Who Is Better?

[shoe]

Bob does show weakness. He just doesn't sell as traditionally as your normal baby face. He sells in a more realistic manner. He does show weakness. He sells damage to his leg, he coughs or spits up when he eats a big move. You're overstating his lack of traditional baby face selling. It's more subtle . You're too busy looking for super 800 to pick up on it.Spike Dudley was about getting sympathy.

[shoe]

Spike played scrappy baby face misfit. Bob is a scrappy baby face who has amateur wrestling cred.

[NintendoLogic]

Better than Backlund:

Owen, Pillman, Austin, Bret, Jumbo, Tito, Tully, Regal

 

Backlund is better:

Angle, Race, Rude, Hall

 

I could go either way on HHH.

 

I will admit that I might not be giving Backlund a fair shake because I have such a visceral negative reaction to him. The way he walks with his ass sticking out and his "whoa-oa-oa" bullshit annoy the hell out of me.

[Mini Bennett]

Jushin Liger or Goldust/Dustin Rhodes?

Antonio Cesaro or Nigel McGuinness?

John Cena or Bret Hart?

Bam Bam Bigelow or Samoa Joe?

[Loss]

Jushin Liger or Goldust/Dustin Rhodes?

Liger. Dustin is a great worker who has kept a great tradition alive in some ways, but Liger was the kingpin of his era and is the greatest wrestler of all time in his weight class. There aren't ten wrestlers in history better than Liger.

 

John Cena or Bret Hart?

Bret is a better wrestler and the better and the more creative and resourceful overall performer as well, although at this point Cena's longevity probably means he has more high quality output. But as much as I love Cena, I can't see him working the mat smoothly or ever being referred to as a great technical wrestler. Bret was more versatile. I do think there is an argument for Cena as being more consistent and working harder, but things like execution and athletic ability do still matter to me. I think Bret is better in the context of wrestling being presented as sport.

 

Bam Bam Bigelow or Samoa Joe?

Joe. Bigelow was overrated because of his agility for his size, but I never thought his in-ring instincts (grasp of psychology, ability to work a crowd and play a strong babyface or heel) were anything special. Bigelow was never not over, but he was also never more over than the majority of his peers where it was noticeable and he was a standout. He was more a great athlete than he was a great worker.

[Jmare007]

Only read the first 10 pages so apologies if this have been asked:

 

Rey Mysterio or Jushin Liger?

 

Chris Benoit or Bryan Danielson?

[cheapshot]

Only read the first 10 pages so apologies if this have been asked:

 

Rey Mysterio or Jushin Liger?

 

Chris Benoit or Bryan Danielson?

Liger

 

Benoit

[Superstar Sleeze]

Backlund works so well against a variety of opponents in different type of matches that it is hard to deny his awesomeness. In May of 1980, he wrestled ****+ classics against Hogan, Dusty (NJPW) and Patera all of which are incredibly different. His May of 1980 maybe one of the best months in wrestling history. He is an absolute beast.

I don't really agree. I agree that those matches are very good to great, but I don't agree that he's working a different style. He's working one style.

 

He carries the match with Hogan but he does it by forcing Hogan into his match. He works Patera the same way he worked Patterson, Valentine, and Inoki. He can be pushed into a bomb throwing contest (see Great Arab Hussein match), but even then he's doing it a very particular way.

 

Backlund works on top more than just about any guy I can think of. He's more dominant in his matches than Hansen or Vader (I truly believe that). He shows less vulnerability than basically any major babyface I've ever seen.

 

I said this on an upcoming show, but I want to say it here too: Backlund has too much struggle in him. I don't like Inoki for the same reason. It may be 20+ years' worth of being programmed to expect a certain unwritten rule of selling: if a guy is kicking another guy's ass, I expect the other guy to sell it.

 

Backlund doesn't sell it, ever, ever. He's always struggling. Always fighting. Always doing some shit to show he's ... not getting his ass kicked. This is why the the matches with Inoki fucking suck for me, because there's Inoki doing exactly the same thing.

 

"But Jerry, in an actual fight, that's what happens"

 

Well I don't watch pro wrestling for its verismilitude, I'd watch UFC if I wanted that wouldn't I!

 

Backlund is the only guy I've ever seen who will carry another guy by kicking their ass. After years and years of watching guys like Flair, it's very hard for me to adjust to that.

 

I see it as a basic limitiation of Backlund's style.

 

Flair can go in there with ANYONE and he makes them good look by showing ass and bumping like a muthafucker. He can work the proverbial broomstick.

 

We've seen Backlund work broomsticks. We've seen him in there with some really shitty guys and with some more mediocre ones (e.g. Duncum). In fact, Duncum is a good case in point. Here's a guy who is taller than Backlund and heavier than Backlund and billed as a "big man". Backlund just kicks the shit out of him from bell to bell.

