Giant Letdown

[Mac Attack]

For those of you have noticed Andre the Giant has gotten into the Hall of Fame. Did anyone I mean anyone have him in the first five of the Hall of Fame? I know that this guy was massive and was a huge figure, however put into the Top 5 of the Hall o0f Fame? I say no. His biggest moment was getting slammed by Hogan and that's the higlight of his career? I know he lost to almost nobody but really there's a few wrestlers under this category. I wouldn't even mind if a very old wrestling innovator got in however I still ask Andre?

My Questions

Is Andre top 5 material?

How do you feel that he took the place of one of your other favorites?

Where would you have put him in the HOF?

My answer to these cquestions are as followed. Is he top 5 material no because of the other great wrestlers/innovators of the past. I personally believe Vince McMahon deserves in way before the Giant. I would have put him at number 9.

 

[The Brain]

You are clearly showing your age here. Andre The Giant died before you were even born so I can see why you think this way, but you are way off. Andre absolutely deserves to be in the top five. Don’t just look at his matches from the late 80s and judge his career by those. He was so far past his prime at that point he could barely walk to the ring. I’m a lot older than you and even I’m too young to have seen Andre in his true prime, but I know the kind of legend he was. Andre The Giant is the most famous wrestler ever besides Hulk Hogan. I could see putting Vince McMahon in before Andre but keep in mind Andre was a huge box office attraction long before Vince took over his daddy’s company.

 

[The Prodigal Anti-Lemming]

I’m one hundred percent with the Mauler on this in that I would strongly disagree with the choice of Andre in the overall top five. This is coming from someone who saw a number of his matches when he was in his prime. The middle aged, disease ravaged Andre of 1988 that could barely haul his broken carcass to the ring pales in comparison to a lithe, agile Andre from 1972 who was able to launch a dropkick as effectively as anyone in the industry. Now, that being said, if you’re judging Andre in terms of his name value alone, then I guess he would have to be a worthy top five contender. However, there are (or saying as how I’m not privy to precisely what manner of process goes into the selections, logically should be) other criteria.

In my eyes, Andre’s position as the journeyman big man in the industry both helped and hurt his place in history. Most notably, this hurt him because here’s a guy who spent the majority of his career jumping from territory to territory. He was rarely anywhere long enough to win anything of value and choked against various world champions in all three major promotions (Race in the NWA, Bockwinkel in the AWA, Hogan, and if memory serves, Graham in the WWF). Andre’s obvious physical differences put him in a very unique place that has been occupied by no other wrestler. He was viewed as unbeatable. On the plus side, it legitimized him to a higher plateau, but on the flip side, promoters simply would not book him over a champion for one main reason: he was such a juggernaut that fans—and this was more or less proven in the Montreal territory—would not pay to see him in the driver’s seat because they did not think he could lose.

Having said that, he was an obvious all-time great, but name value alone should not cause one to overlook the fact that when all was said and done, the guy had a shitty championship resume. A lot of people will disagree. John Molinaro ranks Andre sixth in his “100 Greatest Wrestlers of All-Time” book. Of course, he also ranks stars such as Jesse Ventura and Dara Singh while leaving noteworthies such as Joe Stecher off the list entirely...so I shouldn’t have to tell you my opinion on Molinaro.

Were I choosing the hall of fame candidates, I would put Andre at number 18 of the all time greats. If that seems low, consider for a moment that the top 25 is entirely made up of guys that either changed the business significantly, were utterly huge drawing stars, or, in the case of Andre, were among the biggest household names. Perhaps one percent of all the wrestlers of a given era would qualify for the top 25, which makes it a very lofty position.

In short, I don’t view Andre as high as wrestlers such as Rikidozan, who singlehandedly established wrestling in Japan, or Jim Londos, who drew huge crowds and did it consistently during the leanest economic period in American history, or Gorgeous George, who introduced blatant showmanship to the industry.

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

And I'm with the Brain on this one.

Andre the Giant is very deserving of being amongst the initial 5 inductees of our HOF.

Now to start off with, yes there are plenty of others worthy of being in the top 5. I of course agree with the Prodigal Anti-Lemming in that Frank Gotch is definitely worthy of being in the top 5. As the biggest and most important star of the early years of pro wrestling. I also feel that Gorgeous George and Buddy Rogers would be good top 5 candidates as two of the best early heels in wrestling. Also Rikidozan deserved to be in the top 5 as the first major pro wrestler in Japan. Same with El Santo in Mexico.

However, there can be only 5, and Andre is definitely a worthy candidate.

