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

[Loss]

With regards to the point I made earlier, what if you had 10 bonus points (or 5 bonus points) banked for every wrestler? You could allocate them as desired to any category/categories, but you wouldn't be required to use any or all of them. That would allow for guys who may be exceptionally great in one or two categories to benefit from that in a way that allows for guys to do well where the whole far exceeds the sum of the parts. I guess the reason I'm stuck on that is that there are so many workers and matches in wrestling that shouldn't be great because they don't check of all of the paper boxes, but they manage to be anyway.

[Matt D]

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

 

I want to see the statistical system for ranking different Shakespeare plays now.

[Loss]

Also, how you would feel about considering Great Matches as Good Matches? Ultimate Warrior has had more great matches than Brad Armstrong, to use a comparison Dylan sometimes pulls out, but Brad Armstrong has had far more good matches than the Ultimate Warrior. In other words, does a wrestler get credit for producing good stuff or just great (****+) stuff? I've been thinking about that lately anyway. Maybe Great Match Theory is less divisive if it's called Good Match Theory.

[Childs]

Also, how you would feel about considering Great Matches as Good Matches? Ultimate Warrior has had more great matches than Brad Armstrong, to use a comparison Dylan sometimes pulls out, but Brad Armstrong has had far more good matches than the Ultimate Warrior. In other words, does a wrestler get credit for producing good stuff or just great (****+) stuff? I've been thinking about that lately anyway. Maybe Great Match Theory is less divisive if it's called Good Match Theory.

 

Both are important to me. For the top reaches, I want wrestlers who combine the weight of a lot of good performances with the height of some transcendent ones.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

For me Hansen can't be a 3/3 when people like Steamboat exist. He's not quite all-time best level for selling.

 

Angle I may need to think about, he strikes me as a very good and athletic bumper, on the level of a Curt Hennig, who I can't imagine giving any less than 3/3, he's just not good at long term selling which I factored into psychology rating.

 

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.

 

Selling is bumping and getting across pain, injuries and so on. Long-term selling plays more into psychology, at least in terms of how I rate it.

 

Intangibles comprise character work, aura, and other such things, including stooging.

 

Arn's rating of 7 reflects his amazing stooging ability. See Clash 17. This is not selling.

 

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.

Which footage are you referencing here. The Garvin I've seen who popped up didn't seem like the Garvin of the 80s to me. I could change that if you point me to something I've missed though.

With regards to the point I made earlier, what if you had 10 bonus points (or 5 bonus points) banked for every wrestler? You could allocate them as desired to any category/categories, but you wouldn't be required to use any or all of them. That would allow for guys who may be exceptionally great in one or two categories to benefit from that in a way that allows for guys to do well where the whole far exceeds the sum of the parts. I guess the reason I'm stuck on that is that there are so many workers and matches in wrestling that shouldn't be great because they don't check of all of the paper boxes, but they manage to be anyway.

Thinking of anyone specific? I guess one of my assumptions here is that to be "greatest of all time" you have to excel in every area not just one or two.

 

Also, how you would feel about considering Great Matches as Good Matches? Ultimate Warrior has had more great matches than Brad Armstrong, to use a comparison Dylan sometimes pulls out, but Brad Armstrong has had far more good matches than the Ultimate Warrior. In other words, does a wrestler get credit for producing good stuff or just great (****+) stuff? I've been thinking about that lately anyway. Maybe Great Match Theory is less divisive if it's called Good Match Theory.

 

Also, how you would feel about considering Great Matches as Good Matches? Ultimate Warrior has had more great matches than Brad Armstrong, to use a comparison Dylan sometimes pulls out, but Brad Armstrong has had far more good matches than the Ultimate Warrior. In other words, does a wrestler get credit for producing good stuff or just great (****+) stuff? I've been thinking about that lately anyway. Maybe Great Match Theory is less divisive if it's called Good Match Theory.

 

Both are important to me. For the top reaches, I want wrestlers who combine the weight of a lot of good performances with the height of some transcendent ones.

This is what the variety category is sort of trying to factor.

 

That takes into account the gamut from good and very good to great. It also includes "memorable feuds", by which I mean in-ring feuds.

 

However, before I get too far deep into this, I think it might need to be quantified for each and every guy. Again, painstaking, but I want that category to feel less arbitrary.

 

As an example, I gave DiBiase a 5 for variety. If I had to list that out, what would it look like?

