Top 50 Superstars DVD

[kjh]

Yay for the WON overanalyzing the picks to death. Based on my mathematical formula, this list should include Yukon Eric!

It's the same sort of analysis Dave wheels out whenever the WWE Hall Of Fame gets discussed or Matt Farmer gets further attendance data. Based on my objective mathematical formula, the Observer Hall Of Fame is clearly superior to WWE's. I wouldn't call it overanalysis, more lazy regurgitation of his usual talking points.

 

I agree that analysing it as a shoot list is silly when we all know it depends on the petty whims of the people in power at the time. More interesting would be to analyse why some people seem to be surprisingly in favour at the moment like Rock and Savage, whereas why others are clearly out of favour.

[Bob Morris]

Whenever "top X" lists come out, the natural response from people is to overanalyze them. I see this happen all the time with the various lists done on VH1, whether it's done through random personalities, online polls or just updating a previous list to get some recent development on it. I know there were also plenty of choices on the recent NFL Top 100 Players that raised eyebrows, and in some cases, people clearly pushing for their favorites when criticizing the placement of certain players.

 

It happens all the time with such lists. Everyone has an opinion about who was really the best, so regardless of who puts the list together or how biased the list compilers are, they get picked apart.

 

As far as the list itself goes, I just shrug it off for the most part as I've seen enough such lists compiled with head-scratching choices that I know it wouldn't matter who WWE likes or doesn't like at the moment.

 

That being said, I agree that Curt Hennig gets vastly overrated.

[artDDP]

This list was probably put together by WWE's "historians" (fresh-out-of-college kids who design the website) and between them they've probably only watched about sixteen years of wrestling history.

[Al]

The only way it makes sense is if they compiled a number of lists and put them together. Some list Hogan/Sammartino and others don't. Some list the NWA stars and others don't. But everyone lists Michaels, Undertaker, etc.

 

Really though, this type of thing draws comments and criticism because to a lot of us, lists are just fun.

[sek69]

I'm surprised people think Owen's absence from this DVD is some sign of WWE quaking in their boots at the threat of a lawsuit. The painful truth is that Owen was largely a lower/mid-card guy for pretty much his whole career. Hell, even on the night he died he was set to face the Godfather for the IC title in what was sure to be the next ***** classic. Somehow his death has caused history to be revised to the point that future generations will think it was as if Hogan died in 1986.

[Loss]

A large part of that revision has been WWE's own doing, which is why Owen's absence seems strange enough to notice. He did have a better, longer run with more time on top than Curt Hennig, and he was a much better wrestler too.

[Al]

The Curt Hennig love is odd. Even if you believe he's a top flight worker/wrestler, his peak was woefully short due to injuries. Evidently quite a few fans are marks for him though, since he got the dvd treatment while Dibiase/Rude didn't. Perhaps when WWE ran those surveys a few years back asking for dvd subjects they got more than their share of Hennig requests.

[sek69]

The Curt Hennig love is odd. Even if you believe he's a top flight worker/wrestler, his peak was woefully short due to injuries. Evidently quite a few fans are marks for him though, since he got the dvd treatment while Dibiase/Rude didn't. Perhaps when WWE ran those surveys a few years back asking for dvd subjects they got more than their share of Hennig requests.

 

Curt was one of the wrestlers other wrestlers tended to mark for. I think that's why he got the DVD treatment other possibly more deserving guys didn't. I recall it being mentioned that when they did Old School Raw, all the old timers were excited to meet all the second generation wrestlers they remembered as kids running around backstage. Joe Hennig was named as being especially popular among the legends since everyone was a fan of his dad.

[khawk20]

The Curt Hennig love is odd. Even if you believe he's a top flight worker/wrestler, his peak was woefully short due to injuries. Evidently quite a few fans are marks for him though, since he got the dvd treatment while Dibiase/Rude didn't. Perhaps when WWE ran those surveys a few years back asking for dvd subjects they got more than their share of Hennig requests.

 

Curt was one of the wrestlers other wrestlers tended to mark for. I think that's why he got the DVD treatment other possibly more deserving guys didn't. I recall it being mentioned that when they did Old School Raw, all the old timers were excited to meet all the second generation wrestlers they remembered as kids running around backstage. Joe Hennig was named as being especially popular among the legends since everyone was a fan of his dad.

 

Something to consider is that Dave thought he was the best worker in the AWA way back in 1984, when he was still a young, skinny lower-to-mid carder. Over Martel and Bockwinkel...and probably a few others I'm forgetting at the moment.

 

So if it were to be proven that Dave was a long-term pimper of Hennig's, that might be a contributing factor in the heightened legend of Curt Hennig as a top guy among fans.

 

Just something to consider.

 

I find it odd that Verne Gagne didn't make the list, considering the WWE has all his footage, put him in their HOF, and have ready-to-go bio pieces and matches they could have used.

 

I would suspect those factors are a big part of who makes a list/dvd set like this, and who doesn't.

[Al]

You could argue for a lot of wrestlers from the 1960s like Crusher, Bruiser, Sheik and Johnny Valentine. It hurts those guys not just in WWE's view but historically overall that footage from that decade is sparse. It almost feels like the lost decade.

[Strummer]

I think Scott Keith pimping Hennig online for basically a decade as one of the best ever maybe helped shape people's perceptions of his career and talent. Remember Scott's big fantasy booking idea during the Invasion was to have Hennig be WCW's mouthpiece/leader. Hell I'm a big Hennig fan but I don't see how that would have popped business in the slightest

 

I've come to realize over the last few years that the reason I was such a fan was because Mr Perfect was such an awesome gimmick. It's probably the greatest gimmick of the Hogan years and maybe all time in WWF. When Hennig isn't playing Mr. Perfect I tend not to be that interested

 

I was a fan of Owen during my teenage mark days but he was just so bad on the mic that it was difficult to emotionally connect with him. The "underdog" little brother trying to prove himself was such a great story but at least outside the of the ring Bret carried it with his reactions and interviews (and I've never been a huge Bret fan). Owen really needed a mouthpiece. Gary Hart is the first name that comes to mind although that would have never happened

[Ditch]

It almost feels like the lost decade.

The lack of footage from before '80 is a tragedy. Who knows how many all-time classic matches, angles and promos were never taped?

[Guest kidd]

I find it odd that Verne Gagne didn't make the list, considering the WWE has all his footage, put him in their HOF, and have ready-to-go bio pieces and matches they could have used.

Verne Gagne may have been left off the list because of the incident last year where he attacked another person in his nursing home. The case was ruled a homicide but Verne didn't get charged because of his mental dementia was so far gone in his old age. here si the wiki info on it.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~

On January 26, 2009, Gagne got into an altercation with Helmut Gutmann, a 97-year old resident of the facility, who fell and broke his hip. Helmut Gutmann was an cancer researcher and violinist, who fled Nazi Germany in 1936. According to Gutmann's widow, Gagne picked him up and hurled him violently to the floor, then pulling back on his body, thus breaking his hip. She was not present during the altercation, however, and Bloomington, Minnesota police chief Jeff Potts said "The attack -- which was not a wrestling body slam -- happened quickly while the men were at a table, Bloomington Police Chief Jeff Potts said. It was more like "a push and a shove" and it caused Gutmann to fall.

 

Neither man had any recollection of the incident. Gutmann was admitted to the hospital, and died on February 14 from complications from the injury.[6] On February 25, 2009, the man's death was officially ruled a homicide by the Hennepin County medical examiner's office.[5] On March 12, 2009, the Hennepin County Prosecutor's office officially announced that Gagne will not be criminally charged as a result of the death. Because of Gagne's dementia, he lacked the mental capacity necessary to have intended to harm Gutmann.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gagne was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (or possibly chronic traumatic encephalopathy caused by a lifetime of head injuries.) I'd assume this falls into WWE jsut not wanting to promote something they think might showcase them in a bad light even if Verne never directly worked for WWE.

[Matt D]

Something to consider is that Dave thought he was the best worker in the AWA way back in 1984, when he was still a young, skinny lower-to-mid carder. Over Martel and Bockwinkel...and probably a few others I'm forgetting at the moment.

Dave Re: Bock in 84's summer list.

 

"51. NICK BOCKWINKEL (well experienced and for his age is in phenomenal condition. Many would say I'm rating him too low, but considering the type of wrestling I enjoy, for a guy nick's age to be even this high is a tribute.)"

 

For what it's worth, he ranked Hennig 40 and yes called him their best worker and said it was a shame he was just wrestling prelims.

[tomk]

Yay for the WON overanalyzing the picks to death. Based on my mathematical formula, this list should include Yukon Eric!

