What are we voting on?

[Childs]

If you read the Trish Status thread, you'll see thebrainfollower talking about factoring promos and other out-of-ring elements into his ballot. As I said in that thread, this post is not meant to target him for criticism, merely to clarify the purpose of the project. My understanding all along has been that we're voting on in-ring, not on promos, drawing power, etc. Obviously, there are some gray areas with elements such as charisma, impact, etc. But I want to make sure we're all moving forward with the same understanding. So if Dylan, Steven and other GWE founders (if there are any) could weigh in ...

[thebrainfollower]

Just to make the argument for why I think you SHOULD be wrong on this Childs.

 

The vote is for the GOAT. NOT the "In ring only GOAT". If you want to call this the greatest wrestler of all time you have to allow people to consider any part of the presentation. I consider the look, historical impact and promo skills as important as in ring work.

 

To do otherwise is to do one of the worst thing any historian can do and that's rate according to personal bias. We all do it but to do it that much and then rename the list something else is a huge issue. Let's face it, this is a board that cares more about ring work than other stuff. No problem there but then to have a list that doesn't come out and say "ring work and ONLY ring work" in its title creates a massive distortion.

 

Let me give off a comparison. As a poli sci major and history teacher I am always asked to list my top ten Presidents. I always ask people "do you want my views on their ability to get what THEY wanted done or how wise those things were". Because in terms of ability to get his stuff done, Reagan is a top 5 EASILY but in terms of how bad what he did was IMO he drops at least 20 spots.

 

I was also told specifically I COULD include those things but to avoid things like rumors and just reputation (which makes perfect sense to me) by a moderator when I first suggested why I didn't think I should participate. If that has changed I would like to know certainly as this project is taking a lot of my spare time.

[PeteF3]

I have to say I don't at ALL like the idea of incorporating mic work into these rankings, just because an apples-to-apples comparison falls apart when comparing American wrestlers to the Japanese and Mexicans (Pierroth and maybe a few others excepted).

[thebrainfollower]

I agree that is a huge problem Pete. But I think an apples to apples in ring work is equally as worthless because of the massive difference in schedule and to a lesser extent expectations.

 

So we have to sort of compromise and accept that ANY list that contains different eras, let alone different nations or cultures, has some logical issues.

[Childs]

I'm not even really seeking a debate on the merits at this point. But I think most of us have proceeded on the belief that we're ranking in-ring work. If that's not the case, it really unsettles 15 months worth of discussion.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm ranking in ring work. I've never considered anything else.

[andrew79]

From the rules thread:

 

So, as far as recommended guidelines go for considering candidates, should this entirely be limited to their in-ring work or should promo ability be included as a factor? Also, should we give any consideration at all for planned matches vs. matches called in the ring? Or are both of these factors better left as potential concerns for the individual voter?

Greatest Wrestler Ever's criteria is left vague for a reason. What does GWE mean to you?

The only thing we note is that you are voting based on footage, not on stories and rep.

 

And:

Everybody has their own set of criteria. Everyone will be shackled by their limitations.

[Childs]

If people are bringing in promos, etc., you're getting more into "Who was the biggest star in wrestling history?" To me, that's more of a WON HOF question. And if that's what the poll is, I don't really have any interest.

[Childs]

I read through the organizing thread, and there was more ambiguity about this issue than I realized--probably too much. This project was cast as the 10-year successor to Smarkschoice, which was about ring work. And if you read the threads for this project, it's obvious ring work is the focus. But if a lot of people are looking at it the way thebrainfollower is, it would be good to know.

[Coffey]

It's a pretty big difference. If we're just going by ring work, a guy like Misawa is in my top 5 and Hogan ain't on my list at all. If we're incorporating other things, such as mic skills into that, it would be the exact opposite, with Hogan very high & Misawa not on my list.

 

So yeah, pretty big difference.

 

For what its worth, since I'm rating a lot of Japanese stars high, I have not been thinking about promo skills & certainly not drawing power. That could not matter less to me as a fan.

 

Either way, Trish wouldn't be in my top 100 or anywhere close to it.

[thebrainfollower]

I am using a variation of the Bret Hart point system

 

Ring work - worth 10 points

 

Great Matches/feuds/angles - 10 points

 

Mic work - 10 points

 

Drawing/star power - 10 points

 

look - 5 points

 

 

I think it would be fair if each person explained how you chose your votes for sure. I honestly think that's as interesting to me as who you vote for.

[elliott]

I feel like Bobby Heenan deserves a spot on my list because I believe he's one of the top 10 all around performers in wrestling history (that I've seen yada yada blah). But since I've always viewed this project to be about ring work, I didn't want to rank him based on interviews/commentary. So I'm considering him on the basis of how incredible he is in a few matches but also his performances as a ringside manager during the matches. I'm also considering Jim Cornette and Jimmy Hart. Those are my only non-traditional wrestler candidates (I REALLY wanted to nominate Andy Kaufman but even I can't go that far) but I'm only taking the stuff they did during the matches into account.

