Wouldn't it be odd if these wrestlers decided to use their real names instead of their wrestling names?

1. We have to count "how good he is". Take Major League Baseball, for example.

They don't just take the star player of the World Series winning team and automatically call him the MVP Of The Year. The MVP is the best all-around player in the league, regardless of won-loss record or championships. Wrestling may be "scripted" but anybody can recognize a good wrestler and distinguish him from a guy who's just bad in the ring.

2. I agree about this one. The 5-star match distinction is given by one man, Dave Meltzer.

His criteria for a 5-star match will differ from what my criteria for a 5-star match is, and we'll both differ from your criteria of a 5-star match. If there were a recognizable and well-known panel of experts giving these "star" ratings, that would be something we could look to and count as important as anything else in determining "great" wrestlers. But being that this is just Meltzer's thing, it doesn't count any more than your's or mine or any other fan's rating.

3. This counts big-time. There is more to being a pro wrestler than just putting on some boots, coming up with a couple catchphrases, and doing a headlock and a dropkick.

To be successful, to be "great", you have GOT to engage the fans and get them interested in everything you do, and get them willing to pay to see you wrestle over and over. Drawing power isn't about being on TV and getting pushed; anybody can get that. It's about getting the fans to want to pay to see you wrestle, and for that, you have to be INTERESTING.

You don't have to be a Bret Hart in the ring, but you have to get the fans so interested in what happens to you that they are willing to drive to an arena and pay to see it. That's what drawing power is, the amounts of fans you attract to non-televised shows you have to pay to see. Because wrestling IS "scripted" we can't judge greatness by the same criteria as other sports which aren't "scripted.

In other sports winners are determined by skills, toughness, technique, heart, and sometimes luck. In pro wrestling, the most godawful performer on the roster can become a star of a company simply because the promoter likes him and pushes him to the top. Likewise, the best in-ring performer on the roster can be put on a major losing streak, or lose his championship to some mid-card scrub, simply because he pissed off the promoter.

In other sports an athlete who pisses off the coach gets benched for a game or two as punishment then gets put back in the game to use his skills to win. In other sports, coaches don't put mediocre athletes on the starting team. The only way we can judge pro wrestlers by the same criteria we judge athletes in other sports is for it to be completely, absolutely, 100% kayfabe.

And there ain't a wrestling fan alive who's willing to do that. Even amongst ourselves (hardcore "smart" fans) we still don't allow each other to discuss things 100% kayfabe, knowing that we ARE discussing things kayfabe. We won't drop our shields even for a second without the fear that some other fan will think of us as "dumb marks" who don't know the difference between real and make-believe.

I hate the "because it's scripted" cop-out, too. It's lazy, obvious, and meaningless. That's the same as saying it's wet outside because it's raining.

And we should stop using "insider" terms like bury, push, and put over because most of us get them wrong. When you misuse "insider" terms you generally come off as the "dumb mark" you sneer at. BQ: Some guys just like the notoriety of being successful cheaters.

That goes in all walks of life. Wrestling, Y/A leaderboards, tax cheaters, guys cheating on their women, women cheating on their guys, screwing over co-workers to get an undeserved promotion, etc etc etc. Some people just get a perverse thrill from cheating and succeeding. Some people can only succeed by cheating, but a lot of them just cheat because it's "fun" to them.

They have the skills and qualifications to succeed without cheating, but that's not as much "fun" to them. Or, in some cases, playing fair is "too much work". Flair and Eddie cheated because they loved the notoriety of succeeding by cheating, and it was fun to them.

No, that would be retarded. Wrestling is entertainment, not real sport. Therefore, fans should rate as "the greatest" the wrestlers who have entertained people the best and done the most to advance the business in a positive manner.

By the way, this actually already applies to soccer. The "greatest footballer" is generally considered to be Pelé, not just because of his talent on the field but because of his immense legacy as an ambassador for the sport and social work. BQ: For Eddy Guerrero, it was part of his loveable rogue character, i.e.

For the entertainment value. When he was a heel, it was probably because WWE rarely give clean wins to bad guys (unless it's a squash). For Ric Flair, it was something he's been doing since his NWA days, when he wasn't allowed to beat the local stars cleanly for fear of damaging their credibility in their home territories.

By the time JCP/WCW went national, he had a well-established character as "The Dirtiest Player In The Game". You're wrong about Flair never winning his titles fairly. Try watching "Starrcade '83" or "Royal Rumble '92".

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.