Reactions to the Honorable Mention List, Part 3

[jamesie_2015]

 

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.

The main benefit of BIGLAV that I see is that it FORCES you to think about exactly how long someone's peak was relative to others or how many great opponents Hansen had compared to a Flair or Funk. While it has its flaws, anyone who actually used it can at least say they gave these things detailed consideration and have a good base from which to justify their list.

[Danish Dynamite]

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.

 

Don't want to stir the pot necessarilly, but I have to say that there is not one single new thing to me in what Parv is saying in that post, so I think it's unfair to claim it's the most clear he's been. This has very, very clearly been his position since introducing BIGLAV.

[Danish Dynamite]

Obviously letting non-PWO regulars vote is gonna change the final list. So too if it was only the podcast hosts voting. There's nothing weird about that.

 

And there's nothing weird about some people having an interest in seeing how the list would look if you only counted a certain segment of voters choices. That could be interesting with any vote given on anything.

 

What's the problem? I suggest people slip Steven ten bucks for every specialized list they want to see, and I'm sure he could make it happen then. Want to see what the list looks like only compiled of guys who started watching in the 80's? Ten bucks, and there you go. A bunc of guys want to see the list as made up of votes by the podcast hosts? Pool together, you got a list. I'd spring for some of it. Then the lists could be made public and whoever the fuck wants to look at them can. This is partly a joke and partly meant for real.

 

The whole subjectivity/objectivity argument is interesting. Also when it spirals of into other fields than wrestling. And the guys searching for "the new, fresh, non-boring thing" are important for broadening and disvovering new stuff. So are the guys sticking with the "consensus" picks. And so are those who try to listen only to themselves. It all adds up the big picture, which none of can see on our own. And yes, you can skewer and manipulate that in whatever direction you want.

 

Personally I would never leave off someone from my list here or even move them down the list just because they are not flavor of the month or because I've found a new toy right now. That's part of what stuff like biglav or whatever system (be it partly instinctual) you use is potentially helping avoid. So just because people right now at this very moment might be more entertained by a new discovery than with Flair, Funk, Hansen, Misawa, Kawada, Jumbo, Casas and so on and so on, these guys should be punished and thus creating a list where Mr. Flavor of the Moment is ranked as The Greatest Ever? Fin if you think so, but I would be totally opposed to that method.

 

And ofcourse we're influenced by each other. I would have ranked Buddy Rose and Jun Akiyama without reading posts or hearing podcasts here. But they're a damn sight higher for me now. Because people here inspired me to seek out certain guys, watch certain matches and era and territories. And yes, I look for the points people make, see if I agree, and sometimes I do and it helps a guys ranking. If you have someone you want to fight for, do it. And when you fight for someone, enjoy that some might agree with you, that hadn't looked that direction before, and suck it up that someone will test your claims and might feel differently than you and challenge you on it.

 

It's completely valid to say "in my oppionion" or "that's how I feel". Completely. And probably an important part of the debates on every single wrestler. But there has to be more to it to continue the talk. As long as it is only used to admit bias for or against someone, and then you can move on to trying to explain (or discover!) what it is that entertains you or moves you with someones performance or what has that effect on the other party that you just haven't felt (yet), then it's all good.

 

The worst thing to me, that can come out of the way this discussion has taken a turn is that some of the people who usually do throw themself into the debates start backing off. I don't want the JvK's, the Dylan's, the grimas's, the KrisZ's, the goodhelmet's, the El-P's, the El Bourica's, the OJ's, the Cross-Face Chicken Wing's and all the other regulars (sorry for every single one of you I didn't mention) to say (like JvK sadly did a short while ago) that they won't argue other people's picks and the ranking of guys they didn't vote for, but only state when their guys fall. That will with immediately drain this of any fun for me. Sure it's fun to see who loses who when. But only(!) the debate, the arguments, the constructive critique, the arguments for and against, the broadening of perspective through interaction with others make this have any relevance to me.

[JerryvonKramer]

I am sorely tempted to start quoting passages from The Anxiety of Influence to see how far Parv wants to draw parallels between the canon of English literature and the GWE project ...

