Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Your own Criteria


Grimmas

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Patterns over time leading to a "how well does someone understand pro wrestling and can he transfer that understanding into the ideal performance for the situation that he is in." If it means he's in a situation to have a great match, he can have a great match. If it means that he can get over in a three minute squash match, he can do that. If it means that he can put over an opponent without taking too much of the match, he can (and will) do that. It encompasses tag matches, house shows, TV tapings, dark matches, everything under the sun. You can learn almost as much from watching four or five tv squashes as you do from a 35 minute classic, and more than that, you learn different things.

 

It's an approach that takes a lot of work, but it's a holistic one, a whole career one. It also only judges a wrestler for the matches he has and it doesn't penalize him for not being in a position to have GREAT matches. It's sort of a performance based, career-focused pound-for-pound approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the sake of argument:

 

I think it's potentially endemic of a greater issue. If this is a poll that is primarily focused on aesthetics and quality then the fact that quite often opportunity arose through anything but and may not have arose for the same non-aesthetic reasons becomes somewhat problematic. Quality rises, no matter what? Maybe, but certainly more so during different times and in different ways. A talented wrestler could probably have much better GREAT MATCHES in a meaningful position working in Memphis in 1989 or the AWA in 1986, but they could make a lot more money in New York, where they'd have far less opportunities to really show off given the depth of the roster and the very specific way the product was presented. When they did get a chance to show off, it'd often be something like Powers of Pain vs Rockers from early 90 MSG, which everyone who did the yearbook set loved, but which was hardly a "meaningful position," and even that was an exception compared to most of their matches that were taped on larger shows. Compare that to the Rose/Somers feud that the Rockers had. So because they were good enough to be in a place that gave them bigger paydays, they actually had less opportunity to show off how good they were on a "significant position" level. Some of that was very much how WWF presented tag team wrestling as opposed to AWA or JCP. Some of it was the depth of the roster when it came to things other than talent (Demolition was super over, so the Rockers couldn't be presented on top).

 

Mainly, I'm not saying you can't judge things how you want. I'm mostly just going into more depth on why I try to discount opportunity and look at situations instead of great matches. For that, I apologize, because I think at this point, no one really wants me to go into more detail on this.

-------------------------------------------------------

As someone who's 5'5", I'm not about to penalize someone for not being 6'3" and thus not having certain opportunities, for instance, or for not marrying a Gagne daughter (which isn't the sentence in this that you should be focused on, btw. Also don't focus much on the next one, please. Just consider this paragraph a fun footnote). By my criteria, it's possible for someone to put Mike Jackson over Ric Flair if they think that Mike Jackson was actually a better wrestler from watching him in a number of different situations, and we have Mike Jackson in a bunch of different situations and territories, and watching Flair in a number of situations. I'm not saying I'm going to do that, but when it comes to the things I care about, understanding the art and science of pro wrestling and executing it, I am going to say that possibility exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the sake of argument:

 

I think it's potentially endemic of a greater issue. If this is a poll that is primarily focused on aesthetics and quality then the fact that quite often opportunity arose through anything but and may not have arose for the same non-aesthetic reasons becomes somewhat problematic. Quality rises, no matter what? Maybe, but certainly more so during different times and in different ways. A talented wrestler could probably have much better GREAT MATCHES in a meaningful position working in Memphis in 1989 or the AWA in 1986, but they could make a lot more money in New York, where they'd have far less opportunities to really show off given the depth of the roster and the very specific way the product was presented. When they did get a chance to show off, it'd often be something like Powers of Pain vs Rockers from early 90 MSG, which everyone who did the yearbook set loved, but which was hardly a "meaningful position," and even that was an exception compared to most of their matches that were taped on larger shows. Compare that to the Rose/Somers feud that the Rockers had. So because they were good enough to be in a place that gave them bigger paydays, they actually had less opportunity to show off how good they were on a "significant position" level. Some of that was very much how WWF presented tag team wrestling as opposed to AWA or JCP. Some of it was the depth of the roster when it came to things other than talent (Demolition was super over, so the Rockers couldn't be presented on top).

