Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

What are we voting on?


Childs

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In my view, the idea of the list as it stands is not different to ranking top 100 actors and basing that soley on their performances in films. The analogy is not quite perfect, but it's closer in my mind to the Presidential one.

 

It doesn't really matter how Al Pacino's films did in the box office vs. Johnny Depp's, it's just purely based on what they did in the films.

 

In this way, we could also compare across to non-English speaking films with no real issue.

 

And I'd see the criteria as being similar. Marlon Brando, at base, probably a 10/10, but his great performances you can count on one hand (Waterfront, Streetcar, Godfather, Last Tango, ... Now we're reaching). I guess my version of a film actors BIGLAV would be something like:

 

Base talent

Iconicness

Great Performances

Longevity of peak

Ability to play a wide variety of different roles

Variety of different types of films appeared in

 

Something like that. Hoffman has Pacino beat, say, in the range of different roles and different types of films. Pacino has Hoffman beat for iconicness.

 

How entertaining they are on chat shows promoting the films has zero bearing. How well the films do commercially has zero bearing.

 

I don't see a difference at all. Actors act in films, wrestlers wrestle in matches. In what ways wouldn't this be the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brainfollower I don't think your approach really puts you into conflict with the voters at large, nor should it stop you from voting, or stop us from calling it Greatest Wrestler Ever.

 

What's clear from reading all of the discussions about criteria and voter intent is that there's no concrete parameters, and everyone is interpreting what "GWE" means to them in their own way. JVK has his mathematical formula, Loss wants to watch everything on earth, Matt D is concerned with tools and how they're used, Will knows what he likes...etc. and etc. Someone I forget is going by who he'd want to watch the most. Some people go by Great Match Theory. Some like you are looking at things like promos and importance (and you're not the only one certainly). We all come to this thing from our own place, and that's the beauty of it.

 

I mean we all experience wrestling in our own way anyway. Some people can separate promos from matches, while others can't fathom such a thing. Some people watch in the moment to have fun, others watch more analytically. Some people stick to what they like, others try to be open minded and see everything. And so on, and everything in between.

 

In making a list you have to decide for yourself what wrestling is to you, and what great wrestling is to you, and you'll reflect that in your list and the choices and methodology behind it. And it will be different for everyone, but everyone will have a list that is true for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your list is TRYING to be more scientific Parv.

 

The acting comparison is deeply flawed however. Wrestlers do a LOT more than wrestle to determine how great they are to me. It should be EVERYTHING they do when they are in character in anything, film, stage, TV anything for actors. But for wrestlers you're changing it to JUST in ring performances which is only PART of the overall performance of a wrestler, especially in the US.

 

It's tough because no SANE actor is in character all the time. Adam Driver isn't doing SNL as Kylo Ren. But EVERYTHING he does in character counts as determining his worth as an actor. Same for any actor. For wrestler........nope just a PART of their performance counts.

See the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you personally think they are all a 0 go ahead.

 

They aren't though. And what's gotten worse in many cases is the atmosphere they work in. Comedy improv has suddenly become fully scripted by LOUSY writers. Not to flog a dead horse, but Chris Jericho and Trish Stratus basically wrote their own dialogue in their 03-04 storyline and the result was GASP despite some silly booking, a mid-card storyline that fans cared about (check out Trish's heat in the months after Mania if you don't buy it). They basically circumvented the writers, but today's talent can't or won't do that.

 

In my view you CAN'T put Ted in based on those skits, but you CAN consider putting him in based on HIS performance in those skits.

 

And he did great in each and every one of them IMO. Likewise though Mr. Perfect nailed his skits really well too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally with brain. I understand Greatest Wrestler Ever sounds a lot better than Greatest Worker Ever or Greatest In-ring Ever, but discounting promos, angles, historical importance, even drawing power, pretty much prevents this list from determining the greatest wrestler ever.

 

I'm going to make a list. It's not going to include many non-American/Canadian workers, and I'm not trying to fill any gaps, watch a ton of footage of wrestlers I haven't seen, or try and come up with a formula for ranking wrestlers.

 

Hopefully by 2026 we are, as a group, maybe a bit more open to looking at the overall package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the argument. I'm not going with it but I understand it.

