Most importantly Angle should NOT be higher than HBK. How the fuck can Angle be higher than the guy with whom he had his best match of the decade with? Who put him over HBK and why? Not trying to be a raging HBK mark, looking for a good debate, something this forum is becoming alien to. I know he had some really killer matches, but besides Austin in 01, Lesnar in 03 and HBK in 05, he just wasn't involved in that many memorable storylines. And besides HBK having more killer matches, HBK had far more memorable storylines. Angle. Triple H. Ric Flair. Jericho, twice. Vince. Then there's the matter of Taker...
IWF Top 80 Wrestlers of the Decade
- Thread starter Axis
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Fair enough. I didn't check how many points there were between them earlier.
I nominated Edge because he's one of the few guys who kept me watching WWE until I couldn't take it anymore, and Orton for Cena-esque reasons ( I don't really like him, but so many people do, so...).
It's regadless of personal like/dislike.
What about AJ higher than Undertaker and CENA higher than HBK. Thought those would make you rage more, they're certainly more ridiculous.
Oh, baby. i smell some good discussion coming.
I rated Kurt Angle as my #1 guy, so I will address that. First of all, Kurt Angle has the advantage of having wrestled virtually non-stop from all 10 years. Will that fact probably lead to an early death? Probably, but irrelevent. I've made it pretty well known that Angle has been too formulaic the last 4-5 years of the decade, but his first few years were some of the best years for anybody in modern wrestling history. From 2001 - 2003, I would argue that he was the best in the world, at LEAST in the US (except MAYBE Benoit, but I'm a mark). His 2000 and 2004 were also very, very great, though I'd say Rock was better in 2000 and Benoit was in 2004. As part of the Smackdown Six, one of the few good parts of the Invasion, and his Triangle with Triple H and Stephanie, I think he has a solid amount of good storylines to boast of for the first half of the decade.
His second half, dominated by his time in TNA, has not been as good. I would consider him "average" in terms of storyline materiel, with most angles being either extremely good or extremely bad. Where his position in the Angle Alliance/Christian Coalition storyline kept my attention, the mishandling of his feud with Joe turned me off of the product. Where the Main Event Mafia started off great, it eventually floundered into a mess. He has had some gems though--vs Jarrett, vs Lethal, vs Kaz, and his early stuff vs Styles. What I give Angle most credit for in his TNA run is a combination of (1) his willingness to take on the pressure of carrying a company, and (2) his willingness to put over younger guys. When you look at Shawn Michaels, he doesn't really fit into the first category and, without getting too into this never-ending debate, I would say that Angle fits better into the second category than either Triple H or Undertaker.
Shawn Michaels has obviously had a lot of fantastic work. Whenever he was in the title scene, it was memorable--vs Triple H, vs Cena, vs Orton, and vs Jericho. But I think it's worth pointing out that that was four title feuds. Triple H had to work with probably a dozen or more different title contenders. Angle got to work with Austin, Rock, Lesner, and Eddie, but he also had to work with Mark Henry, Hogan, and an unmotivated Booker T. When I was rating, I took in mind the quality of storylines, but also context. Michaels was working a lighter schedule, so he was not as prone to being stale, and he was able to work with a more diverse set of opponents.
I rated Shawn highly, but that's why I did not rate him as highly as Angle. I believe John Cena was my #3, and I stand by that firmly, and I actually thought I was being harsh by not giving him #1 or 2. Looking back at my list, I was obviously on an indy high, as I rated Styles, Punk, and Joe all in the top 10--a decision I might regret at this point.
I rated Kurt Angle as my #1 guy, so I will address that. First of all, Kurt Angle has the advantage of having wrestled virtually non-stop from all 10 years. Will that fact probably lead to an early death? Probably, but irrelevent. I've made it pretty well known that Angle has been too formulaic the last 4-5 years of the decade, but his first few years were some of the best years for anybody in modern wrestling history. From 2001 - 2003, I would argue that he was the best in the world, at LEAST in the US (except MAYBE Benoit, but I'm a mark). His 2000 and 2004 were also very, very great, though I'd say Rock was better in 2000 and Benoit was in 2004. As part of the Smackdown Six, one of the few good parts of the Invasion, and his Triangle with Triple H and Stephanie, I think he has a solid amount of good storylines to boast of for the first half of the decade.
