Reactions to the Honorable Mention List, Part 3

[jaedmc]

Brock was a guy i instinctively put on my list, and then the more I thought the more he seemed out of place. When I started transferring the list to the form, i just kept dropping him, and I think if I did it today I'd dump him completely.

[JerryvonKramer]

I haven't argued for my methods to be valued above all else, and I don't think I ever once in the whole thing said that BIGLAV was ever anything but a method to help me feel like my back 50 was less arbitrary, as I was having a tough time deciding on who was 78 and who was 68, etc.

 

That is a misnomer, and something widely misunderstood.

 

What I've argued for is a recognition that GWE is about something more than just personal connection and more than a personal favourites list. And if you accept that, then I don't see how you don't also accept that there are some objective factors you can actually point to when making cases.

 

There will be workers with 140+ votes, regardless of how people made their lists, there are other workers who are not even nominated. If you can sit there with a straight face and still say "it's all subjective" then so be it. To me, the evidence suggests that there are at least shared standards that helps cream rise. If there aren't, how do you explain it?

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd also like to ask Tim if he ever actually bothered to read the first page of BIGLAV where many of the things he accused me of are dealt with pretty openly: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/32545-jvks-six-factor-model-for-gwe-rankings-biglav/?p=5712595

 

In the past week two things happened. First, I listened again to Wrestling Culture #50 where Dylan and Dave ran through their top 50s back in 2013. Dave Musgrave's list in particular kind of gave me a burst of renewed enthusiasm and has sort of jolted me out of the funk I was in a couple of months ago. I can now see what everyone was telling me about it being more about the personal journey etc. etc., and on reflection I got too caught up on some little things and couldn't see the woods for the trees. So I think I am going to put in a list. It would be a waste not to. But I also feel much more relaxed about the whole thing in general. So a thanks to Dave and Dylan from 2013 for, somehow, putting my mind at ease about it.

 

The second thing that happened is that I happened to have a game of Top Trumps.

 

And that triggered an idea I've been thinking about sub-consciously for a while. One of the things that has bothered me when coming up with my own list is some of the arbitrariness with which I'm making decisions, is this guy here because he's the best or just because I happen to love him? Why is this guy at 44 and this guy at 45? Etc. Beyond the top 10 it all felt like a bit of a crapshoot, especially the lower down the list I got.

 

I wanted to devise a system that could normalise comparisons on a six-factor model.

 

...

 

Notes:

- This is in no way an attempt to be objective, since many of the ratings are in themselves inherently subjective; it is simply a tool to help me rank my picks

I'm only quoting that so Tim can see how completely off the mark that post he made was.

[Beast]

I think even if the majority of us used BIGLAV, our results would still be vastly different. Because my idea of Flair's base ability would be different than yours and others. Intangibles is totally up to the voter and so on and so on.

[Gregor]

But that's kind of my point. I'm not dismissing them as being niche, but when the reaction to certain mainstream names appearing high in the rankings is that it is a sign that some outsider votes have corrupted the process, it's basically saying, "if you don't recognize the greatness of these other genres then you're not really part of what we're about". Which is weird, because ranking somebody like Triple H is not, in and of itself, a sign that you're a mindless WWE mark.

 

If you look at the names that are left there are about 15 who would qualify as modern (2000 and beyond) WWE workers. Yet the general cry over the last 48 hours or so is that they're somehow over-represented. The simple math of it is that 100 names in the grand scheme of things is not a lot, so no single era or style is going to dominate.

 

For what it's worth, guys, I'm not upset or even annoyed. Nobody has attacked me personally and I'm not taking any of this personal. It's just that this reveal process has been a really curious social experiment in its own right and I'm fascinated by how people are reacting to it.

Well, you used the word "niche" in the post to which I replied, so you can see why I thought that.

 

As someone who's defended Shawn Michaels on this site more than I'd like to admit, I'm aware that people can look at WWE critically and still conclude that the company had elite wrestlers. That's not my issue. My problem is that, if you count lurking, I've been reading posts here for over five years, and it's clear that this isn't a place that generally views Triple H positively, yet he finished in the top 150. Look at the thread for him in the Nominees section - there's an interesting discussion of the Bryan match, a bunch of insults, and very little support for the guy. If his high ranking isn't the result of a bunch of people stopping by to drop off their votes, then it means that the people here who like him aren't interested in defending him, which in a way is just as problematic.

