The Boss, Man is he Big

[Matt D]

Hey, how many Bossman matches have you seen recently? Especially matches that aren't just PPVs and SNMEs and even CVs.

 

I think this is one thing you're not entirely with us on too.

 

So many big changes in traditional mindsets when it comes to WWF (and Crockett, but especially WWF) came with the releases/rereleases/easier availability of MSG/Boston Garden/Philly Spectrum/Toronto/Houston footage. That's what changed the mindset. Seeing a lot more house show matches without some of the usual WWF limitations.

 

I know that doesn't help your specific argument, but I'm curious. You're talking form and I'm talking footage.

 

Past that Rumble match, most of the higher end Bossman matches I can think of are either from televised house shows.

[Al]

It's amazing how much he slimmed down from when he started to when he was damn near catching up with Hennig in their WrestleMania match. Has anyone seen the squash match he was in against Tully Blanchard that impressed Dusty so much that he gave him the Big Bubba gimmick and the rest is history?

I have, it was on an NWA Saturday Night show that aired on WWE Classics. Tully was using the slingshot suplex as a finish, and he got Ray Traylor up and over with it. I think it was obvious that though he was just a kid out of wrestling school, he had real potential and wasn't just a fat guy. The Rogers gimmick seems perfect for someone with his level of experience.

 

Someone mentioned the Cornette bump, Realistically, he never should've been asked to do that spot.

[Al]

Will say this though. I can't help but wonder if Bossman's hard bumps ended up contributing to his premature death.

[Loss]

I will never forget the story that his fingers were accidentally slammed in a taxi cab door when was Big Bubba. However, fans were around, so he had to no-sell it to protect his gimmick, even though he was in severe pain.

[goc]

I haven't seen that Garvin match, but the dude fucking no-sold a wooden chair that Klondike Bill forgot to gimmick. No-sold a taxi door getting slammed on his fingers too, until he got inside. That has to count for something, maybe even enough to make up for fucking up Jim Cornette's knee permanently.

I think the blame for that would go to whoever booked a guy wearing sunglasses to try and look up into bright lights and catch a guy falling off a scaffold.

[PeteF3]

I haven't seen that Garvin match, but the dude fucking no-sold a wooden chair that Klondike Bill forgot to gimmick. No-sold a taxi door getting slammed on his fingers too, until he got inside. That has to count for something, maybe even enough to make up for fucking up Jim Cornette's knee permanently.

I think the blame for that would go to whoever booked a guy wearing sunglasses to try and look up into bright lights and catch a guy falling off a scaffold.

 

You mean the guy who booked a non-wrestler to take a 20-foot bump and get caught "like they catch cheerleaders at the football games"? Don't see what could have gone wrong with that.

[Dylan Waco]

I think it is wrongheaded because it takes form as being the only criterion when assessing a guy's time in a given place. I would prefer a formula along the lines of base talent + form + positioning/ "meaningfulness".

 

What is "meaningfulness"?, well it's there to mediate cases where you might have a very talented guy having good matches who isn't being pushed. It's Bobby Eaton on Saturday Night in the late 90s. Or an even more extreme case might be Buddy Rose doing job matches in WWF. Even if Rose is still a 5/5 for talent and even if he's on good form, his "meaningfulness" rating is a 1 or even a 0 and that's going to hurt the way you look at him.

 

I think Ted's base talent and "meaningfulness" while in WWF are strong enough to overcome the form issue (and it's not like his form was completely terrible or anything). Or in other words, Bossman might have been on career form and might have had a decent push, but considering all three things together I still don't give him a chance of being called a "better worker" because Ted's base talent is just better than Bossman's.

 

I stand by this as a way of rating runs. I would think about footballers in the same way. Fernando Torres might have been crap since 2008 but his base talent is still there and no amount of arguing or reasonably good form can make the Norwich striker Steve Morison a "better footballer" than him. The only way it could happen is that Morison somehow comes out and scores 30+ goals in a season while Torres is on woeful form. And even then, Torres would probably fetch a higher price than Morrson.

 

In the Ted vs. Bossman scenario, it would be unfair to Bossman to say that he's the equivalent of a Steve Morison, but his WWF run also wasn't the equivalent of a 30+goal season while Ted's was also nowhere near close to being "woeful".

 

In the rating system I've just devised, let's say Ted's a 4 talent, 3 for form and a 4 for "meaninfulness". Let's say Bossman is a 2 or a 3 for talent, 4 for form and a 3 for "meaningfulness".

 

My view is that form is not the ONLY thing to consider when all things aren't equal. Between Ted and Bossman all things are not equal.

I'd like you to expand more on what meaningfulness means. If it is solely related to push I'm not sure where you can go with it. Seems like by that standard Hogan has to be rated very highly as a worker and while I rate him pretty highly relative to most, I'm not ready to say he's an all timer. If I'm misunderstanding that I want to know how and see some examples that are wrestling related that show what you mean.

 

I would also note that if it is tied in to push or "value" to promotion, Bossman probably does better than you would guess. The gimmick was over and he had some well liked and remembered feuds. He wasn't Jake Roberts who was a master at getting over angles (or at least making them stand out as huge deals), but he was closer to that then he was to the other end. Worth noting that Bossman was one of Hogan's better drawing opponents.

[goodhelmet]

If meaningfulness is really one of your standards then it kills your depth argument in the JTTS thread.

[JerryvonKramer]

If meaningfulness is really one of your standards then it kills your depth argument in the JTTS thread.

 

It doesn't Will because that argument is not an either / or proposition and I talked in that thread about the need to move away from binary thinking:

 

I've said before that my aim in arguments is not a win-loss thing, it's to come to some understanding for the greater good. People are prone to push arguments to their logical extreme, to convert complex arguments into simplistic binaries. Nuance doesn't sell. I think the picture is not as black and white as it is being painted, even if I agree with the gist of the conclusion.

"Meaningfulness" does not negate the importance of depth, it complicates it. Both depth and meaningfulness are desirable. In an ideal world you want your roster to be deep and have every single guy on it involved in something "meaningful". I don't think anyone disputes that.

 

The conclusion was that in a situation where one company has a smaller but more meaningful roster they might be able to achieve better results up and down the card than a massive roster full of big names that has "meaningless depth". But I would urge people not to take that conclusion too far and, as I argued, meaningfulness alone can't overcome everything in the long run. So for JCP it worked in 86, but you had diminishing returns in 87 and 88 to the point where Meltzer is almost hysterical calling out for new talent week after week. I think, ultimately, everyone agreed with that in the long run.

 

Reply to Dylan forthcoming.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd like you to expand more on what meaningfulness means. If it is solely related to push I'm not sure where you can go with it. Seems like by that standard Hogan has to be rated very highly as a worker and while I rate him pretty highly relative to most, I'm not ready to say he's an all timer. If I'm misunderstanding that I want to know how and see some examples that are wrestling related that show what you mean.

It is a combination of push, memorable feuds and angles, importance to company and so on.* Hogan without doubt gets a full 5/5 rating for "meaningfulness" for his WWF run. This aspect of wrestling cannot be overlooked. It is part of what a worker is. As in any other walk of life, unfortunately, ability and talent aren't the only things considered. This matters because it decides what sorts of matches someone is going to have. It's basically impossible to make an argument for someone as an all-time great if they spent their entire career having heatless undercard matches. This is why it is one third of the formula.

 

However, the formula is designed to be a system of built-in checks and balances. An "all timer" would be someone getting a rating of 13+.

 

Let's see if Hogan get's such a rating.

 

Base talent. This is Hogan's basic ability as a wrestler. If we were being generous we'd say this is 3. If we want to be stingy 2.

 

Form. This is basically how many good matches the guy had and how consistently he had those good matches across the run. Hogan suffers here. Again generous would be 3, stingy 2.

 

Meaningfulness is what I said there and we know that's a 5.

 

So the generous Hogan score is 3+3+5 = 11. 11 is not an all timer score, it's a good score, but not all all-timer one. The stingy score is 9, which is even more far off.

 

For someone's run in a place to be all time they need to score highly across the board.

 

From what you've told me Buddy Rose in Portland is looking at a 14 or a 15. Flair's peak Crockett run is on a 14 or 15.

 

The main reason for devising this was not to privilege any one thing as being the be all and end all when assessing someone's run somewhere. The base talent is a kind of cap: if someone has a base talent of 2, 12 is as good as they can ever get from a run. Form and meaningfulness can only go so far, they can't perform miracles. So if 13 is the bottom end "all timer" score for a given run, someone with a base talent of 2 can never be an all timer.

