Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
JerryvonKramer

JvK's Six-Factor Model for GWE rankings [BIGLAV]

Recommended Posts

In the past week two things happened. First, I listened again to Wrestling Culture #50 where Dylan and Dave ran through their top 50s back in 2013. Dave Musgrave's list in particular kind of gave me a burst of renewed enthusiasm and has sort of jolted me out of the funk I was in a couple of months ago. I can now see what everyone was telling me about it being more about the personal journey etc. etc., and on reflection I got too caught up on some little things and couldn't see the woods for the trees. So I think I am going to put in a list. It would be a waste not to. But I also feel much more relaxed about the whole thing in general. So a thanks to Dave and Dylan from 2013 for, somehow, putting my mind at ease about it.

 

The second thing that happened is that I happened to have a game of Top Trumps.

 

And that triggered an idea I've been thinking about sub-consciously for a while. One of the things that has bothered me when coming up with my own list is some of the arbitrariness with which I'm making decisions, is this guy here because he's the best or just because I happen to love him? Why is this guy at 44 and this guy at 45? Etc. Beyond the top 10 it all felt like a bit of a crapshoot, especially the lower down the list I got.

 

I wanted to devise a system that could normalise comparisons on a six-factor model.

 

I have called this scale BIGLAV. What is BIGLAV? It stands for:

 

Base ability (in ring)

Intangibles

Great matches

Length of peak

Ability to work different styles and roles

Variety of opponents and memorable feuds

 

My idea is that every single guy I have in consideration will be put through BIGLAV. A rating out of 10 will be applied in each category. And then all six figures are added together to get a final score out of 60. And these scores will be used to order my top 100 from highest to lowest. In the case of a tie, see notes.

 

Let me go into each of these six catergories in some more detail:

 

Base ability:this is a composite of a guy's base in-ring talent. An example of a 10 would be Barry Windham.

 

Intangibles: this is a composite of a guy's non-mechanical abilities comprising character work, charisma, crowd control, and "aura" / X-factor. An example of a 10 would be Riki Choshu.

 

Great matches: this is a count of the number of great matches this wrestler has had normalised to a ten-point scale. An example of a 10 would be Misawa.

 

Length of peak: this is a measure of the total number of years that the guy might realistically be considered one of the best workers in the world normalised to a ten-point scale. An example of a 10 would be Jumbo Tsuruta who was arguably one of the top workers in the world every year from 1973 to 1992, a 19-year period.

 

Length of peak conversion chart.

 

17 years+ = 10

15-16 years = 9

13-14 years = 8

11-12 years = 7

9-10 years = 6

7-8 years = 5

6-7 years = 4

4-5 years = 3

2-3 years = 2

1 year = 1

 

 

Ability to work different styles and roles: this is a composite rating for the ability to work in a variety of different settings, work different styles of matches, or take on different roles within matches or indeed promotions. An example of a 10 would be Terry Funk.

 

- As with all other categories, this is a rating out of 10.

- Workers get a +1 score for each different style or role they can perform capping out at 10

 

Some examples of different roles:

 

+1 ability to work babyface / heel

+1 ability to work singles matches / tags

+1 ability to carry a promotion / work as ace

+1 ability to work as travelling champion [basic +1 bump for the 5 NWA champs]

+1 ability to brawl / work technical matches

+1 ability to work gimmick matches

+1 ability to work [a different style]

+1 ability to work a different gimmick

+3 ability to get over in multiple markets

 

Variety of opponents and memorable feuds: this is a rating for the variety of different opponents with whom the wrestler had great matches or memorable programs. An example of a 10 would be Ric Flair.

