[GWE] What does versatility mean to you?

[Dylan Waco]

I am someone who probably puts versatility near the center of my criteria for the GWE, but in looking back at the most divisive thread in PWO history, I ran across Loss arguing that to him versatility means the ability to have a variety of good matches, across a bunch of different promotions, with a bunch of different people and not necessarily the ability to work several different styles. This is very similar to the sentiment expressed by Parv in the Fair to Flair podcast series. To me versatility encompasses both things, but I also include the ability to play a variety of different roles effectively when called on to do so. In many respects I think the tension between the camp that sees versatility as primarily a reflection of output and the camp that sees versatility as primarily a reflection of a persons input lays at the heart of the criteria debate. In general I am interested in how people here use the term versatility, and how important of a factor that is when they are assessing candidates.

[soup23]

Versatility and how much weight I put in it is something I need to flesh out more. For instance, Misawa started out as a junior and evolved to an up and comer and then the man for a decade. After dropping the GHC to Kobashi in 3/1/03, he evolved into slightly more of an elder statesman but I think it is certainly fair to say that his versatility in far as how he potrayed himself is different from most of the other wrestlers in the top 10 including contemporaries like Kobashi (better junior worker) and Jumbo (better elder statesman grumpy area). Kawada would probably be the individual with the least amount of versatility with maybe Hansen dipping slightly too.

 

When I think of versatility, the evolution of character work does play a big role. I like seeing careers and development evolve over time. There is something that is magnificent with the footage we have available where you can see the lightbulb go off for guys like Tenryu, Misawa, etc. On the other hand, someone like Daniel Bryan had versatility in a more micro level that could be tracked throughout his career. He would go do a camp with Regal and you would see more European influence sprinkled in. Ditto when he went to Japan.

 

Having a variety of opponents and creating good to very good matches in multiple settings is a good facet of versatility but I think being able to work in your own environment and showing versatility against common opponents is just as important. Misawa works differently with Hansen in the 3/92 match than he does in the 8/92 and 5/93 matches. This is why the argument that Misawa only did it against the same guys bothers me to some degree. The matches and performances were different. Even the death moves were different and therefore showed versatility for the performer in my eyes.

[Childs]

Versatility to me means the ability to work effectively in different roles and styles. For example, I would not call Vader a versatile wrestler. But I would say his style was incredibly durable in that he could jump between vastly different promotions and remain effective.

 

I value both qualities for the purposes of GWE.

[Loss]

I feel like I should be referring to "durability" instead of "versatility" since that's really what I value more. How many places can you make your match and your general style work without having to change too much to blend in? So I agree that's not versatility. And I think of guys like Flair and Vader there. I don't think it's a bad thing to change if it works, but guys who don't have to do that when all signs say they should are pretty cool.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't disagree with that point. I also think there is something to say for someone who totally masters a style or approach or role to the point where it would be absurd for them to do anything else. Here the best example is probably Rey Mysterio.

[jdw]

I am someone who probably puts versatility near the center of my criteria for the GWE, but in looking back at the most divisive thread in PWO history, I ran across Loss arguing that to him versatility means the ability to have a variety of good matches, across a bunch of different promotions, with a bunch of different people and not necessarily the ability to work several different styles. This is very similar to the sentiment expressed by Parv in the Fair to Flair podcast series. To me versatility encompasses both things, but I also include the ability to play a variety of different roles effectively when called on to do so. In many respects I think the tension between the camp that sees versatility as primarily a reflection of output and the camp that sees versatility as primarily a reflection of a persons input lays at the heart of the criteria debate. In general I am interested in how people here use the term versatility, and how important of a factor that is when they are assessing candidates.

 

I suspect that Dylan would agree that even "roles" is just the tip.

 

Someone like Steamboat largely played the same role for the overwhelming majority of his career on tape: Ultimate Babyface.

 

But within that "role" or "character", it's possible that one could still have versatility in the type of wrestling they do. Perhaps most of his time such a wrestler works as a technical babyface. But it's possible that he also is a kick as brawler when called on. It's also possible that in a blood feud he plays short fused pissed off out of control face.

 

I'm not saying that Steamber did all that.

 

But it is possible to get *some* versatility despite playing the same primary role/character pretty much all the time.

 

Sano is a wrestle we talk about having versatility due to the variety of styles and promotions he worked in. We talk less about the variety of characters/roles he played. His character typical only comes up when talking about his New Japan time opposite Liger.

 

So...

 

Versatility can cover a lot of things. It's not really a single thing, it's more in how the term is being used with the specific wrestler. Sano was versatile in styles. Jumbo was versatile in evolving characters, and flipping between face and heel.

