|
Post by tetsujin on Jan 24, 2021 14:17:14 GMT -5
Speaking of Angle, oh boy I definitely wanna see him higher next time. I might be the only "Angle as a GOATC" defender here, but It always bothered me how much hate he gets in these kind of projects and communities.
|
|
|
Post by nintendologic on Jan 24, 2021 14:59:25 GMT -5
With most major league American wrestling, creating emotional investment in the wrestlers and match outcomes is far more important than presenting a realistic combat sport, and promos are an inseparable part of that. It seems to me that discounting promos is an attempt to stack the deck in favor of a particular outcome. More broadly speaking, people seem to take projects like this far more seriously than they should. After all, a lot of the ballots are going to come from people who take about five minutes to throw a list together right before the deadline. And so what if they do? You're making a wrestling list, not drafting a nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The real value comes from the discussion and learning something about your own tastes while hopefully being exposed to some new great wrestlers and matches. Acting like the results mean anything can only lead to disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Jan 24, 2021 15:02:03 GMT -5
Discounting promos isnt stacking the deck its leveling the playing field.
|
|
|
Post by bossrock on Jan 24, 2021 16:40:38 GMT -5
Speaking of Angle, oh boy I definitely wanna see him higher next time. I might be the only "Angle as a GOATC" defender here, but It always bothered me how much hate he gets in these kind of projects and communities. Angle is someone I've been meaning to revisit. He's someone who's gotten loads of criticism but I'm curious if he's any worse than a lot of "go-go-go" indie folks you see these days. I thought the Michaels Mania match was good if incredibly over-hyped, so I'm interested in how the rest of his work holds up.
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 24, 2021 16:41:34 GMT -5
I think it is privileging a particular take on or orientation to wrestling. I know plenty of folks who can't get invested and couldn't care less about a match if they don't understand the context surrounding. It isn't an approach that I share completely, but I don't think of their match evaluation as any less. It is just different. I think trying to bracket off all the other stuff outside of "in ring work" at least narrows the type of fan. I'm not sure I see a great alternative. Maybe it is good to do so. My take (here and on the 2016 project) was always "vote and participate in good faith... what is 'good' to you should be determined by you... try to articulate why it is good". That pretty clearly doesn't work for a lot of folks and honestly may not work in practice. It is always a balancing act. Embracing radical subjectivity moves away from the process being fun or worth while, but any project like this is a lot closer to subjectivity than objectivity. Putting particular restrictions on how one judges greatness in the name of getting closer to objectivity is a noble goal I think, but it always seems more limiting than what is ideal to me. Again... not sure where the right landing spot is.
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Jan 24, 2021 18:40:33 GMT -5
I think if people are doing an all encompassing world list you have to exclude promos. If someone says Dusty Rhodes is better than Kenta Kobashi because of interviews, then what's the point? Theres no discussion to be had there. You're rating different things at that point. The ring work is the common denominator.
Obviously different styles have different goals and theres value judgments to be made there. But like you can compare Dusty vs Ric Flair to Kobashi vs Misawa. What do I compare to the Hard Times promo? The pictures of Kobashi's smashed up face post Hansen match?
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 24, 2021 19:16:07 GMT -5
I agree, but I can just see sort of two arguments. 1) at some point it might be like asking the jury to forget evidence they clearly just saw. If you saw dusty promos it might be hard to separate that from his in ring work generally. I'm not even talking about specific stories. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube and watch Dusty without knowing what DUSTY is more broadly. 2) and again it isn't something that I feel, but I can sympathize with an argument that is something to the effect of "I like dusty's work because I know who he is and no matter how many kobashi matches I watch I don't get that same sense of connection." I guess the long story short is "wrestling" is a lot of things and they are all sutured to one another in a really profound way, particularly for some fans. If someone says "Hogan is the best wrestler" or "Dusty is the best wrestler" or "Bruno is the best wrestler" or (you get it) because they made me care... I'm not going to argue. I may roll my eyes, but i'm not going to actually dismiss it. Wrestling also always has a link to the broader culture within which it exists. It is easy to imagine fans who are attracted to that... who don't get maybe 80s joshi (despite it being awesome), but love mind 90s WWE because the experienced it.
Fact is, wrestling is not homogeneous. It is an imperfect art, comparing wrestling from different times and places and experiences. Carving out more narrow spaces to create consistency in a project like this is probably necessary, but I think it pretty clearly privileges a type of fan. That, in and of itself, might be desirable.
