-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
Who's The Worst Worker To Ever Become Famous?
- Thread starter Daniel
- Start date
The Man They Call WMD
Check Out My Spoiler Page
I don't think any of us know for sure, but I will say maybe he made more when he initially left WWF for WCW. How ever there is no way he was making good money for the USWA and ECW.
WHAT? Do you recognize what you are saying? In an entertainment avenue where the entire POINT is to make people believe your scripted fighting is real, being believable "doesn't make you...talented in the ring"?
Only if you think believability is irrelevant in pro wrestling...which basically renders your opinion invalid...
Were you even alive when Sid was working? Honest question.
No, no it's not. That's one of the biggest myths in the IWC.
Wrestling is not always subjective. There are very real and objective measures by which you measure quality.
Yeah, I'm guessing you weren't alive when he was working. Or you didn't pay attention. And how was his ring work "poor"? Please define what it means to be a poor in-ring worker.
Oh really? And what are you basing that on?
How do you figure he could not wrestle? Please define for me what it means to be a good wrestler. Again, not ambiguous terms and things like "he never seemed to care". I want objective measures by which you make the claim he "could not wrestle".
Me too. But I'm still waiting for you to definitively answer my question first.
And like I said, no it's not.
Because that's what pro wrestlers did in the old days. Very few wrestlers stuck to one region.
The better question for you is if he wasn't any good, why was he pushed every where he went? And more importantly, why did fans care about him so much every where he went?
He was believable, he was realistic, and people cared about him. Pretty much what you aspire for when you are a pro wrestler.
The Man They Call WMD
Check Out My Spoiler Page
WHAT? Do you recognize what you are saying? In an entertainment avenue where the entire POINT is to make people believe your scripted fighting is real, being believable "doesn't make you...talented in the ring"?
Only if you think believability is irrelevant in pro wrestling...which basically renders your opinion invalid...
Were you even alive when Sid was working? Honest question.
No, no it's not. That's one of the biggest myths in the IWC.
Wrestling is not always subjective. There are very real and objective measures by which you measure quality.
Yeah, I'm guessing you weren't alive when he was working. Or you didn't pay attention. And how was his ring work "poor"? Please define what it means to be a poor in-ring worker.
Oh really? And what are you basing that on?
How do you figure he could not wrestle? Please define for me what it means to be a good wrestler. Again, not ambiguous terms and things like "he never seemed to care". I want objective measures by which you make the claim he "could not wrestle".
Me too. But I'm still waiting for you to definitively answer my question first.
And like I said, no it's not.
Because that's what pro wrestlers did in the old days. Very few wrestlers stuck to one region.
The better question for you is if he wasn't any good, why was he pushed every where he went? And more importantly, why did fans care about him so much every where he went?
He was believable, he was realistic, and people cared about him. Pretty much what you aspire for when you are a pro wrestler.
I guess putting rolling Smileys makes your point more correct.
Wrestling is 100% subjective. Who are you to say what entertains me. IMO he couldn't work. My definition of work is can he entertain me? Sid Could not entertain me.
So many of your points deal with absolutes. I think believeability is a factor but it is in no means as important as you make it out to be. If being believable is a huge factor to you, you are a moron. Edge was a vampire... Undertaker and Kane.... Boogyman.Being real doesn't matter. All that matters is, is the story interesting. Not is this believable.
I'm currently 27, so Sid was working then. He sucked then as well.
A good wrestler to me is can they entertain me. Me the fan. That is subjective not objective. If I'm not entertained by a wrestler I change the channel. It is a subjective standard. In a lot of ways all of wrestling is subjective. Vince decides the product, it comes down to one mans vision. What he subjectivly thinks.
Why was Sid pushed? I have no idea. Sid was main eventing in WCW. He gets injured and then WWF purchases WCW. Does Sid ever apear? NO. If there was any money to make in SID, Vince would have used him.
Sid blows, you only enjoy him because you were a childhood mark. And all the power to you. He is what you enjoy. For me he was a Great body and nothing else.
He was like you. Flawed.
No, it just illustrates how hard I laughed at some of the things you said.
No it isn't. That's completely inaccurate.
I don't care what entertains you, I'm talking about quality. Your personal preferences have no bearing on the discussion of whether or not he is good.
Putting that it's your opinion doesn't change the fact it's wrong. You just said he was believable, how can you now say he couldn't work? You do know what "work" is right?
And my definition of time is a cat. Makes just as much sense.
"Working" is the ability of a wrestler to make the audience suspend their disbelief, to engage them into the match emotionally. Your "definition" is completely false as to the true meaning of what it is to work.
