[GWE] Intrinsic values for GWE candidates

[JerryvonKramer]

The recent peak vs. career stuff reminded me of something I've been thinking about for a while now: the idea of "base talent".

 

Using Football Manager as a template, I've come up with a spreadsheet on which you can plot any GWE candidate and rate them out of 20 in 18 different areas. (Fans of EWR / TEW - I deliberately didn't go with their rating system for a variety of reasons, not least because these are all "in-ring" skils).

 

Get a blank spreedsheet here:

 

https://www.sendspace.com/file/a1vc2p

 

 

 

I am going to stick a few guys through the spreedsheet later and will post screengrabs of them in this thread later. I encourage others to do the same.

 

Here's a key for all of the categories, for the sake of clarity.

 

Technical

Brawling - the wrestler's ability to throw effective punches and strikes and more generally to brawl effectively.

Counters - how effectively the wrestler can chain wrestle as per the catch-as-catch-can style

Execution - how crisply the wrestler is able to perform his moves

Matwork - the wrestler's ability to work the mat and perform submission holds in an engaging way

Offense - a rating of the wrestler's high artillery offense

Selling - how effectively the wrestler is able to convey pain when on the receiving end of an opponent's offense

 

Physical

Bleeding - how effectively does the blade / bleed

Bumping - the wrestler's ability to fling themselves around the ring to make an opponent look good

High flying - the wrester's ability to come off the top rope and perform other such dazzling feats

Look - a rating of the destinctiveness of the wrestler's look [NOTE: this is not a rating of "physique", it is possible to weigh 500lbs and get a high rating here]

Stamina - the wrestler's ability to go long without getting blown up

Stiffness - the wrestler's ability to throw strikes that connect with real impact

 

Mental

Crowd control - the wrestler's ability to get the crowd to react to them

Expressiveness - the wrestler's ability to show emotion through their facial expression and other such means

Fire - the wrester's abiltiy to convey "fire", for example during a babyface comeback or in a heated brawl

Intensity - the wrestler's ability to perform their moves with intensity and brutality

Psychology - the wrestler's ability to tell a story in the ring

Timing - the wrestler's ability to know "when" to do certain things, e.g. feeding their opponent, hitting a high spot, transitioning to the next portion of the match, etc. etc.

[JerryvonKramer]

Okay, here are some I've done:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Loss]

Do you agree that a wrestler's whole can be greater than the sum of the parts? Also, there are some wrestlers where you can list everything they do and they look better than they are because they are missing something intangible.

[JerryvonKramer]

Do you agree that a wrestler's whole can be greater than the sum of the parts? Also, there are some wrestlers where you can list everything they do and they look better than they are because they are missing something intangible.

Yes. However, I'm quite interested in how people view these "base stats".

[Coffey]

Bleeding? That...doesn't factor into anything at all for me. For anyone. That one seems odd.

[JerryvonKramer]

Bleeding? That...doesn't factor into anything at all for me. For anyone. That one seems odd.

I was thinking through things we've discussed before and the question of who is the best bleeder has come up.

 

Of course, not all of these are weighted equally and neither are they all important. For some, a high stiffness rating might not be the best thing. Psychology is probably more important than execution for a lot of people.

 

This isn't really intended as an end to anything; I'm not saying these base stats are more important than output (ie matches), it's just a way of comparing guys across eras and creating benchmarks. Brisco is a straight 20 for selling which makes him a GOAT in that category for me -- that in itself I thinik counts for *something*. It might be the difference between coming #22 or #28, if you get the idea.

[JerryvonKramer]

Three more:

 

 

 

[DR Ackermann]

How is it that you see Race and Flair better at "High flying" than Martel and everyone besides Dory better at "Selling" than Rude?

[Johnny Sorrow]

Parv is just trying out his new idea templates for a Wrestling Role Playing game .

[NintendoLogic]

You really think Rick Rude had better psychology than Ric Flair?

 

Also, 8 for bleeding seems high for Brisco considering he apparently only bladed once in his career.

[JerryvonKramer]

How is it that you see Race and Flair better at "High flying" than Martel

Because they both came off the top more than Martel who was quite a ground-based worker.

 

and everyone besides Dory better at "Selling" than Rude?

Because look at the names who I've done. Just so happens that in this company Rude is not a top trump in selling. 16 is still a great rating in that.

 

You really think Rick Rude had better psychology than Ric Flair?

Yeah, I don't think psychology is Flair's strong suit. If there was an "intuition" rating, Flair would be an 18-20 in that, but I guess in the video game Johnny is talking about that would be a "hidden stat".

