Fox Sports 11 greatest WWE superstars

No hate towards Cena but the others were in an era where wrestlers were a bigger crossover to the average person through the media. Cena drives the WWE but wrestling isn't seen anywhere near the way it was back during those eras.
 
Bret Hart was A guy on THE deepest roster in WWE history. Shawn Michaels. Stone Cold, 'Taker, Razor, Diesel, you had the Godwinns, Yokozuna, Owen Hart, Savio Vega need I go on?

I will take Bret's matches over Cena's anyday.

UMMmmmmmm...... Did you really post the Next Generation incarnation lineup as the deepest roster in WWE history?

Savio Vega, The Godwins really?

Are you trying to stir up controversy in this thread or are you serious?
 
UMMmmmmmm...... Did you really post the Next Generation incarnation lineup as the deepest roster in WWE history?

Savio Vega, The Godwins really?

Are you trying to stir up controversy in this thread or are you serious?
sendpm.gif

Is your knowledge limited to what WWE spoons feeds you or are you serious? Gogle "TNT" "World Wrestling Council" or better yet YouTube it
 
Dude please stop already. You obviously need to be right, I'm done with it. Stop posting now, you turned my thread into something I didn't intend it to be
 
11.) Andre the Giant
10.) Hulk Hogan
9.) Randy Savage
8.) Ric Flair
7.) Shawn Micahels
6.) Bret Hart
5.) The Rock
4.) The Undertaker
3.) Triple H
2.) Steve Austin
1.) Bruno Sammartino

This was the list Fox Sports gave in the order that I read it. I don't know if the rankings were in any order or if they were random, but all the big names seem to be there, with a few exceptions.

The list is missing...

John Cena
Bob Backlund
Billy Graham

I agree with the arguments about kicking Savage for Cena. As good as Randy Savage was, John Cena is solidly better across the board. He's got the accolades, the longevity, the consistency, and the popularity to boast and the fact that he was not on the list really makes me question the criteria that Fox Sports used. Maybe current stars from the last decade were exempt.

I personally would bump Bret Hart for Bob Backlund. Bob was better than Bret in every way imaginable, and while I do think the Hitman was great I don't think he's good enough to make a top 11. Bob was, and I don't have any clue how Fox Sports could have overlooked him. Bruno just feels like a novelty on their list now.

I'd bump Flair. Flair made his name in other promotions outside the WWE and didn't really start becoming relevant until he was already past his prime, coasting on reputation that he didn't forge in the WWE. It would be like having Sting or Harley Race on a WWE list.

Billy Graham I'd have on there for his influence. It was his image and personality that laid the foundation for the huge, musclebound larger than life characters that WWE would soon peddle in bulk in the years to come.

You agree for the arguments kicking Savage out for Cena? HAHAHAHA Ok then. I bet you'd also consider arguments kicking Hogan out to include Randy Orton. I realize that some people have differing opinions compared to the majority, which is fine, but some of the posters here are a special brand of stupid. I swear most of these accounts must be WZ writer troll accounts. I mean who in their right mind can objectively say things like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels or Randy Savage aren't three of the top 10 WWF wrestlers of all time? I mean its like trying to present a rational argument for lizard people running the world. It's absolutely ridiculous. Either I'm in upside down world reading some of these posts or the WWE propaganda machine has done a fantastic job rewriting Savage and Hitman out of their legacies. Which is really scary.

In the case of this particular comment, I read the line Cena 'has the accolades, the consistency, the popularity, the longevity' over Savage. What a load of steaming bull. I don't know if I've ever read such a big fat lie in my life. Cena has had a 13 year career..Savage had 27 years. That is twice the career Cena has had to date. Consistency? What's was so inconsistent about Randy Savage? That he went to WCW?? Cena has more popularity than Savage? Last time I checked over half the WWE universe (a 1.9 tv rating) absolutely hates Cena. And by hate I don't mean Macho King type hate. I mean like Honky Tonk Man held the IC title for 1.5 years so I'm not watching his segments anymore hate. Savage was must see TV. Savage was draw #2 behind Hogan (the greatest draw of all time). And just look at any fans' best of lists when it comes to matches or wrestlers. Savage almost always shows up at the top on every single one. Cena, however, is polarizing as fuck. Most of the old audience (a 5.1 rating that isn't there anymore) doesn't watch wrestling at all anymore thanks to John Cena. Couple that with half the audience who still watches but dislikes him and you have a wrestler who really isn't all that popular with anyone besides really dumb kids.

As for Bret, I mean seriously, don't even bother. Bob Backlund was the John Cena of the late 70s early 80s. Watching the guy was like watching paint dry. The decision makers put a title on his waist and left it there until they found Hulk Hogan. That's all Backlund was. He was a guy with a wholesome image and a corporate push. Compared to any era before or after, he sold squat. And like Cena, he had tons of hate and for all the wrong reasons. Ironically, Backlund only became interested because of Bret Hart a decade later. Backlund's heel character was entertaining as fuck. But it was 'Bret' who made Backlund relevant. It was 'Bret' who brought out the 'best' in Bob.

Bruno feels like a novelty? Flair doesn't belong in a best of list? My god, go and learn a thing about wrestling history. Oh and Billy Graham deserves a spot on this list? For what? Having a FIVE year wrestling career?? Give me an fn break!! If he was so influential, then why don't we include Dynamite Kid and kick out Triple H. Since JP Levesque hasn't influenced anyone.
 
In this huge rambling post of mostly ignorance this stood out. Savage was not a huge draw by any means. He was a decent draw, but not a huge one. In fact, of the names listed if you were to base the rankings just off drawing power Savage would be on the bottom along with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Selling tee shirts and whatnot is not drawing power. That's called being marketable. Savage was definitely more marketable than most, but he's still a far cry from Hogan, Rock, Austin, Andre, or Cena.

My rambling? I read through your joke of a post and woke the neighbours up with my laughter. Savage not a draw? Were you even alive in the late 80s? Savage: A far cry from Rock, Hogan, Austin, Andre or Cena? WHAT? What are you smoking? Seriously. Do I really need to argue your post at all? It seems to me it speaks for itself. You have not one sweet clue of anything you're even talking about. Your ignorance shines through. Go learn a thing or a million about wrestling history and then get back to kid. Dig it?
 
I'm talking about BOOM periods. Where the current era VASTLY surpassed the previous era in terms of popularity, financially, overall product etc.... I can only count two "BOOM" periods; the 1980's golden age (of which Savage is a part of) and the Attitude Era. The WWE has remained stagnant for the last 10 years. The "needle" hasn't moved.

