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

[Loss]

It's funny that Bret would always say stuff like that when he had a reputation for working really stiff. I realize stiff can be safe in some cases, but some guys took it a step further than that even.

[Grimmas]

 

I think I'm going to deep dive into Parv's list of Kobashi matches for giggles as I get the chance. I should finish around never.

Something that some might not be aware of on that list of matches. I watched ALL of them with Steven (aka Grimmas) on a show we do together called the All Japan Excite Series. He, himself, gave 4.75 or 5 stars to almost all of them too.

 

Part of this whole argument is because I know how highly Steven rates those matches and those Kobashi performances, and yet he's still basically turning from them to put Bret over.

 

It's trying to understand his thought process really, how he can be the same guy who I've talked All Japan with for literally 18+ hours. I cannot square it really.

 

Read Stacey's post again.

[Jingus]

It's funny that Bret would always say stuff like that when he had a reputation for working really stiff. I realize stiff can be safe in some cases, but some guys took it a step further than that even.

I think "really stiff" is probably vastly overstating it, I don't remember anyone except for frequently-full-of-shit Bad News Allen claiming that Bret was physically painful to work. I hear more complaints about Stone Cold's punches than I've ever heard about anything Hart ever did. But on the subject of freak injuries, even Bret himself has occasionally mentioned "well, there was this ONE time I hurt someone" about a few different occasions (I specifically recall him talking about injuring Randy Savage's foot in a SNME match), so the eternal talking point about Bret being the safest worker ever is pure bullshit.

[Cap]

Sure... of course his record as perfect is bull shit, but that isn't the point. My guess is that on the continuum he would fall somewhere "safer" or "less painful" than your average All Japan match in the 90s. I am just curious if that is something anyone thinks about when thinking about what constitutes a great wrestler, or if it even might be something sort of implicit in their thinking.

[Jingus]

To an extent, yeah. But it depends on how much I like the guy, it's not a fair bias. I tend to forgive Stan Hansen's insane stiffness because I enjoy all his stuff otherwise, while I'm more likely to complain about Low-Ki's stiffness because I often find him to be a useless selfish lump who is ALSO guilty of hitting people way too hard.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

I think I'm going to deep dive into Parv's list of Kobashi matches for giggles as I get the chance. I should finish around never.

Something that some might not be aware of on that list of matches. I watched ALL of them with Steven (aka Grimmas) on a show we do together called the All Japan Excite Series. He, himself, gave 4.75 or 5 stars to almost all of them too.

 

Part of this whole argument is because I know how highly Steven rates those matches and those Kobashi performances, and yet he's still basically turning from them to put Bret over.

 

It's trying to understand his thought process really, how he can be the same guy who I've talked All Japan with for literally 18+ hours. I cannot square it really.

 

Read Stacey's post again.

 

 

Yeah, I've read it. I still don't see how you can just dismiss such a huge swaithe of output like that. It seems whimsical. I mean clearly you haven't entirely, he's your #18.

 

Anyway, you've explained your position. I've explained mine. I still think you are nuts putting Bret where you have -- not objectively "wrong" mind you, just "nuts" -- but I reckon it's time to move on.

[Grimmas]

I think some of your rankings are nuts too. Best not to dwell on them.

[JerryvonKramer]

And yet we both had Rick Martel in our top 20s!

[Grimmas]

And yet we both had Rick Martel in our top 20s!

We are both smart.. sometimes.

[Loss]

I would like to seek clarification on one thing. Do the people who don't think HHH is a great worker genuinely think all (or even most) of the most commonly-referenced matches are great? Or are you just pointing to matches people frequently cite as great? He's the worker I've seen cited the most. For those of you opposed to using great matches as the key metric, is HHH the first wrestler that usually comes to mind in your head when you think about why? I'm trying to figure out just how much of this is about HHH.

[goc]

Inoki is the other guy to point to besides HHH and I guess would not be quite as contentious because most people seem to agree that the great Inoki matches are truly great.

[JerryvonKramer]

Inoki is the other guy to point to besides HHH and I guess would not be quite as contentious because most people seem to agree that the great Inoki matches are truly great.

It also feels "wrong" to say that Inoki was not one of the all-time greats given his almost god-like status in wrestling lore and history.

 

He has the intangibles factor and a big chin, whereas Hunter has woeful 20-minute promos and a big nose.

[Childs]

Sure... of course his record as perfect is bull shit, but that isn't the point. My guess is that on the continuum he would fall somewhere "safer" or "less painful" than your average All Japan match in the 90s. I am just curious if that is something anyone thinks about when thinking about what constitutes a great wrestler, or if it even might be something sort of implicit in their thinking.

 

I don't care about guys working safe. To me, that's an issue between workers and has little to do with my experience as a viewer. I completely understand why it's relevant to wrestlers when they talk about who's good, and I find that kind of analysis interesting in its own way. It's just not something I thought about for one second in the context of this project.

[MoS]

I think most of HHH's most touted matches range from very good to great - in the 3.75-4 stars, if you want to quantify it - which is very good, even if they are not the mythical epics that the WWE machine pretends they are. However, my issue is, to put it simply, that they are great despite HHH being in them. I love the Triple Threat at WM 20 (and Backlash 2004), yet I struggle to remember anything HHH did in that match, beyond tapping out very very slowly. The only time I can think of Hunter actively contributing to make a match excellent was the Daniel Bryan WM match.

