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

[JerryvonKramer]

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?

Well it's more about the context. That's a random Demolition vs. Twin Towers house show match. Not a great match, not a terrible match. Just a match. Probably around the ** or **1/2 mark, absolutely standard for a house show match in WWF at that time. I don't think it does anything for or against Eadie's case. It happened, but I don't really think anyone would ever point to it. It's just kind of there. Matt D might get a lot of mileage out of breaking down that match and that will be interesting to read. And it will deepen our appreciation.

 

I don't see it at all being relevent to GWE.

 

I think this is one of the areas where Dylan and I (maybe, possibly) are most at odds. Maybe not, I'm not sure.

 

To me, Flair vs. Steamboat is a pretty big feather in both guy's cap and is the centrepiece of any GWE case you'd build for either guy. Demolition vs. Bigboss Man and Akeem means virtually nothing to the Eadie GWE case.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah that is where we disagree. I mean it's fair that it has nothing to do with GWE for you, as I've been saying all along, but it absolutely has GWE relevance for other people. Matt, Dylan and I for starters.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah that is where we disagree. I mean it's fair that it has nothing to do with GWE for you, as I've been saying all along, but it absolutely has GWE relevance for other people. Matt, Dylan and I for starters.

I have to go to bed now, but I do have a good reason for believing that. It's because I believe GWE is not about championing mediocrity but about celebrating actual *greatness*. To me the bog-standard WWF house show match is ... just bog-standard. It's mediocre. It's work-a-day. A competent worker like Eadie is gonna be fine in a match like that, but it's not his finest hour, or his worst hour, but just a match he had once. This is where I really draw that distinction. I don't want the GWE list to be a celebration of stuff that is just bog-standard in wrestling.

[Jimmy Redman]

My short answer to that is that I believe the work he's doing in those "bog standard" matches is absolutely not bog standard at all.

 

Throw in the obligatory "or else everyone would be doing it".

[WingedEagle]

My short answer to that is that I believe the work he's doing in those "bog standard" matches is absolutely not bog standard at all.

 

Throw in the obligatory "or else everyone would be doing it".

 

Don't most wrestlers do something approximating it on most shows?

[JerryvonKramer]

My short answer to that is that I believe the work he's doing in those "bog standard" matches is absolutely not bog standard at all.

 

Throw in the obligatory "or else everyone would be doing it".

Well to an extent they kind of were, and when it comes to workers people really care about -- Ted or Bret say -- it's brought up as a knock on their GWE cases that they were having **1/2 house show matches as opposed to better ones.

[Jimmy Redman]

Again I'm not talking about the simple fact of having a **1/2 house show match, to put it that way. It's about looking at specific things he's doing within that match, and why they're effective and why they appeal to me and how they speak to Eadie as a worker in general.

This all ties nicely back into "it can be about more than just having good matches".

[DR Ackermann]

What is so hard to grasp about a guy getting decent food out of shit ingredients being more impressive than a guy getting decent food out of good ingredients?

[WingedEagle]

Because decent is decent and great is great. Its such a leap from one to the other that I haven't yet been able to reconcile.

[Shrike02]

 

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.

 

 

My search kung-fu has failed. Link to this infamous thread?

[Ricky Jackson]

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/18970-bret-hart-vs-ric-flair/?hl=%2Bbret+%2Bhart+%2Bric+%2Bflair

 

Abandon all hope ye who enter here

[Johnny Sorrow]

The GWE is about more than that. Something beyond what I, personally, get out of it.

That's Christmas. This is a list of wrestlers a handful of folks threw together for fun. Holy shit, 😆

[Dylan Waco]

 

My short answer to that is that I believe the work he's doing in those "bog standard" matches is absolutely not bog standard at all.

 

Throw in the obligatory "or else everyone would be doing it".

Well to an extent they kind of were, and when it comes to workers people really care about -- Ted or Bret say -- it's brought up as a knock on their GWE cases that they were having **1/2 house show matches as opposed to better ones.

 

Why wouldn't it be a knock?

 

It's one thing to say "it's unfair to take someone who was great dozens and dozens of times off of a 100 person ballot all together because they were bad on house shows," but quite another to say that it should play no factor at all in ranking wrestlers.

 

As someone who has gone to a ton of house shows, and watched a ton of house show and small show footage, I find it a bit absurd to suggest that we should just pretend all of the stuff that happens on those shows - the vast majority of shows in wrestling history in other words - didn't exist.

 

Perhaps I'm reading your wrong Parv, but I think there is a ton that can be learned and enjoyed from house show/small show matches. I don't think it's an unreasonable standard to expect allegedly great workers to put in solid performances on these shows. Everyone has bad nights, or takes nights off for injury to be sure. I'm not expecting perfection. But it is possible to put in GREAT house show performances that are more in tune with the logic and spirit of that setting, and I appreciate them when I see them.

