I unfortunately wasn't able to vote in the 1st round of the tournament because I was not able to get my account logged into the site for some reason, but now that it's working, I definitely plan on participating from here on.
It seems the 1st round is over, and I am thankful that the votes did not reflect the posts for the thread of this particular matchup. Because if I could've voted, I would've definitely supported Buddy Rogers here.
Here's the deal. Yes Ahmed Johnson was a monster and bad-ass. Yes he had plenty of potential. Yes in a kayfabe match or especially in a real life fight, Ahmed would've probably destroyed Buddy. But I just could not have in good conscience voted for a man whose career lasted only a few years and whose biggest highlight was being the Intercontinental Champion over unquestionably one of the most important wrestlers in American wrestling history. Allow me to explain.
First, my opinions on Ahmed Johnson. I liked Ahmed Johnson very much as a kid, like most people here have stated. I had been wrestling fan for about 5-6 years when Ahmed debuted. He had an awesome look, and was decent enough in the ring that he had interesting matches. Yeah you weren't watching Bret Hart or Dory Funk Jr.-esque technical classics, but for the part of the no-nonsense/smash-mouth style of wrestling Ahmed played this part well and always put on good matches of this type. Ahmed to me was like Goldberg. He didn't need an arsenal of a thousand moves to put on good performances, his look and intensity was enough to get him over. And make no mistake about it, he was over. He had potential and probably would've been World Champion, and a solid one at that. I think his moveset was decent enough that he would've been fine as a main eventer. Who knows, if his career lasted longer and he had been in the ring with more seasoned wrestlers he might've improved himself.
His potential was great, but let's look at facts, what did he really accomplish? Not much. He was I-C champion, but so were plenty of other guys at the time. He feuded with the Nation of Domination which was a good, entertaining storyline. But his career in the WWE lasted about two years, then he had a brief run in WCW and was never heard from again.
Good talent, tons of potential, but in the grand scheme of pro wrestling, he is a blip on the radar at best.
Now let's look at Buddy Rogers. One of wrestling's most controversial figures ever. No doubt. Many have went on record as to how much of a dick and asshole he was in his prime. He was very much the Shawn Michaels (circa 1990's) of his era. One of the greatest performers in the world, a loudmouth, obnoxious prick, and a guy who could've (and did) had his ass handed to him by just about everyone in the wrestling business.
But this matchup isn't about who was the nicer guy. It's about who was the better wrestler. The criteria for a particular persons's votes for this tournament from what I understand is to either a) who you feel was the greater/more significant wrestler; b) who would win in a kayfabe matchup; c) personal preference, etc.
Whichever you choose. For this tournament I will mostly be voting on who I feel was overall the greater professional wrestler, and in this matchup, Ahmed Johnson couldn't lace Buddy Rogers' boots.
Ahmed may have killed him, but again his place in wrestling history is nothing to Buddy Rogers. Buddy Rogers is one of the most significant and influential wrestlers of all-time, hands down. Buddy Rogers was the first "true heel" in the business. Yes, Gorgeous George was pretty much the first bad guy and wrestler with a gimmick. And anyone who has read any of my previous posts should know how much I respect and admire Gorgeous George. Besides Frank Gotch, Ed "Strangler" Lewis, Lou Thesz, and Hulk Hogan, he's probably the most important wrestler in American pro wrestling history. But Gorgeous George got heat from audiences for basically playing a gay guy, or a guy with "feminine qualities." In the early 1950's, that was fine, but in truth, his overness as a heel isn't exactly a wonderful example to set for heels and doesn't speak too positively of our society. A guy shouldn't be hated for being gay or having feminine qualities. Wrong or right, it worked for Gorgeous George and he changed the business forever, but ummm yeah, he's not exactly my idea of what a true heel should be.
The first guy to examplify what a real heel is? You guessed it, Buddy Rogers. The guy that was the classy, sporty, articulate prick who acts like he's better than everyone. The popular, jock who gets all the girls and the money and who you deep down wish you could be. That is the arch-type for a wrestling heel, the kind of guy you hate and want to see get his ass kicked. Forget Ric Flair, Buddy Rogers started that. Buddy Rogers' gimmick set the standard and personified just about every major trait that a wrestling heel possesses. Not every heel is the playboy "I'm better than you" asshole of course (see Jake Roberts and the more recent version of Randy Orton, or early Undertaker), but there would be no real true heels in the business without Buddy Rogers. For that alone, his legacy and place in wrestling history is bigger than almost anybody's, certainly much more than Ahmed Johnson.
In addition to that, much like Shawn Michaels in the 1990's, almost all of Buddy's peers hated him on a personal level, but few denied his abilities to perform and put on a show and draw in crowds. And few denied how much he affected the business. Especially as time went along. Buddy was a guy who changed the business. His peers like Lou Thesz and Bill Miller, guys who were renowked shooters hated Buddy not only for his principles and ummm, lack of professionalism, but also for what he was doing to change the business, by bringing more showsmanship and less technical skill and shooting. In his time he was ridiculed, but in his later years even Lou Thesz, Buddy's basic mortal enemy in the business conceded that Buddy Rogers helped to change the business and was a great performer and tremendous draw. And he was. Buddy Rogers was hands down one of the top draws in wrestling during the late 1950's and early 1960's. His appearances brought territories up from nothing attendance and money wise, which was why the NWA was up McMahon's and Mondt's asses to get Rogers booked with other territories and why he was made champion. Because he was a huge draw. Which is what they say makes a great wrestler. A guy who put butts in seats. Rogers did that and more. Until the wrestling boom of the 1980's, Buddy Rogers and Pat O Connor held the record for the highest attendance for a wrestling match in history. Largely because of Buddy Rogers and people wanting to see him lose. Everyone wanted to see him lose and get his butt kicked. That's the basis for modern pro wrestling and the existence of heels, and while there were those who created that idea before Buddy Rogers, no one did it better or solidified that concept more than Buddy.
I just couldn't in good conscience vote for Ahmed over Buddy. Most of my voting will go to wrestlers who were greater wrestlers IMO, and much of my opinion on who was greater will depend on who I feel made more of an impact on wrestling. That's just how I judge and critique everything, pro wrestlers no exception. We're allowed to do that, so that's how I'll be voting in most cases once the rest of the tournament gets under way. This match would've been no different.
I just decided to make this post because again I noticed everyone making cases for Ahmed Johnson, and I didn't read I don't think one really good case for Buddy, so even though he won (barely), I felt the need to make a case for him.
Looking forward to joining in here for the rest of the tournament.
