Rick Rude vs. Ted Dibiase

[Childs]

To answer Parv's question to me: no, I don't think that if we convened a council of elders there would be vast disagreement on criteria. And yes, your criteria would be in the mix. But, and this is the key for me, there would be vast disagreement about how those criteria apply to the cases for individual wrestlers.

 

Edit: I should add that there would also be a fair bit of disagreement about how to weight various criteria.

[Childs]

Also, I think it's possible Parv's Flair idolatry has finally pushed him to seek the No. 1 heel spot. Next thing we know, he's going to try to buy the belt from El-P😄

 

 

(And I lose points for mixing my "it's all an angle" metaphors.)

[Matt D]

I've been holding in the line about Flair's "impact" for weeks.

[JerryvonKramer]

Last last thing, just to answer Kris and I think Steven who mentioned that earlier. I do think this is a really important thing that probably needs to be addressed. Will and I talked about this on a pod recently too. I haven't written off any style and won't write off any stlye. I will watch Lucha, and have basically forced myself to watch the stuff I have already ... purely because it is rated. Just like I don't really like Jazz, but when I was involved with an album project years ago (not a million miles away from this one), I forced myself to listen to all of its most highly rated albums. I did it year-by-year from the mid-50s really all the way through. And when the forum I did that work on was lost, a small piece of me died. But when I finally compiled my album list, when all was said and done there were only 2 jazz albums on it (Jimmy Smith's Back and the Chicken Shack, and Weather Report's Heavy Weather, fact fans). I went through all the stuff and still just didn't get Miles Davies or John Coltrane. There was a strong bias in my list against jazz, and people criticised me for it -- but they couldn't say I wrote it off or didn't make an attempt not to be ignorant about it (I still feel like I am btw). There was also a bias towards 60s/70s rock and singer/songwriters. In fact, there were huge blow ups over exactly these sorts of issues back then, with people asking me why I was so insistent that Bob Dylan deserved more attention than whatever indie band they were into at the time (Animal Collective anyone?) and why I thought it was so self-evident that the argument didn't need to be made. That time, I did stay the course, because I'd just invested so much in trying to leave "no stone unturned", to the best of my abilities, that I had to. And I came across lots and lots of albums I wouldn't have listened to otherwise. The arguments we had over that were so much more ... abrasive, foul-mouthed, dramatic, insane ... than the ones we have here. Even this "drama" really is nothing compared to that. But the point is that -- yes, sure, personal taste is a big huge part, and you cannot take that out, but it's a conclusion arrived at after ... really trying very hard to see the greatness in whatever it is. To come back to wrestling, I will not write off El Dandy lightly. I have not been into him much, but I am not prepared to let that go just yet. I will come back to Lucha and try to like it. I will give Shoot Style another go. I will keep trying with Lawler until I can at least get to the point where I "get" why someone might love him, even if I still don't.

 

I won't be making that effort for Ron Bass. Because no one is really saying Ron Bass was one of the Greatest of All Time. This should be pretty logical. And don't actually think that someone like Kris and I are too far apart on that.

 

When all is said and done, let's say I come to recognise that Lawler was really very good at what he did, but that I still don't really love him. He might still rank and even top half or top 20, or whatever. To me that is something "beyond favourites", beyond just personal taste. Like, for example, I think I ended up ranking Velvet Underground & Nico in my top 20, even if I probably don't pull that record out too often to actually want to listen it. I recognise its greatness, even if I don't LOVE it.

 

It's a set of conclusions arrived at after homework. There is a certain degree of thoroughness involved. Where you draw that line is something to consider. It's why I always understood Loss's position because in an ideal world, I'd want exactly the same thing. I do think what he wants is ultimately impossible. I draw the limits smaller. I have altered them to try to make them more realistic. At times I can't go album by album but have to take just the greatest album. Like at times I've had to beeline to greatest hits with certain wrestlers. Not ideal, I'd want more, time is a factor.

