Reactions to the List: 50-26

[Loss]

I don't see how anyone who put serious work into this project could see these results as anything but a massive disappointment. 2 years of discussion and watching shitloads from all over the world and it's pretty much a generic mainstream US list with a few token obscure guys and big name puro guys. I'd argue it's actually it's actually a step back from the the 2006 since the small victories in BattlArts and WOS guys ranking is pretty much negated by US guys getting rated way too high and women nearly getting shut out.

 

I don't quite see it that way. I see it more as a case where "revisionists" (for lack of a better term) don't have diametrically opposed takeaways after from watching the footage from those who did at the time. It's more that the differences in opinion from generally established canon get more discussion because they warrant more discussion. But it's not like the idea that Ric Flair or Jushin Liger is a great worker is controversial in any corner of wrestling fandom online. Brock and Kurt are surprisingly high, no doubt, but I don't think that serves as a referendum on the entire process. We spend a lot of time talking about Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Tiger Mask and Hiroshi Tanahashi because the opinions some hold are a little more rare. But it's not like our ideas about All Japan in the 90s, for example, are all that controversial -- be it here or anywhere online.

 

Nomination threads are great, but sometimes they made cases for greatness that weren't necessarily quantified. To a novice, pointing out someone's greatness may mean anything from that wrestler being a number one contender to that wrestler being somewhere non-specific on the list, which is why quantifying it is important. I'll also add that individual threads for each nominee -- and this is just a thought I had today -- fosters siloed discussions of wrestlers when the whole purpose of the project is to make comparisons. Ultimately, I think the comparison threads probably were more fruitful in terms of getting others to compare like wrestlers with unlike wrestlers.

 

You could argue that in terms of a new way to look at and think about wrestling, this list shows how tiny what we sometimes think of as our circle really is compared to Internet-based smart wrestling fandom at large. But I'm surprised that anyone wouldn't already know that, or expect the results to show anything but that.

[Jaivl]

Still wondering what's so egregious about Brock being ranked.

[Matt D]

I will say that I'm tremendously happy with the top 125. I'd love to see us report it that way instead of the top 100.

 

In general, I think I see it as a good sign of where work needs to be done. There's a lot of wrestling to explore and a lot of wrestling that people aren't as familiar with and efforts can be continued to be made for those things that we've found either in the last two years or before that which we want to share with others.

[El-P]

Fujiwara and a bunch of others relative to how they were viewed 10 years ago disproves that notion.

 

Fujiwara footage was available for ever. Mike Lorefice was selling PWFG footage 20 years ago on mixed tapes. The UWF stuff was always widely available to anyone interested in buying it. It's just that Fujiwara had probably been forgotten about in the 90's, it's not like his work then was anything special at all, to say the least. The shoot-style was dominated by UWF-I and RINGS, so Takada & Tamura were the big names while Maeda was considered past his prime. But let's wait for Fuji to show up, he deserves a high ranking.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Way too much whining going on about the list being too conservative or some shit.

 

Time for a Kamala interlude to cheer people up.

 

[Beast]

People really need to stop looking at this list as a be all end all on the debates we are having. The results aren't disappointing if you stop looking at the ranks as "Who is better". Dick Murdoch ended up as 53. I ranked him 11. DEAN ranked him 3. Nobody on earth is going to be able to prove to Dean Rasmussen that 50 other wrestlers are really better than Dick Murdoch. However, people who value Deans opinion are going to seek out more Murdoch or Ray Gonzalez or LA Park. So Jim Breaks didn't crack the Top 50? So What??? People a couple of years from now will find this list, look at Breaks in the Top 100, see all the glowing praise, and seek him out. The list isn't the end of a journey. It's the beginning.

 

 

I see it this way. I wasn't involved at all in 2006, but I feel connected to this list. I'm absolutely using this as a jumping off point for my viewing over the next decade. Because of this list, I'll be delving more into WoS, Joshi, and shoot-style, all of which I didn't make a strong priority.

 

My list represents my "base" opinion and I look forward to fill in gaps using this as a reference.

[DR Ackermann]

Part of the footage explosion, at least in my understanding of it, is the increased accessibility and dissemination of said footage through stuff like YouTube.

[goodhelmet]

 

 

I don't see how anyone who put serious work into this project could see these results as anything but a massive disappointment. 2 years of discussion and watching shitloads from all over the world and it's pretty much a generic mainstream US list with a few token obscure guys and big name puro guys. I'd argue it's actually it's actually a step back from the the 2006 since the small victories in BattlArts and WOS guys ranking is pretty much negated by US guys getting rated way too high and women nearly getting shut out.

I don't quite see it that way. I see it more as a case where "revisionists" (for lack of a better term) don't have diametrically opposed takeaways after from watching the footage from those who did at the time. It's more that the differences in opinion from generally established canon get more discussion because they warrant more discussion. But it's not like the idea that Ric Flair or Jushin Liger is a great worker is controversial in any corner of wrestling fandom online. Brock and Kurt are surprisingly high, no doubt, but I don't think that serves as a referendum on the entire process. We spend a lot of time talking about Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Tiger Mask and Hiroshi Tanahashi because the opinions some hold are a little more rare. But it's not like our ideas about All Japan in the 90s, for example, are all that controversial -- be it here or anywhere online.

