Fox Sports 11 greatest WWE superstars

[ilapierre]

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.



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.



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.



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



And did he headline? Nope.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



So?



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

The current era with a 1.9 TV rating is NOT a boom period. You do not base 'eras' on profit. WCW was losing millions of dollars more than normal during the entire BOOM NWO period. Yet WCW probably broke even years earlier cutting costs and pushing Erik Watts. Vince is a billionaire and WWE is a publicly traded company. The bottom line is money and catering to investors. WWE in 2016 is like the Katy Perry of music. It's fluff. In the 80s and 90s, wrestling was Guns N Roses. Way different animal. Katy Perry may be even more financially successful than the legendary and amazing Guns N Roses lineup. But she produces SHITE for children and lower IQ adults. Just like WWE now. A 'boom' period is ONLY when wrestling grabs mainstream attention. Regardless of money being made, Daniel Bryan's final year or two you could call a mini 'boom' period in wrestling. You can't call Triple H winning the Royal Rumble and the worst ratings in post Attitude Era ratings history a 'boom' period no matter how well WWE is at the corporate side of things.

You're consistent nonsense about Savage needs to be addressed and readdressed. You keep saying his 'impact' wasn't as great as what almost all of us here on this thread think. You realize 'you' are essentially the minority here. It's YOU who does not have a proper handle on wrestling history or context. It's YOU who needs to brush up on what's a fact and what isn't. YOU are a Cena MARK and you personally don't like Randy Savage because YOU have been brainwashed by the WWE propaganda machine that has downplayed him since he left over 20 years ago. YOU are the only one who doesn't realize he is in the same bracket as Hogan, Rock, Hart, Austin and Taker. You're the one who doesn't get it because YOU are one of that 1.9 rating that still takes WWE programming seriously. Unlike Bruno, Flair, Hitman, Austin, Rock and all the others who have retired and have come back on good terms with the company, Savage refused. He never got his sendoff. He never came back, he never really mended fences, he never had the chance to have a few special matches with any active stars. He never got his special treatment and had his 'Randy Savage Appreciation Night. All the old guys you put ahead of him had their special moments over the past 15 years..and that is why you don't get Savage. Because you need the present day hype machine telling you what you think. That is clear as day reading your garbage.

Could you IMAGINE wrestlers emulating Randy Savage? Give me a break. How do you emulate someone so original? You'd literally have to copy him like Jay Lethal! Ask almost ANY wrestler. Savage is almost ALWAYS listed in inspiration. Do you see anyone emulating Undertaker? How about Triple H? Anyone running around acting like Andre? NOPE. Emulating Hogan? Remember that wrestler Renegade. He emulated Ultimate Warrior. That was hilarious! You can't emulate a legend without looking pathetic. That's why Savage isn't EMULATED. That doesn't make him any less inspirational.

Btw, Hustle Loyalty and Respect is GAY. If you think that's a cool catch phrase or anything worth giving one shit about then you're crazy. John Cena SUCKS. He is pretty much everything wrong with the industry today. He's just this pro America pro military pro politically correct bonehead. NO CHARISMA. He's got mediocre ability. And he will go down as the reason wrestling went through such a long down period. And Backlund was NO draw. I don't know what world you live in. Backlund was CHAMP because he was the pro America pro military pro politically correct bonehead type they always plug in as public relations company face. Your Backlund, Hulk and Cena types are a dime a dozen. A real draw is a wrestler who can survive without the pro America gimmick! Hogan never really even proved his worth till he dropped the shit red and yellow and killed it in the black and white as a heel. Backlund didn't prove his worth till the Psycho Bob character. All Cena's ever done is play Captain America and that really lame ass rap schtick. The more I think of it, the case could be made for Cena being the worst wrestling entertainer in all of wrestling history.

As for Austin being 'destined' for greatness, I disagree. He was destined for mid card status until the 'Hitman' turned Vince into the greatest heel in wrestling history. Had the timing not been right with the screwjob and Vince turning heel, Austin may have amounted to nothing ore than a few cheap Attitude Era pops for a year or two. It's hard to tell if Austin could even have made it in the 'PG' era.