[supremebve]

I'm going to try to say this intelligently, but this is kind of a scatterbrained thought. Can being able to have a match with anyone without really changing your style make you versatile? I was watching a Tenryu match and he sold for his opponent's offense and generally did everything to put his opponent over, but on offense he did all of his Tenryu stuff. It was basically a match that Tenryu gave his opponent to do whatever he wanted. His opponent was on offense maybe 75% of the match, and Tenryu's comebacks were just all of his big spots. He really didn't do anything new, but the match felt fresh based on how he used those few spots. Tenryu isn't someone who would be considered versatile based on his ability to work different types of matches. But, shouldn't he be considered versatile for being able to make his matches feel different despite not really changing his style?

[JerryvonKramer]

1. Ability to have great matches vs. a wide variety of different opponents over time.

 

This is what I was talking about re: Flair / Jumbo. I think they are the 10/10s for versatility defined this way.

 

2. Ability to work effectively in different roles and styles.

 

This is something else. Although I do value this. Jumbo was able to work in at least three different roles in his career and completely mastered at least two different styles. Flair could work different types of matches / stips albeit within largely the same style.

 

Funk is high in this category because he was such an effective superstar babyface in All Japan, while being a heel for most of the rest of his career, and he also has I'd say three or four diffent type of heel characters that are variations on the basic Terry Funk model. He was also NWA champ, hardcore legend, etc. So he's probably the 10/10 for versatility as defined in this second way.

[concrete1992]

GET READY FOR THE RAMBLES!

 

Versatility means a lot to me but that is probably because I don't plan on voting in the "proper" way. I know, you're supposed to have a level of objectivity when it comes to this list, who is actually the best, but if I can't stomach watching a wrestler for a couple hours because I saw their great matches with little making them standout from each other then I'll have a hard time voting for someone or voting for someone really high.

 

What does versatility mean? I think we've come to the consensus that it isn't one thing. I THINK I'm sorta in the same boat with JVK in regards to the All Japan stars. I say sorta because I know he is a massive fan of the matches those wrestlers took part in but the lack of variety will hurt them in something like this. For me, I am not as high on peak AJPW as others. It is great but for me it doesn't feel like the be-all-end-all. I know that is probably sacrilege to some or at least makes one question my opinions. As my list develops more and more it feels like Kobashi is the member of the Four Pillars that will slip. Of the members he seems like the most one-trick-pony of them all. Great fire, wonderful selling, but sometimes I feel like it'd be difficult to find performances that could engage me out of his comfort zone. Maybe I haven't seen enough Kobashi though. Stan Hansen is a weird guy who I feel could go either way depending on if I see more of his stuff outside of AJPW.

 

Vader is the sort of "variety" guy I love. Can go at it with anyone and make it good. He's essentially the same wrestler each time but his wrestling works in a large variety of environments. Same for a guy like Tenryu from what I've seen.

 

Daniel Bryan though...he is a high end TRUE variety wrestler who can anyone's match and deliver something great. That's going to be a big reason why he'll place quite high on my ballot.

[Bierschwale]

I think that I can define what I think is the highest form of versatility better than versatility itself, and I don't know if it makes any sense, but being a great versatile worker is about making me believe them no matter the situation. Whatever they're doing makes sense to who they are supposed to be.

[InYourCase]

I agree with Sam that Daniel Bryan is the ultimate variety wrestler. He's succeeded in every style that he's worked in. That greatly helps him.

 

Hansen and Kobashi are fighting for my #1 spot and there's a chance I give Hansen the edge, simply because he was able to successfully work in a vareity of territories. Yes, he was very brawl heavy in both Puerto Rico and Japan, but I think his Colon stuff is just different enough from the bulk of his Japan work. I haven't touched his AWA stuff yet so I'm sure I'm in for a treat there.

 

Kobashi is hurt by the fact that from what I've seen, he wasn't a great young boy, and didn't become truly great until maybe 1992 or 1993. He worked the big, All Japan main event style, and then the NOAH, bomb throwing, stiff suplex style. Both of which I love, but they aren't very different.

 

Chris Hero was versitile in the sense that he not only works a vareity of guys successfully, but he is a great babyface and an even better heel.

[BillThompson]

For me versatility is rising to the occasion. I know that sounds nebulous, but it's best seen in wrestlers who can stray from formula or what they know best when they need to. I'd argue a guy like Daniel Bryan is incredibly versatile not so much because he can wrestle a variety of styles but because he can adapt himself to what is required of him in a given moment. The same is true of a guy like Vader. He may wrestle a similar style, but when the success of the match is dependent on him taking a different bump, showing a moment of vulnerability, etc. he can do that and adapt to what is best for the match. That's versatility for me, taking what is given to you and making the absolute best out of it.