 

Whatever the case, it's made the results less exciting for me. Like I said, I've said a lot of favorable things about Michaels in my time here, and most of the time I felt like there were a bunch of people who disagreed. Instead of once and for all getting to see where the board stands on Michaels, I know that he's guaranteed a fairly high ranking for the same reason that Undertaker, Jericho, Rock, and Owen are (even if they finish in the 101-109 range, that's still fairly high).

 

I understand that not everyone is going to like every style. That's unavoidable. That said, when the end result becomes Sting ranking above Pirata Morgan just because Sting wrestled for U.S. companies and Pirata didn't, that's utterly uninteresting. All it says about the two men is where they worked. I didn't vote because I knew that I'd never be able to get myself to watch styles that didn't interest me. I'm not saying that people who didn't watch a whole lot shouldn't have voted, but to me that was part of the project. Why would someone who doesn't post here care about a goal like that, though? Anyway, I had a lot more sympathy for the point you made about hardcore and Dragon Gate guys dropping off with nary a word said about it.

 

I've always been happy with this being a nice little place, whereas I'm aware that the people who run the site have always wanted more people here, so part of this is me having a different idea of this site and this project than the reality of them. This was longer than I'd have liked. Apologies for not being more concise.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think even if the majority of us used BIGLAV, our results would still be vastly different. Because my idea of Flair's base ability would be different than yours and others. Intangibles is totally up to the voter and so on and so on.

Exactly.

 

I think people mistake what I'm talking about when I say "objectivity", it has nothing to do with my list or with BIGLAV or anything like that, it has to do with pointing at evidence, whether input or output, a guy's career, what actually happened etc. etc.

 

Objectively, Kenta Kobashi had more matches period than Magnum TA. This is a fact. Magnum TA's career was short. These are tangible, measurable things.

 

Who had more "great matches" is a subjective value judgement, but most people who have seen a good chunk of both careers, would say Kobashi had more of them than Magnum. Again, this sort of thing is in the realm of objectivity.

 

I have a hard time thinking about the argument that takes that evidence about both bodies of work and comes out with Magnum TA as the #1 worker. To me that goes against the grain of what is there.

 

And, I'm pretty sure most other people here agree and have Kobashi above Magnum, if indeed they ranked Magnum at all (I did, he was my #100 guy). So lots of people looking at the same evidence all draw similar conclusions. That's objectivity.

 

I hope it's clear how that has nothing to do with BIGLAV.

[Exposer]

That's fair. I think this last post is the most clear you've been on your take with this project Parv. I appreciate the clarity. I suppose arguments can be made that Kobashi doesn't have any good matches & even with Magnum's shorter career he had great ones so he's better. I don't think there's many voters who think that here though. If there are, I'd be very interested in hearing that argument.

 

EDIT: Just to add that Kobashi is in my Top 15 & I didn't even rank Magnum.

[ohtani's jacket]

If somebody thinks Magnum TA is better than Kobashi they should just go for it. Argue the shit out of that motherfucker and never look back.

 

This is what happens in the down periods between reveals.

[Grimmas]

 

I think even if the majority of us used BIGLAV, our results would still be vastly different. Because my idea of Flair's base ability would be different than yours and others. Intangibles is totally up to the voter and so on and so on.

Exactly.

 

I think people mistake what I'm talking about when I say "objectivity", it has nothing to do with my list or with BIGLAV or anything like that, it has to do with pointing at evidence, whether input or output, a guy's career, what actually happened etc. etc.

 

Objectively, Kenta Kobashi had more matches period than Magnum TA. This is a fact. Magnum TA's career was short. These are tangible, measurable things.

 

Who had more "great matches" is a subjective value judgement, but most people who have seen a good chunk of both careers, would say Kobashi had more of them than Magnum. Again, this sort of thing is in the realm of objectivity.

 

I have a hard time thinking about the argument that takes that evidence about both bodies of work and comes out with Magnum TA as the #1 worker. To me that goes against the grain of what is there.