 

I mean on the one hand yes that analysis being applied to something like this is ridiculous.

 

But on the other hand, I think looking at the Matt Farmer stuff outide of HOF season is useful.

Allows people to talk about the flaws without being tied up in lobbying for their favorite HOF candidates.

 

The closest thing to doing an impartial list, and using their same scope–nobody pre-television era, no foreign stars, the only way to do it is based on who drew on top. Wrestler/historian Matt Farmer has done extensive research on the subject of shows that drew 10,000 fans and who was on top, historically. It’s far from a perfect system–nothing is or can be–but it’s at least impartial and probably as good a system as anyone has come up with. It still favors big market stars over small market stars, and in particular WWWF/WWF/WWE because they were running the most populous cities and modern wrestlers get the benefit of shows that draw based on brand strength and have more longevity in the “big market” territories.

The following section seems new

 

But we also weighed it based on time frame, in the sense, drawing well when business is down was weighed based on the standard of the industry, as equal, using a formula of who the best draws were by the year.

 

If we go just based on the number of shows headlined that did 10,000, Hulk Hogan is way in front of everyone, Ric Flair is second, and third place is well behind those two. However, if we base it on who likely sold more tickets for the most years based on being on the card and name value, Bruno Sammartino would be first among modern era wrestlers, and the biggest draw in history would be Jim Londos.

I'd be interested in knowing what the formula is for doing this as I don't remember that ever showing up in the classics analysis. but a vorp or value v. median guy would be real useful thing for the current era.

 

As of the end of 2009, for the television era of U.S./Canada pro wrestling, here it is:

 

1. Bruno Sammartino; 2. Hulk Hogan; 3. Lou Thesz (if you include Thesz’s pre-1947 numbers he would be ahead of Hogan); 4. Ric Flair; 5. Buddy Rogers; 6. Argentina Rocca; 7. Dick the Bruiser; 8. The Sheik and HHH (tied); 10. Killer Kowalski; 11. Bob Backlund; 12. Andre the Giant; 13. Whipper Billy Watson; 14. The Rock; 15. Gene Kiniski; 16. Undertaker; 17. Harley Race; 18. Steve Austin; 19. Randy Savage; 20. Johnny Valentine; 21. Gorgeous George; 22. Freddie Blassie and The Crusher (tied); 24. Superstar Billy Graham; 25. Dory Funk Jr.; 26. Verne Gagne and Ray Stevens (tied); 28. Pat O’Connor and John Cena (tied); 30. Shawn Michaels and Dusty Rhodes (tied); 32. Bret Hart; 33. Edouard Carpentier and Pedro Morales (tied); 35. Bobo Brazil; 36. Kane; 37. Jerry Lawler; 38. Road Warriors; 39. Kurt Angle and Fritz Von Erich (tied); 41. Dr. Jerry Graham and Ivan Koloff (tied); 43. Yukon Eric and Sgt. Slaughter (tied); 45. Ultimate Warrior and Ernie Ladd (tied); 47. Eddie Graham, Randy Orton and Paul Orndorff (tied); 50. Chris Benoit, Big Show and Wilbur Snyder (tied).

This is followed by a more nuanced discussion of what it is to draw in different eras than what he normally says when discussing draws (although there is his normal shot at Backlund mixed in there).

[Al]

That's not a bad list, though Yukon Eric sticks out like a sore thumb. (Really, how the heck did that happen?) Being a reader of Bill James I can appreciate efforts to subjectify the argument. To me though, there seems to be too much statistical noise in any measure to be of much value.

 

Not to say it isn't a fun list though.

[Log]

Mathematical evidence that Michaels was a bigger draw than Hart could be the thing that finally sends Bret fully over the edge.

[Loss]

Shawn came back and had 8 years on top in WWE, of course he drew more.

[Jingus]

I'd like to know exactly what the formula is and how he weighted it. Is it just live attendance, or did he include ratings, buyrates, merch sales, and other variables like that?

 

Some of those names just don't look right in those spots. HHH is probably the best example; would anyone seriously argue that more fans deliberately bought tickets in order to see him, over Stone Cold and every single other star in the past dozen years? He may have headlined more shows than anyone else in the WWE for the past decade, but it seems faintly awful to claim that fans wanted to see him more than everyone else. Trips has historically been the guy who works with the guy who draws money, not the draw himself. And of course any wrestler who is also the booker should be listed with an asterisk. Leveque has always been pretty clever at pairing himself with whoever the hottest current talent is. He's not The Man, he's the man you gotta beat in order to be The Man... and the WWE has had a revolving door of various new Men who all had to feud with Hunter to be semi-officially considered a true main eventer.

