francescofuoco1998
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by francescofuoco1998
-
-
Good morning.
This poll is about historical importance, obiouvsly not about who is a better worker.
The comparisons are:
1) Undertaker vs Rey Mysterio
2) Kurt Angle vs CM Punk
3) Kenta Kobashi vs Goldberg
4) Sting vs Hiroshi Tanahashi
5) AJ Styles vs Kazuchika Okada
6) Bryan Danielson vs Toshiaki Kawada
Thank you very much
-
Who influenced more the current wrestling style in North America (AEW, ROH,WWE main roster, NXT, indies) between Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles? What are the aspects that were more influenced by Danielson and/or by Styles?
Thank you very much
-
Good morning.
This poll is about historical importance, obiouvsly not about who is a better worker.
The comparisons are:
1) Randy Savage vs The Undertaker
2) Edge vs Randy Orton
3) Jeff Hardy vs Big Show
4) Chris Jericho vs Sting
5) Shinsuke Nakamura vs Toshiaki Kawada
6) Daniel Bryan vs AJ Styles
Thank you very much
-
Just now, AxB said:
Batista was a draw in WWE, where the brand is the real draw. Danielson headlined everywhere he went.
In reality when Batista was on top ratings, ppv buyrates, house show attendance increased strongly from the year before, so the fact that WWE is the draw is not so much correct.
Bryan in WWE unfortunately was never a draw like Batista, and I'm a huge fan of DB and not a fan of Batista. The fact that Bryan headlilined everywhere he went I don't think that show that Bryan is bigger.
-
12 minutes ago, SorceressKnight said:
3) Daniel Bryan vs Batista
Daniel Bryan's more important, but your own stipulations make the "who's a bigger draw" inherently a flawed question. Batista's acting career HAS to be considered for how big a draw Batista was, just like you can't really fathom The Rock being a big draw without touching on Dwayne Johnson as an actor. Even if Batista is basically part of the MCU ensemble and hasn't proven he, himself, can carry a big movie himself, Batista is the bigger star than Daniel Bryan is. Taking his movie career out of it is such a flaw on the discussion for who the bigger star is that it's tantamount to saying "I really, REALLY want you to pick Daniel Bryan".
But Batista was also a big star as a wrestler, he was way bigger worldwide than Bryan. He drew huge ratings and ppv buyrates, while Bryan was never a big draw.
I think that Batista's wrestling career has been very underrated by many people, in 2005 he was even bigger than Cena.
-
29 minutes ago, AxB said:
In all 3 cases, you're basically asking "Does a longer run on top in WWE mean more than anything else?", which is a different issue than the level of importance any individual has to the industry. But, I'm going to go with the "The WWE Brand is the Draw" philosophy and say no house anyone draws on top there counts as a personal achievement. If neither Randy Orton or Triple H had been born, Wrestlemania 25 would still have happened. Therefore neither of them drew it.
I'm aware that technically I just moved the goalposts to a whole different stadium there. Fuck it.
I agree with you about Goldberg vs HBK. Goldberg is clearly the biggest star, while HBK is more important and more influential.
About AJ Styles vs Reigns is really difficult; I think that Styles is more important considering that everywhere he has been on top everywhere he wrestled; he was the most important wrestler in TNA history, he was from 2014 until 2016 the top gaijin in NJPW and since 2016 until today he is one of the top wrestlers in WWE.
Anyway Reigns is clearly the biggest star, they are really close in USA, Canada, UK, but in countries like India, Arabia, Pakistan and other Eastern countries Reigns is way way bigger (in those countries he is even bigger than Conor McGregor for example); I think that should be considered if we judge who is the bigger star.
About Batista vs Bryan, DB is clearly more influential and consequently more important. Batista is clearly a bigger draw and star. Worldwide there are for sure more people who know Batista than Bryan, he is a way bigger star in Mexico, Europe, considering that WWE was way more popular worldwide in 2005-2010 than in 2013-2014, so Batista is the real answer. Even if you compare PPV buyrates, house show attendance data and merchandise sold, he was also a bigger tv draw, he drew huge ratings when he was on top and that can be confirmed if you analyze ratings. Unfortunately Bryan was never a ppv draw, nor a ratings draw, when he was on top ratings and house show attendance decreased, although he was not only his fault.
