Your own Criteria for Tag Teams

[Grimmas]

This one is a lot trickier for me. Longevity is not going to be there for many teams, so I might have to focus on peak vs peak for these teams.

[Matt D]

Hot tags and comebacks and timing? It's definitely trickier. Maybe variation? I love Demolition for how well they changed up their act depending on whether they were wrestling the Hart Foundation at Summerslam or the Killer Bees in Philly. Presumably a team should have different looking matches if they're wrestling Arn and Tully or the Road Warriors or the MX, etc.

[khawk20]

This one is a lot trickier for me. Longevity is not going to be there for many teams, so I might have to focus on peak vs peak for these teams.

 

I think the longevity aspect for teams that did last should add to their viability to some degree. If you aren't a draw, you won't be kept together or used in any sort of meaningful capacity for very long.

[victory]

I certainly think longevity should be a factor, it also shouldn't be the only determinative factor. I see it more as bonus points for teams that are closely tied in deciding which team I might rank higher. I guess it all depends on how much stock you put in longevity.

 

Another criteria point for me would be how many promotions or territories they worked along with their placement on the card. With that being said I won't dismiss a team like the High Flyers since they only worked the AWA. That could also be seen as a positive to have longevity in one promotion.

 

It really is a case by case basis.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

This one is a lot trickier for me. Longevity is not going to be there for many teams, so I might have to focus on peak vs peak for these teams.

I think the longevity aspect for teams that did last should add to their viability to some degree. If you aren't a draw, you won't be kept together or used in any sort of meaningful capacity for very long.

 

Hmmmm, I'm not sure of that. The flipside is that if you are a draw, it might speed up the inevitable point that you are split up to work the money feud together.

 

What's the shortest time a team can be together for the split to really mean something? A year? Nine months even?

 

Not saying that longevity should be totally discounted, but a team not being kept together is not necessarily a symptom of failuire: it could also mean success.