Someone intelligently refute this logic

[Slyfox696]

That's a very minor difference. Just because the WWE hires scriptwriters instead of being presented with a script, what happens afterwards is incredibly similar.

It's quite a major difference, as movie studios then hire a movie based upon the script. It's totally different.

In the WWE, they hire writers to write what the WWE wants. In movies, the writer writes whatever he wants and then its up to the movies to decide to purchase it or not.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Both with the ultimate goal of making money. That in mind, it's a minor difference.

 

[Slyfox696]

Both with the ultimate goal of making money. That in mind, it's a minor difference.

But the scripts written is not always for making money. The producer producing it does not always do it for money. The director directing it does not always do it for money. That's why you hear "art pictures" all the time in movies.

In professional wrestling, everyone hired is hired for one reason. To make the promotion money.

It's not the same thing.

 

[Uncle Sam]

It is though, isn't it? I mean, I could claim that Vince runs the WWE because he loves big men in spandex. Obviously, in an industry infinitely bigger than the pro wrestling industry, you're going to get producers and directors with different motives than money making. However, the primary goal of an industry, of any industry, is to make money, particularly when you talk about mainstream cinema. Studios look for the best combination they think will make the most money.

 

[takerfan120]

Here is my 2 cents

One can not use the money to decide the best of all time, because not all wrestlers are hired to make money some are hired simply to job to the face, or to help new up and coming stars learn the system. So i would agree that money can be used to determine the best draw, but not the best wrestler, because that is not the purpose of all wrestlers who are hired.

 

[Slyfox696]

It is though, isn't it?

No. For reasons I've already explained time and time again.

If you can prove that McMahon hires wrestlers for any reason other than to make money, then we can talk.

Here is my 2 cents

One can not use the money to decide the best of all time, because not all wrestlers are hired to make money some are hired simply to job to the face, or to help new up and coming stars learn the system.

Only because those guys aren't good enough to make money.

So i would agree that money can be used to determine the best draw, but not the best wrestler, because that is not the purpose of all wrestlers who are hired.

Look at it this way.

What jobber or enhancement talent has ever been considered the best wrestler? None of them. The best wrestler discussion always takes place amongst those who have main-evented.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

When discussing the best wrestler ever, let's look at facts.


1) A wrestler is hired to entertain fans in order to make fans turn over their money to the promoter. His job is to entertain fans to make the promoter money.

Thus...

1a) The more fans a wrestler gets to give their money away, the better the wrestler is at doing his job.


2) Fans turning over their money to watch a wrestler is directly proportional to the entertainment value of the wrestler.

Thus...

2b) The more entertaining a wrestler is, the more fans will pay to see him.


Which leads us to our final conclusion...

3) The best wrestler is the one who does his job of entertaining fans so they will turn over their money to the promoter better than any other wrestler in the business.



I dare someone to challenge this thinking.

I understand where you are coming from with this theory. But by this logic, members of your top list of the best wrestlers of all time would include such names as Dennis Rodman, Goldberg, Karl Malone, and Floyd Mayweather. And that is far from being an "A' list.

To me, a great wrestler is a technician. By my standards, a technician is not just someone who can take it to the mat and pull off a submission or a hold. To me, a technician is a wrestler who not only looks good in the ring but amplifies the skill level of his opponent and makes him look great as well. Whther he liked him or not.

A great example of this formula would be Bret Hart versus Iron Mike Sharpe. Iron Mike Sharpe was the literally the biggest jobber in the 80's for the WWF. In his matches, Iron Mike would lie, cheat, and steal but would still end up on his back in the end. Against Hogan, Sharpe looked like the king of the jobbers. But against Bret Hart, Sharpe looked like a bad ass. He looked like a force to be reconned with and someone who could possibly take Bret Hart down. But in the end, Bret got into his rhythm and got the win. But during that match, Bret worked a story of being overmatched by Sharpe's size and letting Sharpe manhandle him before he got his game plan in. The same happened with Barry Harowitz and a list of other talent enhancement that the WE employed. Bret made them look good in order to make himself look good and in return match the match look good.

The same can not be said about many of the names who would be on top in your formula. Take for instance the classic match of Hulk Hogan versus Shawn Michaels. Now Hogan isn't know for being the best seller in the business and this angered Shawn because he knew he would have to lay down for someone who wasn't willing to take as much as he was about to give. So what does Shawn do? Shawn oversell in order to try to make Hogan look bad. But in essence he made the match look bad and made himself look worse. Thusly, he is not a great wrestler by my formula but would be a great by yours.

Much more goes into being a great than putting money in pockets. Many all time greats are men who probably will never have held a major title and would not be considered to be worthy of doing so. So what makes them great then? The fact that they made the match look good and made their opponent look good as well. And that puts asses in seat and sends the crowd home like their money was well spent rather than feeling cheated just because someone was overhyped in order to get them to empty their pockets to see them.

 

[Slyfox696]

I understand where you are coming from with this theory. But by this logic, members of your top list of the best wrestlers of all time would include such names as Dennis Rodman, Goldberg, Karl Malone, and Floyd Mayweather. And that is far from being an "A' list.

