Who Was The Best WWE Wrestler Ever?

[Slyfox696]

Slyfox you really don't seem to have a grasp on what technical wrestling is.

Sure I do. I know EXACTLY what technical wrestling is. What YOU don't understand is that technical wrestling has NOTHING to do with GOOD wrestling. Technical wrestling is just a style, much like lucha libre, brawling, hardcore, etc. And since the thread didn't ask for the best technical wrestler, then limiting choices to "technical" wrestlers is beyond idiotic.

Dean Malenko was a far greater wrestler than Macho.

At what, putting people to sleep? Making people not care?

Having said that, Macho was way more over than Dean ever was.

Because he was a far better worker.

Can he touch Malenko as far as technical wrestling? Absolutely not. Its okay though.

Once again, working a technical style has NOTHING to do with being a good wrestler. Using your logic, Charlie Haas is a better worker than Rey Mysterio, because Haas is a technical worker, whereas Rey is a high flyer.

It's ridiculous to claim such a thing. Why don't you take Wrestling 101, and then get back to me about who doesn't understand what.

 

[klunderbunker]

Savage was indeed an excellent worker, not sure where you're getting that he was strong as an ox though. I don't remember a single time that he showed anything above average strength, but I could be overlooking something. I could definitely see him as being way up there on this list. He's shown that he can indeed do it all in the ring and had a high flying aspect that Lesnar didn't have. While I think he was great, I'd still give it to Lesnar because outside of flying/acrobatics, Lesnar did everything just as well if not better.

 

[TREE24K]

Honerable mention goes out to Arn Anderson.

By the way Slyfox your comment

"Sure. It sucks.

How can Malenko be good, when no one gave a fuck about him?"

So I guess by that standard "Paul Blart: Mall Security" should win some Oscars or something because it was #1 two weeks in a row. That was just an idiotic arguement by you.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I dont understand why Slyfox keeps trying to go around what the subject is here. But, unfortunately, he doesnt understand were not talking about drawing the crowd in a match- Santino can do that, but is he a good wrestler? No. But, Slyfox wants to keep arguing, line by line, and red-repping us for some reason because he doesnt like our opinions.

Anyway, getting back to what we should be talking about, I think Eddie Guerrero, for his type of style was pretty up there as well. And I know this was already mentioned by others before, but I think Benoit is a great choice as well (I loved his WM20 match with HBK & HHH- that match was awesome).

 

[Slyfox696]

I dont understand why Slyfox keeps trying to go around what the subject is here. But, unfortunately, he doesnt understand were not talking about drawing the crowd in a match- Santino can do that, but is he a good wrestler? No. But, Slyfox wants to keep arguing, line by line, and red-repping us for some reason because he doesnt like our opinions.

Because you refuse to understand what a good wrestler is. A good wrestler is not someone with a bunch of moves. A good wrestler is one who knows how to entertain the crowd. He's someone who can fall fully within his character, and "work" the crowd into believing his match has realism to it. A wrestling match is just a play, with the wrestlers as actors. And the best wrestlers are the ones who can tell the most interesting story in the ring.

You don't understand what I'm saying, because you don't understand what wrestling is about. The ONLY thing you are using to justify your position is the OFFENSIVE STYLE the workers use. That's beyond ignorant. Using a worker's offensive style to determine his overall quality is completely missing the boat. The best wrestlers can tell a story in the ring, can deliver believable offense, can advance the story with their selling, can move from spot to spot with believable transitions, and use proper psychology for the character they are playing.

It has NOTHING to do with the offensive style they work. Like I said, the problem here isn't me, it's you and the others like you, who have ZERO clue as to what makes good wrestling. And that's why you scoff at one of the greatest workers ever, in favor of guys who couldn't entertain a group of monkeys with a pair of bananas in their shorts.

 

[ZAPX4V1]

I'm talking in terms of pure wrestling ability. Not promos, not mic skills, not drawing ability, merch sales, etc etc etc. Just based on one thing- wrestling ability. Who was the best pure wrestler that has ever stepped foot in a WWE ring?

