Loss Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I'd probably find examples in both directions of what's important to me, but I didn't want to keep flooding the BIGLAV thread with posts about this, so I thought I'd start a thread for it. I don't think not being able to do everything is critical unless the wrestler had a career where they were expected to take on roles they were unable to perform. So Ricky Morton being the greatest sympathy babyface tag team wrestler ever means more to me than Chris Jericho's ability to work face or heel in any spot on the card and get over doing it. Both are impressive, but Morton was a standard bearer in his one thing which is extra special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I'll just say on this that my view is that people tend to over-reward the guy who is exceptional at the one thing and under-reward the generalist. Not deliberately or even consciously, I just think it is a quirk of human thinking and how exceptionalism tends to work. "This guy is the best at this one thing" sticks in the head more than "this guy is very good at these ten different things, even though he isn't the best at any of them". I do think Morton should get his due for being the best FIP and for defining the role, but I also think he should be penalised for all the things he can't do. I suspect Eaton will finish above Morton for me, simply because his all-around game is stronger. He has better offense, he can work in a greater variety of different roles etc. All other things being equal, Eaton has the edge. To me, you can't be the GWE unless you are pretty great at all aspects of being a wrestler, which is why it counts for roughly one sixth of what I'm looking for. And looking down the sample in the spreadsheet, the guys who are the best all-rounders are Funk (top for that), then Flair, Bockwinkel, and Eddie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I personally don't hold it against guys who only worked heel or face if they were really fucking good at it. Some guys should never be heels, and having that kind of transcendent babyface appeal that makes someone say "This guy should never, ever be a bad guy" is something special in itself. Same goes for lifelong heels, I think it is a little easier to be a career heel but the point remains the same: being really fucking good at something. I think I've made this point before, but when you look at a career face like a Steamboat, or a Rey, you can still point to tremendous variety in their performances, within the parameters of being a babyface - technical exhibitions, matches based on babyface selling, body parts, wild brawls, revenge matches, sprints, small vs big, world title matches, gimmick matches, tag teams, and so on. So I think the idea that someone was a specialist or could only do one thing well really needs to be held up to scrunity, rather than just assuming they always worked the same or lacked variety because they never worked heel. In terms of someone who actually IS a specialist, like a Ricky Morton who defined a specific role - babyface selling in a tag match, I think there's a ceiling for that in the same way that there's a ceiling for being a generalist who isn't really the best at anything in particular - for me that is a pretty high ceiling, depending on just how fucking good you are at it. A key point for me is that some wrestlers aren't supposed to be world class at every role in wrestling. Stan Hansen makes no sense as an underdog face. Rey Mysterio makes no sense working heel. I'm not going to penalise them for being who they are, when being who they are is that exceptionally good, just for the idea that wrestlers are supposed to be able to be a jack of all trades. Honestly, I don't think they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I think the question at that point becomes how much it affected their matches to not be able to do it all. If you think Ricky Morton's matches would have been better if he demonstrated more range, then that's good reason to knock him down a few pegs. Morton isn't a number one contender and I agree that categories like variety are very important when trying to determine who is number one. I'm not sure how much it matters past the top ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 Jimmy, it's just a question of degrees. I can only speak to my own way of doing things, but Steamboat loses a grand total of 1 point (out of a possible 60) for never having worked heel. It means very little in the overall scheme of things. But lets say he never worked tags, never worked gimmick matches, never left Mid-Atlantic and spent his entire career working technical 20-minute TV draws, then it's going to start stacking. This won't happen in Steamboat's case, or even in Morton's, because hey, they were great workers, and had range within what they could do. I mean Morton did work heel, proved he could work singles, and so on. He had limited offense but can only lose 3 points total (of a possible 60) for that. Let's face it, the sorts of workers who were SO limited that they could only do one or two things -- let's say JYD -- probably aren't making the list anyway. But I think Charles might be talking about the small margins at the top. And there, yes, maybe the 1 point Steamboat loses for not working heel does end up hurting him vs. say Nick Bockwinkel, the career heel, who did show he could work face. It's one thing Bock can say that Steamer can't. Now, I see your point, that you could flip it: "this is something Steamer can say that Bock can't". Sure, but I'm not doing Greatest Babyface Ever, I'm doing Greatest WRESTLER ever, and I want my GWE to be able to do both, so I