That and a supporting cast that had a long since stale Flair, Hogan, and Savage definitely offsets a good chunk of it. Six months later, when something stale was turned into something fresh, of course things look better for the company.
I'm sorry, but the only stale one on that portion was Hogan. Hogan and Hogan alone. Savage still got massive pops from the crowd, and so did Flair. Sting was tht etop of his game, Luger was actually worth a damn. The Giant had a whole slew of wrestlers to work with that were far over than anyone in the WWE. And The Giant ultimately failed, still.
Something stale turned into something fresh and the stench of shit wasn't as strong as it had been with stale Flair, Hogan, and Macho doing their thing.
Again, you keep referring to all of these "stale" wrestlers, when in reality, the only stale one was Hogan.
Show wasn't a draw when he had shit to work with, but when those guys were turning people off in their current state, I don't think he's to blame.
Ok. Fine. Riddle me this, then; The Show also had some of the best workers in the world to deal with in 1999-2000. He had Austin, Rock, Trips, and the likes to work with. He had everything to work with.
And what happened? He was a fucking flop. His reign as champion was mediocre at best, and the WWE immediately slid him back to the mid card. Shit, he was jobbing to Kane and Test, man. That should tell you just how Vince felt about Show.
Again, it's a pattern of consistency; Show consistently can't draw worth a damn.
Andre was only that star because of nothing more than unique size and the fact that he wasn't being exposed as weak on television all the time. Beyond that, I see nothing that keeps people coming back. That's not something think makes anyone inherently superior.
Again, it really doesn't matter, you still have to accept Andre was a revolutionary force. Without Andre, there would be no Hogan, no WWE, and no superstars. People came to see Andre, regardless of whether or not you would have. That's why he was booked more than the NWA Champion in his time. Andre flat out drew, and had the respect of the boys, because he paid their pay checks, and because he could work good to great matches.
But I forgot, you're so used to Andre's later work, aren't you?
Hogan had true star power in a way that Andre didn't.
Bull. Shit.
Because if that were the case, Andre also wouldn't have been pulled for TV shows and movies. You can argue his size, but he had the personality that would charm the Hell out of anyone. Andre was called so much, because his personality made him so likeable to people watching. And thus, people wanted to see him.
Unlike Show, who, well, no one wants to see, really.
Andre was a freak attraction, even if he wasn't as limited in the ring as some like to say.
And by some, you mean the same people he actually worked with?
Sorry to say, but fantasy land is probably the best way to compare these two, as looking at Andre only in the context his era excuses the fact that there was little about him that was inherently more marketable or appealing than Show.
You're right; Andre is a legend. The Big Show will be remembered as someone who never fully lived up to his potential.
Show who speaks the English language very well and has had fantastic matches with many men in his era, despite your insistance that his ring skills are shoddy. The mic skills, at the very least, make Show more marketable than Andre if both are on even footing and you adjust for what Andre got as a result of wrestling in his era.
Well, that's hypocritical.
You're going to slam Andre for his height, yet also reward Show, because of his ability to speak English.
Show, for however shoddy you accuse him of being in the ring, still got better matches out of Undertaker since his comeback in 2008 than the supposedly great and more consistently pushed Edge ever did.
Oh... You're serious.
First, let's ignore that The Undertaker is more naturally used to working with big men. Second, Edge's HIAC match is ten times greater than Show's casket match. That match was slow, ploddy, and featured a show who completely out of shape. If anything, the only saving grace to that match was that it was fairly short.
Those are results. Why effort enters into the the equation is beyond me. If I ran the company, I sure wouldn't be dicking around with Show's issues with sloth. The man can produce results even if he's only doing 20% of what he could.
Right, because he draws such an audience...
It's like asking how many times I change my socks. All too many to count.
Hold on. I feel eye rolling coming on.
Ok, here you go; how many of those matches took place in the seventies? Or are they, indeed, every single match Andre had in the WWE from 1986-1990, when his back was fucking killing him, and he was slowly dying?
I'm not voting on legacy. I'm taking the time the worked in out of the equation and looking at them side by side. I know who I'd have an easier time selling.
With no set criteria, "deserve" doesn't enter into things.
So, just making sure.... You admit Andre
deserves the win.
Go elsewhere. You've made yourself look foolish enough for one day.