Larry Matysik's 50 Greatest Professional Wrestlers

[Dylan Waco]

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.

 

St. Louis was (allegedly) a more traditional, "wrestling as sport" style presentation. Memphis was Memphis.

 

Orton was on the list because Larry was told to pick some modern guys to help sell books. That's not my opinion - he's literally said that. Orton is from the St. Louis area. Do the math.

 

Lawler being left off entirely is something Larry goes into detail on. Basically he argues that Lawler wasn't really that good in the ring (this is a minor part of the argument to be fair), Lawler wasn't a star anywhere other than Memphis, Memphis was a small time territory so being a star there really wasn't that big a deal relative to the "major markets," Lawler controlled Memphis booking and presented himself strongly all the time at the expense of others which is why he was on top so long (to be fair IRRC Larry does qualify this by noting it wasn't uncommon and was in many ways smart business).

 

In and of itself I disagree with this and Lawler would probably be in my top fifty if I were excluding stars from Japan and Mexico like Larry. But I would not care that much if Larry at least tried to be consistent in apply these criticisms. Reading the book I thought it was clear that he didn't (for example several guys are actually given points for playing politics, or at least that's how the book reads, but Lawler is penalized for booking himself on top when that was working well?). Far more annoying than that were the constant digs at Memphis and Lawler which littered the book.

 

I must admit I do find it funny that Lawler is dismissed on "major market" grounds when Memphis was a bigger and growing city than St. Louis during the period he was on top, when Lawler worked a loop with some other big towns and St. Louis was a one shot non-territory, and when St. Louis had shows less than half as often as Memphis (literally).

[Dylan Waco]

Babinsack has a review of the book up at the Observer site and it is one of the most bizarre, poorly constructed, things I've ever read. I'm not even saying that to rip on Babinsack. It's just...unbelievable

[Jimmy Redman]

A strong point of the book's list is that it is definitely not heavily weighted to modern era names. It's always easy to stock up on the mainstream references to get more attention...but no chance here.

Particularly hilarious since Larry himself admitted that he did exactly that.

[Dylan Waco]

To be fair to Larry I don't really blame him that much for that. If the publisher tells you you have to do something to sell books that's basically how it goes. I do think his choices from the modern era were questionable.

 

Also I don't care what you think of Shawn Michaels as a worker, 15 is insanely high.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah I dont blame Larry for doing it particularly. Thats just the way the world works. It was more Babinsack trying to proclaim otherwise that was questionable.

 

Orton is a strange choice though, any way you look at it. As has been said, Rey is a blatantly obvious choice for a modern name who is an exponentially better candidate. Even someone like Edge, I'm not a huge fan of his but I think there's an argument that he outranks Orton on all the metrics listed, aside from the irrelevant "believability" category - in-ring, promos, charisma, drawing, legacy. Edge at least has the TLC tag team era for a legacy, and he drew ratings and carried the Smackdown brand far more successfully than Orton, who has never drawn at all as far as I'm aware. And I'm far more a fan of Orton than Edge.

 

I rate Shawn a lot as a worker and yes, he is too high for an all-time list.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't think there is any argument that Flair is the reason there was a WCW and/or Monday Night Wars.

Dylan, you think Crockett would have survived without Flair? No Crockett, no Turner buyout, no WCW. Flair kept the NWA title alive and credible for the entire 80s (as a viable alternative to the WWF title). He was the number 2 US draw of the 80s. And there's "no argument"? I have to disagree on that. My view is that the survival of JCP until the Turner buyout is marginally more important to wrestling history than what Austin did (which is "up there" too).

 

I don't think you're being fair to Flair here. He carried that company (JCP) on his shoulders for a decade and you don't think there's any argument that he's the reason there was a WCW? I even think he was explicitly part of the Turner buyout (i.e. no Flair, no deal). You're going to have to explain that one.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I do recall a story in "Sex, Lies, and Headlocks" that Flair was the guy Turner was all about. Granted, it was in "Sex, Lies, and Headlocks"...so there ya go.

