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

[soup23]

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

 

4 or 5 was really low, but I think 20 isn't that far off for me. Again, I may be a tough grader but I do consider a great match to be **** or above. Perfect 91 and Piper at WM 8 would be just below that metric for me.

 

A quick listing off the top of my head:

 

vs. Steamboat Boston Garden match

vs. Rockers 10/30/90

vs. Perfect SummerSlam 91

vs. Davey SSLam 92

vs. Flair Iron Man Match

vs. Lawler/Doink SummerSlam

vs. Perfect KOTR 93

vs. Yoko MSG 8/93 Cage match

vs. Owen Mania 10

vs. Kid July 94 Raw

vs. Backlund Survivor Series 94

vs. Diesel Survivor Series 95

vs. Davey IYH 5

vs. HBK Mania 12

vs. Austin Survivor Series 96

vs. Austin Mania 13

vs. Austin IYH

vs. Taker One Night Only

Canadian Stampede Main Event

vs. HBK Survivor Series

vs. Flair Souled Out 98

vs. Benoit 10/4/99

 

So 22 matches, a few I am sure I have forgotten but probably caps at 30 at the absolute high mark. I also think for certain matches I may be lower on like vs. Piper, that is counteracted with the stuff like the Rockers 90 tag and Souled Out match which I am usually high on compared to others. We have about 14 years of Bret's career on tape so that is about an average of 2 great matches per year.

[Cap]

I do think that the All Japan guys of the 90s were less restrined in what they had to work around to have a great match. Most of the "story" played directly into the matches itself. I am not sure this is really accurate, but my gut tells me Bret was dealing with more hurdles and restraints in terms of time, story, goal of the match, etc. It just seems to be a shorter leash to me, but I could be wrong.

 

EDIT: But I don't think putting on great matches is always, or maybe even often the goal. And even if it is I don't think what is considered a great match is always static, especially between wrestlers and fans, so I am not sure it really matters if it is the goal.

[JerryvonKramer]

Can you now do the same for Kobashi, Chad?

[Grimmas]

Steven's +FSBOCHCCSSHBTBC -SSB system!

 

Positive Categories:

 

How good are your Finishes?

How awesome are you at Selling?

How Believable are you in the ring?

How good does your Offense look?

Does your Choices make sense?

Are you good at Hope spots?
Are you good at Comebacks?
Are you good at Cut off spots?

Are you good at Shine?

Are you good in different Settings?

Are you a good Heel?

Are you a good Babyface?

Are you good in Tags?

Are you Believable?

Do you do Cool things that make sense?

 

Negative Categories:

 

Do you forget to Sell?

Do you do anything that makes no Sense and thus piss me off?

Are you Boring?

 

there's probably more, but that's all I can think of?

[Loss]

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 goal of making an album or movie is also to make money, but there is still a critical enterprise associated with both of those mediums. Art and commerce can be separated and often are, but I also don't think they have to be in opposition to each other.

[WingedEagle]

 

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.

 

 

So there's Great Match Theory and perhaps Good Match Theory. I still don't understand this Shopping List Theory though. It completely disregards what you do with the ingredients.

 

Is putting on great matches really the goal?

 

Perhaps not *the* goal, every time out. But at the end of the day if someone put on great matches over and over, with variety and consistency across performances, settings and opponents, why would anything at the end of the day trump it if the goal is examining who was great at wrestling in the ring? Not on the mic, not drawing a house, selling merchandise, performances in angle or or creating memorable moments when we were watching as kids and everything was a hair more real -- but putting on excellent wrestling matches. Where does succeeding on this basis still see someone come up short in this folder?

[JerryvonKramer]

The goal of the promoter is to make money.

 

The goal of the worker is to put on the best performance possible while also achieving the aims of the booker.

 

And workers often talk about this stuff. Often. It's not like wrestlers have been quiet about this sort of thing.

[Matt D]

 

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?

 

See, I'd lean towards Great Performances or Right Performances. Or "Right Performances that are done with Greatness."

 

But I'm less comfortable with matches than you are. I think we can look at both good matches and at performances, ESPECIALLY in a post-GWE world. We have to live with the peace.

[The Man in Blak]

To follow up on my point where great matches can be the goal with a specific tie-in to Bret -- I'd posit that the Souled Out feud with Flair was transparently built on the idea of providing a great match to establish Bret as a legitimate player in WCW and, for a number of reasons and extenuating factors, I think Bret and Flair ended up closer to Pretty Good than Capital-G Great.

 

To me, that was a specific situation where Bret actually had the opportunity and didn't (couldn't?) fully capitalize on it. It's one of a few reasons why I specifically placed Bret right outside the Top 25.

