Biggest overacheiver in wrestling history.....

To perform better or achieve more success than expected.....

Thought I'd throw this one at everyone after the underacheivers. I'll throw 3 in there straight off the bat

John Cena: Proof that hard work will always trimuph over talent

Kevin Nash: Great Look, but did this guy have ability? Master politician once he'd made his name

Batista: Lucky for him Vince loves a sted head. Again great look not a lot else

Overachievers?

Rey Mysterio - I like him but 2 world championship reigns is far too much

Jeff Jarrett - Just Awful! But made TNA into his own little title reign collection

Hulk Hogan - Very limited in the ring, makes Cena and Batista looks like Shawn Michaels. I know I'm not of his era but he wouldn't get anywhere today

Great Khali - For the sole reason that he is in WWE. Shouldnt be wrestling and is a former world champion

John Cena is probably a good call, even though I don't bear the resentment to him that many others do, it does seem that he has maximised his ability and his opportunities.

Khali is another good shout, being a former world champion no less! I always thought Yokozuna as a two time WWE champion was a bit much...

The Undertaker - before he worked with Mick Foley in 96 I'd never have imagined him having the career he'd go on to have, he made the most of what he had

the-gaffer wrote:The Undertaker - before he worked with Mick Foley in 96 I'd never have imagined him having the career he'd go on to have, he made the most of what he had

Not sure what you mean by that gaffer? Taker was already massively over. If anything that match made Foley. Taker is the greatest gimmick wrestler of all time

HHH - about 6 title reigns too many.

Brady12 wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:The Undertaker - before he worked with Mick Foley in 96 I'd never have imagined him having the career he'd go on to have, he made the most of what he had

Not sure what you mean by that gaffer? Taker was already massively over. If anything that match made Foley. Taker is the greatest gimmick wrestler of all time

He was always over but working with Foley really turned the Undertaker in the ring. Before hand his matches were simplistic - he just didn't sell. He became very one demensional and was only really considered useful for slaying gaints. Working with Foley changed all that and then that was further enhanced by working with Angle, Lesnar and Beniot in the early naughties (hate that word) by changing his style and adding more moves to his repertoire.

John Cena - Not his fault. In a era of a company lacking direction. Far too many title WWE title reigns.

David Arquette - Sickens me to call him a former champion.

Jeff Jarrett - His persistance into becoming a multi time top champion forming TNA for that purpose.

Jeff Hardy - The fact you can botch and spend so much time getting up and laying down in a match and still be a WWE champion.

Vince McMahon - Won the WWE championship and won a Royal Rumble. The less said the better.

Great Khali - Need I say?

The Fabulous Moolah - 27 years as a champion? If that is not overachieving I don't know what it is!

Ive got to say Edge i'm afraid. How many championships did that guy hold? To hold more world titles than the likes of HBK, Bret and Hogan is a joke to me. Massive overachiever.

I would agree with Edge, Mr H, he had too many reigns, but that isn't to say he didn't deserve to be a multi-time world champ.

I would say too many reigns is fairly symptomatic of the issues these days. Two belts need to be held so we get people racking up the wins that they would never have gotten back in the single belt days.

Brady, Taker was well over but was horrible in the ring and while his gimmick was a hit I don't think he'd have had the longevity or the ability to reinvent his character ie it wasn't for Mick Foley, the feud with The Undertaker did get Mankind over but Foley taught Taker more than he could have hoped for

the-gaffer wrote:Brady, Taker was well over but was horrible in the ring and while his gimmick was a hit I don't think he'd have had the longevity or the ability to reinvent his character ie it wasn't for Mick Foley, the feud with The Undertaker did get Mankind over but Foley taught Taker more than he could have hoped for

I agree. Undertaker before then squashed smaller opponents and eventually feuded with like for like wrestlers like Diesel, Kane, Fake Undertaker and Pyscho Sid. The feud with Foley developed Taker into a better competitor.

I'll have to go for Big Daddy Cool Diesel, slightly ahead of Hulk Hogan. In my eyes Diesel had minimal talent for wrestling, little charisma or mic skills. And regarding Hogan, the only reason he isn't top is because he had such charisma and presence in the 80s which hid his poor wrestling ability.

And I'll throw Ric Flair in there too, there is just nothing I ever liked about him. He was intense, I'll give him that. And I haven't seen enough of his older matches to really know but I don't think his matches ever told a story (apart from WM 8, due to the Macho Man).