Which has zero relevance on how good he was. Mysterio doesn't entertain me, that doesn't mean he's not a good worker.
Wow...you really don't get it, do you?
What? Using that theory, the Shawshank Redemption could have taken place in an amusement park, and had exactly the same effect. Why? Because realism doesn't matter, according to you.
Don't say such things. No one believes Edge was a vampire, but it's how well Edge played the character that matters. Just like everyone knows Robin Williams is not a teacher, but when you watch Dead Poet's Society, he inspires you to achieve something in life. That's realism.
Because stories that are not believable are interesting. Right? Wait...no, that actually makes no sense.
No way you can be 27 and know this little about pro wrestling.
It's not about YOU. No one gives a fuck about you. Using this same argument, I can theoretically say Bastion Booger was the greatest pro wrestler ever, because he entertained me more than anyone else. That's an asinine statement though.
Yes it is, but you the fan have fuck all to do with quality in pro wrestling. A quality worker is one who connects with his audience, who can work the audience into the story of his match, who can make fans invest emotionally into who he is. Sid did that.
But what Vince decides is on the basis of what he thinks will make money. What makes money is what is entertaining to the masses. Bad workers are not entertaining to the masses.
Subjectivity has nothing to do with determining quality in pro wrestling. That's such a cop out for fans who don't understand it's possible to like someone who is not good.
Yes you do. You know EXACTLY why. Because he could get over. Because people cared about him.
Who said I enjoyed Sid? Have I ever once said I enjoyed Sid? What I've said is the guy was a solid pro wrestler. You need to learn the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. More importantly, you need to understand pro wrestling is not subjective, there are very distinct criteria to define the quality of a wrestler.
It astounds me how someone can be a part of forum dedicated to the passing of knowledge between wrestling fans and have absolutely no idea how pro wrestling works. I mean, when your ONLY way to describe why someone "sucks" is because "he didn't entertain" you, you know that your knowledge of wrestling is basically non-existent.
Do yourself a favor. Follow me around a little bit when I post about pro wrestling. You could learn a lot. At the very least, quit saying silly things like quality is solely determined by what YOU like.
The Man They Call WMD
Check Out My Spoiler Page
Your whole argument is garbage and flawed and you fail to realize it. You take everything to the extreme. Their is no middle ground.
Wrestling is 100% subjective. If I don't like what is on my TV, I change the channel.
When I'm watching I don't take an objective view and say should I watch this because others would.
I agree with you on your point that Vince does what makes Money. Thats why he didn't bring Sid back. No one had any interest.
The only reason I'll ever choose to follow you is If I decide I want to understand the mind of a narcissistic child.
Wrestling is 100% subjective. If I don't like what is on my TV, I change the channel.
When I'm watching I don't take an objective view and say should I watch this because others would.
I agree with you on your point that Vince does what makes Money. Thats why he didn't bring Sid back. No one had any interest.
The only reason I'll ever choose to follow you is If I decide I want to understand the mind of a narcissistic child.
You say that only because you can't refute it, but don't want to lose face in an argument you know you cannot win.
No it isn't. You can continue saying that, but it won't make it any less false.
That's great...but nobody gives a fuck about you.
That would not be an objective view.
An objective view would be "I'm going to turn this off because Rey Mysterio doesn't entertain me. Rey is a good in-ring worker, but he simply doesn't do it for me." Another objective view would be "Dolph Ziggler is terrible because he is constantly missing his marks in the ring, his selling is not believable enough to advance the story of the match, and his acting is not believable to the character he is playing". Those are statements of objectivity.
Sid was over 40 years old, with a metal rod in his leg and coming back from a lengthy rehabilitation process. I say that had FAR more to do with it than your asinine statement that no one had any interest. Especially considering you're referring to the very end of his career, and not the entire decade before it where Sid was over every where he went.
Once again, you're trying to save face. You and I both know that your knowledge of pro wrestling is basically non-existent, that's been proven in this thread.
It's one thing to be arrogant when you have knowledge of pro wrestling, it's another thing completely to have an ego when you don't. Drop the facade, admit you don't know nearly as much as you should, and you'll find that you will learn a whole lot more about pro wrestling that you never even considered before.
To be a good pro wrestler, you have to be good in five areas. They are, 1) Storytelling 2) Psychology 3) Workrate (and I'm not talking about pacing) 4) Selling 5) Charisma. Those five things are what determines the quality of a pro wrestler. They are related, but separate concepts, but all five work together to put on a good match or make up a good wrestler.
