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

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

If you gave me the same exact players around each qb I'd take Marino every time and live long and prosper

[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

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.

We'll that completely fucked up my argument now didn't it? Thanks

[Grimmas]

I hate comparing wrestling to other mediums. They don't work.

[JerryvonKramer]

Grimmas, it's no point saying X is different from wrestling.

 

I don't know of any field where the body of work is not absolutely central in assessing "greatness". Like none.

 

It's like trying to judge Picasso on his brush strokes rather than on Guernica or whatever. The output is just the core, part and parcel of his rep.

 

I don't really see how wrestling his different. Or why you want it to be.

[Grimmas]

Grimmas, it's no point saying X is different from wrestling.

 

I don't know of any field where the body of work is not absolutely central in assessing "greatness". Like none.

 

It's like trying to judge Picasso on his brush strokes rather than on Guernica or whatever. The output is just the core, part and parcel of his rep.

 

I don't really see how wrestling his different. Or why you want it to be.

People argue that players are better than Gretzky in hockey, even though Gretzky has all the records by far. Output is not everything.

[Grimmas]

By the way, nobody says this actor is better than this actor look at these films, aren't they great? No, you look at the performances and what they bring to them.

[Jimmy Redman]

Grimmas, it's no point saying X is different from wrestling.

 

I don't know of any field where the body of work is not absolutely central in assessing "greatness". Like none.

 

It's like trying to judge Picasso on his brush strokes rather than on Guernica or whatever. The output is just the core, part and parcel of his rep.

 

I don't really see how wrestling his different. Or why you want it to be.

 

I don't think the analogy is looking at Picasso's brush strokes.

 

I think the analogy is looking at how effective Picasso's brush strokes were in one of his lesser paintings.

 

You're completely separating input and output as if they're distinct from each other but they're not. People looking at input are looking at the output to find the input.

[Childs]

It isn't and yet most people come back to Gretzky because of that crushing output. It's why he's the standard, even though Bobby Orr or Mario Lemieux might have been more beautiful to watch.

[jpchicago23]

 

 

Grimmas, it's no point saying X is different from wrestling.

 

I don't know of any field where the body of work is not absolutely central in assessing "greatness". Like none.

 

It's like trying to judge Picasso on his brush strokes rather than on Guernica or whatever. The output is just the core, part and parcel of his rep.

 

I don't really see how wrestling his different. Or why you want it to be.

I don't think the analogy is looking at Picasso's brush strokes.

 

I think the analogy is looking at how effective Picasso's brush strokes were in one of his lesser paintings.

 

You're completely separating input and output as if they're distinct from each other but they're not. People looking at input are looking at the output to find the input.

Wow, how did I not say this?

[Grimmas]

 

 

Grimmas, it's no point saying X is different from wrestling.

 

I don't know of any field where the body of work is not absolutely central in assessing "greatness". Like none.

 

It's like trying to judge Picasso on his brush strokes rather than on Guernica or whatever. The output is just the core, part and parcel of his rep.

 

I don't really see how wrestling his different. Or why you want it to be.

I don't think the analogy is looking at Picasso's brush strokes.

 

I think the analogy is looking at how effective Picasso's brush strokes were in one of his lesser paintings.

 

You're completely separating input and output as if they're distinct from each other but they're not. People looking at input are looking at the output to find the input.

Wow, how did I not say this?

 

We are all saying the same thing. One of these times Parv will understand it.

[Grimmas]

It isn't and yet most people come back to Gretzky because of that crushing output. It's why he's the standard, even though Bobby Orr or Mario Lemieux might have been more beautiful to watch.

The majority yes. However there are lots of people convinced it's Orr, Lemieux , Howe or Eddie Shore.

 

Also sports is a horrible analogy.

[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.

If you gave me the same exact players around each qb I'd take Marino every time and live long and prosper

 

I suppose, but we don't know that. Back to what Jerry von Kramer was saying, we know for a fact that Joe Montana could get the job done. We assume that Dan Marino can get the job done. We have to judge these guys on what they did, not on what we assumed they could do. Being great has as much to do with taking full advantage of your opportunities as it does with what skills you do or don't have. Kobashi was in a position to have great matches with great wrestlers, and he went out there and had a whole barrel full of great matches. That shouldn't be held against him because Bret Hart was wrestling a dentist.

 

By the way, nobody says this actor is better than this actor look at these films, aren't they great? No, you look at the performances and what they bring to them.

Who is the best actor of all time? I bet you he's in a shitload of great movies.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

 

Grimmas, it's no point saying X is different from wrestling.

I don't know of any field where the body of work is not absolutely central in assessing "greatness". Like none.

It's like trying to judge Picasso on his brush strokes rather than on Guernica or whatever. The output is just the core, part and parcel of his rep.

I don't really see how wrestling his different. Or why you want it to be.

 

I don't think the analogy is looking at Picasso's brush strokes.

I think the analogy is looking at how effective Picasso's brush strokes were in one of his lesser paintings.

You're completely separating input and output as if they're distinct from each other but they're not. People looking at input are looking at the output to find the input.