HHH - if it wasn't for him being the bosses son in law he would of never got as many championships

Mysterio - Should of never won the rumble let alone 2 world championships, he's had this stupid "Underdog" tag for ages now. if it was in football Luton town would be getting to the FA Cup final every year. Rey Mysterio has the same ability to what Luton Town do to world football.

If i had to pick one, and only one, it would be Randy Orton.

Zero charisma, boring in-ring, cant talk, doesnt draw as world champion, yet he's been pushed to the moon time after time. He's got a generic body but isnt exactly chizzled out of stone. Seriously what do the WWE see in this guy?

MASSIVE overachiever for someone with such little talent.

I think its a tad ignorant to say Hogan didn't have ring skills, he could work well Vince just didn't want him to, you don't get as many gigs as he did in Japan if you couldn't work, I'd suggest looking at those matcher in Japan and prepare to be shocked

I think Edge's number of title reigns is more indicative of the changing times. It's ridiculous to compare his number of reigns to Hogan or Bret Hart or Lou Thesz or pretty much anyone pre-2000. I shudder to think how many reigns Randy Orton will retire with!

I agree with gaffer about Undertaker. He's got to be the most protected act in wrestling history. There is a reason he was a midcarder in the NWA earlier in his career - without the Undertaker gimmick and the protection that gave him (and the fact that it fitted perfectly his look, which wasn't particularly marketable until then), he'd have been a footnote in history. I'm not saying he didn't do a hell of a lot with the gimmick, but he definitely overachieved.

Kane is another one who fits that mould, to a lesser extent.

However, for me the greatest overachiever in wrestling history is Sting. He's been a main eventer on huge contracts for almost 25 years, yet he seemed to lose his passion for wrestling around 1992 and has appeared disinterested ever since. He was never a great wrestler, although he was very good with the right opponent, but again I'm talking about the distant past. He only became serviceable on the mic when he joined TNA; he was consistently poor in WCW. He has charisma and a star quality but nowhere near enough to justify his long career at the top and the number of titles he's won.

I think he is a wrestler who has benefited from working in chaotic companies where nobody had the time or inclination to question whether he was worth the money being thrown at him.

the-gaffer wrote:I think its a tad ignorant to say Hogan didn't have ring skills, he could work well Vince just didn't want him to, you don't get as many gigs as he did in Japan if you couldn't work, I'd suggest looking at those matcher in Japan and prepare to be shocked

Fair point Gaffer i confess I have never seen any of his Japan matches before so I stand to be corrected. However, based on what I saw from him he didn't have the speed or athleticism of Cena, and about half of Cena's mat skills. I'll check out a Hogan Japan match later, any recommendations?

When I think about overachievers I don't think about guys like Khali, the reason being Khali was signed due to his size with the view to having a Main Event run, because he was signed specifically for that particular role I don't consider him an overachiever even if he is truly awful

Check out his matcher in 93 while he was still the WWF Champ Animal

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:I think Edge's number of title reigns is more indicative of the changing times. It's ridiculous to compare his number of reigns to Hogan or Bret Hart or Lou Thesz or pretty much anyone pre-2000. I shudder to think how many reigns Randy Orton will retire with!

Whilst i agree to an extent crips, between 2007 and 2011 Edge won SEVEN World Heavyweight Titles whilst only on Smackdown. SEVEN World Heavyweight Titles in 4 years on the same show. Whilst the roster split and having 2 world titles will obviously mean more world title reigns, i'd kind of accept it if Edge had won say 4 WHCs and 3 WWEs on both Raw and Smackdown, but 7 reigns with the same title on the same show over 4 years?

I don't disagree about it being ridiculous H, my only point is that it's no longer valid to compare the number of title reigns now to those of the past.

I see it a bit like England caps. Emile Heskey has 62 England caps, more than Geoff Hurst, Sanley Matthews or Jimmy Greaves. But international fixtures are so much more frequent now that it's not an accurate comparison. Nowadays you only have to be on the fringes of the squad to quickly amass 20 or 30 caps, whereas at one time international fixtures were rare, substitutions were limited and only the elite got on the pitch. It's similar in wrestling, where title reigns used to last months or years because there were fewer (or no) PPVs, the main income came from house shows, and TV exposure was used to get talent over via squash matches, sell house show tickets and push storylines. The advent of the episodic TV format led to companies treating their world title belts like hot potatoes because WWE for example now has to come up with 4 hours a week of first-run programming and TV ratings are so crucial to their success.

Bob Backlund and Honkey Tonk Man, both had pretty terrible gimmicks, both were average on the mic and I nthe ring yet both of them had extremely long title reigns at a time when there were (IMO) a lot of better options, I think they both had reigns approaching two years straight.

