Historical/Lack of Footage Candidates

[Grimmas]

There seems to be a bunch of wrestlers that people think are really great, but are really lacking full matches on tape. From reading through threads it seems like a lot of people are having to extrapolate on how to rank them into GWE based on limitations of footage. That got me thinking.

What if we separate out any candidate that has less than ten/fifteen/twenty or whatever full matches on tape out of GWE 100 list and add a Historical List voting too. Last time we had a separate tag vote, we could do a separate historical vote instead? Maybe people put out a top 25 list for those people with footage issues?

Just a thought, but I think it's a neat and fun idea.

Thoughts?

[Grimmas]

I would love to vote El Santo or Hans Schmidt for GWE, but I can't do that based on what we have and it being based on footage. Could be a good way to hit that itch.

[elliott]

Does this include historical figures we have no footage of? So for example could I say Abraham Lincoln (in the extreme) or lets say Farmer Burns (less extreme) Or is this about about people with limited footage but not a ton like Antonio Rocca or El Solitario?

[Grimmas]

5 minutes ago, elliott said:

Does this include historical figures we have no footage of? So for example could I say Abraham Lincoln (in the extreme) or lets say Farmer Burns (less extreme) Or is this about about people with limited footage but not a ton like Antonio Rocca or El Solitario?

I would think we'd atleast need clips to have an idea of their in ring work. I guess if people wrote about Lincoln's in ring skills he'd count, but I don't know about that. This is the feeling out/planning thread.

[elliott]

Yeah that's why I wanted to ask. To get a feel for what you had in mind as far as footage vs no footage and what we know vs what we don't know

[Grimmas]

8 minutes ago, elliott said:

Yeah that's why I wanted to ask. To get a feel for what you had in mind as far as footage vs no footage and what we know vs what we don't know

GWE greatest wrestler in ring based on footage.

HGWE greatest wrestler in ring not based on footage.

That work?

I see a lot of hype for the French folks, but then I find out there is like 7 matches on tape of their entire career. That's not enough to really vote for the, but if we separate them out then we are in awesome town of having debates and discussions! El Santo, Hans Schmidt, whoever. I think it's fun and may be more productive. Would love to hear from the @ohtani's jacket and co. who are the heroes of lack of footage wrestlers.

[Loss]

May I ask what you think the minimum threshold is out there to consider someone? I ask because Hans Schmidt was mentioned, and we have by my count 26 full-length or mostly full-length matches available for him. In theory, that seems like enough to understand him. There are people like Danny Hodge and maybe Johnny Valentine that it would be nice to see more of to know where they stand on an all-time list, but there is a deceptive amount of footage out there for most top stars of the 1950s. It's the American stars of the 70s who I think suffer the most, particularly those who either didn't work Japan or whose acts didn't really connect in Japan. Jackie Fargo is a legend that created a blueprint for Jerry Lawler, who will fare well, but we have very little footage.

[Grimmas]

1 minute ago, Loss said:

May I ask what you think the minimum threshold is out there to consider someone? I ask because Hans Schmidt was mentioned, and we have by my count 26 full-length or mostly full-length matches available for him. In theory, that seems like enough to understand him. There are people like Danny Hodge and maybe Johnny Valentine that it would be nice to see more of to know where they stand on an all-time list, but there is a deceptive amount of footage out there for most top stars of the 1950s. It's the American stars of the 70s who I think suffer the most, particularly those who either didn't work Japan or whose acts didn't really connect in Japan. Jackie Fargo is a legend that created a blueprint for Jerry Lawler, who will fare well, but we have very little footage.

Yeah Hans may be a bad example, didn't realize there was that much.

The threeshold is something I'm not sure where to draw the line. Hodge and Valentine would be good bets for sure, Jackie Fargo too. It's so weird we have a lot of 50s, but less 70s. 

My idea would be the people we don't have enough footage of to really know how to place and we have to use extrapolation. What that number is, not sure. I would love those folks to get their dues though. We could have a floating target, like a percentage of their matches on tape or something. That's a line that would need to be discussed and figured out, but I think the idea in principal is good.

[fxnj]

A separate list built around "positive historical impact" while clearly demarking the main list as based purely on performances in available matches or something to that effect seems a pretty good compromise. I've raised concerns in the past about how lists like these tend to shaft talented workers who have gaps in footage availability and give too much weight to workers whose promotions were better with footage, so it's nice to see others catching up to those concerns and them being addressed. I remember polls in the past showing a fair amount of people here do have some sort of interest in 50s or earlier wrestling history, so I don't doubt there being just as much if not more interest as the tag list got.

Not really sure about putting in a footage limit for the main list, though. Given that we can rewatch stuff as much as we want, even if it was the only piece of footage we had of him, I think it's entirely reasonable that someone could argue the performance from Johnny Valentine in the Bull Curry match gave them more joy than most other guys' entire careers.

[Jetlag]

This discussion is old hat by now. The real question is, how to deal with guys with no historical relevance, little footage, but we know they are awesome?

[El McKell]

I wouldn't be interested in participating in a poll where we rank people with little footage  based on that footage, but if people want to do it that's cool.

But I really really don't want to see wrestlers removed from the regular GWE nominees because of it. I want myself and other voters to have the freedom to vote for who we think is best based on the footage we have and not be forbidden from voting for Buddy Rogers or whatever because he doesn't have 20 matches on tape.