[Cap]

 

Sure... of course his record as perfect is bull shit, but that isn't the point. My guess is that on the continuum he would fall somewhere "safer" or "less painful" than your average All Japan match in the 90s. I am just curious if that is something anyone thinks about when thinking about what constitutes a great wrestler, or if it even might be something sort of implicit in their thinking.

 

I don't care about guys working safe. To me, that's an issue between workers and has little to do with my experience as a viewer. I completely understand why it's relevant to wrestlers when they talk about who's good, and I find that kind of analysis interesting in its own way. It's just not something I thought about for one second in the context of this project.

 

Makes sense. I think sort of along these lines. If anything I tend to be bias toward stiffness as bringing a rawness to a match (Hansen, Brock, Super Dragon, Joe, Ki, Most of AJ and AJW in the 90s, Necro Butcher).

 

 

As for HHH, I talked about him a bit. I do NOT think he is great at all, but I tend to think of him in this context because of matches cited mostly by others and because his list of matches that I have (or would have) at 4+ stars is probably disproportionate to how I feel about him as a wrestler on the whole.

 

Another case for me that sort of makes sense in a different way for me is HBK. I actively didn't like HBK for a while. Some of that was having the return most recent in my mind; some of that was push-back against the WWE's narrative, but I didn't care for him. When I started rating matches, seeing him in the AWA, and revisiting some of his higher points as IC and WWF champ I really couldn't deny the output to the point where I like him a lot more now even though my thoughts on the details of how he wrestles didn't really change much. The AWA stuff expanded my view of his input a little. He still isn't one of my favorites. he probably wouldn't make my top 100, but he has a pretty impressive list of 4+star matches and a pretty diverse set of opponents, a few I even list among some of my personal favorites. His output made me like him more even though my general feeling about his input changed very little.

[Frankensteiner]

 

Sure... of course his record as perfect is bull shit, but that isn't the point. My guess is that on the continuum he would fall somewhere "safer" or "less painful" than your average All Japan match in the 90s. I am just curious if that is something anyone thinks about when thinking about what constitutes a great wrestler, or if it even might be something sort of implicit in their thinking.

 

I don't care about guys working safe. To me, that's an issue between workers and has little to do with my experience as a viewer. I completely understand why it's relevant to wrestlers when they talk about who's good, and I find that kind of analysis interesting in its own way. It's just not something I thought about for one second in the context of this project.

 

I think it's relevant. Wrestlers get points for working stiff while others get deducts for working loose. There's obviously a certain art to it. Plenty of guys would probably be considered better offensive wrestlers if they did not care about protecting their opponents. The problem is it's difficult to discern who's actually hurting their opponent. I still personally ranked Vader above Michaels partially because Vader is better offensively, but if Michaels was as careless as Vader (by all accounts) with his strikes, he probably would be looked at more favorably in terms of offense.

[Loss]

No one gets credit for "working stiff". Unless we're taking the shot, we really don't know. But if their stuff looks good, they do get credit. Some guys hit hard and it doesn't look great. Some guys work really light and their stuff looks great. To me, it's more about execution than how much it hurt the other wrestler. I don't think we're rewarding carelessness. We're rewarding stuff that looks like it hurts. Whether it really does or not is irrelevant.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah that.

 

RVD is a guy who is loose and dangerous, and he gets loads of shit for it, not praise. So I don't buy that Michaels line.

[Dylan Waco]

 

Inoki is the other guy to point to besides HHH and I guess would not be quite as contentious because most people seem to agree that the great Inoki matches are truly great.

It also feels "wrong" to say that Inoki was not one of the all-time greats given his almost god-like status in wrestling lore and history.

 

He has the intangibles factor and a big chin, whereas Hunter has woeful 20-minute promos and a big nose.

He's not at Inoki's level necessarily, but HHH is widely loved and revered

[joeg]

I don't really care what metric you judge. Kobashi drew more money than Hart. Kobashi's best matches were better than Hart's best matches. Kobashi's average weekly TV match was better than Hart's average weekly TV match. So please explain how Hart was better than Kobashi?

'

[WingedEagle]

Doesn't matter, all votes are equal and none are questionable.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dare I mention Akira Taue for this thread?

[joeg]

Taue is awesome. He isn't the most athletic dude in the world. Actually he always reminded me of Foley in that he had a horrible look and no athleticism, but at least he was tall. I can't think of how somebody could say Taue was a bad wrestler. A bad athlete? Absolutely. But not a bad wrestler. I would imagine that he would do very well on some metric such as the BIGLAV. I would imagine that his BIGLAV score would be in the high 30s to low 40s. Anyways I have him placed in my top 20, right below Hashimoto but above Akiyama who is a far superior athlete.

[JerryvonKramer]

This was Taue's BIGLAV score:

30. Akira Taue 8 4 10 8 2 8 40 90s Japanese

[Grimmas]

I don't really care what metric you judge. Kobashi drew more money than Hart. Kobashi's best matches were better than Hart's best matches. Kobashi's average weekly TV match was better than Hart's average weekly TV match. So please explain how Hart was better than Kobashi?

'

Read the post by Stacey summarizing my thoughts. Listen to the Super Show where I lay out my case. If you don't agree with me fine, but I think Bret Hart is a better pro-wrestler than Kenta Kobashi.