His second half, dominated by his time in TNA, has not been as good. I would consider him "average" in terms of storyline materiel, with most angles being either extremely good or extremely bad. Where his position in the Angle Alliance/Christian Coalition storyline kept my attention, the mishandling of his feud with Joe turned me off of the product. Where the Main Event Mafia started off great, it eventually floundered into a mess. He has had some gems though--vs Jarrett, vs Lethal, vs Kaz, and his early stuff vs Styles. What I give Angle most credit for in his TNA run is a combination of (1) his willingness to take on the pressure of carrying a company, and (2) his willingness to put over younger guys. When you look at Shawn Michaels, he doesn't really fit into the first category and, without getting too into this never-ending debate, I would say that Angle fits better into the second category than either Triple H or Undertaker.
Shawn Michaels has obviously had a lot of fantastic work. Whenever he was in the title scene, it was memorable--vs Triple H, vs Cena, vs Orton, and vs Jericho. But I think it's worth pointing out that that was four title feuds. Triple H had to work with probably a dozen or more different title contenders. Angle got to work with Austin, Rock, Lesner, and Eddie, but he also had to work with Mark Henry, Hogan, and an unmotivated Booker T. When I was rating, I took in mind the quality of storylines, but also context. Michaels was working a lighter schedule, so he was not as prone to being stale, and he was able to work with a more diverse set of opponents.
I rated Shawn highly, but that's why I did not rate him as highly as Angle. I believe John Cena was my #3, and I stand by that firmly, and I actually thought I was being harsh by not giving him #1 or 2. Looking back at my list, I was obviously on an indy high, as I rated Styles, Punk, and Joe all in the top 10--a decision I might regret at this point.
I agree with most of your list, and as for Cena, I just can't buy into his storylines or feuds, really. A lot of the times his promos seem sheer unbelievable to me and his storylines involve him virtually doing the same exact thing. It's probably bias but I really don't care to argue it. Anyways, as far as Angle goes, fucking Wolfe and Anderson is all I have to say for this year. Both amazing storylines, and the guy is indeed a machine. Also, Angle is just as formulaic as Cena, HBK, Triple H, etc. There really is no difference. Angle has more high spots that he does probably, because he wrestles in TNA, a much more faster-paced wrestling company. The only reason it seems that Angle is MORE formulaic than say Shawn Michaels, is because you said it yourself, he's wrestled 10x more for this year. How many singles matches did HBK even wrestle his last year back? I remember two, literally. And don't think I'm using selective examples because even before that he made damn sure to come back JUST for some big storyline match whether it was vs. Angle, vs. Orton, vs. Taker, or vs. Jericho. Every top face has their little formula they do and Angle started doing the spots he did as he begun to turn face vs. Matt Morgan. Before that, the only time you would see him do a moonsault would be at fucking Bound for Glory. The guy is working ridiculously hard no matter and you can tell every single time he gets in the ring regardless of his opponent, that's what I think puts him above everyone else. Somewhere I'd hands down agree with you is if he you brought up the decline of his character, which has literally downgraded since his debut in 2000. I mean, he's still solid on the mic, but his promos just consist of saying in some form "I pride myself on being the greatest wrestler in the world", ETC. What happened to all the awesome catch phrases and mannerisms he use to have? As a heel AND face, he was both amazing. He doesn't do anything and just seems like he focuses on wrestling, which is fine but it seems really poor. On top of that, the "It's real" shit just sounds flat out Blue. It's like he raised his wrestling ability to lower his mic skills and character development. Really can't wait for him to back to the WWE where I think he would pick up the latter part for sure, since he wouldn't need to work as strong of a wrestling pace anymore. It's really sad since I guess he had a tumor in this throat too and they didn't even tell him before his WM 19 match putting him at huge risk obviously. Then the operation to remove is what noticeably changed his voice to the more raspy version it sounds now. 