 

What led to this whole thing, was that it seemed to me that the snap decision between "Ted or Rude" wasn't really being arrived at after a process like this. I mean, some people were making the decision based on it, but others were making it on factors that seemed to me to be more arbitary "who would I rather watch right now?" (for instance). That question "who would I rather watch right now?" seems to be the question that Matt D and others who envision the project as a litmus test for current hotness are trying to answer. To me that has nothing to do with Greatest Wrestler Ever. "Okay, but Parv, you can still vote, etc." Sure, but to me -- for right or for wrong -- it really matters what everyone else thinks they are trying to do here. Like, there is no reason at all for me to spent time, energy, and effort arguing with a guy who is just going to turn around and say "yeah, but see, I'm just bored of this guy, and I'm into this guy right now". Like, alright, but we're doing different projects. And the way this thread has gone, it seems like more people want to do that project than the one I've described above. It's not me being childish, or taking my toys home, or anything like that, it's me saying "okay, if that's the project, it's not the one I've been doing, I'm not interested in that project much and therefore I'm out". I hope that makes sense. Top 100 Greatest to me means Greatest. It doesn't mean Top 100 Current Consensus Hotness or Top 100 Guys I Happen to Love.

[Matt D]

Simply put: the issue isn't about "Who do I like the most right now?" or "Who would I most like to watch?" (That is very much as symptom) but "What criteria do I value the most (in deciding who is the greatest) in 2015 and is that the same as it was in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011? 2006? It's not. So, then who meets that this reevaluated criteria the most?"

 

It's not the wrestlers that have changed; it's not always the footage that has changed; for me, it's the criteria. And even then it's the BALANCE of factors.

 

I have my own issues with blind spots and time limitations, and I've covered that elsewhere. If someone wants to rake me over the coals here, too, that's fine (and warranted), but it'd be a distraction from the clarification at hand.

 

EDIT: I've said it before but a lot of this becomes the issue between specific rankings. Within my criteria, I don't value execution or stiffness highly. But for wrestlers who use those things to create an effect successfully (and even ones who don't, but are just extremely good at it), that's a factor to take into consideration. It's just less of an important factor than other things to me, so while they'll rank, they'll rank less highly. I don't want to watch any more Hansen right now (at least Hansen in Japan), but he'll still be in my top 30, over wrestlers I'd much rather watch right now. There'll probably be 29 wrestlers I'd rather watch more above him, but that's because they meet other criteria.

 

Their meeting my criteria of what makes wrestlers great is more often than not what makes me want to watch them more in this specific case.

 

But even that's not the point. i'm just trying to redirect you away from what I think is a distraction to the point with everything in this edit.

[KrisZ]

World of Sport is my blind spot as I haven't watched nearly enough that I should but before I turn a ballot in I will definitely watch as much as I can.

 

I don't want anybody to leave this project because everyone that is involved likes different things and adds flavor to the project whether you are a hardcore CIMA fan or a hardcore Dory Funk Jr. fan it's those differences that make this place and this project what it is in the long run. This place is one of the few if not the only places that a list like this can be done with some sort of merit because of all of everyone's different tastes. Most places if they did a list like this would be heavily skewed towards 1980's and beyond American wrestlers and we don't have to worry about that here......at least I hope not.

[KrisZ]

Regarding Parv's point about the project and what it is....I think Grimmas hit it pretty much perfect right here in May.

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28589-the-rules/&do=findComment&comment=5668974

[BillThompson]

I'm with Sammy and some others, at this point I don't want Parv participating in the project. Heck, I don't even want him on the forums anymore. He's been disrespectful to other posters (and not just in this thread) and has flat out acted like a child while telling others that their approach is secondary to his and that they are doing everything wrong compared to his almighty and correct approach. He has told others that his opinion is the only right opinion, and did take his ball and go home just because of people approaching the project with different criteria and having different opinions than him.

 

We have a guy in this thread who is treating lots of posters like straight up garbage and instead of addressing that we're debating other matters. Any respect I had for Parv is gone, because it's not okay from him to tramp around these forums and treat anyone who disagrees with him like they are a second class citizen. That's all he does now, and not only is it tiring, but it goes against the very tenets of this board. And if we're going to allow his disrespect and disregard for other posters to go unchecked then what is the point of this place anyways?

[pol]

I reject the idea that there's some kind of self-evident Greatness in Flair, The Beatles or Citizen Kane that transcends personal taste, and that anyone could see if only they make the effort. I think the assumption of such has far more to do with narratives constructed and perpetuated by powerful critical and cultural voices than anything intrinsic to the works themselves. As an academic I know this view can't be alien to you Parv, even though you clearly don't agree with it personally.

 

Your standard operating procedure in this discussion seems to be:

 

1. Vaguely refer to opinions you see as self-evidently ludicrous.

2. Support that judgment with appeals to authority/consensus/"common sense".

3. Use said opinions as evidence of the supposed spuriousness of certain contributors' processes (while of course painting any dissenting opinions of your own as the end result of a tremendously involved process), thus invalidating the project as a whole.

