Winner's Bracket Debate #22: Stormtrooper -vs- DirtyJose

[Dagger Dias]

Are championship belts what defines greatness in wrestling?​

This is a third round, winner's bracket debate in the 2012 Wrestlezone Debater's League Tournament.

Stormtrooper won the coin toss and will be the home debater. He's earned the right to choose EITHER which side of the debate he wants to argue OR who provides the opening statement. He can also defer this choice to his opponent. (The home debater has 24 hours to make this decision otherwise it is automatically deferred to his opponent.)

After these choices are made, the first post of the debate must be posted within the first 24 hours otherwise it will affect the starter's Punctuality portion of the judging. Debaters have 24 hours to respond to their opponent's post and the faster the response, the better chance you have to score higher point totals.

There is no maximum amount of posts for debaters in this round. Debaters can create unlimited replies until the allotted time of the debate runs out.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST where judging will immediately begin. Judging must be finished no later than Sunday at 11am EST.

Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

Good luck to the participants.

 

[Stormtrooper]

As the home debater, I will say YES, championship belts define greatness.

 

[DirtyJosé]

I choose Stormy to make the first post.

 

[Stormtrooper]

1cham·pi·on
4: a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority

cham·pi·on·ship
1: designation as champion


(definitions courtesy of Meriam Websters dictionary)

Winning championships means you are the top person/team/whatever in your trade. This is true in all sports. And while professional wrestling isn't a sport in the competitive sense of the word, the sentiment that championships translate to greatness still holds true.

In professional wrestling, the championship is different from "legit" sports. It is used as a prop of sorts to designate who is the top guy in the promotion (or in WWEs case, the show they are a part of) at the time. Occasionally, it is used to determine if a wrestler is capable of being the top guy.

In the world of professional wrestling, there is very little tangible evidence to show which people are better then others. Things like who is better in the ring, who has better interviews, who has a better look, and even who puts on the best matches are all subjective. There is really only one thing that is capable of being a tangible sign of a professional wrestlers greatness, and that is championships.

Also, If you look at the history of the major World Championships (WWE, WWE World Heavyweight, WCW, NWA) you will notice something. The people that held the belt for long periods of time are all considered great wrestlers. If you look at the people who held the WWE and WWE World Heavyweight Championships for over 365 days (one year), every single one of them either are in the WWE Hall of Fame, will be as soon after they retire, or should be in the Hall of Fame.

In conclusion, if you look at Professional Wrestling, there are countless subjective terms people use try and define who is better. However, the only way you can truly define real greatness in professional wrestling is by CHAMPIONSHIPS.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Championship belts are not what defines greatness in wrestling​

No doubt that most of the best stars in wrestling have been champions. At the end of the day, titles are similar to props; created to help build up excitement and give a reason to fight to a crew of men romping around in their underwear. But are these titles what DEFINES greatness in wrestling? I think not. In my opinion, it is the wrestler which defines the greatness of any given championship.

The Whole Fuckin' Show​

To help prove my point, one needs look no further than ECW's World Television Championship. When Rob Van Dam won the TV Title in April of 1998, the title was very clearly mid-card tier championship. In the hands of Rob Van Dam, at the time a rising star in ECW, the title grew in prestige and popularity to rival ECW's World Heavyweight Championship.

Did the Television Title make Rob Van Dam a star? No. His feud with Sabu and his "shoot" promo following his match with Lance Storm at Barely Legal were the catalysts for RVD's rise to the top of ECW. Instead of the title making the man, the man made the title more relevant and important that it had ever been. People paid to see RVD, and at times his Television Title became as much of a draw if not more than the ECW World Title.

In the end, RVD was forced to forfeit the title due to injury. Surely, if the the championship was what made RVD great, that buzz would have carried over to future champions, right? So why didn't that happen? The only other TV Champion of note was Rhyno, but even he never generated the buzz and the interest that RVD did with the title. Looking back, it's obvious that RVD is what made the ECW Television Championship great, not the other way around.

Destined for greatness?​

It was clear from the get go that WWE had big dreams for Alberto Del Rio. He was kept near the top of the pack, ready to pounce and earn his first World Title at anytime. At SummerSlam in 2011, destiny was fulfilled as Del Rio won his first WWE Championship. The result? A resounding "meh" from the fans.

Ratings for Del Rio's two WWE Champion runs in 2011 were nothing to write home about (in fact, the only Raw that year to do worse than a show with Del Rio as champion was a taped episode). His first PPV show headlining as WWE Champion was the ill-fated and poorly received Vengeance, one of the worst PPV's in recent WWE history in terms of feedback and buyrates. Del Rio was never able to cross over into true superstar territory. Does that sound like greatness to you?

The Man Makes The Title​

RVD took a mid-card title and lead ECW to it's zenith with it. Del Rio took the biggest prize in the game and stunk up the ratings with. RVD made the ECW Television Championship as much or more of a draw than the ECW World Heavyweight Championship; Del Rio couldn't get any traction out of a WWE Championship run even when partnered up with CM Punk and John Cena, two of the most popular and over guys in the business today. I think that speaks pretty clearly about the success of any given championship being about the man who carries it, and not necessarily about the title itself.

Ratings information: Gerweck.net
Vengeance buyrate information: Bleacherreport.com

 

[Stormtrooper]

So you bring up 2 points to show why championships do NOT equate greatness. Lets take a closer look at them, shall we? You used 2 examples, so lets look a little bit further into those 2 examples.

The Whole Fuckin Show​

So you say that championships do not equate greatness, and your first example is Rob Van Dam. Lets take another look at your picture...

​

What is that that RVD is holding in his left hand. Is that... YES, it's a CHAMPIONSHIP! So you are saying that championships don't equate to greatness and your first example is Rob Van Dam, who could be considered the greatest ECW talent of all time. And to make matters worse, your example is his championship reign, which is a major aspect of why he was great. I don't know about you, but to me it looks like you proved my point.


Sure, Rob Van Dam was not the ECW World Champion, but thanks to a title reign (and his talents), he became insanely over. He wouldn't be as over had he not been Champion.

Destined for Greatness​

Alberto Del Rio. This is an interesting case. Del Rio was the Champion. Del Rio didn't have a successful reign, and as such you argue that he isn't great and the entire argument is null and void. Is he great? No, clearly Alberto Del Rio isn't great, but that doesn't negate my argument one bit.



Is that the case? I do not think so at all. As I have previously mentioned, Just holding a championship is not what makes you great. If that alone was what made someone great, then Vince McMahon would be a considered a great in-ring performer, since he won the WWE Title back in 1999. What getting the championship means is that they are given the chance to run with the ball. Whether they succeed or not is ultimately up to them. But greatness IS determined by consistently holding the championship, whether it be having the belt for a high number of times, and/or a really long period of time. Alberto Del Rio held the WWE Championship twice, for a total of 84 days. That's hardly consistent, as it is less then 3 months. He was given the ball, but it was determined that he wasn't ready, and as such he isn't the champion anymore, and they gave it to someone else (John Cena and CM Punk, 2 guys deemed capable of being the top guy at the time).

are these titles what DEFINES greatness in wrestling? I think not.

If Championships do not define greatness in Wrestling, what does? Championships are, as I already mentioned, the only tangible way to determine who really is the greats in the history of Professional Wrestling.

 

[DirtyJosé]

So you say that championships do not equate greatness, and your first example is Rob Van Dam. Lets take another look at your picture...