Sid's psychology, his workrate and his charisma were fantastic. His storytelling and selling left something to be desired. Sid was not as good as Hulk Hogan or Bret Hart, no one is arguing that. But Sid was a very solid pro worker, as evidenced by the fact he main-evented throughout the 90s and won multiple world titles, including Vince McMahon's world title.
You don't have to be entertained by him to recognize the quality he possessed. You just have to understand how to look at a wrestler's work in the ring and properly understand how to critique it.
Zack Ryder. Dislike the gimmick, bad babyface in the ring in my opinion.
The Man They Call WMD
Check Out My Spoiler Page
Wrestlers over 40 who came back.
Hogan
Hall
Nash
Steiner
Henning
DDP
Recently
HHH
Taker
Micheals
Age Doesn't matter. If they draw they draw. Sid Doesn't.
Every single one of your examples are subjective. Objective is something leaning to be a fact. Everything you said was more or less an opinion.
I don't think your criteria is even worth discussing because that is your subjective oppinion.
Attacking me doesn't make you right. Because you write elegantly, doesn't mean your argument isn't wrong. Hitler was a good speaker, his message was wrong. You bully and put people down to save face. I don't take anything back.
Sid was a boring wrestler. The fact that he mainevented or was even over, doesn't make him a good worker. It just means he mainevented/ was over.
No formula exists to ascertain what makes a good worker.
You are wrong, accept it.
Little Jerry Lawler
Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids
I think Slyfox is placing more of an emphasis on the leg injury and rehabilitation than age.
No, but being away for a couple of years with a significant injury does. Besides that, there could be all sorts of reasons Sid didn't go back to the WWE (despite reports last year the WWE was very interested in him). For example, why did Savage never work for the WWE after he left? Are you going to say Savage sucked, that he didn't draw, because the WWE didn't want him back?
Your argument holds no water.
And if they don't draw, they are not made the top guy in the company. Sid was.
No...no it wasn't. It wasn't at all. How do you not understand simple concepts?
No it's not. It's criteria which has been established FOR DECADES by all different sorts of pro wrestlers. Hell, selling is not even an abstract concept, you can see it every week on your television. The idea it is subjective is flat out ridiculous.
Attacking you? I've felt I've been remarkably restrained, given how stubborn you are to cling to your completely inaccurate and ignorant idea of pro wrestling.
No, the fact my argument is correct means it isn't wrong.
Godwin's Law...I win our argument by default. I also win based upon the merits.
I've barely even said anything harsh about YOU, merely your lack of understanding of pro wrestling. If you think this is bad...then it's a good thing I've been trying to be a kinder, gentler Slyfox.
That's fine if you feel that way, I have no problem with you feeling that way.
But just because YOU think he was boring does NOT mean that, objectively speaking, he was a bad wrestler. Do you understand the difference?
No, it very CLEARLY means he was not a bad worker. Bad workers don't get over. Bad workers lack proficiency in the 5 characteristics I mentioned earlier. Bad workers bore fans, and are completely incapable of making the fans care about them.
You cannot be a bad worker and get over, it is impossible.
And yet, EVERY top worker can be objectively critiqued with my system. Guess that proves you wrong again.
Let me see if I have this right. I'm wrong because YOU think Sid is a bad wrestler. So, basically, the only way to determine quality is based upon what YOU think? So if I think Sid is the best wrestler ever, does that mean your opinion is no longer valid, and Sid becomes the best wrestler ever...at least until a third person comes along to voice his opinion?
How can your position on this possibly make sense to you? If I say Bastion Booger is the best pro wrestler ever, does that mean there's never been a better worker than Bastion Booger? If I said HBK was the worst pro wrestler ever, does that mean HBK is the worst pro wrestler ever, worse than even Bastion Booger?
Because that's your argument. Wrestler quality is determined solely upon whether or not you liked them. Ignoring all else for a moment, can you not see how woefully deficient that is logically?
The Man They Call WMD
Check Out My Spoiler Page
This is the definition of Objective
Everything you say does not qualify. Your opinion is clearly subjective.
I'm not taking this personally, and I don't want to come out as if I'm attacking you. I just thought Hitler was a good contrast.
Sid Wrestled in 2002 in Australia. He was good enough to make a Steiner or 2011 Nash run. He has said tons of times he would want to come back to the WWE. I don't know why MachoMan wasn't brought back, that was a mistake.
You will not convice me Sid is or was a good wrestler.
Everything you say does not qualify. Your opinion is clearly subjective.
I'm not taking this personally, and I don't want to come out as if I'm attacking you. I just thought Hitler was a good contrast.
