The GOAT

[Destor]

Gertner inspired this thought


I'll post mine later because i dont want to start the dialogue with my opinions.


Im not simply asking who is the GOAT but what makes someone the GOAT? What are the criteria for the greatest and by that criteria who is the greatest in your opinion?


Should be fun to see how everyone arrives at their choice.

[Jordan]

I think the criteria that rings true for me is star quality, success and longevity. With that in mind there are four guys since 1980 that stand out. Hogan, Cena, Taker and Flair. I really cannot pick Cena even though he is definitely a much bigger mainstream star than Hogan is, but he's close in that in the past decade his name is probably the closest association with wrestling among the average person. He also has a longevity that rivals Hogan. Taker was very consistent and seemed to get better about 20 years into his run, and also has a certain name recognition amongst non fans/sports fans. Flair is definitely the most talented of the group I picked but I feel I probably the least successful. He wasn't a Mania main eventer which is definitely the pinnacle of pro wrestling to me.

I thing that success, longevity and star power out weigh "work rate" so it's not a big part of my answer. So I say the GOAT is Hogan. He carried WWF for nearly 10 years and then challenged and nearly defeated them with WCW for another five. Then he was able to return to WWE and close out his in ring career in a pretty fantastic way having his best matches in over a decade. In my heart the answer is easy, Hogan.

I don't pick Austin or Rock because their careers were too short. HBK and Bret Hart were two of the best wrestlers ever no doubt but they didn't have the success or star power as the four I mentioned.

[Bad News Gertner]

I mentioned this earlier but Terry Funk

I'll clarify this before I start: Terry Funk was not the greatest draw. The correct is probably whoever drew the most money, but just for discussion purposes I'll list my reasons.


Accolades: Multiple time NWA Champion. Won titles pretty much everywhere he went One of the most popular Gaijin in Japan (they LOVED Terry), drew money in multiple territories.

Adapted throughout the years, could wrestle any style, absolutely dynamite on promos, never felt stale, always gave back to wrestling, longevity, leaves behind a lasting legacy. He's got legendary matches like the Empty Arena match with Lawler and the I Quit match with Flair. Just so multi dimensional.

Terry is the best IMO, but I wouldn't fault anyone for picking Flair, Lawler etc..


I guess my criteria is "Who was the most Complete Package"

[xrodmuc316]

I have to go Rock. Every measurable there is, he crushed it.

10 World Titles, headlined multiple Wrestlemanias, buyrates, ticket sales, merch, mainstream appeal, memorable moments, high motor, technically sound, smooth moveset, looked like a champ.

He also has that Jim Brown/Barry Sanders retiring early/while on top. If he stayed a full time wrestler he would probably be a 25 time World Champ by now.

[Fignuts]

The Destroyer

Too tired from PT to make up a long post on why. Gartner and Destor will know why.

[Fignuts]

I mentioned this earlier but Terry Funk

I'll clarify this before I start: Terry Funk was not the greatest draw. The correct is probably whoever drew the most money, but just for discussion purposes I'll list my reasons.


Accolades: Multiple time NWA Champion. Won titles pretty much everywhere he went One of the most popular Gaijin in Japan (they LOVED Terry), drew money in multiple territories.

Adapted throughout the years, could wrestle any style, absolutely dynamite on promos, never felt stale, always gave back to the business(hate using that word), longevity, leaves behind a lasting legacy. He's got legendary matches like the Empty Arena match with Lawler and the I Quit match with Flair. Just so multi dimensional.

Terry is the best IMO, but I wouldn't fault anyone for picking Flair, Lawler etc..


I guess my criteria is "Who was the most Complete Package"

I would add his selflessness to that list.

[Sepholio]

Basically all the metrics Gertner used to come to Terry being his GOAT. But they end up with Chris Jericho as my personal GOAT. Has held a ton of titles, headlined tons of shows for multiple companies, has been going strong for 30 years, almost always cuts a great promo and has been in tons of incredible matches across the world.

If there is one thing holding him back its that he has never been a big draw like some of the people around him in his earlier days were. Kinda sucks tbh because in terms of pure skill he was better than any of them imo (talking about ppl like Rock, Austin) but they also had a certain X factor at the time so it is what it is.

I don't think Chris has been the best at any one particular area. But he has been consistently great enough at all of them to qualify as the best overall to me. For the longest time I would have said HBK was my GOAT for a lot of these reasons but I also knew a long time ago that at some point Y2J was gonna take that spot from him in my rankings.

[Emperor Smeat]

Feels like its Ric Flair but need to put a lot of thought into this and probably would end up with someone else instead.

Like Seph, Jericho would be my GOAT based on personal preferences since I've been highly entertained throughout his lengthy career. Not only has he managed to be great wherever he went, he's also managed to excel at redefining himself multiple times to keep his career fresher than other notable people who had lengthy careers like Big Show and Undertaker.

[Bad News Gertner]

I would add his selflessness to that list.

Nobody has a bad word to say about him.

I wish Backlund and Funk would have had a run in 1980-81 WWF. He's the one opponent I wish Backlund would have faced

[Bad News Gertner]

The Destroyer

Too tired from PT to make up a long post on why. Gartner and Destor will know why.

He actually came to mind when I was posting some of Funk's Japanese matches in another thread.

[Destor]

Feels like its Ric Flair but need to put a lot of thought into this and probably would end up with someone else instead.

Like Seph, Jericho would be my GOAT based on personal preferences since I've been highly entertained throughout his lengthy career. Not only has he managed to be great wherever he went, he's also managed to excel at redefining himself multiple times to keep his career fresher than other notable people who had lengthy careers like Big Show and Undertaker.
so is your criteria reinventing yourself or...?

[Emperor Smeat]

For personal preference, my main criteria would be whoever entertained me the most during their career and was at least at a high level as a star. Being able to reinvent yourself to keep your lengthy career fresh is very helpful and not make it feel more like an old guy who is well past his expiration date in the ring and/or as a character.

Like Undertaker's lengthy career would be looked upon more fondly had he retired after his Mania streak was over since that was the last meaningful thing about his career.

[IC Champion]

Was Jericho ever really on top? Or did he just work with the guys who were? I’m not questioning his greatness, I love Jericho’s body of work but I feel like maybe people are over valuing his longevity here. He was never at any point the number 1 draw in the business, or 2, or probably 3, or even 4. He’s not the worker an HBK or Flair was, or the draw that the rock or Austin were.

[Destor]

For personal preference, my main criteria would be whoever entertained me the most during their career and was at least at a high level as a star. Being able to reinvent yourself to keep your lengthy career fresh is very helpful and not make it feel more like an old guy who is well past his expiration date in the ring and/or as a character.

Like Undertaker's lengthy career would be looked upon more fondly had he retired after his Mania streak was over since that was the last meaningful thing about his career.this brings up a solid thought:

is being your all time favorite the same as being the greatest? i see a large distinction between those two things. my personal favorite migh not be the greates that ever lived.


for example: beatles are the greatest band of all time. they shaped a culture shift that reverberated globaly.

queen is my favorite band. they bring me the most pleasure.

[Destor]

Was Jericho ever really on top? Or did he just work with the guys who were? I’m not questioning his greatness, I love Jericho’s body of work but I feel like maybe people are over valuing his longevity here. He was never at any point the number 1 draw in the business, or 2, or probably 3, or even 4. He’s not the worker an HBK or Flair was, or the draw that the rock or Austin were. It wouldn’t be my pick, but by far the longevity and drawing and being an overall worker Undertaker is far and away ahead of Jericho.
jericho was never a top guy in the fed. they tried to make him one for about 4 months. gave up. he was never ever to give them a reason to try again.


great hand obviously. not a top guy. AEW/NJPW he's a top guy. depends on if you consider them bush league or not though

[IC Champion]

You’re not asking what makes my favourite wrestler the greatest?

[Destor]

You’re not asking what makes my favours wrestler the greatest?
i didnt think i was but i guess its subjective

[IC Champion]

jericho was never a top guy in the fed. they tried to make him one for about 4 months. gave up. he was never ever to give them a reason to try again.


great hand obviously. not a top guy. AEW/NJPW he's a top guy. depends on if you consider them bush league or not though

He’s should have beat HHH at mania!!