 

 

I really hate this part. Wrestler A has more great matches than Wrestler B. Does know automatically come to the conclusion that Wrestler A > Wrestler B.

 

Yes Kobashi is better than Magnum, however there is more to being a worker than the end quality of a match.

[Timbo Slice]

Then that is a mistake on my part. I can own up to that.

[Parties]

I’m really trying to not take the bait on this conversation and I agree with OJ that its a byproduct of not having new rankings to discuss, but a few not-so-quick points here:

* To paraphrase TomK’s perfect statement on this from a DVDVR thread years ago (I think it was something in Purotopia where people were likewise getting riled up about “tone” and their opinions being “challenged”): subjectivity is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of it. When met with a subjective opinion, there are a wealth of options beyond a shrug. What is debate if not a spirited analysis of subjective views?

 

* If you sincerely believe that your own list of the one hundred greatest wrestlers of all time is in any way “objective”, then you are misusing the word. Applying “criteria” to a list of opinions does not make it (or anything else) objective, especially if one of those criterion is “intangibles”. The very fact that 150 other people submitted different lists makes the process inherently “subjective”, as is the case with virtually all assessments of art. Your list is entirely the product of your own biases, feelings, viewpoint, etc. “Objectivity” as a concept is in itself arguably subjective, given that it is used to describe both philosophical and scientific truths. As Parv correctly notes, “objectivity” is for the most part just an extension of consensus. Even those ideas which we hold to be most objective (laws of physics and natural science) are predicated on what we know of our world here and now, and will be constantly revised over generations, as they have been since time eternal. Recognition of one’s subjectivity is (in my opinion - ha!) a necessary facet of becoming emotionally mature. Getting comfortable with the idea of being human, etc.

 

* “Passion” for a belief is entirely subjective, which is part of what separates passion (an emotion) from fact. If you don't believe me, ask that guy who cheated on Sandra Bullock. Passions are entirely worth discussing strongly: that’s what makes them passions. That they are singular to each individual does not deflate them: rather, it is what makes them wonderful, in that debate is as much an inquiry into our own psyche as it is into the minds of other people.

 

* Despite my pedantic spiel here, I empathize with what Parv’s saying in that I personally wouldn’t get much out of making a list and then not talking about it. Or worse still, not talking about it and then getting frustrated when anyone else wondered why I voted the way that I did. “It’s all opinions” is a lame way to approach any conversation. I even think it’s fun and substantive to come up with one’s own criteria, as Parv did. But it’s important to recognize it as yours and yours alone, and that those who value the same concepts (“consistency”, “innovation”, “influence”, “carrying others”, “technique”, etc.) will each apply them differently, and often in contrast to their fellow voters. My “consistency” is not your “consistency”. I suspect a big component of this is that some people on message boards welcome debate of their views, while others view such discourse as combative: they just want to give their take without being questioned or scrutinized. I've always figured these are the types of people who think it's rude to discuss politics at the dinner table, but that's just a guess. To Parv's point: not all opinions are of equal merit - some are more knowledged than others. Which I think tends to be the pressure point in a lot of these wrestling convos about "subjectivity": people are uncomfortable with the idea that someone who disagrees with them may have seen more wrestling and thus likely have more insight. Personally, I'd rather be dead wrong (as I often am here) and learn something new than never get in the shark tank. There are people on here who've seen way more matches than I have, but I am comfortable disagreeing with some of their takes.

 

* I don’t know which other worker rankings Woof is talking about besides Triple H at #120. Triple H is probably the most scrutinized figure in what have now been the first 20(ish) years of internet wrestling fandom. His matches and legacy are heavily criticized everywhere, though he clearly also has supporters. I don’t think any (maybe one or two?) of the people who voted for him have posted to talk about why he’s on their ballot. The ribbing of his placement (my own included) was pretty gentle and really not an affront to any other voter’s taste. Grimmas posting the voters is its own thing - maybe you think it’s in good fun, maybe not - but FWIW I’m someone who has said early and often that I think anonymous voting is lame and that ideally every voter for each worker would be posted. Not to hold a witch trial, but because it benefits conversation/context/a degree of genteel accountability/etc.

