Let's face the truth about what makes a wrestler "over rated".

[Blade]

I've heard a lot of people say how wrestlers like Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior were "over-rated". Apparently, it's because they were multiple time champions yet their in-ring skill and athleticism were below average and their move set was very limited. But, come on, that is completely wrong.

Pro Wrestling is a business. It is not a sport. Hogan and to a lesser extent, Ultimate Warrior weren't made champions because they were athletic and technically skilled. They were made champions because they drew money. Like I said, pro wrestling is a business and in business, the only thing that matters is making a profit. The way a wrestling business makes a profit is to put a guy that everyone will pay to see as champion. Because people will pay to see them, then obviously they will help the company make money. That's all that matters.

Sure, wrestlers have different levels of talent when it comes to in-ring ability, mic skills, charisma, playing their character etc. etc. But these are not the most important thing about wrestling, these are merely ways to get over and become a draw. Some people say that Bret Hart is the greatest pro wrestler of all time because of his in-ring skills. Yeah, he used those skills to get over but he never became a big draw because of them. Therefore there is no way he could be the greatest wrestler of all time.

Sure, perhaps if pro wrestling was an actual sport, then Bret Hart would be a candidate for the greatest of all time. But I'll say it again, wrestling is a business. He did not make enough money.

Vince Mcmahon cares about wrestling to a certain extent, but what's most important to him is making money. He's put John Cena as champion over the last 4 years because Cena has arguably been the biggest and most consistent draw. I know it'll shock all of you, and you'll disagree, but this next statement is true. If it made more money that Cena, Hardy or anyone else as champion, Vince would put the WWE championship on Hornswoggle. True story.

So, posters of the internet. Do you want to know what actually makes a wrestler over-rated? It's simple. It's the wrestler who has had championships but has never been able to draw good money. Triple H, Jeff Jarrett, Diesel. Guys like that. Guy that held world titles as the face of a company for long periods of time but made ratings and PPV buys plummet. Those are the guys that are over-rated.

So no, Hogan isn't over-rated. Austin and The Rock aren't over-rated. And John Cena isn't over-rated. Get over it.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I know it'll shock all of you, and you'll disagree, but this next statement is true. If it made more money that Cena, Hardy or anyone else as champion, Vince would put the WWE championship on Hornswoggle. True story.

Maybe.... I both agree and disagree with that statement at the same time. Sure, if Hornswoggle was THAT big of a draw then it might happen.... but a world champion also has to be believable as world champion. Too many fans would just up and leave if Hornswoggle were ever the WWE Champion or World Champion. They would think to themselves "Why should I even watch this?". I understand your argument, and you make a valid point.... but the champion has to be someone that the fans can get behind too because otherwise they would see no point in watching.

So, posters of the internet. Do you want to know what actually makes a wrestler over-rated? It's simple. It's the wrestler who has had championships but has never been able to draw good money. Triple H, Jeff Jarrett, Diesel. Guys like that. Guy that held world titles as the face of a company for long periods of time but made ratings and PPV buys plummet. Those are the guys that are over-rated.

So no, Hogan isn't over-rated. Austin and The Rock aren't over-rated. And John Cena isn't over-rated. Get over it.

Now this part I agree with. The Champion needs to be decent in the ring, good on the mic, over with the fans, believable as champion, AND be able to draw. You're right that guys who could not draw are over-rated (in most cases, but not all.) and that the guys who do draw aren't (again, for the most part) because they make more money for the federation.

 

[The Doctor]

Overrated and Underrated are really stupid terms, if you ask me. It's impossible to define either one. People say Benjamin is overrated, others say he's underrated. People sing his praises all the time, and say he's the best ever, but on TV he isn't pushed. According to Wrestlezone, this makes him the top underrated star. What's wrong with this picture?

Overrated and underrated are two more meaningless terms that need to be retired from our fan-lexicon.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

Overrated and Underrated are really stupid terms, if you ask me. It's impossible to define either one. People say Benjamin is overrated, others say he's underrated. People sing his praises all the time, and say he's the best ever, but on TV he isn't pushed. According to Wrestlezone, this makes him the top underrated star. What's wrong with this picture?

Overrated and underrated are two more meaningless terms that need to be retired from our fan-lexicon.

