The Greatest of all time.

[JDK]

Stone Cold Steve Austin and Bret "Hit Man" Hart.

Discuss.

(I'm aware this is a short short post, but I'll be back soon to expand upon my choices. In the mean time you lot go ahead and state your opinons of who and why).

[Sunshine]

Not sure if you're asking which one of those is the greatest, or if you're generally asking who is the greatest. Out of those two, Steve Austin by a landslide. Bret was a horrible mic worker, from what I hear and read. Maybe not horrible, just not known for it. And WWF/E requires that to be successful. One reason he might've never really gotten over that hump as bona fide icon like Flair, Hogan, Steve, and Rocky. Stone Cold is the complete package. A good brawling wrestler that can go technical. And one of the best entertainers overall, not just wrestler. He's great with the mic and has been in many entertaining storylines.

If you're talking in general...it's The Rock. Maybe not the most successful, or most known, but just naturally the greatest. It's science. I don't think caring about the business or fans should be that big of a deal like I see in the quote in your sig. Yeah, Rock has somewhat turned his back on WWE after going Hollywood but when he was still wrestling, he cared just as much. He just happened to move on to better things.

[One Stratusfied Customer]

Yeah, Rock has somewhat turned his back on WWE after going Hollywood but when he was still wrestling, he cared just as much. He just happened to move on to better things.

Plus it's not like Austin hasn't tried... It's just that The Rock was a lot more sucessful at it.

[legendaryken]

Time for this old chestnut again!
Depends on what you mean by 'greatest'
imo, best mic skills - Mick Foley (out of your two, Austin)
best wrestling technique - probably some Mexican luchador I've never heard of - how's that for a cop-out? (Hart)
most 'over' - Hogan (Austin)
most successful in ring - Flair (tie)
most successful out of ring - The Rock (Austin)
biggest draw - Hogan (Austin)
my favourite - Mick Foley (neither, to be honest)

[JDK]

No no, I wasn't comparing Austin and Bret, even I can see Austin was better all round, I was just stating they're my two choices. I'll be back later, I promise:)

[Cripplerlock]

First, let me make a correction. Sunshine I am not sure who gave you that information on Bret, but he by no means was horrible on the mic and although Austin probably would get the pic over Bret it would not be a landslide. Bret was actually good on the mic, but his in ring wrestling ability was just much better. However could hold his own against any great mic worker in a promo if he had to.

I am probably not going to give my picks as I actually would need time to think about it. However, Ken brough up a good point. The very first question someone like me will ask is what is the criteria being used? Ken already illustrated that point. We all talk about in ring ability and mic skills, but is that the only criteria? Ok for time sake the answer is of course no. Draw power would be a major one. I am respectful of many wrestlers whether they are known or well known, but when it comes to a "greatest of all time" title, I don't care how many moves you know how to do or can cut a promo like Rock or Foley, if people are not familiar with who you are then you are not a real contender. However, I remember reading Metzer has a book out on the top 100 wrestlers (yeah big surprise). One criteria he used (I think out of five) was one I actually never thought of and that is historial importance. That begs the question, when you think of "greatest of all time" are you automatically thinking of wrestlers in your lifetime? I might give Ken a pass on this one.

These are just things to think about. There will never be 100% agreement on who is the greatest. I am not sure there would be 90% or 80% agreement because it will always be subjective and even choosing the criteria is subjective.

[D2Kvirus]

Necro Bu...no, that's not even funny.

[JDK]

First, let me make a correction. Sunshine I am not sure who gave you that information on Bret, but he by no means was horrible on the mic and although Austin probably would get the pic over Bret it would not be a landslide. Bret was actually good on the mic, but his in ring wrestling ability was just much better. However could hold his own against any great mic worker in a promo if he had to.

I am probably not going to give my picks as I actually would need time to think about it. However, Ken brough up a good point. The very first question someone like me will ask is what is the criteria being used? Ken already illustrated that point. We all talk about in ring ability and mic skills, but is that the only criteria? Ok for time sake the answer is of course no. Draw power would be a major one. I am respectful of many wrestlers whether they are known or well known, but when it comes to a "greatest of all time" title, I don't care how many moves you know how to do or can cut a promo like Rock or Foley, if people are not familiar with who you are then you are not a real contender. However, I remember reading Metzer has a book out on the top 100 wrestlers (yeah big surprise). One criteria he used (I think out of five) was one I actually never thought of and that is historial importance. That begs the question, when you think of "greatest of all time" are you automatically thinking of wrestlers in your lifetime? I might give Ken a pass on this one.