 

Mainly, I'm not saying you can't judge things how you want. I'm mostly just going into more depth on why I try to discount opportunity and look at situations instead of great matches. For that, I apologize, because I think at this point, no one really wants me to go into more detail on this.

-------------------------------------------------------

As someone who's 5'5", I'm not about to penalize someone for not being 6'3" and thus not having certain opportunities, for instance, or for not marrying a Gagne daughter (which isn't the sentence in this that you should be focused on, btw. Also don't focus much on the next one, please. Just consider this paragraph a fun footnote). By my criteria, it's possible for someone to put Mike Jackson over Ric Flair if they think that Mike Jackson was actually a better wrestler from watching him in a number of different situations, and we have Mike Jackson in a bunch of different situations and territories, and watching Flair in a number of situations. I'm not saying I'm going to do that, but when it comes to the things I care about, understanding the art and science of pro wrestling and executing it, I am going to say that possibility exists.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my money, you can't really get into contention merely by being a good mid-card hand. No one is going to be pushing for the Baron Sciclunas of this world -- and if people are thinking of pushing underrated career mid-carders like The Barbarian, it's only because that's what they are familiar with. This may sound elitist, but shit, if this isn't the time to be it, then when is?

 

It's also a double-edged sword. Guys who were still booked in main events late in their careers (think Dick the Bruiser, or the Crusher, or Roddy Piper in WCW, Flair of course) tend to be brutally exposed for their limitations. Whereas guys who have slipped down the card can sort of "hide out" in nothing undercard matches. It can help or hinder the longevity argument, but I think the very fact a promoter still wanted to put the guy in that position says something -- i.e. it says more than the guy who has become a jobber.

 

A clear example of this would be to compare, say, The Funks with a guy like Pedro Morales. The Funks were still "meaningful" in 1987, Pedro meant nothing. I don't see in what world that doesn't count for *something*.

 

I allow for injury, circumstance, bad booking, nepotism and so on to mediate all of that, but the bottom-line is that main event status should and does count for something, especially over a 20+ year career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the above point, if I think a career mid-carder is deserving of being among the best of all-time then I will certainly nominate him/her. I'm looking for quality of wrestler, not placement on the card. It doesn't mean that it's all I'm familiar with either, but that I legitimately think Wrestler A deserves consideration as one of the greatest of all time.

 

My criteria is probably hedging towards being close to Matt's. I'm looking big picture, and what a wrestler brought to each and every match. Great matches will certainly help, but if I think Wrestler B is great in a squash then that's still a great performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm the first guy who is going to give an old wrestler tons of credit for learning to work around their limitations and to punish a wrestler for not being able to figure out how to do so, but again that comes to the matches that they're putting on, not their card placement. Some of the best wrestlers in the world are completely unreliable drug addicts who squander chance after chance but still continue to perform at a high level, just in a different context.

 

That said, I guess I'm looking at this as "best wrestler of all time," because that's how I differentiate it from the WON HOF. It's a clear line to me. I appreciate that it's murkier for you, Parv.

 

There's also a huge difference between Mike Jackson and the Barbarian (and I like the Barbarian), but that's beside the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that it seems strange to say "hey, well done, you had 1,000 matches no one gave a shit about, but I liked the way you worked the leg".

 

I also think that when push comes to shove, people will consider card placement. If Tenryu never makes the jump to be a main eventer, he's not talked about like he is today, it's as simple as that. If Terry Funk was doing his stuff in the mid-card for his whole career, I don't believe he'd be a GOAT contender.

