|
|
Post by jblcenafan on Jul 30, 2006 17:39:42 GMT -5
Here it is the ultimate debate. Now I love wrestling but as fars as who is a legend and all that , I still think of it as a work even though some people blur the line... thus I find Ric Flair entertains me , as does Bobby Heenan. But , I would say Flair is to wrestling what Rocky is to Boxing. I also would say Heenan is to wrestling what Mickey was to boxing. Now as far as shooters I know Karl Gotch could kill ya if he wanted to , I know Lou Thesz was tough as nails , Angle before all the neck problems was a beast as well. But in the "worked world" Vader was a killing machine and Paul Orndoroff beat the crap out of him in real life. Also Regal killed Van Hammer.
So do you base "legends" on worked toughness? Worked crowd cheers like Goldberg had with the piped in chants? Is Foley a legend for bleeding alot? As far as he goes his comedy made him go further than his "paying his dues" bloodbaths in Mexico with Joe Shmoe. Does a legend ever lose legends status? Harley Race ruled the 70's and early 80's but then he became a "King". Hulk Hogan stayed on top far past his welcome towards the end of WCW so does that take away from the legend of HUlk Hogan?
|
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Jul 30, 2006 18:17:47 GMT -5
Every thing in wrestling is worked. Its like the old saying: ''are you smart to THE BUSINESS or SMART TO SOMEONES BUSINESS''. There is a difference. We don't really know if a guy was tough from hearing third-hand reports and hearsay about some backstage skirmish. We don't REALLY know the details / circumstances (maybe we're being worked by somebody). The only people we can assume are tough are those that proved that in a competitive sport: i.e Kurt Angle or someone that had some MMA success - meaning that there is VISUAL EVIDENCE that they are 'badass'....
I would just define a legend simply as someone who was talented / exciting (either in ring work and/or through charisma and on the mike) plus their ability to draw / willingness of bookers to trust putting them in important positions, and was able to maintain that position over a period of time. A lot of people from the golden days of regional wrestling are considered legends because there was just so many distinct personalities and 'characters', so whilst people like Dick Slater or The Missing Link may never have been top of the card record breaking headliners, many would consider them legendary because we remember all the hilarious matches / angles / interviews etc....
Also - there may be people who are 'good' but will never get legend status because bookers never gave them the ball (or maybe they took the ball, but just couldn't take it to the next level)....
Can a legend lose legend status? Well, its all down to opinion - but I guess if you overstay your welcome, and people see you for years and years over-the-hill and out-of-shape, acting as a glorified jabroni (much like Flair today), then you can certainly kill your mystique/star power (although fans always tend to remember the good times - almost everyone in entertainment field trys to hang on after they're a bit too over-the-hill)....
Foley was over for being a nutcase....when he added the comedy in 1998, it made him a really cool psychotic nutcase - the fact that he had all those garbage matches 'in mexico with joe schmo' (or Japan with Shoji Nakamaki) that people had seen on ninth-generation VHS for years added to his mistique). He kinda had to do those things if he wanted to make it in wrestling - as he just didn't have a style or look or gimmick that would get pushed at the time....contrast this with someone like Cena who has no aptitude for the business what so ever, is an OKAYISH promo, put just happens to have a look that Vince sees as a white-meat babyface, so he gets pushed to the moon for years until finally some of it starts to click, but people will probably never accept him as the real deal - and exactly the same goes for Batista....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hammer on Jul 30, 2006 18:35:13 GMT -5
But , I would say Flair is to wrestling what Rocky is to Boxing. I also would say Heenan is to wrestling what Mickey was to boxing. You do know that Rocky and Mickey were fictional characters, and that they were nothing to boxing, right? |
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Jul 30, 2006 18:49:10 GMT -5
Maybe he meant ''Flair is to wrestling what Rocky is to fictional boxing''
|
|
|
|
Post by flairfan on Jul 30, 2006 19:16:49 GMT -5
how do you compare ric flair to rocky.when deciding if someone is a legend look at someone in another sport that you thank is a legend. and say is so and so what joe shmo is to his sport. if you want to compare ric flair compare him to nolan ryan or michael jordon or joe montana because ric flair is to wrestling what they were to their respective sports.wrestling may be a work. but not everyone can get in their and do it.its not easy to work 60min cut yourself 3 times to give each and everyone their hard earned moneys worth. But some guys have been able to do it night after night year after year. that make someone a legend.
|
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Jul 30, 2006 19:28:43 GMT -5
Amen, Flairfan....
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbyryates on Jul 30, 2006 19:28:47 GMT -5
good question with thousands of answers that are either right or wrong.
my first thought would be longevity. a guy/girl just can't be a legend to me with just a few months or even years to be considered.
i also ask what impact did he or she make? i mean, just because you are 56 years old, you're not a legend. barry horowitz worked the WWF for eons and some other territories as well. but a legend? no, he had a little push in florida and continental, that's it. he was on national tv all the time but was not a 'name' yet he made everyone else look like a star. horowitz did his JOB very well. but that's it, to me.
that's the first things crossing my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by GarvinStomp on Jul 30, 2006 19:38:14 GMT -5
Very interesting question. It is about like saying, why was someone chosen as a WWE Hall of Famer? Because somehow there has to be a fine line between legend and just a retired old wrestler. Though judging it has to be considered extremely subjective. But there are several factors that would have to be taken into consideration. Some of them it would seem appropriate to include:
1. Number of matches wrestled
2. Number of title belts won
3. Overall impact on the business
4. Successfulness of their gimmicks/personas
5. What was unique about them?
6. Did they main event any major cards? (if not, what were their memorable moments)
7. Longevity of their career
As such, this may offend some people, but I don't consider the Mulkeys to be legends. Nice guys, but not legends. Sure they beat the Gladiators, but other than that they were jobbers.
