Yeah, probably.

I disagree with the notion that you have to be an innovator to be regarded as a great worker. Granted, the innovators are the ones who will always be most revered, but there have been plenty of excellent workers who weren't exactly "innovators", but simply had impeccable timing, great execution, and strong understanding of psychology moreso than other workers. Ironically, i consider Bret Hart one of those workers. Bret was an amazing worker, but i hardly consider him an "innovator". There were plenty of people who did exactly what he did well before he came around, like Nick Bockwinkel, Verne Gagne, Ric Flair, and Ricky Steamboat.

While im not exactly the biggest fan of HHH, i definitely consider him one of the finest workers of the last decade and a half, and almost find it annoying how anyone could suggest that he was merely carried through all of his great matches. I also disagree with the notion that he didn't earn his success. HHH got over, plain and simple. In wrestling, you either get over or you dont. Contrary to what some people may think, no amount of booking can actually "make" someone unless they have some ability to connect with the audience. Case in point, look at Ryback. Booked and pushed almost exactly the way Brock Lesnar and Goldberg were and not getting over a lick. Why? Because Goldberg and Lesnar were talented and Ryback isn't. Same with Bobby Lashley. Was given every opporunity, pushed to the moon... and where is he now?

Whether you like the guy or not, he did what every great worker can do - tell a story that the audience can relate to and connect with. He knows exactly what to do and whenit should be done. That's what it's all about. He gets the business very well, mostly because he's such a mark himself.

I think Bret's just being egotistical with a little bit of sour grapes, which is not uncommon for him.

Don't know what everyone's complaining about. Sounds like a very solid line up to me. I'd rather have this than WM27 again.

Brock/HHH and Cena/Rock have great potential. You already have plenty of backstory and drama to build on what could be a couple of classic matches, depending on how they go with the booking. All 4 men have shown that they work well with each other in their past encounters.

And Punk/Taker could easily steal the show.

Maybe not 10, but those are my absolute favorites.

"Chris Benoit - I know this one will get a lot of heat, but i really don't care. While what he did was absolutely heinous and disgusting, it was also very heartbreaking as a long time fan to find out someone you admired for years had it in him to do that. To this day, I'm still shocked. Despite that, i can't deny that i miss him whenever i watch one of his matches. It's amazing how someone can spend their life accomplishing so much and then in one fell swoop completely nullify everything they ever did. It's as if he never existed and his life meant nothing."

Why would get heat from that. Not a single person here thinks he's a monster. Personally i don't miss the man myself and i'm glad i never saw him wrestle in this era of terror. The way i think about it is that eddie and chris benoit were handed a get out of jail free card before things started to get really bad. That's not me saying i'm glad they're dead because that's just stupid, but i am glad that their careers never faltered.

cryceaye5

In certain circles, people have written him off entirely. Not that i really blame them. I still after nearly 5 years don't know what to make of my feelings about it. Some can't separate the incident from the career, unfortunately. And that will be his legacy.

I know we all feel it sometimes. That sad feeling when we put on a tape or DVD and watch a match/promo with a wrestler who's no longer with us. With that said, who are some of wrestlers that you miss?

Eddie Guerrero - This is probably the one that hit me the hardest, honestly. Big fan of Eddie, from his days in WCW to his days of Latino Heat in WWE. I'll always remember his death as the time i seriously began to lose interest in WWE. It was bad enough with all the horrendous booking that had been going on for years, but when you throw depression into all of that, it's just not worth it anymore. What made it even more sad for me was that he was allegedly booked to win the World Heavyweight title a few days after he died.

Chris Benoit - I know this one will get alot of heat, but i really don't care. While what he did was absolutely heinous and disgusting, it was also very heartbreaking as a long time fan to find out someone you admired for years had it in him to do that. To this day, im still shocked. Despite that, i can't deny that i miss him whenever i watch one of his matches. It's amazing how someone can spend their life accomplishing so much and then in one fell swoop completely nullify everything they ever did. It's as if he never existed and his life meant nothing.

