goc Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I'm not saying every wrestler is going to be considered on 3 matches alone. But if I'm not familiar with someone or their style and I give it 3 matches but don't like it, I just don't see myself plowing through to see if it takes. I haven't seen any wrestling that I eventually liked that I didn't at least see SOMETHING in the introduction to the style that I liked enough to keep going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concrete1992 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 How can you decide to not vote for someone after three matches or even worse one? That's against the spirit of the entire thing. If someone pimps you 3 matches as someone's best work and you watch all 3 but don't see the big deal, how much deeper should you dig? To be honest, I don't see the point in watching three matches of this wrestler and three matches of that wrestler because at some point if you keep doing that you're going to end up with a top 100 where you ranked workers based on only three matches. If you don't like a certain style and you decide "okay, I'm gonna watch three matches of a worker from this style and if I'm not impressed then forget it," what's the point? You might as well not bother. To me that's almost confirmation bias. It's not an honest effort at getting into a style. I can't tell people how they should watch wrestling, but I would hope that they're more selective with the wrestlers they invest time into than some willy-nilly approach to writing people off. I know it isn't meant to be this way but seems to be another comment that would lead to "qualifying" the voter pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 How can you decide to not vote for someone after three matches or even worse one? That's against the spirit of the entire thing. Is it? If you have an insane amount of wrestling to watch and you can only tackle a small, probably recommended, sampling if those initial matches gives a real poor impression then I wouldn't want them to waste time on those wrestlers. Would it be nice if they could get at least 7-10? Yep, but save that for wrestlers with some redeeming qualities otherwise I can't even imagine how many wrestlers will just have to be looked over. Bull Nakano and Jaguar Yokota have no redeeming qualities? The idea of judging a wrestler based on one match is preposterous. Can you imagine if people did that under normal circumstances? What happens if you choose a bad match to start with? Well, I think the point of this forum is to direct people to matches where that won't happen. The joshi thread ideally will have a link to one of the Bull vs. Aja matches as opposed to Bull vs. Madusa from Road Wild. But the pimped match is not always going to be the one that gets you hooked. Everyone has had the experience where a pimped match didn't live up to the hype or they couldn't get into a worker at first until they saw a certain match and then went back and revisited the stuff they were cold on. It happens all the time. The recommended matches now seem a bit counterproductive to me if they're supposed to be the clincher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I'm not saying every wrestler is going to be considered on 3 matches alone. But if I'm not familiar with someone or their style and I give it 3 matches but don't like it, I just don't see myself plowing through to see if it takes. I haven't seen any wrestling that I eventually liked that I didn't at least see SOMETHING in the introduction to the style that I liked enough to keep going. Well, that is fair enough. If people know well enough to trust their instincts I don't have a problem with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I know it isn't meant to be this way but seems to be another comment that would lead to "qualifying" the voter pool. I wouldn't make that sort of judgement since I took place in the original poll without being particularly qualified. What I was trying to get at is that if you've identified your priorities (as some people have) then I hope they properly explore them as Parv has been doing, for example, or Matt. I realise not every one can participate to that extreme, but two hours over eighteen months is doable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 The idea that OJ is an open minded critic is hilarious to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 The project is different things to different people and that's fine by me. We're never going to get a consensus on how to go about doing research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I would argue that the recommendations are a boon more than anything. I've had far more positive experiences with stuff from the WoS or joshi threads than negative. Looking forward to looking at the multiple lucha threads on the site to find stuff on youtube. Not everything is going to be up my alley, even if it is high end stuff from whatever style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSR Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 The project is different things to different people and that's fine by me. We're never going to get a consensus on how to go about doing research.Probably the best thing I've read about this project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JazeUSA Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 is it going to be a top 50 or top 100 list? Has that been determined? This answer will help me better determan who may or may not be in or out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Top 100 for singles and top 25 for tag team, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2BTD Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 