|
|
Post by swarm on Jun 18, 2012 8:43:18 GMT -5
For me, it doesn't matter what definition of ICON we're using, Sting doesn't make the cut. And I was a HUGE fan of his when I was younger. I think LEGEND applies to your longevity and overall status in the industry. An ICON, again to me, should be reserved those that truly transcend the industry. Those who've done something to make the industry bigger than it was before they came around. Hogan, Andre, Stone Cold, the Rock, HBK, Undertaker...while all of these are WWE names and became huge while working for Vince...are among the names that I would associate with the word ICON. That being said, some of those same guys wouldn't be considered ICONs if you were to go to other parts of the world and ask wrestling fans there. Two exceptions to that would be Hogan and Andre, who were legit international stars. For the original argument, Sting, to me, is a LEGEND. But he's past the point in his career where he could ever, in my eyes, be considered an ICON. TOTALLY agree. Sting is a legend. One of (not the best, but one of) the best guys ever from NWA. But not a pro wrestling icon. I respect everyones opinion here, and will respond when I have time. I appreciate others taking the time to reply, so I will do the same. I already know what I'm going to say. I will say this -- I think some are REALLY reaching trying to support Sting as an Icon, bringing up AAA and New Japan from the mid-90's...I know we're only talking about it because over the edge said WWE has only been the dominating force over the past ten years, but still. I feel like A LOT of the info is being taken from Meltzer - who is the very definition of a revisionary historian. Take for example the long time fable of WM3 not drawing a true 90k+. Total and complete bs. I of course don't know exactly how many tickets were sold (neither does Meltzer) but I can tell you I've sat in the Pontiac Silverdome several times in my life with a packed house for Lions games. And those games had more than the reported attendance than WM3 by the dirt sheets. WM absolutely had more people in the Silverdome than I have ever seen live, with my own two eyes. Those games had 75-80k +. MORE than than the reported attendance by Meltzer but with zero floor seats? C'mon now. Sorry guys, but this is a dirt sheet fable, and nothing more. It's really pathetic someone can blatantly lie and all these years later, that lie is still popular and even believed by some. But again, that's what revisionary historians do. If someone isn't completely familiar with a stadium, I could see them wanting to believe Meltzer. But a little familiarity with the building, common sense, and a quick eye test tells you the guy is full of shit. More later. Great thread. |
|
|
|
Post by payback on Jun 18, 2012 10:47:21 GMT -5
The WWE ran shows in buildings of all kinds. Did they do shows in 1,500 seat arenas? Yes. I went to one at K-Wings Stadium in Kalamazoo, MI 2 yrs ago where there were about 1,200 people there but it doesn't mean that they couldn't draw more in other places as their PPV audiences show. What does TWO YEARS AGO have to do with the debate at hand? My point is that you said WWE did live event/house shows that only drew 1,500 fans. They still do that today. Raw wasn't the only shows they did. They did plenty of big arena shows. You used the 1,500 number to show the Japan feds were better. Well every year WWE had 4-5 PPVs that sold out roughly 20,000 seat arenas or more. Again, what the hell does that have to do with AJPW outdrawing them in the early/mid 90s?
