ELO Wrestler rating system

[tlk23]

Is there any interest in doing an ELO rating for wrestlers? Something similar to this MMA site. http://www.mma-elo.com/me_events.php?id=12482 http://www.mma-elo.com/ http://www.mma-elo.com/ranks.php

 

Basically, each wrestler starts at 1500 and their score goes up and down based on whether they lost or win. It is explained here. http://www.mma-elo.com/about_system.php

 

To make this a very simple case lets assume this is the first fight for both fighter A and fighter B. Due to it being their first fight, both fighters start off with a 1500 rating.

 

If fighter A wins they will gain 16 points and fighter B, with the loss, will lose 16 points. This means fighter A's rating would increase to 1516 and fighter B's would drop to 1484. This is based on a co-effecient of 32. It can be 100 or whatevery number we come up with. With a co-effecient of 100, in the example, with would be winner 1550 and the loser 1450.

 

Thoughts?

[smkelly]

I am huge on lists and statistics and rankings and all things wrestling but I have no interest in doing something like that nowadays.

 

I really don't care to know that John Cena is the "best wrestler because of his win/loss ratio".

[JerryvonKramer]

I think Warrior's win-loss ratio is pretty good.

[tlk23]

I would do all the work. Just seeing if there is enough interest in me doing in and how I would go about it.

[smkelly]

It would be an invaluable asset for historical purposes, absolutely. If you're willing to do it, might as well. My fiancee only allows me to do so many projects at once.

 

I don't know the scope of the size you're wanting to do, but I would personally organize whatever promotions you're going to do by their promotion and not the date. I would also categorize things in a certain way, like title defenses would be appropriately marked a la the Stuart New Japan results site. Also, if capable, record the match-times as well.

 

There are a couple of sites around - historyofthewwe - Stuart's, Green Destiny, Puro Love, etc - those demonstrate the micromanagement required to undertake such an endeavor. I'd personally ask them for tips and pointers. It's the kind of project that will take up a considerable amount of time and should be done right to satisfy that time killing project.

 

Not too sure about the math though. I'd just be curious about actual 10-8 kind of stuff. Maybe some of the mathematicians on this board can help with that.

 

Sorry that I was dickish with my first response.

[tlk23]

I have found a site that does the calculations for you, so that is big for me.

 

Let's say I start with WWE or WCW. Should I only do TV and PPV? I would probably do a year-by-year thing where everyone starts at 1500 on Jan. 1st. Or if it is WWE, maybe it would be better to start at 1500 the first show after Wrestlemania.

 

WIN: 1

LOSS: 0

DRAW: 0.5

 

Would I give more or less of a loss if it is a title match?

[smkelly]

Back in the day title opportunity losses meant more than they do now when Cena will defend against his PPV opponent on the house show circuit. One of the older fans of wrestling could probably pinpoint when title losses in the WWF stopped "meaning as much".

 

I would personally include house show wins/losses/draws.

 

I would also start at zero. I would also have the score spill over into the next year of matches as well. You can pinpoint that, say in 1997, Bret Hart started as a 2000, but ended up as a 2149 or 1876. A +149 or -124 for 1997.

[tlk23]

Multi man matches, tag matches and battle royals would be tricky. And for the formula, your ELO can't go under 1150. 1500 could be our zero.

 

To start at 1500 would be the wrestlers first match in the promotion and then go from there. This could be helpful for that. http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/1980-2009stats.html

 

I think that title matches should be more, maybe a 2 instead of a 1, but the MMA site in the first post doesn't give added points to title matches.

[goodhelmet]

You really need to contact mookieghana at DVDVR. He is the king of stats.

[NintendoLogic]

You should look at house shows, but you'd have to weigh them properly. Here are the W-L records of everyone in the WWE through the end of June:

 

http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wwe...cle_51217.shtml

 

As you can see, John Cena is barely over .500 on TV and PPV. But that's outweighed by the fact that he almost never jobs at house shows. If you only looked at TV/PPV, you'd be left with the impression that Cena was on roughly the same level as Kofi Kingston or Santino Marella, which is ludicrous.

