AndreasL

Yeah I know that, also Ric Flair is a perfect example of a wrestler who dominates both categories, in fact in the final rankings of 2008 tournament he was placed 2°, behind Hogan. I do not agree with the fact that connection to crowd is the best skill, I think that things like Lucha Underground, backyard wrestling or empty-arena matches demonstrate the opposite. I can not explain very well, but for me in-ring work and storytelling are the same thing. I did not mean to say that in-ring ability is tecnichal ability, don't think that technical ability is really important. In-ring ability for me is all in the psychology of the matches. In this sense, also I don't think that we can measure charisma by counting the number of fans, because publicity is very important for a wrestler to become famous and important. So, for me wrestlers like Misawa and Kobashi are more charismatic than Hulk Hogan, even if the last was more famous.

I agree with you, in fact my idea in the 2016 tournament was a reaction to the extremism of the other vision. For example, I have read your list of the greatest wrestlers ever and I was surprised about the fact that Inoki was 132° and Rikidozan 347°. In my community everyone considers they the greatest japanese wrestlers because they are the most important and most famous (even if Baba and Misawa are very close). Also I agreed with the absence of El Santo and Blue Demon, because there are very few matches of this two that we can watch today. In italian forum everyone vote for this two even If no one watched one of their matches!

First of all sorry for my english, I'm Italian. In italian wrestling forums most of the users consider the historical importance and the charisma the two only criteria to judge the greatness of a wrestler. They do not give much importance to in-ring skills. In 2008 we had a tournament to choose the greatest wrestler of all time, and the winner was Hulk Hogan. Even for judging matches the criteria were historical importance, build-up and atmosphere. In the tournament we have done the same year to choose the greatest match, the final ranking was: 1) Hulk Hogan vs Ultimate Warrior Wrestlemania VI 2) Bret Hart vs Stone Cold Wrestlemania XIII 3) Hulk Hogan vs André the Giant Wrestlemania III. I always criticize this vision of pro-wrestling because I think that the best pro wrestler is... the best-pro wrestler! And the best match is the best match to watch, not the most important. So two years ago I organized another tournament for the best wrestler, trying to correct the most prevalent opinions. This time ranking was: 1) Lou Thesz 2) Ric Flair 3) Jumbo Tsuruta I do not think that Thesz is the greatest wrestler ever, but this ranking is in my opinion closer to the truth. Hovewer, many users continued to think that historical importance was the only really important thing, and as a result El Santo was chosen as the greatest mexican wrestler ever (even if everyone who vote him never watched one of his matches). So, what's your thoughts about this two different ways to consider pro-wrestling?