Apologies for my late response, but the weekend's simply been too hectic to allow for much time on the net.
No apology necessary, I would be far more concerned if you felt you HAD to be here just to reply.
If you honestly think Warrior’s body of work holds up against that of actual in-ring workers such as Steamboat, Flair, Hart, Michaels, Savage, Angle, Joe, Styles, Benoit, Misterio, etc you are incredibly biased.
I love how you throw Samoa Joe in there, when he doesn't have half the ability Warrior had. Joe is just a fat guy who looks good when he has someone to sell for him. Otherwise, he's a mediocre wrestler.
And for the time period he was on top, Warrior's body of work DOES hold up to any of those guys. I'm not saying he was as good of a worker as a Savage or Hart or Benoit or even Styles (HBK, Angle and Flair are all incredibly overrated) but the work he did during his run ranks right up there with just about any match from those guys. Outside of Steamboat vs. Savage at WM 3, I'd take Warriors matches at WM 6 and 7 and call them every bit as good as any match any of those guys ever worked in the WWF/E.
Your definition of a good worker is incredibly general if you believe Warrior vs Andre the Giant is great.
I never said that, but you asked for memorable matches, so I gave you one. You never even SAW the match I'm talking about.
Speaking strictly of the period stemming from 1987 until 1992, I would say Ric Flair (title bouts with Savage, Hart, 1992 Rumble performance)
You named three matches, I gave you 5, and there's never been a truly memorable Hart vs. Flair match.
Randy Savage (bouts with Steamboat, Hogan, Roberts, Flair, and yes, Warrior)
Five matches...like I gave you.
Bret Hart (tenure in the Hart Foundation, singles matches with Piper, Flair, Davey Boy Smith)
Piper and Smith were good matches. The Hart Foundation vs. Demolition 2 out of 3 falls was a good match. As I mentioned, Flair and Hart never had a memorable match. So, there's three matches, when I gave you five.
You just compared Warrior with the greatest wrestlers in history, and you're telling me he's not a legend? Why didn't you talk about The Big Bossman, or Tito Santana, or even Rick Martel?
You went straight to some of the greatest wrestling names of all time, and even then you couldn't give me enough matches that were more impressive than what Warrior did. You just put Warrior in the same category as Savage, Flair, Hart and Hogan, considered by many to be 4 of the greatest wrestling superstars in history. How is he not a legend?
I could probably come up with more names---particularly if you count outside the WWF
You can't count outside the WWF, because the styles are completely different, and you seem a guy who bases quality upon style, not what actually happens in the ring.
In your biased view, however, the moment you cite Andre vs Warrior as a quality wrestling match, you start to lose whatever credibility you may have.
First of all, you never saw the match I was talking about. It was a house show, and you don't know where I live, so you obviously are ignorant to the quality of the match. You're assuming quality simply based upon the names involved. You do this "conjecture" thing a lot.
Second of all, I never said it was a quality match (never denied it either, though), however you asked me for Warriors matches that were memorable, and that match was very memorable for me.
You seem to believe that if a match gets a good ovation it is a good match.
Who said that? Certainly wasn't me.
By that logic, you could say Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant at WrestleMania III was one of the finest works of art in wrestling history, since the fans blew the roof off the Silverdome. Forget about the fact that Andre was practically immobile and that the whole encounter was basically twelve minutes of kick and punch.
No it wasn't. That match was far better than people give it credit for. It had a good, if simple, story to the match, both guys played their roles perfectly, they had the fans on the edge of their seat the entire time, and the audience erupted when the story hit the climax and the big payoff. What more could you want from a wrestling match?
You conveniently ignore the fact that the relationship between McMahon and Hogan was souring in 1990. McMahon resented Hogan's demanding nature and his growing contractual leverage. Warrior is brought in at around the same time, and having many of the same physical gifts as Hogan, is conveniently pushed to the moon while this is taking place. Do the math.
Ridiculous. At that time there were a lot of guys with big muscles in the WWE. How about the Warlord, why didn't the Warlord get the push? How about Kerry Von Erich, why didn't he get the push? If anyone deserved Hogan's spot, based upon your claim, Kerry Von Erich was the perfect guy, because he was an incredibly handsome man, with a powerful name and reputation. He never made it past the midcard.
Warrior got his spot because the fans adored him and loved what he brought to the ring. History has shown you can push a guy all you want, but if the fans won't pay to see him, you can't make them pay. Guys like Erik Watts, Heidenreich, etc. are certainly proof of that.
He clearly faded into obscurity
How can you "fade" into obscurity, when every time you come back, you get a monster pop? He didn't fade into obscurity, he abruptly left. And any time he came back, the crowd gave him massive pops.
