Rick Rude vs. Ted Dibiase

[thebrainfollower]

I feel like I at least deserve consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize for creating a thread that's got you two talking in a civil manner.

 

With Luger, can someone point out to me why he's on the level of a Sid or Brody or even Hogan? I mean specific ACTIONS he took in his career.

 

To the best of my knowledge he never refused a job. He never tried to make someone look bad in the ring and put them over to the best of his ability. He never held a promoter up for money or breached a contract.

 

What he DID do was to treat wrestling like a respectable business. He tried to put it in the framework of a legally comprehensible system that anyone could understand. He wanted a set % of the house rather than whatever the old crooks (Vince included) felt like dishing out. He wanted (GASP HOW EVIL) health care for wrestlers. What he didn't do was act like the halfwit glorified frat boy that 90% of wrestlers back then behaved as and they resented him for it. Tough. It's not his fault he was smarter. He paved the way for wrestlers I admire of the modern era to behave like reasonable adults (The Rock, Chris Jericho, Trish Stratus, etc) and not dedicate their lives to wrestling when ultimately wrestling the way it's run won't be there for you when you need it.

 

He didn't look out for the promoter's best interests clearly and that isn't his job. But he was a professional by ANY adult profession's standards. For that I admire him greatly and refuse to put him in the same category as someone like a Brody or a Hawk.

 

Anyone wanna make a reasonable case against Lex?

[thebrainfollower]

Now to be fair, Lex's personal life seems to be very questionable at best, and his role in the death of Liz is certainly something that takes away respect as a human being. But as a businessman I do admire him during his pro career.

[JerryvonKramer]

You won't get too many arguments from me on Lex, always thought his rep was a bit unfair. Hence my "even Luger" above. His main crime it seems to me was not being one of the boys, then second not loving wrestling.

[ButchReedMark]

I feel like I at least deserve consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize for creating a thread that's got you two talking in a civil manner.

 

With Luger, can someone point out to me why he's on the level of a Sid or Brody or even Hogan? I mean specific ACTIONS he took in his career.

 

To the best of my knowledge he never refused a job. He never tried to make someone look bad in the ring and put them over to the best of his ability. He never held a promoter up for money or breached a contract.

 

What he DID do was to treat wrestling like a respectable business. He tried to put it in the framework of a legally comprehensible system that anyone could understand. He wanted a set % of the house rather than whatever the old crooks (Vince included) felt like dishing out. He wanted (GASP HOW EVIL) health care for wrestlers. What he didn't do was act like the halfwit glorified frat boy that 90% of wrestlers back then behaved as and they resented him for it. Tough. It's not his fault he was smarter. He paved the way for wrestlers I admire of the modern era to behave like reasonable adults (The Rock, Chris Jericho, Trish Stratus, etc) and not dedicate their lives to wrestling when ultimately wrestling the way it's run won't be there for you when you need it.

 

He didn't look out for the promoter's best interests clearly and that isn't his job. But he was a professional by ANY adult profession's standards. For that I admire him greatly and refuse to put him in the same category as someone like a Brody or a Hawk.

 

Anyone wanna make a reasonable case against Lex?

 

Well said. If anything I always found Lex Luger's approach to wrestling very refreshing. After all, it is a business, why wouldn't you approach it like a businessman and professional would in any other sphere of work? It's a job after all, in the end of the day. More people should treat it like one and the industry would probably be a better place for those in it.

[BArthur]

This is really tough as Rude is my #3 all time personal favourite. I would absolutely give him the nod in a peak vs peak competition. JerryVonKramer made a good point though that pre and post peak, Dibiase takes it for sure. I think overall, strictly in-ring I'd rank Ted higher. I think Rude was better at playing his character. My bias leans toward Rude, but my head ultimately says Dibiase.

[ohtani's jacket]

I watched that Rude/Chono G-1 bout a few times (in various states of inebriation it should be said) and finally it worked for me. I'm not a fan of fish out of water scenarios in wrestling, but the NWA title still meant something to the Japanese audience at the time and it had tremendous heat even if the fans' reaction towards Rude veered a bit too much toward pantomime at times. Masa Saito's translation of Rude's promo reminded me of that scene in Lost in Translation with the interpreter. Thinking back on this it's a wonder I liked it. The clotheslines didn't look that great, Chono's selling was pretty lousy, and the matwork was mostly boring submissions and blatant rest holds. But somehow the bits in between worked and there was a gravity to it with Dusty and Watts there and all the New Japan big wigs. I don't think Rude came away looking better for having had the bout, but at the same time it was miles above any of Ted's work in Japan.

