JerryvonKramer

I've argued with one of my music buddies about this so often. I think that there are really two modes of being into something: 1. "On the steam train" -- this is someone who is into the thing right now, part of the zeitgeist, a member of the "happening" scene. This is my friend who I constantly accuse of following the latest fashions despite being blind to that fact. When I heard him talking up PC Music the other day, and claiming that he was into the label before Pitchfork wrote anything about them, I rolled my eyes. But there's something else about being on the steam train. It's going to gigs, it's being part of something in the here and now, it's EXPERIENTIAL. I know a lot of women like this. The way they engage with interests -- they don't care about the dates, names of the directors of films, or even the names of songs or what songs are on which album -- they just don't care about that stuff. What's important is the experience and being "part of it". This holds no interest for me whatsoever. Never has, never will. 2. The historical approach or "the connoisseur" -- this is someone who doesn't really care about what is going on now, but who searches the back catalogues of the past, sampling eras, exploring areas in depth, finding out about particular things that happened mostly after critical consensus has been formed -- maybe 10 years or more after the fact. That's me. It's me in all things: music, film, wrestling, whatever. The only exception is sport, and even then I'm much much more into analysis and stats than being part of a crowd and cheering or whatever. I'm not saying that people have to be wholly one or wholly the other of these two modes, but I think most will have a tendency towards one.

Whoa!!! Hold on with the ballot!!!!!! Give us a bit more time! Please!

I wonder if that's the same basketball they used for the skit in '88. I find it amazing that GMC was doing the ring announcing in Philly as early as 77. This is top top work as always Kelly.

How would a Gordy List for this work? What would the questions be? Is he good at selling? Yes / No? Sliding scale from very bad to very good? You tell me.

I actually like this idea quite a lot, but I'm not sure what form a vote (or panel of voters) would take. I have the template now and wouldn't mind re-making each profile with considered "community ratings" rather than those I came up with myself in 2 seconds, but I don't know how to bring about said ratings. I mean I do have some reasons for some of the questions people have asked me (i.e. on Eaton's high-flying and stiffness, or on Bock's fire), but in a sense I'd prefer somehow for those inclined to provide or contribute to providing their own ratings. And if no one is inclined, so be it.

14 more: EDIT: SSL - there's no getting around the fact that there are limits to what numerical ratings can give you, but it is also the most efficient way of short-hand comparison. The things that are "behind" anything that we do in GWE are the many many reviews from hours of footage we've watched in Microscope, Yearbooks and 80s projects. But it's also time-consuming to read 10,000s of words written by any of us.

The idea was that people could make their own. Also, people don't get up in arms about debating star ratings for matches, why is this so different? This thread is partly about challenging the dominant paradigm that "the match" is the only unit of analysis when judging wrestlers. I also think that these are categories that people do look at when thinking about what makes a great, even if they don't attach numerical ratings. There is ONE category I might have overlooked: character work. This might be covered by "expressiveness", but it is something we talk about a lot ... the Mocha Cota thread reminded me.

OJ - I might have overrated Race, but I think Martel is a 20 for selling, especially when he's stuck in a hold. I am very high on Martel. Might go back and slightly alter some of the ones I've done, because there are one or two too many 20s. However, people should remember that these are some of the best workers of all time, so ratings are going to be quite high. EDIT: Brisco and Race altered slightly. Brisco now has a 1 for bleeding based on NL's info.

Morton is a straight 20 as well for selling AND a 20 for bumping.

Total dude. Cota has a realistic shot of my 100.

It was partly, only my hope was that the numbers wouldn't be seen as "silly and arbitrary". For example, I've rated Flair, Steamboat, Brisco, Race and Martel at 20 for selling which is saying that there are no better sellers than those in wrestling history. Agree? Yes? No? There's no better sellers in history? There's five of them. You're telling me they're all not only perfect, but identically perfect, to the point that you can effectively summarize all five of them with the same single number? I'm saying they are about on par. 20 doesn't mean "perfect", it means "best in the world". I've been playing Football Manager since 1995 so maybe this makes more sense to me than some, or people are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, 20 more soon.

