JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Flair was absolutely marketed as a legend and even as GOAT, and I'm sure that 1000s of fans were affected by Jim Ross and others pushing him as such week in-week out, not to mention the mags. The difference is that by that point Flair was legitimately the second biggest draw in the US for the 80s and had been the NWA champion for almost a decade. Shawn was what? tag worker > IC champ for a bit > injured > world champ for a bit at a time when no one gave a shit > injured And yet when he did his come back run, he was presented in the same sorts of terms as a Flair or a Hogan or someone of that level. They were selling pure illusion of the idea of him as a guy like that, and somehow a lot of people bought it and then they put him in positions where he could "add to the legend". WWE have made sure that whenever GOAT conversations happen, Shawn's name is in the mix. There is no doubt in my mind at all that that wouldn't be the case without their marketing. It's a testament to the strength of that division, because his vastly inflated rep in the minds of casual fans is arguably one of their single most impressive achievements to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 And also, sure, "casual fans" have made their own minds up, just like they have about HHH. But what does your average casual fan think about Nick Bockwinkel? Oh, right, they don't. Call me snooty, or whatever you want, I think I'm just telling the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I should also say that all of this is complicated slightly by the fact that -- as a result of said marketing -- Shawn DID then become a much bigger star than he had ever been before and then that kind of retconned his career into being and seeming a lot of significant than it was. By the late 00s, Shawn was probably a bigger star than he had ever been in the 90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Shawn was heavily hyped, pushed and marketed before his comeback. He's one of the biggest stars in the history of the company. That's always been the perception regardless of the numbers he drew. It's much closer to 50% reality, 50% marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 That's always been the perception regardless of the numbers he drew. Where are the Sting as GOAT arguments then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I suspect we'd hear them if WCW won the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I think we're having two separate conversations. What does Shawn's record as a draw or big star have to do with his rep as a worker? Like I said, marketing Shawn as a big star is different to marketing him as a great wrestler or GOAT. The former is obviously a misrepresentation of his actual impact as a draw. Not arguing differently, but like I said that's what WWE can and should do in trying to market someone who works for them. Marketing him as a great wrestler or the GOAT is different, that has nothing to do with drawing and is based on perceptions of him as a worker from the company and fans. And yes, the more you say it the more people believe it, but like I said in the first place, people wouldn't just swallow it if they weren't willing to. And not everyone is a casual WWE fan who doesn't think twice about it. I've watched a shitload of wrestling in my short life. I'm really not subject to the WWE Marketing Machine in forming my opinions on wrestling. Neither are the plenty of visible Shawn fans around the way. Some people just genuinely think he's a great wrestler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I suspect we'd hear them if WCW won the war. And if Sting was actually a great worker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Well, it's not like The Undertaker was worlds better than Sting (at least until the last few years of big Mania matches), and Undertaker has always sort of been above criticism in a lot of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 That's always been the perception regardless of the numbers he drew. Where are the Sting as GOAT arguments then? Why are you looking to the company for GOAT arguments? They call themselves the WWE Universe for chrissake, what do you expect? If you're looking for some bastion of the truth you're looking in the wrong place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Okay two things: 1. I'm not saying that you can't have a valid opinion that Shawn is a great worker. It's well known that I'm really not a fan of his later career or of the WWE main event style he pioneered. If someone genuinely does their due diligence, watches footage from all over the place, and so on and still comes out thinking HBK is a top 5 guy, fine, great. That's your view. I don't mean disrespect to anyone. 2. My main point was nailed by someone earlier: it's the fact that the WWE have done a tremendous job of ensuring that many many fans hold the view of Michaels as being permanently "in the conversation" for GOAT. It's a standard almost de facto talking point as clear as debating Favre vs. Manning when discussing greatest NFL quarterbacks or Pele vs. Maradonna (now Messi vs. Ronaldo) in football. If you take the long view across wrestling history, that's just pure hype and I don't think -- objectively speaking -- that Michaels is necessarily a lock for that sort of position. His career just wasn't that good. He didn't have a Ric Flair-type career. You look at it and it's just not there. And this is my main point, that the perception comes from the packaging as much as anything else. I'm not having a go at WWE for doing it either, it is smart and it takes