Originally Posted by Destor (Post 5433724)

this brings up a solid thought:

is being your all time favorite the same as being the greatest? i see a large distinction between those two things. my personal favorite migh not be the greates that ever lived.


for example: beatles are the greatest band of all time. they shaped a culture shift that reverberated globaly.

queen is my favorite band. they bring me the most pleasure.

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 5440482)

i think freddy is the most talented lead man ever. the vocal range, the stage presence, the depth of his lyrics and the complexity of his arrangements. he's on a whole other level.


the beatles though...they changed the world. not only did they have an outlandish ammount of no.1s they spearheaded a massive cultural shift. theyre probably the most impactful artists in the last 150 years or more and im not talking just their music. im talking the whole of western culture.

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 5433882)

This post is a good one to get into my thoughts.

I agree that draw shouldnt be the SOLE metric but i do feel that its the most important. Immediately guys who never drew are bumped out of contention. Bret, Angle, Jericho, HBK and to a lesser extent Savage all were phenomenal workers but as a draw they all fell short (Savage far less so than the others.) Some of the greatest workers between the bells but GOAT? they arent even in the conversation.

With the draw being the chief metric there's a short list I can pretty quickly go to: Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Goldberg, Taker.

Rock was only a top guy for about 6 months and 80% of his draw was because Austin was so red hot. frankly Rock has been more successful in hollywood than he was in wrestling and I think a lot of that clouds how people view his run. Austin was the guy. Rock just fed off the flames he produced.

Goldberg was a flash in the pan. He drew crazy money for 18 months or so and then nothing.

Goldberg and Rock bring us to the next metric: LONGEVITY

Lasting power is intrinsically tied to drawing. A guy who can stay over longer must logically be better. Seems like a reasonable inference. Goldberg and The Rock didnt have any longevity whatsoever and sadly, neither did Austin.

Austin might have drawn more money in his career than anyone ever did. Staggering ammounts. The Austin character can very reasonably be argued as the cornerstone of the WWFs rise in the late 90s and the cause of WCWs eventual downfall. but the career just didnt last.

So we're left with Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Cena, Taker.

The japs all have the same issue. Outside of Japan and Korea they werent really a thing. They were essentially regional. huge money was drawn in their region, on par with new york, but it was one market with no crossover. Its for this reason I also cross off Bruno.

Bruno had IMMENSE staying power. He was on top so long the company should have folded when he retired (and a lesser territory would have.) Bruno certainly had more travel potential than the Japs and even his peers of the same time before cable took prominence. Bruno would have in my mind been bigger than hogan if they were both in their primes in the 80s but at the end of the day Bruno was on top in the time frame he was on top and was limited by the technology of his era.

Andre, Hogan, Flair, Cena, Taker.

the top 5 is where this gets incredibly difficult to debate thats what we're here to do.

My next metric is influence. Who's mark has reverberated thoughout the ages of the industry. Cena is a bit too fresh to see what that is. I'd also argue that him spending so much of his career as a guy 30% of the audience rejected that I cant push him any further forward.

Taker certainly will be the bench mark for big men from now until the end of time.

Andre might be the most successful draw of all time when you consider that you could book Andre anywhere ON EARTH and you could sell out the building but because of the very factors that made him a draw he cannot be replicated and thus his influences on future generations is very limited.

So I arrive at Taker, Hogan and Flair.

Taker I eliminate at this point because next to the other two men his career simply doesnt match up. He spent a very small fraction of his career as the guy the show depended on. If he wasnt hot the gate didnt crumble. He simply wasnt as important.

Hogan and Flair.

Hogan transcended the industry in the same way the rock would do later. and that in turn clouds the conversation. its his successes beyond wrestling that bolster hogans mystique but imo the conversation should stay on wrestling. yes Hogan is more of a house hold name but that has as much to do with MTV as it does anything.

Ric Flair imo is the GOAT. he has the greatest single attendance of any show ever (190k [355k over 2 days]) His body of work has directly influenced how matches are constructed in a far grander scale than any worker ever. He is the model for what in ring work should be for 50 years. he carried the entire south on his back for 15-20 years. And his matches have stood the test of time and are still some of the first tapes guys go to when looking to study.

Ric Flair imo is the absolute bench mark for what success in wrestling should look like. Others may outshine him in one metric or another but when you add everything together no one is as complete of a package as Ric Flair. there is no metric that you can judge a wrestler on that flair isnt an automatic top 3 and in most a very reasonable top 1.

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 5433882)

This post is a good one to get into my thoughts.

I agree that draw shouldnt be the SOLE metric but i do feel that its the most important. Immediately guys who never drew are bumped out of contention. Bret, Angle, Jericho, HBK and to a lesser extent Savage all were phenomenal workers but as a draw they all fell short (Savage far less so than the others.) Some of the greatest workers between the bells but GOAT? they arent even in the conversation.

With the draw being the chief metric there's a short list I can pretty quickly go to: Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Goldberg, Taker.

