Old-School Wrestler That Got More Than He Deserved

[Spidey Revivey]

I have to go with Buff Bagwell aka Buff Daddy of WCW fame. I never understood how this guy became a 5-time World Tag Champion; to me his mic work was mediocre, his matches were slow and standard, and his personality felt borrowed most of the time. He almost felt forced in WCW; just that other guy that's suppose to be interesting but clearly isn't. I don't think he deserved one tag team title run, let alone five, especially when there were so many other wrestlers who had more in-ring prowess and charisma (Jericho, Guerrero, etc) who didn't get the chance.


Not the worst wrestler by any means, but still someone that I never understood how he deserved the gold.

 

[The Brain]

Good thread idea, TS.

I'm gonna go with Bob Backlund.

I admit...his first run in the WWF was before my time, so I'm talking about the Bob Backlund from 92-95. Here's a guy that just didn't fit in with the new generation. The WWF was turning more hip with glitz and glammor. Then you had boring Bob that the WWF was trying to push as a lunatic who would snap at any given moment. I was 9 or 10 years old at the time and even I didn't buy into it. It was stupid. His feud with Bret was ok for the mat wrestling...but his character seemed out of place with the new generation. Then in another one of Vince's genius moves he puts the strap on Backlund. WTF?

His reign as champion was a joke and the WWF finally realized it. They had Backlund drop the belt to Nash in a NON-televised event in which the match lasted 10 seconds (if I remember correctly).

You look at all the greats who never held a world title: Piper, Perfect, Razor...the list goes on an on. They were awesome characters with great charisma with outstanding in-ring skills. A guy like Backlund gets to become world champ and these guys don't. Sometimes I just wanna smack Vince upside the head and tell him he's a dumbfuck.

That is all.

I have to disagree here too. The bolded part is why I think it worked so well. Backlund just couldn't deal with the new generation. He was the bitter old guy who would tell all the youngster why the older days were so much better. No one wanted to hear it and he ended up becoming a great heel because of it. I've often said that Bob Backlund in 1994 is a great example of the WWF making the most out of what they had. There weren't many main event heels at the time so they completley reinventd Backlund and I think it worked out very well. Besides he only had a three day title reign to transition into Diesel. We never even saw him with the belt on tv.

Diesel would actually be a better name to mention in this thread. He was a guy who didn't really accomplish anything in wrestling and then after a good six months in the WWF all of a sudden he was champion. I won't complain much about it because I am one of the few who enjoyed Diesel's title reign but a case could be made that he didn't deserve it.

@SAMCRO I didn't watch much WCW toward the end so I could be wrong, but I don't think Bagwell was ever world champion much less a five time champion.

 

[penguin74]

Ok pal, who did then? If watching one DVD makes you an expert on him and the WWF at that time then tell me who, at the time when Hogan was trying to leave the industry to become a movie star, was in a position to be the number 1 babyface of the company at that time?

Warrior did suck in the ring, his attitude was shitty and he was stiff in the ring, all these thing may be true. He still was the 2nd most successful wrestler in the WWFs 2nd most successful period. Not even Cena, Taker or Orton nowadays get the pop he did in his prime.

He derserved to be made top guy, he didn't cut it and he never became world champ again. I think Vince did what was right at the time. You should stick to commenting on current wrestling, which you have actually followed rather than make worthless posts on wrestlers you have watched one DVD which would have turned out a lot different had Warrior played ball and endorsed it.

Lol I would have loved to have seen what your opinion on Bret Hart would be if he had not decided to co-operate on his DVD and WWE turned it into a slag-fest like the Warriors.

Oh yeah, in case you haven't noticed, ya know, with you being a wrestling fan n all. THE MOST OVER GUY IS THE MOST DESERVING.

We can argue all day long as to whether or not the Warrior being "over" made him deserving or not. Look how over Goldberg was, did he "earn" it or was it all handed to him on a silver platter. Go back to Piper's promo with Cena before Survivor Series and the lists of all the greats who never wore the championship belt Piper, Henning, Dibiase, Jake the Snake all were more "deserving" than the Warrior but never came close to his success despite giving more to the business than he ever will.

No one can deny the Warrior's popularity, I was as big a fan of his as anyone back then, but this is a look back in time thread, and in retrospect, his total lack of commitment, professionalism or passion mean he did not deserve the achievements he got.

You seem to know a lot about the warrior to know the dvd was total bullshit. What inside info are you working off of that the rest of us don't have? If there is more to the story, please share.