[Destor]

even if he had jericho had lost all his steam before the bell rang

[Bad News Gertner]

Don Muraco and JBL/Bradshaw are my favourite wrestlers and they're definitely not the greatest

[Lock Jaw]

<iframe width="1129" height="635" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/duouDyS9sI4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Emperor Smeat]

this brings up a solid thought:

is being your all time favorite the same as being the greatest? i see a large distinction between those two things. my personal favorite migh not be the greates that ever lived.


for example: beatles are the greatest band of all time. they shaped a culture shift that reverberated globaly.

queen is my favorite band. they bring me the most pleasure.

That could one of those yes & no type answers since its possible for your all-time favorite to also be the greatest of all time as well depending on the circumstances.

Like as Pats fan, Tom Brady is my favorite player ever and a strong case could be made that he's also the GOAT in football.

For baseball, Ken Griffey Jr. is my favorite all-time player but I wouldn't put him as the GOAT in baseball from a non-personal perspective. Had Griffey's body not fallen apart post-Mariners career, he probably would have had a very strong case to be a potential GOAT in baseball.

[IC Champion]

even if he had jericho had lost all his steam before the bell rang

I never really felt it had much steam to begin with. Probably shouldn’t have been booked against HHH at mania I guess would be a fair point to make, but like you said it wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

[Destor]

That could one of those yes & no type answers since its possible for your all-time favorite to also be the greatest of all time as well depending on the circumstances.

Like as Pats fan, Tom Brady is my favorite player ever and a strong case could be made that he's also the GOAT in football.

For baseball, Ken Griffey Jr. is my favorite all-time player but I wouldn't put him as the GOAT in baseball from a non-personal perspective. Had Griffey's body not fallen apart post-Mariners career, he probably would have had a very strong case to be a potential GOAT in baseball.
i agree. my favorite is also my pick for the goat. so we circle back to jericho. you said he was the goat because he entertained you the most but you acknowledge that the metric can run parallel with being the greatest but isnt in itself what makes them the greatest.

what makes jericho the greatest thats ever lived?

[Destor]

I never really felt it had much steam to begin with. Probably shouldn’t have been booked against HHH at mania I guess would be a fair point to make, but like you said it wouldn’t have mattered anyway.
yeah they were banking tha the belts would make him. it didn't take so much. anything he gained from it was quickly lost. definitely not a career highlight in hindsight. its only an achievement in the kayfabe lense. its honestly his greatest career failure...which is ironic since in kayfabe its his crowning moment.

[Destor]

(wanna be clear here: im not disputing if jericho is or isnt the goat just trying to suss out the why of it all)

[Ruien]

Everything Kurt Angle brought to the table but also longevity.

[Destor]

Kurt really could have had a career worth discussing...such a travesty

[Emperor Smeat]

i agree. my favorite is also my pick for the goat. so we circle back to jericho. you said he was the goat because he entertained you the most but you acknowledge that the metric can run parallel with being the greatest but isnt in itself what makes them the greatest.

what makes jericho the greatest thats ever lived?

Jericho is my GOAT from a personal preference but wouldn't actually put him as the GOAT for a serious discussion or answer. For something like that, he'd be more like one or two tiers below it. Like someone you'd easily consider worthy of a Hall of Fame spot but not any higher for real all-time legendary status.

Currently leaning towards Flair as my serious answer but would really need to think about it.

[weather vane]

Prob Hogan.

[#1-norm-fan]

I think just going by the money they drew and how they changed the business is fine but for the sake of discussion, I think you can throw in the “popular doesn’t always mean right” factor. Of course “right” is subjective but if you think of the most popular/biggest draw when it comes to movies, TV, music, etc. and then think of the greatest, chances are they won’t be the same. Larry the Cable Guy is not one of the greatest comedians of his time, Goddammit.

And with wrestling, it’s even less clear because there are SO many more factors that come into play. If Austin says “fuck this shit” and quits the business altogether after his Ringmaster run, he certainly doesn’t show up on many GOAT lists. But he’s the same guy. He just never found the right path to show it. How many guys were GOAT material and we’ll never know because the timing was never right? (*cough*Fandango)

So yeah, basically there’s a compromise between your personal favorite and the biggest draw that you can use.

I don’t think accomplishments should factor in too much though. Especially after a certain point. Everyone gets a turn with a world title in this era. It doesn’t mean much. If it did, we’d have to throw The Miz in the discussion.

[#1-norm-fan]

And since you didn’t ask, my GOAT is Shawn Michaels. He is also my favorite. Purely a coincidence.

[rez]

Hogan because of Suburban Commando alone

[Shisen Kopf]

Bobby Jaggers.

[Destor]

I think just going by the money they drew and how they changed the business is fine but for the sake of discussion, I think you can throw in the “popular doesn’t always mean right” factor. Of course “right” is subjective but if you think of the most popular/biggest draw when it comes to movies, TV, music, etc. and then think of the greatest, chances are they won’t be the same. Larry the Cable Guy is not one of the greatest comedians of his time, Goddammit.

And with wrestling, it’s even less clear because there are SO many more factors that come into play. If Austin says “fuck this shit” and quits the business altogether after his Ringmaster run, he certainly doesn’t show up on many GOAT lists. But he’s the same guy. He just never found the right path to show it. How many guys were GOAT material and we’ll never know because the timing was never right? (*cough*Fandango)

So yeah, basically there’s a compromise between your personal favorite and the biggest draw that you can use.

I don’t think accomplishments should factor in too much though. Especially after a certain point. Everyone gets a turn with a world title in this era. It doesn’t mean much. If it did, we’d have to throw The Miz in the discussion.This post is a good one to get into my thoughts.

I agree that draw shouldnt be the SOLE metric but i do feel that its the most important. Immediately guys who never drew are bumped out of contention. Bret, Angle, Jericho, HBK and to a lesser extent Savage all were phenomenal workers but as a draw they all fell short (Savage far less so than the others.) Some of the greatest workers between the bells but GOAT? they arent even in the conversation.

With the draw being the chief metric there's a short list I can pretty quickly go to: Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Goldberg, Taker.

Rock was only a top guy for about 6 months and 80% of his draw was because Austin was so red hot. frankly Rock has been more successful in hollywood than he was in wrestling and I think a lot of that clouds how people view his run. Austin was the guy. Rock just fed off the flames he produced.

Goldberg was a flash in the pan. He drew crazy money for 18 months or so and then nothing.

Goldberg and Rock bring us to the next metric: LONGEVITY

Lasting power is intrinsically tied to drawing. A guy who can stay over longer must logically be better. Seems like a reasonable inference. Goldberg and The Rock didnt have any longevity whatsoever and sadly, neither did Austin.

Austin might have drawn more money in his career than anyone ever did. Staggering ammounts. The Austin character can very reasonably be argued as the cornerstone of the WWFs rise in the late 90s and the cause of WCWs eventual downfall. but the career just didnt last.

So we're left with Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Cena, Taker.

The japs all have the same issue. Outside of Japan and Korea they werent really a thing. They were essentially regional. huge money was drawn in their region, on par with new york, but it was one market with no crossover. Its for this reason I also cross off Bruno.

Bruno had IMMENSE staying power. He was on top so long the company should have folded when he retired (and a lesser territory would have.) Bruno certainly had more travel potential than the Japs and even his peers of the same time before cable took prominence. Bruno would have in my mind been bigger than hogan if they were both in their primes in the 80s but at the end of the day Bruno was on top in the time frame he was on top and was limited by the technology of his era.

Andre, Hogan, Flair, Cena, Taker.

the top 5 is where this gets incredibly difficult to debate thats what we're here to do.

My next metric is influence. Who's mark has reverberated thoughout the ages of the industry. Cena is a bit too fresh to see what that is. I'd also argue that him spending so much of his career as a guy 30% of the audience rejected that I cant push him any further forward.

Taker certainly will be the bench mark for big men from now until the end of time.

Andre might be the most successful draw of all time when you consider that you could book Andre anywhere ON EARTH and you could sell out the building but because of the very factors that made him a draw he cannot be replicated and thus his influences on future generations is very limited.

So I arrive at Taker, Hogan and Flair.

Taker I eliminate at this point because next to the other two men his career simply doesnt match up. He spent a very small fraction of his career as the guy the show depended on. If he wasnt hot the gate didnt crumble. He simply wasnt as important.

Hogan and Flair.

Hogan transcended the industry in the same way the rock would do later. and that in turn clouds the conversation. its his successes beyond wrestling that bolster hogans mystique but imo the conversation should stay on wrestling. yes Hogan is more of a house hold name but that has as much to do with MTV as it does anything.

Ric Flair imo is the GOAT. he has the greatest single attendance of any show ever (190k [355k over 2 days]) His body of work has directly influenced how matches are constructed in a far grander scale than any worker ever. He is the model for what in ring work should be for 50 years. he carried the entire south on his back for 15-20 years. And his matches have stood the test of time and are still some of the first tapes guys go to when looking to study.

Ric Flair imo is the absolute bench mark for what success in wrestling should look like. Others may outshine him in one metric or another but when you add everything together no one is as complete of a package as Ric Flair. there is no metric that you can judge a wrestler on that flair isnt an automatic top 3 and in most a very reasonable top 1.

[Jordan]

Flair did not draw that audience in Korea communism did. And the only reason Flair took the job is cause Hogan wouldn't.

[Destor]

moot points all around. what happened happend.

[weather vane]

I think it’s Hogan Flair or Austin.

[Destor]

healthy top 3

[Jordan]

healthy top 3

More like UNHEALTHY

[Destor]

lol i see what you did there

[Bad News Gertner]

Do you think Flair's matches being a bit repetitive is a knock against him or a non factor in this discussion

I have Flair in my top 3

[Destor]

i dont. id argue that his matches are no more similar than anyones (ignoring that all matches are structurally the same.) what he did popularize is having routine spots. in flairs case the comeback. i think having routine spots is a good thing as much as bret hart would disagree. flair taking the bump off the top for example is always over. if it gets a pop for 30 years its working. theres no reason not to do it other than kayfabe. "it doesnt make sense."

hogan is another guy who had routine spots. cena. austin. rock. hhh. it just works. some used it more than others over the years but i dont count it as a negitive. if it works it works. i dont think anyone can argue flairs routine spots didnt work. so it comes down to a snobbish critique.

even if it were valid i dont think you cant argue that flairs matches were more similar than hogans so it certainly wouldnt change my vote.

[Bad News Gertner]

That's true. I've heard the analogy that you don't tell Nolan Ryan to stop throwing a fastball and throw a changeup

[Jordan]

I don't think it's a factor. Great Flair matches are great matches. I think it's the opponent that brings the variety. Same thing with Cena and Taker. I think if Flair had stayed in WWF longer and stayed at the top he'd be a bigger contender for GOAT for me. He just rode a lot of lows in WCW after he returned from WWF. Hogan was never not the main event.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Didn’t read the other replies so my opinion is pure. It’s probably Flair. Taking into account talent, longevity, legacy, pop culture impact. I’d argue that Flair is more well known in popular culture today than any wrestler but Rock. And he passes Rock in other categories. He’s better in the ring than Hogan. He lasted longer than Austin He did it in multiple countries/promotions unlike Taker, Michaels, Cena. He’s still cool even though he’s like 97 years old.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

I have a Japanese blind spot but I’d still say Flair over Inoki, Misawa, Mutoh

[Supreme Olajuwon]

I will say that if Lesnar, Angle, or Styles were born 20 years earlier we may be having a different discussion. I’d say Bryan too but let’s be honest he would’ve head butted his way into Dynamite Kid territory.

[Jordan]

Sure if I was from Japan Inoki, Misawa or Kenta Kobashi could be on my list but I didn't follow their careers nearly as close as US rasslers.

[Destor]

i have a lucha blind spot. cant stand the style. working the opposite side makes my brain hurt.

[Jordan]

I don't consider it the same thing tbh. Lucha is Lucha rasslin is rasslin.

[Destor]

I will say that if Lesnar, Angle, or Styles were born 20 years earlier we may be having a different discussion. I’d say Bryan too but let’s be honest he would’ve head butted his way into Dynamite Kid territory.
styles career would have been worse if he'd been around much earlier. only time he might have faired better is death thralls wwf in the early to mid 90s. like the magic hour for guys 5'9 who could go.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Ditto for lucha libre. I see stuff from El Santo I’m like really? That guy? But whatever man the people like it.

[Destor]

but any other time he wouldnt have even made it as a job guy.

[Bad News Gertner]

Yeah Lucha is not my strong point as well, but guys like Negro Casas and Atlantis are fucking amazing.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

styles career would have been worse if he'd been around much earlier. only time he might have faired better is death thralls wwf in the early to mid 90s. like the magic hour for guys 5'9 who could go.

Yeah that’s fair. Ok then just Lesnar and Angle.

[Destor]

lesnar and angle would have done fine in any era

[Emperor Smeat]

I will say that if Lesnar, Angle, or Styles were born 20 years earlier we may be having a different discussion. I’d say Bryan too but let’s be honest he would’ve head butted his way into Dynamite Kid territory.

Assuming he kept the same high flying wrestling style of his pre-WWE days, Styles probably would have been a way more influential X-Pac/1-2-3 Kid of his generation.

Instead of WCW's cruiser division, X-Pac, or early ROH being the inspiration for the generation of wrestlers post-Attitude Era favoring a more action-based or lucha-based style, it likely would have been Styles instead.

[Bad News Gertner]

Waltman was hugely influential going back to the early 90's. Pre 123 Kid.

[Bad News Gertner]

You know who else deserves some consideration: Rey Mysterio Jr.

He ticks off pretty much every box

[Destor]

he never held the weight of the company on his shoulders and i think that's important. cant argue with those merch sales though.

[Destor]

eddie i think would have entered into the convo had he kept going. the hispanic market was booming when he was on top. ive often wondered how much the demo would have shifted had he not died so early. anytime they got anywhere near texas the gate was balooning

[Bad News Gertner]

For all people talk up Lesnar, Eddie did way better numbers than Brock. It's why they moved the title off Brock to Eddie.

[Destor]

at the time absolutely. post ufc lesnar is a draw though.

[Emperor Smeat]

eddie i think would have entered into the convo had he kept going. the hispanic market was booming when he was on top. ive often wondered how much the demo would have shifted had he not died so early. anytime they got anywhere near texas the gate was balooning

SD probably could have supplanted RAW earlier than it did as the new flagship show for WWE assuming they stayed on UPN.

Eddie and Mysterio were huge ratings generators for WWE's latino tv market and more importantly that group (and African Americans to a degree) acted as a big stabilizer for SD's ratings while RAW was suffering big yearly declines. Eddie dying and SD moving to USA Network hampered the big impact WWE's latino market had on their ratings.

Not until the Women's Revolution/Evolution movement did WWE have another demo group act as a key stabilizer for their declining ratings.

[Jordan]

I think Rey's place is as an innovator or ground breaker rather than a GOAT. Maybe among Mexican American's he's THE GUY. He is a draw for sure though, and a major one there is no arguing that.

[IC Champion]

I’m not sure why Rey is even being talked about in this thread.

[Destor]

i mean we talked about jericho

[Destor]

:lol:

[Destor]

(obviously he doesnt make my list but im just taking the piss. everyone should be discussed. the debate can be fun regardless)

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Can you imagine Lesnar in the 80s. Or in the Dangerous Alliance. He would’ve been even more of a revelation than he is now

[IC Champion]

I can easily imagine Lesnar doing a lot of things.

[Emperor Smeat]

The more I think about it, the more a good case could be made that there really isn't a single GOAT for wrestling.

Unlike with the major sports, wrestling has too many dominate styles and none really hold that lasting overall top dominate spot. Like with baseball, the GOAT is a MLB player since MLB has been the top dog of baseball since the late 1800s with some brief exceptions. College, minor leagues, and non-MLB leagues all play the exact same style of baseball as MLB with some very minor differences.

A wrestling expert in Japan would make just as strong a case that the GOAT is a puro wrestler using the same criteria a NWA/territories expert would use to claim that its a 60s-80s US territories era wrestler instead. Same goes for experts for lucha, pre-tv era wrestling, modern era, and others.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Most sports don’t have a GOAT. It’s really only hockey. Every other major sport is debatable.

