Every day when you’re browsing forms of social media with fans of wrestling you will at some point the question, “Who is the greatest wrestler of all time?”
This is probably one of the most redundant of questions that can be asked and normally it is asked and answered by people who have no real knowledge of wrestling and that is evident by their limited options, “Daniel Bryan, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart or Randy Savage?”
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying those four individuals are not good wrestlers or they were poor draws, just that to only include the last thirty or so years is ludicrous. There are at least 90 years and as many as 150 (approximately) to be considered depending on your stance of when contests became worked. I think of the latter, which means we’ll be covering 150 years today, however, you’ll see the same principles would apply for the 90 years.
Next, you have so many variables to take into consideration it’s almost mind-blowing. What exactly makes the greatest wrestler of all time? Do they need to have world-class in-ring wrestling skills? After all, that was the criteria for the first few decades. Then again, what made a great wrestler in the last 30 years, most people would say there has to be showmanship in there.
The first roadblock has been hit. Let’s move on though, because it’s impossible to compare wrestling styles from Catch-as-Catch-Can and the ever-evolving style up until Sports Entertainment. How about title reigns? Jerry ‘The King’ Lawler held over 140 championships in his career, Harley Race is, well, that depends who you ask, either a 7 or 8-time world champion, Frank Gotch won the big one once, Gorgeous George won one minor version, and for several years, there was no World Heavyweight Championship.
In that case, how on Earth do you make sense of that? Besides, do title wins mean anything? That’s down to the person weighing in the odds as some think that a long reign is good. Others feel that multiple reigns are better. Still others think that they don’t mean anything as they’re simply awarded by the promotion and often ego comes into play possibly keeping it on or even off of somebody.
We’re just not getting anywhere with this, are we? Let’s try a different approach. Impact on the business. Steve Austin had a huge impact on the business, and so did Hulk Hogan and Billy Graham. Go back, and you have guys like Martin Burns, Thiebaud Bauer, and Lord Lansdowne, again they all had a major impact. Who was more important though? Would it be Hulk Hogan for being the face of the Rock ‘N’ Wrestling Era or even for being the leader of the N.W.O. and helping bring in two separate boom periods? Maybe it was Ed Lewis for being the face of the modern format of wrestling with Slam-Bang Western-Style Wrestling!?
Both Ed Lewis and Hulk Hogan acted as the main catalysts inside of the ring to bring in new presentations to wrestling, as did John Cena with the current PG era. In the case of Lewis and Hogan, it could be argued without the changes they helped make there would be no wrestling business to speak of right now. So again, how the Hell do you compare their importance? From a historical point of view they’re going to come in chronological order with the first impact player being number 1, does that necessarily make that right though?
Of course not there are yet more things to take into consideration. Microphone skills can be tossed out the window to start with, they went from not being that important to being mega important over the last few decades, and again impossible to compare modern to old with them. Work-rate? Well, what is considered a good work rate changes over time as does the ability to watch footage, seriously hindering any real comparisons for all areas of time too.
I could go on like this all day. The bottom line, there is only one consistent factor in wrestling. That is money. The ole, “Who put the most butts every 18 inches?” Yet even that presents its problems. People have increasingly over time been able to travel further to attend shows. Ticket prices have increased or decreased at certain points. Arenas and venues have gotten bigger. Inflation happens. Sources of revenue change with the additions of a wide range of merchandise, DVDs, pay-per-views, etc. etc.
That does not mean it isn’t plausible to work out though. It would just be very time-consuming to do. You’d have to take into account all the variables mentioned in the above paragraph and I’m sure there’s more I’ve missed. All you would need is an inflation calculator and a serious chunk of your life to review all gates in professional wrestling, compare the average venue size for each era, and so on. Not a small or quick task by any means, possibly even a whole lifetime of work for one person.
To try and establish the greatest of all time any other way would just be nonsensical and impossible to ascertain. At best you could maybe narrow it down to the greatest of each decade possibly, based on the newspaper accounts of wrestlers’ ability in the past. Personal opinion would dictate any wrestler who can be watched in the ring though if basing it on anything else, but drawing power.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with fantasizing and having discussions, but, don’t forget how rich and varied the history of professional wrestling is when doing so. Just because in your OPINION Ric Flair or John Cena are the greatest of all time doesn’t mean that they are. Same as Evan Lewis or Frank Gotch are not the greatest based on a historian’s OPINION. Keep it the light of heart, and have fun, too many wrestling fans argue and mock each other when really should be united over our mutual love. So, remember unless you have the figures in front of you any suggestion to the G.O.A.T. is just that – OPINION.
– By Jimmy Wheeler