What is that that RVD is holding in his left hand. Is that... YES, it's a CHAMPIONSHIP! So you are saying that championships don't equate to greatness and your first example is Rob Van Dam, who could be considered the greatest ECW talent of all time. And to make matters worse, your example is his championship reign, which is a major aspect of why he was great. I don't know about you, but to me it looks like you proved my point.


Sure, Rob Van Dam was not the ECW World Champion, but thanks to a title reign (and his talents), he became insanely over. He wouldn't be as over had he not been Champion.

LOL. RVD was WAAAAAY over before he became Television Champion. The title didn't make him "the man"; he made the title matter more than it ever had before or ever would after. His early run with the white-hot Sabu put him on the map; his actions at Barely Legal made people turn heads. Following that, he was a centerpiece in the ECW/WWF cross-promotion, being one of the very few performers Jerry Lawler didn't take a verbal dump on. It's not like Van Dam was a nobody before he picked up the title. He was already becoming a hot topic and one of ECW's must-see performers.

Alberto Del Rio. This is an interesting case. Del Rio was the Champion. Del Rio didn't have a successful reign, and as such you argue that he isn't great and the entire argument is null and void. Is he great? No, clearly Alberto Del Rio isn't great, but that doesn't negate my argument one bit. Is that the case? I do not think so at all. As I have previously mentioned, Just holding a championship is not what makes you great. If that alone was what made someone great, then Vince McMahon would be a considered a great in-ring performer, since he won the WWE Title back in 1999. What getting the championship means is that they are given the chance to run with the ball. Whether they succeed or not is ultimately up to them. But greatness IS determined by consistently holding the championship, whether it be having the belt for a high number of times, and/or a really long period of time. Alberto Del Rio held the WWE Championship twice, for a total of 84 days. That's hardly consistent, as it is less then 3 months. He was given the ball, but it was determined that he wasn't ready, and as such he isn't the champion anymore, and they gave it to someone else (John Cena and CM Punk, 2 guys deemed capable of being the top guy at the time).

Now who's making the argument for the other team? I agree completely; holding a championship is NOT what makes you great. Just having the title does not make you great or guarantee success; that is entirely up to the performer. WWE very clearly believed Del Rio would benefit from being the champion. They were wrong. They tried again soon afterwards, to more-or-less the same results. Seems like as much as they tried, they couldn't get that title to elevate Del Rio above his spot in the eyes of the fan.

In other words, as much WWE may have believed that the title would make Del Rio great, it didn't. If you want to cherry pick only the hottest champions of all time to prove your point, go ahead. Remember though that the argument here is whether or not Championships define greatness, and how can they do so if there are a plethora of exceptions like Del Rio?

If championships do not define greatness in Wrestling, what does? Championships are, as I already mentioned, the only tangible way to determine who really is the greats in the history of Professional Wrestling.

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder; who the people want to see and who they pay to see. That the best in the industry have also held titles does not necessarily mean that they weren't greats until they won the title; they earned the titles by being great. Stone Cold Steve Austin isn't remembered as a great simply because he was a champion; he's remembered as a great because of his performance.

Look at it this way; if championships DEFINE greatness, why are there so many exceptions like Del Rio? Maybe it's because championships alone do not are not what makes one great. Just because most of the greats in wrestling have been a champion at one point or another does not mean that all champions are great. And if not all champions are greats, how can you claim that championships define greatness? The man makes the title, not the other way around.

 

[Stormtrooper]

LOL. RVD was WAAAAAY over before he became Television Champion. The title didn't make him "the man"; he made the title matter more than it ever had before or ever would after. His early run with the white-hot Sabu put him on the map; his actions at Barely Legal made people turn heads. Following that, he was a centerpiece in the ECW/WWF cross-promotion, being one of the very few performers Jerry Lawler didn't take a verbal dump on. It's not like Van Dam was a nobody before he picked up the title. He was already becoming a hot topic and one of ECW's must-see performers.

And none of what you just said defines someones greatness, as the question asks. Of course the title meant more thanks to Van Dams talents, that's obvious. That doesn't mean Van Dam having the championship didn't help his popularity.

And by having a simply amazing title run, where he held a title longer then anyone in the past 20 years, he actually had something to define how great he was at the time. That leaves us with one thing... The championship itself.

Now who's making the argument for the other team? I agree completely; holding a championship is NOT what makes you great. Just having the title does not make you great or guarantee success; that is entirely up to the performer. WWE very clearly believed Del Rio would benefit from being the champion. They were wrong. They tried again soon afterwards, to more-or-less the same results. Seems like as much as they tried, they couldn't get that title to elevate Del Rio above his spot in the eyes of the fan.

I never once argued that just holding the title defined greatness. It was all about consistency.

In other words, as much WWE may have believed that the title would make Del Rio great, it didn't. If you want to cherry pick only the hottest champions of all time to prove your point, go ahead. Remember though that the argument here is whether or not Championships define greatness, and how can they do so if there are a plethora of exceptions like Del Rio?

It's not cherry-picking the hottest champions of all time. It's the one and only common link for all greats.

Look at any wrestler that is considered "great." They all hold the championship for a long time. It's the only thing they have in common. Some are good technical wrestlers. Some are great brawlers. Some are great talkers, some can't work a mic to save their life. The only thing they have in common is that they all are champions.

Here's a list of WWE Champions who held the belt for a combined over 365 days:
Wrestler - # of reigns - combined days
Bruno Sammartino - 2 - 4040
Hulk Hogan - 6 - 2185
Bob Backlund - 2 - 2138
John Cena - 10 - 1058
Pedro Morales - 1 - 1027
Bret Hart - 5 - 654
Triple H - 8 - 539
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 6 - 529
Randy Savage - 2 - 520
Randy Orton - 6 - 420
Shawn Michaels - 3 - 396
(source: Wikipedia)

All different types of wrestlers. ALL would be considered Great. In fact, the only thing they have in common is that they were all champions.

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder; who the people want to see and who they pay to see. That the best in the industry have also held titles does not necessarily mean that they weren't greats until they won the title; they earned the titles by being great. Stone Cold Steve Austin isn't remembered as a great simply because he was a champion; he's remembered as a great because of his performance.

Actually, Stone Cold Steve Austin is remembered as great, and you define how great he was not based on subjective things like how technical he is, or how good he was on the mic. His greatness is DEFINED by how, in his prime, he was always a champion.

Look at it this way; if championships DEFINE greatness, why are there so many exceptions like Del Rio? Maybe it's because championships alone do not are not what makes one great. Just because most of the greats in wrestling have been a champion at one point or another does not mean that all champions are great. And if not all champions are greats, how can you claim that championships define greatness? The man makes the title, not the other way around.

First of all, there are no real exceptions. The entire time I have argued that it isn't the meaningless reigns that define greatness, rather it is the consistency of a wrestler holding a championship.

And if you would bare with me, I would like to point out some glaring examples of how you are not understanding the argument and sounding entirely foolish.

The title didn't make him "the man"; he made the title matter more than it ever had before or ever would after.

holding a championship is NOT what makes you great. Just having the title does not make you great or guarantee success;

as much WWE may have believed that the title would make Del Rio great, it didn't.

Maybe it's because championships alone do not are not what makes one great.

The man makes the title, not the other way around.

You keep bringing up that the man makes the title, not the other way around. I keep arguing that a Wrestlers greatness is DEFINED by the championships. Make does not equal define. "Championships making one great" implies that they weren't great before. That is not what we are arguing. "Championships defining ones greatness" says that the championships are proof of ones greatness. You keep arguing something that isn't being asked.


