The Best In The World

[Evenflow DDT]

Currently there are two wrestlers who claim they are "The Best In The World". These wrestlers are WWE Champion CM Punk and ROH World Champion Davey Richads.

Both of the guys are tremendous athletes and are Entertaining to watch. Kevin Kelly who does play by play in ROH has gone on record saying that CM Punk cant claim to be the beat without beating Richards, who Kelly believes is truly the best in the world. IMO neither one of them can claim to be the best as long as Kurt Angle laces up a pair of boots and wrestles. The man is a machine. He is north of 40 and is still better than anyone in the squared circle. He can make anyone look good. He holds victories over the likes of Hulk Hogan, John Cena, The Rock, Steve Austin, Sting, And Somoa Joe.

The only way to determine the best is through a 60 min 3-way elimination match. Hell just for shits and giggles have Jericho as special ref and Bret Hart as special enforcer. I say Punk gets eliminates around 20-25 min into the Mach and Angle makes Richards tap at the 50 min mark. This would be the dream match of all dream matches especially if all 3 entered the ring with their respective companies World Title.

Thoughts???

 

[Grotesque]

If any one company could get their hands on all three wrestlers in their current state? I’d have a hard time not calling them the best “company” in the world. There are a lot of ifs and buts here though and while everyone has their right for dreams? I’m not entirely sure this needed an actual thread. My thoughts? It would be one heck of a match; even if it was just CM Punk versus Davey Richards. The second you put in special enforcers and special referees, the match is already taken down at least a few notches. Why? Because it won’t tell us who’s the best in the world. What it’ll tell us will be who the guys in the back favor. If it’s between the two though? Punk comes out the winner. He’s the one who’s gotten himself on the top of the ladder of the biggest company of them all. That itself gives him a huge advantage in the form of experience. You almost have to wait a little while; until Richards done something outside of the indies. But no matter who would end up coming out the victor, think it’s a no brainer that the crowd would be entertained; very entertained.

 

[The Underking]

Yeah, thier's only one man who can claim to call himself the best in the world his first name's John his last name is Cena. No one wrestler is better then John Cena and thier's no arguing that.

As for that "Dream Match" get Davey Richards the fuck out I have never seen a wrestler that boring in my life. I swear to god the guy thinks he's an MMA fighter with his punching and kicks then wrestling. Kurt Angle vs. CM Punk however now that's a preety good dream match. I'd probably book CM Punk to go over as the better talent as of today.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Yeah, thier's only one man who can claim to call himself the best in the world his first name's John his last name is Cena. No one wrestler is better then John Cena and thier's no arguing that.

As for that "Dream Match" get Davey Richards the fuck out I have never seen a wrestler that boring in my life. I swear to god the guy thinks he's an MMA fighter with his punching and kicks then wrestling.

I don't know what's more laughable- your opinion about Cena who is corny on the mic, average in the ring, and stale as a charcter; or your opinion about Davey Richards who is as good between the ropes as anyone in the business.

As for who's better between Punk and Richards... Punk is the better overall talent at this point. Punk's character, mic work, and personlaity are lightyears past Davey's. But that's not what Richards is about. Much like AJ when he is operating as the face of TNA, Davey is mega-over with the core-fanbase due to his elite skillset in the ring and consistently high work rate, and has just enough personality to get the story's told. Davey is much more "Daniel Bryan" than he is "CM Punk".

A Sixty-minute time-limit draw would seem to be the most fitting outcome if you were going to book a match between these two current world champs. That match would have "potential classic" written all over it.

I definitely think both men have their own legitimate claim to the "Best In The World" title, and I have no problem with either man being closely associated with the moniker- just in case you couldn't tell that from my sig.

 

[The Underking]

I don't know what's more laughable- your opinion about Cena who is corny on the mic, average in the ring, and stale as a charcter; or your opinion about Davey Richards who is as good between the ropes as anyone in the business.

As for who's better between Punk and Richards... Punk is the better overall talent at this point. Punk's character, mic work, and personlaity are lightyears past Davey's. But that's not what Richards is about. Much like AJ when he is operating as the face of TNA, Davey is mega-over with the core-fanbase due to his elite skillset in the ring and consistently high work rate, and has just enough personality to get the story's told. Davey is much more "Daniel Bryan" than he is "CM Punk".