I agree. Especially in these types of situations. On these boards, people are constantly going on and on about overrated and underrated, but who sets the standard. If you ask me "Is John Cena overrated or underrated?" I'm thinking "compared to what?" I mean, I think John Cena is pretty good, but some people think he's terrible. Am I judging his overratedness based on my opinion, or someone else's opinion?

Basically, I think it's pretty much like the TS said, for most people it's just a disguise to attack wrestlers who people don't like, because they are "limited" in-ring. I like to call it Meltzer-itis, a disease infecting the IWC where the worth of a wrestler is determined by a random standard "good worker", rather then what attracts the most fans.

 

[CH David]

Doc, you know I love you, but there is no way that underrated and overrated will ever leave our terminology, and there really isn't any reason. It is always open to interpretation, which isn't always a bad thing. We can always argue back and forth, and try to get people to at least understand where we come from when we talk overrated and underrated.

Although I am glad you brought up Shelton Benjamin. He is the perfect example of the IWC golden boy. Most people now, myself included to an extent, love when a wrestler can perform complex moves, or are good technical wrestlers. But Shelton is not under or overrated. Until recently, he has been shit, no matter what. No charisma, no care to improve, nothing, and it showed in the ring, which is why no one ever gave two shits about him.

Now, before I learned to form my own opinion on this forum, I used to think that Hogan was the most overrated motherfucker in the world. I was a typical smark, another beloved Doc term , and loved the technical wrestling and never really thought about anything else when I started. But as I grew as a poster on here, I learned that the technical abilities of a wrestler could mean fuck all if you couldn't actually tell a story. Hogan did that, and to an extent, Warrior did. Hogan had you believing everything that came out of his damn mouth, he made you care about him back in the Golden Era. I have learned to appreciate what he was able to do for the company, what Stone Cold did in the Attitude Era (even though I always loved Austin) and what Cena is doing now.

 

[Ytoojae]

Cena isn't believable to me. He is the epitome of the word 'overrated'.

I can't tolerate it when I see him get beaten up and then a moment later it's as though nothing ever happened. It's not even be explained away in the same way that Hogan could "Oh no, *opponent* better watch out, he's Hulking up!!" -- the way in which a second after winning a grueling contest he's back on his feet as though he didn't even get a scratch (see Survivor Series 2009 Vs Triple H Vs Shawn Michaels).

Hogan was brilliant and Austin was to an even larger degree. People criticize The Rock more because of his over the top finishing move (the People's Elbow) than anything else but even he could sell a beating even when he was the victor.

As far as Shelton Benjamin goes everybody fawns all over the athletic ability but that's pretty much all Shelton Benjamin is. Pure and simple athletic ability. I don't believe Shelton has ever been willing to work hard enough to fully utilize the god given ability that he has. That neither makes him over or underrated. WWE has realized that Shelton doesn't have the drive and ambition to fully utilize his talent and have kept him as the bit-player that he is. The WWE has a huge pay-per-view coming up with a match geared towards athleticism and high spots? Throw Shelton into it, he usually will not disappoint and he'll leave the fans in awe expecting more. You need a guy to work his tail off on making a believable feud to get someone over or to put him over? Forget it - he wont work hard enough to make it a success.

I wish Shelton would apply himself more. I still remember fondly the feud that he had with Triple H so many years ago now. When he put his mind to it he is more than capable but he's lazy and content to never be all that he can be. Allegedly he was offered the position of ECW champion in the past and he turned it down because he didn't want the pressure. What this tells me is that he himself admitted that he wouldn't put in the required workload for it to come off.

I'm a Jericho fan -- the username is a play on his Y2J thing -- but he's a classic case of a guy who is both underrated and overrated at the same time. The IWC believes that he's God's gift to the wrestling industry yet for the most part whenever he's in main event feuds he's the one being used to put someone over. Sure, he's had his runs as champion but overall those runs have been used to further promote the talent around him be it Cena (2005, 2008), Triple H or whomever. The WWE hasn't used Jericho to the best of his ability. However, I don't think that ability, as good as Jericho is, is anywhere near as high as what the IWC portrays him to be. Is he a champion level competitor? Yes. Has he got the ability to be the top guy in the industry? Honestly, no chance in hell.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[UseYourBrain]

So no, Hogan isn't over-rated. Austin and The Rock aren't over-rated. And John Cena isn't over-rated. Get over it.