To sum it all up in one sentence; the greats are the greats because of their performance and ability, but you can tell who the greats are by the championships they are consistently carrying. And if they aren't carrying the championship, then they are challenging for it.

 

[DirtyJosé]

And none of what you just said defines someones greatness, as the question asks. Of course the title meant more thanks to Van Dams talents, that's obvious. That doesn't mean Van Dam having the championship didn't help his popularity.

And by having a simply amazing title run, where he held a title longer then anyone in the past 20 years, he actually had something to define how great he was at the time. That leaves us with one thing... The championship itself.

First of all, the burden is on you to explain HOW and WHY championships define greatness. All I see you come up with is that famous guys have been champions, so that must be the ruler we're using. Only problem with that is that every statement you make like that must be followed with an asterisk explaining that it doesn't apply to everyone, only to the ones who were great already.

Secondly, what defined RVD's greatness then (and for most of his career) wasn't one run with the Television Title; it was his performance. It was his charisma and his athleticism. It was RVD bringing something fresh to the scene that people wanted to see (and to a degree still do). People didn't tune into RVD because he was the TV Champion; they only ended up caring about the TV Title because RVD made it relevant. This is what I mean by "the man makes the title".

I never once argued that just holding the title defined greatness. It was all about consistency.

And for a promotion to feature a performer as a champion consistently, they must prove themselves great enough to be worth the effort. So, even by your own words, the championship isn't so much a definition of greatness so much as a result of it. Even repeat champions of various types have been flops. To fit into your defense of championship as being the be-all-end-all definition of greatness, you're forced to disregard the legions of champions of various types who were never able to become truly great. This is what I meant by your argument constantly needing an asterisk to mark the many exceptions.

It's not cherry-picking the hottest champions of all time. It's the one and only common link for all greats.

Look at any wrestler that is considered "great." They all hold the championship for a long time. It's the only thing they have in common. Some are good technical wrestlers. Some are great brawlers. Some are great talkers, some can't work a mic to save their life. The only thing they have in common is that they all are champions.

Here's a list of WWE Champions who held the belt for a combined over 365 days:
Wrestler - # of reigns - combined days
Bruno Sammartino - 2 - 4040
Hulk Hogan - 6 - 2185
Bob Backlund - 2 - 2138
John Cena - 10 - 1058
Pedro Morales - 1 - 1027
Bret Hart - 5 - 654
Triple H - 8 - 539
Stone Cold Steve Austin - 6 - 529
Randy Savage - 2 - 520
Randy Orton - 6 - 420
Shawn Michaels - 3 - 396
(source: Wikipedia)

All different types of wrestlers. ALL would be considered Great. In fact, the only thing they have in common is that they were all champions.

Um, yeah, no. They have more in common than that. Each was a draw for their day. Though each took slightly different paths to get there, each of these guys were able to rise above their peers and demonstrate that they had something to offer, be it the athleticism of guys like Hart, the charisma of guys like Cena and Hogan and Austin, or the dedication to and talent for crafting breath taking matches from guys like HHH, HBK, and Savage.

And while we're on the point of picking some of the best and going "hey look, they had championships, so championships must be what makes a wrestler great", what about the guys who never picked up WWE Championship runs (to use the example you've put forth) but are still remembered as some of the greatest? In the same way that Dan Marino is often remembered as one of the greatest NFL quarterbacks even though he never won "the big one", what about guys like Jimmy Snuka and Roddy Piper? If championships are what defines greatness, are we to ignore two of the most influential and popular performers of their generation? Are we supposed to write them off, to write off their entire career, simply because, like Marino, they never won "the big one"? Or are we forced to add an asterisk to your argument?

Actually, Stone Cold Steve Austin is remembered as great, and you define how great he was not based on subjective things like how technical he is, or how good he was on the mic. His greatness is DEFINED by how, in his prime, he was always a champion.

Really? I've never heard anyone go "you know why I love Stone Cold? Because he was champion all teh time!". In fact, I've never known any performer to be over simply because they were the champion. On the other hand, I have heard plenty about people loving Stone Cold because he resonated with the working class. I have heard plenty about people loving Stone Cold because they've always wanted to punch their boss too. I have heard plenty about people loving Stone Cold because the guy could put on a great match, because they loved his brawling style, and because his promos set the bar for the rest of the Attitude Era.

First of all, there are no real exceptions. The entire time I have argued that it isn't the meaningless reigns that define greatness, rather it is the consistency of a wrestler holding a championship.

Yet another asterisk to add to your argument. "It doesn't define greatness for all of them, only the ones who were already great". I mean, where do you draw that line? How do you separate the greats from the "meaningless"? Could it be that possibly that line is drawn between the ones who have shown other definable traits that make them great and the ones who haven't? Again, all I seem to get out of you is that being a successful champion is more-or-less a consequence of being great, and not a definition of greatness in and of itself.

And if you would bare with me, I would like to point out some glaring examples of how you are not understanding the argument and sounding entirely foolish.

You keep bringing up that the man makes the title, not the other way around. I keep arguing that a Wrestlers greatness is DEFINED by the championships. Make does not equal define. "Championships making one great" implies that they weren't great before. That is not what we are arguing. "Championships defining ones greatness" says that the championships are proof of ones greatness. You keep arguing something that isn't being asked.

Not really, but I can't say I'm surprised that the point is going over your head. The point is that the belt is a prop. Without the right guy wearing it, it's junk. A truly great performer can take any championship and make it matter; a shit performer is going to continue being shit, and may end up hurting the prestige of any title.

Basically, your argument boils down to "all the greats have been champion". Not only is this statement blatantly ignoring greats who never "got there" like the aforementioned examples of Snuka and Piper, but it is riddled with exceptions you're forced to write off as "meaningless". Your argument is absurd; by the same logic, couldn't one argue that all the greats have won wrestling matches at some point or another, and so winning wrestling matches defines greatness?

To sum it all up in one sentence; the greats are the greats because of their performance and ability, but you can tell who the greats are by the championships they are consistently carrying. And if they aren't carrying the championship, then they are challenging for it.

Isn't that two sentences? And, again, what about the exceptions? In the case of your point here, what about someone like Jake the Snake? Challenged two times for a mid-card title and once for the non-canon Million Dollar Championship, and lost every time. And yet, he's remembered as a great for his astounding charisma, his mastery of wrestling psychology, and his physical talents. The DDT, his creation, has gone on to become a staple of modern wrestling, a feat not many can also claim.

In other words, what defines greatness in a performer is not if or how often he's held a championship. It has more to do with their talents, their strengths, their connection with the audience. It has more to do their lasting impression on the business and on the fans. Different superstars are great for different reasons, but they all come down to tangible traits and talents, and not one of them is simply because they held a leather bound piece of bling.

 

[Stormtrooper]

First of all, the burden is on you to explain HOW and WHY championships define greatness. All I see you come up with is that famous guys have been champions, so that must be the ruler we're using. Only problem with that is that every statement you make like that must be followed with an asterisk explaining that it doesn't apply to everyone, only to the ones who were great already.

OK, I will say it again, except now in an even easier way, so that you can finally grasp what I am saying.

The greatness of a wrestler is defined by the fact that they ALL are always champions, or at least chasing championships.


And no, it does apply to everyone. I never once said simply being a former champion defines their greatness. I said consistently holding the championship is the best way to DEFINE a wrestlers greatness.