Fire is a measure of how fired up they get. Think of Tito Santana making a comeback. Intensity is a measure of how urgent and / or brutal they look on offence -- I always think Paul Orndorff has good intensity. Vader would score high here as would the AJPW guys.

That's a problem listening to certain podcasts, not any of the PTBN or PWO affiliated ones, but ones where the hosts not only during the show have so many shots at certain wrestlers they can't comprehend how they've gotten as far as they had that its drinking game worthy, but also get egged on in feedback Twitter comments to continue to bash said performers. And one of them is LEX LUGER. Who may have been a hump in the ring, and bad at promos, but he must have had something besides well placed friends to be a multiple time NWA and WCW champion (also the US and Tag), be an Horsemen Associate, and be considered "the next Hogan" in 1993. Yet every episode (a show that reviews a year in WWF/WCW during the Monday Night Wars era) there is copious amounts of "Luger is the worst ever" quips. I think that also is the problem with something that is taste driven like wrestling (same with music). And if you point to stats like wins/losses and belts, you'd get "Dude, you know its scripted right?" thrown at you. So there isn't really too much to quantify in a real tangible way why a wrestler truly does suck as compared to someone you like that is underrated. I think at least one of the presenters of that show listen to WTBBP, I wonder if Chad and I have a rep with them as "those two guys who love Lex Luger". For 2015, we might re-brand as "The only podcast that regularly gives praise to Ron Garvin and Lex Luger".

It was partly, only my hope was that the numbers wouldn't be seen as "silly and arbitrary". For example, I've rated Flair, Steamboat, Brisco, Race and Martel at 20 for selling which is saying that there are no better sellers than those in wrestling history. Agree? Yes? No?

This thread is not intended as a way of viewing wrestling but rather as a way of asking who is actually good at what. And perhaps more interestingly whether or not people agree on who is good at what. If I get a spare hour over the next day or so, I'll make maybe 20 more of these. After that, if the responses are in the same vein as I've seen so far, I'll leave it to die a death. No point in persisting with something everyone else hates. My thinking has come a way on this since the process started because it seems to me that in some cases these sorts of "base traits" can be a differentiator. Also, someone like a Jack Brisco who is clearly great but who lacks volume of footage presents a problem. If the question you ask is: "Who is the better wrestler?" This is one way of answering it. Who is the better wretler: Ron Garvin or Jack Brisco? My gut tells me it's Brisco, most people who have seen them both would likely rate Brisco more in most of the categories. But if all we do is count snow flakes, probably Garvin wins through his Flair matches alone. Just one example, but there's no way I'm ranking Garvin over Brisco and I'm figuring out a justifiable reason why.

Because they both came off the top more than Martel who was quite a ground-based worker. Because look at the names who I've done. Just so happens that in this company Rude is not a top trump in selling. 16 is still a great rating in that. Yeah, I don't think psychology is Flair's strong suit. If there was an "intuition" rating, Flair would be an 18-20 in that, but I guess in the video game Johnny is talking about that would be a "hidden stat".

Three more:

I was thinking through things we've discussed before and the question of who is the best bleeder has come up. Of course, not all of these are weighted equally and neither are they all important. For some, a high stiffness rating might not be the best thing. Psychology is probably more important than execution for a lot of people. This isn't really intended as an end to anything; I'm not saying these base stats are more important than output (ie matches), it's just a way of comparing guys across eras and creating benchmarks. Brisco is a straight 20 for selling which makes him a GOAT in that category for me -- that in itself I thinik counts for *something*. It might be the difference between coming #22 or #28, if you get the idea.

Yes. However, I'm quite interested in how people view these "base stats".

