Ranking on Small Samples

[WingedEagle]

Mentioned it in the Vince thread but curious how others are approaching this more broadly. How many people are you ranking on a limited number of matches? What's the fewest matches you'll be ranking a given worker on? As an example, I believe Parv mentioned Hiroshi Hase as a top 20 candidate after roughly 10 matches. Curious how comfortable people are with a smaller sample size for certain wrestlers up and down the ballot.

[Loss]

It's not ideal, but I don't think it's a real issue. There are very few great workers where you can't get a feel for what makes them who they are after watching five of their matches, provided the right five are selected. Small sampling doesn't bug me. I think sampling of matches that don't really portray who the wrestler was is probably the bigger issue, and it's hard to have anyone on a mountaintop separating Type A from Type B.

[Matt D]

It's not ideal, but I don't think it's a real issue. There are very few great workers where you can't get a feel for what makes them who they are after watching five of their matches, provided the right five are selected. Small sampling doesn't bug me. I think sampling of matches that don't really portray who the wrestler was is probably the bigger issue, and it's hard to have anyone on a mountaintop separating Type A from Type B.

That's an interesting statement. Could you go into more detail on what you mean by that?

[Luchaundead]

Small sample size is greatly supported to me when a wrestler also has strong references and reputation examples are Red Bastien and Ray Stevens both guys who I've seen little of but I really liked what I saw and hearing people who saw then at the time with a trusted opinion say they were that good if not better for a long period of time sells me on them more.

[Loss]

I think the sampling should come from a place of positive representation (and variety) as opposed to an ups-and-downs representation (and variety), which is where I know you'd disagree. Not necessarily the five greatest matches the wrestler has had, but I wouldn't include disappointing matches. There's a place for holistic viewing of wrestlers under rocks and inside window cracks, but I'm not sure GWE is that place. Does that make sense?

[Matt D]

Your clarification is clear, yes. Thanks.

[JerryvonKramer]

Generally I'd need more than 10 matches, but with certain excpetional cases, such as Breaks or Hase I just "know". Jack Brisco was a bit like that too.

[Loss]

My first post in this thread is bugging me. Rather than say "that don't portray who the wrestler was", I should have said "that don't portray why the wrestler was nominated".

[Loss]

I was just thinking for most wrestlers, if I see a big-stage match, a small-stage match, a match with a great opponent, a match with an okay or bad opponent and a freebie (whatever the recommender feels is a good addition, which could be anything), I'm mostly set when it comes to whether I'd seek out more to rank. So I might want to see more from there, but I'd at least know after that starting point if I care to go further or not.

[WingedEagle]

It's not ideal, but I don't think it's a real issue. There are very few great workers where you can't get a feel for what makes them who they are after watching five of their matches, provided the right five are selected. Small sampling doesn't bug me. I think sampling of matches that don't really portray who the wrestler was is probably the bigger issue, and it's hard to have anyone on a mountaintop separating Type A from Type B.

 

Right, I don't think it troubles me -- as long as the sample is solid. More interested in how often and with whom people are relying on a smaller sample.

[conker8]

I write off on my list wrestlers like O'Connor or Lou Thesz for small samples. A lot of UK wrestlers suffers also.

[El Boricua]

I don't mind a small sample provided its not all concentrated in either one specific part of the wrestler's career or against the same opponent.

[Phil Schneider]

I think it is different if a wrestler has a small number of matches on tape, versus a wrestler with a small number of matches period. I enjoy Vince as a wrestler, but he has 20 or so matches. Volk Han would be another example, can someone really be one of the best 100 wrestlers ever if they wrestled less then 100 times?

[Jimmy Redman]

In the case of Volk Han, yes. I don't see why not if he demonstrated as much in those matches.

[elliott]

It depends on the wrestler and what the footage I've seen tells me.

 

Sangre Chicana is someone I'll rank really high based on limited footage, especially limited footage of his peak. But I can say the 2 best matches I've seen were Sangre Chicana matches and his performance was really the driving factor in making them the best matches I've ever seen. That means a lot to me. Getting to see the Satanico title match the day after the MS-1 match from 83 means a lot because here he is the day after having the 9/23 match and he turns around and has great match worked in a totally different style. In the 80s matches, either singles or trios he ALWAYS stands out as the star of the match. I also probably liked the title match against Mendoza more than anyone else. And the handicap vs Andre and trios with Mil Mascaras. Anyway, Sangre will rank high, but I don't think there's enough out there to put him at #1 so I'm not considering him that high.

 

El Satanico IS a guy I'm considering for #1. A lot of that is based on the limited amount of footage from the 80s set. But I didn't want to haphazardly throw him at #1 without looking into it. So I've tried to watch as much as I possibly can and have thought about him more than anyone else over the course of this project. Because I do think there's enough out there to put him at #1.

 

Mad Dog Vachon is a lock to make my list based on limited footage. He was in some great matches for sure but there's not enough to justify a real case. But he connects with me like few other wrestlers do these days so I'm putting him at #100.

 

I get Phil's point about Volk Han but I don't agree with it in Han's case. Han is a viable candidate for "best ever at his style" and worked an extremely difficult and limiting style relative to the rest of the wrestling world. But, since he had such few matches in his career, I do think people ranking him high should watch as much as possible. That is one of the reasons I'm watching all the Tamura matches and plan on watching all the Han matches.

 

I do think a guy like Tamura has enough footage even though he worked under 115 matches in his entire career. There is definitely enough of a career arc and different phases of his career for him to rank really high for me. It will be interesting to compare to Han who basically showed up as a master and stayed that way till the end.

[GOTNW]

In the case of Volk Han, yes. I don't see why not if he demonstrated as much in those matches.

Ditto. A bunch of guys who are thrown around as having great longevity have had years where they didn't do much but people see them have great performances and matches in years that are far apart and assume they were that great in every year inbetween. Low Ki would be a great example, I love him as much as anyone but there plenty of years where he didn't do much. Having a short but incredibly consistent peak with all time great highs is an amazing feat.

[Ship Canal]

I know this is a comparison that can probably be pretty easily picked apart by those who are coming at things from different angles but for me the amount of matches in someones career doesn't really factor into things largely because volume/output wouldn't necessarily factor into things if I was ranking artists or performers in other mediums. Other things like influence/historical importance/originality/all round quality of work/mastery of a particular style is enough to put an individual into my list despite the fact they have 115 or less matches like Tamura. As mentioned above, the lack of volume may well mean they don't get ranked as highly as Kawada or Bock or Funk or whoever, but I'd never consider not having them on the list at all.

Just to use an example from outside wrestling, this week I picked up three reissues (2LP, 1EP) by this band This Heat who I absolutely adore. This Heat made completely singular, out there avant rock stuff that still sounds like nothing else I've ever heard 40 years after it first came out. If I'm required to rate them in a list of my greatest bands of all time, they would probably be rated pretty highly despite the fact their entire recorded studio output is about 30 tracks max. They'd get on a list like that almost entirely based on their originality, their influence and the quality of the relatively small amount of stuff they put out. Would they rank higher than someone who has been putting out awesome records more or less non stop for the last four decades, always managing to sound unique and relevant? Probably not, but there's a place for both: my criteria is deliberately not as demarcated as that because I find ranking less fun that way and want my list to have at least something of an element of my personality and how I judge the notion of the "greatest". Which is precisely why it will be fun to compare the end results with someone who thinks differently on that front.

I know, I know, wrestling isn't music, wrestling isn't the novel and wrestling isn't cinema, but rightly or wrongly that's how I'm ranking.

[Ship Canal]

Generally I'd need more than 10 matches, but with certain excpetional cases, such as Breaks or Hase I just "know". Jack Brisco was a bit like that too.

 

 

I had the exact same thing with all those guys. I think I saw about four Hase matches (this is years before GWE project was started) and thought "this guy just has it, he was born to be a pro wrestler", then as I've been rewatching stuff for GWE he's been more or less outstanding in everything I've seen him in. I may have watched far less of him before this project, but he was already a lock even based on that. I guess sometimes there really just is that intangible sort of it factor that some people get seeing certain workers. As you say, you "just know".

[concrete1992]

I'm ranking practically everyone on a "small sample size" so...

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Generally I'd need more than 10 matches, but with certain excpetional cases, such as Breaks or Hase I just "know". Jack Brisco was a bit like that too.

 

 

I had the exact same thing with all those guys. I think I saw about four Hase matches (this is years before GWE project was started) and thought "this guy just has it, he was born to be a pro wrestler", then as I've been rewatching stuff for GWE he's been more or less outstanding in everything I've seen him in. I may have watched far less of him before this project, but he was already a lock even based on that. I guess sometimes there really just is that intangible sort of it factor that some people get seeing certain workers. As you say, you "just know".

Right. Casas is another one who had that instant impact factor too. Just knew. Immediately accessible greatness.

 

But not every case is like that.

 

For example, a guy who didn't have that for me is someone like Hash. I've seen him here and there and nothing stood out to me in particular. Yet enough people speak highly of him that I'd want to explore him more.

 

It took me a quite a lot of matches to understand the appeal of John Cena and he'll probably make my top 100 now.

[Loss]

This Heat got mentioned in a thread. PWO has peaked.

[joeg]

There are plenty of people I'd rank, based on seeing them on a handful of times because they are that good. The Blond Bombers (both as a team and as singles), Thez, O'Conner, Rogers, Sangre Chicana, MS-1, Billy Robinson, etc. Its like the story of when saw Kobe work out the first time. After 20 minutes he stopped the work out and said "I'm leaving I've seen all I need to see" There are some wrestlers that are just that good it doesn't matter how little footage of them exists.