Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 I think we should all find a consensus on how we're going to evaluate the choices before we start naming names, so we're all in tune with each other. So, what do you think? Money drawn? Impact? Ability in the ring? Speaking skills? A combination of all of the above? I personally would rather just go with ability in the ring, but if someone has a viewpoint otherwise, please share it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mac Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 If you go for ring ability only then it could get very straightforward and simple. Phasing in attributes such as drawing power, historical impact, charisma etc along with ring ability to form an opinion would make it more subjective and a more rounded debate in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 There's no criteria more objective than money drawn actually. It's going to be Hogan or Austin with no mystery if we go that route. If we just look at overall impact, it's going to be the same. With ringwork, Austin could win, Benoit could win, Bret could win, Michaels could win ... there are more odds-on favorites. Still, if there are differing viewpoints, I want to hear them, but I still thing ringwork may be the best way to do this, unless there are objections. Or, we could do "favorites" and everyone just vote for their personal favorites in every category so we determine NMB's favorite WWE guys, but that's a little too open for my liking, because some smartass will come in and try to push HHH to the finals just to troll. Or maybe not. That's why this thread is here, so we can talk it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mac Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 You're right, i'm wrong. Wrestling ability is probably the best route to go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Wrestling ability is a definite must but I would also consider match quality. That is how the real debate can get started. Some of the better workers have not had the best WWF matches (Owen Hart). On the flipside, you have guys like Bulldog, who were never considered great, but have had really great matches by virtue of who they were in the ring with... or the stars were just aligned right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Right. If the talent doesn't translate to good matches, it's useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Damn, that was a quick reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 How about this. If you were a booker, who would you put over? Would you take the proven draw? (i.e. Austin or Hogan). In the absense of one of those guys, would you take a superior worker? What about a worker with less ability but more charisma? That kind of takes all factors into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Great workers have charisma. Bad workers don't. Even if the criteria is purely work, guys like Hogan will still do well, and longtime top guys like Bret, Shawn, Austin, Rock and even the Undertaker will also do well. Limiting it to money drawn or impact made makes the tournament too predictable. If I was booking, I wouldn't put Owen Hart over Hulk Hogan, at least not with both at their peaks, but if they both come up in the same bracket, Owen gets my pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 OK, Loss, I think you need to elaborate on the difference between working ability and wrestling ability. We've explored the differences ate other boards but some of the guys who don't venture out much might be puzzled if you called Hogan a great worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 I could care less about great wrestlers. Being a great wrestler only helps one become a great worker. Hulk Hogan was able to evoke emotion through the crowd with his selling and through taking the fans on kind of an emotional rollercoaster. Anyone who can't get the crowd into their matches, no matter how many moves they can do, is not a great worker. The best worker is ideally a great wrestler who can also do this. Before someone busts out the word "technical", it has nothing to do with the style the wrestler uses and everything to do with the way they use what they know. "But the Ultimate Warrior was more over than Chris Benoit," you say. That's not quite getting it. We're looking at work eliciting a response, not personality eliciting a response. If the Warrior has the crowd electric because of his entrance, that doesn't make him a great worker. If Chris Benoit takes a dead crowd and revitalizes them with his selling or the story being told in the ring, that makes him a great worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 One more point. The best possible worker will do three things: (1) Involve the crowd through his actions in the ring (2) Wrestle a match that makes sense with no leaps in logic that only serve to remind the audience that what they're watching is fake (3) Perform moves that help them do #1 and #2 in the most exciting way possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Can't we just pick whom we prefer in any given match-up? What if I want to pick Tugboat over Ricky Steamboat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Then we will all laugh at you. Forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Cheer up, young grasshopper, and learn to love Ricky Steamboat. It'll certainly make your day a brighter one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 I like Steamboat. Obviously that was just an extreme example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Oh, I know. Pick whoever you want; it's a fiercely democratic tournament. I was just explaining the difference between wrestler and worker since goodhelmet asked me to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Right on. The real question is, how will you seed the selected sixty-four? At random? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 I think that's the most fair way to do it. I guess whoever loses the first match will face whoever loses the second match, and that's how we'll do the bracketing in the loser's bracket. Just so I'm sure I understand how double eliminations work, if someone gets eliminated after the first round, do they still get to enter the loser's bracket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Yes. You have to lose twice to get knocked out. So, if you lose in the first round, you'll have to wait until the end of the first round and then go again against someone else that also lost in the first round. If you lose again, you're eliminated. I think that's what you were asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 So, if someone loses in the second round, what happens then? Or the third round? That's what I'm trying to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Then they enter the loser's bracket and have to wait for the two loser's in the second round to play. Then they play the winner of those two losers. A Vs. B C Vs. D E Vs. F G Vs. H Let's say A, C, E & G win. B, D, F, H lose. A would play C & E would play G. B would play D and F would play H. A and E win. So, C & G enter the loser's bracket. C would play the winner of B & D while the loser of B & D would be eliminated. G would play the winner of F & H. Like that. Where you get eliminated does matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Some Guy Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 One more point. The best possible worker will do three things: (1) Involve the crowd through his actions in the ring (2) Wrestle a match that makes sense with no leaps in logic that only serve to remind the audience that what they're watching is fake (3) Perform moves that help them do #1 and #2 in the most exciting way possible. I agree and that's why I think Bret Hart is the best worker WWE has ever had. If this is a WWE only tourney then, as GH was alluding to (I think) I think only a guys WWF/E work should be considered, so Flair despite having a great career wouldn't go all that far in my opinion, same for Steamboat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts