Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
soup23

PTBN GWWE

Recommended Posts

Someone should go above and beyond and give us the years each nominee was/is in WWE for some perspective. The compartmentalizing careers is going to be the hardest part for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that has been tough for me so far. I am too often thinking of non-wwe first and then trying to remember exactly how long and how many runs they were in the wwe for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without thinking about this much, yet. Bret, Hammer, Savage, and Cena are lukely my top 4. Ax is going way too high on my list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of key changes that have been included to the updated rules document.

1. We have made the determination to not include strictly on air characters that never wrestled. This resulted in the removal of Jim Cornette, Jimmy Hart, Grand Wizard and Miss Elizabeth from the nominations list. Our reasoning is since we are asking people to use the NJPW system and W stands for workrate, it was unfair to accurately these candidates by that same criteria since they never wrestled. By the same token, if you include the above then Gene Okerlund, Howard Finkel etc should be in consideration.

2. We have also decided that commentary is not a part of the process when judging such candidates like Gorilla Monsoon, Jesse Ventura, Vince McMahon and Jerry Lawler. Please keep that in mind when arguing their cases.

Cornette had a match against Lothario. Jimmy Hart won a battle royal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A couple of key changes that have been included to the updated rules document.

1. We have made the determination to not include strictly on air characters that never wrestled. This resulted in the removal of Jim Cornette, Jimmy Hart, Grand Wizard and Miss Elizabeth from the nominations list. Our reasoning is since we are asking people to use the NJPW system and W stands for workrate, it was unfair to accurately these candidates by that same criteria since they never wrestled. By the same token, if you include the above then Gene Okerlund, Howard Finkel etc should be in consideration.

 

2. We have also decided that commentary is not a part of the process when judging such candidates like Gorilla Monsoon, Jesse Ventura, Vince McMahon and Jerry Lawler. Please keep that in mind when arguing their cases.

Cornette had a match against Lothario. Jimmy Hart won a battle royal.

 

 

Liz was in a mixed tag at WM 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand the scoring rubric.

 

 

N: Nuance (Longevity, Flexibility, Intangibles)

J: Jump Up Factor (Memorable Peak Matches, Moments and Storylines)

P: Promo Skills & Character Work

W: Workrate

 

Setting aside whether I like the idea of an official rubric in the first place, how are we supposed to measure these things? Are we just considering these factors or are we assigning them numbers? I rarely go on FB so the discussions there will have very little utility for me. That said I'm still interested in voting unless there is some really rigid guideline for applying that rubric that I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rubric is more of a guidemap when formulating your list. We wanted to have a set criteria to judge the listing by. My personal reasoning for this is because I think without a rubric, Vince could really easily be #1 on a lot of lists. That is all well and good but I don't really forsee this list as a "most important WWE figures" and I do think that is easier to earmark than with GWE. There is not rigid requirement that you have to go through every candidate and mark a number for each one and whatever the numbers tell you, that is your list (like Parv did with BIGLAV). I am unsure with how you will vote on this in relation to something like the WON HOF but I know for someone like Elliot, the workrate factor in the WON HOF carries fairly little weight to him individually as he has Tamura as one of his top five workers of all time but wouldn't vote for him in the HOF. We tried to create a metric where you could do similar weighting. If you do prefer intangibles and longevity, then your list can look vastly different from someone who prefers workrate while still using the same basic guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm basically using the same criteria as i would have for GWE, and I don't see a problem reconciling that with the NJPW.

 

Broadly speaking the criteria seems to me to just be rating their on screen performance as wrestlers. (Excluding drawing and off-camera contributions, things like that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rubric makes it tougher for me because I think it does shift the meaning into a discussion of star power and importance and away from work. That is fine, but if others aren't approaching it that way I don't want to either. I'm torn because I don't think drawing power was covered but I don't see how it could possibly be left out of a project like this. It's much easier for me to dismiss that stuff when we are explicitly talking about bell-to-bell work - it doesn't seem that we are here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing attention to the FB group, I just joined. this is right in my wheelhouse. I followed the GWE threads from afar but felt I still have so much more to watch and abstained from voting because I wanted to be more well rounded globally and didn't think it was fair to vote with my limited perspective. But WWE/F, I grew up on this, happy to participate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ax is going way too high on my list.

If we're allowed to count pre-Hogan era, I got your back. I love that Eddie Gilbert angle so much!

Seems like it goes back to Capital Wrestling so Masked Superstar and Machine eras count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a question regarding Vince McMahon's candidacy. Soup said:

 

1. We have made the determination to not include strictly on air characters that never wrestled. This resulted in the removal of Jim Cornette, Jimmy Hart, Grand Wizard and Miss Elizabeth from the nominations list. Our reasoning is since we are asking people to use the NJPW system and W stands for workrate, it was unfair to accurately these candidates by that same criteria since they never wrestled. By the same token, if you include the above then Gene Okerlund, Howard Finkel etc should be in consideration.

2. We have also decided that commentary is not a part of the process when judging such candidates like Gorilla Monsoon, Jesse Ventura, Vince McMahon and Jerry Lawler. Please keep that in mind when arguing their cases.

and this

The rubric is more of a guidemap when formulating your list. We wanted to have a set criteria to judge the listing by. My personal reasoning for this is because I think without a rubric, Vince could really easily be #1 on a lot of lists. That is all well and good but I don't really forsee this list as a "most important WWE figures" and I do think that is easier to earmark than with GWE.

 

I still haven't really decided how I will weigh "promos, out of ring character work, and memorable moments" vs in ring work (how I approached GWE). But I'm just curious, with commentary out as a criteria, what are we considering the beginning of Vince's candidacy? Does it start with the Montreal Screwjob/solidification of the Mr McMahon character? Or later when he has his first match in 1999? Or do "Welcome to WrestleMania III!" and "Stand Back!" count as a Memorable Moments?

 

Serious question because Vince is tricky. He was an on screen presence forever and should definitely be nominated under the criteria. But given the criteria he wouldn't be nominated until 1999 when he finally had a match. Up until then he was still in Cornette/Jimmy Hart/Grand Wizard mode.

 

I ask because if I end up considering promos, character work, memorable moments etc, Vince's placement could be radically different based on an 11/97 or 1/99 start date and he's the only nominee I can think of without a clear defined start of his candidacy and given the criteria, he could theoretically be a major candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×