I’m sorry, I just had to laugh when I read that. That you would subjectively quantify Warrior’s supposed work ethic over Joe’s is ridiculous.
Why? Because Warrior is easily better?
Joe works one style of match well...where he gets to beat the guy up, and the other guy bumps like a fiend. Otherwise, Joe has nothing in the tank.
Warrior was an overmuscled, overhyped guy who knew four or five moves
So? What does that have to do with anything? The amount of moves you do in a match has fuck all to do with being good.
wrestled the same match ad nauseum
Really? His match against Hogan was the same as his match against Rude, which was the same against Slaughter, which was the same against Savage? Feel free to explain how.
while Joe, despite his lack of a show physique, typically wrestled matches far longer than Warrior
So? What the fuck does a long match have to do with anything?
and did classics with:
—Angle
Funny how they're classics now, when everyone was disappointed with them when they were actually worked.
Now you're making me laugh. If I want to see two stupid idiots standing and slapping each other like *****es, I'll watch a couple of junior high girls fight. This match is arguably the most overrated match in history. I blame Meltzer.
...talk about a stretch...
Who is a phenomenal seller and bumped like a fiend for Joe.
Who is a phenomenal seller and bumped like a fiend for Joe. Starting to see the pattern yet?
—Liger
—Sabu
—Aries
—Danielson
—Homicide
—The Briscoes
Surely you're just trolling now. Liger? That match was mediocre and a HUGE letdown to anyone who bought the PPV (like me, for example). And perhaps you're not aware of what a "classic" match is, it's a match that people remember...nobody remembers those matches you're talking about. You could have at least mentioned the Punk series...I would have told you that you were wrong about the first two, but at least the third match was decent...then again, Punk is a phenomenal seller who bumped like a fiend for Joe. Or you could have mentioned his bouts with Chris Sabin, who bumped like a fiend for Joe.
Are you starting to see the pattern? Joe works one style of match well, and that's it. And now that he's in the heavyweight division, with guys who aren't going to bump like cruiserweights, where is he? When has he been relevant? The fact is Joe is a mediocre wrestler who works one style of match well and that's it.
Joe, despite being, in your opinion, “just a fat guy,” typically wrestled much longer outings than Warrior, who, for all his mastery of cultivating his muscles to cartoonish proportions, still had the endurance roughly equivalent to that of Earthquake on a good day.
Again, what does how long a match go have to do with how good it is? Steamboat vs. Savage was roughly 14 minutes bell to bell, which means it was probably 11 or 12 minutes of action, and it's arguably the greatest match of all-time. HBK vs. HHH in the Cell went 45 minutes, and it was a piece of shit.
Time has nothing to do with quality.
You appear to be a fan entirely wrapped up in cosmetic appearance.
No, that label belongs to you. You're excited by the number of moves in a match, and how long the match lasts. You only care about superficial moments of wrestling which have absolutely nothing to do with real quality.
If a wrestler doesn’t have washboard abs, he’s not worth watching, is that it?
Of course not, Bret Hart is my second favorite worker of all time. Hogan never had washboard abs and he's my third.
I'm a fan of quality, not moves. If you want to watch an long demonstration of wrestling moves, go buy a training DVD. If you want to watch pro wrestling, you'll watch guys like Hogan and his match against Warrior.
I see no other way to explain your blind support of a guy who was named the Wrestling Observer’s most overrated wrestler three times running (1989-1991)
You mean the same publication that gives 5 star ratings to anyone with Japanese last names, or is named Samoa Joe, regardless of how shitty the performance is?
I'll pass on taking their word as reliable.
gained the worst worked match of the year twice (vs Andre, 1989, vs Hogan, 1998) and the worst worked feud of the year twice (vs Shango, 1992, vs Hogan, 1998). Additionally, he was named Reader’s Least Favorite Wrestler in 1989 and 1990 and Worst Wrestler in 1988. Explain that away however you want
How about because that publication appeals only to a very small niche of fans, most of whom favor move based wrestling and and aren't smart enough to understand pro wrestling is an entertainment business not a sports business, so the WON caters to the people who will pay.
How's that?
but the Observer pretty much established the standard as far as it relates to judging quality wrestling.
