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

[kjh]

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

 

tl;dr brother. Actually I did read and didn't take too kindly to the math bashing. It also begged the question whether we should rank a Bret Hart above a Kobashi for working a safer style and not being so willing to destroy his body for his art (which ironically Bret in the end did too, but that was a freak accident and poor injury management)? Not saying I would, but if you place a strong emphasis on getting the most out of minimal risk, I can see voting Bret above Kobashi.

[Dylan Waco]

I'd be more sympathetic to that approach if Bret's career and life weren't what they were and if the guys peak was clearly longer than say Brian Pillman's - it wasn't.

 

To Parv's comment the point wasn't to use that as an example to illustrate the flaws of Flar, but rather to point to a pretty clear example where factors other than just a matches quality could be examined to make judgments about a wrestlers performance. Number of snowflakes does not tell us much about performance in and of itself, and say working for card placement to take one other example strikes me as a method some could use to analyze a worker that I would struggle to find objectionable.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd be more sympathetic to that approach if Bret's career and life weren't what they were and if the guys peak was clearly longer than say Brian Pillman's - it wasn't.

 

To Parv's comment the point wasn't to use that as an example to illustrate the flaws of Flar, but rather to point to a pretty clear example where factors other than just a matches quality could be examined to make judgments about a wrestlers performance. Number of snowflakes does not tell us much about performance in and of itself, and say working for card placement to take one other example strikes me as a method some could use to analyze a worker that I would struggle to find objectionable.

I guess my struggle time and time again with this is the very idea of Chief Jay Strongbow and why more people don't champion him.

 

I'd be much more receptive to it if people could find a way to square "context" with also thinking he sucks.

 

The arguments I made for him and Putski were not just facetious piss-takes of "The Matt D view", they put forward arguments that Johnny and others have tried to articulate before about the importance of time and place, and doing the right thing for the context.

 

I realise this is on the extreme end of things, but one way to test ideas is to push at the limits.

[Grimmas]

 

I'd be more sympathetic to that approach if Bret's career and life weren't what they were and if the guys peak was clearly longer than say Brian Pillman's - it wasn't.

 

To Parv's comment the point wasn't to use that as an example to illustrate the flaws of Flar, but rather to point to a pretty clear example where factors other than just a matches quality could be examined to make judgments about a wrestlers performance. Number of snowflakes does not tell us much about performance in and of itself, and say working for card placement to take one other example strikes me as a method some could use to analyze a worker that I would struggle to find objectionable.

I guess my struggle time and time again with this is the very idea of Chief Jay Strongbow and why more people don't champion him.

 

I'd be much more receptive to it if people could find a way to square "context" with also thinking he sucks.

 

The arguments I made for him and Putski were not just facetious piss-takes of "The Matt D view", they put forward arguments that Johnny and others have tried to articulate before about the important of time and place, and doing the right thing for the context.

 

I realise this is on the extreme end of things, but one way to test ideas is to push at the limits.

 

Chief Jay is like a big action movie that stinks, but makes a lot of money. Nobody thinks it deserves an Oscar.

[Matt D]

I'll watch more Titans era stuff as we go. I think that what Parv is talking about IS far more championed IN GENERAL than it was ten years ago. I don't think that people are inconsistent. I just think they haven't gotten to all footage yet. If you want to see me walking along those lines about something different you can look at the articles I wrote to go along with your podcast where I was trying to get at matches in a different sort of way.

[JerryvonKramer]

Chief Jay is like a big action movie that stinks, but makes a lot of money. Nobody thinks it deserves an Oscar.

But he did exactly the right things at exactly the right times for the context. He really did. He's the most efficient wrestler I've ever seen. So what gives?

[Grimmas]

 

Chief Jay is like a big action movie that stinks, but makes a lot of money. Nobody thinks it deserves an Oscar.

But he did exactly the right things at exactly the right times for the context. He really did. He's the most efficient wrestler I've ever seen. So what gives?

 

I really haven't watched much Strongbow at all. Hit me with some recs that are on youtube.

[Dylan Waco]

 

I'd be more sympathetic to that approach if Bret's career and life weren't what they were and if the guys peak was clearly longer than say Brian Pillman's - it wasn't.

 

To Parv's comment the point wasn't to use that as an example to illustrate the flaws of Flar, but rather to point to a pretty clear example where factors other than just a matches quality could be examined to make judgments about a wrestlers performance. Number of snowflakes does not tell us much about performance in and of itself, and say working for card placement to take one other example strikes me as a method some could use to analyze a worker that I would struggle to find objectionable.

I guess my struggle time and time again with this is the very idea of Chief Jay Strongbow and why more people don't champion him.

 

I'd be much more receptive to it if people could find a way to square "context" with also thinking he sucks.

 

The arguments I made for him and Putski were not just facetious piss-takes of "The Matt D view", they put forward arguments that Johnny and others have tried to articulate before about the importance of time and place, and doing the right thing for the context.

 

I realise this is on the extreme end of things, but one way to test ideas is to push at the limits.

As an Aristotelian I search (perhaps in vain) for the Golden Mean.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

Chief Jay is like a big action movie that stinks, but makes a lot of money. Nobody thinks it deserves an Oscar.

But he did exactly the right things at exactly the right times for the context. He really did. He's the most efficient wrestler I've ever seen. So what gives?

 

I really haven't watched much Strongbow at all. Hit me with some recs that are on youtube.

 

I'll point you again to the 1973 match at MSG vs. Fuji. It's on youtube.

[Jimmy Redman]

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.

 

The short simple answer to this is that sometimes there is more to being a good worker than having lots of good matches.

 

I like Dylan's point and see that as legitimate argument, although not the one that sways me the most personally. There are exceptions (like Owen Hart, for example, and it's the main reason why I put him on my list) but I'm not someone who usually cares too much about working effectively to your card placement and working to get the goals of the promoter over and all that. (But again I can see why other people do care about that and use it as a non-match quality way to rate a worker)

 

But there are absolutely ways to show your worth as a wrestler without being able to point to a list of great, or even good matches. Maybe a guy can work interesting spots or moments into matches that aren't so good. Maybe he's the bright spot in otherwise crummy matches. Maybe a guy can work really interesting finishers that stick in your mind, even if the match that proceeded it wasn't great. Maybe a guy is an unbelievable spot monkey who can blow people's minds with the moves they can do. Maybe a guy can express a range of emotions in a match, or he's great at selling, or working a limb, or whatever else. Maybe it's whatever else he's doing as a performer that tells you that he's a good worker, even if you can't point to specific matches that can be rated "good" or "great". There are many reasons why a match might not be great and a lot of them have nothing to do with the work going on in the ring.

 

Fuck man I'm not explaining myself well at all. The one guy I can point to for sure as evidence for me is Santino Marella. That guy was so great as a comedy worker, just totally getting it. He understood his role perfectly and knew how to be entertaining. He came up with cool ass spots to do in his matches that worked and got over and popped the crowd. That Cobra was a brilliant goofy comedy finisher. He had great crowd control and kept his segments, promos and matches entertaining. I could watch him work all day, and if it was a Top 150 I'd have nominated him for sure.

 

I can also list his really good matches on one hand.

 

To me he has proven his value to me as a worker, from all of the great comedy work he does, all of the ways in which he keeps my interest in his segments and matches, and his talent at things like timing, crowd control, selling and emoting, etc. He was wildly and consistently entertaining. He just doesn't have a lot of individual matches that I could point to as being particularly good. And I couldn't give a shit.

[Dylan Waco]

 

 

 

Chief Jay is like a big action movie that stinks, but makes a lot of money. Nobody thinks it deserves an Oscar.

But he did exactly the right things at exactly the right times for the context. He really did. He's the most efficient wrestler I've ever seen. So what gives?

I really haven't watched much Strongbow at all. Hit me with some recs that are on youtube.

I'll point you again to the 1973 match at MSG vs. Fuji. It's on youtube.

What positive inputs does Jay bring?

[Loss]

 

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.

 

The short simple answer to this is that sometimes there is more to being a good worker than having lots of good matches.

 

I like Dylan's point and see that as legitimate argument, although not the one that sways me the most personally. There are exceptions (like Owen Hart, for example, and it's the main reason why I put him on my list) but I'm not someone who usually cares too much about working effectively to your card placement and working to get the goals of the promoter over and all that. (But again I can see why other people do care about that and use it as a non-match quality way to rate a worker)

 

But there are absolutely ways to show your worth as a wrestler without being able to point to a list of great, or even good matches. Maybe a guy can work interesting spots or moments into matches that aren't so good. Maybe he's the bright spot in otherwise crummy matches. Maybe a guy can work really interesting finishers that stick in your mind, even if the match that proceeded it wasn't great. Maybe a guy is an unbelievable spot monkey who can blow people's minds with the moves they can do. Maybe a guy can express a range of emotions in a match, or he's great at selling, or working a limb, or whatever else. Maybe it's whatever else he's doing as a performer that tells you that he's a good worker, even if you can't point to specific matches that can be rated "good" or "great". There are many reasons why a match might not be great and a lot of them have nothing to do with the work going on in the ring.

 

Fuck man I'm not explaining myself well at all. The one guy I can point to for sure as evidence for me is Santino Marella. That guy was so great as a comedy worker, just totally getting it. He understood his role perfectly and knew how to be entertaining. He came up with cool ass spots to do in his matches that worked and got over and popped the crowd. That Cobra was a brilliant goofy comedy finisher. He had great crowd control and kept his segments, promos and matches entertaining. I could watch him work all day, and if it was a Top 150 I'd have nominated him for sure.

 

I can also list his really good matches on one hand.

 

To me he has proven his value to me as a worker, from all of the great comedy work he does, all of the ways in which he keeps my interest in his segments and matches, and his talent at things like timing, crowd control, selling and emoting, etc. He was wildly and consistently entertaining. He just doesn't have a lot of individual matches that I could point to as being particularly good. And I couldn't give a shit.

 

I can see finding things to enjoy about a worker who has their moments of isolated fun for sure. I just don't see any wrestlers like that coming up on a GWE list. Did you consider Santino? That's all I'm saying.

[Matt D]

It's more of an issue for someone with just a few opportunities for great matches, well used, and a whole lot of opportunities to show his qualities in other ways. That could rank higher than someone with many more great matches that may feel similar or not come off as challenging or who shows flaws in other ways etc.

 

It's a complex puzzle looking at wrestlers over a career of matches where they are called upon to do so many things.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

 

 

Chief Jay is like a big action movie that stinks, but makes a lot of money. Nobody thinks it deserves an Oscar.

But he did exactly the right things at exactly the right times for the context. He really did. He's the most efficient wrestler I've ever seen. So what gives?

 

I really haven't watched much Strongbow at all. Hit me with some recs that are on youtube.

 

I'll point you again to the 1973 match at MSG vs. Fuji. It's on youtube.

 

What positive inputs does Jay bring?

 

Mainly psychology, timing and crowd control. He is better at those three things than most of the current WWE roster.

[Jimmy Redman]

To me the thing about the Chief Jay argument is that at the end of the day, being effective in your role only gets you so far unless you're actually entertaining or engaging in your role as well. Otherwise it's not going to interest people.

The people who use the argument you're talking about aren't saying "Man I sat through this God awful, batshit boring match that would. Not. End. BUT I guess they got a lot out of a headlock so they are great workers!"

People are saying "Man I watched this match where they did a lot of cool things with a headlock, it was so simple but it was so great and the crowd ate it up, these guys are great workers."

Nobody regrets sitting through the second match. If they did, they wouldn't rate it that highly. Kind of like how nobody rates Strongbow. If someone liked watching Jay's matches and found effective work in them, I'm sure they could and would rate him. I just haven't seen anyone get there yet.

 

 

 

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.

 

The short simple answer to this is that sometimes there is more to being a good worker than having lots of good matches.

I like Dylan's point and see that as legitimate argument, although not the one that sways me the most personally. There are exceptions (like Owen Hart, for example, and it's the main reason why I put him on my list) but I'm not someone who usually cares too much about working effectively to your card placement and working to get the goals of the promoter over and all that. (But again I can see why other people do care about that and use it as a non-match quality way to rate a worker)

 

But there are absolutely ways to show your worth as a wrestler without being able to point to a list of great, or even good matches. Maybe a guy can work interesting spots or moments into matches that aren't so good. Maybe he's the bright spot in otherwise crummy matches. Maybe a guy can work really interesting finishers that stick in your mind, even if the match that proceeded it wasn't great. Maybe a guy is an unbelievable spot monkey who can blow people's minds with the moves they can do. Maybe a guy can express a range of emotions in a match, or he's great at selling, or working a limb, or whatever else. Maybe it's whatever else he's doing as a performer that tells you that he's a good worker, even if you can't point to specific matches that can be rated "good" or "great". There are many reasons why a match might not be great and a lot of them have nothing to do with the work going on in the ring.