[Bad News Gertner]

I’m not sure why Rey is even being talked about in this thread.

Because he's a once in a generation talent?

[Sepholio]

I will never be able to use draw when trying to discuss how individually skilled someone is. It's just not a good metric for me. You could have someone come along right now that is far and away the best ever in the ring, on the mic, has the best look, everything, literally the best at everything and they will never draw anywhere near what people like Austin, Rock or Hogan did. It's a different era now and to discount people because of ratings is insane to me.

[IC Champion]

Well god damn, so was Mark Henry and so was Big Show. Let’s debate their merits as goats next.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Mark Henry wouldve been a legend in the 80s

[Destor]

name of the game is to con people out of their money. in baseball you talk home runs and no hitters. in wrestling you talk tickets. the good ones connect to their audience and you judge that connection off who convinced people to spend money on them. if no one wants to buy what you're selling youre not good at this job.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

Imagine Mark Henry showing up and just wrecking the Von Erichs by himself because he’s such a monster.

[IC Champion]

name of the game is to con people out of their money. in baseball you talk home runs and no hitters. in wrestling you talk tickets. the good ones connect to their audience and you judge that connection off who convinced people to spend money on them. if no one wants to buy what you're selling youre not good at this job.

So are you asking who sold the most tickets and was the biggest draw? Or are you saying that’s what you value?

[Bad News Gertner]

Well god damn, so was Mark Henry and so was Big Show. Let’s debate their merits as goats next.

There have been plenty of strongmen and giants with just as much if not more success than Mark and Big Show

[IC Champion]

Plenty of giants as successful as big show? Name 5.

[Sepholio]

So are you asking who sold the most tickets and was the biggest draw? Or are you saying that’s what you value?

That's where I'm stuck. Because as it is it seems like the GOAT could only ever come from pretty much the 80's or 90's if thats your metric. Everyone else, regardless of skill or talent or anything, is automatically discounted because they will never ever draw anywhere near what the guys at the peak of rasslins popularity did.

[IC Champion]

Money vs art.

[IC Champion]

Do you think being the greatest means you drew the most for the longest period of time, or on top the longest. Or do you value the quality of performance, ei who you may subjectively think is the greatest performer, or you thought was the most entertaining.

[IC Champion]

Or you could be a centrist and think you need to balance both.

[Emperor Smeat]

I will never be able to use draw when trying to discuss how individually skilled someone is. It's just not a good metric for me. You could have someone come along right now that is far and away the best ever in the ring, on the mic, has the best look, everything, literally the best at everything and they will never draw anywhere near what people like Austin, Rock or Hogan did. It's a different era now and to discount people because of ratings is insane to me.

Forgot where I read it before but if you go by adjusted box office then the GOAT would be either Austin or Hogan since nobody really drew the same level of gate revenues those two did during their time on top at least in the US. Between the two, think Austin outdrew Hogan using the same adjusted metrics.

Cena has both beat based on pure drawing revenues but not when you adjust for inflation and the rising costs of tickets and PPV prices during Cena's era.

[Jordan]

i mean we talked about jericho

It was talked about. But I don't have him in my conversation. He's outside about everyone on THE LIST MANNNNNM. Still great though and his AEW Championship run was brilliant, MAYBE his best run. That's up for debate because be did a lot of great things in the E.

[Jordan]

Forgot where I read it before but if you go by adjusted box office then the GOAT would be either Austin or Hogan since nobody really drew the same level of gate revenues those two did during their time on top at least in the US. Between the two, think Austin outdrew Hogan using the same adjusted metrics.

Cena has both beat based on pure drawing revenues but not when you adjust for inflation and the rising costs of tickets and PPV prices during Cena's era.

Cena's longevity definitely makes him a contender IMO. And I think it's debatable he superceded Austin and The Rock. But there is something about Hogan that is just massive in some way. Sure he wasn't a brilliant wrestler but he played his part amazingly. His classic matches are untouchable in their own ways.

[Bad News Gertner]

Plenty of giants as successful as big show? Name 5.

Andre the Giant
Undertaker
Don Leo Jonathan
Ernie Ladd
Kane
Killer Kowalski


Other than Eddie, name 1 Luchador/Mexican wrestler that was as successful in the US as Rey

[Destor]

<table id="post5434068" class="tborder" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" border="0" align="center"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_5434068" style="border-right: #405174">So are you asking who sold the most tickets and was the biggest draw? Or are you saying that’s what you value?
</td> </tr> <tr><td class="alt2" style="border: #405174; border-top: 0px">
</td><td class="alt1" style="border: #405174; border-left: 0px; border-top: 0px" align="right"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
Im saying it has be part of the conversation. It cant just be who made you pop the most. But i dont think its the only metric that matters. what i do think is its the largest part of the pie and by a wide margin. a guy putting on the same caliber matches as bret hart in front of 200 people in a highschool gym clearly isnt the GOAT no matter hard you nut for him. Ignoring drawing power completely isnt reasonable or objective.

[Destor]

and there's just as much art in getting over as there is in clever chain wrestling. the only difference is you dont respect one for whatever reason

[Destor]

if the conversation was purely money it would be either hogan who drew the most money for the longest time or austin who drew the most per night ever but i definitely think the conversation is more nuanced than purely gates.

[Destor]

(and i think i summed up my thoughts pretty well on pg1)

[Jordan]

Hogan made events bigger that's why I picked him.

[Destor]

Hogan is definitely a guy no one can dismiss out of hand. Any GOAT conversation not only has to include him it has to actively defend why he isnt at the top of the list.

[Destor]

to circle back to the comment that "only guys from the 80s/90s can be the GOAT if you go by the gate" id like to point out that the WWF was going under before Austin got hot. a show no one was watching to the hottest act of all time. Thats WHY he's GOAT tier. he got so outrageously over that he turned the business around...and thats why no one today can crack that list.


they arent over.

[xrodmuc316]

I think what we are seeing in this thread is exactly why even in the business they qualify greatest of all time.

Austin is easily the GOAT drawing star within the industry. Nobody in wrestling reached a higher peak.

Hulk is still the GOAT associated/recognizable to the average person.

Shawn is the GOAT in ring worker.

Flair is the GOAT successful Pro Wrestler.

Cena is the GOAT successful Sports Entertainer.

Undertaker is the GOAT character.

Jericho is the GOAT at reinventing his character.

Rock is the GOAT for biggest star that came from wrestling.

Angle is the GOAT for most successful athlete that became a wrestler.

Lesnar is the GOAT for most successful athlete after he left pro wrestling.

That is leaving out HUGE names that were great, had success in and out of the ring, and we're good enough to be in that discussion.

It's why I picked Rock, because he was near the top of every qualification the other wrestlers talk about.

[xrodmuc316]

Andre the Giant
Undertaker
Don Leo Jonathan
Ernie Ladd
Kane
Killer Kowalski


Other than Eddie, name 1 Luchador/Mexican wrestler that was as successful in the US as Rey

It also depends on how Giant is defined. If we are not going just by height, guys like Yokozuna and Vader and Earthquake are absolutely up there. If just by height, I'd rank Kevin Nash's career above Big Show as well.

[Bad News Gertner]

More about presentation

[Sixx]

Hogan. Even my mom knows who he is and she knows nothing about wrestling.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I have a trouble thinking in terms of absolute greatest, because there are too many metrics go crossover, so it is where you put emphasis. I put it on how good business is under you, because that’s the whole reason wrestling exists. It doesn’t matter if you tick all the other boxes — good look, good ring stuff, good talker, etc. — if people don’t give a shit, you aren’t clicking as a professional wrestler.

But that gets hard to dissect too. There are guys that drew everywhere as special attractions. There are guys who turned around shitty businesses. There are guys who did respectable business on top. There are guys who killed it on top in smaller markets, which is actually kind of more impressive in many ways — since you could argue the case that you’re more over per capita.

But then there is the quality of and timelessness of your work. There is how much everything you do stands out.


I don’t feel stupid saying names like Terry Funk, Ric Flair, Steve Austin and Hulk Hogan. The only name that I would throw out that hasn’t been said already, is maybe someone from Japan or even Jerry Lawler in Memphis. It feels like it’s own category though — maybe not GOAT. But there’s something about being so good you don’t need to go anywhere else that I feel deserves appreciation.