-
1
-
-
Good morning.
This poll is about historical importance and about who is a bigger star/draw, obiouvsly not about who is a better worker.
Furthermore, in the case of Batista it's better if you consider exclusively his career as wrestler, not his acting career .
The comparisons are:
1) Goldberg vs Shawn Michaels
2) Roman Reigns vs AJ Styles
3) Daniel Bryan vs Batista
Thank you very much
-
19 minutes ago, AxB said:
By 'people' do you mean Wrestling fans, or non-Wrestling fans? Because amongst Wrestling Fans, Daniel Bryan is a much bigger deal. People who don't watch wrestling (or used to, but stopped years ago) are more likely to be aware of Kane, yes. But is that not similar to arguing that Miley Cyrus is a bigger deal than Justin Beiber, because people who hate modern pop music despise her less?
In particular casual fans. Analyzing google trends appears for example appears to confirm that https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F01t99n,%2Fm%2F06299b
-
10 hours ago, AxB said:
I agree Bryan was more influential. I don't agree that Kane was a bigger star. Look at any high profile Kane match, and (generally speaking) he's not the draw in the match. His main selling point is longevity.
However do you agree that Kane is more known by people?
In fact he wrestled for a long period in the biggest promotion worldwide and was on top during periods in which WWE was very popular. While Bryan wrestled on top for less than a year in a period in which wrestling's popularity went down. Anyway that was not Bryan's fault.
-
22 minutes ago, AxB said:
Would a Wrestlemania audience disrupt the whole show because they were upset that Kane didn't win his match? Has a top babyface ever been booed out of the building for the crime of entering the Royal Rumble at number 30 whilst not being Kane?
Yes, like I said Bryan was more over than Kane at his peak with crowd, but that does not mean that he is a bigger star or draw. Kane is objectively more known by people worldwide considering that was on top for longer. In a sense a comparison can be made between Kofi Kingston and Reigns. Kingston is probably hotter with live crowds, but Reigns is a much bigger star.
In my opinion Bryan is more important than Kane, but not because he was a bigger star (he wasn't, although it was not his fault) but because he is much more influential? Do not agree with me?
-
3 hours ago, AxB said:
Well, Rey broke the size barrier for mainstream US Wrestling, which makes him very historically important indeed. Kobashi was always kind of behind Misawa... Kawada was too, and once he was the ace of AJ (after the NOAH split) suddenly they're bringing in Tenryu and giving the company to Muto. Whereas Tanahashi was the ace of NJ when it went from a slump to a boom, which makes him more important. Sorry Toshiaki.
Styles and Show, I'm not sure either is important. Show has had the more high profile career, Styles has had better matches. Show has been in and around main events without ever being top guy in his company, Styles has been the top star in a small promotion that lost money and was on it's deathbed for almost his whole time there. Tie.
Hundreds of people wanted to be the next Shawn Michaels, nobody ever dreamed of being a wrestler like Triple H. Arguably he's more of a negative influence than a positive one, but he is massively influential.
Batista vs Nakamura is apples to oranges. Arguably Nak winning his MMA matches at the height of Inokiism makes him the bigger deal, but ultimately in his NJ run he was an IC level guy, and in WWE he's lower than that. Batista was main event World title. Could be seen either way, but I voted Dave.
Bryan vs Kane, Bryan worked on top everywhere he went, became a top star even when he wasn't supposed to, became the living embodiment of 'Good Wrestling', then turned on the fans and got over as a heel. Kane was a reliable good hand for the upper midcard, who had two heat leech gimmicks and died on his arse in the first one. But Bryan us more important.
In your mind, how much important is "being more known and being a bigger star" in the criteria historical importance?
For example you stated that Bryan is more important than Kane , but for sure Kane is much more known both in US and worldwide https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F01t99n,%2Fm%2F06299b. Bryan unfortunately was never a star like Kane, when he was on top tv ratings and house shows attendances went down, although he was really over with live crowds.
Obiouvsly that depends also on the fact that Kane wrestled on top for longer and was an uppercarder/main eventer during the Attitude era, while Bryan was on top for a short period, less than a year.
