Historical/Lack of Footage Candidates

[elliott]

3 minutes ago, strobogo said:

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

Ok so make it. No one has even attempted to do it  yet. 

[strobogo]

2 minutes ago, elliott said:

Ok so make it. No one has even attempted to do it  yet. 

A real stand out in his era. Appears to be one of the first guys really doing high spots and signature spots/moves. Tremendous athlete. Very charismatic. Obviously a huge draw all over the world, which is pretty impressive considering televisions weren't even common until many years into his career. There is an oversized sample size of him compared to others in the era, but he very clearly is head and shoulders above his opponents from that era. 

[elliott]

2 minutes ago, strobogo said:

A real stand out in his era. Appears to be one of the first guys really doing high spots and signature spots/moves. Tremendous athlete. Very charismatic. Obviously a huge draw all over the world, which is pretty impressive considering televisions weren't even common until many years into his career. There is an oversized sample size of him compared to others in the era, but he very clearly is head and shoulders above his opponents from that era. 

How can you tell he's a standout of his era? We have lots of footage from the 1930s? 

I thought we weren't factoring Drawing into the equation? 

[strobogo]

There is a whole lot of Jim Londos in the GWE media. A lot of newsreel clips and also some full matches. You can tell he's a stand out because he's just better than everyone he's in the ring with. His grappling is better. His athleticism is better. His strikes are better. His slams are better. He has more charisma than anyone. Great look and physique. 

[elliott]

2 minutes ago, strobogo said:

There is a whole lot of Jim Londos in the GWE media. A lot of newsreel clips and also some full matches. You can tell he's a stand out because he's just better than everyone he's in the ring with. His grappling is better. His athleticism is better. His strikes are better. His slams are better. He has more charisma than anyone. Great look and physique. 

Point me to a full match. Point to 1. 

I have watched every available piece of Londos footage in a certain google drive. There are not any full matches there. The 3 matches that got Londos nominated were:

vs Bronko - we have less than 15 of a 45+ minute match

vs DickShikat - we have less than 20 min of an 81 minute long match

vs Primo - 13 total minutes. I have no idea how long it actually went but I suspect longer than 13. 

[strobogo]

Idk seemed like a full match or two in there. I'm not saying that I personally would put him or anyone from that era on my list. I'm just saying I think an argument could be made for him as a clear stand out from his era and significant influence on the development pushing towards modern pro wrestling, and I wouldn't try to argue someone was wrong for having him on their list.

[Grimmas]

I thought the requirement was to recommend three matches. I guess I didn't explicit state it, but 3 FULL matches. Was that bypassed for Londos?

[elliott]

1 minute ago, strobogo said:

Idk seemed like a full match or two in there. I'm not saying that I personally would put him or anyone from that era on my list. I'm just saying I think an argument could be made for him as a clear stand out from his era and significant influence on the development pushing towards modern pro wrestling, and I wouldn't try to argue someone was wrong for having him on their list.

There isn't a full match. I would love it if there was some. The glimpses we have are great. But its not enough. 

LIterally the only criteria this project has is for a wrestler to have 3 full matches. 

This is a project based on footage, not reputation.

[strobogo]

If 3 full matches is the criteria, then I suppose an argument can't be made after all

[Reel]

5 hours ago, Grimmas said:

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

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

I think there's room for something like a recurring version of the Yohe list, but I think it should be its own thing and not a GWE appendix. 

[ohtani's jacket]

Why do we need to have three full matches to judge a worker? Why can't we judge them based on a bunch of clips? There's a difference between workers where we barely have anything and workers where we have enough clips to form an opinion. Londos vs. Bronko may be clipped, but even in clipped form, it's still one of the best matches we have from the era. Obviously, there's a chance that the full match wouldn't be as good, or that there were other matches from the era that were better, but this isn't Greatest Match Ever. It's possible to watch the Londos/Bronko footage and be impressed by his ringwork. If you're impressed by his ringwork, then why isn't he a viable candidate? Do we really need to be able to pick apart his career the way we do with other candidates? I get why it's not fair to push Londos based on limited footage while other wrestlers get full critiques, but at the end of the day, people still vote for workers who impress them regardless of what others say. At a certain point, we have to accept that there are certain candidates that we're not going to get new footage of because of how limited the technology was in their era. Do we ignore guys like Londos, or do we embrace the history of recorded professional wrestling? We're not talking about someone like Mildred Burke or Enrique Torres where we have one or two clips period. People are happy to vote for the Destroyer when we are missing huge chunks of his career just because we have a few matches from Japan. Why can't we watch every Le Petit Prince match on tape and not think he is phenomenal when people will dismiss Dynamite Kid based on a couple of Tiger Mask matches they don't like? Do I really need to watch every mediocre Casas match to validate my opinion of him? Judge things for yourself. We all know a handful of people will vote for niche wrestlers and the majority will vote for the Bryan Danielsons. Let the voters decide whether they should really vote for Dick Shikat. 