[Jordan]

I feel that as great as he is, it's easy to disqualify Terry Funk from GOAT. He is obviously a total legend and was awesome pretty much his whole career. He played his part perfectly always. The thing that knocks him off the top of the list for me is that he wasn't a MAJOR draw. Could you honestly say he was the reason 5-10,000 people went to the arena? As awesome as he was in Japan, those people would've been in the seats regardless, and likely the same for his NWA/WCW/ECW days. I think that he was on the cusp of MAJOR draw at times but ultimately was more of an attraction when compared to someone like Flair. Probably because the bulk of his career he worked heel and heels tended to your the territory's more than babyfaces who are clearly set up to be more successful in GOAT talks. All of that aside it's a real fucking shame that Vince didn't want to push Funk vs Hogan in the early days. It could've been so good.

[xrodmuc316]

I feel that as great as he is, it's easy to disqualify Terry Funk from GOAT. He is obviously a total legend and was awesome pretty much his whole career. He played his part perfectly always. The thing that knocks him off the top of the list for me is that he wasn't a MAJOR draw. Could you honestly say he was the reason 5-10,000 people went to the arena? As awesome as he was in Japan, those people would've been in the seats regardless, and likely the same for his NWA/WCW/ECW days. I think that he was on the cusp of MAJOR draw at times but ultimately was more of an attraction when compared to someone like Flair. Probably because the bulk of his career he worked heel and heels tended to your the territory's more than babyfaces who are clearly set up to be more successful in GOAT talks. All of that aside it's a real fucking shame that Vince didn't want to push Funk vs Hogan in the early days. It could've been so good.

It's a great point, and I think there are certainly different perceptions. Wrestling fans and people in the industry know what a legend he is.

On the other hand, people from the outside world would not know Terry Funk because not everybody can become a part of pop culture. Somebody who was never a wrestling fan is not going to know who Terry Funk is, but they will know Hogan, Austin, Flair, Rock, Cena, etc.

[Bad News Gertner]

I feel that as great as he is, it's easy to disqualify Terry Funk from GOAT. He is obviously a total legend and was awesome pretty much his whole career. He played his part perfectly always. The thing that knocks him off the top of the list for me is that he wasn't a MAJOR draw. Could you honestly say he was the reason 5-10,000 people went to the arena? As awesome as he was in Japan, those people would've been in the seats regardless, and likely the same for his NWA/WCW/ECW days. I think that he was on the cusp of MAJOR draw at times but ultimately was more of an attraction when compared to someone like Flair. Probably because the bulk of his career he worked heel and heels tended to your the territory's more than babyfaces who are clearly set up to be more successful in GOAT talks. All of that aside it's a real fucking shame that Vince didn't want to push Funk vs Hogan in the early days. It could've been so good.



I can definitely say Terry was a great draw. He wouldn't have gotten a 14 month run with the NWA title if he wasn't. I've seen numbers but I gotta find them. I know Funk vs Flair was the highest drawing WCW feud from 89 to 96 and he and Onita drew 41,000 and drew 28,000 on top of an IWA show

[drave]

I can definitely say Terry was a great draw. He wouldn't have gotten a 14 month run with the NWA title if he wasn't. I've seen numbers but I gotta find them. I know Funk vs Flair was the highest drawing WCW feud from 89 to 96 and he and Onita drew 41,000 and drew 28,000 on top of an IWA show




Fuck me, that's one helluva stat right there. Never knew that, but dayam!

[Bad News Gertner]

He's not a Hogan/Austin draw but he's a great one

[Jordan]

I can definitely say Terry was a great draw. He wouldn't have gotten a 14 month run with the NWA title if he wasn't. I've seen numbers but I gotta find them. I know Funk vs Flair was the highest drawing WCW feud from 89 to 96 and he and Onita drew 41,000 and drew 28,000 on top of an IWA show

I'll be waiting for the NWA numbers please have them on my desk by midday.

[Bad News Gertner]

Haha I think it was something Meltzer posted a while back. I took the day off work to find this

[Bad News Gertner]

If I'm picking between Austin and Hogan I'm taking Hogan. When Austin got hurt during the "I did it for the Rock" it wasn't like business suffered. I'm pretty sure it actually went up.

You look at cards that didn't have Hogan on them compared to ones that did in the mid 80s and it's crazy.

I remember in 85 Hogan fought August and Sept at the Philly Spectrum and both cards drew between 14-15 thousand fans. October had no Hogan with Andre vs Piper as the Main Event and drew like 7000. Hogan was back in November and it drew 13-14 thousand again

[Destor]

dont have time to go into the weeds but Funk was absolutely a draw. no question. not a draw on par with hogan or bruno but there were absolutely sell out shows because funk was at the top of the card. not an all time great draw (an all time great everything else) but a draw for certain

[Destor]

Now that the conversation has died off Hogan had 4 votes for GOAT here. Flair is the only other guy to get more than 1 vote (3.)

Clearly those are the top 2 in my mind with no question. Its a debate that will last another 50 years.

[Lock Jaw]

What happens after 50 years?

[Bad News Gertner]

What happens after 50 years?

Hogan vs Flair. This time it's personal!

[Destor]

people who lived it will be dead and time will only remember them as a lingering phantom replaced by whatever act the people of the day have the largest connection to.

[Seanny One Ball]

Didn’t read the other replies so my opinion is pure. It’s probably Flair. Taking into account talent, longevity, legacy, pop culture impact. I’d argue that Flair is more well known in popular culture today than any wrestler but Rock. And he passes Rock in other categories. He’s better in the ring than Hogan. He lasted longer than Austin He did it in multiple countries/promotions unlike Taker, Michaels, Cena. He’s still cool even though he’s like 97 years old.


Flair also did it in multiple centuries

[Sixx]

Flair is nowhere near as recognizable as Hogan.

[drave]

Flair's extra shit is the only reason I ordered the last WWE game, however long ago that was.


I remember not even finishing it because it was so bad. The Flair flair was cool AF tho.

[Rammsteinmad]

I think we all need to just face the fact that if you go by all the criteria set out already, John Cena is the GOAT. No single wrestle can be the top of every criteria, but if we look at a lot of them, Cena is up there as the best. Even if we don't want to admit it.

He's headlined two of WWE's biggest selling PPV's in terms of buyrates (Wrestlemania 27 and 29).

He's a 16-time world champion. A 5-time U.S. champion. A 2-time Royal Rumble winner. 10-time Slammy winner and has ranked No. 1 on PWI's top 500 three times.

He's was the main face and flagbearer of the WWE brand for close to 15 years, which is a major position to hold.

Has done endless charitable deeds for major organisations.

His name will only rise now to non-wrestling fans with his movie roles getting bigger and bigger, with roles in the Fast and Furious, Transformers and DC franchises.

He's had countless match-of-the-year candidates and can cut some fantastic promos when it's not scripted. He may not be as relevant to a 30+ year-old as Steve Austin or The Rock, but to millions of WWE fans who got into WWE after 2003, Cena is "the man".

I'm not the guy's biggest fan, but I do, having typed this post and thought about it, consider John Cena to be the GOAT.

Top five of all time? Easily Cena, Hogan, Austin and whoever else... But while everyone's strengths and weaknesses counter each other, I think Cena's strengths puts him at the top of that list.

[Destor]

too early to say imo. i dont know if his work will stand the test of time. not a lot of people rushing out to study cena tapes

[Destor]

but he's very reasonably top 5

[Destor]

my question for cenas legacy is exactly that: his legacy. he will be presented in video packages for eons as a huge figure but for those who lived his reign he was largely an after though for half the audience.



are the guys who will later go on to be the draws of tomorrow looking at his work for inspiration? what impact will he have on what comes out of talent going forward?


we cant say. so until we can i can put him at the top of the list. too fresh.

[Sixx]

this brings up a solid thought:

is being your all time favorite the same as being the greatest? i see a large distinction between those two things. my personal favorite migh not be the greates that ever lived.


for example: beatles are the greatest band of all time. they shaped a culture shift that reverberated globaly.

queen is my favorite band. they bring me the most pleasure.