Sid Wrestled in 2002 in Australia. He was good enough to make a Steiner or 2011 Nash run. He has said tons of times he would want to come back to the WWE. I don't know why MachoMan wasn't brought back, that was a mistake.
You will not convice me Sid is or was a good wrestler.
Everything I've claimed to be an objective statement has qualified, by the very definition of the word you just gave.
It's beyond that now. It's trying to convince you that the way you're determining quality is completely ridiculous and does not hold up to even the most elementary of logic tests. Once you realize that, then we'll move on to why Sid was not a bad wrestler. Once you realize you cannot determine quality based solely upon the opinion of one person, then you'll understand why your entire argument in this thread has been silly.
The fact of the matter is you very much can define what makes up a good wrestler. Storytelling, Psychology, Workrate, Selling and Charisma are not subjective ideas...they are fundamentals necessary to being a good pro wrestler.
To give a parallel example, in basketball you have to know how to move without the basketball. You need to know how to come off a screen properly, how to read the defense on the screen and make the appropriate cut based upon how the defense is playing. You need to know how to get open at just the right time, how to make yourself available against denial defense, how to screen for your teammates etc. These are things which are taught to every basketball player over the age of 15 by every competent coach. It is fundamental of basketball, and helps determine how good a player is. Is it something you can quantify in numbers, like batting average in baseball? No, but it is still a very real part of the sport.
That's what those characteristics are for pro wrestling. Can I give you a stat which shows that Sid was charismatic 95% of the time in his matches? No, that doesn't exist. But just like watching a basketball player move without the ball, you can see the story a wrestler is trying to tell in the ring. You can evaluate how interested fans are in his character. These are very much objective based criteria. And you can determine their effectiveness by how well people react and are willing to put down their hard earned money to watch a wrestler.
Wrestling is not "luck". It's not chance, it's not luck, it's not random. The great wrestlers are great for a reason.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
That's because everyone expects every superheavyweight that has ever existed and will ever exist to move like Vader and Bam Bam.
And apparently wrestle the same style as Lou Thesz...
The Man They Call WMD
Check Out My Spoiler Page
Ok, so SLY answer the question. Lets see if they meet your criteria. Who is the worst worker who was in the main event for a decade.
AwesomeRko
Getting Noticed By Management
Wrestling is always going to be subjective to an extent if there was a truly objective way to measure a superstar on all the relevant criteria then there wouldn't be such diverse opinion on things like the greatest of all time. If i was to ask one hundred people who the better in-ring worker was between Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle I would probably get a fairly even number of responses using the same criteria.
No idea, there aren't many guys who main-event for a decade. Get me a list, and I'll rank them.
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
I'm not one to criticize big men generally. I look fondly back on guys like Bundy, Kamala and One Man Gang. But there is one guy that was hugely over with the audience that I would call "professional wrestling famous" that to me was a huge disappointment in the ring:
Hillbilly Jim - as a kid he felt super over and I couldn't wait until they took him from the audience and threw him in the ring. Once he got to the ring it was a different story. Other than puffing out his chest he was didn't offer much to enjoy in the ring.
I don't know, he may have had a pre-WWE in-ring career that was stellar but to me his WWE in-ring tenure was a huge disappointment.
Hillbilly Jim - as a kid he felt super over and I couldn't wait until they took him from the audience and threw him in the ring. Once he got to the ring it was a different story. Other than puffing out his chest he was didn't offer much to enjoy in the ring.
I don't know, he may have had a pre-WWE in-ring career that was stellar but to me his WWE in-ring tenure was a huge disappointment.
CleverName51
Little Jimmy
Off the top of my head-
Hogan 1983-1995
Flair 80s-90s,
Cena-02-present,
HHH 1999-present, save time for injuries,
Undertaker (ish) 1997-present but had major breaks...so yeah
Sting 1997-present
Kurt Angle 2000-present
Booker T (stretch): 1999-2009
god dammit...those are some of the best workers ever...that said, I argue 5-7 years is a better time frame of main eventers...most fizzle out after 3-5 years on top (Rock, Austin, HBK, Bret Hart...)
That said- for me (and watch Sly tear me on this) Bill Goldberg...if only because he was super famous and also allegedly super dangerous
AwesomeRko
Getting Noticed By Management
Mideon might be another contender to this day I will never understand how he got a contract with WWE.
Shadowmancer
I am The Last Baron
and if that combo existed ever, that would be money
It would be silly. A guy who looks like Sid Vicious should not be wrestling like Lou Thesz. A guy like Sid Vicious should wrestle like he's a fucking army tank.