Jimmy Redman

My short answer to that is that I believe the work he's doing in those "bog standard" matches is absolutely not bog standard at all. Throw in the obligatory "or else everyone would be doing it".

Yeah that is where we disagree. I mean it's fair that it has nothing to do with GWE for you, as I've been saying all along, but it absolutely has GWE relevance for other people. Matt, Dylan and I for starters.

OK, you asked for it! Part 3 (#59-45): http://placetobenation.com/parejas-increibles-greatest-wrestler-ever-special-part-3/

If Eadie is all that and ended up in your 105 or so, why is he a pictorial representation of something you appreciate but wouldn't consider for GWE? EDIT: I re-read and kind of got it. As to that, I just disagree because I find a lot of value in six minute Demos vs Towers matches. That's what I mean by individuality, it's not about pure personal enjoyment, but it's just that everyone has different criteria and different ideas as to what greatness is and how to measure it and which guys fit that standard or not. You and I come at Demolition from different places. Mine finds greatness in the work. Yours doesn't.

I don't know for sure, actually. I just assumed since it was an escape the cage match and he...escaped. Stop putting doubts in my head!!

And for the guys whom you place in those two separate categories, that's fair enough for you. But everyone has to make that judgment for themselves. You can appreciate Demolition's work but don't think it's great, from the pictures, so Eadie isn't in consideration as a great for you. I appreciate Demolition's work AND think it's great, so Eadie is in consideration as a great for me. Like I said, the key is simply in what we get out of the work as an individual.

No in fact I agree. Well I mean I don't think it has NOTHING to do with GWE. But I'll say again that it only goes so far in and of itself. That's what I mean, the difference between saying that Strongbow was good for the role he was in and leaving it at that, and saying that X was good for the role he was in and calling him a great worker and putting him on your GWE ballot...the difference is in how one personally enjoys the work. It is in finding something engaging or interesting or entertaining about the work on top of its effectiveness in keeping the crowd occupied. It's just a matter of practicality, to me. We're all individuals, all human and we're the ones who have to sit through the matches in order to judge them. A guy who does his job description AND manages to keep you engaged while you watch his matches in 2016 is probably going to do better than a guy who does his job description AND makes you want to shoot your own face off after sitting through him. Maybe that's not wholly objective or "fair", but I think it's the natural effect of us watching everything through our personal, present day eyes.

To me the thing about the Chief Jay argument is that at the end of the day, being effective in your role only gets you so far unless you're actually entertaining or engaging in your role as well. Otherwise it's not going to interest people. The people who use the argument you're talking about aren't saying "Man I sat through this God awful, batshit boring match that would. Not. End. BUT I guess they got a lot out of a headlock so they are great workers!" People are saying "Man I watched this match where they did a lot of cool things with a headlock, it was so simple but it was so great and the crowd ate it up, these guys are great workers." Nobody regrets sitting through the second match. If they did, they wouldn't rate it that highly. Kind of like how nobody rates Strongbow. If someone liked watching Jay's matches and found effective work in them, I'm sure they could and would rate him. I just haven't seen anyone get there yet. The short simple answer to this is that sometimes there is more to being a good worker than having lots of good matches. I like Dylan's point and see that as legitimate argument, although not the one that sways me the most personally. There are exceptions (like Owen Hart, for example, and it's the main reason why I put him on my list) but I'm not someone who usually cares too much about working effectively to your card placement and working to get the goals of the promoter over and all that. (But again I can see why other people do care about that and use it as a non-match quality way to rate a worker) But there are absolutely ways to show your worth as a wrestler without being able to point to a list of great, or even good matches. Maybe a guy can work interesting spots or moments into matches that aren't so good. Maybe he's the bright spot in otherwise crummy matches. Maybe a guy can work really interesting finishers that stick in your mind, even if the match that proceeded it wasn't great. Maybe a guy is an unbelievable spot monkey who can blow people's minds with the moves they can do. Maybe a guy can express a range of emotions in a match, or he's great at selling, or working a limb, or whatever else. Maybe it's whatever else he's doing as a performer that tells you that he's a good worker, even if you can't point to specific matches that can be rated "good" or "great". There are many reasons why a match might not be great and a lot of them have nothing to do with the work going on in the ring. Fuck man I'm not explaining myself well at all. The one guy I can point to for sure as evidence for me is Santino Marella. That guy was so great as a comedy worker, just totally getting it. He understood his role perfectly and knew how to be entertaining. He came up with cool ass spots to do in his matches that worked and got over and popped the crowd. That Cobra was a brilliant goofy comedy finisher. He had great crowd control and kept his segments, promos and matches entertaining. I could watch him work all day, and if it was a Top 150 I'd have nominated him for sure. I can also list his really good matches on one hand. To me he has proven his value to me as a worker, from all of the great comedy work he does, all of the ways in which he keeps my interest in his segments and matches, and his talent at things like timing, crowd control, selling and emoting, etc. He was wildly and consistently entertaining. He just doesn't have a lot of individual matches that I could point to as being particularly good. And I couldn't give a shit. I can see finding things to enjoy about a worker who has their moments of isolated fun for sure. I just don't see any wrestlers like that coming up on a GWE list. Did you consider Santino? That's all I'm saying. I did, and like I said above if I had 150 spots to play with I'd have definitely nominated him, and probably voted for him down the end of my ballot. He's an extreme example because he has such a dearth of good matches, but he works to make my point. There are ways to judge a wrestler positively that have little or nothing to do with a list of good matches.

