Overrated or Underrated - The Ultimate Warrior

[IrishCanadian25]

SlyFox and I have been discussing this idea for a while, and I figure it's time enough. Let's kick off a segment called "Overrated or Underrated?"

This week's subject is the Ultimate Warrior. Do you feel he was overrated, underrated, or rated correctly. When I talk about a wrestler being "rated," I am looking for you to debate whether the legacy and accolades he or she left behind were justified, not justified, or if they didn't get enough credit.

Needless to say, wherever possible, SlyFox and I will try to take opposite positions to get the debate going. But everyone should have fun with this and do a little research on their post.

Let the games begin.

 

[The Pretender]

I have to say he was overrated. He got a title push (winning both belts nonetheless unprecedented) when he was too green. He had great charisma but he didn't appreciate the business. He was there to make the green and never appreciated what Vince and Hogan did for him. The match at Wrestlemania 6 was awesome but to no one's surprise, the Warrior was off the throne and Hogan assumed his natural position. Furthermore, chance after chance Vince gave him was mind boggling. He had the charisma but not the passion. Some just don't know what they have.

 

[hbk&triple h]

I feel he is very overrated.

Now don't get me wrong the man was great in some areas but he lacked in others.

Positives:

His charisma might just be unmatched.He gave so much energy and the crowd loved it.Regardless of how you felt on him he still kept you entertained with all of his energy.


He played his Warrior character pretty well in my opinion.

He was so over with the crowd.When the crowd cheered for him it was amazing the loud reaction he always got.

Negatives:
His in-ring skills are pretty horrible.While he had good matches they werent necessarily great on a real wrestling level.

I don't think he left that large of a legacy.He had two memorable matches and other than that how many do you find people talking about.When I think of him that is all that comes to mind.Nothing else comes to my attention whereas when I think of Hogan or Shawn for example I can think of great matches and mic skills and promos.

Overall, the only thing the guy had going for him was the charisma and his fans.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Underrated. There has never been a wrestler so ridiculously entertaining. And what's great is that he's just as crazy out of character. As a child I hated him. He bored me to teard. Only as an adult can I truly appreciate how great he is.

The promos are awesome. There like Khlai's but more complicated. As if WWF let him just ramble shit. At least Khali has the excuse that he can't speak English and is mildly ******ed.

He used to gass out getting to the ring. Freakin' awesome. Not to mention hilarious.

And while he hasn't had that many good matches. The good ones he's had have been pretty spectacular. His feud/matches with Savage & Rude were pretty awesome. While I think this was all to do with his opponents It doesn't hid the fact that he was part of some pretty good matches. Unlike Batista who is still to have an amazing match.

Forget Hogan & Warrior at Mania. Average imo. Check out Hoagn & Warrior at Halloween Havoc. BEST MATCH EVER.

 

[Slyfox696]

The Ultimate Warrior is one of the most underrated professional wrestlers of our time. While he was never exactly held in high esteem before due to his outlandish political views, after the "Self-Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior" came out, fans seemed to use that as a bible for running down the Ultimate Warrior.

For example:

1) "His promos were gibberish and didn't make any sense".

Response: Umm, duh? From a guy with strings around his arms, paint on his face, with the name Ultimate Warrior and hailing from Parts Unknown, what exactly did you want him to sound like on the mic? That's called playing a character. His promos weren't supposed to make sense, and they were supposed to ramble. That's part of what made his character unique. What really amazes me is how some people will use this as an excuse to run down The Ultimate Warrior, and then try and tell me Delirious is awesome because he speaks gibberish. Not saying anyone in particular, but I've seen it done.

2) "He couldn't wrestle."

Response: What most ignorant wrestling fans mean by this is that Ultimate Warrior did not wrestle a technical style of match. Because so many people believe that to be a "wrestler" you have to work a technical style. And, whenever I read people say that, I just laugh, because that means that those fans have been "worked" by the professional wrestling industry. They've taken things that wrestlers and announcers have said defining a "wrestler" in the ring, in the context of kayfabe, and apply it to real life. Shows how smart some wrestling fans really are to the business.

The Ultimate Warrior was not a technical wrestler, but he should not have been. The guy was phenomenally strong. He gorilla press slammed guys who were over 300 pounds, no easy feat when dealing with a human being (as opposed to a weight bar). The guy was cut and toned, with huge biceps, forearms and quads. The man was a muscle machine. What sense would it have made for him to use technical moves which do not take allow him to use his advantage of strength in a match? Most of Warriors moves were moves that showcased his incredible strength, and moves that if done in a real fight would hurt more proportionally to the strength of the person you were fighting.

Finally, Warrior was in some of the greatest matches of all time. Wrestlemania 6 vs. Hulk Hogan and Wrestlemania 7 vs. Randy Savage. He was in the best match at Wrestlemania two years in a row. The man was getting crowd response equal to the great Hulk Hogan.

The man was a very good professional wrestler.

3) "He's crazy".

Response: Has nothing to do with his ability in professional wrestling.

4) "He didn't care about the business, only himself".

Response: Again, has nothing to do with his ability in professional wrestling. Professional wrestling was his job, and he did it well. He could put on great matches, was a mega draw and made the WWF a lot of money. He did the job he owed to Vince McMahon and did it very well. Additionally, he went out there every night and entertained the hell out of the fans. They always popped big for a Warrior match and popped big for a Warrior win. They paid money to see him, and he delivered quality entertainment. He did the job he owed to the fans, and did it very well.