Only to fans of move based wrestling, not to fans of pro wrestling. The Wrestling Observer is a piece of shit, and is nothing more than the expression of one man's fandom for small-time wrestling. Meltzer never supported popular American wrestling, and anyone except the blind Observer marks can notice that. Now that Meltzer has basically dismissed his love of pro wrestling in favor of MMA, you see more sensible content from them, but if you're honestly going to sit there and tell me Savage vs. Steamboat wasn't as good of a match as Joe vs. Kobashi, then you're idiot. I'm not trying to be insulting, but that's the only way to describe it. Not only was Joe vs. Kobashi one of the stupidest and worst "worked" matches I've ever seen, Steamboat vs. Savage is THE bar all American workers have tried to reach in their career, and is arguably the greatest match of all time.
Again, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take the Observer's opinion very seriously. Actually, don't excuse me, it's a piece of shit, and no one should depend upon it to decide quality in wrestling.
As far as the notion of the Warrior as a “great worker” or even an average worker, I believe that is the most ludicrous notion that anyone on an internet forum has tried to spin to me. And I’ve gone head to head with the Sid Vicious cheerleading squad.
And yet, you can't deny his 2-3 year run when he was at his peak. You haven't even tried.
And here you sound off about how Angle is overrated, Michaels is overrated, Flair is overrated, while still defending Warrior...good grief.
Why don't you consult the dictionary to understand the concept of overrated. Overated =/= Bad.
Learn the meaning of words and get back to me.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but it does not match the status quo of what most people think constitutes a good match.
I beg to differ. You want to know why? Because MY theory on what makes quality pro wrestling is also what wrestling fans think makes quality pro wrestling. My theory says Hulk Hogan was a very good wrestler, and wrestling fans all over the world agree. My theory explains why Bret Hart was a good wrestler and adored by fans all over the world. My theory explains why The Ultimate Warrior had massive appeal to wrestling fans during his prime.
What justification do you have for your theory? Where's the proof in the pudding, so to speak, to justify what you think makes a good wrestler?
Warrior’s overall visibility in the here and now has much to do with the controversial manner in which Warrior has conducted himself over the years. In short, he has put significant personal effort in keeping his name out there. In the same way, Honky Tonk Man and Jake Roberts have also kept their names from being forgotten—via the controversy they generate. But I wouldn’t call Roberts an all-time great, and I sure as hell would never call HTM an all time great.
And yet, those guys still don't get the notoriety from wrestling fans Warrior does. You just mentioned two guys who have done things to keep their names from being forgotten, and in Jake's case, quite often, but people don't recognize them the way they recognize Warrior. Warrior is STILL a class ahead of those guys, and in all honesty, he really HASN'T done a whole lot that the general wrestling public is aware of. The biggest controversy since the end of his wrestling days is the speech he gave at the University of Connecticut (I think that's where it was) where he cast homophobic slurs and other derogatory terms to the audience. But how long ago was that now? And people still remember it, and still talk about it?
It's just another example of how people still care about Warrior. Just another example to explain his legendary status.
I did no such thing. You asked me to list a number of great matches, and the body of work of the four listed are the most obvious choices.
Right, and the four you gave me are considered 4 of the greatest wrestlers of all-time. You lumped Warrior in the same category as these all-time greats. And you HAD to, because you couldn't find anyone worse. Furthermore, NONE of those guys put on as many quality matches in the WWF during that time period like the Warrior did, so you STILL failed to prove there were guys with a better track record during that time.
Warrior was a good worker and a legend. You're even arguing it now without realizing it.
So what? While the individual styles of wrestling may fluctuate from promotion to promotion, the standard of what makes a good worker remains constant.
But, as you admit, you are a fan of styles, not quality. And so you try to seriously tell me Samoa Joe is a good worker, simply because of the style he works, and not because he's actually good. So, to keep this discussion reasonable, we have to deal with the same style, because you're incapable of separating style from quality.
You’re half right. Style is part of it...as a wrestling fan since the late-80s who has pretty much seen it all, I prefer realistic, stiff and/or high flying wrestling with a solid framework of technical stuff (not necessarily all in the same match of course). Meanwhile, you strike me as an individual who values cosmetic appearance and gimmickry above wrestling ability. This paragraph likely sums up our difference of opinion.