Wow, how did I not say this?

We are all saying the same thing. One of these times Parv will understand it.

I really dislike being cast as the one guy not getting this against a sea of enlightened folk because I think the truth looks something like the total inverse of that.

[Jimmy Redman]

Also Parv, I'm not really out for one side or the other in this argument, but it's worth noting that you're the guy who had the BIGLAV system. In this system, only two of those factors deal with output. G and V.

Basic skills are input. Intangibles are input. Ability to play different roles is input. Longevity is kind of both I guess.

More of your factors deal with input than output, if you think about it. And a guy can do really poorly on G and V and still do very well in your system if he ranks highly in B, I and A, i.e. someone who is very much an input over output wrestler.

[Childs]

Generally, I agree with Steven that sports make for a bad comparison, because output really is more important than input when comparing athletes.

 

That's less true when you're talking about an aesthetic medium, though I still think great input only goes so far without leading to great output. We don't talk about people who write great sentences. We talk about people who write great stories and books that are, ideally, full of great sentences.

[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.

If you gave me the same exact players around each qb I'd take Marino every time and live long and prosper

 

I suppose, but we don't know that. Back to what Jerry von Kramer was saying, we know for a fact that Joe Montana could get the job done. We assume that Dan Marino can get the job done. We have to judge these guys on what they did, not on what we assumed they could do. Being great has as much to do with taking full advantage of your opportunities as it does with what skills you do or don't have. Kobashi was in a position to have great matches with great wrestlers, and he went out there and had a whole barrel full of great matches. That shouldn't be held against him because Bret Hart was wrestling a dentist.

 

By the way, nobody says this actor is better than this actor look at these films, aren't they great? No, you look at the performances and what they bring to them.

Who is the best actor of all time? I bet you he's in a shitload of great movies.

 

I bet they are, but it's not automatically the person in the most amount. That's the point.

 

You look at the movies and use that to judge the performances of the participants.

[JerryvonKramer]

Also Parv, I'm not really out for one side or the other in this argument, but it's worth noting that you're the guy who had the BIGLAV system. In this system, only two of those factors deal with output. G and V.

Basic skills are input. Intangibles are input. Ability to play different roles is input. Longevity is kind of both I guess.

More of your factors deal with input than output, if you think about it. And a guy can do really poorly on G and V and still do very well in your system if he ranks highly in B, I and A, i.e. someone who is very much an input over output wrestler.

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case.

 

And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park.

 

The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18.

 

He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it.

[WingedEagle]

 

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.

 

 

I'd still really like to understand where you're coming from with the skills overshadowing the output. It sounds like a way to reach a desired conclusion when the performances simply don't merit it, and I don't believe for a second that that's your goal. Yes, deliberately used the word performance there because unless you're Kota Ibushi there's always at least one other person in the match and its what those performances come together to produce that's the objective.

 

 

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.

 

 

Or the ultimate performance guy if the metric is titles

[Grimmas]

 

Also Parv, I'm not really out for one side or the other in this argument, but it's worth noting that you're the guy who had the BIGLAV system. In this system, only two of those factors deal with output. G and V.

Basic skills are input. Intangibles are input. Ability to play different roles is input. Longevity is kind of both I guess.

More of your factors deal with input than output, if you think about it. And a guy can do really poorly on G and V and still do very well in your system if he ranks highly in B, I and A, i.e. someone who is very much an input over output wrestler.

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case.

 

And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park.

 

The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18.

 

He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it.

 

 

How am I ignoring output at all? I have Kobashi at freaking 18.

 

I think I factor in the handi-cap more than you.

 

Bret has better skills.

Kobashi has more greater matches.

Kobashi also had more chances and better opponents to have those matches.

Factor in the handicap of that and the fact Bret has better skills puts him above.

 

However let's compare to people with the same opponents and opportunities. If one has way more great matches, they are probably better.Skills wouldn't factor in as much.

 

I can't look at someone in the WWF in the 90s and someone in AJPW in the 90s and use output as the main factor. It's not fair for either of the two people.

[JerryvonKramer]

Utterly baffling to me that the fact Kobashi had a great career could actually be used against him as a "handicap".

 

I just don't get that. "More chances to have great matches", why are people ranking Cena again?

 

Lost me here. Totally.

[Grimmas]

Utterly baffling to me that the fact Kobashi had a great career could actually be used against him as a "handicap".

 

I just don't get that. "More chances to have great matches", why are people ranking Cena again?

 

Lost me here. Totally.

Bret has the handicap, not Kobashi.

[Jimmy Redman]

 

Also Parv, I'm not really out for one side or the other in this argument, but it's worth noting that you're the guy who had the BIGLAV system. In this system, only two of those factors deal with output. G and V.

Basic skills are input. Intangibles are input. Ability to play different roles is input. Longevity is kind of both I guess.

More of your factors deal with input than output, if you think about it. And a guy can do really poorly on G and V and still do very well in your system if he ranks highly in B, I and A, i.e. someone who is very much an input over output wrestler.

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case.

 

And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park.

