WON Hall of Fame voting results

[Guest The Hamburglar]

and whoever called Zidane the best soccer player ever REALLY needs to watch more matches.

 

 

Its really getting off the point, but what the hey...

 

I really believe Zidane should be included in the list of the greatest all-round players of all time. He is one of those 'special' players, one who is great at every aspect of the game (passing, dribbling, shooting, tackling, heading). He is easily the greatest all-round player in the world right now and is, in my opinion, right up there with Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Eusabio etc as one of the greatest of all-time.

 

I know its off-topic but if you, or anyone else for that matter, disagree i'd like to hear why.

Hey, who cares about the point? I'm backing you up here, man. Anyone who can possibly discount Zidane as one of the greatest ever is the one who hasn't watched enough matches. Its simple - the three greatest of all time are Pele, Maradona and Zidane. Simple as, nothing between them. Its not just the awesome talent they possessed, its that they were able to rise to the biggest of occasions and become the vital factor in their teams' victory.

 

 

Anyhoo, to switch the topic back to wrestling, its interesting to note that that Gordy List throws as much doubt on Benoit's inclusion in the Hall of Fame as it does Shawn's, simply through dint of Benoit just not reaching the criteria for drawing or indeed being the top man in any promotion. So if you're being harsh, neither of them are Hall of Famers. Out of interest, can anyone in the know tell me if the Rock has made the Hall of Fame yet? I would have thought he would have to be a certainty - immense drawing power, cross-over star and to boot, I would suggest that his body of work has actually surpassed Shawn's at this point.

[bob_barron 0]

I don't think he's eligible.

 

He's not 35 and hasn't been in the business for 15 years

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Rock's not able yet.

 

He'll be a first ballot, I'd imagine.

[Guest Rob Edwards]

Zidane can't touch Maradona he really can't

 

Zidane's too peripheral a lot of the time for starters wheras Diego ran games from start to finish often carrying his teams to great things, Zidane goes missing too frequently (especially at Juve and sometimes at Real although it doesn't stand out too much with the other quality attackers they have), The other major thing about Diego is 1986 and 1990 compared to Zizou's 1998 and 2000, Now in 86 and 90 Argentina were an exceedingly average team without Diego, who I'm 95% sure wouldn't have got anywhere near the final without him, with him in there they became world beaters, As much of an influence Zidane was in the two French victories the French team could quite possibly have won anyway, I realise you might point to 2002 as an example of France without Zidane but thats really not fair, Henry and Vieira had ridiculously sub par tournamnets and Pires wasn't there, so really France were in effect missing 4 quality creative players

 

It's also worth noting that players like Zidane get much more protection now than they did in Maradona's day, Claudio Gentile wouldn't be allowed to treat Diego the way he did with todays refereeing standards

 

 

imo off teh top of my head Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Puskas, Di Stefano, Best, Moore, Platini, Garrinchia, Nilton Santos, Van Basten, Muller, Eusebio, Charlton, Didi, Maldidni, Baresi and Schiaffino were all better players than Zizou has ever been

 

Not that thats a knock on Zizou who's clearly a great player and would easily make my all time 100, I just think it's unfair on superior talents to place him anywhere near the top

[Austin3164life 0]

Zidane is definitely in the top 5 of all time. The man has been the best player of the ninetees. Pele isn 't #1. He's definitely overrated in North America. The greatest player of all time is Maradonas. No one could touch him in terms of pure skill. Then it's Beckinbower, then Pele.

 

Back on topic, I don't really care if Shawn Michaels is put into the Hall of Fame, beacuse overall he does kind of deserve it for the talent and style he's brought to pro-wrestling. It's awesome that Benoit is in and received his much needed due.

[Guest Rob Edwards]

nah Zidane only got world class around 1996, Maldini was world class for the entire decade, a clear winner, if we're talking peaks then 97 Ronaldo was better than Zidane's ever been

[Guest The Hamburglar]

imo off teh top of my head Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Puskas, Di Stefano, Best, Moore, Platini, Garrinchia, Nilton Santos, Van Basten, Muller, Eusebio, Charlton, Didi, Maldidni, Baresi and Schiaffino were all better players than Zizou has ever been

These are all great players, but what I feel elevates Zidane above many of them is that he has performed and won titles at the highest level on a variety of stages on a consistent basis over a long period of time. Cruyff for all his brilliance never won a World Cup. Nor did Platini. Muller and Charlton were goalscorers of the highest calibre but not on the same pure footballing level as Zidane. The problem with classifying defenders like Maldini, Baresi and Moore as "best ever" players is that defenders unlike other players are dependent on being part of a good defensive unit of three others at least, something a Zidane or a Maradona does not require. I don't see how its possible to even include Van Basten or Best in such a list because they never got to fulfill their full potential. If Best hadn't pissed his career away I have absolutely no doubt he would be up there with Pele, Maradona and Zidane. Van Basten's injury was tragic also. I'll concede that Beckenbauer should be up there but my personal preference goes with Zidane. Its just such a joy to watch the man play. Its like he can make time stand still and do whatever he wants with the ball sometimes. I agree with you that France 02 and possibly France 00 should have been good enough to win even without him, but in 1998 he dragged them to the title. Remember their utter lack of out-and-out strikers? For me, its two finals that sum up why Zidane is one of the top players of all time. That 98 final where he, a player characterised for his wonderful ground play, was able to come in on two routine set plays and bury two headers like a centre-forward to win his team the Cup, and the Champions league final against Leverkusen where, with his team under the cosh, won the game with one of the greatest goals ever scored. That goal is incredible, the man's balance is almost like that of a ballet dancer. That's what elevates him IMO, the fact that he could do his immense talent justice on the biggest occasions.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Can you move this conversation to Sports.

 

Not that I consider Soccer a sport...but it still fits better in that folder.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The reason Shawn had to retire is generally attributed to the fluke bump he ended up taking against the casket when he faced The Undertaker although the bumping he took before hand on a daily basis probably didn't help matters.

 

It was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

On the other side of the coin, Bret's concussion against Goldberg was something like his tenth while at the same time he was battling knee trouble.

 

But Bret would have recovered from the concussion within a short period of time (much shorter than say, the 4 years it took HBK to come back in any wrestling capacity), if it wasn't for the continuous head trauma he suffered afterwards he wouldn't have had to retire. Hart was banged up, but still functional and I doubt you could attribute his injuries to his style, but rather general wear-and-tear through-out a 20 year career. Bret likes to make the claim that in his time with the WWE he only missed, what, 2 days? Mikes point was that Shawns style worked better than Brets, and my point is the cost to Michaels body for the small return is hardly "better" than what Bret did.

 

The fact that Shawn missed a profitable period for the WWF is more a lack of good luck on his part than a direct effect of his bumping. We aren't talking about a five year career here Rick, Shawn was in the business something like ten years before his back gave out. That's kind of typical to be honest...

 

Usually it's knee injuries for wrestlers. Besides, the point was how well that bumping "worked". Did it get Shawn all the big bucks from the Attitude era? No. Did it get Nash over as a monster? No. So all it did was get a watchable match. Meanwhile, Bret did the same thing but didn't suffer nearly the damage. So what "worked better"?

 

Did Nash ever get credit for anything he ever did? No one has ever looked at a Nash match and been all "WOW HE'S SUPER" ... Bret couldn't do that. Shawn couldn't do that. But the fact that those two got something out of Nash that was completely watchable is still impressive.

 

Ok, how does that relate to what I'm saying? I'm not the one saying Shawn made Nash "look like a monster". Yes, getting a watchable match out of Nash is impressive, never said it wasn't, I was questioning the worth of the method and the outcome.

 

I don't know how anyone else not in angle is supposed to make Nash a draw against Mable and Tatanka anyway so maybe you can learn me how that could happen.

 

I dunno, Hogan drew against King Kong Bundy and Warrior and Zeus... Kinda funny when you look back on it, eh? Besides, if Shawn made Nash "look like a Monster" shouldn't that have paid off at all?

 

Sure the Nash reign as WWF champion was a failure... but the WHOLE FREAKING CARD was a mess filled with Doink the Clowns and Luna Vachons. It's not like things turned right around the second Nash lost the belt either.

 

But you can't say it got worse, cause Nash is generally regarded as the lowest drawing Champion in WWE history.

 

The nWo angle worked for three reasons...

1) The shock of Hulk Hogan turning heel for the first time in something like 15 years

2) The question of who was going to join the group next

3) Hall and Nash acting like themselves and getting a whole lot more over than they did as cartoon characters in the WWF. Please, lets not revise history so much that Nash and Hall didn't get over like gangbusters

 

I agree. And how does Shawn and his bumping relate to ANY of this? Keep your eyes on the prize Goodear.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The qualifications for the Hall are as such:

 

-High Drawing

-High Ability

-High Influence

 

Benoit got in under Ability. The Gordy list (and JDW) contest that Shawn wasn't that great of an in-ring wrestler and based on ring-work alone he shouldn't get in.

[Guest deadbeater]

Think of this:

 

In the past few years, there were only two wrestlers who regularly performed in the WWE who did not wrestle "WWE" style:

 

Mick Foley and Shawn Michaels.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

What style does HBK wrestle that's different from HHH, Undertaker or Austin?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Well he wrestled as a cruiserweight and a heavyweight all at the same time... didntchaknow?

 

*groan*

[Guest Goodear]

It was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

But you can make that case for virtually every major injury in wrestling outside of some botched neck drops on Droz and Austin. I'm just not sure you can make the case that Shawn's bumping was what delayed his career so much rather than the normal wear and tear that eventually takes down everyone eventually.

 

But Bret would have recovered from the concussion within a short period of time (much shorter than say, the 4 years it took HBK to come back in any wrestling capacity), if it wasn't for the continuous head trauma he suffered afterwards he wouldn't have had to retire.

 

The problem is you don't just shake off multipule concusions when they stop directly bothering you. The cumlative effect makes you more and more susceptable to getting another one with less effort. That's why people like Troy Aikman and Eric Lindross got them so often and ended up being really easy to knock for a loop.

 

Hart was banged up, but still functional and I doubt you could attribute his injuries to his style, but rather general wear-and-tear through-out a 20 year career. Bret likes to make the claim that in his time with the WWE he only missed, what, 2 days? Mikes point was that Shawns style worked better than Brets, and my point is the cost to Michaels body for the small return is hardly "better" than what Bret did.

 

But I think you're mistaken by thinking that Michaels got hurt prematurely do to his bumping. I think basically everyone is going to get hurt eventually and their style only dictates where the injury is going to end up coming from... Bret took shots to the head a whole lot, he got concussions. Shawn did a lot of back bumps, he got a back injury. Rey jumps around, knee. Benoit does a stronger style, neck.

 

Usually it's knee injuries for wrestlers. Besides, the point was how well that bumping "worked". Did it get Shawn all the big bucks from the Attitude era? No. Did it get Nash over as a monster? No. So all it did was get a watchable match. Meanwhile, Bret did the same thing but didn't suffer nearly the damage. So what "worked better"?

 

Like I said, injuries differ from person to person but most people get messed up eventually. I just think you're sort of splitting hairs here with the injury argument. Besides the point of the match was to get Shawn over anyway and not Nash... who was headed out the door. It ended up getting both guys a little more over which is okay with me.

 

I dunno, Hogan drew against King Kong Bundy and Warrior and Zeus... Kinda funny when you look back on it, eh? Besides, if Shawn made Nash "look like a Monster" shouldn't that have paid off at all?

 

But the point is not that Hogan made draws out of Bundy and Warrior... the point is that there is very little way that say, Andre, could have made a draw out the match up that he wasn't in. It's not like jobbing to Nash suddenly implanted all of Shawn's skills into the big lug. It seems to me as though you're saying Nash (bad draw) + Tatanka (AWEFUL draw) = Shawn did something wrong and I'm not seeing it.

 

But you can't say it got worse, cause Nash is generally regarded as the lowest drawing Champion in WWE history.

 

But looking back on it, the card was a devastated mess and if you put anyone in that posistion they aren't going to do well much less someone like Nash who was never a good worker and wasn't allowed to have much of a personality at that point.

 

I agree. And how does Shawn and his bumping relate to ANY of this? Keep your eyes on the prize Goodear.

 

Beats me, you're the one that said Hogan was what got the nWo over... I just refuted it by saying Hall and Nash were a tremendous asset to the angle and that Shawn helped them get over to the point where they weren't seen as joke coming into WCW. Was Michaels the only reason? Ha Ha no. A piece of the puzzle? Sure.

[Guest Goodear]

Well he wrestled as a cruiserweight and a heavyweight all at the same time... didntchaknow?

 

*groan*

Just as an aside, Michaels worked basically a Memphis style in case anyone was curious where he used brawling a whooooole lot and a few spots used at the right time.

 

Kip up = Slapping down the strap

[KTID 0]

Think of this:

 

In the past few years, there were only two wrestlers who regularly performed in the WWE who did not wrestle "WWE" style:

 

Mick Foley and Shawn Michaels.

 

 

I'm trying incredibly hard to make sense of this.

[Guest Rob Edwards]

imo off teh top of my head Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Puskas, Di Stefano, Best, Moore, Platini, Garrinchia, Nilton Santos, Van Basten, Muller, Eusebio, Charlton, Didi, Maldidni, Baresi and Schiaffino were all better players than Zizou has ever been

These are all great players, but what I feel elevates Zidane above many of them is that he has performed and won titles at the highest level on a variety of stages on a consistent basis over a long period of time. Cruyff for all his brilliance never won a World Cup. Nor did Platini. Muller and Charlton were goalscorers of the highest calibre but not on the same pure footballing level as Zidane. The problem with classifying defenders like Maldini, Baresi and Moore as "best ever" players is that defenders unlike other players are dependent on being part of a good defensive unit of three others at least, something a Zidane or a Maradona does not require. I don't see how its possible to even include Van Basten or Best in such a list because they never got to fulfill their full potential. If Best hadn't pissed his career away I have absolutely no doubt he would be up there with Pele, Maradona and Zidane. Van Basten's injury was tragic also. I'll concede that Beckenbauer should be up there but my personal preference goes with Zidane. Its just such a joy to watch the man play. Its like he can make time stand still and do whatever he wants with the ball sometimes. I agree with you that France 02 and possibly France 00 should have been good enough to win even without him, but in 1998 he dragged them to the title. Remember their utter lack of out-and-out strikers? For me, its two finals that sum up why Zidane is one of the top players of all time. That 98 final where he, a player characterised for his wonderful ground play, was able to come in on two routine set plays and bury two headers like a centre-forward to win his team the Cup, and the Champions league final against Leverkusen where, with his team under the cosh, won the game with one of the greatest goals ever scored. That goal is incredible, the man's balance is almost like that of a ballet dancer. That's what elevates him IMO, the fact that he could do his immense talent justice on the biggest occasions.

Sure BPS just split the topic take the soccer posts out and move it there

 

The thing about comparing Zidane to some of the other names is much like comparing Pele to Maradona, Sure Zidane won things, but he won them in great teams, For me France would have won in 98 with or without Zidane (think back to how good they looked without him against the Saudi's), and 2000 was more about Henry than Zizou, He's just never played in a bad team, hell even when Bordeaux were doing well he had Dugarry and Ziani there with him (Dugarry was easily rated as highly as him at the time), Wheras Cruyff and co all stuck out like sore thums in their teams (the excepion being Puskas in the Magical Magyars, but his record is arguably stronger than Zidane's)

 

Defender absolutley can stand out, mainly on a bailing out level, something which Beckenbauer and Moore excelled at, I'll give you that point on the Milan defence, but then again Zidane's more dependent on other people tackling back for him than a lot of other flair midfielders such as Bobby

 

Van Basten and Best didn't fulfil their potential but they were still better than Zizou even without doing it (although MVB had probably peaked 88-90)

 

and yeah he's a big occasion player but was almost everyone else and he's never carried teams as the man they all look to because he's way too peripheral, There's now ay any of his teams have ever looked for him the way Ajax and Holland looked for Cruyff

 

and again the protection from referees that Zizou enjoys has to be factored in, Noone else got that, and I still maintain he's never stood out enough from the rest of the pack at the time he was playing, Cruyff was one of the top two players in the world for most of the 70's until Diego and Platini took over, Zidane's only been there fleetingly with people like Ronaldo, Raul, Maldini, Carlos, Henry and Viera flitting in and out during his tenure

[Damaramu 0]

*knows absolutely nothing about soccer*

*Is very confused as to what debate is going on here....*

*tries to fit in...*

Paylay?

*is rejected...cries*

[Guest The Hamburglar]

yeah he's a big occasion player but was almost everyone else and he's never carried teams as the man they all look to because he's way too peripheral, There's now ay any of his teams have ever looked for him the way Ajax and Holland looked for Cruyff

Well, its obvious that we have a mere difference of opinion on Zidane's greatness, maybe due to style preference or perception, but the above quote just isn't true. Look at Real Madrid since he joined them, the principle form of attack has been Makelele winning the ball and giving it to Zidane to spark the attack off. I've seen them do it hundreds of times. And as for being in really good teams, are you telling me that Cruyff's Ajax and Holland weren't awesome teams? When Zidane goes, Henry will be king, no doubt, unless Van der Vaart gets even better then he is already.

 

BACK TO WRESTLING - So guys, will Taker ever actually reach the Hall of Fame? He's an interesting case because he was never a great draw, never a great influence and never considered a great worker yet he is still knocking on the door. Can he get in on the basis of using one of the most inspired gimmicks ever for ten years plus? Will his longevity alone qualify him?

[Jack_Bauer 0]

Well, Taker was a BIT of a draw when he fueded with HBK and DX in what was a kick ass fued.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Well, Taker was a BIT of a draw when he fueded with HBK and DX in what was a kick ass fued.

But many would say that HBK was the draw there. Although I wouldn't say it in this thread. I don't want to actually get involved in the HBK debate, because his various detractors and supporters scare me. A lot.

[Jack_Bauer 0]

*shakes hands in a evil way*

 

arguements, hehehehe !

 

*continues hand movement*

 

Come on HBK haters, KILL THE MAN !

 

*points at hamburgler*

 

HIM !

[Damaramu 0]

*throws something at hamburglar*

I'm already bored...

*wonders off*

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

But you can make that case for virtually every major injury in wrestling outside of some botched neck drops on Droz and Austin. I'm just not sure you can make the case that Shawn's bumping was what delayed his career so much rather than the normal wear and tear that eventually takes down everyone eventually.

 

Ok, have you ever SEEN a Shawn Michaels match? Most, if not all, of his bumps are back-centric. Look at the powerbomb he took from Nash at WM 11 to finish off the match. All those turnbuckle flair-ish bumps. Seriously, if you're not making the connection then you just aren't looking.

 

The problem is you don't just shake off multipule concusions when they stop directly bothering you. The cumlative effect makes you more and more susceptable to getting another one with less effort. That's why people like Troy Aikman and Eric Lindross got them so often and ended up being really easy to knock for a loop.

 

But the "multiple concussions" came from the same match (I believe Bret said he had 3), and were hardly the result of Bret's style. Bret would have been able to continue to wrestle afterwards as there are examples of wrestlers getting over a dozen concussions who wrestle much more of a hardcore style (Foley, Dreamer, Bubba Ray) than Bret. Bret's style isn't All Japan Head Dropping style, yet Shawns is tons-of-back-bumps.

 

But I think you're mistaken by thinking that Michaels got hurt prematurely do to his bumping. I think basically everyone is going to get hurt eventually and their style only dictates where the injury is going to end up coming from... Bret took shots to the head a whole lot, he got concussions. Shawn did a lot of back bumps, he got a back injury. Rey jumps around, knee. Benoit does a stronger style, neck.

 

Comparing Bret's style of work (and the injuries incurred) to Shawns or Reys is ridiculous. Bret never took any more headbumps than the avg wrestler; Shawn is known for his bumping and Rey is known for his flying.

 

 

Besides the point of the match was to get Shawn over anyway and not Nash... who was headed out the door. It ended up getting both guys a little more over which is okay with me.

 

They have a various matches during their tenure, not just when Nash was going out. Their WM 11 match was to get Nash over.

 

But the point is not that Hogan made draws out of Bundy and Warrior... the point is that there is very little way that say, Andre, could have made a draw out the match up that he wasn't in. It's not like jobbing to Nash suddenly implanted all of Shawn's skills into the big lug. It seems to me as though you're saying Nash (bad draw) + Tatanka (AWEFUL draw) = Shawn did something wrong and I'm not seeing it.

 

No, what I am saying is that "Shawn made Nash into a monster" is incorrect. I am saying that these infamous carry-jobs, in the end, just put Shawn closer and closer to a hospital bed.

 

Beats me, you're the one that said Hogan was what got the nWo over... I just refuted it by saying Hall and Nash were a tremendous asset to the angle and that Shawn helped them get over to the point where they weren't seen as joke coming into WCW. Was Michaels the only reason? Ha Ha no. A piece of the puzzle? Sure.

 

I said that the NWO angle didn't start to heat up until Hogan joined. Hall and Nash's personalities made the NWO 'cool'. Vince McMahons promoting made them names. Bischoff packaging made them interesting. Shawn's bumping did nothing (well, it helped Hall in the 'work' dept, I'll give him that.) It was when Nash powerbombed Bischoff through the table at GAB96 that I really started to take notice of this and said "this is no ordinary thing". THAT is what made them a threat, not what they did in the WWF. It's the fact that they were 2 guys from the WWE invading WCW and beating up their top guys. The intrigue of "who's the 3rd member" and it being Hogan is why skyrocketted it.

 

Wow, so basically everything I said above is what I originally said on page 8...

 

Point 1: Shawns insane bumping from matches like his ones with Nash are the reason he had to retire. When Mike says that style "worked" better than Brets, in the end it clearly didn't as it prevented Shawn from missing out on the WWE's post-tyson success. Bret's injuries were not related to his matches with Nash nor his style of work, but moreso related to a freak kick and then stupid booking which followed. Two completely different things.

 

Point 2: What do we talk about today? Do we talk about how great Nash was in those matches, or do we talk about how great Shawn was? Does Nash get ANY credit? Did he even get any at the time? Besides, Nash was leaving by Mania 11 too? How come Shawns' carry-jobs didn't help Nash draw in the WWE? How come it was only until after he and Hall were packaged as 'invaders' and teamed up with Hogan -one of the biggest draws of all time- that the money started flowing in. I wouldn't exactly say that it was Shawns' carry jobs that made Nash successful, but rather smart booking by WCW.