 

Points 1 and 2 are covered by the philosophical difference I outlined above. As for point 3, I'm not following the leap from "people disagree with authority/consensus/'common sense'" to "these people aren't putting any thought into it beyond 'who is my favorite/who do I want to watch right now?'" It just seems incredibly arrogant.

[InYourCase]

Last last thing, just to answer Kris and I think Steven who mentioned that earlier. I do think this is a really important thing that probably needs to be addressed. Will and I talked about this on a pod recently too. I haven't written off any style and won't write off any stlye. I will watch Lucha, and have basically forced myself to watch the stuff I have already ... purely because it is rated. Just like I don't really like Jazz, but when I was involved with an album project years ago (not a million miles away from this one), I forced myself to listen to all of its most highly rated albums. I did it year-by-year from the mid-50s really all the way through. And when the forum I did that work on was lost, a small piece of me died. But when I finally compiled my album list, when all was said and done there were only 2 jazz albums on it (Jimmy Smith's Back and the Chicken Shack, and Weather Report's Heavy Weather, fact fans). I went through all the stuff and still just didn't get Miles Davies or John Coltrane. There was a strong bias in my list against jazz, and people criticised me for it -- but they couldn't say I wrote it off or didn't make an attempt not to be ignorant about it (I still feel like I am btw). There was also a bias towards 60s/70s rock and singer/songwriters. In fact, there were huge blow ups over exactly these sorts of issues back then, with people asking me why I was so insistent that Bob Dylan deserved more attention than whatever indie band they were into at the time (Animal Collective anyone?) and why I thought it was so self-evident that the argument didn't need to be made. That time, I did stay the course, because I'd just invested so much in trying to leave "no stone unturned", to the best of my abilities, that I had to. And I came across lots and lots of albums I wouldn't have listened to otherwise. The arguments we had over that were so much more ... abrasive, foul-mouthed, dramatic, insane ... than the ones we have here. Even this "drama" really is nothing compared to that. But the point is that -- yes, sure, personal taste is a big huge part, and you cannot take that out, but it's a conclusion arrived at after ... really trying very hard to see the greatness in whatever it is. To come back to wrestling, I will not write off El Dandy lightly. I have not been into him much, but I am not prepared to let that go just yet. I will come back to Lucha and try to like it. I will give Shoot Style another go. I will keep trying with Lawler until I can at least get to the point where I "get" why someone might love him, even if I still don't.I won't be making that effort for Ron Bass. Because no one is really saying Ron Bass was one of the Greatest of All Time. This should be pretty logical. And don't actually think that someone like Kris and I are too far apart on that.When all is said and done, let's say I come to recognise that Lawler was really very good at what he did, but that I still don't really love him. He might still rank and even top half or top 20, or whatever. To me that is something "beyond favourites", beyond just personal taste. Like, for example, I think I ended up ranking Velvet Underground & Nico in my top 20, even if I probably don't pull that record out too often to actually want to listen it. I recognise its greatness, even if I don't LOVE it.It's a set of conclusions arrived at after homework. There is a certain degree of thoroughness involved. Where you draw that line is something to consider. It's why I always understood Loss's position because in an ideal world, I'd want exactly the same thing. I do think what he wants is ultimately impossible. I draw the limits smaller. I have altered them to try to make them more realistic. At times I can't go album by album but have to take just the greatest album. Like at times I've had to beeline to greatest hits with certain wrestlers. Not ideal, I'd want more, time is a factor.What led to this whole thing, was that it seemed to me that the snap decision between "Ted or Rude" wasn't really being arrived at after a process like this. I mean, some people were making the decision based on it, but others were making it on factors that seemed to me to be more arbitary "who would I rather watch right now?" (for instance). That question "who would I rather watch right now?" seems to be the question that Matt D and others who envision the project as a litmus test for current hotness are trying to answer. To me that has nothing to do with Greatest Wrestler Ever. "Okay, but Parv, you can still vote, etc." Sure, but to me -- for right or for wrong -- it really matters what everyone else thinks they are trying to do here. Like, there is no reason at all for me to spent time, energy, and effort arguing with a guy who is just going to turn around and say "yeah, but see, I'm just bored of this guy, and I'm into this guy right now". Like, alright, but we're doing different projects. And the way this thread has gone, it seems like more people want to do that project than the one I've described above. It's not me being childish, or taking my toys home, or anything like that, it's me saying "okay, if that's the project, it's not the one I've been doing, I'm not interested in that project much and therefore I'm out". I hope that makes sense. Top 100 Greatest to me means Greatest. It doesn't mean Top 100 Current Consensus Hotness or Top 100 Guys I Happen to Love.

tl;dr

[Beast]

Good thing he went to the trouble of creating a super in-depth 5 part Flair podcast huh?

