A " total is greater than the sum of his parts" wrestlers

[GOTNW]

I've seen this mentioned several times, I might go back and find quotes with it's usage but anyhow it is a line of thinking I absolutely don't agree with. I think it would make for an interesting debate but right now I'd just like people to point to wrestlers who they think fit that description and why.

[Jingus]

Bruiser Brody. There are a lot of things that he does which I dislike, mostly the same old selfishness/paranoia/"gotta protect my spot!" bullshit that everyone else rightfully complains about. Yet, there's still A Certain Something About Him which makes his matches way more watchable for me in practice than they should be on paper.

[supremebve]

I've seen this mentioned several times, I might go back and find quotes with it's usage but anyhow it is a line of thinking I absolutely don't agree with. I think it would make for an interesting debate but right now I'd just like people to point to wrestlers who they think fit that description and why.

Where did you ever get this idea?

 

I think Kazuchika Okada is the king of this. If you look at his offense, selling, finisher, psychology, etc. one by one, you won't think he is very good, but he's always in really good to great matches. Somehow when you combine all of those attributes you find that they add up to something better than what they should be based on their individual qualities. I think the WK10 match with Tanahashi was masterful. The match was based around Tanahashi destroying Okada's knee, then Okada's comeback revolved around him hitting a bunch of dropkicks. He's someone who does that kind of thing over and over again, but his matches grab me in a way that it does not matter. I think he is the poster boy for this discussion.

[C.S.]

Daniel Bryan seems to epitomize the topic of this thread.

[GOTNW]

Daniel Bryan seems to epitomize the topic of this thread.

This is just mind boggling to me. I really don't think Danielson has a major weakness. He's good at striking, matwork, structuring matches, character work etc.

 

Where did you ever get this idea?

I'm pretty sure I saw it used for Tenryu and Choshu actually, which I would find a lot more interesting to discuss than Okada

[MoS]

I would say John Cena. He is not a particularly good bumper, can be very inconsistent with selling, has facial expressions that range from comical to embarrassing, and is far from being a snug worker. He is very fit, but also rather clunky. However, somehow, especially on big-match occasions, things seem to click and get placed together in a way which seems impossible. Whether it is because of his immense physical charisma, which smooths over a lot of flaws, or that connection with the audience he has, or because through sheer attrition, he almost wills the match quality above what it should be, but he has a list of excellent matches which he almost had no right to have.

[supremebve]

 

Daniel Bryan seems to epitomize the topic of this thread.

This is just mind boggling to me. I really don't think Danielson has a major weakness. He's good at striking, matwork, structuring matches, character work etc.

 

Where did you ever get this idea?

I'm pretty sure I saw it used for Tenryu and Choshu actually, which I would find a lot more interesting to discuss than Okada

 

Tenryu is an outstanding choice. I recently wrote a little bit on Tenryu and this is how I described him.

 

if I had to describe Tenryu to someone who has never seen him I’d call him a combination of Mick Foley, Sabu, and Ric Flair. He is one of those guys who like Foley, almost delights in his ability to take an ass whooping. His ability as an ass kicker is legendary, but his ability as an ass kickee may very well be his best trait. Like Sabu, Tenryu’s sloppiness is an integral part of the package. I don’t even look at his sloppiness as a negative any more, he’s basically wrestling’s drunken master. Tenryu is also like Flair as he can seemingly work a good to great match with anyone, while simultaneously putting his opponent over, and keeping himself over.

I don't think you can appreciate Tenryu until you understand that his lack of crisp execution is not important to what makes him great. He's essentially the Japanese Rocky. Apollo Creed has a better jab, better footwork, hits harder, has a better chin, but Rocky has the ability to connect with people that makes all that other stuff irrelevant. Tenryu pulls you into his matches like few other people, because everything he does has meaning. Getting people to buy in is so much more important than hitting your moves crisply and cleanly.

[Grimmas]

CM Punk. His offense looks like shit. His selling doesn't stand out, but damn was he a great pro-wrestler with some insane matches.

