Jump to content
Fan Clubs (beta)

Open Club  ·  55 members  ·  Free

Wrestling

Are there any wrestlers that are irreplaceable?


Guest bigmatt

Recommended Posts

Guest bigmatt

I was reading a recent J.R entry on his blog,when he answered a question from a guy who asked whether the void left by The Undertaker when he retires can be filled.

 

He replied with the following:

 

No one is irreplaceable – not even The Undertaker. Nonetheless, The Undertaker’s legacy will live forever in the WWE.

 

This raised a question,I always thought that the great wrestlers were irreplaceable.Thats not to say there couldn't be a new guy as good as that wrestler but that wrestler would still be distinguishable and hold his own spot in history.

 

What do you guys think are there any wrestlers past or present who are irreplaceable?

 

What about:

 

Hogan

Austin

Flair

Race

The Rock

Bret Hart

The Undertaker

 

What do you reckon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't really fully understand how to answer the question. This is probably because I'm an idiot though.

 

If wrestlers were irreplaceable, wrestling wouldn't have ever lasted very long and this site wouldn't exist. There are certainly those who are more successful than others but with or without them wrestling goes on.

 

Hogan in 1980s WWF was replaceable, I doubt it would have been as successful as it was, but you could still have someone else on top. Ditto with The Rock or Steve Austin in later years. Flair was the figurehead for the NWA for a decade and he did a tremendous job but you could have put someone else in there, granted they maybe wouldn't have been as good but it would have shown that Flair could still have been replaced. Hogan left the WWF and life went on until Austin pulled numbers back up, Austin retired and life went on. They're all cogs on a wheel and once a cog falls off you can replace the cog and the wheel will keep turning.

 

I...ah...yeah, I got nothing.

Edited by Naitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster

I think there are certain wrestlers who were irreplaceable during their huge run. Hogan and Austin are certainly two. If Hogan had vanished from the WWF in 1986/1987, I wouldnt be surprised if the company ceased to excist within a couple years, and if Austin hadnt exploded in 1997/1998, I think WCW would have put the WWF out of business.

 

Now, AFTER their prime runs fizzle out and they retire/die/go to Hollywood etc, business rolls on and new stars replace them, so in that respect they are replaceable. But during their boom runs, I think there are exceptions like Hogan and Austin to the point where if they are removed, business either takes a huge dive and takes years to recover or the organisation they head goes under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are certain wrestlers who were irreplaceable during their huge run. Hogan and Austin are certainly two. If Hogan had vanished from the WWF in 1986/1987, I wouldnt be surprised if the company ceased to excist within a couple years, and if Austin hadnt exploded in 1997/1998, I think WCW would have put the WWF out of business.

 

Yeah and that.

 

Some are irreplaceable in extenuating circumstances until they become replaceable and are thrown away like old toys, which I guess I should have said in my original post but read the 2nd sentence of said post.

Edited by Naitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigmatt
I think there are certain wrestlers who were irreplaceable during their huge run. Hogan and Austin are certainly two. If Hogan had vanished from the WWF in 1986/1987, I wouldnt be surprised if the company ceased to excist within a couple years, and if Austin hadnt exploded in 1997/1998, I think WCW would have put the WWF out of business.

 

Now, AFTER their prime runs fizzle out and they retire/die/go to Hollywood etc, business rolls on and new stars replace them, so in that respect they are replaceable. But during their boom runs, I think there are exceptions like Hogan and Austin to the point where if they are removed, business either takes a huge dive and takes years to recover or the organisation they head goes under.

 

So do you think it comes down to guys who literally carried a company for a certain period of time.Would it be just guys who boosted the industry i.e Hogan and Austin or guys who held a company together maybe someone like Taker,Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels who fought to keep the WWF alive when WCW was winning?Could Goldberg at his highest popularity in WCW be classed in the Austin category (albeit with a less effect)

 

Under this thinking though Flair could be described a replaceable as the NWA had an unbelievable talent pool,and the ability to push them the right way.It would probably be right to regard Flair as replaceable using this thinking but it seems strange to be able to say that about one of the best theres ever been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Franchise
I was reading a recent J.R entry on his blog,when he answered a question from a guy who asked whether the void left by The Undertaker when he retires can be filled.

 

He replied with the following:

 

 

 

This raised a question,I always thought that the great wrestlers were irreplaceable.Thats not to say there couldn't be a new guy as good as that wrestler but that wrestler would still be distinguishable and hold his own spot in history.

 

What do you guys think are there any wrestlers past or present who are irreplaceable?