[TheU_2001]

For what it's worth, Hogan is an extreme anomaly in that he's at minimum one of the 3-5 biggest stars in wrestling history (and to my mind he's probably #1). He went from being a pretty great wrestler from '80-'87 or even '88 into becoming a mediocre one at what probably should have been the end of his career (say, '92) and then into a genuinely terrible one in WCW before becoming the most problematic, detrimental guy in the business from '97 on. He's maybe the toughest guy to judge of all the nominees. He wasn't on my list, but I can't argue that when he was good, he was great, and that having an 8 year run where you're both damn good in the ring and the biggest act in the business (kicking off one of American wrestling's two all-time peaks) is a singular achievement (depending on how people feel about late 90s Austin). Hogan's contributions are so great that I understand people ranking him, but to me the damage he did and the horrible high-profile matches he had in the second half of his career made him into someone who I didn't want to endorse.

 

People will argue that having polar extremes at the beginning/end of his career makes Hogan no different than Flair and Foley. Which is a fair argument, though Foley didn't make my list in large part because he was so bad and so overused for so long (I love, love, love him from the late 80s through '97). Flair's long peak (say '78-'90) vastly outweighs the 10 years from '01-'11 where he was awful (to the point of being one of the worst guys in the whole business to be regularly making tape during those years, as Dylan and others have noted).

I am probably the high vote on Hogan; at least I think so.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah Parv, when people say "subjectivity" it's not about "it's all my own opinion la la la" or a lack of scrutiny, which is what you always paint the argument as. It's when you get two guys theoretically putting Kobashi and Magnum through a BIGLAV system, and having Mag come out on top. Someone maybe thinking that Mag has better base ability, better intangibles, better variety, etc. even if Kobashi has a bigger list of matches. And he wouldn't be wrong or less "objective" for doing so. He's just someone who comes to different conclusions from looking at the same evidence you are. Someone who values slightly different things in a wrestler than you do. Someone who values a certain type of wrestler or wrestling more than another. Someone who simply doesn't rate the Kobashi matches as much as you do. (I'm repeating myself from the Kobashi/Bret debate but whatever)

 

There's no objectivity because two people can look at the same evidence, even use ostensibly the same criteria, and come to wildly different conclusions. And neither is wrong or more wrong than the other. It's a subjective medium, everybody sees things with their own eyes.

[Timbo Slice]

Once again, someone comes through and explains my points better than I could, with Parties and Jimmy doing that task this time.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah Parv, when people say "subjectivity" it's not about "it's all my own opinion la la la" or a lack of scrutiny, which is what you always paint the argument as. It's when you get two guys theoretically putting Kobashi and Magnum through a BIGLAV system, and having Mag come out on top. Someone maybe thinking that Mag has better base ability, better intangibles, better variety, etc. even if Kobashi has a bigger list of matches. And he wouldn't be wrong or less "objective" for doing so. He's just someone who comes to different conclusions from looking at the same evidence you are. Someone who values slightly different things in a wrestler than you do. Someone who values a certain type of wrestler or wrestling more than another. Someone who simply doesn't rate the Kobashi matches as much as you do. (I'm repeating myself from the Kobashi/Bret debate but whatever)

 

There's no objectivity because two people can look at the same evidence, even use ostensibly the same criteria, and come to wildly different conclusions. And neither is wrong or more wrong than the other. It's a subjective medium, everybody sees things with their own eyes.

What I wonder about. And I've wondered about this my whole life. Remember I spend my days sitting in an English Department. Is why it is that the vast majority of people in the scenario you outline would come out with Kobashi on top.

 

Yes, you might get an outlier, but it fascinates me how in mediums that are supposedly so subjective, you get the same judgements being made with really outstanding levels of regularity.

 

Like I'm a Shakespeare guy, at no time in the 400 years since he died has there ever once been a general consensus that Ben Jonson was the better playwright. Like not once, even in periods of history in which you'd expect them to prefer a neater, more by-the-book, more moralistic writer like Jonson. You might get the occasional person who stumps for Jonson, but that person is an extreme outlier. No matter the age, no matter who the people are debating.

 

You see interesting consensus picks in film criticism. There are various different canons, but across all of them you get certain picks that recur with such stunning regularity that you wonder if it really can be a totally subjective thing. Can it?

