Current Events > POLL: Who does NOT belong on the Mount Rushmore of WWE?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm pretty sure these ten are the names that continually pop up in the context of a WWE Mount Rushmore. Hopefully I haven't forgotten an obvious name...

Take bret harts whiny ass off

BTW, I'm thinking about turning this into a series. Like, once we have a definitive "loser" in this poll, that'll dwindle the field down to nine, at which point I can post a new poll, etc., and keep it going until we have it down to the official CE-endorsed WWE Mount Rushmore.

Anyway, I'm going with Bret. He is definitely one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, but in the context of a Mount Rushmore he's just not as known outside of the industry and not as iconic as the others...

Bruno, only because his heyday wasn't in the WWE days, but earlier.

---

Cena only because if you put him there you can't see him /terrible joke

---

Gakk86 posted...

Bruno, only because his heyday wasn't in the WWE days, but earlier.

Lol ehat you can say that about all those guys except cena

Sad to say, but I think the least deserving of those is Bret. As amazing as he was in the ring, Bret just didn't have the star power that the others did.

My personal picks for the Mount Rushmore of WWE would be Hogan, Austin, Cena, and Undertaker: the faces of WWE's biggest growth period, the face of WWE's most famous era, the face of WWE's global expansion, and the face of WWE's most important event every year.
---

Flair, since most of his success was with NWA/WCW.

---

Calwings posted...

Sad to say, but I think the least deserving of those is Bret. As amazing as he was in the ring, Bret just didn't have the star power that the others did.

My personal picks for the Mount Rushmore of WWE would be Hogan, Austin, Cena, and Undertaker: the faces of WWE's biggest growth period, the face of WWE's most famous era, the face of WWE's global expansion, and the face of WWE's most important event every year.

Not gonna lie this is a good criteria.

Also this is a WWE Mt Rushmore topic so flair is definitely near the bottom of this list

---

Bump

Ric Flair honestly, he's more known for his stuff in WCW and before than WWE.

---

Vyrulisse posted...

Ric Flair honestly, he's more known for his stuff in WCW and before than WWE.

---

Flair. He deserves a spot on the US wrestling Mt Rushmore, but not WWE.

My Rushmore would be Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena. Taker is next in line.

---

My personal Mt. Rushmore of wrestling has only two persons on it, and that's Flair and Austin. I can't decide who else belongs on there, but I did come to the conclusion of who least deserves to be on there, and that's Shawn Michaels.

He's a solid entertainer, but that's about it. There are better wrestlers than him on the list, better mic talkers, more charismatic guys, and better ring psychologists. Michaels is the epitome of average.

---

Cena is overrated trash
---

I'm a little surprised at all the votes for John Cena, tbh. He's pretty iconic now whether I like his character or not. But hey this is a democratic vote!

Man, it's a dead heat between Sammartino, Flair and Cena. Who will be knocked off?!

Bump

Lot of ignorant voted towards Cena. Like it or not Cena was the face of WWE from the 2000s

---

If we're looking strictly at their WWE careers, Ric Flair. His 1991 run was a huge box office disappointment and he was an aging legends attraction 2001-2008.

He's an absolute first pick for a WRESTLING Mt Rushmore but for me probably not a WWE one compared to those other names.

Ric Flair is more of a NWA-WCW guy.

---

I can't believe the votes for Flair. I'm assuming these are from the youngsters who only saw his 2nd stint in wwf when he was old and washed up. 2 time wwf champion and his feud with Savage was good stuff. I get the view of "it was disappointing" but the only reason that happened is because certain guys coughhogan refused to work with him. It could have been amazing.

No way should Flair be there. His best work was in the NWA in the 80s, and WCW in the 90s.

---

SauI_Goodman posted...

I can't believe the votes for Flair. I'm assuming these are from the youngsters who only saw his 2nd stint in wwf when he was old and washed up. 2 time wwf champion and his feud with Savage was good stuff. I get the view of "it was disappointing" but the only reason that happened is because certain guys coughhogan refused to work with him. It could have been amazing.

Flair was there for like a year his first run. No way should he ever be considered for a top four all time WWE list.
---

Flair only went to the WWF because of issues with Jim Herd.

---

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

Flair only went to the WWF because of issues with Jim Herd.

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

Ric Flair is more of a NWA-WCW guy.

---

Why do people include undertaker in lists like this? WWE really over hypes his value. Taker never helped business grow. Like at all. What helped the wwf was Austin and then the rock. Putting taker before the rock is asinine. Undertaker is HHH tier to me. They're good fodder but they're not draws at all.

---

SauI_Goodman posted...

I can't believe the votes for Flair. I'm assuming these are from the youngsters who only saw his 2nd stint in wwf when he was old and washed up. 2 time wwf champion and his feud with Savage was good stuff. I get the view of "it was disappointing" but the only reason that happened is because certain guys coughhogan refused to work with him. It could have been amazing.

Been watching since the late 80s. His first stint lasted 18 months. Just 3 months longer than Ronda Rouseys first stint, as a comparison. And Id say his only real shining moments were the 1992 Royal Rumble and the build to Wrestlemania VIII be Savage (he also had a solid retirement match vs Mr Perfect in the very early days of Raw, but its hardly remembered).

Like you said, his return was during his washed up years. His good 18 months followed by the 2nd stint (when he was just shy of turning 53 when he first returned) doesnt make him come close to being an all time WWE great. Pro wrestling great, absolutely. But for just WWE, Id put the likes of Backlund, Piper, Snuka, Savage, DiBiase, Jake, Perfect, Warrior, Kane, HHH, Jericho, Angle, Lesnar, Orton, Eddie, Batista, Punk, and Daniel Bryan all ahead of Flair.

