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

[JerryvonKramer]

 

"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

I am shocked by it because I see Michaels as a worker more towards Ric Flair. Primarily someone who bumped big and made his opponent look good, only with even more limited offense and nowhere near the levels of charisma. But his core skills are similar to Ric's.

 

Kobashi is just ... Not that. The analogy is off.

[jpchicago23]

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

 

I'd co-sign all of that.

 

Also, I found lists of matches that people put together really helpful when exploring guys. I can't really get beyond the body of work as an absolutely vital measure of any given worker.

[Grimmas]

Parv nobody is saying you can't look at matches to elevate a wrestler. That is impossible.

[Matt D]

I'm going to repeat my feelings: Great matches are a starting point. No, an "Entry Point" and not at all the only one, but it is a useful one.*

 

*I like the Parv that tries to rationalize how many opportunities the Flair Flip presents than the one who makes lists.

[JerryvonKramer]

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

This is the second time in this thread that someone has imagined what Bret would do if given a set of circumstances that never happened.

 

Is GWE a measure of what happened or what we imagine might happen if we fantasy booked it?

 

Sorry if I sound incredulous but what is the hypothetical scenario stuff about?

[Grimmas]

 

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

This is the second time in this thread that someone has imagined what Bret would do if given a set of circumstances that never happened.

 

Is it a measure of what happened or what we imagine might happen if we fantasy booked it?

 

Sorry if I sound incredulous but what is the hypothetical scenario stuff about?

Skills vs output. Bret has better skills (to some of us). You can't look past output, so it is us trying to get on your way of thinking.

[soup23]

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

 

Bret was a big fish in a hugely diluted pond that was US and Canada wrestling in 92-97. I stack Kobashi being a guy with huge crowd appeal from a young lion to the day he retired in 2013 as a better testament to his connection to the crowd. Bret certainly has good matches with lesser talent but also has mediocre to mundane matches with really good talent which weighs into the house show effect with him. I again hate playing the what if game. Bret had plenty of matches with good workers as a tag wrestler and singles star. Bret did have a chance to have a showcase match in 1992 vs. Shawn Michaels. This match headlined a PPV and was given 26 minutes. Most at best call it very good. Name a Kobashi performance on the big stage where he was that flat for a huge performance making opportunity. Even the excessive Kobashi matches have pretty great heat.

[Grimmas]

 

 

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

Bret was a big fish in a hugely diluted pond that was US and Canada wrestling in 92-97. I stack Kobashi being a guy with huge crowd appeal from a young lion to the day he retired in 2013 as a better testament to his connection to the crowd. Bret certainly has good matches with lesser talent but also has mediocre to mundane matches with really good talent which weighs into the house show effect with him. I again hate playing the what if game. Bret had plenty of matches with good workers as a tag wrestler and singles star. Bret did have a chance to have a showcase match in 1992 vs. Shawn Michaels. This match headlined a PPV and was given 26 minutes. Most at best call it very good. Name a Kobashi performance on the big stage where he was that flat for a huge performance making opportunity. Even the excessive Kobashi matches have pretty great heat.

Kobashi never wrestled hbk in 92 in a WWF ring.

[soup23]

 

 

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

Bret was a big fish in a hugely diluted pond that was US and Canada wrestling in 92-97. I stack Kobashi being a guy with huge crowd appeal from a young lion to the day he retired in 2013 as a better testament to his connection to the crowd. Bret certainly has good matches with lesser talent but also has mediocre to mundane matches with really good talent which weighs into the house show effect with him. I again hate playing the what if game. Bret had plenty of matches with good workers as a tag wrestler and singles star. Bret did have a chance to have a showcase match in 1992 vs. Shawn Michaels. This match headlined a PPV and was given 26 minutes. Most at best call it very good. Name a Kobashi performance on the big stage where he was that flat for a huge performance making opportunity. Even the excessive Kobashi matches have pretty great heat.

Kobashi never wrestled hbk in 92 in a WWF ring.

 

 

If Kobashi would have, it would have been *****

[Matt D]

If he did it in 96, it'd give me a headache though.

[JerryvonKramer]

I simply don't understand this. So you say, this guy has X skills and then you imagine what he MIGHT do not what he actually did?

 

This was not how you and Tim talked about guys on your show. You were constantly pointing to actual matches that actually happened.

 

I see output as being basically impossible to discard. If Bowie had just had that voice and spent his career singing bubble gum tunes -- same skills as an artist but different output -- he wouldn't be thought of as a great. It's precisely because he has all his albums that he's considered as such. I don't see how you can argue that output isn't central.

[jpchicago23]

 

 

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

This is the second time in this thread that someone has imagined what Bret would do if given a set of circumstances that never happened.

 

Is it a measure of what happened or what we imagine might happen if we fantasy booked it?

 

Sorry if I sound incredulous but what is the hypothetical scenario stuff about?

Skills vs output. Bret has better skills (to some of us). You can't look past output, so it is us trying to get on your way of thinking.