The last time we did this poll, I was surprised when historical candidates appeared that I hadn't head of. That led me down the path of watching 1950s footage. If you don't allow for those types of votes, there's a chance that someone out there won't discover workers like Londos. 

[Grimmas]

3 hours ago, ohtani's jacket said:

Why do we need to have three full matches to judge a worker? Why can't we judge them based on a bunch of clips? There's a difference between workers where we barely have anything and workers where we have enough clips to form an opinion. Londos vs. Bronko may be clipped, but even in clipped form, it's still one of the best matches we have from the era. Obviously, there's a chance that the full match wouldn't be as good, or that there were other matches from the era that were better, but this isn't Greatest Match Ever. It's possible to watch the Londos/Bronko footage and be impressed by his ringwork. If you're impressed by his ringwork, then why isn't he a viable candidate? Do we really need to be able to pick apart his career the way we do with other candidates? I get why it's not fair to push Londos based on limited footage while other wrestlers get full critiques, but at the end of the day, people still vote for workers who impress them regardless of what others say. At a certain point, we have to accept that there are certain candidates that we're not going to get new footage of because of how limited the technology was in their era. Do we ignore guys like Londos, or do we embrace the history of recorded professional wrestling? We're not talking about someone like Mildred Burke or Enrique Torres where we have one or two clips period. People are happy to vote for the Destroyer when we are missing huge chunks of his career just because we have a few matches from Japan. Why can't we watch every Le Petit Prince match on tape and not think he is phenomenal when people will dismiss Dynamite Kid based on a couple of Tiger Mask matches they don't like? Do I really need to watch every mediocre Casas match to validate my opinion of him? Judge things for yourself. We all know a handful of people will vote for niche wrestlers and the majority will vote for the Bryan Danielsons. Let the voters decide whether they should really vote for Dick Shikat. 

The last time we did this poll, I was surprised when historical candidates appeared that I hadn't head of. That led me down the path of watching 1950s footage. If you don't allow for those types of votes, there's a chance that someone out there won't discover workers like Londos. 

We are supposed to be voting this based on footage and let's be honest there is so many wrestlers I would never consider for the top 100 that if I removed their footage down to these bare minimums they could easily be my #1.

The only criteria is based on footage and 3 full matches is like the lowest bar their could be and you want it even lower? 

What's next? Voting on people based on what people wrote about them in books?

I love your passion. I love how you invested into these people. However voting on them as some of the greatest wrestlers ever when we have like 0.01% of their career on tape and not even full matches seems utterly bizarre. You have to also know the best footage was saved not the worst footage. If you have 18 minutes of an 80 minute match that's most likely the best 18 minutes not the worst. For all you know there is like 60 minutes of rest holds on top of that where nothing happens, yet you are using your imagination to fill in the gaps.

[strobogo]

I think you can extrapolate from a few clips and minimal footage of a pro wrestler. You can definitely tell when a dude is complete dogshit from a handful of clips, I think you can tell when someone is a great talent just the same. People are going to be voting for guys that are clearly terrible but they like them for whatever reason

[Grimmas]

4 minutes ago, strobogo said:

I think you can extrapolate from a few clips and minimal footage of a pro wrestler. You can definitely tell when a dude is complete dogshit from a handful of clips, I think you can tell when someone is a great talent just the same. People are going to be voting for guys that are clearly terrible but they like them for whatever reason

If I limited Low Ki down to that much footage there is no question they are the #1 in GWE no questions asked. Obviously they are not and wont' even make my list. That small of a sample to base on is very odd.

[El McKell]

3 minutes ago, strobogo said:

People are going to be voting for guys that are clearly terrible but they like them for whatever reason

Well they look at them and see something good. What one person sees as good in wrestling is never going to perfectly align with what other people think is good.
 

6 minutes ago, strobogo said:

I think you can extrapolate from a few clips and minimal footage of a pro wrestler. You can definitely tell when a dude is complete dogshit from a handful of clips, I think you can tell when someone is a great talent just the same.

I feel like you can see from clips if someone has good execution but not really if they're good at putting together a match. I personally can't rate someone based on clips, I don't know how to rate a match if we only have half of it or less. How well you can gauge someone's quality by clips depends on what kind of aspects of wrestling are most important to you.

[El McKell]

4 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

If I limited Low Ki down to that much footage there is no question they are the #1 in GWE no questions asked. Obviously they are not and wont' even make my list. That small of a sample to base on is very odd.

Or he could look like crap, it depends on which 3 matches you pick to trim down to 15 minutes and how they are edited

[Grimmas]

1 minute ago, El McKell said:

Or he could look like crap, it depends on which 3 matches you pick to trim down to 15 minutes and how they are edited

Exactly!

For some reason though I suspect when there is saved footage of folks, it's generally their best.

[strobogo]

4 minutes ago, El McKell said:

Well they look at them and see something good. What one person sees as good in wrestling is never going to perfectly align with what other people think is good.
 

I feel like you can see from clips if someone has good execution but not really if they're good at putting together a match. I personally can't rate someone based on clips, I don't know how to rate a match if we only have half of it or less. How well you can gauge someone's quality by clips depends on what kind of aspects of wrestling are most important to you.

