Greatest of All-Time project Interest?

[Loss]

Agreed. There were also people last time around that cast ballots after never posting and then scrammed when asked to explain where they were coming from. It's not so much about making people accountable. That's a harsh way to put it. But you do want to at least understand when seeing the final list what led to people casting their votes in a certain way.

[Childs]

 

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

 

 

Part of what's interesting with efforts like this is that people define GOAT differently. I don't know that you'd want everyone using the same rubric.

[Loss]

If someone will step up and own this and really take it as their project to run, it's theirs. I'll upgrade your permissions on the board and help you get started. No reason to PM me if interested - please just post here.

[Superstar Sleeze]

 

 

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

 

 

Part of what's interesting with efforts like this is that people define GOAT differently. I don't know that you'd want everyone using the same rubric.

 

 

I agree that's what makes it interesting, but I think there has to be some understanding of intent. I maybe interpreting Matt's post wrong, but to me the question is this a "Hogan" List or a "Flair" List. By that I mean a list that looks at greatest from drawing and starpower would historically most likely have Hogan finish number one. Whereas one focused on more subjective criteria like being entertaining and ring work would historically most likely have Flair finish number one. I presume this GOAT list is a "Flair" list rather than a "Hogan" list, which would be more about numbers and is generally less fun in my opinion.

[Grimmas]

 

 

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.

 

There is a simple work around which leads to the point of this.

 

If you want to vote for someone that is not eligible, then you go ahead and make the thread and review the matches. If you think someone is overlooked, nominate someone and show why they are over looked. I think this is plus, not a negative.

 

Everyone is eligible, if somebody wants to make the argument.

[Grimmas]

If someone will step up and own this and really take it as their project to run, it's theirs. I'll upgrade your permissions on the board and help you get started. No reason to PM me if interested - please just post here.

 

I'm completely game!

 

Plus, I want to do a bunch of podcasts devoted to this as well.

[Childs]

 

 

 

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

 

 

Part of what's interesting with efforts like this is that people define GOAT differently. I don't know that you'd want everyone using the same rubric.

 

 

I agree that's what makes it interesting, but I think there has to be some understanding of intent. I maybe interpreting Matt's post wrong, but to me the question is this a "Hogan" List or a "Flair" List. By that I mean a list that looks at greatest from drawing and starpower would historically most likely have Hogan finish number one. Whereas one focused on more subjective criteria like being entertaining and ring work would historically most likely have Flair finish number one. I presume this GOAT list is a "Flair" list rather than a "Hogan" list, which would be more about numbers and is generally less fun in my opinion.

 

 

Yeah, I agree with that. I didn't read Matt's original post well. Invariably, if one of these projects comes off, one of the major currents is a debate about what GOAT means. I just think it's cool that at the end, you still have thoughtful people with radically different definitions. We've certainly seen that with the match voting on the DVDVR projects. And I recall lots of interesting discussion along those lines with the Smarkschoice threads.

[Loss]

Sounds great. Grimmas is our guy!

 

I'll send you a PM when you are set up with permissions to do what you need to do.

[Matt D]

I wasn't involved in the 06 version, but every single time we have a discussion about the WON HOF, I'd say the #1 criteria is drawing and card placement. Now that may be because Dylan is pushing for guys like Patera and Blackwell, or that may be the nature of the WON HOF relative to the PWO GOAT or what not, but I'm not sure I can disengage it from in-ring work because I'm so used to that being part of the discussion on this high level.

 

I think we have to start from a common answer for "Does drawing matter?" with the breakdown of "How much does drawing matter?" being a personal thing. That sort of common ground.

[Loss]

What if there's no consensus and we are incapable of coming to an agreement on how important it is? Surely that doesn't stall the project.

[Loss]

I do think we need to define "greatest". There was a contingency last time that thought the word "great" undermined the project if you're throwing it at literally hundreds of wrestlers. Should we call it "best" instead just so we don't waste time on the semantics argument?

[Matt D]

I do think we've got time to work this out. If we go down a road fairly far, decide that there's no destination in sight, we can at that point just set up shop where we are and run with it. If we were doing this tomorrow, there'd be more of an issue.

[Grimmas]

I do think we've got time to work this out. If we go down a road fairly far, decide that there's no destination in sight, we can at that point just set up shop where we are and run with it. If we were doing this tomorrow, there'd be more of an issue.

 

Here is my take, and we can discuss this.

Footage has to be available for someone to be voted for. So that obviously rules out some people that are brought up as all time greats. Now, if we are voting based on the footage of guys we have seen (not on reputation) then I think that negates a lot about drawing.

 

However, it doesn't completely eliminate it for this reason. Some people feel guys on the undercard aren't putting on great matches, because they aren't in the main event having more time and focus. So, it will have a bearing, whether obvious or not.

 

For example, Hogan will be on a ballot, but not in the top tier.

