Cena Region, Philadelphia Subregion, First Round: (8) Scott Hall vs. (25)Gene Kiniski

[Pay Per Ghost]

Okay A.) Modern era wrestlers don't have to worry about protecting the kayfabe side of pro wrestling anymore. They just have to worry about entertaining fans. And are afforded way more freedom of expression then Kiniski would have. But that didn't stop fans from all over the country from going wild for wrestlers in the 60's. Or in his case, booing the crap out of the guy. B.) Less people out of the total population of the country followed wrestling in the 90's than the 60's. The total population pool may have been larger in the 90's, but a far less percentage of them were wrestling fans. So as a household name that people would actually know a much less percent would recognize Scott Hall in the 90's than NWA champion for 3 years Gene Kiniski in the 60's. Wrestling back then resonates like boxing does today. The average person knows Mike Tyson, and Evander Holyfield, and Floyd Mayweather. The average person in the 60's would have known Gene Kiniski. So, no. The "top 6" argument that MojoRisin is using is not bullcrap.

In an era where TV ran rampant, you had to have something to stand out. Razor was a part of many gimmicks in that pre AE era and he stood out. He was upper mid right below the top contender and the champ. Razor was popular, Scott in the nWo were over!
The problem is Scott Hall's win loss is just a mess. Kiniski takes this coz he was a dominant CHAMPION and should but Razor did his part and got to a place where thousands of wrestlers aspire to be. He was part of something that in itself was as hot as anything ever in pro wrestling. Individually, he was upper mid.

The Top 6 is crap because TV just exposes everybody. The card and posters must have had Kiniski on them as the marquee, with TV you don't know who the people latch onto. It was easier to control people back then. Bookers could book themselves to win and people wouldn't know any better. Kayfabe was alive.

 

[Bernkastel]

In an era where TV ran rampant, you had to have something to stand out. Razor was a part of many gimmicks in that pre AE era and he stood out. He was upper mid right below the top contender and the champ. Razor was popular, Scott in the nWo were over!

Scott was a minor player within the NWO. It's not like he was the heart or soul. Hogan led the group. Nash defected and created his Wolfpack. Hall was booted from the group for being the weak link. That was his place in the group. To be the fall guy.

The problem is Scott Hall's win loss is just a mess. Kiniski takes this coz he was a dominant CHAMPION and should but Razor did his part and got to a place where thousands of wrestlers aspire to be. He was part of something that in itself was as hot as anything ever in pro wrestling. Individually, he was upper mid.

And Steve McMichael was a Horseman. I get that Hall was part of something special in wrestling history, but that doesn't give him a free pass over one of wrestling's most successful world champions ever. If the NWO has a chapter in wrestling history, so does Kiniski.

The Top 6 is crap because TV just exposes everybody. The card and posters must have had Kiniski on them as the marquee, with TV you don't know who the people latch onto. It was easier to control people back then. Bookers could book themselves to win and people wouldn't know any better. Kayfabe was alive.

Fans have always followed trends with pro wrestlers when it comes to national television. I agree that modern wrestlers are at a disadvantage when it come to overexposure rates when compared to pre-modern wrestlers. However when you see one wrestler with multiple title reigns [like more than 6 with each lasting several months] in the modern era that's the equivalent of one long reign in the pre-modern era. That's how the overexposure rates would be normalized IMO. The exception is that if the reigns only last a couple days or weeks. Like Jarrett's. Then I'd call those transitional. A transitional champion back then held the title until the promoters could maneuver the belt from one top guy to another. Race's first run was transitional. It took 2 months for the NWA to get the belt onto Brisco. A 2 month world title run in the modern era is a long time.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

The Top 6 is crap because TV just exposes everybody. The card and posters must have had Kiniski on them as the marquee, with TV you don't know who the people latch onto. It was easier to control people back then. Bookers could book themselves to win and people wouldn't know any better. Kayfabe was alive.

Try this one last time, because you're really not getting it.

Pick your absolute six best from the 90's when Scott Hall worked.

Is he one of them? If not, would you pick Hall to beat any of them?

The six best would arguably be Flair, Hogan, Hart, Michaels, Austin and the Rock. Put Hall up against any of them, and does he win?