See, I actually think Queen are the greatest band of all time. With my favorite being Motley Crue. Every time someone tries to do Queen on karaoke nights I feel like murder.

[Destor]

i think freddy is the most talented lead man ever. the vocal range, the stage presence, the depth of his lyrics and the complexity of his arrangements. he's on a whole other level.


the beatles though...they changed the world. not only did they have an outlandish ammount of no.1s they spearheaded a massive cultural shift. theyre probably the most impactful artists in the last 150 years or more and im not talking just their music. im talking the whole of western culture.

[Destor]

but i love queen more

[Sixx]

i think freddy is the most talented lead man ever. the vocal range, the stage presence, the depth of his lyrics and the complexity of his arrangements. he's on a whole other level.


the beatles though...they changed the world. not only did they have an outlandish ammount of no.1s they spearheaded a massive cultural shift. theyre probably the most impactful artists in the last 150 years or more and im not talking just their music. im talking the whole of western culture.

It's why I get mad at people trying to sing Queen songs. You can never do it anywhere near as good as Freddie. (Fuck you, Adam Lambert)

[Destor]

he's the most difficult talent to cover. you cant just replicate his sound even if you manage to hit the notes (and thats a tall order on its own)

[Sixx]

Also, I get bored by The Beatles.

[Destor]

i like the beatles well enough but even if i didnt id have to acknowledge their impact. its just so immense.

[Sixx]

I don't deny their impact, just not my "cup of tea".

[Sixx]

I've been treated with Queen since I was a kid, as it was both my parents' favorite band. Now my mom still loves them, while father loves whatever's on MTV. At 68.

[Seanny One Ball]

Don't mind me, came here for the rasslin' but stayed for the spontaneous Queen chat.

Deacon is criminally underrated as a bassist and sound engineer.

[Sixx]

You should see my dad drunkenly trying to bounce to Snoop Dogg.

[Reacher]

This post is a good one to get into my thoughts.

I agree that draw shouldnt be the SOLE metric but i do feel that its the most important. Immediately guys who never drew are bumped out of contention. Bret, Angle, Jericho, HBK and to a lesser extent Savage all were phenomenal workers but as a draw they all fell short (Savage far less so than the others.) Some of the greatest workers between the bells but GOAT? they arent even in the conversation.

With the draw being the chief metric there's a short list I can pretty quickly go to: Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Goldberg, Taker.

Rock was only a top guy for about 6 months and 80% of his draw was because Austin was so red hot. frankly Rock has been more successful in hollywood than he was in wrestling and I think a lot of that clouds how people view his run. Austin was the guy. Rock just fed off the flames he produced.

Goldberg was a flash in the pan. He drew crazy money for 18 months or so and then nothing.

Goldberg and Rock bring us to the next metric: LONGEVITY

Lasting power is intrinsically tied to drawing. A guy who can stay over longer must logically be better. Seems like a reasonable inference. Goldberg and The Rock didnt have any longevity whatsoever and sadly, neither did Austin.

Austin might have drawn more money in his career than anyone ever did. Staggering ammounts. The Austin character can very reasonably be argued as the cornerstone of the WWFs rise in the late 90s and the cause of WCWs eventual downfall. but the career just didnt last.

So we're left with Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Cena, Taker.

The japs all have the same issue. Outside of Japan and Korea they werent really a thing. They were essentially regional. huge money was drawn in their region, on par with new york, but it was one market with no crossover. Its for this reason I also cross off Bruno.

Bruno had IMMENSE staying power. He was on top so long the company should have folded when he retired (and a lesser territory would have.) Bruno certainly had more travel potential than the Japs and even his peers of the same time before cable took prominence. Bruno would have in my mind been bigger than hogan if they were both in their primes in the 80s but at the end of the day Bruno was on top in the time frame he was on top and was limited by the technology of his era.

Andre, Hogan, Flair, Cena, Taker.

the top 5 is where this gets incredibly difficult to debate thats what we're here to do.

My next metric is influence. Who's mark has reverberated thoughout the ages of the industry. Cena is a bit too fresh to see what that is. I'd also argue that him spending so much of his career as a guy 30% of the audience rejected that I cant push him any further forward.

Taker certainly will be the bench mark for big men from now until the end of time.

Andre might be the most successful draw of all time when you consider that you could book Andre anywhere ON EARTH and you could sell out the building but because of the very factors that made him a draw he cannot be replicated and thus his influences on future generations is very limited.

So I arrive at Taker, Hogan and Flair.

Taker I eliminate at this point because next to the other two men his career simply doesnt match up. He spent a very small fraction of his career as the guy the show depended on. If he wasnt hot the gate didnt crumble. He simply wasnt as important.

Hogan and Flair.

Hogan transcended the industry in the same way the rock would do later. and that in turn clouds the conversation. its his successes beyond wrestling that bolster hogans mystique but imo the conversation should stay on wrestling. yes Hogan is more of a house hold name but that has as much to do with MTV as it does anything.

Ric Flair imo is the GOAT. he has the greatest single attendance of any show ever (190k [355k over 2 days]) His body of work has directly influenced how matches are constructed in a far grander scale than any worker ever. He is the model for what in ring work should be for 50 years. he carried the entire south on his back for 15-20 years. And his matches have stood the test of time and are still some of the first tapes guys go to when looking to study.

Ric Flair imo is the absolute bench mark for what success in wrestling should look like. Others may outshine him in one metric or another but when you add everything together no one is as complete of a package as Ric Flair. there is no metric that you can judge a wrestler on that flair isnt an automatic top 3 and in most a very reasonable top 1.

Much respect.

This is an awesome post and I completely agree with what you just said, although I’d probably have to give the slight edge to Hogan due to his worldwide stardom beyond the world of wrestling. Still - one of the better posts and analysis’ that I’ve read on here.

1) Hogan
2) Flair
3) Taker
4) Andre
5) Cena
6) Bruno
7) The aforementioned gooks
8) Austin
9) Rocky
10) Goldberg

Is probably how I’d rank them as well. (although I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing Goldberg dropping much further down)

[Loose Cannon]

This post is a good one to get into my thoughts.

I agree that draw shouldnt be the SOLE metric but i do feel that its the most important. Immediately guys who never drew are bumped out of contention. Bret, Angle, Jericho, HBK and to a lesser extent Savage all were phenomenal workers but as a draw they all fell short (Savage far less so than the others.) Some of the greatest workers between the bells but GOAT? they arent even in the conversation.

With the draw being the chief metric there's a short list I can pretty quickly go to: Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Goldberg, Taker.

Rock was only a top guy for about 6 months and 80% of his draw was because Austin was so red hot. frankly Rock has been more successful in hollywood than he was in wrestling and I think a lot of that clouds how people view his run. Austin was the guy. Rock just fed off the flames he produced.

Goldberg was a flash in the pan. He drew crazy money for 18 months or so and then nothing.

Goldberg and Rock bring us to the next metric: LONGEVITY

Lasting power is intrinsically tied to drawing. A guy who can stay over longer must logically be better. Seems like a reasonable inference. Goldberg and The Rock didnt have any longevity whatsoever and sadly, neither did Austin.

Austin might have drawn more money in his career than anyone ever did. Staggering ammounts. The Austin character can very reasonably be argued as the cornerstone of the WWFs rise in the late 90s and the cause of WCWs eventual downfall. but the career just didnt last.

So we're left with Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Cena, Taker.

The japs all have the same issue. Outside of Japan and Korea they werent really a thing. They were essentially regional. huge money was drawn in their region, on par with new york, but it was one market with no crossover. Its for this reason I also cross off Bruno.

Bruno had IMMENSE staying power. He was on top so long the company should have folded when he retired (and a lesser territory would have.) Bruno certainly had more travel potential than the Japs and even his peers of the same time before cable took prominence. Bruno would have in my mind been bigger than hogan if they were both in their primes in the 80s but at the end of the day Bruno was on top in the time frame he was on top and was limited by the technology of his era.

Andre, Hogan, Flair, Cena, Taker.

the top 5 is where this gets incredibly difficult to debate thats what we're here to do.

My next metric is influence. Who's mark has reverberated thoughout the ages of the industry. Cena is a bit too fresh to see what that is. I'd also argue that him spending so much of his career as a guy 30% of the audience rejected that I cant push him any further forward.