 

My only thing is that when I think of the art of pro wrestling the idea of promos, drawing, ect. don't ever enter my mind. So I would never be viewing the "whole package" because when I think of wrestlers plying their craft it is the actual wrestling for which I'm accounting for.

 

The "whole package" argument also feels like something that feels a lot less engaging as a project on the whole which has far less baring on what the argument is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the overall package, especially when you include drawing power, becomes too objective. Jim Londos and Hulk Hogan will have to rank pretty high if that's the case. I've always thought of "Greatest Wrestler Ever" as purely in-ring though. The promos, skits, and character work can help I suppose, but I just watched 10 Adrian Street matches all with great character work, angles, and promos. The ring work left a lot to be desired, minus the great Breaks match from 72, and he's not making my list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has truth. Cutting a good promo is PART of a US wrestler's job in every territory in the eras that have footage. So therefore being able to cut a good promo is part of how good you are at your job as a wrestler. Therefore it should be considered. That's how I see it.

 

The skills needed have changed. It used to be you had to be a good improv actor, getting a few bullet points and making it work. Now you have to take HORRIBLE dialogue not written for you and make it work. I compare today's wrestlers to people working in the Star Wars prequels to be honest. There's a talented and world famous actor and director like Ian McDiarmid who can roll with it and there's a talented actress like Natalie Portman who can't.

 

Angles are tougher. Because angles aren't something you really have much control over, unless you come up with your own angle, pitch it, execute it and it works (and again Trish BEGGED Vince to turn heel in 03 early, he blew her off, and then let her and Jericho come up with their angle and eventually prove him wrong. I got all this from her directly FWIW). OR if you make what shouldn't work work or be far more memorable than it was. A wrestler who can make tons of people love and remember a good mid card angle from decades past, that's special to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more than happy just changing the damn name for 2016. I don't care about the name at all. I do care about who people around here think are the best wrestlers, bell to bell, ever. The name is just getting in the way of that.

 

I think there's massive amount of variation about what people think when it comes to bell to bell, hugely different criteria, hugely different likes and preferences and methods. There's so much to churn through with just that to make this a very valuable and very interesting process. It certainly has been with a massive majority of us going off of that understanding of what we were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are at a point where this discussion is but a circle jerk. We had a clearly defined criteria at the beginning. It was one of the first questions asked. This list is about artistic worth, that much should be clear. Anyone challenging it at this point should just nor participate.

 

If you want to include criteria other than ringwork that the community has agreed will be the main criteria and don't care how it affects the list in the end when people from a bunch of other places see it and we have to tell them "well, it was ringwork but this guy went by promos also, and this guy also cared about historical importance and the magnitude of someone's success", no one's gonna stop you.

 

The problem I do find in thebrainfollower's argumentation is him acting like Trish Stratus is relevant. She's not. And neither was women's wrestling in the US in her time. Including her because she was put on a big platform and didn't suck seems incredibly unfair to the hundreds of people who didn't have the benefit of looking like top models.

 

I think voting on, say, GIFS is a far more interesting and valid criteria than anything you've presented. I know. It sounds ridiculous because we are now in the anti-workrate era of "it's not about the moves!!!". And if you've paid enough attention to the board in the previous months you should know I'm about as anti-workrate as it gets. But I do see GIFs as relevant. Pro wrestling has auditive elements but it is foremosty a visual artform. ohtani's jacket, for example, has even said he likes to listen to albums while watching wrestling. And action is incredibly important. There's no one on this board meta enough to make a claim it doesn't. Structure, selling, use of transitions etc. are incredibly important, but when it comes down to it, there needs to be SOMETHING which you can point to as having enjoyed in the match in a clear, visceral way. I can't imagine ranking anyone I couldn't GIF. It could be a move, it could a facial expression, it could be a mannerism, but I can easily point to stuff in the match I enjoyed. Not saying GIFs are some ultimate criteria but, I can't envision there would be a worker in my top 500 who couldn't create strong visuals. They are also a quick way to remind yourself of what cool stuff somene is capable of. Searching for images, whether they are still or not, is an incredible part of the pro wrestling fandom. Terry Funk throwing chairs, Sangre Chicana bleeding all over the place, Tenryu smashing water bottles over someone's head, Santo hitting a dive so picture perfect and impactful it takes your breath away......all of those things you quickly associate with the wrestler you love and what they represent. If you search for images and GIFs of Trish Stratus what you'll find is content that has nothing to do with professional wrestling, even if they sometimes do take place in a wrestling ring. It's an interesting snapshot of american society, but that's not what we really argue about on pro wrestling only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brain, I want to agree to what Redman said and hope you still vote. Everyone has their own criteria. I think there's a reason it was named "Greatest Wrestler Ever." It ambiguous enough to allow everyone to vote they way they wish to. If it was more specific to "Greatest Wrestler In-Ring" we'd have less people voting, same with "Greatest Wrestler on Promos & Skits."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of ranking someone like Trish Stratus because she wrote her own dialogue for a feud that, as far as I know, drew no money and did nothing else than give Jericho, Christian, and Trish some direction for awhile, over someone like Milano Collection A.T., who is someone with such incredibly unique charisma, someone who thrived in multiple environments, and someone who blows Trish out of the fucking water as a worker is just mind numbing to me. Milano had better offense. Sold better. Was more sympathetic. Played a great heel. Played a great babyface. SO MUCH BETTER THAN TRISH. And Milano is on my bubble right now! He probably won't even make my list.