 

Patterson

Freebirds

JYD

Duggan

Brad Armstrong

Magnum TA

Flair

Murdoch

Jumbo / Tenryu

Choshu / Yatsu

Savage

Bret

Virgil

Steiner Bros

 

I can go about 14 deep before I'm stretching. What I'm not sure on yet is whether that deserves more or less than 5. And I'm not yet sure on where exactly to set the bar. For example, the stuff with Freebirds and Virgil were both more memorable than the All Japan tags, but ... Those matches were "better". You see the issue. My thought is towards being lenient on it for every guy.

 

However, I want to quantify it exactly. I think a lot of the current variety ratings will change as a result of doing that.

 

You can also see how this rating differs from the great match metric.

[elliott]

How are you measuring "offense"? I ask because giving Misawa and Bret Hart the same score jumps off the page at me. Misawa had probably the deepest arsenal of sheer MOVZ of anyone ever. Bret Hart isn't exactly known as a guy with a deep moveset. Even compared to 90s US workers.

 

Are you basing "offense" as a measure of how deep a guy's moveset was or based on how they used their offense within the match?

 

I guess talk about how/why Bret Hart and Mitsuharu Misawa are on the same playing field in terms of "offense."

[Bierschwale]

Bret deserves 3/3 on offense just for the pescado neckbreaker and ringpost figure-4.

[elliott]

Bret deserves 3/3 on offense just for the pescado neckbreaker and ringpost figure-4.

 

Honestly I love those moves so I'm fine with that.

[Loss]

I can't picture the pescado neckbreaker. When did he do it?

[PeteF3]

He did it in one of the Bulldog matches--I remember noting it in my review. ::looks it up:: SummerSlam '92: " And that pescado-into-a-neckbreaker thing...I don't know what that was, if it was what Bret had in mind, or what, but it looked awesome."

[Bierschwale]

The SummerSlam match with DBS. We all know the story behind that match but it's not like that keeps it from being a ridiculously cool spot.

[Bierschwale]

He did it in one of the Bulldog matches--I remember noting it in my review. ::looks it up:: SummerSlam '92: " And that pescado-into-a-neckbreaker thing...I don't know what that was, if it was what Bret had in mind, or what, but it looked awesome."

 

Yeah, it's hard to say exactly what he would call it now that every move has four or five adjectives before it, but it's done with great fluidity and as too big of a spot to write it off. Feels like something that should have become an indie staple spot.

[PeteF3]

Seems like a good way to destroy your knees in a hurry, though.

[Benbeeach]

The Pescado neckbreaker really is a one shot 10/10 move. I have no qualms with that.

When it comes to BIGLAV
"If it works for you" I like the basic premise. It is a sort of baseline, and I'm sure we all have one for ranking. Like Loss said, some wrestlers cases aren't built off of how well they did in category a) and largely off an otherworldly b ) and it makes the scores look rather skewed in a way. No system is flawless though, and I mean at least you have one. It's certainly better than "great worker, who I never want to watch again, and thusly am ranking lower because I'm bored with them"

Will you rank Bobby Eaton over Bret Hart? Or does this serve as a baseline, for well another baseline, in rankings. Or for instance does scoring a 38 and above mean said wrestler was a greater wrestler than/will be ranked higher than Misawa? Also what does it say for wrestlers who's peaks weren't a decade plus, but we're very good workers capable of greatness over a long stretch? (An elder statesman Misawa comes to mind, can there be a plus one for still being great after the peak is over? Is Liger like a 12?)

Feel like there are quite a few luchadors who seem like locks for a 40 score but alas . . .

[elliott]

I can't remember him doing it in any other match other than the Davey Boy match which is good because it looks insanely dangerous and he hits it about as fluidly and aggressively as you could hit that spot.

 

Loss, on the 1992 yearbook, the spot is 24min 30sec into the segment (including all the interviews/entrances). I wanted to rewatch it because in my mind, I had always thought of it as a borderline blown spot. LIke it was supposed to be a normal pescado and somehow DBS fucked it up but it happened to turn into this brutal looking spot. But when Bret goes for the move Davey is standing right up against the apron leaning over not in position at all for a normal perscado where he would be there to break Bret's fall. So it seems like it was what Bret was intending to do. But it does seem weird because I can't ever remember him doing it again. Anyway, incredibly great spot.

[funkdoc]

re: garvin, it's a ridiculously tiny sample - some stuff shown on smoky mountain when they brought him in. seeing him vs. andre will make that match a holy grail for you...