-
Good morning.
This poll is about historical importance, obiouvsly not about who is a better worker.
Furthermore, in the case of HHH and Batista it's better if you consider exclusively their career as wrestlers, not promoting career in the case of HHH and post wrestling career for Batista.
The comparisons are:
1) Rey Mysterio vs Kenta Kobashi
2) Hiroshi Tanahashi vs Toshiaki Kawada
3)AJ Styles vs Big Show
4)Triple H vs Shawn Michaels
5) Batista vs Shinsuke Nakamura
6) Daniel Bryan vs Kane
Thank you very much
-
Just now, OSJ said:
Good to see you back, my friend! Are you as enthused about the potential of AEW as most of us in the US are?
Hi John, how are you?
Yes I'm really enthused about AEW. I look forward to the first episode on TNT. I really hope that they will grow fast.
-
1
-
-
Good afternoon. Like last time I opened a poll in which you should compare some of the best wrestlers of all time.
The criteria is exclusively IN RING ABILITY, that includes criteria like storytelling, workrate, in ring psychologhy, selling, versatility, cleaning in the execution of moves, technical skills, high flying skills, brawling skills...
The comparisons are:
-Ric Flair vs Bret Hart
-Kazuchika Okada vs Hiroshi Tanahashi
-Daniel Bryan vs Mitsuharu Misawa
-AJ Styles vs Jumbo Tsuruta
-Shinsuke Nakamura vs Jun Akiyama
Thank you very much
-
Good morning.
This poll is about historical importance, obiouvsly not about who is a better worker.
The comparisons are:
1)Randy Savage vs Mitsuharu Misawa
2)Ultimate Warrior vs Ricky Steamboat
3)Jake Roberts vs Chris Jericho
4)Big Show vs Jeff Hardy
5)Edge vs Batista
6)Daniel Bryan vs Randy Orton
Thank you very much
-
On 2/19/2019 at 6:46 PM, J.T. said:
I am afraid to vote for fear that this very organized looking poll is for someone's college thesis and I do not want to salt the ground with my horrible opinions.
Next time I would like to compare:
1)Ultimate Warrior vs Chris Jericho
2)Jun Akiyama vs Goldberg
3)Akira Taue vs Jeff Hardy
4)Jake Roberts vs Kurt Angle
5)Batista vs Edge
6)Randy Orton vs Toshiaki Kawada
What do you think?
-
2 hours ago, Beech27 said:
“Edge is responsible for a generation of table and ladder bumps, which is good; Kobashi/Misawa are responsible for a generation of vertical-drop suplexes, which is bad; and Bryan is in no way responsible for junior workrate style and indie underdog narratives having essentially taken over the wrestling world, for better or worse” seems an impossible group of ideas to hold at once, and yet this thread exists.
In your opinion, what is Daniel Bryan's place in wrestling history? In the sense, how would you rank him in a ranking of the most important/influential wrestlers of all time?
-
3 hours ago, Craig H said:
BTW, the notion that Edge is more important than Daniel Bryan is fucking laughable, and I love Edge.
Also, using the argument that Daniel Bryan didn't pop ratings or buyrates or whatever is extremely flawed considering that no one and nothing brings in viewers with any kind of consistency. Not Brock, not Ronda, not Vince, not Cena, etc.
In your opinion, what is Daniel Bryan's place in wrestling history? In the sense, how would you rank him in a ranking of the most important/influential wrestlers of all time?
-
Good morning.
I hopened this poll to compare the historical importance of different wrestlers. The criteria is exclusively historical importance, this poll is not about who is the best worker.
What does historical importance mean for you? Is there a direct correlation between popoluarity/fame and importance, or are there different criteria?
In particular, what are your choises, and what are the reason of your choises? Thank you very much
The comparisons are:
1) John Cena vs Mitsuharu Misawa
2) Goldberg vs Kenta Kobashi
3) Jushin Liger vs Rey Mysterio
4) Chris Jericho vs Toshiaki Kawada
5) AJ Styles vs Batista
6) Daniel Bryan vs Edge
Unfortunately I didn't include so many wrestlers, like Hogan, Austin, Rock, Thesz, Gotch, Funk, Hansen....,however I can't post more than 6 comparisons, so....