 

30+ opponents = 10

26-29 opponents = 9

21-25 opponents = 8

16-19 opponents = 7

12-5 opponents = 6

10-11 opponents = 5

8-9 opponents = 4

6-7 opponents = 3

3-5 opponents = 2

1-2 opponents = 1

 

Notes:

- This is in no way an attempt to be objective, since many of the ratings are in themselves inherently subjective; it is simply a tool to help me rank my picks

- Base ability comprises three smaller scores on a three-point-scale for selling, offense, psychology, with a discretionary 10th point given out for exceptional things. So for Ric Flair, for example, I'd give 3/3 for selling, 2/3 for offense, 2/3 for psychology plus a discretionary 1 for his incredible stamina. This would make his base ability score 8/10. Lawler would probably get a discretionary +1 for his punch.

- Ties in overall score will likely be decided on higher base ability score in the first instance. Say for example Barry Windham, who is a perfect 10 in that category, ties overall with someone else on the same score but with a lower base ability score, Windham wins. This is because the question is "who is better?" And all other things being equal it comes down to the base ability.

- In the event that that the base score is the same in the tie, the second tiebreaker is Great Matches.

- In the event of a tie beyond the second tiebreaker, I will step in to make a margin call.

- If I can't come up with all six numbers for a given guy, I either haven't seen enough or don't know enough about him and if I can fix that in time for the deadline, he cannot rank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, as someone else who jumped off and then jumped back on, I'm glad you are submitting a ballot now. I look forward to seeing it.

 

Second, I respect the idea behind this. It's not so much that you're aiming for objective ways to rate wrestlers as it is that you are looking for a standardized way to rate wrestlers, and I do think there's a difference. We're all just trying to wrap our heads around this and I have appreciation for the effort and thought that went into developing this. I'm not sure that I'd come up with categories that were different, or even if I did that they would be better. However, there is one major issue I can't shake and I'm curious your response to it.

 

Some wrestlers are exceptional in one or two categories and barely register in one of the other categories. To rank them lower in other categories is fine, but in some cases, that penalizes them for something that wasn't really important to their run. I feel like 10 possible points in the Intangibles category is a contradiction in itself, because the intangibles carry infinite weight.

 

I'll give you an example. I'd rate someone like Flair a 10/10 in that category. I'd also rate Hogan or Inoki a 10/10 in that category. That seems unfair to Hogan and Inoki. In the context of what we want from a wrestler on an artistic list, I can't think of anything Flair could do to add to his presence or his aura. But he didn't captivate the masses like Hogan did, or like Inoki did. Inoki is a cultural figure on the level of Muhammad Ali. If someone was going to rate Inoki on their list, almost his entire case would be made in that category. It downplays the ability of wrestlers to transcend these "lanes" that it feels like we're placing them in. No coloring outside the lines is allowed -- you can be a 10/10, but you can't be a 20 or a 30 out of 10.

 

So maybe I should rank Flair a 9/10 there since he was a gigantic wrestling star, but not a transcendant figure. So that suggests he's only slightly behind those guys?

 

Oh, so maybe I should take him down to a 5 or 6. Wait, that seems harsh. Does it suggest that he's weak in that category when he really isn't?

 

Different wrestlers can be great for completely different reasons, and wrestling is a form where I think two diametric truths can exist in full conflict to each other and be equally viable. Tamura is an exceptionally talented wrestler. He has the match resume and his feud with Han produced some all-time classics, but his pure talent is by far the most important part of his case.

 

See what I mean?

 

I empathize because I wish it was this straightforward for me. I want it to be a math problem sometimes because it's a little easier to ponder. "Who Is the Greatest Wrestler Ever?" then becomes a problem that we can solve. I'm just not sure it works that way in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loss, the intangibles rating is less to do with stardom or real world success and more to do with aura, character, and things like that. Flair is an undoubted 10/10 in that category as are Hogan and Inoki. But where it will shake out is in other categories. Hogan, for example, was at no point in his career considered one of the best workers in the world, and so for Longevity he'd actually get a rating of 0/10. Seems harsh but that's where you'll get big gaps emerging. Dusty, for example, would be a 10/10 in intangibles category and I'm not sure if I see him breaking 3/10 for any other factor. So if his overall score ends up as 25/60, he probably won't rank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my point there is that there's an inherent idea that someone who is very good at many things is better than someone who is exceptionally great at one or two things and not so much at other things. Is that true? I'm sure it is just as much as it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me and my list it is true. Jerry Lawler's punch gives him a maximum of a +1 in my way of thinking, even if it is really the best punch there is. Whereas for someone like Will, it carries a much greater weight.

