|
This is so stupid.
Look Narc, a wrestler has many criteria in which to perform his vocation. One of these criteria is in-ring performance. Another is selling. If you can do every move there is, and can't sell, you won't be a better wrestler than a guy that can.
Another criteria is drawing crowd reaction. If a wrestler can wrestle well and sell moves, but cannot draw a strong crowd reaction, he won't be a better wrestler than a guy that can do all three.
You may have a guy that can do all three, but has bad mic skills. Well, in comparison to a guy that performs well in all these 5 criteria, he just won't be the better wrestler.
If you need more of these criteria, I can cantinue.
The point is, a wrestler isn't judged purely on what they do physically from bell to bell, there are many different things that make up a good wrestler. Their look, Their gimmick, Their drawing power, Their charisma, Their ability to shock, how much they entertain you generally.
Many of these different criteria can outweigh others in different situations. For example, The Rock is not the best mat wrestler in the world by a long way. But he had masses of charisma, he was innovative, one of the biggest draws of all time, hugely entertaining and probably the best on the mic. Those things which we all agree he is stronger than HBK in, made him the Better Wrestler from the two.
And that is just...... it really.
|