[JerryvonKramer]

Was just reading through this for some reason. I agreed with me, a lot, and disagreed with the 21 Rude voters, a lot.

 

For GWE purposes, I would find it bonkers if anyone ranked Rude over Ted, to the point where I think I might be tempted to not submit a ballot any more if people were treating their lists in that manner. And I really love Rude.

[Jimmy Redman]

Treating their lists in what manner exactly? Having different opinions to yours? Jesus Christ.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm not going to answer that, and think I am probably no longer going to submit. I do not think the process is being taken seriously enough and, in effect, am out. Will continue to review matches, but am not turning in a ballot.

[WingedEagle]

Parv, I get the frustration but consider using your ballot as a measure to counterbalance those that you find out of wack. I'm sure many would like to see your ballot.

[BillThompson]

I'm not going to answer that, and think I am probably no longer going to submit. I do not think the process is being taken seriously enough and, in effect, am out. Will continue to review matches, but am not turning in a ballot.

 

This is childish "take my ball and go home because people don't agree with me," bullshit. Seriously, this is the sort of stuff that makes me never want to talk wrestling with you. People think differently than you, who cares? You're constantly putting all these qualifiers in place for people, like somehow your opinion holds more merit than theirs and is more special or something. It's all gotten to be quite ridiculous, and now, because some people may think Wrestler A is a better worker than one of your favorites you're quitting the project. What are you, five?

[Childs]

Are you drunk Parv? First off, your guy is winning the poll.Second off, the thread is full of people (including your usual arch-nemesis) saying Dibiase was more versatile and did more good work over the run of his career. Those who voted for Rude did so because they strongly prefer his peak. What's so egregious or ill-considered about any of that?

[JerryvonKramer]

I suppose it comes down to what the poll is asking. It is not clearly for GWE purposes. I think these polls in general are pretty negative to the whole process, because it is not clear what they are asking.

 

This is nothing about disagreeing with me. Hell, I probably prefer Rude's 92 to any single DiBiase year myself, I can understand that point of view. I do not mind people having different views. What I do mind is when placements are made on these lists willy nilly. And anyone whose critia is something like "who would I rather watch right now?" I don't think is treating this the same as some of the rest of us might be.

 

I mean, in a way, it is like WON HoF, some people like Dylan care passionately and put in all sorts of work. Other guys just vote Sting because they've heard of him, or because he did them a favour once. In my view, those guys shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

GWE was always Steven's thing. He's made it clear that he wants everyone to submit, that's cool. It will be something very different from what I would have in mind for a project with the GWE title. It's not about subjectivity or objectivity, it's about what amounts to arbitrariness, and criteria too variable to be meaningful. If it's just a snapshot of "guys we like and want to watch at this point", that's great, but it's never how I've seen it and increasingly it feels like that's what people want from it. So fifteen years of a guys career can be swept aside with barely a moment's thought because Rick Rude was cool in 92 and you're a bit bored of seeing Ted. "Yeah but it's just wrestling chill out dude". I'm not even angry, it's just that I'd rather not be part of something that is ultimately not much different from asking people to rank their favourite flavours of soda. You like Mountain Dew, I like Fanta, this other guy likes the Lime Spritzer. Well great, but it's nothing to do with Greatest Soda Ever, it's just a list of faves.

 

The very fact that people think this is just about me getting upset over disagreement almost demonstrates the point. I think the list beyond the top 20 is going to be almost random considering the way people make decisions between people in these polls. It's probably detracting from my enjoyment of watching things at this point, so I'd rather concentrate on reviewing matches and step back completely from all of these debates. I don't have the same temperament as Chad or Pete, find it harder to leave things alone. But I do think they have the right idea in general. I'm looking forward to more 90s All Japan, 80s New Japan, digging back in to Mid South and Memphis, 00s Japan, Regal, Funk, Styles and whatever else I'm set to review, but GWE is getting me down.

[Dylan Waco]

Will you be practicing what you preach and staying out of the GWE forum entirely?

[El-P]

Sorry, but this is fucking hilarious.

[Childs]

I'm not sure what the alternative is though. How can something like GWE ever be anything but a collision of varying definitions of greatness? I don't see people being particularly arbitrary or lazy in this thread. It's mostly a peak vs. career argument, and that debate is endemic to GWE just as it is to every sports HOF on the planet.

 

The same issues you're lamenting are part of any attempt to create canon.

