Your Working Number 1!

[Phil Schneider]

I just need more Bock footage to put him #1, I love a lot of it, but he doesn't have the footage resume for me.

[JerryvonKramer]

@ Matt D - In essence, it could be. That is, Bock might be a better allround worker, but Flair just has so many more great matches in his locker that it's almost not a fair contest.

 

To draw a really weird analogy that might possibly be lost on people, there's little doubt among the hip-hop heads that GZA is the best all-around rapper in the Wu-Tang Clan, but he's only really got 1 great album and then 1-2 more quite good ones. Ghostface Killah technically is maybe number 5 or 6 best rapper in the Clan but he's got lots of great albums to his name now and so you'll see GFK in GOAT debates much more than GZA or a guy like Method Man who has wonderful flow but a grand total of zero great albums to his name.

 

When talking GOAT in any field it's about both ability AND output. Hope this makes sense Matt.

[Matt D]

@ Matt D - In essence, it could be. That is, Bock might be a better allround worker, but Flair just has so many more great matches in his locker that it's almost not a fair contest.

 

To draw a really weird analogy that might possibly be lost on people, there's little doubt among the hip-hop heads that GZA is the best all-around rapper in the Wu-Tang Clan, but he's only really got 1 great album and then 1-2 more quite good ones. Ghostface Killah technically is maybe number 5 or 6 best rapper in the Clan but he's got lots of great albums to his name now and so you'll see GFK in GOAT debates much more than GZA or a guy like Method Man who has wonderful flow but a grand total of zero great albums to his name.

 

When talking GOAT in any field it's about both ability AND output. Hope this makes sense Matt.

 

I understand that's one school of thought. To me, though, the question is which of the two is the better wrestler, not which of the two have the higher number of great matches on tape, and I feel like we have enough of Bock in varied situations to win that argument. We could have a thousand matches of Flair performing at a high level and fifty of Bock performing at a high level and if I feel like Bock's level is higher than Flair's, then he's a better wrestler. That's on me thinking I'm a good enough judge with the smaller number of matches (which is still a lot and still in a number of varied situations). People can disagree obviously.

 

I need exactly as many matches as I need to figure out what I need to know. To me, that's the only point of quantity when it comes to this project. Now, maybe one thing I need to know is work over time, but you can get that with x number of matches over x years, or what not. At the end of the day, i need enough footage to decide which is the greater wrestler. Having more matches where I see evidence that someone is NOT the greater wrestler than the wrestler I have less (but plenty of) matches with probably hurts you more than it helps you, to be honest.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm kinda torn on this because I do understand the approach you're taking. And I am generally in favour of an "holistic" look at someone.

 

But ... doesn't it ultimately just end up with a set of Top Trump-type stats? You break down the aspects of work and give a rating out of ten in each one and the guy with the highest average or most 9s and 10s wins. That's essentially what you're proposing.

 

I don't think it can work like that. When I think of real sports and think of the "best players" according to stats you might allocate like that, they aren't always the ones with the best careers. The talent doesn't always translate into output.

 

Someone (let's say Bobby Eaton) might outscore Flair in every area, but the fact remains that he didn't have the career that Flair did or even one that is comparable in terms of numbers of great matches.

 

If you make it a simple scorecard exercise, maybe someone like Barry Windham comes out as GOAT. I mean what wasn't he good at? Fact remains, Windham's career wasn't all that. I'm just not sure you can remove the context as much as you're saying and be left with a list that even looks meaningful.

[Matt D]

I'm kinda torn on this because I do understand the approach you're taking.

 

Doesn't it ultimately just end up with a set of Top Trump stats though? You break down the aspects of work and give a rating out of ten in each one and the guy with the highest average or most 9s and 10s wins. That's essentially what you're proposing.

 

I don't think it can work like that. When I think of real sports and think of the "best players" according to stats you might allocate like that, they aren't always the ones with the best careers. The talent doesn't always translate into output.

 

Someone (let's say Bobby Eaton) might outscore Flair in every area, but the fact remains that he didn't have the career that Flair did or even one that is comparable in terms of numbers of great matches.

 

If you make it a simple scorecard exercise, maybe someone like Barry Windham comes out as GOAT. I mean what wasn't he good at? Fact remains, Windham's career wasn't all that. I'm just not sure you can remove the context as much as you're saying and be left with a list that even looks meaningful.

That's a really good question, but when you look at how I then apply the information, it's very much me looking for patterns and a general sense of understanding wrestling how I want it understood and then executing that understanding in different situations. It's not necessarily about ranking a bunch of performances from 1-10. It's much more holistic (which may not mean what I think it means). But what I need is enough data, enough INPUT for me to make an ultimate decision. That's what quantity means to me in a project like this.

 

I don't care if Windham's career was all that. I care about if I think he's ultimately a greater wrestler than everyone else. (I'd probably end up saying no because I don't think he dealt with his physical breakdown well and that shows a lack of understanding, ultimately. But that's not necessarily because he didn't have great matches late in his career. It's because I'm not convinced by the footage we do have with him. That's sort of the same thing but it's also sort of not. I give Boss Man a ton of credit for his late career 2-3 minute matches because they show me something. I might feel differently if I had more Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling though, re: Windham. That's not the point though).

 

Now if I was just a great match guy then I'd probably be in a much more tenuous position if I was making this same argument, but I'm very clearly not.