 

Can you now do the same for Kobashi, Chad?

I snarked a similar request in my first post, but I edited it out because I don't know if there's anything less productive for this discussion than whipping out match lists and comparing length.

[Grimmas]

To follow up on my point where great matches can be the goal with a specific tie-in to Bret -- I'd posit that the Souled Out feud with Flair was transparently built on the idea of providing a great match to establish Bret as a legitimate player in WCW and, for a number of reasons and extenuating factors, I think Bret and Flair ended up closer to Pretty Good than Capital-G Great.

 

To me, that was a specific situation where Bret actually had the opportunity and didn't (couldn't?) fully capitalize on it. It's one of a few reasons why I specifically placed Bret right outside the Top 25.

 

Can you now do the same for Kobashi, Chad?

I snarked a similar request in my first post, but I edited it out because I don't know if there's anything less productive for this discussion than whipping out match lists and comparing length.

 

Bret and Flair didn't really work well together. It might be do to different philosophies or personal dislike, but they didn't work. Weird situation to pick.

 

Yes comparing great match lists lengths is exactly what I am against.

[JerryvonKramer]

To follow up on my point where great matches can be the goal with a specific tie-in to Bret -- I'd posit that the Souled Out feud with Flair was transparently built on the idea of providing a great match to establish Bret as a legitimate player in WCW and, for a number of reasons and extenuating factors, I think Bret and Flair ended up closer to Pretty Good than Capital-G Great.

To me, that was a specific situation where Bret actually had the opportunity and didn't (couldn't?) fully capitalize on it. It's one of a few reasons why I specifically placed Bret right outside the Top 25.

Can you now do the same for Kobashi, Chad?

I snarked a similar request in my first post, but I edited it out because I don't know if there's anything less productive for this discussion than whipping out match lists and comparing length.

Well someone scoffed at me saying 80+ and things were getting spicy.

[jpchicago23]

So if you were to say Bret only had 4 or 5 great matches, what's stopping someone from saying Kobashi only had 10. Not that I agree with that but star ratings will vary as will people's respective BIGLAV and so on. Could there be a better metric to rate someone?

[Loss]

To be clear, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but:

 

* Any match I rate ***1/2 or higher is something that I would say has accomplished something remarkable

* I don't think a great match has to be a certain length of time, but sometimes more time helps (I'll also note that sometimes, more time hinders)

* I don't think a great match has to be a main event, but sometimes it helps

* I don't think a great match has to be part of a great storyline, but sometimes it helps

* I don't think a great match has to have great announcing and production, but sometimes it helps

* I don't think everyone involved in every great match can claim credit for the quality outcome

* If I had to guess, I don't think every match I consider great necessarily aimed to be great

* I am interested in piecing together what made a match work for me and not just race to the value judgment at the end

* I care about what is effective with the live crowd and consider it important, but won't dismiss something that is not effective with the live crowd out of hand

* I think there are so, so, so many ways to skin the cat

 

So using the matches as a compass to rate the wrestlers comes with all of this happening first. I've never once used a calculator to compare to wrestlers, and I don't plan to start now.

[Grimmas]

So if you were to say Bret only had 4 or 5 great matches, what's stopping someone from saying Kobashi only had 10. Not that I agree with that but star ratings will vary as will people's respective BIGLAV and so on. Could there be a better metric to rate someone?

Of course there is a better metric and it's called:

 

+FSBOCHCCSSHBTBC -SSB

[JerryvonKramer]

I distinguished between the G which is matches at the 4.75-5 level, and V which is 3.75-4.5 level (and against different opponents).

[Bierschwale]

What about making matches that don't have to be great into great matches for your Cena-types?

 

Example: Cena & Rhodes Bros vs. Sandow & Real Americans, SmackDown main event in October or November 2013. It didn't have to be a great match, it just needed to be pretty good. But it actually is a great match, and Cena is key to it, like a late spot where he just blows up Jack Swagger with a tackle on the outside.

[supremebve]

Is putting on great matches the goal of every wrestler in every match, every night? No, but when it comes to the wrestlers we're talking about I'd be willing to bet that was their goal 90% of the time. We aren't talking about Heath Slater and R-Truth, we're talking about the best of the best wrestlers. They didn't become the best of the best without taking professional pride in the quality of their performances.