From a financial standpoint the needle has moved allot over the last several years. And for that reason you could just as easily designate the current era as a "boom period." The whole idea behind the designation of boom periods is financial growth. And since we are just talking about WWE as a singular promotion and not the pro wrestling industry as a whole I fail to see how you could suggest otherwise.

I'm approaching it from a creative standpoint, a popularity standpoint, a historical standpoint. Of course they made more in 2008 look at all the different vehicles of revenue generation!! It's a different world from 2008 to 1998 and ever FAR more different than in 1988. It's comparing apples to oranges in terms of finances but what I DO know the product was FAR superior in 1988 and 1998 in terms of creativity, popularity, etc....

So the Attitude Era was not the most financially successful period of the WWE. Glad we could clear that up. You might have some merit claiming that the WWE was better creatively in the past than it is in the present, seeing as how less people overall follow the product now then compared to back then. But as I already pointed and you completely ignored, WWE has no major competition. They can afford to be safe and not take chances. And because of that Cena faces a rate of overexposure far more potent than what Savage and Austin would have faced. And he still manages to adapt his style and persona and keep his spot as the top star in the company. Savage was never the top star in the WWE. He was always overshadowed by someone else.

Randy Savage was ALIVE for most of the past two decades smart ass. The WWE talks alot NOW but they didn't for a LONG time. For most the past two decades they were SILENT on Savage. Leading to an outcry from fans about WHY the silent treatment for Savage.

That means very little. Ultimately the WWE can choose to praise and ignore anyone they want to. It's both a negative and positive propaganda machine.

Also I don't think Savage's impact on the industry was anywhere near as great as you think it was. Savage wasn't the top star of his era. He didn't carry the WWE to new heights. He didn't have a persona that countless wrestlers emulated after he retired. He was a great worker and had a colorful persona. But the same can be said of Cena. The difference is that Cena is the top star in the company. He did carry the WWE to new finincial heights. And he is an enigma in the pro wrestling world due to how polarizing he is.

No you're just a mark.

You don't even know what the term "mark" means. It makes you look like a moron trying to insult me with it.

And who was on 'Mania 3? Savage

And did he headline? Nope.

I'm sorry when I think of "Fruity Pebbbles" I don't think of John Cena and vice versa.....maybe you do.

And when I think of Slim Jim's I don't think of Randy Savage. That's the whole point of me bringing up Fruity Pebbles.

You obviously haven't heard King Curtis Iaukea. Look him up

Doesn't matter. My point was that Savage was certainly not to first to popularize saying "oh yeah." But do you think anyone else has come up with and made popular the phrase "Hustle, Loyalty, Respect?" Nope.

Also in a era where WWE has 12 PPv's compared to four and two weekly programs on network and cable TV

So? If anything having those should and does hurt Cena's potential drawing power. And yet he still managed to become a bigger drawing card than Savage. Cena also works less matches each year on average than the Macho Man did back in the 80's.

OK smart ass so let's compare Backlund's three best years to Bret's three best years in terms of 'gate" numbers or is that not in Meltzer's book? How about it tells you business was DOWN in Bret''s years.

The industry as a whole was also in a doldrums during the 1970's but that didn't stop Bob Backlund from being a massive drawing card.

Who cares about "at the top".Hogan was AT THE TOP in those yearts but Bret was still SUCCESSFUL.

Successful sure, but he was a mid card act. When it comes to discussing the "greatest of all time" then Bret's prime when he was on top should be the only thing that matters. And Bret, when it comes to his longevity and consistency ON TOP was no where near Bob Backlund's league.

He was part of one of the greatest tag teams of ALL TIME.

So?

Overshadowed by Austin?!? He was Austin's MAIN rival. There would be no Stone Cold if not for Bret Hart. Look up WrestleMania 13 an get back to me.

That's an extremely subjective statement. Austin was destined for greatness even without Bret Hart.
 
My rambling? I read through your joke of a post and woke the neighbours up with my laughter. Savage not a draw? Were you even alive in the late 80s? Savage: A far cry from Rock, Hogan, Austin, Andre or Cena? WHAT? What are you smoking? Seriously. Do I really need to argue your post at all? It seems to me it speaks for itself. You have not one sweet clue of anything you're even talking about. Your ignorance shines through. Go learn a thing or a million about wrestling history and then get back to kid. Dig it?

Well clearly you can't read. Because if you look at my profile it shows my age. So clearly I was alive in the 80's. Also I stated that Savage, as a marketable star, was a far cry from Rock, Hogan, Austin, Andre, Cena which is totally true. The WWE has made millions of dollars off of those guys respectively through merchandise, television, movies, and other mediums. Did they ever makes millions off of just Savage's likeness? Nope. That's not the same thing as being a drawing card. IE selling tickets to venues based off your own name value. Of which Savage doesn't even crack the top 30, according to any reputable measuring scale.

You Savage fanboys throw around terms like "draw" like you know what you're talking about when in reality you don't have the first fucking clue. Take your own advice pal.
 
I will not take a man who has anime drawing of little girls seriously...Anyway, you're clearly a product of eating the shit that WWE spoon feeds you. Anything Michael Cole (the greatest commentator in your opinion) says is fact. The buzz words that WWE uses really excite you. According to you, Cena is the greatest of all time and his classics with R-Truth and K Fed are bigger deals than The Mega Powers and Savage Steamboat at WM3. Now of course, Cena's involvement in The Marine and 12 Rounds elevated those films to epic levels and people still talk about them to this day. They're greater than Die Hard and T2 respectively.
 
