Unpopular Opinions

[Everlong]

How do you not have HBK in your top ten man? Taker is a guy you either love or hate, but Shawn? I mean yeah he was a prick, his return was...meh. His DX shit with HHH was awful the third time around. He did some incredible things in the 90's however...I never saw it live, but the matches he had back then were good. Is it because he was a top guy during the dark ages of the WWE?

He's a guy who had a lot of great matches but in general his impact on the business is really not all that big. I liked Michaels a lot, but I don't think he's worthy of top ten consideration.

Just off the top of my head I'd take the following guys over Michaels in terms of their overall greatness for a variety of reasons:

Stone Cold
Hulk Hogan
The Rock
Bret Hart
Kurt Angle
Randy Savage
Andre the Giant
Harley Race
Roddy Piper
Ric Flair

[Circled Square]

Here's one that I have that would probably be considered unpopular in most circles: if I were creating a list of the greatest WWE/pro wrestling wrestlers/stars of all time, neither Undertaker nor Shawn Michaels would be in my top ten, despite them holding the top two spots on WWE's own list.

What! I can see a point with Taker just because it took until later in his career for him to start racking up some good matches and he had a lot of crap he was saddled with throughout his career. But HBK!? For someone to be one of the best out there, suffer a terrible injury and retire for 4 years, come back and maybe even be better? He's the man.

I wouldn't call him better. He put on fantastic matches but if you really think about what he did during his return, it kinda sucks. His feud with HHH early on and the match between he and Undertaker at both WM's were the highlights IMO.

I did like that Jericho feud though, when Jericho punched his wife lmao.

Stone Cold
Hulk Hogan
The Rock
Bret Hart
Kurt Angle
Randy Savage
Andre the Giant
Harley Race
Roddy Piper
Ric Flair

Don't know shit about Harley Race, can't speak on him. If you're going on impact, yeah no question Hogan is higher up on the list, but HBK was ten times the wrestler, way better in the ring than Hogan. I prrefer his work over Savage's as well, I think Savage gets overrated. Piper was awesome as well but he's another one who I feel is getting the rose colored glasses treatment. Andre was an attraction for his size...not bad in the ring for a man his size ofc...but not better than HBK.

The Rock, Kurt Angle, Flair, I agree with. Angle is one of the biggest "what-ifs" in WWE history. We got to see a lot of him in the WWE, but he never was really "the man" for a long period of time. Amazing mic worker. Rock is Rock, good athlete and great on the mic. Flair is the GOAT IMO so yeah.

[Hanley!]

I'd be inclined to agree with Tim about HBK and the Undertaker. I think they're both overrated by the company and by fans. I think a lot of it is down to their longevity, and they should be applauded for having long, successful careers. But that alone doesn't make them the best of all time and I do think there are many that are more entertaining than both of them.

[Everlong]

Here's another one that I'd be willing to argue:

Brock Lesnar is the best ring worker in the WWE.

[Messiah]

Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 25 is probably the most overrated match of all-time. I really didn't think it was that good. Michaels vs Angle at WM21 and Undertaker vs Edge at WM24 were better matches involving those two.

I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but in the grand scheme of things, DX was not that important and it was not the driving force behind the Attitude Era like revisionist WWE pretends that it was.

Just because you are great doesn't mean you should win a World Championship. So with that said, I'm not all that interested in seeing Ambrose and Ziggler as World Champions. I think they are better off as legitimate midcard talents who go in and out of the main event picture, and this is how I felt about Jericho as well. Unfortunately, the WWE has treated their midcard division so poorly that people think it is a sin to not be involved in the main event picture nowadays and sadly that is true now. However, for some guys, they are a lot better off there. At least back then.

[Str8Shooter]

Here's another one that I'd be willing to argue:

Brock Lesnar is the best ring worker in the WWE.

He's definitely been damn good since his return, but to be fair his schedule is buttery soft and he has a lot of down time to recover and not suffer any nagging injuries.

Also, his opponents since he's come back haven't been terrible. Cena for all his hate can put on good matches, Triple H for all his hate can at least put on decent matches, CM Punk was damn good in the ring, Rollins & Cena again, both good.

The one time he had an aging/not-as-good worker in the ring with him was at Mania, and that was his worst match as he couldn't carry Taker to something special even with the ending.