Nice shot at an insulting bottom line closing sentence, but you're wrong. They ARE over-rated. You proved that they are martetable, you didn't prove they were GOOD. Tickle-Me-Elmo sold more units than any other toy that year. Does that mean it's not an over-rated doll? HELL NO!!!! As a matter of fact, it proves it is! Transformers 2 made HUGE money this year. Does that make it awesome?! No way! Reviews for that were terrible.

We've all heard the same old yapping about how it's a BUSINESS, and to an extent I agree with that. However, it's also an artform (according to Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan, etc). Just because some dumb morons don't understand the difference between the Mona Lisa and a crayon drawing by a three year old doesn't mean there isn't one... and if for some ridiculous reason that crayon drawing became famous and made millions, it's still a moronic crayon drawing... and that makes it absolutely over-rated. Again, from a business standpoint, I get it. From a creative standpoint, I absolutely loathe it.

So when Cena is doing his stupid hand wave in front of his face and t-shirts are flying off the shelves as a result... that is, by definition, what the word "Over-rated" means.

 

[D-Man]

It's funny how this subject came up. The finals of the Debator's League championships had to do with this subject. It basically asked if the low ratings can be attributed to Bret Hart's supposed inability to draw during the New Generation Era.

Now, according to Blade, Bret Hart is overratted. After all, he was the leader of the New Generation in 1995 and WWE ratings, buyrates, and attendances were at an all-time low. I find this to be completely innaccurate. We all know that Bret is one of the most respected, well-known, and greatest wrestlers of all time. As far as I'm concerned, his in-ring skills, mic skills, and other work that he did in professional wrestling was excellent. But, if we stick to Blade's theory, then everything I just said is null and void because the guy didn't draw monster numbers in the mid 90's. This doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Super Crazy]

I have to say, I disagree with Blade completely on this subject. While wrestling is a business , and businesses rely on income and the profitability of their products, For you to sit there and say that wrestlers are overrated based on their ability to draw, is your opinion, for me , a wrestler that is over rated is someone that has all this hype surrounding them, but they don't live up to the hype.

Bret Hart by far, is not overrated. As the D-Man said he is one of the best to ever lace up a pair of boots and step foot in the squared circle. Just because he didn't draw very well does not make him overrated, it just means the product they were putting out at the time was not the best.

Hulk Hogan on the other hand, is overrated. At least in this day and age is overrated. Back in the day, he had all this hype surrounding him, and he lived up tot he hype, everyone loved him, there was nothing Hogan could do wrong until he turned heel in WCW and formed the nWo. Now, when Hogan returned to the WWE, I feel he overstayed his welcome so to speak, and thus, the hype he has, lost it's value. Hogan may be a media icon and may be the most well known wrestler of all time, but that doesn't mean shit to me now. Hogan just keeps coming back again and again, and really, as I said his name is losing value each time he returns.

This is all a matter of opinion though, and depends solely on how you look at the industry. If you look at it from the perspective of a businessman and how they make their money, then Blade's opinion is fine, but if you look at it as someone who enjoys the actual wrestling , and seeing people who are technical geniuses, then being overrated has nothing to do with drawing ability and everything with the ability to work a match.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Sorry, but I've got to disagree. While wrestling is supposed to be about over the top characters, there has to be some degree of believability in the guys and the only time I ever felt that for Hogan was when I was about 5 or 6 years old. Warrior was so out there that I NEVER believed in the guy.

Now, I agree that numbers and the bottom line do play a factor and must have some consideration. However, that simply can't be the end all and be all of a wrestler when it comes to fans. As a fan, there has to be something that makes me connect with a wrestler and make me give a crap about what he's currently involved in when it comes to feuds or angles. If what I see in the ring doesn't impress me, if the guy can't hold my attention while on the mic, if I'm not drawn in by the charismatic personality of someone, then I don't particularly care about them. Doesn't matter to me if said wrestler routinely headlines shows that breaks attendance records, makes ratings history and drives up ppv buys. Now that is important for the business of course and I'll not deny that. You'll never hear me say Hogan wasn't a great draw or that Warrior couldn't get a crowd fired up. But when it comes to their ability to get into the wrestling ring and do what wrestlers are supposed to do, namely talk or wrestle, Hogan and the Warrior are the very epitome of overrated. I've heard people say that Hulk Hogan is the greatest wrestler in the history of the business and that's bullshit. Hulk Hogan may have been the biggest draw in the history of the business, but that doesn't automatically rank him as a great wrestler in my eyes.