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Savage IS NOT number 11. He is no lower than number 6, strong case could be made for him being #1! This list isn't about 'faces' it's about 'wrestlers'. And it's about WWE (Flair spent most of his 35 year career outside of WWF). It is not about Hollywood in Rock's case or overall impact/legacy in Austin's case. It's the list of the 11 best wrestlers (overall entertainers) Michaels is pound for pound the greatest wrestling entertainer of all time after Savage in overall everything. He's Mr. Wrestlemania, you clown! Undertaker is fantastic but he's a GIMMICK. He's not on this list because of his charisma or because of wrestling ability. He's on this list because of how epic his character has been booked by a booking team. Savage and Michaels relied on their ability as performers. They were not booked to win piles of titles or to carry the company although they both easily could have. Combined they won less titles than the immortally booked Triple H because they DIDN'T need them to get over. And Savage was a massive draw!How old are you anyway? 14? You're telling me Andre sold more Tshirts and merchandise at any point in his WWE career compared to Savage? How about compared to the Miz? Andre sold out the independent circuit in the 70s, not the big stage at WM 4or 5 or 8 let alone WM 7 or 3 (Hogan drew the biggest gate ever, and Savage wrestled the greatest two of three matches ever..at both those WMs..Andre did none of the above!) Rock transcended wrestling sure. He was in and out of the WWF, and all of wrestling on a full time basis, after just 7 years! And he sucked bad his first year. Austin only got big near the very of his 13 year career and could only stun people and drink beer for his final 3 or 4 years. Freaking Savage and Michaels wrestled 25 plus years! And Michaels wrestled 20 of those years for the WWF! Both Savage and Michaels put on the absolute greatest matches in wrestling history! Savage was legendary all over the territories in the US and Canada before his WWF career even began! And he had a more than decent WCW run where he padded his amazing career resume.

First of all, when you start engaging in name calling, it is a sign that you lost the argument. It is very obvious that you are a Savage fanboy. I get that. You may have your opinion, but not your own facts. As for me? take a look at the upper left hand corner. You will see my age. I have been watching wrestling since your mother was still probably in grade school. I can stand here and actually say that I remember Eddie Einhorn's IWA. What was the IWA? It was the first attempt at a "National" federation. It predated Vince Jr.'s attempt by 10 years. I remember the Mighty Igor coming down the aisle eating a big piece of kielbasa. Gino Brito and Dino Bravo in their wars with the Mongols. Oh, and I remember when WWWF Championship Wrestling was only seen in New York on Channel 47 (Spanish language) at 11:30 on a Friday night.

As for Savage: No, he was not a draw. Not like Backlund. Not like Hogan. Definitely not like Bruno or the Rock. He had his fans, yes. But, there were many a Monday night in Madison Square Garden during Savage's title reign when you had 9,000-13,000 show up. This was BEFORE the big stages that WWE now employ. The wrestlers came down the same aisle that the Knicks and Rangers came down. No set. No fireworks. No Titantron You might think that this was great. For now? Maybe. For a venue that used to sell out with 25,000 EVERY third Monday for Backlund, Hogan, Graham and Sammartino? Not so much. Granted, he made his forays into the mainstream with his Slim Jim commercials. But, so did King Kong Bundy and George "The Animal" Steele with their commercials as well. They are not in anyone's Top 11.

You also have to take into account, since you are the one who mentioned "Savage being a legend in other areas", the six years he spent in his Father's "Vanity project": the International Championship Wrestling promotion (Not to be confused with Mario Savoldi's version). You know, the one he set up because he felt his sons were being "misused". The one that had Lanny Poffo as its World Champion, and Randy Savage fighting him for over 6 years, winning the ICW strap 3 times in the process. I mean, why would he not? That was his father's intention, right? Again, I am looking at the whole body of work here.

That said, let us look at Andre the Giant: Andre was a "special attraction". They had these in the days of the Territories. Until the early 80's, you could have an card at an arena in the South that would announce Christ's Second Coming. And the King of Kings himself would confirm his attendance. However, if Andre was booked for the same card on the same night. guess who would get to billing? Safe to say it was not the Lord. Now, back in those days, there were no foam fingers, shirts, hats, wristbands. They had programs and photographs for sale. Usually, they were 5x7's. Sometimes, you would also have 8x10's. you would buy a photo, and go up to the ring after the match, and get it signed. That was the extent of the marketing in those days. Andre was all over the USA. And, he drew all over until the early 80's. His legacy is very much intact.

As for Flair: Granted, most of his career was in the NWA. I remember being on vacation in Virginia Beach with my Dad and my Aunt and her family. We drove to the Norfolk Scope to see Tony Atlas wrestle Flair in '79. Great night. Back to my point, since WWE took over much of JCP's library and history, they added his NWA history. Though you MAY have an argument for Shaun Michaels, he transcended eras. And, he performed at a top level AFTER coming back from his injuries. Furthermore, he also helped develop young wrestlers. One of his students was someone from some place called Aberdeen, Washington.. I believe his name is Danielson. Or is it Bryan. I forget in my old age.

As for Trips: As I have said before and will say again, the book on Trips is STILL being written. You may argue that he had the same benefit as Savage did as Trips married into the McMahon family. However, unlike Savage, you can credit Trips with the development of the future in NXT. Savage was mostly about himself. Case in point was when Savage interfered in a match between Flair and Alex Wright. He got into Wright's face and told him "If you have a problem with what I just did to Flair, you have a problem with me!" Though it was storyline, it also showed the contempt the WCW vets had for the younger generation. Unlike Savage, Trips is constantly pushing the next generation. How many wrestlers had Savage developed?

Now, with THAT list is concerned, Savage brings up the rear. No disgrace, mind you. But number 6 is not happening. Maybe you were not born yet and are just listening to the stories. Maybe you watching the WWE Network, and saw only his stuff and proclaim Savage to be greater than he really was. Would I replace him with Cena? Negative. Backlund, Graham, Morales maybe. But not Cena. That said, before you start the age and name calling, read some posts from the one you are going to attack. Maybe you might learn something. Peace.
 
From a financial standpoint the needle has moved allot over the last several years. And for that reason you could just as easily designate the current era as a "boom period." The whole idea behind the designation of boom periods is financial growth. And since we are just talking about WWE as a singular promotion and not the pro wrestling industry as a whole I fail to see how you could suggest otherwise.

Where are the financial statements to suggest SIGNIFICANT growth over the past 10 years? You just stated 2008 was the mist profitable year in WWE"s history....that was 8 years ago!! If you're statement is correct the most financially successful period would've been somewhere closer to the year 2016. Where are your facts implying the needle has moved "alot".? Why hasn't the stock price gone up why haven't the TV ratongs or PPV buy rates gone up? Again you comparing apples to oranges. I would submit the WWE experienced FAR GREATER financial growth in the years 1984-1992 than 2008-2016 when comparing APPLES to APPLES. It means the GROWTH of the WWE as a COMPANY. Going from a regional promotion with no cable TV, no PPV, no shows past the East Coast to a NATIONAL promotion would FAR EXCEED whatever the WWE has done in the last 10 years.

