Jump to content

G.O.A.T. (The Jerry Lawler Thread)


PowerButchi

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

The answer is Hogan. When I was a young tool I didn't get the genius of the Hulkster, when it comes to the old wrestling. Thankfully, as I've got older I've come to appreciate how bloody ridiculous he is. You just need to have a look at that Sting match at BFG to see where the power lies. I don't think there is another man ever in history that could have been in Hogan's state and still have the best match in a companies history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The answer is Hogan. When I was a young tool I didn't get the genius of the Hulkster, when it comes to the old wrestling. Thankfully, as I've got older I've come to appreciate how bloody ridiculous he is. You just need to have a look at that Sting match at BFG to see where the power lies. I don't think there is another man ever in history that could have been in Hogan's state and still have the best match in a companies history.

 

Think I'd have to go with Hogan too. Hated him as a kid and always wanted the baddie to win, but same as you I grew to appreciate him more as an adult. Sold all my wrestling DVD's now, but the Hogan Anthology is the only one I can't bear to give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

This is a tricky one, can't argue with the king, can't argue with hogan.

 

I think if I have to pick a personal choice other than the obvious, it would be Curt Hennig.

 

Fair play, he wasn't the WWF world champ and his WCW run was somewhat lacklustre, saying that, he was the total package. His AWA run was sublime, his feud with Jerry Lawler in 88 was actually brilliant.

He could talk the talk and walk the walk. Mr Perfect couldn't be more apt and although he was a bit of a ribber, he had incredible respect from his peers.

I personally think he should have had a world title run and wished he and savage could have had a program after flair left his spot.

 

I know it's a bit 'someone who could have been' rather than 'someone who was', but for me, Hennig was the boy and he possibly peeked at the wrong time. That's all I can really fault him for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me its The Rock.

 

Unrivaled charisma, great presence and look. In the ring he could tell a decent story, and like said on the previous page about Lawler, could time his comebacks well and really get a crowd involved with his selling ability. Very diverse, he could play face and heel very well and could carry opponents as he displayed with Rikishi. Watching him perform in the boom period of 2000 was a treat, but I probably enjoyed him best as Hollywood Rock in 2003, just heaps of fun.

 

Has also achieved the most crossover/mainstream success of any WWF/WWE star I can think of, and one of the biggest drawing cards in WWE history.

 

I get the arguments made for Hogan and Lawler though, Austin is a good shout as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Saying Shawn Michaels or Bret Hart might end up in me angrily proving people wrong!)

 

You know, this may come of as a bit of an unpopular opinion, but I think the vast majority who believe that Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are the best ever just believe whatever hype WWE tell them. It's a strong generalization, I know, but it's really hard to see what's so great about those two when you have seen guys like Jerry Lawler, Yoshiaki Fujiwara and Terry Funk do their thing and completely blow the former away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
What happened to Hennig in WWE 1994 onwards? That would have been the "Perfect" time for him to peak imo.

Wasn't that about the time he done his back in and collected his Lloyd's of London money? If so, he was retired by that point.

 

Kind of but he did have a couple of years in WCW hating rap and slapping Konnan around. Shame things happened as they did in terms of injury. Even as a commentator, personal advisor, his return against Helmsley in the mid 90's, he was great.

 

Seriously though, if you haven't seen much pre WWE stuff, go and check him out, especially AWA and Memphis round ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

That Lawler/Miz match was a gem. It's the only time I have been able to watch the Miz and not groan. Lawler really was King of the world that night.

 

The answer lies somewhere in the foursome of Hogan, Lawler, Flair and Funk I'd say. Though the quantity of Puro, British, Lucha and pre-mid 70's US stuff I have seen really is minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Saying Shawn Michaels or Bret Hart might end up in me angrily proving people wrong!)

 

You know, this may come of as a bit of an unpopular opinion, but I think the vast majority who believe that Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are the best ever just believe whatever hype WWE tell them. It's a strong generalization, I know, but it's really hard to see what's so great about those two when you have seen guys like Jerry Lawler, Yoshiaki Fujiwara and Terry Funk do their thing and completely blow the former away.

 

I don't think you can lump the two together really, though people often do.

 

From what I've seen of those two in the mid-90s, I thought Bret was fantastic both as a character and as a wrestler. He has such great matches with a real variety of people. Shawn at the same time was an obnoxious prick, a real heat magnet as a personality, but (and this is just my opinion) he seems to often wrestle in a way that makes his opponents look shit at his expense.

 

After he came back in 2003 or whenever it was, he was much better, and his body of work up till retirement is fantastic, where Bret went off to do not a lot for years in WCW.

 

Bret and Hart seem a lot closer to what the WWE want from their wrestlers than Lawler, Funk and the like (and even Hogan to an extent). Great storytellers, great brawlers, great showmen rather than technical wizards. WWE seem nowadays to feed a line that the Michaels or Hart style is preferable, and it seems to be what they'd like all their young wrestlers to be able to do in the ring.

 

You've got people like Anderson, Steamboat and the like teaching the young guys how to work, which is great as they were great workers, but who teaches any of the developmental guys to wrestle like Lawler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bret and Hart seem a lot closer to what the WWE want from their wrestlers than Lawler, Funk and the like (and even Hogan to an extent). Great storytellers, great brawlers, great showmen rather than technical wizards. WWE seem nowadays to feed a line that the Michaels or Hart style is preferable, and it seems to be what they'd like all their young wrestlers to be able to do in the ring.

 

Eh what are you on about? Lawler and Funk are better at all them things than Hart/HBK. Are you seriously suggesting that Shawn Micheals is a better brawler than Terry Funk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
(Saying Shawn Michaels or Bret Hart might end up in me angrily proving people wrong!)

 

You know, this may come of as a bit of an unpopular opinion, but I think the vast majority who believe that Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are the best ever just believe whatever hype WWE tell them. It's a strong generalization, I know, but it's really hard to see what's so great about those two when you have seen guys like Jerry Lawler, Yoshiaki Fujiwara and Terry Funk do their thing and completely blow the former away.

 

I think you've definitely got a point with Michaels. And this isn't me being a Bret vs Michaels type deal and refusing to believe the other is any good. I don't dislike Michaels at all and like plenty of his shit but I've never thought he's anything close to being classed as GOAT. I do think Bret is up there though and I do agree that HBKs status of being classed as such is aided greatly by WWE continually presenting him as such. Bret hasn't really had that same treatment has he? It's a strange one though because there seems to be a great deal of wrestlers (and not just his mates or employees of WWE) that also rate Michaels as the best ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Bret and Hart seem a lot closer to what the WWE want from their wrestlers than Lawler, Funk and the like (and even Hogan to an extent). Great storytellers, great brawlers, great showmen rather than technical wizards. WWE seem nowadays to feed a line that the Michaels or Hart style is preferable, and it seems to be what they'd like all their young wrestlers to be able to do in the ring.

 

Eh what are you on about? Lawler and Funk are better at all them things than Hart/HBK. Are you seriously suggesting that Shawn Micheals is a better brawler than Terry Funk?

Loki hasn't phrased his post properly, but no, that isn't what he's saying. He's saying that Funk et al are the brawlers, but WWE seem to prefer the technical style nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...