Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Who is Mr. WrestleMania?


goodhelmet

Recommended Posts

OK, the podcasts this week have inspired me to create some discussion threads. It will also help us kill time waiting and anticipating the big show)

 

One of the topics we discussed was Mr. WrestleMania (http://placetobenation.com/good-will-wrestling-mister-wrestlemania)

 

In your mind, who is Mr. wrestleMania?

 

Is it HBK like the WWE would have you believe?

Is it somebody like Cena who has broken records over recent years?

Is it Hogan for paving the way?

Is it Savage for having classic moments?


Have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably Shawn Michaels. It's not so much about whether or not I think Michaels deserves to be Mr. WrestleMania, it's that he is pushed as such. He does everything big, and on a big show like WrestleMania that tends to resonate. He's a heavily manufactured star, but such a star shines in what is annually the most manufactured show in the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impossible to say without a criteria...

 

Match wise I'd say Michaels for sure. It's becoming increasingly more popular for people to make out as if the Shawn Michaels love is some sort of propaganda or conspiracy: but I'd like to know who touches his body of work in terms of longevity and match quality with a range of different opponents at that show.

 

Hogan for me represents Wrestlemania. Without him we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really because while Cena, Hogan, etc have certainly had promotion from the company, there is empirical evidence showing how well they drew as a box office draw and overall main stream personality. Shawn has empirical evidence against that yet gets lumped into the same lexicon based on objective adjectives like show stopper and Mr, Wrestlemania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He's a heavily manufactured star

 

If somebody made this claim to describe John Cena's legacy, it would be jumped upon.

 

 

i think a key difference is that Cena deserves the hype in kayfabe terms. calling HBK "Mr. Wrestlemania" is like calling Dan Marino "Mr. Super Bowl", and it's one of the definitive examples of how wins and losses aren't treated as important anymore.

 

Cena is also more of a draw than HBK ever was, going by available evidence, so that feeds into the "manufactured" narrative as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really because while Cena, Hogan, etc have certainly had promotion from the company, there is empirical evidence showing how well they drew as a box office draw and overall main stream personality. Shawn has empirical evidence against that yet gets lumped into the same lexicon based on objective adjectives like show stopper and Mr, Wrestlemania.

 

But when has the company pushing those terms ever stated or implied it was due to "box office", or "main stream personality". They have always nodded to performance, spectacle, stealing the show, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

He's a heavily manufactured star

If somebody made this claim to describe John Cena's legacy, it would be jumped upon.

i think a key difference is that Cena deserves the hype in kayfabe terms. calling HBK "Mr. Wrestlemania" is like calling Dan Marino "Mr. Super Bowl", and it's one of the definitive examples of how wins and losses aren't treated as important anymore.

 

Cena is also more of a draw than HBK ever was, going by available evidence, so that feeds into the "manufactured" narrative as well.

DAN MARINO? REALLY?

 

Jim Plunkett, or John Elway, might be a more apt comparison than a one time SB performer!

 

Probably more Elway due to the mainstream media "waking up" to how great Elway was AFTER he won his first one after years of considering him grossly overrated.

 

BTW, I find it utterly fascinating that despite his greatness being a product of the WWF's hype machine, he got into the Observer's Hall in 2002. But then again Triple H went in the class of 2005, and Benoit also ridiculously early as well (2002 I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say Savage because he really put over the (no pun intended) pomp and circumstance of pro wrestling in everything he did anyway, it was custom-made for what's become The Big One. I think if you look at a lot of the more elaborate entrances over the years, he was at the start of a lot of that. And all he did was just wear cool looking stuff and did his poses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm another one that wants to say "not HBK," but its just too hard. Without Hogan, we wouldn't have WrestleMania, but if you go down that rabbit hole, you might also argue, without Hogan, we wouldn't have the modern WWE, so, is he Mr. WWE too? I'm not against giving him that name, but it is so all-encompassing, it kind of defeats the purpose.

 

To me, the Mr. WrestleMania moniker (as the WWE uses it) is supposed to be the guy that stole the show at WrestleMania year after year, but more than that, its the person who embodies the spirit of the night. Savage is a very close second for me - vs. Steamboat, at WM4, vs. Hogan, vs. Warrior, vs. Flair...all classic moments/matches.

 

Bret and Austin are similar to me in that they are almost tied for 3rd. Austin's trilogy against The Rock (especially WM17 and WM19) are two amazing matches. Bret's matches against Owen (WM10) and Piper (WM8) are two personal faves as well. WM13, well, enough's been said about that. One almost has to put The Rock and Cena in there as well as guys that have had absolutely phenomenal matches at Mania.

