Your "Mount Rushmore" of All-Arounders

[Wishbone]

Originally Posted by Noid I agree with what you are saying there, but does that make him an all-rounder? It does make him special, I agree, but an all-rounder? The things you're saying he didn't have are the things that I think would generally be agreed upon as criteria. Kudos to you for doing your own thing, but I think how we are defining versatility is just very different.

Fair enough. Personally I'm grading guys on an imaginary scale sorta like how the WWE games used to (or maybe still do) have the overall ratings. To me Undertaker's overall rating when you calculate up his in-ring ability, charisma, mic skills, etc comes out really high. Of course I'd say he's ranked lower in mic skills than the others on my list, but his other areas make up for it in my eyes. I think I'm also adding in the intangible "it factor" to the mix too. Anyway the OP asked for our own personal mount Rushmores so I don't really think there's a wrong answer. Like you said, we all grade differently. I mean a lot of guys have been putting older wrestlers on their list, but I left anyone who wasn't around full-time after late '97/'98 off because I wasn't watching before then and it'd be hard for me to judge guys I don't know much about.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Wishbone Fair enough. Personally I'm grading guys on an imaginary scale sorta like how the WWE games used to (or maybe still do) have the overall ratings. To me Undertaker's overall rating when you calculate up his in-ring ability, charisma, mic skills, etc comes out really high. Of course I'd say he's ranked lower in mic skills than the others on my list, but his other areas make up for it in my eyes. I think I'm also adding in the intangible "it factor" to the mix too. Anyway the OP asked for our own personal mount Rushmores so I don't really think there's a wrong answer. Like you said, we all grade differently. I mean a lot of guys have been putting older wrestlers on their list, but I left anyone who wasn't around full-time after late '97/'98 off because I wasn't watching before then and it'd be hard for me to judge guys I don't know much about.

Oh, it's not wrong, per se, but I'm just not sure I agree with the assessment that even with that criteria that Taker is up there. Maybe in terms of kayfabe...but then surely John Cena, Randy Orton, Triple H and Edge are all better? And Brock because he's good in the ring, beat Taker at WrestleMania, and his little vignettes in the back are as effective as Rock promos.

When it comes to "it factor," I also tried to factor in drawing power to some extent. I almost kicked Shawn Michaels off my list because of it. Taker is, historically, one of the worst drawing champions of all-time -- especially as a babyface. If that doesn't measure "it factor," I don't know what does.

He's got that gimmick mystique, which I think helps any big man, but Andre the Giant had mystique too. Could you put him on an all-rounders list?