The Ultimate Warrior did everything a professional wrestler is supposed to do. He drew big numbers, made the promotion a lot of money, entertained the fans and put on numerous good matches. How anyone can say anything bad about his run in the WWF is beyond me.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

In my opinion, I truly don't know which side to take, so I'll say he's evenly rated. (assuming correctly rated is the middle)

This is my overall opinion on why, however.

Ultimate Warrior: The man was everything I truly believe the W.W.F. wanted him to be. They knew he didn't have wrestling talent, as they built him as a powerhouse. His promos were honestly, in my opinion, some of the best.. just because they were complete shit.

Its easy to think up a classic promo, about going out there & beating someone up, winning the match, taking the Championship, etc, etc.. but with Warrior, he used to ramble & ramble, about completely never-before-heard of shit. It was almost as if he wasn't human, the way he truly made you feel he believed it. (I still feel, to this day, he honestly DOES believe it)

His in-ring ability left something to greatly be desired, & the match against Hogan at Wrestlemania VI was shit. Sorry to say, but he's had so many more, better matches. His match against Savage at Wrestlemania VII was a lot better. His Summerslam 92 match against Savage was 20x better, & some of his matches against Rick Rude were awesome, especially the cage match. You work with what you have.. & putting Warrior out there, with another bigger sized athlete (in Hogan) & you aren't gonna get a scientific match-up, you're gonna get two guys, beating each other up with clubbing rights & body slams.

Now then, the downside of Ultimate Warrior.. (as shown by the W.W.E. produced DVD - so take it for what its worth)

Apparently the crazy bastard held Vince McMahon at gun point. Where is that acceptable? And furthermore, why would you WANT him to return to your company, let alone not have him arrested?!

The guy believed in his own hype so much, that he never wanted to work with Savage, complaining that Savage wasn't in his league. I personally think, when looking at both of them in today's light.. they could pass for relation.

Finally, Warrior thought he was he best thing ever, simply because he was built as is, at one point in time. I think that in itself is allowing any type of fame to go directly to your head. In my books, The Ultimate Warrior wasn't even on a top 10 of "best things" from back in the day.

He was all flash, little pop. The greatest part about him were the promos, & the entrance. After that, you can pretty much fast forward through any match, cause its the exact same thing.

SO, overall.. this is my final take.

I loved Ultimate Warrior as a kid, cause he was full of energy, & even as a kid I didn't have that much energy. But as a grown-up, knowing (what W.W.E. has told me) now, what I didn't know then.. I think the guy didn't deserve to be where he was, because he was a nut-job. All in all, I miss seeing him in wrestling, as I loved when he returned in 1996 & even in the W.C.W. era.. but he wasn't something I couldn't live without in wrestling.. like your H.B.K.'s or Edge's.

(Edit)

One more thing, for the record. I don't think its entirely fair to judge the man off of what a company says about him, cause clearly that DVD was produced to destroy any image people who still liked him, had of him.

It hurt Warrior more that he didn't attempt to defend himself, & even then that he tried suing W.W.E. & in court the judge almost threw his entire family out because of their name change to "The Warriors." (I mean, seriously?!) But overall.. the image I'll always remain with, is of him from the early 90's.. to 1996 & 1998. The DVD makes me KNOW of what has happened, apparently, but it doesn't make me hate the guy. Just makes me think he's more of what I thought he was originally.. a nut-job.

 

[Slyfox696]

In my opinion, I truly don't know which side to take, so I'll say he's evenly rated. (assuming correctly rated is the middle)

This is my overall opinion on why, however.

Ultimate Warrior: The man was everything I truly believe the W.W.F. wanted him to be. They knew he didn't have wrestling talent, as they built him as a powerhouse. His promos were honestly, in my opinion, some of the best.. just because they were complete shit.

Its easy to think up a classic promo, about going out there & beating someone up, winning the match, taking the Championship, etc, etc.. but with Warrior, he used to ramble & ramble, about completely never-before-heard of shit. It was almost as if he wasn't human, the way he truly made you feel he believed it. (I still feel, to this day, he honestly DOES believe it)

His promos were part of his character. He was crazy, an unusual and completely different person. He was the ULTIMATE Warrior, someone whose powers were not of this world. He hailed from Parts Unknown.

His promos weren't shit. They were an extension of his character, the verbalization of his character's thoughts. I would call that good promo ability.

His in-ring ability left something to greatly be desired, & the match against Hogan at Wrestlemania VI was shit. Sorry to say, but he's had so many more, better matches. His match against Savage at Wrestlemania VII was a lot better. His Summerslam 92 match against Savage was 20x better, & some of his matches against Rick Rude were awesome, especially the cage match. You work with what you have.. & putting Warrior out there, with another bigger sized athlete (in Hogan) & you aren't gonna get a scientific match-up, you're gonna get two guys, beating each other up with clubbing rights & body slams.

His match against Hogan was superb.