What's funny is how you accuse me of caring about cosmetic appearance in the same paragraph that you tell me the things you prefer, ALL of which refer only to the offensive moves of a match. That's all right, don't bother with things like storytelling, or workrate, or charisma, or psychology, or even a wrestler's ability to sell the offense, in your book, if they have the right kind of moves, you think they're a good wrestler.
YOU are the one who cares about the superficial cosmetic look of wrestling. YOU are the mark who only sees what wrestling wants you to see and are unable to look behind the proverbial curtain to understand what makes wrestling really work. I don't care what a wrestler looks like, and I don't care what style of match they work. I like Flair vs. Steamboat from Clash of the Champions just as much as like Austin vs. Hart from Wrestlemania 13. Hart vs. Perfect from Summerslam '91 is my favorite match of all time, but when I want to explain what makes wrestling truly great, I talk about Steamboat vs. Savage and Hogan vs. Warrior from Wrestlemanias 3 and 6, respectively.
I don't give a flying fuck about style or wrestler appearance. My favorite wrestlers, in order, are Sting, Hart, Hogan, Styles and Cena, which is just about as different of body styles as you can have. I care about good wrestling, and the aspects of pro wrestling which TRULY determine the best workers. The style a guy works, and the moves he does has absolutely fuck all to do with how good he is, because it doesn't even begin to address the five main components of pro wrestling. After all, if Samoa Joe puts me in a rear naked chokehold, and I begin to grab my knee likes it's in pain, Samoa Joe's offensive moves looks pretty damn silly, now doesn't it?
Offensive moves and styles don't determine quality, no matter how often Jesse Venture and other commentators from the old days tell you it does.
Wait...you mentioned Warrior vs Andre as a highlight of Warrior's body of work, and then point out that you never gave it credit as a quality match?A quality match is precisely what good workmanship is.
When I mentioned Warrior vs. Andre, you didn't ask me for an example of a quality match, you asked me for an example of a memorable one I remember. Your exact words were:
1. Other than the Hogan and Savage matches, how many other memorable Warrior outings do you remember?
You say nothing about quality, you just ask me how many memorable outings I remember. Now, if you wanted to ask me how many quality matches I remember, then you should have. You need to learn to pick your words more carefully.
What more could I want in a wrestling match? How about...let me think...actual wrestling?
Actual wrestling...what the fuck does that even mean?
But I think I see the problem here. You think "actual wrestling" is amateur freestyle type wrestling. You could not be more wrong. Freestyle wrestling and pro wrestling are, and always have been, completely independent of one another, in terms of what makes someone good. Did a lot of old freestyle or even Greco-Roman wrestlers go into pro wrestling? Sure, but the reason isn't because they were more qualified, the reason was because that was the style of the time which best "worked" the crowd into believing these rigged contests were real. But just because someone was good at amateur wrestling, doesn't mean they are good at pro wrestling. The two concepts are completely independent of each other.
What Warrior and Hogan did was "actual wrestling", when it relates to pro wrestling. They told a story in the ring fabulously, they worked the crowd tremendously (NOBODY knew who was going to win, and everyone was standing, engaged in the match, to find out), the psychology of the two wrestlers was fantastic (I mean, you have two of the strongest men in wrestling together in the ring, and you think they should be doing headlocks and arm bars? That's just stupid.), the selling was believable, and both men had just an unbelievable connection with the audience during that match. THAT'S actual wrestling.
Von Erich basically had one foot and was blatantly addicted to drugs (having well documented brushes with the law for prescription forgery and all that). He was never going to be promoted to the top.
Why not? According to you, Warrior had roughly one move, and was an obvious steroid user. Hogan was a big time cocaine user. But you're right, he was never going to be promoted to the top. Why? Because he wasn't popular in the Northeast, and really, across the country, like Warrior was.
Warlord was a one-dimensional bum who had spent most of his career wrestling in tag teams. Warrior was one-dimensional as well, but was very gimmicky and was over with the fans. He was exactly the type of wrestler the WWF liked to push.
You just completely blew your entire argument. You said EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. Warrior was over with the fans. McMahon didn't just pick a random jobber like Warlord to be champion, he picked the Ultimate Warrior. He picked the guy most over with the fans, the guy who was the biggest draw in the company outside of Hogan.
Thank you for making my point AGAIN.
My point was never that the fans didn’t love Warrior or that he wasn’t over. My point is that he didn’t accomplish enough to be viewed in the same class as the Hogans, the Flairs, etc.