Yes, what Steven said. If you can see the skill or if you enjoy the skill you can use that as a metric more so than longevity and output. Some people have ranked guys fairly high I'd imagine and may have only seen a handful of matches from said person. Therefore they recognize the skill of that wrestler. I'm not saying it's the correct way to go or even better than the theory of great matches but it's where some of us come from in our arguments

[Grimmas]

I simply don't understand this. So you say, this guy has X skills and then you imagine what he MIGHT do not what he actually did?

 

This was not how you and Tim talked about guys on your show. You were constantly pointing to actual matches that actually happened.

 

I see output as being basically impossible to discard. If Bowie had just had that voice and spent his career singing bubble gum tunes -- same skills as an artist but different output -- he wouldn't be thought of as a great. It's precisely because he has all his albums that he's considered as such. I don't see how you can argue that output isn't central.

Fuck nobody is discarding output. The matches show people what the skills are.

 

On the pod, I bought up why people were great, then pointed to matches as examples or for people to see.

 

You can't write an essay and not point to evidence to show your points.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I simply don't understand this. So you say, this guy has X skills and then you imagine what he MIGHT do not what he actually did?

This was not how you and Tim talked about guys on your show. You were constantly pointing to actual matches that actually happened.

I see output as being basically impossible to discard. If Bowie had just had that voice and spent his career singing bubble gum tunes -- same skills as an artist but different output -- he wouldn't be thought of as a great. It's precisely because he has all his albums that he's considered as such. I don't see how you can argue that output isn't central.

Fuck nobody is discarding output. The matches show people what the skills are.

On the pod, I bought up why people were great, then pointed to matches as examples or for people to see.

You can't write an essay and not point to evidence to show your points.

But you can make up imaginary evidence by imagining "what if"?

 

That's the bit of this I don't get at all. Like so what if Bret had to work Diesel and Isaac Yankem, that was his career.

 

I've said this before. Ted could have been NWA champ. He wasn't, it was Flair. Steve Keirn could have been WWF champ. He wasn't; it was Bob Backlund, and so on.

 

There's no "what if" in a GWE case.

[jpchicago23]

Yea I'm certainly not discarding output either as I just listed some of Brets matches in my argument. I kind of use a little bit of both as well as personal investment in my criteria I guess.

[Grimmas]

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?

[jpchicago23]

Dan Marino never won the Super Bowl and is widely regarded as a top 3 or 4 Qb of all time. He doesn't have the matches but he has the skill

[Grimmas]

 

 

I simply don't understand this. So you say, this guy has X skills and then you imagine what he MIGHT do not what he actually did?

This was not how you and Tim talked about guys on your show. You were constantly pointing to actual matches that actually happened.

I see output as being basically impossible to discard. If Bowie had just had that voice and spent his career singing bubble gum tunes -- same skills as an artist but different output -- he wouldn't be thought of as a great. It's precisely because he has all his albums that he's considered as such. I don't see how you can argue that output isn't central.

Fuck nobody is discarding output. The matches show people what the skills are.

On the pod, I bought up why people were great, then pointed to matches as examples or for people to see.

You can't write an essay and not point to evidence to show your points.

But you can make up imaginary evidence by imagining "what if"?

 

That's the bit of this I don't get at all. Like so what if Bret had to work Diesel and Isaac Yankem, that was his career.

 

I've said this before. Ted could have been NWA champ. He wasn't, it was Flair. Steve Keirn could have been WWF champ. He wasn't; it was Bob Backlund, and so on.

 

There's no "what if" in a GWE case.

I don't use the what ifs. The what ifs are stated to show you the handicaps.

[supremebve]

So essentially this is an argument of input vs. output. I'd argue that input is completely irrelevant if it doesn't lead to quality output, just because you have great typing skills it doesn't mean you are a great writer. Output is much more important, because most art is more than the sum of it's parts.

[supremebve]

Dan Marino never won the Super Bowl and is widely regarded as a top 3 or 4 Qb of all time. He doesn't have the matches but he has the skill

If your life was on the line you'd take Joe Montana, who had less skills but higher output.

[jpchicago23]

I'd say input leads to output but having opponents with better input and more opportunities for great output will lead to a higher level of both

[Grimmas]

So essentially this is an argument of input vs. output. I'd argue that input is completely irrelevant if it doesn't lead to quality output, just because you have great typing skills it doesn't mean you are a great writer. Output is much more important, because most art is more than the sum of it's parts.

Having great typing skills makes you a great typer though, even if you have a shitty keyboard so your speed might not be as high.

 

Typing skills and writing are completely different.

[Childs]

Dan Marino never won the Super Bowl and is widely regarded as a top 3 or 4 Qb of all time. He doesn't have the matches but he has the skill

The yards and the touchdowns are the matches and they're the main reasons he's regarded as great. The way he threw the ball is the skill but if it didn't lead to the yards and touchdowns, he'd be Jeff George. So actually, Dan Marino is the ultimate great match quarterback.

[Grimmas]

 

 

Dan Marino never won the Super Bowl and is widely regarded as a top 3 or 4 Qb of all time. He doesn't have the matches but he has the skill

If your life was on the line you'd take Joe Montana, who had less skills but higher output.

Sports is different than wrestling