WWE Region, Philadelphis Subregion,Second Round:(3)Undertaker vs.(14)Mitsuharu Misawa

[Bernkastel]

You missed the entire point of what I was saying.

I was looking at 'Taker in terms of his entire career, because if there is one wrestler throughout this entire tournament that doesn't really have a defined, "prime", it's 'Taker. He's spent almost 23 years as a main event level performer and has routinely been among the top 3 most popular with in the WWE. Sure, being the top draw is better, however, through out 'Taker's entire career as a main event level performer, which again is almost 23 years, I think it would be safe to say that 'Taker has drawn pretty well.

Wrong. Being the top draw in a major promotion will always, always top being the 3rd or 4th biggest draws. I've shown why Misawa is better than the Undertaker, and why he should be voted over. This is not top draw vs top draw, this is top draw vs 3rd or 4th biggest draw.

And I'm haven't factored in Misawa's contribution with NOAH - where he created his own company, took all the people that were wroth a shit with him because of his star power and ability to make money, and within a year or two NOAH was putting All Japan in a financial hole. I can only think of one wrestler in the States that did something like that - put their old employer in a financial crisis - and that was Hulk Hogan.

No, Undertaker should not win this match.

 

[Con T.]

Also, Misawa was the top draw in Japan for what? A decade? 'Taker has been routinely one of the top 3 draws for the WWE for much longer than that ?

Oh? Was he now?

Allow me to show you something here; Undie started in 1990, but really had his first year in the business in 1991, right? Well, let's look at that time, from then until 2004. I'll spare you the last nine years, as he's had limited house show tours in that time. On the list of top house draws during that time, you'll find some pretty interesting things...

1990 - 1. Hulk Hogan; 2. Ultimate Warrior; 3. Stan Hansen; 4. Mr. Perfect; 5. Riki Choshu; 6. Konnan and Rick Rude; 8. Big Van Vader, Perro Aguayo and Earthquake

1991 - 1. Hulk Hogan; 2. Ric Flair; 3. Konnan; 4. Perro Aguayo; 5. Sgt. Slaughter; 6. Ultimate Warrior; 7. Tatsumi Fujinami; 8. Undertaker, Genichiro Tenryu and Canek

1992 - 1. Ric Flair; 2. Konnan; 3. Hulk Hogan and Sid Vicious; 5. Cien Caras; 6. Bret Hart; 7. Randy Savage; 8. Vampiro; 9. Davey Boy Smith; 10. Perro Aguayo

1993 - 1. Konnan; 2. Cien Caras; 3. Perro Aguayo; 4. Genichiro Tenryu; 5. Mascara Ano 2000 and El Hijo del Santo; 7. Keiji Muto; 8. Riki Choshu, Love Machine, Octagon and Tatsumi Fujinami (Bret Hart was No. 1 in the United States)

1994 - 1. Konnan; 2. Bret Hart; 3. Shinya Hashimoto; 4. Nobuhiko Takada and Perro Aguayo; 6. Genichiro Tenryu; 7. Antonio Inoki, Owen Hart and Love Machine; 10. Cien Caras, Keiji Muto and Atsushi Onita

1995 - 1. Shinya Hashimoto; 2. Ric Flair; 3. Antonio Inoki; 4. Konnan and Keiji Muto; 6. Perro Aguayo; 7. Masahiro Chono; 8. Mitsuharu Misawa and Cien Caras; 10. Nobuhiko Takada and Diesel

1996 - 1. Nobuhiko Takada; 2. Shawn Michaels; 3. Shinya Hashimoto; 4. Bret Hart; 5. Keiji Muto; 6. Diesel; 7. Ric Flair, Kenta Kobashi, Toshiaki Kawada, Akira Taue, Vader, Genichiro Tenryu, El Hijo del Santo and Riki Choshu

1997 - 1. Shinya Hashimoto; 2. Undertaker; 3. Shawn Michaels; 4. Bret Hart; 5. Naoya Ogawa; 6. Lex Luger and Keiji Muto; 8. Steve Austin; 9. Hulk Hogan; 10. Riki Choshu, Kevin Nash and Mick Foley

1998 - 1. Steve Austin (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. Undertaker; 3. Kane; 4. Mick Foley; 5. The Rock; 6. Bill Goldberg; 7. Hulk Hogan; 8. HHH; 9. Sting; 10. Randy Savage

1999 - 1. The Rock (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. Steve Austin; 3. HHH; 4. Big Show; 5. Kane; 6. Undertaker; 7. Keiji Muto; 8. Bill Goldberg; 9. Ric Flair; 10. Kevin Nash

2000 - 1. The Rock (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. HHH; 3. Kurt Angle; 4. Kane and Chris Benoit; 6. X-Pac; 7. Undertaker; 8. Road Dogg; 9. Naoya Ogawa; 10. Kensuke Sasaki and Chris Jericho

2001 - 1. Steve Austin; 2. The Rock; 3. Kurt Angle; 4. HHH; 5. Undertaker; 6. Chris Jericho; 7. Kane; 8. Kensuke Sasaki, Chris Benoit and Keiji Muto

2002 -1. The Rock; 2. Bob Sapp; 3. HHH; 4. Hulk Hogan; 5. Chris Jericho; 6. Steve Austin; 7. Kazushi Sakuraba; 8. Brock Lesnar; 9. Yuji Nagata and Mirko Cro Cop

2003 - 1. Brock Lesnar; 2. HHH; 3. Kazushi Sakuraba; 4. Big Show and Kurt Angle; 6. Yuji Nagata, Hulk Hogan, Kenta Kobashi, Masahiro Chono, Bill Goldberg, Shawn Michaels and Wanderlei Silva

Now, I know what you're thinking here; what's so bad about that, it proves he was a top draw during the best years in the business. What you also might notice are a couple things;

1. Undertaker's longevity as a draw, relatively speaking, is a crock. He was a name, but as a draw, he didn't even factor as a "top 3" draw for WWF during that time. In fact, the first time he shows up on the list is 1997. Up until then, Diesel was actually a better draw.

And before you ask; I can assure you, Taker's name does not appear after 2003. So that longevity thing is largely a myth.

2. You may notice that Taker has a pretty good run there from 97 to 2003. What's missing when you say that, though, is that the WWE was the only US company doing massive touring from about 2001 to the present day. Many WWE guys are going to saturate the list.

And speaking of saturating the list:

1999 - 1. The Rock (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. Steve Austin; 3. HHH; 4. Big Show; 5. Kane; 6. Undertaker; 7. Keiji Muto; 8. Bill Goldberg; 9. Ric Flair; 10. Kevin Nash

2000 - 1. The Rock (set all-time record for most big gates in one year); 2. HHH; 3. Kurt Angle; 4. Kane and Chris Benoit; 6. X-Pac; 7. Undertaker; 8. Road Dogg; 9. Naoya Ogawa; 10. Kensuke Sasaki and Chris Jericho

2001 - 1. Steve Austin; 2. The Rock; 3. Kurt Angle; 4. HHH; 5. Undertaker; 6. Chris Jericho; 7. Kane; 8. Kensuke Sasaki, Chris Benoit and Keiji Muto

You might notice in those specific years, mainly WWE names populate the list. Even when Taker is up there, there are about four or five WWE guys on top. So saying he's a top three draw for the WWE isn't really all that true. At all.

You got 97 and 98. And 98 was a year where Steve Austin ruled the world, and whoever got the chance was going going to wind up with money.

So in short, you're rather wrong

 

[Bernkastel]

Maybe he wasn't but are you really ignorant enough to put Misawa on the same level as Austin, Rock and Cena? I guess Carlos Colon and Eddie Graham are better than Taker as well then because they could draw in a specific geographic region as well. I never said Undertaker was the top draw of WWE I just said he was in fact a draw.

That's debatable, but this match isn't Misawa vs Austin/Rock/Cena, it's Misawa vs Undertaker.

Were Eddie Graham and Carlos Colon the top draw of the [arguable at the time] most successful promotion of their countries at the time? Were they selling out shows eveywhere they went, and did it consistently for more than half a decade? If so, then yes they were better than Taker.

But they certainly have toured Japan and have done pretty well for themselves in the land of the rising sun. Certainly much better than AJPW has done anywhere that isn't Japan.

But they did so as WWE, not Taker and Friends. When guys like Muta, Rikidozan, and Inoki wrestled in the States, they weren't representing anyone but themselves.

Neutral playing field may be fair but it's not realistic at ALL.

Show me a match were Misawa wrestled in the States, and Undertaker wrestled in All Japan and I'll concede.... oh wait, you can't? Then it's realistic.

Matches are often booked based on where the opponents are fighting. There is nothing neutral about them fighting in Philly. You may not like it but it's certainly more plausible then what you are suggesting. Wrestling and the world isn't fair, get over it.

This is a tournament to determine the best wrestler ever, right? So the better wrestler should go forward, and that's Misawa. Why? Because he was a bigger draw.

A vote for Taker is simply cuz you like him more.

Once again he was booked often over those top stars, most of which are bigger than Misawa. Just because Misawa did well in 1 region of the world doesn't mean he would do well everywhere.

Not only is that debatable, but you're speaking strictly kayfabe. Maven beat the Undertaker once, so I guess he's a bigger star. And your reasoning that says that "Undertaker" could have been big in Japan in the 90's is where? Not all foreigners that go to Japan get over you know.

Once again The Undertaker ISN'T facing Austin or The Rock! He's facing a guy who was a big in 1 country.

And was still bigger than Undertaker was in the WWE.

It's not like he's facing someone who didn't have a chance to be a worldwide star. Misawa however wrestled during the same timeframe as Taker did.

Perhaps because there wasn't any money to made in becoming an international star, and he could and did make more being AJPW top star? You act as if being an international star [which Taker was definitely not either] is the be all end all, and it's not.

He was the top draw for All Japan, I get that but it doesn't change the fact he did fuck all anywhere else. As I said before you may as well argue Carlos Colon over Taker because he was a top draw in Puerto Rico.

Cuz he didn't wrestle anywhere else, and neither did Taker. You'd have a point if All Japan wasn't a big promotion, but it was. And it was arguably the top promotion in the country with Misawa as top draw.

Drawing in 1 part of the world doesn't make you a bigger draw. Undertaker wasn't the top draw but he drew fans in everywhere he went whether it was Canada, US, Europe, Middle East, Africa or a hundred other places he wrestled.

No, Taker had fans vicariously through WWE whereever they went. And they did not start really touring internationally until after the Attitude Era - which was their prime era for income.

Yeah because drawing well in 1 country makes you a bigger overall draw then a guy who drew in a number of countries.[.quote]

Taker did not draw in other countries, WWE did. And I don't recall Taker even being on the active roster when they toured japan.

Take Undertaker and put him in lets say England. Take Misawa and put him in the same place. Now lets see who draws more fans. Now lets do that and put both wrestlers in every other country where wrestling has a fan base and see who draws better. Do you really believe Misawa would beat out The Undertaker? Good luck with that!

If you want to be realistic, Misawa would have won hands down, or else Baba - his promoter - would not have done the business in the first place. Undertaker wasn't even the biggest draw in his promotion, and no promotion is going to take 3rd or 4th biggest over THE biggest.

Yes I get he did well at drawing yen. Unfortunately he never did it with other currency. You're taking Misawa because he was a big star in Japan and nowhere else. Taker was a big star EVERYWHERE! Who cares if he wasn't the #1 guy, his competition is Austin, Rock, Hogan and Cena, NOT Misawa! And don't give me some ridiculous speech about how Misawa was as big as a draw as Austin, Rock, Hogan or Cena because he certainly isn't. Put Misawa in the WWE and lets see how well he does.

So now you're being racist, as if drawing in Japan somehow doesn't count. Undertaker didn't draw in other countries... WWE did.

His opponent is Misawa in this tournament, and since Misawa was the objectively better wrestler he should win.

You're voting for a guy who did well in ONE region on the planet and you are calling everyone else stupid.

Yes compared to Taker, who also wrestled in one promotion and wasn't even WWE's top draw.

The Undertaker is one of the most influential and popular wrestlers of all time and did so at a time where every major American wrestler over the past 20 years was wrestling. At times he main evented over every single one of them on major shows and small. Stop comparing Japan over the rest of the world because that's exactly what you are doing. You're only argument in "Misawa did better in All Japan than Taker did in WWE". The ponds aren't in no way the same size.

I'm not comparing Japan to the rest of the world, nor did I ever. That's been on you the whole time, bud. I compared All Japan to WWE since they were both major promotions, and I called Misawa better because he drew more over a longer period.

Thanks though, for continuously proving that stupid, subjective people will vote Undertaker.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Oh? Was he now?

Allow me to show you something here; Undie started in 1990, but really had his first year in the business in 1991, right? Well, let's look at that time, from then until 2004. I'll spare you the last nine years, as he's had limited house show tours in that time. On the list of top house draws during that time, you'll find some pretty interesting things...




Now, I know what you're thinking here; what's so bad about that, it proves he was a top draw during the best years in the business. What you also might notice are a couple things;

1. Undertaker's longevity as a draw, relatively speaking, is a crock. He was a name, but as a draw, he didn't even factor as a "top 3" draw for WWF during that time. In fact, the first time he shows up on the list is 1997. Up until then, Diesel was actually a better draw.

And before you ask; I can assure you, Taker's name does not appear after 2003. So that longevity thing is largely a myth.

2. You may notice that Taker has a pretty good run there from 97 to 2003. What's missing when you say that, though, is that the WWE was the only US company doing massive touring from about 2001 to the present day. Many WWE guys are going to saturate the list.

And speaking of saturating the list:



You might notice in those specific years, mainly WWE names populate the list. Even when Taker is up there, there are about four or five WWE guys on top. So saying he's a top three draw for the WWE isn't really all that true. At all.

You got 97 and 98. And 98 was a year where Steve Austin ruled the world, and whoever got the chance was going going to wind up with money.

So in short, you're rather wrong

Where did you get this information?

 

[Con T.]

Wrestling Observer; namely Dave Meltzer. Though he is quick to point out that the data comes elsewhere, can't find it now, but when I do, I'll link it.

Point is, Taker isn't nearly as big for WWE business as people make him out to be. He's a nice part of the show for the majority of his career, a special attraction that makes the show more filled out.

But is he a top three draw for WWE, consistently? No

 

[PsychoBlack]

Oh? Was he now?

Allow me to show you something here; Undie started in 1990, but really had his first year in the business in 1991, right? Well, let's look at that time, from then until 2004. I'll spare you the last nine years, as he's had limited house show tours in that time. On the list of top house draws during that time, you'll find some pretty interesting things...




Now, I know what you're thinking here; what's so bad about that, it proves he was a top draw during the best years in the business. What you also might notice are a couple things;

1. Undertaker's longevity as a draw, relatively speaking, is a crock. He was a name, but as a draw, he didn't even factor as a "top 3" draw for WWF during that time. In fact, the first time he shows up on the list is 1997. Up until then, Diesel was actually a better draw.

And before you ask; I can assure you, Taker's name does not appear after 2003. So that longevity thing is largely a myth.

2. You may notice that Taker has a pretty good run there from 97 to 2003. What's missing when you say that, though, is that the WWE was the only US company doing massive touring from about 2001 to the present day. Many WWE guys are going to saturate the list.

And speaking of saturating the list:



You might notice in those specific years, mainly WWE names populate the list. Even when Taker is up there, there are about four or five WWE guys on top. So saying he's a top three draw for the WWE isn't really all that true. At all.

You got 97 and 98. And 98 was a year where Steve Austin ruled the world, and whoever got the chance was going going to wind up with money.

So in short, you're rather wrong

Well, you made yourself look like an ass here that's for sure. Taker appears on this list way more times than Misawa proving that Taker was a bigger draw. I don't know how you can say he wasn't when the proof is right there in what you just posted. I have another list made by Meltzer and it will also show that Taker was a much larger draw then Misawa was and also proving that Misawa was never the biggest draw in Japan

1990 - 1999: 1. Konnan; 2. Shinya Hashimoto; 3. Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair; 5. Perro Aguayo; 6. Keiji Muto; 7. Undertaker; 8. Bret Hart; 9. Steve Austin; 10. Nobuhiko Takada

This came from a list that Meltzer compiled that shows the top draws decade by Decade In the 90's only two other primarily American wrestlers (who are arguably the two greatest of all time) were bigger draws throughout the entire decade than the Deadman. 3 Japanese wrestlers appear on this list and none of them happen to be Mitsuharu Misawa.

All of this Misawa dick riding must stop. Undertaker was not only superior to him in kayfabe but was also a larger draw nothing else can be said to help Misawa's case after Occam fucked it up for all of the lies you guys have been telling.

 

[Con T.]

You are aware of how Japan runs their business, right?

They don't tour houses of 10,000 people on a 300+ day regiment that WWE and WCW does. When a Japanese guy does appear on the list, it's actually a miracle, when you think about it that way.

In short, you look like an ass, because not only did you try to point to something that you think wasn't true without looking into the Japanese business of how shows are done, but you also kind of come off rather haughty, so there's that.

Also, I've seen that list; it noted that Taker gets a large bump for that 1998 he worked with Austin, as well as the fact that he only really missed one year out of those ten. He's a consistent performer, sure, but not this consistent top 3 or 4 draw for the WWF that we imagine

 

[Bernkastel]

Well, you made yourself look like an ass here that's for sure. Taker appears on this list way more times than Misawa proving that Taker was a bigger draw.

So Meltzer is the be all end all of wrestling stats, right? Don't be ******ed. The fact that Muta made that list is laughable. If Muta was a bigger draw than Misawa like the list suggests, then why did NOAH put All Japan in a financial hole with Muta as their top star?

I don't know how you can say he wasn't when the proof is right there in what you just posted. I have another list made by Meltzer and it will also show that Taker was a much larger draw then Misawa was and also proving that Misawa was never the biggest draw in Japan

That list had Undertaker ranked above Austin, and Hogan was merely 5th overall. That has subjective written all over it... unless you want to argue that Undertaker is a bigger draw than Austin.

You want better proof, look at attendance records across the mid nineties, Misawa and All Japan had numbers that were objectively better than New Japan's for several years.

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=6&page=4&s=1900

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=7&page=4&s=2400

This came from a list that Meltzer compiled that shows the top draws decade by Decade In the 90's only two other primarily American wrestlers (who are arguably the two greatest of all time) were bigger draws throughout the entire decade than the Deadman. 3 Japanese wrestlers appear on this list and none of them happen to be Mitsuharu Misawa. All of this Misawa dick riding must stop. Undertaker was not only superior to him in kayfabe but was also a larger draw nothing else can be said to help Misawa's case after Occam fucked it up for all of the lies you guys have been telling.

So wanking Meltzer somehow makes you credible? Sorry, half of what the guy says as no basis at all. New Japan had better numbers than All Japan in the 80's, where Inoki's star power eclipsed Baba's. That's why Baba began to push other stars. Revenue for All Japan rose with Misawa; under Hashimoto [Inoki's successor] New Japan didn't make anything new, and soon they were on par with All Japan.

 

[PsychoBlack]

You are aware of how Japan runs their business, right?

They don't tour houses of 10,000 people on a 300+ day regiment that WWE and WCW does. When a Japanese guy does appear on the list, it's actually a miracle, when you think about it that way.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't exactly call it a miracle seeing as how during the decade that was supposed to be Misawa's prime, when supposedly he was the biggest draw in Japan and 3 other Japanese wrestlers made the list. With Shinya Hashimota coming in at number 2, Muta at 6, and Takada at 10 having only Muta spending a significant amount of time in the states It's no miracle at all. Misawa just simply wasn't as big of a draw as you insist that he was.

In short, you look like an ass, because not only did you try to point to something that you think wasn't true without looking into the Japanese business of how shows are done, but you also kind of come off rather haughty, so there's that.

Actually your still an ass, for the simple fact that you went and dug up data, and it supported Undertaker more than Misawa. Enough with the name calling though as this should be a friendly debate and not an argument.

Also, I've seen that list; it noted that Taker gets a large bump for that 1998 he worked with Austin, as well as the fact that he only really missed one year out of those ten. He's a consistent performer, sure, but not this consistent top 3 or 4 draw for the WWF that we imagine

He was a top draw for the WWF though in the fact that he was always there and their was always an audience that wanted to see him. Yes he Worked 1998 with Austin, but, what other established main eventer did they have to work him? Rock was on the rise as was HHH and neither were ready to carry the world title for another year or so. We had already saw Austin Foley. Shawn was gone as was Bret. So Taker went in and worked a legendary angle with Austin. Austin couldn't have drew that with just any bum off the streets. Austin became such a big thing because of the people around him. Everybody wanted to see him defeat the Undertaker at SummerSlam 98 because Taker was playing one of the best heel characters we had ever seen. So to say anybody could have paired up with Austin in 1998 is ridiculous because he was the only one that would have been able to do it and make it the success that it was.

 

[PsychoBlack]

So Meltzer is the be all end all of wrestling stats, right? Don't be ******ed. The fact that Muta made that list is laughable. If Muta was a bigger draw than Misawa like the list suggests, then why did NOAH put All Japan in a financial hole with Muta as their top star?

Muta didn't go to All Japan until around 2002 if i'm not mistaken And I'm pretty sure Noah was started two years prior to that. The list is from the 90's so your point about AJPW being in a financial hole is pretty ridiculous seeing as how i posted nothing about AJPW or Muta in the 2000's.

That list had Undertaker ranked above Austin, and Hogan was merely 5th overall. That has subjective written all over it... unless you want to argue that Undertaker is a bigger draw than Austin.

Over the entire course of the 90's Taker was a bigger draw than Austin. Austin had more big gates but taker was consistently one of Vince's selling points through the decade withstanding the test of time. Hogan's tied for 3rd on the list though bro, again stop making things up.

You want better proof, look at attendance records across the mid nineties, Misawa and All Japan had numbers that were objectively better than New Japan's for several years.

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=6&page=4&s=1900

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=7&page=4&s=2400

Seems to me that they both had their big shows and their fairly small ones. That's not what we're arguing here though so I'm still not quite sure why you posted these links. Misawa didn't sell out the big crowds that his New Japan counterparts did and on occasion Hansen, Kobashi, and Kawada proved to draw just as well if not better than Misawa. Your vastly overating his drawing power and you need to stop.

So wanking Meltzer somehow makes you credible? Sorry, half of what the guy says as no basis at all. New Japan had better numbers than All Japan in the 80's, where Inoki's star power eclipsed Baba's. That's why Baba began to push other stars. Revenue for All Japan rose with Misawa; under Hashimoto [Inoki's successor] New Japan didn't make anything new, and soon they were on par with All Japan.

Exactly they were on par with All Japan, however they sold more tickets and put more asses in seats with their big shows than All Japan did. Again though that's not what we're arguing.

Meltzer and his staff researched those hard numbers. They pointed out the flaws in the system and none of the flaws effected Misawa or Taker. I'd say that's a pretty fair comparison. What reason would Meltzer have to lie? He was simply doing a study and those were the results he came up with. When you look at what he was actually saying and doing they make quite a bit of sense. Don't get so butt hurt that i proved you wrong next time it's only a fictional tournament

 

[Bernkastel]

I felt like I disproved most of that other stuff... we know Misawa was a big draw when he helped establish All Japan as a major company again, when New Japan became more successful in the 80's, and he helped drive it into a financial hole when he left.

He was a top draw for the WWF though in the fact that he was always there and their was always an audience that wanted to see him.

A top draw is not the same thing as the top draw. And from 1997 - 2000 that was Austin. Hart also wasn't rated higher than Taker, and he was the top star from 1993 - 1996. Michaels wasn't even on your list either.

Yes he Worked 1998 with Austin, but, what other established main eventer did they have to work him?

In 98? What about Mankind? What about the Rock? Both of those guys were just as popular as Taker.

Rock was on the rise as was HHH and neither were ready to carry the world title for another year or so. We had already saw Austin Foley. Shawn was gone as was Bret. So Taker went in and worked a legendary angle with Austin. Austin couldn't have drew that with just any bum off the streets.

So working with Austin made Taker just as big? Sorry, but I don't recall Taker being anywhere near the revenue pusher as Austin. In this case being a good worker, or having good match is subjective since Misawa did the same thing.

Austin became such a big thing because of the people around him.

I big deal, but not the biggest deal. In fact, he was never the biggest deal.

Everybody wanted to see him defeat the Undertaker at SummerSlam 98 because Taker was playing one of the best heel characters we had ever seen. So to say anybody could have paired up with Austin in 1998 is ridiculous because he was the only one that would have been able to do it and make it the success that it was.

So you're saying Undertakers prime came from when was playing a heel? And he lost to the top guy? Well shit, Misawa was also a top guy so it would make sense for Taker to loose.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

@Echelon - To argue who is in fact a bigger draw I've decided to do so research and look into some things. These things are attendance numbers.

Now I know that Misawa has sold out Budokan Hall a butt load of times, I can see that so what I'm going to do is a little bit of math here. Now Misawa has only done better than 16,300 fans attendance wise twice in his career, Showdown at the Egg on May 1, 98 and May 2 99 for the Baba Memorial Show. Now I don't like to often count memorial shows as often the deceased draws but for arguments sake I will.

Showdown was 58,300
Baba was 55,000

Both very good numbers. He also did numerous Budokan Hall shows and I saw a number of them at 16,300 (I assume that's a sellout). Now lets say Misawa sold out 30 of them (as in he was the main event and that's probably a fairly accurate number actually lets add another 5 which brings it to 35). You may not like it but I'm not counting shows where he packed a 1,500 seat building. I know he's sold more than that but as you can see he's done very well for himself business wise.

Now I'm gonna do the same for Taker. Same rules apply I'm only gonna count events that he was the main event in. I won't even count Wrestlemania 24 as I feel the real main event was Flair vs. HBK even if it didn't go on last. With that said I'm counting WM 25 and 26 as I feel HBK vs. Taker was in both cases the top match on the card even if it didn't go on last. I'll also count all shows Taker was in the main event in.

So lets start at Survivor Series 91 as I feel its a good place to start (If I count matches where Misawa was against a big star I can do the same for Taker, only fair):

I will even change the color of ones where he was definitely in the drawing match.

1) Survivor Series 91 - 17,500
2) Summerslam 94 - 23,000
3) Survivor Series 94 - 10,000
4) Royal Rumble 96 - 9,600
5) IYH: Buried Alive - 9,649
6) IYH: Final 4 - 6,3,99
7) IYH: Cold Day In Hell - 9,381
8) KOTR 97: 9,312
9) Summerslam 97: 20, 213
10) IYH: Ground Zero - 4,963
11) IYH: Bad Blood - 21, 151
12) Royal Rumble 98 - 18,542
13) Summerslam 98 - 21,588
14) IYH: Breakdown - 17,405
15) IYH: Judgement Day - 18,153
16) IYH: Rock Bottom - 17,677
17) Over The Edge - 16,472
18) Fully Loaded - 16,605

So There is 18 main event Pay Per Views (not just shows) in 8 years and 17 in 5. Now I'm gonna skip WAY ahead because this will take forever. Lets start at Wrestlemania 23 and move on.

19) Unforgiven 07 - 12,000
20) Cyber Sunday 07 - 10,094
21) Survivor Series 07 - 12,500
22) Armageddon 07 - 12,500
23) WM 24 - 74,635 (Not counting it)
24) One Night Stand 08 - 9,961
25) Summerslam 08 - 12,480
26) WM 25 - 72,744
27) Breaking Point '09 - 12,000
28) EC 2010 - 17,000
29) WM 26 - 72,219
30) HIAC 2010 - 17,500
31) WM 27 - 71,617 (yeah I'm counting it, it was the top match on the card)

So Thats 31 shows that Undertaker main evented, 26 that I counted where he was the top match on the card as in the main event.

WM 25-27 did better than any card Misawa has ever been on. Yes I know he was in Japan but if Inoki can draw 150,000 in South Korea and 80,000 paying customers in Pakistan then there's no reason Misawa can't either.

Not counting the 3 Wrestlemanias the Undertaker did better than 16,300 (a Budokan sellout) 12 times and that's just counting the years I did, I left out a shit ton of Taker centric shows where he was the main event and focal point. If I did every show I'd be here till Easter for both guys.

Now the reason I drop these numbers isn't to argue who was a better draw, it's to show you that being #1 in Japan doesn't mean your better than #2 or #3 in America because often the #2 or #3 guy in the States can do better business than the #1 guy anywhere else, its a fact get over it.

Now I certainly don't negate all that Misawa has done but there's no coincidence he kept going back to the same buildings to draw when he has a million other places to do it in, its because he can't do it. When I got those attendance numbers for AJPW almost ALL off them were at Budokan Hall (In 80 shows 4 of there top selling shows in AJPW history were somewhere else, only doing better than Budokan hall 4 times, twice didn't have Misawa as the draw).

So I get Misawa is a big draw in Japan, I get he's a big wrestler in Japan but I just named you shows where The Undertaker (as the main event mind you) drew more money than Misawa and I did it very easily I may add. Most of those shows WEREN'T in the same city and some of them were it a different country altogether. I'm not racist saying Japan doesn't count because it does, all I'm saying is Rest of World as whole > Japan and I don't think that's racist at all.

My point is Undertaker can draw, he has often drawn more money than Misawa and in a few cases blew Misawa's best attendance figures out of the water. Not only that I've seen numerous times I've seen the Undertaker wrestle (hundreds if not thousands) and 1 thing is always certain. In any given event he will get one of the top 3 reactions of the night EVERY SINGLE TIME. That alone tells you how over he is and how much of a draw he is. I've counted so many people wearing Undertaker T-Shirts, or people holding up their cell phones or lighters during his entrance, or 80,000 people coming unglued when he simply walks out. In short he is truly the phenom. The loudest event I was ever at was IYH: Canadian Stampede and when the Undertaker came out, I couldn't hear a damn thing not even my own thoughts. Now I've been to TONS of shows and the only other time I heard a reaction like that was that same event when the Hart Foundation came out.

I get you like Misawa, I'm not biased towards American wrestling in the tournament. I voted Thesz over Billy Graham (one of my all time favorites), I took Hansen (a guy who did big business in Japan) over Big Show so maybe you should watch it when you are saying a guy is racist, doesn't know much about wrestling outside of America and will always go for the American. I vote for who I think will win a match in certain circumstances so I voted for Undertaker. I've proved to you he can draw just as much as Misawa can if not more. I have more than enough good reasons and evidence to put Taker over Misawa and so does most who will vote for Taker.

Take your head out of Misawa's ass and see that. You have all the reason to vote for Misawa but don't think that he's better because he drew well in one place and did jack anywhere else. When I say that its not a knock its a FACT.

 

[PsychoBlack]

A top draw is not the same thing as the top draw. And from 1997 - 2000 that was Austin. Hart also wasn't rated higher than Taker, and he was the top star from 1993 - 1996. Michaels wasn't even on your list either.

No Austin was the top draw from 1997 to 1998. He was hurt most of 99 and 2000 and Rock shouldered most of the load, but, once again your delving away from the topic at hand. And Shawn was the guy from around 1996 to 1997, Bret will be remembered as the guy but he was never much of a draw which I'm almost sure you know.

In 98? What about Mankind? What about the Rock? Both of those guys were just as popular as Taker.

We had just seen Austin vs Mankind. Rock was still a mid carder with the Nation at this point.

So working with Austin made Taker just as big? Sorry, but I don't recall Taker being anywhere near the revenue pusher as Austin. In this case being a good worker, or having good match is subjective since Misawa did the same thing.

He wasn't during 1997 or 1998, but throughout the course of the 90's he was seeing as how he was the only guy Vince had who was a big deal from the beginning of the 90's until the end of it

I big deal, but not the biggest deal. In fact, he was never the biggest deal.

But he remained at the top for his entire career. I feel like your trying to change my argument here which I don't appreciate. If you feel as if you lost just say that you lost and vote for Taker don't put words in my mouth. And while we're at it Misawa wasn't the undisputed top guy in AJPW Kawada, Kobashi, and Hansen could all make that claim. A lot of people may have a lack of knowledge of the Kings Road era in Japan, but, I am not one of them so you can keep all of that Misawa was THE guy bullshit.

So you're saying Undertakers prime came from when was playing a heel? And he lost to the top guy? Well shit, Misawa was also a top guy so it would make sense for Taker to loose.

No this was not Taker's prime. I don't know if Taker's had apoint in his career where you couldn't consider it his prime seeing as how he's always been a selling point from the time that he got there up until this very day.

 

[Bernkastel]

Muta didn't go to All Japan until around 2002 if i'm not mistaken And I'm pretty sure Noah was started two years prior to that. The list is from the 90's so your point about AJPW being in a financial hole is pretty ridiculous seeing as how i posted nothing about AJPW or Muta in the 2000's.

No but your point about Muta being a bigger draw than Misawa was the point that was ridiculous. You realize that Meltzer list was subjective right? But I'm sure anyone could have seen that when Taker was ranked as a bigger draw than Austin and Bret.

Over the entire course of the 90's Taker was a bigger draw than Austin. Austin had more big gates but taker was consistently one of Vince's selling points through the decade withstanding the test of time. Hogan's tied for 3rd on the list though bro, again stop making things up.

Right, Taker was a draw, but he was never the draw; if he wasn't second to Austin than he was second to Bret Hart. Was Taker primarily responsible for WWE turning the revenue to be competition to WCW? No, that was mostly on Austin. And afterwards the Rock took over those reigns, not Taker.

Tied for 3rd on what list, you mean the subjective Meltzer one, who is no more an expert than I am? Don't be ridiculous.

Seems to me that they both had their big shows and their fairly small ones. That's not what we're arguing here though so I'm still not quite sure why you posted these links.

You can see the attendance records of both if you look at them side by side. New Japan may do better than All Japan in a certain prefecture, and vice versa, but the point was under Misawa All Japan became big again. Was taker primarily responsible for making WWE big again during the Monday Night Wars? No, that was mostly due to Austin's popularity.

Tis the point. Undertaker was a big draw, but Misawa was a bigger one. Hence why he should win.

Misawa didn't sell out the big crowds that his New Japan counterparts did and on occasion Hansen, Kobashi, and Kawada proved to draw just as well if not better than Misawa. Your vastly overating his drawing power and you need to stop.

I see you neglected my posts from earlier... either that or you lack the ability to read so I'll spell it out again. All Japan didn't tour big cities like the WWE. The prefectures they were working had maybe a tenth or less of a major city like Houston, or LA, or Atlanta. And they were selling out. In fact the majority of their shows were standing room only.

Exactly they were on par with All Japan, however they sold more tickets and put more asses in seats with their big shows than All Japan did. Again though that's not what we're arguing.

In the 80's New Japan was the better company, but through the 90's All Japan regained their popularity, why? Thanks to the star power of Misawa. And yes, it's exactly what we're arguing because money is the only way to define a wrestler objectively.

Misawa drew more for a longer period, and against rivals that had a better company before he came into his prime.

Meltzer and his staff researched those hard numbers.

Actually I wonder how much research actually went into that, when half is list isn't realistically accurate.

They pointed out the flaws in the system and none of the flaws effected Misawa or Taker. I'd say that's a pretty fair comparison. What reason would Meltzer have to lie?

So you're saying that Meltzer is always 100% nonbiased and accurate? Don't be silly. This is the guy that called Hogan overrated 7 times - two of which were in his Hulkamania prime.

He was simply doing a study and those were the results he came up with. When you look at what he was actually saying and doing they make quite a bit of sense. Don't get so butt hurt that i proved you wrong next time it's only a fictional tournament

Studies hosted by fans aren't always accurate, and they in themselves aren't meant to be concrete. Especially in Meltzer's case, whose known to cater to smarks.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

A dream match for wrestling purists. Misawa, known to have the heart of a champion and to captivate fans in his native Japan with his offense and ability to take a ton of punishment, against the man who could deliver more punishment than anyone in this tournament, the Undertaker.

Taker wins this... based on the fact that Taker doesn't lose often... and when he does, it requires acts of outside interference or a nagging injury... and neither of those things are happening here. Undertaker lives for big matches and has beaten every meaningful wrestler in the last 25 years.

Misawa will put up a helluva fight, but Taker will win this... even if it was in Japan.

 

[PsychoBlack]

No but your point about Muta being a bigger draw than Misawa was the point that was ridiculous. You realize that Meltzer list was subjective right? But I'm sure anyone could have seen that when Taker was ranked as a bigger draw than Austin and Bret.



Right, Taker was a draw, but he was never the draw; if he wasn't second to Austin than he was second to Bret Hart. Was Taker primarily responsible for WWE turning the revenue to be competition to WCW? No, that was mostly on Austin. And afterwards the Rock took over those reigns, not Taker.

Tied for 3rd on what list, you mean the subjective Meltzer one, who is no more an expert than I am? Don't be ridiculous.



You can see the attendance records of both if you look at them side by side. New Japan may do better than All Japan in a certain prefecture, and vice versa, but the point was under Misawa All Japan became big again. Was taker primarily responsible for making WWE big again during the Monday Night Wars? No, that was mostly due to Austin's popularity.

Tis the point. Undertaker was a big draw, but Misawa was a bigger one. Hence why he should win.



I see you neglected my posts from earlier... either that or you lack the ability to read so I'll spell it out again. All Japan didn't tour big cities like the WWE. The prefectures they were working had maybe a tenth or less of a major city like Houston, or LA, or Atlanta. And they were selling out. In fact the majority of their shows were standing room only.



In the 80's New Japan was the better company, but through the 90's All Japan regained their popularity, why? Thanks to the star power of Misawa. And yes, it's exactly what we're arguing because money is the only way to define a wrestler objectively.

Misawa drew more for a longer period, and against rivals that had a better company before he came into his prime.



Actually I wonder how much research actually went into that, when half is list isn't realistically accurate.



So you're saying that Meltzer is always 100% nonbiased and accurate? Don't be silly. This is the guy that called Hogan overrated 7 times - two of which were in his Hulkamania prime.



Studies hosted by fans aren't always accurate, and they in themselves aren't meant to be concrete. Especially in Meltzer's case, whose known to cater to smarks.

Well I must say you've out done yourself this time. These lists that Meltzer compiled contained the top draws in wrestling history. Hers's the entire list and the flaws that it presents. Each gate over 10,000 is counted and their is really no reason for him to be subjective

Spoiler

n looking at the biggest drawing cards in pro wrestling history, we decided to look at things on a decade-by-decade level. In the past we've done this looking at total shows drawing more than 10,000 on top during a decade (or added points for each multiple of 10,000). And while every system has flaws, this one can reward someone who may have had one great feud, or was a huge draw but not over a long period of time, over someone who was more consistently drawing.

In addition, a lot changes in society over a ten year period and that affects wrestling. There are ups and downs, based on economy, technology and other factors. By awarding ten points for the leading draw during a year, nine for second, etc., it rewards consistency at the top level. It takes out mitigating factors in the sense whoever was the big draw of a year where things weren't as good due to economic patterns, or over the last 60 years, based on how television has changed things, will somewhat be evened out.

The big flaw in this system is it rewards people whose prime years fit better within the framework of a decade. For example, if you were a big star from 1970 to 1979, you'll do well in that decade. But if you were a big star who hit your stride in 1976, through 1983, you'll not fare as well in either decade. But this system isn't looking at negating people who don't perfectly fit in as much as noting where people stood who did. We've already compiled all-time lists for wrestling history. When it comes to consistently drawing over a long period of time, the all-time top ten are Jim Londos, Bruno Sammartino, Lou Thesz, Wild Bill Longson, Hulk Hogan, Ed Strangler Lewis, Argentina Rocca, Ric Flair, Buddy Rogers and Joe Stecher. While Steve Austin at his peak was the biggest drawing card in pro wrestling history, his number of years at that peak were far shorter than those ranked above him.

1900 - 1909: 1. Frank Gotch; 2. George Hackenschmidt

1910 - 1919: 1. Joe Stecher; 2. Ed "Strangler" Lewis; 3. Frank Gotch; 4. Wladek Zbyszko; 5. Stanislaus Zbyszko; 6. Jim Londos; 7. Great Gama, George Hackenschmidt, George Lurich, Charlie Cutler

1920 -1929: 1. Ed "Strangler" Lewis; 2. Jim Londos; 3. John Pesek; 4. Joe Stecher and Stanislaus Zbyszko; 6. Earl Caddock; 7. Gus Sonnenberg; 8. Ray Steele; 9. Dick Shikat; 10. Wayne Munn

1930 - 1939: 1. Jim Londos; 2. Everett Marshall; 3. Dick Shikat and Ed Don George; 5. Ed "Strangler" Lewis and Vincent Lopez; 7. Gus Sonnenberg; 8. Man Mountain Dean; 9. Danno O'Mahoney; 10. Ray Steele

1940 - 1949: 1. Bill Longson; 2. Lou Thesz; 3. Whipper Billy Watson; 4. Yvon Robert; 5. Gorgeous George; 6. Sandor Szabo and Wlasislow Talum; 8. Buddy Rogers; 9. Maurice "French Angel" Tillet; 10. Frank Sexton

1950 - 1959: 1. Argentina Rocca; 2. Lou Thesz; 3. Killer Kowalski; 4. Buddy Rogers; 5. Whipper Billy Watson; 6. Rikidozan; 7. El Santo; 8. Verne Gagne and Edouard Carpentier; 10. Wilbur Snyder

1960 - 1969: 1. Bruno Sammartino; 2. Gene Kiniski; 3. Dick the Bruiser; 4. Johnny Valentine; 5. Lou Thesz; 6. Buddy Rogers; 7. Giant Baba; 8. Ray Stevens; 9. Bobo Brazil; 10. Fritz Von Erich

1970 - 1979: 1. Bruno Sammartino; 2. The Sheik; 3. Superstar Billy Graham; 4. Andre the Giant; 5. Pedro Morales; 6. Harley Race; 7. The Crusher; 8. Dory Funk Jr. and Ernie Ladd; 10. Dick the Bruiser

1980 - 1989: 1. Hulk Hogan; 2. Ric Flair; 3. Andre the Giant; 4. Bob Backlund; 5. Randy Savage; 6. Road Warriors; 7. Antonio Inoki; 8. Roddy Piper; 9. Harley Race, Sgt. Slaughter, Paul Orndorff

1990 - 1999: 1. Konnan; 2. Shinya Hashimoto; 3. Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair; 5. Perro Aguayo; 6. Keiji Muto; 7. Undertaker; 8. Bret Hart; 9. Steve Austin; 10. Nobuhiko Takada

2000 - 2009: 1. HHH; 2. Mistico; 3. John Cena; 4. The Rock; 5. Perro Aguayo Jr.; 6. Kurt Angle; 7. Ultimo Guerrero; 8. Randy Orton; 9. Kenta Kobashi and Chris Benoit

You see how all of this makes sense and is perfectly explained. I dont see how this is a subjective point of view at all when you look at it and think objectively as to what is being compared here. Regardless Undertaker is still a bigger draw than Misawa as myself and other posters have proved.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Ech totally has a hard on for Japanese wrestling, but I still love him.

I'm going to vote 'Taker because he brings about a feeling of nostalgia for me. When I was a kid, before I got all smarky and spoiled by the IWC, wrestling was great and simple and I enjoyed it more, and Undertaker is one of those guys who take me back to those feelings. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Bernkastel]

No Austin was the top draw from 1997 to 1998. He was hurt most of 99 and 2000 and Rock shouldered most of the load, but, once again your delving away from the topic at hand. And Shawn was the guy from around 1996 to 1997, Bret will be remembered as the guy but he was never much of a draw which I'm almost sure you know.

But Undertaker was never THE guy; just one of them.

We had just seen Austin vs Mankind. Rock was still a mid carder with the Nation at this point.

So Undertaker was the top guy then, or was it still Stone Cold. That was pat of my argument earlier, that Taker either loses to the top guy, and when he is champ he's champ of the B show, and playing second fiddle to someone else.

Misawa never played second fiddle. All Japan had primarily 4 guys that made up it's main event, and he was considered the most marketable and most popular of the bunch.

He wasn't during 1997 or 1998, but throughout the course of the 90's he was seeing as how he was the only guy Vince had who was a big deal from the beginning of the 90's until the end of it

You [and apparently Meltzer - you wouldn't happen to be Dave in disguise?] don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept of big draw does not equal biggest draw.

I'll expect you to vote Goldberg over Gagne and Hart over Rikidozan using the same subjective bias.

But he remained at the top for his entire career. I feel like your trying to change my argument here which I don't appreciate.

You mean the "Taker wins cuz Melter said so argument?" Don't patronize me.

If you feel as if you lost just say that you lost and vote for Taker don't put words in my mouth.

How would I have lost? You never once proven that Taker was a bigger draw than Misawa. Just that he was a "big draw."

And while we're at it Misawa wasn't the undisputed top guy in AJPW Kawada, Kobashi, and Hansen could all make that claim.

Kobashi was similar to Shawn Michaels where he had plenty of awesome matches, but was never a proven draw as a top guy. Hansen was an "attraction draw" like Undertaker, and Kawada was interchangeable with Taue. Ask yourself, who because president of AJPW after Baba's death? Misawa. And why? Because he was the most popular and trusted star in the company... hence the reason why a majority of the other stars followed him to NOAH.

A lot of people may have a lack of knowledge of the Kings Road era in Japan, but, I am not one of them so you can keep all of that Misawa was THE guy bullshit.

As opposed to whom? Taue? Nope, Kawada, probably not? Kobashi? You can't be serious.

No this was not Taker's prime. I don't know if Taker's had apoint in his career where you couldn't consider it his prime seeing as how he's always been a selling point from the time that he got there up until this very day.

When was his prime then? In 2007 when he was very likely the second biggest star in the company, but WWE was drawing a hell of a lot less overall? Pick one.

@Echelon - To argue who is in fact a bigger draw I've decided to do so research and look into some things. These things are attendance numbers.

Now I know that Misawa has sold out Budokan Hall a butt load of times, I can see that so what I'm going to do is a little bit of math here. Now Misawa has only done better than 16,300 fans attendance wise twice in his career, Showdown at the Egg on May 1, 98 and May 2 99 for the Baba Memorial Show. Now I don't like to often count memorial shows as often the deceased draws but for arguments sake I will.

Showdown was 58,300
Baba was 55,000

Both very good numbers. He also did numerous Budokan Hall shows and I saw a number of them at 16,300 (I assume that's a sellout). Now lets say Misawa sold out 30 of them (as in he was the main event and that's probably a fairly accurate number actually lets add another 5 which brings it to 35). You may not like it but I'm not counting shows where he packed a 1,500 seat building. I know he's sold more than that but as you can see he's done very well for himself business wise.

Now I'm gonna do the same for Taker. Same rules apply I'm only gonna count events that he was the main event in. I won't even count Wrestlemania 24 as I feel the real main event was Flair vs. HBK even if it didn't go on last. With that said I'm counting WM 25 and 26 as I feel HBK vs. Taker was in both cases the top match on the card even if it didn't go on last. I'll also count all shows Taker was in the main event in.

So lets start at Survivor Series 91 as I feel its a good place to start (If I count matches where Misawa was against a big star I can do the same for Taker, only fair):

I will even change the color of ones where he was definitely in the drawing match.

1) Survivor Series 91 - 17,500
2) Summerslam 94 - 23,000
3) Survivor Series 94 - 10,000
4) Royal Rumble 96 - 9,600
5) IYH: Buried Alive - 9,649
6) IYH: Final 4 - 6,3,99
7) IYH: Cold Day In Hell - 9,381
8) KOTR 97: 9,312
9) Summerslam 97: 20, 213
10) IYH: Ground Zero - 4,963
11) IYH: Bad Blood - 21, 151
12) Royal Rumble 98 - 18,542
13) Summerslam 98 - 21,588
14) IYH: Breakdown - 17,405
15) IYH: Judgement Day - 18,153
16) IYH: Rock Bottom - 17,677
17) Over The Edge - 16,472
18) Fully Loaded - 16,605

So There is 18 main event Pay Per Views (not just shows) in 8 years and 17 in 5. Now I'm gonna skip WAY ahead because this will take forever. Lets start at Wrestlemania 23 and move on.

19) Unforgiven 07 - 12,000
20) Cyber Sunday 07 - 10,094
21) Survivor Series 07 - 12,500
22) Armageddon 07 - 12,500
23) WM 24 - 74,635 (Not counting it)
24) One Night Stand 08 - 9,961
25) Summerslam 08 - 12,480
26) WM 25 - 72,744
27) Breaking Point '09 - 12,000
28) EC 2010 - 17,000
29) WM 26 - 72,219
30) HIAC 2010 - 17,500
31) WM 27 - 71,617 (yeah I'm counting it, it was the top match on the card)

So Thats 31 shows that Undertaker main evented, 26 that I counted where he was the top match on the card as in the main event.

You are forgetting two things...

1.) WWE has the luxury of touring in big cities, some with a population in excess of 1,000,000. All Japan worked in prefectures with a population of a tenth or less of that, and that's hardly their fault.

2.) Lets look at some adjusted numbers, and I picked two random events in the same time period.

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=2059

1999 - Raw is War - Phoenix Arizona. Pulled 13,538 people with a population of roughly 1,300,000

Main event? Undertaker vs The Rock.

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=92169

1999 - AJPW Event - Bunkyo, Tokyo. Pulled 2,100 people with a population of less than 193,000.

Main event? Gary Albright, Takao Omori & Yoshihiro Takayama vs Masahito Kakihara, Mitsuharu Misawa & Yoshinari Ogawa

That means that WWE pulled in 6.5 times as many people with roughly 6.7 times the potential audience. If you were to have allowed AJPW the audience of the WWE, they would have drawn roughly 14,070.

Remember that Undertaker was not in the main event most nights, where as Misawa was.

WM 25-27 did better than any card Misawa has ever been on. Yes I know he was in Japan but if Inoki can draw 150,000 in South Korea and 80,000 paying customers in Pakistan then there's no reason Misawa can't either.

That was North Korea... and pro wrestling wasn't the only thing offered at the event... and I'm sure many were forced to go. Inoki was a one of the two Japanese stars I consider bigger draws than Misawa... the other is facing Bret Hart this round.

Now I certainly don't negate all that Misawa has done but there's no coincidence he kept going back to the same buildings to draw when he has a million other places to do it in, its because he can't do it. When I got those attendance numbers for AJPW almost ALL off them were at Budokan Hall (In 80 shows 4 of there top selling shows in AJPW history were somewhere else, only doing better than Budokan hall 4 times, twice didn't have Misawa as the draw).

That's like saying WWE doesn't draw as much in other cities like they do in MSG because they suck. Could it be that All Japan had more people to draw from in the heart of Tokyo than the boonies? The random one I drew was in a ward called Bunkyo where both All Japan and New Japan are known.. that random show was standing room only since Korakuen Hall only has a capacity of 1,800.

So I get Misawa is a big draw in Japan, I get he's a big wrestler in Japan but I just named you shows where The Undertaker (as the main event mind you) drew more money than Misawa and I did it very easily I may add. Most of those shows WEREN'T in the same city and some of them were it a different country altogether. I'm not racist saying Japan doesn't count because it does, all I'm saying is Rest of World as whole > Japan and I don't think that's racist at all.

They drew more because WWE has access to cites with bigger populations. Adjust for that inflation, and All Japan easily draws just as much. I negated this bullcrap with my first post if you even bothered to read.

My point is Undertaker can draw, he has often drawn more money than Misawa and in a few cases blew Misawa's best attendance figures out of the water.

Hopefully this post will educate you on how wrong you are. 50,000 was much larger than anything Undertaker pulled.

Not only that I've seen numerous times I've seen the Undertaker wrestle (hundreds if not thousands) and 1 thing is always certain. In any given event he will get one of the top 3 reactions of the night EVERY SINGLE TIME.

That says nothing as Japanese fans don't make allot of noise. That's not a good basis for quality when comparing two guys from different countries. Learn from your ignorance.

I get you like Misawa, I'm not biased towards American wrestling in the tournament.

I like Undertaker better, but Misawa was the bigger star and he should win this.

I voted Thesz over Billy Graham (one of my all time favorites), I took Hansen (a guy who did big business in Japan) over Big Show so maybe you should watch it when you are saying a guy is racist, doesn't know much about wrestling outside of America and will always go for the American.

So... why are you voting at all?

I vote for who I think will win a match in certain circumstances so I voted for Undertaker. I've proved to you he can draw just as much as Misawa can if not more. I have more than enough good reasons and evidence to put Taker over Misawa and so does most who will vote for Taker.

You vote for the guy that's objectively a bigger star, and that's Misawa; why? Because he was the bigger draw.

Take your head out of Misawa's ass and see that. You have all the reason to vote for Misawa but don't think that he's better because he drew well in one place and did jack anywhere else. When I say that its not a knock its a FACT.

You probably would have sounded less stupid if you had stuck with "Undertaker wins cuz he's Undertaker."

 

[Bernkastel]

Well I must say you've out done yourself this time. These lists that Meltzer compiled contained the top draws in wrestling history. Hers's the entire list and the flaws that it presents. Each gate over 10,000 is counted and their is really no reason for him to be subjective

You call me out on my stupidity and you hand me the same list, you really aren't very bright are you?

You see how all of this makes sense and is perfectly explained.

Care to explain to me how Konnan was a bigger draw than Hogan was in the 90's? LOL, good luck with that.

I dont see how this is a subjective point of view at all when you look at it and think objectively as to what is being compared here. Regardless Undertaker is still a bigger draw than Misawa as myself and other posters have proved.

It's subjective because he's basing it on longevity as a draw... which Undertaker was, but he was never the top draw. We already established that Misawa, with a great supporting cast, was responsible for helping elevate the company back to being on par with New Japan. Was Undertaker primarily responsible for turning WWE when they were heading towards financial ruin, or was he one of of Austin's supporting cast? Yeah...

Top draw > supporting cast.

Don't be stupid. Vote Misawa.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I flicked through these arguments fairly briskly. It seems that the main pro-Misawa arguments seems to be:

- He was the top draw in Japan over a long period whereas Taker has arguably NEVER been THE top draw in his respective company or country.

- When scaled down, Misawa's drawing might have outdone Taker's when in reality, financially it doesn't match up.

I'm going to say something upsetting. It's not cut and dry comparing drawing in one country as compared to another. WWE is selling product to a much greater potential audience in a different way. You can suppose that if you scaled things differently, the drawing numbers might be different but it's just speculation, because things weren't scaled down and the number are what they are.

What you can say is that Misawa was a top draw, Undertaker merely one of the top draws. But if you want to be more fair and go for a total financial gain, you have to factor in that Taker has been doing his gig longer and even if he was outshone, even put to scale on certain years, Taker has probably drawn more comparatively throughout his whole career. What people may not have brought up is that some of Undertaker's greatest drawing time in actually now when he stacks up literally hundreds of thousands of buys on a now annual basis for the PPV bringing in a truck-load of money.

But I'm me, and I don't believe drawing power is everything. Not everybody gets the same shots and lives in the same time so it's hard to attribute an accurate value for any one person's drawing power. That's why I always like to look at the other stuff.

Undertaker will be quoted as being the greatest something. He was and is the greatest gimmick wrestler of all time, both conceptually and in practice. He also has possibly the greatest accolade in wrestling history, winning 20 Wrestlemania matches, and not losing a single one. To put that in context, I always like to consider how many people that have worked for the WWE and continue to do so never even make it to the televised card of Wrestlemania. Therefore appearing and winning twenty times is immense. If it isn't the best achievement in wrestling, it's in the top three.

He has some of the greatest wrestling matches of all time, and if people voted, several of his matches (yes, many from his last few years) would probably make the list. He is also often quoted to be the greatest big man of all time by several people, Jim Ross included, mainly for the last reason previously mentioned. Don't get me wrong, he's had some stinkers, but they've generally been much better than they were worse. In short, he's good. But we've also learned that he's not just a one trick pony, and had a period as a radically different character which he portrayed very successfully for several years. A biker. We all know this of course, this is just background filler

Misawa on the other hand... I know what it constitutes to be successful in one country to another can be very different but I don't know, the more I go back and look and believe me I am... I'm just not that impressed with Misawa. As far as I'm concerned, this is country where Giant Baba was a huge success, at least in America with a guy like Giant Gonzalez, people noticed the crap and picked up on it. For me, there's a reason WWE became the global product. It's the relatable characters, the world renound athletes, the cream-of-the-crop of global wrestlers. If a Japanese promotion had the capacity to do the same thing, they may have done, but I'm not sure that was the case.

As it stands, the man we all know as The Undertaker performs in front of a global audience, not just an American one, and in that realm he is perhaps the highest booked individual in an entire company that includes John Cena, and the man is aged 47. To me, that puts him in a different league. If you can travel from your country and make it big and be successful in a company like the WWE which is the top company globally, most of the time you would take that shot. And indeed we have plenty of Canadians, plenty of people from Mexico, some brits, a few Europeans and if we're honest, not many people from Japan. And I say that's because they can't easily adapt to the global style, and I say that's because Japanese wrestling is not globally centred and that puts it behind the WWE by default. It's harsh but true I'm afraid.

A guy who was the top in his respective company, but in the spectrum of significance, he's just not a star on the level of the Undertaker. Taker is not just great but the best at many things, if Misawa was the greatest Japanese wrestler then I still don't know if that can stand up.

 

[PsychoBlack]

So with all of the facts we put on the table for Echelon, he for some reason is still more impressed with Misawa drawing a crowd of 2100 than Taker consistently drawing more than 10,000 a show throughout the 90's and even well into the 2000's. He continues to say that Misawa was the biggest Japanese draw, which he wasn't and that he was THE guy in AJPW, which he also wasn't. The only thing that I am getting out of the way echelon seems to be voting is "Japaneze wrestlingz kewler than wwe Vote Misawa".

I will take on anyone that has a credible argument as to why Misawa would beat Undertaker in America. Several other posters as well as myself have proved that Taker was a much better more consistent draw than Misawa so I will no longer be arguing that fact.

 

[PsychoBlack]

You call me out on my stupidity and you hand me the same list, you really aren't very bright are you?

I mean I average a 3.0 as an engineering major at a top 20 school, what can you say for yourself?

Care to explain to me how Konnan was a bigger draw than Hogan was in the 90's? LOL, good luck with that.

Konnan drew a ridiculous amount of money in Mexico during the early 90's he was the mexican equivalent of Hulkamania learn something. Not to mention he was always in the upper midcard when he got to WCW combining that with his time in Mexico no one made more money during the 90's than he did. Good enough explanation for you

It's subjective because he's basing it on longevity as a draw... which Undertaker was, but he was never the top draw. We already established that Misawa, with a great supporting cast, was responsible for helping elevate the company back to being on par with New Japan. Was Undertaker primarily responsible for turning WWE when they were heading towards financial ruin, or was he one of of Austin's supporting cast? Yeah...

Top draw > supporting cast.

Don't be stupid. Vote Misawa.

That's not subjective. Those are the facts of how things went down. Subjective would be saying that a wrestler who averages a 2500 person gate is a bigger draw than a wrestler who consistently draws gates upwards of 10,000 people.
Vote Taker

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I flicked through these arguments fairly briskly. It seems that the main pro-Misawa arguments seems to be:

- He was the top draw in Japan over a long period whereas Taker has arguably NEVER been THE top draw in his respective company or country.

- When scaled down, Misawa's drawing might have outdone Taker's when in reality, financially it doesn't match up.

I'm going to say something upsetting. It's not cut and dry comparing drawing in one country as compared to another. WWE is selling product to a much greater potential audience in a different way. You can suppose that if you scaled things differently, the drawing numbers might be different but it's just speculation, because things weren't scaled down and the number are what they are.

What you can say is that Misawa was a top draw, Undertaker merely one of the top draws. But if you want to be more fair and go for a total financial gain, you have to factor in that Taker has been doing his gig longer and even if he was outshone, even put to scale on certain years, Taker has probably drawn more comparatively throughout his whole career. What people may not have brought up is that some of Undertaker's greatest drawing time in actually now when he stacks up literally hundreds of thousands of buys on a now annual basis for the PPV bringing in a truck-load of money.

But I'm me, and I don't believe drawing power is everything. Not everybody gets the same shots and lives in the same time so it's hard to attribute an accurate value for any one person's drawing power. That's why I always like to look at the other stuff.

Undertaker will be quoted as being the greatest something. He was and is the greatest gimmick wrestler of all time, both conceptually and in practice. He also has possibly the greatest accolade in wrestling history, winning 20 Wrestlemania matches, and not losing a single one. To put that in context, I always like to consider how many people that have worked for the WWE and continue to do so never even make it to the televised card of Wrestlemania. Therefore appearing and winning twenty times is immense. If it isn't the best achievement in wrestling, it's in the top three.

He has some of the greatest wrestling matches of all time, and if people voted, several of his matches (yes, many from his last few years) would probably make the list. He is also often quoted to be the greatest big man of all time by several people, Jim Ross included, mainly for the last reason previously mentioned. Don't get me wrong, he's had some stinkers, but they've generally been much better than they were worse. In short, he's good. But we've also learned that he's not just a one trick pony, and had a period as a radically different character which he portrayed very successfully for several years. A biker. We all know this of course, this is just background filler

Misawa on the other hand... I know what it constitutes to be successful in one country to another can be very different but I don't know, the more I go back and look and believe me I am... I'm just not that impressed with Misawa. As far as I'm concerned, this is country where Giant Baba was a huge success, at least in America with a guy like Giant Gonzalez, people noticed the crap and picked up on it. For me, there's a reason WWE became the global product. It's the relatable characters, the world renound athletes, the cream-of-the-crop of global wrestlers. If a Japanese promotion had the capacity to do the same thing, they may have done, but I'm not sure that was the case.

As it stands, the man we all know as The Undertaker performs in front of a global audience, not just an American one, and in that realm he is perhaps the highest booked individual in an entire company that includes John Cena, and the man is aged 47. To me, that puts him in a different league. If you can travel from your country and make it big and be successful in a company like the WWE which is the top company globally, most of the time you would take that shot. And indeed we have plenty of Canadians, plenty of people from Mexico, some brits, a few Europeans and if we're honest, not many people from Japan. And I say that's because they can't easily adapt to the global style, and I say that's because Japanese wrestling is not globally centred and that puts it behind the WWE by default. It's harsh but true I'm afraid.

A guy who was the top in his respective company, but in the spectrum of significance, he's just not a star on the level of the Undertaker. Taker is not just great but the best at many things, if Misawa was the greatest Japanese wrestler then I still don't know if that can stand up.

I have to take issue with him being the greatest gimmick wrestler of all time. He routinely loses Buried Alive and Casket matches and his Hell in a Cell record is average.

What I've seen mostly from this thread is people saying that Misawa was only good in one region as a basis to why Undertaker would win when he himself falls in that same category.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

You are forgetting two things...

1.) WWE has the luxury of touring in big cities, some with a population in excess of 1,000,000. All Japan worked in prefectures with a population of a tenth or less of that, and that's hardly their fault.

2.) Lets look at some adjusted numbers, and I picked two random events in the same time period.

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=2059

1999 - Raw is War - Phoenix Arizona. Pulled 13,538 people with a population of roughly 1,300,000

Main event? Undertaker vs The Rock.

http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=92169

1999 - AJPW Event - Bunkyo, Tokyo. Pulled 2,100 people with a population of less than 193,000.

Main event? Gary Albright, Takao Omori & Yoshihiro Takayama vs Masahito Kakihara, Mitsuharu Misawa & Yoshinari Ogawa

That means that WWE pulled in 6.5 times as many people with roughly 6.7 times the potential audience. If you were to have allowed AJPW the audience of the WWE, they would have drawn roughly 14,070.

Remember that Undertaker was not in the main event most nights, where as Misawa was.



That was North Korea... and pro wrestling wasn't the only thing offered at the event... and I'm sure many were forced to go. Inoki was a one of the two Japanese stars I consider bigger draws than Misawa... the other is facing Bret Hart this round.



That's like saying WWE doesn't draw as much in other cities like they do in MSG because they suck. Could it be that All Japan had more people to draw from in the heart of Tokyo than the boonies? The random one I drew was in a ward called Bunkyo where both All Japan and New Japan are known.. that random show was standing room only since Korakuen Hall only has a capacity of 1,800.



They drew more because WWE has access to cites with bigger populations. Adjust for that inflation, and All Japan easily draws just as much. I negated this bullcrap with my first post if you even bothered to read.



Hopefully this post will educate you on how wrong you are. 50,000 was much larger than anything Undertaker pulled.



That says nothing as Japanese fans don't make allot of noise. That's not a good basis for quality when comparing two guys from different countries. Learn from your ignorance.



I like Undertaker better, but Misawa was the bigger star and he should win this.



So... why are you voting at all?



You vote for the guy that's objectively a bigger star, and that's Misawa; why? Because he was the bigger draw.





You probably would have sounded less stupid if you had stuck with "Undertaker wins cuz he's Undertaker."

So if you inflate the audience Misawa is more popular, THAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT? What kind of argument is that? So you basically said Undertaker draws more money and is a bigger star. It DOESN'T matter if Misawa draws in a place that doesn't have as many people, did you think he stayed in Japan because he can't draw anywhere else? Chances are that's a VERY accurate assumption. He has access to 2 billion people if he takes an hour plane ride and yet he never even attempted to do so, probably because he was smart enough to realize if he did there's a damn good chance he would flop.

He had tons of dough, he owned his own company so why didn't he try and expand out of Japan? You have no good argument for Misawa NOT doing that outside of he knew he wouldn't draw nearly as much there. WWE can get contracts and draw in China and India, why didn't AJPW or Pro Wrestling NOAH try that if Misawa was such a bigger star?

You basically proved me right in doing so because you had to use the "well he didn't have as much people to do as good of business" argument.

So if a local garage band can draw 1,000 people every Friday night at a bar in a town that holds 10,000 people does that make them bigger than The Rolling Stones because that's the essence of your argument.

 

[Bernkastel]

I flicked through these arguments fairly briskly. It seems that the main pro-Misawa arguments seems to be:

- He was the top draw in Japan over a long period whereas Taker has arguably NEVER been THE top draw in his respective company or country.

- When scaled down, Misawa's drawing might have outdone Taker's when in reality, financially it doesn't match up.

I'm going to say something upsetting. It's not cut and dry comparing drawing in one country as compared to another. WWE is selling product to a much greater potential audience in a different way. You can suppose that if you scaled things differently, the drawing numbers might be different but it's just speculation, because things weren't scaled down and the number are what they are.

Of course, but is that Misawa's fault? No. If Undertaker was the top draw like Rock or Austin, I wouldn't even be arguing. The fact that I believe being the biggest draw in a company that was doing well for itself warrants recognition over a consistent, but never top draw like Taker.

WWE is the biggest wrestling promotion - but it's not the only one that deserves recognition either.

What you can say is that Misawa was a top draw, Undertaker merely one of the top draws. But if you want to be more fair and go for a total financial gain, you have to factor in that Taker has been doing his gig longer and even if he was outshone, even put to scale on certain years

The reason why Misawa isn't wrestling anymore is because he's dead, and I'd argue that both he and Taker started hitting their primes in the mid to late 90's at the same time.

Taker has probably drawn more comparatively throughout his whole career. What people may not have brought up is that some of Undertaker's greatest drawing time in actually now when he stacks up literally hundreds of thousands of buys on a now annual basis for the PPV bringing in a truck-load of money.

Actually I'd argue that the Streak itself has become an anomaly that draws on it's own. As if fans want to see it defended more than they want to see Taker himself. That's not really an off claim since the man now only wrestles once per year.

But I'm me, and I don't believe drawing power is everything. Not everybody gets the same shots and lives in the same time so it's hard to attribute an accurate value for any one person's drawing power. That's why I always like to look at the other stuff.

How else would you have objectively compared these two? Classic feuds, title reigns, awards from Dave Meltzer?

Misawa on the other hand... I know what it constitutes to be successful in one country to another can be very different but I don't know, the more I go back and look and believe me I am... I'm just not that impressed with Misawa. As far as I'm concerned, this is country where Giant Baba was a huge success, at least in America with a guy like Giant Gonzalez, people noticed the crap and picked up on it. For me, there's a reason WWE became the global product. It's the relatable characters, the world renound athletes, the cream-of-the-crop of global wrestlers. If a Japanese promotion had the capacity to do the same thing, they may have done, but I'm not sure that was the case.

I think the Japanese may have picked up on it too, since Inoki and New Japan became more popular than Baba and All Japan, but then Baba started pushing Misawa and the rest of the Four Pillars and company started making money again... so much so that they were on par with New Japan again.

As it stands, the man we all know as The Undertaker performs in front of a global audience, not just an American one, and in that realm he is perhaps the highest booked individual in an entire company that includes John Cena, and the man is aged 47.

Er... at this point I'd say the Streak, not Taker, is the highest booked entity, and that's not a stretch at all.

To me, that puts him in a different league. If you can travel from your country and make it big and be successful in a company like the WWE which is the top company globally, most of the time you would take that shot. And indeed we have plenty of Canadians, plenty of people from Mexico, some brits, a few Europeans and if we're honest, not many people from Japan. And I say that's because they can't easily adapt to the global style, and I say that's because Japanese wrestling is not globally centred and that puts it behind the WWE by default. It's harsh but true I'm afraid.

Actually All Japan was very much like WWE in the 80's. You had gimmicks, and storylines, and drama, and promos... that's something that all western wrestlers do.

A guy who was the top in his respective company, but in the spectrum of significance, he's just not a star on the level of the Undertaker. Taker is not just great but the best at many things, if Misawa was the greatest Japanese wrestler then I still don't know if that can stand up.

So thanks in part to the WWE machine, you'll basically be voting Taker cuz he's Taker. You could have just typed that and saved me some time.

I mean I average a 3.0 as an engineering major at a top 20 school, what can you say for yourself?

So you want to whip out your dick and compare it to mine, huh? You aren't proving yourself to be intelligent; just petty.

Konnan drew a ridiculous amount of money in Mexico during the early 90's he was the mexican equivalent of Hulkamania learn something. Not to mention he was always in the upper midcard when he got to WCW combining that with his time in Mexico no one made more money during the 90's than he did. Good enough explanation for you

Sure, but enough to place him above Hogan, who was putting WWE into financial ruin at the time, and Austin, who was primarily responsible for bringing WWE back, would have been unrealistic.

Meltzer was obviously measuring quantity; not quality.

That's not subjective. Those are the facts of how things went down. Subjective would be saying that a wrestler who averages a 2500 person gate is a bigger draw than a wrestler who consistently draws gates upwards of 10,000 people.

No it not, because I've shown that All Japan was doing more with less. When Misawa had more people to work, he drew bigger numbers... more than anything that could be factored to just Taker.

Don't be a tool, vote for the guy that was actually the top draw in his promotion, Misawa.