Also I don't think Savage's impact on the industry was anywhere near as great as you think it was. Savage wasn't the top star of his era. He didn't carry the WWE to new heights. He didn't have a persona that countless wrestlers emulated after he retired. He was a great worker and had a colorful persona. But the same can be said of Cena. The difference is that Cena is the top star in the company. He did carry the WWE to new finincial heights. And he is an enigma in the pro wrestling world due to how polarizing he is.

You're right. Randy Savage is only one THE most popular and recognizable stars in the history of business. Savage wasn't the top star?!? Is anyone listening to this? No he wasn't THE top star but like I've said in the past we're talking about the BEST of the BEST. Vince picked THE BEST wrestler's from each territory to compete in the WWF. That's like saying well Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or James Worthy wasn't the best player on the Showtime Lakers. Get outta with that argument!! Savage was one the MAIN players on a HALL of FAME roster!! And he he ABSOLUTELY helped the WWF reach new heights!! Are you kidding me?!? He was one of the most popular wrestler's on the ENTIRE roster!!

And did he headline? Nope.

So being the second most important match on the card didn't mean anything? The fact that he almost ended Steamboat's career by crushing his larynx with a ringbell meant nothing right??? I guess fans didn't care about one the most heated rivalry/feuds going in the company at the time? So only the "headliner" gets credit for a MASSIVE house? I guess there were no other matches.

So? If anything having those should and does hurt Cena's potential drawing power. And yet he still managed to become a bigger drawing card than Savage. Cena also works less matches each year on average than the Macho Man did back in the 80's.

Please tell me you took match in school. 12 is greater than 4. If I have 12 opportunities to do something chances are...(if I AM GOOD), I will beat the guy with four chances. Cena works less but he is on TV, social media, Internet...a whole LOT more. He has advantages Savage never had.

The industry as a whole was also in a doldrums during the 1970's but that didn't stop Bob Backlund from being a massive drawing card.

Again, apples to oranges.

Successful sure, but he was a mid card act. When it comes to discussing the "greatest of all time" then Bret's prime when he was on top should be the only thing that matters. And Bret, when it comes to his longevity and consistency ON TOP was no where near Bob Backlund's league.

WRONG!! I take a wrestler's ENTIRE career into account. So you're saying we should discredit the work he put in with the Hart Foundation??? His run as I-C Champ??? I take all those into accounts. How so? Business was down in both era's. He has better promo skills, more charisma, better in-ring skills, greater matches. No one with a half a brain will put Bob Backlund ahead of Bret Hart.

That's an extremely subjective statement. Austin was destined for greatness even without Bret Hart.
__________________

No it's fact. He MIGHT have been but the FACT remains his feud with Bret Hart from 1996-1997 solidified his character with the fans. Only Bret could have pulled off the famous double turn at WM 13. Bret was still viewed as a "fan favorite" babyface with a loyal following, the double turn with Austin was a pure classic and sent Stone Cold skyward.
 
Where are the financial statements to suggest SIGNIFICANT growth over the past 10 years? You just stated 2008 was the mist profitable year in WWE"s history....that was 8 years ago!! If you're statement is correct the most financially successful period would've been somewhere closer to the year 2016. Where are your facts implying the needle has moved "alot".? Why hasn't the stock price gone up why haven't the TV ratongs or PPV buy rates gone up? Again you comparing apples to oranges. I would submit the WWE experienced FAR GREATER financial growth in the years 1984-1992 than 2008-2016 when comparing APPLES to APPLES. It means the GROWTH of the WWE as a COMPANY. Going from a regional promotion with no cable TV, no PPV, no shows past the East Coast to a NATIONAL promotion would FAR EXCEED whatever the WWE has done in the last 10 years.

This is one of the most laughable statements ever. In the past 10 years WWE has grown from a national level promotion to a global level promotion. They cater to fans in over 60 different countries. They tour globally several times a year. And Cena is their top star. Their flagstaff. He's the guy that casual fans are most likely to recognize. He is also WWE's top ambassador. WWE has grown tremendously as a promotion over the last decade. Far more than they ever did in the 80's or 90's. You'd have to be the special kind of stupid not to realize this.

Savage wasn't the top star?!?

No he wasn't. Cena is. And has been for the last 10 years.

Savage was one the MAIN players on a HALL of FAME roster!! And he he ABSOLUTELY helped the WWF reach new heights!! Are you kidding me?!? He was one of the most popular wrestler's on the ENTIRE roster!!

No, Savage was merely a prototypical cog in what would become the WWE machine. He wasn't fucking Hulk Hogan. Seriously. John Cena might also be just a glorified cog, but at least his likeness is everywhere. He's the only superstar that would be synonymous with wrestling and the WWE in this era. Not Taker, not Lesnar, not Orton. Savage, as popular as he was, was overshadowed by Hogan, got overshadowed by Warrior, went to WCW and got overshadowed there too. John Cena has never been overshadowed. he has kept his spot as THE man even when WWE uses him in a lesser role.

Your blind Savage fanboyism is just sad at this point. Trying to say that a guy who was constantly overshadowed was somehow better than the guy who has kept his spot as the company's top star for longer than anyone except Bruno Sammartino.

So being the second most important match on the card didn't mean anything? The fact that he almost ended Steamboat's career by crushing his larynx with a ringbell meant nothing right??? I guess fans didn't care about one the most heated rivalry/feuds going in the company at the time? So only the "headliner" gets credit for a MASSIVE house? I guess there were no other matches.

:lmao:

This is moronic. So somehow Savage being the secondary main event at Mania 3 somehow trumps Cena closing 5 Wrestlemania's. And no, the headliner doesn't get credit for the Mania house. WWE's brand name does. I have no idea where you got that from. The point is that Cena was chosen to headline more times than Savage because Cena was much better at headlining. WWE could sell Cena's likeness better than they ever could sell Savage's.

Please tell me you took match in school. 12 is greater than 4. If I have 12 opportunities to do something chances are...(if I AM GOOD), I will beat the guy with four chances. Cena works less but he is on TV, social media, Internet...a whole LOT more. He has advantages Savage never had.

975c59692943cb30e51f293bf087a528.jpg


We are talking drawing power here. You DO know what drawing power is right? Selling tickets and packing venues. The fact that Cena has all these marketable opportunities to sell his likeness hurts his drawing power immensely. WWE as a brand is the drawing card. WWE didn't quite have that kind of recognition in the 80's so Savage wasn't nearly as hindered by that as Cena is. And despite that CENA STILL BECAME A BIGGER DRAWING THAN RANDY SAVAGE.

That shows just how much Savage rode the early WWE promotional machine and how much of a cog he truly was.

Again, apples to oranges.