 

In this process we've seen the #1 Scott Steiner pick. It was one of the true highlights of the whole deal. But why was it such a surprise?

 

Why didn't a single person nominate El Gigante?

 

Why did no one put Mike Rotunda as their #1 pick?

 

I don't have the answers to these questions and I've said before, one day, maybe I might write a book about this exact thing, but until then I'll always wonder and will always hold out from accepting "subjective medium" as code for "anything goes" -- it's clear that anything doesn't go. It's clear that certain works, certain artists, certain workers have a habit of hitting lots of people in a way that certain others don't. If that didn't happen, we wouldn't even have the idea of "critical consensus". These are things I think that are overlooked or explained away too readily -- not just by you, but by relativists everywhere. It is a real phenomena. And the fact remains that in this sample size of 152, some guys will end up with 140+ votes and others with 0. It's just an accident of subjectivity?

[Microstatistics]

Surprised (and disappointed) no Chigusa Nagayo in the top 100. Assuming no drops between 109-101, looks like only 4 women will make the top 100 (Hokuto, Toyota, Aja, Bull).

[goc]

I have Hogan in my top 25. If you don't like it you can drink bleach!

[Jimmy Redman]

 

Yeah Parv, when people say "subjectivity" it's not about "it's all my own opinion la la la" or a lack of scrutiny, which is what you always paint the argument as. It's when you get two guys theoretically putting Kobashi and Magnum through a BIGLAV system, and having Mag come out on top. Someone maybe thinking that Mag has better base ability, better intangibles, better variety, etc. even if Kobashi has a bigger list of matches. And he wouldn't be wrong or less "objective" for doing so. He's just someone who comes to different conclusions from looking at the same evidence you are. Someone who values slightly different things in a wrestler than you do. Someone who values a certain type of wrestler or wrestling more than another. Someone who simply doesn't rate the Kobashi matches as much as you do. (I'm repeating myself from the Kobashi/Bret debate but whatever)

 

There's no objectivity because two people can look at the same evidence, even use ostensibly the same criteria, and come to wildly different conclusions. And neither is wrong or more wrong than the other. It's a subjective medium, everybody sees things with their own eyes.

What I wonder about. And I've wondered about this my whole life. Remember I spend my days sitting in an English Department. Is why it is that the vast majority of people in the scenario you outline would come out with Kobashi on top.

 

Yes, you might get an outlier, but it fascinates me how in mediums that are supposedly so subjective, you get the same judgements being made with really outstanding levels of regularity.

 

Like I'm a Shakespeare guy, at no time in the 400 years since he died has there ever once been a general consensus that Ben Jonson was the better playwright. Like not once, even in periods of history in which you'd expect them to prefer a neater, more by-the-book, more moralistic writer like Jonson. You might get the occasional person who stumps for Jonson, but that person is an extreme outlier. No matter the age, no matter who the people are debating.

 

You see interesting consensus picks in film criticism. There are various different canons, but across all of them you get certain picks that recur with such stunning regularity that you wonder if it really can be a totally subjective thing. Can it?

 

In this process we've seen the #1 Scott Steiner pick. It was one of the true highlights of the whole deal. But why was it such a surprise?

 

Why didn't a single person nominate El Gigante?

 

Why did no one put Mike Rotunda as their #1 pick?

 

I don't have the answers to these questions and I've said before, one day, maybe I might write a book about this exact thing, but until then I'll always wonder and will always hold out from accepting "subjective medium" as code for "anything goes" -- it's clear that anything doesn't go. It's clear that certain works, certain artists, certain workers have a habit of hitting lots of people in a way that certain others don't. If that didn't happen, we wouldn't even have the idea of "critical consensus". These are things I think that are overlooked or explained away too readily -- not just by you, but by relativists everywhere. It is a real phenomena. And the fact remains that in this sample size of 152, some guys will end up with 140+ votes and others with 0. It's just an accident of subjectivity?

 

 

I hear all that and I don't even disagree with the idea of the critical consensus. BUT I think crucially I can acknowledge that without conceding that the critical consensus is any more "objective" than a critical outlier who can make a rational argument for someone over Shakespeare or Scott Steiner at #1 or anything in between. Both the consensus and the dissenter are subjective takes on the same subject, it's just that more people are swayed by or would agree with one case more than the other.

