|
Sorry, I don't want to sound like I'm calling your pick "stupid" or anything, Wishbone -- by all means feel the Dead Man if you do -- but I find him one of the more interesting suggestions put forward to discuss, because to me, I'd expect him to be one of the more widely agreed to be limited guys suggested.
I mean, that's why Hogan hasn't come up, isn't it? Hogan knew how to work for those WWF audiences. But he wasn't exactly the most versatile in the ring. His promos are iconic, but not exactly eloquent masterpieces of a whole range of emotions. You want to measure star power? He'd be right there with Austin, Rock and Andre. Well, you could then go back and argue territory guys, proportionately, but that's an entirely different discussion. This is the more imminently interesting discussion because there is that wider interpretation of what goes into being an all-rounder.
So please don't take it as me "slamming your opinion" or whatever or trying to make you feel shit about enjoying or suggesting Taker. I find him one of the more stirring answers you can give. I just cannot wrap my head around any sort of objective measurement to go along with your subjective opinion of him that would put him in the top four of almost anything. Even gimmicks is questionable, as just how to define a gimmick is quite broad -- Flair could be considered a gimmick, Hogan a gimmick, Savage a gimmick, Austin a gimmick and even Brock's modern day ass-kicking machine in a world of flip-flop guys a gimmick.
Taker might be the most distant from his true personality to ever achieve such a large, long-term success in the wrestling business. It seems that everybody that gets to the top is somewhat "them turned up to 11." Taker's ABA run was kept generally short.
|