I wouldn't book them for a fanfest, because they just weren't that good. Nice people, but not good wrestlers.
|
|
|
|
Post by precious1 on Jul 30, 2006 19:56:20 GMT -5
Sometimes even a legend can wear his welcome out. It is better for a legend to be reminisced about rather than have sand kicked in his face. It makes a legend more legendary when people talk about his greatness not his a$$ getting kicked by some young upstart.
|
|
|
|
Post by brunogod on Jul 30, 2006 21:15:05 GMT -5
BRUNO SAMMARTINO-THE ONLY LIVING LEGEND OF PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING-He was given this nickname by the fans-not by a promoter or some script writer and regardless of what most think,this man was and is indeed a true legend!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hammer on Jul 30, 2006 21:25:33 GMT -5
This is just my opinion, not trying to step on any toes, but my opinion of Bruno Sammartino: he was a good wrestler, who was a huge star in the northeast, because he was Italion and they had a very high immigrant population. I don't think he would have gotten over anywhere else. His style would have never worked in the Mid Atlantic area or Florida. Personally I don't see what made him so great. Maybe because I am from the south, and we had better wrestling here than most of the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by flairfan on Jul 31, 2006 5:32:46 GMT -5
you tell em hammer.there was no better wrestling than mid-atlantic wrestling.
|
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Jul 31, 2006 14:19:16 GMT -5
I once made a Bruno Sammartino crossword puzzle in kindergarten. One across was 'Ethnic Draw', 2 Down was 'incomprehensible promos'....
But seriously - the McMahon's were very good in the 60's and 70's at presenting main event wrestling. Dunno if it was due to them having MSG, or due to the sociographic make up of their territory - but when you watch that stuff, a lot of the wrestling is really bad. I mean Stan Stasiak? Give me a freakin break. They didn't have the fast-paced athletic action and hot 'crazy' angles and promos that were de rigour down South. But the product was really slow, methodical and simple, and they understood the New York fans exactly: give 'em a big dumb babyface, someone they can relate to and aspire to, and push him as a big local blue collar sports hero, THEIR world champion. The NWA territories were never able to do that so effectively, because of the fact that the NWA world champion travelled around - so the big local stars always had to have the regional belts, which in promotional eyes may have made them seem a little minor-league when Brisco, Funk or Race came to town and year after year the local hero was unable to unseat them....
|
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Jul 31, 2006 14:27:36 GMT -5
As such, this may offend some people, but I don't consider the Mulkeys to be legends. Nice guys, but not legends. Sure they beat the Gladiators, but other than that they were jobbers. I wouldn't book them for a fanfest, because they just weren't that good. Nice people, but not good wrestlers. I agree with that - people like Horowitz, the Mulkeys and other perennial jabronis certainly have a cult fame amongst us hardcore wrasslin' freaks that remember all the details, but you can't really call those names 'legendary'. Infamous, maybe - but not legendary.... And you know what - I would DEFINITELY call Bruno a legend. Say that you think he was a bad wrestler, but he's a legend. The subject is not ''who d'ya think is a good worker''. Hulk Hogan is an atrocious wrestler, plus he's orange and I hate him. But he's a legend....and Bruno wasn't THAT bad....(but he certainly had huge germcakes!!) |
|
|
|
Post by The Hammer on Jul 31, 2006 17:39:35 GMT -5
As such, this may offend some people, but I don't consider the Mulkeys to be legends. Nice guys, but not legends. Sure they beat the Gladiators, but other than that they were jobbers. I wouldn't book them for a fanfest, because they just weren't that good. Nice people, but not good wrestlers. And you know what - I would DEFINITELY call Bruno a legend. Say that you think he was a bad wrestler, but he's a legend. The subject is not ''who d'ya think is a good worker''. Hulk Hogan is an atrocious wrestler, plus he's orange and I hate him. But he's a legend....and Bruno wasn't THAT bad....(but he certainly had huge germcakes!!) I never said Bruno was a bad wrestler, on the contrary I said he was a GOOD wrestler. I just don't think he would have gotten over in any other territory. He wrestled mainly in the Northeast. Now, here is where I am going to call people out though. Dave Meltzer said Ole Anderson doesn't belong in the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame because he only wrestled mainly in the Carolinas and Georgia. If thats the criteria, What about BRUNO. I respect Bruno for what he acomplished, and that he gave alot to this business. But Mr. Meltzer is a hipocrite to think Bruno (who only wrestled mainly in one area) belongs in the HOF, and Ole Anderson doesn't. Because its the same thing. |
|