 

Nomination threads are great, but sometimes they made cases for greatness that weren't necessarily quantified. To a novice, pointing out someone's greatness may mean anything from that wrestler being a number one contender to that wrestler being somewhere non-specific on the list, which is why quantifying it is important. I'll also add that individual threads for each nominee -- and this is just a thought I had today -- fosters siloed discussions of wrestlers when the whole purpose of the project is to make comparisons. Ultimately, I think the comparison threads probably were more fruitful in terms of getting others to compare like wrestlers with unlike wrestlers.

 

You could argue that in terms of a new way to look at and think about wrestling, this list shows how tiny what we sometimes think of as our circle really is compared to Internet-based smart wrestling fandom at large. But I'm surprised that anyone wouldn't already know that, or expect the results to show anything but that.

Can you explain what you mean by quantifiable? Are you talking about a system like BIGLAV? Do you mean a list of matches or a specific length of high end output? Do y o u mean the volume of discussion that took place?

[Loss]

While it happened anyway in many cases, with more hindsight, I'd probably also argue that GWE isn't the best platform to get people thinking about new wrestlers they haven't even seen before. I mean, it did happen in some cases anyway and that's wonderful, but I think a more organic process sees us getting to know a wrestler on his or her own terms first, long before even thinking about making comparisons to other wrestlers. This had a lot of us getting our feet wet and trying to wrap our heads around the totality of that wrestler all at the same time. Goodhelmet's approach of only ranking guys who were already time-tested wasn't something I agreed with when he first said it, but there is value in that.

[Loss]

 

 

I don't see how anyone who put serious work into this project could see these results as anything but a massive disappointment. 2 years of discussion and watching shitloads from all over the world and it's pretty much a generic mainstream US list with a few token obscure guys and big name puro guys. I'd argue it's actually it's actually a step back from the the 2006 since the small victories in BattlArts and WOS guys ranking is pretty much negated by US guys getting rated way too high and women nearly getting shut out.

I don't quite see it that way. I see it more as a case where "revisionists" (for lack of a better term) don't have diametrically opposed takeaways after from watching the footage from those who did at the time. It's more that the differences in opinion from generally established canon get more discussion because they warrant more discussion. But it's not like the idea that Ric Flair or Jushin Liger is a great worker is controversial in any corner of wrestling fandom online. Brock and Kurt are surprisingly high, no doubt, but I don't think that serves as a referendum on the entire process. We spend a lot of time talking about Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Tiger Mask and Hiroshi Tanahashi because the opinions some hold are a little more rare. But it's not like our ideas about All Japan in the 90s, for example, are all that controversial -- be it here or anywhere online.

 

Nomination threads are great, but sometimes they made cases for greatness that weren't necessarily quantified. To a novice, pointing out someone's greatness may mean anything from that wrestler being a number one contender to that wrestler being somewhere non-specific on the list, which is why quantifying it is important. I'll also add that individual threads for each nominee -- and this is just a thought I had today -- fosters siloed discussions of wrestlers when the whole purpose of the project is to make comparisons. Ultimately, I think the comparison threads probably were more fruitful in terms of getting others to compare like wrestlers with unlike wrestlers.

 

You could argue that in terms of a new way to look at and think about wrestling, this list shows how tiny what we sometimes think of as our circle really is compared to Internet-based smart wrestling fandom at large. But I'm surprised that anyone wouldn't already know that, or expect the results to show anything but that.

Can you explain what you mean by quantifiable? Are you talking about a system like BIGLAV? Do you mean a list of matches or a specific length of high end output? Do y o u mean the volume of discussion that took place?

 

 

I mean if you are advocating for a new wrestler, you can't just make a post about why he's great. You have to specific top 10 great, top 50 great, etc. You also have to make comparisons, because the word "great" means different things to different people. And I look at the thread for Tamura and think, well, making Tamura comparisons to Han is preaching to the converted. You want Tamura to place high, compare and contrast him with Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels. Make comparisons of wrestlers that seemingly have little in common if the goal is to get new people on board. Then they at least have reference points that they know.

[Danish Dynamite]

Totally, absolutely agree with Will and Stacey in their previous posts. This isn't the end of anything. The process is more important than the final result. This is supposed to be (and fucking is) fun as hell. My wrestling horizons have been broadened a ton by this whole project, and I'm certain that goes for plenty others. I've already seen a shitload of footage I wouldn't otherwise, and that is going to continue for years, and I'm grateful to everyone (well... almost everyone) on the board and in the different threads and on the podcasts for that.