 

I would also note that if it is tied in to push or "value" to promotion, Bossman probably does better than you would guess. The gimmick was over and he had some well liked and remembered feuds. He wasn't Jake Roberts who was a master at getting over angles (or at least making them stand out as huge deals), but he was closer to that then he was to the other end. Worth noting that Bossman was one of Hogan's better drawing opponents.

I gave Bossman a 3 for that, and Ted a 4. I think that 3 recognises what you are saying, but there are good reasons for giving Ted a 4 recently discussed here. If you say Ted's a 3, then I can roll with that, but that makes Bossman a 2. Whatever the scores are, I think Ted is 1 notch above Bossman in meaningfulness stakes for the reasons outlined in that link.

 

I like to think my approach to things is holistic. That is: attempting a balanced look at things that can take both big and small picture into account. The formula may seem reductive, but I think it works. For me to consider Bossman a "better worker" than Ted he'd have to score higher than him somehow in the formula. You can do that either by trying to increase Bossman's scores in the three categories, or lowering DiBiase's. I am prepared to listen to cases in each of those areas. I don't think you can say "Bossman is the better worker because here's 6 great matches he had at the Philly Spectrum". I think my view is taking more into account and getting a more realistic picture.

 

* While mic work is not explicitly built into this, it is implied since MOST guys who will rate highly here, will also be good mic workers. However, it is not explicit because it's perfectly possible for someone to have few mic skills but still score highly here. And I didn't want to exclude this formula being applied to Japanese workers, because it can be.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not a fan of trying to find hard and fast objective metrics as I think was illustrates to a (perhaps) ridiculous degree in the Bret v. Flair thread. I just don't think you can quantify everything and I think it's really hard to do so by attaching numbers to something like this. Doesn't mean I think it is "wrong" it just is really hard for me to place how I could ever do it.

 

Hogan provides a good example. You say Hogan would be a five in meaningfulness, and on a scale of five that is obviously a perfect score. But here is the thing. If meaningfulness is being pushed as a key aspect of "work" it's kind of hard to see how Hogan could be a five and Dibiase could be a four. I can accept that the gap between Ted and Bossman is one point. The gap between Hogan and Ted? Well it sure as hell feels like the most meaningful guy ever ought to have an edge of more than one point.

 

Also not sure Hogan can be seen as a 2 during his WWF run under form if the metric is pure output. Certainly don't see how Hogan can be seen as a 2 and Ted a 3. I don't think it's a stretch to say Hogan had far more matches we can point to as good matches in the WWF then Ted. That's not a knock on Ted. But that "meaningfulness" paid off for Hogan in several ways and one of them was that he often was involved in hot matches of solid quality.

 

Getting at a broader criticism though I would say that I agree you can't be an all timer if all of your career is spent in heatless undercard matches. But I can't think of a single person of that sort who would be considered an all timer. It seems to me that these things sort themselves out as guys who have that meaningfulness are likely to be given chances where they can show what they can do. Sometimes people don't get those chances, but by and large they do.

[JerryvonKramer]

It did occur to me Dylan during the course of writing that post and reading it back that a 5-point scale is not wide enough. I don't know how far you take it. 10-point? 100-point? I think Hogan at 100 and Ted at 70 looks better than 5 and 4.

 

The "form" rating tries to take consistency into account as well as anything else. Hogan's problem is that as the run goes on he becomes more and more formulaic, annoying and has fewer great matches. But you could reflect that by changing parameters. No reason why you couldn't run the formula across a given year.

 

Then again, there is part of me -- the part of me paid every day to be an English lecturer who teaches literary theory -- that thinks this sort of quantification is sick and wrong. But I am happy to suppress that part of me as being some whiny limp-wristed liberal, at least for the purposes of this thread

 

As to your final point, my other feeling is that these things do tend to even out. It's very unlikely to get a guy at talent rating 0 or 1 getting a 4 or 5 for meaningfulness or form. I can only think of one example (Big Daddy) and there are lots of questions to ask about how we'd rate his "meaningfulness". It does tend to be the case that these things sort themselves out ... but it's NOT always the case in wrestling that "cream will rise", which is why Hogan isn't the best wrestler who ever lived. Politics and other factors can override both talent and form.

[Matt D]

I call threads notes because...

 

i'm not sure. i guess that's how we did things in the late 90s or something.

[goodhelmet]

So yeah... Watched Garvin vs. Bubba and changed my mind on the Starrcade match.