[Childs]

I've seen this mentioned several times, I might go back and find quotes with it's usage but anyhow it is a line of thinking I absolutely don't agree with. I think it would make for an interesting debate but right now I'd just like people to point to wrestlers who they think fit that description and why.

 

The first name I thought of was your guy Hashimoto. Think if you were some kind of scout and watched Hash and Mutoh work out side by side in 1985. Would you have fathomed that Hash would evolve into the far greater worker? Now, in hindsight, you can break Hash down and say his charisma and ability to construct a match were as much tools as Mutoh's fast-twitch athleticism. But they're less obvious tools.

[GOTNW]

Honestly sloppiness isn't that big of a problem with Tenryu. Most of his offence looks very good in my opinion. His facial expressions, character and general grumpiness to me are all "parts" that are as important as any other.

[GOTNW]

 

I've seen this mentioned several times, I might go back and find quotes with it's usage but anyhow it is a line of thinking I absolutely don't agree with. I think it would make for an interesting debate but right now I'd just like people to point to wrestlers who they think fit that description and why.

 

The first name I thought of was your guy Hashimoto. Think if you were some kind of scout and watched Hash and Mutoh work out side by side in 1985. Would you have fathomed that Hash would evolve into the far greater worker? Now, in hindsight, you can break Hash down and say his charisma and ability to construct a match were as much tools as Mutoh's fast-twitch athleticism. But they're less obvious tools.

 

See this is where I'd love to actually have footage of Hashimoto and Mutoh from 1985. But by 1987/1988 Hashimoto seems so obviously great that I'd absolutely take him over Mutoh (whose strenghts at the time included, uhm......doing a backflip) as did Choshu.

[C.S.]

 

Daniel Bryan seems to epitomize the topic of this thread.

This is just mind boggling to me. I really don't think Danielson has a major weakness. He's good at striking, matwork, structuring matches, character work etc.

 

 

Yikes, quoting other people is a pain in the ass on this board, even when you turn off HTML. Anyway, unless I'm misunderstanding the intent of this thread, Danielson more than fits the bill. He does not initially look like a star. He's not someone you'd see and immediately expect big things from. Divorce yourself from a decade of knowing him, his matches, his reputation, and his Meltzer rating. Now imagine you're seeing him for the first time. Do you expect him to be a future WrestleMania main eventer? His mic work, in particular, was not always strong - and some would argue that he's still not among the elite all-time great talkers. Yet, he made that simple, humble, plainspoken speaking style work for him. He also made his simple, humble look work for him. He is far greater than the sum of his parts.

 

I'd also nominate Bret Hart for this category.

 

[GOTNW]

 

 

Daniel Bryan seems to epitomize the topic of this thread.

This is just mind boggling to me. I really don't think Danielson has a major weakness. He's good at striking, matwork, structuring matches, character work etc.

 

 

Yikes, quoting other people is a pain in the ass on this board, even when you turn off HTML. Anyway, unless I'm misunderstanding the intent of this thread, Danielson more than fits the bill. He does not initially look like a star. He's not someone you'd see and immediately expect big things from. Divorce yourself from a decade of knowing him, his matches, his reputation, and his Meltzer rating. Now imagine you're seeing him for the first time. Do you expect him to be a future WrestleMania main eventer? His mic work, in particular, was not always strong - and some would argue that he's still not among the elite all-time great talkers. Yet, he made that simple, humble, plainspoken speaking style work for him. He also made his simple, humble look work for him. He is far greater than the sum of his parts.

 

I'd also nominate Bret Hart for this category.

 

 

You are. It's aimed at discussing how someone fares as a worker.

[Timbo Slice]

Undertaker was one of the first guys I thought of, for some reason.

 

Arn Anderson is another.

[supremebve]

Undertaker was one of the first guys I thought of, for some reason.

 

Arn Anderson is another.

I don't know if Undertaker fits. Undertaker is a huge dude, has credible offense, and is ridiculously athletic for his size. That guy would have been a star in almost every single promotion. The Undertaker gimmick is essentially a handcuff on someone who probably would have been a better worker if he was a generic ass kicker.

