MichaelZ

Maybe my earliest wresting memory was when Iron Mike Sharpe was facing Corporal Kirchner on All American Wrestling. Kirchner was kicking ass, and Iron Mike Sharpe took a powder and walked all the way back to the dressing room, I had never seen anything like it and was wondering what was going on. He eventually made it back to the ring to get beat, and I made sure to watch the following week. Iron Mike Sharpe always brings a smile to my face and if anyone wants to use one of the bottom spots on their list on him, you'll get no fight from me.

This was a fun watch along; I enjoyed every single match. The match against Kylie Rae was the highlight and a match to go out of your way to see, the work around the stipulation was really smart. The match against Divina Rose/Bayley was not the second best match but it is the type of match that strengthens a GWE case. They worked within a clear hierarchical dynamic, everything mattered and made sense, and it put across the characters of both women. They packed quite a few distinctive and memorable notes in a 7 or so minute match.

TTK: Want to add my voice to wishing you the best, take care.

Yeah I really appreciated the social aspect of the watch party, and these were really fun to watch with a group. The chat made watching wrestling an even better experience.

Her versatility stood out to me. Working on top, working underneath, selling and struggling, mounting a big comeback, matwork, brawling, or big bombs, she did it all at a very high level in everything we watched. She also had just amazing innovative offense and kept delivering surprises. Top notch wrestling and a great start to the watch parties.

Great post Kadaveri, and a really useful lens to use for assessing wrestlers. As far as how much each should be weighted, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Part of it comes down to thinking about what you value most. When I think about where I am today I think I value individualistic input the most and some of the people that popped in my head while reading that portion (Dick Murdoch for example) are people that I think I rate more highly than others rate them. My own instinct is after 4, it a toss up between 1 and 3 as to what come next, and 2 coming in last. But if someone wants to build case around someone's volume of matches, or any combination of factors that isn't weighted the same way, that is certainly valid and interesting, and speaks to why yours is a great evaluation tool.