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

[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.

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

You made the dichotomy earlier when trying to defend your basically absurd Bret #5 vs Kobashi #18 rankings.

[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.

You made the dichotomy earlier when trying to defend your basically absurd Bret #5 vs Kobashi #18 rankings.

 

Bret did have great matches though.

 

All I'm trying to say is that

 

if wrestler A has 10 great matches and wrestler B has 5 great matches

then A is not automatically > B

 

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

[Loss]

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

 

So much makes sense now in terms of the opposition to this, because I think it's a misunderstanding. I don't know of anyone who thinks it's a math problem in that sense, and I can't say I've seen that argued. I think the idea is more that the best way to assess wrestlers is to look at the quality of output. I think everything about a wrestler is theoretical until the matches become good. It's not he with the most matches in terms of the highest number, it's he who had good, enjoyable, memorable matches more than forgettable ones, bad ones or ones that don't meet expectations on paper. It should be called Good Match Theory.

[Matt D]

just a bit for now. I'm on my phone here.

 

I'll say this. The general issue is looking at what makes the matches great and trying to find patterns and factoring in different situations especially when a wrestler's job was to be great in a way that results in something other than snowflakes.

 

Great matches are a starting point, and one to be examined closely and weighed heavily but they are just one of many.

 

Great matches are just one thing that matters. And in a comparative setting like GWE, the deconstruction and analysis of the greatness matters more than the greatness itself. Great matches are beacons in the darkness. The understanding of the greatness is everything.

[JerryvonKramer]

What happens when the numbers are something like literally 80+ vs about 4 or 5 as is the situation with Kobashi vs. Bret?

[Grimmas]

What happens when the numbers are something like literally 80+ vs about 4 or 5 as is the situation with Kobashi vs. Bret?

Performances and skills and talent always wins out for me.

[joeg]

My problem with great match theory is potential that somebody who never drew a dime could be labeled a great wrestler over somebody who spent a career on top wherever they went.

 

Secondly, somebody asked for a list of guys with great matches who aren't considered great wrestlers-

 

Johnny Ace, Yoshinari Ogawa, HHH, Undertaker, Dynamite Kid, Gary Albright, Mil Mascaras, Inoki, Killer Khan, Doug Furnas, David Von Erich, Takada, etc...

 

There are a lot of guys where credit for their in ring sucess is given to other factors.

[JerryvonKramer]

Jumbo Tsuruta & Kenta Kobashi vs. Genichiro Tenryu & Stan Hansen (7/15/89) - Kobahsi knocks it out of the park

Mitsuharu Misawa, Toshiaki Kawada & Kenta Kobashi vs Jumbo Tsuruta, Akira Taue & Masa Fuchi (04/20/91) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa, Toshiaki Kawada & Kenta Kobashi vs Jumbo Tsuruta, Akira Taue & Masa Fuchi (05/22/92) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa vs Toshiaki Kawada vs Kenta Kobashi & Giant Baba (11/27/92) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (06/01/93) - and again

Stan Hansen vs Kenta Kobashi (7/29/93) - and again

Akira Taue & Toshiaki Kawada vs Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi (12/3/93) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (05/21/94) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (06/09/95) - he's killing it yet again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Jun Akiyama vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (12/06/96) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa vs Kenta Kobashi (01/20/97) - amazing yet again

Kenta Kobashi vs. Jun Akiyama (07/24/98) - and again

Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada (06/12/98) - and again

 

And on and on and on and on it goes.

 

"Yeah but Bret had a really neat side Russian legsweep and I like the way he seemed legit and how his moves made sense."

 

That's literally your argument.

[The Man in Blak]

I had Kobashi (#23) three slots higher than Bret (#26), so I don't feel like some grave injustice has been wrought by the comparison here.

 

And, to answer the question posed by the thread title, I'd actually posit that Shawn Michaels is a fantastic answer to this question. And I don't think it's ridiculous to assert that there's a penchant for theatricality in his work that he shares with Kobashi either.

[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.

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.

 

I think the point is that it doesn't matter what skills you do or do not have if what you put out is great. The first Young Jeezy album is great, despite the fact that Young Jeezy is actively a terrible rapper on it. Young Jeezy has improved vastly as a rapper over the years, and yet he has never put out an album nearly as good as the one when he was terrible. On that first album he stayed in his lane and didn't try to do anything but rap about anything he didn't know intimately. He was able to create a project that still sounds great over ten years later. He got better, branched out, took more chances, and ultimately didn't make music that connected like he did when his skills were less sharp. It doesn't matter that he's technically better now, he isn't as good of an artist. Using more complicated rhyme schemes and trying to use more complicated metaphors doesn't mean nearly as much as a guy straight off the streets telling you exactly how the world he lives in works. When Jeezy told you that his crew "don't drink Pepsi, they just sell coke," you believed him. When he tried to wow you with his rap skills, you didn't believe him. Technical brilliance doesn't earn you anything in my book unless your output matches that brilliance. I'm not going to hold your faults against you if your output is great, because the goal is to create greatness. I'm not saying it should be the only factor, but great matches should be the #1 factor, because at the end of the day putting on great matches is the goal.