A Sixty-minute time-limit draw would seem to be the most fitting outcome if you were going to book a match between these two current world champs. That match would have "potential classic" written all over it.

I definitely think both men have their own legitimate claim to the "Best In The World" title, and I have no problem with either man being closely associated with the moniker- just in case you couldn't tell that from my sig.

Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan both agreed on one term whoever draws the most is the best wrestler. John Cena draws more then CM Punk and Davey Richards put togeather (Which isn't that hard considering Davey hasn't ever wrestled in front of an over 5,000 person crowd in America).

Davey Richards absolute sucks aswell have you seen his matches get super kicked close two count. Get up hit fifty straight moves without selling the least bit and half of those fifty moves are a bunch of kicks. I'm sorry I do not find that entertaining at all I normally skip the ROH Main Event's on thier TV Show cause they feature him.

Davey Richards couldn't draw two thousand fans yet apparently he's got a label as best in the world? As far as I'm concered whoever draws the most is the best wrestler. Add to that DRAWING the most people means you must be amazing at what you do.
John Cena - Main Event's Stadiums on a yearly basis. Best in the World.

Davey Richards - Wrestles in what look to be shitty gyms, can't draw for shit, and doesn't know how to sell. Overated Indy Star #37

 

[Harthan]

The idea that a person drawing is in any way related to their quality as a wrestler is absurd, and I can't understand why people want to continue on with this argument. What makes it even more baffling is that this argument holds no water in any other form of entertainment, but is apparently just fine in wrestling for some reason. To wit:

On Jack and Jill's opening weekend, it came in second in the box office rankings. Meanwhile, J. Edgar came in fifth. Jack and Jill made 26 million, while J. Edgar made 11.4. By translation of the wrestling argument that the best wrestler is the one that draws the most, Jack and Jill is therefore the better film, end of story. So how do you reconcile this fact with Jack and Jill holding a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes, while J. Edgar holds a 42%? These numbers aren't pulled out a hat - they're generated by assembling the reviews of critics,professionals who are educated in film and who are paid to tell people how good a film is. Are they wrong? By this silly wrestling argument, they must be.

The answer is this - Jack and Jill is a terrible film, but it appeals to the masses with poor taste. It's simple, stupid, makes easy jokes, so on, so forth. The kind of thing the masses eat up, because frankly, the masses are comprised of idiots. Thus, Jack and Jill is profitable, while better films are less so, because they are of less appeal to the masses.

Examples can be found in many other fields, and more extreme. What do you think would draw more viewers in - a new Simpson's episode, or the opening night of a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Hamlet? Let's assume that bothersome factors are removed - that an unlimited number of people can see Hamlet as easily as they can tune into an episode of Simpsons, so on, and so forth. Hold all factors other than quality constant. I don't think that a single person in their right mind would say that the Simpsons is of higher quality than Hamlet - but would any sane person deny that more people would watch the Simpsons rather than see Hamlet? Does this mean that Matt Groening has outdone the Bard, has surpassed William Shakespeare as the foremost author in the English language? Of course not. It's a demonstration of a simple fact - the masses will take simple, easy entertainment over complex, deep material every day.

The same argument holds true in wrestling. I'm not arguing the relative merits of John Cena and Davey Richard, mind you, I'm just demonstrating that the argument about drawing holds no water. But let's compare two hypothetical wrestlers. Wrestler A is a big, stereotypical wrestler type of guy. He's the usual sort, stands for truth, justice, and the American way, eats his vitamins, kicks bad guy ass resoundlingly with a small array of moves, so on, and so forth. Wrestler B, meanwhile, is a smaller type of wrestler, has complicated, nuanced stories, and works a serious of 20 minute plus matches building up to a 40 minute or so conclusion using a dizzying array of moves and creating complex matches. Who draws more?