 

I tried my hardest not to make this a red herring argument, but whatever, thebrainfollower is so far out to lunch with his mindset for this project and his creepy, unsettling fascination with Trish Stratus that it detracts from the entire project. It's one thing to factor in promos. If they can add to the context of a match and that makes the match for enjoyable, sure, go for it. I just chastised Parv for going into a TNA match without context and so sure, I guess promos can play a factor in this. But drawing power? That has nothing to do with what this project is based on. I don't like criticizing people's opinions because Lord knows I'm very different than most people on this forum, but I am so sick of seeing thebrainfollower spew this nonsense.

 

I don't agree with Parv on a whole lot but I consider all of his BIGLAV things when I'm evaluating a wrestler. My process is nowhere near as scientific as his, but we're very much similar in that. I value offense, selling and multi-man match psychology also, which I'll explain.

 

Selling: I think my version of "good selling" is very different from what most people on this board think it is, but I value someone that can draw me into the match with their selling. Hansen is one of the best sellers ever, to me at least. He does a great job of selling worked over limbs, but I like the way he portrays pain. It fits into his aura more so than any wrestling limping after they were just chop blocked. Hansen's selling is so logical to me. He's a bear and he gets wounded from time to time. It's so damn hard to kill him, but it's easy to wound him.

 

Offense: Shingo Takagi probably benefits from this more than anyone. I value great offense in wrestling and sometimes great offense is just doing something that looks cool. I don't care what anyone really thinks about that. If you can pop me with a flip or a wacky slam, more power to you. Takagi, Choshu, Hansen, and Kobashi have all benefited greatly from this.

 

Multi-Man Performances: Fujinami & the Dragon Gate crew benefit from this more than anyone. I enjoy seeing how wrestlers can adapt to working tag matches/six-man tags/eight-man tags/etc. I think there's a different sort of psychology needed, especially in elimination matches. Sometimes guys are just better in tags, also. Yoshiaki Yatsu jumps off the screen in tags, but often leaves me disappointed in singles matches. That being said, he'll rank for me because I think he's an outstanding tag worker.

 

The ability to put on good matches: Look, at the end of the day, great wrestlers are wrestlers that entertain me. There are probably a handful of lucha guys that are technically proficient and do a bunch of things in six-mans that I'd like and have killer offense and sell well, but I hate so many things about lucha and so I'll probably just end up with Negro Casas being the only luchador on my list.

 

At no point during this project have I thought about promo ability (I use promos for context, I don't pay attention to how good/bad the promo is) or drawing power or if a worker can work a bra & panties match or not. This *should* be a somewhat simple project. Not sure how we ended up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry i offended anyone this much and really hate being called a creep to be honest. I'll do clearly what's needed and pull out of this project and posting on PWO for a while. I'm still going to read posts because I do enjoy the discussions here and have learned a lot.

 

I was trying to give an example of someone whose work I and very few others appreciate. If she WASN'T considered a good looking woman, or indeed a woman, would it be considered as such. Just something to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone should pull out of the project. I want as many ballots as possible - that's what makes this more fun. That being said, I do find anyone considering drawing power or promos to be a little off in terms of what the project is supposed to represent. Then again, that's just my opinion and I could obviously end up being the one that is out to lunch.

