"Best in the World" through the years

[MCMG]

Looking at HBK and CM Punk standing opposite each other on Raw was a pretty spectacular sight. CM Punk, with good reason, has proclaimed himself as the "best in the world". Shawn Michaels is, in my opinion, the most incredible and entertaining person to ever wrestle. No-one that I have ever seen comes close to the amount of classics that Shawn Michaels has wrestled; especially at Wrestlemania. Never mind being the Heartbreak Kid and his fantastic work in DX.

When talking about the "best" it is clear that, for example, someone like Punk isn't talking about being the face of the company. You wouldn't classify Hulk Hogan as the "best in the world" because he was never an all round superstar. He was great on the mic and his connection with the audience was incredible. However, in the ring all he could do was tell a story. People cared about what was going on (which is important) but he didn't have much else. People think Cena is a bad wrestler probably need to look at Hogan. Defining the "Best in the World" is my first query. I'd say being exceptional in the ring and on the microphone is pretty much the base criteria.

I suppose on Raw we could have been looking at the two "best's" from roughly the last 18 years. That is another question that I have. When he was healthy, was anyone as good as HBK? Bret Hart is the obvious name and he could probably claim to be the best just before HBK became big. After? I'm not to sure. Austin, Kurt Angle, Jericho, HHH, Cena are other names that I'd consider.

What about Punk? Is he what he claims to be. He really began to show how good he was just after his pipebomb in 2011. His ability on the mic is obvious and his matches with Lesnar, Cena, Taker were all outstanding. I suppose his main competition is Cena and Orton. I've not got huge knowledge of wrestling other than the WWE and TNA so excuse me.

Another question is who was the "best" during the Attitude Era? I'd say The Rock has more all round talent than Austin but that is just my opinion. I think in the ring both were very good but ,with the microphone in hand, The Rock was magical. Some would argue that he regurgitated the same phrases repeatedly and, to an extent, he did. That doesn't mean he wasn't phenomenal on the mic. Angle, Jericho and Triple H were also talented guys.

Finally, the early 90's and even further back. This was before my time and I've never really made the effort to educate myself but I can imagine Randy Savage and Flair are two stand-out names. In general, I think Sting warrants a mention. Perhaps, Mr Perfect too.

It's completely subjective and even how we classify the best is difficult. Also, I'm not suggesting Punk is as good as HBK but merely he is someone who calls himself the "Best in the World" and, at this time, is.

Best in the World at various stages in time, discuss.

 

[Loveless]

Defining the "Best in the World" is my first query. I'd say being exceptional in the ring and on the microphone is pretty much the base criteria.

Agreed, I'll come back to this.

When he was healthy, was anyone as good as HBK?

It's a very subjective question but personally, no. Shawn could do it all and pretty much do it better than anyone else.
On the mic, the guy has the full range, he could do comedy, serious, invoke sympathy, anger, the only thing he never seemed terribly interested in was a catchphrase (which probably hurt him with the morons) but that was always too overt for him.
In-ring, Shawn might be the most adaptable talent the WWE ever had. You could stick him in any match with anyone and he'll find a way to make it work for both talents. The wars with Vader and Mankind, HIAC when he nearly killed himself to put over both Taker and the cage, the absolute technical masterclasses with Hart and Angle. On top of all that, the guy had a brain for the business, coming up with talking-point endings for even bland matches (such as the fake injury ambush Vs Batista).

What about Punk? Is he what he claims to be.

Honestly? No
Punk is what I call a new wrestling star for a more educated, aware audience. He's obviously a very bright guy and his promos are well put together and thought out. But is he exciting? Does he have impact or is he larger than life? I have to say not at all.
As for his ring work, solid but unspectacular. He needs a story to work with or his matches are just empty.

Another question is who was the "best" during the Attitude Era? I'd say The Rock has more all round talent than Austin but that is just my opinion.

I have to say that Austin is vastly better in the ring but was held down by the limitations of the character and his injured neck. I remember him back in WCW when he was an exceptional technician.

 

[Best in the World]

When talking about the "best" it is clear that, for example, someone like Punk isn't talking about being the face of the company. You wouldn't classify Hulk Hogan as the "best in the world" because he was never an all round superstar. He was great on the mic and his connection with the audience was incredible. However, in the ring all he could do was tell a story. People cared about what was going on (which is important) but he didn't have much else. People think Cena is a bad wrestler probably need to look at Hogan. Defining the "Best in the World" is my first query. I'd say being exceptional in the ring and on the microphone is pretty much the base criteria.

Defining it on just this could be rather difficult. Some of the best Japanese wrestlers in the world can put on *****-star matches but can hardly speak on the mic to save their lives. In cases like that you can really only measure up to wrestling standards. WWE standards, a great is defined by how great they can talk on a mic, more-so than their ability, while their ability is often looked upon, it's more looked upon from a entertainment standpoint. It does make things rather difficult, because if you're saying "Best in the World" you have to measure by different parts of the world and each promotion has a different style to them and how they do things.

But for the most part this seems to be focused on WWE from what I'm reading, or general wrestling in North America. I specifically don't believe their to be a Best in the World, I really do see it to be apart of a gimmick, and that each athlete excels at certain things that are important to that specific promotion. But as mentioned, we're going more by WWE standards, or I believe that's what you're going by, if not correct me, but I'll go along with that in my further response.