Of course not, because he wasn't on their level.

THAT's the argument you're saying is bullcrap, because for HIS era, Kiniski was on the level of Flair, Hogan, Hart, Michaels, Austin and the Rock.

And if we're going to normalize the eras, then that's how we have to look at these older guys. Otherwise, there is literally no point in including any of them, because none ever get the respect that they deserve.

The greatest wrestlers of the 50's, 60's and 70's end up being put on the same level as Attitude Era mid-carder to upper mid-carders.

Votes like Hall over Kiniski is honestly no different than a vote like Wade Barrett over Bret Hart.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

It's safe to say that this tournament relies too heavily on name recognition. A career midcarder like Hall had no business beating Gene Kiniski. This shows that people here would vote Owen Hart over Frank Gotch, or Goldust over Orville Brown. There's absolutely no reason why the top stars that precede us need to job to all the career midcarders of our time.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Scott was a minor player within the NWO. It's not like he was the heart or soul. Hogan led the group. Nash defected and created his Wolfpack. Hall was booted from the group for being the weak link. That was his place in the group. To be the fall guy.



And Steve McMichael was a Horseman. I get that Hall was part of something special in wrestling history, but that doesn't give him a free pass over one of wrestling's most successful world champions ever. If the NWO has a chapter in wrestling history, so does Kiniski.



Fans have always followed trends with pro wrestlers when it comes to national television. I agree that modern wrestlers are at a disadvantage when it come to overexposure rates when compared to pre-modern wrestlers. However when you see one wrestler with multiple title reigns [like more than 6 with each lasting several months] in the modern era that's the equivalent of one long reign in the pre-modern era. That's how the overexposure rates would be normalized IMO. The exception is that if the reigns only last a couple days or weeks. Like Jarrett's. Then I'd call those transitional. A transitional champion back then held the title until the promoters could maneuver the belt from one top guy to another. Race's first run was transitional. It took 2 months for the NWA to get the belt onto Brisco. A 2 month world title run in the modern era is a long time.

I get all of it, ALL OF IT! I told you, Kiniski should win this, but do not think what Scott Hall had was not amazing. Scott Hall when "his head was screwed right was unbelievable.", he was so charismatic, he had a great look, had a catchphrase, could work the stick and have a good match.

Scott Hall pitching Razor with Henning is such a great story; basically he was a man who didn't let Vince saddle him with a gimmick. Where wrestlers better than him didn't have the balls he spoke up, and followed up. Ye he had his demons but, we all remember being kids and digging Razor Ramon. He was over. He wasn't white hot or anything, but he was over.

I am voting Hall now BTW and its partly because of this...

Try this one last time, because you're really not getting it.

Pick your absolute six best from the 90's when Scott Hall worked.

No dude, just stop. You know I like you and all but shut the fuck up about this top 6 bullshit.

The two eras are very different. Try and understand that first. You can't do the top 6 here.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

I get all of it, ALL OF IT! I told you, Kiniski should win this, but do not think what Scott Hall had was not amazing. Scott Hall when "his head was screwed right was unbelievable.", he was so charismatic, he had a great look, had a catchphrase, could work the stick and have a good match.

Scott Hall pitching Razor with Henning is such a great story; basically he was a man who didn't let Vince saddle him with a gimmick. Where wrestlers better than him didn't have the balls he spoke up, and followed up. Ye he had his demons but, we all remember being kids and digging Razor Ramon. He was over. He wasn't white hot or anything, but he was over.

I am voting Hall now BTW and its partly because of this...



No dude, just stop. You know I like you and all but shut the fuck up about this top 6 bullshit.

The two eras are very different. Try and understand that first. You can't do the top 6 here.

So let's get this straight.

You WERE going to vote Kiniski, but despite visiting this thread several times, hadn't gotten around to clicking the radio button yet.

Then you change your vote out of spite for being told that you're not understanding a simple point... which despite your claims to the contrary you continually show you don't understand?

Sorry, but do you mind if I doubt the sincerity here? Especially considering your history last year of completely losing your shit on anyone who dared trying to talk about how good any pre-80's WWF star was?

BTW, you're still not getting it, and you're honestly just proving that the whole normalization of the eras idea will not work. It's got nothing to do with the differences in the eras. It's simply trying to understand the level that a guy like Kiniski was on, in comparison to the level a guy like Hall was on.

Are you really trying to say that no one can do a best of list for Kiniski's era?

Be honest. You're voting Hall because you're a mark for the guy. It's obvious with everything you've said about him. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Just don't pretend otherwise...

and relax. It's just a bunch of opinions here. Nothing more.

 

[NSL]

Scott was a minor player within the NWO. It's not like he was the heart or soul. Hogan led the group. Nash defected and created his Wolfpack. Hall was booted from the group for being the weak link. That was his place in the group. To be the fall guy.

Scott was not a minor player. He was one of the originals, and was the main guy in their promos until Hogan bogarted his way to the top and stole the show from everyone, not just Scott Hall. And, I think the real life reason for being booted was that he was a fall down drunk, not because he wasn't good enough.

As for you saying Kiniski deserves a chapter in wrestling history, on equal footing with the nWo...No. He deserves a section of a much larger chapter on Canadian wrestling/wrestlers, but that's about it. The nWo ushered in an entirely new era of wrestling, and created the one threat that Vince has ever truly faced.

Ask anyone now to name a list of the great Canadian wrestlers, and you'll get names like Hart, Benoit, Jericho, Edge, Storm...and then you'll get a handful of Kiniski's.

 

[Bernkastel]

Scott was not a minor player. He was one of the originals, and was the main guy in their promos until Hogan bogarted his way to the top and stole the show from everyone, not just Scott Hall. And, I think the real life reason for being booted was that he was a fall down drunk, not because he wasn't good enough.

Usually being a falling down drunk makes you a bad performer, and Hall was no exception. It's clear that Gene Kiniski was more professional, so it's another point that should be in his favor.

As for you saying Kiniski deserves a chapter in wrestling history, on equal footing with the nWo...No. He deserves a section of a much larger chapter on Canadian wrestling/wrestlers, but that's about it. The nWo ushered in an entirely new era of wrestling, and created the one threat that Vince has ever truly faced.

Kiniksi carried the wrestling industry, and that's what the NWA represented back the 60's, the industry, for 3 years. He carried pro wrestling for the same amount of time as the NWO did. But unlike them, Kiniski didn't overstate his welcome.

Ask anyone now to name a list of the great Canadian wrestlers, and you'll get names like Hart, Benoit, Jericho, Edge, Storm...and then you'll get a handful of Kiniski's.

That's the modern era. And really the last 20 years. If you poll people over 50, the Baby Boomers, the generation with the largest population, you'll get names like Whipper Watson, Yvon Robert, Stu Hart and Gene Kiniski.

 

[NSL]

Usually being a falling down drunk makes you a bad performer, and Hall was no exception. It's clear that Gene Kiniski was more professional, so it's another point that should be in his favor.

I'd argue that Hall's in-ring stuff was far better in AWA or WWF, than it was in WCW, but WCW is where his star shone based on charisma and mic skills. So, I'm looking at him, in this match, as a conglomeration of all those things.

He may have been a drunk, but he wasn't a fall down drunk. And Austin was a drunk, but no one's going to say that affected his career.

That's the modern era. And really the last 20 years. If you poll people over 50, the Baby Boomers, the generation with the largest population, you'll get names like Whipper Watson, Yvon Robert, Stu Hart and Gene Kiniski.

History is written by the last guy standing. I'm not saying those guys aren't important to the history of wrestling. I'm just saying that they are not standing the test of time the way these others names currently are. Here in the States, you ask for old school wrestlers, and you'll hear Thesz, Gagne, and Bockwinkel...Not often will you hear Kiniski...and these guys were all relatively in the same timeframe/era.

 

[Bernkastel]

History is written by the last guy standing. I'm not saying those guys aren't important to the history of wrestling. I'm just saying that they are not standing the test of time the way these others names currently are. Here in the States, you ask for old school wrestlers, and you'll hear Thesz, Gagne, and Bockwinkel...Not often will you hear Kiniski...and these guys were all relatively in the same timeframe/era.