see the fact Steamer can say that actually as a slight negative in this instance. I hope that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I do think Morton should get his due for being the best FIP and for defining the role, but I also think he should be penalised for all the things he can't do. I suspect Eaton will finish above Morton for me, simply because his all-around game is stronger. He has better offense, he can work in a greater variety of different roles etc. All other things being equal, Eaton has the edge. I don't object to Eaton over Morton, or even the calculus you are laying out here JVK, BUT I think penalizing someone for "all the things he can't do" is probably a bad way of putting it. The fact is that in most cases we don't know for sure if they could or couldn't do something. In many cases I would argue they SHOULDN'T do certain things because it directly conflicts with the roles they are kings of. Penalizing for what they don't do is probably a better way of putting it. Unless you really think someone is put in a role to protect them from their flaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 The way I'd rather put it Dylan is to flip the terms of it, so rather penalising Morton for the things he doesn't do, instead recognising the fact that a guy like Terry Funk being able to excel in SO MANY different roles is something that is really amazing that should be proportionally rewarded. So let's say Morton is the 10/10 FIP, that's great, but Terry Funk is a 9/10 FIP. He also happens to be an all-time great heel. He also happens to be a former NWA champ who travelled the world and was over everywhere he went. He also happens to be a phenomenal worker of gimmick matches. He could also work hour-long technical broadways etc. etc. In recognising that, I guess you de facto recognise that lots of other people can't say that they did all those things. And the ones who can -- Flair, Bock, Eddie, etc. -- are really pretty special. I guess I am saying that being a 9/10 at all of those things is better than being a 10/10 in one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliott Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I'd probably find examples in both directions of what's important to me, but I didn't want to keep flooding the BIGLAV thread with posts about this, so I thought I'd start a thread for it. I don't think not being able to do everything is critical unless the wrestler had a career where they were expected to take on roles they were unable to perform. So Ricky Morton being the greatest sympathy babyface tag team wrestler ever means more to me than Chris Jericho's ability to work face or heel in any spot on the card and get over doing it. Both are impressive, but Morton was a standard bearer in his one thing which is extra special. I agree with this. I think this is actually a really great question and is like the evil long lost twin of the Peak vs Longevity debate because it is actually really important for a list like this but it doesn't get talked about nearly as much. Shit it took the whole project to get a proper thread! I hate to say it depends because I feel like I always say it, but it depends on a number of factors. it depends on what the one thing being done exceptionally well. Ricky Morton being "the greatest sympathy babyface tag team wrestler ever" is something absolutely agree with and means something to me. But lets say the argument is Robert Gibson is "the greatest waiting for the hot tag on the apron ever" it wouldn't mean as much. Now lets say the argument is Volk Han is "the greatest shoot style mat worker ever." That's going to mean something entirely different and I have to figure out what exactly. So figuring out what the "one thing" that is being done exceptionally well is the first important thing to hash out. It depends on how good the jack of all trades guy is at his trades. If its Chris Jericho or Bobby Eaton or Terry Funk, it will mean something different. I mean, I don't think Jericho is all that good and I get calling him a jack of all trades. It would be easier for a "doing one thing exceptionally well" wrestler to rank above a jack of all trades wrestler like Jericho than a jack of all trades wrestler like Eaton. Because Eaton was better at his trades. if the "does one thing exceptionally well" wrestler is Volk Han and the "one thing" is shoot style mat work, well that's a pretty hard thing to master. If it is close like Volk Han vs Bobby Eaton would be for me, I will probably lean towards Volk because while being really good/great at everything is awesome, mastering a style like shoot style is really impressive. HOWEVER, Terry Funk is the best "jack of all trades" wrestler ever and there is absolutely no "does one thing exceptionally well" wrestler I would rank above him. I have Funk #1 overall because of his versatility. So in the end, at the very top, I favor jack of all trades. I would argue the one thing Terry Funk does exceptionally well was being the best jack of all trades wrestler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 But Elliot, that's not your only criteria right? Or to put it in abother way, are you voting on more stuff than just my A column? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I like heel Ricky Morton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 I agree, and I guess the problem I'm having with this question is that none of the guys discussed in the thread strike me as one-dimensional. I don't think of the Eaton-Morton comparison in these terms at all. I do think it's a valid point to say we sometimes overrate performers with one exceptional skill. This has been a big issue in valuing baseball players over the years. But for the purposes of this poll, I'm not sure I see that happening a lot. I don't think we'll see a lot of people rating Volk Han above Terry Funk. If the question is: Will I rate a Volk Han over a Chris Jericho? Then the answer is absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliott Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 But Elliot, that's not your only criteria right? Or to put it in abother way, are you voting on more stuff than just my A column? Oh of course it isn't my only criteria. I'm considering all of the things you are from peak to longevity to variety of opponents, etc. If I ranked solely on "Ability to Work Different Styles and Roles" my list would look different than the one I will send in and in many cases guys I prefer would rank lower than guys I don't really like. If you are the best at a style or an important role, that definitely means something. But Funk was SO great at EVERYTHING the more I think about it the more I feel confident about Funk at #1. But peak, longevity, great matches, variety etc are all intertwined with his ability to be great at everything. So its not just because of his versatility. But it is at the same time. Anyway, I think the Jack of All Trades vs Doing One Thing Exceptionally Well argument isn't really about the GOAT Candidates just like Peak vs Longevity isn't really about the GOAT Candidates. Ideally the guys who are GOAT Candidates are going to all be great a lot of things, have high peaks and longevity. It is what makes them GOAT candidates. Peak/Longevity and Jack of All Trades vs One Thing come up more in how to rank the 2nd and 3rd tier guys. Also, for everyone, who are some of the first wrestlers you think of when you think of Jack of all Trades Wrestlers and Doing ONe thing Exceptionally Well Wrestlers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew79 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 I'll take the specialist over the generalist because improving at one thing gets exponentially harder. It's far easier to become good at a few things than great at any one thing. EDIT: When I think jack-of-all-trades, I think Sano. When I think specialist, the All Japan guys (and the girls). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 How do you define trades? Within Volk Han's speciality he had a knack for selling, building exciting spots and sequences, coming up creative and dramatic finishes, and even a bit of comedy, to go along with his technical ability. I'm pretty sure if you binge watched him you'd find subtle shifts in style, match type, and role. Does trade mean something as broad as high flying, brawling and heel vs face, or does it refer to tools of the trade as well? Volk seems fairly well rounded for a specialist. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliott Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 How do you define trades? Within Volk Han's speciality he had a knack for selling, building exciting spots and sequences, coming up creative and dramatic finishes, and even a bit of comedy, to go along with his technical ability. I'm pretty sure if you binge watched him you'd find subtle shifts in style, match type, and role. Does trade mean something as broad as high flying, brawling and heel vs face, or does it refer to tools of the trade as well? Volk seems fairly well rounded for a specialist. Maybe I'm overthinking it. This is the big question. I don't think you're overthinking it at all because I thought it too. Are we talking specific styles or compartmentalizing it down to specific things like bumping? That's kinda why I wanted people to offer up some examples just to see where everyone's head is at. For example I spent a lot of this project arguing in favor of Hansen who would usually be considered a "guy who does one thing exceptionally well" which falls under the broad term of "brawling." My argument was Hansen did a ton within that one trick to the point where he was extremely versatile within that "one thing he did exceptionally well." So it doesn't really matter to me that Hansen doesn't have a 60min NWA title match against Flair with a bunch of mat work. Hansen doesn't need that to be a #1 contender in my eyes. Same sort of thing with the shoot style masters. But if the "one thing being done exceptionally well" is broken down to something as specific as bumping or punching, it will still mean something but it will mean a less than being the best brawler or shoot style worker etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danish Dynamite Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 Had to wait to see what my list ended up like to comfortably join this (possibly very important) thread. It turns out that for me, it's definetely not a question of finding things to "punish" a guy for not being able to do. Generallly flaws are not going to matter much in my ranking. Everyone starts at 0. Then positives will add more and more to someones case, with there not being a limitation on how many "points" they can score. So the best at one thing might score enough points for that one thing, if it's a thing that matters enough to me and he's that good at it, to rank really high. But realistically he'll be overtaken by someone who excells at something important AND is great at other stuff too. So Morton and Steamboat will go way higher than more versatile guys, but they won't be nr 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danish Dynamite Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 Hansen is my highest ranking "only did one thing" guy. And I agree with Elliott's reasoning why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.