[El-P]

Also, I think it's possible Parv's Flair idolatry has finally pushed him to seek the No. 1 heel spot. Next thing we know, he's going to try to buy the belt from El-P

 

Wait, does that mean I actually was turned de facto babyface ? Should I now rank Lawler in my top 10 or is my "Takada is great" stance now an actual finisher ?

[W2BTD]

If I was approaching this as "favorites" and not "greatest" my final list wouldn't look a lot different than this:

 

1. Curt Hennig

2. Satoshi Kojima

3. Sabu

4. 2 Cold Scorpio

5. Hayabusa

6. Jake Roberts

7. Red Bastein

8. Blue Panther

9. Ricochet

10. Akira Tozawa

 

Some (not all) of those guys will make my list, but my top ten will look nothing like that. Hirooki Goto might be my favorite current NJPW wrestler aside from Kojima but will struggle to make the back end of my list, while Hiroshi Tanahashi, who if I were ranking it out would be like my 8th favorite current NJPW guy, is a lock for my top 10 and is being considered for #1.

 

The idea that not ranking Lawler or Dibiase or whatever sacred cow random voter #28 isn't ranking is rooted in some sort of issue with the process and choosing favorites over the best is nonsense. This may be difficult for you to comprehend parv, but I don't think Lawler was so hot. I just don't. And if you think it's because I ignore Memphis, well, you're wrong. Not to say I don't have blind spots, because I do, and everybody who votes will have blind spots, but Lawler is not one of them.

 

People who listen to my show or follow me on Twitter know that I've rewatched the Shield/Wyatts match from Elimination Chamber 2014 four or five times now, desperately trying to grasp why the consensus opinion is that it was an incredible, brilliant MOTY bout. I've tried several times, and I still don't get it. I still see it as a decent ***+ match and i'm not seeing what everybody else is seeing. Same with Lawler. I watch his pimped stuff, and I come away thinking "ok, that was fine I guess, but that's it?"

 

The Shield/Wyatts match kicked ass on our VOW MOTY poll, and Lawler will kick ass in this poll. So maybe that makes me "wrong". I have no problem with that, but I have a huge problem being told that "my process is wrong" or that i'm "playing favorites" or that a poll that includes someone who doesn't rank Lawler is invalid somehow. That goes beyond arrogance. These are opinions, man. Of course personal taste plays a part. How can it not? I love the DG style and don't begrudge anyone a single bit for blowing it off completely if they know it'll be a waste of time and that the best DG style worker in their eyes won't rank anyway. I've dabbled in WoS enough to know that I don't like it. I'm supposed to rank Jim Breaks just because? Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. How is this any different than not ranking jazz records, parv?

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

If something good came out of this mess, it's that Loss decided to submit a ballot. There are only a small handful of people whose ballots I would be interested in seeing, and would take seriously, and he is definitely on that list.

 

Otherwise, the only thing that matters to me about this project is my own personal journey and my own personal discoveries, leading to my own personal ballot. Why would I care that voter X picked his favourite indie worker at number 43 because he responded to his banter once, or his favourite joshi worker at number 67 because she looks cute when she's mad?

 

My interest in the cumulative list is pretty much restricted to the fun of the reveal. Just like the DVDVR movie polls, I enjoy the countdowns to see where my favourites ranked, for some good-natured arguing over placement, and to see pretty pictures, but the real benefit of the project is making new discoveries and sorting out for myself my approach to ranking films.

[Grimmas]

Any weird voting will be cancelled out by others.

[DR Ackermann]

At first I read that as

 

Any weird voting will be cancelled

 

Also, I'm glad to see Loss has changed his mind about voting. We differ on lots of things but I always enjoy reading and hearing you talk about wrestling.

[W2BTD]

Any weird voting will be cancelled out by others.

 

Bingo.

 

Everybody is an outlier with regards something.

 

It doesn't really matter if Joe Lanza & Alan4L blow off Lawler or Dylan & someone else blow off Tanahashi because consensus will take over and those guys will get plenty of votes anyway. But I think it's fine that the people who don't get Lawler and the people who don't get Tanahashi have a voice, especially when it's well reasoned. Otherwise, what is the point of any of this? Name 40 guys who are forced consensus, and leave the other 60 up to the voters.

