Who is more historically important?

[El-P]

1 hour ago, yesdanielbryan said:

Weren't Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero, who proved that a guy who didn't have the typical look could become a top star?

Benoit never became a "top" star, really. And Eddie was ripped as fuck in WWE. Hell both guys were ripped as fuck. That's the typical WWE look.

[Loss]

Mick Foley was more of a radical departure from WWE norms of who could headline than Benoit and Guerrero.

[yesdanielbryan]

22 minutes ago, Charles (Loss) said:

Mick Foley was more of a radical departure from WWE norms of who could headline than Benoit and Guerrero.

In that sense, do you think also that Bryan was also more influential than Benoit and Guerrero, after Foley?

[Boss Rock]

2 hours ago, El-P said:

All that is well good, but he was first and foremost mostly a terrible worker and a shitty promo. What does that says about the fans, I won't go into, but I really couldn't care less about merch sales and "connection" with the fans. The fact is Jeff Hardy in-ring was sloppy as fuck, had terrible basics, was an innovator of that god-awful 00's indieriffic styles with physically awkard looking moves (see also : Edge), he was not a very impressive high flyer either if you really think about it (he was a very stupid one though, loving to bump on tables and chairs from very high places), and most of the Hardys most famous spots are directly copied from RVD/Sabu stuff anyway. Did I mention he was sloppy as fuck and had terrible basics ? 

I don't see that at all. The current indie-style is a product of 15 years of ROH and Japan fetichism. Jeff Hardy is a product of late 90's backyard Us wrestling, and his style clearly demonstrated it. Jeff Hardy was basically an emo teenage crush version of New Jack, minus the great promos and character. 

Daniel Bryan, along with CM Punk, changed the way WWE sees indie talents. Samoa Joe vs AJ Styles at SummerSlam, and the entire NXT system as it is today and has been for a few years now, doesn't happen without the Pipe Bomb and Yes ! Yes ! Yes !. That beats the hell out of whatever merch sales statistic.

But the questions here really isn't "was he a good worker or promo". It's was he important. That's why pretty much everyone says Cena was more important than Hansen even if Hansen is a better wrestler in every single way. And Goldberg was never a great worker and he was absolutely important. And in this case, merch sales and audience reaction rivaling Cena who's one of the biggest wrestling stars ever seems pretty important. Even if his run at the top was relatively short, no one outside of maybe Punk for a brief period got close to doing that. And while he may not have been the first to do big ladder spots, he's almost always the first guy people think of and emulate when doing ladder spotfets today. The ROH ladder war and even the most recent NXT ladder match were absolutely love letters to the triangle ladder/TLC matches of the 2000's. And he may not have been the only guy in those matches, but other than the Edge spear spot, almost every highlight involves him. Now whether or not that's a good thing is again personal opinion. 

Now was Bryan more important in regards to how WWE views/signs talent and how NXT is built today? Absolutely. But saying Hardy wasn't important just because he wasn't a very good worker I don't think is really relevant to the question.

[El-P]

5 hours ago, Boss Rock said:

That's why pretty much everyone says Cena was more important than Hansen even if Hansen is a better wrestler in every single way.

Depends what kind of "pro-wrestling history" you're talking about. Ask any old-school Japanese fan who is the more important, I doubt you'd get the same answer. Hansen was a huge, huge star in a pro-wrestling business that was much hotter than WWE's Cena in their respective context.

Anyway, I never saw shit in Jeff Hardy and I don't see him as being very "important" in pro-wrestling history apart from setting really bad exemples in both work and life.

[Loss]

7 hours ago, yesdanielbryan said:

In that sense, do you think also that Bryan was also more influential than Benoit and Guerrero, after Foley?

As I said before, I think it's too early to know the answer to that question. I also think because we see and hear the name Daniel Bryan every day, any answers we provide are likely biased by that. He's relevant right now in a way that Guerrero and Benoit can't possibly be. The time to evaluate that is when he's no longer in wrestling.

[yesdanielbryan]

1 hour ago, Charles (Loss) said:

 As I said before, I think it's too early to know the answer to that question. I also think because we see and hear the name Daniel Bryan every day, any answers we provide are likely biased by that. He's relevant right now in a way that Guerrero and Benoit can't possibly be. The time to evaluate that is when he's no longer in wrestling.