Wrestler A is the Simpsons, Wrestle B is Hamlet. My point here is obvious. Cena and Richards is a different argument to me, but that's not what I mean to address at this time. The point I hope I've made to all of you is that just because a wrestler can draw more doesn't make him better. Or, in other terms, the sheer profitability of any form of entertainment has no direct correlation with its quality.

 

[Rayne]

The idea that a person drawing is in any way related to their quality as a wrestler is absurd, and I can't understand why people want to continue on with this argument. What makes it even more baffling is that this argument holds no water in any other form of entertainment, but is apparently just fine in wrestling for some reason. To wit:

On Jack and Jill's opening weekend, it came in second in the box office rankings. Meanwhile, J. Edgar came in fifth. Jack and Jill made 26 million, while J. Edgar made 11.4. By translation of the wrestling argument that the best wrestler is the one that draws the most, Jack and Jill is therefore the better film, end of story. So how do you reconcile this fact with Jack and Jill holding a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes, while J. Edgar holds a 42%? These numbers aren't pulled out a hat - they're generated by assembling the reviews of critics,professionals who are educated in film and who are paid to tell people how good a film is. Are they wrong? By this silly wrestling argument, they must be.

The answer is this - Jack and Jill is a terrible film, but it appeals to the masses with poor taste. It's simple, stupid, makes easy jokes, so on, so forth. The kind of thing the masses eat up, because frankly, the masses are comprised of idiots. Thus, Jack and Jill is profitable, while better films are less so, because they are of less appeal to the masses.

Examples can be found in many other fields, and more extreme. What do you think would draw more viewers in - a new Simpson's episode, or the opening night of a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Hamlet? Let's assume that bothersome factors are removed - that an unlimited number of people can see Hamlet as easily as they can tune into an episode of Simpsons, so on, and so forth. Hold all factors other than quality constant. I don't think that a single person in their right mind would say that the Simpsons is of higher quality than Hamlet - but would any sane person deny that more people would watch the Simpsons rather than see Hamlet? Does this mean that Matt Groening has outdone the Bard, has surpassed William Shakespeare as the foremost author in the English language? Of course not. It's a demonstration of a simple fact - the masses will take simple, easy entertainment over complex, deep material every day.

The same argument holds true in wrestling. I'm not arguing the relative merits of John Cena and Davey Richard, mind you, I'm just demonstrating that the argument about drawing holds no water. But let's compare two hypothetical wrestlers. Wrestler A is a big, stereotypical wrestler type of guy. He's the usual sort, stands for truth, justice, and the American way, eats his vitamins, kicks bad guy ass resoundlingly with a small array of moves, so on, and so forth. Wrestler B, meanwhile, is a smaller type of wrestler, has complicated, nuanced stories, and works a serious of 20 minute plus matches building up to a 40 minute or so conclusion using a dizzying array of moves and creating complex matches. Who draws more?

Wrestler A is the Simpsons, Wrestle B is Hamlet. My point here is obvious. Cena and Richards is a different argument to me, but that's not what I mean to address at this time. The point I hope I've made to all of you is that just because a wrestler can draw more doesn't make him better. Or, in other terms, the sheer profitability of any form of entertainment has no direct correlation with its quality.

It depends on if you look at professional wrestling as an art, or as a business. If it's just business, than John Cena is hands down the best professional wrestler working today. He makes people more money than anyone else working. If you look at it as an art, it's much more subjective who the "best" wrestler is. Everyone will have a different answer.

As far as me, when I want professional wrestling as art, I'll hunt down some ROH, Chikara, or Dragon Gate. (Art doesn't have to be serious, for those who take exception to my mentioning Chikara.) If it's professional wrestling as business, then I'm looking at WWE and TNA/IW. (This isn't to say that smaller promotions aren't "doing business". I more refer to the wrestling promotions who are focused on the largest possible audience, rather than catering to specific niche audiences.) I really haven't watched much WWE and TNA/IW lately, because apparently what everyone else is interested in bores the shit out of me, but I can totally appreciate guys who turn words and gestures into t-shirt sales the way they do.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

if you look at pro wrestling as an art, it's entirely subjective. Richards doesn't sell well, a lot of his shit isn't believable because it gets no sold.

smarks don't understand that MOVEZ don't=wrestling. That a guy workign an audience IS artwork.

