Who are the top 10 lower mid-carders in history?

[funkdoc]

Isn't that like saying that the guys who make the reserve squad aren't given a chance to have great games in the NFL?

 

If not, why not?

 

ooh, an analogy right in my wheelhouse!

 

there are cases in the NFL where the better player isn't given the starting job because his style of play doesn't fit coaches' outdated ideals for that position. known to happen with running backs in particular, where people fall for boom-or-bust (mostly bust) guys instead of the ones who consistently get you 3-5 yards. in other sports you're more likely to get your opportunity eventually, but the injury risk in football means plenty of deserving players get left with "what could have been" careers.

 

you also have cases where a high draft pick gets to be the starter by fiat, and is kept in that role even after failing. sunk cost fallacy etc. etc.

 

i definitely see situations in wrestling that are analogous to this. one that i've mentioned before is the size issue in the 80s & 90s - plenty of great smaller wrestlers just didn't get the big opportunities through no fault of their own. i'm sure a lot of others in here have plenty of other examples.

 

as someone who grew up on bill james & sabermetrics, i tend to adjust for surrounding environment when evaluating anything of interest. if i were participating in the top 100 project i would certainly take that into account.

 

EDIT: ok so i actually read through this whole thread. a lot of this feels like an argument over the rationality of people in power. parv very much strikes me as the representative of classical economic theory here, and i'm about as far as you can get from that. things like tradition, conventional wisdom, and bigotry often hold far too much sway in key decision-making. if anything you should expect MORE of that in wrestling than in pro sports due to less media coverage and what have you.

[W2BTD]

 

Your willingness to dismiss/ignore any point that runs counter to your argument is quite astounding, I'll give you that much. Whatever, you've shown time and again in this topic that you're not willing to actually engage on the topic and instead would rather spout empty rhetoric to prop up your strawman. What a waste of time.

Since I'm never one not to stick my nose in where it doesn't need to be, I have to say you're being about ten times more pointlessly stubborn than Parv is being.

 

 

Now that I'm done giving away two unwanted cents, what Joe posted above is dead on. If you work main events, you get more opportunities for good matches. You guys have made Joe the calm voice of reason. Just think about that for a moment.

 

 

I have no idea if I should be insulted, flattered, or both.

[Timbo Slice]

Opportunities for great matches? Does that mean there were a ton of great Hollywood Hogan matches? Or a ton of great Konnan matches? Or a ton of great Takeshi Rikio matches? Or a bunch of great Triple H matches? Larry Zbysko in the late 80's AWA? There are plenty of people who aren't fans of Dusty Rhodes, too. Antonio Inoki...do I need to go on? There are obviously plenty of great performances at the top of the card, but that doesn't automatically mean they are in good matches.

 

Guys who are up top on cards normally have the most HEATED matches or are the best DRAWS. That doesn't necessarily mean best MATCH.

 

My point is that being a main eventer doesn't directly correlate to having good matches. Being a (lower) mid-carder doesn't correlate to having bad matches. If you're basing this all solely on work (which many people are), then there are gonna be plenty of guys on lists that aren't considered main eventers.

[goodhelmet]

 

Brad Armstrong in WCW

Sam Houston in JCP

Tommy Rich in WCW in the early 90s

Koko B. Ware in WWF

The Bolsheviks in WWF

The Orient Express in WWF

The Killer Bees in WWF

Albert in WWF circa Attitude Era

Owen Hart in WWF before his push in 94

 

This whole list is bullshit because we can eliminate half of these in a heartbeat.

 

Armstrong did main events in Mid South and SMW.

 

Tommy Rich main evented in Georgia and Memphis.

 

Owen Hart did main event in the WWF

 

Jim Brunzell did main events in the AWA

 

Koko B Ware did main event tags in Memphis.

 

Nikolai Volkoff was in main events or higher up the card earlier in the WWF

 

If the guy making the argument can't come up with ten CAREER lower midcarders without including tag teams or guys who did main event elsewhere, why are people even engaging in this debate?

[Shining Wiz]

 

 

Your willingness to dismiss/ignore any point that runs counter to your argument is quite astounding, I'll give you that much. Whatever, you've shown time and again in this topic that you're not willing to actually engage on the topic and instead would rather spout empty rhetoric to prop up your strawman. What a waste of time.

 

Since I'm never one not to stick my nose in where it doesn't need to be, I have to say you're being about ten times more pointlessly stubborn than Parv is being.

Now that I'm done giving away two unwanted cents, what Joe posted above is dead on. If you work main events, you get more opportunities for good matches. You guys have made Joe the calm voice of reason. Just think about that for a moment.

I have no idea if I should be insulted, flattered, or both.

If you go with both, you're at least half right.

[dawho5]

One thing I'm noticing is there is a huge variance in how people are looking at this thread.

 

It seems like most are assuming it is Parv trying to make a point in a way that offends them.

 

Joe, SW, Loss and I see his point and seem to agree that it is valid.

 

So maybe it would clear things up if Parv gave a clear and concise version of the purpose of the thread. Unless it is another of those Parv stirring the pot deals, which seems to be immensely successful. If that's the case, cheers.

[Ian]

Sort of a tough question to answer (for me) because most lower card wrestlers I've liked worked on top somplace at some point in their careers.

 

Chris Candido, The Heavenly Bodies, and Bull Nakano (in the USA) are all examples of that.

 

 

[slackermillionaire]

EDIT - didn't realize this why is Greatest Wrestler Ever board

[Matt D]

Karl Marx Approves of this note?