 

The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18.

 

He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it.

 

 

It's not about willfully overlooking things as much as just reaching a different conclusion.

 

Steven rates output but he rates input more, as he's admitted. So even if he agrees with you vis a vis the relative outputs of Kobashi and Bret (and I don't think he does since he'd probably give Bret a bit more credit there), it's the input that makes the difference for him, since he ranks Bret's input a fair bit higher than Kobashi's. And he's not wrong for that. You've sort of decided that Kobashi is levels above Bret and anyone who disagrees is wrong but nobody is fucking wrong here. That's where people take issue, where you've decided the objective answer and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "willfully overlooking evidence".

 

Steven has evidence. He has it in all of the little things Bret does. All of the touches he adds to his matches, all of the neat finishes he comes up with that play off stuff, all of the ways in which Bret portrays realism and serious wrestling in a WWF ring, all of the good things he was able to do with the scrubs he was working with, with all the crispness and effectiveness of his offense and moves, all of the ways in which he works EXACTLY like Steven wants a wrestler to work. AND he has it in all of the great matches Bret has. THAT is Steven's evidence.

 

Kobashi doesn't do those things for Steven, or at least he doesn't do them nearly as much. What Bret inputs into his work is better than what Kobashi inputs into his. Steven values input highly. Therefore he put Bret higher on his list. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

 

Someone like Taue has more great matches than a guy like Ted, but you put Ted higher (if I'm remembering right). Why? Because of all the shit that Ted does better than Taue.

 

Steven has justified his case for Bret over and over. Just because you disagree doesn't make him wrong.

[jpchicago23]

Your argument is saying Kobashi had the better matches, Stevens is saying Bret is the better wrestler. At least to me it's that simple

[Grimmas]

 

 

Also Parv, I'm not really out for one side or the other in this argument, but it's worth noting that you're the guy who had the BIGLAV system. In this system, only two of those factors deal with output. G and V.

Basic skills are input. Intangibles are input. Ability to play different roles is input. Longevity is kind of both I guess.

More of your factors deal with input than output, if you think about it. And a guy can do really poorly on G and V and still do very well in your system if he ranks highly in B, I and A, i.e. someone who is very much an input over output wrestler.

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case.

 

And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park.

 

The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18.

 

He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it.

 

 

It's not about willfully overlooking things as much as just reaching a different conclusion.

 

Steven rates output but he rates input more, as he's admitted. So even if he agrees with you vis a vis the relative outputs of Kobashi and Bret (and I don't think he does since he'd probably give Bret a bit more credit there), it's the input that makes the difference for him, since he ranks Bret's input a fair bit higher than Kobashi's. And he's not wrong for that. You've sort of decided that Kobashi is levels above Bret and anyone who disagrees is wrong but nobody is fucking wrong here. That's where people take issue, where you've decided the objective answer and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "willfully overlooking evidence".

 

Steven has evidence. He has it in all of the little things Bret does. All of the touches he adds to his matches, all of the neat finishes he comes up with that play off stuff, all of the ways in which Bret portrays realism and serious wrestling in a WWF ring, all of the good things he was able to do with the scrubs he was working with, with all the crispness and effectiveness of his offense and moves, all of the ways in which he works EXACTLY like Steven wants a wrestler to work. AND he has it in all of the great matches Bret has. THAT is Steven's evidence.

 

Kobashi doesn't do those things for Steven, or at least he doesn't do them nearly as much. What Bret inputs into his work is better than what Kobashi inputs into his. Steven values input highly. Therefore he put Bret higher on his list. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

 

Someone like Taue has more great matches than a guy like Ted, but you put Ted higher (if I'm remembering right). Why? Because of all the shit that Ted does better than Taue.

 

Steven has justified his case for Bret over and over. Just because you disagree doesn't make him wrong.

 

Wow, that is everything I've tried to say. Thank you.

[Loss]

There are WWF main events in the 90s that are better than All Japan main events in the 90s. If we focus too much on the handicap, we in some ways downplay the achievement of something like Bret-Austin at Survivor Series being better than every single Triple Crown Title match in 1996, or Wrestlemania XIII being better than all but one Triple Crown Title match in 1997. The difference in opportunity is a real thing, but guys like Bret Hart were often able to overcome it anyway. I'd rather see that weighed more (an equally great match that is even more impressive as a feat) than to put a ceiling on what WWF headliners in the 1990s were able to accomplish. That they had those moments where they were able to hold their own on a global stage shows that they didn't have that ceiling, or those matches could never have been as good as they were. The All Japan guys did have a lot more high end matches, and they were in an environment that valued it more so it makes sense that they would. But they also made the most of the opportunities they were given. The great wrestler in the environment conducive to good matches will probably always rank higher than the great wrestler in the environment not conducive to good matches, just like the Baron Corbins of the world will always get more chances to get over on top in WWE than the Sami Zayns of the world. It's wrestling, and when we agree to limit our compass to ring work, it makes sense that the wrestlers in the more workrate-heavy companies are going to benefit. We made a choice going in to put more stock in that.