---

lilJoe457 posted...

Why do people include undertaker in lists like this? WWE really over hypes his value. Taker never helped business grow. Like at all. What helped the wwf was Austin and then the rock. Putting taker before the rock is asinine. Undertaker is HHH tier to me. They're good fodder but they're not draws at all.

He became synonymous with WrestleMania, WWE's most lucrative show every year. How is that not a draw for the company?

lilJoe457 posted...

Why do people include undertaker in lists like this? WWE really over hypes his value. Taker never helped business grow. Like at all. What helped the wwf was Austin and then the rock. Putting taker before the rock is asinine. Undertaker is HHH tier to me. They're good fodder but they're not draws at all.

Taker is a top 10 guy in WWE history. Hes like a Hank Aaron, who is seen as an all time great in baseball history, but only won 1 MVP over a very long career while being seen as one of the best every single year.

Id personally put him 5th. The only truly iconic faces that carried WWF/E since the wrestling boom in the 80s have been Hogan, Austin, Rock, and Cena. Thats my Rushmore. After that, its guys who were pushed to the top and were beloved performers, but not anyone who put the WWE on their shoulders.

---

Chris Benoit tbh

---

Tropicalwood posted...

Chris Benoit tbh

Fuckin ninja'd

---

Flair is very overrated by people. Great on the mic but as a national draw and not just in the Carolinas? He's not in the same league as those listed, even Bret. His drawing power is severely overrated as well as his in ring ability. Bruno deserves a place for his longevity and coming in to save the wwwf from buddy Rodgers (original nature boy) and his clique. Without him coming in the WWF or E! of today doesn't exist as we know it.

You put flair on the list but not the two wrasslers who influenced him, buddy Rodgers gimmick and Harley races in ring stuff. They'd deserve a spot more than flair tbh, if you're counting careers outside the WWF, and even then, Flair's WWF run was shit.

---

SauI_Goodman posted...

Take bret harts whiny ass off

---

Josiah_Is_Back posted...

He became synonymous with WrestleMania, WWE's most lucrative show every year. How is that not a draw for the company?

And at what point did he become synonymous with WrestleMania? Was that before or after Austin and the Rock help boom the business for them? There was a period when Hogan left where it was Shawn Michaels Bret Hart Diesel and Undertaker. And you know what they did before Austin and Rock came along? Nothing.

WWE was going to be cancelled after WrestleMania in 1998 because USA couldn't justify having them. Then Mike Tyson came along to help legitimize Stone Cold. So if none of that happens undertaker is never synonymous with anything. They over hype taker because he's the one guy who was extremely loyal to Vince. And that's probably because if you saw his work before being the undertaker, he couldn't make it without that gimmick at all.

I am not trying to shit on the undertaker. But to see him on some people's lists over the Rock or even John Cena is kind of insane. Taker never helped raised business. Being synonymous with WrestleMania isn't an undertaker thing. It's a WWE brand thing.

---

in that list definitely Ric

---

lilJoe457 posted...

And at what point did he become synonymous with WrestleMania? Was that before or after Austin and the Rock help boom the business for them? There was a period when Hogan left where it was Shawn Michaels Bret Hart Diesel and Undertaker. And you know what they did before Austin and Rock came along? Nothing.

WWE was going to be cancelled after WrestleMania in 1998 because USA couldn't justify having them. Then Mike Tyson came along to help legitimize Stone Cold. So if none of that happens undertaker is never synonymous with anything. They over hype taker because he's the one guy who was extremely loyal to Vince. And that's probably because if you saw his work before being the undertaker, he couldn't make it without that gimmick at all.

I am not trying to shit on the undertaker. But to see him on some people's lists over the Rock or even John Cena is kind of insane. Taker never helped raised business. Being synonymous with WrestleMania isn't an undertaker thing. It's a WWE brand thing.

I would say he became synonymous with WrestleMania once his Streak became the primary focus of the show, with various wrestlers even saying that the prospect of defeating him at 'Mania and ending the Streak was a greater honor than winning the WWE world championship.

He had a string of PWI Match of the Years with the likes of HHH and Shawn Michaels and basically from 2007-2013 he stole the show at WrestleMania.

But regardless here's another argument for you:

Gutzon Borglum who sculpted Mount Rushmore said he chose Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt because they represented respectively the founding, expansion, preservation and development of the United States.

Many people would argue that Hulk Hogan, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, the Undertaker and John Cena respectively represent the founding, expansion, preservation and development of the WWE.

Flair.

His 90s run was good, but short. His 00s run, while entertaining, was basically relegated to a midcard/managerial role.

---

Bruno is not a representation of the Vincent Kennedy McMahon owned WWF/WWE brand.

I would say he is the least deserving specifically for WWE

---

I think what I'll actually do to save time and not have to make nine polls is just eliminate the three wrestlers with the most votes. Looks like Sammartino, Flair and Cena are dominating this round so I'll give it some more time, wipe them off the field, and post a new poll with the new field of seven.

Bryfang posted...

Who the fuck voted The Rock?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO VOTED THE ROCK

The thing about Flair is that he was the best on the mic, good presence, putting people over, still involved.

I mean people were supposed to hate this guy but people liked him anyway.


---

I think Bruno, Flair, and Brett are all equal choices.

Bruno because his relevancy is pre-WWF. Flair because the bulk of his work was outside WWE (although he belongs on the wrestling mt Rushmore). Brett because despite being one of the best technical wrestlers ever was never really THE guy in the company.

---