No women will make my list. I personally think it's silly to rank men & women together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 No women will make my list. I personally think it's silly to rank men & women together. Why? Just curios if you were doing greatest actors or musicians would it include women? What about figure skaters or dancers? Even sports. Say, greatest track and field stars would include women on it. I'm confused by your statement there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2BTD Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 No women will make my list. I personally think it's silly to rank men & women together. Why? Just curios if you were doing greatest actors or musicians would it include women? What about figure skaters or dancers? Even sports. Say, greatest track and field stars would include women on it. I'm confused by your statement there. Musicians yes, actors maybe, anything athletic absolutely no chance. Dancers I have no idea, because I know nothing about that world. Why on Earth would I include women & men on a list of greatest track & field stars? Men are bigger, faster, stronger, and better at everything track & field entails. I suppose you could handicap the times or distances or whatever, but that's silly to me. Men vs men, women vs women. That's the only fair way, otherwise you are either shortchanging the women or overcompensating unfairly for them when men are so obviously superior athletically. As far as wrestling, men are simply better at it in my opinion. A lot of that is because they are better athletes. A lot of that is they convey themselves as physical threats more convincingly. In general, I don't like women's wrestling. It's aways a half step slower, except in the case of elite joshi's. They don't wrestle each other, so there are no common opponents or points of comparison. I'd rather just rank the men with the men, and the women with the women. The women are at a severe disadvantage athletically, it just isn't fair to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El McKell Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I know it isn't meant to be this way but seems to be another comment that would lead to "qualifying" the voter pool. I wouldn't make that sort of judgement since I took place in the original poll without being particularly qualified. What I was trying to get at is that if you've identified your priorities (as some people have) then I hope they properly explore them as Parv has been doing, for example, or Matt. I realise not every one can participate to that extreme, but two hours over eighteen months is doable. I just wanna point out that two hours over 18 months isn't actually a small amount, because if you do it for all the nominees it'd have to be like 9 hours a week over 18 months Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I don't agree with any of that really, mainly because wrestling is a performance art not an athletic event. Even if I were to go down that route your argument doesn't hold water with me. Take Serena Williams and Andy Roddick as examples. If they faced each other Roddick would wipe the floor with Serena. However, that's a shortsighted assessment of their place in their sport. Serena is a better tennis player than Roddick, doesn't matter if she doesn't match up physically. In the end I really do think you make too much of athleticism in wrestling Joe. It's a component for sure, but in a performance art athleticism is one of the least important elements. That being said, there are plenty of women wrestlers who are fantastic athletes, albeit that's not a criteria that matters all that much to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2BTD Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I don't agree with any of that really, mainly because wrestling is a performance art not an athletic event. Even if I were to go down that route your argument doesn't hold water with me. Take Serena Williams and Andy Roddick as examples. If they faced each other Roddick would wipe the floor with Serena. However, that's a shortsighted assessment of their place in their sport. Serena is a better tennis player than Roddick, doesn't matter if she doesn't match up physically. In the end I really do think you make too much of athleticism in wrestling Joe. It's a component for sure, but in a performance art athleticism is one of the least important elements. That being said, there are plenty of women wrestlers who are fantastic athletes, albeit that's not a criteria that matters all that much to me. It's performance art that relies heavily on athleticism. At least in the way that I enjoy it. Women often look far less coordinated in the ring than men, and are almost always a step slower and less fluid. Those are things that lose me when it comes to suspension of disbelief. The idea that athleticism is one of the least important components of pro wrestling is patently and utterly absurd, but that's a discussion for another thread, and we've been down that road and it leads to nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I don't agree with any of that really, mainly because wrestling is a performance art not an athletic event. Even if I were to go down that route your argument doesn't hold water with me. Take Serena Williams and Andy Roddick as examples. If they faced each other Roddick would wipe the floor with Serena. However, that's a shortsighted assessment of their place in their sport. Serena is a better tennis player than Roddick, doesn't matter if she doesn't match up physically. In the end I really do think you make too much of athleticism in wrestling Joe. It's a component for sure, but in a performance