 

Guys who are basing their case purely on one or two categories are going to suffer as a result. But that's something I'm personally happy with. I want my Greatest Ever to be strong in all six. And my list will reflect that.

 

This was one of the reasons I made the model, I was unhappy with what I considered to be inconsistencies in my own rankings. This could have some weird consequences though, I have no idea what will happen when I try to out guys like Shawn Michaels through it. A guy like that will probably end up higher than he might otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also glad you've decided to participate because I do think the more the merrier for projects like this. I just think you may be overthinking it a little bit or in your attempt to make your rankings less arbitrary, you're going to be straddling the line of making them even more arbitrary or will find yourself lost in the minutia of all of this.

 

Like this part:

"One of the things that has bothered me when coming up with my own list is some of the arbitrariness with which I'm making decisions, is this guy here because he's the best or just because I happen to love him? Why is this guy at 44 and this guy at 45? Etc. Beyond the top 10 it all felt like a bit of a crapshoot, especially the lower down the list I got."

 

Giving wrestler X a 5 in "intangibles" (which is difficult in and of itself, how do you numerically rank intangible qualities?) instead of a 4 seems just as arbitrary as ranking someone 53 instead of 54.

 

Or "length of peak" being based solely on "how many years was this person a best in the world candidate?" Based on that definition, what would Arn Anderson's "length of peak" score be? Wouldn't Arn get a zero for "length of peak" because he wasn't realistically a candidate for "best in the world" at any point?

 

What about "Ability to work different styles and roles?" Ricky Morton defined the role of sympathetic babyface tag worker. We've seen Booker T work as a heel tag worker, singles babyface on the rise, comedic babyface single, serious babyface single, serious heel single, etc etc. What would the numerical placement for Ricky Morton under the "Ability to work different styles" category? What about Booker T? It seems like Booker's case would be inflated just because he got to play different roles whereas someone like Ricky Morton, Steamboat, Mysterio Jr, etc would be hurt even though it would be insane to book Ricky Morton as anything other than a sympathetic underdog babyface.

 

The concept of using math to rank performance art is really strange to me and I'm not sure I understand how it makes things less arbitrary. I suppose I'd be more interested in your 1-9 rankings for the categories than I would be your 10s.

 

Edit

I do appreciate the effort though and trying to look at the project this way. Its interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Arn would have been considered "one of the best workers in the world" basically for most of his career. Never best worker in the world, but always extremely highly rated. You just need look at an old WON to see that. In my estimation -- which is what counts here -- Arn would be a top ten guy in the world for a good chunk of his run. I'm not sure what his rating will be there, he had ten years of which he was a world class talent for most of it. So about 5/10. Not an exact science, but about right considering Flair himself will likely get about a 8/10 himself on that scale (taking it from 78-94, I'm a bit more lenient than Loss there). That will be the hardest scale to get points in. Rick Rude has a score of 1/10 there, for example.