To me, there is no art in doing a bunch of moves that 300 people give a shit about and give you courtesy claps after a wristlock exchange in what's supposed to be a heated battle. The best wrestlers in the world convey a character. Most wrestlers, as Raven said, can do all the moves. That's not what's important. It's walking, talking, and wrestling in character. You can't look at how Cody Rhodes changed his voice, walk, and in ring mannerisms and crowd psychology when he was "grotesque" and tell me that's any less artistic than Davey Richards taking a headdrop, popping back up, screaming, then kicking the guy 3 times and giving him a half nelson suplex.

If anything, it requires more sophistication to see what the WWE guys do because it's beyond the moves. It's little things like letting your head hang when you're getting beaten down then standing upright for your comeback. Like making sure you leave enough space between you and the other guy so that when you hit him, he can fall further and so the old lady in the upper deck can see you.

In my very short time in wrestling, I hear more guys shit on the X style, guys who actually were successful. They HATED how little they sold and how fast they went. Going fast is selfish wrestling, they don't really play to the audience. Not selling and not telling an in ring story isn't artistic, it's lazy.

I'm not saying that some indy guys aren't fantastic. I'm a guy who marked like a kid when, in his last match in Chicago, Bryan danielson countered Aries' 450 into a triangle choke.

People who see things purely business-like will underrate some indy guys. However, it's laughable that ANYONE says that John Cena isnt' even in the discussion. Harley Race, Ric Flair, RVD, Samoa Joe, CM Punk, and Chris Jericho all say he is, they have a lot more credibility than anyone on here. Cena may only use 6 moves, but he tells stories with those moves and sells and does little detailed things like against Mysterio he'll underestimate his kicks, then after a few, keep his distance to show that he's giving mysterio respect and not just mauling him because of Mysterio's strong leg kicks. The audience doesn't see it, but when you put together enough little things and sell everything and stay in character then you put together something people can believe in.

What I'm trying to say is, people who think the WWE style is simple are stupid. They do less moves, but they do a LOT more of the little things that most people don't notice. These guys dont' get signed and get over for no reason. There is a very real and very complex and very artistic reason behind it. Most people want to see a story told, not 2 guys kick each other and throw each other on their head and then no sell it and do it all over again. If you think Richards is more complex than Cena, you're drunk. Richards style is simple. Think about this quote, genius isn't making the simple things complex, it's making the complex things simple. Cena has a simple style but conveys complex stories. Richards tells pretty simple stories and doesn't do many little things, but he makes it look complex with a bunch of extra shit. Austin Aries is a guy who I don't see as being more than mediocre, but he's praised on here. Aries never sells anything long term and never tells a story. He does a lot of moves and is the smark's favorite arrogant heel. So he's over with the smarks, but that's the ONLY people he's over with now and the only people he's ever been over with. It's not a conspiracy, he's just really not that good as a pro wrestler.

Of course, someone without any experience with anyone legitimate in wrestlng is going to "lol" at most of what I said. then say that some flippity fuck is better than a guy who gets people to care about him when the goal is to get people to care.



The movie comparison is decent. However, Richards isn't like "There Will Be Blood" Richards is like a movie that's artsy and stuck up it's own ass for the sake of being artsy and stuck up it's own ass. Cena, and any popular pro wrestler, has to have SUSTAINABILITY. In other words, he's closer to a smart blockbuster like The Dark Knight. There is a ton of art to being pop culture-oriented enough, and smart enough to really get into the psyche of people.

I guess I'll stop now and let someone come on with the 'ITS CALL WRESTLING, X IS THE BEST WRESTLER!!!" bullshit and it's going to be someone who doesn't sell anything (as in, limp, grab your arm, hold your back, fuckin something) or tell a story in the ring.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Where you're wrong TWJC is in your insistance that Davey Richards doesn't tell a story in the ring... I 100% fail to understand where you came up with that theory.

Watch Richards/Edwards at Final Battle- I would bet my beating heart that the match tells a better story than any match that aired on WWE PPV this year(with the possible exception of Cena/Punk at MITB).

