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

[WingedEagle]

Happily put Taue in my top 10. Not as athletic or dynamic as his peers, or many workers, but he had incredible timing, facials and mannerisms that saw him come across as more of a heel than most in a country where babyfaces and heels generally worked the same rather than see any kind of traditional dichotomy.

 

Never sold like Misawa or Kobashi, but who did? He was expressive in his own right and essentially carried himself at all times with two middle fingers raised at his opponents and anyone who'd look at him awkardly. Best tag team of all time? Check. Great cut-offs, double teams and finishers? Check. Capable of working on top or underneath in tag and multi-man matches? Check. Great singles matches against every big star to come through during the AJ glory days and a few from the next generation? Check, again.

 

Underappreciated, but when you play with 3 Jordans someone can still be Scottie Pippen.

[Frankensteiner]

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.

I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest that wrestlers don't get praised for working stiff when guys like Vader or the BattlArts mainstays have basically received a ton of praise because of their stiff, hard hitting style. Based on that one psychotic interview with Ikeda (or was it Ishikawa?) we know they take pride in working stiff. This is one reason I didn't have Ikeada on my list. I think it's very relevant, but the issue is that we're unable to tell who actually hurts their opponent and who doesn't (other than the self-admission by Ikeda, or when opponents criticize guys like Vader and Goldberg...)

 

I agree that some guys hit hard and it doesn't look great. But on average, I'd say it's far easier to make things look good when you're actually hitting harder.

[GOTNW]

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest that wrestlers don't get praised for working stiff when guys like Vader or the BattlArts mainstays have basically received a ton of praise because of their stiff, hard hitting style. Based on that one psychotic interview with Ikeda (or was it Ishikawa?) we know they take pride in working stiff. This is one reason I didn't have Ikeada on my list

Ditch's interview was with Ishikawa who seemed a little insecure about the whole thing. Ikeda has the time of his life going mountain climbing with his dog and replying to his GF/wife/IDK's comments on his photos like he's a teenage kid in love for the first time while also occasionally having super ultraviolent stifffests for the hell of it.

[The Russian Daydream]

Good grief! I wish I'd had the time to take part in this debate. I had Kobashi at 5 and Hart at 10 on my ballot so I obviously rate them both extremely highly. I think there are areas in which both could be termed greater but in the end Kobashi has it for me.

In terms of great matches, Kobashi obviously takes it, but he spent his career in an environment where there was an emphasis on having a particular type of great match, whereas Bret spent his prime in the WWF, where the emphasis is not so much on having 'great' matches.

Kobashi was also more over and a bigger draw for longer than Hart, but then Hart's prime came at a time and place when very little was over and drew.

As for their work in ring, I thought they were both tremendous at selling, in different ways. Offence-wise, Kobashi had a wider range of interesting offence, but Hart's execution of the things he did do was pretty much perfect every single time.

For me both are great but Kobashi is just a touch greater. I could easily accept the opposite opinion.

[The Man in Blak]

 

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.

 

 

I haven't rewatched the match to confirm, but there's also the story that Bret told on his podcast a few weeks ago where he started throwing shoot punches at Lawler during their SummerSlam match because he cracked him too hard with the crutch after the first match with Doink. I think Bret has a great record as far as safety goes, but that doesn't mean he was above taking a receipt from somebody that he thought was stepping out of bounds.

[Shrike02]

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.

 

 

 

 

It seems nonsensical for people to claim that Grimmas' position is indefensible. I'm not qualified to judge on the merits until I watch a whole bunch of Japan stuff, and re-watch all the Bret Hart matches I grew up seeing on TV, but it seems really dubious for various people to conclude there is no legitimate way to reach Grimmas' conclusions. This ranking process is inherently subjective and people are allowed to come up with different criteria in arriving at their results ...

[Eegah]

Oops. Wrong thread.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

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.

It seems nonsensical for people to claim that Grimmas' position is indefensible. I'm not qualified to judge on the merits until I watch a whole bunch of Japan stuff, and re-watch all the Bret Hart matches I grew up seeing on TV, but it seems really dubious for various people to conclude there is no legitimate way to reach Grimmas' conclusions. This ranking process is inherently subjective and people are allowed to come up with different criteria in arriving at their results ...