Curt Hennig - Very big fan of Mr. Perfect growing up as a kid. I was so excited when he came back to the WWE in 2002 and dissapointed when he got fired not even a year after his return. I was really hoping he'd get one last great run. To hear in 2003 that he died from a drug overdose was just sad. Very happy when he got inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Larry Sweeney - I was completely devastated and shocked when i first heard the news. What an amazing talent who would've EASILY been a big success in WWE, as a manager, wrestler, color commentator. Sweeney had it all. Such a great mind for the business who couldn't cope with his psychological problems.

Rick Rude - What a class act. Probably had the best music that suited anyone's gimmick of all time. I remember hating him so much as a kid. Cant help but get a little down whenever i hear his classy theme song. Hopefully they induct him into the Hall of Fame this year. Lonnnnnng overdue.

Mitsuharu Misawa - I was fortunate to have been able to see him perform live a couple years before his death, the first and only time he ever set foot on American soil his whole career. So tragic to have died in the ring like that. Amazing worker. Major loss for wrestling fans, Pro Wrestling NOAH, and puroresu in general.

Brian Pillman - Talk about another guy who could've been a star as huge as Rock, HHH, or Austin during the Attitude era, even with the fused ankle. Loved his promos and overall demeanor. I remember watching the loose cannon angle unfold on TV as a kid. I can't help but wonder if the general landscape of the WWE would've been slight different during those years had he lived.

Oh, and for the record, Undertaker's real, not billed, height is 6"8. I'd say that's well above average.

No I'm not though, you're just not reading properly.

"An aspect that doesn't effect the 'core' of any given match."

"Not because of their 'story-stuff' which was an element not given any time at all."

"They forgot that it was the fact that the Michaels/Taker matches did EVERY aspect amazingly and not just relied on one single aspect."

"Again, I'm not arguing that an 'in-ring' story is not important, I'm arguing that it is pointless unless you combine every element."

"They don't even have a good 'outside story', but rely on the fact that they can tell a decent story in the ring, as well as some of the best wrestling you can possibly see. If it was just story, the matches wouldn't have survived at all. While at least if it's just 'wrestling' you can be entertained and appreciate the art they are performing."

"Storytelling during a match can either come naturally, or it is forced. I take it every match in the entire history of wrestling deemed as 5 stars since you think it's all such great 'storytelling', when the wrestling itself needs to be great as well."

Just to cite a few. This notion of separate "elements" that you keep bringing up doesn't exist. It's a play. An act. A work. Wrestling works the same way as any other TV show at the core - making people suspend their disbelief and believe what they're seeing is real. Only difference is that it's athletes acting like wrestlers. That's not an opinion nor debatable. It's a fact.

What is the point in doing a suplex, if you can't do it properly?

I agree. Execution is very important. If you go out there and poorly execute moves, you're not gonna get over because the crowd won't buy it. However, while execution is important, lack of athleticism can be overcome by psychology that's on point. Psychology is the single most important aspect of any match, period. If you don't have psychology, you have nothing. That's what sells tickets. That is the core concept that the wrestling business was built on. It hasn't changed. The day it changes, that's when the wrestling business will die, which is exactly one of the problems plaguing the business today.

Please tell me what matches are deemed as the greatest matches of all time from someone 'botching' most of their moves, yet still telling a story?

You're 100% on point. There are none. Because if you botch a spot, it will most likely kill the heat of the match and it'll take a while for the crowd to get back into it if ever. It all goes hand in hand.

That's right, both are separate things that can be combined to make the best match. Back when I watched some ROH in the older days, there was literally no stories, or even for that matter many 'characters' in the ring. It was just pure wrestling.