They didn't outdraw WWE. Shawn Michaels (and many others) said in the 90s how they worked 300+ shows a year. Japan never ran that many shows so WWE outdrew them in total numbers. My point about how many shows they do now is that even in 2012, the Japan feds didn't put on the number of shows Vince did. So they didn't outdraw them.NJPW isn't a territory. They run basically most of Japan. They're a national company. There's all kinds of Japan feds. Noah, IWGP, New Japan, All Japan, Michinoku Pro, Osaka Pro, and more. It's a territory. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Jun 18, 2012 11:13:37 GMT -5
For me, it doesn't matter what definition of ICON we're using, Sting doesn't make the cut. And I was a HUGE fan of his when I was younger. I think LEGEND applies to your longevity and overall status in the industry. An ICON, again to me, should be reserved those that truly transcend the industry. Those who've done something to make the industry bigger than it was before they came around. Hogan, Andre, Stone Cold, the Rock, HBK, Undertaker...while all of these are WWE names and became huge while working for Vince...are among the names that I would associate with the word ICON. That being said, some of those same guys wouldn't be considered ICONs if you were to go to other parts of the world and ask wrestling fans there. Two exceptions to that would be Hogan and Andre, who were legit international stars. For the original argument, Sting, to me, is a LEGEND. But he's past the point in his career where he could ever, in my eyes, be considered an ICON. I could agree with this definition of ICON but we have to recognize that wrestling has far, FAR less Icons than what are being listed in this thread. HBK doesn't even make the cut and I am a HUGE Shawn Michaels fan. He certainly hasn't transcended the wrestling industry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 12:53:35 GMT -5
What does TWO YEARS AGO have to do with the debate at hand? My point is that you said WWE did live event/house shows that only drew 1,500 fans. They still do that today. Raw wasn't the only shows they did. They did plenty of big arena shows. You used the 1,500 number to show the Japan feds were better. Well every year WWE had 4-5 PPVs that sold out roughly 20,000 seat arenas or more. Again, what the hell does that have to do with AJPW outdrawing them in the early/mid 90s?
They didn't outdraw WWE. Shawn Michaels (and many others) said in the 90s how they worked 300+ shows a year. Japan never ran that many shows so WWE outdrew them in total numbers. My point about how many shows they do now is that even in 2012, the Japan feds didn't put on the number of shows Vince did. So they didn't outdraw them.NJPW isn't a territory. They run basically most of Japan. They're a national company. There's all kinds of Japan feds. Noah, IWGP, New Japan, All Japan, Michinoku Pro, Osaka Pro, and more. It's a territory. Agreed. 1.) That has nothing to do with me talking about them doing that in 1993 when they struggled to do that attendance then. They do better attendance than that regularly now. 2.) As far as the big shows AJPW did in 1993-1995 vs. the big shows the WWF did, I'd almost bet they outdrew them. 3.) IWGP isn't a promotion, it's the name of New Japan's titles. What? When did I ever say I was doing that to make a point that Sting was an Icon? I was pointing out that you were out of your mind and didn't know what you were talking about when you blew off NJPW and AAA like they weren't doing better business wise than the WWF was in the mid 90s. WWF ran way too many shows, didn't draw shit for the majority of the non PPV shows. Seriously, a lot of those RAW tapings from back in the day didn't draw 2,000 paid, if they even ran a 2,000 seat building. NJPW could fill a 2,000 seat building for every show on a tour. NJPW and AAA ran regularly, but nowhere near as many shows, and drew more fans. I never mentioned anything about Sting, just pointing out the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Jun 18, 2012 13:38:23 GMT -5
Ok, two serious questions.
1) anyone else here think AAA and/or New Japan was considered the top fed in the world of wrestling at any point since WM1? This is not to discredit those feds. But I don't see how either can be compared to the global empire the WWF became with WM1 and especially by WM 3.
2) Did anyone else ask their mom about this or just Switch-Truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by marktaggart on Jun 18, 2012 13:42:38 GMT -5
1.) yes, to people in Japan and Mexico. Also, to business insiders who knew the WWF was in serious jeopardy of closing and was drawing crowds in the hundreds in buildings where they used to draw thousands (and I saw that firsthand at a show at Champaign's Assembly Hall with only a few hundred in attendance). Wrestlers in the early to mid 1990s knew if they wanted to make real money, and they weren't Hulk Hogan, Japan and Mexico were the places to be.
In the United States and to the casual fan, no. They never knew any different. They either just thought "wrestling sucks now" or quit watching. As a whole we tend to have a very US-centric attitude; if it doesn't happen in the USA it doesn't count.