 

The debate is at an impasse and over now as far as I'm concerned. But I don't like one side being cast as a set of heels here, not the case.

 

To me Steven frequently comes off like Carey here, fittingly another Canadian:

 

 

The guy at wheel is reeling off all these amazing Kobashi matches and all these things Kobashi does better.

 

And he's just saying "no Bret is better, no Bret is better" over and over again. The whole debate, in my view, came off like that. And it's why I've never been comfortable removing output -- that is hard, tangible evidence -- from the equation. There has to be evidence to back up claims. The realm of pure subjectivity in any debate descends to the level of that gif. I mean cool, if that's what you want, great, but it doesn't lend itself to actually getting to heart of anything.

[Cap]

Yeah, I personally like Kobashi more and would have him higher, but I think there is a strong case for Hart. He is in a relatively short list of guys who I can see a solid argument for as a #1 choice and certainly wouldn't bat an eye at being in the top 10. I actually think the comparison between the two is a really interesting one because they both have such different careers, both are almost universally acknowledged as good to great wrestlers and they have very divergent skill-sets.

[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.

I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest that wrestlers don't get praised for working stiff when guys like Vader or the BattlArts mainstays have basically received a ton of praise because of their stiff, hard hitting style. Based on that one psychotic interview with Ikeda (or was it Ishikawa?) we know they take pride in working stiff. This is one reason I didn't have Ikeada on my list. I think it's very relevant, but the issue is that we're unable to tell who actually hurts their opponent and who doesn't (other than the self-admission by Ikeda, or when opponents criticize guys like Vader and Goldberg...)

 

I agree that some guys hit hard and it doesn't look great. But on average, I'd say it's far easier to make things look good when you're actually hitting harder.

 

 

Because the praise comes from how the stuff looks. Sometimes, "stiff" is used as shorthand for that, but it's about appearance of pain inflicted, not actual pain inflicted. That's what wrestling is.

[JerryvonKramer]

Because the praise comes from how the stuff looks. Sometimes, "stiff" is used as shorthand for that, but it's about appearance of pain inflicted, not actual pain inflicted. That's what wrestling is.

I think it's the sound as well as the visual.

[Cap]

The point about appearance vs pain is an apt one. I tend to sort of mark out for big shots and treat them on face value sometimes (which I guess is good), but all I care about is how good it looks, obviously. Plenty of still shots are thrown that look terrible and plenty of shots look like hot death that presumably didn't destroy the person taking them. Either way, I am a sucker for that appearance of stiff violence in a match. I do imagine that it is hard to fake sometimes. I imagine going through a match with Brock or Vader or even Hansen is just a physical challenge no matter how you cut it.

[Loss]

I appreciate the responses to my HHH question, but I want to change how I'm asking it because there's still something I don't understand.

 

Are there a hundred wrestlers we can name who are better or worse than their match resume would suggest? I'm asking because HHH and Antonio Inoki are the names I've seen mentioned, which if there are only a handful of wrestlers to whom this applies means that an entire approach of how to rank wrestlers is being rejected outright because of a few outliers.

 

On the subject of opportunity, I don't see how wrestlers not put in positions to have good matches have any way to prove their value as workers, at least not convincingly enough to rank on a list like this. I'm not saying that to dismiss anyone's opinion. I'm saying it because there are people whose opinions I value who disagree with me on this enough that I don't want to stop until I completely understand the opposing viewpoint.

 

I'm not seeking to change anyone's mind or prove anyone wrong. I'm just looking for it to make sense to me.

[Microstatistics]

 

 

 

 

Because the praise comes from how the stuff looks. Sometimes, "stiff" is used as shorthand for that, but it's about appearance of pain inflicted, not actual pain inflicted. That's what wrestling is.

 

 

That is a great point. I don't think people like El Satanico, Nick Bockwinkel and Buddy Rose actually work too stiff but their offense just seems so vicious and violent and so looks amazing.

[JerryvonKramer]

He is in a relatively short list of guys who I can see a solid argument for as a #1 choice and certainly wouldn't bat an eye at being in the top 10.