Oh, I get the purpose of the thread just fine, the problem is that you don't understand the MEANING of what you are asking.
Technical wrestling has NOTHING to do with good in-ring ability. You seem to forget, or, better yet, probably don't know, that "WRESTLING ABILITY" is about the story your character tells, and the level of involvement you can get from the fans.

See, PlayTheGame was talking about PURE WRESTLING ABILITY..read the quote. Getting involvement from the fans does not make you a great wrestler. I like Savage, but you can't honestly say that he was one of the greatest pure wrestlers. He certainly isn't in Lesnar, Angle, or Benjamin's league in terms of pure wrestling ability. He is as a performer, but not as a wrestler.

Why? What's so technically great about any of those three?

Are you serious? They are only a few of the greatest technical wrestlers in the business, ever.

 

[Slyfox696]

Are you serious? They are only a few of the greatest technical wrestlers in the business, ever.

No they're not. They're not even close. Hell, even Bret Hart was a better technical worker than any of those three, and he worked a brawling style for the majority of his WWE career. To claim that SHELTON FUCKIN' BENJAMIN is one of the greatest technical wrestlers in the history of the business implies that you don't watch wrestling, and merely using amateur wrestling success to determine technical wrestling ability.

Amateur wrestling and professional wrestling are COMPLETELY different, and NONE of those three qualify in the "greatest technical wrestling of all time" category.

See, PlayTheGame was talking about PURE WRESTLING ABILITY..read the quote. Getting involvement from the fans does not make you a great wrestler. I like Savage, but you can't honestly say that he was one of the greatest pure wrestlers. He certainly isn't in Lesnar, Angle, or Benjamin's league in terms of pure wrestling ability. He is as a performer, but not as a wrestler.

I know what he was talking about, the problem is HE and YOU don't understand what it means. Like I said to him, he is trying to imply that a worker's offensive move set is the sole determinant of quality, which is completely stupid. I think YOU are trying to say that amateur background implies technical quality which is even more ridiculous.

Instead of shouting at the rain, how about instead you open your mind and understand I'm here trying to help you become a better wrestling fan.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I'll say this again, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT STORY-TELLING ABILITY/ALTERNATE FORMS OF ENTERIANMENT IN THE RING, I started this thread to simply talk about physical ability, a wrestler's technical ability to put on an impressive display in the ring that is solely entertaining in its own right. Of course Malenko couldnt really tell a story in the ring, thats not what we were talking about, we were saying that, if u just watched a match of him, without any pretense of a feud he was in with the person, the match would be awesome because of the physicality he would bring to the match in a technical sense. We're talking about it the sense of pure wrestling ability (whatever style that may be does not matter), not performing ability, which is what Savage might have. Everyone here is talking about the Angles, the Benoits, the Lesnars, etc etc. We're simply talking in the sense of an entertaining match that would really wow you if u watch it, not in the sense of nesecarilly a story, but just fun, simple, and impressive wrestling.

 

[klunderbunker]

No way on Shelton. He hasn't had a great career. He hasn't a great year. He had a great match with a great wrestler. That's it, and that was what, almost 4 years ago? He doesn't have a great all around style. He barely has a style at all. He might be a great athlete, but in no way does that make you a great professional wrestler. Fairly sloppy in the ring and gets by on his reputation. That match with HBK is my favorite match ever as there was a great story to it and the finish was amazing but since then he's done nothing whatsoever. MAYBE the top 50, but not by much.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'll say this again, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT STORY-TELLING ABILITY/ALTERNATE FORMS OF ENTERIANMENT

But you ARE. When you are asking for in-ring quality, that's EXACTLY what you are talking about.

IN THE RING, I started this thread to simply talk about physical ability, a wrestler's technical ability to put on an impressive display in the ring that is solely entertaining in its own right.

But "technical" ability is not interchangeable with quality. Just because someone is a technical worker, doesn't mean they are a good wrestler, and just because someone isn't a technical wrestler doesn't mean they are a bad wrestler.

Like I said earlier, you seem to think that a wrestler's offensive ability is the sole determinant to quality. It's not. In fact, it really has very little to do with their quality. Technical wrestling is just a style. Just like hardcore wrestling is a style, lucha libre is a style, brawling is a style, submission wrestling is a style, etc. The style someone works has ZERO bearing on the qaulity of in-ring work. If it did, then guys like Brody, Hanson, Savage, Steamboat, Hart, Michaels, Undertaker, Vader, Rhodes, Race, etc. wouldn't be good wrestlers.

But, that's a completely stupid position to take, as those are some of the greatest wrestlers (meaning in-ring work) in the history of the business.


You have GOT to get out of the mindset that technical ability is synonymous with quality. Because it's not. You only think that because you have been "worked" by the wrestling business to think that. Basicially, you are a sheep of professional wrestling.

 

[jmt225]

I guess people are scared to say his name because of what he did his last couple of days on this Earth, but the obvious answer here is Chris Benoit.

You cannot name one other wrestler to get over strictly because of what they could do in the ring, like Benoit was able to do. Benoit had no promo ability. He had no charisma. All he could do was put on great technical matches, and they were so good that even WWE fans got behind him. No one else has been able to accomplish that.

And before someone says Bret Hart was able, Bret did have charisma and he could talk on the mic. He was VERY underrated in those aspects of the sport. Yeah, he was a tremendous technical wrestler, but he had more to offer then just that. Benoit didn't, yet he was still able to get over, which, in my mind, makes him the best.

 

[klunderbunker]

I had it down to Benoit or Lesnar and almost had to flip a coin to decide who I'd go with. I'd put him above Bret because when it came to finishing matches, Bret had one real weapon to do it with. It was incredibly rare to see him win the match with anything but the Sharpshooter or a fluke rollup. Benoit had the submission and the headbutt. I guess at the end of the day i didn't go with Benoit didn't have much of a power game to work with which isn't his fault. Benoit was a much better submission wrestler, but Lesnar could use his power to get submissions, so I'll give it to him just by a hair with Benoit about as close as possible.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I am no sheep, whatever that even means. You're the only one who disagrees with the purpose of this thread, and as I said, if you don't like it or disagree with it, then you've said your peace, so I'm not sure why you're continuinign to argue.

And I already did mention Benoit, and it is unforuntate that ppl judge his career on his actions, altho thats a very touchy subject, as his actions were even more unforuntate and just downright vile, but thats neither here nor there. Benoit was def one of the best pure-skill wrestlers out there who trained very hard to gain his in-ring skills. He's def another good choice.

 

[TREE24K]

Hogan was a good story teller in the ring. Does that mean he was a good wrestler? No. He was a great showman though. But you know what. You're right. Its EVERYONE else on this thread who doesn't know their wrestling. Just you.

 

[Slyfox696]

I am no sheep, whatever that even means. You're the only one who disagrees with the purpose of this thread, and as I said, if you don't like it or disagree with it, then you've said your peace, so I'm not sure why you're continuinign to argue.

On the contrary, I'm not disagreeing with the purpose of this thread at all. It's a fine thread.

The part where I have a problem is that you don't understand what it is you're asking. Here's what you REALLY should have started a thread on:

"Which WWE worker was the best legit amateur wrestler". Because, really, that's what you're wanting. You're not wanting in-ring quality in professional wrestling, you're basing your opinions based upon who you think would be a good amateur wrestler.

I, however, gave you an example of one of the greatest PROFESSIONAL wrestlers of all time.

 

[Slyfox696]

Hogan was a good story teller in the ring. Does that mean he was a good wrestler? No. He was a great showman though. But you know what. You're right. Its EVERYONE else on this thread who doesn't know their wrestling. Just you.

Everyone else in this thread is just follwoing along with typical IWC mantra, a philosophy they adopted because they've bought into being worked by wrestling too much. People think that being a good wrestler means being a good technical wrestler, and they do that because that's what the announces on TV have told you for years. Of course, that ignores the fact that those announcers are part of the show as well.

As for your question, yes, Hogan was a phenomenal worker, both in the true meaning of wrestling, and the bastardized version the threadstarter was looking for. Hell, Hulk Hogan got himself over originally in the old AWA, which was FAR more technically based than any wrestling promotion of the last 30 years. And Hogan was still able to become mega over. So, yes, Hogan was incredible.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I really think your just arguing semantics at this point, altho im sure they matter to u, and thats fine, to each his own.

And, btw, I stand by the title, as I said "best wrestler", I didnt say pro-wrestler, or amateur. I jsut said wreslter, which def implies the physicality of it more than it does the showmanship/storytelling of it (the superstardom of it) that you are implying, and everyone else, including u in the beginning, understood what the purpose of the true purpose of the thread was.

 

[Slyfox696]

I really think your just arguing semantics at this point, altho im sure they matter to u, and thats fine, to each his own.

And, btw, I stand by the title, as I said "best wrestler", I didnt say pro-wrestler, or amateur. I jsut said wreslter, which def implies the physicality of it more than it does the showmanship/storytelling of it (the superstardom of it) that you are implying, and everyone else, including u in the beginning, understood what the purpose of the true purpose of the thread was.

No it doesn't. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. Professional wrestling is nothing BUT showmanship and storytelling. It's not legit competition, it's two men working together to entertain the crowd to the fullest extent possible. That's ALL professional wrestling is.

I understand what you're trying to say. What I'M trying to say is that what you're interpretation of what you said is completely wrong. You ask for best in-ring quality, but you don't have the first clue what it means to be good in the ring, and thus, you scoff at some of the greatest workers of all time, because they don't work a technical style of offense.

That's not semantics, that's a VERY important point. When what you ask is COMPLETELY different from what you mean, it's an important deal.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Well maybe you shudnt be viewing pro wrestling as only that. Stop taking it so literal. If you suspended disbelief, and pretended it was all real (which I know is foolish, but thats what you have to do when youre really trying to enjoy it), then my question would make sense. So, I could say thats how i meant it, cuz all i wanted to see was everyone's own idea of who entertained them the most in terms of wrestling quality/ability in the ring in terms of who put on the most impressive and fun matches in the WWE.

 

[Slyfox696]

cuz all i wanted to see was everyone's own idea of who entertained them the most in terms of wrestling quality/ability in the ring in terms of who put on the most impressive and fun matches in the WWE.

Using that then, the answer is Randy Savage, far more than someone like Dean Malenko or Shelton Benjamin.

Savage vs. Steamboat and Savage vs. Warrior trumps ANYTHING Malenko, Benjamin, Lesnar, or Angle have ever done. Hell, Savage vs. Steamboat is arguably the greatest match in history.

That's impressive AND fun.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Alright, sounds good then. All I wanted is other peoples opinions, and, for the record, I never came up with Benjamin (in fact I disagreed) or Malenko (I just saw the logic behind the choice of Malenko).

And, IMO, I think Steamboat/Savage is an awesome match. Maybe not my fav, as I'm biased in the sense that I'm not that old-school and probably couldnt appreciate as much as someone who was around then, but I see the importance of it. I really liked Angle/Lesnar at WM19, and I was a big Lesnar fan because I thot he was impressive in the ring and could have been something really big.

 

[Mr. TM]

Here is how I see it. I see it exactly the way Sly saw it. A great pure wrestler, taking away the charisma, and all the parts that people do not consider the "fighting" aspect of a wrestler leaves you with his wrestling styling.

Macho is a great wrestling stylist. He does have a more leveled out in ring set of strengths. Bret Hart, who is extremely strong as a technical wrestler may also be one of the best wrestling stylists. I also think Chris Benoit is a great example of what a good wrestler should have been through his style. Brock Lesnar had a good time getting around in the ring as well.