[El-P]

If something good came out of this mess, it's that Loss decided to submit a ballot.

 

This. You know what you need to do now, Dan.

[funkdoc]

I think the point is that you shouldn't rank them if they do nothing for you, but they deserve heightened consideration because of that acclaim.

 

this is where we split, i think.

 

i know plenty of big music heads who wouldn't have the beatles in their top 1000 and it ain't no thang in that world

 

i've actually held up this forum as a more mature brand of criticism than anything i've seen in video games, precisely because of people like matt d. but i'll use one of the few examples from gaming to illustrate my point...

 

one critic/indie game designer described one particular level in a famous classic game, more or less as follows: "this level is full of mazes and confusing as hell, it hides the key behind an arbitrary secret door with no clues, and it's just not fun at all. and that's precisely what makes it great."

 

her point here was that this particular level was meant to shake you out of your comfort zone that you'd have fallen into at that point in the game, and turn all your expectations on their head. other elements of it (e.g. the visuals) lend support to this idea. the bad stuff i mentioned is pretty much all considered Objectively Bad Game Design by your typical critics, and most players hate this level since they couldn't figure out where to go and couldn't find the secret door i mentioned. i find it fascinating that someone can make a convincing argument that all of this is a positive, and i frankly think that's less "shallow" than accepting the standard narrative.

 

what i'm trying to say is that the qualities of greatness aren't always great, and stuff that we think is always awful may in fact be the best choice for a particular work. i could imagine a wrestling character where you'd want their strikes to miss by a foot, for instance.

 

this is why i don't believe an objective definition of "greatness" is possible, period. the situation matters & varies too much for that, and personal interpretation will also vary. it seems like trying to argue otherwise is tantamount to saying "the masses are right", except in this case it's the masses of critics.

 

one final point specific to wrestling: i think our weaker critical tradition relative to art forms that have been around longer is another major point against the arguments you & parv make. i mean, think about this...our foremost reporter, historian, and critic are all the same person. one person having that much power over the consensus has greatly distorted our view of "established greatness", i would argue - in fields like literature and music, it's at least based on some range of opinions (if still a limited one). i really don't think you can overstate the importance of that.

[pol]

The Lawler line really exposes what this is really about, I think. Parv knows nothing about what Joe's process entails, only that he's arriving at conclusions that Parv finds disagreeable. Parv would prefer a poll where only those with correct opinions need apply. Some dissent is acceptable, but not too much. Of course, dissent that happens to align with Parv's personal tastes is more acceptable than dissent that doesn't.

 

(Since this sounds a little mean, I just want to be clear that for as much as I suspect we fundamentally disagree philosphically, and for as stuffy and tedious as he can be at times, I still think Parv is one of the most valuable contributors on these boards, and, at least in podcast form, seems like a genuinely nice bloke. I also understand that it can't be pleasant being piled on from all sides like this and it must be pretty overwhelming trying to respond to all the criticisms. That said, I still think he's way off base on this.)

[DR Ackermann]

 

i mean, think about this...our foremost reporter, historian, and critic are all the same person. one person having that much power over the consensus has greatly distorted our view of "established greatness", i would argue - in fields like literature and music, it's at least based on some range of opinions (if still a limited one). i really don't think you can overstate the importance of that.

 

 

This is a great point.

[jdw]

 

 

That doesn't have the great first half of the sentence rambling about démagogie and dispersion:

 

"Au-delà de la démagogie de la droite et de la dispersion de la gauche qui ont rendu possible cette situation, j’assume pleinement la responsabilité de cet échec et j’en tire les conclusions en me retirant de la vie politique, après la fin de l’élection présidentielle."

 

"Beyond demagogy of the right and of the dispersion of the left who made possible this situation, I fully assume the responsibility for this failure and I drew conclusions by removing me from political life after the end of the presidential election."

 

 

[El-P]

Yeah, but we really only use the last part as a running gag since 2002 : "I fully assume the responsibility for this failure and I drew conclusions by removing me from …." (whatever you're talking about at that moment)

 

As a frenchman, it automatically popped up in my brain. Along with this (no translation needed) :

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9PjBgWOkng

[thebrainfollower]

Personally I would be FAR more interested in learning people's top 100 favorites than their votes for 100 GWE esp if we are going on just work rate.

[Childs]

... esp if we are going on just work rate.

 

Has anyone anywhere said this is what we're going on?