Wrestlers loved by hardcore fans but not so much respected by their peers

[yesdanielbryan]

Hi. Today I read the WON HOF 2015 issue and I noted that Bryan Danielson got only the 12 % of total votes among the current wrestlers, his peers. Obiouvsly he got more votes in 2016, when he entered in. (he was 7th among wrestlers, however I don't know the percentage).

 

Contrariwise, wrestlers like Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit are/were more respected among their peers, in fact Angle got tons of votes in 2004, by both current and retired wrestlers, while Benoit got 73% of total votes among current wrestlers.

 

So, what is the reason in your opinion?

 

For example, here, Bryan defeated Benoit in the last comparison that I opened, but I don't think that among their peers Danielson is/was considered a better wrestler.

 

I also listened the podcast with Brandon Howard and Dylan Hales about Bryan's WON HOF case, and Dylan underlined the fact that Bryan didn't get a lot of consents among his peers.

Probably, also Styles didn't get a lot of consensous among his peers, or at least not at the level of Angle and Benoit.

 

We, hardcore fans, are overrating wrestlers like Danielson and Styles in comparisons to Benoit and Angle, or WON HOF current wrestlers voters were underrating them?

 

 

Thank you

[KawadaSmile]

I would say that CM Punk is revered by his fans, but he burned so many bridges that he's almost a joke, specially by his peers.

[yesdanielbryan]

I would say that CM Punk is revered by his fans, but he burned so many bridges that he's almost a joke, specially by his peers.

In your opinion, why did Bryan get few votes in 2015 among his peers, in comparison to Angle and Benoit?

[Edwin]

On the opposite to the thread title, there's guys loved by their peers and disliked by a lot of "hardcore" fans like HBK.

 

I also always hear Jim Cornette praise guys like Davey Richards and Eddie Edwards and a lot of "hardcore" fans dislike them.

[yesdanielbryan]

On the opposite to the thread title, there's guys loved by their peers and disliked by a lot of "hardcore" fans like HBK.

 

I also always hear Jim Cornette praise guys like Davey Richards and Eddie Edwards and a lot of "hardcore" fans dislike them.

Is Davey Richards disliked ? He was always at the top in the Most Outstanding Wrestler award, if I am not wrong, he won it in 2011 and was second in 2010 below Bryan.

[KawadaSmile]

 

I would say that CM Punk is revered by his fans, but he burned so many bridges that he's almost a joke, specially by his peers.

In your opinion, why did Bryan get few votes in 2015 among his peers, in comparison to Angle and Benoit?

 

In my opinion, it's similar to people who herald HBK and Bret as the best of all time. They are legends in their own right, and I think many people inside their business look up to Angle, Michaels or Hart more than they do look up to Styles or Bryan, sometimes because they were closer to them, or were inspired by them.

[Mad Dog]

On the opposite to the thread title, there's guys loved by their peers and disliked by a lot of "hardcore" fans like HBK.

 

I also always hear Jim Cornette praise guys like Davey Richards and Eddie Edwards and a lot of "hardcore" fans dislike them.

That's mostly Cornette being out of touch. Any modern guy he goes out of his way to praise have been duds when given a main event push like Seth Rollins.

 

I think Randy Orton falls into that, other workers always praise him because of his pedigree and fans could give a shit.

[yesdanielbryan]

A similar case is Eddie Guerrero, who got only the 12 % of votes among current wrestlers in WON HOF 2005. He entered in WON HOF in 2006 after his death, like Bryan who entered in after his first retirement.

 

 

For example, this was also the reason that Meltzer always considered Benoit as a better worker than Eddie Guerrero.

[yesdanielbryan]

 

On the opposite to the thread title, there's guys loved by their peers and disliked by a lot of "hardcore" fans like HBK.

 

I also always hear Jim Cornette praise guys like Davey Richards and Eddie Edwards and a lot of "hardcore" fans dislike them.

That's mostly Cornette being out of touch. Any modern guy he goes out of his way to praise have been duds when given a main event push like Seth Rollins.

 

I think Randy Orton falls into that, other workers always praise him because of his pedigree and fans could give a shit.

