Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Questions for Comparison


Goodear

Recommended Posts

In the latest Ric Flair thread, Loss said...

 

"It would be cool to come up with a standard list of questions that could be used to compare and contrast wrestlers, not so much to limit comparisons to just those questions, but to give us a starting point and some structure."

 

So how about it? Here are some I come up with trying to stay away from "Does he bump good" and more detailed points of comparison that might separate people in a more minute way.

 

1) Does the wrestler perform with their character in mind and is it internally consistent?

 

Note this says character and not gimmick, which would still pertain to the All Japan guys and so on. I'm not talking about Kamala working like an untrained savage. That's a different question and, I think, a simpler one that most people would cover without thinking.

 

2) Can the wrestler perform in a variety of situations?

 

Can the wrestler squash a guy in under 5 minutes? Do a ten minute sprint? 20 minute main event? 30 minute epic? Broadway? Does he wrestle differently against different tiers of opponents? Does he work well against big guys, small guys, young guys, old guys?

 

3) Does he wrestle with a different attitude based on where he is in a story progression and is it appropriate?

 

Does the wrestler work differently based on context where (for example) he works differently when coming off a big loss or in the third fall of a mask-vs-mask match.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the ones that come to mind for me. I don't think the answer has to be yes to all of these necessarily, but I think they are all good discussion points. I don't think this is a complete list and there may be some repetition here. I just threw this together, but I think it's a good starting point.

 

***

 

Was he ever the best wrestler in the world? Was he ever one of the top five or top ten? How deep was the talent pool when he peaked as a worker?

 

Was he ever the best wrestler in his country? How long did that last? How deep was the talent pool in his country when he peaked as a worker?

 

Was he ever the best wrestler in the promotion? How long did that last? How deep was the talent pool in his promotion when he peaked as a worker?

 

When was his peak as a wrestler? How long did it last and what did he accomplish within this time frame?

 

Was he good before he reached his peak?

 

Was he good after his peak ended?

 

How does he compare to his peers in his era?

 

How does he compare to others who have taken on a similar role in different eras?

 

Was he an effective babyface and an effective heel?

 

Was he frequently tested as a worker? Could he make seemingly no-win situations work?

 

Could he carry lesser wrestlers?

 

Could he have good and effective short matches? Could he have good and effective long matches?

 

What are his best physical skills? Did he use those skills well?

 

How would you describe his psychology? Was it effective? Does it hold up to scrutiny?

 

How was his selling?

 

How was he at structuring matches? Did they typically have a strong beginning, middle and end?

 

Did he take chances as a worker? Did he recover well when something unexpected happened?

 

Was he influential? Did anyone copy his style, and if so, was that copying a good or bad thing for wrestling?

 

How was he in tag matches and/or gimmick matches?

 

Did he have a high number of good matches?

 

Was he typically the driving force in his best matches?

 

Are there any unique factors that you think play into his career that may not apply to everyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably also add:

 

Did he work with other top-level workers most of the time?

 

This is an interesting question. Are you looking at working with other top-level guys as a plus or minus? On one hand, working with top talent should make for better matches and angles if you are going in with a great promo guy. On the other hand, I think we need to consider if an opponent is considered a top level talent because the original worker elevated them to that point. For example, do people consider Akira Taue a top level talent when discussing Misawa's case as a great? Is Taue considered a great because he worked with Misawa or is he a great period? This seems like an endless loop of a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To lay a little critqiue on the first set of questions: I really do not care for match length as a (sometimes the) defining criterion for worker performance. I am more interested in if a worker can do a variety of styles and/or how well they do in any given style (excellence in one being better than mediocrity in them all) over whether they can fill time for 40 minutes. Even if they make it a great 40 minutes, I don't think a great 40 minute match is inherently better than a great 30, 20, or 10 minute match. The work against a variety of opponents and opponent styles does interest me more.

 

I think question three is really a subset of question one too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To lay a little critqiue on the first set of questions: I really do not care for match length as a (sometimes the) defining criterion for worker performance. I am more interested in if a worker can do a variety of styles and/or how well they do in any given style (excellence in one being better than mediocrity in them all) over whether they can fill time for 40 minutes. Even if they make it a great 40 minutes, I don't think a great 40 minute match is inherently better than a great 30, 20, or 10 minute match. The work against a variety of opponents and opponent styles does interest me more.

 

I think question three is really a subset of question one too.

 

I was going for a short hand way of explaining the question in terms of match length but I totally agree that match length isn't the great barometer it is sometimes portrayed as. I think there is a subset of match reviews that claim anything under 10 is too short and the 20 minute length is ideal. I'm basically trying to get across there are more ways to perform than that.