[JerryvonKramer]

It should be. See what we were talking about above Dylan. You are actually agreeing with me there. I am against the celebration of mediocrity in a GWE list.

 

Jimmy's specific idea here is about the the alleged great performance in the bog-standard **1/2 house show match. I guess I'd probably say if the performance was that good the match would have been better.

 

 

And if there was any doubt, this is one reason I'm so high on Ric. Aside from all of his great matches, during the peak years, he's also a virtual baseline of quality. Even a disappointing Flair match bottoms out around *** minimum.

 

Like I'm not a huge fan of his Sting match at Clash 1 or the Nikita matches. They aren't bad matches though, you couldn't realistically go much lower than *** for them. His baseline rate is just so incredibly high regardless of where or who the opponent is. He's a worker who can more or less guarantee ***1/2 as a minimum but then the top end is GOAT level matches. Flair gave it his all almost every night out, the off-nights are pretty rare. Very few other guys had runs like that. That's why he's a proper GWE #1 candidate and when it comes to being a top 10 contender Bret is a glass canon of a candidate.

 

If there's one criticism you could draw against BIGLAV is that I set the limits too low, especially for the V rating. If those limits had been uncapped I think Flair might have even doubled some of the scores of guys who finished from #12-20. In gaming terms, Flair was kind of nerfed by the caps, and he still obviously caned it.

 

 

[Danish Dynamite]

Love the debate here, don't get me wrong. It's very interesting. And I find I agree with vast parts of both Parv's and Steven's points (just picking those two because so much of this debate centers around their argument).

 

At points this seems to be a lot of trying to define a common set of guidelines to vote by. And that is pointless to me, since the setup from the beginning was "whatever makes a wrestler great to you the voter".

 

I thought I disagreed with Steven, when I read it as if he discounted great matches. But he doesn't. At all. He just factors other stuff as well. As does Parv.

 

For me a shitload of great matches was a pro for someone. So was length of peak. So was how much I personally and subjectively enjoyed them (would have counted less if there had been stipulations on what we're trying to rank other than "whatever makes someone great in the eyes of the voter"). So does a lot of stuff. And there is no set in stone rule what counts for more. That differs on a case by case gut feeling. Maybe that devalues my list to some, but I think I'll sleep just fine knowing that and knowing I ranked Bret higher than Kobashi (who I really, really like and also(!) have in my top 10...).

 

Like Parv, I'm not quite into the "what if" scenario for this specific list (love it otherwise). But here's a factor I think is not a "what if" but a clear "what is" that negatively affects Bret to a lot of people (including some of those going after Parv for being down on lucha): On this board a lot of people are down on WWF guys, because they are down on WWF in general. Sure, some just like other stuff based solely on their own tastes. But it seems like a lot of people are down on all things Vinceland maybe because they feel better stuff or stuff they personally like better has been overlooked or hurt by the succes and exposure of one company. Like when people hear a song they like, and then start hating it when everyone else discovers it and it takes all the Grammy's. I never understood that. Shouldn't you still like the song the same? But that's a completely normal reaction. Nothing wrong with that. But I do think that hurts your Bret's, Curt's, DiBiase's, Savage's etc. here. And if there is one "what if" I think is valid here, it's that a guy like Bret would do better on this list if he had the excact same career, matches and everything if he had just had it anywhere other than the WWF. And that is too bad for Bret supporters, but totally fair and understandable. I have a close friend who's watched more wrestling than most on this board (not counting the top 1-2%). But he's very WWF-centric, thinks I'm insane for having four AJPW guys in my top ten, and he would just shake his head at the way people here value wrestling. He would have no fun in taking part in this, as he would be as angry as a few are here and those factions would probably hate each other. So if he started a board and gathered similar thinkers the guys ranking a Misawa in the top 10 would be put through similar stuff as Bret supporters here. I know a lot will be immediately defensive and say shit to effect that they are in no way influenced like that, and they're able to judge objectively, but I haven't heard anyone sound convinving when making that claim. And it's completely fair.

 

I loved it when Parv in a different thread made the comment (when trying to get someone to admit pretty much this excact thing, but in regards to that guy not ranking Flair): Parv basically said he admitted that him not ranking a lot of lucha was because he didn't get Lucha, not because Lucha sucked. So it was a deeply personal reaction. So you can call Steven (or me) insane for ranking Bret higher than KK. And debate it back and forth, which is part of the fun. But in any way trying to claim that it's got nothing to do with your own very personal bias and anti-bias is bullshit.