No it's not. Drawing power is the only thing that has remained constant throughout every era of pro wrestling. Backlund sold out venues left and right on a constant basis for years. Bret didn't.

WRONG!! I take a wrestler's ENTIRE career into account. So you're saying we should discredit the work he put in with the Hart Foundation??? His run as I-C Champ??? I take all those into accounts. How so? Business was down in both era's. He has better promo skills, more charisma, better in-ring skills, greater matches. No one with a half a brain will put Bob Backlund ahead of Bret Hart.

Who cares what a wrestler did during his rookie days. The only thing that matters is their primes. And Bob Backlund's prime solidly trumps Bret Hart's. Only stupid people would suggest otherwise.

No it's fact. He MIGHT have been but the FACT remains his feud with Bret Hart from 1996-1997 solidified his character with the fans. Only Bret could have pulled off the famous double turn at WM 13. Bret was still viewed as a "fan favorite" babyface with a loyal following, the double turn with Austin was a pure classic and sent Stone Cold skyward.

Talented workers that are talented will find a way to get over no matter what. If we removed the Bret/Austin feud from history do you REALLY think Austin wouldn't have found a way to become the megastar he became? Are you that blinded by your fanboyism?
 
This is one of the most laughable statements ever. In the past 10 years WWE has grown from a national level promotion to a global level promotion. They cater to fans in over 60 different countries. They tour globally several times a year. And Cena is their top star. Their flagstaff. He's the guy that casual fans are most likely to recognize. He is also WWE's top ambassador. WWE has grown tremendously as a promotion over the last decade. Far more than they ever did in the 80's or 90's. You'd have to be the special kind of stupid not to realize this.

The WWE became a GLOBAL powerhouse in the '90's moron. Ever heard of 80,000 at SummerSlam '92 in Wembley Stadium?!? How about the 'post Mania European tour?? Tours in Asia, the Middle East, India. I would even say the WWF was MORE popular overseas in the early - mid '90's than in the US. Read up on it kid.
 
Being a WWE (WWWF/WWF) I would remove Flair, even though he is my all time favorite, and add SBG or Backlund. HHH could also go as he is a star like Steamboat but didn't define an era.
 
The WWE became a GLOBAL powerhouse in the '90's moron. Ever heard of 80,000 at SummerSlam '92 in Wembley Stadium?!? How about the 'post Mania European tour?? Tours in Asia, the Middle East, India. I would even say the WWF was MORE popular overseas in the early - mid '90's than in the US. Read up on it kid.

:lmao:

No, it didn't. WWE was still very much a national level promotion. They didn't air RAW in 60 countries like they do today. They didn't tour outside the US on a regular basis like they do today. That was rare. Citing a few examples compared to the dozens I could cite over the last couple years alone, coupled with the fact that WWE has indeed improved their finances and grew significantly as a promotion from 20 years ago proves my point. Me right; you wrong.
 
No, Savage was merely a prototypical cog in what would become the WWE machine. He wasn't fucking Hulk Hogan. Seriously. John Cena might also be just a glorified cog, but at least his likeness is everywhere. He's the only superstar that would be synonymous with wrestling and the WWE in this era. Not Taker, not Lesnar, not Orton. Savage, as popular as he was, was overshadowed by Hogan, got overshadowed by Warrior, went to WCW and got overshadowed there too. John Cena has never been overshadowed. he has kept his spot as THE man even when WWE uses him in a lesser role.

So Savage was overshadowed by ONLY the most POPULAR wrestler in the history of the WWE. He was never "overshadowed" by Warrior. Savage was the top heel while Warrior was the top babyface. Everyone is a "cog" in the WWE machine. The term "overshadowed" is pointless. It just exposes the lack of depth in the WWE in Cena's era.

This is moronic. So somehow Savage being the secondary main event at Mania 3 somehow trumps Cena closing 5 Wrestlemania's. And no, the headliner doesn't get credit for the Mania house. WWE's brand name does. I have no idea where you got that from. The point is that Cena was chosen to headline more times than Savage because Cena was much better at headlining. WWE could sell Cena's likeness better than they ever could sell Savage's.

Yes WrestleMania 3 trump[s ALL of Cena's WrestleMania's. The matches are what sells kid. If that were ALL WrestleMania's would succesful because they ALL were under the WWE banner. You mean to tell me WM 11 was just as great as WM 3 or 6? The banner doesn't sell the PRODUCT in the ring does. You're statement is idiotic, Savage's played with the Babe Ruth of wrestling and he was the Lou Gehrig. If they're all cogs (as you say) then it doesn't matter who they plug in.

We are talking drawing power here. You DO know what drawing power is right? Selling tickets and packing venues. The fact that Cena has all these marketable opportunities to sell his likeness hurts his drawing power immensely. WWE as a brand is the drawing card. WWE didn't quite have that kind of recognition in the 80's so Savage wasn't nearly as hindered by that as Cena is. And despite that CENA STILL BECAME A BIGGER DRAWING THAN RANDY SAVAGE.

Oh right, cable TV, reality TV, Internet, Facebook, Tweeter and social media HINDERS so many people......who could EVER become a star in today's day!!

Who cares what a wrestler did during his rookie days. The only thing that matters is their primes. And Bob Backlund's prime solidly trumps Bret Hart's. Only stupid people would suggest otherwise.

Maybe you should reap up on some history before you make stupid statement. He was a rookie in his Stampede Wrestling days. He was just beginning his prime by the time the Hart Foundation hit.

Talented workers that are talented will find a way to get over no matter what. If we removed the Bret/Austin feud from history do you REALLY think Austin wouldn't have found a way to become the megastar he became? Are you that blinded by your fanboyism?
__________________

I'm dealing with facts here fanboy not "what ifs". The FACT is Austin needed Bret and Bret needed Austin. Why do you think he was INDUCTED by Stone Cold. Idiot.
 
No, it didn't. WWE was still very much a national level promotion. They didn't air RAW in 60 countries like they do today. They didn't tour outside the US on a regular basis like they do today. That was rare. Citing a few examples compared to the dozens I could cite over the last couple years alone, coupled with the fact that WWE has indeed improved their finances and grew significantly as a promotion from 20 years ago proves my point. Me right; you wrong.
__________________

Ummmm YES they did. You obviously are a moron. Listen to guys who were there. They toured Europe and overseas on a REGULAR basis. Business was DOWN in the States how do you think they made their money?!? Europe was still a HOTBED for the WWF I suggest you read Bret Hart's book and find out how much the WWF toured overseas in the 1990's.
 