 

[ilapierre]

Penguin74: I own the Warrior DVD and it is perhaps the most hilarious one WWE has put out. A lot of what was said in that DVD had some truth to it but was manipulated and exaggerated to make the Warrior look like shit. They had underrated guys of 20 years ago, who have now in hindsight become overrated, like Ted Dibiase and Sergeant Slaughter and whoever bitterly slamming the Warrior. The DVD was unprofessional. Warrior overshadowed these guys. Who really wanted to see balding beer belly Slaughter who was a nothing as world champ? Who wanted to see Ted Dibiase buy himself the belt? In hindsight it's easier to say Warrior was least deserving, but had Warrior not been given the shot there would be a thread here about who was most deserving who didn't get one and he'd be everyone's choice.

Had Warrior been part of the DVD and had power over what was said about him, it would have been a completely different DVD. The DVD would have been completely different had Warrior stayed loyal to WWE and his legacy would be in tact better. DVDs like this should be the same regardless if Warrior has anything to do with it or not. The fact that the DVD would be different with his cooperation signals that it's not truth but instead revisionist history. And for all you out there who don't know what revisionist history is, go look it up.

Even though i don't agree with your position on Warrior as the least deserving, you do make good points that i have heard a million times before. They are all the same points
WWE focuses on in the DVD. As a journalist with 8 years of education, i've been trained to spot propaganda bullshit and separate it from fact. That DVD is pure revisionist history, like most of the crap WWE releases each year, from the Rise and Fall of WCW and the Monday Night Wars. The DVD had a slant, a purpose, and that purpose was to bury Warrior's legacy and prop up the ones of WWE loyalists like Dibiase and Flair. I mean it was hilarious, but for a company that prides itself for being 'classy' that DVD was as 'unclassy' as they come.

You can argue me, that's just my opinion. It's not inside info i'm working on that everyone else doesn't have either. It's common sense, called reading between the lines and being objective. You should never take anybody with an axe to grind or an agenda at complete face value. It's a really important skill in this world to be able to make sense of history, and understand how methods of propaganda are used by powerful people or companies toward twisting reality to make a new one that suits. The history of the world has been distorted throughout time by winners of wars to justify themselves and make their enemy look deserving of their fate. Same goes for WWE in rewarding its loyalists and tarnishing the legacies of those who betrayed them. And most of those guys who betrayed the all powerful WWE did so because they were going to have their careers buried behind the commentator's desk, as road agents, as special old guys who appear on a retro Raw once a year, or given 25 year contracts that are for office work behind the scenes. Demoted idiots like Koko B Ware, Ricky Steamboat, Sgt. Slaugther, Ted Dibiase, George Steele, Jimmy Snucka (Ric Flair up until a year ago) get treated as classy draws of the past (and as better wrestlers than they ever were) for their post career butt kissing while guys like Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Hart, Luger, Nash and Hall (and now Flair) have had their legacies tarnished because they sought employment in their field of work in the next best place. I mean all of this is common sense, and common sense comes with intelligence and a handle on history and how it can be manipulated. Anyone with at least average intelligence can figure all this out and differentiate between the little pieces of truth on that DVD and the complete bull to formulate for themselves how biased and unprofessional it was. Just like ALL revisionist WWE home video this past decade which has purposely focused on diminishing and propping up legacies to pit fans of the past who were there and old enough to remember it, against those who weren't there or were too young to remember it properly.

 

[dansaun77]

Kevin Nash, terrible worker, only got a start because HBK needed a guy to watch his back when he become a very unlikable primadonna backstage. Vince had a boner for big guys back in the day, and Diesel was tall, but he could not wrestle. His title run in WWE was forgettable, his WCW run came all on the back of the greatest gimmick in recent wrestling history. He chose which ppv's he got to work, he took over the booking and destroyed the only decent home grown talent they had at the time(Goldberg undefeated streak). Kevin Nash should never have been in the position to be remembered as a 4 time World Champion, multiple tag team champion, IC Titlist, He could not sell, he refused to put most guys over. And now he is a bitter 50 msomething poisoning the business.