[Loss]

I see it this way. I don't care about the numbers on gate receipts, but I do care about guys projecting themselves as stars. That Daniel Bryan wasn't an all-time great draw in 2013-2014 is immaterial to me in a poll like this. Because if I was just basing it on what I see, I'd sure think he was an Austin-level star. That will carry some weight here - guys who can get over in a special way with a live crowd.

 

Also, drawing is objective. The fun in this is the subjectivity.

[Shining Wiz]

Personally, if a wrestler is able to get me into their matches and/or character, it's never mattered to me how well they draw (except for the obvious fact that the more popular they are, the more they get to do).

 

Going on the (unfortunately often false) assumption that people won't be jerks for being jerks sake, I think such a list as this is more interesting if the the guideline are loose/wide ranging. While it's fun to think of things in the AFI mode - best brawler, best flyer, best technician, biggest star, etc... - I think it's even more interesting to do a "GOAT" list that lets people decide how they want to rank things themselves. That being said, the guy who ranks Bulldog Bob Brown #1 because he was on the scene when they were a kid should have his vote discounted (and sanity checked) unless they can provide a legit reasoning as to why they would say such a thing.

 

I completely agree that footage has to available. Because really, if we can't watch a few matches, what's the fun in that? But I think acknowleding/allowing the subjectivity in individual voters will make the end result that much more interesting and worthwhile.

[shoe]

I don 't think drawing should enter the equation. If we wanted drawing we could do greatest draws in wrestling. We are doing a best of wrestlers list . To me we should be looking at promos, angles, character work , charisma, and in ring work as the gauge. Obviously some of the stuff people will weigh more than others. Especially if we are looking at foreign wrestlers etc.

[Graham Crackers]

 

Also, drawing is objective. The fun in this is the subjectivity.

 

I think this is the key.

[El-P]

 

 

Also, drawing is objective. The fun in this is the subjectivity.

 

I think this is the key.

 

 

Indeed.

[Matt D]

I'm not married to drawing. I'm less married to drawing than most people, to be honest, since I think you can tell everything you need about a wrestler from the matches we have, generally, whether they're main event matches or opening matches on cards. I'm very much a proponent of looking for patterns in how wrestlers deal with specific situations over time as opposed to putting all the stock in GREAT MATCHES. So yes, drawing isn't actually something important to me.

 

It's just the #1 WON HOF metric from what I can see, and certainly the thing that's argued the most in those notes, so I thought it had to be raised.

[soup23]

Promos are a troubling gauge for me because of the language barrior. Someone like Flair and Kobashi are pretty even work wise for me on the surface but since I dont speak Japanese and think Flair is great at promos, he would have to be ahead correct? Seems like an unfair mark against foreign stars as if that is part of the equation my top 10 would be all US guys.

[shoe]

I'm not married to drawing. I'm less married to drawing than most people, to be honest, since I think you can tell everything you need about a wrestler from the matches we have, generally, whether they're main event matches or opening matches on cards. I'm very much a proponent of looking for patterns in how wrestlers deal with specific situations over time as opposed to putting all the stock in GREAT MATCHES. So yes, drawing isn't actually something important to me.

 

It's just the #1 WON HOF metric from what I can see, and certainly the thing that's argued the most in those notes, so I thought it had to be raised.

 

It is the # 1 metric for the WO HOF. This project from how I gather is completely different than the Observer HOF . If their is no footage I don't see how you can vote for someone. So Strangler Lewis shouldn't be on the list via the Microscope point.

[Loss]

Right. The WON HOF measures commercial success. This measures artistic success. Both have a place.

[WingedEagle]

Promos are a troubling gauge for me because of the language barrior. Someone like Flair and Kobashi are pretty even work wise for me on the surface but since I dont speak Japanese and think Flair is great at promos, he would have to be ahead correct? Seems like an unfair mark against foreign stars as if that is part of the equation my top 10 would be all US guys.

 

I think there's definitely a place for promos in this discussion, and to some extent they'll be a factor whether we want them specifically excluded from consideration or not. Using Flair/Kobashi as an example, if you've watched through Flair's run with the Horsemen -- including all promos and angles -- your mileage on his work during that period's matches may very well be different from someone who watched the matches without the promos and angles. Much like Loss was speaking about big matches earlier, the promos and progression into a match absolutely impact my anticipation, the crowd on that night and thus how much I enjoyed it. Kobashi doesn't have that going for him (or in some cases against him), so you're going strictly based on his work. You're also probably working off of fewer matches unless you've combed the planet seeking out minor Kobashi matches from tours throughout the years, and some may give Flair the nod there because of volume. Just another part of the subjective that will make this fun and guarantee some variety in the balloting.

[Matt D]

Right. The WON HOF measures commercial success. This measures artistic success. Both have a place.

That is our definition of greatest right there then.

[Badlittlekitten]

Right. Time to start watching some lucha!