 

On the other hand, the top heels on both brands (other than Christian and Mark Henry, who started the year as faces), all have horrible records on the house show circuit. If you just looked at everything equally, you'd have results that don't accurately reflect their true positions on the card.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm fairly SURE someone did full win-loss-draw stats for every major WWF worker of the 80s and 90s. Can't think for the life of me where it was, but maybe History of the WWE, or Solie.

[GSR]

I'm fairly SURE someone did full win-loss-draw stats for every major WWF worker of the 80s and 90s. Can't think for the life of me where it was, but maybe History of the WWE, or Solie.

I think that was mookieghana (I know I have seen them in the past somewhere also), but goodhelmet or someone else would be able to confirm.

[tlk23]

Sent an email to Graham Gawthon of thehistoryofwwe.com and this is what he said.

 

"I'm open to it if that's a project you'd like to take on. I'd say TV and PPV wins are a better representation of who's getting pushed and who isn't. House shows like to mix that up a lot more."

 

TV and PPV would be much more managable, but I would also like to to house show and have a full year to go by. What makes it hard is that it isn't like the NFL or NBA in that there is no new season where everything is reset. I could start in 1963 WWWF, but all of those results are not out there. Where would be a good starting point to start everyone at 1500?

[jdw]

You basically need to do it like ELO in football/soccer. There is no reset there.

 

They also tinker with stuff like Full Squad Tournaments vs friendles being of different value. Even tournies are tough:

 

2011 Copa America: Mexico B/Olympic Team

2011 Gold Cup: Mexico A Team

 

2009 Confederations Cup: USA A Team

2009 Gold Cup: USA B Team

 

Then there are issues like the not-really-A Team of countries not going to Copa America in some years for various issues.

 

Wrestling runs into various things like that. House shows aren't TV... though MSG is more important than a TV Squash in 1986. Hell, there is the whole squash thing back in the day. SNME and The Main Event were the equiv of a PPV in 1985-88 at least... possibly into 1990.

 

But then there's the issue of beating 5 mid-carders

 

Similar to beating Brasil >>>>> beating Mexico 5 times.

 

Wrestling also has DQ, COR and other forms of losses that aren't really losses... certainly not Full Losses.

 

Then there are those pesky Non Title Matches.

 

Hell... Flair's ELO would be a hoot in Crocketville.

 

It's really complicated because of the screwy booking and how people move around the cards.

 

John

[tlk23]

You bring up all the points as to why this would be so difficult to start. If I were to do it, it would be TV and PPV only. But with so many TV shows, that would be tricky as well. And with beating 5 mid-carders

[Al]

I thought about compiling win/loss records before. It is tricky for all the above reasons. And once you start editorializing over what wins matter more than others, the whole thing kinda collapses under its own weight. I think it only works restricted to one promotion with consistent boundaries.

 

Check out baseball-reference.com's ELO Rater:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/elo.cgi

 

This is the type of thing I would recommend. Rather than looking at actual win/loss records, let readers, fans and whoever take two wrestlers and pick which one is their favorite. I would love a wrestling version of that. Bill Dundee or Bobby Eaton? Haystacks Calhoun or Big Daddy? Road Warrior Hawk or Road Warrior Animal? Your rankings wouldn't be perfect and Kurt Angle would be wildly overrated. But it would be a great way to have fun and spark some interest.

[tlk23]

That is exactly what I wanted to do. basketballreference.com has the same thing. I have no idea how to set something like that up. Would any know how it would work?

[Coffey]

They have a system like this in chess. I think it's 8, not 16 and I think it starts at 1600, not 1500, but I don't really remember. Magic: The Gathering uses a similar system for their tournaments too. It's how they decide who gets invites into big tournaments, or gets byes in said tournaments, things of that nature.

