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

[supremebve]

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.

I 100% agree that there is a flipside to this conversation. If you were to try to write a comparison of Brad Armstrong and Sean Waltman, you could easily conclude that Brad Armstrong was better than him at everything individually, but I don't know anyone who would say that Armstrong was a better wrestler than Waltman.

[dawho5]

Here are a few.

 

Masa Fuchi - First time you see him, you tend to wonder what this scrawny guy with no real appealing physical aspects is doing in the ring with the guys he wrestles. Then you watch a few matches and you know. He'll kick a guy's ass and stretch him even if he's giving away 30 pounds. And quite the seller as well. Sort of like a smaller, more technically-minded Tenryu.

 

Yoshinari Ogawa - I honestly think this is the guy right here. Shit strikes besides his enzuigiri. Not a whole lot of juniors style high flying. Not a technical wonder by any means. He's like the Japanese Tully Blanchard with all of the heel stuff magnified. And not near as gifted as far as what he can do in the ring. But he can make you believe that he has a shot of retaining the title against Kenta Kobashi in 2003.

 

Jerry Lawler - If there is a guy who went as long as he did by simply "getting" pro wrestling I'd like to see who it is. In ring he's got all-time great punches, all-time great selling and bumping and....yeah, everything else is average at best. And yet he could still be a draw in Memphis today.

 

Osamu Nishimura - This guy defines "smart worker." Nothing he does in the ring stands out beyond maybe his surprising Euro uppercuts. His selling, ability to lay a match out and ability to work the mat in a compelling fashion are all top notch. But they all tend to blend into the framework of the matches I've seen to the point where you can miss them very easily.

 

Ultimate Warrior - Yeah, I said it. What did he have going for him? A shit ton of energy, a physique and being batshit craaaazy. Somehow it all worked and he ended up in good matches. So the sum total seems greater than the parts.

 

Some more off the top of my head.

 

Gino Hernandez, Buddy Roberts, Carlos Colon, Goldberg, El Samurai, Ryback (hate to say it, but the guy could have been something), Greg Gagne, Raven

[C.S.]

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.

Without the gimmick, I'm not so sure Mark Calaway would have lasted any length of time. He certainly wasn't ever going to draw a cent as Mean Mark or any other variation of "himself."

 

If the WWF had never come calling, I can easily imagine an alternate history where he's a lower-midcard big man in places like the GWF and ECW.

 

His "blank" stares and pale skin were a major deficit that the character of The Undertaker turned into a strength.

[funkdoc]

 

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).

 

eh i'm not really buying this. if anything i feel like this board places more emphasis on in-ring character work than most smart fans do, and thinks more highly of guys like hogan & dusty. heck, where else is jerry lawler a GOAT candidate? and brad armstrong is something of a whipping boy around these parts, a poster child for guys way overrated by meltzer back in the day; terry taylor is a higher-profile example in the same boat.

 

i suspect you may be thinking mainly of the GWE project with that statement, but that's a whole different beast. GWE has to be in-ring-only because that's the only way to give a remotely fair shake to japan & mexico; i don't think it truly reflects most people's views of the overall package. the in-ring aspect gets the most discussion because it's the most open to debate, since you can answer questions on charisma etc. by pointing to drawing numbers.

[Microstatistics]

 

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.

 

I disagree with Hashimoto being a total greater than a sum of his parts. He wasn't super athletic but he was excellent on the mat, had awesome offense (both strikes and moves) and was a great seller. So he had very strong basic tools to support his other great traits.

[Loss]

I would definitely categorize Hashimoto as greater than the sum. There are other guys in New Japan like Junji Hirata and Takashi Iizuka that are arguably better wrestlers, but they don't have the charisma, presence or ability to generate emotion from an audience through facial expressions and the ability to pace a match of Hashimoto. And you can't really quantify those things.

[Microstatistics]

I guess that is true, relative to other people his pure "wrestling" ability wasn't his most impressive feature. But my main point was that his aura, intangibles and ability to pace a match were so great that sometimes his basic tools get overlooked/are underrated.

[Loss]

I think another way to say a whole is greater than the sum of the parts is to say a wrestler's charisma is strong enough to be a more important part of their overall package than any of their merits and faults.

[Microstatistics]

Well said and I think someone like Onita fits that criteria perfectly.

[Timbo Slice]

I think another way to say a whole is greater than the sum of the parts is to say a wrestler's charisma is strong enough to be a more important part of their overall package than any of their merits and faults.

 

This is exactly why I thought Undertaker from the start.

 

Onita is another good one.

[joeg]

CM Punk. without a doubt.There is a video somewhere of CM Punk at a wrestling clinic being done by Liger in fall of 2004. The clinic took place right before those matches with Samoa Joe and less than a year before the Summer of Punk. Punk is the worst guy in every single drill. He was probably 6 years into his career and was by far worse at basic rolls, bumps, and running the ropes than guys who had yet to have their first match. I think that embodies being more than the sum of the parts.

