JerryvonKramer

Is there any way we can pull out Kobahsi vs. Hart stuff for its own thread. I did think we were headed in some interesting places.

I think there's a bit of a semantic problem with the whole question though, because Cena IS great but he's great precisely because he has the laundary list. Ditto Backlund. Someone once wrote: "some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em"

If Tiger Mask's mask came off in 1990 and it was Bret Hart under it and he was treated the same as Misawa going forward, Bret would be the GWE! IF? We rank on what happened, not what might have happened. Kobashi is a great example of what I mean about supposed negatives over-indexing. He absolutely curb-stomps Bret in just about every way conceivable, and yet you low-balled him cos you want to make some point about head drops. Disagreed. I like Bret's ability to tell stories in the ring better. Bret's seller is different, but I enjoy his take more than Kobashi's. Like Bret's offense better. Love Bret's finishing sequences better. Kobashi had better fire and better excitement and more great matches, outside of that I will take Bret in every category. At this point I tell you that I think you are nuts and we move on.

That's probably the best assessment. Number of great matches being weighted so heavily bugged me a lot, especially if it was more important than how someone performs. Some people were just in positions to have a TON of great matches and to have those seen by a lot of people. Others did not. The folks who didn't get those chances aren't necessarily worse than those who did. Being in position means they still have to take advantage of that opportunity. And doing so may very well be why they're so often put in such a position. True. However looking at someone like Bret who constantly had to face pirates, dentists, clowns and everybody else and compare that to Kobashi who got to face Misawa, Kawada, Taue, etc.. There is no way Bret would ever be able to equal that many great matches in that situation. Does that mean Kobashi is automatically better? He may be better, but there is more to it than that. Bret had a ton of disadvantages with respect to his opposition. The house style is also not to be discounted. If you dropped Fujinami or Hashimoto Baba's world rather than Inoki's its possible we may view their careers very differently. I also have no idea how one would begin to argue Bret over Kobashi unless you're adamant that the end product really doesn't matter and are only evaluating the ingredients someone brings to the table. If the performances are consistently that excellent then at some point the output should reflect it. May, if, coulda, woulda, shoulda We don't use GWE to re-write history.

My candidates for this would be Bob Backlund and John Cena. I do not think either were great workers in terms of their input, but both have output that puts the vast majority of other US workers to shame. It's because they were company aces for a long time. I don't hold that against them and, to me, both of their cases are centred on the G and V, not the B.

If Tiger Mask's mask came off in 1990 and it was Bret Hart under it and he was treated the same as Misawa going forward, Bret would be the GWE! IF? We rank on what happened, not what might have happened. Kobashi is a great example of what I mean about supposed negatives over-indexing. He absolutely curb-stomps Bret in just about every way conceivable, and yet you low-balled him cos you want to make some point about head drops.

Kobashi was definitively better than Bret Hart. He had a better career, was a better young lion, a better tag worker, had a better title reign as ace, and he was a more dynamic worker both in terms of offense and selling. Anyone who doesn't admit that is either in denial or Canadian. I was physically sickened when Steven low-balled Kobashi at 25 or whatever it was and then had the temerity to rank Bret at #5. Disgusted I was.

He was my 101, one place above the Rock at 102. There was a moment on the WTBBP special where I think Chad thought he was going to come in at 100 but I rescued Ron Garvin and then aftrer the show remebered that Buddy Rose should have been there.