 

[ilapierre]

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.

Oh look at you Bernkastel, you little Elitist you! I'm a Savage 'fanboy' yet you're a Cena fanboy. You're poking fun at me for preferring the Beatles when you prefer One Direction. 28 years old means you were about 3 years young when the 90s began. So, you missed the 1980s. In fact, you missed half the 1990s. Which means you essentially missed Savage's career. So you're in absolutely no position to talk like you were old enough to have witnessed Savage's career. Or like you know one damn thing about the financial side of anything. And you are in no position to talk about how big Savage was in his prime. All you have to go by is WWE revisionist history. You can't hide by empty 'drawing' claims.

Your statement about Savage not being a marketable star is completely ridiculous to anyone born before 1987. You have no facts to back that statement up, just your own tunnel visioned lens and obvious lack of objectivity. Savage didn't make WWE as much money as Hogan. Oh wow, what a second rate draw! We should all just base our opinion of Savage on the misguided value system of some kid who was 1 year old during Savage's prime. We should all just rank this larger than life, once in lifetime entertainer as a second tier wrestler since he's not individually credited for drawing since he existed at the same time as Hulk Hogan. Not sure if you know this, since you were 3 back then, but NO WRESTLER in Hogan's prime or in history could match Hogan in drawing. Had Austin been around in the late 80s he wouldn't have drawn shit as the 80s and early 90s were about faces not anti heroes. Cena would have been Paul Roma! And you're trying to tell me Andre sold more than Savage. Where? Rochester NY circa 1977? Could you imagine all those Andre foam hands and Andre Tshirts being sold? Nope. The guy was a one man freak show that helped sell cards and fill otherwise empty buildings for smaller promotions all over the world. Good for Andre. Savage did the same thing in the territories for the better part of a decade as well. And he did that on ability and charisma. And then he was 'called up' to the big leagues to help carry WWF. Andre couldn't draw shit in primetime WWE because WWE was the big time. Perhaps you're thinking Andre's a big draw because of his appearance in that one shitty movie? He was only in it for no other reason than his abnormal weird appearance. Or maybe because he helped headline the best attended Wrestlemania ever. That was more circumstance than anything. The draw was Hogan bodyslamming a mammoth billed as never ever being bodyslammed. Five minutes of a few crappy punches and kicks, a bodyslam, a legdrop and the predictable ending. And of course we know which real draw on that card gave that record breaking audience their money's worth. The guy who headlined 3 of the next 5 Wrestlemanias! Andre could NEVER have carried a movie let alone WWE or Wrestlemania and been the main draw. If you watched him in the 80s, with a non child brain, you would have realized he was nothing more than a giant with little to no wrestling or vocal ability. Savage was draw #2 in the world's biggest wrestling company behind the biggest draw in wrestling history. If there were NO Hogan post 1987, guess who would have main evented everything and got all the drawing credit? Andre? Dibiase? Piper? Warrior? Rude? Nope. We'd have had Savage headlining the next 4 Wrestlemanias. Main eventing at the end of the night against Flair or Warrior or Taker instead of half way through the card. We'd all be looking back at SAVAGE as the big 80s draw in wrestling history. Savage was 1B to Hogan. They sold out Wrestlemanias, Summerslams, Survivor Series. Savage sold out arenas ALL over US and Canada while Hogan only wrestled dates here and there. It was SAVAGE himself, not Hogan, that busted his butt off and sold out/main evented those 300 house shows a year for that company..and they sold out even though everyone knew Hogan wouldn't be there..They sold out because EVERYONE LOVED SAVAGE. He was like a toned down version of Stone Cold, with the pomp and circumstance of a Hogan or Warrior but with Bret Hart-Ric Flair-like ability. Mr Wrestlemania before Shawn. He was really the complete package.