[Grimmas]

Jumbo Tsuruta & Kenta Kobashi vs. Genichiro Tenryu & Stan Hansen (7/15/89) - Kobahsi knocks it out of the park

Mitsuharu Misawa, Toshiaki Kawada & Kenta Kobashi vs Jumbo Tsuruta, Akira Taue & Masa Fuchi (04/20/91) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa, Toshiaki Kawada & Kenta Kobashi vs Jumbo Tsuruta, Akira Taue & Masa Fuchi (05/22/92) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa vs Toshiaki Kawada vs Kenta Kobashi & Giant Baba (11/27/92) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (06/01/93) - and again

Stan Hansen vs Kenta Kobashi (7/29/93) - and again

Akira Taue & Toshiaki Kawada vs Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi (12/3/93) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (05/21/94) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (06/09/95) - he's killing it yet again

Mitsuharu Misawa & Jun Akiyama vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (12/06/96) - and again

Mitsuharu Misawa vs Kenta Kobashi (01/20/97) - amazing yet again

Kenta Kobashi vs. Jun Akiyama (07/24/98) - and again

Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada (06/12/98) - and again

 

And on and on and on and on it goes.

 

"Yeah but Bret had a really neat side Russian legsweep and I like the way he seemed legit and how his moves made sense."

 

That's literally your argument.

My argument is that Bret wrestles more my ideal style of wrestling and is better in every category of wrestling (minus a few) than Kobashi. Thus he is a better wrestler.

 

If I was to do a BIGLAV, you would see. Except my categories would be way more and completely different than yours.

[jpchicago23]

4 or 5 great matches for Bret? Seriously? Perfect 91, Piper wm 8, Bulldog 92 and 95, Diesel Series 95, Austin at both Series 96 and Mania 13, Taker One Night Only, The whole King of the Rings 93 performance, the Lawler matches, vs Owen at Mania 10, there's a Savage and Steamboat match from maybe 87? The Flair iron man is pretty damn good. One of the best TV matches against Kid. I'm missing a few but yea more than 4 or 5

[Matt D]

Is putting on great matches really the goal?

[soup23]

My problem with great match theory is potential that somebody who never drew a dime could be labeled a great wrestler over somebody who spent a career on top wherever they went.

 

Secondly, somebody asked for a list of guys with great matches who aren't considered great wrestlers-

 

Johnny Ace, Yoshinari Ogawa, HHH, Undertaker, Dynamite Kid, Gary Albright, Mil Mascaras, Inoki, Killer Khan, Doug Furnas, David Von Erich, Takada, etc...

 

There are a lot of guys where credit for their in ring sucess is given to other factors.

 

Johnny Ace - Few Great tag matches but nothing else. Ace clearly #4 role in most of those matches

Ogawa - Tons of great matches and has a good bit of props around here as a great worker, made my top 100 as a result

HHH - Ran through his list earlier and not that impressive list of matches for me, for someone like Scott Criscuolo he does have a laundry list and Scott would have had him in his top 100

Undertaker - Ditto HHH

Dynamite Kid - Not a bad choice here but I do think Dynamite is more labeled as excessive and overated to a degree than as a bad worker. He didn't make my top 100 but was in contention. I havent seen the Portland stuff but based on the Bulldog and New Japan run, he doesn't have a huge amount of great matches.

Gary Albright - Honestly only has 3-4 matches of his I can think off hand as great in my eyes

Mil Masacaras - Ditto Albright

Inoki - Not a terrible case here. He does have a good handful of great matches but again I would wager to guess it would be in the range of 20 for me. That still isnt a lot of great output for someone that we have a wide range of tape for.

Killer Khan - Has a few SUPER matches and not much else. Still got votes.

Furnas - Another good case, a good many great matches and I do think Furnas is a good worker but not a great one. Would be interested if he would make my top 200.

David Von Erich - A few great matches and six mans, not much else but I don't like Texas

Takada- If you like the matches, you think fairly highly on Takada, he made Loss' list and was in my 125, if you think the matches are overated and bloated, you don't think they are great and therefore didn't rank Takada

[Grimmas]

Is putting on great matches really the goal?

FUCKING EXACTLY!

[joeg]

Oh and Kobashi was excellent at selling. the selling of his knee in the spring of 95 is one of the greatest things I have ever seen in all of wrestling. For those 2 monthes you believed his may have legit been hurt in that 6 man in March. Each month the limp got worse. Then, after 3 months of selling a bad knee, it culminates in the most dramatic tag match I have ever seen. All due to his selling of the knee. So I don't buy he wasn't good at selling for a second....

[Grimmas]

Oh and Kobashi was excellent at selling. the selling of his knee in the spring of 95 is one of the greatest things I have ever seen in all of wrestling. For those 2 monthes you believed his may have legit been hurt in that 6 man in March. Each month the limp got worse. Then, after 3 months of selling a bad knee, it culminates in the most dramatic tag match I have ever seen. All due to his selling of the knee. So I don't buy he wasn't good at selling for a second....