 

To be clear, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but:

 

* Any match I rate ***1/2 or higher is something that I would say has accomplished something remarkable

* I don't think a great match has to be a certain length of time, but sometimes more time helps (I'll also note that sometimes, more time hinders)

* I don't think a great match has to be a main event, but sometimes it helps

* I don't think a great match has to be part of a great storyline, but sometimes it helps

* I don't think a great match has to have great announcing and production, but sometimes it helps

* I don't think everyone involved in every great match can claim credit for the quality outcome

* If I had to guess, I don't think every match I consider great necessarily aimed to be great

* I am interested in piecing together what made a match work for me and not just race to the value judgment at the end

* I care about what is effective with the live crowd and consider it important, but won't dismiss something that is not effective with the live crowd out of hand

* I think there are so, so, so many ways to skin the cat

 

So using the matches as a compass to rate the wrestlers comes with all of this happening first. I've never once used a calculator to compare to wrestlers, and I don't plan to start now.

I agree with all of this. I would also add that greatness doesn't have to make sense, sometimes great is great, because it is great.

[jpchicago23]

In the rankings does anyone take personal investment into account? Just curious. I tend to think if you're invested in a worker you might have a tendency to hide negatives and accentuate positives maybe a little more. I know I do. Now being invested can also help the case of someone being great if you're invested based on their performances instead of an instance where you met said wrestler once or liked their theme music or whatever else.

[soup23]

Kobashi:

 

w/ Jumbo vs. Tenryu/Hansen 7/15/89

w/ Joe Malenk vs. Can Am Express 10/11/89

Masa Fuchi/Great Kabuki/Jumbo Tsuruta vs. Akira Taue/Mitsuharu Misawa/Kenta Kobashi 5/26/90

Kenta Kobashi/Toshiaki Kawada/Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Akira Taue/Masa Fuchi/Jumbo Tsuruta 10/19/90

Kenta Kobashi/Toshiaki Kawada/Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Jumbo Tsuruta/Masa Fuchi/Akira Taue 4/20/91

Mitsuharu Misawa, Kenta Kobashi & Toshiaki Kawada vs Jumbo Tsuruta, Masa Fuchi & Akira Taue (AJPW 01/24/92)

Masa Fuchi/Jumbo Tsuruta/Akira Taue vs. Mitsuharu Misawa/Toshiaki Kawada/Kenta Kobashi 5/22/92

Stan Hansen vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJPW 9/4/91)

Jumbo Tsuruta vs. Kenta Kobashi 2/27/92

Kikuchi/Kobashi vs. Furnas/Krofatt 5/25/92

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Jumbo Tsuruta & Akira Taue (AJPW 06/05/92)

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

Stan Hansen vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 7/29/93)

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs. Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (AJ 6/1/93)

vs. Dr. Death 8/31/93

Mitsuharu Misawa, Kenta Kobashi & Jun Akiyama vs. Toshiaki Kawada, Akira Taue & Yoshinari Ogawa (AJ 7/2/93)

vs. Kawada 10/23/93

Mitsuharu Misawa, Kenta Kobashi & Tsuyoshi Kikuchi vs. Toshiaki Kawada, Akira Taue & Masa Fuchi (AJ 10/2/93)

Stan Hansen vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 4/16/93)

Mitsuharu Misawa, Kenta Kobashi & Tsuyoshi Kikuchi vs. Toshiaki Kawada, Akira Taue & Yoshinari Ogawa (AJ 6/3/93)

Doug Furnas & Dan Kroffat vs Kenta Kobashi & Satoru Asako (AJPW 08/20/93)

Kenta Kobashi & Tsuyoshi Kikuchi vs. Jun Akiyama & Yoshinari Ogawa (AJ 1/24/93)

Terry Gordy vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 5/29/93)

12/3/93 tag

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs. Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (AJ 11/25/94)

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs. Steve Williams & Johnny Ace (AJ 7/22/94)

Steve Williams vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 4/15/94)

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs. Steve Williams & Johnny Ace (AJ 12/10/94)

Steve Williams vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 9/3/94)

Stan Hansen vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 4/10/94)

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs. Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (AJPW 5/21/94)

January 1995 draw vs. Kawada

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Steve Williams & Johnny Ace (AJPW 03/04/95)

Kenta Kobashi vs Akira Taue (AJPW 03/21/95)

Toshiaki Kawada vs Kenta Kobashi (AJPW Championship Carnival 04/13/95)

6/9/95

vs. Akira Taue 7/24/95

Mitsuharu Misawa & Kenta Kobashi vs Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (AJPW 10/15/95)

Stan Hansen vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 9/5/96)

Kenta Kobashi vs. Akira Taue (AJ 7/24/96)

Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 3/31/96)

Toshiaki Kawada vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJ 5/24/96)

Draw vs. Kawada 10/96

vs. Misawa 1/20/97

Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJPW 10/21/97)

Kenta Kobashi vs. Hiroshi Hase (AJPW 8/26/97)

