Warrior was before my time so I didn't have the level of attachment that most others here had. Warrior is the type of wrestler I probably would have been a mark for as a kid but after watching him as an adult on the WWE Network (for only $9.99 a month ) I was left underwhelmed.
And his in ring skills were. The WWE heavily revising his legacy has been .
nah. you just had to be there.
you didn't have to be a kid at all. warrior got the rowdiest pops, and seemed to be the favored pick over Hogan by the older WWF crowd. he was like the SEGA to Hogan's Nintendo. and don't even get me started on the ladies.
and the WWF back in those glory days wasn't predicated on ring skills. hell, the majority of the WWF's legacy isn't, if we're being real.
and back then specifically, it was more about the showmanship, ring presence, and the larger-than-life atmosphere. the warrior embodied all of that.
if you didn't like the warrior, then the whole mid '80s thru early '90s WWF just isn't for you.
when you were in the mood for great in-ring wrestling back then, you watched TBS or maybe something else.
the WWF was more about the spectacle. it was WAY WAY MORE Hogan/andre rather than savage/steamboat.
so naw, theyre not revising history in the warrior's favor. in actuality, he deserves more props than he gets.
Last edited: