Jump to content
Fan Clubs (beta)

Open Club  ·  55 members  ·  Free

Wrestling

Wrestlings greatest overachievers/underachievers


Guest ADC

Recommended Posts

Overachievers:

Batista

The Ultimate Warrior

John Cena

Hulk Hogan

Triple H

Chris Jericho

Edge

The Rock

 

Underachievers:

Sabu

Dean Malenko

Steve Casey

Lance Storm

Mark Mero

Superstar Billy Graham

William Regal

Vader

Tamon Honda

Jerry Lynn

Doug Williams

Christopher Daniels

 

Who do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If we're going with overachievers being people who got further than their talent and circumstances would usually indicate and underachievers being people who have way too much talent to have achieved as little as they have then, and this is WWE only :

 

 

Overachievers :

 

Batista (shitty in ring, good charisma)

Edge (good in ring, saddled with a lot of negative ideas as a heel, which makes it more impressive he got to where he did)

HHH (good, almost great, but a lot of his aura comes from being a contemporary of Austin/Rock/Mankind etc.)

Rey Mysterio (great in his youth, matches are too samey now. Way overachieved for a guy his size in WWE)

Eddie G (Like Rey, did way more than a guy his size would usually do, and he was epic doing it.)

Orton (seriously bumpy start, he was bland and boring for ages too back there)

 

 

And the last four guys are megastars who've achieved more than anyone might ever expect to in any business and so are overachievers by default:

 

Cena

Austin

Hogan

The Rock

 

 

Underachievers :

 

In general :

 

Kane

Lance Storm

Ted Di Biase Sr

Rhyno

Rick Rude

Malenko

RVD

Shelton Benjamin

 

Current Roster :

 

Santino

Kofi

Dolph Ziggler

Cody Rhodes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jimmy Redman

I think Batista overachieved more in the circumstances than in his talent level. It turns out, he had all the tools to main event, but nobody realised until they happened to screw up Orton and they went with the bodyguard guy instead after everyone thought he was cool.

 

I agree that a lot of smaller guys can be said to have overachieved in WWE given the inherent size discrimination factor - Rey, Eddie, Benoit, Punk, Bryan, and even going back to Shawn and Bret being small by 80s standards, and getting their shot because of steroids and what have you.

 

I agree Hunter has overachieved given the protection and opportunities afforded to him through his relationship. I'm not someone on the "he'd never have main evented!" train, but just the simple fact that he's always there, always pushed, always protected because he's never going anywhere and he has so much input, I think he's definitely ended up with a far greater resume than he would have had if he was just any other main eventer.

 

To me saying guys like Lance Storm, Dean Malenko, Jerry Lynn or Shelton have underachieved based on talent is just misreading the wrestling business. To succeed beyond the Shelton level you need charisma, and those guys simply didnt have it. Really those guys achieved the most success anyone could when they have all of the tools except the most important ones. In the end I was of the feeling Shelton overachieved, since he carved a steady career of 8+ years in WWE out of being a bland, bland performer of moves. And I say this as a big fan.

 

If you want to say they underachieved compared with their reputation or level of hype surrounding them though, fair enough.

 

I think getting into Hogan/Rock/Cena territory is just saying names just to say them. Or else as etz said the idea that achieving that much success means you overachieve by default, which is fair enough I guess but a strange way to look at it. When they have the talent to do what they did, and they all clearly did, its not really overachieving as much as just...achieving a lot more than other people.

 

I am interested to know why Sabu or Kane are underachievers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Sabu was red-hot for quite a time around 1994-1995, one of the hottest prospects on the scene, but it kind of fizzled away, nothing much became of him on a major level, despite his extraordinary talent and ability, he was so very different to what anyone else was doing, but never really got a major, major league push, he could have done much better. Even to this day to watch him it's clear that he is and was something special, one of a kind, but he just never made the big money, which is a shame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say both lists are BS to be honest. All the overachievers got opretty much the most they could have out of their respectivie gimmicks and got the rewards for it. The underachievers all have one missing piece of the puzzle that prevented them from being bigger than they are/were. The ultimate warrior for example wrung every single possibliity out of a gimmick that was essentially face-paint and arm tassles. In the ring he did what he did pretty much perfectly and his promos were memorable even if they made no sense because that was kind of the point.

 

So your over-achievers are simply guys who were stunningly effective in their role/gimmick. That doesn't make them over-achievers at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
Guys like Hogan, Austin and Rock arent overachievers. You dont get to be that big of a star without having alot of talent in one form or another. They got where they are because they have it, not by accident or by luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ciaran, I said HHH, Jericho, Rock and Edge are overachievers based on their limited skill compared to what they have achieved. Especially HHH, also Jericho, but not so much Rock and Edge, to be fair. It's different tiers of over-achieving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ciaran The King
Guys like Hogan' date=' Austin and Rock arent overachievers. You dont get to be that big of a star without having alot of talent in one form or another. They got where they are because they have it, not by accident or by luck.[/quote']

 

They are the A-listers of the wrestling industry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin's not an overachiever because he had the ability. To be fair to the Rock, he has the charisma and 3rd gen wrestler to back it up, and relatively solid in the ring. With Hogan there was an element of luck involved, he fitted into what Vince Jr wanted to do, if he had come around 10 years earlier he wouldn't be anything special.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
An overachiever is someone who achieves more than the average person would given the same set of circumstances... so being "stunningly effective in their role" is precisely what makes them overachievers.
There has to be a set of standards set which you must surpass to be considered an overachiever in the first place, and seeing as there are no specific set of standards, then nobody has over or under achieved if we are going by the letter of the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be a set of standards set which you must surpass to be considered an overachiever in the first place, and seeing as there are no specific set of standards, then nobody has over or under achieved if we are going by the letter of the law.

 

Actually, you can set a standard quite easily by what the majority achieve. Then it's just a question of if it is a reasonable expectation for someone to think they can be as big as Hogan became. No wrestler, not even Hogan himself, expects that they will blow up like that.

 

It's like being in IT and expecting to be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. You might hope for it, but you don't expect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jimmy Redman

You're missing the point though. The term "overachiever" as a label doesnt mean "someone who achieved a lot". It means "someone who achieved a lot DESPITE/DUE TO X, Y or Z". It means a specific thing, someone who achieved more than you feel they should have or were expected to for a specific reason.

 

Or else we're just sitting here listing "the most successful pro wrestlers", which is defeating the purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point though. The term "overachiever" as a label doesnt mean "someone who achieved a lot". It means "someone who achieved a lot DESPITE/DUE TO X, Y or Z". It means a specific thing, someone who achieved more than you feel they should have or were expected to for a specific reason.

 

Or else we're just sitting here listing "the most successful pro wrestlers", which is defeating the purpose.

 

Precisely, and it's kinda obvious what they all overcame when you look at the list. So obvious that it doesn't really need saying. Clue : Ric Flair isn't on that list, and the reason he isn't is the mirror of why they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ric Flair is an overachiever, to be fair. A solid worker but not brilliant, same match every time, phoned it in for becades, and yet he's a 68 time Worlds champion.
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...