But, use this thread to detail why you think it sucked. No use in having two threads over the same match.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=14839

Now then, the downside of Ultimate Warrior.. (as shown by the W.W.E. produced DVD - so take it for what its worth)

Apparently the crazy bastard held Vince McMahon at gun point. Where is that acceptable? And furthermore, why would you WANT him to return to your company, let alone not have him arrested?!

At gunpoint? I think they were speaking figuratively, as the Warrior demanded more money right before he went out and worked the '91 Summerslam match with Hogan against Slaugther, Mustafa and Adnan. I don't think he literally had a gun. He basically forced McMahon to agree to pay him more, since all the fans had shown up and people had already paid for the show, and they couldn't renege on the match that sold the card.

The guy believed in his own hype so much, that he never wanted to work with Savage, complaining that Savage wasn't in his league. I personally think, when looking at both of them in today's light.. they could pass for relation.

I've never heard this. Where did you get this from?

Finally, Warrior thought he was he best thing ever, simply because he was built as is, at one point in time. I think that in itself is allowing any type of fame to go directly to your head. In my books, The Ultimate Warrior wasn't even on a top 10 of "best things" from back in the day.

Name me one other person who could go toe to toe with Hulk Hogan during Hulkamania and get equal crowd support. The Ultimate Warrior did this. That speaks volumes about his place in professional wrestling history.

He was all flash, little pop. The greatest part about him were the promos, & the entrance. After that, you can pretty much fast forward through any match, cause its the exact same thing.

You're thinking of his squash matches, not his good matches.

SO, overall.. this is my final take.

I loved Ultimate Warrior as a kid, cause he was full of energy, & even as a kid I didn't have that much energy. But as a grown-up, knowing (what W.W.E. has told me) now, what I didn't know then.. I think the guy didn't deserve to be where he was, because he was a nut-job. All in all, I miss seeing him in wrestling, as I loved when he returned in 1996 & even in the W.C.W. era.. but he wasn't something I couldn't live without in wrestling.. like your H.B.K.'s or Edge's.

Being a nutjob has nothing to do with his ability as a professional wrestler. What matters is drawing fans, making promoters money, and entertaining the crowd.

Did he not do that for you in 1990? You've already said he did. So, that means he did his job as a wrestler.

 

[Shocky]

Meh, I never have understood the appeal of this guy. My cousin and brother, who are two years younger then me, loved the guy, I despised him from the beginning. Never have been a warrior fan, and I doubt I will ever be.

The guy is a bum. His matches incredibly short and bad. However, I will concede he did show up to play at WM 6 and WM 7, but then again, you also have to look at the guys he was matched up with. Did Hogan or Savage have one bad WM match? Savage's Wrestlemania matches were incredible with everyone, and Hogan, well he's Hogan, the name speaks for itself.

Even for a character as bad as the Warriors was, his promos were just to crazy and out of whack. Nothing at all made sense. Like I said, I never liked the guy, so this is probably pretty biased. I hated him as a kid, and don't like him now, so I doubt anything will change my mind.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

His promos were part of his character. He was crazy, an unusual and completely different person. He was the ULTIMATE Warrior, someone whose powers were not of this world. He hailed from Parts Unknown.

His promos weren't shit. They were an extension of his character, the verbalization of his character's thoughts. I would call that good promo ability.

I somehow worded it wrong. I loved his promos, because of how outrage they were. As I said, anyone can come up with a classic promo, but for Warrior, he spoke of anything & everything, & sold it. I loved his promos, although people felt they were shit. Sorry, misprint.

I've never heard this. Where did you get this from?

Most of everything was from the W.W.E. produced Warrior DVD. In it, they said he walked into Savage's dressing room & threatened him, if he didn't make the Warrior look good. And they also stated Warrior believed that Savage wasn't in his league & he never wanted to work with him, because he didn't think Savage was a big enough draw.

Name me one other person who could go toe to toe with Hulk Hogan during Hulkamania and get equal crowd support. The Ultimate Warrior did this. That speaks volumes about his place in professional wrestling history.

Randy Savage. From Wrestlemania IV to Wrestlemania V, the man held the Main Event spot.. & apparently well, otherwise they would've let Hogan take the Championship back sooner than what they did.

Outside of that, noone else was a big "face" draw, but Sgt. Slaughter, Ric Flair, & even Randy "Macho King" Savage drew just as much reaction from the crowd, as the Ultimate Warrior did. Your only "trump card" is that you asked who else drew equal "face" reaction.. which the only three main faces from that time were Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage & Ultimate Warrior.. which Warrior would've been second, although Savage deserves a tie in some ways. (Savage carried the World Championship for a year, Warrior didn't)

You're thinking of his squash matches, not his good matches.

Warrior has had decent matches, against Savage & Rick Rude, but hes nowhere near technical enough to classify as a good wrestler, or great matches. Every "good" match he ever had, he was carried in. (which, in a side note, is why to me - Hogan/Warrior 1 sucked)

Did he not do that for you in 1990? You've already said he did. So, that means he did his job as a wrestler.

Of course Warrior entertained me. I was a little kid back then. Slinky's & matchbox cars entertained me back then.

 

[Slim Pickns]

The Ultimate Warrior is a hard wrestler to peg as over or underrated simply because outside of the Ultimate Warrior DVD (which I own and is extremely one sided) he is looked at as a huge star, which I believe would make him rated correctly. However, factoring in the Self Destruction DVD I will say he is underrated.