 

Mainly I just think "objective" is entirely the wrong word and ruins things when it comes up. You can't have objectively right interpretations of art. It's not possible.

 

The fact that more people would rank Kobashi higher is going to be borne out in the final results. You don't need everyone to agree to make that happen. The "critical consensus" in this case will be in Kobashi finishing however high he finishes in this poll. Hundreds higher than Magnum. But again I don't think that means someone couldn't have a reasonable argument to put Magnum higher. All views are valid, and yes, equally valid, if they can be defended.

[Icopro]

I think the thing I'm most pleased about by this entire deal is seeing Larry Zbyszko finish in the Top 110. I've been a Larry Legend supporter for years. Glad to see him getting some love. Fingers crossed he makes the Top 100.

[Parties]

We’re a tribal species. We find consensus comforting. It is true that Shakespeare’s writing is widely loved: it has the ring of truth for many. But don’t you think that part of Shakespeare’s appeal is that he’s “Shakespeare”? We love him in part because we’re conditioned to believe he’s the best. We sniff out and reiterate the value in that which has been presented to us on a pedestal as not just brilliant, but “universally” brilliant. To adapt one of his better lines: Shakespeare achieved greatness, but from the way he’s thrust upon us today, you’d think he was born great.

We want consensus for many of the same reasons we want gods. I don’t think any of us (or at least very few of us) are of the generation who crowned Flair, Kobashi, and Jumbo as pillars. There are other past aces who today carry less acclaim. Time kills all idols.

Consensus in film criticism is a mixed bag. Citizen Kane was rejected by most on arrival, as were The Third Man, Psycho, Night of the Hunter, and Vertigo. The Shining was panned as a rare Kubrick misfire. Pretty much every David Lynch movie after Blue Velvet has suffered the same fate. Critics deemed Stanley Kramer highbrow and judged his stuff more favorably than his far more avant-garde contemporaries. Kurosawa took a lot of heat in his time. Note that in each of these cases, the work later deemed by “consensus” to be great is initially rejected for being too dark/edgy/different. So there's hope for us Eric Embry fans yet.

We pursue consensus not to be "correct", but because community and commonality feel good. That doesn’t make consensus “objective” per se. Our opinions and beliefs are to me clearly shaped by that desire to agree with one another, or at least find our own sub-division who see things the way we do. I would be lying if I said that I’m not more inclined to like wrestlers held in high regard by people to whom I feel a kinship. Regal tells us to go watch Terry Rudge, and suddenly we all love Rudge. Partially because Rudge really is quite awesome, but also because we like learning more about Regal’s influences, deem his recommendation valuable, and want to feel hip and knowledged.

Consensus in art is more of a desire to fit in than a lab-tested formula. To Parv’s point: it is not just an “accident of subjectivity”. If there were no discussion threads and we all voted based on our uninfluenced views, I suspect many of the rankings would be quite different. But in those threads, certain workers were touted or panned, rediscovered or diminished. That’s discussion, that’s influence, that’s subjectivity, all of which adds up to consensus.

[WingedEagle]

I haven't argued for my methods to be valued above all else, and I don't think I ever once in the whole thing said that BIGLAV was ever anything but a method to help me feel like my back 50 was less arbitrary, as I was having a tough time deciding on who was 78 and who was 68, etc.

 

That is a misnomer, and something widely misunderstood.

 

What I've argued for is a recognition that GWE is about something more than just personal connection and more than a personal favourites list. And if you accept that, then I don't see how you don't also accept that there are some objective factors you can actually point to when making cases.

 

There will be workers with 140+ votes, regardless of how people made their lists, there are other workers who are not even nominated. If you can sit there with a straight face and still say "it's all subjective" then so be it. To me, the evidence suggests that there are at least shared standards that helps cream rise. If there aren't, how do you explain it?

 

JVK's been consistent on this from day one. His system was an objective ranking of subjective evaluations and his best attempt at truly ranking greatness. Point your guns if you must, but this seems to be what accounts for many of the rankings that are at issue, yet defensible as long as someone vocalizes any kind of rationale.

