Despite Vader being praised as one of the best wrestlers ever by a lot of people, I remember Harley Race saying that of all the people he worked with, Vader was the one who didn't have a single clue. That always stuck with me. Everyone else seems to disagree. I think Race said Lawler couldn't wrestle either.

 

Dory Funk gets a lot of praise from other wrestlers, but from what I've seen (and read on this board from people who would know better than me), there isn't really any proof of that. I know some fans assume he was better than Terry simply because he held the NWA title longer, but I don't see any real reason to think he was anywhere near as good as Terry.

 

Of course Bruiser Brody is another guy like that. I know we haven't seen every single match every wrestler has ever had, but there are enough examples out there that people's arguments can easily be torn apart. What are some wrestlers' opinions about each other that don't add up at all with what you've seen?

I don't have specific examples, but it seems like every time Randy Orton gets brought up (be it in shoot interviews, or other media) everyone seems to think he is so great and special.

 

I don't see it, I've never seen it, and I probably never will. I think the guy is mediocre at best.

I think they say that out of respect to his dad.

Also, wrestlers I think have different criteria than smart fans. They're going to take into account things like how easy that guy is to work with and backstage stuff. We might not enjoy a wrestler and think he's boring but he might be easy and safe to work with and that's going to win wrestlers over more than it will us.

That would make what Race said a lot more understandable. Maybe Race was talking about Vader working so stiff. I never even considered it that way.

Race praises Luger as a worker ... because Luger quit in protest when they fired Race, until WCW changed their minds and brought Race back.

 

Race thinks HHH criticism is overplayed ... because HHH has been to his house for barbecues and is really nice.

Austin loves Vader if you ever listen to his podcast. He also has Dick Murdoch and Bob Orton Jr. as two of his favorite wrestlers.

Scott Hall gets a lot of praise as a worker. As good as his mind for wrestling may be, it doesn't really shine through in his matches. It's not even just about how good the matches were - he had issues with more basic stuff like adaptability and using spots that weren't that over.

Bob Orton Jr. is beloved by so many people it's insane. I've probably heard ten guys speak with great reverence about him. Buddy Rose said he was the best worker he ever saw.

Is Bob Orton even the best Juventud Guerrera traveling partner?

Orton is one of those guys I suspect we would all view really highly if we had more Crockett from his run there and/or if he had more "chances" in places that made lots of tape.

 

Having said that he's not the best wrestler of all time.

I don't have specific examples, but it seems like every time Randy Orton gets brought up (be it in shoot interviews, or other media) everyone seems to think he is so great and special.

 

I don't see it, I've never seen it, and I probably never will. I think the guy is mediocre at best.

Ditto.

 

I guess this has something to do with him being Bob Jr.'s son.

In Race's book, he says Vader had more natural ability than anyone he managed and was the most agile big guy he'd ever seen. He says: "In fact, he might be the best big man to ever enter the ring. Just don't tell him I said it." His problem with Vader was getting him to hold back.

"Tanaka is better than those All Japan boys."


*laugh*


*sheepish grin*
"Well..."

Regarding Orton.....a lot of people will tell you his stuff from the 70's was his peak. His team with Slater in GCW in 74-75 when they were just young pups is regarded as one of the greatest teams of their era.

 

Plus another issue with Orton is he spent two peak years working for ICW where not a whole lot of that exists on tape.

Regarding Orton.....a lot of people will tell you his stuff from the 70's was his peak. His team with Slater in GCW in 74-75 when they were just young pups is regarded as one of the greatest teams of their era.

 

Plus another issue with Orton is he spent two peak years working for ICW where not a whole lot of that exists on tape.

I feel like I've seen more ICW than a lot of other things from that era.

Regarding Orton.....a lot of people will tell you his stuff from the 70's was his peak. His team with Slater in GCW in 74-75 when they were just young pups is regarded as one of the greatest teams of their era.

 

Plus another issue with Orton is he spent two peak years working for ICW where not a whole lot of that exists on tape.

I feel like I've seen more ICW than a lot of other things from that era.

 

They actually released a few VHS tapes and some of their footage was saved by PM Films, which would explain that. Other companies have their footage being held hostage by the WWE(AWA, NWA, WCCW), didn't take care of it(GCW, NWA) or aren't financially sensible to release(Dick the Bruiser's WWA, Continental/Southeastern, Memphis).

That ICW stuff though was mainly after him & Roop left. Yeah there is some available but most is from 1982.

Orton seems like a really fun worker. I wouldn't be surprised if his tag work happened in the 80's we'd be talking about him in. the Bobby Eaton, Tully, and Arn as a tag wrestler . His style always screamed great tag worker to me.

Race praises Luger as a worker ... because Luger quit in protest when they fired Race, until WCW changed their minds and brought Race back.

 

Race thinks HHH criticism is overplayed ... because HHH has been to his house for barbecues and is really nice.

Race had no earthly idea why WCW let HHH go. He felt that HHH was one of the greatest young pieces of talent and WCW let him go because they had no spot for him? It was absolutely stupid.

 

The Gowinns said working wih Doug Furnas & Phil Lafon was like "pulling teeth". Yep.

I think people who do a certain job are always going to have a different opinion on who's good than those who don't do the job.

 

I'm a tv news photographer. Within my newsroom, there are varying opinions on how good certain photographers are. Their fellow photographers are going to be more impressed with editing tricks or cool shots. Reporters are concerned with how easy it is to get along with them or how they contribute to the forming of a story. Producers are happy if they get their story in on-time with no mistakes. We have guys who producers love, reporters hate, and their fellow photogs think are great.

 

Like many people have mentioned, wrestlers are going to look at different things than us. I love seeing Vader beat the holy hell out of someone. That's probably not so great if you're his opponent. Lots of guys probably overrate dudes who did whatever they were told in the ring. I'd think someone was pretty awesome if they always went along with my "great" ideas.

 

There are certain guys who do my job that might not impress you if you watched their stuff. I may be in awe of how fast they edit or how they sequence shots or something like that. I kinda think Angle is that way. There's probably something he does that other wrestlers wish they could do or wish they could do better. It may not mean he's the complete package on working, but he still impresses them.

Despite Vader being praised as one of the best wrestlers ever by a lot of people, I remember Harley Race saying that of all the people he worked with, Vader was the one who didn't have a single clue. That always stuck with me. Everyone else seems to disagree. I think Race said Lawler couldn't wrestle either.

"Lou Thesz once said that he would put Hulk Hogan's wrestling ability on a scale of 10 somewhere between 0 and 1. I'd put Lawler between 0 and Hogan." - Harley Race

Re: Harley v. Lawler

 

No doubt this was a "southern" bias going on. Wrestlers from Central States (St. Louis) felt anything from Tennessee (whether Knoxville or Memphis) was low grade bullshit/gaga compared to the product presented by Sam Muchnick or The Crocketts. It was just the pecking order. I wonder if Harley still held Lawler having his picture taken with the title against the King?

I think people who do a certain job are always going to have a different opinion on who's good than those who don't do the job.

I definitely had that in mind when I made the post. I was thinking about film criticism specifically. When directors and critics make lists of the top directors they're always radically different. Directors usually hold John Ford in a much higher regard than critics do. A lot of critics dismiss him compared to the way a lot of directors revere him. A lot of film critics approach movies from a completely different perspective than filmmakers, or don't always seem to understand the significance of a film in the context of it's own medium.