As I believe the Brain stated, other than Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant is possibly the most famous pro wrestler in history. He was along with Bruno Sammartino by far the biggest draw in pro wresting during the 1970's, and was the biggest draw in the '80s until Hulkamania. He kept pro wrestling alive in the '70s and '80s just before the territories around the country started getting really hot and then of course the expansion of the WWWF.

Andre the Giant is one of the most beloved and respected wrestlers in history, in that the way the Undertaker is thought of and respected in today's WWE world, Andre was the same in his era. And Andre really was the first of his kind. Before Andre, you either had taller, leaner pro wrestlers (like Don Leo Jonathan, Killer Kowalski, etc.), or regular sized, super heavyweight (Haystacks Calhoun, Gorilla Monsoon, etc.).

Before Andre there was never a pro wrestler over 7 feet tall or around the '7 feet tall area. He was the first all-around giant of pro wrestling. While Superstar Billy Graham is credited with ushering in the era of muscular, larger wrestlers being the top stars, I think Andre deserves a big hand in that, in that before Andre, the biggest draws were typically your regular sized guys (ala Lou Thesz, Bruno Sammartino, Buddy Rogers, Antonino Rocca, Verne Gagne, etc.). I think Andre's huge stardom did help to change the image of pro wrestlers to the general public. That of larger than life superheroes. So yes, I do think Andre the Giant actually changed the business, and would disagree with the Prodigal Anti-Lemming's statement that he didn't.

As far as his championship success, I think that argument is really invalid, in that some of the greatest pro wrestlers in history (both talent wise and historical impact wise) were never world champions (at least major ones). Highly influential and historically significant wrestlers such as Bobo Brazil, Antonino Rocca and Gorgeous George were never major world champions in any of the major territories (ala NWA, AWA, WWWF, etc.) Then of course there were brilliant, talented in ring competitors such as Ray Stevens, Johnny Valentine, Killer Kowalski, and later on Ted Dibiase, Roddy Piper, and Dynamite Kid (a wrestler who helped to change the business) were never major world champions either. And as far as Andre never being in a territory long enough to make a significant impact, I beg to differ. Sure he wrestled in other territories, but by the early '80s, he was clearly a WWE guy and he did much to put the company on the map, leading up to Hogan. And even that argument was true, still that's the just the way that era was. There were plenty of journeymen wrestlers of that era who are considered amongst the all-time greats. Wrestlers like Stan Hansen, Brusier Brody, and Abdullah the Butcher.


In short, I can see the argument for others being in the top 5, but to say Andre doesn't belong, I just can't agree with. I respect The Prodigal Anti-Lemming's process for declaring his greats and ranked lists. Awesome and and a very good method. But I just can't agree with it. Andre is very worthy of being in the intial 5.

 

[The Prodigal Anti-Lemming]

Upon further reflection, my post on Andre and his placement in the hall of fame probably sounded harsh. Let me just iterate that it is not my meaning to downplay Andre’s overall role in wrestling or his position in history. I know I came off sounding strong.

However, my opinion still stands. Truly, Andre was one of the biggest names ever in wrestling history and an established draw. As you mention, in my earlier critique, I forgot for a moment that Andre changed the perception of the big man. Other giant wrestlers had come before him... one or two were even taller than Andre. But all of those big men were booked as pure novelty attractions, not legitimate title threats. That is Andre’s greatest contribution to the game. However, that said, I feel that it is incumbent of us to consider the full range of criteria in relation to his placement. If we acknowledge Ric Flair’s run of championship success as a reason for making him an initial pick, is it not consistent for us to also acknowledge Andre’s total lack thereof? The requirements for selection of an individual position from 1 to 2 to 3 to 100 to 1067 should be the same, regardless of whether the particular recipient invokes qualities that seem to be lacking in all or most of the field.

By placing Andre at number five, are we really saying his contributions were more vital than El Santo, who singlehandedly popularized wrestling in Mexico, or Jim Londos, who kept wrestling popular during the Great Depression, or even Giant Baba or Antonio Inoki who not only maintained wrestling in Japan after the premature death of Rikidozan, but created companies and styles that impacted the wrestling game in the States? If I viewed Andre’s effect on the business as equal to those guys, I might place him higher in spite of his lack of title reigns.

Truly, it can be said specific greats such as Andre were no worse off career-wise for their lack of championship victories. George is another good example. In the end, their lack of title wins did nothing to hurt their bottom line. However, when one is comparing athletes from era to era in an objective manner, I believe it is vital that the full range of criteria be considered equally from wrestler to wrestler.

