Larry Matysik's 50 Greatest Professional Wrestlers

[Dylan Waco]

Dylan, is there an honourable mentions list for guys who just missed out?

 

I'm also wondering how far down you'd go before someone like Sting would be mentioned. In fact, there's a general lack of Crockett / WCW guys.

WCW really never produced anyone viable for this list. I can't even think of a serious contender.

 

There are actually TWO honorable mention chapters and even though I have strong disagreements with Larry on a lot of the things he said in them, in some ways I found them to be the best part of the book.

 

Rey and Jericho were guys he considered though it was clear he treated Jericho more seriously then Rey.

[rovert]

You could say this about others but ranking Brody over Undertaker is really silly to me. I don't see what Brody has over him in any category.

[kjh]

I know he eventually killed his own territory, but The Sheik not being in the top 50 is pretty ridiculous, but to be expected.

[Dylan Waco]

John, I'm curious. After Londos and Hogan, who do you slide into the three slot. I think a lot of people would say Austin, but I'm not sure if that is a reflexive answer based on generational importance or not.

[JerryvonKramer]

I am curious as to what puts Londos over guys like Gotch, Hackenschmidt, Lewis and Thesz. Having checked some of the books I have here and done some online searches, I'm not sure I can see what the clear case is for him as de facto #1.

 

For Austin, I would like to argue that Matysik is right in having Flair over him.

[WingedEagle]

The case for Londos is his record as a draw. I don't have the numbers handy but its pretty plain when the data is in front of you.

 

From a business standpoint, I think Austin is someone who's potentially underrated. You can certainly argue there is no publicly traded wrestling company without him and that capitalization, more than any number of record buyrates, house shows or merchandise is an incredible asset to the company's ability to withstand subsequent flows in business and build more stable revenue streams.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think Flair is a ludicrous third pick.

 

Londos is the biggest draw in the history of wrestling, aside from maybe Hogan

[JerryvonKramer]

With Austin, how much does the explosion of The Rock actually hurt him or diminish his importance? I often feel like Austin was a catalyst for something rather than someone who carried a promotion. By 1999-2000, The Rock feels like as big a deal. There is no equivalent of The Rock in the 80s for Hogan.

[Dylan Waco]

Hogan is above Austin in my mind so I don't worry about that.

 

Having said that Austin was the catalyst for something massive and unprecedented. Even if you want to argue that others were the centerpiece of the promotion at points (mainly when Austin was injured and even then he was always on tv), Austin v. McMahon was the defining theme of that era

[Dylan Waco]

I would also note for the record that unlike Larry I wouldn't ignore wrestlers from Mexico or Japan if I were working on something like this, so you have to start thinking about guys like Santo, Rikidozan, et

[JerryvonKramer]

I understand that what he did was massive. And I understand that we are still feeling the ramifications of that as wrestling fans to this day. But the question is does 2 massive years and one massive angle put you #3 on this list? Does it count more than Flair's entire career and contribution to wrestling?

 

That's what I wonder about. Especially as it's possible to argue that Vince was as instrumental to the success of that whole deal as Austin. With Hogan, there's an argument to say he would have been massive whereever (witness: AWA, witness: NWO), but Austin's claim depends entirely on this one massive thing.

 

My feeling is that Top 5 feels too high.

[BrickHithouse]

I often feel like Austin was a catalyst for something rather than someone who carried a promotion.

Watch all or any Raws from 1997 or 1998. He carried the promotion like no one in WWF before, as far as how much face time he got. Dude was in damn near every segment in some way for two years straight. If that's not carrying a promotion, I don't know what is.

[JerryvonKramer]

But for two years Brick. Yes, two massive, massive years, but it's still just two years.

[Dylan Waco]

Prior to Austin as the character he was the WWF was bleeding out. Prior to Austin v. McMahon it was still highly debatable whether or not WWF could "win" the war v. Turner. Austin v. McMahon is ultimately what won that war. It's what radically expanded revenue streams, it's the reason there is so much wrestling on tv, it's the reason WWE has such a high percentage of market share, it's the reason it's a dominant brand globally. That was the impact of Austin.

 

I like Ric Flair and would not discount him as a contender. But Austin's impact is unbelievable and unlike anything anyone in wrestling history has ever done - aside from Londos, Hogan, Rikidozan and El Santo

[Dylan Waco]

But for two years Brick. Yes, two massive, massive years, but it's still just two years.

Austin was a star of note in the WWF from 96-03. Even when he was injured he was more often than not on television. Hell even now when he comes back he's a star on television. His stardom eclipses Flair's by a massive magnitude and I'm a guy who thinks Flair's stardom is somewhat underrated by some.

 

You could argue that his peak as a drawing card was two years or so maybe, but those two years were insanely. You cannot argue that his entire case is two years.

[JerryvonKramer]

I guess what I'm saying is that Hogan has the IMPACT (83-6) but then actually carries the promotion through that too all the way till 92-3. I think The Rock arguably becomes ace in 99-00 to an extent where Austin was no longer needed. Obviously, he was always over huge and his various comeback runs all did good business etc., but the fact The Rock is there and the fact they were drawing and doing massive business without Austin in that time, for me, diminishes his case.

 

If you took Hogan out of WWF in late 86, would they have had the 87 they did? Or the 88? etc.

 

I'm not playing Austin down here, just trying to take a real measure of what he achieved. I'd still take Flair's career over Austin's in the overall scheme of things -- I think you take Flair out: Mid-Atlantic doesn't become such a major deal, the NWA title dies in the 80s, and hell maybe there wouldn't be a WCW for a Monday Night Wars in the first place. Flair might not have drawing numbers, but he creates a larger CRATER in the middle of wrestling history than Austin does.

 

It's slim margins when you get up to #3 and #4. But I think Austin's case can be overstated and Flair's can and mostly is underestimated by most people.

[BrickHithouse]

"Face Time" needs to be mentioned somewhere. It's not the be-all, end-all argument, but should be brought up. Austin's face was on national TV for a minimum of 10 minutes (and that's a conservative estimate) every single week for a minimum of two years. That's over 1000 minutes. Throw in another 400+ minutes for PPV's. No sign of audience burnout. Could Hogan cut that pace for two straight years without people getting burned out?

 

Hogan was on the syndies an average of perhaps two minutes per week. Throw in another 10 for each SNME and give him 15 for PPV's, and another 15 per month for house show appearances in a given market. Way less exposure.

 

Two entirely different environments where lengths of time mean something totally different. Two different paces. I don't know exactly where to go with this.

[Al]

The trick is do you count things like Rock 'n' Wrestling cartoons? Or experiences on mainstream talk shows?

[Al]

I would also note for the record that unlike Larry I wouldn't ignore wrestlers from Mexico or Japan if I were working on something like this, so you have to start thinking about guys like Santo, Rikidozan, et

I can understand Matysik making that distinction, and I think the product would've been inferior if he hadn't. It's easy to slot Baba, Santo, etc. among the greats. But then you have to start comparing guys like Fujinami/Choshu/Chono against your Millers and Grahams, and it becomes very difficult to make those calls.

 

I wonder if PWO would be interested in an informal top 50 poll, using the same criteria Matysik used. Not so much a definitive list as much as a snapshot. I'm curious what it would look like.

[BrickHithouse]

Sure, mainstream appearances should count for both guys. I don't know where exactly to draw the line and would be inclined to count the cartoon as well, but I don't know that Hogan should get 30 minutes/week credit for it either, that's not wrestling or cutting a promo in front of a crowd, but it should count for something if not half an hour.

 

I don't mean to diminish Hogan's run or necessarily put Austin above him, but # of years should be further researched to calculate amount of face time and exposure. That presents a clearer picture than to say "Hogan had 8 years on top, Austin had 3".

[WingedEagle]

I'm perfectly okay with saying Austin's run was limited to a 2+ year peak. But what he accomplished during that run and what it resulted in has had a great impact on this business than just about anything anyone else has done.

 

Austin hurts Rock's case because we don't know how Rock would've fared without Austin had he been in that position. Austin was going on that roll with or without Rock.

[JerryvonKramer]

Let's say Rock wasn't there though. After Austin's injury, does anyone think that they are having the same 99-00 running with HHH vs. Foley on top? Or HHH vs. Big Show? Or with Angle in the main event by 00? Austin didn't create such a massive phenomenon that it would have run without someone there to carry the ball. And it was clearly Rock carrying that ball, not HHH, Foley, Big Show or Angle.

 

Rock's run shows at once 1. how the promotion's was not 100% contingent on Austin and 2. how the "massive effect" we're hyping up here would have been a short-lived bubble without someone to grab the baton. Rock feels about right at #20ish, I'm not sure that Austin is 17 places above him. He's above him, sure, but top 3? I don't know.