 

You and Will had a good discussion of this on the Flair podcast, but you do have a tendency to shout "arbitrary" at people who don't agree with you. And you toss off plenty of theories about wrestlers on whom you haven't done the full legwork.

 

How anyone would view your posts today as a constructive critique of the process rather than a personal snit, I have no idea.

 

But I say all of this as someone who enjoys reading your reviews and thoughts as you wrap your mind around performers you haven't watched. So I still hope you cool off and participate.

[Matt D]

I'm not sure what the alternative is though. How can something like GWE ever be anything but a collision of varying definitions of greatness? I don't see people being particularly arbitrary or lazy in this thread. It's mostly a peak vs. career argument, and that debate is endemic to GWE just as it is to every sports HOF on the planet.

 

All the more so because this isn't, in the least, a sports list but an artistic one. There are very few quantifiable elements to this process, even less so than something like the WON HOF where drawing factors in.

[pol]

As someone who finds the concept of The Canon quasi-fascist at best I'm pretty happy with the idea of the project being a snapshot of contemporary consensus rather than an attempt to be authoritative. Doesn't mean people shouldn't put in legwork, of course.

[Loss]

I have tried to avoid further posts about the project itself so I'm not a downer, but I also don't want to just be silent while people pile on. Here goes.

 

It's the name. That's what I found difficult about it. That's what JvK finds difficult about it. That's what's causing the divide. If this was called "ProWrestlingOnly.com's 100 To Watch - 2016 Edition" and was an annual poll of the guys who we're digging the most based on what we've seen of available footage from all eras up to that moment in time, that would be really cool and it wouldn't create that type of dilemma. (Dilemma is overstating it since we're clearly a minority.) But "Greatest Wrestler Ever" implies a consensus list that is all encompassing and built to last. Heck, if the idea is to do it once a decade, of course it's intended to be built to last.

 

My mentality on that is not even limited to this project. It's something that has even held me up writing about the 1990s. How can I name the top 500 matches of the decade when I haven't seen all of the matches? It's a semantics issue that if I can figure out a way to frame properly is no longer an issue. But it's created some writer's block for me, just like it's made it hard to participate here. I won't call it the top 500 matches of the 1990s, though. It's a matter of finding a way to accurately describe what it is I'm trying to do.

 

I don't think the name of the project should change just to satisfy me, and I'm still someone who will make posts in the threads when I think I have something to add, just as I'll encourage others to participate and promote the project. But for me, it's about making a ballot that would look just as good in a few years as it does now. And since I don't even think I could make a ballot where I wouldn't want to change anything with two weeks of space, I'd rather not try. It'll just get me frustrated, and this should be fun.

 

That others can have fun with this and treat it as a snapshot is great. I envy it. I'm still looking forward to seeing everyone's ballots, and I'm still a big fan of and participant in everything about the GWE project except the very last step.

[Matt D]

To be fair, this is the same offended and patronizing attitude Parv had in places such as the "who is better: Dibiase or Bossman" thread, so this is obviously deeper and more personal than just the name of this project.

 

That said, I am not at all tied to the name of this project.

 

Wrestler Snapshot - 2015 Edition would be perfectly fine to me. Or anything like that. I voiced my thoughts over in the Everyone Should Make a Ballot thread. We don't have to brag or come off as pretentious with the title of this project. We all know what we're doing.

[El-P]

Damn… we were all pretty much having fun in 2006 in SC, even if maybe we were much more abrasive back then. A few people around here are taking this way too fucking seriously. Watch matches, rate wrestlers, have fun bitching about the countdown. That's how it went and it was *fun*. Hell, the bitching part was half the fun of it (and it was true of all our polls actually, be it wrestling, movies or music).

 

But this "oh, don't comment on *my thread* if you haven't listened to *my* five two hours podcasts" and "oh, I won't participate anymore because people are not serious enough and won't vote for my favourites which are obviously the best choices" is a laughable attitude.

 

And yeah, I won't have time to watch half of what I'd like to watch, and I'll vote before it's over.

[Childs]

I have tried to avoid further posts about the project itself so I'm not a downer, but I also don't want to just be silent while people pile on. Here goes.

 

It's the name. That's what I found difficult about it. That's what JvK finds difficult about it. That's what's causing the divide. If this was called "ProWrestlingOnly.com's 100 To Watch - 2016 Edition" and was an annual poll of the guys who we're digging the most based on what we've seen of available footage from all eras up to that moment in time, that would be really cool and it wouldn't create that type of dilemma. (Dilemma is overstating it since we're clearly a minority.) But "Greatest Wrestler Ever" implies a consensus list that is all encompassing and built to last. Heck, if the idea is to do it once a decade, of course it's intended to be built to last.