 

There's different "K" levels for different events too. The bigger the event, the more points the games are worth. If it's a local thing, it's 8k, so if you lose, the most you can lose in one game is 8 points, and that's if the person is rated a lot lower than you. If it's a bigger event, the K level can go up all the way to 32 (in multiples of 8). In those lower level events, the people that you're "supposed" to beat (aka, you're rated a lot higher than) you don't even get the full 8 points. You get, I think, 4. So that would help in the jobber squashes and things of that nature. Plus it would help if someone beat a Hulk Hogan because it would be worth more, especially if on a PPV (higher K level).

[tlk23]

Does anyone know of a website what you can plug names in and it randomize the matchups like seen in the link above?

[tlk23]

I am going to try and test something here with the current WWE roster. Anyone you think should or shouldn't be on the list? And anyone that wants to participate, let me know.

 

Alberto Del Rio

Alex Riley

Big Show

Brodus Clay

Chris Masters

Christian

CM Punk

Cody Rhodes

Curt Hawkins

Daniel Bryan

David Hart Smith

David Otunga

Dolph Ziggler

Drew McIntyre

Evan Bourne

Ezekiel Jackson

Heath Slater

Jack Swagger

Jey Uso

Jimmy Uso

Jinder Mahal

John Cena

John Morrison

Kane

JTG

Justin Gabriel

Kofi Kingston

Mark Henry

Mason Ryan

Michael McGillicutty

Primo

R-Truth

Randy Orton

Rey Mysterio

Santino Marella

Sheamus

Sin Cara

Ted Dibiase

Great Khali

Miz

Trent Barreta

Tyler Reks

Tyson Kidd

Vlakimir Kozlov

Wade Barrett

William Regal

Yoshi Tatsu

Zack Ryder

[tlk23]

ELO Ratings - WWF 1984 to 1989

 

https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharringt...f_1984_1989_elo

 

Is ProWrestlingOnly HTML or JavaScript?

[mookeighana]

Hey. I'm the guy who did tried to do ELO stuff with WWF results.

 

from a few weeks ago:

I finally figured out how to get my Excel spreadsheet handle 83,000 lines of match data and calculate ELO ratings without completely locking up. I started everyone at 1600 on Jan 2001 and all draws/no contests resulted in zero point changes. There is a variable k-factor where PPVs are worth a lot more than A-show shows which are worth a lot more than B-shows which are worth a lot more than house shows and dark matches. The "n/a chg" means that the person didn't wrestle in the previous month.

 

Changes I want to implement to the regiment:

- Right now there is no decline for inactivity. Brock Lesnar returns after years of being gone - should he go down? What about The Undertaker taking long hiatuses between big matches?

- Additionally, title matches have no added weight and rumbles are not included. Shouldn't a title win be worth a lot? If you lose a title match, should that also be a large wager?

- Wins via DQ are treated the same as clean wins. Losing via DQ is often a cheap out which is almost a "win" for the loser.

 

http://mookieghana.livejournal.com/319225.html

 

Examples:

 

Monthly lists for 2002 to 2012 are there.

 

Mar-02

1. Rob Van Dam: 16 matches (1791, -6 chg)

2. Billy Gunn: 12 matches (1777, +20 chg)

3. Chris Jericho: 10 matches (1766, +3 chg)

4. the Undertaker: 7 matches (1765, -25 chg)

5. The Rock: 10 matches (1758, +15 chg)

6. Kane: 10 matches (1739, +16 chg)

7. Chuck Palumbo: 10 matches (1737, +25 chg)

8. Steve Austin: 7 matches (1730, +13 chg)

9. JBL: 12 matches (1707, +11 chg)

10. Matt Bloom: 12 matches (1694, +12 chg)

 

Apr-06

1. John Cena: 16 matches (2029, +21 chg)

2. the Undertaker: 3 matches (1937, +7 chg)

3. Kane: 15 matches (1865, +7 chg)

4. Chris Benoit: 14 matches (1848, -36 chg)

5. the Big Show: 13 matches (1841, -14 chg)

6. Rey Mysterio Jr: 13 matches (1815, +24 chg)

7. Shawn Michaels: 9 matches (1806, -6 chg)

8. Bobby Lashley: 13 matches (1786, +3 chg)

9. Kurt Angle: 13 matches (1785, -9 chg)

10. Rob Van Dam: 15 matches (1781, -30 chg)

 

Aug-08

1. the Undertaker: 4 matches (2063, +n/a chg)

2. Triple H: 12 matches (2006, +24 chg)

3. Batista: 14 matches (1987, -10 chg)

4. John Cena: 14 matches (1972, -5 chg)

5. Edge: 5 matches (1838, -16 chg)

6. CM Punk: 16 matches (1831, +39 chg)

7. the Big Show: 9 matches (1831, +21 chg)

8. Kane: 15 matches (1811, -15 chg)

9. Cody Rhodes: 16 matches (1809, 0 chg)

10. Matt Hardy: 14 matches (1786, -28 chg)

 

Jun-12

1. John Cena: 15 matches (2033, -1 chg)

2. Sheamus: 13 matches (1958, +27 chg)

3. the Big Show: 13 matches (1894, -5 chg)

4. CM Punk: 13 matches (1867, +6 chg)

5. Beth Phoenix: 9 matches (1790, -20 chg)

6. Brodus Clay: 10 matches (1780, +20 chg)

7. Sin Cara: 7 matches (1760, +22 chg)

8. Kane: 13 matches (1759, -17 chg)

9. Bryan Danielson: 13 matches (1756, -19 chg)

10. The Great Khali: 5 matches (1753, -6 chg)

[jdw]

I started everyone at 1600 on Jan 2001 and all draws/no contests resulted in zero point changes.

I'm trying to think of how draws are handled in futbol. It's possible that a draw against Brasil means more than beating East Timor. In other words, a draw against Cena may mean more than a win over the lowest ranked person of the WWE roster.

 

There is a variable k-factor where PPVs are worth a lot more than A-show shows which are worth a lot more than B-shows which are worth a lot more than house shows and dark matches.

This sounds about right.

 

Going back historically, say to the 80s, there would be differences there:

 

* PPV/Closed Circiut

 

Obviously the biggest of the big. One might, though, give special credit to different PPV:

 

1. Mania

2. Summer Slam

3. Survivor Series

4. Misc

 

Mania is worth more than Slam which is worth more than Survivor, while the rare other ones are of marginal worth.

 

 

* SNME

 

Obviously a biggy.

 

* Successful Major Stadium Shows

 

There are very few of these. But something like The Big Event and the Wrestlefest 1988 are rather huge. I wouldn't give the shows they ran at the Silverdome or the Super Dome that didn't draw huge a bonus. They essentially were house shows. But The Big Event... that was major.

 

* Major Arenas - Taped (MSG/Philly/Boston/LA)

* Other "Prime Time Level" Taped Matches

 

PrimeTime was the national show that aired a lot of arena matches. The majority of the non-syndication stuff came from the major arena tapings. Some of it came from dark matches at syndication tapings, like a Tito-Reed if I recall. I would weight them similar.

 

Perhaps a pre-1984 bonus to MSG as it was the primary building of the WWF.

 

After 1984, I would level them all out. The reason for it is that the WWF didn't run every major feud at MSG anymore. We've talked about that when looking at the Hogan-Orndorff feud in 1986. It *did* run in the New York City market, but just not at MSG other than a tag match. In turn, it did run at Philly. I don't think Hogan-Savage in MSG warrants more points than Hogan-Orndorff in Philly just because the Savage feud got to run in MSG while Hogan-Paul was used to pack Nassau rather than MSG.

 

* Colosseum Home Video

 

Things like Hogan-Schultz that were taped and released on CHV are worth of a bonus over a standard house show. There are a number of matches that don't fit into the areas above that ended up on CHV, usually extra matches taped at TV tapings.

 

* TV tapings

 

Would toss out all non-jobber matches, unless you're already figuring those out. There probably should be some cut off where, say, a Jim Powers / SD Jones does/does not count, while everyone clear below that level doesn't going for ELO and everyone above does. That cut off line would probably be usefully determined by who is regularly working house shows. If Barry Horowitz work 100 house show matches in a year (or reaching an X matches level per Y months over a Z period) , that he's a JTTS who is worth counting. If he works as little as the Mulkeys, then he's just a TV jobber.