 

I can't view matches in a vacuum, and context is, I think, inextricable from the form. Whether we like it or not, card placement changes things. If a guy is working on top of four or five different territories having a variety of different types of matches well, it has to mean more than a guy who stays in one promotion having variations of the same 8-minute midcard TV match for a decade. I think most people if they search their feelings, will factor in that sort of thing, even if only sub-consciously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Main eventers get more opportunities to have memorable matches. That's pro wrestling. I'm good with not counting drawing as a factor, but I think it's a mistake to not take context into account at all (not that I think anyone is really implying that we should ignore all context). And I still place a premium on epics. Not every great match is an epic and not every epic is a great match, but I think the guys who can wrestle big and be great at it are the best ever. If you disagree, fine. Hash it out in the threads about the wrestlers and make the case there.

 

Matt, I feel like I've heard you make the argument about what wrestlers do over time many times, and even though I don't totally agree with that, I respect the point of view. But I'd like for you to take that philosophy to the threads in defense of or in criticism of specific wrestlers instead of just debating the philosophy itself. We're polar opposites on that (actually, we have more in common than I probably think sometimes, but the things we see differently we very much see differently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should say also that by "meaningful position" I don't simply mean main event. Especially in the PPV era where cards can be built around several matches, guys get more opportunities to be really meaningful. I'd argue that people like Regal or Dustin Rhodes were "meaningful" for large chunks of their careers without ever really being a top top guy.

 

There's value in being positioned as a US or TV champ, for example. I'd still count Pedro as being "meaningful" as late as 1983-4.

 

Just saying that we can't pretend it doesn't matter. When people are no longer being put in meaningful positions but are still active and working, I think it has to be a knock on them -- look at Greg Valentine. I think it's a knock on him that he doesn't do much after 1987 despite another 5+ years working for the big two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's an obvious factor that has to be taken into account, but position on the card is not determinative one way or the other. If someone moves away from main events and but still puts on good matches for a few more years in openers, I'm not going to penalize them for not being in the main event. That being said, people in the main event often get put in the position to have better matches. Particularly with the kind of people we're going to be talking about here, main event spots often equal the chance to put on a classic.

 

That being said, being in main event position for 30 years, with at least 10 of those WAYYYYY past your prime isn't going to help someone out in my eyes, and it may even hurt them since they're still in that position to put on classics, but their inability to do so is gong to be more glaring because of that.

 

Guys who know their limitations and how to work with them get a + in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, I feel like I've heard you make the argument about what wrestlers do over time many times, and even though I don't totally agree with that, I respect the point of view. But I'd like for you to take that philosophy to the threads in defense of or in criticism of specific wrestlers instead of just debating the philosophy itself. We're polar opposites on that (actually, we have more in common than I probably think sometimes, but the things we see differently we very much see differently).

Fair enough.

 

I mainly just like arguing with Parv. Or anyone. Probably anyone. I'm not entirely confident on talking about a lot of wrestlers right now, without spending some more time watching things. My standing line in, let's say 2010 or whenever I first started posting here regularly and stopped just lurking is that I didn't feel confident participating on the level as a lot of posters we have. I feel more so now, more refined in my views and having seen a lot more in the way of matches. I'm still not ready to weigh in on most guys yet. One think I do think I'll do is look at a lot of less seminal matches for the sake of this project and write them up, comparing and contrasting specific performances in different situations outside of GREAT MATCHES. Everyone will be looking at the great matches and it might serve the community to offer something else, especially more so than me just hammering on the point in a general sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think looking at just great matches eliminates too many guys that may be great, but just didn't have a lot of great matches.

 

The Big Boss Man and Sean Waltman are two big examples for me. They were not in a lot of great matches, but if you watch them there is an argument out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither here nor there but looking at Boss Man's late WWF run is really interesting, because he's in positions where he has extremely short matches and every second of them matters, and there are dozens of little things he does to maximize every moment. They're not workrate-y things or spotfest-y things so they were very much overlooked at the time, but the sum of them is really impressive. Which again, isn't to say I'd vote for him, but it's interesting. I know I wrote a little about them either in his note or the Vs Dibiase one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a great point and should absolutely be reflected in your poll. I also don't think there's any way I could put Mike Jackson over Flair in the example below (is Mike Jackson even a legit name or just an example?) but that's also okay. Hopefully there are enough participants that the final results reflect this diversity.