 

That being said, complete style changes don't interest me as much as an ability to adjust to different situations in context. For example, if Negro Casas demonstrated he couldn't work Memphis style, I don't see that as a reason to hold that against him. If he can only work one type of match in Mexico (only matwork, only brawls), that's a far larger problem.

 

Looking at it I would agree and say questions 1 and 3 could easily be merged into one question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the complete change in style I'm looking for since for one, I very clearly have favorite match types (monster vs. underdog, probably why I love Lawler, Cena, etc.) and two, it is more 'can you still have a good match with this person while adjusting to/with their style' moreso than 'can you work that exact style.' It's something that came up on the Wrestling Culture episode of Funk vs. Flair vs. Lawler as GOAT. I agree that Flair can have a great match with a broom working his Flair magic, but I'd rather see Funk doing his thing to work with whoever his opponent is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd probably also add:

 

Did he work with other top-level workers most of the time?

 

This is an interesting question. Are you looking at working with other top-level guys as a plus or minus? On one hand, working with top talent should make for better matches and angles if you are going in with a great promo guy. On the other hand, I think we need to consider if an opponent is considered a top level talent because the original worker elevated them to that point. For example, do people consider Akira Taue a top level talent when discussing Misawa's case as a great? Is Taue considered a great because he worked with Misawa or is he a great period? This seems like an endless loop of a question.

 

 

There is no right answer to any of these questions from my POV. They are all just discussion points. But all things being equal between two great workers, I would usually pick the worker who made it happen with lesser talent over the worker who had the benefit of working with other all-time greats. Others may look at it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd probably also add:

 

Did he work with other top-level workers most of the time?

 

This is an interesting question. Are you looking at working with other top-level guys as a plus or minus? On one hand, working with top talent should make for better matches and angles if you are going in with a great promo guy. On the other hand, I think we need to consider if an opponent is considered a top level talent because the original worker elevated them to that point. For example, do people consider Akira Taue a top level talent when discussing Misawa's case as a great? Is Taue considered a great because he worked with Misawa or is he a great period? This seems like an endless loop of a question.

 

 

There is no right answer to any of these questions from my POV. They are all just discussion points. But all things being equal between two great workers, I would usually pick the worker who made it happen with lesser talent over the worker who had the benefit of working with other all-time greats. Others may look at it differently.

 

 

Yeah, I don't look at that as a question that means one guy is better than another because of the answer. To me, it's important to ask because it's another angle to examine someone's work from.

 

If the answer is yes, it's worth asking "Is he in a lot of great matches because of the people he was working against? How did he fare versus lesser workers?" If the answer is no, it's worth asking "Is he not thought of as great because of his spot on the card or the promotions he worked? How did he fare versus guys who are considered great?"

 

The reasons are going to be different in every case. It's not a matter of a guy getting extra points because of a yes/no answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the old tOA days, jdw and/or Frank Jewett came up with a list of questions they called the "Gordy List". (I can't find the original thread where they're posted, but I'm pulling the list below from here.) It's based off a list Bill James created to evaluate baseball players called the "Keltner list". Here's the list:

 

1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in their country or their promotion?

 

2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw?

 

3. How many years did he have as a top draw?
4. Was he ever regarded as the best workers in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best workers in their country or in their promotion?
5. Were they ever the best workers in their class (sex or weight)? Were they ever among the top workers in their class?
6. How many years did they have as top workers?
7. Was they good workers before their prime? Were they good workers after their prime?

 

8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents?
9. Did he ever anchor their promotion(s)?
10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards?
11. Was he valuable to their promotion before their prime? Was he still valuable to their promotion after their primes?
12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs?
13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines?
14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles?
15. Did he play their role(s) effectively during his career?
16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of his reign(s)?
17. Did he win many honors and awards?
18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to heir wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? [note: this was copied from the thread linked above. Dunno what it was originally supposed to be. If John ever wanders back over here and finds this thread, I'm sure he can provide some context :). ]
19. Was he top tag team wrestlers?
20. Was he innovative?
21. Was he influential?

 

22. Did he make the people and workers around him better?
23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling?
24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared?
IIRC, the list was meant to have a basis to evaluate HOF candidates, so a lot of the drawing, etc. questions aren't really relevant for this project, but this thread made me remember this thing from back in the day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Great questions. Very inspiring! ... Along with all the considerations you guys mention, I also take into account the "rewatchability" of a wrestler's matches. I can absolutely be a sucker for dumb wrestlecrap, but I will rarely watch those matches and storylines over and over again. If a wrestler is capable of coming up with matches, that can be watched over and over again, and new details come to light or it keeps my attention at repeat viewings, then the guy will be a contender for my list.

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...