 

However few of his peers voted Orton in the WON HOF. For sure, even among his peer Bryan is considered as a better worker.

[KawadaSmile]

I think Randy Orton falls into that, other workers always praise him because of his pedigree and fans could give a shit.

 

Orton's curious because when he does give a shit he's legit fantastic. He is one of the smoothest guys that ever wrestled, but the thing is, he rarely gives a shit. So the fans don't, either.

[GSR]

A similar case is Eddie Guerrero, who got only the 12 % of votes among current wrestlers in WON HOF 2005. He entered in WON HOF in 2006 after his death, like Bryan who entered in after his first retirement.

 

Just because a wrestler only got x% of votes by their peers for a Hall of Fame doesn't mean they're not respected by them. There is a huge difference between thinking that someone has done/achieved enough in their wrestling career to be 'Hall of Fame worthy' and respecting them. As an example some folk flat out refuse to vote for wrestlers while they are currently active (hence the reasons that Eddy and Bryan's percentage's sky rocketed after their death and retirement). While I don't know, I would hazard a guess that Daniel Bryan is greatly respected by his peers.

 

For example, this was also the reason that Meltzer always considered Benoit as a better worker than Eddie Guerrero.

 

Really? Have you got any evidence to back this up? I imagine Dave considered Benoit a better worker than Eddy (whether we agree or not) based on the hundreds of matches he watched of theirs all the way through their careers, certainly not on the percentage of votes the they got from their peers for his HOF!

[yesdanielbryan]

 

A similar case is Eddie Guerrero, who got only the 12 % of votes among current wrestlers in WON HOF 2005. He entered in WON HOF in 2006 after his death, like Bryan who entered in after his first retirement.

 

Just because a wrestler only got x% of votes by their peers for a Hall of Fame doesn't mean they're not respected by them. There is a huge difference between thinking that someone has done/achieved enough in their wrestling career to be 'Hall of Fame worthy' and respecting them. As an example some folk flat out refuse to vote for wrestlers while they are currently active (hence the reasons that Eddy and Bryan's percentage's sky rocketed after their death and retirement). While I don't know, I would hazard a guess that Daniel Bryan is greatly respected by his peers.

 

 

 

Maybe, I didn't write correctly. About what you said, also Angle and Benoit were active, however they got, and their case was almost exclusively on their ability as in ring performers. So they are probably considered as better wrestlers than Eddy and Danielson by their peers.

 

However, in comparison to 2003 and 2004, today there are more voters. And we also don't know if the current wrestlers voters are only WWE or also other indy wrestlers.

[Matt D]

Guys like Angle and Brock are so beloved by old-timers because wrestlers are marks. They give everyone who ever wrestled more of a sense of faux legitimacy. Bryan on the other hand generally looks like a guy off the street and hates to party.

[yesdanielbryan]

Guys like Angle and Brock are so beloved by old-timers because wrestlers are marks. They give everyone who ever wrestled more of a sense of faux legitimacy. Bryan on the other hand generally looks like a guy off the street and hates to party.

Do you think that also current wrestlers think in this way?

[sek69]

Guys with legit cred like Angle and Brock will always be loved, but like the whole NJPW roster seems to mark out for Cheeseburger so who knows?

[Mad Dog]

I think the Eddie vs. Benoit thing looks different in hindsight. Eddie's last couple of years were absolutely amazing but think about it like someone in 2004. Benoit had been this super consistent guy for a decade while Eddie for various reasons wasn't very good from 1999-2002. At the time I would have easily voted Benoit for a HoF and would have wanted to see Eddie's play out a little more.

[Matt D]

 

Guys like Angle and Brock are so beloved by old-timers because wrestlers are marks. They give everyone who ever wrestled more of a sense of faux legitimacy. Bryan on the other hand generally looks like a guy off the street and hates to party.

Do you think that also current wrestlers think in this way?

 

 

I know current wrestlers love Randy Orton because he's apparently very easy to work with (though occasionally hard to get to take a risk). The whole "Working with him is like a night off" mentality. That's obviously a metric that we as fans would almost never really rate someone on. Likewise, Christian and the fact he never got blown up no matter what you wanted to do.