 

Also Brickhouse, the face-time argument works both ways though doesn't it? One way of looking at it is to say Austin had 100s of hours of TV time in 97-8. Another way is to say that Hogan only needed 2 minutes on air to sell out a month's worth of shows at MSG, Boston, Philly, LA and all the other places we know he sold out based on a few minutes of TV.

 

I don't really want to make that argument though because I think Austin vs. McMahon really was something new in wrestling -- it was wrestling-as-soap-opera in a way that was a marked departure from the sorts of angles and storylines that had gone before. The whole 2 hours of RAW was all about telling one big story in which everyone was involved. Again though, I'd hesitate to credit Austin with that simply because he was the star of that show. You've got to look at Vince and creative there too. They had something special in Austin, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where they could have dropped the ball with him.

 

My feeling is that -- pretty much no matter what -- Hogan was unstoppable in 83-4 sort of time. He could have stayed at AWA, not got the belt, and still ripped shit up.

[BrickHithouse]

Also Brickhouse, the face-time argument works both ways though doesn't it? One way of looking at it is to say Austin had 100s of hours of TV time in 97-8. Another way is to say that Hogan only needed 2 minutes on air to sell out a month's worth of shows at MSG, Boston, Philly, LA and all the other places we know he sold out based on a few minutes of TV.

Another way to look at that other way of looking at it is - the 2 minutes of face time made people want to pay to see Hogan. The 10-20 minutes of Austin per week didn't stop anyone from paying money to see 15 minutes more.

[Kevin Ridge]

Just realised Lawler isn't on there.

There was no love between the St Louis Purist and Memphis.

 

John

 

Anyone care to give the story on these issues? Orton over Lawler on his list seems a bit silly. I actually thought Larry would rank Brody much higher.

[Dylan Waco]

I guess what I'm saying is that Hogan has the IMPACT (83-6) but then actually carries the promotion through that too all the way till 92-3. I think The Rock arguably becomes ace in 99-00 to an extent where Austin was no longer needed. Obviously, he was always over huge and his various comeback runs all did good business etc., but the fact The Rock is there and the fact they were drawing and doing massive business without Austin in that time, for me, diminishes his case.

 

If you took Hogan out of WWF in late 86, would they have had the 87 they did? Or the 88? etc.

 

I'm not playing Austin down here, just trying to take a real measure of what he achieved. I'd still take Flair's career over Austin's in the overall scheme of things -- I think you take Flair out: Mid-Atlantic doesn't become such a major deal, the NWA title dies in the 80s, and hell maybe there wouldn't be a WCW for a Monday Night Wars in the first place. Flair might not have drawing numbers, but he creates a larger CRATER in the middle of wrestling history than Austin does.

 

It's slim margins when you get up to #3 and #4. But I think Austin's case can be overstated and Flair's can and mostly is underestimated by most people.

I'm leaving the Hogan stuff alone because I think Hogan belongs over Austin.

 

On Flair I think you can construct an argument for him at three but arguing him v. Austin on Impact, particularly for the reasons you outline, is something I'm not buying. Austin clearly had bigger impact than Flair to the point where I don't even think you can make a reasonable argument for Flair and I am from Flair Country and like Flair a hell of a lot more than I do Austin.

 

In particular the NWA title DID die during the 80's, and I don't think there is any argument that Flair is the reason there was a WCW and/or Monday Night Wars. WCW survived as long as it did because of Hogan. WCW kicked off with Nitro because of Hogan. I don't like it, but I think it's definitely true.

 

Where Flair WOULD have a case on Austin potentially

 

- Longevity. We can argue about how much value that has but Flair was a draw of some note for a long time. An all time level draw? Not really, or at least not in the transcendent sense we often think of that term. But Flair had value as a drawing card from the time he came back from the plane crash through til at least the first part of 1990. Yes there were ups and downs, but there are lots of positives. Flair also has positives after this (to some degree the Hogan stuff in WCW, the Savage feud that helped reignite house show business pre-NWO, the fact that he was a consistent quarter hour ratings draw for much of the Nitro era IIRC).

 

- Work. I think Flair is clearly a better worker than Austin by virtually any metric.

 

- Mic Skills. This is more arguable and I wouldn't even want to debate it (mainly because this isn't something I enjoy debating), but I think you could argue for Flair over Austin in this regard.

 

- Getting over in multiple places. This is another one that is arguable because of the issue with crossing eras, but Flair was a guy that was over absolutely everywhere and Austin is a guy that really never got over huge before the WWE, other than perhaps Texas in his rookie year.