 

[penguin74]

Penguin74: I own the Warrior DVD and it is perhaps the most hilarious one WWE has put out. A lot of what was said in that DVD had some truth to it but was manipulated and exaggerated to make the Warrior look like shit. They had underrated guys of 20 years ago, who have now in hindsight become overrated, like Ted Dibiase and Sergeant Slaughter and whoever bitterly slamming the Warrior. The DVD was unprofessional. Warrior overshadowed these guys. Who really wanted to see balding beer belly Slaughter who was a nothing as world champ? Who wanted to see Ted Dibiase buy himself the belt? In hindsight it's easier to say Warrior was least deserving, but had Warrior not been given the shot there would be a thread here about who was most deserving who didn't get one and he'd be everyone's choice.

Had Warrior been part of the DVD and had power over what was said about him, it would have been a completely different DVD. The DVD would have been completely different had Warrior stayed loyal to WWE and his legacy would be in tact better. DVDs like this should be the same regardless if Warrior has anything to do with it or not. The fact that the DVD would be different with his cooperation signals that it's not truth but instead revisionist history. And for all you out there who don't know what revisionist history is, go look it up.

Even though i don't agree with your position on Warrior as the least deserving, you do make good points that i have heard a million times before. They are all the same points
WWE focuses on in the DVD. As a journalist with 8 years of education, i've been trained to spot propaganda bullshit and separate it from fact. That DVD is pure revisionist history, like most of the crap WWE releases each year, from the Rise and Fall of WCW and the Monday Night Wars. The DVD had a slant, a purpose, and that purpose was to bury Warrior's legacy and prop up the ones of WWE loyalists like Dibiase and Flair. I mean it was hilarious, but for a company that prides itself for being 'classy' that DVD was as 'unclassy' as they come.

You can argue me, that's just my opinion. It's not inside info i'm working on that everyone else doesn't have either. It's common sense, called reading between the lines and being objective. You should never take anybody with an axe to grind or an agenda at complete face value. It's a really important skill in this world to be able to make sense of history, and understand how methods of propaganda are used by powerful people or companies toward twisting reality to make a new one that suits. The history of the world has been distorted throughout time by winners of wars to justify themselves and make their enemy look deserving of their fate. Same goes for WWE in rewarding its loyalists and tarnishing the legacies of those who betrayed them. And most of those guys who betrayed the all powerful WWE did so because they were going to have their careers buried behind the commentator's desk, as road agents, as special old guys who appear on a retro Raw once a year, or given 25 year contracts that are for office work behind the scenes. Demoted idiots like Koko B Ware, Ricky Steamboat, Sgt. Slaugther, Ted Dibiase, George Steele, Jimmy Snucka (Ric Flair up until a year ago) get treated as classy draws of the past (and as better wrestlers than they ever were) for their post career butt kissing while guys like Hogan, Warrior, Savage, Hart, Luger, Nash and Hall (and now Flair) have had their legacies tarnished because they sought employment in their field of work in the next best place. I mean all of this is common sense, and common sense comes with intelligence and a handle on history and how it can be manipulated. Anyone with at least average intelligence can figure all this out and differentiate between the little pieces of truth on that DVD and the complete bull to formulate for themselves how biased and unprofessional it was. Just like ALL revisionist WWE home video this past decade which has purposely focused on diminishing and propping up legacies to pit fans of the past who were there and old enough to remember it, against those who weren't there or were too young to remember it properly.

Let's see if I can respond without resorting to needless personal insults: " i've been trained to spot propaganda bullshit and separate it from fact.", "It's not inside info i'm working on that everyone else doesn't have either. It's common sense", "I mean all of this is common sense, and common sense comes with intelligence ", "Anyone with at least average intelligence can figure all this out ". Very classy post.

Regarding the actual topic however, the issue is who was least deserving of the success they achieved, and nothing in your post actually refutes my allegation that it is the Warrior. I will concede the DVD shows some bias, but that's not the basis for my choice.

The Warrior cut a crap promo and couldn't wrestle. Those are facts, not propaganda. He was over, I'll concede that, but that alone doesn't mean he was deserving of anything, just in the right place at the right time.

And please, nothing destroyed his legacy more than the run in wcw. Einstein couldn't decipher some of those promos.

 

[hatehabsforever]

The first guys to pop into my mind in response to this question were the Dudley Boys/Team 3D. I know they have longevity in the business in various different organizations, but I have never really seen much from these two. Outside of the randomness of ECW, where they could be a little more hardcore and appeal to their niche audience in this manner, I cannot imagine how some people (especially themselves) talk about these guys as one of the best tag teams of all time. Average at best in the ring or on the stick, if they didn't have the "D-Von, get the tables" schtick, they probably wouldn't have raised too many eyebrows in the business.

