I just had a discussion about the top five WWF/WWE Intercontinental Champions. But the thing was, I kept asking myself what and how I - and everyone else - was supposed to base my rankings. Was it about the most reigns? How about the longest reign? Perhaps it was about in-ring talent? Or maybe it had to deal with the total package? Then again, we were talking about their gimmicks at the time of their title victory? Or, were we speaking of how the title became a stepping stone for a certain individual's career?
If any of the answers were along the lines of "I don't know," we're the same wave length.
Then, the subject matter was still about naming our top five champions but it now shifted over to the WWWF/WWF/WWE Championship. And again, I asked myself what the parameters were for this question. Were my rankings about quantity? What about longevity? Did becoming a cultural icon have any leeway to the rankings? How about being a moneymaking draw in the business? Or, was in-ring skill and/or overall combination of talent, athleticism, looks and charm have a role?
So yes, where would people rank Triple H and John Cena? What about Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan, and Steve Austin? Or did Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels trump the list of everyone's top two?
Even then, was it about past credentials, the gimmick during the title run, or overall success in a "big picture" scheme of things? Meaning, where would Ric Flair fall under that list? What about Randy Savage? What about the guys from the late 90's and early 2000's such as Edge, Eddie Guerrero, and Kurt Angle?
It's tough when not knowing what to base off your judging, isn't it?
So the next time you get together with your buddies and begin this whirlwind of a conversation, remember to ask yourself and those in the group: what are the parameters?