Those guys you named only did it once, or for a short time. I'm not talking about making one match make money, I'm talking about significant money for significant amounts of time.

To me, a great wrestler is a technician. By my standards, a technician is not just someone who can take it to the mat and pull off a submission or a hold. To me, a technician is a wrestler who not only looks good in the ring but amplifies the skill level of his opponent and makes him look great as well. Whther he liked him or not.

So you agree that Hogan is the best wrestler ever then?

The same can not be said about many of the names who would be on top in your formula. Take for instance the classic match of Hulk Hogan versus Shawn Michaels. Now Hogan isn't know for being the best seller in the business and this angered Shawn because he knew he would have to lay down for someone who wasn't willing to take as much as he was about to give. So what does Shawn do? Shawn oversell in order to try to make Hogan look bad. But in essence he made the match look bad and made himself look worse. Thusly, he is not a great wrestler by my formula but would be a great by yours.

Hulk Hogan was making guys look great in the ring before Shawn Michaels even graduated high school. Just look at some of the piss buckets wrestlers McMahon put him in the ring with and asked him to make good. For Christ's sake, Hulk Hogan made ZEUS look like a legitimate challenge. He made the Big Bossman look credible. He made Mr. Perfect look like a true main-eventer (coincidentally, the ONLY time in Perfect's career that ever happened). Ironically, the only person Hogan couldn't make a star was his best friend Brutus Beefcake.

Much more goes into being a great than putting money in pockets. Many all time greats are men who probably will never have held a major title and would not be considered to be worthy of doing so. So what makes them great then? The fact that they made the match look good and made their opponent look good as well. And that puts asses in seat and sends the crowd home like their money was well spent rather than feeling cheated just because someone was overhyped in order to get them to empty their pockets to see them.

Wait...name me one of these so called "all time greats" who "are men who probably will never have held a major title". Who are you talking about?

 

[gordonfly2002]

"HHH will never be in this conversation. HHH has NEVER shown the ability to successfully carry the company on his own. The only time he was made THE primetime player, the WWE went into a tailspin. He's never shown the ability. When both of their careers are finished, HHH will fall behind John Cena in the greatness list."



I agree. Do the research, I did. Look up the raw ratings from 2002-present. (HHH reign). You will notice that the ratings have dropped %50. If Trips wasn't married to Steph, I can only imagine what Vince would do. Vince doesn't strike me as the type who would sit by doing nothing while someone kills HALF his viewing audience.

Just face the facts. The viewing audience doesn't want HHH as the centerpiece of the show.

 

[wzkevinm]

"HHH will never be in this conversation. HHH has NEVER shown the ability to successfully carry the company on his own. The only time he was made THE primetime player, the WWE went into a tailspin. He's never shown the ability. When both of their careers are finished, HHH will fall behind John Cena in the greatness list."



I agree. Do the research, I did. Look up the raw ratings from 2002-present. (HHH reign). You will notice that the ratings have dropped %50. If Trips wasn't married to Steph, I can only imagine what Vince would do. Vince doesn't strike me as the type who would sit by doing nothing while someone kills HALF his viewing audience.

Just face the facts. The viewing audience doesn't want HHH as the centerpiece of the show.

Triple H didn't "kill" the ratings. Not as many people watch wrestling anymore because the viewing trend which brought popularity to wrestling (shock TV) doesn't sell anymore. Do Maury Povich and the other shock talk shows get the ratings they used to? No. Same reason.

 

[agentsmith22]

Guys...It's a well known fact that Austin drew more money than Hogan so why are we arguiing about Hogan being the best of all time?

 

[agentsmith22]

And the highest grossing/gating Wrestlemania's have been recently, therefore we can eliminate Hulk out of the picture completely. But I have to disagree with the basis of the whole argument. There are some people that have such charisma that they don't NEED to be the best wrestlers in order to draw and be over. I bet my house and my car that if WWE announced The Rock would be on Raw, in solely an interview capacity, ratings would see a considerable boost. That's because he's entertaining (which is why he went on to be an actor) and doesn't need to be that skilled in the rin (which I thought he wasvery good in the ring). I agree with whoever made the Harry Potter comment; 'NSYNC sold a million albums in one day, are they the best band of all time? Doubtful. It really all depends on too many factors other than money. But if we are going by jus t money, than it's Austin. You can research that if you'd like.

 

[ROHDude]

No. For reasons I've already explained time and time again.

If you can prove that McMahon hires wrestlers for any reason other than to make money, then we can talk.

Are you an idiot? Brooklyn Brawler? Charlie Haas? Funaki? Shannon Moore? Mike Sharpe? Skinner? Bastion Booger? TL Hopper? Beverly Brothers? Repo Man? Berzerker? Mr Hughes? Max Moon? Aldo Montoya? Heavenly Bodies?

None of those guys were hired to make the big bucks, or any money at all. Vince will hire guys, so he doesn't have competition. He'll hire guys just because he sees something he likes, but won't do anything with them. There is a whole heap of wrestlers Vince has hired and making money was not his purpose. There's a ton of guys on the roster now, that Vince hired, but doesn't plan to use them to make money. He hires guys for the hell of it.

