BillThompson Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Maybe this deserves its own topic, maybe not. Either way, There's plenty of nice little matches he was involved in, and his moveset did make him stand out, but I'm amazed so many people see something other than a thoroughly Kobashi match in his most famous one. That or crediting staple Race spots to Lawler is the most egregious piece of misattribution online. That match was 90% Honda. Which was completely fine. Not getting in the way of someone else's masterful performance is an important quality to have. This brings up an interesting point, basically how much credit are we giving guys just for being in great matches? Basically, are we giving guys credit simply for being in a match that is great? If Jeff Hardy (and I'm just using his name, not actually making any statement about him) is in a bunch of great matches, but in at least half of them it's not him who's great but the other guy/guys, how much do those matches count towards Hardy's GOAT status? AWA Leon White versus Hansen is another great example. Is that match really a feather in the cap of White? It's a match I've always heard talked about as being great because of Hansen, while White is fine, but not in the great realm. I've seen some bring this match up as an example of White having great matches well before he was Vader. But, if White wasn't really great, but only good in a great match how much credit does he deserve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Maybe this deserves its own topic, maybe not. Either way, There's plenty of nice little matches he was involved in, and his moveset did make him stand out, but I'm amazed so many people see something other than a thoroughly Kobashi match in his most famous one. That or crediting staple Race spots to Lawler is the most egregious piece of misattribution online. That match was 90% Honda. Which was completely fine. Not getting in the way of someone else's masterful performance is an important quality to have. This brings up an interesting point, basically how much credit are we giving guys just for being in great matches? Basically, are we giving guys credit simply for being in a match that is great? If Jeff Hardy (and I'm just using his name, not actually making any statement about him) is in a bunch of great matches, but in at least half of them it's not him who's great but the other guy/guys, how much do those matches count towards Hardy's GOAT status? AWA Leon White versus Hansen is another great example. Is that match really a feather in the cap of White? It's a match I've always heard talked about as being great because of Hansen, while White is fine, but not in the great realm. I've seen some bring this match up as an example of White having great matches well before he was Vader. But, if White wasn't really great, but only good in a great match how much credit does he deserve? He deserves some credit for fitting into an excellent match when he was really green. It serves the overall theme of him as a worker who fit well in a wide variety of promotions over a significant amount of time. It's a small point in that argument but a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 I can't think of any great matches where the "lesser" worker didn't bring a lot to the table. My point in the Kobashi/Honda match wasn't that Honda wasn't very good in that match (he was), just that it's as clearly a Kobashi match as we might identify something as being a Flair match, say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 I'll use Triple H versus Benoit from No Mercy '00 as a better example. That match is all Triple H, and the negative points I deducted from the match were due to the iffy selling of Benoit. But, it's still a great match and that's because Trips gives a great performance and carries an off his game Benoit along for the ride. Now, I do believe that Benoit deserves credit for being good in a great match, but the lion's share of the credit should go to Trips as he was the one carrying the match and the man responsible for the match being great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTNW Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 I can't think of any great matches where the "lesser" worker didn't bring a lot to the table. My point in the Kobashi/Honda match wasn't that Honda wasn't very good in that match (he was), just that it's as clearly a Kobashi match as we might identify something as being a Flair match, say. It may be a "Kobashi match" in terms of layout, length and such but Kobashi was also constantly put in a position to produce those matches while Honda wasn't. If anything it was worked in the vein of NOAH epics-which weren't exclusive to Kobashi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 [i'd move this back to Honda's folder but, again, both the quote function and general c/p aren't functioning for me for whatever reason...] I'm neither denying that Kobashi was put into a position to work "NOAH epics" more frequently than Honda (of course he was), nor that they're exclusive to Kobashi (ditto), but Kobashi had his way of working them, Misawa his, Akiyama his, etc... and the Honda match is a perfect blueprint of how Kobashi laid such matches out when positioned against a limited opponent. He'd give them an early control to put over some aspect of their arsenal that would give him an issue (in Honda's case it's the mat-wrestling, obviously), find an answer and regain control, take a big equalising bump from the apron/ramp, give them a prolonged control off that and then work his comeback through to the finish. Like I said before, I'm not saying Honda wasn't good in the match, he absolutely "rose to the occasion", and if we're being critical of any part of the match it's probably that Kobashi's control between the opening section and the ramp bump goes on a tad long (maybe he wanted to hammer in Honda as underdog); rather, I can only give so much credit for the match to Honda when it's Ace Kobashi 101, y'know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Off topic for where this thread seems to have gone, but here's my criteria: If I could only watch matches from one wrestler ever again, who would be? The answer to that question is my #1. If I could only watch matches from one wrestler other than #1 ever again, who would it be? That would be my #2. And so on, to my #100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 In addition, and this could probably go somewhere else, but in not sure where, I think the unavoidable gaps we will all have in our watching forms part of our collective criteria....if something doesn't float your boat enough to seek some out for this project, you're probably not going to find it good to begin with. Idiosyncrasies will be a big strength of this project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I'm bumping this, mainly because I'm a jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I might post more in here later but one self imposed guideline I think I am going to follow is that if I thought you were the best wrestler in the world for a particular year you are making my list. Because of the nature of footage availability I'm not sure how far back I can push that mandate, but I can press it to 1980 for sure, and possibly as far back as 76. In any case that's something I have decided to do, for reasons that might be hard to explain, but part of it is that I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of leaving off someone who I thought was the best in the World for a 12 month period (and yes I understand the artificiality of the calendar year in that context, but still). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I might post more in here later but one self imposed guideline I think I am going to follow is that if I thought you were the best wrestler in the world for a particular year you are making my list. Because of the nature of footage availability I'm not sure how far back I can push that mandate, but I can press it to 1980 for sure, and possibly as far back as 76. In any case that's something I have decided to do, for reasons that might be hard to explain, but part of it is that I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of leaving off someone who I thought was the best in the World for a 12 month period (and yes I understand the artificiality of the calendar year in that context, but still). Does that mean Sasha or Roman gets on for this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I do like that idea though. How many people can claim to be the best in the world during a year, that has to count for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I might post more in here later but one self imposed guideline I think I am going to follow is that if I thought you were the best wrestler in the world for a particular year you are making my list. Because of the nature of footage availability I'm not sure how far back I can push that mandate, but I can press it to 1980 for sure, and possibly as far back as 76. In any case that's something I have decided to do, for reasons that might be hard to explain, but part of it is that I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of leaving off someone who I thought was the best in the World for a 12 month period (and yes I understand the artificiality of the calendar year in that context, but still). Does that mean Sasha or Roman gets on for this year? Neither of them are in my top three at the moment, though it is very possible I will vote Banks for Thesz/Flair Award in the Observer Awards. This year I see the top contenders for in ring performer as AJ Styles, Roderick Strong, and Jimmy Rave. I could maybe be convinced on someone like Virus or Timothy Thatcher if they had a few huge matches before years end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Are those people that wouldn't have made your list anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Dylan - are all years created equal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Dylan - are all years created equal? Not directed to me, but I will answer anyway. Obviously not. 1999 is awful, while 1989 is an all-time great. However the person who was the best in 1989 (Jumbo, Flair, Tenryu, Steamboat?) will be way higher than someone who may sneak on due to being the best in 1999 (Tajiri?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Reading some of the back and forth from earlier in this thread has been helpful in parsing out my own commitments. I tend to try to circumvent those discussions with other rubrics when it comes down to touch choices, nuance, and comparing really desperate wrestlers. Even though I think things like context are vital, any way you come down on it you are doing an injustice to a large group of people. So, even though I think a lot about context, I don’t have a huge commitment on the matter. Things I Value Highly Top match quality – Self explanatory. How good are your 3-5 best matches. Number of good to great matches – I try not to necessarily think of how many five star matches, but how many 4 or 4.25+ do I see. Wrestling intelligence and creativity – How fresh and clever and informed does a wrestler feel within the context of wrestling and its varied genres. Example: Foley would score really high on this, as would Steen. Goldberg, though very different, wouldn’t. Believability – I don’t just mean how legit someone is or looks. Maybe the thing I value more than anything else is getting lost in a match. This is something that I think can transcend the context a bit because it is sutured to context. For example, Arn and Regal would score really high on this. Despite being mid card wrestlers without a lot of true classics to point to, I get lost in their matches because they aver very believable and their attention to detail lets me get lost in the match, especially when I am watching critically and any little thing can lose me. The fusion of work and story/character/placement/limitations (context, I guess) – This is one I was thinking about and started realizing was important to me when I was rewatching some Eddie Guerrero. I really value someone who’s can work off of a variety things to enhance the story and the match. I think Eddie was great at that for example and it is why I think his Blood Bath with Bradshaw is an all time great match, where most people think it was very very good. Another, less popular, example, would be Sid. Sid isn’t going to crack my top100, but I tend to enjoy Sid matches more than anyone I know because I think Sid had a pretty acute understanding of his own limitations and worked really hard to play off how over he always was (face or heel) with the live audience, to play off his aesthetics and presence to enhance a match beyond his very limited skill set. Who do I trust – This one is strange and sort of a tiebreaker for me. I often think about who I would want if I was starting a promotion right now or who I would trust to have a 4.5 star match if my life depended on it. I feel like I am going to have to do this a good bit with Regal. I might also be thinking about this a lot near the very top, especially with guys like Danielson and Guerrero vs some of the more widely accomplished guys who will be popular top 10s. This one is very me centric, but whatever, these ballots will all be about personal preference. Diversity – Another self-explanatory one. Things I implicitly value Draw – I think draw power gives wrestlers opportunities and can bring a lot of energy to a match that really helps put it over the top. No matter how critical I am, a white hot audience is going to help me get lost in match and get excited about it. Success/Longevity – If you have more matches you have more time to shine. I try to watch the lesser stuff and the worse stuff here and there, but life is too short to watch bad wrestling if you can help it (said the guy who just admitted to liking Sid more than most) and I honestly just don’t have time. The higher up on the card a wrestler is, the more 30+ minute matches they are allowed to have in front of cameras, the more likely I am to see their matches and enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I think my criteria boils down to going sight unseen whose matches would I want to see the most whose matches do I think would be the best. Now how I arrive on who would have the best match for a match I have not seen obviously goes down to watching previous matches and how they work, etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I also really like the desert island criteria. If I was stranded on a desert island (and for some reason had a DVD player and a TV and power) and could only watch matches from the career of one wrestler, who would I pick and why. Thats another tie breaker that is sutured to but not completely dependent on context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 The WOTY argument is interesting and I did a quick laundry list of people I thought were WOTY and rather they would have made my list anyway. I will also say that 1998 is a far worse year worldwide compared to 1999. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Dylan - are all years created equal? Absolutely not. But when looking for things to create some separation in a very close field, having that one year where you stand above the pack matters to me, even if it is probably something that is easy overvalue. To me it's something of a tiebreaker that may help no more than 2 or 3 guys get over the hump (offhand the only guys who I wouldn't definitely include that might benefit would be Strong, Rave and possibly Samoa Joe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR Ackermann Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 What about Rude for 92? Or would you say that he wasn't quite number 1 that year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Rude will be on my list based 80% on his 92 and about 18% for 89 and 2% for tagging with Manny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.00c68798e2502c92a7da65280cf7def4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.