 

[MisterRob]

For once I have to agree with Slyfox here. By the sounds of it most of the people commenting, and arguing, seem to be viewing this thread as the best "athlete" not the best wrestler. In ring ability isn't about the move set, and when you talk about technical wrestling its not about the moveset, its about everything that takes place in that ring thats important to putting on a good MATCH. And a good match is made up of good story telling, good psychology, and so on and so on.

I personally don't think Brock Lesnar belongs in that category. He's a phenomenal ATHLETE and has the entire package physically, but I personally don't think he was good at psychology or story telling in the ring, certainly not to the levels that should garner him at the top of a BEST EVER list. The same goes for Kurt Angle. People praise him to the moon, and he's a great athlete and a great wrestler, but I still think there's flaws in his psychology and in ring ability that keep him from being on par with the best in wrestling HISTORY. He may be the best pure athlete, as people claim Shelton Benjamin to be, but there's no way he's the best wrestler. How anyone can say Benjamin is, either, baffles me as I feel like you're confusing athleticism with the key fundamentals of a wrestling match.

I have to disagree with Slyfox about Dean Malenko. Yes, he wasn't the flashiest or the most charismatic wrestler out there, and that was played into his gimmick because of it, but he was a great wrestler. His days in WCW proved that as he had phenomenal matches and the crowd was certainly into them. WWE never used him right, and he was certainly forgettable when he came to the WWE, but that doesn't take away from his actual ability.

I think Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, and Eddie Guerrero all should be mentioned here. I even think Curt Hennig, Ted Dibiase, Jake "the fucking Snake" Roberts for sure should be on the list above Lesnar. I think Randy Savage is definitely near the top of the list, at least 2nd or 3rd. But as for the BEST, in my opinion its definitely Bret Hart. He really was the excellence of execution when it came to wrestling and he did everything, every aspect of a match SO well.

 

[John Stamos' Pubic Hair]

It's Bret for me definitely! He was excellent. Never ever injuring a wrestler is something Angle & Lesnar can't say, actually I don't know anybody else who can. Bret created alot of moves aswell, and innovated the sport.
Also Chris Benoit & Dynamite Kid would be 2nd and 3rd probably too, followed by Kurt Angle.

 

[foof]

I'm with Sly on this as well. It sounds like everyone on this thread (outside of Slyfox) got worked big time. People here are comparing wrestlers like they would be comparing Mixed Martial Artists... only difference is, WRESTLING DOES NOT INVOLVE ACTUAL COMPETITIVE BATTLES!!! So the ability to pull off 6 different styles of suplexes has nothing to do with how good of a worker you are. Knowing how to execute 1000 different submission holds would make you a better MMA fighter... but it does not make you a better Professional Wrestler!

I don't care how many holds Malenko knows... none of them were convincing enough to make people compelled to watch him... no nearly as much as anything Savage has ever done.

The greatest worker (a.k.a professional wrestler) I've ever seen has to be Shawn Michaels. While some of his bumps & selling were/are sometime over the top, he made up for it with facial expressions and other subtle selling techniques that made you care about him through the match. If you watch his Hell in The Cell match with the Undertaker, and then watch the Foley/Taker HIAC... you'll notice that both Michaels and Foley looked (emphasis on the "looked) like they were near death by the end of the match. The only difference is, Foley had to actually almost kill himself... whereas Michaels only took 1 table bump... and the rest of the match he actually... wait for it.... worked!! That's the sign of a good worker. Someone who can sell you that he's gotten the shit kicked out of him.. when in reality he didn't... but he makes you believe that he did.

As much as I respect Foley, he had to fall off the cell, then through the cell, and then on top of tacks.... none of which actions can really be worked... you can't work a fall of the cell like that (well, to an extent you can)... you actually have to fall.

A good worker can make you believe he is fighting someone for real... and make you care about the outcome of the match.

My choice... Shawn Michaels.