goodhelmet Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I think we have quite a few knowledgeableposters here so, if you are interested, go sign up over at Smarkschoice and take part in the greatest Wrestlers poll. Ask Famous Mortimer or Rob Edwards to sign you up. http://www.smarkschoice.com/forum/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I was reading through some of that. I rolled my eyes a lot. I think the meaning of the word "greatest" is lost on most people there. Actually, I think the meaning of the word "wrestler" is lost on most people there too. Come to think of it, the word "ever" is fucking ridiculous since everyone there has seen MAYBE .00001% of the wrestling done in the history of ever, combined. So the only word they are using that would properly and accurately reflect what they are doing is the word "the", and I suck so much at the grammar that I'm not 100% sure on that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I agree about the phrasing of the poll. In fact, I had a 2 page argument over it. However, lists like this can be fun and it''s an open invite to participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MJHimJfadeaway23 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I was reading through some of that. I rolled my eyes a lot. I Basically. But it was a fun read at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I think doing a straight-up, all-encompassing 100 is retarded. Break it up into different sections: Brawler, High Flyer, Technical, Realistic, Influential, Crowd Manipulating, Most Over, Most Adaptable and Versitile, etc. Having Kiyoshi Tamura and Hulk Hogan on the same list doesn't make any sense at all, because there are few ways of looking at wrestling where you would find the two anywhere near each other. Discussing the merits of each wrestler within each category is better than discussing the merits of each wrestler in a wide-open category, because then you have to deal with weighing certain items and it becomes so much more subjective. Not only do you deal with the persons opinion on the wrestler, you have to deal with the persons opinion in regards to the criteria. I also think doing a "top 100" is equally retarded. As if "That guy isn't an 88, he's clearly an 85" is going to mean a bit of shit. I think it's just an exercise in mental masturbation. Any meaningful discussion will be for the top 20, because "Karl Gotch is the 93rd Greatest Wrestler of All Time" doesn't exactly rock and shock the world by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 No one said you had to participate. I just threw out the offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 And seriously, what the fuck is "the myth that Hogan was good in Japan"? Oh God, I just read AoA's "elaboration" spiel. Why do I torture myself like this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 You sorta openned pandoras box when you made this thread GH, as I had my issues with it but didn't want to start anything on it. I just read that drawing is not one of the criteria for the GWE. Isn't the point of wrestling to make money? Did I miss something there?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Fair enough. If you read the 100? 150? 200? thread, I almost stated word for word your exact thoughts on the number of wrestlers being included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 And seriously, what the fuck is "the myth that Hogan was good in Japan"? Oh God, I just read AoA's "elaboration" spiel. Why do I torture myself like this?? A couple of gems from the thread: He didn't have that great of charisma Yeah, he was better than his WWF version, but busting out one or two "cool" moves he doesn't do in the US doesn't make him a good worker. Only a bit less worse than you thought he was. Hogan doesn't make the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 And seriously, what the fuck is "the myth that Hogan was good in Japan"? When people want to argue Hogan was a good wreslter, they always tend to bring up his work in Japan, as if knowing how to work a few basic wrestling holds makes one a good wrestler. There is a good argument for Hogan being good but it has nothing to do with being able to work a few basic holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Fair enough. If you read the 100? 150? 200? thread, I almost stated word for word your exact thoughts on the number of wrestlers being included. Yeah, I read that afterwards. I think 50 is even a lil too much. 30 is probably the best number, because you don't really hear people say "he's a top 50 wrestler" or even a top forty. You usually hear top 30, top 20, top 15, top 10, and top 5, and people can get a good gauge about what you mean. "This guy is a top 90 wrestler" doesn't say anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 And seriously, what the fuck is "the myth that Hogan was good in Japan"?When people want to argue Hogan was a good wreslter, they always tend to bring up his work in Japan, as if knowing how to work a few basic wrestling holds makes one a good wrestler. There is a good argument for Hogan being good but it has nothing to do with being able to work a few basic holds. But his stuff in Japan was good, particularly the early 80's stuff from New Japan. The guy did nearly everything there and then - he had the workrate and put the effort in, he used his size really well, he busted out some cool moves and performed them well, protected his opponents at the same time, worked the crowd, played different roles in the same match, was able to pace the matches well. And this was still relatively early on in his career. If you look at the early WWF stuff on the Hulk Rulz DVD, its not nearly as good as the stuff from NJPW 2 years later. It got to the point to where Meltzer was even rating Hogan pretty highly, pre-Mania. I think a lot of the people who say Hogan was good in Japan have only seen his 90s Japan work with Hansen, Mutoh and Tenryu where Hogan is a lot slower and busts out his "wrestling sequence" and that's it, which allows the other side to bring up "knowing how to work a few basic wrestling holds" point and talk about this "myth". If you look at his early 80's stuff, it's almost completely different, and a lot better, in my view. I'm a Hogan-mark and I really enjoy that shit, but I think even objectively his work during this time period is at the very least "good", and he does a lot of the (-what some would say more-) important stuff like appealing to the audience, the in-ring dramatics, extremely well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Thread Killer Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 The problem is that I've never seen any Joshi, and my only major exposure to Lucha has been from Bob Barnett's AAA Classics Set. I have all 25 discs, but they only really cover the 90's. So