Thank you again
-
In your opinion, what are Kurt Angle's best matches?
I personally think that his best matches are:
1)Angle vs Shawn Michaels - Wrestlemania 21 ****1/2
2)Angle vs Benoit - Royal Rumble ****1/2
3) Angle vs Benoit - Unforgiven 2002 ****1/4
I noted that a lot of you think that his selling was poor. In particular, what could be an example of that? Yesterday I watched Benoit vs Angle (Rumble 2003), and I thought that Angle selling was great. I thought that he sold everything so well.
As you know I am a great fan of Bryan, but I think that objectively Bryan is not so much better at selling than Angle. In the sense, I watched also, for example, Strong vs Bryan (ROH Vendetta 2006). I thought that the match was very good (****), but I noted that Bryan's selling, sometimes, lacked. To explain better, even after 40 minutes, Bryan appeared to be not tired. Is that also a lack of selling? Are we so much biased (even I always thought that Bryan was so much better than Angle)?
Watching Benoit vs Angle, do you think somebody like Bryan would have been able to deliver a great technical matches, like Angle and Benoit did? In the sense, I also noted that Angle delivered tons of very good matches under 20 minutes, (his Unforgiven match against Benoit was 13 minutes, vs Mysterio (Summerslam 2002 was under 10), vs Edge (Judgment Day 2002- Backlash were under 15 minutes). If he would have been in ROH, with tons of minutes like Bryan did, do you think that he would have delivered tons of more great matches?
Thanks
-
What do you think about his in ring ability? Is he overrated or is he underrated? Is he a great worker, a great seller, storyteller?
What do you consider about his great matches, like Angle vs Benoit, Angle vs Edge, Angle vs Joe, Angle vs Shawn Michaels, Angle vs Mysterio.....
Here, there are some of his best matches:
Thank you very much
-
33 minutes ago, Dewar said:
I don't think Styles has historical importance or influence, to be honest (unless escaping and surviving TNA is historic). I would vote Styles and Bryan before Goldberg, and way before Warrior.
Would you vote for Bryan and Styles before Goldberg and Warrior because of work?
Do you think that Bryan is more important than Styles?
-
39 minutes ago, Dewar said:
If JYD and Big Daddy can't get in for being draws, I see no reason anyone should be getting in just based on work.
For me, a guy like Samoa Joe doesn't belong anywhere near the ballot until he has done more on the big stage. Him going into the HOF based on ROH work would be like putting someone in the baseball hall of fame because they were amazing in the Pacific Coast League.
For you, who deserve more to be in the WON HOF?
A great performer with a good historical importance and influence, like AJ Styles and Daniel Bryan, or a huge draw for a short period, like Goldberg and Ultimate Warrior?
-
Guys, I opened today a poll, but RIPPA closed it, so I'd like to ask about it here.
How would you weigh the criteria? For example, who is a better candidate, objectively (although objectivety doesn't exist)? A huge draw for a short period, like Goldberg and Ultimate Warrior, or a poor draw, but great worker for a long time, like AJ Styles, Daniel Bryan, Jun Akiyama, Akira Taue? For example, the historian Matt Farmer said that workrate has been overrated today, in the sense that it's a subjective criteria, and also that a lot of great workers of the 60s and 70s are not considered for the HOF (60s and 70s hall of famers are in particular great draw). Is it right that a great worker, like Bryan and Styles (both DB and AJ are stars but they are probably also not as big stars and they are way less known by people and casual fans than Orton Big Show, Kane, Batista, wrestlers that got few votes, in fact for example Batista, Kane and Show fell of the ballot) is inducted into the HOF before a huge draw and a mainstream name like Warrior, Golbderg and even Big Daddy. Does a great worker deserve the HOF only because of work, or does he need to be an influential name?
Thanks
DVDVR 500
in The PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING
Posted
Good morning, I'd like to talk about DVDR 500.
How does it work? How many and who where the people that did those annual rankings? Where can I find all the complete DVDR 500 rankings?
Thank you very much