I agree, In 2002, RoH was definitely more about pure competition rather than drama, but you're incorrect when you say there wren't characters. I don't know how many times i have to make this point - EVERYONE IN WRESTLING IS A CHARACTER. Some are more pronounced and bombastic than others, but EVERY plays a role whether you're just a wrestler in tights or a clown with green hair. Take Chris Benoit - his role was that of an intense technical wrestler patterned after the likes of Stu Hart, Karl Gotch, and Dynamite Kid. Low-Ki in 2002 was an intense, stiff hardhitting junior heavyweight. Samoa Joe was a young, hungry, ass kicking big man patterned after the heavyweights of AJPW King's Road in the mid 90's. I've given you countless examples of how all wrestling is storytelling, whether it's "pure wrestling" or a hardcore brawl.

The only stories I mostly saw was the 'this guy wants to win' type. It's an art form, and you are mistaking it as story and only story.

Yep. It's what the business was built on. Storytelling is the art form, dude. Going into a ring and exchanging holds with no rhyme or reason is not art. It's just a waste of time and money. No one wants to see that on a regular basis. Sure, the novelty is pretty cool initially but it wears thin quick once people see how shallow it is. Why do you think RVD was never fully given the ball in 2002? Because as popular as he was, he was a novelty act. He would've been exposed quick and he would not have been successful in the long terms as a champion or on top. Once he honed his craft and learned how to get over the real way, he was championship material. It's a shame, because had RVD focused on that from the start, he would've been as big a star as HBK or Bret Hart.

You don't seem to grasp that matches with the most simple of stories have been recognised just as much as ones with tons of story.

I find it ironic how earlier you were telling me i wasn't reading what you wrote properly, when it's quite clear with this comment that you haven't read anything i've said properly.

Most of the stuff in ROH was choreography and only that.

While in the early years there were alot of spotfests and garbage, from 2003 to when i stopped watching in 2009, it was all about what i've been talking about. That comment is just plain incorrect and shows me that you haven't watched a whole lot of RoH.

If you want to pretend there was anything more to it in some of the matches, then that's you yourself making it up.

Lol, coming from a guy who's been in and out of the independent scene as a referee, semi booking consultant, and manager for the last 7 years, i can assure you i'm not pretending or making it up. Don't take my word for it, though. Go watch some shoot interviews with some credible figures like Jerry Jarret, Jim Cornette, Bret Hart, Bill Watts, and Jerry Lawler. They'll all tell you the same exact thing.

Whether you like it or not, the WCW under card had the most simplistic story elements implement in the matches. Basically the 'characters' of some of the individuals were showcased and nothing else.

Which matches would these be? Examples? You also forget that the lower card is supposed to be somewhat simple so that the main event can follow it and the crowd isn't burned out.

How do these matches, with the most 'basic' of basic story elements get considered better than the upper card matches full of stories? Why?

I've answered that at least 4 times. If you really care to know, go back and read over what i've posted. If not, whatever. Continue living in fantasy land.

It's a simple answer. The wrestling makes up for what little story there is, and were better in spite of having basic stories. Now I could argue that having a bad guy and a good guy is not to do with story, and what happens in the ring is also not part of a 'story', and is an element of the choreography. Let's face it, you can't draw on a piece of paper without touching it can you? Just because your brush touches the paper, doesn't mean it's a 'story'. You can just scribble away without much thought and get something pretty impressive. What I mean by story, and what you mean are obviously different. A story for me is when they literally bring backgrounds of what they have done to each other into the picture, and literally implement them into the match. Like I said, you don't get many 'great' matches just from two dudes merely touching each other in the ring. Which is apparently story to you.If you really want to call it that. If it is, then it's the most basic story I've ever heard, and yet matches still become some of the best ever with such 'basic' storylines.

Again, this has already been addressed numerous times. Not going to retype it.

Both elements are more likely to produce better matches, but the 'wrestling' can survive on it's own with the most basic of story premises. That is 'this guy wants to win' type of scenarios. Which again is an element of the choreography for me. Like watching boxers fight. It's the match itself, and not the story I care about UNLESS it's literally THAT good. In which case it needs to be botha good match, and a good story.

True wrestling is not choreography. The WWE and alot of independent crap is mostly choreography, granted. True wrestling is looking at the given circumstance and calling the match on the fly based on the context. Ric Flair, Bret Hart, HBK, Chris Benoit, Steve Austin, Ricky Steamboat, etc. were all masters of this.