[tomk]

It has been number of shows over 10,000 (ratings, buyrates, merch sales etc...not counting). Traditionally he has weighed 20,000 as a two to 10,000 as a one.

 

This is the new weight adjustment that I'm curious about:

But we also weighed it based on time frame, in the sense, drawing well when business is down was weighed based on the standard of the industry, as equal, using a formula of who the best draws were by the year....if we base it on who likely sold more tickets for the most years based on being on the card and name value,

He does reference the guy who was head of WWFs regional buisness untill a couple years ago as saying that the only guys who actually effected ticket sales were Sammartino, Hogan, Rock and Austin. and he makes the point about being part of a major brand. But there isn't any adjustment for it.

 

8. HHH (tied with the Sheik which is amusing)

14. The Rock

16.Undertaker

18. Steve Austin

28. Cena (tied with Pat Oconnor)

30. Shawn Michaels (tied with Dusty)

36. Kane

39. Kurt Angle (tied with Fritz)

47. Randy Orton (tied with Eddie Graham and Paul Orndorf)

50. Chris Benoit and Big Show (tied with Wilbur Snyder)

 

are all in essentially for WWE gates this decade (99-09). I'm not Chris Harrington but my point was that for this to meaningful there should be a way to do draw value v replacement player (or v median).

 

 

Shawn came back and had 8 years on top in WWE, of course he drew more.

The Shawn numbers are pretty much all post comeback #s. Shawn is there for the same reason as Kane.

[kjh]

Sorry tomk, there is no new clever weight adjustment, Dave is just lousy at explaining his system. All Dave has done differently here is:

 

1. Updated the list to include 2009 numbers (hence HHH (+8 pts), Undertaker(+7 pts), Cena (+10 pts), Orton (+9 pts), Show (+5 pts), etc rankings all improve).

2. Excluded all pre-1947 performers and pre-1947 numbers for those performers, like Lou Thesz, who straddled that cut off point.

3. Excluded all non U.S./Canada performers.

 

Here's the original list from the August 5th 2009 Observer (note that Dave accidentally excluded Rocca from this list) for you to compare and contrast with the new list to see that Dave has only done the above three minor changes:

 