The other guy I thought of was Sean Waltman. Not that he really accomplished all that much or got more than he deserved because he didn't get much, the very fact that he managed to stay employed in the business for as long as he did, whether it be WWE, WWF, WCW, TNA, or anywhere else, is more than this loser deserved. Below average in the ring, small in stature, terrible on the mic (if you don't count screaming at your former employer as mic talent), plus all of the other accompanying baggage, this guy didn't deserve to be in the business in the first place, never mind stay there for as long as he did.

 

[mulkeymania]

i can agree with the jeff jarrett picks--the guy is one of my personal favorites to watch but when WCW and russo tried to make him the big dog of the promotion it didnt work then and it didnt work in TNA--i can understand maybe when TNA was firing up that there was no one else to try and be the headliner but as bad as WCW was there were better choices to be the headliner.
he should have always been a solid mid card guy and never ever a main eventer.

 

[XgringolocoX]

My numero uno pick has to be HTM. I remember his reign, and wanted him dead at the time. While as a performer he didn't deserve the title, this did do it's job. Folks really tuned in to see HTM get his ass handed to him and lose the IC Title.
Second pick is Rey. I love his work, just not as a heavyweight. Cause he's not. And he won't ever be one. I really miss the Cruiserweight Title. It was an exciting division that had matches that could steal any show.
The Yoko haters are off the mark. Great big man. I really belived he'd flatten someone like a pancake. All he did was scream "BONSAI!!!" and I'll admit, I was a little afraid of the dude. Plus the through and through evil Mr. Fuji directing the carnage made Yoko that much more ligit. Yoko just got really lazy and could keep up. At the end of his run he was terrible, no arugement there.

 

[Hodgos]

The Warrior cut a crap promo and couldn't wrestle. Those are facts, not propaganda. He was over, I'll concede that, but that alone doesn't mean he was deserving of anything, just in the right place at the right time.

I guess this is where it comes down to how you understand -or wish to interprate- the premise of the thread.

When I first read the thread, I saw it as referring to guys who somehow got absolutely pushed to the moon, despite showing absolutely nothing to indicate that they were ready for that kind of treatment. As I said before, I see Jeff Jarrett as a prime example of what the thread is talking about. Despite doing absolutely nothing to suggest that he could actually draw money, he was made the top dog of the company, and the more he continued not to draw, the more they continued to put stubbornly put their heads in the sand and push him. Diesel's year long title run is also something that alot of people would point to.

Both these guys are obviously far more talanted than the Warrior. But in the context of this thread, I think they fit the bill of getting "pushed more than they deserved" better than he does. Unlike those two, the Warrior did something to justify the massive push he was given. The WWF simply couldnt ignore the reactions the Warrior was getting. At the time, Vince had genuine reason to suspect that the Warrior could turn out to be a walking license to print money. They had to push the button, and give him his chance with the belt. And if they were going to do it, it made sense that they do it properly and put him over Hulk Hogan, giving him the biggest possible rub with the added benefit of having a huge cash-cow of a WM main event. It didn't work out, partly because the man was a talantless ********, completely unprofessional, unwilling to listen to criticism and a loose cannon, and partly because despite being an awesome novelty act for a while, his character just didnt have the substance behind it to be a serious draw for the long-term. But still, looking back at it, I can easily see why they pushed the Warrior in the manner they did. By contrast, when you look at someone like Jarrett circa WCW, Nash circa WWF and Garvin circa NWA, it's harder to understand why they decided to give them the ball in the first place.

 

[ilapierre]