[Al]

Bob Backlund. You go through his attributes and there's nothing you can put your finger on that screams main event.

[Goodear]

I'm not sure I would agree with that and I honestly mean I'm not sure if I would or not. Bob was massively strong and had the amateur wrestling credentials, but seemed to lack the charisma that would lead to a successful title run. He's almost the opposite of the standard where most guys use charisma to overcome a short coming in physical tools.

[Ricky Jackson]

In the context of old, slow-working and often non-athletic looking wrestlers in 70s NYC, I think Bob came off as a major breath of fresh air for a lot of fans. And he was booked like a beast

[Microstatistics]

More that I think about it, Jerry Lawler is pretty much the epitome of this. If you look at the little details of his matches, there is hardly anything there. Kind of an nonathletic guy (not in an able to do flips and fly kind of sense, but in terms of how he moved or how fluid he looked) who threw a lot of punches and actually did very little of anything else. He seems extremely limited. Yet almost every match of his as a whole is, at worst, decent to good regardless of opponent or length mainly because of his presence, charisma and ability to pace a match.

[GOTNW]

I feel like some folks have slightly misinterpreted me. Maybe it's my fault because I didn't respond to this thread more. Anyway what I was getting at is that these:

 

his presence, charisma and ability to pace a match.

among others are equally as important as other parameters when discussing as a wrestler and wrestlers who are described as "greater than the sum of their parts" even exists shows tangible flaws in how wrestling is critiqued and perceived. I don't think there's a single name I've agreed with in this thread.

 

Actually let's look at the names brough up:

 

Bruiser Brody

No interest in discussing him.

 

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.

I think the key difference here may be how good you think he is at something and how much it bothers you compared to say, how much it bothers me. So for you the way he structures matches, milks big moments etc. might be enough to overcome all that while I will just begrudgingly admit it is sometimes an efficient way to get heat from the modern crowd.

 

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.

Cena's flaws are probably overstated for well known reasons and his strengths not given the proper credit. It's so clear he's a great seller if you watch stuff like the 2011 Rey Mysterio match for the interim WWE title or any of the Brock matches. Still I would probably disagree regarding the level of greatness he achieved with some (he didn't make my top 50).

 

Tenryu

That such an obvious all time great wrestler is even mentioned in this thread shows there are still remnants of the venomous spew that infected wrestling critique in the days of workrate as its primary criteria.

 

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.

Disagree heavily here. Anyone who's seen a lot of Punk knows bad Punk matches are out there and there is a lot of them. In addition there is plenty of Punk matches that feel unspecial. So his flaws did often impact his matches significantly. He had other qualities and with enough motivation and the right setting against the right opponent he could overcome them and sometimes even reach greatness.

The Undertaker

I've watched waaaaay too much AE stuff to think of him as someone who's that good. Only seemed to "get it" when he had a year in advance to plan his stuff out.

 

Big pop for Loss having no idea how ridiculous it is to bring up Takashi Iizuka as being a better wrestler than Hash. I mean-those who watched enough random 90s tags will get it but it still looks a little ridiculous as a real thing written down.

 

Atsushi Onita

First thing that stood out to me watching him was how smart of a worker he was and how good he was at teasing big spots and building up to them. Great seller, great facial expression, hugely charismatic performer. Don't see it.

[Microstatistics]

Wait I don't understand what your criteria is if you disagree with every pick so far.

 

I think another way to say a whole is greater than the sum of the parts is to say a wrestler's charisma is strong enough to be a more important part of their overall package than any of their merits and faults.

 

Most people are picking wrestlers based on this.

 

I would definitely categorize Hashimoto as greater than the sum. There are other guys in New Japan like Junji Hirata and Takashi Iizuka that are arguably better wrestlers, but they don't have the charisma, presence or ability to generate emotion from an audience through facial expressions and the ability to pace a match of Hashimoto. And you can't really quantify those things.

 

Also as for Loss saying Iizuka being "better" than Hash, it's in terms of base skills and not in terms of the stuff highlighted so obviously he thinks overall Hash is definitely the superior pro wrestler, which is basically the premise of the thread.

[gordi]

If you wanna define "parts" as "each and every possible aspect, tangible and intangible, of a wrestler's ring work, mic work, charisma, look, etc." then of course it should be impossible to say that any wrestler is "greater than the sum of their parts."

 

However:

 

there is a pretty strong tendency on line, in general, to focus on ring work above all else... in such cases, I think it could be reasonable to list wrestlers like The Road Warriors, Dump Matsumoto, and Abdullah the Butcher as being better wrestlers than you might think, given their in-ring limitations.

 

even here on PWO, I think it's not unfair to say that a wrestler's look and the relation of look to character, and the way that both connect to said wrestler's ring work can sometimes be undervalued in comparison to finer points such as punches and selling. So, maybe a guy like Jake or a guy like Rude - both of whom have that look/character/work connection perfected - such a wrestler might reasonably be seen by some as "greater" than their punching and selling (which are only above-average).