A wrestler doesn't need to be technically sound to put on great matches on the big stage, he needs to have charisma and get the fans to care for him. The Warrior had all of the tools to be able to draw huge crowds. His talents however did not stop there.

His was absolutely huge and cut at the same time. Talk steriod all you want, I've actually taken them (don't anymore) and I can tell you first hand that you still have to work your ass off to get that ripped.

Warrior had the charisma, psychology, and look to draw huge ratings and put on epic matches. It seems people forgot this because a DVD told them he sucks.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Warrior had the charisma, psychology, and look to draw huge ratings and put on epic matches. It seems people forgot this because a DVD told them he sucks.

I'm not unintentionally trying to say The Ultimate Warrior wasn't a huge draw back in the day. I'm just saying he wasn't "the best." Or even 2nd best. And yes, my views have altered since that one sided W.W.E. produced DVD came out.. but I'm not stupid enough to think W.W.E. wouldn't intentionally try to bury him, either.

I hated W.W.E. for that DVD, because "I" loved The Ultimate Warrior.. but if even so much as half of the stuff they claim he did, is actually true.. than the Ultimate Warrior is a nut-job, that should be looked at, even LESS than what people look at Chris Benoit like in today's world.. (yeah, I said it)

Warrior WAS great, when I didn't know how crazy he was, apparently. I'll never say he had a great match, unless I follow it up by saying.. because he was carried. And yeah, I'd love to see a Warrior type character again, & I'm not "rating" Warrior one way or another.. because the man deserves his glory from back in the day.. thats all.

 

[Slyfox696]

Randy Savage. From Wrestlemania IV to Wrestlemania V, the man held the Main Event spot.. & apparently well, otherwise they would've let Hogan take the Championship back sooner than what they did.

But, Hogan always overshadowed Macho. Hogan, even without the belt, was the bigger draw.

Macho got his mega face heat because of Hogan, not in opposition to. When Savage met Hogan, Savage was heel. Savage never could have faced Hogan and received the same response.

Outside of that, noone else was a big "face" draw, but Sgt. Slaughter, Ric Flair, & even Randy "Macho King" Savage drew just as much reaction from the crowd, as the Ultimate Warrior did. Your only "trump card" is that you asked who else drew equal "face" reaction.. which the only three main faces from that time were Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage & Ultimate Warrior.. which Warrior would've been second, although Savage deserves a tie in some ways. (Savage carried the World Championship for a year, Warrior didn't)

While, I disagree with you on Savage and Slaughter popping as big as Hogan (hell, even The Rock couldn't do it), consider this.

You just put Ultimate Warrior in the same category as Sgt. Slaughter, Randy Savage, Ric Flair, and Hulk Hogan. Unconsciously, you grouped Warrior in with those greats.

Now, how does that not indicate greatness to you?

Warrior has had decent matches, against Savage & Rick Rude, but hes nowhere near technical enough to classify as a good wrestler, or great matches. Every "good" match he ever had, he was carried in. (which, in a side note, is why to me - Hogan/Warrior 1 sucked)

Not technical enough? Explain that. I want to make sure I understand what you mean before I respond.

Of course Warrior entertained me. I was a little kid back then. Slinky's & matchbox cars entertained me back then.

But, Warrior didn't just entertain kids. He entertained ALL fans.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

You just put Ultimate Warrior in the same category as Sgt. Slaughter, Randy Savage, Ric Flair, and Hulk Hogan. Unconsciously, you grouped Warrior in with those greats.

Now, how does that not indicate greatness to you?

He's considered in the same class-group, on "pop" not "technical ability." Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan - they could all carry their own matches. (I can't speak for Slaughter, cause I don't know a lot of him)

The Warrior couldn't carry his own matches. He was always carried. He's "great" because W.W.F. marketed him to be such. Sting could've easily of been 20x better in that role, but because he wasn't as "built" they opted to pass up on Sting, & go with Jim Helwig. (sp?)

Not technical enough? Explain that. I want to make sure I understand what you mean before I respond.

The match.. I think, is what we're debating. Hogan/Warrior was a blunder because it was power v. power, with not a lot in between. Yes, it was built as something of that nature.. but how can you say "Hogan/Warrior was great" & not say "Undertaker/Diesel" or "Big Show/Kane" isn't held in the same light? Power v. Power has & will (likely) never work as a solid, technical, match-up.

But, Warrior didn't just entertain kids. He entertained ALL fans.

He "entertained" them, because he was sold to. As you debated once a while back.. the fans in professional wrestling are lambs who're meant to cheer & boo who the industry tell you to. Warrior was cheered, because W.W.F. sold him to be. Had they of turned him heel, with the same out-landish character, he'd never gotten passed the likes of Ted Dibiase, or more importantly, Papa Shango.

 

[Slyfox696]

He's considered in the same class-group, on "pop" not "technical ability." Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan - they could all carry their own matches. (I can't speak for Slaughter, cause I don't know a lot of him)

The Warrior couldn't carry his own matches. He was always carried. He's "great" because W.W.F. marketed him to be such. Sting could've easily of been 20x better in that role, but because he wasn't as "built" they opted to pass up on Sting, & go with Jim Helwig. (sp?)

You keep talking about technical ability and seem to be using that as the measure of a good wrestler.

