Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Keeping the integrity of the list - a case against strategic voting.


TravJ1979

Recommended Posts

As soon as this list is finalized and published, it will be met with criticism - both deserved and otherwise. However, if everyone vows to create their list based on a set of criteria they have set for themselves and stick to their picks based on that, research, and the time they've put into it, I feel it will be respected and much easier to defend.

 

This topic came to me after thinking about some of the DVDVR 80's sets and various SmarksChoice polls and how they were sometimes plagued with, what I call, strategic voting. For instance, I seem to remember a Terry Taylor v. Rip Rogers TV match from 1990 that someone voted #1 in the Best of WCW poll. I highly doubt this person thought this was the best match in the promotions history, but voted it number one so he could guarantee it would show up. Or in the 2006 poll, when Hayabusa was given a number one vote. I realize that a lot of times, favorite wrestler = great wrestler, but there is no logical argument that could be made that Hayabusa is the greatest wrestler to ever lace them up.

 

So really, this is a plea for everyone to take this as seriously as something like this can be taken and to refrain from strategic voting. For as much time as all of us will be putting into this list, it should be easy for any of us to defend all of our inclusions and placements to any critique or question that comes up.

 

A lot of the criticism will come from The WrestlingClassics.com or Meltzerites while reading over the list with comments like, "Bunch of smarks didn't even include *WRESTLER A", or "WRESTLER B" are you serious! My point is, this will be dismissed by people who've spent five minutes scanning names on a list versus the VOTERS who've spent one and a half years actually watching matches and putting in research and not voting on existing or prejudicial, pre-existing opinions. I want the final product to reflect all of our effort and be able to systematically break down any of those jabs from self-proclaimed elitists and group-think critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Only thing I will say is that your line of "there is no logical argument that could be made that Hayabusa is the greatest wrestler to ever lace them up." is not something I agree with. The beauty of the voting process for something like this is that people are going to put wrestlers in places you don't agree with. They will have well reasoned arguments that are completely logical to them, and that's really all that matters. I mean, I really don't see an argument for Michael Elgin getting a single vote, but if he does I know that the person who voted for them has their reasons and I will respect those reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic came to me after thinking about some of the DVDVR 80's sets and various SmarksChoice polls and how they were sometimes plagued with, what I call, strategic voting. For instance, I seem to remember a Terry Taylor v. Rip Rogers TV match from 1990 that someone voted #1 in the Best of WCW poll.

 

There are a lot of words to describe RE but I'm not "strategic" would be one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'll be more interested in the top 100 lists of individual people than I will by the aggregated list. Part of me agrees with the line of thought that the more diversified and "opened up" the voting becomes, the more diluted and meaningless the list becomes -- and the less interested I'll be with it. And that isn't intended as a knock on anyone at all. It also won't lessen my engagement with the project.

 

But ... I have zero faith that everyone is going to take part in the same spirit of open mindedness, exploration and eagerness to view footage that we might hope for. And I guess I'm only *really* interested in the lists made by the guys who put that work in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you're gonna be able to have a list without some strategic voting. Not at all possible.

 

There's gonna be dismissive comments, there's gonna be troll bait, there's going to be people looking at lists and thinking if that person might have been under the influence of something when they turned it in. Can't avoid it.

 

That being said, I think there's a lot of people on here who are gonna be able to craft lists without the need for strategic voting. Say there's 25 ballots? I'll bet at least 3/4 of them will be 100% without strategic voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate strategic voting. I'm unable to do it, because I can't find good reason to put someone too far ahead of someone else based on the fact that I don't think they'll get a respectable amount of votes. If they're not better than someone else, why put them ahead? Because so and so refuses to do the research? It's not my fault someone doesn't put in the effort or disagrees with me. Unfortunately, strategic voting will happen. It won't happen from me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from what i've seen of FLIK, i doubt hayabusa at #1 was a "strategic vote". the guy is just genuinely that crazy for FMW, as evidenced by him also putting combat toyoda in his top 100.

 

i'm honestly rather neutral on this one. i saw peteF3 say he would rank dory jr. real high as a strategic thing, and i didn't have any strong reaction to that. i guess i like the idea that someone who a few people REALLY love can make a list like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing I will say is that your line of "there is no logical argument that could be made that Hayabusa is the greatest wrestler to ever lace them up." is not something I agree with. The beauty of the voting process for something like this is that people are going to put wrestlers in places you don't agree with. They will have well reasoned arguments that are completely logical to them, and that's really all that matters

 

from what i've seen of FLIK, i doubt hayabusa at #1 was a "strategic vote". the guy is just genuinely that crazy for FMW, as evidenced by him also putting combat toyoda in his top 100.

 

I don't hold it against FLIK for voting Hayabusa #1, but it was clearly a vote based on favorite wrestler/influential wrestler merit instead of an objective look at his career. That is the point I'm making on this. I mistakenly lumped the clear strategic vote of the Taylor/Rogers match with this note about FLIK. For that, I apologize.

 

 

I don't think you're gonna be able to have a list without some strategic voting. Not at all possible.