And Savage didn't make piles of money for WWE on his 'likeness'. Good. He relied on his amazing charisma and ability to make the company money. And he made shit piles of money for Slim Jim and the guy who created his suits. I don't give ONE shit about what Savage did for Vince or the corporate side of wrestling. I am a fan. A mark. And I'm smart enough to admit it unlike yourself. You are hiding behind the money side of things to legitimize your so-called objective 'opinion' but you're not convincing anyone who was there in the flesh witnessing Savage in his glory. Savage was a huge money maker. What evidence do you have that he wasn't? A 'reputable measuring scale'? Seriously. What reputable measuring scale? Sources please. If he was on the same card as Hogan, then how do you know it wasn't Savage drawing? Seriously. You're telling me fans ONLY came to see Hogan, and no one else, because he was forced on us as the main event. Your 'drawing ability' measurement theory is hilarious. The only thing I'll give you is that Savage didn't transcend wrestling like Hogan, Rock or Austin. That doesn't mean he wasn't a top 10 ever wrestling personality. Ability, charisma, promos, drawing, main eventing, legendary matches, catchphrases, legacy. He couldn't be Hogan (nobody before Hogan was and no one was until the Attitude Era). Hogan was the 1 guy, the one face. Savage was mostly a 'heel'. Hard to be the 'face' or the 'draw' of a company (in an era where heels are secondary characters) when you're a heel in the same company with the most 'over' wrestler in wrestling history. Hogan transcended wrestling and brought it an audience of new fans. And most of them became Randy Savage marks. Myself included. Savage sold crazy amounts of merchandise for WWE. You're comparing Savage's drawing ability in the stone ages to Rey Mysterio or Daniel Bryan now in the age of the internet and that is not fair. That's 'era-centric'. WWE is now a billion dollar corp established on the backs of guys like Savage whose art helped grow this business into what it is today. There are a million more ways to access WWE's merchandise store. Millions more opportunities for mediocre wrestlers like Triple H to star in movies or win 14 titles. Drop Savage into the year 2016 and he wins 20 titles and outsells everyone and makes a pile of movies!

 

[ilapierre]

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.



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.



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 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.

I love this line "This is like the umpteenth time I've explained this BTW..." It's the umpteenth time you've stated the same wrong thing over and over and over again. Your argument is a lost cause. Why don't you just get over the fact that you and your so called 'objective' facts aren't objective. They're simply wrong. You have NO clue what you are talking about. You weren't even a teenager until the Attitude Era was over. There is NO science behind a damn thing you believe. You are simply a product of WWE revisionism. You are just a naive, context lacking 28 year old who honestly believes they're being objective. Come back here and read your words in a decade or two and you will be sorrily embarrassed..

 

[hollowpoint]

In the interest of the question, I would add Cena and replace HHH. As great as he is/was, he was only the top dog for a short amount of time. He never moved the needle like most of the guys on this list did. Cena is one of the most polarizing figures in WWE history. Hate him or love him, everyone has an opinion on him. Oh by the way he's been one of the most successful superstars in the history of the business. He's been the top guy for longer than most of the guys were top guys during their era.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Interesting conversation.

The first thing here... is why a top 11 list? Why not a top 9? Top 8? Top 12? Top 37? It's just such an odd number.

Secondly, are they using WWE in the sense of their actual careers within the professional wrestling company the WWE? Or WWE in the most modern sense that professional wrestling is simply called WWE to the lay-person now?

Because if it's the first, then you can take Ric Flair off of this list. While he absolutely had a good WWE career, if you look at his WWE only resume objectively, and remove everything accomplished outside of the WWE... his resume really isn't any better than Yokozuna's... and I don't see anyone putting Yokozuna on any best of all time lists. If it's the latter? Then of course you include Flair, but you then have to open up the conversation to so many more guys that the WWE has never taught us were amazing and big deals in their day.

Also Triple H? Yeah, let's please remove him. If we're going with a top 11 in the companies history, then I'm looking for guys who reached the absolute top organically, and connected in a very real, visceral way. Triple H, for all his accomplishments, has always felt like the guy that I've been told I have to think is the best. He's never been the guy I looked at and just thought he was the best.

