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

[Cap]

Kobashi would never lose his smile though.

[Cap]

How can a guy have that many great matches and be considered a dumb worker?

I second this....

[Goodear]

 

How can a guy have that many great matches and be considered a dumb worker?

I second this....

 

Let's ask our mutual friend and confidant. Ric? What are your... thoughts?

 

 

 

 

I kid.

 

Because I love

 

I mean we've certainly seen people with good tools who with the test of time, demonstrated they weren't deep thinkers like Kurt Angle or RVD. One could suggest that Kobashi was led around by the 3 other pillars for so long he was bound to produce good matches even if he wasn't calling them. But I think that's reductive and an overly simplistic view. He did stuff because he got a reaction sometimes, I don't think that's dumb.

[JerryvonKramer]

He also had lots of very good and great matches with other people.

 

He also has more great performances within great matches than just about anyone I've ever seen, including Flair.

[ohtani's jacket]

He wasn't dumb, but he was more of an exceptionally hard worker than a guy who was ring-smart.

[Grimmas]

I had Kobashi 18, let's not act like I'm shitting on him

[JerryvonKramer]

Why does Kawada get psychology points for his limb selling but Kobashi doesn't?

 

Is it cos Kawada looks sly and Kobashi looks like a big goof?

[Microstatistics]

The led by Misawa/Kawada argument doesn't hold up considering his GHC title run, where he was able to have different matches with a variety of opponents and almost every match was really great. His overall non-4 pillars output is the best of the four (in my opinion atleast).

 

Also to add to Jvk's point, Kobashi is an underrated limb seller. The 7/24/1998 match had one of the most impressive leg selling performances ever but people were criticizing it in the Akiyama thread for some reason even though it was nearly as good as Kawada's 12/3/1993. Kobashi's was way more dramatic but that doesn't make it any less effective.

[Grimmas]

Why does Kawada get psychology points for his limb selling but Kobashi doesn't?

 

Is it cos Kawada looks sly and Kobashi looks like a big goof?

You like big, I like subtle.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Why does Kawada get psychology points for his limb selling but Kobashi doesn't?

Is it cos Kawada looks sly and Kobashi looks like a big goof?

You like big, I like subtle.

I don't think really accounts for the disparity in credit these guys get.

 

And Kawada is hardly that subtle.

 

Let's face it, where does the idea Arn Anderson was really smart come from? It's cos he pointed to his head.

 

I also believe the idea of Bock as this all-time smart guy is partly cos his gimmick was "I am smarter than you"

[joeg]

David Von Erich had a lot of great matches but people around these parts aren't exactly a fan. Whoever he was in the ring with usually gets the credit for those matches.

 

Yoshinari Ogawa was involved in a bunch of good matches, same thing.

 

Takada was in a bunch of good matches, but usually gets regarded as over rated.

 

Gary Albright, Killer Khan, Dynamite Kid, Mil Mascaras, Inoki, Baba, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Doug Furnas, Brody, Shawn Micheals, HHH, etc. The list goes on and on of guys who were in multiple great matches but the convential wisdom among "smart fans" is that their opponents, or the angle or booking was great as opposed to the wrestler or the match itself.

[Cap]

I think it is one thing to distinguish between liking subtly over big selling or something like that and claiming that Kobashi wasn't a smart worker (both seem to be points that are coming up in different spots on this thread regarding Kobashi). I just don't buy either the conflation between the role he plays in the ring and his wrestling intelligence nor the variety of conflations between certain styles and "intelligent wrestling".

[supremebve]

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

[Grimmas]

I never once said Kobashi was a stupid wrestler.

 

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

That was never what great match theory was about.

 

Great Match Theory is the theory that the person who had the more great matches is the greater wrestler.

 

Nobody has once tried to argue that a wrestler who had a lot of great matches wasn't great. Just that it doesn't automatically mean that they are greater than someone with less great matches.

[JerryvonKramer]

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

 

I named John Cena.

 

I would love to hear someone try to make a case that Cena is great based on his skills rather than his output. It cannot be done in my view.