[Matt D]

I hold the Kamala match against Bryan

[jdw]

Kobashi is hurt by the fact that from what I've seen, he wasn't a great young boy, and didn't become truly great until maybe 1992 or 1993.

 

This was about a year and a half after he debuted, and actually was taped a few days before his TV debut match:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Buo6ht8XqA

 

That would be a great young boy. Not a "great wrestler" yet, but a great young boy. He does one obvious thing that's a bit flaky, but considering how Kawada works after transitioning back to offense, I'd have a hard to calling it overly flaky. It's quite likely Kawada called the flakiness. On the balance, I'd say his performance is better than Kawada's... and that's coming from someone who likes Kawada a good deal more than Kobashi.

 

Then there's this two weeks later in his first TV main event:

 

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

 

I'd forgotten how ridiculously good that match was. The key here is that it's four days after Hansen & Tenryu lifted the World Tag Titles off Jumbo & Yatsu, making Tenryu the Five Crown Champion (TC+Tag). A week after this, Jumbo & Yatsu would get their chance to get "their" belts back. Jumbo is about as full of piss and vinegar as you'll ever see him, kicking the fuck out of Tenryu any chance he gets. In turn, Tenryu takes that beating out on Kobashi. The kid fires back, which only pisses Tenryu off some more.

 

Kobashi is rather good in this for a kid just a ways into his second year in there with a trio of #1 GoaT Candidates. There's one false-step section, and one kind of wonders what's up with Hansen as it seems he botches the vertical suplex, then is off on the dropkick into the corner, and then drags Kobashi over to Jumbo's corner for *Hansen* himself to tag in Jumbo. Don't know if he got knocked a little goofy, or... what. Jumbo kind of gets it (whatever "it" is) and maneuvers Hansen into a quick sequence where Stan can tag Tenryu in. It's an odd segment, and after going back to rewatch it, I have no clue. If it were Brody, I'd have fun ripping him. Anyway... the kid is very good for a kid in that sequence.

 

He took steps up in 1990 and 1991 and 1992. I think he was better than Misawa in both 1991 & 1992. At the time, I didn't think there was much daylight between he and Kawada, and by the end of the year they were the best men in the world, especially with Jumbo on the shelf.

 

There have been very wrestlers who were as good as he was young.

[Parties]

Don't honestly think it matters much at all, esp. when I look at the top of my rankings. Funk and Hansen have great range and diverse careers, which no doubt helps their GOAT case. But Hansen's really the same character his entire career. You can argue that Lawler was as good a heel as he was face (and that he was a good tag worker despite it not being his specialty), but otherwise there's not much versatility to his resume.

 

Fujinami, Fujiwara, Casas, Dundee, Mysterio, Misawa, Kawada, Tenryu, Satanico, Bockwinkel... not guys I'd call versatile with regard to changes in style/character/location/resume. Yet all top 10 contenders to me.

 

The highest ranked workers for me who I would consider versatile would be guys like:

• Regal (journeyman career, heel/face, American and British rounds style who could even add Japanese stuff in as needed)
• Eddy (ditto if you replace Euro style with lucha)
• Liger (worked all over, heel/face, comedy/serious, versatile range of in-ring stylings that he can swap in and out depending on where he's working)
• Danielson (really impressive resume esp. for his era, great wrestling mind who can change what he's doing depending on the moment/match/character he's portraying)

As always, Flair risks being over-analyzed in this discussion, and I can see him going either way. People who find him repetitive will point to the Flair Formula, people making the case for him as GWE or close to it will hype his resume and range of opponents. I think versatility's a little different than "he worked everywhere": it should speak to your capacity to change up what you're doing based on the scenario. To that end, I wouldn't call him particularly versatile, but he's someone who obviously worked well with a wide range of people and as NWA champ was expected to make anyone/everyone look great. He was very capable of doing an All Japan style match, NWA match, a brawl, etc. Much better heel than babyface, to the point that I'd say I don't even find him particularly likable in his in-ring approach: he doesn't draw sympathy the way a great babyface would, or even a uniquely versatile worker like Regal can. He was as versatile as he needed to be for the role he was in, but it's not like he's someone like Eddy or Liger or Danielson who really sought out those opportunities and learned from them.

 

TL;DR: Versatility is neither make nor break. Some of the top contenders had it, others didn't, but overall it's not something I value as much as peak matches, character work, longevity, promos, selling, generosity in making opponents look good, innovation, and many other criteria.