 

But Steamboat vs Savage from a TV taping... that should count.

 

* Other Non-Taped House Shows / Completely Dark Matches from Taping never seen

 

And that's the bottom.

 

Changes I want to implement to the regiment:

- Right now there is no decline for inactivity. Brock Lesnar returns after years of being gone - should he go down? What about The Undertaker taking long hiatuses between big matches?

It probably is worth while to have a "bleeding" factor for inactivity. Also should have a minimum level of needing work work to get ranked. Rock has been out for years. He came back and pinned Cena. He hasn't worked since. Can't really rank someone based on that.

 

A returning Brock needs to work X amount before getting ranked. He was out so long that he restarts with 0.

 

What is a reasonable period of inactivity where you get to 0? I would think *at most* 2 years. It's arguable that it should be less time.

 

How quickly should ranking be bled due to inactivity? I would think that most of it would bleed away within a year of being inactive, which means a hell of a lot would bleed off in six months.

 

 

- Additionally, title matches have no added weight and rumbles are not included. Shouldn't a title win be worth a lot? If you lose a title match, should that also be a large wager?

Title matches should be worth more, and dependent on the title. The World Cup is worth more than a Friendly. The World Cup is worth more than the Euro Championship, which in turn is worth more than the Asia Cup.

 

That said... I would probably give a PPV Main Event Bonus. Rock-Cena > WWE/World Titles at Mania.

 

If the WWE Title is the Main Event, it gets just the PPV Main Event Bonus, not both added together.

 

This does make a judgement call on what the Main Event (or Main Events) are. It's not the last match on the card, but the big draw/push. At times there may be a double main event where both warrant credit. But 2002 with Rock-Hogan while HHH-Jericho went on last... we all knew Rock-Hogan was the real main event. It should get the bonus while the HHH-Jericho gets the WWF Title bonus.

 

 

- Wins via DQ are treated the same as clean wins. Losing via DQ is often a cheap out which is almost a "win" for the loser.

Pin/Submission >>> DQ/COR > Draw/DDQ/DCOR > Loss by DQ/COR >>> Loss by Pin/Submission

 

Again, look back at the 80s. Hogan would lose by DQ and COR. In 1984-89, he lost by pin or submission just once in the WWF. DQ/COR & Draw/DDQ/DCOR & Loss by DQ/COR were all very close to the same thing in terms of screwiness. Loss by Pin/Submission & Pin/Submission were where the real nuts and bolts of how people ranked were determined.

 

This sadly skews things to a lot of Faces since the WWF didn't have some of them do a lot of jobs, while heels without belts might job all over the place.

 

 

Mar-02

1. Rob Van Dam: 16 matches (1791, -6 chg)

2. Billy Gunn: 12 matches (1777, +20 chg)

3. Chris Jericho: 10 matches (1766, +3 chg)

4. the Undertaker: 7 matches (1765, -25 chg)

5. The Rock: 10 matches (1758, +15 chg)

6. Kane: 10 matches (1739, +16 chg)

7. Chuck Palumbo: 10 matches (1737, +25 chg)

8. Steve Austin: 7 matches (1730, +13 chg)

9. JBL: 12 matches (1707, +11 chg)

10. Matt Bloom: 12 matches (1694, +12 chg)

Yeah, I would say that there's a clear problem in the system given those rankings. Possibly because it's just started rather than going back to 1996 or earlier. But any time you have a system where RVD and Billy Gunn are 1-2, there's a problem. In soccer that would be like Colombia and Sweeden being 1-2 in an ELO Soccer ranking right now.

[mookeighana]

I started everyone at 1600 on Jan 2001 and all draws/no contests resulted in zero point changes.

I'm trying to think of how draws are handled in futbol. It's possible that a draw against Brasil means more than beating East Timor. In other words, a draw against Cena may mean more than a win over the lowest ranked person of the WWE roster.