So Savage was overshadowed by ONLY the most POPULAR wrestler in the history of the WWE. He was never "overshadowed" by Warrior. Savage was the top heel while Warrior was the top babyface. Everyone is a "cog" in the WWE machine. The term "overshadowed" is pointless. It just exposes the lack of depth in the WWE in Cena's era.

While it is true that Cena's era lacks depth as far as overall roster goes, that's not the point here. The point I made FROM THE VERY START is that Cena was a bigger drawing card than Savage despite that lack of depth. Fact. And he was used in a wider array of marketing strategy's. Fact. Cena might have more marketing opportunities available to him that Savage didn't, but many of those same opportunities were available to Savage and he and WWE took advantage of them. Cena was just more marketable. Use common sense and accept it and move on.

I have no idea why you are still trying to argue the point. Savage was not better than Cena just because he worked in an era that had a much deeper talent pool. If he was a top star like Hogan, like Bruno, or like Backlund then you'd have a point. Savage was never the top star for a prolonged period of time in any promotion that he worked. He never carried a promotion. Cena has. And for longer than almost anyone.

Yes WrestleMania 3 trump[s ALL of Cena's WrestleMania's. The matches are what sells kid.

It's funny that you are using 'kid" as an insult even though it clearly shows my age to the right of my profile, while typing dumbass statements like this. Wrestlemania 3 alone trumps Wrestlemanias 22, 23, 27, 28, and 29 combined? :lmao: Any credibility you might have had left just went flying out the window. In no way, shape, or form is this even remotely objectively correct.

If that were ALL WrestleMania's would succesful because they ALL were under the WWE banner. You mean to tell me WM 11 was just as great as WM 3 or 6? The banner doesn't sell the PRODUCT in the ring does. You're statement is idiotic, Savage's played with the Babe Ruth of wrestling and he was the Lou Gehrig. If they're all cogs (as you say) then it doesn't matter who they plug in.

If you can't understand my arguments then don't respond to them. Since WWE gained a monopoly over the sports entertainment and pro wrestling industry their name brand has drawn far more than what it would have during the 80's or 90's for their cards. I explained that several times and yet you are still too stupid to understand it. And you are also too stupid to realize how this actually makes John Cena look a hell of allot more impressive then Savage since he achieved allot more facing far more levels of overexposure.

Oh right, cable TV, reality TV, Internet, Facebook, Tweeter and social media HINDERS so many people......who could EVER become a star in today's day!!

You're an idiot. You know nothing about drawing power and how it works in the traditional sense. Why are you even bothering to argue this?

Maybe you should reap up on some history before you make stupid statement. He was a rookie in his Stampede Wrestling days. He was just beginning his prime by the time the Hart Foundation hit.

I know plenty of wrestling history. Far more you do judging by your hilariously wrong assessments of the careers of Bruno Sammartino and Bob Backlund. And I am not biased in my approaches either.

And prime refers to the apex of one's career. Are you really suggesting that Hart as a tag champion was a big as Hart as a world champion?

I'm dealing with facts here fanboy not "what ifs". The FACT is Austin needed Bret and Bret needed Austin. Why do you think he was INDUCTED by Stone Cold. Idiot.

That is subjective a statement as I have ever heard. Let's just ignore Austin's ability and potential appeal. It was all Bret Hart folks. He was the sole reason Austin became a megastar. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Ummmm YES they did. You obviously are a moron. Listen to guys who were there. They toured Europe and overseas on a REGULAR basis. Business was DOWN in the States how do you think they made their money?!? Europe was still a HOTBED for the WWF I suggest you read Bret Hart's book and find out how much the WWF toured overseas in the 1990's.

Are you seriously SERIOUSLY suggesting that the way WWE toured internationally then is anywhere close to level that they do so today? Are you suggesting that WWE as a promotion had anywhere near the amount of reach and influence on the global market in the 90's that they do today?

Your stupidity speaks for itself.
 
Are you seriously SERIOUSLY suggesting that the way WWE toured internationally then is anywhere close to level that they do so today? Are you suggesting that WWE as a promotion had anywhere near the amount of reach and influence on the global market in the 90's that they do today?

Your stupidity speaks for itself.
__________________

Did I sat that dumbass?!? Name ONE business that operates EXACTLY the same TODAY in 2016 as they did in the 1990's!! It''s a different world idiot. I didn't say they OPERATE the same I said they BECAME a global FORCE in 1990's when they were touring INTERNATIONALLY and being SUCCESSFUL.
 
It's funny that you are using 'kid" as an insult even though it clearly shows my age to the right of my profile, while typing dumbass statements like this. Wrestlemania 3 alone trumps Wrestlemanias 22, 23, 27, 28, and 29 combined? Any credibility you might have had left just went flying out the window. In no way, shape, or form is this even remotely objectively correct.

Again with the stupid statements. I said, to me, WM 3 was better than 22, better than 23, 27, 29 or 29? Where in my comments did I say trumps ALL combined? I rank 3 as one the greatest WM's of all time. That puts it ahead of the Cena's.

You're an idiot. You know nothing about drawing power and how it works in the traditional sense. Why are you even bothering to argue this?

No son you are the idiot. You suggested that somehow Cena's advantages in social media, Internet, and TV that he has today are a hindrance to him. You still have not explained that asinine statement.

And prime refers to the apex of one's career. Are you really suggesting that Hart as a tag champion was a big as Hart as a world champion?

Yes I would. When judging someone's career I just don't lop off years as if they didn't exist. What about his I-C run? You want to just disregard that also. And what hilariously wrong assessment? I said they were regional champions which they were. I'm sorry I must've missed Bruno headlining in L.A. or Backlund in Chicago.

That is subjective a statement as I have ever heard. Let's just ignore Austin's ability and potential appeal. It was all Bret Hart folks. He was the sole reason Austin became a megastar. Give me a break.

I never said it ALL Bret Hart dumbass. I said they need each other. Don't take my word for it. Do some homework and listen to Austin's podcast with Bret describing their feud together.
 
And just to top it ALL of and END this. I PERSONALLY believe Macho Man Randy Savage was the better WRESTLER, better PROMO, more ENTERTAINING, and left a bigger impression ON ME than John Cena. When I think of SUPERSTARS, of Larger than Life figures, of comic book heroes coming to real life. I think of Macho Man Randy Savage. That's why is TOP 5 in my book. Oooooh Yeah!