 

[Slyfox696]

Triple H didn't "kill" the ratings. Not as many people watch wrestling anymore because the viewing trend which brought popularity to wrestling (shock TV) doesn't sell anymore. Do Maury Povich and the other shock talk shows get the ratings they used to? No. Same reason.

Regardless, wrestling still tanked with Triple H on top. Hard to say you're the greatest when your time on top lost half of its original viewers.

Guys...It's a well known fact that Austin drew more money than Hogan so why are we arguiing about Hogan being the best of all time?

When you say "well known fact", you must mean "falsely stated", correct?

Tell me, what is your source for this "well known fact"? Because, Hulk Hogan is DIRECTLY responsible for the incredible boom period of the WWF from 1983 to about 1992, and is indirectly responsible for the WWF's boom period of the late 90s and early 2000s, because Hogan and WCW was the one that made wrestling hot again before Austin took over.

Hulk Hogan was THE hottest ticket in wrestling for 20 years. Austin was for 4.

And THAT is what is called a well known fact.

And the highest grossing/gating Wrestlemania's have been recently,

Yes, because of availability of PPV to a larger number of fans, plus the inclusion of International buyrates.

But if we are going by jus t money, than it's Austin. You can research that if you'd like.

How about you justify it instead?

Are you an idiot? Brooklyn Brawler? Charlie Haas? Funaki? Shannon Moore? Mike Sharpe? Skinner? Bastion Booger? TL Hopper? Beverly Brothers? Repo Man? Berzerker? Mr Hughes? Max Moon? Aldo Montoya? Heavenly Bodies?

None of those guys were hired to make the big bucks, or any money at all. Vince will hire guys, so he doesn't have competition. He'll hire guys just because he sees something he likes, but won't do anything with them. There is a whole heap of wrestlers Vince has hired and making money was not his purpose. There's a ton of guys on the roster now, that Vince hired, but doesn't plan to use them to make money. He hires guys for the hell of it.

1. Which one of those guys you mentioned are ever in the discussion for "greatest of all time"?

2. The Beverly Brothers were an accomplished AWA tag team, and had been managed by Ole Anderson as the second coming of the Minnesota wrecking crew in the NWA. The Repo Man was Barry Darsow, who was one half of arguably the greatest WWF tag team ever in Demolition. The Berserker was John Nord, a man who was quite a contender in both WCCW and Mid-South Wrestling. Max Moon is the man you know as Konnan, who is a very big draw in Mexico. Aldo Montoya was a student from the infamous Hart Dungeon, which coincidentally was owned by the WWF champion of the time's father. The Heavenly Bodies was a tag team of Tom Prichard (you've probably heard of him) and Stan Lane, Lane being a legacy of two of the most famous tag teams in history in The Fabulous Ones and The Midnight Express.

So, yeah, I dare say a few of those guys were hired to make the WWF money.

3. Finally, and this was your point, jobbers DO serve a purpose in making the WWF money, because the jobbers role is to make the stars look better, thus increasing THEIR drawing appeal. Jobbers are hired to improve the moneymaking ability of the stars, and thus, the job of a jobber to make the star more attractive to fans to pay money.


But, a good try nonetheless.

 

[Shadowmancer]

Sly I thought hogan won the title in 1984

 

[Shocky]

Triple H didn't "kill" the ratings. Not as many people watch wrestling anymore because the viewing trend which brought popularity to wrestling (shock TV) doesn't sell anymore. Do Maury Povich and the other shock talk shows get the ratings they used to? No. Same reason.

Ratings go down because outside of the vocal minority 18 year old Attitude Era hang over fans, most people don't care about Triple H. Raw is an immensely more enjoyable product since the Game is out of there, while Smackdown has become incredibly stale.

 

[jokeboy624]

I think the problem that most people have with Slyfox's logic is more of a semantic one, than a factual one. First when people hear "best" anything they automatically think most skilled and in most cases that's true, however, as Slyfox presented it in this case that isn't true.

The logic goes that wrestlers are hired to make money for the promoter, therefore the wrestlers that make the most money are the best wrestler. I can't argue you against that logic and anyone who tries is insane. At no point did Slyfox say that the most skilled wrestler is the biggest draw and therefore the best wrestler. Everyone trying to argue against the logic keeps bringing up skill, that's a different question for a different thread. That's when you talk about guys like Shelton Benjamin, etc. Highly skilled, crappy draws, make no money (as of right now anyway), meaning not the best wrestler. Hulk Hogan, makes lots of Money for Vince McMahon (Can't be argued), has skills (shouldn't be argued but will be), means one of the best wrestlers. The logic is fool-proof.

And as a side note, I don't think anyone Promoter goes out and says, "I'm hiring you to be a jobber, come get your ass kicked night in and night out in front of millions of people. C'mon, it'll be fun!" Promoters hire people they think could be the next big thing, that'll make them money, and you know what, sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. That's when you get professional jobbers.