Matt D

Where was he in 85?

I'll watch it too. We should have a match of the week club here! Like a book club. Where we all watch an easily accessible match and discuss it!

Jericho being out there so long was impressive. I know you can rest at times in the Rumble but still. Maybe he needs superior lung power for Fozzy.

I can live with that concession. I'm not saying that post-peak is more important than peak, just that when comparing two wrestlers, it's a factor. Certainly, not the most important one. We're good. Let's shut up and watch the Rumble.

No. I'm not conceding that. If one wrestler does something better than another, as in one has a better post peak because of things that that wrestler does, then that is not just a positive one, but it factors in when comparing the two. It's not just "X does this well" It is "X did this better than Y." If you are comparing two wrestlers, you are comparing two wrestlers and I don't know why in the world you wouldn't factor that in. I have no idea how late Flair compares to late funk right now. I haven't seen enough of it. Or how Late Funk compares to Late Lawler. But it is a COMPARISON. You are comparing two wrestlers to figure out which of the two is the greatest of all time. If one does something better than the other then it matters and I don't see why in the world it wouldn't. They're not both fighting against the clock here or against some time in a race. We're aesthetically comparing two human beings and their bodies of work. There is a ton to learn from post-peak, just like there's a ton to learn from how a wrestler deals with certain limitations. If they can adapt. Saying "This wrestler had the best great matches at the peak of his career" is so limiting a way of saying "This is the greatest wrestler of all time." It's not even close to the same thing.

I just don't get this. Shouldn't a GOAT debate be MORE inclusive, not less?

Very briefly. We don't disqualify people because they don't have a post-peak. It's just one factor where we can't learn anything about them where we can learn in other places. It's not an end all. It's just another factor. When it comes to GOAT, the more factors we have to look at, the better, no? It's such a big argument? More data just helps so long as we look at it consistently. Of course, some people will weigh some things more than others. And to say you can't learn something about a wrestler when they are put into a limited situation is an argument I disagree with. You can learn something different. I truly believe that. Lawler took different bumps at 25 than he did at 55. What does he do instead? How does he compensate. Can he still create a compelling match? You can learn something there. And we're spending an inordinate amount of time talking about it? This board is about talking about everything. We've talked great matches through and through. This is another aspect that we haven't looked at as much. Why shouldn't we look into it? Now we're not even talking about the actual wrestlers. we're talking about talking about them, really.

We can talk about everything! That's the point. We're not figuring out who was a pretty good wrestler. We're working on THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. There are a lot of factors. One of them, to me, is how well they were able to handle a loss of their physical acumen. Why is that important to me? Not because it hurts Flair's case. I promise you that's not why it's important to me. Cross my heart, Loss. It's important because to me, it shows how well they grasp how to put together a match with the tools they have. And that is a sign of being a good wrestler. You can disagree. That's fine. Can you at least accept that I'm not coming from some duplicitous place?

I'm interested in comparing the totality of two or three wrestlers in the name of coming up with Greatest of All Time. I think this is a factor. I think we can learn a lot from it. If Flair comes out as a better candidate because of it, great. If Funk comes out as a better candidate because of it, great. If Lawler comes out as a better candidate because of it, great. I don't know. That's the point. I don't know and I think there's a lot to learn and I think it's an interesting aspect that we can learn a lot about when it comes to a wrestler's grasp of wrestling. Please take any mention I have of Flair above as "A Wrestler" if it helps. The specific I had was what you said about Flair being less likely to have a great match as he got older. Or some of Dylan's points. Or what I've seen when it comes to late era Lawler. I haven't seen late 90s Flair matches for too long. I just think my general point stands. It's important to me at least.

If anyone argued that Flair didn't get it, I would disagree with that. Flair has plenty of good matches and good performances in the 90s. The difference is that in the 90s, it wasn't nearly as close to a sure thing that a Flair match was going to deliver. Surely you're not arguing that Flair was terrible after his best years were over. I thought the argument was just that Funk was better, not that Flair was awful. Why wasn't it nearly as close to a sure thing? If it's because he wasn't savvy enough to change his act when he couldn't deliver anymore when other wrestlers were able to manage changing their act to do just that, then it becomes a negative point relative to those other wrestlers. Also it's not necessarily that the matches were terrible. But if we're talking the Greatest of All Time here?

