thinking Shawn Michaels is the BEST of all time, I happen to like Scott Steiner, yet most people shit on him because of his wrestling.

Ditto for Sid...and Kevin Nash...I also like them.