Secondly, what defined RVD's greatness then (and for most of his career) wasn't one run with the Television Title; it was his performance. It was his charisma and his athleticism. It was RVD bringing something fresh to the scene that people wanted to see (and to a degree still do). People didn't tune into RVD because he was the TV Champion; they only ended up caring about the TV Title because RVD made it relevant. This is what I mean by "the man makes the title".

If RVDs performance is what defines his greatness, as you claim, then why is his greatest accomplishment in wrestling not his “good matches” or his “performance,” or his “charisma” or athleticism (the first 3 attributes are all in quotations to highlight their subjectivity), but his TV title run? Again, if anything RVD was the absolute WORST example you could have picked. As great as he was, people always harken to how he held the TV Championship for 23 months and change.



You are defined by your accomplishments, not by talent (which is entirely subjective). Championships are accomplishments, not charisma, performance, “good matches,” or whatever.

And for a promotion to feature a performer as a champion consistently, they must prove themselves great enough to be worth the effort. So, even by your own words, the championship isn't so much a definition of greatness so much as a result of it. Even repeat champions of various types have been flops. To fit into your defense of championship as being the be-all-end-all definition of greatness, you're forced to disregard the legions of champions of various types who were never able to become truly great. This is what I meant by your argument constantly needing an asterisk to mark the many exceptions.

Again, you are completely ignoring what I am saying. I have never said that getting a title run makes you an all-time great. I never said winning the title itself makes you great. Hell, I never even said the all-time greats weren't great before they won the title. What I have said is that their greatness is DEFINED by their championships. When you look back on a wrestlers career, the only thing that separates the all-time greats from the just good is the fact that the all-time greats spend the vast majority of their career either as champion or chasing the championship.

If you want to waste your time and keep arguing that Dolph Ziggler or Alberto Del Rio aren't great, fine. That's a waste of time, as that isn't at all what I am saying; They aren't all-time greats. Never said they were. You're putting words in my mouth, and I find it rather offensive and appalling.

Um, yeah, no. They have more in common than that. Each was a draw for their day. Though each took slightly different paths to get there, each of these guys were able to rise above their peers and demonstrate that they had something to offer, be it the athleticism of guys like Hart, the charisma of guys like Cena and Hogan and Austin, or the dedication to and talent for crafting breath taking matches from guys like HHH, HBK, and Savage.

No, they weren't all a draw. HBK didn't draw shit. The company was on the verge of bankruptcy while he was on top.


And again, you are giving me the credit for my argument. You say they all have different attributes. That again reinforces my argument that those attributes do not define greatness.

And while we're on the point of picking some of the best and going "hey look, they had championships, so championships must be what makes a wrestler great", what about the guys who never picked up WWE Championship runs (to use the example you've put forth) but are still remembered as some of the greatest? In the same way that Dan Marino is often remembered as one of the greatest NFL quarterbacks even though he never won "the big one", what about guys like Jimmy Snuka and Roddy Piper? If championships are what defines greatness, are we to ignore two of the most influential and popular performers of their generation? Are we supposed to write them off, to write off their entire career, simply because, like Marino, they never won "the big one"? Or are we forced to add an asterisk to your argument?

First of all, this is a wrestling debate, where the champions are decided by an entity, and not in competition. Thus bringing up Sportsmen like Marino is irrelevant.

Secondly, Jimmy Snuka and Roddy Piper are not All-time greats. Snuka isn't even close, and Piper is very good, but nowhere near great. Snuka was never a consistent main eventer, never chasing a championship, and never a champion. He put on good matches, but was not an all-time great.


Piper was excellent, and still is a good talker. He wasn't an all-time great on par with Hogan/Sammartino/Flair/etc.

Really? I've never heard anyone go "you know why I love Stone Cold? Because he was champion all teh time!". In fact, I've never known any performer to be over simply because they were the champion. On the other hand, I have heard plenty about people loving Stone Cold because he resonated with the working class. I have heard plenty about people loving Stone Cold because they've always wanted to punch their boss too. I have heard plenty about people loving Stone Cold because the guy could put on a great match, because they loved his brawling style, and because his promos set the bar for the rest of the Attitude Era.

Yes, his attributes are what makes people love him. But what sets him apart from guys like The Godfather, the New Age Outlaws, Mankind, etc, is that he was always the champion or chasing the championship. As such, all-time greats are DEFINED by the championships they were involved with.

Yet another asterisk to add to your argument. "It doesn't define greatness for all of them, only the ones who were already great". I mean, where do you draw that line? How do you separate the greats from the "meaningless"? Could it be that possibly that line is drawn between the ones who have shown other definable traits that make them great and the ones who haven't? Again, all I seem to get out of you is that being a successful champion is more-or-less a consequence of being great, and not a definition of greatness in and of itself.

The line is quite simple actually. The All-time greats are defined by how they are spending the majority of the time with the Championship, or chasing the championship.

Not really, but I can't say I'm surprised that the point is going over your head. The point is that the belt is a prop. Without the right guy wearing it, it's junk. A truly great performer can take any championship and make it matter; a shit performer is going to continue being shit, and may end up hurting the prestige of any title.

Which is exactly why constantly holding the title is what DEINES how great they are. They aren't giving the shit guys lengthy runs at the belt. Only the greats consistently hold the championship.

Basically, your argument boils down to "all the greats have been champion". Not only is this statement blatantly ignoring greats who never "got there" like the aforementioned examples of Snuka and Piper, but it is riddled with exceptions you're forced to write off as "meaningless". Your argument is absurd; by the same logic, couldn't one argue that all the greats have won wrestling matches at some point or another, and so winning wrestling matches defines greatness?

First of all, I find you putting Snuka and Piper along the lines of Hogan, Sammartino, Cena, Triple H, etc rather pathetic. Piper was a level below them, and Snuka about 5 levels below them.


And no, just winning matches wouldn't define it either, as then guys like Eugene (who won 66% of his matches) would be considered better then Ric Flair (who won 46%).

Isn't that two sentences? And, again, what about the exceptions? In the case of your point here, what about someone like Jake the Snake? Challenged two times for a mid-card title and once for the non-canon Million Dollar Championship, and lost every time. And yet, he's remembered as a great for his astounding charisma, his mastery of wrestling psychology, and his physical talents. The DDT, his creation, has gone on to become a staple of modern wrestling, a feat not many can also claim.

If there is one exception to the rule, it is Andre the Giant. He was an all time great, but more of a traveling sideshow who would appear for various promotions.


Jake Roberts was not at all an all-time great. He never was a top draw, he never was a main eventer, etc. He was a good wrestler, but hardly an all-time great. And yeah, he invented the DDT, good for him. If inventing a popular move gets you to be an all-time great, then half the wrestlers in the past are all-time greats, as they invented moves too. Someone had to invent the body-slam, dropkick, and the dreaded big boot. That doesn't mean they are great.


And yeah, it kinda was 2 sentences. But it was 2 sentences that have been more accurate then every sentence you have written so far. I'll take it.

In other words, what defines greatness in a performer is not if or how often he's held a championship. It has more to do with their talents, their strengths, their connection with the audience. It has more to do their lasting impression on the business and on the fans. Different superstars are great for different reasons, but they all come down to tangible traits and talents, and not one of them is simply because they held a leather bound piece of bling.

