The GOAT

[Destor]

too early to say imo. i dont know if his work will stand the test of time. not a lot of people rushing out to study cena tapes

[Destor]

but he's very reasonably top 5

[Destor]

my question for cenas legacy is exactly that: his legacy. he will be presented in video packages for eons as a huge figure but for those who lived his reign he was largely an after though for half the audience.



are the guys who will later go on to be the draws of tomorrow looking at his work for inspiration? what impact will he have on what comes out of talent going forward?


we cant say. so until we can i can put him at the top of the list. too fresh.

[Sixx]

Originally Posted by Destor 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.

See, I actually think Queen are the greatest band of all time. With my favorite being Motley Crue. Every time someone tries to do Queen on karaoke nights I feel like murder.

[Destor]

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.

[Destor]

but i love queen more

[Sixx]

Originally Posted by Destor 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.

It's why I get mad at people trying to sing Queen songs. You can never do it anywhere near as good as Freddie. (Fuck you, Adam Lambert)

[Destor]

he's the most difficult talent to cover. you cant just replicate his sound even if you manage to hit the notes (and thats a tall order on its own)

[Sixx]

Also, I get bored by The Beatles.

[Destor]

i like the beatles well enough but even if i didnt id have to acknowledge their impact. its just so immense.

[Sixx]

I don't deny their impact, just not my "cup of tea".

[Sixx]

I've been treated with Queen since I was a kid, as it was both my parents' favorite band. Now my mom still loves them, while father loves whatever's on MTV. At 68.

[Seanny One Ball]

Don't mind me, came here for the rasslin' but stayed for the spontaneous Queen chat.

Deacon is criminally underrated as a bassist and sound engineer.

[Sixx]

You should see my dad drunkenly trying to bounce to Snoop Dogg.

[Reacher]

Originally Posted by Destor 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.

Much respect.

This is an awesome post and I completely agree with what you just said, although I’d probably have to give the slight edge to Hogan due to his worldwide stardom beyond the world of wrestling. Still - one of the better posts and analysis’ that I’ve read on here.

1) Hogan
2) Flair
3) Taker
4) Andre
5) Cena
6) Bruno
7) The aforementioned gooks
8) Austin
9) Rocky
10) Goldberg

Is probably how I’d rank them as well. (although I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing Goldberg dropping much further down)

[Loose Cannon]

Originally Posted by Destor 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.

I agree with pretty much all this, except I'd have Hogan as the GOAT.

Maybe because WWE was more mainstream then the NWA was in the 80's and maybe because to me he was the main reason for the nWo's (and WCW business in general) being so big in the 90's. When i talk to people who don't care for wrestling, it's always "oh the stuff Hulk Hogan does." even if Hogan hasn't really "done" it for like 20 years lol

Ric Flair's workrate is bar none light years beyond Hogan in the ring. But to me, Hogan is the face of PRO Wrestling over the past 50 years.

[Destor]

the argument for Hogan is so strong i wouldn't try to debate anyone who put him at the top. if you asked 100 people on the street to name a wrestler Hogan would probably win even today with Rock and Cena having much more current cultural significance.


my preference of flair in the debate is his influence on the people within the industry even on a subconscious level. his impact on the nuts and bolts of wrestling etc


but hogans star shines so brightly that i could never object to him being considered the goat. it would be ridiculous to try.

[Reacher]

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

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.

[Reacher]

Originally Posted by Lord Gertner of TPWW 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

I’d say non-factor given the context of greatness that has been defined in this thread.

[Reacher]

Originally Posted by Destor 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.

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?

[Ruien]

Originally Posted by Reacher 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.

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.

[Reacher]

Originally Posted by Ruien 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.

Agreed about Brady.

I would actually go as far as saying that he may have surpassed Michael Jordan and Pele in the terms of being the GOAT for all sports.

[wwe2222]

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.

[Destor]

Originally Posted by Reacher 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?

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.

[Destor]

Originally Posted by wwe2222 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.

its a storng argument. IMO it was a large portion of the WCW audience leaving Nitro for Raw that put the WWF on top...but what weight do we attribute why they left being BECAUSE of Hogan? Im of the opinion that as much as he drew them in his inability to put Sting over (and just having an AWFUL "mania" [see: starrcade] match in general) is why they left.

Should that not factor against him in equal parts?

[Jordan]

That is a good point. Which I why I think you could consider the guy next to Hogan is Cena. Cena consistently kept WWE above average numbers for years and years. Longer than Hogan or Austin/Rock combined. His longevity at the top, huge merch numbers and consistent house show/attendance has to be a consideration. The thing is with Hogan/Austin/Cena the fans all grew "tired" of them at some point. With Cena though it happened earlier rather than later. As time went on he eventually gained the respect of the internet fans and was consistently having great PPV matches. I know it's kind of crazy to say it because we didn't "grow up" with Cena and most of rolled our eyes for years every time we heard his music play, but he's in a league of his own in a lot of ways.

[Bad News Gertner]

Originally Posted by Destor 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.

I 100% agree with you about Sting

[Destor]

bout time someone did

[IC Champion]

You’re all wrong.

The correct answer is Danhausen.

[IC Champion]

Love that Danhausen.

[Fignuts]

Sting was never even that great in the ring. Maybe with the right people in the ring with him (flair). But on his own he's good, but not great.

[Destor]

sting was as good as who he was working. sting didnt need be carried but he couldnt carry. either put him with someone who can work or dont expect much.

[Destor]

sting is like silly putty. you rub flair on him youll get a flair match. you rub luger on him youll get a luger match.

[Destor]

but there isnt really a sting match

[Bad News Gertner]

I've looked at Sting in ring the same way I look at Triple H for the same reasons Destor stated. He'll keep his end of the bargain.

It's a real shame that he blew out his knee at the Clash X

[Destor]

i think H until 2000 or so was putting together really clever stuff. you could always tell his matches had clear influences (which is to say a bit derivative) but he put them together in fresh ways. i think after the quad tear in.. 01? he wasnt the same worker. a guy who didnt have his position would have struggled to hold that spot.

[Destor]

which isnt to say he was bad. he was never bad. he just was out paced by a lot of guys on the roster.

[Destor]

but after that run he used a lo more gaga and gimmicks.

[Destor]

gone were the days of H vs X for 25 min telling a story through holds. he found ways to stay over though to his credit. despite his position in the company he kept working hard. he could have gotten away with be very lazy. a criticism i dont think anyone could fairly lob at him.

[Destor]

but for my money he doesnt come up in the GOAT convo