 

"Creep" is admittedly harsh and I apologize for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to make a list. It's not going to include many non-American/Canadian workers, and I'm not trying to fill any gaps, watch a ton of footage of wrestlers I haven't seen, or try and come up with a formula for ranking wrestlers.

 

Hopefully by 2026 we are, as a group, maybe a bit more open to looking at the overall package.

 

I find it odd that you're arguing for a broader concept of the project when you have, by your own admission, made little effort to broaden your horizons beyond U.S./Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exposer, the one thing that we ALL agree on is that footage has to be available to judge. Footage of matches, promos, angles whatever.

 

So Londos is out cause there's not much out there

 

Hogan is my number 18 FWIW. I bet that's the high vote.

 

 

Actually if the terminology of Greatest Wrestler Ever is part of the hang up, then no, I don't think seeing available footage matters much if at all.

 

I participated in Steve Yohe's project over at Classics a couple years back where a bunch of people sent in lists individually ranking the top wrestlers of all time factoring in star power, influence, work, drawing power, et. I can't remember what Yohe called the project, but that to my mind was a more holistic "Greatest Wrestler Ever" list. And if I'm being honest for that sort of endeavor if someone had Hogan as low as 18 I would consider their list either a joke, or biased to beyond belief.

 

My issues with bringing in promos, angles, et is that there is in fact some metric to determine the success of those things - drawing houses. Yes it's true that there are occasionally mid-card angles that get over huge and contribute to hotter programs up top. It's not an exact science. That said, someone like Trish Stratus is actually HURT for me if I factor in those things, because I see little to no evidence that she positively effected the bottom line. I mean if someone wants to say they were artistically successful fine, but to me the great thing about looking at bell to bell is that I don't have to worry about the overlapping world's of business and art. I can rate a great performance in 95 SMW and not worry about the fact that it "objectively" bombed because it didn't objectively bomb like some of good promos, episodes of tv, and angles that year did.

 

That said people are going to carry their own biases and criteria. In an ideal world I would prefer it if people were voting strictly off bell-to-bell, but even then our critierias would still be radically different. Differing criteria isn't a reason for anyone to leave at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No that's not it. Being called a creep by two different people in minutes is though. And hey, maybe they're right but in either case it bothers me enough I'd prefer to leave the project okay.

 

I thought about leaving PWO too to be honest, but I really like the discussion here, love the podcasts and would miss it too much. It was a lot of fun being part of the discussion about wrestling where I was one of the dumbest people in the room. Most of my non online wrestling friends think Jerry Lawler is a joke and Shawn Michaels is the GOAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, the idea of the list as it stands is not different to ranking top 100 actors and basing that soley on their performances in films. The analogy is not quite perfect, but it's closer in my mind to the Presidential one.

 

It doesn't really matter how Al Pacino's films did in the box office vs. Johnny Depp's, it's just purely based on what they did in the films.

 

In this way, we could also compare across to non-English speaking films with no real issue.

 

And I'd see the criteria as being similar. Marlon Brando, at base, probably a 10/10, but his great performances you can count on one hand (Waterfront, Streetcar, Godfather, Last Tango, ... Now we're reaching). I guess my version of a film actors BIGLAV would be something like:

 

Base talent

Iconicness

Great Performances

Longevity of peak

Ability to play a wide variety of different roles

Variety of different types of films appeared in

 

Something like that. Hoffman has Pacino beat, say, in the range of different roles and different types of films. Pacino has Hoffman beat for iconicness.

 

How entertaining they are on chat shows promoting the films has zero bearing. How well the films do commercially has zero bearing.

 

I don't see a difference at all. Actors act in films, wrestlers wrestle in matches. In what ways wouldn't this be the same?

 

 

I now want Parv to rank actors based on this modified BIGLAV criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No that's not it. Being called a creep by two different people in minutes is though. And hey, maybe they're right but in either case it bothers me enough I'd prefer to leave the project okay.

 

I thought about leaving PWO too to be honest, but I really like the discussion here, love the podcasts and would miss it too much. It was a lot of fun being part of the discussion about wrestling where I was one of the dumbest people in the room. Most of my non online wrestling friends think Jerry Lawler is a joke and Shawn Michaels is the GOAT

 

The guy who called you a creep is a 16 year old kid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...