 

But where Shawn is different is that Shawn, to me, has a body of work that represents everything that IS WrestleMania. Zip-line entrances. Tag team wrestling, singles matches, and triple threats. Streetfights. Boyhood dreams. "Passing of torch" moments. Retirement matches. Ladders. Celebrity tie-ins. Guest referees good (Tyson) and bad (himself). Shawn Michaels' WrestleMania body of work is representative of the show's extravagance (or bloat, depending on how you look at it), in a way that the "lunch pail" work of Bret Hart doesn't embody. Similarly, while Taker's streak puts him in the running, his morbid gimmick takes him out of the equation for me - WrestleMania is not about death and destruction, its about the brightest lights shining and Vince McMahon's booming voice welcoming the world to his yearly blowout celebration of wrestling. Shawn Michaels is that celebratory character that also benefitted from not leaving and being a part of so, so many Manias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem at all with someone picking Michaels, but I also think it goes without saying that he's been presented with more chances to make an impact than any performer in WrestleMania history excluding MAYBE Hogan. Part of that is a testament to his talents, but another part of that is the fact that Vince just presented him at a level higher than he really was as a draw. I don't even think that's a particularly controversial statement, regardless of how you feel about Shawn as an in ring performer. Still when you look at the matches Michaels got and how he's been treated on that big stage relative to how they treated Cena or Batista - who were much bigger drawing cards at their peak - it is jarring.

 

That said, if we are taking everything into account I have to go with The Undertaker. The knock on him is that a lot of his big matches at Mania weren't good, and in many cases weren't even positioned that well on the cards. Having said that Taker's streak became the most important "title" in modern wrestling history and so central to WrestleMania that it was almost an impediment. There is a reason his losing was such a massive shock. Going further still I think Taker's streak is to a large degree the reason we have the current Mania model (large stadium shows, built around matches involving part time "attractions"). We can argue about whether or not that is a good thing, and correlation isn't causation, but I don't think the changes starting right around the time his streak became so important are a coincidence.

 

I admit that I am perhaps going with Taker because it is closer in time than Hogan, but I also prefer Taker's best efforts at Mania to Hogan's, and even though Hogan was the guy who sold out the Skydome, I don't associate him with the period that saw WrestleMania as an event being cited by business journals for it's "economic impact."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, if we are taking everything into account I have to go with The Undertaker. The knock on him is that a lot of his big matches at Mania weren't good, and in many cases weren't even positioned that well on the cards. Having said that Taker's streak became the most important "title" in modern wrestling history and so central to WrestleMania that it was almost an impediment. There is a reason his losing was such a massive shock. Going further still I think Taker's streak is to a large degree the reason we have the current Mania model (large stadium shows, built around matches involving part time "attractions"). We can argue about whether or not that is a good thing, and correlation isn't causation, but I don't think the changes starting right around the time his streak became so important are a coincidence.

 

 

That said, if we are taking everything into account I have to go with John Cena. The knock on him is that a lot of his big matches at Mania weren't good, and in many cases weren't even positioned that well on the cards. Having said that John Cena's became the most important "wrestler" in modern wrestling history and so central to WrestleMania that it was almost an impediment. There is a reason his Rock matches were such a massive success. Going further still I think Cena's rise as the man is to a large degree the reason we have the current Mania model (large stadium shows, built around matches involving part time "attractions"). We can argue about whether or not that is a good thing, and correlation isn't causation, but I don't think the changes starting right around the time he became champ are a coincidence.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fair point steve, total brainfart on my part. thought marino was in more than one, and didn't want to use peyton as the analogy even though i guess that might be the best one...

 

also meltzer absolutely had a hold on the consensus, especially at that time. this is something i've wanted to make a thread about, but i don't think you can put a lot of stock in critical rep when the most respected reporter, historian, and critic in this community are *all* the same person...

 

heck even today, if you go onto reddit or somethingawful or 420chan's wrestling boards, the fans who care about wrestling outside WWE mostly just parrot dave. and that's with a more fragmented and informed core community compared to the 90s-2000s!

 

To me, the Mr. WrestleMania moniker (as the WWE uses it) is supposed to be the guy that stole the show at WrestleMania year after year, but more than that, its the person who embodies the spirit of the night.

 

and this is where we go in two completely different directions. i think pro wrestling is supposed to be a fictional sport where the athletes and commentators treat it as sport, and that's why the shawn hype seems so silly to me. i think the guy they hype up as Mr. Wrestlemania should be the one who, you know, WINS the most at WM. you do have guys in sports who are "pushed" for reasons other than their play, but they tend to be fads that die down sooner or later (e.g. gilbert arenas, tim tebow).

 

that said, your post is really good and something i can definitely get behind. best articulation i've seen for that point of view!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it's gotta be either Michaels, Undertaker, or Cena. No one else has the kind of longevity at the event that those guys do, nor the number of great matches.

 

Bret, Austin, Rock, and Savage all have very solid cases as well, but they don't crack the top 3.

 

I'm not a Hogan fan at all, so he wouldn't be my pick, but I can see the case for him, considering he was the focal point of so many Manias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...