I've spent time in a training environment with Les Thatcher (to me the best training mind in the business), I understand fully the nuances that you refer to; and I feel that it is lazy and irresponsible of you to lump an entire style of wrestling into a category and then shit on it because its not what you prefer. Most every wrestler on the ROH roster would appear, on the surface, to fall into your category of "selfish X-style"- but in reality most all of them routinely go out and have high level matches that tell a complete story, albeit often at a "faster" rate. There is a reason the best in-ring performer on Raw, the best on Smackdown, and the best in developmental for the WWE are all ROH alums (Punk, Bryan, Rollins, respectively).

I think you are simply over-simplifying and hiding your own personal style-bias behind a bunch of analysis that doesn't hold water when being applied to the specific wrestler in question. If someone was calling Matt and Nick Jackson the best tag team in the world instead of WGTT, then your argument would have merit but in the case of Davey Richards it has none. You're being overly-reductive to prove your point, not analytical, as it would appear. Perhaps the same could be said about my assessment of Cena, but if that's true then the fact is I'm no more wrong about Cena than you are about Davey.

 

[The Underking]

Where you're wrong TWJC is in your insistance that Davey Richards doesn't tell a story in the ring... I 100% fail to understand where you came up with that theory.

Watch Richards/Edwards at Final Battle- I would bet my beating heart that the match tells a better story than any match that aired on WWE PPV this year(with the possible exception of Cena/Punk at MITB).

I've spent time in a training environment with Les Thatcher (to me the best training mind in the business), I understand fully the nuances that you refer to; and I feel that it is lazy and irresponsible of you to lump an entire style of wrestling into a category and then shit on it because its not what you prefer. Most every wrestler on the ROH roster would appear, on the surface, to fall into your category of "selfish X-style"- but in reality most all of them routinely go out and have high level matches that tell a complete story, albeit often at a "faster" rate. There is a reason the best in-ring performer on Raw, the best on Smackdown, and the best in developmental for the WWE are all ROH alums (Punk, Bryan, Rollins, respectively).

I think you are simply over-simplifying and hiding your own personal style-bias behind a bunch of analysis that doesn't hold water when being applied to the specific wrestler in question. If someone was calling Matt and Nick Jackson the best tag team in the world instead of WGTT, then your argument would have merit but in the case of Davey Richards it has none. You're being overly-reductive to prove your point, not analytical, as it would appear. Perhaps the same could be said about my assessment of Cena, but if that's true then the fact is I'm no more wrong about Cena than you are about Davey.

I would take Randy Orton over Seth Rollins or Bryan Danielson anyday of the week and twice on sundays buddy. I would take John Cena over all three of those guys. Hell I take Cody Rhodes and Dolph Ziggler over the other two and I'm a preety big Tyler Black fan myself. The best wrestlers tend to rise above the rest that's why guys like Cena, Orton, and Punk are at the top not cause they worked for certain company but because they can captivate the most people and that my freind is the point of pro wrestling.

It's great they can put on a match but tell me one time you've thought Daniel Bryan and I've GOT to see this match togeather. I can name his recent main event on Smackdown against Henry which is preety much Henry bringing in all the attention with Daniel playing underdog and not doing much storyline wise. Let's be tru

Just answer me one question why is it that Davey Richards is in a Third Rate Company, Only started televised once again, can't draw a crowd of over 5,000, and nobody outside of the IWC really knows about. Just asking how is that the best in the world. Why isn't he main eventing WrestleMania's if he is the best in the world.

Watch a Davey Richards match again and notice any work on the leg (or arm for that matter) Davey get's worked on for five minutes then gets right back up and hit's a series of kicks with the injured leg and goes right out to completely ignoring it. Yet one of the biggest criticisms of Cena is that he doesn't sell in his Super Man comeback.

Look you tell me who you think is the best in the world.

Wrestler A. Has never been on Pay Per View, Face of the Third Biggest North American Company, Holds a disputed World Title (IMO to be a World champion your company has to be a global company), Main Event's shows with 2,000 people (And that's being considerate the actual number is probably). Is not known by a tenth of wrestling fans.