Fadorock wrote:Bob Backlund and Honkey Tonk Man, both had pretty terrible gimmicks, both were average on the mic and I nthe ring yet both of them had extremely long title reigns at a time when there were (IMO) a lot of better options, I think they both had reigns approaching two years straight.

Honky kept the belt for a reason, in fairness. He drew huge money because people were so desperate to see him beaten (and the fact he looked so vulnerable made them believe he could be)

Backlund certainly wasn't bad in the ring, his World Title reign was 5 years and HTM's IC run lasted 14 months

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:I don't disagree about it being ridiculous H, my only point is that it's no longer valid to compare the number of title reigns now to those of the past.

I see it a bit like England caps. Emile Heskey has 62 England caps, more than Geoff Hurst, Sanley Matthews or Jimmy Greaves. But international fixtures are so much more frequent now that it's not an accurate comparison. Nowadays you only have to be on the fringes of the squad to quickly amass 20 or 30 caps, whereas at one time international fixtures were rare, substitutions were limited and only the elite got on the pitch. It's similar in wrestling, where title reigns used to last months or years because there were fewer (or no) PPVs, the main income came from house shows, and TV exposure was used to get talent over via squash matches, sell house show tickets and push storylines. The advent of the episodic TV format led to companies treating their world title belts like hot potatoes because WWE for example now has to come up with 4 hours a week of first-run programming and TV ratings are so crucial to their success.

When you put it like that, i agree entirely.

Davies... i completely agree and he was a very effective heel but i still feel he falls into that category of overachiever, just like Cena. Cena has the title for a reason, in a PG era the kids worship him, but it doesn’t mean he is not an overachiever as personally I think he, just like honey, is an average wrestler in almost all departments

as if he held the world title for 5 years!

Great Khali shouldn't have even got close to the world title.

As for Hogan and Cena, they're both as bad as each other in my opinion. The only reason they are so highly rated is because of their hard work and the reactions they could/can draw from the crowd.

Fadorock wrote:as if he held the world title for 5 years!

?

Just commenting that a continuous five year title reign in this day and age would be completely unheard of. Or do you means his title reigns together amount to five years?

He only had two and his second was shorter than Christians, his first was just short of 6 years

TheKop wrote:HHH - if it wasn't for him being the bosses son in law he would of never got as many championships

Mysterio - Should of never won the rumble let alone 2 world championships, he's had this stupid "Underdog" tag for ages now. if it was in football Luton town would be getting to the FA Cup final every year. Rey Mysterio has the same ability to what Luton Town do to world football.

A little harsh I feel. I always thought HHH was deserving of his spot in 99. He'd made it by then & it didn't really matter he ended up hooking up with Daddys little girl by that point

Brady12 wrote:

TheKop wrote:HHH - if it wasn't for him being the bosses son in law he would of never got as many championships

Mysterio - Should of never won the rumble let alone 2 world championships, he's had this stupid "Underdog" tag for ages now. if it was in football Luton town would be getting to the FA Cup final every year. Rey Mysterio has the same ability to what Luton Town do to world football.

A little harsh I feel. I always thought HHH was deserving of his spot in 99. He'd made it by then & it didn't really matter he ended up hooking up with Daddys little girl by that point

Agreed Brady, i think Hunter would have been a multi time world champion regardless of the fact he is the son-in-law. Maybe not 13 times but his talent definately merited world title reigns.

If Cena Orton and Edge have so many title reigns HHH is more than deserving of being ahead of them

Cena, Edge, Mysterio

I'd also say JBL was a massive overachiever, as good a heel as he was absolutely no-one including him could have seen it coming

legendkillar wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:Brady, Taker was well over but was horrible in the ring and while his gimmick was a hit I don't think he'd have had the longevity or the ability to reinvent his character ie it wasn't for Mick Foley, the feud with The Undertaker did get Mankind over but Foley taught Taker more than he could have hoped for

I agree. Undertaker before then squashed smaller opponents and eventually feuded with like for like wrestlers like Diesel, Kane, Fake Undertaker and Pyscho Sid. The feud with Foley developed Taker into a better competitor.

I completely disagree with this.. Taker was made by Foley? Seriously?... I'm not a Taker mark in the slightest but I can't believe this comment.