In all walks of life, people consider others great for their accomplishments. Great athletes are great because of their accomplishments (championships, awards, records, etc), and the same is true for all occupations. The same is true for wrestlers. The ability to put on “good matches” (again, very subjective, as some peoples good matches are shit matches to others), being charismatic (again, subjective, some people would argue that guys aren't as charismatic as others think), or being athletic, or being different are not what makes people great. If that was the case, then guys like The Boogeyman (different), William Regal (good matches), Shelton Benjamin (Athletic), or Road Dogg (Charismatic) would all be all-time greats. They aren't.

 

[DirtyJosé]

OK, I will say it again, except now in an even easier way, so that you can finally grasp what I am saying.

The greatness of a wrestler is defined by the fact that they ALL are always champions, or at least chasing championships.

And no, it does apply to everyone. I never once said simply being a former champion defines their greatness. I said consistently holding the championship is the best way to DEFINE a wrestlers greatness.

I'm sorry, was that one of the choices you could make in the beginning? I'm pretty sure the option was "Championship belts define greatness". I mean, I understand why you are trying to veer it off into a more specific direction. However, this is again what I mean by you needing to add asterisks to the argument. Funny how you have to refine the original statement until you get it to something you might be able to argue.

If RVDs performance is what defines his greatness, as you claim, then why is his greatest accomplishment in wrestling not his “good matches” or his “performance,” or his “charisma” or athleticism (the first 3 attributes are all in quotations to highlight their subjectivity), but his TV title run? Again, if anything RVD was the absolute WORST example you could have picked. As great as he was, people always harken to how he held the TV Championship for 23 months and change.

Like the Austin example earlier, I've never seen anyone in this day and age go "you know why RVD is great? Because he held teh ECW TV Title". Are opinions of his performances subjective? Sure. Does that matter? Not in the least. For whatever reason, people flocked to see him (and to a degree, still do). Nobody buys a TNA ticket to go see RVD simply because he was a champion in the past; they buy the ticket to see RVD because RVD is a great. The man is bigger than the number of titles he's held or how long he held them.

You are defined by your accomplishments, not by talent (which is entirely subjective). Championships are accomplishments, not charisma, performance, “good matches,” or whatever.

It's that talent, charisma, and all those other "subjective" traits which get one over. Those are definable qualities that are responsible for greatness. What drives the fans to come to the shows? What motivates them to shell out their money for tickets and shirts and autographs? What makes these performers great in the eyes of the people? It's not the silly props; it's the performers themselves. When someone brings up a performer I know nothing about, and tries to convince me of their greatness, I don't care what their championship record looks like. I want to actually see them perform.

Again, you are completely ignoring what I am saying. I have never said that getting a title run makes you an all-time great. I never said winning the title itself makes you great. Hell, I never even said the all-time greats weren't great before they won the title. What I have said is that their greatness is DEFINED by their championships. When you look back on a wrestlers career, the only thing that separates the all-time greats from the just good is the fact that the all-time greats spend the vast majority of their career either as champion or chasing the championship.

If you want to waste your time and keep arguing that Dolph Ziggler or Alberto Del Rio aren't great, fine. That's a waste of time, as that isn't at all what I am saying; They aren't all-time greats. Never said they were. You're putting words in my mouth, and I find it rather offensive and appalling.

Well, Ziggler and Del Rio have spent more time hunting down world titles than your later example of Andre the Giant did. Are you going to try and argue that Andre the Giant was not a true great? And if you admit that he is, doesn't that kinda blow a hole in your argument?

No, they weren't all a draw. HBK didn't draw shit. The company was on the verge of bankruptcy while he was on top.

Oh, lol, selective memory. I'm not getting dragged into this argument here, but I will say that:

A: There was more going on then to affect WWF's business, most of which had nothing to do with HBK.

B: HBK ended up coming back to the best years of his career, which include some proven draws (like his matches with The Undertaker at Wrestlemania).

But hey, I get it if you need to nitpick to try and seem like you're still in this thing. That's cool.

And again, you are giving me the credit for my argument. You say they all have different attributes. That again reinforces my argument that those attributes do not define greatness.

It's those different attributes that these greats (which you listed in the first place) are remembered for. When people talk about how great they are/were, those are the reasons they give, not simply that they held the belts a few times.

First of all, this is a wrestling debate, where the champions are decided by an entity, and not in competition. Thus bringing up Sportsmen like Marino is irrelevant.

Secondly, Jimmy Snuka and Roddy Piper are not All-time greats. Snuka isn't even close, and Piper is very good, but nowhere near great. Snuka was never a consistent main eventer, never chasing a championship, and never a champion. He put on good matches, but was not an all-time great.


Piper was excellent, and still is a good talker. He wasn't an all-time great on par with Hogan/Sammartino/Flair/etc.

Funny because Piper is one of the very few guys to have picked up a clean win over Hogan in his prime. He's often remembered as one of the greatest heels of all time, his promo skills were near unmatched, and he consistently tops any list of greatest wrestlers to never win a world title. Piper's legacy in wrestling runs deep, so to try and dismiss him as not being truly great is a betrayal of your own ignorance.

Yes, his attributes are what makes people love him. But what sets him apart from guys like The Godfather, the New Age Outlaws, Mankind, etc, is that he was always the champion or chasing the championship. As such, all-time greats are DEFINED by the championships they were involved with.

What set Stone Cold apart was that he excited the crowds in a way unseen since the prime of Hulk Hogan, and even then there is room to speculate whether Austin got bigger pops than the Hulkster. What set Stone Cold apart were things like his "Austin 3:16" promo, which became an overnight sensation. What made Stone Cold great, what defines his greatness, is that the people loved and embraced him like no other before or after.

The line is quite simple actually. The All-time greats are defined by how they are spending the majority of the time with the Championship, or chasing the championship.

Which is exactly why constantly holding the title is what DEINES how great they are. They aren't giving the shit guys lengthy runs at the belt. Only the greats consistently hold the championship.

While The Miz isn't totally shit, he isn't quite a great either. Nonetheless, the man has had one of the longest world title reigns seen in modern wrestling recently. MVP has held the US Championship almost as long as the likes of Ric Flair and Lex Luger. Does that make him a great? I know you'll be able to come back with yet another asterisk to add to your point to explain these two exceptions, but the point is that I haven't seen you give one good reason as to how and why championship belts define greatness that isn't plagued by multiple exceptions.

First of all, I find you putting Snuka and Piper along the lines of Hogan, Sammartino, Cena, Triple H, etc rather pathetic. Piper was a level below them, and Snuka about 5 levels below them.

And no, just winning matches wouldn't define it either, as then guys like Eugene (who won 66% of his matches) would be considered better then Ric Flair (who won 46%).

As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, your argument holds similar examples of exceptions like this.

If there is one exception to the rule, it is Andre the Giant. He was an all time great, but more of a traveling sideshow who would appear for various promotions.

One more asterisk to add to your argument.

Jake Roberts was not at all an all-time great. He never was a top draw, he never was a main eventer, etc. He was a good wrestler, but hardly an all-time great. And yeah, he invented the DDT, good for him. If inventing a popular move gets you to be an all-time great, then half the wrestlers in the past are all-time greats, as they invented moves too. Someone had to invent the body-slam, dropkick, and the dreaded big boot. That doesn't mean they are great.

Don't think Jake the Snake works? How about Ricky Steamboat? Don't like that example? How about Scott Hall? How about Ted DiBiase? How about Curt Hennig? How about Owen Hart? All of these guys, including Jake, were so great that their legacy has stretched far beyond the ends of their performance careers. They left a lasting mark on the business and on the fans. That is more of a definition of greatness that just a leather strap.

And yeah, it kinda was 2 sentences. But it was 2 sentences that have been more accurate then every sentence you have written so far. I'll take it.

In all walks of life, people consider others great for their accomplishments. Great athletes are great because of their accomplishments (championships, awards, records, etc), and the same is true for all occupations. The same is true for wrestlers. The ability to put on “good matches” (again, very subjective, as some peoples good matches are shit matches to others), being charismatic (again, subjective, some people would argue that guys aren't as charismatic as others think), or being athletic, or being different are not what makes people great. If that was the case, then guys like The Boogeyman (different), William Regal (good matches), Shelton Benjamin (Athletic), or Road Dogg (Charismatic) would all be all-time greats. They aren't.

How can you go back to "all walks of life blah blah blah..." and "Great athletes are blah blah blah..." when earlier you blasted the use of Dan Marino? More cherry picking again I see. See, as you said earlier, what the difference is in wrestling is that the title is given, not earned through competition.

What does that mean? It means the number of title runs and length of them are a suspect measure to use when gauging the greatness of any one wrestler. Titles these days switch hands in the blink of an eye. Title back in the 70's and 80's tended to stay put for long periods of time. Across all of it, the choices for champion were made as often for political reasons as they were to reward great performers. The promoter put the belt on who they liked best; isn't that subjective as well?

What is real and tangible is the legacy of the performer. The marks they made. The impressions that they left behind. These are some of the things which define greatness. You are putting eggs into one faulty basket by trying to determine greatness solely by title history.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I'm sorry, was that one of the choices you could make in the beginning? I'm pretty sure the option was "Championship belts define greatness". I mean, I understand why you are trying to veer it off into a more specific direction. However, this is again what I mean by you needing to add asterisks to the argument. Funny how you have to refine the original statement until you get it to something you might be able to argue.

Yes, it was a choice I could make in the beginning. The options were Championships define greatness” or “Championships do not define greatness.” I chose Championships define greatness, and have given examples of how they do. “Championships do not define greatness” means that they never do. I have proven that they do in some cases, which means my argument has merit.

Like the Austin example earlier, I've never seen anyone in this day and age go "you know why RVD is great? Because he held teh ECW TV Title". Are opinions of his performances subjective? Sure. Does that matter? Not in the least. For whatever reason, people flocked to see him (and to a degree, still do). Nobody buys a TNA ticket to go see RVD simply because he was a champion in the past; they buy the ticket to see RVD because RVD is a great. The man is bigger than the number of titles he's held or how long he held them.

Again, you are choosing to look at this saying championships do not MAKE greatness. Yeah, people don't say “RVD is great because he held the ECW TV Title.” But holding the ECW TV Title for 23+ Months is the very first thing you see when you read bios about him, because it was his greatest accomplishment, and it is the only thing he ever did that defines whatever greatness he is.

It's that talent, charisma, and all those other "subjective" traits which get one over. Those are definable qualities that are responsible for greatness. What drives the fans to come to the shows? What motivates them to shell out their money for tickets and shirts and autographs? What makes these performers great in the eyes of the people? It's not the silly props; it's the performers themselves. When someone brings up a performer I know nothing about, and tries to convince me of their greatness, I don't care what their championship record looks like. I want to actually see them perform.

Again, people don't watch guys because they won the belts. If you actually read a word I have said I never said they do. Their talents make people watch them. But when it's all said and done, the first thing you read about a guy when you read a bio about him is that he's a __-Time Champion.

Well, Ziggler and Del Rio have spent more time hunting down world titles than your later example of Andre the Giant did. Are you going to try and argue that Andre the Giant was not a true great? And if you admit that he is, doesn't that kinda blow a hole in your argument?

No, I'd say that Andre The Giant was a sideshow freak (I mean that with all due respect) that never was around long enough anywhere to be able to hold the title. Once Vince McMahon signed him to a more exclusive contract, he ended up being given both the WWE Title (which he promptly sold to DiBiase and the belt was stripped) and the Tag Team Titles (with Haku).

Oh, lol, selective memory. I'm not getting dragged into this argument here, but I will say that:

A: There was more going on then to affect WWF's business, most of which had nothing to do with HBK.

B: HBK ended up coming back to the best years of his career, which include some proven draws (like his matches with The Undertaker at Wrestlemania).

But hey, I get it if you need to nitpick to try and seem like you're still in this thing. That's cool.

So when Shawn Michaels was on top, he wasn't drawing money. You admit it too. Good. And using WrestleMania as an example of how someone was a draw? Do you really think a match makes WrestleMania a draw? It doesn't.


And if Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker were so good draws, why did less people order WrestleMania XXV with HBK/Taker 1 (975,000) then WrestleMania XXIV without HBK/Taker (1,058,000)? And why did even less people order WrestleMania XXVI with HBK/Taker 2 (885,000) then WrestleMania XXV (975,000)? Then more people ordered WrestleMania XXVII (1,042,000), which is immediately AFTER the 2 Shawn Michaels/Undertaker matches.


WrestleMania XXIV: http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/74831
WrestleMania XXV: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2009/1244161338.php
WrestleMania XXVI: http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/wwe-news/wrestlemania-xxvi-buys-nose-dive.php
WrestleMania XXVII: http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/wwe-news/wwe-releases-wrestlemania-xxvii-buy-rate.php

It's those different attributes that these greats (which you listed in the first place) are remembered for. When people talk about how great they are/were, those are the reasons they give, not simply that they held the belts a few times.

Funny, I'd like to introduce you to someone whose greatness is completely defined by his championships.

​

Ladies and Gentlemen, the 16 time Worlds Heavyweight Champion, Ric Flair. I introduce him as the 16 time Worlds Heavyweight Champion, because every time he is introduces, that is the first thing people mention. Not his charisma, not his technical ability, his CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Funny because Piper is one of the very few guys to have picked up a clean win over Hogan in his prime. He's often remembered as one of the greatest heels of all time, his promo skills were near unmatched, and he consistently tops any list of greatest wrestlers to never win a world title. Piper's legacy in wrestling runs deep, so to try and dismiss him as not being truly great is a betrayal of your own ignorance.

Hogan did not lose to Piper clean in his prime. (that's a link, click it)

Hogans prime is in the WWF. Hogan never lost to Piper clean. Hogan won by DQ at War to Settle the Score, Hogan won at Mania I, Hogan won at The Wrestling Classic in November of 85. Pipers only wins vs. Hogan came in the late 90's, when they were both in their late 40's/early 50's, far and away past their prime. And no, Piper is a step below those guys. Hogan is an all-time great, Piper is great. Hogan (along with Sammartino, Austin, Rock, Cena, etc) is on a totally different level. Piper is right below them.

What set Stone Cold apart was that he excited the crowds in a way unseen since the prime of Hulk Hogan, and even then there is room to speculate whether Austin got bigger pops than the Hulkster. What set Stone Cold apart were things like his "Austin 3:16" promo, which became an overnight sensation. What made Stone Cold great, what defines his greatness, is that the people loved and embraced him like no other before or after.

And yet, when you read about Stone Cold Steve Austin, what is the first bit of information you hear about? His championship reigns.

While The Miz isn't totally shit, he isn't quite a great either. Nonetheless, the man has had one of the longest world title reigns seen in modern wrestling recently. MVP has held the US Championship almost as long as the likes of Ric Flair and Lex Luger. Does that make him a great? I know you'll be able to come back with yet another asterisk to add to your point to explain these two exceptions, but the point is that I haven't seen you give one good reason as to how and why championship belts define greatness that isn't plagued by multiple exceptions.

They had the title once, then were forgotten about again, toiling in the mid-card. Again, it's not just winning the title, it's always being around the title that I have argued.

Don't think Jake the Snake works? How about Ricky Steamboat? Don't like that example? How about Scott Hall? How about Ted DiBiase? How about Curt Hennig? How about Owen Hart? All of these guys, including Jake, were so great that their legacy has stretched far beyond the ends of their performance careers. They left a lasting mark on the business and on the fans. That is more of a definition of greatness that just a leather strap.

Those guys aren't All-time greats. You want proof? Go ask someone who doesn't watch wrestling. They've heard of Hogan. They've heard of The Rock. They've likely heard of Austin. Probably even Flair, Cena, and maybe even Sammartino. No way in hell have they heard of any of these midcard guys from the 80's/90's.


To compare them to mainstream sports guys (like you always want to do), Austin/Rock/Flair etc are like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Derek Jeter, and Albert Pujols. DiBiase/Hennig/Owen/Hall/etc are like Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Joe Gordon, and Bill Mazeroski. Note they are all in the hall of fame, but to compare the first group to the second group is nonsense.

How can you go back to "all walks of life blah blah blah..." and "Great athletes are blah blah blah..." when earlier you blasted the use of Dan Marino? More cherry picking again I see. See, as you said earlier, what the difference is in wrestling is that the title is given, not earned through competition.

Very simple. You're saying that Dan Marino didn't win a championship so my argument is nonsense. That thought is nonsense because Championships in Wrestling are not the same as Championships in sports. Championships are won by winning games in Football. Championships are given at the choice of the promoter in Wrestling. If the commissioner of the NFL was able to just give out Super Bowls, he'd have given one to Marino. Of course that's not how Super Bowls are awarded.

What does that mean? It means the number of title runs and length of them are a suspect measure to use when gauging the greatness of any one wrestler. Titles these days switch hands in the blink of an eye. Title back in the 70's and 80's tended to stay put for long periods of time. Across all of it, the choices for champion were made as often for political reasons as they were to reward great performers. The promoter put the belt on who they liked best; isn't that subjective as well?

No, it's not at all subjective.
1sub·jec·tive

3: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind — compare objective


Nothing is perceived about being the champion. It's a physical belt.


And while there were political reasons people would have the belt occasionally, the greats were in the title hunt. And the people that didn't deserve the title never got to consistently hold it.

What is real and tangible is the legacy of the performer. The marks they made. The impressions that they left behind. These are some of the things which define greatness. You are putting eggs into one faulty basket by trying to determine greatness solely by title history.

If the legacy of the performer is defined by all this nonsense, why is it that the very first thing mentioned in a bio about all the greats is the Championships? I hate to quote Wikipedia, but it's the only non-wrestling oriented website that I can get online, and it really does hold merit for the argument I'm making.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_flair
First paragraph, first accomplishment mentioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan
Third paragraph, second accomplishment mentioned behind Hall of Fame induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Sammartino
First paragraph, first accomplishment mentioned (in the second sentence no less)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_cold_steve_austin
Second paragraph.


If these guys are defined by their performances, their entries would read “He is a professional wrestler who had great matches with [insert name of wrestlers here].” Or “He is a professional wrestler who had great promos.”


No, it says “He is a professional wrestler who is a __-time Worlds Champion.”

 

[DirtyJosé]

Again, you are choosing to look at this saying championships do not MAKE greatness. Yeah, people don't say “RVD is great because he held the ECW TV Title.” But holding the ECW TV Title for 23+ Months is the very first thing you see when you read bios about him, because it was his greatest accomplishment, and it is the only thing he ever did that defines whatever greatness he is.

I'm hoping you aren't going to make "the order in which information is presented on Wikipedia" your argument going forward.

Again, people don't watch guys because they won the belts. If you actually read a word I have said I never said they do. Their talents make people watch them. But when it's all said and done, the first thing you read about a guy when you read a bio about him is that he's a __-Time Champion.

Ugh, you are, aren't you?

Anyway, when you actually start TALKING with anyone about the greats and why they are great, you actually start talking the reasons, and about the DEFINING TRAITS of those performers.

So when Shawn Michaels was on top, he wasn't drawing money. You admit it too. Good. And using WrestleMania as an example of how someone was a draw? Do you really think a match makes WrestleMania a draw? It doesn't.


And if Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker were so good draws, why did less people order WrestleMania XXV with HBK/Taker 1 (975,000) then WrestleMania XXIV without HBK/Taker (1,058,000)?

Wasn't there, like, a crazy economic crisis in between these two shows?

And why did even less people order WrestleMania XXVI with HBK/Taker 2 (885,000) then WrestleMania XXV (975,000)? Then more people ordered WrestleMania XXVII (1,042,000), which is immediately AFTER the 2 Shawn Michaels/Undertaker matches.

The long-awaited return of The Rock.

And, since I can tell you've got a stiffy for "lists" and "awards", let's pull up some of HBK's:

Pro Wrestling Illustrated
PWI Feud of the Year (2008) vs. Chris Jericho
PWI Match of the Year (1993)[187] vs. Marty Jannetty on Monday Night Raw on May 17
PWI Match of the Year (1994)[188] vs. Razor Ramon in a Ladder match at WrestleMania X
PWI Match of the Year (1995)[6] vs. Diesel at WrestleMania XI
PWI Match of the Year (1996)[6] vs. Bret Hart in an Iron Man match at WrestleMania XII
PWI Match of the Year (2004)[187] vs. Chris Benoit and Triple H at WrestleMania XX
PWI Match of the Year (2005)[187] vs. Kurt Angle at WrestleMania 21
PWI Match of the Year (2006)[187] vs. Vince McMahon in a No Holds Barred match at WrestleMania 22
PWI Match of the Year (2007)[187] vs. John Cena on Raw on April 23
PWI Match of the Year (2008)[187] vs. Ric Flair at WrestleMania XXIV
PWI Match of the Year (2009)[189] vs. The Undertaker at WrestleMania XXV
PWI Match of the Year (2010) vs. The Undertaker in a Career vs. Streak match at WrestleMania XXVI

Oh, yeah, and about that million who bought WM27? 1.3 bought WM28, which featured HBK in a HHH/Undertaker rematch.

Funny, I'd like to introduce you to someone whose greatness is completely defined by his championships.

​

Ladies and Gentlemen, the 16 time Worlds Heavyweight Champion, Ric Flair. I introduce him as the 16 time Worlds Heavyweight Champion, because every time he is introduces, that is the first thing people mention. Not his charisma, not his technical ability, his CHAMPIONSHIPS.

And when that conversation starts, it goes on to why Ric is a great, and even why Ric is 16 time World Heavyweight Champion; due to his talents and his charisma. Many people know Ric for the "Woooo!" more than they do the number of title reigns he's had. You know, I get the point you're trying to make, but if you look up these guys up, the REAL first bit of information you get is that they are professional wrestlers, and maybe a bit about where they worked. So maybe, by your logic, it's that being a professional wrestler is what defines greatness.

Hogans prime is in the WWF. Hogan never lost to Piper clean. Hogan won by DQ at War to Settle the Score, Hogan won at Mania I, Hogan won at The Wrestling Classic in November of 85. Pipers only wins vs. Hogan came in the late 90's, when they were both in their late 40's/early 50's, far and away past their prime. And no, Piper is a step below those guys. Hogan is an all-time great, Piper is great. Hogan (along with Sammartino, Austin, Rock, Cena, etc) is on a totally different level. Piper is right below them.

nWo Hogan is arguably as hot as WWF Hogan, and for certain was the last time he was any relevant.

And yet, when you read about Stone Cold Steve Austin, what is the first bit of information you hear about? His championship reigns.

Usually it's his name, followed by his stage name, and the fact that he was a professional wrestler. Really? This is the leg you want to stand on?

They had the title once, then were forgotten about again, toiling in the mid-card. Again, it's not just winning the title, it's always being around the title that I have argued.

Those guys aren't All-time greats. You want proof? Go ask someone who doesn't watch wrestling. They've heard of Hogan. They've heard of The Rock. They've likely heard of Austin. Probably even Flair, Cena, and maybe even Sammartino. No way in hell have they heard of any of these midcard guys from the 80's/90's.

To compare them to mainstream sports guys (like you always want to do), Austin/Rock/Flair etc are like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Derek Jeter, and Albert Pujols. DiBiase/Hennig/Owen/Hall/etc are like Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Joe Gordon, and Bill Mazeroski. Note they are all in the hall of fame, but to compare the first group to the second group is nonsense.

They're all in the Hall of Fame. Let's just dwell on that for a second.

Very simple. You're saying that Dan Marino didn't win a championship so my argument is nonsense. That thought is nonsense because Championships in Wrestling are not the same as Championships in sports. Championships are won by winning games in Football. Championships are given at the choice of the promoter in Wrestling. If the commissioner of the NFL was able to just give out Super Bowls, he'd have given one to Marino. Of course that's not how Super Bowls are awarded.


No, it's not at all subjective.
1sub·jec·tive

3: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind — compare objective


Nothing is perceived about being the champion. It's a physical belt.

No silly. The will that puts that belt on the champion. The promoter. His choice is based on reality as they perceive it, no? He wants to put it on his friend, or himself. Or on the guy he thinks kisses his ass enough.

And while there were political reasons people would have the belt occasionally, the greats were in the title hunt. And the people that didn't deserve the title never got to consistently hold it.

The true greats are remembered for things they've done and gifts they had. Maybe being able to ask any non-fan on the street who they may have heard of or consulting lists of names and numbers may be the way you determine greatness, but I prefer a more educated approach. Like you say, this isn't like normal sports; these "stats" and numbers are manufactured. People's entire places on the totem pole are determined not by accomplishment, but by the will of others. Sometimes the cream rises to the top, and sometimes it's held down. But true greatness doesn't need something like a prop to define it.

If the legacy of the performer is defined by all this nonsense, why is it that the very first thing mentioned in a bio about all the greats is the Championships? I hate to quote Wikipedia, but it's the only non-wrestling oriented website that I can get online, and it really does hold merit for the argument I'm making.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ric_flair
First paragraph, first accomplishment mentioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan
Third paragraph, second accomplishment mentioned behind Hall of Fame induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Sammartino
First paragraph, first accomplishment mentioned (in the second sentence no less)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_cold_steve_austin
Second paragraph.


If these guys are defined by their performances, their entries would read “He is a professional wrestler who had great matches with [insert name of wrestlers here].” Or “He is a professional wrestler who had great promos.”


No, it says “He is a professional wrestler who is a __-time Worlds Champion.”

So, you're really going to make Wikipedia argue for you? Wow.

Conclusion​

When I talk about greats in wrestling with friends and fellow fans, we don't waste time with bits about made up stats. Bringing up "number of title reigns" isn't as powerful as bringing up the moments. The memories. When you remember a great...when you think of them and try to define them, what do you use? Those memories? Those personality traits? Those physical talents? Or numbers?

Wrestlemaina Buyrate Information: WWE.com

 

[D-Man]

Ok, this debate is now closed.

Judges, you may begin.

 

[CH David]

Clarity - That opening from Jose was great. Trooper going the route of essentially copying the post but using his own arguments was a nice touch, though. Spacing was nice from both, but a very good opener, with pictures, gets this.

Point - DirtyJosé

Punctuality - Jose was late and Trooper wasn't.

Point - Stormtrooper

Informative - Both brought in nice info. I'll give this one to Stormtrooper for having a smidge more.

Point - Stormtrooper

Persuasion - Jose got this from me. Having a championship doesn't define your greatness, and Andre is the primo example. I was confused at the argument of greats vs. all time greats, simply because the word "great" is still freaking there. Trooper also didn't have a real answer for the guys who have held the title but have failed to really be considered anything great or memorable just for holding said title.

Points - DirtyJosé

CH David scores this DirtyJosé 3, Stormtrooper 2.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

Clarity: Stormtrooper's style was nice...but confused me at first. I was quite confused when I saw his post was nearly identical to Jose's and as such, I'm going to go with the Dirty One (for those of you not familiar with WZCW, I mean Jose).

Punctuality: Stormtrooper was not late.

Informative: Ratings, awards lists and the like all contribute to Stormtrooper's victory in this field.

Persuasion: I've never felt having a belt defined you as a great wrestler. Example: Ted DiBiase is arguably the greatest heel of all time and he never held a singles world title in either the NWA or WWF. That said, Stormtrooper tried to sway me and though I liked some of his points, Jose really did a number on him here for me.

FunKay Scores It: Jose: 3, Stromtrooper: 2

 

[Nate DaMac]

Clarity- I'm going with Jose here. Opener and closer was better, and his posts were concise throughout. I liked a lot of what ST had to say, but I felt that Dirty presented his side better.

- DirtyJose

Punctuality- Stormtrooper wasn't late.

- Stormtrooper

Informative- They both presented their facts, but I think Jose made them work for him a little better.

-DirtyJose

Persuasion- It was a tough call here, but I think Stormtrooper won me over a bit more. Everyone can make the argument that championships don't define the performers, though Dirty certainly did better than any other I've seen. But I've never seen anyone competently argue the other side and Stormy more than did that. I've always felt the same way as Dirty, but I found myself agreeing with Stormy's side more and more.

- Stormtrooper

Nate scores it DirtyJose 2, Stormtrooper 3.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Clarity: DirtyJose. That opener was perfect in terms of organization and style! He had more organized posts throughout the debate as well.

Punctuality: DirtyJose. His responses were generally a little quicker.

Informative: Stormtrooper. I felt he did the better job of incorporating information from his research into his posts.

Persuasion: Stormtrooper. This one was a tough pick, but his final post was what convinced me that he had the stronger statement. Good job guys!

I scored it as: Stormtrooper 3, DirtyJose 2.

 

[D-Man]

After Dagger's judging, the score is tied 10-10. Therefore, I must make the final judgment to break the tie. However, I do not need to judge every category in this debate to come to a final decision.

It seems Dagger made an error in his judgment and didn't notice that DirtyJose was late with two of his posts. Stormtrooper was on time with all of his. Therefore, I am over-ruling Dagger Punctuality point in favor of DirtyJose and I'm giving it to Stormtrooper.

This gives Stormtrooper the win as he defeats Dirty Jose 11-9 in a very close decision. Stormtrooper will now move into the Winner's final bracket #27 to face The Killjoy. DirtyJose is down but not out as he is bumped to Loser's bracket #26.

Good work by both participants.