Grimmas

253 - Mick McManus 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 308 # of Ballots: 9 Average Vote: 66.78 High Vote: 36 (Chris Powell) Low Vote: 94 "The Johnny Saint match. I guess I should probably write something more concise on him since I don't see him making many ballots but. Seriously. Watch that match. Please." GOTNW

254 - Dan Kroffat 2006 Ranking: 95 Points: 306 # of Ballots: 11 Average Vote: 73.18 High Vote: 53 (Dave Musgrave) Low Vote: 95 "Part of one of the best tag teams ever with Doug Furnas. His work in Canada in the mid-to-late 80's has some hidden gems." Dave Musgrave Recommended Match: Dan Kroffat and Armand Rougeau vs Chuck Simms and Sweet Daddy Siki (2/8/1987)

255 - Shingo Takagi 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 303 # of Ballots: 6 Average Vote: 50.5 High Vote: 14 (Alan Counihan) Low Vote: 77

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.

256 - Naomichi Marufuji 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 302 # of Ballots: 11 Average Vote: 73.55 High Vote: 45 (Lauren McKell) Low Vote: 99

257 - Eric Embry 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 300 # of Ballots: 15 Average Vote: 81 High Vote: 19 (JazeUSA) Low Vote: 100

Come on, you know he's going to be higher than the likes of Stan Lane and Kenny Omega. I didn't vote for him, but he has a history of big matches.

258 - Kevin Von Erich 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 298 # of Ballots: 7 Average Vote: 58.43 High Vote: 24 (NotJayTabb) Low Vote: 97

259 - Kenny Omega 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 298 # of Ballots: 8 Average Vote: 63.75 High Vote: 20 (Mando>Eddie) Low Vote: 97

260 - Stan Lane 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 298 # of Ballots: 21 Average Vote: 86.81 High Vote: 64 (Superstar Sleeze) Low Vote: 100

261 - Finn Balor 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 294 # of Ballots: 11 Average Vote: 74.27 High Vote: 21 (BackToBionic) Low Vote: 95

I think Goldberg is a better wrestler than Sydal. You're wrong but you are entitled to your wrong opinion. They are both borderline unwatchable. Goldberg had 1 good match against DDP, I can't think of a good Sydal match. Goldberg squashes could be fun. I wouldn't expect either guy to do well on the BIGLAV. Sydal was never a top guy and Goldberg wasn't much of a draw when he was on top... wow. Goldberg had more matches than that. Ogawa, Hogan, Raven and some WWE stuff. Probably missing some. However, that being said, he wasn't a draw? He was the hottest star in wrestling in 98, maybe second next to Austin. He was definitely on par.

262 - Tomoaki Honma 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 293 # of Ballots: 10 Average Vote: 71.70 High Vote: 24 (The Great Puma) Low Vote: 91

I think Goldberg is a better wrestler than Sydal.

263 - Matt Borne 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 293 # of Ballots: 17 Average Vote: 83.76 High Vote: 49 (Andrew Lacelle) Low Vote: 100

264 - Gorgeous George 2006 Ranking: honourable mention (139) Points: 282 # of Ballots: 6 Average Vote: 55 High Vote: 5 (Lee Casebolt) Low Vote: 95

265 - Goldberg 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 282 # of Ballots: 13 Average Vote: 79.31 High Vote: 33 Low Vote: 100

266 (tie) - Matt Sydal 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 279 # of Ballots: 9 Average Vote: 70 High Vote: 28 (anarchistxx) Low Vote: 97 266 (tie) - Satoshi Kojima 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 279 # of Ballots: 9 Average Vote: 70 High Vote: 45 (anarchistxx) Low Vote: 94

Would these matches have helped your Hansen ranking in GWE?

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. Have you ever seen the whole show of When Worlds Collide, like Elliot suggested?

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. Wow, that is everything I've tried to say. Thank you.

Bret has the handicap, not Kobashi.

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. How am I ignoring output at all? I have Kobashi at freaking 18. I think I factor in the handi-cap more than you. Bret has better skills. Kobashi has more greater matches. Kobashi also had more chances and better opponents to have those matches. Factor in the handicap of that and the fact Bret has better skills puts him above. However let's compare to people with the same opponents and opportunities. If one has way more great matches, they are probably better.Skills wouldn't factor in as much. I can't look at someone in the WWF in the 90s and someone in AJPW in the 90s and use output as the main factor. It's not fair for either of the two people.

If your life was on the line you'd take Joe Montana, who had less skills but higher output. If you gave me the same exact players around each qb I'd take Marino every time and live long and prosper I suppose, but we don't know that. Back to what Jerry von Kramer was saying, we know for a fact that Joe Montana could get the job done. We assume that Dan Marino can get the job done. We have to judge these guys on what they did, not on what we assumed they could do. Being great has as much to do with taking full advantage of your opportunities as it does with what skills you do or don't have. Kobashi was in a position to have great matches with great wrestlers, and he went out there and had a whole barrel full of great matches. That shouldn't be held against him because Bret Hart was wrestling a dentist. Who is the best actor of all time? I bet you he's in a shitload of great movies. I bet they are, but it's not automatically the person in the most amount. That's the point. You look at the movies and use that to judge the performances of the participants.

The majority yes. However there are lots of people convinced it's Orr, Lemieux , Howe or Eddie Shore. Also sports is a horrible analogy.