[Coffey]

Jake "The Snake" Roberts. Not a great worker but an awesome promo, good character & good look. Some of the worst punches I can remember ever seeing in wrestling, actually... but he got psychology & pacing. Also had a sick finish.

 

He's on my GWE list... so... I'd say the sum of all the parts matter.

[Tenese Sarwieh]

Roddy Piper. He wasn’t the best worker in the world but in reality he didn’t need to cause he had charisma and could cut awesome promos that made his feuds matter.

[C.S.]

You are. It's aimed at discussing how someone fares as a worker.

 

Just a difference in philosophy, but a lot of folks on this board have a very narrow and rigid view of wrestling IMO because they place 100% importance on "being a worker" and zero importance on all of the other factors that go into creating a complete wrestler. It's a viewpoint I can't imagine anyone in the wrestling business subscribing to, because someone who is a "great worker" and has nothing else going for him will be a jobber, period. Look at Brad Armstrong (who I loved, BTW, but let's not pretend he was able to display any kind of charisma or compelling character work).

 

The fact that people are posting about Jake ("Not a great worker but an awesome promo, good character & good look.") and Piper ("He wasn’t the best worker in the world but in reality he didn’t need to cause he had charisma and could cut awesome promos that made his feuds matter.") in the same light backs up what I'm saying. Not sure how those posts are any different than what I said about Bryan.

 

Obviously, I'm almost saying the opposite - that Bryan's tremendous work was enough to overcome some of his other (minor) flaws - so I realize it looks like I'm contradicting myself in a way. But not really, because the basic point remains the same - Bryan, Jake, Piper, etc. had certain (different) attributes in spades, while other attributes may have been lacking, but it didn't matter because the whole was greater than the sum of the parts.

 

If Bryan didn't have that plainspoken regular guy charisma of his, if he didn't improve on the mic, if he didn't have that amazing connection with the audience, etc., it wouldn't have mattered how good he was "as a worker."

[supremebve]

 

You are. It's aimed at discussing how someone fares as a worker.

 

If Bryan didn't have that plainspoken regular guy charisma of his, if he didn't improve on the mic, if he didn't have that amazing connection with the audience, etc., it wouldn't have mattered how good he was "as a worker."

 

Yeah, but he had all of those things. This is more for people who got over, became great workers despite not having those things. This discussion for wrestlers who are great despite having huge glaring flaws that should stop them from being great. Bryan was successful because of all the things you listed. He was a great worker, he was a credible every man that everyone rooted for, and he did improve his mic skills. Those things are positive attributes that he used to maximize his appeal. John Cena looking and acting like a huge goof, who is pretty average at every part of wrestling is a good candidate. He's essentially the equivalent of a quarterback like Brad Johnson winning 4 Super Bowls. Nothing you could point at would tell you he should be an all time great, but it would be inarguable that he was an all time great. Those are the types of guys we're looking for in this discussion, guys who are good in ways that you can't really explain.

[Coffey]

 

You are. It's aimed at discussing how someone fares as a worker.

 

Just a difference in philosophy, but a lot of folks on this board have a very narrow and rigid view of wrestling IMO because they place 100% importance on "being a worker" and zero importance on all of the other factors that go into creating a complete wrestler. It's a viewpoint I can't imagine anyone in the wrestling business subscribing to, because someone who is a "great worker" and has nothing else going for him will be a jobber, period. Look at Brad Armstrong (who I loved, BTW, but let's not pretend he was able to display any kind of charisma or compelling character work).

 

The fact that people are posting about Jake ("Not a great worker but an awesome promo, good character & good look.")

 

 

And I also said I consider him one of the greatest 100 Wrestlers of All-time but let's ignore that.

[C.S.]