No, your point was that Warrior only got pushed because McMahon wanted to stick it to Hogan. Here, I'll let you read your own words again:
Warrior went over clean over Hogan so that Vince McMahon could stick it to his craw as much as anything else. Warrior’s achievement was as much a product of McMahon’s personal vendetta —take a big-headed champion like Hogan and remind him who is really in charge—as anything else.
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.
Warrior wasn't "pushed to the moon" to stick it to Hogan, he was pushed to the moon because he was over as fuck. If McMahon did it to punish Hogan, he could have picked anyone in the company...and he picked Warrior.
Perhaps faded is a poor word choice
At least we agree on this.
but the whole point I’m trying to make is that he had no longevity. None.
And my counterpoint to that is to say longevity has nothing to do with determining a legend. Ask Gale Sayers and Sandy Koufax. A legend is someone who comes in, makes an impact on the business, and is remembered long after he's gone. If I may quote The Sandlot, for a moment:
"Heroes are remembered, but legends never die".
The legend of Warrior has never died, nor does it seem to be anywhere close in the near future. Tito Santana is remembered...but he's not a legend.
And I find the claim that they had WWF action figures of Warrior a tad misleading, since back in the day, the WWF made action figures of the whole roster. Doink the Clown had an action figure. So did Skinner, Virgil, and a host of other virtual jobbers.
First of all, those guys came out long after Warrior. But what I'm talking about is that there are STILL wrestling figures of The Ultimate Warrior available for purchase.
See? There's five DIFFERENT action figures of Ultimate Warrior, and that's just in the first two rows of a Google Image search.
As far as his inclusion in video games, Koko B Ware was also included in that Legends of Wrestling game a few years back (and might have been involved in more than one). Ware was also made quite visible by his time in the WWF, and one might be surprised by how many people still remember him today. But naming Ware an all-time great would be a pretty big stretch.
And yet, I'm PRETTY certain I mentioned people were EXCITED about Warrior being in the game. Let me see if I did say that.
You want to know how I know Warrior is a legend? Because people STILL care about him. People STILL talk about him, people still get excited when he's included in video games
Yup, there is is. No one gave a damn about playing Koko B. Ware. But they were excited to play Warrior. See the difference?
It’s not world titles alone. It’s not longevity alone. Determining true greatness involves several factors. In my honest opinion, these are the qualitative criteria in judging a legacy in wrestling. It’s not perfect, but ii goes like this:
—Drawing power. Warrior was a moderate draw, but was not one of the greatest draws of the ‘90s, and I don’t care how many t-shirts he sold. If he was a true great, the numbers would have increased across the board, not steadily decreased as his period with the title was ongoing.
Kind of like The Rock, right? If the Rock was a true great, numbers wouldn't have went down across the board when he was main-eventing after Austin left. Obviously, The Rock doesn't meet in this category, correct?
—Overall impact on the business. Pertaining specifically to how one changed, molded and reshaped the industry. In this category, it is important to remember that, because it would be very simple to include any wrestler who had one dominant world title reign and a strong following otherwise. Yeah, he’s remembered, but that has more to do with his actions outside of wrestling over the past ten years than anything he accomplished in his career. He had one phenomenal year, but he did not have any influence in altering the industry or progressing it towards its next stage of development.
He brought action and a frenetic pace to matches that is STILL being used today. His ring entrances set the standard for turning ring entrances into a spectacle, not just the boring thing which takes place before a match.
He very much helped mold the industry into what it is today.
—Championship success. One WWF World title in an era when most top stars won many world titles doesn’t cut it. If it did, Lex Luger (a 2-time WCW titlist) would make the cut. So would Bill Goldberg and Samoa Joe.
Wait..."when most top stars won many world titles". Oh really? Who are these top stars in the WWE that won many World titles? Bruno only won it twice, Morales only won it once, when Hogan lost to Warrior he had only won it twice, Savage had only won it once, Slaughter only won it once, Andre the Giant never won it, Roddy Piper never won it...
I disagree completely about championship success determining a legend.
—Longevity. Particularly as it pertains to longevity in the upper echelon. A true great reaches the top and stays there. A true great does not have one or two headlining seasons, retire, and for whatever reason, never main event again.