[goodhelmet]

 

People really need to stop looking at this list as a be all end all on the debates we are having. The results aren't disappointing if you stop looking at the ranks as "Who is better". Dick Murdoch ended up as 53. I ranked him 11. DEAN ranked him 3. Nobody on earth is going to be able to prove to Dean Rasmussen that 50 other wrestlers are really better than Dick Murdoch. However, people who value Deans opinion are going to seek out more Murdoch or Ray Gonzalez or LA Park. So Jim Breaks didn't crack the Top 50? So What??? People a couple of years from now will find this list, look at Breaks in the Top 100, see all the glowing praise, and seek him out. The list isn't the end of a journey. It's the beginning.

 

I see it this way. I wasn't involved at all in 2006, but I feel connected to this list. I'm absolutely using this as a jumping off point for my viewing over the next decade. Because of this list, I'll be delving more into WoS, Joshi, and shoot-style, all of which I didn't make a strong priority.

 

My list represents my "base" opinion and I look forward to fill in gaps using this as a reference.

 

As you should!!!!! In 2006, Bix had Lawler numerous one and Tim Cooke had him pretty high. I was thinking "what the fuck are these guys smoking?" I put together a sampler set and I was fucking sold. Then we did the DVDVR Memphis project and I have been in love with Memphis ever since. The 2006 list wasn't the end of my wrestling journey. It was the spark that helped me get to this point.

[Danish Dynamite]

Way too much whining going on about the list being too conservative or some shit.

 

Time for a Kamala interlude to cheer people up.

 

 

Here's an example. I was pretty down on Kamala at the beginning of this project. Adam and others have turned me :-) ... He's not on this list for me, but he's shot way up high on the "favorites" or "most fun" list :-)

[Danish Dynamite]

 

People really need to stop looking at this list as a be all end all on the debates we are having. The results aren't disappointing if you stop looking at the ranks as "Who is better". Dick Murdoch ended up as 53. I ranked him 11. DEAN ranked him 3. Nobody on earth is going to be able to prove to Dean Rasmussen that 50 other wrestlers are really better than Dick Murdoch. However, people who value Deans opinion are going to seek out more Murdoch or Ray Gonzalez or LA Park. So Jim Breaks didn't crack the Top 50? So What??? People a couple of years from now will find this list, look at Breaks in the Top 100, see all the glowing praise, and seek him out. The list isn't the end of a journey. It's the beginning.

 

 

I see it this way. I wasn't involved at all in 2006, but I feel connected to this list. I'm absolutely using this as a jumping off point for my viewing over the next decade. Because of this list, I'll be delving more into WoS, Joshi, and shoot-style, all of which I didn't make a strong priority.

 

My list represents my "base" opinion and I look forward to fill in gaps using this as a reference.

 

 

Amen!

[Matt D]

A couple of us are already thinking of how to do a WoS project for people, looking at it in ways that aren't the previous conventional ones, as a direct response of the last couple of weeks.

[pol]

There's not that much WoS out there is there? As in, wouldn't it be viable to watch everything that's available if you were so inclined? I'm just asking for myself here, as when trying to get a feel for a particularly time/place I at least like to start out with the approach of trying to see as much as possible and work through it chronologically.

[andrew79]

This is probably the best indication of how much there is available.

[Childs]

There's not that much WoS out there is there? As in, wouldn't it be viable to watch everything that's available if you were so inclined? I'm just asking for myself here, as when trying to get a feel for a particularly time/place I at least like to start out with the approach of trying to see as much as possible and work through it chronologically.

Yes, it would be feasible to watch everything that's out there. OJ has pretty well done that in fact.

[Childs]

Martel got a huge and well-deserved bump from 10 years ago. That's a testament to footage exploration.

[El-P]

Going through his AWA stuff, Rick Martel's stock went way up with me. What a great worker he was in the 80's. I just love his stuff over there. Of course the tag work in WWF is also really strong. And then he shows up past his prime in WCW in 98 and looks like one of the better guys, although working an old-school style which wasn't going to get over (like Backlund showing up in 93 in WWF).

 

I just wish the 80's Montreal footage would show up, preferably with Carpentier/Hauray's commentaries, I would just go crazy for that kind of shit.

 

Anyway, Martel was my #48. Glad he gained so much spots in the final list. Quebec Love !

[Superstar Sleeze]

Rick Martel did not best Ted DiBiase, so sad.

[Grimmas]

Rick Martel did not best Ted DiBiase, so sad.

1 point...

[El-P]

Hey, DiBiase, I forgot about him. Didn't vote for him this time around. Most average greatest wrestler ever and greatest solid wrestler ever. Yeah, that recommended match list... Struggling to find something really special ? I still love Teddy, of course, but he ain't all that. Million Dollar Man gimmick still helps him a whole lot for perception I think.

[Jimmy Redman]

Aaaaaand the Parv bomb drops. Did anyone have him #42 in their March Madness thing?

[goc]

The crying about how there are too many mainstream U.S. candidates and how it shows people weren't really watching footage is hilarious to me. So guys like Greg Valentine, Tito Santana and Ron Garvin didn't benefit from people going back and watching their footage? It is especially funny when a 'bad' name comes up and people complain about his placement WHILE ADMITTING THEY VOTED FOR THEM.