Yeah, but he had all of those things. This is more for people who got over, became great workers despite not having those things. This discussion for wrestlers who are great despite having huge glaring flaws that should stop them from being great. Bryan was successful because of all the things you listed. He was a great worker, he was a credible every man that everyone rooted for, and he did improve his mic skills. Those things are positive attributes that he used to maximize his appeal. John Cena looking and acting like a huge goof, who is pretty average at every part of wrestling is a good candidate. He's essentially the equivalent of a quarterback like Brad Johnson winning 4 Super Bowls. Nothing you could point at would tell you he should be an all time great, but it would be inarguable that he was an all time great. Those are the types of guys we're looking for in this discussion, guys who are good in ways that you can't really explain.

True, but let's not pretend that Bryan is some master-level mic worker - he's far from it - but he connects to the audience anyway, even though he's very plainspoken and not particularly quotable (outside of "YES!" and so on). He also doesn't have what would be considered the most marketable look. Obviously, the hair and beard helped with that, but strip those away and he looks like any generic ROH indy worker.

[GOTNW]

 

Yeah, but he had all of those things. This is more for people who got over, became great workers despite not having those things. This discussion for wrestlers who are great despite having huge glaring flaws that should stop them from being great. Bryan was successful because of all the things you listed. He was a great worker, he was a credible every man that everyone rooted for, and he did improve his mic skills. Those things are positive attributes that he used to maximize his appeal. John Cena looking and acting like a huge goof, who is pretty average at every part of wrestling is a good candidate. He's essentially the equivalent of a quarterback like Brad Johnson winning 4 Super Bowls. Nothing you could point at would tell you he should be an all time great, but it would be inarguable that he was an all time great. Those are the types of guys we're looking for in this discussion, guys who are good in ways that you can't really explain.

Cena looked like a good candidate at first glance but I wonder if it simply isn't a case of the positives outweighing the negatives. Like, his offence doesn't look that great but he's great at making it seem like it's a big deal, structuring matches, selling, having huge dramatic facial expressions not even Kevin Dunn can miss, so is it really that shocking he's a really good wrestler despite not being especially good at throwing punches and bumping?

[SteveJRogers]

 

Undertaker was one of the first guys I thought of, for some reason.

 

Arn Anderson is another.

 

I don't know if Undertaker fits. Undertaker is a huge dude, has credible offense, and is ridiculously athletic for his size. That guy would have been a star in almost every single promotion. The Undertaker gimmick is essentially a handcuff on someone who probably would have been a better worker if he was a generic ass kicker.

In a What If thread I posted, if he had the Mean Mark gimmck in November of 1990, the consensus was that he would not have lasted very long without his Deadman persona.

[supremebve]

 

 

Undertaker was one of the first guys I thought of, for some reason.

 

Arn Anderson is another.

I don't know if Undertaker fits. Undertaker is a huge dude, has credible offense, and is ridiculously athletic for his size. That guy would have been a star in almost every single promotion. The Undertaker gimmick is essentially a handcuff on someone who probably would have been a better worker if he was a generic ass kicker.

In a What If thread I posted, if he had the Mean Mark gimmck in November of 1990, the consensus was that he would not have lasted very long without his Deadman persona.

 

I don't know if I disagree with that, but he is a guy who we didn't think of as a good in ring guy until pretty late in his run. The gimmick made his career what it was, but I think we'd be talking about him as an all time in ring worker without it. His athletic prime was spent in a gimmick that didn't really allow him to use those athletic gifts.

[Loss]

I'd want to probably think about it a little more before really declaring it, but I'm pretty sure every single wrestler I'm ranking for GWE is someone I'd describe as being greater than the sum of their parts. I think any great wrestler is more than just a list of their attributes. They have intangibles that maybe on paper don't make them seem like great wrestlers, but they manage to make whatever their "objective" flaws are irrelevant or in some cases even endearing. There are wrestlers that don't fit this bill and it's probably why I wouldn't rank them. Brad Armstrong is one who comes to mind as less than the sum of his parts -- mechanically miles better than Shawn Michaels (and it's not like there's huge daylight between him and Benoit and Eddy either), yet Shawn is the much greater wrestler.