Do you, then, consider Mick Foley to be a terrible wrestler? How about Bruiser Brody? Stan Hansen? Vader? Steve Austin from 1997-2001? How about John Cena? The Undertaker? Scott Hall? Sting?

Technical wrestling is just one style of wrestling. There are plenty of styles of wrestling out there that make for great wrestling. Technical ability is not the end all, be all of professional wrestling. If you want to get right down to it, those wrestlers who work a high quality brawling style greatly outnumber those who work a high quality technical style in terms of drawing ability and success in professional wrestling.

The match.. I think, is what we're debating. Hogan/Warrior was a blunder because it was power v. power, with not a lot in between. Yes, it was built as something of that nature.. but how can you say "Hogan/Warrior was great" & not say "Undertaker/Diesel" or "Big Show/Kane" isn't held in the same light? Power v. Power has & will (likely) never work as a solid, technical, match-up.

See the Hogan vs. Warrior at WM 6 thread.

And, the reason Taker/Diesel or Show/Kane is not held in the same light is because the matches weren't as good. I mean, that'd be like me saying "how can you say 'Bret vs. Owen at WM was great' & not say 'Brent Albright vs. Finlay isn't held in the same light'"? Just because they work similar style of match, doesn't mean that match is the same quality.

He "entertained" them, because he was sold to. As you debated once a while back.. the fans in professional wrestling are lambs who're meant to cheer & boo who the industry tell you to. Warrior was cheered, because W.W.F. sold him to be. Had they of turned him heel, with the same out-landish character, he'd never gotten passed the likes of Ted Dibiase, or more importantly, Papa Shango.

First, I never said that. I said fans should never boo faces and cheer heels. You're twisting my words into something they were never meant to be. I also always said that if you don't like a face you should just sit there quietly and not react. Which is what wrestling fans did when guys like Virgil were wrestling.

But, that's not what they did when The Ultimate Warrior was there. The ground shook with cheering whenever he came running out of the back. I mean, it's not like Warrior was the first person the WWF made a face. But, the fans flocked to Warrior, unlike what they did for The Red Rooster Terry Taylor.

Saying that fans only liked Warrior because he was pushed as a face would be saying the only reason fans hated Flair is because he was pushed as a heel. It would be completely ridiculous.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

You keep talking about technical ability and seem to be using that as the measure of a good wrestler.

Do you, then, consider Mick Foley to be a terrible wrestler? How about Bruiser Brody? Stan Hansen? Vader? Steve Austin from 1997-2001? How about John Cena? The Undertaker? Scott Hall? Sting?

Technical wrestling is just one style of wrestling. There are plenty of styles of wrestling out there that make for great wrestling. Technical ability is not the end all, be all of professional wrestling. If you want to get right down to it, those wrestlers who work a high quality brawling style greatly outnumber those who work a high quality technical style in terms of drawing ability and success in professional wrestling.

I'm not saying any of those guys are terrible, like I feel Warrior is. And you classifying Warrior with Foley, Austin, Vader, Taker, Hall & Sting is wrong. All of those guys had technical ability, just different levels. Warrior had almost none.

As its stated on that horrible DVD, he barely knew how to lift someone up properly in a Gorilla Press. That, alone, one sided or not.. is terrible.

Austin, Hall, Taker, Sting.. they all have technical ability, & shouldn't even be brought into this conversation. Vader, & Foley, for bigger sized athletes, still had more ability inside a wrestling ring, & knowledge of moves, than Warrior did. It isn't ME, claiming any of them are bad.. so much as you, trying to claim I'm compairing them to be the same.

So in fact, its you.. saying Warrior is just AS good as all of them, which to me, is you saying all of them, suck. Because Warrior has no skills.

And, the reason Taker/Diesel or Show/Kane is not held in the same light is because the matches weren't as good. I mean, that'd be like me saying "how can you say 'Bret vs. Owen at WM was great' & not say 'Brent Albright vs. Finlay isn't held in the same light'"? Just because they work similar style of match, doesn't mean that match is the same quality.

Point proven & taken. Warrior/Hogan exceiled (sp?) because W.W.F. sold it to. Proving, you don't need talent, when you have marketability.

First, I never said that. I said fans should never boo faces and cheer heels. You're twisting my words into something they were never meant to be. I also always said that if you don't like a face you should just sit there quietly and not react. Which is what wrestling fans did when guys like Virgil were wrestling.

But, that's not what they did when The Ultimate Warrior was there. The ground shook with cheering whenever he came running out of the back. I mean, it's not like Warrior was the first person the WWF made a face. But, the fans flocked to Warrior, unlike what they did for The Red Rooster Terry Taylor.

Now thats more like it.. Warrior is to wrestling, like Terry Taylor & Virgil. hahahaha (I know, I know - not what you meant) And when have you never taken what someone has said, & not turned & twisted it around to make it seem like something else? lol

At any rate.. fans SHOULD have voiced their opinions of guys like Virgil & Taylor, to let W.W.F. know to change their gimmicks. And the fans erupted because of Warrior's music, knowing a burst of energy was coming to the ring. I'm still saying.. they cheered him, cause they were made to. He was built as a face.

Saying that fans only liked Warrior because he was pushed as a face would be saying the only reason fans hated Flair is because he was pushed as a heel. It would be completely ridiculous.