So in no order I guess:

Andre the Giant
Hulk Hogan
Randy Savage
Shawn Michaels
Bret Hart
The Rock
The Undertaker
Stone Cold Steve Austin
Superstar Billy Graham
Bruno Sammartino
John Cena

I include Graham for a few reasons. First, he was the very first heel in the at the time 14 year history of the company to be given an actual run with the title. The previous 3 heel champs (Rogers, Koloff, Stasiak) were all transitional and combined for less than 2 months as champion. Graham went just under 10 months and it took another 15 years before they gave another heel a similar run (Yokozuna). This does make him one of the most dominant heels in the first 30 years of the companies history.

In a more real sense though, Billy Graham was one of the most influential wrestlers of all time. His look. His mannerisms. His style. His build. The way he talked. The way he worked. It would be impossible to come up with a list of the people he influenced. It's simply that big.

It's a shame he's become such an afterthought today (the bitter, crazy old man act doesn't help), because few made the contributions that he made, and if Superstar Billy Graham never existed... the business you all watch today would be vastly different.

I'm not really understanding the Savage hate here... unless it's simply an argument over if he was better than Cena, which is completely subjective. One thing I saw here though, was that Savage wasn't a draw? Absolutely not true. In the 80's, if you weren't on Hogan's card, then you wanted to be on Savage's card, because that was the one that would pay you the most. I've heard many times that business improved in 1988 when Savage was champ and Hogan was giving his face a rest to film No Holds Barred. The biggest sign to me of the type of draw that Savage was... is the buyrate for WM5. It had the highest buyrate of any WWE PPV until WM15 and the first Austin/Rock main event. WM5 was Hogan/Savage.

I wouldn't say he was overshadowed by anyone. Except in the most strictest sense that Hogan had the #1 spot on the card, and he had the #2 spot (and that's not a knock on Savage at all - Hogan was the biggest star in the history of the business).

Was he better than Cena though? That's completely subjective. Personally I think he was (no knock on Cena). But Cena does have something that Savage never had. Cena has been that #1 guy for a decade now. As far as that goes, while I do feel that Cena definitely deserved to be 'the guy' at one point, the reason he's been the guy for so long now is that with the way that WWE has grown as a publicly traded company, he's afraid to take a chance on someone new, so he stays with the safe bet in Cena. So I can't really give Cena full credit for his run on top. Before they went public, there's no way they would have stuck with the same guy as long as they have with Cena.

But Cena does deserve to be on this list without question. He's grown so much as a wrestler. He's one of the rare guys today that even non-fans recognize as a WWE wrestler (in Savage's day that was much more common). He's been on top for so long, and in a real sense of irony for the older guys that can't stand him... he's actually closer to an old school storyteller in the ring than most of today's factory produced spot monkeys.

 

[ilapierre]

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.

Oh my, where to start with all your relentless flaunting of trivial wrestling knowledge that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. Let's do bullet points because I'm feeling lazy.

Oh wow, I've already lost the 'argument' because you believe I'm name calling you. Hardly. First of all, your opinion, which you try so hard to present as fact, needs to be addressed. Second, I simply addressed it. Me addressing you is not a sign I've 'lost' a damn thing..You thinking something so silly though may be a sign you've lost your mind. If you're not in touch with reality then how can your opinion count for anything? And how could I POSSIBLY lose an argument to someone who is legitimately claiming that Randy Savage is the worst wrestler on a list that includes Triple H?

I am a huge Savage mark. He is my favourite all time wrestler. He is a lot of old wrestling fans' favourite as well. Preferring him over every other wrestler in history has nothing to do with the fact that I'm arguing he is not #11 on a list that includes Triple H or Andre the Giant.. Nobody anywhere in any galaxy can successfully argue either of them rank higher than Savage on any best ever list.

As for Savage, he was no Backlund? Give me one second while I cry and shit my pants laughing at your ignorance. Could you imagine the crowds Mr. Howdy Doody could have flocking to Wrestlemania 2 vs King Kong Bundy? Captain America vs George the Animal? Yeah right! Could you imagine all the merchandise they could have sold for a guy who was like watching paint dry? All the movies Backlund would have starred in because he was so damn charismatic? Please. Only 9,000 people showed up to watch Savage headline once? Was that during an insane three day snowstrom in the dead of winter? Sources please, no talking out your ass. And regardless if you're right or wrong, are you trying to tell me that never in Bob's history did he main event a show for WWE with less than 9,000? Again, sources please.