 

Your point on Morton, Steamer etc is taken, and yes they will score low in that category of versatility. But Steamer is going to be 10/10 or 9/10 in at least two categories and will score decently in others. When it all shakes out, I think he'll fall about right where I'd have him anyway. Morton is a different case but then if his case is inherently limited and I value strength across the board, it is right for Morton to fall a bit. But y'know I always had Eaton a lot higher than Morton anyway, so these numbers are only making judgement calls I was making anyway more clear. If it ends up with Morton around 60-70 so be it, it's "fair" by the criteria I'm using. I'm lower on Rey than a lot of people too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a little go at doing this in practice using some of my faves:

Flair
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 2/3 +1 (for stamina) = 8
Intangibles 10
Great Matches 10
Length of Peak 8 (78-94)
Ability to work different styles / roles 7
Variety 10

53

Misawa
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 +1 (for innovation) = 10
Intangibles 6
Great matches 10
Length of Peak 6 (90-98)
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 3

38

Bret Hart
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 2/3 3/3 +1 (for execution) = 9
Intangibles 4
Great matches 7
Length of Peak 5 (91-97)
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 4

28

Arn Anderson
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 2/3 3/3 (+1 for spinebuster) = 8
Intangibles 7
Great matches 5
Length of Peak 6 (86-96)
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 5

34

Ted DiBiase
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 2/3 (+1 for scoop powerslam) = 8
Intangibles 6
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 5 (82-88)
Ability to work different styles / roles 6
Variety 5

30

Bobby Eaton
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 +1 (for innovation) = 10
Intangibles 2
Great matches 5
Length of Peak 6 (83-92)
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 4

30



Not saying these ratings are final, but it gives you some idea at how it might work. A score in the lower 30s is likely a top half finish, a score in the upper 30s likely top 20 and 40+ looking top 5 bound. Once I have them all down in this format I can think really hard and tweak.

Like should Arn or Ted be higher in any of the in-ring ratings? Should the variety rating go up or down for each of them? And so on and so forth. It is a little painstaking, but I'd rather do it this way than leave it vague and / or hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fun, I've done the Funk Brothers too:

Dory Funk Jr.
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 1/3 3/3 +1 (for counter wrestling) = 7
Intangibles 0
Great matches 7
Length of Peak 6 (69-79)
Ability to work different styles / roles 2
Variety 7

29

Terry Funk
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 = 8
Intangibles 9
Great matches 8
Length of Peak 8 (74-89)
Ability to work different styles / roles 10
Variety 10

53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your approach.

 

Your scores rank the wrestlers:

 

Ric Flair 53

Terry Funk 53

Mitsuharu Misawa 38

Arn Anderson 33

Bobby Eaton 30

Ted DiBiase 29

Bret Hart 28

Dory Funk Jr. 28

 

Do you agree with that? Would that be how you'd have ranked them before BIGLAV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think so, seems to be working out well. The only thing I'm debating with myself is whether Arn and Ted's base ratings are too low, because both seem like they should be 8 /10s to me. Should Arn be a 3/3 for selling or should he get a +1 for this awesome spinebuster? Should Ted get a +1 for his scoop Powerslam? I have veered on the side of being stingy with the +1s, but I wonder in their cases whether they should get +1s for having "the best in the business" of their respective moves? I don't think Arn should be a 9/10 though.

 

Also, the ability to work different styles / roles rating is one of the more difficult to allocate. So even though he worked face, heel, tags, various different title runs, Dory got a 1/10 there because he was basically exactly the same in every setting and never really adapted his style to fit the changing environments. The 3/10 for Misawa recognises his Tiger Mask 2 run. The 4/10 for Bret recognises his heel and tag runs. The 6/10 for DiBiase recognises his face runs, All Japan work, the wide variety of different stip matches he worked, and the fact he got over in at least four different markets (GCW, WWF, MSW, AJPW). But now I look at it, Dory got over in pretty much every market in the world at some point or other, so maybe his rating should go up? That is the hardest number to come up with. In fact, recognising his brawling skills, maybe Dory should be at least a 2/10 there. Think I will change it to reflect. That means he's now a 29. And as things stand would finish above DiBiase and Bret. But that could change if I bump Ted's base rating as discussed. There will be a lot of fine tuning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everyone else, I'm glad you're back in it, and that you've found a system that works for you. As someone who watches a lot of footage, it'd have been a shame if you'd not put in a list. One thing I'm curious about, will you be sticking rigidly to your scores, or will you allow yourself some flexibility to move? For example, if you put your list together using BIGLAV, and you see a guy in the low 70's who your gut instinct tells you should be in your top 30, would you move him or keep him in the 70's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everyone else, I'm glad you're back in it, and that you've found a system that works for you. As someone who watches a lot of footage, it'd have been a shame if you'd not put in a list. One thing I'm curious about, will you be sticking rigidly to your scores, or will you allow yourself some flexibility to move? For example, if you put your list together using BIGLAV, and you see a guy in the low 70's who your gut instinct tells you should be in your top 30, would you move him or keep him in the 70's?

