Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Highspot, Jul 14, 2018.
Which Champions and or company did you hate the most or thought shouldn't have got a push?
Jinder Mahal. The fact that he is and forever be a WWE champion makes me actually sick.
One of the worst WWE champions ever in recent memory.
Mahal drew roughly the same business that Styles did as champion. Either Mahal is underrated. Or Styles is overrated.
Bryan's title reign was terrible. As was Seth Rollins and Kevin Owen's title reigns. If pressed, I would go with Bryan. I can't stand him. Although Owens runs him close.
Why as a fan do you worry about ratings? That takes the fun out of even watching wrestling. If you as a fan are entertained then why should it matter to you what numbers they do or don't draw?
It's an objective measure to tell if someone is good at their job. Wrestling isn't real. And it's not an art. It's mindless popcorn entertainment. A good wrestler is one that draws money. You can have your opinion. Sure. But its hardly objective.
Mahal wasn't as bad as some make out. He was nothing special, but no worse than Owens or Rollins.
A good wrestler is a wrestler that can wrestle good. As in, he can simulate combat and make it look believable meanwhile have it be pleasing to the eye. If you’re looking for a guy that draws then he’s a wrestler that’s a good draw.
It’s objective that Bret Hart is a better wrestler than John Cena, Cena himself would admit - but Cena drew a lot more. It’s not to say that Cena could wrestler better: he just drew better.
To a promoter yes. To a casual fan not in the slightest.
There is more to being a good wrestler than in-ring work. Would you honestly say that Dean Malenko is as good as Hogan?
I never said that you can't have a subjective opinion.
But objectively, drawing money is what really matters. Not doing a million flips in front of 300 geeks in a leisure centre.
Dean Malenko was a superior wrestler, most definitely. He wasn't a superior superstar mostly due to his lack of size and charisma. He was still fun to watch.
I judge a wrestler's ability on how entertaining they are in the ring and on the mic. I don't judge their ability to wrestle based on how many t-shirts they sell or the logistics sheet in Stamford.
Okay, that's your subjective opinion.
For me it's about how they wrestle. Two of my favorite wrestlers never drew a lot of money but they were amazing in their prime. I was talking about RVD and Jerry Lynn.
Yeah they were great.
CM Punk's first reign as World Heavyweight Champion was eh. Although his later reigns werd much better.
Worst of all time though?
Won the title, didn't main event a single PPV, lost via no contest. I'd say it's probably one of the worst of all time.
At the time it was the secondary world title. So you can't really blame that on him.
Maybe the main event part, but everything else reeked of a bad run.
Vince McMahon as ECW World Champion still gets me FUMING. The ego of Vince.
Separate names with a comma.