 

Fuck man I'm not explaining myself well at all. The one guy I can point to for sure as evidence for me is Santino Marella. That guy was so great as a comedy worker, just totally getting it. He understood his role perfectly and knew how to be entertaining. He came up with cool ass spots to do in his matches that worked and got over and popped the crowd. That Cobra was a brilliant goofy comedy finisher. He had great crowd control and kept his segments, promos and matches entertaining. I could watch him work all day, and if it was a Top 150 I'd have nominated him for sure.

I can also list his really good matches on one hand.

 

To me he has proven his value to me as a worker, from all of the great comedy work he does, all of the ways in which he keeps my interest in his segments and matches, and his talent at things like timing, crowd control, selling and emoting, etc. He was wildly and consistently entertaining. He just doesn't have a lot of individual matches that I could point to as being particularly good. And I couldn't give a shit.

 

I can see finding things to enjoy about a worker who has their moments of isolated fun for sure. I just don't see any wrestlers like that coming up on a GWE list. Did you consider Santino? That's all I'm saying.

 

 

I did, and like I said above if I had 150 spots to play with I'd have definitely nominated him, and probably voted for him down the end of my ballot.

He's an extreme example because he has such a dearth of good matches, but he works to make my point. There are ways to judge a wrestler positively that have little or nothing to do with a list of good matches.

[Loss]

Your post, by the way, really helped me understand the flip side of the argument. Thank you. I'm getting there.

[JerryvonKramer]

To me the thing about the Chief Jay argument is that at the end of the day, being effective in your role only gets you so far unless you're actually entertaining or engaging in your role as well. Otherwise it's not going to interest people.

 

The people who use the argument you're talking about aren't saying "Man I sat through this God awful, batshit boring match that would. Not. End. BUT I guess they got a lot out of a headlock so they are great workers!"

 

People are saying "Man I watched this match where they did a lot of cool things with a headlock, it was so simple but it was so great and the crowd ate it up, these guys are great workers."

 

Nobody regrets sitting through the second match. If they did, they wouldn't rate it that highly. Kind of like how nobody rates Strongbow. If someone liked watching Jay's matches and found effective work in them, I'm sure they could and would rate him. I just haven't seen anyone get there yet.

It's interesting you used the word "effective", because he was much more effective than many other guys in front of that crowd.

 

One of my absolute favourites Yatsu wrestled in front of that crowd and you could hear crickets for him. No one gave a shit. Strongbow brought them alive. And he was able to do it for over a decade long past his prime.

 

I put him forward not as an outlier -- but absolutely as an example of someone fantastic "in context" and who generally always did the right thing in his matches for the situation.

 

Most of the time his job was *not* to have good matches. He could have them on occassion (vs. Valentine, vs. Fuji / Saito), but most of the time he was there to pop the crowd a bit in the middle of long and dreary cards.

[JerryvonKramer]

I guess my ulimate point with this is that the stuff you can point to for a guy like Strongbow is *good* for a deeper appreciation of wrestling. It's actually some interesting stuff to think about. And despite my hatred for the man, I have developed a fascination and grudging admiration for some of those long-time mid-card (W)WWF acts.

 

But -- I contend -- none of that stuff matters much to a GWE case. *Good* for apprecating wrestling. *Bad* for making GWE cases.

 

That's more or less my position. Do you disagree?

[Matt D]

Why?

 

Because of a narrow definition of greatness that follows from a very specific tradition?

 

It's a question that's been worth raising throughout this process, over and over, and over again.

 

I think it's very cool that you're reaching a point where you're very close to asking it, Parv, or at least of admitting that it's possibly worth asking.

[Jimmy Redman]

I guess my ulimate point with this is that the stuff you can point to for a guy like Strongbow is *good* for a deeper appreciation of wrestling. It's actually some interesting stuff to think about. And despite my hatred for the man, I have developed a fascination and grudging admiration for some of those long-time mid-card (W)WWF acts.

 

But -- I contend -- none of that stuff matters much to a GWE case. *Good* for apprecating wrestling. *Bad* for making GWE cases.

