Who would be the best wrestler ever?

[Guest wildpegasus]

Yeah, we fans always have polls on who we favour as the best wrestler ever. However, what about the wrestlers themselves? Who would they think is the best wrestler ever?

 

From what I've read, it just may be Fit Finlay. Like Lance Storm says you just don't know how good he is until you're in the ring with him which reminds me maybe we should just count wrestlers' votes if only they have wrestled each other at one time or another. Or make 2 categories. One with wrestlers' best ever wrestler (even if they haven't wrestled them before) and the other category being wrestlers' best ever wrestler that they have faced in the ring.

[Guest hasbeen]

You have to define best wrestler. Best in-ring ability, with charisma, longevity, success, all of that not counted?

[Guest wildpegasus]

You have to define best wrestler. Best in-ring ability, with charisma, longevity, success, all of that not counted?

 

Well, I say charisma is part of in ring ability. Benoit, Arn Anderson, Steve Austin, Ricky Steamboat and Arn Anderson for example had tons of this. I'm not concerned so much with who wrestlers think is the best on the mic but more on who they think is the best inring preformer. Longevity isn't too much of a factor.

 

For ex, I know Benoit is high on Johnny Smith.

 

Regal says that Finlay is 10 times!!!! better than any person out there thinks he is.

[CanadianChris 0]

The second question is impossible, because no wrestler has wrestled enough people that would be at the top of the list to give an accurate judgment.

 

The first question would depend entirely on who you asked. Go to Japan and you get a completely different answer from what you'd get in the US, which would be completely different than in Mexico, etc. Retired wrestlers would have a completely different answer from WWE veterans, who would have a completely different answer from some rising star in ROH. Guys who spent most of their time in WCW would have a different answer than guys who came up in WWE. And so on.

[Guest hasbeen]

Savage.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I was thinking about doing this about a month ago. But there's far to many variables.

 

What defines in-ring work? Where do we draw the line on that? Bret Hart wasn't all that fast and not much of a high flyer either, but obviously a brilliant technician. Since vice versa applies for Scorpio, and that in theory gives him a 2-1 lead thus far...I can;t even finish that thought seriously.

 

If you were to rate someone in , as an example, 100, 100, 50 in charisma, mat work and mic skills, and gave another 80,80,80, does that make wrestler A is better since his total his higher? B because he's more well rounded?

 

 

And I'm not sure I would have ever thought of Finlay, but with what Regal and Storm said, well, there's a whole other intangiable that inevitably makes this an impossible question to answer, IMO.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Fit Finley has never drawn or been in any major program in his career. Come on. It's a work. His ability to wrestle stiff, believable matches doesn't mean he's the best worker.

 

Hogan has more locker room marks and followers than haters. I think he wins. Just for the money he has put in people's pockets and what he did for the sport I'd say he would probably get the vote. Flair, Sammartino, Andre, Austin, and Rock would follow.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Fit Finley has never drawn or been in any major program in his career. Come on. It's a work. His ability to wrestle stiff, believable matches doesn't mean he's the best worker.

 

Hogan has more locker room marks and followers than haters. I think he wins. Just for the money he has put in people's pockets and what he did for the sport I'd say he would probably get the vote. Flair, Sammartino, Andre, Austin, and Rock would follow.

 

You're thinking of success, which doesn't seem to be the point of this thread. It's about who would be called the best wrestler, not the most successful. And who really knows what the answer is. Some wrestlers have some pretty nutty ideas about who's good or not. A few years ago I believe one of the Funk's (Terry probably) said Sabu was the best in the world, or something to that effect. I'd wager to say Flair would get the most mention, even though there's a bunch of guys who were a lot better than him in the ring. But he's the "traditional" pick.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Fit Finley has never drawn or been in any major program in his career. Come on. It's a work. His ability to wrestle stiff, believable matches doesn't mean he's the best worker.

 

Hogan has more locker room marks and followers than haters. I think he wins. Just for the money he has put in people's pockets and what he did for the sport I'd say he would probably get the vote. Flair, Sammartino, Andre, Austin, and Rock would follow.

 

You're thinking of success, which doesn't seem to be the point of this thread. It's about who would be called the best wrestler, not the most successful. And who really knows what the answer is. Some wrestlers have some pretty nutty ideas about who's good or not. A few years ago I believe one of the Funk's (Terry probably) said Sabu was the best in the world, or something to that effect. I'd wager to say Flair would get the most mention, even though there's a bunch of guys who were a lot better than him in the ring. But he's the "traditional" pick.

 

Yeah, but I think UTSU has the right idea. Most wrestlers don't think like smarks. They could give a shit less about winning titles, or working a good match. To them the most important thing is making money, and it's really easy to do that when Hulk Hogan is standing across the ring from you.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

Pro wrestling is entertainment, not a competitive sport.

 

Therefore, the best wrestler IS the one who is most successful.

 

I judge workrate as the ability to get the most of a crowd and bring in more spectators for the next show based on the time you're given to perform.

 

"Work" does not mean 'technical marvel' or 'amateur shoot skills', it refers to your entertainment of the crowd and ability to bring in box offices.