 

There's gonna be dismissive comments, there's gonna be troll bait, there's going to be people looking at lists and thinking if that person might have been under the influence of something when they turned it in. Can't avoid it.

 

This kind of references another aspect of voting on lists like this. The "fringe/contrarian" voter who will put an obscure wrestler on his list just for the sake of being different. Kind of like a "look who I know about and look how high I ranked him/her" attitude.

 

Now, I believe anybody should be able to put any wrestler in any slot they want. I just want that person to have a well researched, thought out reasoning behind it instead of doing it to bring attention to a wrestler who would otherwise not get it. That is what the nomination threads are for ... To support your nomination with a bunch of supporting material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think we have to worry much about that on this site. For one thing, we're pretty heavy on having each other back up what they say (even if not unkind about it MOST of the time). For another, everyone's put a lot of thought into this. That's obvious so far. Most of us know each other and our tastes fairly well by now.

 

Also, look at how the WKO list is received on the rest of the net. The second that El Satanico beats Shawn Michaels or even Davey Richards there'll be a ton of people who will dismiss this out of hand. Screw 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my list at least, I want to make sure I stay true to the essence of this poll. Greatest Wrestler Ever is the objective here, "Ever" being the operative term. Obviously, "Ever" doesn't really mean "Ever", but we should get as close to it as possible. We use "Ever" because it sounds better than, "Greatest Wrestler Ever (who's career spanned anywhere between late 1940's to present that we have enough footage of and can verify based on observation rather than legendary stories)"

 

Naysayers will criticize because Gotch, Jenkins, Burns, etc don't show up on the list. That is fine. They may very well deserve to be on this list, but I'm not going to assume it just because Lou Thesz or some other "authority" said so.

 

I also need to make a very conscious effort to stay true to the scope. I see a lot of wrestlers getting nominated that have no business being nominated. If a career started in 2005, they are going to have a very hard hill to climb in order to be added to a list limited to 100 of all-time. I'm not saying they aren't good wrestlers or wrestlers deserving to be on a Top 100 or even Top 10 wrestlers of the 21 Century Poll or Top # wrestlers of the [enter promotion], but the scope of roughly six decades of available footage I believe is more than enough to provide 100 greats throughout a career vs. a subset of a good run a wrestler may have had. I mean, if a guy had a really good three year run in only one promotion and was unable to get over in any other environment, I'd have to disqualify from him being anywhere near a 100 of all-time list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as this list is finalized and published, it will be met with criticism - both deserved and otherwise. However, if everyone vows to create their list based on a set of criteria they have set for themselves and stick to their picks based on that, research, and the time they've put into it, I feel it will be respected and much easier to defend.

 

This topic came to me after thinking about some of the DVDVR 80's sets and various SmarksChoice polls and how they were sometimes plagued with, what I call, strategic voting. For instance, I seem to remember a Terry Taylor v. Rip Rogers TV match from 1990 that someone voted #1 in the Best of WCW poll. I highly doubt this person thought this was the best match in the promotions history, but voted it number one so he could guarantee it would show up. Or in the 2006 poll, when Hayabusa was given a number one vote. I realize that a lot of times, favorite wrestler = great wrestler, but there is no logical argument that could be made that Hayabusa is the greatest wrestler to ever lace them up.

 

So really, this is a plea for everyone to take this as seriously as something like this can be taken and to refrain from strategic voting. For as much time as all of us will be putting into this list, it should be easy for any of us to defend all of our inclusions and placements to any critique or question that comes up.

 

A lot of the criticism will come from The WrestlingClassics.com or Meltzerites while reading over the list with comments like, "Bunch of smarks didn't even include *WRESTLER A", or "WRESTLER B" are you serious! My point is, this will be dismissed by people who've spent five minutes scanning names on a list versus the VOTERS who've spent one and a half years actually watching matches and putting in research and not voting on existing or prejudicial, pre-existing opinions. I want the final product to reflect all of our effort and be able to systematically break down any of those jabs from self-proclaimed elitists and group-think critics.

I believe it was Resident Evil who had Taylor vs Rogers as number 1 and allegedly he really believed it was the best WCW match ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah trav, i don't think you quite "get" resident evil if you think that was a strategic vote. that person has...issues, of which wrestling opinions are the least.

 

really this thread still comes off to me as "i don't agree with this vote or see a case so clearly something must be up." i think getting hung up on "objectivity" is your issue here - i think that's an impossible ideal for an endeavor like this. this is a project based primarily on in-ring work, which is a highly subjective area. it's not the WON HOF!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are strategic voting to get results they want to see. They are a really sad bunch.

 

or it could be that you think this project may not be representative of hardcore wrestling fans as a whole, due to some of the more unusual tastes of this forum in particular. i could see a couple #1 votes for tanahashi as a "strategic" thing, and you could argue that wouldn't be a bad thing if we don't end up attracting a more diverse bunch for the final vote.

 

basically it comes down to how important you think it is to represent different groups in all of this.

 

also OJ, i would think fewer voters would make outliers that much more likely to have an impact on the aggregated results...

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...