Andre didn’t “need” to win a world championship and carry it for four years. But the fact that he did not should have a bearing on his placement. This is the logic that led me to place Andre at 18 on my list. Just as it is the logic that led me to rank George two spots higher. I’m taking nothing away from either man; keep in mind, if we are talking about any other wrestler besides Andre and George—and this is in a ranking in which I have done the utmost to consider all of the money players in wrestling from the 1860s to present—they do not make the top tier because of that limitation. Andre and George are unique...which is why I include them. Certainly, any other wrestler that won tag title after tag title and failed to defeat four world champions while never enjoying a significant title reign would not be in my top 200, let alone my top 20.

I think the perception of what a top five is is what might generate a lot of difference of opinion here. Some might forget that the sheer quantity of champions over a century leads to a kind of dilution of greats. In that respect being in the top 25, assuming that my top 25 is reasonable and accurate would be a major milestone accomplished by the chosen few. Others probably look at number 25 and say “Why is ______ ranked so low?”

I do tend to overanalyze, and maybe I’m full of some hot air, but this is all just food for thought. Certainly, having Andre in the top five is acceptable, given the fact that he is in my top tier of major players in wrestling history...I should be pleased that all of the initial picks are men that I feel belong in that category. It’s all based on opinion, and it is impossible for everyone to agree one hundred percent all the time on a subject as complex as rating wrestlers.

 

[The Crock]

Nobody deserves to be in the Top 5 over Andre, come on now. Andre was the biggest star of his time, then when Hogan arrived he STILL rivaled Hogan's pops. Andre drew like crazy and earlier in his career, before his injuries caught up with him, he was one of the most athletic big men ever. Andre revolutionized the business. I don't think you know how significant going undefeated for ten to fifteen years really is. The man was so dominant that they couldn't put the world title on him because he couldn't drop it to anybody. It just wouldn't make sense. He had it all. Andre faced everybody there was to face and he beat everybody. Andre was a great selection.

 

[shattered dreams]

Macios, it is really pretty simple. Why do you think it meant so much that Hogan slammed Andre? It certainly was not only because of his size if that is what you are thinking. Vince McMahon isn't a wrestler when it comes down to it. He is certainly quite important to prowrestling history but you start with the wrestlers. I think you would have more "luck" risking Gelgarin's wrath and trying to make an argument like this against Thesz, which would be pretty amusing in its one-sided outcome as well.

 

[WZ's Apprentice]

This question comes with an age barrier and by that i mean if you weren't around to see him when he was active you probably wont think he was all that special. Andre did far more then get slammed by the guy who put WWF on the map. If you recall he is also the one who ended the 1400 day plus Hulk Hogan reign as champ. Yeah the title as stripped because he tried to sell it (storyline) to Dibiase. But i believe he was the one to take the belt off Hogan because how Hulk was pushed at the time made Andre one of a few believable contenders.

He was very sloppy from what i can remember late in his career but at that point his body was giving out. Andre also crossed barriers outside the ring that helped build wrestling to what it has become today. He is wrestlings greatest big man and its biggest draw among giants ever. That alone should be enough to consider him in such a high regard.

 

[ugotpwned999]

I'm half and half. He had a big impact on history and is definetly a massive legend (excuse the pun), also had some historic matches, pretty much gave his body to the WWF(he was wiped out by the end of the career) and went undefeated for something like 15 years if I recall properly.

Saying that there are more deserving legends than Andre, ones that did more for the buisness and had more of a legendary status like Ric Flair etc...

Andre Deserved to be in the HOF early on but not the top 5 IMO.

 

[BreenBluh]

I think you're missing that HOF doesn't mean "the best wrestler." It means wrestlers with the biggest impact on the business. Before Hogan, Andre was the household name. It was a spectacle to see Andre the Giant, he'd draw huge money for wherever he'd go.

If the only video you've seen of him is Wrestlemania 3 and beyond, he was extremely broken down by that point. Early in his career he wasn't nearly as heavy, could really move and just had major charisma. Absolutely one of the best of all time.

 

[Freebirdfan]

If you were around the Dallas area during the late 70's early 80's there were only two men who rivaled the popularity of the Von Erichs. Those men were Andre The Giant and Ric Flair. Andre was loved, Flair was hated!

 

[MisterRob]

Andre's fine for the Hall of Fame. But Shawn Michaels inducted into the 1st string of Inductees? Get the fuck out of here. I find it hilarious how so many people talk about the WWE brainwashing people to believe this way and that way, and how they accuse other posters of falling prey to the revisionist history of Vince McMahon and the WWE, and then they believe Shawn Michaels is the greatest wrestler alive and they vote him into the 1st hall of fame induction.

Balls!