 

Thus, someone like Hogan, odd as it sounds, is a better worker than most great technical wrestlers. If the crowd buys into the 3 moves, that's their own problem and you're in the minority. He's did his job better than any other wrestler in the history of the sport.

______

 

BTW, about Sabu.

 

PWI, in 1995 and 1996, as silly a magazine as it could be, had their polls. They were usually pretty accurate about the state of the business, and put over great technicians like Malenko and Benoit, and paid respect to foreign talent like Kobashi, Liger, Misawa, and Mysterio.

 

It was 1995 that their mid-year poll, rigged or not, ranked Sabu as the #1 Best Wrestler in the World, followed by Rey Mysterio and Liger.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Pro wrestling is entertainment, not a competitive sport.

 

Therefore, the best wrestler IS the one who is most successful.

 

Fallacious argument. You might think success equals quality, but that's just your opinion. Success can be measured, quality is subjective. So if you think the most successful means the "best", good for you. Don't speak of it like fact, because you'll get nowhere trying to prove your criteria is more valid than anyone elses.

 

I judge workrate as the ability to get the most of a crowd and bring in more spectators for the next show based on the time you're given to perform.

 

"Work" does not mean 'technical marvel' or 'amateur shoot skills', it refers to your entertainment of the crowd and ability to bring in box offices.

 

Thus, someone like Hogan, odd as it sounds, is a better worker than most great technical wrestlers. If the crowd buys into the 3 moves, that's their own problem and you're in the minority. He's did his job better than any other wrestler in the history of the sport.

 

That's your opinion and many would disagree with that definition of workrate and worker. Plus, when people talk of a "worker", they're generally referring to their wrestling ability. There's no point in making a big deal out of semantics by going on about how the best "worker" is the one who makes the most money as opposed to the one who has the most wrestling ability. People are generally not talking about that when talking about a worker or workrate. If they wanted to discuss success and money making ability, they'd probably say so.

 

BTW, about Sabu.

 

PWI, in 1995 and 1996, as silly a magazine as it could be, had their polls. They were usually pretty accurate about the state of the business, and put over great technicians like Malenko and Benoit, and paid respect to foreign talent like Kobashi, Liger, Misawa, and Mysterio.

 

It was 1995 that their mid-year poll, rigged or not, ranked Sabu as the #1 Best Wrestler in the World, followed by Rey Mysterio and Liger.

 

PWI was a casuals magazine, so I don't know what relevance that holds. They threw out international names to look credible, but it was fairly easy to tell what agenda was driving the magazine. Thinking about it logically, Sabu wasn't as skilled as about 100 other wrestlers nor did he draw much money, so I don't see any argument for being the best in the world. Unless one's criteria is breaking tables and botching spots.

[Cuban Linx 0]

I'd be quite surprised if the answer was anyone but Ric Flair. In the US anyway.

[Guest hasbeen]

Pro wrestling is entertainment, not a competitive sport.

 

Therefore, the best wrestler IS the one who is most successful.

 

Fallacious argument. You might think success equals quality, but that's just your opinion. Success can be measured, quality is subjective. So if you think the most successful means the "best", good for you. Don't speak of it like fact, because you'll get nowhere trying to prove your criteria is more valid than anyone elses.

 

I judge workrate as the ability to get the most of a crowd and bring in more spectators for the next show based on the time you're given to perform.

 

"Work" does not mean 'technical marvel' or 'amateur shoot skills', it refers to your entertainment of the crowd and ability to bring in box offices.

 

Thus, someone like Hogan, odd as it sounds, is a better worker than most great technical wrestlers. If the crowd buys into the 3 moves, that's their own problem and you're in the minority. He's did his job better than any other wrestler in the history of the sport.

 

That's your opinion and many would disagree with that definition of workrate and worker. Plus, when people talk of a "worker", they're generally referring to their wrestling ability. There's no point in making a big deal out of semantics by going on about how the best "worker" is the one who makes the most money as opposed to the one who has the most wrestling ability. People are generally not talking about that when talking about a worker or workrate. If they wanted to discuss success and money making ability, they'd probably say so.

 

BTW, about Sabu.

 

PWI, in 1995 and 1996, as silly a magazine as it could be, had their polls. They were usually pretty accurate about the state of the business, and put over great technicians like Malenko and Benoit, and paid respect to foreign talent like Kobashi, Liger, Misawa, and Mysterio.

 

It was 1995 that their mid-year poll, rigged or not, ranked Sabu as the #1 Best Wrestler in the World, followed by Rey Mysterio and Liger.

 

PWI was a casuals magazine, so I don't know what relevance that holds. They threw out international names to look credible, but it was fairly easy to tell what agenda was driving the magazine. Thinking about it logically, Sabu wasn't as skilled as about 100 other wrestlers nor did he draw much money, so I don't see any argument for being the best in the world. Unless one's criteria is breaking tables and botching spots.

 

 

 

You don't think "educated" fans throw out Japanese names to look more credible, "smart"?

[World's Worst Man 0]

I don't really care if they do or not, nor does it seem even relevant. If someone actually knows what they're talking about, they can name-drop all they want.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

No, I was just giving Sabu credit for being rated as highly as he was during the 90's.

 

Nowhere near "the best wrestler" ever.