I would also say that Mick Foley became popular even before he became the legend he is today. Have you seen some of his matches in the past? He would just throw himself into things even when there is no particular reason to do so, and adds no elements to the match.

Because he was young and green. And when he did that, he wasn't really getting over. Over the years, he wised up and honed his craft. Watch Sting/Foley from WCW Bash at Beach 1992 or his epic brawl with Vader from Halloween Havoc 1993. That was when Foley was coming together.

Sorry, I forgot that merely touching others counts as a story.

See, now you're just clutching at straws.

There is one match I remember between Eddie Guerrero and Chris Jericho which was pretty damn good, yet at that time neither Jericho or Eddie had a character. They just did some damn good wrestling work and it is considered a good match. The wrestling itself was just purely great. It's like watching fish dance in the sea. No story, just beauty. Unless you want to make up that there was a story, then that's fine. Again, I wasn't arguing that stories are terrible things. They sometimes work, and they sometimes don't. Those same matches will still be considered good in terms of wrestling quality however. I'm just saying stories aren't the be all to end all in wrestling. I don't watch sports to see the story between one team and another, I watch it for the sports itself. Which is why I consider basic elements like showing pain, showing a 'character' in the ring and wanting to win as part of the inherent beauty of the match itself. Not part of a specific story. Also, add the fact that wrestling history is inconsistent with what makes a 'good' match and 'bad' match by what you consider important. Some matches have the most basic stories in them 'Benoit vs Angle', yet are still considered better than matches with 'emotion'.

There's emotion in EVERY good match. That's the point i've been trying to make. Whether it's emotion because one guys trying to simply win or one guy hates the other guy.

Take for instance Ric Flair vs Michaels. Now why is any given Benoit vs Angle match considered better, when the better story is obviously Michaels vs Flair's? It's because a good story is not always needed to have an amazing match up. If we pretend like every match does have a specific story of some kind, then why are matches with less of a story considered better than ones with lot's of story? Probably because the art of the wrestling match itself is amazing.

Well, winhether Benoit and Angle is better than HBK/Flair or vice versa is a matter of opinion. However, they're both terrific matches because they were poignant'y told. They were deep. Just because something like Benoit/Angle is relatively simple doesn't mean it can't be deep. They were both trying to win employing different strategies.

It's impressive to watch them, as it was impressive to watch Shawn and Bret back in the day. Don't make me laugh. Some of the guy's you mentioned were good, but not even comparable to Shawn and Bret. Your list is also a very small minority of the wrestlers in general back then as well.

Most of those people on that lis thappened to all be the top stars of that era and big box office draws, so wrong again. I agree that some of it hasn't aged well, unfortunately. But based on comments like this, i can't help but feel that you haven't really watched anything from that era. I have. And let me tell you, Verne Gagne's stuff holds up even today. Guy was WAY ahead of his time. Check out anything he did with Billy Robsnson or Nick Bockwinkel.

Which of those Big Guy's have had a pure amazing match?

Andre the Giant in his prime had countless great matches with Bruiser Brody, Stan Hansen, Ernie Ladd, Ric Flair, Jack Brisco, the list could go on. Bruiser Brody had countless great matches in St. Louis and especially in All Japan Pro Wrestling in the 80''s. One such example of a classic was his feud with the Funks along with Stan Hansen. He had great matches with Jumbo Tsuruta as well. John Studd wasn't as good as the others, but he played his role well, got over, and was very mobile in the ring. Ernie Ladd's catalog is well documented in Mid South.

Again, this argument is about how HHH/Taker was simply boring to watch. The only element that was good was the story. If they had been in the ring hugging each other, while being sad for the entire length of the match, then that would have been the only worse thing to do. It' wasn't far from that though. Matches are more likely to have recognition by combining all elements together. Not just one, which is why Taker/HHH fails in terms of missing out on it's true potential.