That is not an objective way to look at history. Just because the WWE chooses not to celebrate a legend like Kiniski does not diminish his career or the weight of his accomplishments. Scott Hall worked in a recent wrestling era. And would be on the minds of most 21-35 year olds that grew up watching wrestling at the time. But to many 45-60 year olds, they don't know who Scott Hall is or can readily identify the guy. Most people that age would have grown out of wrestling by the end of the 80's if they hadn't before.

Just because circles of modern fans can't identify Gene Kiniski because they can't be bothered to think that far back doesn't mean that he should lose to a mostly mid card talent that just so happened to work a more recent era.

 

[NSL]

That is not an objective way to look at history. Just because the WWE chooses not to celebrate a legend like Kiniski does not diminish his career or the weight of his accomplishments. Scott Hall worked in a recent wrestling era. And would be on the minds of most 21-35 year olds that grew up watching wrestling at the time. But to many 45-60 year olds, they don't know who Scott Hall is or can readily identify the guy. Most people that age would have grown out of wrestling by the end of the 80's if they hadn't before.

Just because circles of modern fans can't identify Gene Kiniski because they can't be bothered to think that far back doesn't mean that he should lose to a mostly mid card talent that just so happened to work a more recent era.

I'm not saying it's fair. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's the truth. And, for the people who stopped watching wrestling by the end of the 80s...They'd still know Big Scott Hall, and that's really when he started to break the mold.

I also think you're overestimating how "recent" Hall's era was. The nWo formed twenty years ago. There's people watching wrestling today, who have never seen an episode of Monday Nitro, or know that Thunder was a thing. But, those same people can tell you who Scott Hall is/was.

As for the WWE choosing not to celebrate Kiniski...That hasn't stopped guys like Benoit from being relevant. Same can be said for a good portion of Savage and Warrior's careers/lives post-WWF. If you really matter, you transcend all that.

 

[Bernkastel]

I'm not saying it's fair. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's the truth. And, for the people who stopped watching wrestling by the end of the 80s...They'd still know Big Scott Hall, and that's really when he started to break the mold.

It might be the truth, but that doesn't make it objective reasoning. otherwise there's no point in even examining history and trying to discuss it. That's one of the basis of this tournament.

I also think you're overestimating how "recent" Hall's era was. The nWo formed twenty years ago. There's people watching wrestling today, who have never seen an episode of Monday Nitro, or know that Thunder was a thing. But, those same people can tell you who Scott Hall is/was.

Pro wrestling dates back some 110 years ago. Actually it dates back allot further than that. Something that occurred in the last 20 years is recent. Very recent.

I have a friend who just started watching wrestling as a casual for the first time in 27 years. Coming in the only wrestlers he knew were The Rock [for his movie career] and Hulk Hogan. I had to explain to him who the Undertaker was and why he's important when he came out for his match at Mania. My aunt who's is in her 70's watched wrestling in the 80's. She can name Hogan, Savage, and Andre because they were the biggest guys during the time she watched. I highly doubt she could name Scott Hall.

For every example there's a counterexample. The main argument I used about the normalization of eras is that Kiniski was a more recognizable name in his era than Scott Hall was. He ruled pro wrestling at the top for 3 year while Hall just merely existed in the NWO.

As for the WWE choosing not to celebrate Kiniski...That hasn't stopped guys like Benoit from being relevant. Same can be said for a good portion of Savage and Warrior's careers/lives post-WWF. If you really matter, you transcend all that.

All of those guys were recent too. However I did hear Kiniski mentioned by Jim Ross, who appreciates old school, every now and then. And he was also the one that informed fans of Kiniski's poor health right before he died. So I supposed that counts as transcendence.

 

[NSL]

All of those guys were recent too. However I did hear Kiniski mentioned by Jim Ross, who appreciates old school, every now and then. And he was also the one that informed fans of Kiniski's poor health right before he died. So I supposed that counts as transcendence.

I wouldn't call JR's opinion as "objective". Him and Cornette share a lot of ideas about how wrestling has sucked for a long time and needs to go back to the territories. When someone like Cole or, hell, even Striker, brings up Kiniski on Raw or LU, then I would agree that has transcended.