 

And I remember Foley saying in his first book that when Turner talked to the employees it felt like Flair was the only guy he knew and gushed over. Granted, that was Foley's first book where he still had some issues with Flair.

[Al]

One of the problems with reviews of a book like this is that it feels like the reviewer wants to reinvent the wheel. Essentially producing his/her own version of the book rather than the version that is in front of them. The most prominant review of Molinaro's Top 100 book (viewing through Google searcg) has 10% content about that book, and 90% the reviewer's own top 25 list.

 

A fair review has to separate the list from the rest of the product. Two people are never going to agree on a top 50 list, and that's the fun of the project. But if the list is well researched and well written, even a list that you may vehimately disagree with can still be enjoyable to read. As a product, I would recommend this book without hesitation. I'll add one criticism though. Matysik worked backwards. Guys he didn't put on his list, and then the list from 50-1. I don't think those prior chapters are as effective until you digest the list itself.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't want this thread to die because I am legitimately interested in who others would consider for the very top level. Still want to hear who John sees in the three slot

[WingedEagle]

I don't want this thread to die because I am legitimately interested in who others would consider for the very top level. Still want to hear who John sees in the three slot

I haven't reread the thread to see if it was already laid out, but what are the specific criteria?

[Al]

It's been ten years since the Molinaro book came out. I thought it would be worthwhile to compare the lists a bit. Take out the Japanese/Mexican wrestlers and see where they vary. Molinaro had Flair/Thesz 1-2 and Matysik has Thesz/Flair 1-2. They're in the same ballpark. But where are there wide disagreements?

 

Stan Hansen (-39)

Vader (Off)

George Hackenschmidt (Off)

Gorgeous George (-24)

Dusty Rhodes (-24)

 

Joe Stecher (Not in other top 100)

Bill Longson (+29)

Gene Kiniski (+23)

Killer Kowalski (+20)

Ray Steele (Not in other top 100)

 

Andre the Giant and Fred Blassie dropped 20 spots apiece from Molinaro's list. Bruiser Brody actually lost 18 spots which surprised me considering Matysik seems as big a Brody mark as anyone.

 

Seems like a lot of the guys Matysik ranks lower have big accomplishments in Japan. That's probably the toughest guideline to gauge when you're just focusing on North America. George and Dusty seem a result of Matysik focusing on in-ring ability over showmanship.

 

On the other side, Matysik ranks a few pre-television wrestlers like Steele, Longson and Stecher higher, while at the same time knocking down Hackenschmidt and perhaps Stanislaus Zbyszko. I think Matysik did a much better job than Molinaro in balancing eras. Matysik's choices seem reasonably placed while Molinaro's were often bunched together.

 

Kiniski in the top ten is the kind of thing where I'd defer to Matysik. There's little footage of Kiniski in his prime. Kiniski's contemporaries usually praise him. Matysik would've actually seen him in action. So if Matysik says he was great, there's little one can say to disprove him.

[Jimmy Redman]

I don't want this thread to die because I am legitimately interested in who others would consider for the very top level. Still want to hear who John sees in the three slot

I haven't reread the thread to see if it was already laid out, but what are the specific criteria?

 

From Babinsack's review so I assume this is accurate although cant be sure;

 

* Working Ability

* Charisma

* Mic Work

* Drawing Ability

* Legacy

* Believability (as in shoot ability)

[jdw]

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.

 

I think these two hit it:

 

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.

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

Since it's a US Only list (or US + Canada), we can ignore the rest of the world.

 

I believe that Londos and Hogan were the biggest national draws in US wrestling history relative to what other people were drawing at the time. It very much was Londos and Everyone Else. In turn, it was Hogan and Everyone else. I don't really think anyone else is close.

 

We can point to what Austin drew, but guys over in WCW had a stretch of drawing very well, and the WWF Machine drew well in that period when Austin was on the shelf. I just don't think he was as big of a draw as the other two. Nor as impactful as Hogan, which is something we covered over in the Vince & Hogan vs The World Thread is detail.

