Random Match Theory and Other Metrics

[concrete1992]

When putting together are lists we seem to always be toying with how we think about wrestlers. Are there ways we can better compare them to help eliminate some of the wildly separate elements of the wrestlers. While I'm going to lay out what I am using as a tool, would love for anyone else to throw in their silly metrics that they might be putting in place.

Now this, isn't a formula and is just sort of a thought exercise that I use when I'm talking about wrestlers or even just mulling about it in my head. Random Match Theory is essentially how likely I am to enjoy a wrestler's match if we took their career, shuffled up all their matches, and you got dealt the 5-10 matches at the top of the deck. There has always been a lot of talk about Great Match Theory but for me this works a little better for my GWE needs. This will obviously benefit folks that are overly consistent but for me it also benefits folks with variety. That might be a variety of roles, promotions, or points in their careers. And if I'm being honest with someone, for most wrestlers I'm not going to go week-by-week or chart out their entire career or something. This is a much more reality-based scenario that if needed to I could put a chunk of wrestlers through.

[Reel]

I basically do the same thing with my year-end list, in my head I call it the Produce rule, which is, if this person showed up on some random Wrestler X Produce show, how likely would I be to watch it. It's not a be-all-end-all, but it's a good way to differentiate when things get tough. 

[soup23]

Been thinking about Random Match Theory since it was presented on the kickoff pod.

One thought I have is that it certainly seems to help individuals that worked a variety of roles (heel/face, tag specialist but singles star, different gimmicks) more so than what I would refer to as Template workers. Two high profile template workers that I think Random Match Theory would probably penalize for me is Rey Mysterio and Ricky Steamboat. On the surface, a random match theory generator would produce mostly good results and matches in a variety of different promotions but I am unsure at the variety of the matches that would be presented or how that would help raise these candidates overall. Contrasting to someone like Funk or Jumbo where you could go from NWA title match era FUnk to Hardcore plunder and be amazed at how entertained you are from two striking different performances from two eras from the same man. Ditto for 70's Jumbo and then jumping to 1991 grumpy Jumbo due to the random match generator. 

The other beneficiary of this theory seems to be the high profile indie stars too. I think it is no secret that more time is put into crafting matches nowadays than in the past where you were just working with opponents night in and night out and sticking to familiarity. Workers like Hero, Generico, Danielson, Strong, Cesaro all have distinct eras from a multitude of promotions and have been consistently good throughout their entire career. This is a double knockout blow in random match theory as the quality and uniqueness would both be high for each of those listed above.  Overall, this isn't a theory that I am sure will carry much weight for me as I do think it is stringent on both consistency and uniqueness which aren't my highest points of criteria when evaluating wrestlers overall. 

[Matt D]

I like this because it controls for opportunity and forces you to think more about different situations which may have different purposes.

It's still not nearly enough for me.

I'll unveil an acronym at some point too.

Spoiler

 

[Childs]

18 minutes ago, soup23 said:

Been thinking about Random Match Theory since it was presented on the kickoff pod.

One thought I have is that it certainly seems to help individuals that worked a variety of roles (heel/face, tag specialist but singles star, different gimmicks) more so than what I would refer to as Template workers. Two high profile template workers that I think Random Match Theory would probably penalize for me is Rey Mysterio and Ricky Steamboat.

That's interesting; I think Steamboat and Rey would do well for me by this approach, because they maintained such a high base standard. Yes, you might catch a Dragon vs. Muraco match from WWF or unmasked Mysterio from the WCW death spiral, but chances are you're going to get a straight run of good shit. 

[soup23]

Yeah, I think the chances of something "good" is high with those two or someone like Hansen but I do feel the random match theory really plays up more the variety and that is where it may lack from those type of workers. THey are all strong enough that they have aberrations but I fee like 90% of the matches they compete in follow some sort of template that I can visualize. My thinking would be with those type of workers, instead of bouncing around with a random match theory, a more chronological watch would be rewarding. 

[Grimmas]

Good matches/amount of matches on tape = RMT

Rank wrestlers by RMT

Easy rankings!

EDIT: You might need to add in some modifier to favour those with more matches.

[concrete1992]

For me, Rey does exceptionally well with this method, but again all about how you view wrestling. It isn't just that Rey has a lot of good matches but he has so few matches with tons of bloat. Whatever I'm dealt would likely be a good time. Even if I end up with 5 GREAT matches, if they are 5 30+ minute matches, I probably won't be endeared towards it.

And yeah, definitely interested how other folks are thinking about things.

[Grimmas]

8 minutes ago, concrete1992 said:

For me, Rey does exceptionally well with this method, but again all about how you view wrestling. It isn't just that Rey has a lot of good matches but he has so few matches with tons of bloat. Whatever I'm dealt would likely be a good time. Even if I end up with 5 GREAT matches, if they are 5 30+ minute matches, I probably won't be endeared towards it.

And yeah, definitely interested how other folks are thinking about things.

I think you could make a checklist of every situation a wrestler can be in (main event, undercard tag, monster vs small worker, etc...) and give an out of 5 in each category and how well you think they would perform in those, then formula that all up?

If you wanted to do some kind of real system.

I doubt I do that, but I do look at it as how great a worker is in any situation, not necessarily looking at how great the matches are, but more how great the worker is in the match. Also care more about how they work, then the output exactly.

[TheDuke]

An interesting experiment but one that would not be feasible is take a group of people who have never seen wrestling, show them random matches from the nominees, and ask them to rank the wrestlers and compare the results to the GWE list. I wonder what wrestlers would rank around the same and what wrestlers would they rank wildly differently. 

[overbooked]

I really like this idea, although I appreciate it favours consistent workers and those who got to work in places that let them do their best work. At a basic level, it makes projects like these far more accessible to those who either don't have access to all the footage or simply don't have the time to "deep dive". Ten matches feels like a good sample size. If someone doesn't look good after 10 random matches then they probably aren't a realistic candidate.