I think for a significant number of people, he is not on that shortlist, which was at the heart of the infamous and (now terrifying to look back on) Flair vs. Bret thread.

[Cap]

 

He is in a relatively short list of guys who I can see a solid argument for as a #1 choice and certainly wouldn't bat an eye at being in the top 10.

I think for a significant number of people, he is not on that shortlist, which was at the heart of the infamous and (now terrifying to look back on) Flair vs. Bret thread.

 

Ohhh I know. He is definitely not, but I think even in the grand scheme of things the arguments behind this comparison are generally issues of nuances and details. If you really think about it, if you have both of them in your top 50, that isn't THAT far apart in the grand scheme. It is magnified and more important because we are talking about the very top, where people have their investments, but of all the wrestlers that you have ever seen and all you could have seen and probably will see once you get time, 50 isn't THAT much. Its a point about scale and how I find the position of Hart over Kobashi defensible, even if I don't personally buy the defense myself.

[Shrike02]

The guy at wheel is reeling off all these amazing Kobashi matches and all these things Kobashi does better.

And he's just saying "no Bret is better, no Bret is better" over and over again. The whole debate, in my view, came off like that. And it's why I've never been comfortable removing output -- that is hard, tangible evidence -- from the equation. There has to be evidence to back up claims. The realm of pure subjectivity in any debate descends to the level of that gif. I mean cool, if that's what you want, great, but it doesn't lend itself to actually getting to heart of anything.

 

 

Firstly, I think you are grossly oversimplifying his position. Secondly, I have no reason to think someone arguing the opposite position from me is a heel.* Nor should you.

 

*= Let me admit right here, right now that I'm a lawyer and an Internet message board is not usually a place where I look to impose rigorous critical standards when it comes to evaluating arguments. That's what I do in my day job.

 

That being said ...

 

When it comes to evaluating pro wrestling, of course you have to look at the footage - that's the evidence in chief, as it were, which is recorded output - but then of course you have to then evaluate said evidence. That's where you get subjectivity from the observer. Grimmas is (as I see it) legitimately reaching a different conclusion than you are when comparing two wrestlers who by most rank in the top 99.9% of all pro wrestlers, ever. Surely it's not inconceivable for someone to reach a conclusion that by their own criteria rank Bret Hart higher than another great worker because of various features of his matches (output) and the demonstration of wrestling skills that he values more highly than you do (input).

[Grimmas]

 

 

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.

It seems nonsensical for people to claim that Grimmas' position is indefensible. I'm not qualified to judge on the merits until I watch a whole bunch of Japan stuff, and re-watch all the Bret Hart matches I grew up seeing on TV, but it seems really dubious for various people to conclude there is no legitimate way to reach Grimmas' conclusions. This ranking process is inherently subjective and people are allowed to come up with different criteria in arriving at their results ...

 

The debate is at an impasse and over now as far as I'm concerned. But I don't like one side being cast as a set of heels here, not the case.

 

To me Steven frequently comes off like Carey here, fittingly another Canadian:

 

 

The guy at wheel is reeling off all these amazing Kobashi matches and all these things Kobashi does better.

 

And he's just saying "no Bret is better, no Bret is better" over and over again. The whole debate, in my view, came off like that. And it's why I've never been comfortable removing output -- that is hard, tangible evidence -- from the equation. There has to be evidence to back up claims. The realm of pure subjectivity in any debate descends to the level of that gif. I mean cool, if that's what you want, great, but it doesn't lend itself to actually getting to heart of anything.

 

Seriously?

 

meh, if that's what you think cool. I completely disagree, but whatever I'm done with debating this with you.

[El Boricua]

I'm amazed at the level of back and forth over the difference of someone ranking Kobashi 18 and Bret Hart 5. In the grand scheme of things that's about 20 some points for the final tally, nothing really substantial with 151 ballots.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

meh, if that's what you think cool. I completely disagree, but whatever I'm done with debating this with you.

[Grimmas]

 

meh, if that's what you think cool. I completely disagree, but whatever I'm done with debating this with you.

 

by the way, best scene ever.

[Dylan Waco]

I could have left Bret off my list entirely, and really don't see any criteria where I could buy him as a number one contender that wasn't almost exclusively wedded to "emotional connection."

 

On the broader subject and speaking to Loss' post I wrote a very long post that gave more examples than Inoki and HHH and spoke to some other things relevant to Loss' questions that seems to have been avoided like the plague. I think it might get at the heart of some of the differences here, maybe not. But worth looking at if you haven't already

[JerryvonKramer]

That said I don't think great matches are the be all, end all. I don't even think good matches are the be all, end all.

Neither do I. Roughly one sixth of what I think the #1 GWE needs.

 

And I also think that context is really critical at times, and that gets really lost if the focus is solely on "was this match good."

 

The example I always point to here is a comparison between the way Nick Bockwinkel worked Jake Milliman, and the way Ric Flair worked George South. I think watched in isolation it would be almost impossible to argue that the Bock v. Milliman match was better. It was completely devoid of drama, had little meat to it, and wasn't long enough to exhibit anything in way of build, deep psychology, super highspots, et. By contrast Flair v. South (or least least my memory of it) had many of those things and was extremely dramatic to be watching it live as a child. I thought South was going to beat the World Champion and was losing my shit! It worked on me!

 

But why the fuck was the World Champion playing "just barely escape!" with a literal jobber who I had never seen win a television match? It made zero sense. In the past when I have brought this up some have conceded this point and argued that the Bock v. Milliman match was better without even seeing it. But I literally cannot imagine anyone thinking it was a "better" match given how we tend to evaluate things. It was a smarter and more logical match.

 

None of this is to argue that I think Bock is better than Flair, and I swear I'm not just picking on Flair (I've made a similar context criticism about a Rey v. Eddie match from 2004 that I think is great in isolation). The point is that this is an instance where I would be hard pressed to argue against Flair v. South being better as a match, while I also thinking that Bockwinkel's performance was better than Flair's. I'll freely concede that others may disagree if they have a different view about what the goal of a champion or one of the matches in question was, but that is my takeaway.

I think things like this are a factor but all too often have over-indexed in these discussions. I'm sure I've seen that George South match referenced almost as many times than I've seen Flair vs. Morton from 86 mentioned.

 

Steven when justifying not voting for Harley mentioned a piledriver he did outside on a JTTS in WWF. Yeah, but what about the whole career?

 

I really do feel like small paradigmatic examples of a negative over-index in assessments. I've done it myself, I'm sure. When someone mentions a guy I'm lower on, my mind bee-lines to some of the reasons for that. Like I'm sure that Benoit match I don't like would come up before long if someone asked me about why I didn't rank Angle. But I hope you get what I'm saying.

 

I don't like the idea of tiny little details like Flair giving South too much or making Terry Gordy gorilla press him being brought to bear against the METRIC.FUCK.TON of quality performances he has committed to tape. It seems ... disproportionate.

[JerryvonKramer]

I've thought of an analogy. Picture a giant mountain, like Everest or something, and a normal needle that you'd mend a pair of socks. The criticism to me seems like trying to use a needle to poke at the side of a mountain.

 

Putting the needle before the mountain -- when it comes to assessing a GWE case -- seems pretty counter-intuitive to me.

[Grimmas]

 

Steven when justifying not voting for Harley mentioned a piledriver he did outside on a JTTS in WWF. Yeah, but what about the whole career?

 

I really do feel like small paradigmatic examples of a negative over-index in assessments. I've done it myself, I'm sure. When someone mentions a guy I'm lower on, my mind bee-lines to some of the reasons for that. Like I'm sure that Benoit match I don't like would come up before long if someone asked me about why I didn't rank Angle. But I hope you get what I'm saying.

 

I don't like the idea of tiny little details like Flair giving South too much or making Terry Gordy gorilla press him being brought to bear against the METRIC.FUCK.TON of quality performances he has committed to tape. It seems ... disproportionate.

 

I don't really like any of Harley's career though. That piledriver is just an example of what I don't like about him. I have never watched a Harley match and thought Harley was awesome. Not once.

 

It's not like I picked that one thing and it discounted everything else, it's just that everything else was nothing I thought was great either.