Tommy Platinum

Opinion seems to be divided when it comes to Angle and how highly he ranks among the best ever. I've seen some refer to him as the best of all time, while others say he used to be good but really isn't anything special anymore and even in his prime, not comparable to the best ever.

Basically, where do you stand in this whole debate? Would Angle rank anywhere near the top of your "best ever" list, or have you always found him overrated? Is he up there with the likes of Bret Hart and Chris Benoit?

How highly do you rate Angle?

__________________

Sir Nicky Talent

He was a shot out of no where when he first started. I think ever since then, with some amazing matches on his record as well as soMe dissapointments, he's built a reputation as being a fucking great wrestler with a bit of problems and politicing.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

I think that even though his critics do have a point when they say his matches are repetitive and formulaic, this has only really become a big problem in recent years, and if you take his career as a whole, you have to say he has been pretty fucking great. He's not the best ever, and he's not close (so maybe I should have had a category between the first 2, but oh well) but he's still great. Between 2000 and 2003 he put on a lot of very good-great matches, and he continued to produce some up until he left WWE. Even in TNA, while he is noticably worse than he was in his earlier years, he has put on some very good matches, and even a couple of great, most notably the Last Man Standing match with AJ Styles from Hard Justice last year. I believe one of the Joe matches was great too but I need to rewatch their original trilogy.

So basically, he's been one of the best wrestlers of this decade, but he's not one of the best ever because he wasn't really great for enough years, and over the course of his career he has become increasingly stale and predictable, with his matches all involving the same formula. I would say he's overrated by most but underrated by some.

__________________

King Steventon

This feels like a shitstorm waitint to happen...

"Of all time" covers so much ground. And Angle's career isn't even a decade long yet, and he's already at the point where he is physically broken down and could retire in the not-too-distant future. If you were narrowing it down to just WWE main eventers this decade, he would most likely be in the top 10... but that is not all time. It is hard to knock up a serious "top x wrestlers of all time" list because there is so much ground to be covered. Different countries, promotions, styles, circumstances, time, etc. In that respect, Angle being even close to "best ever" is laughable. I could easily reel off 50, 75... maybe 100 wrestlers I would rank higher than Angle. But I can see why someone who has been weened on WWE and TNA and has only been watching for a few years could see him as being that great.

Not to take away from what he has done, he has had some great matches, but I don't think his career really holds up well at all compared to others. I mean if you were to break it down, it certainly isn't the sort of resume you would associate with a GOAT:

2000: A couple of enjoyable mid-card matches, nothing particularly great or even worth re-watching

2001: Maybe his best year. Great matches with Austin (who was the best wrestler on the planet at this point), Rock and Benoit (as well as some mediocre matches with Benoit). Also had a surprisingly good match with Kane of all people and carried Shane to a great street fight.

2002: Nothing first half of the year, then a bad series of matches with Edge followed by great matches with Taker, Rock and Rey. Tags and singles with/against Benoit are in the "overated but still good" camp.

2003: Great match with Benoit, the Lesnar fued draws mixed opinions but upon rewatch I thought they were more bad than good... Did have quality matches with Undertaker and Cena

2004: Enjoyable matches with Eddie that were more about Eddie than anything, that was it. At this point Angle was wrestling the same match more or less every week.

2005: Need to rewatch Vengeance but I am firmly in the "matches with HBK sucked ass" camp. At this point he was wrestling the same match over and over and whoring out his finishers to a ridiculous extent. Brought Cena and a few other guys down in their matches.

2006: Epic match with Undertaker, good matches with Rey and Orton. Thought the first Joe match was OK but otherwise he was pretty average at this point.

2007: Nothing

2008: Styles LMS match was overated but still good

2009: Brought down a career performance from Jarrett...

In my books, thats like 4 good years... tops, with a few sparodic good outings since then. Austin, Rock, Benoit, Eddie, Rey, Taker and Styles are/were all incredible talents... not to say he was carried, no, but it's hardly as impressive as, say, Bret Hart getting a great match out of Nash in '95 or Benoit getting a great match out of Edge in '07.

So yeah, good career if massively overated by marks. Certainly not close to best ever, not even the best WWE main eventer this decade. These days I find him to be actively bad... more repetitive than Hogan, annoying match formula, not particularly good at stuff like selling and overkills in almost every big match of his I watch (I barely noticed the Angle Slam at BFG).

I voted for other, just because I think he had a great run but has long since become mediocre.

Is there even a case for him being better than, say, Bobby Eaton?

__________________

Bigpapa42

I honestly can't even properly rate him. I have always liked his early stuff - from 2000 to maybe 2004 - and still enjoy it as I go back and rewatch some of it. From there to the end of his WWE run, plus most of his early TNA stuff, I have not seen nearly as much of. His current TNA stuff rarely does much for me.

__________________

DD

This is pretty much my feelings on Angle as well. He was really entertaining when he first came into the WWE and was really great with Austin and The Rock for a while. Really felt and acted like a main eventer.
The one issue I had about Angle though was whenever he had the title in the WWE it seemed to be like ok, now what do we do with him? He's a boring champ and he would seemingly drop it soon after.

Overall he has been a positive more so than a average dude. I'd put him in probably the top 30 from 1980 on.

__________________

Number Two

IMO the guy is the greatest of all time, he was the first true wrestler where i've felt I can't miss one match of his. Outstanding on the mic & has had great matches and draws more attention from myself than any other wrestler could.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

....Jennifer Love Hewitt nuff said.

horrorfan_1986

One of the main problems I saw was that he was never really the main guy. So whenever he did win the title, he was just holding it for someone. His first title reign should have been huge, but in reality, he was just holding it so that Austin and The Rock could be somewhat even by time their Wrestlemania match came around. It also didn't help matters that he was playing second fiddle as champion to the Austin/Hunter feud. His second and third title reigns (2001) were nothing more than a boost for the fans whether it was the first shot against WCW or the pro-USA nature of the country after 9/11. The 2002 title reign was nothing more than to give us the "Dream" match of him and Brock. 2003 was fairly pointless for him. The only point the title reign had was to turn Brock heel. Finally, the last one was just a last minute decision due to the injury to Batista.

You can look back at every title reign in the WWE and not once was he given the title to be the main guy in the company. He was made champion for other reasons. So I don't think it has anything to do with the bookers not knowing what to do with him rather than they never intended on doing anything with him.

__________________

iamthedestroyer

Angle's had some amazingly entertaining matches, had a great persona. He definitely has his place in history so long as he stops stalking low end "knockouts", doesn't make people feel awkward about his career by paralyzing himself in the ring due to wrestling with 48 broken necks, and doesn't go off the deep end.

With that in mind, he's nowhere near the best ever. I might get a ton of heat but his wrestling psychology isn't that great.

King Steventon

Angle vs the world could be interesting.

__________________