Putting together a match means sometimes vastly different things in different eras, though. You can't hold talents from different eras to the same standards of how they put a match together. A match in the 20s/30s has a much different structure than the 50s, which is different from the 70s, which is different from the 80s, and so on and so on. Not to mention different areas and territories had different styles even before the territory system was really firmly established. Wrestling in Chicago was different from wrestling in New York City was different from wrestling in LA even in the 1930s-1950s. 

[Grimmas]

5 minutes ago, strobogo said:

Putting together a match means sometimes vastly different things in different eras, though. You can't hold talents from different eras to the same standards of how they put a match together. A match in the 20s/30s has a much different structure than the 50s, which is different from the 70s, which is different from the 80s, and so on and so on. Not to mention different areas and territories had different styles even before the territory system was really firmly established. Wrestling in Chicago was different from wrestling in New York City was different from wrestling in LA even in the 1930s-1950s. 

Cool. 1/4 of a match is not enough to tell if they can do that or not.

[El McKell]

6 minutes ago, strobogo said:

Putting together a match means sometimes vastly different things in different eras, though. You can't hold talents from different eras to the same standards of how they put a match together. A match in the 20s/30s has a much different structure than the 50s, which is different from the 70s, which is different from the 80s, and so on and so on. Not to mention different areas and territories had different styles even before the territory system was really firmly established. Wrestling in Chicago was different from wrestling in New York City was different from wrestling in LA even in the 1930s-1950s. 

Yeah I know there's a ton of ways to structure a match that vary between different times and places. And that a wrestler can be good at some of them and bad at others. But without full matches I don't know how matches in the 30s are structured, what makes a good 30s match or a bad 30s match, so for me I find them impossible to rate 

[El McKell]

oh shit Steven said the exact same thing but in less words

[elliott]

For years the Lioness vs Jaguar match from 8/85 existed only in clip form and many people called it the greatest match we'd never see in full and pointed to the 10 minutes of clips as proof that it was the lost classic of our time.

What happened when we got the full match and got the full Devil vs Chigusa match from the same show? Lioness vs Jaguar is now famously not even the best match from its show. 

I really don't think asking for 3 full matches is too much. Its a I ow bar. Sorry the cool new favorites aren't eligible. This is a project about footage and has been from the start. Its been the only criteria from the beginning. 

Would we claim to know everything there is to know and place him into historical context if the only footage we had of Martin Scorsese's career was After Hours, fifteen minute clips of The Departed and then a bunch of disconnected 40 second clips? Of course not. But that would be substantially more footage than we have of Jim Londos wrestling 

[elliott]

7 hours ago, ohtani's jacket said:

 

Ok so make the case for JIm Londos based on the existing footage. I've asked in his thread multiple times already. 

Edit
I also hope you stop with the obviously bad faith arguments like tryign to compare Londos to Destroyer. We literally have hours upon hours of complete Destroyer matches against a huge variety of opponents spread over decades of time. What's more we have hundreds of hours of wrestling from the same era which we can compare to Destroyer's work. You can't say the same about Londos for any point of his career. You know this has always been a footage based project. There's literally one rule to the project there has to be 3 matches on tape. 

[ethantyler]

Re Londos, I think it's important to point out that he was actually considered an average worker, at best, in his own era. No one has gone on record to say he was "good", never-mind superlatives beyond that. His inability to have better matches was the main reason he was held down a bit in the mid-20s when Joe Stecher was the world champ. He's the best draw the business has ever seen because charisma goes a long way - one of the first wrestlers to appeal to women, etc. It had little to do with his in-ring ability.

If context is irrelevant - in other words as long as someone looks good to you in 2021 who cares if they were considered "meh" in they're own era - then please ignore my above point. If context matters, then saying Londos was a good worker would be a stretch in my view. 

[elliott]

I've read it both ways, Ethan. I've seen him dismissed as a worker because he wasn't a great shooter in the Frank Gotch, Joe Stecher, Ed Lewis line. And he was much smaller than those guys and that prevented his rise in the 20s. That and politics and the old guys wanting to hold onto their spots. 

I've also seen him described as a great/exciting "Worker" wrestler who had matches fans loved. I'm sure I've seen Steve Yohe describe Londos as the Chris Benoit of the 1920s and the Hulk Hogan of the 1930s (this was back in the early 00s when comparing someone to Benoit meant they were an elite in ring worker) which is about as high praise as you can give someone. 

I agree that from the small clips we have he certainly seems like he's more on the awesome side than the just "good" side. But I'm not going to pretend I can extrapolate a 40 year career based on some 45 second clips and then be able to put that into a broader context which is just LOL. 

Londos is an absolutely fascinating figure though and I would encourage actual discussion of him based on what we can know. LIke I wanna hear more about him drawing 50K in Greece and Italy in the 30s or whatever. He's probably the most important & influential wrestler prior to Hulk Hogan but its always been difficult to get beyond generalities and into specifics.