Good afternoon..

I opened this new topic in which you can compare the historical importance of wrestlers.

Obiouvsly the comparisons are about who is the most important wrestler, NOT about who is the best wrestler/worker. For example, Johnny Gargano could be a better worker than The Rock, but in no way he is more important.

How much important is popularity of fame in judging historical importance? In the sense, for sure, Big Show is so much more known by people than AJ Styles, but does that mean that Show is more important?

  

The comparison of my poll are:

Chris Jericho vs Toshiaki Kawada

Kenta Kobashi vs Jushin Liger

Batista vs Kurt Angle

Daniel Bryan vs Edge

Big Show vs AJ Styles

 

Thank you very much

I'd like to hear the arguement for Lyger over Kobashi in terms of historical importance. 

Liger more or less pioneered the NJPW junior division when it could have just petered out after the Dynamite/Tiger Mask years. Kobashi certainly has the better body of work overall, but there's been very few non lucha guys able to be good to great for so long like Liger.  

Guys, what is your argument about Chris Jericho over Toshiaki Kawada?

9 hours ago, sek69 said:

Liger more or less pioneered the NJPW junior division when it could have just petered out after the Dynamite/Tiger Mask years. Kobashi certainly has the better body of work overall, but there's been very few non lucha guys able to be good to great for so long like Liger.  

That's debatable and I would consider Kobashi all time Top 5. The influence and longevity points are spot on though.

Damn, I'm the only one that picked Edge over Daniel Bryan?

Just all the tag team TLC nonsense alone I think makes him more historically important. Plus he's a multi-time world champion, Royal Rumble winner, Hall of Fame inductee, has his own show on the Network, was in like the highest rated segment in RAW history, etc.

We sure people aren't just voting on who their favorites are? Daniel Bryan was huge on the Indies & had that good year run in WWE culminating in the fans hijacking the shows. Then he got hurt & now he's back & doing good things again but I think it's WAY too premature to be putting him above Edge already. Maybe when his run is over. There's no question Bryan is a better worker but historically important?

29 minutes ago, Coffey said:

Damn, I'm the only one that picked Edge over Daniel Bryan?

Just all the tag team TLC nonsense alone I think makes him more historically important. Plus he's a multi-time world champion, Royal Rumble winner, Hall of Fame inductee, has his own show on the Network, was in like the highest rated segment in RAW history, etc.

 We sure people aren't just voting on who their favorites are? Daniel Bryan was huge on the Indies & had that good year run in WWE culminating in the fans hijacking the shows. Then he got hurt & now he's back & doing good things again but I think it's WAY too premature to be putting him above Edge already. Maybe when his run is over. There's no question Bryan is a better worker but historically important?

What is also your opinion about Jericho vs Kawada and AJ vs Big Show? 

Especially about Styles vs Show, did you vote for Big Show, in particular because AJ's career is still in progress like in the case of Bryan?

You can blame Kobashi for every chop exchange lifted from the legendary match against Sasaki at the Dome in 2005. Hell, I would guess the entire elbow exchange derives from this too. How a great, unique spot can became a total cliché.

Edge I don't see the historical importance at all. No one cares about the load of WWE championships, it doesn't matter one bit. No one does the awkward Edgism spots anymore. The TLC are not Edge's. He was a 6th of those only, and really they originated with the Dudleys vs Hardys table matches, E&C were thrown into the mix once the formula was already there (the ladder match was already a staple of the promotion, the tables match was the Duds gimmick). And love him or hate him (that's me), Jeff Hardy has the most insane spots in those anyway. I don't see how Edge is historically important in any way shape of form. He was a main eventer during a down period, he got over huge once Lita got all slutty and shit.

Bryan Danielson you can argue influenced a shitload of current workers, he's also responsible for years of WWE trolling his audience and the failure of Roman Reigns on top can arguably be put on his shoulders too, as he was the one the audience wanted and that's why Reigns never could work after he got picked over Bryan.

1 hour ago, El-P said:

Edge I don't see the historical importance at all. No one cares about the load of WWE championships, it doesn't matter one bit. No one does the awkward Edgism spots anymore. The TLC are not Edge's. He was a 6th of those only, and really they originated with the Dudleys vs Hardys table matches, E&C were thrown into the mix once the formula was already there (the ladder match was already a staple of the promotion, the tables match was the Duds gimmick). And love him or hate him (that's me), Jeff Hardy has the most insane spots in those anyway. I don't see how Edge is historically important in any way shape of form. He was a main eventer during a down period, he got over huge once Lita got all slutty and shit.

And what the fuck has Daniel Bryan done? "Influenced wrestlers." Fuck outta here... lmao. 

21 minutes ago, Coffey said:

And what the fuck has Daniel Bryan done? 

What I said.

Plus him getting over as he did probably helped change the way WWE looked at talent in term of hiring guys from the indies (although CM Punk was instrumental in this too).

Like I've said in the past, Bryan virtually single-handedly changed how WWE evaluates talent and how WWE matches are worked.