I chuckled at your little IWA writeup. Does knowing all that inconsequential stuff make you feel like you know more about wrestling history than me or anyone else? Plenty of written and visual material out there. You apparently watched Mr Charisma Dino Bravo take on the ground breaking Mongols? Everyone stand up and bow. You are a wrestling trivia champ! But why don't you check my age? I'm 92. Your mom was probably coming out her mom's ass when I witnessed Ed Don George lose his title to Ed Strangler Lewis. Just like you're losing this argument to me. See two people can play that game.

Savage wasn't Bruno or Backlund or Billy Graham? You take Savage in 1988 and you drop him into WWE circa 1963 or 1977 or 1982 and he outsells the three 10 times over. That's no knock on any of them or their ability. Savage was just that much better.

Savage's dad pushed him and his brother on the independent circuit for half a decade? Oh yeah, NO ONE ANYWHERE wanted to watch that amazing feud, right? Compared to the McMahons pushing Triple H on the biggest stage of them all, night in and night out, for 20 years. Thing is one of these guys had talent and charisma and the other one doesn't and never did. And you believe the latter deserves to be on a top 10 list? That sound is me scoffing...

Good for Andre. So tell me just how could WWF have booked him as company face and draw over Savage? You're telling me Andre's catchphrases and merchandise would have outdone Savage's let alone Jim Powers'? I'm confused. Andre was a major draw everywhere. In the 1970s as a 7'4 500 pound man. He put butts in the seats and then those people went to sleep in their seats whenever he wrestled and his initial novelty wore off. In fact the guy was so boring that he himself fell asleep in the ring. Kids woulda loved him! Parents would have too. Good night sleeps all the way around! Fuck, too bad Hogan had to exist. Instead we could have had Andremania running wild!

Good for Flair. He was the best ever wrestler. And good for your dad and aunt. If I didn't realize you had gone on vacation, then I would not have realized you were so right and I was just so wrong lol. And good for Shawn. A million times the wrestler and personality Triple H or Andre ever were. Oh and thanks for reminding me about that Bryan Danielson guy. He should be on this list instead of either of those two.

Triple H's book is still being written. Unfortunately, none of us are taking his book seriously (and haven'ts since 2000) because of who he is and how much power he has over the decision making process and his own nauseating, never ending, push.. Trips married into the family, Savage diddled Vince's underage daughter. WWE revisionist history has done it's best to push one to the moon and downplay the other into obscurity. And NO, sorry bud none of us can credit Trips with the development of NXT. WWE created NXT. WWE professionals develop NXTers. Not Paul. I'm so sick and tired of listening to utter morons giving all the credit for good ideas to Triple H and all the bad ideas gets blamed on Vince. Vince is a genius. Paul is a Yes Man. Truth is Triple H is a cancer on the wrestling industry. If you don't know this already, go watch Paul's mockography Wrestling Isn't Wrestling. Funny how you remember Savage interrupted the Wright-Flair. So that piece of trivial information makes Savage #11 in your book? It could be more successfully argued that the Alex Wright tier is where Jean Paul should have remained his entire career.

Number 6 isn't happening for Savage. Well then let's go #3 then. If you google 'best of' lists online from the world's most knowledgeable fans you will find some pretty amazing and comprehensive lists that all rank Savage top 10 and in at least half those cases top 6..There are actually quite a few lists where he's ranked number one. So at the end of the day, your dumb opinion is just an opinion. Don't get confused. Your opinion is not a fact. That's my opinion. We're all allowed to have them, and you're knowledge of inconsequential things doesn't make your opinion count any more than mine or the 99 percent of equally knowledgeable fans out there who disagree with you. And that's not name calling. That's just me addressing a really dumb, mostly unshared opinion. So get over it. You win nothing except Eddie Einhorn trivia.

 

[BillAlfonsos_Whistle]

Cena instead of HHH and it's damn near perfect list.