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

I missed this yesterday, and yeah, it's an issue. Rick Rude, for example, has had a "freebie" year in 1991. In general, however, I've been on the side of being generouos. Flair gets to 94, not 89, as some would have -- and I've start from 78 because based on garbage tape footage there is no way he wasn't "one of the best in the world" in that year, Steamboat ditto. Likewise, I started Jumbo in 73 (in which he does have at least two great matches I can think of, rather than 75).

 

So while guys might get a "leg up" from missing years being included in their range, it should shake out with the fact that most of the time I've not gone for a "hard peak" but rather "period in which this guy was really relevant as a world-class talent".

 

The only one I think I might have been too harsh with on that rating is Misawa. Seems like he might deserve later than 1998. My test cases for peak are really Funk -- I've cut him off in 1989 and not included his ECW/FMW years -- and Flair, who I've cut off in 1994 and not included 95-6 during which he was still doing entertaining stuff and having decent matches (Arn, Savage, Kevin Green stuff) but, it seems to me, is clearly a step or two below. Misawa was probably better than that or ECW Funk in 1999 and early 00s no? Somone needs to help me out there, late 90s and early 00s Japan is one of my darker areas.

 

How are you measuring "offense"? I ask because giving Misawa and Bret Hart the same score jumps off the page at me. Misawa had probably the deepest arsenal of sheer MOVZ of anyone ever. Bret Hart isn't exactly known as a guy with a deep moveset. Even compared to 90s US workers.

 

Are you basing "offense" as a measure of how deep a guy's moveset was or based on how they used their offense within the match?

 

I guess talk about how/why Bret Hart and Mitsuharu Misawa are on the same playing field in terms of "offense."

For me Bret Hart is one of the best offensive wrestlers in US history. The way he works a heat sequence, the way he nails a backbreaker. The way he's able to make every single move "count" as part of an offensive gameplan. There is a question over where "offense" ends and where psychology begins, but with Bret it is impossible to separate them.

 

Misawa is also clearly one of the best offensive wrestlers of all-time. Is he "better than Bret" at offense? Well, on the one hand Bret doesn't have the Tiger Driver '91 or any move that sick looking -- but this is reflected in Misawa's "+1 for innovation". On the other hand, Bret is crisper than Misawa and never looks like he's going to kill someone by dropping them on their neck (hence +1 for execution). Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

When it comes to the base, I don't see a huge amount to differentiate Bret and Misawa beyond the selling rating.

 

In general a 3/3 in any of those means "one of the best in that category ever". And yes, it does look like there's a lot of 3/3s floating around but hey it's GWE. And, yes, I really do think Ted DiBiase is one of the greatest at bumping and selling ever to lace them up. And I really do think Bobby Eaton is a perfect 10 when it comes to his core skills.

 

But in a way, that's kind of why this has been an interesting exercise, it has made me realise those things. I'm not sure I would have thought about Eaton actually being a better wrestler in terms of his core basic skills than Jumbo, Funk, Flair and Hansen before doing this. But I can't see any way to argue against it. Can anyone honestly say Eaton is not a 3/3 in all three caterogies? And would you begrudge him the +1 for innovation? In terms of raw mechanical talent, Eaton might well be a top 5 guy of all time. Therein also lies the reason for the other 5 cateogries.

 

When it comes to BIGLAV

Will you rank Bobby Eaton over Bret Hart? Or does this serve as a baseline, for well another baseline, in rankings. Or for instance does scoring a 38 and above mean said wrestler was a greater wrestler than/will be ranked higher than Misawa? Also what does it say for wrestlers who's peaks weren't a decade plus, but we're very good workers capable of greatness over a long stretch? (An elder statesman Misawa comes to mind, can there be a plus one for still being great after the peak is over? Is Liger like a 12?)

 

Feel like there are quite a few luchadors who seem like locks for a 40 score but alas . . .

If the scores stay like this, Eaton will rank over Hart, yes. I am planning to do some major retweaking soon though, because two categories -- Ability to work different styles / roles and Variety -- aren't sitting right with me. As in, how I've arrived at the number feels too arbitrary and I need to actually list it out for each and every guy. Seems ridiculous and painstaking, but I don't think I can be happy with those numbers unless I can see some of the detail behind them. WWF guys, it seems to me, will get a boost in the variety category. But I need to work on fine-tuning the criteria for both of them.

 

For Different Styles, it might be something like:

 

+1 ability to work brawls

+1 ability to work gimmick matches

+1 ability to get over in 4+ different markets

+1 ability to work face

+1 ability to work heel

 

etc. etc.