Rock was only a top guy for about 6 months and 80% of his draw was because Austin was so red hot. frankly Rock has been more successful in hollywood than he was in wrestling and I think a lot of that clouds how people view his run. Austin was the guy. Rock just fed off the flames he produced.

Goldberg was a flash in the pan. He drew crazy money for 18 months or so and then nothing.

Goldberg and Rock bring us to the next metric: LONGEVITY

Lasting power is intrinsically tied to drawing. A guy who can stay over longer must logically be better. Seems like a reasonable inference. Goldberg and The Rock didnt have any longevity whatsoever and sadly, neither did Austin.

Austin might have drawn more money in his career than anyone ever did. Staggering ammounts. The Austin character can very reasonably be argued as the cornerstone of the WWFs rise in the late 90s and the cause of WCWs eventual downfall. but the career just didnt last.

So we're left with Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Cena, Taker.

The japs all have the same issue. Outside of Japan and Korea they werent really a thing. They were essentially regional. huge money was drawn in their region, on par with new york, but it was one market with no crossover. Its for this reason I also cross off Bruno.

Bruno had IMMENSE staying power. He was on top so long the company should have folded when he retired (and a lesser territory would have.) Bruno certainly had more travel potential than the Japs and even his peers of the same time before cable took prominence. Bruno would have in my mind been bigger than hogan if they were both in their primes in the 80s but at the end of the day Bruno was on top in the time frame he was on top and was limited by the technology of his era.

Andre, Hogan, Flair, Cena, Taker.

the top 5 is where this gets incredibly difficult to debate thats what we're here to do.

My next metric is influence. Who's mark has reverberated thoughout the ages of the industry. Cena is a bit too fresh to see what that is. I'd also argue that him spending so much of his career as a guy 30% of the audience rejected that I cant push him any further forward.

Taker certainly will be the bench mark for big men from now until the end of time.

Andre might be the most successful draw of all time when you consider that you could book Andre anywhere ON EARTH and you could sell out the building but because of the very factors that made him a draw he cannot be replicated and thus his influences on future generations is very limited.

So I arrive at Taker, Hogan and Flair.

Taker I eliminate at this point because next to the other two men his career simply doesnt match up. He spent a very small fraction of his career as the guy the show depended on. If he wasnt hot the gate didnt crumble. He simply wasnt as important.

Hogan and Flair.

Hogan transcended the industry in the same way the rock would do later. and that in turn clouds the conversation. its his successes beyond wrestling that bolster hogans mystique but imo the conversation should stay on wrestling. yes Hogan is more of a house hold name but that has as much to do with MTV as it does anything.

Ric Flair imo is the GOAT. he has the greatest single attendance of any show ever (190k [355k over 2 days]) His body of work has directly influenced how matches are constructed in a far grander scale than any worker ever. He is the model for what in ring work should be for 50 years. he carried the entire south on his back for 15-20 years. And his matches have stood the test of time and are still some of the first tapes guys go to when looking to study.

Ric Flair imo is the absolute bench mark for what success in wrestling should look like. Others may outshine him in one metric or another but when you add everything together no one is as complete of a package as Ric Flair. there is no metric that you can judge a wrestler on that flair isnt an automatic top 3 and in most a very reasonable top 1.

Originally Posted by Supreme Olajuwon (Post 5434059)

Most sports don’t have a GOAT. It’s really only hockey. Every other major sport is debatable.

Originally Posted by Lord Gertner of TPWW (Post 5433956)

Do you think Flair's matches being a bit repetitive is a knock against him or a non factor in this discussion

I have Flair in my top 3

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 5433882)

This post is a good one to get into my thoughts.

I agree that draw shouldnt be the SOLE metric but i do feel that its the most important. Immediately guys who never drew are bumped out of contention. Bret, Angle, Jericho, HBK and to a lesser extent Savage all were phenomenal workers but as a draw they all fell short (Savage far less so than the others.) Some of the greatest workers between the bells but GOAT? they arent even in the conversation.

With the draw being the chief metric there's a short list I can pretty quickly go to: Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Austin, Cena, Rock, Goldberg, Taker.

Rock was only a top guy for about 6 months and 80% of his draw was because Austin was so red hot. frankly Rock has been more successful in hollywood than he was in wrestling and I think a lot of that clouds how people view his run. Austin was the guy. Rock just fed off the flames he produced.

Goldberg was a flash in the pan. He drew crazy money for 18 months or so and then nothing.

Goldberg and Rock bring us to the next metric: LONGEVITY

Lasting power is intrinsically tied to drawing. A guy who can stay over longer must logically be better. Seems like a reasonable inference. Goldberg and The Rock didnt have any longevity whatsoever and sadly, neither did Austin.

Austin might have drawn more money in his career than anyone ever did. Staggering ammounts. The Austin character can very reasonably be argued as the cornerstone of the WWFs rise in the late 90s and the cause of WCWs eventual downfall. but the career just didnt last.

So we're left with Andre, Bruno, Hogan, Flair, Inoki, Chosu, Rikidozan, Cena, Taker.