I suppose on Raw we could have been looking at the two "best's" from roughly the last 18 years. That is another question that I have. When he was healthy, was anyone as good as HBK? Bret Hart is the obvious name and he could probably claim to be the best just before HBK became big. After? I'm not to sure. Austin, Kurt Angle, Jericho, HHH, Cena are other names that I'd consider.

If you're talking about overall, when he was healthy? I think people like Eddie, Punk and Jericho could definitely be big time arguments, all of them had of course the ability both in-ring and on the mic. But when it came to emotion and story-telling, when it came to pure entertainment, I believe that is the area that nobody could ever touch Shawn. He could get you invested into something so easily, and he knew how to draw out that emotion from both the crowd and whoever he was facing, nobody else could do that better.

What about Punk? Is he what he claims to be. He really began to show how good he was just after his pipebomb in 2011. His ability on the mic is obvious and his matches with Lesnar, Cena, Taker were all outstanding. I suppose his main competition is Cena and Orton. I've not got huge knowledge of wrestling other than the WWE and TNA so excuse me.

I believe that Punk is what he claims to be honestly. He's not going to be the center of attention at a time like this, Cena is holding onto that position and their doesn't seem to be any way of that changing. When Shawn Michaels was champion, it wasn't like he was earning that huge amount of money like people like Austin, Cena or Hogan. His ability was what measured him and made him a great champion, a great wrestler and a great entertainer. Which is why I brought up Eddie, Punk and Jericho. All of them are/were great in the ring, all of them could speak on the mic and are/were some of the best talkers of their time, but none of them were huge draws in the WWE like Hogan or Cena, they're the money makers, but when it came down to ability, the art of wrestling in the ring and one the mic, these guys during their time are/were pretty much untouchable.

I think it always comes back to being well rounded and for their times these guys were the well-rounded guys around people that really did excel at one thing or another. Or focused on on thing more than another thing, but people like Eddie, Jericho and Punk all focused on both things. Having watched Punk since ROH (and I really don't want to be the guy focusing on too much of his past accomplishments in other promotions), but I really did see his ability, and know it is there, same thing with Eddie, the guy really was great, he could wrestle and brought out that raw emotion that was needed. And it's things like this that has me looking over of these guys when I think of the best, you look at people like Austin, Hogan, Rock and Cena. But then you see the guys that are lower on the card/draw, Eddie, Benoit, Punk, Bryan, Shawn and Bret and of course, you see it.

Another question is who was the "best" during the Attitude Era? I'd say The Rock has more all round talent than Austin but that is just my opinion. I think in the ring both were very good but ,with the microphone in hand, The Rock was magical. Some would argue that he regurgitated the same phrases repeatedly and, to an extent, he did. That doesn't mean he wasn't phenomenal on the mic. Angle, Jericho and Triple H were also talented guys.

That's a tough one. They both before they carried over to become The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, they both were shown to be pretty gifted in the ring. Rocky Maivia was definitely more the high-flyer than what he became and when it came to getting technically "Stunning" Steve Austin/The Ringmaster, was very gifted when it came right down to it. Austin could hold up well with Bret Hart so nobody could deny Austin's technical ability before his injury.

It's touch be in the end it all comes down to what you like more. I'd give The Rock the advantage for being more athletic, but Austin was obviously the better brawler (I honestly couldn't take Rock's punches serious), but I don't think anybody can't say that when it came to brawling around that time, Austin pretty much reigns supreme. So the style you like is really going to have you switching gears. But I'd say Rock was more the athletic/brawler while Austin suited the more technical/brawler, you really choose what fits your style.

When it came down to mic skills. Neither of them really had much diversity, neither of them had much of a way with words, they weren't exactly poets, there wordplay was simple, but simple in the way that people could get behind. And I know, when people hear the word "simple" they think bad, but that's not the case here, it was simple in the sense that it was easy to get behind, in the end the theme was pretty much always the same "Whooping someones ass."

When it comes to the both of them, I think they were equally great honestly, they had different styles, they had different ways of putting words, but in the end they were a lot alike and that was what made it interesting to see, they were the same while being different.

Finally, the early 90's and even further back. This was before my time and I've never really made the effort to educate myself but I can imagine Randy Savage and Flair are two stand-out names. In general, I think Sting warrants a mention. Perhaps, Mr Perfect too.

I like Macho Man Randy Savage, I really do, but honestly, Flair takes it for me in that end. People always tell me that Ric Flair is overrated, which if you've seen his matches, seen what he did in the industry, nobody can say that about the guy that inspired Shawn Michaels to even lace up a pair of boots. He's the type of guy that you can watch all of his matches, all of his older matches, and even if you don't like him, or you find him boring or uninteresting, you'll find at least one of them that you'll enjoy and call great. During that time Ric Flair was "The Man" and it's why people still respect him (despite debacles outside of wrestling) and people were so emotionally invested when he left.

It's completely subjective and even how we classify the best is difficult. Also, I'm not suggesting Punk is as good as HBK but merely he is someone who calls himself the "Best in the World" and, at this time, is.

In the end, it's just coming down to the whole gimmick of things. "The Best there is, The Best there was, The Best there Ever will Be", "The Best in the World at what I Do." and the "Best in the World" all of them have a fitting place onto the people that are saying them. Because at the times arguments could definitely be made.

But if you're generally talking the greatest of all time? In my opinion, Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair, either of those two are fine in my eyes, whether you have either listed as 1st or 2nd, I'll agree. It doesn't take away from anyone else, but that's how I see it.