Penguin 74: What makes Warrior any less deserving than a lot of guys who got the biggest pushes? Hogan had no more moves than Warrior and was slower around the ring. Andre the Giant wrestled like a turtle. Kevin Nash had a jackknife powerbomb and that was about it. Yokozuna was fat and hard to move. Jeff Jarrett was thrust into a role fans never bought and still don't buy. JBL is as boring a World Champ as the guys from the 70s. Rey Mysterio looks out of his league in the title scene. All but the last three had the love or hate of the fans and that is the measure of who is deserving and who isn't. I'm not into Cena whatsoever but i respect the fact that he is loved by fans. I don't know why, but he's obviously doing something right. What you think is the measure is obviously if they have a love for the business and stick with it. Warrior didn't, he took his money and went elsewhere. He also wrestled like crap, like some of the guys i mentioned above, and could be dangerous at times. So, if you think he's less deserving because of all that and only in the right place at the right time like most champs are, then why not say Brock Lesnar or Goldberg being least deserving. Brock had no love for wrestling. He just got up and left. Hogan laid down for him. Hogan lays down for almost no one. Same goes with Goldberg. 4 year career and then gone. They took the money and their talents elsewhere. Just like the Rock did. Given way too much and then left way too soon. Warrior's not the only one to lack love for the business. And, Brock Lesnar wasn't even exciting to watch, he was just huge and vicious. And Goldberg was only interesting when he was on his streak. Sure, Goldberg and Brock's moves seemed better because they appeared to hurt more than a Warrior wallop. But Goldberg and Brock accidentally injured more people than the Warrior. Warrior was more over in WWE than both Goldberg and Brock. More over than Goldberg in WCW. And, strangely, Warrior may have been better on the mic than those two. You couldn't translate what he was saying but it drove fans nutty. Goldberg and Brock didn't have that type of charisma/insanity.

Warrior was not the least deserving, he wasn't as deserving from the love for the business standpoint, but there are so many other factors besides that you have to look at and compare to with other guys who were even less deserving. You need the look, you need the music, you need the fan response, you need the confidence of your boss, you need to have beaten the best of the best. Ted Dibiase could wrestle with the best of them, but he didn't look the part, would never have had the audience behind him or against him, he wasn't big enough to have the confidence of the boss, he had shit music, and he would have come across like JBL or Rey Mysterio had he been able to take the World belt from Hulk Hogan. Warrior was the most deserving in 1990, and in hindsight you can't change history and say a bunch of mid carders and rising stars who weren't completely over yet should have been pushed ahead of time and ahead of Warrior for the belt. Warrior was only given one belt for 9 months and that was it. It wasn't like he had 13 belts put around his waist by the scriptwriting team led by his wife.

There i hope that's classier for you Mr. Classy.

 

[penguin74]

Penguin 74: What makes Warrior any less deserving than a lot of guys who got the biggest pushes? Hogan had no more moves than Warrior and was slower around the ring. Andre the Giant wrestled like a turtle. Kevin Nash had a jackknife powerbomb and that was about it. Yokozuna was fat and hard to move. Jeff Jarrett was thrust into a role fans never bought and still don't buy. JBL is as boring a World Champ as the guys from the 70s. Rey Mysterio looks out of his league in the title scene. All but the last three had the love or hate of the fans and that is the measure of who is deserving and who isn't. I'm not into Cena whatsoever but i respect the fact that he is loved by fans. I don't know why, but he's obviously doing something right. What you think is the measure is obviously if they have a love for the business and stick with it. Warrior didn't, he took his money and went elsewhere. He also wrestled like crap, like some of the guys i mentioned above, and could be dangerous at times. So, if you think he's less deserving because of all that and only in the right place at the right time like most champs are, then why not say Brock Lesnar or Goldberg being least deserving. Brock had no love for wrestling. He just got up and left. Hogan laid down for him. Hogan lays down for almost no one. Same goes with Goldberg. 4 year career and then gone. They took the money and their talents elsewhere. Just like the Rock did. Given way too much and then left way too soon. Warrior's not the only one to lack love for the business. And, Brock Lesnar wasn't even exciting to watch, he was just huge and vicious. And Goldberg was only interesting when he was on his streak. Sure, Goldberg and Brock's moves seemed better because they appeared to hurt more than a Warrior wallop. But Goldberg and Brock accidentally injured more people than the Warrior. Warrior was more over in WWE than both Goldberg and Brock. More over than Goldberg in WCW. And, strangely, Warrior may have been better on the mic than those two. You couldn't translate what he was saying but it drove fans nutty. Goldberg and Brock didn't have that type of charisma/insanity.

Warrior was not the least deserving, he wasn't as deserving from the love for the business standpoint, but there are so many other factors besides that you have to look at and compare to with other guys who were even less deserving. You need the look, you need the music, you need the fan response, you need the confidence of your boss, you need to have beaten the best of the best. Ted Dibiase could wrestle with the best of them, but he didn't look the part, would never have had the audience behind him or against him, he wasn't big enough to have the confidence of the boss, he had shit music, and he would have come across like JBL or Rey Mysterio had he been able to take the World belt from Hulk Hogan. Warrior was the most deserving in 1990, and in hindsight you can't change history and say a bunch of mid carders and rising stars who weren't completely over yet should have been pushed ahead of time and ahead of Warrior for the belt. Warrior was only given one belt for 9 months and that was it. It wasn't like he had 13 belts put around his waist by the scriptwriting team led by his wife.