For the benefit of those who have not been following the project closely. I developed a 6-factor system that graded each guy in against six criteria. This system was called BIGLAV. You can find it here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/32545-jvks-six-factor-model-for-gwe-rankings-biglav/ Here is Rick Steiner's Score: Rick Steiner Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 1/3 0/3 (+1 for belly-to-belly suplex) = 5 Intangibles 3 Great matches 5 Length of Peak 1989-94 = 5 years = 3 +1 ability to work heel +1 ability to work singles +1 ability to work gimmick matches +3 ability to get over in multiple markets (AWA, WCW, WWF, NJPW, AJPW, TNA, indies) Ability to work different styles / roles = 6 Variety = 8 30 With that score he finished 99 on my list. I have also been absolutely consistent -- and far more consistent than some of those having a go -- about two things throughout this process: 1. I do not hold poor post-peaks against candidates. I believe strongly that negatives over-index in our thinking. It doesn't matter if Ken Patera wasn't very good in 1987, his case was made in 1977, 78, 79, 80 etc. 2. If you were a part of a lot of good or great matches, it is a net PLUS for you as a worker. Steven knows all this, he's just looking for revenge for the stick I've given him about John Tenta; a worker with not even a tenth of Rick Steiner's quality output.

Biglav had six factors and G was only one of them

No one would bat an eyelid at Magnum TA with a shorter peak. I give Rick 89 to 94. Varsity Club feud is underrated Doom feud is great New Japan crossover matches are legendary Sting and Luger match has been unfairly maligned Money Inc series is under the radar good Rick has more output than a lot of guys.

See his thread; it was explained. Legit love their greatest hits they have like 10 matches at 4.5ish

You voted for Rick Steiner? I think he was my 99 or something

I guess based more on the talk during the project

My first soldier has fallen

Yoko outranking Tenta and OMG: mild upset.

"GWE FOREVER! GWE FOREVER!"

I am genuinely heartened to see so far that the majority rule is proving to be such a firm corrective to "fun". Some of my faith in the community has been restored. Silent majority FTW. The final results list is a harsh and unloving mistress: she will brook no quirkiness.

I've so far only listened to part 1 and it's fantastic. I told Charles this privately, but I might as well say it again, for me, him and Childs is probably my dream pairing to do one of these shows and I'm so happy they managed to get this out. Everything I hoped it would be so far. That said, obligatory gifs. Upon hearing the reveals for #61: Charles: And then Charles on Childs's pick: I'll just remind you that you had Jericho on your list and not that 61 pick! I also felt that Gordy got a bit of short shrift here. I'm not the biggest Gordy fan so I'm an odd person to defend him, but his output is better than you gave credit for Vs. Khan in Texas Vs. Williams in Houston With Hansen Vs. Funks 83 (5-star in my view) With Hansen Vs. Tenryu / Kawada 88 (5-star in my view) The signature AJ stuff for Gordy is tagging with Hansen not Doc. And his Mid-South / Houston stuff definitely adds to his case.

Welcome. Ric would be there though wouldn't he!

Did you rank Rude?

What were his 70s highs? Laying an egg against Harley?I'll give him this: he could sell better than he's given credit for. And was demonstrably a better wrestler than Jesse Ventura. I didn't vote for Graham, but his WWWF stuff in 76-78 from MSG and Philly is mostly good, never bad, and often really memorable. Vs. Bruno, Dusty, Putski, Mascaras (two otherwise crappy wrestlers), Backlund, are almost as good as it gets in NYC during this time. I probably should've found a spot for Superstar Love the clash of the titans here. When Kelly says "mostly good" what he's really saying is "actually watchable and not shockingly awful like most of the other matches from WWWF in that time-frame". For anyone to rank based on a two-year run, they'd have to be on Rick Rude in 92 sort of level. Graham was not even within the same universe as that. The eight Graham voters should be FORCED to watch him bear hug people for 310 hours.

What were his 70s highs? Laying an egg against Harley? I'll give him this: he could sell better than he's given credit for. And was demonstrably a better wrestler than Jesse Ventura.

Graham was actually bad enough that I have to ask the eight voters if they actually ever saw a match of his. He also has lower lows than anyone who ever wrestled. Graham's low points basically drill through the middle of the earth burn right through hell and then terrorise kids in Australia. Honestly, his placement is making me think strange thoughts like "damn, Mr. Hughes was SCREWED".

Did they also vote for Big Daddy and Jesse Ventura?