[ohtani's jacket]

Boss Man vs. The Barbarian, Royal Rumble 1/18/91 and Hamilton, Ontario 1/25/91

 

I don't like the way Boss Man sells as a babyface. I understand he's trying to get the crowd behind him by acting all fired up, but the shuffling of the feet, the spinning off the ropes and all the shaking he does seeps into his moves like those exaggerated body shots he gave Dibiase. I also don't find his selling very compelling when he's putting over the rib injury in these matches. It's not really his fault as he's clearly trying, but both these matches felt like I was watching a guy who knew what he was doing but couldn't execute it in an exciting way. I was impressed that they went so long in the Rumble match, but there was a ton of downtime and the basic structure of Boss Man starting out like a house on fire, getting caught out, injurying himself, fighting through the pain and making the big push for the win was so standard that I can only imagine it being praised because it's not expected from a Boss Man/Barbarian match and not because it was well done. Some of the offence was cool. I liked the spot where Boss Man catches the Barbarian's big boot. With both these guys, I'd rather see offensive matches than any kind of effort at storytelling. I liked how Barbarian got his boy Haku to help beat up Boss Man the Ontario match. Don't see how these were better than Dibiase's best matches against Savage and Roberts.

[ohtani's jacket]

Boss Man vs. Mr. Perfect, The Main Event IV 11/23/90 and Wrestlemania VII, 3/24/91

 

The Main Event match was building into something good when it was ruined by the Heenan angle. Perfect's timing seemed a bit off at the start w/ the spot where Boss Man chased him around the ring and the sliding crotch spot into the turnbuckle, but once he was on top I thought he delivered a far better beating than Dibiase usually did. Boss man's selling was really good during that control period as well. The Wrestlemania match had some big time bumps from Hennig as well as Boss Man's bump into the steel steps and that was about it.

[ohtani's jacket]

Boss Man vs. Earthquake, Toronto 9/16/90, Survivor Series Showdown 10/29/90, Royal Albert Hall 10/3/91 and Survivor Series Showdown 11/11/91

 

These two worked well together. I think if you're a fan of structure in your wrestling you'll probably appreciate the match layouts here. You probably don't need to watch all four because they repeat a lot of the same spots, but the '91 matches are different enough that it might be a good idea to watch one from each year. My favourite was the Survivor Series Showdown match from '90, which I thought was a great TV match up until the bullshit finish which was the same finish as the Main Event Hennig/Boss Man match. The Royal Albert Hall match is interesting from the point of view that they go long (around 15 minutes) and manage to do a decent job filling that time in, and the '91 Survivor Series Showndown match has some cool armwork from Earthquake, though it gets blown off in the melee that always finishes these Survivor Series previews. One of the first gimmicks I started following in wrestling was Boss Man handcuffing jobbers to the ropes and beating them with the nightstick. I remember it pretty vividly along with Roberts putting Damien on people, Brutus giving jobbers a haircut and Dibiase shoving a hundred dollar bill down their throat. The fact that they could turn Boss Man and make him into such a solid babyface is a testament to how good they used to be at turning people. Bobby is also awesome through all this and it's a great look at Tenta too, who I think we'll all agree was a good worker. In fact, aside from the annoying finishes, a lot of this was the kind of stuff the WWF did really well in these years. I don't know if Loss will agree, but I've always thought their booking was quite good in '91/92.

[Matt D]

Boss Man vs. Earthquake, Toronto 9/16/90, Survivor Series Showdown 10/29/90, Royal Albert Hall 10/3/91 and Survivor Series Showdown 11/11/91

 

These two worked well together. I think if you're a fan of structure in your wrestling you'll probably appreciate the match layouts here. You probably don't need to watch all four because they repeat a lot of the same spots, but the '91 matches are different enough that it might be a good idea to watch one from each year. My favourite was the Survivor Series Showdown match from '90, which I thought was a great TV match up until the bullshit finish which was the same finish as the Main Event Hennig/Boss Man match. The Royal Albert Hall match is interesting from the point of view that they go long (around 15 minutes) and manage to do a decent job filling that time in, and the '91 Survivor Series Showndown match has some cool armwork from Earthquake, though it gets blown off in the melee that always finishes these Survivor Series previews. One of the first gimmicks I started following in wrestling was Boss Man handcuffing jobbers to the ropes and beating them with the nightstick. I remember it pretty vividly along with Roberts putting Damien on people, Brutus giving jobbers a haircut and Dibiase shoving a hundred dollar bill down their throat. The fact that they could turn Boss Man and make him into such a solid babyface is a testament to how good they used to be at turning people. Bobby is also awesome through all this and it's a great look at Tenta too, who I think we'll all agree was a good worker. In fact, aside from the annoying finishes, a lot of this was the kind of stuff the WWF did really well in these years. I don't know if Loss will agree, but I've always thought their booking was quite good in '91/92.