Exactly, Bret was by no means shit on the mic, he wasn't an all time great but his stuff around '97 was really good stuff, and he always got his point across without going into too much detail. Anyways I'll look at this issue closer in my bigger post than I'm planning once I've assembled all my points for SCSA and Bret, but I'm glad someone esle agrees with me.

[D2Kvirus]

The thing with Austin, although he has a lot of superlatives used to describe him, is the fact I never once got into one of his matches.

It seemed the difference between a standard Austin match on Raw against some low-level heel and an Austin PPV Main Event is that the opponent hit him more often. This may sound like the most obvious thing in the world, but it's also the greatest criticism you can make of a wrestler going, as it implies the opponent is working around their standard match (see also: Necro Butcher, any Ric Flair match from the early 90's onwards).

Also, Austin matches seemed too standard: the hot start was Austin punching the opponent, getting his second wind was him punching the opponent, the comeback was punchhing the opponent...throw in stomping in the corner, the Lou Thesz Press and the Stunner, and that's just about every Austin match ever.

The main difference between Austin and The Rock is that The Rock's matches were more dramatic: The Rock could tell a story in the ring better than Austin could, simple as that.

The thing about saying Bret's mic skills make him less is simply ridiculopus. Bret may not have had the promo skills of Rock/Foley/Jericho/Raven, but he could cut a promo nontheless to a good standard. If you're basing promo skills on attaining "legendary" status, then you have to discount The Undertaker, who's promo skills are lacking. Then again, I was never blown away by an Austin promo, either - he's on the level of HHH in my opinion: you believe he's a better promo than he actually is due to the sheer amount of promo time he's allocated. Certainly latter day Austin was painful on the mic, since his promos wer elike his matches: "My name is Steve Austin" and "What?", with not a lot inbetween.

[The Kid]

If you are working a different match every time, you are not wrestling correctly. Hogan's matches were all the same as well, yet nobody drew more money than Austin and Hogan. In my opinion, it would be very hard to argue against Austin as an all time great.

[D2Kvirus]

The main difference between Hogan and Austin is that Austin was in an era of wrestling weekly on Raw (and Smackdown,when that arrived) as well as regular - and eventually monthly - PPVs, whilst Hogan was in an era of four PPVs (aka The Big Four") and was only visible on regular TV when Saturday Night's Main Event was on. Hogan was a case of less-is-more, especially at his peak (as he is with his annual appearance), Austin wasn't.

Also, I throw a flag for the Capitalist Argument.

If we're going to look at it from a sporting angle, making money is completely irrelevant - Wayne Rooney makes far more money than Garrincha ever did, but whilst Garrincha is regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, Rooney is one of the most overrated.

From an entertainment standpoint, PotC: At Worlds End made far more money than Citizen kane ever did, yet the latter is regarded as the greatest film of all time, whilst the former is regarded as an unwatchable mess.

It's like saying Leona Lewis is more influential than The Ramones as she's sold more records.

Also, no, you are not wrestling correctly if you wrestle the same match for a Raw squash and a Wrestlemania Main Event - you need to raise your game and bring more to the table for the latter.

There's plenty of wrestlers who will always kick it up a gear for either PPV matches or the big matches (Cena and Carlito in WWE, Brent Albright in ROH, Kaz in TNA, what's left of Mitsuharu Misawa in NOAH etc.), because people are paying extra to be entertained/marvel at the spectacle. If there's little to no differentiation between your free matches and your bi matches when you're a supposed top star (and not taking a single bump on Raw/Smackdown for the last three/four years doesn't count, Trips), you are NOT doing your job properly, because you're sticking to the exact same blueprint - just the match lasts longer and you get hit more often.

Let me put it to you this way: if you'd paid for front row seats for Wrestlemania and one of the guys in the main event was performing a routine you could watch on Raw/Smackdown for free instead of wrestling a match, would you feel like you'd got your money's worth?