 

John

[jdw]

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.

Honestly don't know. That was my off hand comment: #3 is closer to #10 than to #1 & #2 (Londos and Hogan in some order).

 

I've really gotten away from "ranking lists" on a lot of things, so there really isn't a knee jerk name that pops into my head for #3. We were talking about how the Other Guys in the "Top 11 - Kiniski" were all pretty decent picks for a Top 10. Ordering them... don't know.

 

John

[jdw]

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.

The impact of Hogan was more than 1983-86.

 

Mania III (Mar 1987)?

 

That would be Hogan on top. We can say that the War was essentially over at that point.

 

Survivor Series launched to damage JCP's attempt to get in PPV (Nov 1987)?

 

That would be Hogan in the main.

 

WWF in Prime Time for what is I still think the most watched wrestling program in history (Feb 1988)?

 

Hogan mained that.

 

Summer Slam launched to encourage people to save their money from the Bash and spend it on the WWF (Aug 1988)?

 

Hogan anchored that.

 

Rumble goes PPV rather than free TV (Jan 1989)?

 

Hogan anchored that.

 

Hogan anchored the launch of the entire Big 4 PPVs, all of reached PPV maturity after 1986: I seem to recall Mania did more Closed Circiut business in 1986 than PPV revenue, whereas PPV grew considerable in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

 

That not even covering a number of the cities and territories that saw the focus increase on house shows in the 1987 and on period.

 

It's not easy to say when Hogan's impact stopped. In fact, his leaving had an impact: business when to shit when he left against Mania in 1992.

 

 

 

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.

Austin main evented Mania in 1999 and 2001, and it was Austin that was the bigger draw. Rock-Trip the year between, even with Foley and all the McMahons involved, didn't draw as much.

 

John

[KrisZ]

Thesz has gotta be #3 right....he was the champion during the national wrestling boom in the 1950's.

[jdw]

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".

Two syndication programs. Prime Time and All American on USA (not to mention that still talk show that was on for two years). Cutting promos for the next show in your city. He's not on every card, so you might have him cutting promos every week for a month, then being off a month... unless you're in New York where they were selling MSG, the Meadowlands and Long Island... would be interesting to know how they did promos in New York back then with three shows a month in the area, and you sure as hell want fans going out to Long Island for the Hogan-Orndorff feud.

 

Yeah, someone mentioned the cartoons.

 

Perhaps Austin had more minutes from late 1996 through mid-2002 when he walked out. But it's not as if Hogan lacked minutes.

 

Move beyond that:

 

Hogan anchored the television of the first national promotion. The concept of "national face time" for a national wrestling promotion? Hogan invented it, and built it from nothing. Austin simply was the 1997-2001 major tenant of the House That Hogan Built.

 

More national broadcasts with Raw and SmackDown? Not really. Primetime went 2 hours, Superstars was 1, and Challenge was 1. We can pitch the secondary stuff in each era such as All American, Shotgun, Heat, etc. There really is no Austin equiv of SNME and The Main Event.

 

Hogan's House. Austin just moved in, made some improvements, and the house sold for more. But that land and that house wouldn't exist without Hogan.

 

It's why Austin isn't a candidate for #1. I like Austin more than Hogan, but it just isn't close.

[WingedEagle]

Hogan's House. Austin just moved in, made some improvements, and the house sold for more. But that land and that house wouldn't exist without Hogan.

I don't think that's quite fair. Hogan built that house. Austin completely gutted it and redid all pipes, electrical and aesthetics. All that remained of Hogan's house were the structural elements.

[jdw]

I must admit I do find it funny that Lawler is dismissed on "major market" grounds when Memphis was a bigger and growing city than St. Louis during the period he was on top, when Lawler worked a loop with some other big towns and St. Louis was a one shot non-territory, and when St. Louis had shows less than half as often as Memphis (literally).