Taker certainly will be the bench mark for big men from now until the end of time.

Andre might be the most successful draw of all time when you consider that you could book Andre anywhere ON EARTH and you could sell out the building but because of the very factors that made him a draw he cannot be replicated and thus his influences on future generations is very limited.

So I arrive at Taker, Hogan and Flair.

Taker I eliminate at this point because next to the other two men his career simply doesnt match up. He spent a very small fraction of his career as the guy the show depended on. If he wasnt hot the gate didnt crumble. He simply wasnt as important.

Hogan and Flair.

Hogan transcended the industry in the same way the rock would do later. and that in turn clouds the conversation. its his successes beyond wrestling that bolster hogans mystique but imo the conversation should stay on wrestling. yes Hogan is more of a house hold name but that has as much to do with MTV as it does anything.

Ric Flair imo is the GOAT. he has the greatest single attendance of any show ever (190k [355k over 2 days]) His body of work has directly influenced how matches are constructed in a far grander scale than any worker ever. He is the model for what in ring work should be for 50 years. he carried the entire south on his back for 15-20 years. And his matches have stood the test of time and are still some of the first tapes guys go to when looking to study.

Ric Flair imo is the absolute bench mark for what success in wrestling should look like. Others may outshine him in one metric or another but when you add everything together no one is as complete of a package as Ric Flair. there is no metric that you can judge a wrestler on that flair isnt an automatic top 3 and in most a very reasonable top 1.


I agree with pretty much all this, except I'd have Hogan as the GOAT.

Maybe because WWE was more mainstream then the NWA was in the 80's and maybe because to me he was the main reason for the nWo's (and WCW business in general) being so big in the 90's. When i talk to people who don't care for wrestling, it's always "oh the stuff Hulk Hogan does." even if Hogan hasn't really "done" it for like 20 years lol

Ric Flair's workrate is bar none light years beyond Hogan in the ring. But to me, Hogan is the face of PRO Wrestling over the past 50 years.

[Destor]

the argument for Hogan is so strong i wouldn't try to debate anyone who put him at the top. if you asked 100 people on the street to name a wrestler Hogan would probably win even today with Rock and Cena having much more current cultural significance.


my preference of flair in the debate is his influence on the people within the industry even on a subconscious level. his impact on the nuts and bolts of wrestling etc


but hogans star shines so brightly that i could never object to him being considered the goat. it would be ridiculous to try.

[Reacher]

Most sports don’t have a GOAT. It’s really only hockey. Every other major sport is debatable.

With respect to hockey, there are many people out there that consider Orr to be greater than Wayne and so I’d argue that the NHL is debatable as well. While Gretzky destroyed Lemieux in every statistical category, Lemieux was one of the only players in the NHL to have crazy stats during the “dead puck” era of the NHL (1995-2004), although in Gretzky’s defense, he was a little bit older during this time.

[Reacher]

Do you think Flair's matches being a bit repetitive is a knock against him or a non factor in this discussion

I have Flair in my top 3

I’d say non-factor given the context of greatness that has been defined in this thread.

[Reacher]

This post is a good one to get into my thoughts.

I agree that draw shouldnt be the SOLE metric but i do feel that its the most important. Immediately guys who never drew are bumped out of contention. Bret, Angle, Jericho, HBK and to a lesser extent Savage all were phenomenal workers but as a draw they all fell short (Savage far less so than the others.) Some of the greatest workers between the bells but GOAT? they arent even in the conversation.

With the draw being the chief metric there's a short list I can pretty quickly go to: Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Goldberg, Taker.

Rock was only a top guy for about 6 months and 80% of his draw was because Austin was so red hot. frankly Rock has been more successful in hollywood than he was in wrestling and I think a lot of that clouds how people view his run. Austin was the guy. Rock just fed off the flames he produced.

Goldberg was a flash in the pan. He drew crazy money for 18 months or so and then nothing.

Goldberg and Rock bring us to the next metric: LONGEVITY

Lasting power is intrinsically tied to drawing. A guy who can stay over longer must logically be better. Seems like a reasonable inference. Goldberg and The Rock didnt have any longevity whatsoever and sadly, neither did Austin.

Austin might have drawn more money in his career than anyone ever did. Staggering ammounts. The Austin character can very reasonably be argued as the cornerstone of the WWFs rise in the late 90s and the cause of WCWs eventual downfall. but the career just didnt last.

So we're left with Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Cena, Taker.

The japs all have the same issue. Outside of Japan and Korea they werent really a thing. They were essentially regional. huge money was drawn in their region, on par with new york, but it was one market with no crossover. Its for this reason I also cross off Bruno.

Bruno had IMMENSE staying power. He was on top so long the company should have folded when he retired (and a lesser territory would have.) Bruno certainly had more travel potential than the Japs and even his peers of the same time before cable took prominence. Bruno would have in my mind been bigger than hogan if they were both in their primes in the 80s but at the end of the day Bruno was on top in the time frame he was on top and was limited by the technology of his era.

Andre, Hogan, Flair, Cena, Taker.

the top 5 is where this gets incredibly difficult to debate thats what we're here to do.

My next metric is influence. Who's mark has reverberated thoughout the ages of the industry. Cena is a bit too fresh to see what that is. I'd also argue that him spending so much of his career as a guy 30% of the audience rejected that I cant push him any further forward.

Taker certainly will be the bench mark for big men from now until the end of time.

Andre might be the most successful draw of all time when you consider that you could book Andre anywhere ON EARTH and you could sell out the building but because of the very factors that made him a draw he cannot be replicated and thus his influences on future generations is very limited.

So I arrive at Taker, Hogan and Flair.

Taker I eliminate at this point because next to the other two men his career simply doesnt match up. He spent a very small fraction of his career as the guy the show depended on. If he wasnt hot the gate didnt crumble. He simply wasnt as important.

Hogan and Flair.

Hogan transcended the industry in the same way the rock would do later. and that in turn clouds the conversation. its his successes beyond wrestling that bolster hogans mystique but imo the conversation should stay on wrestling. yes Hogan is more of a house hold name but that has as much to do with MTV as it does anything.

Ric Flair imo is the GOAT. he has the greatest single attendance of any show ever (190k [355k over 2 days]) His body of work has directly influenced how matches are constructed in a far grander scale than any worker ever. He is the model for what in ring work should be for 50 years. he carried the entire south on his back for 15-20 years. And his matches have stood the test of time and are still some of the first tapes guys go to when looking to study.

Ric Flair imo is the absolute bench mark for what success in wrestling should look like. Others may outshine him in one metric or another but when you add everything together no one is as complete of a package as Ric Flair. there is no metric that you can judge a wrestler on that flair isnt an automatic top 3 and in most a very reasonable top 1.

Hey Destor was just curious - where would you put Sting here? Do you think he could supplant Goldberg in that #10 spot? Outside of Hogan, Sting was pretty much the face of WCW during its formative years was he not? If we’re talking about it a guy that was “the face” of a company and was synonymous with a major brand, then Sting would have to rank up there somewhere right?

[Ruien]

With respect to hockey, there are many people out there that consider Orr to be greater than Wayne and so I’d argue that the NHL is debatable as well. While Gretzky destroyed Lemieux in every statistical category, Lemieux was one of the only players in the NHL to have crazy stats during the “dead puck” era of the NHL (1995-2004), although in Gretzky’s defense, he was a little bit older during this time.

There is no debate for the NFL GOAT anymore. You can't argue against Brady anymore.

Don't think anyone really argues against Babe Ruth for MLB. If Trout ever gets on a winning team he might enter the discussion but he is with the Angels so no one has to worry about that.

NBA is contested by two people with a few long shots thrown in every now and then.

[Reacher]

There is no debate for the NFL GOAT anymore. You can't argue against Brady anymore.

Don't think anyone really argues against Babe Ruth for MLB. If Trout ever gets on a winning team he might enter the discussion but he is with the Angels so no one has to worry about that.

NBA is contested by two people with a few long shots thrown in every now and then.

Agreed about Brady.

I would actually go as far as saying that he may have surpassed Michael Jordan and Pele in the terms of being the GOAT for all sports.