I am not entirely sure what you think that could bring to the discussion. There is a discussion to be had around it, the one around tradition vs homage, self-conscious epics and so on. Anxiety of influence is less to do with critical consensus and more to do with how a writer has to grapple with all the great writers past when they write.

 

There's a discussion to be had around it, but not convinced it has to do with GWE.

 

stuff

In my eyes all of this is just cult of the new stuff. To me the question was always "who is the GWE?", which honestly has nothing to do with how novel someone is or how excited I feel about them.

 

 

 

With these additional non-PWO/anonymous votes I am more convinced Flair is gonna win the whole thing easily.

Me too. And honestly, that's so lame if that's the case (not Flair winning, although it is in a way, but Flair winning because of this).

And so this starts ...

 

It's worth noting that even universal, unwavering consensus is still nothing close to objectivity.

Can you just explain one thing to me. Why is it near universal consensus that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than Giant Gonzalez?

 

Explain that to me in a manner that does not point to shared agreed upon standards, and I will forever concede the debate.

[anarchistxx]

 

This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown.

 

I kinda remembered it was brutal, but I forgot all of this !

 

 

To be fair there was a lot of antipathy between a lot of voters to begin with. Spidertwist vs Smarkschoice was a feud that had been going on for yeard beforehand, for reasons that escape me. That was in the days where wrestling websites, message boards and contributors could have 'feuds' online, seems madness now. There was a lot of hatred towards the way someone like Chris Coey reviewed wrestling, for instance, while spilled over into personal vendettas. Also, these forums were not just for wrestling discussion, so you had feuds popping up all over the place about all kinds of things in the way they seemed to when the internet/message boards/chat programs was still a relatively new thing to be available to all and not nearly so well regulated.

 

That this board is ProWrestlingONLY has helped massively, since any debate/argument has been centered around wrestling itself rather than anything personal towards the posters. It seems most people on here only exist to each other as wrestling fans, obviously outside of the hardcores who know each other IRL.

 

It is amusing looking back how slightly mental the internet used to be - at that point it was before mass social media so it was less an extension of real life and more an escape where people were more willing to act up and play characters. One board I was on saw people making up the death of a child for sympathy, posters being outed for trying to seduce girls on the board via private message, posters hacking emails of another boarder showing fetish porn subscriptions and posting them online, posters driving halfway across the country to have affairs with boarders in motel rooms, posters appearing in local newspapers sectioned under the Mental Health Act. All on a wrestling forum. Smarkschoice was an 'anything goes' board anyway in terms of content, so you had crazy Off Topic posters like Modest or Ghettoman interacting with wrestling academics in a Necro Butcher thread or something.

 

This discussion has been far more worthwhile and interesting from a readers perspective.

[KrisZ]

Most of my favorites didn't even make my top 100

AMEN

[Jimmy Redman]

Grim's gotta come here and save us from ourselves with some names.

[JerryvonKramer]

Can you just explain one thing to me. Why is it near universal consensus that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than Giant Gonzalez?

Explain that to me in a manner that does not point to shared agreed upon standards, and I will forever concede the debate.

I might put this in my sig until it is explained.

[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.

When does match quality matter? When does it not?

It's a part of the overall thin, it's just not everything.

 

I have Christian over Michaels, yet Michaels had more great matches.

[Grimmas]

 

Can you just explain one thing to me. Why is it near universal consensus that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than Giant Gonzalez?

Explain that to me in a manner that does not point to shared agreed upon standards, and I will forever concede the debate.

I might put this in my sig until it is explained.

Seriously? He did every aspect of wrestling better and for longer with better results.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

Can you just explain one thing to me. Why is it near universal consensus that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than Giant Gonzalez?

Explain that to me in a manner that does not point to shared agreed upon standards, and I will forever concede the debate.

I might put this in my sig until it is explained.

Seriously? He did every aspect of wrestling better and for longer with better results.