 

on the other hand, even here a guy like C.S. or myself might point to Bryan... indicating, perhaps, that we consider look and mic work to be really important for World Heavyweight Champions.... and really, it's amazing that Bryan, great as he is, was able to get so over with the WWE Universe (cough)

 

So... if we allow for the idea that maybe different people have different ideas of what the "parts" might be, there is room for debate and room for a wide variety of opinions.

 

Maybe even if we go with the most optimistic view, that every part can be seen as important by everyone participating in the discussion, it's still possible in my view to see that even some of the most over and most successful and most famous and most beloved pro wrestlers of all time have achieved that status in spite of having a deficiency in some important area (Abdullah's selling, Bryan's look, Onita's mobility, Kobashi's sense of restraint...)

 

Maybe part of being a great wrestler is knowing how to use your strengths to balance your weaknesses... maybe it's fair to say that wrestlers who are really good at that are in fact "greater than the sum of their parts."

[Mad Dog]

How about Giant Baba? I've always described him as the Wrestling equivalent of a bumblebee. You take one look at him and he has the appearance of a total stiff. And while not super athletic, he always kind of surprises you by the fact that he is kind of agile, he can bump and has good matches despite sometimes a weak looking offense.

[Loss]

GOTNW, maybe think of it as wrestlers who can make their flaws part of their appeal. Tenryu was mentioned. I love watching Tenryu hit moves precisely *because* they are often so sloppy.

[GOTNW]

Hitting moves the way he does is absolutely part of Tenryu's appeal and his character (and there's probably an interesting discussion to be had about the connection between execution and a character a wrestler is portraying) but as I've already mentioned in his thread there are times that he will hit a weak enzuigiri or an abisengiri and use it as a key transition in a match and it just doesn't come off well. Tenryu's execution problems are overstated in my opinion, I wouldn't have ranked him as the fourth best wrestler ever if I thought his offence sucked. The majority of it is awesome and even the stuff the will occasionally mess up can look really good.

[Loss]

Right, that's the point. He's not a particularly polished wrestler, and someone else doing the same thing without his charisma and timing would probably be rightfully called awful. But he makes it work because he's Tenryu, and because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. To me, it's actually the difference between a good wrestler and a great wrestler -- both have flaws (every single wrestler does), but the great ones can make theirs more irrelevant.

[El-P]

He's not a particularly polished wrestler, and someone else doing the same thing without his charisma and timing would probably be rightfully called awful. But he makes it work because he's Tenryu, and because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

That's actually called having double standart. Which is also why John Cena gets a pass despite most of his stuff looking like shit. I love Tenryu (my #6 or 7 I think), but I could do with him throwing a good looking enzuigiri and a devastating powerbomb instead of shitty ones. His sloppyness is absolutely not part of his appeal. Everything else great about him is.

[Matt D]

there is a pretty strong tendency on line, in general, to focus on ring work above all else... in such cases, I think it could be reasonable to list wrestlers like The Road Warriors, Dump Matsumoto, and Abdullah the Butcher as being better wrestlers than you might think, given their in-ring limitations.

 

even here on PWO, I think it's not unfair to say that a wrestler's look and the relation of look to character, and the way that both connect to said wrestler's ring work can sometimes be undervalued in comparison to finer points such as punches and selling. So, maybe a guy like Jake or a guy like Rude - both of whom have that look/character/work connection perfected - such a wrestler might reasonably be seen by some as "greater" than their punching and selling (which are only above-average).

 

I know that you qualified this, but I think in this regard, look is a tool just like moves or blood or southern tag tricks or spots or weapons or whatever else. A lot of the discussion we have is split into a couple of categories. 1.) How good are the tools? 2.) How well does a wrestler use the tools he has?

 

In this regard, when it comes to look, I think we do a pretty good job hitting #2 a lot of the time. Maybe not enough focus is given to #1 when it comes to "look." Wrestlers have to work extremely hard to get a good body just like they have to in order to hit moves smoothly and what not. It's not a big issue to me because I care about #2 a hundred times more and I'll factor that in just as much as I will anything else. That means that if Mike Shaw was able to utilize his look extremely well to have good matches, I'd value that as much as Scott Steiner doing the same, all other things equal.

[Loss]

 

He's not a particularly polished wrestler, and someone else doing the same thing without his charisma and timing would probably be rightfully called awful. But he makes it work because he's Tenryu, and because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

That's actually called having double standart. Which is also why John Cena gets a pass despite most of his stuff looking like shit. I love Tenryu (my #6 or 7 I think), but I could do with him throwing a good looking enzuigiri and a devastating powerbomb instead of shitty ones. His sloppyness is absolutely not part of his appeal. Everything else great about him is.

 

 

Sure it is part of his appeal. He's a little reckless. He's rough around the edges. He's more dangerous for it. Not all of the same flaws are created equally. It's about how that flaw fits into the composite that is the wrestler, and what it adds to or takes away from their entire presentation. It's not "Here is a list of things at which all great wrestlers must excel and all wrestlers must check every category on the list".