These are the facts: He left the WWF in late-1992. He was entirely absent from the game in 1993, 1994 and 1995 (save for an indy match with Honky Tonk in '95 and a stint in Europe).
Which is not "fading" to obscurity.
He came back in 1996, won no titles, beat no one other than a pre-main event Triple H and a washed up Jerry Lawler, then left after six months.
Which, again, is not "fading".
Aside from the fact you have absolutely zero place to say he "faded" to obscurity, considering his massive pops, you also can't say he's obscure because we're still here talking about him right now. His inclusion in a WWE video game a couple years ago was a big deal. They have WWE action figures of him.
He neither faded nor is obscure, so your sentence is wrong twice.
That’s a copout. Regardless of what path a wrestler takes there are specific milestones that govern true wrestling greatness that you are just not seeing. There are certain qualities that people associate with greatness.
And one of those is impact on the business, and another is being remembered long after your career is over. Warrior qualifies on both of those.
What other milestones make a legend? It's not world titles, because Andre never won one, and David Arquette did. It's not length of career, because Jim Duggan had a near 30 year career. Aside from impact on the business and being remembered long after your gone, what other milestones make a legend? By the way, I think this part of my post also proves my statement was not a copout.
As I've stated, McMahon had ulterior motives to putting Warrior over Hogan clean.
Doesn't change the fact he did.
McMahon could have picked anyone, and he picked Warrior.
And you know why that DVD sold so well? It was all in the packaging. A DVD with a name like “The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior” is simply going to sell because the name implies that it’s controversial.
And if they had "The Self Destruction of Nailz" do you think the DVD would have sold just as well?
It wasn't the controversial title that sold the DVD, it was the wrestler it was discussing.
You accuse me of misrepresenting facts later on, and frankly, that’s all you’ve done as you defend Warrior’s supposed workrate.
Are you kidding me? Are you telling me Warrior's workrate was not fabulous? My God, he was one of the best "workers" in the business at the time.
You have to understand I'm talking about the true definition of work rate, which is the rate at which the wrestler is able to "work" the crowd. You know the difference between a work and a shoot (I would assume), so a good workrate is how well you make fans buy into what you're selling in the ring. Warrior's workrate was phenomenal.
But don’t sit there and tell me he’s a great worker while accusing me of not knowing enough about wrestling to know the difference, because it’s pure and total, unadulterated crap.
But I will, and the facts support me. He had a good match at most of the major PPVs, he had two of the best matches in Wrestlemania history, and fans were hardcore into his matches and his character.
What more can you want from a pro wrestler?
Ok, you’re a cheerleader for Warrior, I get it, but regardless of whether you’re totally into his gimmick, the gimmick was so elaborate for just that reason: to provide a means of distraction for the marks. Hogan had an over the top gimmick for the same reason, to hide his lack of a great wrestling ability.
Your definition of "great wrestling ability" seems incredibly inaccurate. You're calling Hogan and Warrior out for their supposed inability to wrestle well, and doing so in the same post you mention Samoa Joe as a good worker? Just how exactly do you define a good wrestler?
The flaw in that notion is that is exactly why there should be a wide range of criteria in determining greatness. Certainly, no one with a brain would stick Edge on the same plateau as Austin because he captured more world championships. And that is why the task now becomes comparing other aspects of their careers. Austin was an established draw who contributed to the nationwide appeal of the business. Edge simply never attained that level of mainstream acceptance, never was a stand-alone draw the way Austin was and cannot boast of having affected the industry the way Austin did.
Exactly. Everything you said is EXACTLY what I've been getting at, and have been the entire time.
None of the guys you mentioned captured the WWF title, and therefore did not have the entire power of the WWF hype machine behind them.
Fine then, Yokozuna. My point is still valid.
Now what’s most interesting about your opinion of Warrior as hall of fame material, is that a quick search of various hall of fames on the internet and elsewhere turns up nada on the Warrior. Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame? No Warrior. Professional Wrestling HoF? Again, no Warrior. Online World of Wrestling HoF? Ring Chronicle Hall of Fame? No Warrior. Tell me, how can such a wide range of independent and unaffiliated sources all fail to share your inflated opinion on Warrior?
Wait...what? How did we go from discussing "legend" to a "Hall of Fame"? Those two things have nothing to do with one another. Pete Rose and Joe Jackson aren't in the baseball Hall of Fame, are we going to say they aren't legends too? We going to say they weren't good at what they did?
If Warrior was as infallible as you portend, then he should have singlehandedly kept business going strong during his year as champion.
And if the Rock was good, WWE ratings wouldn't have dropped when Steve Austin left.
See how silly you sound?