[Kadaveri]

I wonder how well-regarded Kurt was rated as a wrestler by his peers in WWF, coz I remember a few being disgruntled with his antics. The story of him complaining to management about Eddie Guerrero selling instead of getting into position for the next spot comes to mind.

 

I'd be interested to know which wrestlers exactly have a ballot in the Hall of Fame.

[The Thread Killer]

I also always hear Jim Cornette praise guys like Davey Richards and Eddie Edwards and a lot of "hardcore" fans dislike them.

That's mostly Cornette being out of touch. Any modern guy he goes out of his way to praise have been duds when given a main event push like Seth Rollins.

I lost a lot of respect for Jim Cornette's opinion this past week.

 

First, he reviewed the Gargano/Ciampa match and kind of shit on it. He didn't say it was a bad match, but he implied it was over-praised and picked it apart to a ridiculous degree.

 

But even worse, he reviewed Wrestlemania 34. He says he "doesn't get" The Miz as a heel. He doesn't see anything in Rusev. He complained that the U.S. Title match was a 4 Way, claiming it would have been much better if it had just been Randy Orton vs. Bobby Roode because that would have been a great match.

 

Then he reviewed the entire roster after the Main Event and claimed the only guys who are capable of being "the guy" moving forward are Seth Rollins and the aforementioned Randy Orton and Bobby Roode. Not AJ and not Lashley, because they're too old. Nope. Rollins, Randy Orton and Bobby Roode are the only two guys who are good enough to be the #1 guy now that Reigns is finished as a legit contender.

 

All of the sudden, I figured out why Smokey Mountain went out of business.

[Mad Dog]

He doesn't follow the product currently. He also has proven repeatedly since he took over the book in RoH that he has no idea what modern fans actually want or will pay for. He still thinks 1980s wrestling will sell. He doesn't realize that fans actually like the weird and funny stuff and that draws.

 

It's ironic that he bitched about the Invisible Man and Spring Break 2 when that show probably packed more people in than he managed for his entire RoH run.

[The Thread Killer]

Yeah, the thing is I generally agreed with him regarding his philosophy on booking. I didn't think he's out of touch. I certainly agreed with his philosophy a lot more than what Russo did to the industry. I still think the old school 1980's JCP style stuff would still get over like gangbusters today, and I think NXT and the Gargano/Ciampa feud is total proof of that fact. Maybe he's just a terrible judge of talent. I almost fell off my chair when he listed Orton and Roode as guys who could carry the company going forward. And I like Bobby Roode...but he isn't that guy. Not in WWE.

[Matt D]

Roode is a really good house show worker. He's just a lot less of a TV/PPV worker.

[Mad Dog]

Yeah, the thing is I generally agreed with him regarding his philosophy on booking. I didn't think he's out of touch. I certainly agreed with his philosophy a lot more than what Russo did to the industry. I still think the old school 1980's JCP style stuff would still get over like gangbusters today, and I think NXT and the Gargano/Ciampa feud is total proof of that fact. Maybe he's just a terrible judge of talent. I almost fell off my chair when he listed Orton and Roode as guys who could carry the company going forward. And I like Bobby Roode...but he isn't that guy. Not in WWE.

 

He's a bad judge of modern talent for sure. The thing is, those JCP philosophies can work but they need to be laced with modern ideas. That's really what NXT does right now. Where I think he misses the mark is he bemoans the fact that fans are smart to the business now. But what he fails to see is this opened a lot of doors for the more meta and goofy shit like some of the PWG matches. When he was in RoH he was still doing shit like ether soaked rags or trying to sell guys as training MMA for a fake wrestling match.

 

Cornette is a great historian and for an insight into what was going on at certain points and why things did or didn't work. But he doesn't understand the modern fan. He still thinks funny doesn't draw money when we've seen that's not true.

[Laz]

Everything about Cornette as a booker/judge of talent can be summarised by how willingly he let go of Generico and wanted to keep Steen out for a year when those were the only two guys fans cared about. Nope, gotta bring in QT Marshall and give Mike Mondo a push.

[Herodes]

Yesdanielbryan you sure do mention Benoit a lot in your posts.