Gale Sayers says hi.
—International Success. Obviously not Warrior’s forte.
I suppose the fact the WWE rarely promoted outside of the US at the time had nothing to do with it, right?
Hey, guess what. Bruno Sammartino wasn't an International success either.
—Wrestling Ability/workrate. When a guy has four moves and no technical wrestling ability whatsoever, he’s just not going to score highly here. This has nothing to do with getting a pop when shaking the ropes.
And here you go again, trying to claim quality is simply a matter of offensive moves, which is just silly.
—Caliber of wins. He beat Hogan and Savage, true. He beat a washed up Andre, but any win over the Giant at this point in his career lacked luster. Any other significant name he may have beaten was at a period in their career in which everyone was beating him.
I find it funny you trivialize his "caliber of wins", and yet, don't mention those who beat him during his prime. Is that because NO ONE did, with the exception of Slaughter who had to have interference from Savage to do it?
After all, if we're going to go kayfabe here, let's do it right.
—Mainstream visibility. This is probably the category in which Warrior reflects the strongest. But one strong category (or even two strong categories) and two or three medium categories do not make an all-time great. See Haystacks Calhoun.
Score another for Warrior.
It was so phenomenal that he was a 3-time winner of the very prestigious Wrestling Observer Most Overrated award.
I could take a shit, Ric Flair could wrestle with it, and Meltzer would give it three stars.
What's your point?
Again, actual wrestling ability would be nice.
Again, you understanding what "actual wrestling ability" means in pro wrestling would be nice.
Generally speaking, a good workrate depends on the wrestler’s ability to produce a sound, entertaining, athletic match, regardless of the opponent. In this context, the crowd reaction does not fit into it in any way, shape or form. Flexing your muscles, looking pretty for the camera, shaking the ropes or cupping a hand to an ear to get a reaction, none of these things correspond with workrate. Workrate has nothing whatsoever to do with gimmickry. I cannot understand how this widely recognized definition seems to have gone completely over your head.
Perhaps because it is completely false?
That is not the true definition of workrate. Allow me to help you with this. You've heard of a "shoot" in wrestling, correct? You know a "shoot" in wrestling is when someone goes legit. On the opposite end, you have a "work" which is where a wrestler tries to make you believe it's legit, but it's not.
Workrate, then is literally the rate at which a wrestler is able to "work" the crowd into believing what they're seeing, makes sense in the context of how they're viewing it. Warrior played an otherwordly character, who was "the ultimate warrior", whose philosophy of "battle" was to maximize his incredible strength and blitz his opponents with his power and "ultimate" abilities. And it worked, because fans loved what he did, and bought into his character. That's a good work rate. Or, going back to the Hogan match, those guys "worked" the crowd into believing that Warrior was every bit prepared to take on the forces of evil as Hogan had always been, and so when Warrior proved he was mightier, fans erupted in delight to see the new champion of Good. That's a good workrate.
It's ridiculous of you to compare Warrior to Pete Rose, a guy who was banished from the baseball hall of fame for illegally gambling on the outcome of games. Warrior has no such mandate barring him from hall of fame inclusion. If Warrior really is a legend, he would be in a hall.
Yes, because Warrior not being in the WWE Hall of Fame has NOTHING to do with his feelings on McMahon and McMahon's feelings on him. I guess if Bruno Sammartino and Randy Savage were truly legends, they'd be in the WWE Hall of Fame as well, right?
The Wrestling Observer HoF in particular has a massive list of 181 individual inductions from all eras, and no Warrior. Care to explain? Every true wrestling great is in some version of the hall. The fact that Warrior is in none of them supports my claim.
Only if you're not smart enough to realize the WON is barely fit for wiping my ass.
Seriously, why do you keep quoting Meltzer and the Wrestling Observer? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so why do you insist on letting the WON tell you how to think, especially when their sole purpose is to sell people like you their newsletter? They are not, and never have been, an objective measure of wrestling quality, they are an objective measure of whatever will sell the best to the people who are willing to buy their newsletter.
You have to quit letting WON make your mind up for you. Not only has it tricked you into believing things that aren't true about wrestling, it takes a reasonably intelligent person and makes them look sad because they are incapable of thinking on their own. And yes, that is as close to a compliment as you can expect from me. ;-)
A quality match is precisely what good workmanship is.