The short simple answer to this is that sometimes there is more to being a good worker than having lots of good matches. I like Dylan's point and see that as legitimate argument, although not the one that sways me the most personally. There are exceptions (like Owen Hart, for example, and it's the main reason why I put him on my list) but I'm not someone who usually cares too much about working effectively to your card placement and working to get the goals of the promoter over and all that. (But again I can see why other people do care about that and use it as a non-match quality way to rate a worker) But there are absolutely ways to show your worth as a wrestler without being able to point to a list of great, or even good matches. Maybe a guy can work interesting spots or moments into matches that aren't so good. Maybe he's the bright spot in otherwise crummy matches. Maybe a guy can work really interesting finishers that stick in your mind, even if the match that proceeded it wasn't great. Maybe a guy is an unbelievable spot monkey who can blow people's minds with the moves they can do. Maybe a guy can express a range of emotions in a match, or he's great at selling, or working a limb, or whatever else. Maybe it's whatever else he's doing as a performer that tells you that he's a good worker, even if you can't point to specific matches that can be rated "good" or "great". There are many reasons why a match might not be great and a lot of them have nothing to do with the work going on in the ring. Fuck man I'm not explaining myself well at all. The one guy I can point to for sure as evidence for me is Santino Marella. That guy was so great as a comedy worker, just totally getting it. He understood his role perfectly and knew how to be entertaining. He came up with cool ass spots to do in his matches that worked and got over and popped the crowd. That Cobra was a brilliant goofy comedy finisher. He had great crowd control and kept his segments, promos and matches entertaining. I could watch him work all day, and if it was a Top 150 I'd have nominated him for sure. I can also list his really good matches on one hand. To me he has proven his value to me as a worker, from all of the great comedy work he does, all of the ways in which he keeps my interest in his segments and matches, and his talent at things like timing, crowd control, selling and emoting, etc. He was wildly and consistently entertaining. He just doesn't have a lot of individual matches that I could point to as being particularly good. And I couldn't give a shit.

Yeah that. RVD is a guy who is loose and dangerous, and he gets loads of shit for it, not praise. So I don't buy that Michaels line.

Sasha is my first guy in quite a while, in over 100 places at least I think. I think depending on where the women's division ends up going in the next few years, it will either look really insightful, or like a total fad placing.

Great to hear a positive update man.

Twenty two. Holy fucking shit.

Hopefully the Batista high voter is still on the table:

Man, I will defend the finish of this match forever. I fucking love it. After however many months of a blood feud with Stan Hansen, the finish to the blow off cage match is Colon walking out to join the big brawl and winning accidentally. I don't care if it doesn't fit the feud, it's the funniest, goofiest ass fucking pro wrestling thing ever. A five gazillion star finish. Also, phenomenal match.

I feel like between her NXT stuff, and me finding the time to delve into her joshi work, if we did this poll like 12 months from now I would be crazy high on Asuka. Not necessarily #7 though.

http://placetobenation.com/parejas-increibles-greatest-wrestler-ever-special-part-2/ In the second episode of the Parejas Increibles Podcast, Matt and Stacey (Jimmy Redman) sprint through 84-71 of their Greatest Wrestlers Ever lists and dive deep into 70-60. EDIT: Double trouble! Part 3: http://placetobenation.com/parejas-increibles-greatest-wrestler-ever-special-part-3/ Join Stacey and Matt on for the third episode of the Parejas Increibles podcast, as they fight extreme time zone differences and general life responsibilities to work through numbers 59-45 of their Greatest Wrestler Ever list.

...starting to? Mate we've been at it for 18 months and been in way worse arguments than this.

Lucha is curious in that it is both a chaotic blur and also highly structured at the same time. Most matches tend to follow the same 2/3 falls, rudo beatdown-big tecnico comeback-nearfall stretch structure, to the point where people complain that it's too formulaic. You have falls that are choreographed in the extreme with two or three guys all being beaten within seconds of each other. And yet at the same time, there is such a feeling of chaos to it, something wild and...fluid. A lucha match progresses like waves, crashing upon one another when the rudos are beating guys down over and over and over, and then the tide turns and the tecnicos start flying around with beautiful dives and the waves are still violent but they're also a little smoother, a little more peaceful. There's something ethereal about it, something musical, that's so hard to pin down and analyse in the way we traditionally do. The structure and the falls and the patterns are all there as the framework, and then all of the moves and dives and punches and swings and stretches and moments not only fill in the framework but blow right past it as well. Like taking a piece of lined paper, all neat and ruled out, and then throwing cans of paint at it.

