Voting for guys who are in their prime?

[Grimmas]

I am having so much trouble considering anyone who is currently in their prime, what about you folks?

 

Daniel Bryan and CM Punk are both going to do better on this list now then when this process started, because their careers are over. Ranking people in prime just seems wrong to me. It feels like putting Angle in the HOF at or near his prime and then he started to suck.

 

AJ will make it probably, because he's really at the tail end of his prime. However I can't take a Cesaro seriously for this.

 

Am I way off here?

[Luchaundead]

You're not way off most people probably see it this way but me personally I try to know take that in to account as much if someone has shown merit to be on the list that's all that matter

[Dylan Waco]

This is weird to say, but Cesaro being out with an injury now makes me feel oddly more comfortable voting for him. He's clearly missed from the WWE shows, and I don't think there has been a better week-to-week talent in the promotion in the last ten years aside from MAYBE Rey who is the best t.v. match wrestler of all time.

[Jingus]

Is voting for someone in their current prime, with countless examples of their work readily available to watch, really that much weirder than voting for an old-timer who only has maybe a dozen matches on tape?

[Grimmas]

Is voting for someone in their current prime, with countless examples of their work readily available to watch, really that much weirder than voting for an old-timer who only has maybe a dozen matches on tape?

I find that weird too.

 

I tend to favour guys we have a lot of tape of who are at the end of their prime or post prime. Basically someone in their prime should not be really shitty. If someone is currently in their prime within the next year or so they could become shitty and I would feel stupid voting for them.

[JerryvonKramer]

Which old timers are getting voted for with only a dozen matches on tape?

[Moonsault Marvin]

I'm probably voting for Buddy Rogers. He doesn't have a ton of full matches on tape, but I'm convinced that he was one of the all-time greats.

[funkdoc]

yea there's rogers and a couple of the WOS guys i've seen get support

[joeg]

Rogers, Thez, Robinson, Pat O'Connor, Ray Stevens, Wahoo, Pat Patterson, Verne Gange, The Destroyer, Jack Briscoe, MS-1, and Sangre Chicano are all guys without a lot of matches from their prime floating around on the internet who are on my ballot.

How many matches of a guy do you need to see to need to see to know a guy is good? I think 1 to know he's good and maybe a half dozen or so to know how good.

 

As for guys in their prime. I think right now Cena, Lesnar, Styles, and Nakamura are all in their prime. All are on my list. Okada hasn't even reached his prime I don't think and he's probably on it. CM Punk and Danielson walked away in their prime and they are on it.

[funkdoc]

a lot of those guys have more matches on tape than people think. i'm referring more to the Alan Sarjeants of the world here

[Loss]

I can't really vote for someone in their prime right now. Hindsight is 20/20.

[Luchaundead]

Is Shane McMahon still considered in his prime?

[El McKell]

I'm gonna be voting for guys in their prime I don't see what difference it makes, we just have to judge everyone based on what we've seen of them. Why does it matter that Danielson said he's retired, his career up to this point is exactly the same either way.

Also, holy shit when this started CM Punk was an active wrestler, we've been doing this a long time.

[Grimmas]

I'm gonna be voting for guys in their prime I don't see what difference it makes, we just have to judge everyone based on what we've seen of them. Why does it matter that Danielson said he's retired, his career up to this point is exactly the same either way.

 

Also, holy shit when this started CM Punk was an active wrestler, we've been doing this a long time.

My issue is, what if they turn out like Kurt Angle and go from really good to the dirt worst? If we did this poll in 98, Shawn Michaels would be on my list. Doing it in 2016 he is not, due to his awful run post comeback. This is why I'm not voting for someone in their prime.

[Matt D]

All I need is enough data points from enough different scenarios to feel confident about my triangulation.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

I'm gonna be voting for guys in their prime I don't see what difference it makes, we just have to judge everyone based on what we've seen of them. Why does it matter that Danielson said he's retired, his career up to this point is exactly the same either way.

 

Also, holy shit when this started CM Punk was an active wrestler, we've been doing this a long time.

My issue is, what if they turn out like Kurt Angle and go from really good to the dirt worst? If we did this poll in 98, Shawn Michaels would be on my list. Doing it in 2016 he is not, due to his awful run post comeback. This is why I'm not voting for someone in their prime.

For me, the post-prime does nothing to diminish what he achieved before that which why HBK is making my list.

 

I'm convinced that negatives over-index in our thinking.

[Grimmas]

 

 

I'm gonna be voting for guys in their prime I don't see what difference it makes, we just have to judge everyone based on what we've seen of them. Why does it matter that Danielson said he's retired, his career up to this point is exactly the same either way.

 

Also, holy shit when this started CM Punk was an active wrestler, we've been doing this a long time.

My issue is, what if they turn out like Kurt Angle and go from really good to the dirt worst? If we did this poll in 98, Shawn Michaels would be on my list. Doing it in 2016 he is not, due to his awful run post comeback. This is why I'm not voting for someone in their prime.

For me, the post-prime does nothing to diminish what he achieved before that which why HBK is making my list.

 

I'm convinced that negatives over-index in our thinking.

 

I think the post comeback proves he was not a smart worker and relied on his athleticism. I prefer workers who play to their strengths and don't look awful, because they are dumb.

 

The Rockers were really good and I liked his original heel DX run. Don't like him at all as a babyface outside of Rockers run. Plus, personally, I dislike the person a lot.

[GOTNW]

The negatives don't always matter to me to the same degree. That's one of the reasons I could never use a universal criteria.

[El McKell]

 

 

 

I'm gonna be voting for guys in their prime I don't see what difference it makes, we just have to judge everyone based on what we've seen of them. Why does it matter that Danielson said he's retired, his career up to this point is exactly the same either way.

 

Also, holy shit when this started CM Punk was an active wrestler, we've been doing this a long time.

My issue is, what if they turn out like Kurt Angle and go from really good to the dirt worst? If we did this poll in 98, Shawn Michaels would be on my list. Doing it in 2016 he is not, due to his awful run post comeback. This is why I'm not voting for someone in their prime.

For me, the post-prime does nothing to diminish what he achieved before that which why HBK is making my list.

 

I'm convinced that negatives over-index in our thinking.

 

I think the post comeback proves he was not a smart worker and relied on his athleticism. I prefer workers who play to their strengths and don't look awful, because they are dumb.

 

The Rockers were really good and I liked his original heel DX run. Don't like him at all as a babyface outside of Rockers run. Plus, personally, I dislike the person a lot.

 

​But we still don't know if CM Punk and Daniel Bryan would've sucked when they're 40. Why is retiring prematurely different than still being in your prime?

[JerryvonKramer]

@Grimmas: Well you know I more than most would cosign almost all of that, but to me not ranking him because of that feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

As in, you're throwing away 12 years of a perfectly good career just because you didn't care for his final few years. It seems disproportionately harsh.

 

This is what I mean about negatives over-indexing.

 

Will you be holding Greg Valentine's completely underwhelming WCW run and decade plus of Indy obscurity (during which I don't think he produced many if any memorable matches) against him in the same way?

 

This is bizarro world if I'm the guy defending Michaels, ha ha.

[Grimmas]

@Grimmas: Well you know I more than most would cosign almost all of that, but to me not rankiing him because of that feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water:

 

As in, you're throwing away 12 years of sa perfectly good career just because you didn't care for his final few years. It seems disproportionately harsh.

 

This is what I mean about negatives over-indexing.

 

Will you be holding Greg Valentine's completely underwhelming WCW run and decade plus of Indy obscurity (during which I don't think he produced many if any memorable matches) against him in the same way?

 

This is bizarro world if I'm the guy defending Michaels, ha ha.

