Title: Best WWE/World Champion of all time?
Description: Base it on whatever criteria you want.
SamoaRowe - December 2, 2005 03:53 AM (GMT)
I almost made this thread a while back as well, but for some reason I never did.
prof_plague - December 2, 2005 04:13 AM (GMT)
I would like to say Bruno for obvious reason, but I haven't seen too many of his matches, and when I have, that was some time ago; yet, I still want to say Sammartino.
whitemilesdavis - December 2, 2005 01:47 PM (GMT)
Unfortunately, I gotta say Hogan. He meant the most to the business.
dynamite kido - December 2, 2005 01:58 PM (GMT)
I went with Bret because nobody can claim to have the match caliber for the length of time that Bret did.
Scrooge McSuck - December 2, 2005 02:59 PM (GMT)
... MUWAHAHAHAHA! (almost votes Other)
Hulk Hogan, Austin, or Bruno, hands down are the top three, so personal preference/insane bias picks Hogan.
Workrate rise is a different story, but your wrestling ability means nothing to your title reigns.
TehDoct0r - December 2, 2005 05:14 PM (GMT)
Where's the John Cena option?
:P
Seriously, Hogan. Duh. But if we're going match quality during championship reigns, like previously mentioned, it's easily Bret, with Shawn's phenomenal 96 run coming in close.
Scrooge McSuck - December 2, 2005 05:18 PM (GMT)
Shawn's "phenomenal run"? I'm sorry, but it shouldn't be that hard to have great matches with Owen Hart, Bret Hart, Vader, and Mankind. Davey Boy Smith, when motiviated, was still capable in the ring post-Bulldogs days. The only "phenominal" "carryjob" was with Nash, and when you can't have a great match with your best friend, you suck...
(ignores the Hogan/Beefcake suckfests in WWF and WCW)
TehDoct0r - December 2, 2005 05:22 PM (GMT)
I don't care if he was working God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. He had a phenomenal string of matches.
Scrooge McSuck - December 2, 2005 05:25 PM (GMT)
I still wouldn't call it phenomenal. Tell him to have great matches every week with Billy Gunn, the Godwinns, Sid, Triple H (before he learned how to work)*, Ahmed Johnson, and a host of others on the 1996 WWF Roster, and I'll believe it.
* - while I used the Nash example, at least Nash knew how to pace himself and was pretty good in the "No DQ" style matches. Hunter just flat out sucked until 1998-99.
TehDoct0r - December 2, 2005 05:34 PM (GMT)
I know what you're saying, but I'm not interested in how good someone is at carrying people. I'm talking about pure match qaulity. Shawn's classics during shouldn't be looked upon as inferior simply because he actually had good opponents. I'm saying that in my opinion, the matches Shawn had during his reign were fucking awesome, and deserves mention. I still give Bret the edge tho.
Scrooge McSuck - December 2, 2005 05:36 PM (GMT)
That's my point: OH MY GOD SHAWN MICHAELS HAD A GREAT MATCH! [/ignoring he was wrestling good-great wrestlers that deserve credit too]
TehDoct0r - December 2, 2005 06:56 PM (GMT)
They deserve credit too, no doubt, but you can't tell me Shawn Michaels had nothing to do with any of it. I think the whole "carrying" thing is vastly overrated.
prof_plague - December 2, 2005 07:41 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (TehDoct0r @ Dec 2 2005, 11:14 AM) |
| Seriously, Hogan. Duh. |
Seriously, Sammartino. Duh.
Scrooge McSuck - December 2, 2005 08:03 PM (GMT)
How can you vote for someone you weren't even around to see? :)
prof_plague - December 2, 2005 09:10 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Scrooge McSuck @ Dec 2 2005, 02:03 PM) |
| How can you vote for someone you weren't even around to see? :) |
That's like saying Lou Thesz was a bad NWA champion.
SamoaRowe - December 2, 2005 09:14 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Scrooge McSuck @ Dec 2 2005, 02:03 PM) |
| How can you vote for someone you weren't even around to see? :) |
Let's just say his legacy has left me in complete awe ;)