ownership of such debates -- they lock down and control wrestling history. They make sure they feed enough of the past to educate the fans a bit, but also make sure they position a guy like Michaels front and centre. That's always been the perception regardless of the numbers he drew. Where are the Sting as GOAT arguments then? Why are you looking to the company for GOAT arguments? They call themselves the WWE Universe for chrissake, what do you expect? If you're looking for some bastion of the truth you're looking in the wrong place. I'm not, but the company tell me HBK is the GOAT anyway. And then loads of supposedly smart free-thinking fans repeat the line to me. A lot. Over and over again. For a decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Well, it's not like The Undertaker was worlds better than Sting (at least until the last few years of big Mania matches), and Undertaker has always sort of been above criticism in a lot of ways. Do you remember when Scott Keith used to call him the Lazy-Taker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Okay two things: 1. I'm not saying that you can't have a valid opinion that Shawn is a great worker. It's well known that I'm really not a fan of his later career or of the WWE main event style he pioneered. If someone genuinely does their due diligence, watches footage from all over the place, and so on and still comes out thinking HBK is a top 5 guy, fine, great. That's your view. I don't mean disrespect to anyone. 2. My main point was nailed by someone earlier: it's the fact that the WWE have done a tremendous job of ensuring that many many fans hold the view of Michaels as being permanently "in the conversation" for GOAT. It's a standard almost de facto talking point as clear as debating Favre vs. Manning when discussing greatest NFL quarterbacks or Pele vs. Maradonna (now Messi vs. Ronaldo) in football. If you take the long view across wrestling history, that's just pure hype and I don't think -- objectively speaking -- that Michaels is necessarily a lock for that sort of position. His career just wasn't that good. He didn't have a Ric Flair-type career. You look at it and it's just not there. And this is my main point, that the perception comes from the packaging as much as anything else. Fair enough. I guess my answer to the second thing is that, well, according to you he didn't have such a career. According to others, or according to the people writing the history if you want, he did. Again, we're not talking about how big a star a guy is, it's about work. Shawn wasn't as big a star as plenty of people, including Flair, but it's not about that, it's about the matches and the performances. And again, other people just disagree with your assessment that they're not there. They think he does have a Flair-like body of work consisting of good and great matches year after year with all sorts of people. There is a point to be made here about the line of GOAT going from Flair to Shawn to ? because we're talking about mainstream American wrestling and so nothing outside of WWE and WCW matters. I think you alluded to that at first with the Bock comment. And it's a valid point but I think that's more about WWE-centricity than anything about Shawn in particular. He's the other guy in the conversation because he and Flair are the two guys that most people think were the two best modern, mainstream American performers, because that's the extent of their scope. But that's a whole other conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 That's always been the perception regardless of the numbers he drew. Where are the Sting as GOAT arguments then? Why are you looking to the company for GOAT arguments? They call themselves the WWE Universe for chrissake, what do you expect? If you're looking for some bastion of the truth you're looking in the wrong place. I'm not, but the company tell me HBK is the GOAT anyway. And then loads of supposedly smart free-thinking fans repeat the line to me. A lot. Over and over again. For a decade. So what? You haven't really explained why this puts your nose out of joint. Is it some affront to you as a free-thinking wrestling fan? I don't see how anyone who came up through the Bret/Shawn era would bat an eyelid at any of this. I remember when Michaels returning to guest commentate on RAW was a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Who said it puts my nose out of joint? All I've said is that the perception (i.e. of him as a lock GOAT-type guy) comes primarily from the marketing. This portion of this thread started with a comparison to Bruno Sammartino's status as a folk hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 My point in mentioning Undertaker was that he is beyond criticism in any WWE or WWE-associated media. Shawn is openly described as a jerk in his worst years. Bret is presented as wrong for Montreal. Storylines have played off of HHH's selfish reputation. WWF stalwarts like Hogan are still acknowledged for going too far with the NWO. Austin took his ball and went home. But Undertaker is the unquestioned professional and perfect locker room leader who is an amazing example to everyone around him. They don't market him as the greatest of all time so much though, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Look at the list: 1 Shawn Michaels 2 The Undertaker 3 Stone Cold Steve Austin 4 Bret Hart 5 The Rock 6 Harley Race 7 Ricky Steamboat 8 André The Giant 9 Rey Mysterio 10 "Rowdy" Roddy Piper 11 Eddie Guerrero 12 Triple H 13 Gorgeous George 14 "Macho Man" Randy Savage 15 Mr. Perfect 16 John Cena 17 Ric Flair 18 Dusty Rhodes 19 Edge 20 Jerry "The King" Lawler 21 Lou Thesz 22 