Who said Kobashi wasn't good at selling? He's one of the all time greats. I just think Bret's is better. I'd take Bret's exhausted selling over Kobashi's leg selling any day.

[JerryvonKramer]

Oh and Kobashi was excellent at selling. the selling of his knee in the spring of 95 is one of the greatest things I have ever seen in all of wrestling. For those 2 monthes you believed his may have legit been hurt in that 6 man in March. Each month the limp got worse. Then, after 3 months of selling a bad knee, it culminates in the most dramatic tag match I have ever seen. All due to his selling of the knee. So I don't buy he wasn't good at selling for a second....

 

What a dumb worker eh.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

If I was to do a BIGLAV, you would see. Except my categories would be way more and completely different than yours.

Completely different eh? I'd like to see that.

[Eegah]

 

 

 

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.

I think the point is that it doesn't matter what skills you do or do not have if what you put out is great. The first Young Jeezy album is great, despite the fact that Young Jeezy is actively a terrible rapper on it. Young Jeezy has improved vastly as a rapper over the years, and yet he has never put out an album nearly as good as the one when he was terrible. On that first album he stayed in his lane and didn't try to do anything but rap about anything he didn't know intimately. He was able to create a project that still sounds great over ten years later. He got better, branched out, took more chances, and ultimately didn't make music that connected like he did when his skills were less sharp. It doesn't matter that he's technically better now, he isn't as good of an artist. Using more complicated rhyme schemes and trying to use more complicated metaphors doesn't mean nearly as much as a guy straight off the streets telling you exactly how the world he lives in works. When Jeezy told you that his crew "don't drink Pepsi, they just sell coke," you believed him. When he tried to wow you with his rap skills, you didn't believe him. Technical brilliance doesn't earn you anything in my book unless your output matches that brilliance. I'm not going to hold your faults against you if your output is great, because the goal is to create greatness. I'm not saying it should be the only factor, but great matches should be the #1 factor, because at the end of the day putting on great matches is the goal.

Black on black 'lac call it phantom of the opera.

[Matt D]

 

Is putting on great matches really the goal?

FUCKING EXACTLY!

 

Steven,

 

I know your back is against the wall here, but I don't think we can jump to that.

 

It's an honest question. I know my answer, or I think I do, but there are a lot of distracting corollaries here, like drawing and what not. I think that every match has a purpose, and that purpose can be achieved with a level of greatness, and the output therein can be great as well. But that's not going to lead to a great match through the conventional definition of "great match." It'll almost always lead to a great performance though.

 

Certain people DID have the job to have what we consider great matches, and in general, those people had great matches far more often. Someone like Kobashi, in this case, had a job to go out there and put on what we consider to be great matches on a nightly basis. He was given the canvas, the time, the opponents, the mandate, the structure, clean finishes, the ability to escalate, no one getting in his way. That was his job. Other people had different jobs, and maybe those people accomplished those jobs, within different limitations, just as greatly.

 

It's a starting point to me. What did he do with his opportunity, how far did he work with it, what did he learn from it. How was he great within the great match? How was someone else great or not in a match that didn't have the same opportunities. There's a lot more going on here. It's not about what wrestler had the most opportunities. It's about what every wrestler does with every opportunity. One with great matches just gets more an earlier and deeper look.

[Loss]

Is putting on great matches really the goal?

 

This makes me think the ideas we have about what makes a great match are something we need to explore too, because I think Bad Match Theorists (for lack of a better term, but it also makes me laugh ) sort of assume that those on the other side think matches that aren't sprawling epics aiming for MOTY status are a waste of time. That's not true at all.

 

I think it's a worthwhile question because I can think of a lot of great matches where it being that probably wasn't the primary objective. In fact, in most cases, those are probably the best matches of them all. "The goal" is interesting too, because I don't really care what the objective is as much as what the outcome is.

 

And again, I prefer to talk about it as good matches, not great matches. And I feel like shifting the conversation where we're using good matches as a barometer is far less alienating. Yes? No?

[JerryvonKramer]

Ric Flair and the Horsemen talk about trying to steal the show on every card.

 

Bret in shoots actively talks himself up as putting a great deal of thought into how to have the best match possible.

 

Kenta Kobashi speaks Japanese and I don't, but I can see it in his eyes that he is of the same mindset.

[joeg]

And the goal isn't to put on a great match. I think that is the biggest misnomer. The goal is to make money. Putting on a great match is small part of this, but Timothy Thatcher is putting on amazing matches in front of 50 people every weekend so there is more to it than that. Being able to talk the people into the building and get them to come back again is way more important than a great match.

[The Man in Blak]

 

 

Is putting on great matches really the goal?

FUCKING EXACTLY!

I think putting on great matches can be the goal, but I also think that it's easy to fall into a trap where we dramatically underplay the booking, announcing, and production that provides the foundation for greatness and, instead of that, we give the workers 1000% credit and responsibility for its creation.