 

[Rah]

26 minutes ago, El McKell said:

But I really really don't want to see wrestlers removed from the regular GWE nominees because of it. I want myself and other voters to have the freedom to vote for who we think is best based on the footage we have and not be forbidden from voting for Buddy Rogers or whatever because he doesn't have 20 matches on tape.

 

Agreed. 

If the two lists aren't mutually exclusive then I'd be all for this. 

I think there's going to be a mismatch in trying to form a consensus on what is 'enough' (for instance 3 vs 5 vs 10). There are so many tangible factors we can't agree on already (peak vs longevity, variety vs singular) that this would just be part and parcel of the bigger issue in finding uniformity (not that I wish we do!). Besides, those extrapolating are a miniscule number, really. 

All said, I'd be really keen to do a limited footage GWE. Maybe this will clear up the 'who the hell is the apparently legendary Blue Fish and why do we lack his footage' questions I have. 

[fxnj]

Yeah, I think it would cut off a lot of interesting discussion to have the lists mutually exclusive. It would be really cool seeing Frank Gotch get ranked alongside Misawa on the historical list or seeing people make the case for Buddy Rogers based on available footage on the main list. Could also be neat to make it all-encompassing to also consider other wrestlers influenced, training work, and matches produced. That way the discussion on footage guys wouldn't just be a retread of the main list.

Also since it seemed the tag list got overshadowed by the main list during the last reveal, it might make sense to set the historical list deadline and results reveal a month or so earlier than the main list. That way there'd be time to put a spotlight on the results there while also building hype for the main list results reveal.

[Matt D]

Hey, if you guys want to have a parallel just for funsies "Wrestlers that I kind of have a Hunch might have been Great" list, go for it.

[Grimmas]

6 hours ago, Jetlag said:

This discussion is old hat by now. The real question is, how to deal with guys with no historical relevance, little footage, but we know they are awesome?

That's the separate list I was thinking about.

[Grimmas]

So... based on this thread this is what it sounds like.

Normal GWE voting 100, but maybe raising the 3 full match recs up to 5-10 to be on that list.

Other GWE voting 25, that one you can vote for any even if they are clips, but also people like Ernie Ladd who we have a bunch of matches of, but not really their prime, so it's more of a hunch list.

That would be my proposal. Other list has a lot of French, 70s, just folks who we are missing most of their career.

So yeah, someone like Bockwinkel will obviously do well on GWE, but would do better on the other list because we are missing his prime, so could be ranked on both?

Is this is the vibe I'm picking up here?

[elliott]

My initial thought was that it would be like the "Top 25 Wrestlers I wish More Footage Existed for." Like I actually think voting for someone like Hans Schmidt is reasonable. Like Loss said we have a bunch of 20+ minute long matches in complete form against a variety of opponents.  To take the other example we have exactly zero complete matches from Jim Londos. You can see from the clips he looks awesome but its like less than 60 minutes of footage out of a 40 year career or something? Based on what we have of Londos (and I've watched all of it thats presently available) I know enough to know I want to see more but I'm not going to pretend I can fairly compare him to Stan Hansen as an in ring performer based on the footage that exists. 

[Matt D]

So, I can nominate Terrible Ted the Wrestling Bear for this?

We even have a little footage.

[Grimmas]

57 minutes ago, Matt D said:

So, I can nominate Terrible Ted the Wrestling Bear for this?

We even have a little footage.

If you think they are awesome, yeah why not?

[elliott]

1 hour ago, Matt D said:

So, I can nominate Terrible Ted the Wrestling Bear for this?

We even have a little footage.

I remember on the old WOL Eyada show I sent in a question about Terrible Ted and made a joke that he was a better worker than Kevin Nash based on what I'd seen and Meltzer was like "Come on, he's not better than Nash, Nash knows how to work."

[Reel]

I don't think muddling GWE26 with other side lists is a good idea. I get the idea here, and I'm partially to blame, because of my Johnny Valentine boosterism, but I think that the list of people who are actually considering voting for Valentine/Londos/Buddy Rogers/etc for GWE proper is rather small and creating a whole other list to placate that small group at the expense of a cohesive and unified GWE isn't worth it. 

 

 

[Childs]

4 hours ago, Reel said:

I don't think muddling GWE26 with other side lists is a good idea. I get the idea here, and I'm partially to blame, because of my Johnny Valentine boosterism, but I think that the list of people who are actually considering voting for Valentine/Londos/Buddy Rogers/etc for GWE proper is rather small and creating a whole other list to placate that small group at the expense of a cohesive and unified GWE isn't worth it. 

 

 

This.

[Grimmas]

Okay, maybe we don't need to muddle the waters

I thought it was a fun idea, but maybe that's something entirely different.

[El-P]

1 hour ago, Grimmas said:

I thought it was a fun idea, but maybe that's something entirely different.

Well, it is a fun idea for another time and something entirely different indeed, in term of "Most influential wrestlers" period. 

[strobogo]

22 hours ago, Reel said:

I don't think muddling GWE26 with other side lists is a good idea. I get the idea here, and I'm partially to blame, because of my Johnny Valentine boosterism, but I think that the list of people who are actually considering voting for Valentine/Londos/Buddy Rogers/etc for GWE proper is rather small and creating a whole other list to placate that small group at the expense of a cohesive and unified GWE isn't worth it. 

 

 

I will absolutely have Buddy Rogers on my list. I can see an argument for Londos, too, tbh.