R.I.P Macho Man
 
Again with the stupid statements. I said, to me, WM 3 was better than 22, better than 23, 27, 29 or 29? Where in my comments did I say trumps ALL combined? I rank 3 as one the greatest WM's of all time. That puts it ahead of the Cena's.

This is an objective debate, not who you like better or what you like better. If you can't be objective then don't bother replying to me.

No son you are the idiot. You suggested that somehow Cena's advantages in social media, Internet, and TV that he has today are a hindrance to him. You still have not explained that asinine statement.

Yes, I have numerous times. All of those factors overexpose Cena. They do not help his drawing power. The WWE as a brand is a draw. John Cena the individual will never draw more than the WWE promotional machine. If those factors helped then Cena would become a much better drawing card.

And we can see how good of a draw Cena is by looking at the gates for non televised live events, of which WWE offers very little external advertising for, and it is mostly the strength of a wrestlers name recognition that draws. Cena has been WWE's top draw since 2008 but despite that his drawing power has been decreasing. But even under the thumb of the WWE promotional machine he still became a better drawing card than Savage. So what does that say about Savage other than the fact that he clearly blew up under the WWE's marketing and promotional machine and built very little of his own reputation and popularity himself.

Yes I would. When judging someone's career I just don't lop off years as if they didn't exist. What about his I-C run? You want to just disregard that also. And what hilariously wrong assessment? I said they were regional champions which they were. I'm sorry I must've missed Bruno headlining in L.A. or Backlund in Chicago.

Who cares about Bret Hart's IC run? Was Bret Hart as IC champion as big as Bret Hart as a world champion? Use your brain here please, or are you so old that you are developing holes in your brain and cannot think logically?

I never said it ALL Bret Hart dumbass. I said they need each other. Don't take my word for it. Do some homework and listen to Austin's podcast with Bret describing their feud together.

You pretty much are. Austin didn't need Bret Hart to become a megastar. Bret certainly helped, but Austin didn't need him to become successful. You might be able to make that argument between Austin and Rock, but not Austin and Bret Hart.

Did I sat that dumbass?!? Name ONE business that operates EXACTLY the same TODAY in 2016 as they did in the 1990's!! It''s a different world idiot. I didn't say they OPERATE the same I said they BECAME a global FORCE in 1990's when they were touring INTERNATIONALLY and being SUCCESSFUL.

And I never said that either. I have no idea where you got that from. WWE is a much bigger promotion today than they were 20 years ago. They are also more financially successful today than they were 20 years ago. That is my point and it's an irrefutable fact. I have no idea why you continue to try and argue against it.
 
This is an objective debate, not who you like better or what you like better. If you can't be objective then don't bother replying to me.

Everything is objective. You can't compare numbers from two different era's. Also I am not interested in arguing who was the bigger "draw" Cena or Savage. Two different wrestler's, two different era's, two different rosters. This whole argument is subjective

Yes, I have numerous times. All of those factors overexpose Cena. They do not help his drawing power. The WWE as a brand is a draw. John Cena the individual will never draw more than the WWE promotional machine. If those factors helped then Cena would become a much better drawing card.

And we can see how good of a draw Cena is by looking at the gates for non televised live events, of which WWE offers very little external advertising for, and it is mostly the strength of a wrestlers name recognition that draws. Cena has been WWE's top draw since 2008. Even under the thumb of the WWE promotional machine he still became a better drawing card than Savage. So what does that say about Savage other than the fact that he clearly blew up under the WWE's marketing and promotional machine and built very little of his own reputation and popularity himself.

There is no such thing as overexposure in this day and age. Just look at TV's biggest stars. The Kardashians are on ALL THE TIME. The fact that we can connect to these people via Facebook and Twitter makes them MORE acceptable to us. We WANT to follow them, see what they do, BE IN their lives. We are INVESTED in them. There is no such thing as overexposure in today''s 24/7 media cycle. Just lok at TMZ we follow these people even in their real lives. If John Cena left the WWE, he would be just fine. Trust me. There is nothing or has been nothing that can compare to today's social media.

Who cares about Bret Hart's IC run? Was Bret Hart as IC champion as big as Bret Hart as a world champion? Use your brain here please, or are you so old that you are developing holes in your brain and cannot think logically?

It was big part of his career then you think of SummerSlam '91 vs Curt Hennig, WM 8 vs Piper, then SummerSlam '92 vs Davey Boy. Those were three all time great matches. I would say that was definitely the prime of his career all the up to '97 so yes I would include his I-C run

You pretty much are. Austin didn't need Bret Hart to become a megastar. Bret certainly helped, but Austin didn't need him to become successful. You might be able to make that argument between Austin and Rock, but not Austin and Bret Hart.

Again, don't take my word for it. Listen to Austin's podcast with Bret. The rivalry with Bret was a big factor.

And I never said that either. I have no idea where you got that from. WWE is a much bigger promotion today than they were 20 years ago. They are also more financially successful today than they were 20 years ago. That is my point and it's an irrefutable fact. I have no idea why you continue to try and argue against it.
__________________

I'm just saying they became an international powerhouse in the '90's. No they don't compare to today but they were extremely successful overseas starting in the 90's
 
Everything is objective. You can't compare numbers from two different era's. Also I am not interested in arguing who was the bigger "draw" Cena or Savage. Two different wrestler's, two different era's, two different rosters. This whole argument is subjective

No, it's not. And you can most certainly compare numbers for two separate eras. Adjust for inflation of ticket prices, account for the natural rise and fall of the pro wrestling industry's economy and reputation within society, account for how many people were following the product now as opposed to then, account for population density and the growth of key wrestling oriented cities, adjust inflation of merchandise prices, look at supply and demand over time, and the strength of economy itself over time elapsed between the 80's and the 00's.

Drawing power is objective. Looking at merchandise sales is objective. Looking at how the fanbase reacts to Cena and Savage financially is objective. Looking at these factors and how they relate to Cena and Savage's places in the company and on the card over time is objective. Looking at how Cena and Savage used their skills to stay on top is objective.

Looking at crowd reactions is subjective. They change all the time. Saying that Savage worked in a deeper roster of talent is subjective, I agree with that BTW, but it's subjective. Saying Savage had more classic matches is subjective. Saying he had a better persona that appealed to more people is subjective.

There is a science for determining the quality of a professional wrestler over another. It is not all just opinion based.