I am just past the Cena rant, and I kind of love you and hate you in equal measure right now Sleaze. I agree with every word you said obviously and I absolutely love that you have him that high. But fuck man. You have set the bar too high. I will try but there's no way my case for Cena will be anywhere near as good as that. Popped for #8 as well. This has been another super enjoyable show, it got me through the special brand of self-torture I call "running" this afternoon. I ended up scaring a bunch of unsuspecting kids by suddenly exclaiming "He does look like Johnny Unitas!" really loudly. Most importantly, I'd like to thank you for the super nice promo putting Matt and I over at the start of the show. Much appreciated, but it's even a little embarrassing to me because your show - just like all the others so far - has been so fucking great, and I honestly feel like a pale imitation of actual legit podcasters like yourselves.

You'd have to ask everyone for their own individual criteria, basically. It was left open ended for a reason - everyone could decide what "greatest" meant to them. I think the only remotely official criteria was that it was based on footage, and not hearsay or reputation (eliminating anyone too early or obscure for us to have footage of).

It's so great that you're going through this feud. It should be mandatory for everyone.

For what it's worth, I do want to say that the point that was made repeatedly in the beginning of this thread that "I'm not sure why a laundry list of great matches isn't an actively good thing and shouldn't be a credit to someone's case" is a good one and bears repeating. For whoever it was who asked why you'd put a guy you hate on your list just because he has a list of great matches, my answer is that I put him on because he has a list of great matches. A list of great matches is a good thing to have. A really good thing. Something a lot of wrestlers in history don't have. And obviously there's more to it, but I don't think I've seen any wrestler yet who achieved a list of great matches through osmosis. Not even Triple Fucking H. Hunter contributes to his great matches. He usually contributes less than his opponent, but he's still there and playing his part. I find it really hard to give complete and total credit for a truly great match to one guy at the total expense of the other. It would have to be the most egregious of carryjobs of the most egregious of stiffs. Hunter gets credit from me for the Undertaker Mania matches. He gets credit for the Shelton match. He gets credit for the Orton LMS. He even gets credit for the Shawn matches - the good ones. Those are his best matches to me and I think he absolutely adds to all of them and works to make them great. I think it's the tier below that where you get into him not adding as much. He has a lot of those **** WWE main events where he was basically The Other Guy and his opponent (Foley, Benoit, Rock, Cena, etc.) is the driving force. And that's the kind of thing that limits how high he can go on my list, because I start looking at input and finding it lacking. BUT, that doesn't change the fact of the output. He was in a lot of great matches. That's my justification for that, anyway. I look at both input and output, and for GWE my criteria was to look at the positives and the best case put forward. Hunter's best case to me was his list of great matches, and his list of super dooper great matches. That's what got him on my list, and I think that's as valid a case as a guy who is on my list for a million little things he inputs into matches of varying quality.

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. It's not about willfully overlooking things as much as just reaching a different conclusion. Steven rates output but he rates input more, as he's admitted. So even if he agrees with you vis a vis the relative outputs of Kobashi and Bret (and I don't think he does since he'd probably give Bret a bit more credit there), it's the input that makes the difference for him, since he ranks Bret's input a fair bit higher than Kobashi's. And he's not wrong for that. You've sort of decided that Kobashi is levels above Bret and anyone who disagrees is wrong but nobody is fucking wrong here. That's where people take issue, where you've decided the objective answer and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "willfully overlooking evidence". Steven has evidence. He has it in all of the little things Bret does. All of the touches he adds to his matches, all of the neat finishes he comes up with that play off stuff, all of the ways in which Bret portrays realism and serious wrestling in a WWF ring, all of the good things he was able to do with the scrubs he was working with, with all the crispness and effectiveness of his offense and moves, all of the ways in which he works EXACTLY like Steven wants a wrestler to work. AND he has it in all of the great matches Bret has. THAT is Steven's evidence. Kobashi doesn't do those things for Steven, or at least he doesn't do them nearly as much. What Bret inputs into his work is better than what Kobashi inputs into his. Steven values input highly. Therefore he put Bret higher on his list. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Someone like Taue has more great matches than a guy like Ted, but you put Ted higher (if I'm remembering right). Why? Because of all the shit that Ted does better than Taue. Steven has justified his case for Bret over and over. Just because you disagree doesn't make him wrong.

Also Parv, I'm not really out for one side or the other in this argument, but it's worth noting that you're the guy who had the BIGLAV system. In this system, only two of those factors deal with output. G and V. Basic skills are input. Intangibles are input. Ability to play different roles is input. Longevity is kind of both I guess. More of your factors deal with input than output, if you think about it. And a guy can do really poorly on G and V and still do very well in your system if he ranks highly in B, I and A, i.e. someone who is very much an input over output wrestler.