Hopefully this doesn't happen. And these early test cases are going to set a kind of unspoken anchor for my ratings.

 

For example, I'm already going to bump Arn and Ted up to 8/10s for their base based on exceptional moves each of them do, and this sets a certain precedent. I am going to do another batch now. It's fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm doing this it is clear I need a ...

Legnth of peak conversion chart. This is going to cause me to have to re-calibrate all of ones I've done so far.

17 years+ = 10
15-16 years = 9
13-14 years = 8
11-12 years = 7
9-10 years = 6
7-8 years = 5
6-7 years = 4
4-5 years = 3
2-3 years = 2
1 year = 1

This changes a lot of ratings. See below. Criteria for that is "someone who would likely make a top 30 list of workers in the world during the period active".


Flair
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 2/3 +1 (for stamina) = 8
Intangibles 10
Great Matches 10
Length of Peak 78-94 = 16 years = 9
Ability to work different styles / roles 7
Variety 10

54

Misawa
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 +1 (for innovation) = 10
Intangibles 6
Great matches 10
Length of Peak 90-03 = 13 years = 8
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 3

40

Bret Hart
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 2/3 3/3 +1 (for execution) = 9
Intangibles 4
Great matches 7
Length of Peak 91-97 = 6 years = 4
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 4

27

Arn Anderson
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 2/3 3/3 (+1 for spinebuster) = 8
Intangibles 7
Great matches 5
Length of Peak 86-96 = 10 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 5

34

Ted DiBiase
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 2/3 (+1 for scoop powerslam) = 8
Intangibles 6
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 82-88 = 6 years = 4
Ability to work different styles / roles 6
Variety 5

29

Bobby Eaton
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 +1 (for innovation) = 10
Intangibles 2
Great matches 5
Length of Peak 83-92 = 9 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 4

30


Dory Funk Jr.
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 1/3 3/3 +1 (for counter wrestling) = 7
Intangibles 0
Great matches 7
Length of Peak 6 (69-79)
Ability to work different styles / roles 2
Variety 7

29

Terry Funk
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 = 8
Intangibles 9
Great matches 8
Length of Peak 74-89 = 15 years = 9
Ability to work different styles / roles 10
Variety 10

54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Rude
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 2/3 = 7
Intangibles 7
Great matches 5
Length of Peak 89-92 = 3 years = 2
Ability to work different styles / roles 0
Variety 3

24

Jack Brisco
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 +1 (for selling of holds) = 9
Intangibles 2
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 71-83 = 12 years = 7
Ability to work different styles / roles 2
Variety 5

31

Harley Race
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 2/3 = 8
Intangibles 3
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 73-84 = 11 years = 7
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 6

31

Giant Baba
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 1/3 1/3 3/3 = 5
Intangibles 5
Great matches 8
Length of Peak 69-79 = 10 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 7

32

The Sheik
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 0/3 1/3 2/3 (+1 for mastery of foreign object) = 4
Intangibles 6
Great matches 2
Length of Peak [never one of best in world] = 0
Ability to work different styles / roles 0
Variety 4

16

Billy Robinson
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 (+1 for innovation) = 10
Intangibles 3
Great matches 8
Length of Peak 70-80 = 10 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 6

34

Lex Luger
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 2/3 1/3 = 5
Intangibles 4
Great matches 3
Length of Peak 88-91 = 3 years = 2
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 3