Toshiaki Kawada vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJPW Carnival 4/19/97)

Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJPW 10/31/98) (*****)

Toshiaki Kawada vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJPW 6/12/98) (*****)

Kenta Kobashi vs. Jun Akiyama (AJPW 7/24/98) (****3/4)

Kenta Kobashi & Jun Akiyama vs. Stan Hansen & Vader (AJPW 12/5/98) (****1/2)

Kenta Kobashi vs. Akira Taue (AJPW 9/11/98) (****1/4)

Kenta Kobashi vs. Jun Akiyama (AJPW 4/11/98) (****1/4)

 

Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue vs. Kenta Kobashi & Johnny Ace (AJPW 6/5/98) (****1/4)

Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue vs. Kenta Kobashi & Jun Akiyama (AJPW 10/11/98) (****)

Mitsuharu Misawa & Yoshinari Ogawa vs. Kenta Kobashi & Jun Akiyama (AJPW 3/6/99)

Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJPW 6/11/99)

Kenta Kobashi vs. Jun Akiyama (AJPW 4/4/99)

Kenta Kobashi & Jun Akiyama vs. Toshiaki Kawada & Akira Taue (AJPW 1/7/99)

Vader vs. Kenta Kobashi (AJPW Carnival Final 4/16/99)

Mitsuharu Misawa & Akira Taue vs. Kenta Kobashi & Toshiaki Kawada (AJPW 6/4/99)

w/ Akiyama vs. Misawa/Ogawa 10/99

vs. Omori Carny Final 2000

vs. Takayama 5/25/00

 

That is 64 matches up to the NOAH split.

[Dylan Waco]

"Kobashi is Shawn Michaels with better offense and opponents."

 

Dylan, I love you, but what the fuck is this?

 

Straight out of the Schnedier "Jumbo was Terry Taylor" playbook of completely baffling and wrong analogies.

At work, but I think this is an absolute truism supported by all the available evidence to the point where I view your outrage as deliberately feigned nonsense. If you are serious I'll respond to it more directly when I get home.*

 

*post deliberately delivered in Parvian tone

[Dylan Waco]

Much of this thread ignores the context of where the term Great Match Theory came from. I understand why it's being ignored mind you, but as the person who coined the term the specificity of the debate that led to it being given its name is critical.

 

In other words, read the horror of the Bret v Flair feud in the Microscope.

[soup23]

I think the key to this discussion from my list ranking was that there isn't some set number of great matches that made me stop and say someone was getting on my list.

 

Sorry David Von Erich, you only have 9 great matches and the minimal requirement is 10 was not a phrase I ever thought of. In comparison of Bret vs. Kobashi in isolation, I feel Kobashi is stronger offensively, a much better babyface that had universal crowd affection for a sustained period of time longer than Bret, better face in peril, better comebacks, and better selling. I think Bret is a great worker but do have trouble viewing him as a top 10 candidate. I would have the same qualms if someone put DiBiase in their top 10.

[The Man in Blak]

Bret and Flair didn't really work well together. It might be do to different philosophies or personal dislike, but they didn't work. Weird situation to pick.

It didn't stop them during Flair's first WWF run:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/12021-ric-flair-vs-bret-hart-wwf-boston-gardens-010993-60-minute-iron-man-match/&do=findComment&comment=5464841

 

And, to be clear, I count Souled Out as a missed opportunity for Flair too (as well as WCW as a whole, obviously).

[Loss]

Much of this thread ignores the context of where the term Great Match Theory came from. I understand why it's being ignored mind you, but as the person who coined the term the specificity of the debate that led to it being given its name is critical.

 

In other words, read the horror of the Bret v Flair feud in the Microscope.

 

Wow do I ever not want to rehash anything about that thread (the very thought of it makes me ill) but I will say that I have evolved on my thinking some since that time. However, far, far more than that, I've found better ways to explain where I'm coming from. More than anything, I think that's the biggest difference between now and then. But yes, full disclosure, I did throw out the line in that thread that great matches are the perfect metric for comparing wrestlers when I meant that informed conclusions that derive from analysis of good matches are my preferred method for comparing wrestlers. That's very much a phrase I wish I could take back.

[soup23]

I also still disagree with a notion that rolling out great matches in lists form was effective for me in determining my list. The past two days have had arguments that great match theory has been debunked as a metric to use. I think that is incredibly insulting to those that do value great matches as a strong metric of determination. This isn't a list where if you had the highest number of great matches, you won, but having a long list and in Kobashi's case, a substantially larger list than Bret is a strong reason why I had one guy in my 40's and the other at #2. I have yet to be compelled on why this is being treated as inherently wrong by some members of the board.