Wrestler B. Main Events Pay Per Views on a monthly basis, Face of the Biggest Comapany in the World, Thirteen Time World Champion, The Biggest Draw In Wrestling, Has had several classics, Main Evented 70,000's people stadiums, and is the most well known active wrestler today.

Let's see I'm sure Wrestler A has a very high credentials to the rights of being calls the Best PRO Wrestler in the World.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Where you're wrong TWJC is in your insistance that Davey Richards doesn't tell a story in the ring... I 100% fail to understand where you came up with that theory.

Watch Richards/Edwards at Final Battle- I would bet my beating heart that the match tells a better story than any match that aired on WWE PPV this year(with the possible exception of Cena/Punk at MITB).

I've spent time in a training environment with Les Thatcher (to me the best training mind in the business), I understand fully the nuances that you refer to; and I feel that it is lazy and irresponsible of you to lump an entire style of wrestling into a category and then shit on it because its not what you prefer. Most every wrestler on the ROH roster would appear, on the surface, to fall into your category of "selfish X-style"- but in reality most all of them routinely go out and have high level matches that tell a complete story, albeit often at a "faster" rate. There is a reason the best in-ring performer on Raw, the best on Smackdown, and the best in developmental for the WWE are all ROH alums (Punk, Bryan, Rollins, respectively).

I think you are simply over-simplifying and hiding your own personal style-bias behind a bunch of analysis that doesn't hold water when being applied to the specific wrestler in question. If someone was calling Matt and Nick Jackson the best tag team in the world instead of WGTT, then your argument would have merit but in the case of Davey Richards it has none. You're being overly-reductive to prove your point, not analytical, as it would appear. Perhaps the same could be said about my assessment of Cena, but if that's true then the fact is I'm no more wrong about Cena than you are about Davey.

I'm not over simplifying anything. The ROH roster DOES tell a better story than most of the X style guys. Bryan danielson isn't the best SD in ring performer. It's all about knowing your audience. DB isn't "big" enough with his moves. In a small arena, where you can see all the small details he does, he's awesome, you work your audience and you adapt to your audience.

In my opinion, Chris Hero is a guy who is amazing at tweaking his style to his audience. Hero is a much better in ring performer than Richards because of it. Richards tries to tell stories, but becaue of the lack of selling, it muffles it. Then again, Richards is working his audience. If he actually sold anything, the fat ROHtards would chant "boooring".

tyler black never told stories in the ring. He was just a biggish guy who's best matches were when he was lead by superior workers and fored to tell a story. He also didn't sell worth a shit. I haven't seen much of his developmental stuff and didn't really see much of his ROh title reign, so he may have changed a lot.

Punk, I might give you. He has such a focus on selling and detailed selling and detailed storytelling AND he makes everything big to work the bigger arena audience more. Punk's so concious about selling that he sold his arm on his entrance the day after HIAC.

If someone were to tell me that Chris Hero is the best in the world, I'd buy that a lot more than Richards. If Hero is brough into WWE he'll get as over as Punk because he adapts to his audience.

 

[Papa Pillman]

I would take Randy Orton over Seth Rollins or Bryan Danielson anyday of the week and twice on sundays buddy. I would take John Cena over all three of those guys. Hell I take Cody Rhodes and Dolph Ziggler over the other two and I'm a preety big Tyler Black fan myself. The best wrestlers tend to rise above the rest that's why guys like Cena, Orton, and Punk are at the top not cause they worked for certain company but because they can captivate the most people and that my freind is the point of pro wrestling.

I in no way implied that Tyler Black was a better professional wrestler than Randy Orton. I simply stated he was the best in-ring performer on the WWE developmental roster, and that's a statement I will stand behind.

Punk is the best in-ring performer on the Raw roster, and currently he's the best overall professional wrestler on that show. But I am a big fan of Ziggler, especially recently as he strayed away from relying mostly on Vickie to garner his heat and has started generating it on his own. His ring work has also been consistently high-level recently(the match he and Punk had on Raw the night after Survivor Series was better than any match on the PPV). I think Dolph will seperate from Vickie soon, as he is nearly ready for the main event, and she can move on to "represent a new client" who actually needs her help to get over.