There i hope that's classier for you Mr. Classy.

It was up until the last line.

Now, if your point is that guys like Goldberg and Lesnar should be considered the same way as Warrior, I won't argue. Neither had the love or passion for the business, neither was a skilled wrestler, neither could work the mic. However, the thread specified Old School Wrestler, and I considered both to recent to be considered. Nash an JBL could at least use the mic well although I concede both were boring workers in a match.

Hogan at least could cut a promo. His ring work sucked and his attitude was no better, but he's given his life and his body to the business. Selfishly, probably, but he still gave a thousand times more back than did Warrior. Andre couldn't talk or wrestle either, but there was just something iconic about him that for some reason I exempt him from this list.

And for the record I will concede a major bias against the Warrior as I was and still am a MAJOR fan of Piper, and it burns me he never held the title despite being arguably the best heel ever while the Warrior took some steroids and a very catchy theme song and rode them all the way to the top.

 

[CraigThe13th]

We can argue all day long as to whether or not the Warrior being "over" made him deserving or not. Look how over Goldberg was, did he "earn" it or was it all handed to him on a silver platter. Go back to Piper's promo with Cena before Survivor Series and the lists of all the greats who never wore the championship belt Piper, Henning, Dibiase, Jake the Snake all were more "deserving" than the Warrior but never came close to his success despite giving more to the business than he ever will.

No one can deny the Warrior's popularity, I was as big a fan of his as anyone back then, but this is a look back in time thread, and in retrospect, his total lack of commitment, professionalism or passion mean he did not deserve the achievements he got.

You seem to know a lot about the warrior to know the dvd was total bullshit. What inside info are you working off of that the rest of us don't have? If there is more to the story, please share.

No mate, I just have watched wrestling for 20 odd years and witnessed it first hand. Any real old school fan would know the Warrior deserved to be WWF champ for a while. Hence why so many people disagree with you in this thread.

Your stance on the warrior is common on these forums of newer school fans who don't know shit about old WWF But I think it might be you were massive Hogan mark and didn't want to see anyone replace him back then. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. If you are the same Penguin74 off deviantart then your only 20 and was not even born when Warrior was in his prime, sorry if this isn't the case.

Goldberg deserved it too, he was on fire in WCW. It's about connecting with the fans not about who had passion for the business. There are plenty with that who still don't have what it takes to be at the top

The only thing I can agree with you on is the list of people who didn't become champion, thing is they were nearly all heels most of their prime that's the main reason they were never champ. Shit was different then, it was about the all conquering hero reigning on top.

 

[penguin74]

For the record, no, not the same Penguin. I was 13 at Wrestlemania 6.

At this point, I think it simply is a difference of opinion on the meaning of "deserving". Should the Warrior have held the belt, yes, of course, but so should all of those other wrestlers I named. I understand they were all heels and with Hogan in his prime they could never get ahead, but to me that doesn't mean Warrior was more deserving just because he was a face.

My issue with the Warrior is the level of achievement he received. In back to back mania's he ended Hulkamania and retired Savage. That is HUGE! Who else has ever had back to back Mania's with that level of success?

 

[mulkeymania]

i can see your point penguin--guys like warrior,goldberg,lex luger,and bobby lashley,and brock lesnar made it to the top despite not caring about the business and not being good wrestlers--just something to make as much money as possible at.

that said--they were hot at the time and had to be given chances to carry their respective companies--verne gagne tried to keep hogan away from the title run in the AWA and it didnt work so well for him so when someone is "white hot" then they at least need the chance to sink or swim so to say.

sticking up for your opinion is admirable and understandable but if these guys are never given the chance then it is never known if they can make money or not.

 

[Dyno Kid]

The Fabulous Moolah would be my pick. Horrible worker who booked just about all the women in the business and kept the title on herself for almost 30 years. She's held up as some kind of legend but take it from a guy who saw here work, she SUCKED in the ring !