 

But Duncum is not Ken Patera or Pat Patterson, so surprise surprise, he's not selling Bob's shit that well and the match sucks. This is why for as many great Backlund matches as there are, there are at least as many that are totally shit.

 

I'd argue that Backlund simply doesn't change up his style to fit the opponent. He works the same way regardless of who it is. You could put that fucker in there with Superman himself and he still won't show you an ounce of vulnerability.

 

Bob is in the business of getting Bob over.

 

That's why I don't like him.

 

In the best matches of his, the MVP for me has almost always been the opponent so far.

 

Backlund or Valentine? Valentine

Backlund or Patterson? Patterson

Backlund or Patera? Patera

 

I don't think it's a coincidence.

 

This isn't just blind prejudice on my part -- Backlund sucks as a promo, I don't like and possibly still don't even understand his basic character -- it's a view I've built up of seeing a lot of Backlund now in different situations, against different opponents. He never changes.

 

Flair is a heel. Backlund is a face. Backlund is supposed to look strong and he is the champion. He kicks out at one. He is constantly struggling. He makes people work for every inch.

 

I conceded that Backlund is not going to win any awards for selling, but you make it seem as if heat sections are non-existent. I remember plenty of times, Hogan and Valentine worked on top in their respective matches with Backlund.

 

I can think you work a ton of different styles and still be true to yourself. We all agree that a Flair match with Steamboat is different from one with Luger or one from Garvin, but Flair was still a big bumping, underhanded heel. He adjusted for his opponents, but he was still Flair. This is why I think people think there is a Flair formula, just because the spots are the same don't make it the same match. When I listen to Motley Crue, I think it is great that they vary their songs form glam rock, heavy metal, punk and ballads, but they still sound like Motley Crue. They are true to themselves. In his matches with Inoki and Valentine, he works great holds based matches. With Slaughter, Muraco and Patera, he works great brawls. With Hogan, he works one of the best power tit for tat matches ever. Yes, he is still Backlund and true to himself. The matches are a different style, but he works one style. I don't see how heel Flair works a different style in his matches. When he chops Luger or Sting it gets no-sold. When he chops Steamboat or Garvin, he ends up in a chop war. Flair is not deviating from his gameplan, but the matches are different because the opponents are different. If he could bully Kerry Von Erich like he did with Ricky Morton, he would. Backlund is out to prove he is the best in every style. Hogan is a power wrestler. I am going to out-power you. Inoki is a mat wrestler. I am going to best him on the mat. Slaughter is a brawler. Well I can do that too. That's Backlund's MO. He believes he is the best all-around wrestler. He is going to beat you at your game to prove it, but by still being Bob Backlund the scrappiest wrestler ever.

 

Scrappy Doo sounds about right to me.

[Nighthawk]

Rougeau Brothers or Badd Company?

[Kevin Ridge]

From watching late 79/early 80 stuff of Backlund, I'm not too bothered with the lack of selling for him as a baby face. Not really seeing it as an issue. I think it just fit what those paying (Johnny Sorrow's great point on Titans shows of us looking back at this stuff 30 years later) fans wanted out of their top baby face in WWF at this time. A bit similar to Bruno in that he would go out there and kick some ass though not as strong as a brawler than Sammartino. Though, I don't really see Backlund as some underdog. He may not have the size as some other guys but as Shoe mentioned he had the amateur creditials but was also strong as hell. He had some of the most impressive legit strength in the ring. I get that he wasn't the most charismatic on the mic and that his promos could be a bit lifeless. But he showed way more emotion in the ring and I feel like the selling is there.

[Grimmas]

Only read the first 10 pages so apologies if this have been asked:

 

Rey Mysterio or Jushin Liger?

 

Chris Benoit or Bryan Danielson?

Liger

 

Benoit

 

Rey

 

Danielson

[Kevin Ridge]

Bob Backlund or Owen Hart?

 

I love Owen so I just can't vote again him. The more I see of Backlund will probably give me one way or the other an idea of who to pick.

 

Bob Backlund or Brian Pillman?

 

Pillman was one of the best American wrestlers on yearbooks from 90-94. The more I see of Backlund will probably tip things in his favor though but this one is close.

 

Bob Backlund or Steve Austin?

Bob Backlund or Bret Hart?

 

Not close here on these two.

 

Bob Backlund or Jumbo Tsurta?

 

I wasn't really into 80's Jumbo. I found AJPW during the decade to be a bit disappointing actually. Jumbo in the early 90's rules though. He was awesome as the heel especially going up against the rising stars during the decade. I wish we got a longer run from Bob as heel in 94. He seemed washed up after a couple months. Jumbo had been a part of some excellent matches in early 90's alone.