 

What about:

 

Hogan

Austin

Flair

Race

The Rock

Bret Hart

The Undertaker

 

What do you reckon?

 

Totally irreplaceable:

 

Hogan

Flair

Austin

The Rock

HBK

Undertaker

Bret Hart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
So do you think it comes down to guys who literally carried a company for a certain period of time.Would it be just guys who boosted the industry i.e Hogan and Austin or guys who held a company together maybe someone like Taker,Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels who fought to keep the WWF alive when WCW was winning?Could Goldberg at his highest popularity in WCW be classed in the Austin category (albeit with a less effect)

 

Under this thinking though Flair could be described a replaceable as the NWA had an unbelievable talent pool,and the ability to push them the right way.It would probably be right to regard Flair as replaceable using this thinking but it seems strange to be able to say that about one of the best theres ever been.

Yes, its definately down to guys who are such huge stars that they literally become bigger than the company, transcend it as they say, and crossover into the mainsteam.

 

Guys like Bret, Taker, Shawn and so on arent as important as some might think. They do a decent job but they arent draws really, certainly not guys who can carry a company to a decent profit and who help them grow and expand.

 

To be honest, outside of Hogan and Austin (in the last 25 years at least), I think everybody has been expendable or replaceable.

 

Goldberg wasnt even close to Austin, not even close. Hogan and Austin lead the pack and nobody can touch them as it stands today.

 

Flair was a huge star but he was a huge star in a company that really seemed like a powerful territory rather than a growing national and international powerhouse of the industry like the WWF was. I think if the NWA had replaced Flair, they would have gone under just as they did with Flair, it might have happened quicker, but it would have happened regardless.

 

I'd definately stick with Austin and Hogan as being really the only two who I'd class as 100% needed for the company to strive or survive during their prime runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigmatt
Yes, its definately down to guys who are such huge stars that they literally become bigger than the company, transcend it as they say, and crossover into the mainsteam.

 

Guys like Bret, Taker, Shawn and so on arent as important as some might think. They do a decent job but they arent draws really, certainly not guys who can carry a company to a decent profit and who help them grow and expand.

 

To be honest, outside of Hogan and Austin (in the last 25 years at least), I think everybody has been expendable or replaceable.

 

Goldberg wasnt even close to Austin, not even close. Hogan and Austin lead the pack and nobody can touch them as it stands today.

 

Flair was a huge star but he was a huge star in a company that really seemed like a powerful territory rather than a growing national and international powerhouse of the industry like the WWF was. I think if the NWA had replaced Flair, they would have gone under just as they did with Flair, it might have happened quicker, but it would have happened regardless.

 

I'd definately stick with Austin and Hogan as being really the only two who I'd class as 100% needed for the company to strive or survive during their prime runs.

 

Firstly I agree with you and I think its hard to make yourself distinguish between irreplaceable and Legend.But is there not an argument to say that maybe the WWE may have collapsed during the period WCW were on top and before Austin made his character,if so is there anyone particular who can claim to have carried the company away from this danger,if not improving the company then keeping it afloat untill Austin mania hit.If so who would have the most claim to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
Firstly I agree with you and I think its hard to make yourself distinguish between irreplaceable and Legend.But is there not an argument to say that maybe the WWE may have collapsed during the period WCW were on top and before Austin made his character,if so is there anyone particular who can claim to have carried the company away from this danger,if not improving the company then keeping it afloat untill Austin mania hit.If so who would have the most claim to it.
I dont think anybody can have any claim to it at all, because nobody did it.

 

Bret, Shawn, Taker, Rocky Maivia, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Bulldog...all those guys had very visible pushes between between 1995 - 1997 when Austin went into supernova, and all of them failed to produce. Bret and Shawn particularly were seen as the faces of the company, main event World Champions and neither did anything really worthwhile. Bret drew pretty good in Europe and Shawn drew a little better than Bret in the US, but they were both failures as champions, business-wise, as were Taker and Sid.

 

The only people who can have claim to it are the people who actually did it, in my opinion. Alot of guys were given their run and none of them did a fraction of what Austin did.

 

History shows he was the only one who did it, therefor I think he was the only one who could. He was the peoples choice and he ran with it. And it was a fantastic run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigmatt

Yeah fair enough I have no problem with accepting that.I personally wouldn't have considered Flair as irreplaceable for reasons ive already mentioned.As much as I like Bret I wouldn't consider him either because as good as he was in the ring he wasn't something extroadinary and there will be people who can offer what he offers and there have been before him and since.Shawn Michaels was great as well but there have been people who can offer what he offers,someone like Savage for example.The only people who are close in my mind are The Undertaker and Harley Race.

 

Undertaker was/is someone who has probably the best out and out gimmick there has ever been,and is responsible for its sucess himself in the same way Austin was.Hugely athletic for a big guy and deliver of many great moments,matches,storylines.His ability to get a good match out of anyone is astounding,especially considering some of the shite he has had to deal with over the years.He is truely a big a legends as there is outside those two.

Edited by bigmatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster

Taker is a legendary WWF/WWE figure, without question. Bret and Shawn are aswell, of that I've no doubt.

 

When it comes to being irreplaceable, though, the ONLY thing that matters is how much money you draw and how much you do for business.

 

You could be the best wrestler EVER, not draw a penny and have the worst performer of all time on the same roster and he draws millions, you arent worth anything in comparison to him.

 

Talent doesnt mean anything. Dollars and cents, numbers and figures are what make you replaceable, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SuperKick Kid

One could argue that Shawn was irreplaceable during his top run in WWE, the argument being that it was Shawn as champ that kept WWE afloat going up against WCW and the nWo.

 

They actually make that point on his DVD documentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only people who are close in my mind are The Undertaker and Harley Race.

 

In terms of being the only people who are irreplaceable? I wouldn't necessarily deem Harley Race to be one of them, not that he wasn't a great touring champion who brought a lot of legitimacy and prestige to the belt because he was but at that time the belt and the title of 'NWA Champion' was enough to draw money in itself, the man holding the belt wasn't necessarily the big draw. It was enough to advertise your top babyface against the incoming NWA Champion (whomever it was) to draw a house. Those who never had it like Murdoch or Bockwinkel could have easily slotted in there in the 70s in place of Race as Champion.

 

Again, not that Race wasn't bad mother****ing ass but it was more the belt and the title that was irreplaceable rather than the man holding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
One could argue that Shawn was irreplaceable during his top run in WWE, the argument being that it was Shawn as champ that kept WWE afloat going up against WCW and the nWo.

 

They actually make that point on his DVD documentary.

Whoever making that argument would need their heads seen to. Shawn wasnt a draw, Bret wasnt, Sid, Diesel and Taker werent.

 

Vince was using money that he had ammassed from the Hogan era plus loans and by cutting and slashing expenses left, right and center to stay afloat between 1993 - 1997. That much has been admitted by Vince before.

 

When Shawn was main eventing, house shows were in the toilet, ratings were aswell, PPV buyrates stank and RAW and TV were filmed in highschool gyms and armouries.

 

Vince's business sense, small payoffs and running tent shows to avoid paying arena costs along with merchandise sales and ridiculous amounts of international tours to Europe were the things that kept the WWF in business, not Shawn as champion.

 

And thats not a slight on Shawn, nobody was drawing at the time in the WWF and WCW were lucky that they hitched onto a great angle with the nWo because before that, with Hogan on top, they had bottomed out aswell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigmatt
In terms of being the only people who are irreplaceable? I wouldn't necessarily deem Harley Race to be one of them, not that he wasn't a great touring champion who brought a lot of legitimacy and prestige to the belt because he was but at that time the belt and the title of 'NWA Champion' was enough to draw money in itself, the man holding the belt wasn't necessarily the big draw. It was enough to advertise your top babyface against the incoming NWA Champion (whomever it was) to draw a house. Those who never had it like Murdoch or Bockwinkel could have easily slotted in there in the 70s in place of Race as Champion.

 

Again, not that Race wasn't bad mother****ing ass but it was more the belt and the title that was irreplaceable rather than the man holding it.

 

Yeah its hard to pick someone out of the NWA setup as being irreplaceable because of the nature of the setup where if you were good you could be a star.NWA could promote a wrestler well when it suited them to buisness wise and there was always an unbelievable talent pool to draw from.My feeling is if there was someone then Harley Race is as close as you could get to it.He was always the go to man in NWA and managed to achieve something that even the great man Flair couldn't,he could go and beat the local guys,still leaving them looking magnificent,still keeping buisness going forward and entertaining the fans as much as anyone in the era.He is/was a fantastic booker as well and isn't given as much respect for his brain for the buisness as he should be.

 

EDIT:Maybe Lawler could be considered irreplaceable for Memphis wrestling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SuperKick Kid
Whoever making that argument would need their heads seen to. Shawn wasnt a draw, Bret wasnt, Sid, Diesel and Taker werent.

 

Vince was using money that he had ammassed from the Hogan era plus loans and by cutting and slashing expenses left, right and center to stay afloat between 1993 - 1997. That much has been admitted by Vince before.

 

When Shawn was main eventing, house shows were in the toilet, ratings were aswell, PPV buyrates stank and RAW and TV were filmed in highschool gyms and armouries.

 

Vince's business sense, small payoffs and running tent shows to avoid paying arena costs along with merchandise sales and ridiculous amounts of international tours to Europe were the things that kept the WWF in business, not Shawn as champion.

 

And thats not a slight on Shawn, nobody was drawing at the time in the WWF and WCW were lucky that they hitched onto a great angle with the nWo because before that, with Hogan on top, they had bottomed out aswell.

 

So if WWE had Vader and Mantaur main eventing, and Shawn, Bret, Taker, Sid were nowhere.....then WWE would have still survived........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are certain wrestlers who were irreplaceable during their huge run. Hogan and Austin are certainly two. If Hogan had vanished from the WWF in 1986/1987, I wouldnt be surprised if the company ceased to excist within a couple years, and if Austin hadnt exploded in 1997/1998, I think WCW would have put the WWF out of business.

 

Now, AFTER their prime runs fizzle out and they retire/die/go to Hollywood etc, business rolls on and new stars replace them, so in that respect they are replaceable. But during their boom runs, I think there are exceptions like Hogan and Austin to the point where if they are removed, business either takes a huge dive and takes years to recover or the organisation they head goes under.

 

Have to agree with the above. Wrestlers aren't meant to be around forever. They're star rises shines brightly and then gradually fades. Some wrestlers of course will never be forgotten Hogan, The Rock, Austin to name a few and I'm sure there are others it is a personal perference.

 

It is the WWE's job to take new talent and evolve it to a point that when Taker, Flair, HBK and others decide to leave fans will not be left wanting. We all miss our favorites but there will always be someone else to love or hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jimmy Redman
So if WWE had Vader and Mantaur main eventing, and Shawn, Bret, Taker, Sid were nowhere.....then WWE would have still survived........

 

Thats not his point. There is a difference in saying Shawn Michaels was irreplaceable, to saying the whole main event was irreplaceable. Obviously if you take out every big name on the roster you have problems. If you took out only HBK it wouldnt have made much of a difference, and that goes for Taker or anyone else from that era, simply because nobody was drawing much at that point in time. The point is that no ONE guy was irreplaceable during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to approach this is not to say "who can be replaced?" but "who is missed when they're gone?".

 

Anyone can be replaced, per se. But there are certain people in certain spots at certain times that just do better with it and you realise just how special they are.

 

Case in point: Lashley got injured and I very rarely remember this, or notice whilst watching. But then there's Cena and my GOD has his absense been noticable. Orton hasn't even come close to being as good a champion in terms of promos, matches or presence. In fact, the entire Raw brand, whilst entertaining, has just lacked the star power and presence that Cena has, and I find myself just hoping he'll return there and then. WWE is a far better place with him there. Does it mean he's irreplaceable? No. If WWE invested the time, they'd find someone to take his place. But right now, no one is at his level and the title scene is suffering as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
So if WWE had Vader and Mantaur main eventing, and Shawn, Bret, Taker, Sid were nowhere.....then WWE would have still survived........
Thats not what I said, and as always you are getting ratty because somebody is saying something against Shawn Michaels.

 

Vader DID main event against HBK, and is flopped. HBK main eventing against Mankind, and it flopped. Vs Taker too, flopped. The combination of Taker, Sid, Shawn and Bret were ok, but NONE OF THEM were irreplaceable. Sure if you take them ALL away and replace them with a bunch of jobbers, things would have gone from bad to worse, but again thats not the point here.

 

Shawn Michaels wasnt, and never has been a big draw. He had a great January 1997 when he helped pull in 60,000+ people to his hometown to see him wrestle Sid for the WWF title at the Rumble, but barring that, he didnt draw anything.

 

You are missing the main point though, and thats that Shawn could have been replaced and it wouldnt have mattered. Like I said, the WWF stayed afloat not because of what they were (or in this case, werent) drawing during the HBK run, but because Vince was savvy with his money and had other outside deals helping him out like great TV deals, loans and the good sense to tour overseas alot and start selling merchandise online among other things.

Edited by The Beltster
Link to comment
Share on other sites




  • Join the Club!

    Become a member to participate in the forums and our Fan Clubs.

  • Latest Club Activity

×
×
  • Create New...