 

There's absolutely nothing anyone could say to persuade me that "Scott Steiner is the greatest wrestler ever" isn't an insane statement, much less defensible. But that has to do with how people are weighing greatness rather than anything at all to do with Scott Steiner.

 

People clearly approached this with very, very different standards of greatness. As an example, there are a few names on my list that I'd call personal picks who I really enjoy through and through but couldn't credibly argue are "greater" than a few names I may have left off my list. But they're also at the bottom of the list rather than the basis for the entire process, whereas that sounds like what has served as the means for some lists. Nothing wrong with it, but if people are in fact using wildly different concepts of great then there are going to be some strong thoughts on the outcomes.

 

[WingedEagle]

 

 

I think even if the majority of us used BIGLAV, our results would still be vastly different. Because my idea of Flair's base ability would be different than yours and others. Intangibles is totally up to the voter and so on and so on.

Exactly.

 

I think people mistake what I'm talking about when I say "objectivity", it has nothing to do with my list or with BIGLAV or anything like that, it has to do with pointing at evidence, whether input or output, a guy's career, what actually happened etc. etc.

 

Objectively, Kenta Kobashi had more matches period than Magnum TA. This is a fact. Magnum TA's career was short. These are tangible, measurable things.

 

Who had more "great matches" is a subjective value judgement, but most people who have seen a good chunk of both careers, would say Kobashi had more of them than Magnum. Again, this sort of thing is in the realm of objectivity.

 

I have a hard time thinking about the argument that takes that evidence about both bodies of work and comes out with Magnum TA as the #1 worker. To me that goes against the grain of what is there.

 

 

I really hate this part. Wrestler A has more great matches than Wrestler B. Does know automatically come to the conclusion that Wrestler A > Wrestler B.

 

Yes Kobashi is better than Magnum, however there is more to being a worker than the end quality of a match.

 

 

When does match quality matter? When does it not?

[Ricky Jackson]

I have Hogan in my top 25. If you don't like it you can drink bleach!

 

I have him in my top 10. I would've been drawn and quartered in 2006

[El Boricua]

 

 

I have Hogan in my top 25. If you don't like it you can drink bleach!

I have him in my top 10. I would've been drawn and quartered in 2006

And had bleach poured over the cuts for good measure.

[ohtani's jacket]

You see interesting consensus picks in film criticism. There are various different canons, but across all of them you get certain picks that recur with such stunning regularity that you wonder if it really can be a totally subjective thing. Can it?

 

 

I think you're ignoring how those consensus picks came to be. Parties already touched on films that were panned at first; think about the Cahiers du Cinema and how it completely revolutionised film criticism with auteur theory. Their ideas were completely radical at the time but enough people believed in them and a new consensus was formed. All it really takes is for one person to come up with an idea and if enough people believe in it then the consensus will change. We've seen clear examples of that during the present reveal. We've also seen examples of new ideas that haven't gained quite enough momentum to bring about change. And there's always trends to consider. Styles that fall out of favour. Older thinking that's rejected.

 

We're not just looking for the Shakespeare of wrestling (i.e. the No 1 pick) we're looking to fill in the top 10, the top 20, the top 30 and beyond. The wider you spread that net the more diversity you're going to find. Once you get outside the consensus picks that's where the action is really happening. If someone comes along and says Magnum is better than Kobashi then first of all that's an interesting idea and much better than reading the same tired old bullshit about Kobashi, but morever it'll probably lead to Magnum gaining traction rather leapfrogging over Kobashi. It would gain my attention anyway, but Kobashi would still receive the same amount of boring votes. To make a film analogy, Kobashi is a boring ass pick like John Ford. It's just a safe, boring pick. Did I mention the word boring anymore? The Magnum idea, now that's like thinking Nicholas Ray is a master. Now you're talking. If one or two like-minded people think it's a cool idea then it's not going to go anywhere, but if it takes off a bit then it will really stir the pot. Then John Ford fans will come along with their lists of **** and above John Ford films and try to shove it down our throats as evidence, but we know what we like and it's Nick Ray. The undervalued, the underrated, the under-appreciated, the overlooked. Magnum may be a far fetched example, but if it wasn't for that sort of mentality we'd still be arguing about all sorts of outdated ideas. To me the stance you're taking doesn't factor in progress or change.