Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Wrestlers who had a lot of great matches but aren't great


Grimmas

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is no single person on this board who looks at great matches and excludes all other factors entirely. Not one. It's a strawman.

Parv said he ranked Rick Steiner based on his top ten matches and nothing else.

 

Although he used BIGLAV, so that might discount what he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just bugs me because it's thrown out there and suddenly this thread needs an Under Construction sign because of all the locked-in narratives that are being built. I sound more worked up than I am, but it is something that is already showing signs of taking a life on of its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Varsity Club feud is underrated

Doom feud is great

New Japan crossover matches are legendary

Sting and Luger match has been unfairly maligned

Money Inc series is under the radar good

 

Rick has more output than a lot of guys.

 

He was a good worker during the Varsity Club & Doom feud. Good worker.

Some of the New Japan matches are overrated as hell (the very first one, who's the worst Sasaki & Hase match of the year), and those who aren't, well, some great japanese workers made those idiotic Steiners look like Gods. Rick was still good at this point though.

The Sting & Luger match is a fun spotfest and wildly overrated.

The Money Inc. stuff isn't very good. That cage match is awful.

 

By the mid 90's Rick Steiner was already sloppy and lazy. By the late 90's he was one of the worst worker anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

 

I have no issue with that at all. Number of great matches is absolutely a factor for a lot of people, self included, but to imply that anyone thinks it's the only thing that matters ... I thought we knew each other better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

That's probably the best assessment. Number of great matches being weighted so heavily bugged me a lot, especially if it was more important than how someone performs.

 

Some people were just in positions to have a TON of great matches and to have those seen by a lot of people. Others did not. The folks who didn't get those chances aren't necessarily worse than those who did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

 

I have no issue with that at all. Number of great matches is absolutely a factor for a lot of people, self included, but to imply that anyone thinks it's the only thing that matters ... I thought we knew each other better than that.

 

I didn't want to imply that is all that matters, just that it is weighted way too heavily to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to start a thread asking for examples of people with long lists of great matches who aren't great, so we don't detour this thread too much.

My last post on this though, it's not that they aren't great, it's just that it doesn't automatically make someone greater than someone who had way less great matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Great Match Theory debate popped up again in the list reactions thread, and rather than go down that rabbit hole there, I feel like this is worthy of a topic on its own. My questions are:

 

- Who are some wrestlers who have a long list of great matches that aren't great?

 

- What is it about those wrestlers that made them have so many great matches in spite of not being great?

 

- If great performances don't result in a great match, why is that? What do you think is usually missing in a not-great match that contains at least one great performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...