 

Not looking for a long debate because you've ably articulated your stance here and elsewhere. But this thing is, by necessity, both a serious effort that many people will have devoted 18 months to and a snapshot. In that sense, it's not much different than the AFI films list or the Pitchfork songs of the '80s list or whichever example you want to pull. I admire your standards, but I believe they're impossible to meet, because the target will always keep moving and growing. So I choose not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

[Loss]

Perfect always ends up the enemy of good with me. I can't tell you how many times I've been told that on job evaluations. It's my hang-up more than it is a statement about this project, which is why I'm not calling for changes to make me happy or anything like that. I'm just trying to explain where the mindset comes from in hopes that others understand it, even if they don't agree with it at all and think it's the wrong approach.

[soup23]

To be fair, this is the same offended and patronizing attitude Parv had in places such as the "who is better: Dibiase or Bossman" thread, so this is obviously deeper and more personal than just the name of this project.

 

That said, I am not at all tied to the name of this project.

 

Wrestler Snapshot - 2015 Edition would be perfectly fine to me. Or anything like that. I voiced my thoughts over in the Everyone Should Make a Ballot thread. We don't have to brag or come off as pretentious with the title of this project. We all know what we're doing.

 

This feels like an all -emcompassing statement that doesn't quite sit right with me. On the confines of we all know what we are doing do you mean, each person has a criteria they have formulated as to how they are voting, or do you mean collectively, we all know what the purpose of the process is. If it is the latter, I would strongly disagree. If it is the former, that is one of the other fundamental issues I have had increasingly over the length of the project. Will's criteria has been publicly stated that his 100 guys has been mapped out more or less and it will take a LOT for someone to enter that. Granted, Will has watched a lot of wrestling but I disagree with this notion and the fact that he is fine just hand waving eras like joshi that he doesn't find entertaining on a personal level. Furthermore, someone can lambast myself for relying on great match theory as a metric I will use when compiling my list. The crux comes in what can be criticized and what can't. The Everyone should turn in a ballot notion is a good one and does create an all inclusive atmosphere. Yet, the next reply after this from El-P talks about people watching matches. I haven't seen anyone do an analysis of Rude's 1992 to see where it holds up. The only evidence we have in this thread is Dylan talking about the WCW he participated in. How much are we relying on fuzzy memories. This is a prickly path though because you get into the area of what will then be the arbitrary cut off of when I feel confident rating someone based on footage I have seen 5-10 years ago. This does create anguish for me that I can't get past.

[Childs]

 

To be fair, this is the same offended and patronizing attitude Parv had in places such as the "who is better: Dibiase or Bossman" thread, so this is obviously deeper and more personal than just the name of this project.

 

That said, I am not at all tied to the name of this project.

 

Wrestler Snapshot - 2015 Edition would be perfectly fine to me. Or anything like that. I voiced my thoughts over in the Everyone Should Make a Ballot thread. We don't have to brag or come off as pretentious with the title of this project. We all know what we're doing.

 

This feels like an all -emcompassing statement that doesn't quite sit right with me. On the confines of we all know what we are doing do you mean, each person has a criteria they have formulated as to how they are voting, or do you mean collectively, we all know what the purpose of the process is. If it is the latter, I would strongly disagree. If it is the former, that is one of the other fundamental issues I have had increasingly over the length of the project. Will's criteria has been publicly stated that his 100 guys has been mapped out more or less and it will take a LOT for someone to enter that. Granted, Will has watched a lot of wrestling but I disagree with this notion and the fact that he is fine just hand waving eras like joshi that he doesn't find entertaining on a personal level. Furthermore, someone can lambast myself for relying on great match theory as a metric I will use when compiling my list. The crux comes in what can be criticized and what can't. The Everyone should turn in a ballot notion is a good one and does create an all inclusive atmosphere. Yet, the next reply after this from El-P talks about people watching matches. I haven't seen anyone do an analysis of Rude's 1992 to see where it holds up. The only evidence we have in this thread is Dylan talking about the WCW he participated in. How much are we relying on fuzzy memories. This is a prickly path though because you get into the area of what will then be the arbitrary cut off of when I feel confident rating someone based on footage I have seen 5-10 years ago. This does create anguish for me that I can't get past.

 

Chad, you just did a podcast in which you listed your top 100 matches of all time. It wasn't meant to be your definitive list until the end of days, and you made that clear upfront. But you obviously put real thought into it, and a lot of people on here enjoyed it. How's this any different? Why the anguish?