There is no such thing as overexposure in this day and age. Just look at TV's biggest stars. The Kardashians are on ALL THE TIME. The fact that we can connect to these people via Facebook and Twitter makes them MORE acceptable to us. We WANT to follow them, see what they do, BE IN their lives. We are INVESTED in them. There is no such thing as overexposure in today''s 24/7 media cycle. Just lok at TMZ we follow these people even in their real lives. If John Cena left the WWE, he would be just fine. Trust me. There is nothing or has been nothing that can compare to today's social media.

Pro wrestling doesn't fall into the same type of medium as other TV shows. It's can't be compared to music or movies either. It is more like organized sports. John Cena works for the WWE. WWE is synonymous with pro wrestling just like the NFL is synonymous with football. There are other football leagues but the NFL is the one that everyone mostly follows and would know about. There's TNA and ROH, but the average person would just recognize WWE.

This is like the umpteenth time I've explained this BTW...

So because of that WWE "draws" in the traditional sense. John Cena as an individual doesn't draw. Randy Savage as an individual didn't draw. If they did draw it was while headlining shows that the WWE did not spend a whole lot of time advertising themselves. House shows for instance. There were more of these in Savage's day than there were in Cena's and the WWE brand still had major competition and didn't hold a monopoly over the industry. That hurts the drawing power of modern stars like Cena in ways that it didn't hurt someone like Savage. To make up for this Cena has access to marketing tools that weren't available to Randy Savage in the 80's, like the internet and social media. But that alone doesn't make Cena better. The Miz has access to the same tools and exposure, but he isn't objectively better than Randy Savage. Neither is Randy Orton. And I'd argue that Brock Lesnar isn't either.

So merely placing John Cena's name on a card doesn't do anything without the WWE promotional machine behind him. He's not Bruno, Lou Thesz, or Jim Londos who could all draw thousands of people to a ring with no more than an ad printed in a local paper or an announcement over the TV or radio. Savage was the same way, but the WWE name brand didn't resonate with the public as heavily back then as it does now. Randy had individual name value. Whether or not he transcended the WWE name brand even back then is debatable. I would say that he didn't because of the fact that someone like Cena, working in the era that he does, became a bigger drawing card simply working house shows and special events that WWE didn't advertise as heavily. That shows that Cena has transcended the WWE name brand. At least a little bit. Even in an era where Cena as the individual is not synonymous with pro wrestling. And it also shows how over inflated Savage became thanks to the WWE's and WCW's promotional machines.

Marketing is the same way. WWE markets John Cena so heavily because the demand for John Cena as always been heavy. Way more than the demand for Savage was back in the 80's. Cena has taken advantage of the added tools afforded to him by the WWE while forging his own name value under the thumb of the WWE name brand. That is what makes Cena objectively better than Randy Savage.

It was big part of his career then you think of SummerSlam '91 vs Curt Hennig, WM 8 vs Piper, then SummerSlam '92 vs Davey Boy. Those were three all time great matches. I would say that was definitely the prime of his career all the up to '97 so yes I would include his I-C run

That's subjective thinking. Kane vs Taker at Mania 14 was my favorite match of all time. I thought the Kane vs Batista vs Great Khali feud was highly entertaining. But I can't say Kane was better than Bret Hart because even though I liked Kane's matches better they didn't make the money that Bret's matches did. Bret as IC champion didn't make the money that Bret as world champion did. And Bret as world champion didn't make the money that Bob Backlund as world champion did.

I'm just saying they became an international powerhouse in the '90's. No they don't compare to today but they were extremely successful overseas starting in the 90's

I don't ever think I tried to dispute that, but it wasn't the original point. The original point was that since WWE has grown as a promotion in the last decade and Cena is their most promoted wrestler, he should get credit for that.
 
No, it's not. And you can most certainly compare numbers for two separate eras. Adjust for inflation of ticket prices, account for the natural rise and fall of the pro wrestling industry's economy and reputation within society, account for how many people were following the product now as opposed to then, account for population density and the growth of key wrestling oriented cities, adjust inflation of merchandise prices, look at supply and demand over time, and the strength of economy itself over time elapsed between the 80's and the 00's.

So how do you account for WWE being the ONLY game in town for 15 years. There is no competition. No alternative. They have a virtual monopoly over the business. A generation of fans grew knowing nothing but WWE. Whereas is Savage's era there was still the NWA, still JCP, and then eventually WCW. Also WWE is now a publically traded company vs a family-owned one. It's literally big business with billions of dollars at it's disposal. How do account for the mass media? The litany of TV programming. Crossover movies through WWE Studios? It's a different COMPANY. WWF is COMPLETELY different than WWE. There are no A, B, and C towns anymore, wrestler's driving up and down the highway. To compare the sports entertainment juggernaut that the WWE to the "pro wrestling" company it was in the '80's is incomparable.

So because of that WWE "draws" in the traditional sense. John Cena as an individual doesn't draw. Randy Savage as an individual didn't draw. If they did draw it was while headlining shows that the WWE did not spend a whole lot of time advertising themselves. House shows for instance. There were more of these in Savage's day than there were in Cena's and the WWE brand still had major competition and didn't hold a monopoly over the industry. That hurts the drawing power of modern stars like Cena in ways that it didn't hurt someone like Savage. To make up for this Cena has access to marketing tools that weren't available to Randy Savage in the 80's, like the internet and social media. But that alone doesn't make Cena better. The Miz has access to the same tools and exposure, but he isn't objectively better than Randy Savage. Neither is Randy Orton. And I'd argue that Brock Lesnar isn't either.

Savage drew in WCW as well. It's the WRESTLER'S that draw not the company. Why are there ebbs and flows in the business. Why did Hogan draw more than HBK. Both work for WWF/E. Why did Austin draw so well? More than Bret or Warrior did? Savage drew in the WWF and WCW so did Hogan so it's wasn't all WWF. Why did Savage transcend the WWF crossing over to commercial and movies? Without the WWF machine behind him. Why was he successful for two decades AFTER he left WWE in 1994?

Bret as IC champion didn't make the money that Bret as world champion did. And Bret as world champion didn't make the money that Bob Backlund as world champion did.

I don't know where you are getting this. You seem to think JUST the main event draws the house. So Bret wrestling in front of 80,000 at Wembley didn't draw? Bret wrestling Perfect at MSG didn't draw? Bret wrestling Piper at WM 8 didn't draw? I'd like you to produce the figures you're using to back your claims up. You're saying Backlund who ONLY wrestled at MSG drew more than Bret who wrestled at arena's AROUND the world? I find that hard to believe.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,826
Messages
3,300,732
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top