That wasn't what i was arguing. You have every right to find something boring. You made an argument that the mechanics of the match were not spot on, when in reality, they were. That's not a matter of opinion, that's entirely objective. Someone could literally sit down with you, watch the match, and point out step or step why these mechanics were spot on. They did everything they were supposed to do to get the match over and the result was a classic that connected with the audience.

You keep talking about the wrestling and storytelling as if it's a separate thing. It's not. Stoytelling = wrestling. Wrestling = storytelling. The art that you keep referring to is storytelling. Im not even talking about drama in terms of storylines or angles. When two guys get in the ring trying to outdo each other with various tactics to win the match, it's storytelling. In the grand scheme of things, the moves that they do are merely colors for the picture that they're painting. It's acting, dude, but acting that involves physical athleticism in addition to body lanaguage and facial expressions. Everyone has a role and a personality. Even a match that involves nothing but chain wrestling is storytelling. Like a guy putting someone into a headlock in an attempt to make him submit. The guy in the headlock is going to try and reach for the ropes, but can't cuz he's in the middle of the ring. He somehow manages to get out of the headlock and now has his opponent in a headscissors. The guy in the headscissors gets out of it, does a double leg takedown and now has him in a single leg boston crab. The guy who was headscissored is now employing a new strategy to make the guy submit or at the very least wear his leg out so he can have an easier time making the guy submit and make it harder for him to be on his feet. Everything in wrestling is storytelling. There is no separate element that you keep referring to.

I would imagine the best wrestlers would be pretty insulted by you claiming that all they do is 'stunts'. They are not doing stunts, they are performing an art-form. Even without the element of 'story', it's still an art form in it's own right.

Never claimed all workers do stunts. The people who do stunts for the sake of doing stunts are not workers, they're glorified stuntmen and should honestly just quit and find something else constrictive to do with their lives if they're not gonna learn how to actually sell tickets. I appreciate the fact that they put their bodies on the line, but they're really just doing themselves and the business a disservice. Im referring to guys like Amazing Red not guys like Mick Foley. Mick Foley is a worker who can sell tickets and tell a story. Amazing Red is not.

Again, people like Michaels and Hart grew bigger than everyone else, because of the fact that they could perform the most entertaining matches. Even without story, their matches were far more entertaining than the bigger guys. This is because they were actually interesting in the ring, and performed everything to perfection. I mean you look at a match like Benoit vs Angle, and some of their matches are considered the greatest matches of all time. They don't even have a good 'outside story', but rely on the fact that they can tell a decent story in the ring, as well as some of the best wrestling you can possibly see. If it was just story, the matches wouldn't have survived at all. While at least if it's just 'wrestling' you can be entertained and appreciate the art they are performing.

I agree, Hart and HBK were great workers. And the reason they succeeded was because they could connect with the fans based on their personalities and the storytelling in their matches. Angle and Benoit had great matches the same reason Hart and HBK and pretty much every other great worker had great matches.

I mean you claim that it's all wrestling was about, when it literally wasn't. The guy's in the 50's were not ever really doing much in terms of wrestling, and when people like Michaels and Bret turned up, the audience realised that the guys not doing much in the ring were very dull. Wrestling shifted towards people who can actually perform the art to an amazing degree. Better wrestling means better matches, and the element of in-ring story grew more because of the fact people got to prove themselves in the ring by performing the actual art itself.

The guy's in the 50's weren't doing much wrestling? Lol, Buddy Rogers, Lou Thesz, Gene Kiniski, Dory Funk Sr, Stu Hart, Pat O' Connor, and Karl Gotch must be rolling around in their graves right now. Verne Gagne, Harley Race, and Billy Robinson aren't too pleased, either.