No, Flair (in real life) made you hate him & what he does. Warrior in real life, made you laugh because everything he said was so out of this world. Who EVER took him seriously?! They cheered him, again, because they were pushed into it. He was built as the top face. (next to, slightly under Hogan)

His charisma did allow fans something to love.. but that was it. He sold his character, because he was believing in it himself. He made it, because he was looney-toons. Frankly, I'd be scared shitless to tell him (to his face) that he sucked, because I'd be afraid of ending up on a milk carton, or found have eaten in his freezer.

 

[Slim Pickns]

I'm not unintentionally trying to say The Ultimate Warrior wasn't a huge draw back in the day. I'm just saying he wasn't "the best." Or even 2nd best. And yes, my views have altered since that one sided W.W.E. produced DVD came out.. but I'm not stupid enough to think W.W.E. wouldn't intentionally try to bury him, either.

I hated W.W.E. for that DVD, because "I" loved The Ultimate Warrior.. but if even so much as half of the stuff they claim he did, is actually true.. than the Ultimate Warrior is a nut-job, that should be looked at, even LESS than what people look at Chris Benoit like in today's world.. (yeah, I said it)

Warrior WAS great, when I didn't know how crazy he was, apparently. I'll never say he had a great match, unless I follow it up by saying.. because he was carried. And yeah, I'd love to see a Warrior type character again, & I'm not "rating" Warrior one way or another.. because the man deserves his glory from back in the day.. thats all.

I will agree that when looking at the Warrior today he is a pretty big nut job, however this has nothing to do with wrestling ability or character.

Yes, he was carried in his matche with Hogan and Savage, but had the Warrior not played a great character and gotten way over with the fans, nobody would have given a damn about those matches. Look at John Cena and Shelton Benjamin. Shelton could obviously wrestle a better technical match than Cena, but the fans love to see the larger than life character that Cena plays, therefore drawing them to the match. Shelton could carry Cena the entire time but the fans would only watch because Cena is in it. The same could be said for the Warrior/Hogan Warrior/Savage, the fans are watching for the charecters, not who is carrying the match.

Just because he was carried doesn't mean he wasn't great. The fact that the fans were so into his character made the matches great.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Just because he was carried doesn't mean he wasn't great. The fact that the fans were so into his character made the matches great.

A wrestler is only as "great" through character, as a company's script writing team, & that wrestler's own charisma can carry them. The Ultimate Warrior was as perfect as could be, only the understanding that he played a great looney toon.

The fans cheered him, because the W.W.F. built him that way. Simple as that. Yes, Warrior had to play some role in keeping the fans on his side, & no, he doesn't need to be as scientific as Bret Hart, or Chris Benoit to sell matches.. but he wasn't the world's greatest character. He was only what he was, because he was built to be such. I stand by what I say, you build Sting in that role.. & you got a guy, who could've went 10-20x better with the gimmick. EXCEPT on the "out-there" parts, of making you believe he's from "Parts Unknown." -- which, is all that truly sold Warrior as anything worth watching.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not saying any of those guys are terrible, like I feel Warrior is. And you classifying Warrior with Foley, Austin, Vader, Taker, Hall & Sting is wrong. All of those guys had technical ability, just different levels. Warrior had almost none.

When did Foley or Vader ever demonstrate any kind of technical wrestling? When, from 1998-2001 did Austin ever do anything more than punch, kick and Stun people?

Again, technical ability does not make one a good wrestler or bad. There are large variety of styles out there.

As its stated on that horrible DVD, he barely knew how to lift someone up properly in a Gorilla Press. That, alone, one sided or not.. is terrible.

You really should do a little more researching than an obviously slanted DVD totally designed to slander Warrior.

How does one lift someone up properly in a Gorilla Press Slam? It's not like there are too many ways to do it.

Austin, Hall, Taker, Sting.. they all have technical ability, & shouldn't even be brought into this conversation. Vader, & Foley, for bigger sized athletes, still had more ability inside a wrestling ring, & knowledge of moves, than Warrior did. It isn't ME, claiming any of them are bad.. so much as you, trying to claim I'm compairing them to be the same.

So in fact, its you.. saying Warrior is just AS good as all of them, which to me, is you saying all of them, suck. Because Warrior has no skills.

No, what I'm saying is that "X" number of technical ability doesn't make someone a good wrestler or not. The point I'm trying to show is that those other guys didn't wrestle a technical style of match and were damn good in the ring.

And, so was The Ultimate Warrior.

Point proven & taken. Warrior/Hogan exceiled (sp?) because W.W.F. sold it to. Proving, you don't need talent, when you have marketability.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

I mean, according to you, a game between the Patriots and the Colts is just as good of a game as one between the Rams and Dolphins. Why? Because they both are NFL styled football games.

Just because matches have the same style, does not mean they are the same quality.

Warrior vs. Hogan excelled because it was a fantastic match.

Now thats more like it.. Warrior is to wrestling, like Terry Taylor & Virgil. hahahaha (I know, I know - not what you meant) And when have you never taken what someone has said, & not turned & twisted it around to make it seem like something else? lol

At any rate.. fans SHOULD have voiced their opinions of guys like Virgil & Taylor, to let W.W.F. know to change their gimmicks. And the fans erupted because of Warrior's music, knowing a burst of energy was coming to the ring. I'm still saying.. they cheered him, cause they were made to. He was built as a face.