In 10/15 years I will ask you this question again.

[Loss]

I was thinking about something. Is there a reason guys like Bret and Shawn were seen as radical departures on top in a way that someone like Roddy Piper, arguably the biggest star of the three, wasn't? I understand the contextual differences -- specifically Bret and Shawn being pushed as a reaction to the steroid era's consequences -- and maybe that's the only reason. Is it also that Piper, while a major star and hugely important player, was never the singular focal point of the company the way Bret and Shawn were? I may have answered my own question, but Piper being cast as Hogan's first major rival in the WWF is in itself pretty remarkable.

[yesdanielbryan]

40 minutes ago, Charles (Loss) said:

 

Charles, however, in your opinion, what should happen to consider Bryan's historical importance as positive?

Should a NXT star become the face of WWE or should the WWE style change, or something other?

[DMJ]

Not to sidetrack this more, but I do think if we're talking about the importance of Benoit, the biggest "selling point" (for lack of a better term) for him being a historically important figure is the double murder-suicide, not anything he did inside the ring. Had he just retired or become a trainer at NXT, I don't think he'd be an important figure in wrestling history despite his technical prowess and winning all sorts of Observer Awards. 

This is why, as much as I love Eddie Guerrero, I'm not sure he's more historically important than Rey Mysterio. I don't know enough about lucha libre history so I can't speak on that, but I do know, if you're just looking at stardom in the US, Mysterio was more influential in-ring, the more popular TV character, and had a longer run at the top. His name is not only synonymous with the WCW Cruiserweight Division but when people talk about WWE wanting a major Hispanic star on the roster, it is only referred to as WWE searching for "the next Mysterio" - a guy who can make them boatloads of money because Rey was so popular for so long that he's almost more comparable to The Undertaker than just your 2-3 year "top guy" (like Batista).

[sek69]

Just the fact that so much of WWE's roster are guys who wouldn't have got a second look (if even a first) shows Bryan's historical importance. You could argue Punk played a role too, but him being Punk could have easily soured WWE on guys like him. Bryan proved that fans will accept a smaller guy as a star even if the company does literally everything in their power to undermine him. 

It really stands out on a show like All In, where a guy like Billy Gunn (who was never seen as a "big guy" in WWE) looked like the Big Show in the battle royal. People who never thought they had a chance to make it in WWE are now able to take their shot, and it really is because of Bryan. 

[Loss]

51 minutes ago, yesdanielbryan said:

Charles, however, in your opinion, what should happen to consider Bryan's historical importance as positive?

Should a NXT star become the face of WWE or should the WWE style change, or something other?

I don't want to limit the possibilities by predicting anything. If WWE colonized the moon and put an advertisement featuring Daniel Bryan's likeness on the moon, that would make him hugely influential, for example.

I'm exaggerating but my point is that I don't have ground rules on what has to happen. I'll assess it when the time comes. Not before then.

[NintendoLogic]

4 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

I was thinking about something. Is there a reason guys like Bret and Shawn were seen as radical departures on top in a way that someone like Roddy Piper, arguably the biggest star of the three, wasn't? I understand the contextual differences -- specifically Bret and Shawn being pushed as a reaction to the steroid era's consequences -- and maybe that's the only reason. Is it also that Piper, while a major star and hugely important player, was never the singular focal point of the company the way Bret and Shawn were? I may have answered my own question, but Piper being cast as Hogan's first major rival in the WWF is in itself pretty remarkable.

It's a matter of perception. Bret had wrestled as a junior heavyweight in Japan, so he was pigeonholed as a small guy even though he was the same size as Piper and Savage. Also, Piper could generate heat with his promos in a way that Bret and Shawn couldn't.

[Alucard]

Hardy being a spotfest guy in his early days sure, but I thought in his second WWE run (06-09), he had become a legitimately GREAT worker who had several fantastic matches up and down the card against a huge variety of opponents - mostly straight singles matches at that. On par with Matt delivering the goods on a weekly basis. Matches with Morrison in 06, Umaga in 07.. really strong matches in early 2008 when he was first main eventing against Michaels, Cena, Orton, Jericho and the later series with Triple H were great stuff.