[Messiah]

Add Daniel Bryan to that list, actually. Like Eddie Guerrero, he absolutely deserved the moment that he got and I wouldn't change it for anything. But also like Eddie (who I consider arguably the best all-around wrestler in WWE history), I think he is better working in the mid to upper card than in the WWE World Heavyweight Championship picture.

That doesn't mean that I didn't think he should have been the one to win the Rumble, but that is mainly because they had fucked up Reigns' push so bad up to that point and have been terrible at creating interesting main eventers for years. But in an ideal situation, there are some guys better fit for the main event than Bryan. He's not exactly an interesting champion, and there is only so much you can do with him as a challenger whereas you can do just about anything with him in midcard feuds.

[Everlong]

^To be fair Brett, not a whole lot of people can carry a 6'10 cadaver to a good match.

[Str8Shooter]

^To be fair Brett, not a whole lot of people can carry a 6'10 cadaver to a good match.

Maybe not, but you wanted a counterpoint and I gave it to you . I think it's easier to say someone is the best worker when they only wrestle 3 times a year and it's always against good opponents with hot crowds.

[Circled Square]

I think Lesnar was underwhelming against Taker, even if Taker was literally dragging himself around the ring.

Add Daniel Bryan to that list, actually. Like Eddie Guerrero, he absolutely deserved the moment that he got and I wouldn't change it for anything. But also like Eddie (who I consider arguably the best all-around wrestler in WWE history), I think he is better working in the mid to upper card than in the WWE World Heavyweight Championship picture.

I agree that he'd be good in the midcard. Problem is, the midcard is barely alive lol. Like he can feud with plenty of good guys who are in that same zone, but they don't give them enough time to develop a feud. I think Eddie is a lot better than DB. I watched SD a lot during his time on it, and Eddie was so entertaining, in the ring and on the mic. One of the best ever. I was devastated when he died.

[Hanley!]

To further Messiah's point, I think NWO vs DX is one of the stupidest debates in wrestling. NWO was better (at its height at least) and far more influential. WWE pretends that it's some kind of contest, but there's no contest. NWO was WCW's bread and butter. It's what helped them kill WWF in the ratings for two years. Austin vs McMahon was WWF's real response. DX was entertaining at times, but historically not all that important.

Speaking of WCW, it's unfairly maligned in terms of its creating stars. It did borrow a bunch from WWE, but it made names of its own too, even during the height of Nitro. Diamond Dallas Page, Goldberg, Booker T, Scott Steiner. The Giant is another name they created (which WWE weirdly takes credit for, even though Big Show has never risen to the heights of the Giant). They also had a more active and over midcard than WWF have had during most of their history. There were cruiserweights and midcard acts that always had storylines and who were always over. Not everyone can be in the main event, but that doesn't mean WCW didn't help to make these guys stars.

They're unfairly maligned when it comes to having the same names at the top all the time too. Hogan, Nash, Hall, Flair, Sting, The Giant, DDP, Savage ... there was quite a range there. More than WWE have had at any time really since the Attitude Era ended. I could go on and on, when it comes to the hypocrisy that WWE has spouted in regards to WCW. But history is written by the victors and sadly people lap a lot of it up.

The company didn't go under cos they wouldn't push new guys. The product started to suck because of bad writing and wrestlers having creative control in their contracts. It turned to shit by the end, without a doubt, but much of what WWE says about the company now is revisionist history at best.

[Hanley!]

Brock's matches with Triple H sucked too in fairness. Not a one of them was entertaining in the least. Brock is arguably the best seller in the company, but he needs to work with the best to create genuinely great matches. And there needs to be some chemistry there too. With Triple H it just wasn't there.

[Circled Square]

It went to shit because of where they had most of their money wasn't where it should have been. Backstage politics played a role. I think bad management fucked WCW up in the long run. Great post Hanley.

[Str8Shooter]

To further Messiah's point, I think NWO vs DX is one of the stupidest debates in wrestling. NWO was better (at its height at least) and far more influential. WWE pretends that it's some kind of contest, but there's no contest. NWO was WCW's bread and butter. It's what helped them kill WWF in the ratings for two years. Austin vs McMahon was WWF's real response. DX was entertaining at times, but historically not all that important.

I'm not sure I agree with all of this. I agree the nWo was more influential to be sure. They changed the game in a way that had never happened before or since.

That being said, the nWo may have helped kill the WWF for 2 years straight almost. But it was DX that played a major part of bringing the WWF back, ushering in that "Attitude" Era with the "Suck it" and lewd comedic behaviour. Now I know what you'll say, and yes, Stone Cold vs Vince was the driving force and DX was a supporting player to that. But I don't think you can downplay how fresh and groundbreaking DX was at the time, they were essentially turned face because of how over they were. I can tell you by how many "Suck It's" and Crotch chops in the schoolyard in 7th grade how over DX was as a a unit

A couple more points in their favour were they didn't dilute the group with a bunch of meaningless members, and they didn't overstay their welcome to become a caricature of themselves (in their first run).

[Circled Square]

DX was big with the kids, also big with the edgy teens of that era. I still don't equate that to being influential in the wrestling world. Attitude would have happened without DX.

[Str8Shooter]

DX was big with the kids, also big with the edgy teens of that era. I still don't equate that to being influential in the wrestling world. Attitude would have happened without DX.

Maybe so, but not to the degree it did. Austin vs Vince was Revolutionary, but the Attitude Era wouldn't have been the same without DX. That DX vs Nation feud also helped launch the Rock's career as the cocky prick heel that would help him become a superstar.

[Circled Square]

DX was big with the kids, also big with the edgy teens of that era. I still don't equate that to being influential in the wrestling world. Attitude would have happened without DX.

Maybe so, but not to the degree it did. Austin vs Vince was Revolutionary, but the Attitude Era wouldn't have been the same without DX. That DX vs Nation feud also helped launch the Rock's career as the cocky prick heel that would help him become a superstar.

I see your point. I don't agree with it, but I see it. No NWO? WCW would have lost earlier. No DX? Attitude Era wouldn't be as good I suppose, but it wouldn't have mattered much in the end. Rock could have went up against anybody.

[KaiserGlider]

Brock's matches with Triple H sucked too in fairness. Not a one of them was entertaining in the least. Brock is arguably the best seller in the company, but he needs to work with the best to create genuinely great matches. And there needs to be some chemistry there too. With Triple H it just wasn't there.

I will disagree with this. Triple H was Brock's worst opponent/feud for sure, because Triple H was booked to be as strong as Brock, which took away from Brock's beast gimmick and hurt the character at times. But their matches weren't bad, decent brawls at least. I really liked their Summerslam match and I thought it told a great story. Their Wrestlemania match was probably their worst one, took a while to pick up steam but got pretty good towards the end. Steel Cage match at Extreme Rules was solid from what I remember.

And on that note, I'll say this (which I'm positive nobody here will agree with):
Both Rock vs John Cena matches were good.

[Messiah]

Cole isn't perfect by any means, but he gets a lot of shit unfairly and is a good play-by-play announcer. I will go a step further and say Cole really isn't that much worse than Gorilla Monsoon from what I've seen so far.

Monsoon had a far better announcing voice, but otherwise I don't think the gap is as wide. Monsoon miscalled his fair share of moves or action in the ring. I feel like Cole would be seen a lot better if he didn't have JBL, King, and to a lesser extent Booker, constantly going off-topic and in JBL's case, being overly argumentative and making out-of-date references. Ventura would argue with Monsoon, but it was always related to the action in the ring and the performers motives.

[Str8Shooter]

DX was big with the kids, also big with the edgy teens of that era. I still don't equate that to being influential in the wrestling world. Attitude would have happened without DX.

Maybe so, but not to the degree it did. Austin vs Vince was Revolutionary, but the Attitude Era wouldn't have been the same without DX. That DX vs Nation feud also helped launch the Rock's career as the cocky prick heel that would help him become a superstar.

I see your point. I don't agree with it, but I see it. No NWO? WCW would have lost earlier. No DX? Attitude Era wouldn't be as good I suppose, but it wouldn't have mattered much in the end. Rock could have went up against anybody.

Again, I'm not saying DX was more influential than the nWo, because they weren't. Just that they deserve the respect for being an original act that was a major contributor for the hottest period in wrestling history.