Good work Axis. I will counter your Angle argument that Angle had to work w/ Mark Henry and a Booker T with HBK having to make an entire year out of working with green as hell Ortons, Batistas, and Chris Masters and having very solid matches with lumps of clay, including that Batista match as Batista then was far more awful than Mark Henry and an unmotivated Booker. And if Rocky, Trips, HBK and Jericho could all pull passable matches, so could Angle and he did. Kind of a moot point.
I can't take anything away from Kurt from 00-01, he was funny and he had a fast learning curve and he-Austin was sickkkk. Angle's 2002 was fairly unremarkable till he started teaming with Benoit. His 2003 was epic because he spent nearly all of it taking on Lesnar, his 04-06 were not much, except his GM run, his tiffs w/ Eddy, match/w Taker and his HBK feud. Not a whole lot of substance in those three years compared to what HBK was doing. Then you have to consider he demoting himself to TNA just because Vince wanted him to take some time off for his own safety. You can call it as you want, but his 4 years in TNA have been lackluster to say the least. If perhaps he'd helped increase their ratings, things could be viewed differently, but when a guy has spent the last 4 years of the decade toiling in the B promotion in every single role possible and made no impact on the company's business, I can't compare that to a guy who closed out the career of the greatest of the modern era and had the best feud of the year in 2008, then had the MOTY in 2009 to close out his decade. But again, ya know, it really comes down to whom you mark for.
I can't take anything away from Kurt from 00-01, he was funny and he had a fast learning curve and he-Austin was sickkkk. Angle's 2002 was fairly unremarkable till he started teaming with Benoit. His 2003 was epic because he spent nearly all of it taking on Lesnar, his 04-06 were not much, except his GM run, his tiffs w/ Eddy, match/w Taker and his HBK feud. Not a whole lot of substance in those three years compared to what HBK was doing. Then you have to consider he demoting himself to TNA just because Vince wanted him to take some time off for his own safety. You can call it as you want, but his 4 years in TNA have been lackluster to say the least. If perhaps he'd helped increase their ratings, things could be viewed differently, but when a guy has spent the last 4 years of the decade toiling in the B promotion in every single role possible and made no impact on the company's business, I can't compare that to a guy who closed out the career of the greatest of the modern era and had the best feud of the year in 2008, then had the MOTY in 2009 to close out his decade. But again, ya know, it really comes down to whom you mark for.
AJ being top ten is somewhat of a travesty. Definitely to be in the top 10 you should have drawn money. AJ has never done that since TNA has really never done that. As for Cena, he was easily the most bankable star the E has had since the slide began in 2002 and is a media star adn his movies have been more successful than Hogan's. Cena is fine where he is, plus he's had some great matches the past 5 years.
I will add that Michaels, although one of my personal favorites, irks me sometimes due to his insistance on no-selling body parts during his finishing run comebacks. It's something that started to bother me mroe toward the end of the decade, but once I noticed it, it was hard for me to ignore.
As for Styles, if Cena and Styles were in different positions in 2002, and Cena got a Styles push in TNA, I do not think that TNA would be in any better position. TNA is where it is because it is run by a woman who knows nothing about the industry, and supported by an incompetant staff. If anything, the fact that TNA is still here today is a testament of something to AJ. I judged the guys differently on how they functioned in their environments. Guys like Joe, Low Ki, and Punk got credit for making ROH into exactly what it wanted to be--a company that appeals to a passionate niche. Punk specifically got even more credit for being to appeal to both that market AND the mainstream North American market.
As for Styles, if Cena and Styles were in different positions in 2002, and Cena got a Styles push in TNA, I do not think that TNA would be in any better position. TNA is where it is because it is run by a woman who knows nothing about the industry, and supported by an incompetant staff. If anything, the fact that TNA is still here today is a testament of something to AJ. I judged the guys differently on how they functioned in their environments. Guys like Joe, Low Ki, and Punk got credit for making ROH into exactly what it wanted to be--a company that appeals to a passionate niche. Punk specifically got even more credit for being to appeal to both that market AND the mainstream North American market.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,456
- Reaction score
- 3,102
- Points
- 118
- Location
- Raccoon City
- Favorite Sports Team
-
I read the title quickly and it came across as 'best wrestlers of the 80's decade' so I was going to ask where the fuck Piper was but I will instead just walk out of this thread in embarrassment.