Unsurprisingly given this write up, I love the Bossman vs Earthquake series, with the Royal Albert Hall match one of my absolute favorites of 91 WWF.

[ohtani's jacket]

Boss Man turns face, 1/2/90

 

Fun segment. Boss Man's motivation for turning face was questionable but it was fun seeing Slick and Dibiase ham it up. Boss Man did a great job of getting across his anger. I loved how he kept spitting in Dibiase's face while serving out his righteous indignation. I also chuckled when he called him "fat face," an insult which is patently true. The shot of the heels & Brother Love crying "nooo!" when Boss Man returned to the ring was a classic and Jake was AWESOME at conveying his distrust in the Boss Man. And I loved the bump Slick took on Boss Man's way back. That was such a nice touch, as Boss Man shoving Slick to the deck severed their relationship completely. Great stuff.

 

Boss Man vs. Bobby Heenan, 11/20/90 and ball & chain match 1/8/91

 

Bobby was gold here, pleading for the match to be called off in both cases. The funniest parts where when Mike McGuirk announced his weight and he ripped the mic off her and when he said he'd sent the Boss Man's mother a Hulk Hogan wrestling buddy. Amusing angle considering Boss Man drove Big Show's daddy down the highway at high speeeed. He did seem to brutalise Heenan a bit too much for my liking but I guess his face character kind of walked the line. Grabbing Hebner by the scruff of the neck after chasing off the Heenan family then letting him go when Hebner gestured he only wanted to raise Boss Man's arm was a nice touch. I don't know how over Boss Man was at the time as these clips always sound like there's been crowd noise added, but this was a memorable run.

[S.L.L.]

It did occur to me Dylan during the course of writing that post and reading it back that a 5-point scale is not wide enough. I don't know how far you take it. 10-point? 100-point? I think Hogan at 100 and Ted at 70 looks better than 5 and 4.

 

The "form" rating tries to take consistency into account as well as anything else. Hogan's problem is that as the run goes on he becomes more and more formulaic, annoying and has fewer great matches. But you could reflect that by changing parameters. No reason why you couldn't run the formula across a given year.

 

Then again, there is part of me -- the part of me paid every day to be an English lecturer who teaches literary theory -- that thinks this sort of quantification is sick and wrong. But I am happy to suppress that part of me as being some whiny limp-wristed liberal, at least for the purposes of this thread

That part of you is right, and it has nothing to do with being a limp-wristed liberal, and everything to do with wrestling quality not being something meant to be determined via a mathematical formula. I'm not saying there's no value to it, but if there is, it's something you'd do for kicks just to see how wrestlers fare when held up to a certain standard, not something you use to derive hard, conclusive, scientific answers from. There are none.

 

Also, do you see how saying that "I am not entertaining the idea that he was a better worker than Ted in WWF because that idea is not only wrongheaded but also just wrong," effectively denying any opposing view the right to even be stated, nevermind seriously considered, and then inventing a mathematical formula essentially to shut down even the remotest possibility of a contrary opinion might be perceived as you trying to be smarter than the room? I mean, seriously, at this point, why not just start a religion that says Ted's WWF run was awesome. Then you have science AND God to back you up.

[ohtani's jacket]

Boss Man vs. Akeem, Saturday Night's Main Event 4/23/90

 

This was better than their Wrestlemania match, but instead of getting a cool "WWF is where the big boys play" bout there's a Dibiase and Virgil run-in in short order. This was more of a Boss Man/Dibiase feud than having anything to do with Slick and Akeem so we don't get the Twin Towers blood feud. For as good as WWF was at turning people, they didn't handle the tag team break-ups with the same aplomb.

[JerryvonKramer]

It did occur to me Dylan during the course of writing that post and reading it back that a 5-point scale is not wide enough. I don't know how far you take it. 10-point? 100-point? I think Hogan at 100 and Ted at 70 looks better than 5 and 4.