I agree that the wrestling has changed over the past century, but at the end of the day, wrestling is wrestling. It's like the wheel - you can change it's color and put all kinds of stuff on it, but at the end of the day at the very core, it's a wheel. Just like the wrestling business. I definitely agree that matches these days are alot more entertaining than most matches pre 70's, but that's because the business was alot more simple. Society was more simple. Matches were more simple and some of them obviously don't hold up, but some of them do simply because of the quality of the storytelling and psychology. It's like saying Mozart's music sucked and should not be remembered simply because Rock n Roll came about. Mozart and Led Zeppelin though hundreds of years apart both accomplished the same thing. Their work connected with people. THAT is art. Same way Lou Thesz connected with people in the early mid 1900's and Bret Hart connected with people in the 90's.

You don't see Hogan part of any 5 star classics on his own merits, or in general, and you don't see the slower wrestlers go anywhere much. The fact is that smaller guys can both perform the art better, and deliver an in-ring story far more effectively because of their wrestling ability.

Andre the Giant, Bruiser Brody, Ernie Ladd, and Big John Studd are now also rolling around in their graves.

Undertaker, Blackjack Mulligan, Big Show, and Kane aren't too happy either.

Wrestling ability has nothing to do with size or height. It's whether you have the ability to connect with people based on the role that you portray either in the ring or out, though in is the more tried and true method.

Also, as I have seen a lot of matches from Smokey Mountain and WWWF, I can safely say that a lot of those matches didn't have much in terms of 'in-ring' stories either. I mean you say the business is bastardized, yet we have gotten the greatest matches of all time because of the shift. No way would the matches with just 'working on someone's arm' ever be considered a great match, because it's simply boring wrestling. Doesn't matter how well told it is, they don't get considered among the 'best'. You also don't seem to realise that Shawn Michaels has changed his wrestling style in the ring, and it still works. He has had some damn amazing matt-based type matches when that isn't really him, and these same matches are rated very high among people. Bret Hart and Michaels had a match at Survivor Series (Not the montreal screwjob one), and it turned out to be a pretty highly regarded match. Despite both wrestlers not really having their characters come out in the ring much at all. The match itself, was that damn good though. People could appreciate it for just that element. If Triple H could perform Hurricurranas well, then I doubt people would complain. We know he can't though so the point doesn't really hold much in context. Even Kurt Angle changed his wrestling styles that were not usually suited to him, and it ended up being great matches, because he performed those matches really well.

They do have stories. Thing is, a good deal of them are easily missed because of how simple they are. Like i said, it was a different age and a different time before the style evolved into what it is today. Some of the matches hold up, and some don't. Again, Kurt Angle, HHH, and HBK were successful because they did stuff that made sense for them. That's how you connect with the fans - by being logical and convincing, and the way to usually do that is being an extension of yourself.

I never said Taker vs HHH was bad match, but said it could have been so much better if they actually did more than just rely on mostly story. If I want to see just a story, I'll turn the channel over and watch something that only implements story. This is wrestling though, so I expect to see some during a match. What would be the point otherwise? It's the art I'm interested in, and the combination of elements to make a great match. We both know the chair shots were from the fact that these are guys are far too old to be in the ring. We also know that they can't perform wrestling as well as they used too, which is why they relied on false finishers. We also know it's a cheap tactic to make a match seem more epic, when in fact it get's plain repetitive. It's the quality, not the quantity of how many times you do things. Undertaker and Shawn Michaels showed more quality by executing moves once, but to perfection, rather than mindlessly doing the same thing over and over. That's quite a cheap tactic to make a match seem more epic than it actually is. One well placed chair shot could have told just as an effective story as 12, depending on 'how' and 'when' you decided it would work. Not just doing it, because you're too lazy to try anything else.

I'm not going to explain why HHH/Taker wasn't mindless again. If you choose to actually read the reasons given, then you'll see. If not, that's fine.

I could make a massive argument on how WCW's under card didn't hold many good stories, or stories at all sometimes, but still survived purely on the talent of the 'wrestling' itself. These smaller guys had the best matches, and were more memorable. The higher card had the most effort put into their stories, yet rarely produced anything as memorable as the matches the undercard were having.

And the argument would be easily refuted. Go watch Eddie and Rey at Halloween Havoc 97.