Big difference is that Valentine didn't suck or anything, he was just slower, old and not put in good positions. If Valentine was out there doing main events that were awful, because he was trying to work really fast even though he couldn't, that would hurt him.

 

Better example would be Jushin Liger. Liger is old now, but still puts on good matches. Why? Liger was smart enough to realize he shouldn't be doing SSPs when his body couldn't take it. If Liger in 2000s still wrestled like 89 Liger, then it would hurt him.

 

Shawn was not that smart. It's all about how you adapt.

 

Also, I don't think as much of his 12 year run as a lot of others do. If he just had that early run he would be on my list in the 70-100 range. However his comeback proved that he was only good because he was charismatic and a good athlete and he didn't understand a lot of things about wrestling. If his comeback was worked smarter, then there would be no issues. You can be older and still be awesome, if you adapt.

 

However, if Shawn had 12 years as good as his heel 97 run, and then did that comeback then yeah he'd make my list now.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

 

I'm gonna be voting for guys in their prime I don't see what difference it makes, we just have to judge everyone based on what we've seen of them. Why does it matter that Danielson said he's retired, his career up to this point is exactly the same either way.

 

Also, holy shit when this started CM Punk was an active wrestler, we've been doing this a long time.

My issue is, what if they turn out like Kurt Angle and go from really good to the dirt worst? If we did this poll in 98, Shawn Michaels would be on my list. Doing it in 2016 he is not, due to his awful run post comeback. This is why I'm not voting for someone in their prime.

For me, the post-prime does nothing to diminish what he achieved before that which why HBK is making my list.

 

I'm convinced that negatives over-index in our thinking.

 

I think the post comeback proves he was not a smart worker and relied on his athleticism. I prefer workers who play to their strengths and don't look awful, because they are dumb.

 

The Rockers were really good and I liked his original heel DX run. Don't like him at all as a babyface outside of Rockers run. Plus, personally, I dislike the person a lot.

 

​But we still don't know if CM Punk and Daniel Bryan would've sucked when they're 40. Why is retiring prematurely different than still being in your prime?

 

They didn't prove they were stupid workers. Lawler, Funk, Tenryu, almost all luchadores prove you can be good and old if you adapt. Shawn wasn't that smart of a worker.

 

Punk and Bryan may be stupid workers, but there is no evidence that a 60 year old Bryan or Punk would still be doing the same match as they were in thier prime.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think the big difference is that the net result of the bad years for you is like -30 whereas for me it is just 0.

 

To me you can't take away from greatness once it is achieved.

 

You see it in sports all the time. Lionel Messi could go crap in the next ten years or never kick another football but his goat case is made. He can only add to it, he can't take away from it.

 

That is how I see it.

[Grimmas]

I think the big difference is that the net result of the bad years for you is like -30 whereas for me it is just 0.

 

To me you can't take away from greatness once it is achieved.

 

You see it in sports all the time. Lionel Messi could go crap in the next ten years or never kick another football but his goat case is made. He can only add to it, he can't take away from it.

 

That is how I see it.

For me depends how great the greatness was (I don't think Shawn was top 5 in the world at anytime outside of 97 maybe) and how they become crap. Jumbo was crap, because he was injured. He was also smart enough to work undercard comedy matches instead of epic main events at that time. That doesn't hurt him.

 

Shawn was crap, because the style he tried to work. He probably could had put on epic matches still, but he would had to have adjusted his style. If he couldn't, then he should had not tried to put on 40 minutes HIAC matches with his friend.

[JerryvonKramer]

Also I really do disagree with this idea that a worker at 50 can tell you something about the worker at 28, doesn't tell me anything about the worker at 28 only what he's like at 50.

 

Again I think of real sports. Like who cares what Thierry Henry was like at 35? Doesn't matter, it's what he was like when he was scoring shitloads of goals for Arsenal that matters.

 

Who cares if Kobasho was excessive in 2004? He was awesome in 1993.

 

Etc

 

One of those hard philosophical differences between some of us it seems.