2.) My mom knows the names of hundreds of wrestlers. She even gets my Bugsy McGraw references. So I'm not in any position to run this experiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Jun 18, 2012 13:50:55 GMT -5
I realize the WWF went through a transition period after Hogan became old, Bret Hart got the belt etc...and Ted Turner bought up Vince's talent. But then where is this great success story about how Vince McMahon and the WWF were toppled by New Japan, AAA, and WCW, officially no longer recognized as the global leader in pro wrestling, who then (apparently?) fought back to reclaim that crown (in 96, 97 I guess? you tell me.) That's a hell of a comeback story. I would think there would be a book about it somewhere. Maybe there is?
|
|
|
|
Post by payback on Jun 18, 2012 15:17:22 GMT -5
1.) That has nothing to do with me talking about them doing that in 1993 when they struggled to do that attendance then. They do better attendance than that regularly now. 2.) As far as the big shows AJPW did in 1993-1995 vs. the big shows the WWF did, I'd almost bet they outdrew them. 1. That absolutely has to do wth what you were talking about. I said since WWE ran more shows, they ultiumately drew more fans, which is something you said they didn't do. I know you can't concede anything but the Japanese feds have never even attempted at being an international promotion so their numbers compared to WWE's are relatively pointless since we're not comparing apples to apples. 2. So, you're just basing this on an estimation? Hardly a good argument. 1993 WWE PPV attendance numbers: Royal Rumble - 16,000 WrestleMania IX - 16,891 KOTR - 6,500 (definitely the lowest ever. The PPV buyrate, however, was the highest of any King of the Ring event until 1999. Summer Slam - 23,954 Survivor Series - 15,509 Grand Total - 78, 854 and that's with no shows at stadiums. A few house show numbers I found for WWE at their 1st few events of that year: 1200 4900 2700 3200 4500 Grand Total - 16,500 Very hard to find data on AJPW form '93. AJPW New Year Giant Series 1993 - Tag 14 only drew 1,500 House show equivalent AJPW numbers from beginning of 1993 2350 1800 3700 2050 3200 Grand Total - 13,100 So, without hard data can't really say they outdrew WWE. |
|
|
|
Post by du5tin on Jun 18, 2012 15:49:17 GMT -5
As a whole we tend to have a very US-centric attitude; if it doesn't happen in the USA it doesn't count. That's exactly what I've been saying. My mother-in-law is from Juarez, Mexico, and she does not watch wrestling. She said she never watched wrestling but went to about three arena shows in her youth (in Mexico). Amazingly, I've set and talked with her for hours about lucha libre, and she doesn't/didn't even watch. Why? It's the culture. She could name so many luchadors, even with mini bios and mask details. She especially knew almost EVERYTHING about the Guerrero family (Juarez is a stone-throw away from El Paso), and this isn't from their time in ECW/WCW/WWF(E). It's not from watching wrestling. It's from the culture. Not every American can tell you about the Hart family. I asked her about the WWF. She said, "Que?" Why? Culture. When I was in Mexico for a month, I saw punks, preps, old people, kids, and just about every other type of person with Santo shirts and other lucha libre shirts like Mascaras. Why? Culture. WWE? Nope. Now, I'm sure WWE is known, especially Rey, Undertaker, and Cena. Sting? Who gives a crap about the term icon or legend or whatever. He was a very popular wrestler. He's a favorite for many. He hasn't worked in WWE? So, a lot of people have been in WWE and a lot haven't. If we're talking about someone who surpasses wrestling (if that makes you an icon), you're talking about only a few people. El Santo would be one of them, even if American fans have no clue who he is. When it comes to future WWE "icons," will we even have any? Also, in all honesty, my mother-in-law went on a date with one of the Guerreros--Mando or Hector--I can't remember. Anyway, I'm done now. I just wanted to share my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Case on Jun 18, 2012 16:28:08 GMT -5
I'd never ask my mom about wrestling. I don't think she even remembers Hulk Hogan! LOL  |
|