21

Tully Blanchard
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 1/3 3/3 3/3 (+1 for slingshot suplex) = 8
Intangibles 6
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 85-89 = 4 years = 3
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 5

29

Ron Garvin
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 2/3 2/3 (+1 for being a such a stiff bastard) = 7
Intangibles 2
Great matches 5
Length of Peak 82-87 = 5 years = 3
Ability to work different styles / roles 2
Variety 3

22

Wahoo McDaniel
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 1/3 2/3 (+1 for CHOPS) = 6
Intangibles 3
Great matches 4
Length of Peak 74-86 = 12 years = 7
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 3

24

Ole Anderson
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 0/3 3/3 = 5
Intangibles 3
Great matches 2
Length of Peak 75-85 = 10 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 2

19

Ricky Steamboat
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 (+1 for arm drag) = 9
Intangibles 4
Great matches 9
Length of Peak 78-94 = 16 years = 9
Ability to work different styles / roles 0
Variety 5

36

Barry Windham
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 (+1 for float-over suplex) = 10
Intangibles 1
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 85-93 = 8 years = 5
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 3

34

Ivan Koloff
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 2/3 2/3 = 6
Intangibles 3
Great matches 2
Length of Peak 69-85 = 16 years = 9
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 4

28

Vader
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 2/3 2/3 (+1 for stiffness) = 7
Intangibles 6
Great matches 7
Length of Peak 86-96 = 10 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 2
Variety 5

33

Eddie Guerrero
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 2/3 = 8
Intangibles 5
Great matches 4
Length of Peak 94-05 = 11 years = 7
Ability to work different styles / roles 7
Variety 6

37

Chris Benoit
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 = 9
Intangibles 0
Great matches 4
Length of Peak 94-07 = 13 years = 8
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 5

27

Dick Murdoch
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 = 8
Intangibles 4
Great matches 4
Length of Peak 75-87 = 12 years = 7
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 4

31

Butch Reed
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 2/3 2/3 = 6
Intangibles 2
Great matches 3
Length of Peak 82-86 = 4 years = 3
Ability to work different styles / roles 2
Variety 3

19

Andre
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 0/3 1/3 3/3 = 4
Intangibles 8
Great matches 3
Length of Peak 74-83 = 9 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 5

27

Bob Backlund
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 1/3 1/3 (+1 for atomic piledriver) = 6
Intangibles 1
Great matches 8
Length of Peak 77-84 = 7 years = 5
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 8

31

Hulk Hogan
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 0/3 2/3 2/3 = 4
Intangibles 10
Great matches 2
Length of Peak [never one of best in world] = 0
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 8

28

Bruno Sammartino
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 1/3 1/3 2/3 = 4
Intangibles 10
Great matches 1
Length of Peak [never one of best in world] = 0
Ability to work different styles / roles 0
Variety 8

23

Randy Savage
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 = 8
Intangibles 9
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 85-92 = 7 years = 5
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 6

38

Steve Austin
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 1/3 2/3 2/3 = 5
Intangibles 10
Great matches 3
Length of Peak 92-01 = 9 years = 6
Ability to work different styles / roles 4
Variety 5

33

Kurt Angle
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 1/3 = 7
Intangibles 5
Great matches 3
Length of Peak 98-06 = 8 years = 5
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 6

29

Stan Hansen
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 2/3 2/3 (+1 for stiffness) = 8
Intangibles 8
Great matches 8
Length of Peak 79-93 = 13 years = 8
Ability to work different styles / roles 1
Variety 7

40

Jumbo Tsuruta
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 3/3 (+1 for hitting ever move like a finisher) = 10
Intangibles 6
Great matches 10
Length of Peak 73-92 = 19 years = 10
Ability to work different styles / roles 5
Variety 9