 

[UltimateHitman]

To ilapierre: Was with you for the most part until you got to the bottom. Steamboat? Snuka (thought journalists double checked spelling...)? DiBiase? Not deserving of their success? Over-rated? You have got to be joking. Especially when you go on to list Luger and Nash as "misunderstood" and "given a bad rap"? Sigh. Luger and Nash have always been two of the most over-rated hacks in the business, even in their prime. I have been watching since the days of Chris Adams, Jimmy Garvin, and "Iceman" King Parsons in the AWA (had to throw out some obscure names... lol) and I tell you what, those two have always made me wonder what people were thinking when they put them in front of a camera. Luger was just simply boring. Nash was a big guy with no passion and the same elbow and knees. Hell, Nash had a moveset smaller than Hogan! But anyway, I couldn't believe some of the names you tossed out there on either point. Absurd. But I do believe you about the Warrior DVD. It had a couple funny moments, especially with a few of those crazy promos I remember sitting through as a kid (and yeah, I was a huge Warrior mark back then. Still owed 10 bucks from that WM6 match...) But it was a nasty, spiteful jab by Vince and the WWE and made me a little angry. Here he is, a man that actually proclaims he was, and still is, a businessman. He saw it as a money making opportunity just as anybody else, INCLUDING Hogan. Yet they kiss Hogan's ass simply because he still pulls money into their pockets when they need him to. Hogan and Warrior's attitudes are similar, Hogan just played the game longer to reap better benefits from it. But enough of this, the reason for the thread was people undeserving of what they've been given in professional wrestling. I agree with a few of these, but none more than Nash. Nash has always been one of those guys that make you do a jaw dropping WTF?? He's garbage, he's always been garbage, even as Diesel, and was just tall and buddies w/Trips and Michaels. You could also make an argument for X-Pac who did the same lame looking kicks the entire match, and also who was initially my 1st pick, Billy Gunn. Give me a break. This guy sucked about as much as Nash did, but got farther than he should have. He should have disappeared after the NAO because his singles career should have amounted to nothing more than a lower mid card run and then obscurity.

 

[UltimateHitman]

Oooops. I forgot a couple. I definitely agree with JBL who was only interesting as the long haired ass kicker in the APA and also Jarrett. While I agree he has the skills to be a solid mid-carder, there is no way he should have had the upper tier runs that he's had, even if he ran the company. He should have realized by now how poorly he himself draws and should've kept the ego in check.

 

[RJJ]

hmm now that im older i guess i know more of what you need to become a really big star. i hate cena not because hes popular and i want to be different but because i think he flat out sucks. his in ring ability is garbage and his mic skills arent the best either. i was a huge cena fan when i was younger but then i realized, damn this guy does the same crap in every match. this is where im gonna get alot of criticism. if i knew what i do now about wrestling and had the same state of mind i do now would i like steve austin. now that i look back at some of his matches i realise that he was very sloppy and didnt have a big repertoire. yeah he was amazing on the mic and had a good fan connection but the way i see it, its only because he threw up his middle fingers and cursed out the boss. it was different but i dont think steve austin was as good as people made him out to be. all he has is the lou thesz press, the mud hole stomp, and a stunner. theres now way in hell he was on the same level as shawn michaels or bret hart or even the rock. i think the reason he was so big was because wwe was running out of talent and they needed something different. the rock and triple h werent really big stars yet. bret hart, hogan, hall, and nash all went to wcw. shawn michaels was out with a broken back for 4-5 years. wwe was kind of the situation they are in now where they are rushing to make top stars and thats what i think wwe did with austin in the 90's. the way i see it austin was in the right place at the right time.

The steve austin you were talking about is 01-02 stone cold, which means that's post prime austin. In his prime(1997-1999), he was amazing matter of fact, he was a very good technical wrestler, not as good as bret or shawn, but he was definatley better than rock(technically). But because of all those injuries(neck, knees), he had to change his moveset, and he became an all-around brawler. Actually, i just finshed watching a match between austin and angle for the title, it was before armagodden 2000, and i have to say even though he wasn't as good as he was he put on a hell of a wrestling match(no brawling).

One more thing, watch austin vs hbk king of the ring 1997, that will change your mind.

 

[Tech N9ne]

I definitely say Jarrett. While I won't say he was horrible, he was absolutely serviceable in most aspects. He wasn't great at anything. For him to hold any companies top crown 12 times or whatever, is ridiculous.

I think Vince saw Jarrett for what he really was and never put the strap on him. I would dare say that they probably never even considered putting the world title on him. I think they were right for doing that.

I am glad in the archives it does not say anything at all about Jeff Jarrett being WWF/E champion!!