The original reason that I did this was because I didn't distinguish between draws and no contests. When I revise the sheet, I'll do this.

A draw should certainly be worth something. When Sting goes toe-to-toe with Ric Flair to a time limit draw, that means something. A double DQ or a double Countout is a lot more vague.

 

There is a variable k-factor where PPVs are worth a lot more than A-show shows which are worth a lot more than B-shows which are worth a lot more than house shows and dark matches.

This sounds about right.

 

Going back historically, say to the 80s, there would be differences there:

 

* PPV/Closed Circiut

 

Obviously the biggest of the big. One might, though, give special credit to different PPV:

 

1. Mania

2. Summer Slam

3. Survivor Series

4. Misc

 

Mania is worth more than Slam which is worth more than Survivor, while the rare other ones are of marginal worth.

I did credit Mania much higher than other events.

 

Here were the values I used:

DARK 8

ECW 12

event 8

HEAT 12

JAKKED 12

NXT 12

other fed 0

PPV 32

RAW 16

SMACKDOWN 16

SNME 16

SUPERSTARS 12

TRIBUTE 16

UKPPV 12

VELOCITY 12

WWE.COM 12

YOUTUBE 12

WMPPV 48

 

 

The version I did here was only 2000 onwards but when I pull the results back to 1980 onwards, I will need to implement a system similar to what you described with large show, SNME, TV tapings, VHS releases, etc. You're spot on.

 

Changes I want to implement to the regiment:

- Right now there is no decline for inactivity. Brock Lesnar returns after years of being gone - should he go down? What about The Undertaker taking long hiatuses between big matches?

It probably is worth while to have a "bleeding" factor for inactivity. Also should have a minimum level of needing work work to get ranked. Rock has been out for years. He came back and pinned Cena. He hasn't worked since. Can't really rank someone based on that.

 

A returning Brock needs to work X amount before getting ranked. He was out so long that he restarts with 0.

 

What is a reasonable period of inactivity where you get to 0? I would think *at most* 2 years. It's arguable that it should be less time.

 

How quickly should ranking be bled due to inactivity? I would think that most of it would bleed away within a year of being inactive, which means a hell of a lot would bleed off in six months.

This is something I've been struggling a lot with - when you have people bouncing between WCW/WWF, that's one thing. Does Maxx Payne come into WWF with his WCW ranking vs. Does a star like Ric Flair carry over his WCW days? So far, that's my plan.

 

When John Cena was out for months with an injury, does his ranking slip or does he return a big star? When Roddy Piper leaves for even longer, what about him?

I'm thinking the phase is something like 2-4 years brings you down.

 

- Additionally, title matches have no added weight and rumbles are not included. Shouldn't a title win be worth a lot? If you lose a title match, should that also be a large wager?

Title matches should be worth more, and dependent on the title. The World Cup is worth more than a Friendly. The World Cup is worth more than the Euro Championship, which in turn is worth more than the Asia Cup.

 

That said... I would probably give a PPV Main Event Bonus. Rock-Cena > WWE/World Titles at Mania.

 

If the WWE Title is the Main Event, it gets just the PPV Main Event Bonus, not both added together.

 

This does make a judgement call on what the Main Event (or Main Events) are. It's not the last match on the card, but the big draw/push. At times there may be a double main event where both warrant credit. But 2002 with Rock-Hogan while HHH-Jericho went on last... we all knew Rock-Hogan was the real main event. It should get the bonus while the HHH-Jericho gets the WWF Title bonus.

Yup. It's always part art and part science.

 

- Wins via DQ are treated the same as clean wins. Losing via DQ is often a cheap out which is almost a "win" for the loser.

Pin/Submission >>> DQ/COR > Draw/DDQ/DCOR > Loss by DQ/COR >>> Loss by Pin/Submission

 

Again, look back at the 80s. Hogan would lose by DQ and COR. In 1984-89, he lost by pin or submission just once in the WWF. DQ/COR & Draw/DDQ/DCOR & Loss by DQ/COR were all very close to the same thing in terms of screwiness. Loss by Pin/Submission & Pin/Submission were where the real nuts and bolts of how people ranked were determined.

