Thoughts on wrestlers with great runs but bad parts

[HeadCheese]

What are your takes on ranking wrestlers that have great runs but, I have large portions of their career where they are middling or bad? Does it effect your rankings.

For context I'm not counting wrestlers that became bad or middling because of body being worn down, age, or something like that.

Like I feel like with someone like if most wrestlers were to have Samoa Joe's 2001-2008 with some of Samoa Joe's years after that run they would feel like a slam dunk case but, I'm not sure how to rank him because of how middling the rest is (besides some sparks of his career) I feel. 

[El McKell]

I'm not treating it much differently to wrestlers who have shorter careers overall, or periods of their careers where we're missing footage. I think if they're good enough to rank based on the good stuff we have they'll make it for me, even if they have down periods too.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

I reject the premise of your post.

20 hours ago, HeadCheese said:

What are your takes on ranking wrestlers that have great runs but, I have large portions of their career where they are middling or bad? Does it effect your rankings.

For context I'm not counting wrestlers that became bad or middling because of body being worn down, age, or something like that.

Like I feel like with someone like if most wrestlers were to have Samoa Joe's 2001-2008 with some of Samoa Joe's years after that run they would feel like a slam dunk case but, I'm not sure how to rank him because of how middling the rest is (besides some sparks of his career) I feel. 

You say you don't count aging as a factor, then list Samoa Joe, who is a perfect example of someone becoming worse because of being worn down by age and injuries.

In 95 per cent of cases, a wrestler will be bad to start with, then hit their peak, then slowly get worse as age and injuries accumulate. Very few exceptions break this trend. You should judge someone on the best parts of their career, their ceiling. To judge someone for continually wrestling after their body breaks down is unfair, and doesn't take into account the financial reality of wrestling as a job rather than a purely creative pursuit. A great film does not get diminished if a director has made a few flops since then. Why should pro wrestling be any different?

[El McKell]

3 hours ago, Mantaur Rodeo Clown said:

You say you don't count aging as a factor, then list Samoa Joe, who is a perfect example of someone becoming worse because of being worn down by age and injuries.

I think we can infer from from HeadCheese's post that they likely hold the pretty common view that Samoa Joe was great until 08ish, not good from 09 until leaving WWE, and great again after joining AEW. Do you think Samoa Joe was not much better in for example 2022 & 2023 than he was ten years earlier in 2012 & 2013? And if you do think he was better in those later years, does it not contradict your view that he is "a perfect example of someone becoming worse because of being worn down by age and injuries."

[HeadCheese]

Singling out Samoa Joe might have been harsh. I think Samoa Joe has good WWE stuff (the Finn Balor, Brock Lesnar, and more) and AEW stuff is very good.

I think Samoa Joe (or insert another wrestler that fits this descriptor) is a wrestler that had a great run but, had a bad/middling run not because of their bodies or age but, because of them seemingly being unmotivated.

I don't think Jim Duggan (WCW C-Show wrestler run and Super Crazy tag run) and Samoa Joe (after 2022) are not more athletic or even taking more damage then they did in there bad runs before that but, they both seem more motivated in the face, present, and there's a spark.

For context Samoa Joe is making my list and Jim Duggan has a good chance of making my list.

Sorry for not explaining myself better, I was mostly asking because I'm not sure where to rank to wrestlers for examples like Akira Tozawa and Rey Fenix.

I ranked both top 8 wrestlers in my best wrestlers of the 2010s list. In Tozawa's case he hasn't gotten much opportunity to build up a case and do much (he joined WWE in 2016). Being put, in a position to be middling for nearly half his career so far is alot. With Rey Fenix he feels like he has gained some annoying quirks (selling and sequence wise) that changed him from some the kind wrestler of wrestler I originally liked. Both are just examples.

If I look at just at Fenix and Akira Tozawa's my peak enjoyment periods of Fenix and Tozawa they would have proabably my 100 but, those factors make it more questionable.

[Ma Stump Puller]

I think in many cases that the "bad" parts of a wrestler's career can still be drawn into a positive reflection of their overall work as a whole. People don't comment on Joe's WWE run with the most extravagant of praise but I'd firmly disagree on it being classified as worthless since it showcases how well he did with TV-format matches and how strong his floor was that he was having these sort of decent to good showings with a wide variety of opponents, some good and some awful.

For me personally ranking is more down to consistency than peak, even though peak is obviously still extremely important. I will take someone who over 15 years was good to solid regardless of position or role over someone who was a top 10 talent for 2/3 years as a main eventer but was flimsy otherwise. 

 

 

 

 

[highflyflow]

5 hours ago, Mantaur Rodeo Clown said:

A great film does not get diminished if a director has made a few flops since then. Why should pro wrestling be any different?

You have the analogy wrong. The wrestler is the director here. The films are the matches, or I guess in the context of this conversation a run of matches. Nobody’s saying Joe/Necro is a worse match because of the lulls of Joe’s career down the line, just as nobody is diminishing The Godfather as a film because of Coppola’s later works. Do people not rank Coppola as highly as a director because of those later works? Absolutely, and that would be no different to not having a wrestler as high due to their later career. You don’t have to agree with that logic, of course, but that’s the correct use of the analogy.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

11 hours ago, El McKell said:

I think we can infer from from HeadCheese's post that they likely hold the pretty common view that Samoa Joe was great until 08ish, not good from 09 until leaving WWE, and great again after joining AEW. Do you think Samoa Joe was not much better in for example 2022 & 2023 than he was ten years earlier in 2012 & 2013? And if you do think he was better in those later years, does it not contradict your view that he is "a perfect example of someone becoming worse because of being worn down by age and injuries."

I do not think Samoa Joe was much better in 2022/23 than he was ten years earlier. Booked much stronger maybe, but clearly slower and less explosive, which formed a pivotal part of his act.

10 hours ago, HeadCheese said:

If I look at just at Fenix and Akira Tozawa's my peak enjoyment periods of Fenix and Tozawa they would have proabably my 100 but, those factors make it more questionable.

I mean Tozawa is probably a rough one to judge as well, simply because his situation in WWE is so different to his time in Dragon Gate or the American indies. He very clearly has a comedy role, which doesn't afford him much opportunity to show off what he can do in long, serious matches. On the flip side, I am certain he makes more money than he has ever made in his life and is much less at risk of injury. How do we judge someone who makes those life choices? Is it unfair to criticize them? That's the main point I'm driving at.

Nakamura is probably your key example. Obviously he was older and worn down from working a very hard style for so many years, but it's clear he took an early retirement after his NXT debut, and has never really shown the greatness we saw in the early 2010s despite being given many opportunities to do so. It might be more fair to criticize Nakamura for it, but again, what obligation does he have to us to kill himself in matches and not enjoy surfing on the beach and hanging out with his family?

9 hours ago, Ma Stump Puller said:

I think in many cases that the "bad" parts of a wrestler's career can still be drawn into a positive reflection of their overall work as a whole. People don't comment on Joe's WWE run with the most extravagant of praise but I'd firmly disagree on it being classified as worthless since it showcases how well he did with TV-format matches and how strong his floor was that he was having these sort of decent to good showings with a wide variety of opponents, some good and some awful.

For me personally ranking is more down to consistency than peak, even though peak is obviously still extremely important. I will take someone who over 15 years was good to solid regardless of position or role over someone who was a top 10 talent for 2/3 years as a main eventer but was flimsy otherwise. 

I will absolutely pay your first point. It shows adaptability and versatility. Truly great wrestlers get over everywhere, no matter what they're given. They turn chicken shit into chicken salad. One of the biggest feathers in Danielson's cap is he got over in WWE despite being given very little and being put in a position where many would have failed.

As for your second, that's all down to personal preference, which I respect. The truth is that so many wrestlers simply do not get the chance to be consistent. Injuries, booking, changes in the industry, personal issues. A pro wrestler staying healthy, clean of substance abuse, well-booked and kept in prominent positions where they can show off their stuff in the best light. So very few get the chance to do this for 10-15 years. But many more get the chance to do it for a few years at a time. I feel like it brings an element of luck into the discussion, which is far harder to measure.

 

8 hours ago, highflyflow said:

You have the analogy wrong. The wrestler is the director here. The films are the matches, or I guess in the context of this conversation a run of matches. Nobody’s saying Joe/Necro is a worse match because of the lulls of Joe’s career down the line, just as nobody is diminishing The Godfather as a film because of Coppola’s later works. Do people not rank Coppola as highly as a director because of those later works? Absolutely, and that would be no different to not having a wrestler as high due to their later career. You don’t have to agree with that logic, of course, but that’s the correct use of the analogy.

I appreciate you straightening out the analogy, you're correct.

My point was, no one with a brain should detract from Coppola's work on Apocalypse Now or The Godfather simply because he made a bad movie at the age of 85 in an exercise that was the Hollywood equivalent of yardtarding. A great match reflects on a wrestler forever, and their eventual decline due to unavoidable circumstances should not detract from their legacy. If Ric Flair had truly retired in 2008, his legacy would be far more dignified to many people. But to fault him for a) needing money and b) truly loving and needing wrestling more than any of us on this site ever could, seems like an unfair way to criticize a pro wrestler when determining their overall greatness.