art athleticism is one of the least important elements. That being said, there are plenty of women wrestlers who are fantastic athletes, albeit that's not a criteria that matters all that much to me. The idea that athleticism is one of the least important components of pro wrestling is patently and utterly absurd, but that's a discussion for another thread, and we've been down that road and it leads to nowhere. These are the statements that make it tough to have discussions with you Joe. It can't just be a difference of opinion, the other opinion has to be absurd, or some other such bit of hyperbole. I could say I find your idea that athleticism is very important to be absurd, but I'm trying to have a civil discussion so I'm not going to dismiss your opinion like that. I disagree with your opinion, but as long as you support it I'm cool with that and not about to belittle you or your opinion by tossing around hyperbole like absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Serena is a better tennis player than Roddick, doesn't matter if she doesn't match up physically. Well no, she's not. She's more dominant in her sport than he was in his. It's not the same sport and isn't treated as such by the competitors or the people who cover it. The issue is muddier in wrestling, for the reasons you cited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Serena is a better tennis player than Roddick, doesn't matter if she doesn't match up physically. Well no, she's not. She's more dominant in her sport than he was in his. It's not the same sport and isn't treated as such by the competitors or the people who cover it. Not going to turn this into an all out tennis discussion, but I disagree with you. In every way possible I view Serena as a better tennis player than Roddick, and I really liked Roddick and disliked Serena. Oh, and I never bought the different sport argument, it's a way of compartmentalizing the differences that sprouted up between the two genders, but it's still the same sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Serena is a better tennis player than Roddick, doesn't matter if she doesn't match up physically. Well no, she's not. She's more dominant in her sport than he was in his. It's not the same sport and isn't treated as such by the competitors or the people who cover it. Not going to turn this into an all out tennis discussion, but I disagree with you. In every way possible I view Serena as a better tennis player than Roddick, and I really liked Roddick and disliked Serena. Oh, and I never bought the different sport argument, it's a way of compartmentalizing the differences that sprouted up between the two genders, but it's still the same sport. It seems there might be a real discussion to be had here about how we all view gender in the context of the poll. It's not a cut and dry issue for a lot of people; Will, Charles and I have discussed it several times in our year-in-review podcasts without coming to a clear answer. And I don't want to get sidetracked on tennis either, but your take on it does drive me a little crazy. Tell me Serena is a greater athlete than Roddick and I won't argue a bit. But if the two of them played tennis, she wouldn't win a game. So don't tell me she's better at tennis. If it were all one sport, they'd play each other, and the best women would measure themselves against the best men. They don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 To get this back on point, it's unlikely that I'll rate Ikeda, Ishikawa, or any of those modern, Battlarts era shoot-style guys. I'm keeping as open a mind as possible, but those guys are a bridge too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 A bridge too far in what way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 In the sense that I just don't like it very much. I'm so new to so many of these styles and periods of time and companies and workers that I'm trying to give everyone and everything a decent shot to win me over, even if they didn't at first glance. But that stuff, nope, I can't do it. My problem with the style is mainly that it's just...too shooty. They work too stiff. And I mean I get that that's what they're going for, but it doesn't appeal to me. I'm certainly not against stiffness altogether, but they cross the line where I start thinking "Wrestling is supposed to be a work...please stop killing each other." And that just takes me out of it. Plus I don't find the matwork they do compelling at all (matwork in itself isn't one of my favourite things) so all I got left is striking which makes me cringe. And add in the presentation of this stuff where they're in a dimly lit gym somewhere, tiny crowds, no announcing so all you get is the guys grunting and huffing and screaming, while Ikeda throws multiple vicious punt kicks to the head of a downed, defenseless Ishikawa, and it all starts to get a bit...snuff film-y for me. I don't really want to be watching this. It's the same way in which I don't like ultraviolent and crazy death match stuff as a style either. I stop enjoying the violence as a spectacle and start cringing and thinking "Ugh, why would you do that to yourself??" And that's the point at which they lose me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 I just wanna point out that two hours over 18 months isn't actually a small amount, because if you do it for all the nominees it'd have to be like 9 hours a week over 18 months I don't think anyone is expected to watch all of the nominees, just the ones they're interested in. Anyway, I'm not going to participate anymore but it anyone has any questions about WoS or anything else I can help them with just ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.