Greatest vs best

[Loss]

I made a comment in Shawn's thread alluding to a difference between the two words and wanted to clarify how I used them in case anyone was curious.

 

I consider the best worker the most talented guy, in terms of physical gifts and ability to connect to an audience. I consider the greatest wrestler the guy who did a better job of transcending his toolbox to deliver matches that even people who aren't normally fans of the genre or style can appreciate.

 

I have made the comment in the past that in order for a guy to be considered a great wrestler to me, his whole needs to exceed the sum of his parts. In other words, his intangibles are strong enough that they overcome any flaws that he may have and make them either meaningless or less glaring than they would be otherwise. So someone like Brad Armstrong never did that in a way that I'd say someone like Shawn Michaels did, even though I'd consider Brad Armstrong the much better *worker* in terms of athletic ability, execution and match layout.

 

I don't expect anyone else to agree to that framework or use the terms the same way, but for my purposes, I thought it was important to elaborate. I didn't want to do it in the Michaels thread because I'd rather keep that thread about Shawn.

[Bierschwale]

I always think of "greatest vs. best" as longevity vs. peak. Which this is, in a way. A discreet action of Armstrong's is better than the same discreet action of Michaels. But his whole/longevity beats Armstrong's moment/peak.

 

Great elaboration.

[Ship Canal]

 

I consider the greatest wrestler the guy who did a better job of transcending his toolbox to deliver matches that even people who aren't normally fans of the genre or style can appreciate.

 

 

I'm not sure I follow this entirely, or at least I'm unsure about why its the prime designator of the greatest in your view... I've maybe misinterpreted it but when you talk about transcending toolbox/skillset in that regard do you mean you would always be more inclined to view someone who becomes more than the sum of their parts as great because that's a more impressive achievement than, say, someone with more intrinsic gifts - someone who has, if you like, had to work less hard to transcend, who is more of a "natural" in some or several areas of their all round wrestling game?

[Loss]

That's not really it. It's more about body of work. For me, a very good worker with a long list of really great matches would rank above an even better worker without much to show for it in the way of matches. Basically, "best worker ever" is in my interpretation about things like who threw the best suplex or worked the mat best, while "greatest worker ever" seems to be something bigger than that.

[MoS]

I think of it as the opposite, but I have always thought of it in sports terms, and not from a pro wrestling purpose. For example, Novak Djokovic might end up being the best of all-time, but for his sheer talent and beautiful play, Roger Federer will always be the greatest for me.

 

I do not really know how to import it into pro wrestling though.

[goodhelmet]

Someone can be great but not the best. If you're the best then by default you should be great at whatever you are measuring. IN fact, I am creating my own 10 point system to illustrate why I think Jerry Lawler is the greatest wrestler of all time who happened to be the best at many things.

[Childs]

JLKINGLAV ... dammit, that's nine.

[goodhelmet]

Close

[Johnny Sorrow]

PARVSTINKS

 

Punches

Acting

Rasslin'

Villiany

Superhero-ness

Terry Funk's Eye

Nick Bockwinkel foe

Kingliness

Selling

[goodhelmet]

Close.

[Shrike02]

New member to the board. Been catching up on the GWE project, listening to podcasts and reading the forum topics.

 

I"m a bit stunned that methodologies and criteria were not more cogently defined as this project took shape. Where might one find anything close to a comprehensive list of factors to consider in arriving at these top 100 lists?

[Jimmy Redman]

You'd have to ask everyone for their own individual criteria, basically. It was left open ended for a reason - everyone could decide what "greatest" meant to them.

 

I think the only remotely official criteria was that it was based on footage, and not hearsay or reputation (eliminating anyone too early or obscure for us to have footage of).

[Loss]

Yeah, it was purposely left vague, although we had countless criteria conversations, which were my favorite part of the project, more so than the ballot or anything else, because it helped me formulate some thoughts I can take with me when this is all over.

 

This folder has all of those threads. Reading through them should give you a good idea of the journey many of us took.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think there is anyway to arrive at a fixed criteria for something like this that wouldn't absolutely destroy the entire point of the project in the first place. That's not to say I can't appreciate the value of something like BIGLAV for Parv, and I actually ended up applying a more fixed criteria than I would have guessed myself, but to me this is a humanities project, not a science one.

[shoe]

Of course their could have been a more rigid system. Who's to say that everyone would have followed it.

[Parties]

Alright, I genuinely LOLed at Sorrow's post. Kingliness is an underrated GWE criterion.

[Exposer]

I certainly counted live viewing as part of my criteria. A lot of the southern indie shows I've been to never made circulation but I couldn't eliminate those influences from my ballot. I saw it as more "Greatest Wrestler Ever I've seen anywhere at anytime"

[Grimmas]

In retrospect I really should had pushed for Tyson Dux and Eric Young to be nominated.

[goodhelmet]

PARVSTINKS

 

Punches

Acting

Rasslin'

Villiany

Superhero-ness

Terry Funk's Eye

Nick Bockwinkel foe

Kingliness

Selling

3 of these made the final list