At the start of his career he was placed in feuds were he face believable competition such as Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan, Giant Gonzales, Sid, Yokozuna, Diesel etc... Hardly any ring generals in that list but Taker always had acceptable matches (maybe with the exception of Gonzales). He was quick & tremendously agile for a big man (see flying clothesline & 'old school') & whilst his style looked a little unorthodox at times I certainly wouldn't question his athletic ability..... Its no surprise that he had better matches (in the 00's - also hate that word!) with the likes of Benoit, Angle, Lesnar due to the fact these are much greater in-ring performers than those mentioned earlier. Its purely coincidental that these matches happened after the feud with Mankind. Taker had one of only 4 WWF matches to be given a 5* rating by Dave Meltzer in 1997 against Shawn Michaels in the first ever Hell in a Cell match, this was before The King of The Ring Spot feast against Mankind in 98... Foley was just a glorified stuntman & probably deserves a mention for the overacheivers list

Batista for me,

For years he simply was shocking and he only actually showed he had potential in his last few months of an 8 year career.

Brady I definitely don't agree with your assesment of The Undertaker, he and his matcher where terrible particularly as a heel and thats why he was turned face (heels in the WWF where expected to call the match) he was then placed in feuds with 'monsters' and relied on his gimmick to get/stay over, Nailz, Kamala, Gonzalez, Yoko, Faker, Kamala and Diesel, the only time Taker had good matches prior to 96 is when he worked with Bret but the WWF where so protective of his character that they wouldn't put him in a prolonged TV feud with him, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind tha Foley taught him more in 5 months than he learned in the 5 years previous

Gaffer my memory of 94-96 is a little hazy & I don't really recall the buried a-live or boiler room brawl matches that well... I'll agree though he did improve as a performer as the 90's progressed no doubt about it

I'm not questioning his agility or athletism by the way, he was extremely agile and I'm definitely not suggesting he doesn't deserve his spot or place as one of the best WWE talents of all time, I just feel that the strength of his gimmick gave him time to develop where as if he came to the WWF as Mean Mark I doubt if he would have stayed 2 years, Its like Glen Jacobs, he simply had no intrest as Issac Yankum DDS

True he had an excellent gimmick to fall back on.... Yeah it a credit to Glen Jacobs that he came back after being straddled with DDS & the even worse Fake Diesel run

You see for me there's to fine a line between overrated and overachiever.

While I'll admit I am a JJ fan, I would say it's obvious he's overachieved with so many title runs in NWA:TNA and TNA.

Again While I've always been a huge Sting fan I would say at this stage in his career he's over achieving. As I said always have been and always will be a Sting fan but just thing at this stage in his career there's no place for him to be carrying a world title.

And that brings me to my next point, while I understand John Cena's purpose in WWE I don't think he has to have the title, While I don't like Miz as champion it was refreshing to see someone new as champion, Like-wise with Orton & Christian on SD.

I do not deny that Edge was a great world champion, I don't believe he should have won as many World titles as he did, Again just my opinion.

A more obvious point would be Triple H, While A great character heel or face; I don't think he would've held as many world championships if it had not been for his "position" within the company.

The Great Khali. It's a disgrace that he's a former World title holder.

Th3Ch0s3n1 wrote:You see for me there's to fine a line between overrated and overachiever.

While I'll admit I am a JJ fan, I would say it's obvious he's overachieved with so many title runs in NWA:TNA and TNA.

Again While I've always been a huge Sting fan I would say at this stage in his career he's over achieving. As I said always have been and always will be a Sting fan but just thing at this stage in his career there's no place for him to be carrying a world title.

And that brings me to my next point, while I understand John Cena's purpose in WWE I don't think he has to have the title, While I don't like Miz as champion it was refreshing to see someone new as champion, Like-wise with Orton & Christian on SD.

I do not deny that Edge was a great world champion, I don't believe he should have won as many World titles as he did, Again just my opinion.

A more obvious point would be Triple H, While A great character heel or face; I don't think he would've held as many world championships if it had not been for his "position" within the company.

Cena has reached the position in this career that Taker, Rock and Austin all reached. He doesn't need to win titles anymore as not doing so won't damage his reputation at all. Also, he can now lose some feuds without it damaging his position in the slightest. Whether the WWE will realise this or not I am not too sure!!

In terms of HHH I disagree - I think he was a fantastic heel and a good face. Even without his relations with Steph he would have been a multi-time world champion. Remember that his comparables are to Rock and Austin and while he has more titles than both of them they both basically retired eight years ago. 13 title reigns in a career lasting about thirteen years (at the top) doesn't seem overkill to me.

orton - I think he is overated as im my opinion he has no charism and can not sell

khali - Needs to be able to walk properly

cena - never liked him, even when he was heel

Nasty boys - What I saw of them, I didn't think that they were very good