Bryan also had an entire Wrestlemania built around him.  Its not a perfect analogy, but somewhat analogous to winning a Super Bowl or a title in another major sport.  Not only that, but arguably one of the more important Manias in history given it was the Network launch.

I don't want to criticize you but being historically important in a positive way is really subjective. For instance, you can't deny Vince McMahon importance in wrestling history. But you can consider his huge influence as positive or negative. Some people would consider it as positive because they like a lot colorful gimmicks. People who love the old NWA territories wouldn't because Vince destroyed them.

Yeah, historically important in a positive way is the key here. 

For example, I am a huge Shawn Michaels fan and love him or hate him, he was incredibly influential. But I think his "steal the show" and "give your best performance" stuff, has been terrible for wrestling. He had the skills and smarts to pull it off but all the imitators simply don't. Not to mention, everyone has started doing shitty superkicks. 

That's why I voted Styles over Show. Show is more well known and influential per se but the way he was portrayed as a dumb big guy or whatever rather than a monster didn't exactly help the perception of superheavyweights.

30 minutes ago, Microstatistics said:

Yeah, historically important in a positive way is the key here. 

For example, I am a huge Shawn Michaels fan and love him or hate him, he was incredibly influential. But I think his "steal the show" and "give your best performance" stuff, has been terrible for wrestling. He had the skills and smarts to pull it off but all the imitators simply don't. Not to mention, everyone has started doing shitty superkicks. 

That's why I voted Styles over Show. Show is more well known and influential per se but the way he was portrayed as a dumb big guy or whatever rather than a monster didn't exactly help the perception of superheavyweights.

If there would have not been the term  "in a positive way" how would have you voted alla the comparisons? 

In the sense, would have you vote base on popularity and being more well known ? In the sense, probably considering these comparisons Jericho, Batista, Edge and Show are for sure more well known but does that mean that they are more important,  without considering positivity and negativity way?

About Jericho vs Kawada,  what inducted you in voting for Jericho?

I'd go Show over Styles and Kawada over Jericho if it was just influential. I guess influential and well known sort of go hand in hand, more popular is more likely to inspire other wrestlers and new styles and decisions.

I went Jericho for positive influence because of the jack of all trades type deal he has done over the years. Different roles, different positions on the card, different promotions. I guess he got across the importance of adaptability. Kawada and the four corners have, in some ways, shaped modern wrestling IMO and not necessarily in a good way. 

 

1 hour ago, Microstatistics said:

I'd go Show over Styles and Kawada over Jericho if it was just influential. I guess influential and well known sort of go hand in hand, more popular is more likely to inspire other wrestlers and new styles and decisions.

 I went Jericho for positive influence because of the jack of all trades type deal he has done over the years. Different roles, different positions on the card, different promotions. I guess he got across the importance of adaptability. Kawada and the four corners have, in some ways, shaped modern wrestling IMO and not necessarily in a good way. 

Thanks.

About Bryan what is your position? In the sense, what do you think about Coffey's statement about the fact that Bryan's historical importance is a little overrated? If the answer was only about historical importance, without positivity, how would have you compared Bryan, for example, to Edge, Big Show, Randy Orton, AJ Styles, wrestlers that are probably more well known by people (if you analyze google trends data Bryan is very weak) , considering that they have more longeivity and they were on top during more popular periods, but for sure they didn't inspire so many wrestlers like Bryan did and more importantly for sure his style has been more influential.

23 hours ago, Coffey said:

Damn, I'm the only one that picked Edge over Daniel Bryan?

Just all the tag team TLC nonsense alone I think makes him more historically important. Plus he's a multi-time world champion, Royal Rumble winner, Hall of Fame inductee, has his own show on the Network, was in like the highest rated segment in RAW history, etc.

We sure people aren't just voting on who their favorites are? Daniel Bryan was huge on the Indies & had that good year run in WWE culminating in the fans hijacking the shows. Then he got hurt & now he's back & doing good things again but I think it's WAY too premature to be putting him above Edge already. Maybe when his run is over. There's no question Bryan is a better worker but historically important?

My initial instinct was Bryan easily, but I have to say, this post makes a really compelling case for Edge.

On Wrestlingclassics forum I opened a same poll.

These are the results:

Gus Sonnenberg vs Tom Jenkins 5-3

Bret Hart vs Roddy Piper 6-18

Andre the Giant vs Giant Baba 19-5

Toshiaki Kawada vs Chris Jericho 10-13

Hiroshi Tanahashi vs Kensuke Sasaki 12-5

Jushin Liger vs Kenta Kobashi 16-4

Mitsuharu Misawa vs Goldberg 23-3

Jake Roberts vs Eddie Guerrero 11-9

Daniel Bryan vs Lex Luger 24-2

CM Punk vs Masahiro Chono 12-11

On 12/30/2018 at 11:53 PM, Coffey said:

And what the fuck has Daniel Bryan done? "Influenced wrestlers." Fuck outta here... lmao. 

This forum staggers me sometimes.

5 hours ago, rovert said:

This forum staggers me sometimes.

In every forum I compared Bryan to Edge he won by a wide margin, even on wrestlingclassics.