Okay, here are some I've done:

The recent peak vs. career stuff reminded me of something I've been thinking about for a while now: the idea of "base talent". Using Football Manager as a template, I've come up with a spreadsheet on which you can plot any GWE candidate and rate them out of 20 in 18 different areas. (Fans of EWR / TEW - I deliberately didn't go with their rating system for a variety of reasons, not least because these are all "in-ring" skils). Get a blank spreedsheet here: https://www.sendspace.com/file/a1vc2p I am going to stick a few guys through the spreedsheet later and will post screengrabs of them in this thread later. I encourage others to do the same. Here's a key for all of the categories, for the sake of clarity. Technical Brawling - the wrestler's ability to throw effective punches and strikes and more generally to brawl effectively. Counters - how effectively the wrestler can chain wrestle as per the catch-as-catch-can style Execution - how crisply the wrestler is able to perform his moves Matwork - the wrestler's ability to work the mat and perform submission holds in an engaging way Offense - a rating of the wrestler's high artillery offense Selling - how effectively the wrestler is able to convey pain when on the receiving end of an opponent's offense Physical Bleeding - how effectively does the blade / bleed Bumping - the wrestler's ability to fling themselves around the ring to make an opponent look good High flying - the wrester's ability to come off the top rope and perform other such dazzling feats Look - a rating of the destinctiveness of the wrestler's look [NOTE: this is not a rating of "physique", it is possible to weigh 500lbs and get a high rating here] Stamina - the wrestler's ability to go long without getting blown up Stiffness - the wrestler's ability to throw strikes that connect with real impact Mental Crowd control - the wrestler's ability to get the crowd to react to them Expressiveness - the wrestler's ability to show emotion through their facial expression and other such means Fire - the wrester's abiltiy to convey "fire", for example during a babyface comeback or in a heated brawl Intensity - the wrestler's ability to perform their moves with intensity and brutality Psychology - the wrestler's ability to tell a story in the ring Timing - the wrestler's ability to know "when" to do certain things, e.g. feeding their opponent, hitting a high spot, transitioning to the next portion of the match, etc. etc.

http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-boys-play-69-starrcade-91/ Chad and Parv welcome Steven Graham (Pro Wrestling Super Show) to review Starrcade 91. - [11:16] Wrestling Observer roundup: Luger - man of the people, TV ratings performance vs. house show performance. - [30:22] Review of Starrcade 91: In-depth analysis of Lethal Lottery / Battle Bowl concepts, Mike Graham talk, Spider-Man discussion (inspired by Arachnaman) ... - [2:16:46] End of show awards AND be sure to check out Matt Ds great companion piece at PTBN: http://placetobenation.com/the-column-beyondwrestling-shared-universes-and-the-obsolete-joy-of-the-lethal-lottery/

Wrestlemania 5 for me. It might have been my first VHS and I watched the thing over and over. Run DMC, Piper and Morton Downey, Martel's heel turn, the Garvin stomp on Frenchy Martin, DiBiase running in and stealing Damian, Heenan top of the world with Rude IC title win -- it's all etched into my memory forever and vividly. And even now, when I can appreciate the show pretty much stinks (especially uncut), I still love that one. I probably wouldn't have ever become a wrestling fan if it wasn't for that VHS.

DJ Parv feat. Larry Zybyszko - Nobody Cares About Dominic https://soundcloud.com/jerryvonkramer/nobody-cares-about-dominic "Nobody cares about what you and Dominic have to say Bruno"

I was looking over some of the later promos in the Bruno-Larry feud tonight for something else I'm doing, but it occurred to me that some of you who liked the earlier Bruno ones might appreciate seeing this stuff. Larry Z is absolutely phenomenal here. "For Pete's sakes wake up! This is ninteen-EIGHTY! This isn't 1960 anymore! This is not before the broken elbows, and the broken neck, and the broken back! This is not before all the scars and stitches! This is not before losing most of your hearing over the years to the cauliflower! This is nineteen-EIGHTY, Bruno, this is after the operation on the knees! This is after the wires and the bolts. This is after it all. You're not like me anymore, you're WASHED UP. How much more plain do I have to say it, you're washed up and you're through! Now face the facts that this is the winter of your career before you go out there and finish your death wish ..." What a fucking promo that is! But wait till you see Bruno's reply (his 2nd promo), he's on fucking fire. That's one pissed off Italian! Honestly, I LOVE these promos leading up to the Shea show. Think this stuff is awesome and deserves to be seen; let me know what you think.