Conrad Thompson and the Best Wrestler in the World

General
1

Hot topic in the IWC this week, but I like to think we can have a more intelligent and respectful conversation than the clowns on Twitter. Anybody have thoughts to share with the rest of the class?

2

I see his point but don’t fully agree with him. “Money drawn” isn’t necessarily an objective metric either. If a card features 10 wrestlers and the event generates $100,000 and a million viewers, how do you determine which wrestlers were responsible for which portion of the gate and/or viewership? You look at the quarter hours? The merch sales?

TK could shell out millions of dollars to bring in a massive name from outside the wrestling industry and pop a quarter hour any time he wants. Is that guy or girl now the best wrestler in the promotion?

On the other hand, “work rate” is about as subjective of a quality to ever exist. Different styles appeal to different people. If “work rate” is so important then why do I always fall asleep during Tomohiro Ishii matches? That shit just isn’t for everyone.

End of the day I think the answer is that there is no “best wrestler.” As Conrad said, there are no stats to back any of this shit up. There’s no WAR or PER to determine who gets the most out of the least. We all have our favourites and least-favourites and the most-liked wrestlers tend to sell the most merch and draw the biggest crowds, but there’s still no way to demonstrably prove who is the “best.”

3 Likes
3

I think Conrad is conflating “best wrestler in the world” and “most successful wrestler in the world”. IMO those are two different things.

IMO Roman is the most successful wrestler in the world, and Ospreay is the best wrestler in the world.

1 Like
4

Best wrestler: A subjective honor to the most talented wrestler or the wrestler who has the best matches

Greatest wrestler: A subjective honor to the “best wrestler” (see above) who is of historical significance to the business

The most successful wrestler: A subjective honor (based on available info) for the wrestler who draws the most money for people that aren’t me. As such, I don’t give a damn.

5

Agree totally.

Think of it like acting.

The best actor isn’t the one whose movies generate the most money. It’s the one who wins awards and Oscar’s for great performances.

So Daniel Day Lewis is a much better actor than the Rock even though the Rock is more successful.

So yes you can’t compare stats like a sport but when you look at acting (which is basically what wrestling is when you think about it) the analogy to Oscars and box office winners stands

3 Likes
6

The Oscars are a good example as well, because nobody has ever won Best Actor for a movie that was poorly written, or poorly directed, or didn’t have other good performances in it.

“Did they pay to see Hulk Hogan, or did they pay to see Hulk Hogan beat up Roddy Piper?”

1 Like
7

I’m with Conrad here. Match quality is fantastic and that why we say ‘Best in-ring’ and other such platitudes. However, they call it ‘the business’. It’s about drawing dollars and cents.

I could be swayed into a conversation about promos and matches brought together as I think they’re both as important as the other.

It’s not about putting on the most 5 star matches, it’s about putting the most butts in seats. Which wrestler lends itself to that most. I think you have to look at the Main Event and which other matches are heavily featured, merch sales, and then arguably social media viewing metrics.

8

I’m not really sure why this logic would apply to wrestling but not other mediums of creativity, whether that’s film, music, or food. McDonald’s is not the best hamburger in the world.

2 Likes
9

I agree. Its like he’s looking at it through the lens of a promoter, not through the lens of a fan.

10

So whoever has the most slammys is the best?

1 Like
11

I can see Conrad’s point. If you’re the type of person to get in battles about who “objectively” is the best wrestler in the world at least drawing power and money generated at least gives us some quantifiable measure of how to reach those decisions.

It’s not in me to have those conversations. I personally hate measuring the value of an artist/artistic endeavor by the money it generates. I just find that a joyless exercise.

2 Likes
12

I get that. IMO wrestling is an art form, and just like any other type of art (lets take paintings for example), there is no such thing as “the best painting”.

Its 100% subjective.

1 Like
13

The more we discuss, the more we disprove Conrad’s point (or at least his tone). To just say “the best wrestler in the world is the one who generates the most revenue” as if it’s a fact is oversimplified at best and dead wrong at worst. We can’t even define “generates the most revenue” in a definitive way. And even if we had access to every single revenue number, we still couldn’t attribute the appropriate dollar amount to each individual.

14

I don’t even know which wrestlers actually generate revenue these days. It’s all about the brand. Look at ticket sales for Mania or All In.

The only two real difference makers now are Punk and Rock. They actually draw viewers on TV. Everyone else is hit or miss.

Reigns I don’t really consider one. It took like a decade of forcing him down people’s throats and main eventing mania after mania to finally get people to care. Anyone else with those opportunities could have done the same.