 

It's not about me giving a ranking for stats. It's about me ultimately deciding who I think understands and executes what I think is greatness in wrestling. Maybe you could deconstruct what I do and find a statistical way of expressing that, but it's not how look at it. The total picture isn't one of numbers for me. It's also not that I just look at talent. It's like writing a dissertation on a wrestler. I take from matches as my primary sources. If they didn't do something (or avoid doing something in the ring), and usually multiple times, I don't have anything to go on.

[stomperspc]

Flair is the guy others have to beat, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about that.

 

That's where I am. If there is a wrestler I end up thinking is a better around performer than Flair, then great! But even after years of reading all of the arguments against him and being so visible that his flaws/less-than-proud moments are impossible to avoid, I still think he's the greatest of all time. Flair is the measuring stick for me starting out.

[Dylan Waco]

This is weird to say, but I'm trying to start this with no framework in mind for what my list will look like. Of course I have a bias toward Funk and others, but I don't like to go into a project like this with a "working" spot for anyone

[Superstar Sleeze]

If I had to turn in a list today:

 

1. Mitsuharu Misawa

2. Ric Flair

3. Stan Hansen

4. Kenta Kobashi

5. Genechiro Tenryu

I have never said this before, but I have always thought the person I line up the most with is you, Chad. My God, that is pretty much my exact Top 5. I might throw in Kawada or Jumbo over Kobashi. But that is pretty spot on.

 

My 1, 2, 3 as of now is Flair, Hansen, Misawa. There is a pretty wide gap after Misawa.

[goodhelmet]

Jerry Lawler, Bill Dundee then everyone else.

[Steenalized]

Funk, probably. Tenryu or Hansen make strong arguments. But I've got a lot of watching to do

[Timbo Slice]

I'm with Dylan. I haven't really thought about a "greatest" wrestler in a while even though I have my biases, but I don't have a framework for who my working #1 is.

[MJH]

Kawada, Kobashi and Misawa (in that order) are my 1-3. I just think they hit a level together at their peak that nobody else can match. Beyond that, I don't know, though I figure I'm likely to place Joshi wrestlers higher than most, and Lawler and Fujiwara lower (though not low).

[JazeUSA]

Tier 1:

Ric Flair

Terry Funk

Stan Hansen

Jerry Lawler

Nick Bockwinkle

El Fucking Dandy

[victory]

My top guys for years have been Funk, Bock, Backlund and Savage. I've always been on the fence for who I'd put with them. Possibilities are Hansen, Flair, Race, Rose and Lawler. As the process moves along hopefully some more guys sneak into that top level.

[Lee Casebolt]

I see where Dylan's coming from, but I need the framework of "working" positions or I will never be able to sort out this many people. I've got 136 wrestlers I feel more or less knowledgeable about sorted (Arn Anderson #1, Abdullah the Butcher #136) based on my current feelings, and another 125 nominees listed to get to and plug in over the course of the project. Nothing's set in stone yet, though.

[Matt D]

I'm increasingly tempted to just make Volk Han my #1 because then I can watch a lot of short matches. I'm kidding but great wrestlers sure like broadways and it's tough to find an hour at a time to watch wrestling.

[Lee Casebolt]

I'm increasingly tempted to just make Volk Han my #1 because then I can watch a lot of short matches. I'm kidding but great wrestlers sure like broadways and it's tough to find an hour at a time to watch wrestling.

 

Vote Arn Anderson, King of the Ten Minute Match!

[Laney]

Yesterday I would have said Flair with justifying leaving out the latter part of his career where his ring work drops off due to his age. However, after watching Nick Bockwinkel put on some awesome matches and coming to the realization that he was in his 50's at that time, I can no longer use that argument. Needless to say, Bock is my working #1 at the moment.

[WingedEagle]

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but I hope it takes more than a few matches for anyone to earn a #1 or similarly high ranking. I could see myself dropping in a couple names lower on my list who I haven't seen a ton of, but not sure its fair to do that high up.

[Matt D]

Bock is just that good.

 

[Dylan Waco]

Bock has over a hundred matches on tape.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't think I've aired my small hypothesis yet on the forum that there's a chance Bock was better in the 80s than in the 70s because he changed up his style.

 

I need to see more 70s Bock to back up this little theory, but I think he adapted himself to work the style of the day and of the environment. Before the AWA set dropped, I recall people saying that, aside from the Billy Robinson match, they often found Bock boring in Japan.

 

Anyway, I have amassed quite a bit of 70s Bock from all over the place, as well as 80s Bock in fairly obscure places like Hawaii. He'll be part of my ongoing "Those 70s Guys" mini-project. Currently that consists of:

 

- Dory [found a lot of stuff]

- Brisco [got everything available]

- Race [got everything available]

- Flair in the 70s [got mostly everything from around 77-80 and bits and bobs from before]

- Bockwinkel in the 70s [found a lot of stuff]

 

The WoS guys will be considered on their own. Billy Robinson seems like he'll keep cropping up against the other guys. Ditto Inoki and Baba.

 

If anyone has any other people who they think should be priorities for the 70s, let me know and I'll see what time I can give them.

[soup23]

More 70's Guys for Consideration:

Baba

The Destroyer

[Dylan Waco]

Buddy Rose is a 70s guy

[WingedEagle]

Bock has over a hundred matches on tape.

 

That's the impression I have and I personally hope to check out many of them. I was speaking to the suggestion that he could be someone's #1 after only a few matches.