[wwe2222]

I give credit to Hogan kicking off the two biggest booms in wrestling history. The 80s with Hulkamania, and the 90s with the NWO.

The only guy that could've made that NWO angle blow up like it did by turning heel was Hogan. That led into the Monday Night Wars and the Attitude Era. Im not sure you get the 90s boom without Hogan turning.

[Destor]

Hey Destor was just curious - where would you put Sting here? Do you think he could supplant Goldberg in that #10 spot? Outside of Hogan, Sting was pretty much the face of WCW during its formative years was he not? If we’re talking about it a guy that was “the face” of a company and was synonymous with a major brand, then Sting would have to rank up there somewhere right?
Ive had this conversation about Sting on here a few times and no one ever agrees but I stand by it:

Stings career is one night away from putting him in a whole other category. Starrcade 97 is imo what lost WCW the war. Hogan and Sting went out and delivered a big turd on a night that had more eyeballs than they ever had. had that night delivered on the (truly excellent) build the 90s could very reasonably went VERY differently. But it went the way it went and it goes down in my mind as the single most significant blunder in wrestling history and with it puts a great failure on Sting's resume.

Conversely its Goldberg that kept WCW in the game throughout 98. Without him getting red hot when he did Id wager WCW would have collapsed much sooner without any baby face you could push. DDP got hot around this time so you might have been able to lean on him but we start getting into the weeds with what ifs at this point and this conversation is about what was and not what could have been.

Ultimately I put Sting in the camp with the Michaels and the like. Great talent but never broke through to be one of the Legends amongst Legends. But he was so close.

And Goldberg was 90% booking and marketing. There's a reason he burnt out so quickly and it also why he just baaaaaaaaaarely squeaks into the conversation. But the money generated in that time was fucking wild and I cant just ignore it because he was so mediocre in the ring. You go back and listen the those crowds in mid 98. It was a special kind of over few ever reach.

[Destor]

I give credit to Hogan kicking off the two biggest booms in wrestling history. The 80s with Hulkamania, and the 90s with the NWO.

The only guy that could've made that NWO angle blow up like it did by turning heel was Hogan. That led into the Monday Night Wars and the Attitude Era. Im not sure you get the 90s boom without Hogan turning.its a storng argument. IMO it was a large portion of the WCW audience leaving Nitro for Raw that put the WWF on top...but what weight do we attribute why they left being BECAUSE of Hogan? Im of the opinion that as much as he drew them in his inability to put Sting over (and just having an AWFUL "mania" [see: starrcade] match in general) is why they left.

Should that not factor against him in equal parts?

[Jordan]

That is a good point. Which I why I think you could consider the guy next to Hogan is Cena. Cena consistently kept WWE above average numbers for years and years. Longer than Hogan or Austin/Rock combined. His longevity at the top, huge merch numbers and consistent house show/attendance has to be a consideration. The thing is with Hogan/Austin/Cena the fans all grew "tired" of them at some point. With Cena though it happened earlier rather than later. As time went on he eventually gained the respect of the internet fans and was consistently having great PPV matches. I know it's kind of crazy to say it because we didn't "grow up" with Cena and most of rolled our eyes for years every time we heard his music play, but he's in a league of his own in a lot of ways.

[Bad News Gertner]

Ive had this conversation about Sting on here a few times and no one ever agrees but I stand by it:

Stings career is one night away from putting him in a whole other category. Starrcade 97 is imo what lost WCW the war. Hogan and Sting went out and delivered a big turd on a night that had more eyeballs than they ever had. had that night delivered on the (truly excellent) build the 90s could very reasonably went VERY differently. But it went the way it went and it goes down in my mind as the single most significant blunder in wrestling history and with it puts a great failure on Sting's resume.

Conversely its Goldberg that kept WCW in the game throughout 98. Without him getting red hot when he did Id wager WCW would have collapsed much sooner without any baby face you could push. DDP got hot around this time so you might have been able to lean on him but we start getting into the weeds with what ifs at this point and this conversation is about what was and not what could have been.

Ultimately I put Sting in the camp with the Michaels and the like. Great talent but never broke through to be one of the Legends amongst Legends. But he was so close.

And Goldberg was 90% booking and marketing. There's a reason he burnt out so quickly and it also why he just baaaaaaaaaarely squeaks into the conversation. But the money generated in that time was fucking wild and I cant just ignore it because he was so mediocre in the ring. You go back and listen the those crowds in mid 98. It was a special kind of over few ever reach.

I 100% agree with you about Sting

[Destor]

bout time someone did

[IC Champion]

You’re all wrong.

The correct answer is Danhausen.

[IC Champion]

Love that Danhausen.

[Fignuts]

Sting was never even that great in the ring. Maybe with the right people in the ring with him (flair). But on his own he's good, but not great.

[Destor]

sting was as good as who he was working. sting didnt need be carried but he couldnt carry. either put him with someone who can work or dont expect much.

[Destor]

sting is like silly putty. you rub flair on him youll get a flair match. you rub luger on him youll get a luger match.

[Destor]

but there isnt really a sting match

[Bad News Gertner]

I've looked at Sting in ring the same way I look at Triple H for the same reasons Destor stated. He'll keep his end of the bargain.

It's a real shame that he blew out his knee at the Clash X

[Destor]

i think H until 2000 or so was putting together really clever stuff. you could always tell his matches had clear influences (which is to say a bit derivative) but he put them together in fresh ways. i think after the quad tear in.. 01? he wasnt the same worker. a guy who didnt have his position would have struggled to hold that spot.

[Destor]

which isnt to say he was bad. he was never bad. he just was out paced by a lot of guys on the roster.

[Destor]

but after that run he used a lo more gaga and gimmicks.

[Destor]

gone were the days of H vs X for 25 min telling a story through holds. he found ways to stay over though to his credit. despite his position in the company he kept working hard. he could have gotten away with be very lazy. a criticism i dont think anyone could fairly lob at him.

[Destor]

but for my money he doesnt come up in the GOAT convo

[IC Champion]

After his quad tear I feel like the combination of his injury plus putting on so much muscle mass really hampered his mobility and agility. I don’t think anyone in the 90s would ever accuse him of being slow and plodding, but his later run he just didn’t have it anymore, and it could often make for a long, boring affair.

[thekrow]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2OzKzdWhiUc" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When I hear THE GOAT, the only thing that comes to mind first, is THE GOAT James Blade.
One of the most charismatic people to ever step into a wrestling ring. This man on the microphone is up there with the greats and he is a good wrestler too. There's a reason he is THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME and ready for prime time!!!!!

[Destor]

yeah. thats a good call. I'll go edit my post. :y:

[Bad News Gertner]

Check and mate

[Destor]

we should prolly close the thread. the matter has been settled.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The answer is Kenny Omega:

-Nobody has had as many 5+ star matches as him.

-Legit main eventer in two promotions that were built on his back, essentially. New Japan had been around for years, obviously, but was struggling and he increased their business. They are still benefiting!

-Was a bad promo, maybe, in his ROH days, but is now hilarious on the mic and delivers in a unique and eloquent way. “69 me, Don!” :lol:

-Looks like a star. Was on billboards and fucking trains in Japan. You can’t buy that sort of publicity!

-And he’s obviously great in the ring. No one has ever been smoother. Makes Kobashi look like a fucking brick.

-Can work any style. Never saw Terry Funk do lucha.

Austin may have sold more t-shirts with the WWE platform behind him. Terry Funk was pretty good for a territory rassler. Ric Flair is mainly remembered because of nostalgia and the WWE giving him a push in the 2000’s. Hulk Hogan didn’t have workrate and needed Vince to get over. The Rock has had a more successful movie career (so far), but think about it: Is there anything any of them they can do what Kenny can do?

The answer is Kenny Omega. End (see what I did there?) of discussion.

[Jordan]

-Can work any style. Never saw Terry Funk do lucha.


:rofl:

[IC Champion]

I can remember when Noid wasn’t completely insane.

[Seanny One Ball]

but there isnt really a sting match


Sting wins.

That's a Sting match.

[Jordan]

I retract my vote for Hogan in this topic and apologize. It's Austin, Austin is the GOAT. There is no debate.

[Lock Jaw]

Charlotte is the GOAT

[Bad News Gertner]

It's JBL