Choose the wrestler who you think belongs more in a tournament of the greatest of the promotion from 1985 to 2005. Please do not factor their work in other companies into your decision. Voting will end Sunday at 12:00 CST. Please provide your answer with a mere name on the first line, and if you choose to elaborate, do so after making your pick. Thank you.

Val Venis

Al Snow.

 

Lots of fun in the beginning with the Head gimmick, feud with Lawler. He was the definition of "Hardcore" in the company for a while.

Val Venis

 

Al Snow was hyped up big on the indy circuit before coming into the company and was given lame gimmick after lame gimmick. In Val you have a solid worker stuck in a bad gimmick, but he at least is B-show royalty.

Val Venis

 

I like Snow, but he was always portrayed as too much of a comedy act. Pre-RTC heel Val was pretty good, and I thought he could make it in the main events if given the chance.

Al Snow.

 

 

Al at least got over with Head and the whole hardcore thing.

 

Venis went limp about 30 seconds into his WWF tenure after the whole "I choppy-choppy your pee-pee!" angle. None of his subsequent gimmicks (RTC Val, Chief Morely) ever helped him out.

Val Venis.

 

This one was hard, but I think what tipped the scales was seeing him sign autographs at McDonalds once.

Val Venis because I'm a mark.

Al Snow without question.

 

Plus, Val is a Republican. I always vote against the Republicans.

Venis. One of the guys from the Attitude era who could have been a huge star if pushed properly.

Val Venis

 

Al Snow seemed to stop caring about wrestling once the Head gimmick hit and relied more and more on garbage matches until he faded into Tough Enough hell. Val Venis was a solid worker and still is that today who probably deserves better. I still really like his matches with Goldust in 1998. Thought he could've been good with his "take no bullshit character" he had when with Trish Stratus, but Vince felt the RTC thing was more necessary. Still can work today, and I liked his match with Edge last week.

Al Snow without question.

 

Plus, Val is a Republican. I always vote against the Republicans.

Val is a Libertarian, but that's neither here not there.

 

I'll go with Val because he's a much better worker than he has been given credit fot, while Snow is given credit for being a better worker than he was.

Al Snow

 

Outside of the first tenure of Venis, Val did nothing of note. Snow, while not a breakout star himself, for me, as had a longer shelf life of being credible.

Val Venis

 

Though it took a little bit of pushing, he was able to get over as Bischoff's heel lieutenant, and his run as Val Venis speaks for itself. I've never envisioned him as a main event talent, but he certainly could have been a strength in the middle card and the WWF/E couldn't even really get that right, packaging him in a stupid gimmick right out of the box.

 

Venis was able to get over regardless of gimmick. I don't think I can argue the same of Al Snow, whose one big ticket to the promised land was a castoff comment by Mick Foley.

Al Snow without question.

 

Plus, Val is a Republican. I always vote against the Republicans.

Val is a Libertarian, but that's neither here not there.

 

I'll go with Val because he's a much better worker than he has been given credit fot, while Snow is given credit for being a better worker than he was.

Fair enough. I should have just said conservative... esp. since Val is Canadian and doesn't have a voter's card here.

Al Snow.

Hmmm....I'm going with Val Venis here.

 

Val had a great look, a gimmick that was very over, and some good skills in the ring. He could have been a pretty good IC champ for a good spell. Snow is more known for the TE stuff, and look how well the winners have fared in the ring (though that might not be completely his fault).