 

The "form" rating tries to take consistency into account as well as anything else. Hogan's problem is that as the run goes on he becomes more and more formulaic, annoying and has fewer great matches. But you could reflect that by changing parameters. No reason why you couldn't run the formula across a given year.

 

Then again, there is part of me -- the part of me paid every day to be an English lecturer who teaches literary theory -- that thinks this sort of quantification is sick and wrong. But I am happy to suppress that part of me as being some whiny limp-wristed liberal, at least for the purposes of this thread

That part of you is right, and it has nothing to do with being a limp-wristed liberal, and everything to do with wrestling quality not being something meant to be determined via a mathematical formula. I'm not saying there's no value to it, but if there is, it's something you'd do for kicks just to see how wrestlers fare when held up to a certain standard, not something you use to derive hard, conclusive, scientific answers from. There are none.

 

Also, do you see how saying that "I am not entertaining the idea that he was a better worker than Ted in WWF because that idea is not only wrongheaded but also just wrong," effectively denying any opposing view the right to even be stated, nevermind seriously considered, and then inventing a mathematical formula essentially to shut down even the remotest possibility of a contrary opinion might be perceived as you trying to be smarter than the room? I mean, seriously, at this point, why not just start a religion that says Ted's WWF run was awesome. Then you have science AND God to back you up.

 

You know, from a certain point of view, posts like this might make it seem that you are trying to set yourself as "smarter than the room", just saying.

 

I mean you seem to be awfully sure about your conclusions here.

 

I think it was Loss who said that he doesn't feel the need in each and every post to preface every statement with "in my opinion", I feel the same.

 

Ted does have God to back him up though

[Matt D]

I'm ok with the "in your opinion" thing.

 

You don't have to list that every time, absolutely.

 

But your opinion therefore makes you an ass because you're not even willing to entertain someone else's opinion!

[JerryvonKramer]

Be fair though Matt, this wasn't unfettered bigotry. I provided a framework for why I believe what I do AND said I'd be willing to listen to arguments in the three areas outlined in said framework. As pigheaded bigotry goes that's pretty generous.

[S.L.L.]

You know, from a certain point of view, posts like this might make it seem that you are trying to set yourself as "smarter than the room", just saying.

 

I mean you seem to be awfully sure about your conclusions here.

From a certain point of view, you can see whatever you want.

 

From a realistic point of view, I'm clearly not positioning myself as smarter than the room. Clearly not trying to enlighten the room, because - and the room can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - the position I'm advocating is the one they already hold.

 

I'm not setting myself as smarter than the room. Just smarter than you, at least on this matter.

 

I think it was Loss who said that he doesn't feel the need in each and every post to preface every statement with "in my opinion", I feel the same.

OK.

 

I'm not sure what relevance that has, though, because this is a thread where you are trying to take an idea we would normally accept as a matter of opinion ("I think Million Dollar Man-era DiBiase was better than Ray Traylor") and are trying to turn it into a concrete fact.

 

An opinion is something that can be discussed and argued, and most in this room would be happy to discuss and argue the merits of that opinion. But you don't want to do that with us, because apparently, we are objectively wrong, and you - the smartest person in the room - are going to enlighten us. First, you will state in no uncertain terms that the thing we thought was an opinion is actually a fact.

 

I am not entertaining the idea that he was a better worker than Ted in WWF because that idea is not only wrongheaded but also just wrong.

Loss never needed to preface his statements with "in my opinion" because they were self-evidently opinions and it wasn't necessary to explicitly say that they were.

 

You don't need to preface your statements with "in my opinion"...because they're not opinions. At least, not according to you. It is a fact that M$M-era DiBiase is better than Traylor. Anyone who disagrees is just wrong. But what if they have an argument to the contrary? Nope. You're not entertaining the idea. Because that idea is just wrong. And if we even think about disagreeing, you're going to set us straight with a mathematical formula of you own invention. Because when I think of things that are clearly a matter of opinion, I think of...math?

 

No, no, silly me. Here I go thinking this was about opinions again. No the math is there for the only reason math is ever anywhere - to produce cold, hard truths. Thankfully, you were able to tamp down that limp-wristed liberal part of your brain that would have allowed us to have free and open discussions of DiBiase's merits vs. Traylor's merits, so that you could do the right thing and throw us all into the Guantanamo Bay of the hard sciences. I understand. It's for our own good, and you're the only person in the room smart enough to see it.