Virgil was built as a face. Terry Taylor was built as a face. How come those guys didn't experience roaring ovations when they came to the ring?

Your argument holds no water because there are so many guys who were given the same disposition as Warrior who never made it.

No, Flair (in real life) made you hate him & what he does. Warrior in real life, made you laugh because everything he said was so out of this world. Who EVER took him seriously?! They cheered him, again, because they were pushed into it. He was built as the top face. (next to, slightly under Hogan)

He was only built as the top face because he received enormous reactions everywhere he went. He shot up the card because fans reacted to him.

Fans loved him because he knew how to connect with them. He knew how to work them, and give them their moneys worth.

 

[Slyfox696]

A wrestler is only as "great" through character, as a company's script writing team, & that wrestler's own charisma can carry them. The Ultimate Warrior was as perfect as could be, only the understanding that he played a great looney toon.

The fans cheered him, because the W.W.F. built him that way. Simple as that. Yes, Warrior had to play some role in keeping the fans on his side, & no, he doesn't need to be as scientific as Bret Hart, or Chris Benoit to sell matches.. but he wasn't the world's greatest character. He was only what he was, because he was built to be such. I stand by what I say, you build Sting in that role.. & you got a guy, who could've went 10-20x better with the gimmick. EXCEPT on the "out-there" parts, of making you believe he's from "Parts Unknown." -- which, is all that truly sold Warrior as anything worth watching.

Then how come Lex Luger never came close to achieving that type of success in the WWF?

If it is as simple as that, then tell me why Luger failed where Warrior succeeded?


It's not as simple as that. That's just the easy excuse to justify your feelings, when faced when overwhelming evidence in opposition to your opinion.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

When did Foley or Vader ever demonstrate any kind of technical wrestling? When, from 1998-2001 did Austin ever do anything more than punch, kick and Stun people?

Mick Foley/Shawn Michaels - In Your House, Mind Games. It was 1996 though. (why are you using specific dates?)

Steve Austin/Bret Hart - Survivor Series 1996 (again, why specific dates?)

I mean, according to you, a game between the Patriots and the Colts is just as good of a game as one between the Rams and Dolphins. Why? Because they both are NFL styled football games.

Yes, a game between the Rams/Dolphins can be as highly entertaining as the Pats/Colts. Just like the Browns/Bengals shootout was highly entertaining. Its all in how a match comes off. Some will surprise you.

I think the debate you're going with is.. how can a Rams/Fins match-up be on the same level as Colts/Pats.. & the simple answer is, it can't. Because of build-up. If I built the shit outta a Rams/Fins match-up, it might. Then it'd be reliable on the players to perform.

Virgil was built as a face. Terry Taylor was built as a face. How come those guys didn't experience roaring ovations when they came to the ring?

Uhm, maybe because they didn't get thunderous theme music, or a great look? Perhaps because Virgil was originally built as a no-nothing, loser bodyguard, who had issues redeeming himself.

I can't answer the Rooster thing, except to say his look made him instantly suck. You put a red rooster look on Warrior, & I promise you his no talent ass wouldn't sell the way he did with colorful face-paint, crazy promos, & kickass music.

 

[Slyfox696]

Mick Foley/Shawn Michaels - In Your House, Mind Games. It was 1996 though. (why are you using specific dates?)

Steve Austin/Bret Hart - Survivor Series 1996 (again, why specific dates?)

I never used specific dates for Foley. Just Austin. And the reason for that is because Austin's best years were from 97-2001...in which he did little more than punch, kick, and Stun people.

And they were very good matches.

Yes, a game between the Rams/Dolphins can be as highly entertaining as the Pats/Colts. Just like the Browns/Bengals shootout was highly entertaining. Its all in how a match comes off. Some will surprise you.

I think the debate you're going with is.. how can a Rams/Fins match-up be on the same level as Colts/Pats.. & the simple answer is, it can't. Because of build-up. If I built the shit outta a Rams/Fins match-up, it might. Then it'd be reliable on the players to perform.

You're not getting it.

I'm talking about QUALITY, not build-up. A Rams/Dolphins game is not going to feature the same quality as the Colts/Patriots. Just like Kane/Big Show is not goign to have the same quality as Hogan/Warrior or Finlay/Albright will have with Owen/Bret.

Uhm, maybe because they didn't get thunderous theme music, or a great look? Perhaps because Virgil was originally built as a no-nothing, loser bodyguard, who had issues redeeming himself.

I can't answer the Rooster thing, except to say his look made him instantly suck. You put a red rooster look on Warrior, & I promise you his no talent ass wouldn't sell the way he did with colorful face-paint, crazy promos, & kickass music.

Again, you're taking the easy way out. It's not like Warrior received any kind of special treatment. He was just that good.

You're making all the excuses in the world to explain why he was popular, and coming up with all different reasons as to why he had good matches.

You just won't admit to the most obvious reason for it. Because he was good.

 

[Slim Pickns]

A wrestler is only as "great" through character, as a company's script writing team, & that wrestler's own charisma can carry them. The Ultimate Warrior was as perfect as could be, only the understanding that he played a great looney toon.