Virtually everyone believes this and would co-sign it, so why isn't it an objective given that Bryan > Gigante? I see nothing gained by insisting on the hypothetical Gigante advocate in a world where 99.99%+ of wrestling fans would see it as a no brainier Bryan is better.

 

The insistence on absolute subjectivity makes a mockery of what you just said.

[soup23]

Nice run for Larry Z.

[Grimmas]

Nice run for Larry Z.

I was hoping he could get into the 100s. I really love his work and its incredibly varied over his career.

[soup23]

Larry was a top 120 guy that I enjoyed but he didn't make my top 100 on the consistency argument. Still, the series with Bruno, Bock, the Enforcers stuff, and Regal stuff are all nice highlights.

[GOTNW]

 

Your exemple doesn't work though because first-rate DiBiase isn't nearly as good as first rate Michaels to begin with. But yeah, I agree. The whole "Flair's good matches are better than most workers great matches", which is of course ridiculous. Then again, at this point, I'd rather watch a really good Choshu match than a great Liger match for instance.

Canon and go screw itself Choshu is way better than Liger. Sure the canon says: "but liger has been having good matches for two hundred years!!!!". Well, so much of that supposed good stuff is him just going through his shtick I don't like his shtick nearly as much to see him as this GOAT candidate. Sure, I'll give him credit for being good that long, but even in 2015 I find watching a Choshu match way more intruiging than watching Liger stuff. Something like Liger-Breeze got plenty of praise when to me it seemed like a clear subpar Liger house show performance and an underaverage match. I always find binge watching Choshu way more interesting and rewarding.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

Can you just explain one thing to me. Why is it near universal consensus that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than Giant Gonzalez?

Explain that to me in a manner that does not point to shared agreed upon standards, and I will forever concede the debate.

I might put this in my sig until it is explained.

Seriously? He did every aspect of wrestling better and for longer with better results.

Virtually everyone believes this and would co-sign it, so why isn't it an objective given that Bryan > Gigante? I see nothing gained by insisting on the hypothetical Gigante advocate in a world where 99.99%+ of wrestling fans would see it as a no brainier Bryan is better.

 

The insistence on absolute subjectivity makes a mockery of what you just said.

 

Why go to the extremes?

 

I never said it was absolute subjective. However I also would never claim it's absolute objective. Middle ground, like all art, is where it's at.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

 

 

Can you just explain one thing to me. Why is it near universal consensus that Daniel Bryan is a better wrestler than Giant Gonzalez?

Explain that to me in a manner that does not point to shared agreed upon standards, and I will forever concede the debate.

 

I might put this in my sig until it is explained.

Seriously? He did every aspect of wrestling better and for longer with better results.

Virtually everyone believes this and would co-sign it, so why isn't it an objective given that Bryan > Gigante? I see nothing gained by insisting on the hypothetical Gigante advocate in a world where 99.99%+ of wrestling fans would see it as a no brainier Bryan is better.

The insistence on absolute subjectivity makes a mockery of what you just said.

Why go to the extremes?

I never said it was absolute subjective. However I also would never claim it's absolute objective. Middle ground, like all art, is where it's at.

And it is the middle ground I've pushed for all of this time. I don't see people pushing for a middle ground, but insisting on absolute subjectivity.

[The Russian Daydream]

 

 

What I've been wondering, is did most people go with their 100 favorites ever or the 100 guys they think are the best ever? Or a mix of both....

I mainly took the ones that I could see myself calling "The greatest wrestlers ever" and organizing them as such. I mean there might have been 20 more that would have been possible on my list at most, and I attribute that to not seeing as much as some of you others. So in other words, a lot of my favorites are on that list and my way of organizing them was through the simple question....How much do I enjoy them and how much do I enjoy Wrester X in comparison?