[GSR]

 

 

Brad Armstrong in WCW

Sam Houston in JCP

Tommy Rich in WCW in the early 90s

Koko B. Ware in WWF

The Bolsheviks in WWF

The Orient Express in WWF

The Killer Bees in WWF

Albert in WWF circa Attitude Era

Owen Hart in WWF before his push in 94

 

This whole list is bullshit because we can eliminate half of these in a heartbeat.

 

Armstrong did main events in Mid South and SMW.

 

Tommy Rich main evented in Georgia and Memphis.

 

Owen Hart did main event in the WWF

 

Jim Brunzell did main events in the AWA

 

Koko B Ware did main event tags in Memphis.

 

Nikolai Volkoff was in main events or higher up the card earlier in the WWF

 

If the guy making the argument can't come up with ten CAREER lower midcarders without including tag teams or guys who did main event elsewhere, why are people even engaging in this debate?

 

 

Albert headlined in Japan too.

 

I thought the whole premise of the GWE was a bit of fun and something to encourage us watching wrestling, and hopefully open our eyes to a bunch of workers that we may not have seen before or be aware of? It's threads like this that make we wonder why I am even considering doing this.

 

[Strand Peanut]

This thread is goofy as all get out.

[Dylan Waco]

Parv on Dibiase from The Microscope:

 

He's a booker's dream and likely a number #1-4 draft pick for any booker active during the 80s for that reason. You don't take him over Savage, Hogan or Flair if you're a booker, but you probably take him over almost everyone else. That's why in 1987 he was the cherry pick from UWF. Anyone who thinks a booker would take a Greg Valentine over Ted even in 1983 is in dream world. If you lined up all of the promotors of the period and ask them "Who would you rather take?", it's Ted every day and if people reading this are honest with themselves they know it.

 

I feel this really deserves a response because while I think it is not an unimportant point, I disagree with both the particulars and what I THINK the implication is.

 

First the particulars - I don't think every booker on Earth would take 83 Dibiase over 83 Valentine. There are two reasons I don't think that. The first is that bookers are looking for different things at different times (more on that later). The second is that bookers and promoters DID have a choice between Ted and Valentine in 83. Valentine worked in a very strong promotion for the bulk of the year. So did Ted. But there is no evidence I know of to make me believe that Crockett would have chosen Ted over Valentine for the Piper feud. In fact Ted had little to no track record in Mid-Atlantic, and there is really no reason to believe that he would have been considered a hot commodity there other than personal bias and/or looking at things through the lens of eventual national promotional success. There is also no reason to believe Valentine would have been chosen over Ted in Mid-South. In fact it's almost unfathomable.

 

Having said all of that what is more important to me is what I think the implication is - i.e. if you are in demand, and/or your value is perceived as a being stronger to promoters, you must be a better wrestler. And I just don't think that is true, at least not in the sense that most of us seem to be using to evaluate wrestlers for this project. I'm not even talking about my general objection to the idea that wrestling is a meritocracy here. Instead I want to emphasize the importance of context. Using the Valentine v. Dibiase comparison, I think you could make an argument that if you were building a national promotion Dibiase would be a stronger pick than Valentine in 83 not so much because he was more versatile per se, but because he was better looking. Valentine is one of the ugliest wrestlers I can think of, Teddy had a sharp look. If I am trying to get my show nationally syndicated I am taking Ted's mug over Greg's every day.

 

Having said that in 1983 if you are giving me a draft pick for a national promotion you can make an argument that the best pick is Kerry Von Erich. Great look, good in ring talent who has made it work against a huge variety of opponents, a natural charisma and rock star vibe, et. A true wrestler of his time, with an appeal that could extend well beyond the scope of just wrestling fans. Of course Kerry had one major problem - he was a massive drug addict. So with Kerry his biggest positives and negatives have little to do with his in ring performances.

 

Of course if you are talking about the actually existing world at the time of regional promotions, some with vague designs on national and/or broader penetration the idea of who you would "draft" changes yet again. Need, context, regional identity, long term goals, et. have as much to do with this as anything. And the look, reputation, size, et. of a wrestler probably has as much (or even more) to do with the perceived value of someone than there ability to have a good match.

 

Now I may have read Parv's point wrong and don't want to put words in his mouth. It's possible that he was making a more general point about the value of Ted, and wasn't meaning to imply what I read into it. And if that is the case this can be thrown in the trash. But this seemed to fit with the discussion that was being had in this thread so I thought it was worth throwing out there.

[Matt D]

I don't think Parv's criteria for Greatest Wrestler is necessarily the one who is Greatest at Wrestling.

 

EDIT: That's not a knock either. I was just typing it on my phone at midnight last night. I think he places "value" much higher than most of us do.

[KrisZ]

DiBiase never worked Jim Crockett Promotions.

 

Regarding the Valentine point let's not forget that Valentine in 1983 just was a few months removed from being a major player in WWF drawing big houses against Backlund.

 

DiBiase was a better promo than Valentine no doubt and had a better character by that time as he was a leader of men as Valentine usually had a manager.

 

I know there is a DiBiase/Rude thread but a DiBiase/Valentine thread is much more interesting to me as a debate thread.

[goc]

I know there is a DiBiase/Rude thread but a DiBiase/Valentine thread is much more interesting to me as a debate thread.

I want the "JerryvonKramer compares various wrestlers to Ted DiBiase" thread

[dawho5]

It would be pretty much the exact opposite of the Dylan comparing guys to HHH thread. Still fun, but complete other end of the spectrum.

[goc]

I know but I think that would make it equally as fun.

 

The draft concept is really interesting to me but I have a difficult time seeing DiBiase as a top 4 pick.