50

Generico Tenryu
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 = 8
Intangibles 7
Great matches 9
Length of Peak 84-02 = 18 years = 10
Ability to work different styles / roles 5
Variety 9

48

Yoshiaki Yatsu
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 3/3 2/3 = 8
Intangibles 2
Great matches 6
Length of Peak 84-90 = 6 years = 4
Ability to work different styles / roles 3
Variety 5

28

Nick Bockwinkel
Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 2/3 3/3 3/3 (+1 for "most logical wrestler of all time") = 9
Intangibles 8
Great matches 7
Length of Peak 74-86 = 12 years = 7
Ability to work different styles / roles 6
Variety 8

45


I'll stop here, maybe more later.

The most legitimately shocking aspect of this so far is that currently Hansen is not in the top 5. He's really hurt by that Ability to Work Different Styles rating. Oh and Jumbo is currently #3, that is also a shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to be picky, but Andre with intangibles as 8 stood out to me of your last lot of ratings. I thought he might be higher - his sheer size and aura meant he dined out on the territory scene back in the 70s and 80s as a big name. Dunno if that warrants a 10, but just one I felt worth questioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a rabbit hole, but I'd put both Andre and Hansen higher on roles.

 

Andre working almost completely immobile as a heel in 89, having the action come to him but knowing exactly what to do to move the crowd at every moment is very different than how he worked earlier his career as a more athletic babyface. Moreover, we have the Andre vs Race match now where he basically wrestled a NWA title style match, and we have other 2/3 falls matches from Japan, etc. He would work somewhat different against someone like Kamala than he would in a handicap match in Japan.

 

Also, I think Hansen worked wildly differently in AWA vs Bock, for instance, than in Japan, and I'm not overly inclined to defend him right now. He was a chickenshit heel there, though, and that's about as far from standard Hansen as you can get. How much of him as a babyface in Georgia do we have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do actually encourage such questioning over specific ratings because one of the whole purposes of this is to kind of force myself to think about all six criteria in relation to each and every guy. The numbers are set in stone and are all subject to change. And I'm more than open to be persuaded on any given score.

 

With Andre specifically, I feel like I've seen an awful lot of MSG appearances where he was just kind of there. He did have a fantastic aura, there's no question, but on a scale where Funk is a 9, I felt Andre should be a notch down from that. I don't know if Andre had that "makes everything feel like bigger deal" vibe even though he was undoubtedly a massive deal in and of himself.

 

As an aside, I've found the variety rating currently feels like the most arbitrary and I might need to come up wth a scale for it:

 

20+ memorable great opponents / feuds = 10

18-19= 9

 

And so on.

 

That was one area where various WWF champions seemed to really benefit. And obviously it has hurt the 90s AJPW Crew.

 

Different roles could actually do with some ironing out too. I'm trying to figure out how to factor that consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that stood out to me is you gave Angle a 3/3 for selling, something he is notoriously poor at doing. And you gave Hansen a 2/3, when he sells perfectly for his role and I would consider him one of the elite salesman in wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some conceptual problems with this in general, but I am looking at it as a specific tool that Parv is using, something he finds helpful and that makes his process more credible, to himself, in his eyes, not something he is trying to force on to others, and so long as that's the case, more power to him.

 

I think delineating between selling, psychology, and intangibles, for instance, is very difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to think about: When you assign peaks, you seem to start with the first year a guy was really good and then give him credit for the entire span until the last year he was really good. This ignores the fact that one great wrestler isn't necessarily as consistent as another. Lots of these guys threw in dead years between their high points. Steamboat and Terry Funk are two that leap out to me on that front but not the only examples by any means. Whereas Flair benefits (for me) from the fact he was extremely consistent within his peak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ronnie garvin gets kinda shafted on the length of peak rating i'd say, due to the lack of 70s footage. from the clips we have i could easily buy him as a guy in the "best in the world" conversation then.

 

i also enjoy the fact that the humanities academic here is the one coming up with a statistical system for performance art ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×