I have seen the best of the seventies from Japan and North America, I have seen all of the best 80's and 90's stuff from Japan, North America and Canada (Stampede and Montreal.) Without having seen any pre or post 90's Lucha, and without having seen any Joshi, I wouldn't feel qualified to vote. From what I have heard and read, if I haven't seen the likes of Shinobu Kandori, Akira Hokuto, Manami Toyota, etc. etc. then I wouldn't be able to give an educated opinion. If it was the top 10 male wrestlers of the 90's or something...then I could probably be very confident in my picks, having seen the best of all over the world in that time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World's Worst Man Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 The thought of doing this makes me cringe, knowing how much wrestling I'd have to re-watch, when I have so god damn many DVDs still sitting here unwatched. It'd be easier to just say Kawada > * though, and Jumbo > * - Kawada. There you have it. Although damn, Kawada's peak was the best ever in mein eyes, but Jumbo had the longevity. Argh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Famous Mortimer Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Shawshank, read some of my comments on why I'd like people to be involved. Rather than mock the people who are getting involved in it, remember that we're all at different stages in our wrestling enjoyment and all cherish different things and join in the debate. You'd be welcome. I don't want to do some "best technical / best brawler / best whatever" because you can judge Tamura against Hogan - which one you enjoy watching the most. There is no, repeat, no, objective way of saying one wrestler is better than another. Yes, in a sense it's redundant. Thread Killer, as long as you go in with an open mind it doesn't matter how much you've seen- you might feel the need to check out some new stuff by reading what people have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 So why not call it "The 100 Wrestlers We Enjoy The Most", why the pretense of objectivity when there clearly isn't any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Famous Mortimer Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 There isn't a pretense of objectivity. Just like every other poll ever that uses the word "best" when everyone knows they mean "the favourite of the people voting". Would you have taken part if we'd called it that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 The word "overrated" (and "underrated" for that matter) should be found no where on a list where personal preference and opinion and "favourites to watch" is the sole basis for determining who is placed where. Yet there it is. Why does it matter that Brock Lesnars run in wrestling was so short if this list is based on how much one enjoyed watching him perform? Yet that's still said. Then I read crap like "crowd control", "bumping", "selling", "matwork", "booking", and it seems to me people are less trying to talk about why they enjoy something and instead talk about why someone is a great wrestler in an objective fashion... hell, even the word "good" is an objective statement. If there isn't a pretense of objectivity, then you guys are hiding it REALLY well. Let's face it. The only reason you guys are doing this is because you want to have the definitive list on the who the greatest wrestler of all time is and show how many wrestlers you guys know exist. You wouldn't have guys going on different boards trying to get people to participate (trying to get it attention) if that wasn't the case. You'll say it's about "discussion" but it's not, it's about ego first, and possibly board hits second. There are other things you can do to get better, more worthwhile discussion, than what you're doing now, but then, it would lack the certain grandoise that "Top 100 Greatest Wrestlers" has, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benjie Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Let's face it. The only reason you guys are doing this is because you want to have the definitive list on the who the greatest wrestler of all time is and show how many wrestlers you guys know exist. You wouldn't have guys going on different boards trying to get people to participate (trying to get it attention) if that wasn't the case. You'll say it's about "discussion" but it's not, it's about ego first, and possibly board hits second. There are other things you can do to get better, more worthwhile discussion, than what you're doing now, but then, it would lack the certain grandoise that "Top 100 Greatest Wrestlers" has, wouldn't it? I 100% disagree with this comment because if you had been at SC for a longer time or read the place, then you'd know it not about hits or about how many wrestler one knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 I'd at least respect the effort if it was about hits, from a marketing perspective. So, what IS its purpose? My explanation was the best way I could make sense of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benjie Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 It's just for fun. SC has done other threads in the past that have made the site more exciting so people just enjoy doing lists. There's no harm in it. If people actually are showing off how many wrestlers they know then well all I can say is that they are sad. But I don't get that impression. I get an impression that people just want to know who will come out in whatever positions if people do a big list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 I'd at least respect the effort if it was about hits, from a marketing perspective. So, what IS its purpose? My explanation was the best way I could make sense of it. What the fuck? We're wrestling fans and we like talking about wrestling. If you need to dream up some grand scheme to figure out why we're doing a poll I don't even know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 You can talk about wrestling independent of doing a list of 100 greatest wrestlers, no? Does everyone who is participating in this lil speil know it is as worthless as you guys are claiming it is? So what are the odds that the results of the list will be posted/linked to on other boards?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 You can talk about wrestling independent of doing a list of 100 greatest wrestlers, no?Doing a list motivates people. Does everyone who is participating in this lil speil know it is as worthless as you guys are claiming it is?I don't recall saying it was worthless. So what are the odds that the results of the list will be posted/linked to on other boards??Since it hasn't happened with the other lists, I'd say the odds are slim. We don't do lists to impress the rest of the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts