From The Observer

[Damaramu 0]

How could I leave Eddie and Chavo off my list!?

Ok it goes:

 

1) Benoit

2) Eddie

3) Jericho

4) Ultimo

5) Chavo

 

Still no HBK.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

1. Chris Benoit

2. Eddy Guerrero

3. Kurt Angle

4. Rey Misterio

5. Chris Jericho

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

In no order off the top of my head people better than HBK:

 

Benoit, Eddy, Brock, Angle, Jericho, Misterio, Noble, London...

 

I bet if I put any thought into it HBK wouldn't make the top 15 let alone 10

[snuffbox 0]

benoit, jericho, angle, shawn, eddy

[Guest wildpegasus]

You know, we gotta think positive about this. Vince was mad at people letting stuff leak out about Wrestlemania, right? SO, maybe he's letting wrong information sneak out on purpose to fool everyone and keep everything on surprise. Note how on Smackdown when he was mad at Heyman for letting Benoit go he only mentioned Benoit and HHH, not Michaels.

 

I see it so cleary now.

 

Yes, that's what's going to happen.

 

I think it'll happen.

 

I know it'll happen.

 

Yes, it will happen.

 

**Clutches childhood teddy bear for support in this hard emotional time**

 

Which reminds me. A teddy bear is the greatest solution ever for not having a girlfriend or wife/boyfriend or husband.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Top 5 Best Workers Overall:

 

1. Angle

2. Jericho

3. Michaels

4. Eddie Guerrero

5. Benoit

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Top 5 Best Workers Overall:

 

1. Angle

2. Jericho

3. Michaels

4. Eddie Guerrero

5. Benoit

I'd say your list was upside down...

 

but Michaels would still inexplicably be on it.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Some people like HBK.

 

Some people don't.

 

Now we've established that, I've saved you all a further 6 pages of repetitive drivel.

 

Money donations welcome.

 

UYI

[Damaramu 0]

Some people like HBK.

 

Some people don't.

 

Now we've established that, I've saved you all a further 6 pages of repetitive drivel.

 

Money donations welcome.

 

UYI

However.......like it's been said before......you can pretty much determine what makes a wrestler good and what makes a wrestler bad and not have opinions come into it.

I enjoy watching HBK perform but I can honestly say I don't think he's a good worker.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

That's cool, bro.

 

I guess I just see alot more in his matches than most here do.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Liking someone shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

Some people like bad wrestlers (Hogan) more than good wrestlers...and some people hate good wrestlers (Benoit).

 

That's so not the point here...and I don't know how anyone could rank HBK top 5 without factoring in :liking him:

[AndrewTS 0]

I may be in the minority here...but Angle a better worker than HBK? Huh?!

[Damaramu 0]

That's cool, bro.

 

I guess I just see alot more in his matches than most here do.

Please then give us a detailed explanation as to what makes him so great.

And don't say "Cuz he's entertaining!"

[NYU 0]

Liking someone shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

Some people like bad wrestlers (Hogan) more than good wrestlers...and some people hate good wrestlers (Benoit).

 

That's so not the point here...and I don't know how anyone could rank HBK top 5 without factoring in :liking him:

It's all in the eye of a person what makes a good wrestler. While one person may find Benoit an unbelievable wrestler because he's great in one aspect of wrestling, another person may find him to just be a poor wrestler.

 

What's a good wrestler?

 

If having technical skills makes you a good wrestler, then sure, Benoit's excellent.

 

But what about speed? High-flying types of moves? If someone watches wrestling for THAT alone, then Rey Misterio may be the best wrestler in their eyes.

 

How about high-impact moves? To some fans, the only way you can be a good wrestler is if you have powerful moves that look like they cause serious damage. Why, in that case, Batista would be an awesome wrestler.

 

Putting on shows in the ring could determine who's a good wrestler for some people. Shawn Michaels could look like he's ready to die in the ring, then bounce back and surprise the crowd. The man DOES put on a good show and, to some, this could be what a good wrestler is all about.

 

Martial-arts make up a good wrestler? Rob Van Dam.

 

In-ring charisma? The Rock or Hulk Hogan.

 

Being able to sell? Then, surely, Bret Hart was one of the greatest wrestlers of all time.

 

.....it's up to the fan to decide what a good wrestler actually is. While having martial arts skills or high-impact moves may not be important for YOU to be a good wrestler, they may be the most important things for someone else. It's silly to say that just because Benoit can wrestle technically, he's undoubtedly a good wrestler. Because somewhere, there is someone that doesn't give a damn about technical wrestling so, to them, Benoit is just a boring, below-average wrestler. It would definitely be best for a wrestler to have all of these, but very rarely does this happen. So, the fans pick WHICH of these aspects mean the most to them in picking who they feel is the best wrestler out there. This may differ from your opinion, but it doesn't make their opinion any less right. Each person has their own criteria - and sometimes that's forgotten around here.

[Damaramu 0]

No you just described what entertains a person.....not what makes a wrestler good.

 

Every wrestlers should be able to:

sell good

incorporate psychology into every match

protect his opponent

put on a believable match

make it look as real as possible

entertain the crowd

have some substance to his matches

matches and moves should make sense.

 

Shawn Michaels does not sell well nor is much of anything he does believable(gets hit with every move in the book and then kips up and wins with one shot!?!?). And there are psychology holes a mile wide you could drive through in his matches.

 

So yes he is entertaining......but no most of his work is not good. Everyone of those things I named makes a good wrestler good. You could say "Well wrestlers that don't sell and who have matches that make no sense entertain me!" well that's fine. That's what entertains you...but that doesn't make them a good wrestler. Fortunately wrestlers that can do all these things are usually the most entertaining.

[geniusMoment 0]

If picking out whats makes a wrestler great is not subjective then why do Meltzer, Keller, Scherer, Powell, Alvarez, Keith and all other wrestling journalists call HBK one of the best, and they still call him one of the best, wrestlers from today or any day. Yet, many of you say he is not in the top ten or even the top 15. Are they just all idiots and you know more about what makes a wrestler great, or are so many of you blinded by kliq hate you cannot clearly see what everyone else is saying?

[NYU 0]

No you just described what entertains a person.....not what makes a wrestler good.

 

Every wrestlers should be able to:

sell good

incorporate psychology into every match

protect his opponent

put on a believable match

make it look as real as possible

entertain the crowd

have some substance to his matches

matches and moves should make sense.

Good to who?? Good to you?? Where is this universally accepted list of what makes a wrestler good?? A wrestler being good is an OPINION. It's not a FACT.

 

These are your criteria for a wrestler being good.

 

That may be the criteria for the majority of the fans in seeing if a wrestler is good.

 

That's not the criteria for EVERYBODY to decide if a wrestler is good.

 

Deciding if a wrestler is good isn't a simple matter of going down a checklist and picking a "Yes" or "No." It's a matter of opinion among everybody to see who they find a GOOD wrestler and who they find a POOR wrestler.

 

If martial arts is a person's most important factor in picking a good wrestler, Benoit is shit out of luck. And Van Dam is successful.

 

If technical skills is a person's most important factor in picking a good wrestler, guess what....then Benoit IS a good wrestler.

 

Stop acting like it's a cut-and-dry situation, because it's not. Choosing who's good or who isn't is an opinion question based on people's beliefs. Just because you give the reasons for someone being a good wrestler doesn't mean that it's the universal standard that everyone abides by. People have differing opinions.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Are they just all idiots and you know more about what makes a wrestler great, or are so many of you blinded by kliq hate you cannot clearly see what everyone else is saying?

 

A lil from Column A, and a lil from Column B

[Guest Ray]

How in the FUCK is Van Dam a "martial artist" ??!?!

[NYU 0]

How in the FUCK is Van Dam a "martial artist" ??!?!

Perhaps it's the whole kickboxing career, and the fact that the majority of his offense is based on various types of kicks....

[Guest Ray]

How in the FUCK is Van Dam a "martial artist" ??!?!

Perhaps it's the whole kickboxing career, and the fact that the majority of his offense is based on various types of kicks....

Yeah, rolling thunder = martial arts. Pointless backflips = martial arts. Shitty spinning wheel kick = martial arts. Split-legged moonsault = marial arts. Frogsplash = martial arts.

[Damaramu 0]

No you just described what entertains a person.....not what makes a wrestler good.

 

Every wrestlers should be able to:

sell good

incorporate psychology into every match

protect his opponent

put on a believable match

make it look as real as possible

entertain the crowd

have some substance to his matches

matches and moves should make sense.

Good to who?? Good to you?? Where is this universally accepted list of what makes a wrestler good?? A wrestler being good is an OPINION. It's not a FACT.

 

These are your criteria for a wrestler being good.

 

That may be the criteria for the majority of the fans in seeing if a wrestler is good.

 

That's not the criteria for EVERYBODY to decide if a wrestler is good.

 

Deciding if a wrestler is good isn't a simple matter of going down a checklist and picking a "Yes" or "No." It's a matter of opinion among everybody to see who they find a GOOD wrestler and who they find a POOR wrestler.

 

If martial arts is a person's most important factor in picking a good wrestler, Benoit is shit out of luck. And Van Dam is successful.

 

If technical skills is a person's most important factor in picking a good wrestler, guess what....then Benoit IS a good wrestler.

 

Stop acting like it's a cut-and-dry situation, because it's not. Choosing who's good or who isn't is an opinion question based on people's beliefs. Just because you give the reasons for someone being a good wrestler doesn't mean that it's the universal standard that everyone abides by. People have differing opinions.

These are not my criteria. This is what just about everyone judges on. All those guys you were talking about judge on that fact.....however most of them are also prone to personal bias(see Meltzer and Kurt) and usually HBK is the one that people are bias towards the most. Because like I said he is entertaining.

 

So what makes someone a good football player is an opinion!? I didn't know that!

What makes someone a good chef is an opinion! Why I didn't know that!

I'm going to go play some football but do nothing on the field and say "Well that's your opinion that I suck and am lazy! But I think I'm good!" and then I'm going to go burn a steak to the point where you need a chainsaw to cut it and say "Well you think I'm a bad cook but that's your opinion! I'm a good cook!"

 

There is a criteria.....it's where most people get their star ratings from is by seeing if it meets all the criteria. Sorry.....you can yell about it all you want but what makes a wrestler good isn't what entertains YOU. Like I said......I think HBK is entertaining as hell but I'd never call the guy a good wrestler....not in a million years. And I like him.

So put your personal bias aside and look at it objectively. Because it is cut and dry.

[geniusMoment 0]

Damaramu, you would be right if everything you just said was not completely wrong. Selling, working the crowd, hitting your moves, knowing when to do something and technique all go into being a great wrestler, as well as many other things. HBK being entertaining, ie working the crowd, does make him a better wrestler. This is not olympic wrestling, skills are subjective.

[Vyce 0]

I may be in the minority here...but Angle a better worker than HBK? Huh?!

Michaels of past eras, maybe not. MAYBE not.

 

Michaels of today? Yes. Angle is better, in just about every way.

[chaosrage 0]

So what makes someone a good football player is an opinion!? I didn't know that!

A football player's goal is to win games. A wrestler's goal is to...... entertain the hell out of the crowd.

 

I think HBK is entertaining as hell but I'd never call the guy a good wrestler....not in a million years. And I like him.

So put your personal bias aside and look at it objectively. Because it is cut and dry.

 

Dude, stop being such an asshole. Your opinions aren't facts. Listen to yourself.

 

1. Shawn (best match of the year with Jericho, best free TV match of the year with HHH. Don't like it? I don't give a shit.)

2. Benoit

3. Jericho

4. Eddie

5. Angle

[Michrome 0]

Dude, stop being such an asshole. Your opinions aren't facts. Listen to yourself.

 

1. Shawn (best match of the year with Jericho, best free TV match of the year with HHH. Don't like it? I don't give a shit.)

 

Way to use logic to defend your positions! If this was an essay in First Grade, you'd get an F. How can a match where Shawn decided to completely ignore the backwork be match of the year? I mean, it doesn't even hit my top 50.

 

There are some things that define a good worker. One of the most crucial of all of these things is selling, something Shawn is completely incapable of for some reason.

[Guest JumpinJackFlash]

  QUOTE (NY Untouchable @ Feb 8 2004, 09:59 PM)

QUOTE (Ray @ Feb 8 2004, 11:58 PM)

How in the FUCK is Van Dam a "martial artist" ??!?! 

 

 

Perhaps it's the whole kickboxing career, and the fact that the majority of his offense is based on various types of kicks.... 

 

 

Yeah, rolling thunder = martial arts. Pointless backflips = martial arts. Shitty spinning wheel kick = martial arts. Split-legged moonsault = marial arts. Frogsplash = martial arts.

 

Yeah, same for Orlando Jordan.

 

Johnson shuffle=amateur boxing?

[Guest THE MIGHTY THOR]

No you just described what entertains a person.....not what makes a wrestler good.

 

Every wrestlers should be able to:

sell good

incorporate psychology into every match

protect his opponent

put on a believable match

make it look as real as possible

entertain the crowd

have some substance to his matches

matches and moves should make sense.

 

Shawn Michaels does not sell well nor is much of anything he does believable(gets hit with every move in the book and then kips up and wins with one shot!?!?). And there are psychology holes a mile wide you could drive through in his matches.

 

So yes he is entertaining......but no most of his work is not good. Everyone of those things I named makes a good wrestler good. You could say "Well wrestlers that don't sell and who have matches that make no sense entertain me!" well that's fine. That's what entertains you...but that doesn't make them a good wrestler. Fortunately wrestlers that can do all these things are usually the most entertaining.

Shit, i guess the people from the 50's-70's never had the chance to ever see a good wrestler since barely any of the wrestlers from those years knew how to sell,put a believable match,their matches and moves didn't make any sense,but they stll entertained a crowd back then.Too bad you weren't there to show them the light on what a good wrestler should be.

[Austin3164life 0]

They're really going out of their way to NOT put Chris Benoit over at the very least. The Clique apologists are going to justify it by claiming that the ladder symbolizes Benoit's "climb to the top".

 

And about Shawn Michaels, he was once a good wrestler who put on a string of good matches, but he is vastly overrated, especially by the WWE as being "One of the greatest wrestler's ever".

[Guest THE MIGHTY THOR]

And about Shawn Michaels, he was once a good wrestler who put on a string of good matches, but he is vastly overrated, especially by the WWE as being "One of the greatest wrestler's ever".

Amen to that, HBK was once a good and exciting wrestler, a breath of fresh air in the WWF main event, now he's only a shadow of his former self, a has-been, overrated and he's still is a locker room cancer, the way he was booked at Survivor Series IMO anybody else could've done it, but they got to make Shawn look good since he is HHHerpes BUTT buddy.