[goc]

 

 

I'm not even really seeking a debate on the merits at this point. But I think most of us have proceeded on the belief that we're ranking in-ring work. If that's not the case, it really unsettles 15 months worth of discussion.

 

I've been following this thing since the beginning and all of ONE person has talked about factoring in promos, accomplishments etc. in their rankings so this topic feels like a big over reaction to one person's criteria. I would think the fact that it hasn't come up until now would have made it obvious that it's not really an issue.

[Matt D]

You can vote on whatever you want but keep in mind the rest of us are voting in ring, pretty much to a person, making your ballot a different language and not entirely translatable.

[Jingus]

My rule of thumb is that talking and other intangibles count as long as they're still kinda part of a bell-to-bell match experience. Like, Lawler's promos that he'll often cut in mid-match, that counts. Hogan's inevitable pose-down, that counts. Whatever the hell Sakura Hirota is saying during her matches that cracks up the entire crowd, that counts. But anything that's separate from the match isn't going to be part of my process. If it's something that you'd generally do in a Piper's Pit or backstage or while cutting an I'm-not-wrestling-right-now promo, then that's not influencing my vote.

 

Although, come to think of it, a Best "Outside-The-Ring Entertainers" Poll would be interesting to have sometime.

[Childs]

 

I'm not even really seeking a debate on the merits at this point. But I think most of us have proceeded on the belief that we're ranking in-ring work. If that's not the case, it really unsettles 15 months worth of discussion.

 

I've been following this thing since the beginning and all of ONE person has talked about factoring in promos, accomplishments etc. in their rankings so this topic feels like a big over reaction to one person's criteria. I would think the fact that it hasn't come up until now would have made it obvious that it's not really an issue.

 

 

That was my first reaction as well, but as I said, I went back and read the organizing thread, and brainfollower is not the only one to talk about voting on factors such as promos and drawing/star power. So I'm not sure how sizable the disconnect within the voting pool is. But if those elements are included, it's an entirely different poll, and I do think the difference is significant enough that Steven (aka Grimmas) should clarify.

[concrete1992]

I think thebrainfollower's criteria in no way represents what the goal of this list is. Heck, over half the criteria is dedicated to stuff that has zero to do with what we've all been talking about.

[soup23]

 

I'm not even really seeking a debate on the merits at this point. But I think most of us have proceeded on the belief that we're ranking in-ring work. If that's not the case, it really unsettles 15 months worth of discussion.

 

I've been following this thing since the beginning and all of ONE person has talked about factoring in promos, accomplishments etc. in their rankings so this topic feels like a big over reaction to one person's criteria. I would think the fact that it hasn't come up until now would have made it obvious that it's not really an issue.

 

 

Disagree about this. People like Johnny have also talked about promos as part of the equation. My list will be compromised of in ring work only.

[Ricky Jackson]

My list will factor in everything I consider makes a pro wrestler great. In ring and otherwise

[Matt D]

I will consider influence, but only when it comes to my general level of frustration on 2015 internet message boards.

[goc]

I will consider influence, but only when it comes to my general level of frustration on 2015 internet message boards.

[Childs]

I will consider influence, but only when it comes to my general level of frustration on 2015 internet message boards.

So will guys who've drawn you into the most frustrating conversations benefit?

[Loss]

I personally won't weigh stuff beyond the ring work, but the founding principle seemed more about democracy and inclusion than any universal standard. For that reason, I say if brainfollower wants to include promos and other factors in his list, he should be able to do so. There were outliers who were factoring in drawing power and such in the original Smarkschoice poll too. Like for me, I also consider factors like the ability to get over, have good feuds and influence others. There are ex-in-ring factors in each of those categories, but I'm more focused on the in-ring aspects of getting over, having good feuds and influencing others. For some, it's not a factor at all.

[Grimmas]

It was left vague so that people would make their own criteria. The problem I have with including promos is that it completely handicaps anybody who doesn't speak english. That does not seem like a fair criteria to use.

 

I am judging on inside the ring actions. Charisma plays into that, because charisma plays into matches.

 

Things like drawing and how big of a star someone is will play into everybody lists, at least indirectly. If you are a star, there is more footage, you have bigger matches, you have louder crowds, etc...

 

Really the spirit is in the ring of this project, just like if you are making a greatest actors ever list you wouldn't give put Chris Pratt number one because he was in the largest grossing movie ever.

[thebrainfollower]

I think I will adjust on a graded scale. So no promos forJapanese guys but everything else is worth more points.