The japs all have the same issue. Outside of Japan and Korea they werent really a thing. They were essentially regional. huge money was drawn in their region, on par with new york, but it was one market with no crossover. Its for this reason I also cross off Bruno.

Bruno had IMMENSE staying power. He was on top so long the company should have folded when he retired (and a lesser territory would have.) Bruno certainly had more travel potential than the Japs and even his peers of the same time before cable took prominence. Bruno would have in my mind been bigger than hogan if they were both in their primes in the 80s but at the end of the day Bruno was on top in the time frame he was on top and was limited by the technology of his era.

Andre, Hogan, Flair, Cena, Taker.

the top 5 is where this gets incredibly difficult to debate thats what we're here to do.

My next metric is influence. Who's mark has reverberated thoughout the ages of the industry. Cena is a bit too fresh to see what that is. I'd also argue that him spending so much of his career as a guy 30% of the audience rejected that I cant push him any further forward.

Taker certainly will be the bench mark for big men from now until the end of time.

Andre might be the most successful draw of all time when you consider that you could book Andre anywhere ON EARTH and you could sell out the building but because of the very factors that made him a draw he cannot be replicated and thus his influences on future generations is very limited.

So I arrive at Taker, Hogan and Flair.

Taker I eliminate at this point because next to the other two men his career simply doesnt match up. He spent a very small fraction of his career as the guy the show depended on. If he wasnt hot the gate didnt crumble. He simply wasnt as important.

Hogan and Flair.

Hogan transcended the industry in the same way the rock would do later. and that in turn clouds the conversation. its his successes beyond wrestling that bolster hogans mystique but imo the conversation should stay on wrestling. yes Hogan is more of a house hold name but that has as much to do with MTV as it does anything.

Ric Flair imo is the GOAT. he has the greatest single attendance of any show ever (190k [355k over 2 days]) His body of work has directly influenced how matches are constructed in a far grander scale than any worker ever. He is the model for what in ring work should be for 50 years. he carried the entire south on his back for 15-20 years. And his matches have stood the test of time and are still some of the first tapes guys go to when looking to study.

Ric Flair imo is the absolute bench mark for what success in wrestling should look like. Others may outshine him in one metric or another but when you add everything together no one is as complete of a package as Ric Flair. there is no metric that you can judge a wrestler on that flair isnt an automatic top 3 and in most a very reasonable top 1.

Originally Posted by Reacher (Post 5443046)

With respect to hockey, there are many people out there that consider Orr to be greater than Wayne and so I’d argue that the NHL is debatable as well. While Gretzky destroyed Lemieux in every statistical category, Lemieux was one of the only players in the NHL to have crazy stats during the “dead puck” era of the NHL (1995-2004), although in Gretzky’s defense, he was a little bit older during this time.

Originally Posted by Ruien (Post 5443056)

There is no debate for the NFL GOAT anymore. You can't argue against Brady anymore.

Don't think anyone really argues against Babe Ruth for MLB. If Trout ever gets on a winning team he might enter the discussion but he is with the Angels so no one has to worry about that.

NBA is contested by two people with a few long shots thrown in every now and then.

Originally Posted by Reacher (Post 5443049)

Hey Destor was just curious - where would you put Sting here? Do you think he could supplant Goldberg in that #10 spot? Outside of Hogan, Sting was pretty much the face of WCW during its formative years was he not? If we’re talking about it a guy that was “the face” of a company and was synonymous with a major brand, then Sting would have to rank up there somewhere right?

Originally Posted by wwe2222 (Post 5443089)

I give credit to Hogan kicking off the two biggest booms in wrestling history. The 80s with Hulkamania, and the 90s with the NWO.

The only guy that could've made that NWO angle blow up like it did by turning heel was Hogan. That led into the Monday Night Wars and the Attitude Era. Im not sure you get the 90s boom without Hogan turning.

Originally Posted by Destor (Post 5443114)

Ive had this conversation about Sting on here a few times and no one ever agrees but I stand by it:

Stings career is one night away from putting him in a whole other category. Starrcade 97 is imo what lost WCW the war. Hogan and Sting went out and delivered a big turd on a night that had more eyeballs than they ever had. had that night delivered on the (truly excellent) build the 90s could very reasonably went VERY differently. But it went the way it went and it goes down in my mind as the single most significant blunder in wrestling history and with it puts a great failure on Sting's resume.

Conversely its Goldberg that kept WCW in the game throughout 98. Without him getting red hot when he did Id wager WCW would have collapsed much sooner without any baby face you could push. DDP got hot around this time so you might have been able to lean on him but we start getting into the weeds with what ifs at this point and this conversation is about what was and not what could have been.

Ultimately I put Sting in the camp with the Michaels and the like. Great talent but never broke through to be one of the Legends amongst Legends. But he was so close.

And Goldberg was 90% booking and marketing. There's a reason he burnt out so quickly and it also why he just baaaaaaaaaarely squeaks into the conversation. But the money generated in that time was fucking wild and I cant just ignore it because he was so mediocre in the ring. You go back and listen the those crowds in mid 98. It was a special kind of over few ever reach.