[DR Ackermann]

Ok so some of this is based on tendency rather than actual ability because martel has done "dazzling feats" that flair and race could never do as gracefully.

[S.L.L.]

The day that I start viewing wrestling this way is the day I stop being a fan. I suppose there's some merit here as a tool for comparing wrestlers, but I'm not sure how much numerical rankings tell us.

[GSR]

The day that I start viewing wrestling this way is the day I stop being a fan. I suppose there's some merit here as a tool for comparing wrestlers, but I'm not sure how much numerical rankings tell us.

My sentiments exactly.

[JerryvonKramer]

This thread is not intended as a way of viewing wrestling but rather as a way of asking who is actually good at what. And perhaps more interestingly whether or not people agree on who is good at what.

 

If I get a spare hour over the next day or so, I'll make maybe 20 more of these. After that, if the responses are in the same vein as I've seen so far, I'll leave it to die a death. No point in persisting with something everyone else hates.

 

My thinking has come a way on this since the process started because it seems to me that in some cases these sorts of "base traits" can be a differentiator. Also, someone like a Jack Brisco who is clearly great but who lacks volume of footage presents a problem.

 

If the question you ask is: "Who is the better wrestler?" This is one way of answering it.

 

Who is the better wretler: Ron Garvin or Jack Brisco?

 

My gut tells me it's Brisco, most people who have seen them both would likely rate Brisco more in most of the categories. But if all we do is count snow flakes, probably Garvin wins through his Flair matches alone.

 

Just one example, but there's no way I'm ranking Garvin over Brisco and I'm figuring out a justifiable reason why.

[dawho5]

Because you think he's a better wrestler based on the footage you have seen? I've read some of your stuff on Brisco and you seem to present reasons enough without trying to boil everything down to numbers in categories. One of the reasons I struggle with wrestling video games like EWR/TEW is that they lose all feeling and end up becoming incredibly empty because it boils everything down to numbers or letter grades. So many factors go into every wrestling match that it's impossible to come up with enough numbers to cover all of it.

[Johnny Sorrow]

This is like Lt. Commander Data trying and failing to understand comedy on that one ep of ST:TNG.

[goc]

I thought this thread was just designed to create arguments over silly and abritary numbers.

[JerryvonKramer]

I thought this thread was just designed to create arguments over silly and abritary numbers.

It was partly, only my hope was that the numbers wouldn't be seen as "silly and arbitrary".

 

For example, I've rated Flair, Steamboat, Brisco, Race and Martel at 20 for selling which is saying that there are no better sellers than those in wrestling history. Agree? Yes? No?

[goc]

Is Flair really a 20 at selling if he doesn't do long term body part selling? Some people say that shaking off limb work is ok while others hate it so I guess it would still just come down to a matter of taste.

[S.L.L.]

 

I thought this thread was just designed to create arguments over silly and abritary numbers.

It was partly, only my hope was that the numbers wouldn't be seen as "silly and arbitrary".

 

For example, I've rated Flair, Steamboat, Brisco, Race and Martel at 20 for selling which is saying that there are no better sellers than those in wrestling history. Agree? Yes? No?

 

 

There's no better sellers in history? There's five of them. You're telling me they're all not only perfect, but identically perfect, to the point that you can effectively summarize all five of them with the same single number?

[Matt D]

In defense of Parv, I do this sometimes, but in a qualitative way and not a quantitative one.

[Loss]

How would fire and intensity differ in your eyes? I just want to understand the difference.

[JerryvonKramer]

How would fire and intensity differ in your eyes? I just want to understand the difference.

Fire is a measure of how fired up they get. Think of Tito Santana making a comeback.

 

Intensity is a measure of how urgent and / or brutal they look on offence -- I always think Paul Orndorff has good intensity. Vader would score high here as would the AJPW guys.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

 

I thought this thread was just designed to create arguments over silly and abritary numbers.

It was partly, only my hope was that the numbers wouldn't be seen as "silly and arbitrary".

 

For example, I've rated Flair, Steamboat, Brisco, Race and Martel at 20 for selling which is saying that there are no better sellers than those in wrestling history. Agree? Yes? No?

There's no better sellers in history? There's five of them. You're telling me they're all not only perfect, but identically perfect, to the point that you can effectively summarize all five of them with the same single number?

I'm saying they are about on par. 20 doesn't mean "perfect", it means "best in the world".

 

I've been playing Football Manager since 1995 so maybe this makes more sense to me than some, or people are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, 20 more soon.