The fans cheered him, because the W.W.F. built him that way. Simple as that. Yes, Warrior had to play some role in keeping the fans on his side, & no, he doesn't need to be as scientific as Bret Hart, or Chris Benoit to sell matches.. but he wasn't the world's greatest character. He was only what he was, because he was built to be such. I stand by what I say, you build Sting in that role.. & you got a guy, who could've went 10-20x better with the gimmick. EXCEPT on the "out-there" parts, of making you believe he's from "Parts Unknown." -- which, is all that truly sold Warrior as anything worth watching.

I don't think that the fans only cheered Warrior because the WWF built him that way. Slyfox used that best example available in Lex Luger. Hogan was out, they wanted to replace him with the next great American Hero, and went with Luger.

The WWF put all this time, effort, and money (remember the Lex Express) into making Luger the next big icon. If the WWF was to credit for Warrior's success and not the way he portrayed his character, why couldn't they do it with Luger, even when he had one of the biggest heels of all time to overcome?

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I'm talking about QUALITY, not build-up. A Rams/Dolphins game is not going to feature the same quality as the Colts/Patriots. Just like Kane/Big Show is not goign to have the same quality as Hogan/Warrior or Finlay/Albright will have with Owen/Bret.

Its not "quality" you're thinking of when refering to those things though.. its all in who it is, through their name. Big Show & Kane will never be Hogan & Warrior, I assure you of that. But they won't have the same level type match either, on the understanding that it has nothing to do with "quality" but instead "name recognition."

Same with your Finlay/Albright to Hart/Hart match-up.

Again, you're taking the easy way out. It's not like Warrior received any kind of special treatment. He was just that good.

You're making all the excuses in the world to explain why he was popular, and coming up with all different reasons as to why he had good matches.

You just won't admit to the most obvious reason for it. Because he was good.

He was good.. at selling his character, through his acting ability. He sucked as a wrestler. This is one of the main examples on why a person can make it in wrestling & not have an ounch of talent. Shelton Benjamin to John Cena.. is Greg Valentine to Ultimate Warrior.

Valentine had talent & ability.. just no gimmick. Warrior has gimmick, which sells better than talent. Thats my opinion. Not changing it up, not making excuses. Plain & Simple..

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I don't think that the fans only cheered Warrior because the WWF built him that way. Slyfox used that best example available in Lex Luger. Hogan was out, they wanted to replace him with the next great American Hero, and went with Luger.

The WWF put all this time, effort, and money (remember the Lex Express) into making Luger the next big icon. If the WWF was to credit for Warrior's success and not the way he portrayed his character, why couldn't they do it with Luger, even when he had one of the biggest heels of all time to overcome?

Lex Luger is being used, because he sucked. I can't argue Luger making it, because Luger was a muscle bounded idiot. Luger wasn't, isn't & never will be the American Hero that Hulk Hogan was. And I'm not sure the debate here.

Luger.. compared to Warrior?

I can't argue that either, because Warrior had a gimmick that he MADE people believe. Luger sold what he had to, but didn't have the "passion" in it, that Warrior had in his craziness. Luger wasn't a "true american" at heart. Warrior was a "true nut-job." lol

I'm sorry to make light of the situation, but thats it. Lex Luger was a good Superstar, but not Main Event worthy. Warrior was Main Event worthy, only off his charisma & gimmick.

What I'm saying is, pass that same gimmick on to someone who'll sell it with the passion Warrior did, & allow THAT person (Sting?) to have in-ring talent.. & they'd be 10-20x better.

 

[Slyfox696]

Its not "quality" you're thinking of when refering to those things though.. its all in who it is, through their name. Big Show & Kane will never be Hogan & Warrior, I assure you of that. But they won't have the same level type match either, on the understanding that it has nothing to do with "quality" but instead "name recognition."

Same with your Finlay/Albright to Hart/Hart match-up.

No, it's quality I'm thinking of.

And, the reason those guys had the big names is because they were great. That's the whole point.

Being a good wrestler is more than just moves. It's storytelling, psychology, working the crowd. Those things are what the greats in our business were so good at. Whether it be Bruiser Brody, or Jushin Liger, or Hulk Hogan, or Bret Hart, or John Cena, those in-depth abstract ideas are what makes a great wrestler.

And, the better the wrestler, the more fans react to him. And, Warrior was received very well.

He was good.. at selling his character, through his acting ability. He sucked as a wrestler. This is one of the main examples on why a person can make it in wrestling & not have an ounch of talent. Shelton Benjamin to John Cena.. is Greg Valentine to Ultimate Warrior.

And, John Cena is far superior to Shelton Benjamin. So, what point are you trying to make?

Valentine had talent & ability.. just no gimmick. Warrior has gimmick, which sells better than talent. Thats my opinion. Not changing it up, not making excuses. Plain & Simple..

How can you consider someone to be talented and with ability, when nobody gave a damn about his matches?

That makes no sense to me. Nobody cared about Greg Valentine matches. Nobody lined up for blocks to buy a ticket to a Valentine main-event.

The very purpose of professional wrestling is to sell tickets by entertaining the crowd. Warrior did that, Valentine never did.

Being talented includes being able to draw people into your matches, your ability to work a crowd, and to tell a story in the ring which makes fans believe in the entertainment value of a match. That's what Warrior did.