 

 

As someone who's 5'5", I'm not about to penalize someone for not being 6'3" and thus not having certain opportunities, for instance, or for not marrying a Gagne daughter (which isn't the sentence in this that you should be focused on, btw. Also don't focus much on the next one, please. Just consider this paragraph a fun footnote). By my criteria, it's possible for someone to put Mike Jackson over Ric Flair if they think that Mike Jackson was actually a better wrestler from watching him in a number of different situations, and we have Mike Jackson in a bunch of different situations and territories, and watching Flair in a number of situations. I'm not saying I'm going to do that, but when it comes to the things I care about, understanding the art and science of pro wrestling and executing it, I am going to say that possibility exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally feel like all the tools and understanding in the world are great, but mean little if they can't be channeled into something that's enjoyable to watch. Wrestlers are sometimes robbed of opportunities for reasons beyond their control, but I feel like a GOAT poll should reflect what wrestlers were able to do with their talent, not what they had the tools to do and might have accomplished in theory. That's why I lean more toward the great match metric, with the full understanding that it's a flawed approach and that it doesn't tell the whole story, nor is figuring out who the better wrestler is between two wrestlers a math problem where he with the highest number of ****1/2 matches wins. You have to look at what each guy brought to those heralded matches, and sometimes his matches that aren't as good are a better showcase of his abilities.

 

For example, Sting's best matches were the series with Vader, but I think his match with Goldberg on Nitro in '98 is a much better reflection on him as a worker, even though as a match it can't touch anything in the Vader-Sting series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the Matt perspective and the Loss perspective needn't be two irreconcilable poles (not that you guys see them as such). I can appreciate, say, an Arn Anderson, for the countless ways he lifted 3-star matches in the midcard. I might put him in the top 50. But I can still argue he doesn't belong in the same realm as Ric Flair, who was the beating heart of memorable main events for more than a decade. I guess the question is: Can a guy be so great in a smaller box that he's better than someone who's great in a bigger box? Or in Flair's case, does he get credit for creating the bigger box? I lean more to the main event guys, but I don't discount the smaller-scale workers. I'm sure I'll rank Arn, Regal, Finlay, etc. above guys who were in more MOTYCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, I think it might be something like "Does Arn do his job better than Flair does his job?" factoring in that there are both advantages and disadvantages to each job.

 

Though it's obviously personal. So it's more like "Does Arn do his job better in my eyes than Flair does his job in my eyes?" then factoring in and weighing what I personally feel to be the advantages and disadvantages in each. I'm not convinced that it's always more difficult to wrestle a good match in a 20 minute main event than it is to wrestle one in a 10 minute tv match. It's situational. There are pros and cons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I basically have started on my list by creating three separate lists. 1) Guys I have seen a ton of and feel as though deserve to be in the final list 2) Workers who bear further scrutiny and 3) Guys I've seen a ton of that I'm guessing won't make the final list but are worth considering. So far the actual ranked list in only about 30 guys with a ton more people in the other two. I'm hoping that I will be able to move people out of that second list quickly and work more on rankings than selection but there is so much to watch.

 

In terms of selection, I tend to value trends of excellence over great matches. I agree with Matt that you can learn a lot about someone from watching 1-8 minutes of action as opposed to only watching 30 minute epics where they through everything they have out. I think working tags can be just as worthwhile as singles and think some of the all time tag guys without singles runs should be represented just as much as guys who don't have tag team experience. I enjoy being able to watch a match and understand afterwords why one guy won and the other lost from a strategy standpoint. I value the narrative way more than moveset or work rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...