I think the favourites vs perceived greatness question is difficult to answer. I wasn't going to submit a list originally because I could not see me be able to rank wrestlers from different eras with different styles in any sort of objective way. Then I read about Parv's BIGLAV scheme and saw it as a way I could rank wrestlers in a way I felt was fair, honest and objective. I modified it a bit, adding an extra I (influence in business and other wrestlers) and an S (sustained consistency) to give BIIGLAVS. I also added a weighting to the G and A columns because I felt great matches are the most important criteria and the A column covered so much I felt it needed more influence on the final result. When I plugged it all in, I ended up with a list that I liked parts of and disliked other parts.

 

I think I was objective to some degree as some of my favourites just didn't make it because I couldn't justify scoring them any higher. I wish I'd been able to rank Luger, Pillman, Brody, Magnum, Butch Reed and a good few others for example. In the other side of things, every score, for every category is somewhat subjective and does throw up anomalies based on what I like. A prime example of this is The Great Muta. I ended up ranking him really quite highly, he came out with big scores for base ability, intangibles, influence and ability to work different styles and places. He also got good scores in all other columns except for sustained consistency for which I gave him 2/10. Now, he ended up high on my list, but Parv, who used similar criteria didn't rank him at all. I also gather from the discussion that Muta just isn't rated highly in these parts.

 

I've always loved Muta since I first saw him aged 7, so have I been blind to his failings and ranked him highly through favouritism? Possibly. I did (and still do) believe in the scores that I gave him though.

 

So, to answer the question, I thought I'd submitted a ballot of my opinion of the 100 greatest wrestlers. Actually, there might have been a bit of favouritism involved.

[Grimmas]

Anyone who thinks its absolute either way its nuts.

[JerryvonKramer]

Anyone who thinks its absolute either way its nuts.

 

We agree on this. Excellent!

[JerryvonKramer]

Russian Daydream - Great Muta did rank for me!

[Jimmy Redman]

My question to Parv is then this: where do you draw the line between objectivity and subjectivity? By that I mean, if you posit that Daniel Bryan is objectively better than El Gigante, but you can accept that there are subjective arguments that place Daniel Bryan above or below, I don't know, Kenta Kobashi...where is the line? Is Bryan objectively better than John Tenta? Than El Samurai? Than John Cena? How do we decide when someone is objectively, factually worse than Bryan, as opposed to someone who is only subjectively worse than him?

 

I just...I've seen way too much variance in opinions on wrestlers' worth and value from too many people to ever believe that there is some universal, unmovable, objective criteria that can be applied to all wrestling.

 

I'm not touching El Gigante, but I fucking love the Great Khali and I'd put his ass over plenty of wrestlers who most people would claim were "objectively" better. But not to me they ain't.

 

I mean Jesus, if there's anything that should dispel the notion of absolute truth in wrestling it's this list. Someone put Scott Steiner #1 and explained why. Is Scott Steiner objectively worse than Daniel Bryan? Because that guy sure as hell doesn't think so. Who decides? You can't.

 

My point once and for all is that all the consensus in the world doesn't make it an objective fact, in the way that 1 + 1 = 2 is an objective fact.

[JerryvonKramer]

All I want for you to do is to admit that in order for your argument to hold, you also have to hold that someone could believe that El Gigante > Bryan and at the same time you have maintain with a straight face that they are not wrong, or nuts, or anything else.

 

People can decide for themselves if they want to sign up to a statement like that. If they are prepared to, fine. I am not.

[The Russian Daydream]

Russian Daydream - Great Muta did rank for me!

Did he? I remember being surprised listening to the podcast but maybe it was Chad that lef him off in that case.

[Jimmy Redman]

All I want for you to do is to admit that in order for your argument to hold, you also have to hold that someone could believe that El Gigante > Bryan and at the same time you have maintain with a straight face that they are not wrong, or nuts, or anything else.

 

People can decide for themselves if they want to sign up to a statement like that. If they are prepared to, fine. I am not.

 

I will, in fact, hold that it is theoretically possible to argue for El Gigante being a better wrestler than Daniel Bryan. It may be a wildly insane, improbable, far-fetched, incredibly particular, left-field argument. And maybe the least popular argument in the history of wrestling fandom.

 

But it wouldn't be factually incorrect.

 

That is all I'm saying. But for the love of God can we stop talking about it.