After all, like Johnny said: This is a bunch of guys making lists of what they personally think or like.

 

PS: You're all inferior beings for having almost anyone higher than Bret (my #6, so up to five above him is ok), none of you know shit and I am the oracle who only speaks the true words of the Gods of Asgard!

[WingedEagle]

Great post. We've all got biases. No shame in owning up to it.

[Dylan Waco]

I actually think if Bret had the exact same career anywhere other than the WWF most people would find the idea of him as a top ten guy to be pretty laughable. I honestly believe that a part of the reason he rates so well for people is because Bret stood out as something different in the WWE environment and because WWE storyline, build, and presentation was generally speaking better put together than what has been seen in other "national" U.S. promotions over the last thirty years.

[WingedEagle]

I actually think if Bret had the exact same career anywhere other than the WWF most people would find the idea of him as a top ten guy to be pretty laughable. I honestly believe that a part of the reason he rates so well for people is because Bret stood out as something different in the WWE environment and because WWE storyline, build, and presentation was generally speaking better put together than what has been seen in other "national" U.S. promotions over the last thirty years.

 

I think is almost unquestionably true. I don't see what's wrong with folks acknowledging how much the environment and presentation may play into their rankings. Booking is a factor in opportunity and presentation that impacts the material we all had to work with. Bret Hart Top 10 All Time is still lunacy in my eyes, but it would make all the sense in the world and be completely unobjectionable by tipping the hat to what's driving it.

[Loss]

Part of Bret's impressiveness, and why he ranked in my top 20, is exactly that -- that he had the run he had in the WWF. I think you could argue that having a 4-star match in the WWF was harder than having a 5-star match in All Japan. Because he spent most of his career in the WWF, he had no chance of producing a body of work like the All Japan guys or Ric Flair. The divide is that I don't see that as a factor in voting at all. You did what you did, and that's what you did.

[Grimmas]

I actually think if Bret had the exact same career anywhere other than the WWF most people would find the idea of him as a top ten guy to be pretty laughable. I honestly believe that a part of the reason he rates so well for people is because Bret stood out as something different in the WWE environment and because WWE storyline, build, and presentation was generally speaking better put together than what has been seen in other "national" U.S. promotions over the last thirty years.

Yes, but I doubt if Bret was in a different situation he would have the same career.

[ohtani's jacket]

There's a million workers workers whose careers wouldn't have been half as good if they'd worked somewhere else. I find that argument kind of flimsy. The majority of workers are inextricably linked to the promotion they became famous in.

[Grimmas]

There's a million workers workers whose careers wouldn't have been half as good if they'd worked somewhere else. I find that argument kind of flimsy. The majority of workers are inextricably linked to the promotion they became famous in.

Since I based more on talent and skill and what they did with the opportunities they had more than the great matches they had I used that across the board.

[Badlittlekitten]

Also music and wrestling are different things.

 

If Bowie wrote and performed the same and his band was the shaggs and they were starting their careers now, would he be great?

 

Hell yes! In fact he'd be about 1024x greater.

[Dylan Waco]

My post was a direct response to Danish Dynamite's contention that Bret is viewed differently because of where he worked. I agree but think he is viewed better for it.

 

Bret's career no doubt would have been very different had he worked different places. But guy with middling tag team, who had a five year peak light on volume but high on memorable "big" matches, and then had good matches here and there for a couple of years in a place where he was irrelevant...I mean it's really not that impressive a resume from my perspective. Even if I was higher on Bret's peak years than I am (and I wouldn't say I'm low on them) and higher on the Hart Foundation than I am (and I am pretty low on them), I struggle to see how Bret approaches top ten level. I've just not heard a compelling argument for him. I'd pretty much have to view his peak as one of the best in wrestling history to get him into my top twenty given how I feel about his pre and post primes.

[Frankensteiner]

My post was a direct response to Danish Dynamite's contention that Bret is viewed differently because of where he worked. I agree but think he is viewed better for it.

 

Bret's career no doubt would have been very different had he worked different places. But guy with middling tag team, who had a five year peak light on volume but high on memorable "big" matches, and then had good matches here and there for a couple of years in a place where he was irrelevant...I mean it's really not that impressive a resume from my perspective. Even if I was higher on Bret's peak years than I am (and I wouldn't say I'm low on them) and higher on the Hart Foundation than I am (and I am pretty low on them), I struggle to see how Bret approaches top ten level. I've just not heard a compelling argument for him. I'd pretty much have to view his peak as one of the best in wrestling history to get him into my top twenty given how I feel about his pre and post primes.

I guess I'd like to see this mythical long list of guys with long peaks and volumes upon volumes of great output. I'm sure I could be just as casually dismissive on their careers as well.