 

Bob Backlund or Tito Santana?

 

I prefer the high end Backlund matches to what I've seen of Santana's.

 

Bob Backlund or Kurt Angle?

 

Don't watch TNA so Kurt for me is just 2000-05 which I don't view as bad as everyone else around here. Kurt during 2000 was such a fun character for me. Both have the amateur thing as part of their gimmick but work it way different with Angle's go go style and Backlund being more methodical. Angle was part of one of the most entertaining matches I've seen live at the Rumble. Backlund made things matter more in his matches though and in the end I'll remember his more than Angle.

 

Bob Backlund or Harley Race?

Bob Backlund or Rick Rude?

Bob Backlund or Scott Hall?

Bob Backlund or Triple H?

 

Harley the wrestler just doesn't seem to add up to Harley the bad ass talking on the mic. I would have loved to seen some Backlund versus Rude. Legit strength guy in Backlund versus legit tough guy in Rude. Only stuff I've really cared about for Hall as far as matches was for him in WWF in 93-94. Backlund's heel run for 6 months in 94 was miles better than Triple H's never ending heel run.

[DR Ackermann]

How would you rate Mick Foley in comparison with his contemporaries when he was at or near the top?

 

Foley or Austin?

 

Foley or the Rock?

 

Foley or the Undertaker?

 

Foley or Shawn Michaels?

[Sidebottom]

How would you rate Mick Foley in comparison with his contemporaries when he was at or near the top?

 

Foley or Austin?

 

Foley or the Rock?

 

Foley or the Undertaker?

 

Foley or Shawn Michaels?

In what regards exactly? It's like comparing an action film to a period drama. Both (or all) can be excellent depending on what mood your're in. Foley was one of the most exciting wrestlers of all time, for what it's worth. People are forgetting that in droves with a new era of mongloids coming in talking about "Foley's Feelings, white knighting" etc

[Log]

How would you rate Mick Foley in comparison with his contemporaries when he was at or near the top?

 

Foley or Austin?

 

Foley or the Rock?

 

Foley or the Undertaker?

 

Foley or Shawn Michaels?

I'd put him above UT at that time. He really made Taker better with their feud. Him and Austin were neck and neck for me. Same with Rock really. I dug the Rock character at the start, but it wore on me after a while. I have a hard time comparing he and Michaels. Apples and oranges to me.

[Matt D]

To me, Foley was a very good storyteller. He was able to get to the heart of a match conceptually and then try to figure out how to get there through his work. He's one of the better big picture guys I can think of and I don't think he gets enough credit for that.

[Mr. Lacelle]

I'd have Austin & Michaels above him but he's safely above Taker & The Rock. I will always rate guys higher who were able to get over in a variety of different environments while Taker & Rock were WWE exclusive.

[DR Ackermann]

I meant as far as in-ring work goes. Who would you rate as the better worker. And I agree, Foley was a great storyteller. It is something that gets overlooked somewhat.

[Matt D]

I meant as far as in-ring work goes. Who would you rate as the better worker. And I agree, Foley was a great storyteller. It is something that gets overlooked somewhat.

Well the most important part of working, to me, is getting the story across, and I think he listening to him talk about specific matches is always interesting because of that. He's probably as good as anyone at the sort of overbooked, overdramatic, Shawn-Michaels-making-funny-facial-expressions sort of matches WWE loves to kick out now and again.

[Mr. Lacelle]

I meant as far as in-ring work goes. Who would you rate as the better worker. And I agree, Foley was a great storyteller. It is something that gets overlooked somewhat.

 

As far as in ring work is concerned, if someone works a variety of different styles in different promotions I will take that into account. Rocky & Taker only worked WWE style and due to that I couldn't rate either ahead of guys who were good in other promotions.

[Mini Bennett]

Randy Orton or Triple H?

 

I'm not nearly as critical as others here are of these two but I do see some of the same criticisms thrown at them so I'm interested in seeing PWOs view.

[goodhelmet]

Randy Orton and I wouldn't call it close.

[Zero]

I think the Rey or Liger one is really interesting, and I'm scratching my head over it.

[goodhelmet]

Me too. I might have both guys in my Top Ten of all time when all is said and done.

[Badlittlekitten]

Rey v Liger

 

I'll have to go with Rey for now as I haven't seen enough Liger yet. I like Rey but nowhere near as much as some others do.

 

Orton. vs HHH

 

Orton, because he's slightly less shit and boring.

 

These two have been rolling through my mind lately for some reason. I'll add some thoughts when I've made me mind up;

 

Tracy Smothers or Tommy Rich?

 

Greg Valentine or Arn Anderson?