Greatest of All-Time project Interest?

[Grimmas]

Dylan and I have been discussing this for a while and I feel it is time to see if there is interest out there.

The last time there was a major, greatest wrestling of all time voting process was 2006. I love the Sight & Sound best movie ever model of voting every 10 years, so doing a new poll in 2016 seems like a great idea to me.

Here is my thoughts on this and how it should go. This is just a thread to see if there is interest or to see if there are ideas out there to make this whole process better.

1) Ballot due the day of WrestleMania of 2016.

2) You can only vote for eligible wrestlers. A wrestler becomes eligible if there is a microscope thread for him with at least three reviewed matches in it.

3) You vote for 100 wrestlers, no more or less. (Maybe negotiate a 50 or 100 ballot).

4) Weighted voting, so that top picks are valued more.

So.. interest? Is this a worth while project?

[Shining Wiz]

Fun.

[Loss]

I think the time is right and I like idea of a really long time period to debate stuff. The original poll was in 2006 (can you believe that?) so the 2016 deadline feels right. I could see extending it depending on where we are at that point in time too. Someone needs to oversee it in the sense that they are responsible for keeping people interested, starting threads for guys who aren't getting named, keeping conversations on topic, tagging stuff to make it easier to find, etc. I have too much on my plate to take that on right now, but I do think you need someone fully entrenched in order to make this work.

[WingedEagle]

Love it. What's the harm? It'll create a lot more discussion and debate (especially given the need for creating threads for those who don't already have them) and serve as a viewing project for people to focus on who aren't working their way through the 80s, 90s, Network content and...on the other hand, maybe this is a disaster waiting to happen Perhaps even a whole new-subfolder with threads serving as a reference for each candidate. Plenty of ways to structure things.

[Graham Crackers]

I feel like if you gave me the task of putting together a list like this at any given time i could do it but it will only be based upon what I have watched up until that point. It just may take a few days of organizing notes. So I'm up for this whenever.

 

2016 sounds good because by then I'm sure I will have watched even more wrestling and (I would hope) that means I have a more balanced ballot. That said, it is a long time from now and I worry about the interest of potential voters fizzling out. Like Loss said, as long as there is a centralized person running it and keeping people interested then I then I think it will be a good thing.

[Loss]

I'm hesitant to plop the 2006 version of this list in this thread only because I worry that looking at what names are listed and what order people are listed in might box people in, even subconsciously. On the other hand, I think everyone who got a vote last time around needs to at least have some discussion around them. So I guess it's necessary.

[Shining Wiz]

As a newbie around these parts, I would say I will try to avoid seeing such a list. What folks voted 10 years ago has little effect on what I think now.

[DR Ackermann]

This sounds like an awesome project. We're talking strictly in-ring, right?

[concrete1992]

As long as interest can be kept throughout then this could be AWESOME!

[KrisZ]

Yeah buddy I'm down for this

[Matt D]

It's far off but I'm hesitant to do some of the legwork on certain guys that I've been reluctant to watch for one reason or another. I still have huge gaps. I can probably get cajoled into it though and I'll, of course, spew out words on anyone I have an opinion on.

[C.S.]

Might be too complicated, but I wouldn't mind an AFI (http://www.afi.com/100years/) type of system, where there are several lists for various categories. With AFI, there are things like best comedy, best musical, etc. I could see that working for wrestling too (best brawler, etc.). Might be way too much work though. Just throwing it out there anyway.

[Fantastic]

Might be too complicated, but I wouldn't mind an AFI (http://www.afi.com/100years/) type of system, where there are several lists for various categories. With AFI, there are things like best comedy, best musical, etc. I could see that working for wrestling too (best brawler, etc.). Might be way too much work though. Just throwing it out there anyway.

 

This would work best in my opinion. From there, an overall category could be made too.

[Childs]

I'm all for it. The discussion threads for the Smarkschoice poll were a great resource for me as I dived deeper into my fandom, and it'd be fun to try to recreate that. I'd rely on the discussion to provide the diversity rather than trying to break the project into multiple category polls.

[shoe]

I'm totally down. I had so much fun doing that in 2006.

[Ricky Jackson]

Totally wanted this to come up again since I wasn't around for the 06 version, so count me in

[ohtani's jacket]

I'd be interested so long as people are committed to the project.

[El-P]

The idea sounds cool, although I don't have nearly as much free time as I did back in 2006. It was exteremly fun the first time around, and would probably be much easier now with the wider access to a lot more matches and such.

[soup23]

Love this idea and willing to help moderate/ formulate it.

[khawk20]

 

2) You can only vote for eligible wrestlers. A wrestler becomes eligible if there is a microscope thread for him with at least three reviewed matches in it.

 

This concerns me a bit in that this seems like it will invariably exclude some wrestlers deserving of consideration.

[Loss]

That's why we need someone overseeing everything who makes this project his "baby".

[concrete1992]

I'll be honest, I had to go back and look at that 2006 list. Even if it is just a list of people I should make sure I check out, I think that'll help me along. Not sure if it holds a great amount of value in 2014(didn't seem like it held up well in 2009 either) and will probably mean less in 2016 but hopefully if/when this thing gets off the ground a good deal of threads get started for it.

[Matt D]

Serious question: How important is it to harmonize criteria?

 

I'm not saying 20% drawing! 30% GREAT Matches! 15% able to carry someone or anything like that.

 

But should we spend the next couple of years at least trying to work out what Greatest of All Time means for the sake of this project, because I think everyone's criteria is slightly different, if not wildly different. It's one thing when one person values an element more than someone else. It's another thing when they think they're talking about something different.

[Dylan Waco]

The reason I like that idea is that it forces people to participate. You can't submit a list with Ed Lewis on it because it's "wrong" to exclude him, nor do you have more modern guys worth consideration falling through the cracks. I could see an argument that the criteria should simply be "guy with a thread" as the match review standard might turn some people off. But I do believe an "open field" is a bad idea because it discourages the debate and discussion that makes projects like this fun

[Dylan Waco]

Serious question: How important is it to harmonize criteria?

 

I'm not saying 20% drawing! 30% GREAT Matches! 15% able to carry someone or anything like that.

 

But should we spend the next couple of years at least trying to work out what Greatest of All Time means for the sake of this project, because I think everyone's criteria is slightly different, if not wildly different. It's one thing when one person values an element more than someone else. It's another thing when they think they're talking about something different.

There should be a thread dedicated to this in the forum