 

This sadly skews things to a lot of Faces since the WWF didn't have some of them do a lot of jobs, while heels without belts might job all over the place.

Yeah, there is a strong correlation between straight wins/losses and a person's ELO rating. Moreover, title holders almost always win cleanly on house shows, and there are a lot more house shows than taped events so those title holders tender to rack up a lot of rating points quickly.

 

I did a look once at the US/IC titles by year on Televised shows and non-televised shows from 2009 to 2011:

 

IC title: 204-40-14 in singles matches during non-televised events (dark matches or house shows; losses include DQ losses obviously) = 84% win

IC title: 66-79-8 in singles matches during televised events = 46% win

 

US title: 287-23-1 in singles matches during non-televised events (dark matches or house shows; losses include DQ losses obviously) = 93% win

US title: 76-51-8 in singles matches during televised events (dark matches or house shows; losses include DQ losses obviously) = 60% win

 

Thanks for the input. I have been looking for sounding board for ideas for this project and I think my wife and brother are getting tired of me asking them

 

I've been combining all names/identities together in this project so Dolph Ziggler = Nicky = Nic Nemeth and Steve Lombardi is everywhere.

 

I do love calculating the jobbers ELO ratings though - some samples.

 

Jan-03

Crash Holly (1437, 5 matches)

Yoshihiro Tajiri (1450, 11 matches)

Sho Funaki (1459, 10 matches)

Bull Buchanon (1463, 2 matches)

Steven Richards (1468, 14 matches)

Raven (1486, 6 matches)

Rico Constantino (1494, 13 matches)

Jackie (1499, 11 matches)

Johnny Stamboli (1515, 2 matches)

Dawn Marie (1521, 10 matches)

 

May-05

Shannon Moore (1318, 4 matches)

Jimmy Yang (1351, 6 matches)

Steven Richards (1385, 9 matches)

Rob Conway (1408, 7 matches)

Nunzio (1410, 9 matches)

Spike Dudley (1429, 8 matches)

Val Venis (1430, 12 matches)

Sho Funaki (1431, 6 matches)

Christian (1480, 14 matches)

Ric Flair (1481, 10 matches)

 

Oct-07

Shannon Moore (1303, 1 matches)

Jamie Noble (1317, 6 matches)

Sho Funaki (1346, 2 matches)

Victoria (1397, 4 matches)

Nunzio (1397, 3 matches)

Kenny Dykstra (1426, 4 matches)

Jimmy Yang (1439, 4 matches)

Charlie Haas (1452, 5 matches)

Matt Striker (1457, 4 matches)

Mike Knox (1463, 1 matches)

 

Oct-09

Chavo Guerrero Jr (1364, 9 matches)

Jimmy Yang (1406, 1 matches)

Mike Knox (1412, 4 matches)

Jillian Hall (1412, 8 matches)

William Regal (1440, 9 matches)

Jamie Noble (1442, 6 matches)

Layla (1451, 2 matches)

Natalya Neidhart (1454, 2 matches)

Gregory Helms (1468, 7 matches)

Katie Lea (1475, 2 matches)

 

Jul-12

Heath Slater (1392, 2 matches)

Jack Swagger (1393, 1 matches)

Curt Hawkins (1413, 1 matches)

Drew McIntyre (1459, 2 matches)

Alex Riley (1477, 1 matches)

Tyson Kidd (1491, 2 matches)

Camacho (1529, 1 matches)

Matt Bloom (1536, 2 matches)

Darren Young (1548, 1 matches)

David Otunga (1559, 1 matches)

 

I wouldn't read too much into those 2002 numbers. I only had 13 months of data that were generating the returns, so very short term trends affected those numbers. You'll see that the cream rises to the top quickly after about 2-3 years.

[jdw]

Good stuff. You're putting a lot of thought into it.