Bryan is IMO the best in-ring performer on the Smackdown brand, but I think an eventual heel turn may be what's best suited for his style and personality. I would atleast like to see them give his character the same agression towards his opponents that he expresses towards Cole. The "angry at Cole" version of Bryan is the best version that we've gotten from a character standpoint. I actually do believe that at the current moment Cody Rhodes is the most complete package on the smackdown roster. His mic work and ring work have been constantly on point for months now.

As for the topic at hand again... The term "Best In The World" is a very simple and broad term- it can mean alot of different things when applied to a wrestler.

No one who refers to Davey Richards by that moniker is inferring that he has the ability to draw crowds like Cena, cut promos like Punk, or have the mass crossover appeal of guys like Rock and Jericho. It is simply a group of people who appreciate what it is he does do, and feel that no one else can do it any better.

I'm pretty happy to be a pro wrestling fan right about now. Punk is the WWE champion, Roode is the TNA champion, and Richards is the ROH champion, and the major midcard titles are held by Rhodes, Ziggler, and Aries... for my money it doesn't get much better than that.

 

[Smartie]

Right now for me it's a tie between Cena and Punk.

Wrestling-wise I'd pick Cena. He has been able to have better than average matches with almost everyone in the past 2 years and he's also been a part of my 2011 MOTY and last year's runner up.He has completed his move-set, he has lost about 70 percent of his old routine and is able to tell great stories in ring without trying too hard, something that a few people like Hart or HBK have been able to do.

Character-wise, I'd go with Punk. The problem with many of new gen wrestlers is that they either don't have a character or are not good at portraying it, but with Punk you have none of these problems. His whole pipebomb thing has made me rally proud of him. If you pay attention to these past couple of months' Raws, you'll see that the whole arena goes absolutely silent during his promos and you can easily tell they're all listening to every word carefully. This is one of the biggest achievements in the recent wrestling history IMO, and thus it makes Punk the Best in the world alongside Cena.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

The whole "IN RING" thing is dumb. You can't be the best 'in ring" and so that proves you're the best 'WRESTLER' or whatever IWC cliche bullshit. Fact is, it's ALWAYS been character and story driven. Harley Race, people believed was a badass, not just because he was good in the ring. Bret Hart carried himself like a guy who was technically sound, it was just as much his character as actual ability.

Saying "so and so is the best WRESTLER because of the IN RING skill they have" is like saying "Player X is the best baseball player in the world because he fields ground balls better than anyone" that's just one part of being a wrestler. Yes, a "WRESTLER" as you guys like to point out. You have to be the complete package. Throughout history, guys who are the most complete have always been the best. Throughout history, it's always been about connecting with the fans. Being good in the ring is as much character work and acting as a promo is. Why do so many of you think it's about the moves? The moves have very little to do with a wrestler except "does it make sense". Selling is more important. If you don't sell logically, it takes the audience out of it because it looks fake.


To me the term "best in the world" isn't as subjective as it seems. Who consistently draws the most and gets the loudest reaction? That's it. That's their job. There isn't a board of people judging them "artistically" the fans vote with their mouths and pockets. That's not to say an indy guy like Chris Hero, who really does draw and really does get a reaction everywhere he goes, can't be the best in the world, he's just not given the opportunity to draw. When you start saying "5/5 in the ring, 4.5/5 on the mic" then you lose me. Hero, I've watched, changes his style for his audience. He even made fun of the ROH audience for a while by randomly doing flips and shit because he knows that's what they like. He's incredibly smart and draws and gets a reaction everywhere he goes. If the WWE signs him, you can bet he'll draw and get a reaction there too. He's a lot like Punk. Not incredibly athletic by any means, but so ridiculously good at reading the audience that he can do anything. Davey Richards is going to immitate the puro style regardless of what audience he's in front of because, like a large portion of smarks, he thinks that's the best style and that's what makes a good wrestler. He's not very versitile. You can have a FAVORITE that's different. For example, my favorite wrestler right now is probably Cody Rhodes. I don't think he's the best in the world. Most people just can't seperate their own opinion and analyse things objectively.