St Louis was/is a larger metro:

 

Memphis

1970: 834,103

1980: 913,472

1990: 981,747

 

St Louis

1970: 2,429,376

1980: 2,376,968

1990: 2,444,099

 

I suspect the overwhelming majority of the population was/is within an hour's drive.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

My fault. County stats were the only ones I could find

[jdw]

Hogan's House. Austin just moved in, made some improvements, and the house sold for more. But that land and that house wouldn't exist without Hogan.

I don't think that's quite fair. Hogan built that house. Austin completely gutted it and redid all pipes, electrical and aesthetics. All that remained of Hogan's house were the structural elements.

 

I don't see that at all.

 

National house show business? That was built with Hogan. It went down after Hogan left, but it didn't die. Austin built it back up again.

 

PPV? Hogan got the WWF on national PPV. The revenue stream for the company created when Hogan was there. It went down after he left, but didn't die. Austin built it back up again.

 

National television? The WWF built that around Hogan. It shifted over time as synidication became less important thanks to national cable deals. But Raw was in place before Austin, and an extension of Prime Time that was created under Hogan. We've talked about this elsewhere, but the concept of turning television into Television Content and thus a Cash Cow was actually Eric over in WCW. Vince took the cable property he created under Hogan, used what he learned from Eric (but will never admit it), and cashed in with Austin. Gutted? Not really. They basically built a second level on the place.

 

SmackDown? Vince won't want to admit this, but:

 

01/08/98 Thunder

04/29/99 SmackDown

 

Yep... Vince got the idea of a second cash cow program from Eric. Then aimed it right at Eric.

 

Wait... back up a second...

 

Vince got the idea from Eric to turn tv programing into TV Content and make a mint off of it. Who did Eric have anchoring that Cash Cow (Nitro)?

 

That would be Hogan.

 

Again, we went through this in one of the various Hogan threads.

 

I love Austin. But he was playing in the House That Hogan Built. Did great with it. Made Vince a ton of money. But Hogan gave Vince the country.

 

John

[BrickHithouse]

It's why Austin isn't a candidate for #1. I like Austin more than Hogan, but it just isn't close.

Agreed, if I was putting together a list Hogan would be over Austin though I like Austin quite a bit more. I don't really care about ranking shit like this.

 

I suck at trying to make points, and suck at message boards in general. What I was trying to get at is, how much exposure can a top WWF star have before burning out or becoming stale/passe/replaced? There are a million factors in that but I want to look at "Face Time" or "TV Age", and try to figure out exactly if, and how it factors in. The raw amount of time being seen by the audience.

 

I'd guess that Hogan's "face time" (promos+time in front of a live crowd+mainstream appearances) from 84-88 would equal Austin's from 96-98. And that Bruno's 63-71 would equal Hogan's 5 years. Or be in the ballpark.

 

The purpose would not be a definitive answer to who belongs above who on a list, but something that could be factored in to the argument.

 

Kind of like normalization of numbers in MLB across eras. Sabermetrics for wrestling.

 

Fuck, I need to hire an assistant to assemble my thoughts as I verbally dictate them, rather than this mess of a post.

 

[jdw]

The difference between Bruno and Hogan & Austin is that Hogan & Austin's would be National. Bruno's was regional. A very big region, but a different beast.

[BrickHithouse]

3. Strangler Lewis

7. Jim Londos

10. Frank Gotch

16. Johnny Valentine

17. Bill Longson

23. Edouard Carpentier

29. Whipper Billy Watson

30. Joe Stecher

Is this book a good source of reliable information about these guys?

[WingedEagle]

The crux of my point is that without Austin WWE may only be the name of the company and not also its stock ticker. Do Raw ratings, PPV buys and merchandise take off to the levels they did that enabled a second tv show, rewrote certain revenue streams in ink rather than pencil and allow the company to go public? Maybe. But I wouldn't bet on all of it transpiring that way without him.