JerryvonKramer

After watching Memphis stuff, I think Koko's team with Bobby Eaton is one of the great lost 80s teams. Those guys were great together.

Is it just me or does the Goldberg final placement seem crazy high? I'd expect him to finish below Warrior in all honesty. Do people think he was good then?

It also feels "wrong" to say that Inoki was not one of the all-time greats given his almost god-like status in wrestling lore and history. He has the intangibles factor and a big chin, whereas Hunter has woeful 20-minute promos and a big nose.

In about 30 mins ...

I didn't vote for him myself, but I'm happy to see Ladd pop up so high, relatively speaking. Just the coolest muthafucka who ever lived. Awesome awesome guy.

And yet we both had Rick Martel in our top 20s!

Something that some might not be aware of on that list of matches. I watched ALL of them with Steven (aka Grimmas) on a show we do together called the All Japan Excite Series. He, himself, gave 4.75 or 5 stars to almost all of them too. Part of this whole argument is because I know how highly Steven rates those matches and those Kobashi performances, and yet he's still basically turning from them to put Bret over. It's trying to understand his thought process really, how he can be the same guy who I've talked All Japan with for literally 18+ hours. I cannot square it really. Read Stacey's post again. Yeah, I've read it. I still don't see how you can just dismiss such a huge swaithe of output like that. It seems whimsical. I mean clearly you haven't entirely, he's your #18. Anyway, you've explained your position. I've explained mine. I still think you are nuts putting Bret where you have -- not objectively "wrong" mind you, just "nuts" -- but I reckon it's time to move on.

Something that some might not be aware of on that list of matches. I watched ALL of them with Steven (aka Grimmas) on a show we do together called the All Japan Excite Series. He, himself, gave 4.75 or 5 stars to almost all of them too. Part of this whole argument is because I know how highly Steven rates those matches and those Kobashi performances, and yet he's still basically turning from them to put Bret over. It's trying to understand his thought process really, how he can be the same guy who I've talked All Japan with for literally 18+ hours. I cannot square it really.

Where is Dory? I'm actually surprised he's still not fallen.

It looks like an unfortunate typo, which are increasingly common since I transitioned mainly to typing from an iPad. I almost certain meant to type "sappy headed" Being a rap fan, "nappy heads" immediately makes me think of The Fugees' first album.

I used to think like that. These things blow over quickly enough. Grimmas and JvK do (did?) podcasts together, they'll be fine. We are in constant Facebook contact on an almost daily basis, and this is really nothing. Disagreeing and debating stuff is what happens here. Sometimes we go hard at it, but hopefully everyone comes out the other side having thought about whatever it is more. And you know, really, aside from a few placements Grimmas's list was pretty similar to mine. AJ Excite will be back at some point too.

I should say that I'm not saying Steven isn't entitled to his opinion or that he's objectively wrong. This is more about the underlying approach and the easy dismissal of "great match theory", or the assumption that it had been categorically debunked. It all started with Rick Steiner, somehow.

As I'm sure soup would delight in telling you, it's cos the AJ boys got screwed on the A rating, which was my stealth category to ensure that every single territorial heel of the 80s got a 8 or 9 point bump

I think that presentational style is part of it and adds to the confusion actually. The replays and so on in the middle of matches serve to compound the sense of "I literally don't have a fucking clue what's happening here". I do not get that feeling with any other pro wrestling, including shoot style, which I can follow easy enough but just don't like.

Utterly baffling to me that the fact Kobashi had a great career could actually be used against him as a "handicap". I just don't get that. "More chances to have great matches", why are people ranking Cena again? Lost me here. Totally.

Sudden and sometimes inexplicable pinfalls Dive trains Matches just ending when I didn't even realise there'd been a finish General sense of chaos Loads of guys in masks Seemingly random high flying spots / planchas I can't watch the trios matches really. One on one is easier to get a grip of but I often find it really hard just to follow the basic thread of a match. And often once I think I've found my footing, the damn thing just ends and I'm rewinding "uh what was the finish again?" But if what overbooked wrote is generally true of lucha, and it really is all about embracing the chaos and turning your critical brain off and just feeling it, it's never ever going to be my scene.

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case. And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park. The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18. He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it.

I don't think the analogy is looking at Picasso's brush strokes. I think the analogy is looking at how effective Picasso's brush strokes were in one of his lesser paintings. You're completely separating input and output as if they're distinct from each other but they're not. People looking at input are looking at the output to find the input. Wow, how did I not say this? We are all saying the same thing. One of these times Parv will understand it. I really dislike being cast as the one guy not getting this against a sea of enlightened folk because I think the truth looks something like the total inverse of that.

Grimmas, it's no point saying X is different from wrestling. I don't know of any field where the body of work is not absolutely central in assessing "greatness". Like none. It's like trying to judge Picasso on his brush strokes rather than on Guernica or whatever. The output is just the core, part and parcel of his rep. I don't really see how wrestling his different. Or why you want it to be.

Fuck nobody is discarding output. The matches show people what the skills are. On the pod, I bought up why people were great, then pointed to matches as examples or for people to see. You can't write an essay and not point to evidence to show your points. But you can make up imaginary evidence by imagining "what if"? That's the bit of this I don't get at all. Like so what if Bret had to work Diesel and Isaac Yankem, that was his career. I've said this before. Ted could have been NWA champ. He wasn't, it was Flair. Steve Keirn could have been WWF champ. He wasn't; it was Bob Backlund, and so on. There's no "what if" in a GWE case.

I simply don't understand this. So you say, this guy has X skills and then you imagine what he MIGHT do not what he actually did? This was not how you and Tim talked about guys on your show. You were constantly pointing to actual matches that actually happened. I see output as being basically impossible to discard. If Bowie had just had that voice and spent his career singing bubble gum tunes -- same skills as an artist but different output -- he wouldn't be thought of as a great. It's precisely because he has all his albums that he's considered as such. I don't see how you can argue that output isn't central.

This is the second time in this thread that someone has imagined what Bret would do if given a set of circumstances that never happened. Is GWE a measure of what happened or what we imagine might happen if we fantasy booked it? Sorry if I sound incredulous but what is the hypothetical scenario stuff about?

I'd co-sign all of that. Also, I found lists of matches that people put together really helpful when exploring guys. I can't really get beyond the body of work as an absolutely vital measure of any given worker.

At work, but I think this is an absolute truism supported by all the available evidence to the point where I view your outrage as deliberately feigned nonsense. If you are serious I'll respond to it more directly when I get home.* *post deliberately delivered in Parvian tone I am shocked by it because I see Michaels as a worker more towards Ric Flair. Primarily someone who bumped big and made his opponent look good, only with even more limited offense and nowhere near the levels of charisma. But his core skills are similar to Ric's. Kobashi is just ... Not that. The analogy is off.

Thanks for this post. I'll be honest, you did the opposite of sell me. You've turned me off for life. I play board games. The type I play are zero or minimal luck. Hardcore "euro games" as they are known. Strategy games. Resource management. That sort of thing. I sometimes joke that I hate "fun" games. I don't like chaos as a rule. I also don't like dancing either. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x305cha Virtually no aspect of what you described to me appeals on any level whatsoever. And I think I'm grateful that you've outlined it and made me see why.