 

That's more or less my position. Do you disagree?

 

No in fact I agree. Well I mean I don't think it has NOTHING to do with GWE. But I'll say again that it only goes so far in and of itself.

 

That's what I mean, the difference between saying that Strongbow was good for the role he was in and leaving it at that, and saying that X was good for the role he was in and calling him a great worker and putting him on your GWE ballot...the difference is in how one personally enjoys the work. It is in finding something engaging or interesting or entertaining about the work on top of its effectiveness in keeping the crowd occupied.

 

It's just a matter of practicality, to me. We're all individuals, all human and we're the ones who have to sit through the matches in order to judge them. A guy who does his job description AND manages to keep you engaged while you watch his matches in 2016 is probably going to do better than a guy who does his job description AND makes you want to shoot your own face off after sitting through him.

 

Maybe that's not wholly objective or "fair", but I think it's the natural effect of us watching everything through our personal, present day eyes.

[JerryvonKramer]

Why?

 

Because of a narrow definition of greatness that follows from a very specific tradition?

 

It's a question that's been worth raising throughout this process, over and over, and over again.

My definition of greatness is, I would argue, pretty robust. Six different categories that take in all sorts of aspects of a worker's career.

 

To me, the definition of greatness that comes from that, is not *narrow* but pretty wide-ranging.

 

I will try to put my last post as a pictorial representation.

 

"Deeper appreciation of wrestling in context"

 

 

GWE

 

 

 

"Deeper appreciation of wrestling in context"

 

 

GWE

 

 

To me this distinction between the general joy of gaining a deeper understanding of wrestling and assessing who the 100 greatest of all time might be is quite important. One is critical appreciation, the other is ranking against a set of criteria.

[Matt D]

But couldn't that understanding help shape the criteria in new and different and interesting ways? Help shape the definition of greatness? Come on, meet me half way?

 

Just admit the possibility.

[Jimmy Redman]

And for the guys whom you place in those two separate categories, that's fair enough for you. But everyone has to make that judgment for themselves.

 

You can appreciate Demolition's work but don't think it's great, from the pictures, so Eadie isn't in consideration as a great for you. I appreciate Demolition's work AND think it's great, so Eadie is in consideration as a great for me.

 

Like I said, the key is simply in what we get out of the work as an individual.

[JerryvonKramer]

But couldn't that understanding help shape the criteria in new and different and interesting ways? Help shape the definition of greatness? Come on, meet me half way?

 

Just admit the possibility.

This has happened to the extent that guys like Ron Garvin, Greg Valentine, and others, who are routinely shit on by internet fans 10 years ago and even now, will probably (hopefully) rank. This comes from watching footage beyond just WWF PPVs and also from looking for different things. Psychology and storytelling as opposed to it being (solely) action and motion / workrate being one of the key ways people think differently.

 

I don't think we'll ever get to the point where people will rank soley based on 6-minute midcard TV matches or whatever. You can think about Arn or Regal but those guys had lots and lots of opportunies to have good matches. They both held the TV title, for example. Arn was in the friggin Four Horsemen in semi-mains and mains for god knows how long, he was hardly a lower card act.

 

@Jimmy

Masked Superstar / Eadie was actually in that bubble group with Iron Sheik, Rock, Undertaker and Adrian Street. They were all on 28 points in the 101-105 range.

 

But Masked Superstar had main-event runs and had quite a lot of opportunities to have good matches. His case isn't bad. He's probably not going to be getting in based on some Prime-time match with Akeem though.

 

Like I said, the key is simply in what we get out of the work as an individual.

I still think it HAS to be more than that. What I get out of the work as an individual is my own critical appreciation. The GWE is about more than that. Something beyond what I, personally, get out of it.

[Jimmy Redman]

If Eadie is all that and ended up in your 105 or so, why is he a pictorial representation of something you appreciate but wouldn't consider for GWE?

 

EDIT: I re-read and kind of got it.

 

As to that, I just disagree because I find a lot of value in six minute Demos vs Towers matches. That's what I mean by individuality, it's not about pure personal enjoyment, but it's just that everyone has different criteria and different ideas as to what greatness is and how to measure it and which guys fit that standard or not.

 

You and I come at Demolition from different places. Mine finds greatness in the work. Yours doesn't.