The problem with this is that I think it misinterprets what wrestling is. If you're saying that someone should be able to compensate for diminished athleticism by working smarter, you're assuming that wrestling is mainly a mental activity. But it's mainly a physical one. With that said, I wouldn't discount matches after one's prime entirely, but I view them as roughly equivalent to bonus questions on a test. They can't count against you, only for you. But I wouldn't take them into account for head-to-head comparison purposes unless I thought their primes were close to equal. I disagree. It's an artform, not a sport. It's one that involves athleticism, but don't you think that there is an argument that psychology matters more than execution? That it's a valid opinion at least? It might not be yours, and that's fine. To me, though, if someone doesn't have a good enough grasp on it to compensate when they can't rely on physicality then that's a negative mark against someone who does, in a direct comparison of two wrestlers on the highest of levels.

I know this isn't what anyone is saying, but I still feel that it's partially true. When arguing on as high a level as GOAT, isn't this true? If you can't adapt to different limitations, isn't that some sign that you are not as good, in some ways, as a wrestler that can? It'd be one thing if no wrestler could manage that, but some people understood their craft well enough to manage it. And yes, that's a plus to them, but when we're directly comparing one wrestler that managed it and one wrestler that didn't, isn't that a minus for the other wrestler as well? They didn't GET wrestling as well as the first.

WWC is like the magic wrestling genie. So many random matches.

So, Bossman or Dibiase in WWF? More good matches? More great matches? Better worker? Who has what?

So we grade on a curve when comparing bodies of work after all?

If you pick apart the little things he does, I think Bossman might be better in his WWF matches too. I honestly believe this is a strong possibility after watching a lot of matches.

Just pretend Dylan is the Monstahhh Meng.

You shouldn't. I don't think Dibiase has ever had a WWF match that's been pimped in our circles as much as Bossman/Barbarian and I'm not even sure that's his best WWF match.

Are you on the windup Matt? I have no windup truck.

I'd argue that Bossman has better matches in WWF than Dibiase does. He probably has better matches with Hogan, there's the Barbarian PPV match. Twin Towers vs Demos series is better than all but maybe the top top end Money Inc vs Nasties or Natural Disasters matches (and i feel like we don't have most of the latter on tape). He has a few really good matches with Earthquake in 91-92.

To deal with the last point, I think a lot of people here go out of their way to avoid those pitfalls of just being fed up, and they try to overcome such things, especially in comparisons. If I say I think Wrestler X is better than Wrestler Y, then I don't want you to think that's just because I'm bored with Wrestler Y and Wrestler X is new to me, basically. Yes, that may be a human instinct, but I think people do a pretty good job of fighting that and backing up their opinions here. As for the rest, I think the traits that we like in the old wrestlers we like are also ones we gravitate towards in today's wrestlers, and a lot of the time we go out of our way to find those traits where we can. Dylan, for instance, just reviewed that House of Hardcore show and found a ton of stuff to like, and it'd fall along a lot of the same lines that he has in his like for Buddy Rose or whoever else. I think, maybe, you're generalizing too much.

If you had to choose between the two, I meant. Obviously, quite often the best situations involve both, but I think working smart without working hard is valued far more now than it used to be, and working hard without working smart is valued a lot less than ten years ago.

No. Just no. There are a lot of reasons for it, a bunch, and we've talked about it more and more, but there's been a trend of appreciating working smart over working hard over the last five years. That's not just dissatisfaction and it's not just "a type of veteran appreciation." It's part of why people liked Mark Henry or Chris Masters as well. It's not just old people. It's part of a completely different trend than you're talking about. And that trend has its pros and cons and its causes and reasons, but I really, truly don't think it's what you're saying. People consistently pull out specific examples. They pull out specific matches. They break things down. They back up what they say. It's not just some whimsy. It's not just some whim. People support their arguments. They make arguments in the first place. People are backing up what they're saying all over the place, both in dismantling some things and building up others. You can't dismiss it like that because it fits into some nice little box and thus is easy to ignore.

Too bad the story was very much likely bullshit and Corino recanted it completely. Do people assume any wrestling stories are true? Only ones about Andre pissing on people in the dark.

I'd say Ted is hurt more by the "Big Events Only" window than Windham is.