Has this project meant anything outside our bubble?

[raul]

Someone posted it to /wooo/ when the list finished but most of the discussion seemed to just be about how Cena was higher than Tana; confusion over the lack of those wrestlers who didn't have enough footage (thesz, etc)

 

Also, capitaltruth, I'm with ya. This place has been very informational for me as well.

[Microstatistics]

The simple answer is no. Most you can hope for is people look at wrestlers like Negro Casas at #22 or Yoshiaki Fujiwara at #40 and check them out based on the relatively high rank.

 

Also the reactions to the list on places like reddit and others have been primarily negative anyways with criticisms you'd expect like "Jerry Lawler at 10?" or "Seriously El Dandy?" or "Angle and Taker so low and Cena at 30?".

[ThomasFromIowa]

I came to this board to read the GWE stuff and stuck around. I think GWE is only ever going to interest people who make a point to try and watch every style of wrestling which isn't a large amount of people. But I think GWE is a project that really does serve as a reference point for people within that interest.

[Cap]

I came to this board to read the GWE stuff and stuck around. I think GWE is only ever going to interest people who make a point to try and watch every style of wrestling which isn't a large amount of people. But I think GWE is a project that really does serve as a reference point for people within that interest.

I think that point about style is a good one. I was listening to one of the podcasts earlier and started pondering how the project really seamed to push people to expand their horizons and that was one of the key ways of manifesting things like "doing your homework" or "doing due diligence" etc. I think a lot of fans are implicitly or explicitly uninterested in checking out stuff that they aren't already into. Expanding one's horizons is often "organic" at best and "accidental" at its most honest, rarely methodical outside of populations as invested in something as those on this board are in wrestling.

[Parties]

One thing I think of when reading this thread is: your tastes are largely defined by the company you keep, or as a product of your environment. If my entire experience of wrestling (esp. fan communities) was Reddit and Meltzer, then I'd likely think Tanahashi was better than Cena too. To that end, lucky break that I (we?) got exposed to DVDVR/Wrestling KO/Segunda Caida early on.

[GOTNW]

One thing I think of when reading this thread is: your tastes are largely defined by the company you keep, or as a product of your environment. If my entire experience of wrestling (esp. fan communities) was Reddit and Meltzer, then I'd likely think Tanahashi was better than Cena too. To that end, lucky break that I (we?) got exposed to DVDVR/Wrestling KO/Segunda Caida early on.

Man having other people's opinions influence you to that level must be extremely boring.

[BigBadMick]

That's a bit harsh, GOTNW. I know that two years here has dampened my enthusiasm for Angle and Michaels. That doesn't make me a sheep.

 

You're young and fiercely independent. Give it a few years - these type of things will matter less.

[GOTNW]

Idk I don't see myself ever agreeing with something like that. It's natural that your surroundings would influence what you watch but if the end game of discovering more wrestling and communities is just appropriating their opinions and common wisdom then discovering them didn't really mean much for you after all.

[BigBadMick]

It's not that I've appropriated opinions and wisdom from here, entirely.

 

I know people are loathe to speak of a pwo type of fan, but to me it falls broadly into a pro-80s and 90s US fan with a definite cooling off of enthusiasm for the noughties. That's me to a tee. The only thing I found jarring when first discovering the board was the Angle and Michaels talk.

[funkdoc]

it's more about learning different approaches and then feeling those out for yourself, i think

 

i doubt most people would naturally think "the punch is the most common move in pro wrestling, so it's really important to have a good one" because they watch for the other stuff

 

also i'm glad to see /wooo/ mentioned, that's the sort of thing i was thinking about. that's part of a 4chan offshoot board so of course they'd be huge Japan fanboys!

[Loss]

 

One thing I think of when reading this thread is: your tastes are largely defined by the company you keep, or as a product of your environment. If my entire experience of wrestling (esp. fan communities) was Reddit and Meltzer, then I'd likely think Tanahashi was better than Cena too. To that end, lucky break that I (we?) got exposed to DVDVR/Wrestling KO/Segunda Caida early on.

Man having other people's opinions influence you to that level must be extremely boring.

 

 

On the contrary, I'd imagine that having impenetrable views on wrestling would be even more boring. It's not so much about parroting the opinions of others as it is reading something that makes me think about a match in a different way. That has happened for me many times around here.

[GOTNW]

Being extreme in either isn't an ideal, though I'd argue it's much more important for someone to be interested in different kinds of wrestling and self reflection (specifically noticing how their taste changes with time and why). When you speak of someone having impenetrable views of wrestling I think of someone having a core set of values-this is good, this is bad and it can't be otherwise. Sometimes a comment will let you see a match in a different light, though there is an argument to be made that unless that's due to your lack of context or a match just not "clicking" for you for whatever reason (there's a thread for the millitary industrial suplex to be had about something like this actually) that it's verging off into narrative creation that doesn't have much to do with the match itself.

[Loss]

That would depend entirely on what the comment is.

[dawho5]

I would think that it is far more beneficial to me as a wrestling fan (and in other areas of life) to be open to at least consider somebody else's viewpoint on a topic. I have, in scope, a very limited view of things based on my experiences. If reading several intelligently written pieces on any topic I either hadn't considered before or had dismissed as not worth my time doesn't at least make me think about it again something is wrong. At best I'm going back to see if maybe I hadn't seen whatever it was in the right light and I can, at the very least, respect what was done in a match (if we're talking wrestling) even if I don't care to watch it that much.

 

To me it's not about letting other people's opinions influence me. It's about seeing something a different way and maybe learning something new. I may not, but it's hard to argue that taking up to 20 to 30 minutes of my day to re-watch (or watch for the first time) a match and understand it better isn't worth my time.

[cad]

That doesn't sound like defining yourself by the company you keep.

[Phil Schneider]

I have a bunch of people who have similar opinions as me, it is a valuable thing. If Eric or Tomk or Graham Crackers find a match that they think is cool, I will likely love it as well. Really isn't wrestling fandom just about finding cool shit to watch? It is useful to find like minded people so you can find more fun shit.

[shoe]

For me the lists and discussions are cool as a tool to check out wrestling I'm not familiar with. I watch a lot of wrestling, but everyone has blind spots. The discussions help with those blind spots.

[goodhelmet]

I did 3 different podcast with three unique groups of wrestling fans (had a 4th with El Boricua but we will make it up with the Puerto Rico podcast). Everyone I talked to had a unique list. There was no group think involved but their were commonalities. The project ended up being a personal project for everyone involved including those who didn't participate in discussion. I am glad we had those people who were very quiet but ended up turning heads in the final list reveal. This project was all inclusive and people from those corners of the world who wanted to participate could participate, regardless of personal tastes. If people don't like the final results outside of our bubble, the world will still keep moving, PWO will still exist and we will all continue to watch wrestling.

[Cap]

I would add that "we will all continue to watch wrestling" with more signposts and paths to follow to new wrestling than ever before.

[I Broke Bruno's Neck]

Wish I was here for these votes. Seemed like fun was had by all.

[Ricky Jackson]

Not quite all

[jushin muta liger]

Well, Sports Illustrated freelance writer Luke Winkie put together his 101 GWE List and it's quite embarrassing.

 

http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2016/07/26/wwe-wcw-ecw-100-best-wrestlers-all-time

[Grimmas]

101 - The Miz

100 - Frank Gotch

 

that's enough.

[elliott]

101 - The Miz

100 - Frank Gotch

 

that's enough.

 

Well now I have to click on it. Please god, let there be explanations.

 

edit: The first thing I see is "a definitive ranking of the top 101 wrestlers of all time." now I kind of want to do a running diary of my experience looking at this list. we're off to an incredible start.

 

double edit: No really, go look at it. It is amazing. My favorite stretch is 85-80 which goes:

Davey Boy Smith

Blue Demon

Jimmy Snuka

Ed Lewis

Kane

Seth Rollins

 

Like whoa. Parv will have a 2 Girls 1 Cup sort of reaction to this list. Please God, let Parv see this.

 

"I feel like one day we'll look back on Miz the same way we look back on Ted Dibiase."

[Johnny P]

Who are these people/where do they get them?! I mean, not that I want everyone to come from some insular community, and there aren't TECHNICALLY credentials or gating systems to cred even in pro wrestling journalism, but - and this is me, not something written in stone - after 20 yrs online I think intelligent, non-bias people can generally agree to who is legit in that field. Some people don't like Mike Johnson for personal reasons, or because he has a problem with them, or vice versa, or some incident from years ago, because he works for Scherer, etc. However, I think a rational person can look at his work over a span of weeks/months/years and conclude he's legit as a reporter, even if they take issue with opinions he has or different things surrounding the reporting. Same with Jason Powell or Wade Keller. Same with Meltzer. I have tons of problems with Meltzer. I think his wrestling opinions sucks, I think he's often disingenuous, and our personalities/ideas of information transfer don't really mesh to a great degree. However, I would never take away his legit cred as a reporter and an opinion maker, even if I disagree with some things. I vote in the guys HOF, for Christ sake.

 

Same goes for luminaries of opinion. From old school columnists and opinion makers like Bruce Mitchell and John Williams, and even someone I find completely irrelevant like Scott Keith (sorry PTBN, I love you guys), to newer people who broke through via this board, PTBN, or from the Observer family tree, at least they've built up a reputation through being around, detailing opinions, interacting with people and arguing those opinions. Hell, Alan4L seems like a lovely guy I'd totally hang out with. His wrestling opinions....I shake my head at 90% of what he says, but I can legitimately see what he likes, what are the things he holds strongly that he appreciates about the art, and I can go back and track his rise in the community and know he watched tons of stuff. I don't have to agree. He belongs.

 

So how do people like David Shoemaker and this kid Luke Winkie exist? Where did they come from? what's their cred? It comes off as WWE childhood fans do "LOLWrestling" writing for money, and don't see anything wrong with that because they're never in a real space where they are challenged. After all, fucking Bill Simmons, who SUBSCRIBED to Meltzer for several years, proved himself to be a typical douche when he claimed "no one was doing this before you, right?" to Shoemaker, and David went along with that on a podcast. People like Shoemaker do this for money and to meet "WWE Superstars" because they're that type of person. Authenticity, craft, validity don't even come up with them, nor do they even care about being correct (Shoemaker wrote non-factual and incorrect content about Wade Keller, Bruce Mitchell, and Mike Johnson, among others - who you'd think he'd have respect for given his livelihood exists because of people like that. He was called on it by those people, and essentially blew them off.

 

So where do these low brow opportunists come from? Do they lurk and figure out how to fake there way through/make agreements with uninterested content providers who just want to feed the waste of the world? Why does any of the exist, and how is this market not the domain of legit people? Is it exposure, cost, or both?