[GOTNW]

I would extend Misawa's peak at least to 2003. I don't think he ever had a huge drop off in performance quality, just stopped booking himself in so many main event singles matches.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think I'm going to make that change now because his overall rating seems a bit low. As things stand, that change has actually put him above Hansen.

[Loss]

To answer your question, JvK, I'll use Dynamite Kid as an example. The longevity as a top flight worker isn't there and the high number of great matches isn't there, but he heavily influenced an entire generation of junior heavyweight work, which matters a lot to me. I seem to consider influential work more than just about anyone here when ranking wrestlers, but I do think wrestling is a medium where it's sometimes better to be different than good. If you usher in a new style, if others are able to improve upon it later, it shouldn't take away from what that wrestler started, even if the matches don't hold up as classics. Same for Sayama -- even if Hamada did the style better, Sayama was the one that popularized it and made it viable. He was able to make his in-ring work actually mean something beyond us just thinking it was good or bad. So I'd consider all of the 90s New Japan juniors matches an indirect part of Dynamite Kid's resume, in the same way I'd consider all WWE gimmick matches of the last 15 years an indirect part of Shawn's resume. In the same way I'd consider Stunning Steve, Shawn and HHH bleeding from their blond hair as an indirect part of Flair's resume. In the same way I'd consider the increased focus in athleticism and pace over selling an indirect part of Toyota's resume. In the same way I'd consider more small guys or Hispanic stars getting over an indirect part of Rey's resume. That someone did it better later is often irrelevant -- they never would have tried it in the first place had the first guys to do it on a big stage not made it something viable.

[JerryvonKramer]

Loss, influence in that sense, what you might call "historical importance" is not part of my criteria and has never been for any project I've done like this, including films, music, etc. I don't give extra points for "doing it first". Tod Browning's Dracula starring Bela Lugosi is so influential it changed the very face of Halloween forever, your image of Dracula is that film's image of it, it's Lugosi. It doesn't change the fact that the film is creaky even by 1931 standards. Browning's Freaks (1932), on the other hand, banned for many years and much less influential than Dracula, I consider to be a masterpiece. Dracula doesn't get extra points for being influential and Freaks doesn't get extra points for being controversial. I just don't judge stuff that way.

 

As it happens, in the case of DK, it seems I'm a lot higher on his New Japan matches than a lot of people here, and he'll probably rank just based on the criteria I've got. But to me "influence" is in the same sort of bucket as drawing. It is external to the in-ring work.

 

It also gets us into some weird and grey areas.

 

Dory Funk Jr's resume of guys he's trained is amazing. So how can we calculate his influence on the wrestling we see in the US and Japan? It's less obvious than DK's influence on Chris Benoit, but who knows where we are finding shades of Dory even now.

 

The influence of a guy like Harley Race on the modern wrestling style is absolutely incalculable.

 

Do you see how many perfect 10s we'd be creating? And if Harley is a perfect 10 for influence, what does it make DK?

[Matt D]

Do you see how many perfect 10s we'd be creating? And if Harley is a perfect 10 for influence, what does it make DK?

 

-7?

[Loss]

Harley isn't a perfect 10 in that category because he didn't create a generation of Harley Race copycats. That's what I'm referring to -- not their influence outside the ring, but the influence of their actual matches and working style in the ring. So training or drawing money would not be a factor. Other wrestlers copying a wrestler's most famous matches would be.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think Harley basically invented the modern style of wrestling Loss. You don't see guys throwing suplex variations before him and you don't see guys bumping huge or missing moves from the top rope.

 

There is a dramatic increase in all of these things when Race becomes champ in both the US and in Japan. Along with a general increase in workrate across the board. It is less obvious than with DK, where you can see copycats. It is a much more deeply embedded thing. That's basically why I'd give Harley a perfect 10 for influence. It's almost like Chuck Berry picking up an electric guitar. Guys just didn't work like that before Race. Ray Stevens was a big bumper from what we hear, but I don't think he was a suplex machine. I've seen a pretty wide sampling of early 70s footage and the only guy who works like that at all is Pat Patterson in the glimpses we see from San Francisco. And also to an extent Billy Robinson. But Patterson and Robinson didn't work all the places Harley did.

 

I've mentioned this many times on the board but it's one of those things I can never get any discussion out of.

[bradhindsight]

re: the question previously about "Eaton over Hart?" - the inherent nature of these rankings allows you to bucket or tier guys (wrestlers in the 35-39 score range for example) and from there apply a personal ranking. It's like tiering RBs in fantasy football - you have a group of 6 guys that project around the same # of points and from there you rank to your preference. Should be a great way to be confident in your baseline and then go from there.