1. Jim Londos 250

2. Bruno Sammartino 196

3. Lou Thesz 172

4. Bill Longson 159

5. Hulk Hogan 154

6. Ed “Strangler” Lewis 149

7. Ric Flair 126

8. Buddy Rogers 122

9. Joe Stecher 99

10. Dick the Bruiser 81

11. The Sheik 80

12. Killer Kowalski 76

13. Bob Backlund 73

14. Andre the Giant 73

15. HHH 72

16 .Whipper Billy Watson 64

16. Stanislaus Zbyszko 64

18. Yvon Robert 63

19. John Pesek 58

20. Rock 55

21. Frank Gotch 52

22. Konnan 51

23. Everett Marshall 49

24. Gene Kiniski 48

25. Ed Don George 46

26. Harley Race 43

26. Dick Shikat 43

26. Gus Sonnenburg 43

29. Steve Austin 42

29. Antonio Inoki 42

31. Danno O’Mahoney 40

31. Randy Savage 40

31. Johnny Valentine 40

34. Perro Aguayo Sr. 39

34. Gorgeous George 39

34. Mistico 39

37. Freddie Blassie 38

38. The Crusher 38

39. Undertaker 37

40. Superstar Billy Graham 36

40. Shinya Hashimoto 36

42. Ray Steele 35

42. Dory Funk Jr. 35

44. Verne Gagne 34

44. Ray Stevens 34

46. Pat O’Connor 31

47. Shawn Michaels 30

47. Keiji Muto 30

47. Rikidozan 30

47. Dusty Rhodes 30

47. Sandor Szabo 30

52. Vincent Lopez 29

53. Bret Hart 28

53. Wladek Zbyszko 28

55. Edouard Carpentier 27

55. Pedro Morales 27

56. Bobo Brazil 26

56. Earl Caddock 26

56. Kane 26

56. Jerry Lawler 26

56. Miguel Perez 26

56. Road Warriors 26

62. Perro Aguayo Jr. 25

62. Primo Carnera 25

62. Stan Hansen 25

62. El Santo 25

67. Kurt Angle 24

67. Man Mountain Dean 24

67. Wlasislow Talum 24

67. Maurice “French Angel” Tillet 24

67. Fritz Von Erich 24

72. Jim Browning 23

72. Dr. Jerry Graham 23

72. Ultimo Guerrero 23

72. Kenta Kobashi 23

72. Ivan Koloff 23

77. Yukon Eric 22

77. Sgt. Slaughter 22

78. John Cena 21

78. Ultimate Warrior 21

78. Ernie Ladd 21

81. Giant Baba 20

81. Henri DeGlane 20

81. Eddie Graham 20

81. George Hackenschmidt 20

81. Paul Orndorff 20

86. Chris Benoit 19

86. Cien Caras 19

86. Wilbur Snyder 19

86. Genichiro Tenryu 19

90. Bobby Managoff 18

90. Nobuhiko Takada 18

92. Nick Bockwinkel 17

92. Bronko Nagurski 17

92. Roddy Piper 17

92. Bob Sapp 17

92. Hans Schmidt 17

92. Frank Sexton 17

98. Jack Brisco 16

98. Swedish Angel 16

100. Batista 14

100. Mildred Burke 14

100. Riki Choshu 14

100. Don Eagle 14

100. Chris Jericho 14

100. Mil Mascaras 14

100. Ken Patera 14

100. Big Show 14

100. Bob Wagner 14

109. Atlantis 13

109. Orville Brown 13

109. Bill Goldberg 13

109. Brock Lesnar 13

109. Vader 13

114. Big Bossman 12

114. Cibernetico 12

114. Gorilla Monsoon 12

114. Pat Patterson 12

114. Kazushi Sakuraba 12

114. Mad Dog Vachon 12

120. Fabulous Kangaroos 11

120. Randy Orton 11

120. El Hijo del Santo 11

120. George Zaharias 11

124. Bert Assirati 10

124. Don Leo Jonathan 10

124. Lex Luger 10

124. John Tolos 10

124. Bearcat Wright 10

[Log]

Shawn came back and had 8 years on top in WWE, of course he drew more.

Yeah, I guess I was thinking of Shawn in his first title reign. That was a really rough period for Vince, wasn't it?

[Jingus]

I still think it's funny that HHH managed to loophole himself way up high on the list, by basically being the only top WWE guy who was pushed on top so consistently during a time period of taken-for-granted good live houses. And over what turns out to be a surprisingly large period of time when we put on our hindsight glasses. I can't think of anyone else who had a decade-long run on top of a nationwide American promotion. Also probably helped that his only significant time off was from injuries, he never had that tendency to vanish for months at a time like most of his lifer-level peers.

 

Yeah, I guess I was thinking of Shawn in his first title reign. That was a really rough period for Vince, wasn't it?

Yep. Crowds in 96 weren't too good, and that was the only year he was in the main event more often than not.

[S.L.L.]

I still think it's funny that HHH managed to loophole himself way up high on the list, by basically being the only top WWE guy who was pushed on top so consistently during a time period of taken-for-granted good live houses. And over what turns out to be a surprisingly large period of time when we put on our hindsight glasses. I can't think of anyone else who had a decade-long run on top of a nationwide American promotion. Also probably helped that his only significant time off was from injuries, he never had that tendency to vanish for months at a time like most of his lifer-level peers.

On top of which, how many years of that decade are actually considered good business years? 2000 seems like the only clear-cut one where Trips was actually around the whole time. For the rest of the decade, does he get credit for keeping business afloat during lean years? Does he get knocked for not being strong enough of a draw to keep business hot? Does he get knocked for being arguably one of the reasons business stopped being hot in the first place?

 

I'm not entirely sure how you would do this list right. How you would accurately measure how much is drawn against the standards required for a given promotion to be successful. How you would measure the value of how big one draws within a set time frame vs. consistently drawing over a long period of time. How you weigh the value of someone in a position to draw vs. the damage they may have done in that position. How to differentiate a guy who keeps the company afloat during a down period from a guy who is putting the company in a down period. I don't know how you do all of that in a clean, mathematical fashion, even if you cut out pre-TV and foreign figures. But pretty clear that those very real concerns aren't being taken into account here.

[Loss]

How much of the boom ending can reasonably be placed on HHH overkill and people tuning out because he was overexposed?