Clearly those very people have been brainwashed by the WWE over the years. What the hell has Shawn Michaels done to be viewed in such high regard in the history of wrestling? Sure he has a string of great in ring matches, but certainly his matches and his feuds don't compare to a huge list of other wrestlers. Ric Flair, Bret Hart, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, and the list goes on and on. Shawn Michaels wasn't even the best wrestler or the face of the company during his own Era! In his own company!

Shawn Michaels was a poor man's draw, he didn't carry the company or the business anywhere, he really didn't have such GREAT feuds during his time (beyond Bret Hart and then a few during his second run). So what the hell has Shawn Michaels done to really deserve to be inducted over other legends? The WWE machine at its finest!

 

[e3mrk]

Andre would win when They let Him and lose when He was told to.
He should be #1 if not just for the acting.

 

[tak161]

Andre was very much deserving of being one of the first inductees. When you think of the history of wrestling, not just WWE, how can you not think of Andre. He was, as has been stated before, one of, if not the biggest draws of the seventies and eighties. People came from everywhere to see a show if Andre was billed as being on the card. Promoters jumped at the chance to get Andre because of what he meant for business. During that time, he wasn't the slow, barely moving man that he was at the end of his career. He was an extremely agile guy for the size he was, which meant even more.

Sure, there are other guys who have come along before and after him that are worthy, but Andre was just as important to wrestling as Hogan, Flair, and anyone else that can be named. Not winning a championship does not mean he wasn't worthy, because titles don't always mean you are worthy. Several guys have been a major world champion, but we're not meaningful to wrestling. Impact is not measured just by how many titles you win, but by the overall impact you made. And in that regard, Andre wade one of the most impractical guys in wrestling period.

 

[Whatsinaname696]

Speaking of wrestlers lacking titles, where's Jake? Andre is DEF worthy, as everyone has pointed out about, his agility for his size (or anyone's size really), his streak, his popularity, and being on the losing end of (what I would consider) the most important match in wrestling history.

As far as titles go I think that should be given MINIMAL consideration at best, consider Flair "winning" 14 titles, he didn't win anything, he did his job and did it well, that's why he's had 14 titles.

Andre did his job well too, one big diff is... if you give Andre the title... how do you get it back? Also, Flair having 14 titles means he lost 14 titles too, should that have a bearing? Demolition didn't have a lot of titles.... because they held theirs for over a year straight, also Flair even as a good guy is a snake (more props to Jake) in the grass, do we count titles he won, shall we say, dubiously? no because that's part of the show so... yeah

I can think of a LOT of people I would put WAY before El Santo and even Bobby Heenan who I love, but hey, they do have important contributions so I won't say they're unworthy, jus wouldn't be my picks, so yeah Andre is DEF worthy and I would actually say they NAILED his spot... that being said... I would venture Taker would already be on here were he retired so the list isn't really done yet and the order might not really matter. K, that's all I got.

 

[Bdub]

As strange as it sounds Andre might not crack the top five simply because how big the business has gotten. It is so difficult to compare eras against each other. Would Gorgeous George rank in the top 5? Is someone like Lou Thez or Harley Race in the top 5? It all depends on your frame of reference. If the timeframe is all time, then yes Andre is number five. If the timeframe is within the past 30 years then no Andre is still top 10, because guys like HHH, HBK, The Rock, Hogan, Flair, Hart, Austin, Taker, Cena and Jericho have pushed the older guard to the lower ranks simply because the reach of the business has gotten so much wider.

 

[WWFan79]

Little kids should not be discussing this question or anything to do with Andre. They have no idea.

 

[FromGlasgow]

Theres no question in my mind Andre is deserving of that position, I can't even waste anymore time debating it with some kids thats probably only seen a couple of quick clips or photos of Andre and claim to be experts who probably believe someone like seth rollins or dean ambrose should be in that top 5 of all time level.

 

[Meth Head]

OP, you put up a decently-articulated argument but you'd do well to read up on Andre's history before questioning his place and position on the Hall of Fame. Saying his biggest achievement is "getting body-slammed" by Hogan is plain ignorant - and in the context of a wrestling forum, embarrassing.

 

[rmp0012002]

The people that say Andre is not top five HOF don't know the history of the sport or are very young and only know the wrestling world as seen through the WWE. Andre was the greatest wrestling draw of all time and didn't need any belts to prove his stardom. He had fought all the world champions and starred in every territory and was a huge draw around the world. Too many of today's fans judge him on his loss to Hogan but they only got to see the end of his career when his body was failing.

 

[L@RISANO]

Out here in the Caribbean, people that don't even know or follow WWE or any other company know about Andre the Giant and that is telling. He wasn't known as the "Eighth Wonder of the World" for nothing.