[Cap]

Grimmas, to be clear, I am not saying you were. I was juxtaposing how I read your takes on Kobashi (you like subtle selling more than big selling and others jive with what you look for in wrestling greatness a LITTLE more) here against Ohtani's Jacket (Kobashi lacks in-ring smarts). Again, that is just the way I am reading them and what I am inferring from them.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think the point had been proven pretty stunningly.

[Grimmas]

 

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

I named John Cena.

 

I would love to hear someone try to make a case that Cena is great based on his skills rather than his output. It cannot be done in my view.

 

John Cena had great fire, gets great sympathy with selling and can do very hot comebacks. He builds drama better than most. Cena is a great wrestler.

 

Yes his execution stinks, but the stories and feeling are there.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

 

I named John Cena.

I would love to hear someone try to make a case that Cena is great based on his skills rather than his output. It cannot be done in my view.

John Cena had great fire, gets great sympathy with selling and can do very hot comebacks. He builds drama better than most. Cena is a great wrestler.

 

Yes his execution stinks, but the stories and feeling are there.

All these things are true of other wrestlers who don't have the laundry list.

 

I don't believe for a second anyone would rank Cena as highly as he has been if he didn't have the list. You are delusional if you think otherwise. It is his case. His whole case.

[jpchicago23]

I agree with Parv and only partly with Steven. I don't think Cena is as great a seller as people say. In the Nexus match at Summerslam 2010 he takes a ddt on the floor to only make a quick comeback and get the pin. I also think he sells for the sake of selling and not because he's had any pain inflicted on him. The term Super Cena has come from this as well as his speedy recoveries from imjury. I am however curious to hear examples of his great selling though. I'll agree about the fire as he has that in spades. I just think the execution at one point was poor enough to extinguish the flame.

[Microstatistics]

I would say Cena captures the essence of being an ace better than nearly anyone except Misawa, Hashimoto and maybe Lawler.

[jpchicago23]

 

 

 

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

 

I named John Cena.

I would love to hear someone try to make a case that Cena is great based on his skills rather than his output. It cannot be done in my view.

John Cena had great fire, gets great sympathy with selling and can do very hot comebacks. He builds drama better than most. Cena is a great wrestler.

 

Yes his execution stinks, but the stories and feeling are there.

All these things are true of other wrestlers who don't have the laundry list.

 

I don't believe for a second anyone would rank Cena as highly as he has been if he didn't have the list. You are delusional if you think otherwise. It is his case. His whole case.

 

I'll openly admit to trying not to use great match theory for most guys but it definitely built Cenas case for me. He's a guy who I can watch and say he's not a great wrestler but I can easily name 20 great matches or so. It seems like that would mean there are some redeeming qualities but not as much as most guys

[Mrzfn]

Greatness is a combination of ability and opportunity. If Cena didn't get the opportunities he did, he wouldn't be considered as great. Contrast with a guy like, say, Arn Anderson, who is still considered great despite very limited opportunities, at least when it comes to big match situations. I don't know if that makes Cena a wrestler with a lot of great matches who isn't great, but I think it's easy to see there's some kind of difference.

 

Personally I agree with earlier posts that Triple H is the best example, as I feel even when he's in a great match he is almost never the guy helping to make it great.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

I named John Cena.

I would love to hear someone try to make a case that Cena is great based on his skills rather than his output. It cannot be done in my view.

John Cena had great fire, gets great sympathy with selling and can do very hot comebacks. He builds drama better than most. Cena is a great wrestler.

 

Yes his execution stinks, but the stories and feeling are there.

All these things are true of other wrestlers who don't have the laundry list.

 

I don't believe for a second anyone would rank Cena as highly as he has been if he didn't have the list. You are delusional if you think otherwise. It is his case. His whole case.

 

Who is saying you have to completely ignore output? You can't divorce the two.

[JerryvonKramer]

I would say Cena captures the essence of being an ace better than nearly anyone except Misawa, Hashimoto and maybe Lawler.

Bruno? Jumbo?

 

Cena as capturing the idea of ace over Jumbo hurts.