Terry Funk 23 Hulk Hogan 24 Bruno Sammartino 25 Chris Jericho 26 "Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase 27 The Fabulous Moolah 28 Freddie Blassie 29 Randy Orton 30 Pat Patterson 31 The Iron Sheik 32 Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka 33 Mick Foley 34 Kurt Angle 35 Buddy Rogers 36 Gorilla Monsoon 37 Junkyard Dog 38 "Superstar" Billy Graham 39 Jake "The Snake" Roberts 40 Big Show 41 Jack Brisco 42 Sgt. Slaughter 43 Kane 44 Nick Bockwinkel 45 Jeff Hardy 46 Dory Funk Jr. 47 Bob Backlund 48 "Ravishing" Rick Rude 49 Batista 50 Killer Kowalski It's an interesting mix of having enough names from the past in there to seem legit and "objective" while showing the WWE-warped version of history too. I love looking at this list, it's just so random. Why is Race just in there at #6 like that? Ha ha. Amazing list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Vince apparently made that list himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 I wouldn't take the list as much of anything Parv. It was only put together to sell DVDs and is clearly a nonsense list that was, as Loss said, at the mercy of Vince's whims at that particular moment. This was pre-Bruno amnesty and at a time when Hogan was on the outs, so they get laughably low-balled. Company stalwarts up the top. A few older names and current stars thrown in. It's nonsense and I don't think anyone has ever taken it otherwise. It's like Vince's version of a PWI 500. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Who said it puts my nose out of joint? All I've said is that the perception (i.e. of him as a lock GOAT-type guy) comes primarily from the marketing. This portion of this thread started with a comparison to Bruno Sammartino's status as a folk hero. Let's ignore all the emotive language you used then. People were making GOAT arguments for Shawn in the late 90s. The internet was full of that stuff prior to his comeback. There's always been Shawn fans out there. There were boards where if you tried to argue that Misawa or Kawada were better workers than Shawn you'd be accused of being either a purist or an elitist. The WWE tapped into something that already existed. Shawn was already calling himself the show stopper and the icon before he left. A lot of it was ripping on Hogan. The big difference with his comeback was that the WWE had begun embracing its history more, partially out of a need for more content/programming and I suppose partially because Vince either felt nostalgic or a sense of fulfillment that he had finally run his last major competitor out of time and now was the time to reflect. So instead of ignoring history au every step, they embraced it and opened up about it and that gave Michaels the chance to add to his legacy. As for Bruno, I wasn't around in New York in the 70s so I can't speak to the way he was marketed and presented, but if her come along a few years later he would have been subjected to much more hype since the WWF was a bigger company then with a marketing machine behind it. I also wonder how people outside of New York thought of the way Bruno was presented. Maybe they thought everything coming out of NY was bullshit compared to the territories they followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 The list is more a reflection of the politics of the time than anything else. If it had come out a couple of years earlier, Flair almost certainly would have been #1. But since he was in TNA at the time, they couldn't put him over to any real degree. On the flip side, Bret would have gotten the mid-20s consolation prize as someone who was too big a deal to ignore but still had to be punished for disloyalty. But since he was back in WWE's good graces at that point, he was right at the top. As for Undertaker, I think his status in WWE can be chalked up mainly to two things. One, he's never been on the outs politically. Two, he's still technically active, so putting him over also puts over the modern product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 What is much more interesting though is doing a few google searches to see what the average fan "out there" on other boards said. Have a little read: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=140221 How many of their opinions am I meant to be respecting? And also to see what sorts of top 50 lists that very mainstream sites like IGN come up with themselves. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/11/02/top-50-wrestlers-of-all-time?page=5 1. Shawn Michaels 2. The Undertaker 3. Hulk Hogan 4. Steve Austin 5. Bret Hart [10. HHH] Reader's choice: 1. Shawn Michaels 2. The Rock 3. Steve Austin 4. The Undertaker 5. Bret Hart It's hardly surprising that the WWE are incredibly influential over their own fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 I would drop a few dollars in to make sure Parv could get the network so that we could see him review Monday Night Wars. That'd be hilarious. If he's angry about this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 How is that in any way surprising? Aren't those the five biggest stars of the era those readers grew up in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 I would drop a few dollars in to make sure Parv could get the network so that we could see him review Monday Night Wars. That'd be hilarious. If he's angry about this... They buried Goldberg pretty hard on the Goldberg episode the other day, even having Regal talk some shit about him. :-P I throw in $10 for a months worth. If you're another $10, then we just need four more people to buy his six-month subscription. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.