I think it is maybe easier to try to isolate matches rather than careers personally, but both don't seem all that simple to me.
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Jan 24, 2021 19:44:39 GMT -5
I agree, but I can just see sort of two arguments. 1) at some point it might be like asking the jury to forget evidence they clearly just saw. If you saw dusty promos it might be hard to separate that from his in ring work generally. I'm not even talking about specific stories. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube and watch Dusty without knowing what DUSTY is more broadly. 2) and again it isn't something that I feel, but I can sympathize with an argument that is something to the effect of "I like dusty's work because I know who he is and no matter how many kobashi matches I watch I don't get that same sense of connection." I guess the long story short is "wrestling" is a lot of things and they are all sutured to one another in a really profound way, particularly for some fans. If someone says "Hogan is the best wrestler" or "Dusty is the best wrestler" or "Bruno is the best wrestler" or (you get it) because they made me care... I'm not going to argue. I may roll my eyes, but i'm not going to actually dismiss it. Wrestling also always has a link to the broader culture within which it exists. It is easy to imagine fans who are attracted to that... who don't get maybe 80s joshi (despite it being awesome), but love mind 90s WWE because the experienced it. Fact is, wrestling is not homogeneous. It is an imperfect art, comparing wrestling from different times and places and experiences. Carving out more narrow spaces to create consistency in a project like this is probably necessary, but I think it pretty clearly privileges a type of fan. That, in and of itself, might be desirable. I think it is maybe easier to try to isolate matches rather than careers personally, but both don't seem all that simple to me. It is for me. I think the Sight and Sound movies list is a lot better than the IMDB top movies list. Both lists have their flaws and cool parts, but I'm much more interested in what the hardest of hardcores think than a casual fan. Not to totally disparage casual list making. That sort of thing does have its place too. But as someone who has spent a ton of time watching wrestling from all over the world and talking to other people who have watched wrestling from all over the world, like I could give a shit that someone likes Sting because he was there guy as a kid. A casual fan list isn't what I'm looking for out of pro wrestling discussion. Thats why I want yalls opinion on matches or wrestlers and not Joe Random Guy on twitter or reddit or wherever casual wrestling fan discussion happens. I also don't see the trouble of ranking wrestlers vs matches. Its like ranking bands vs songs. Surely folks can figure out which bands they like the most. Terry Funk is better than RIc FLair. I'd rank Funk higher. The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones. I'd rank the Beatles higher. It might be hard and people might have to think about it, but that's where the fun part comes in!
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 24, 2021 20:15:28 GMT -5
I think we agree, really. I'm more interested in those opinions too. Honestly, this forum or even PWO is not suited to measure something broad. WWE.com is. Maybe like cagesideseats or something. I just suppose I think we should call it like it is. Lets not pretend a particular criteria levels the playing field and is "objective". I think people kinda defaulted to that in the past and it was a source of friction for some.
|
|
|
Post by witlon on Jan 24, 2021 20:43:31 GMT -5
I'll say...this discussion, has made me realize more of the need for discussion, even if it can be intimidating. Because just reading through the last few hours, I'm now interested to see a case made for Kurt Angle. After it's done, I'll do due diligence and see if I have the same opinion. If I don't, it's fine, if I change my mind, than the project has changed me, even slightly, as a fan.
I mean, without the 2016 project I probably wouldn't have given someone like Jim Breaks a chance. WOS isn't a style I was ever interested in, but with the recommendations and discussion, I checked him out and enjoyed him, and the style quite a bit. And even if it doesn't get someone into a particular style, pimping something like a random Goldust match that I haven't seen before that I really like after watching, it's already served the purpose.
While there's always going to be disagreements in voting and even criteria, because 'art' (I suppose we can call pro wrestling that, as superfans), is subjective. And Elliott's final point was the big one; it's just fun. I don't know that much needs to be said other than that.
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Jan 25, 2021 0:09:52 GMT -5
All I know for sure is Bull Nakano for the top 20!
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 25, 2021 7:23:42 GMT -5
Yeah... ultimately good faith takes and participation will never be the issue and that is the majority.
And Bull Nakano should indeed be top 20.
|
|
|
Post by tetsujin on Jan 25, 2021 7:47:51 GMT -5
How do you guys think the overall top ten would look like right now? In no particular order, I think Flair, Kobashi, Funk, Hansen, Misawa, Liger and Bryan have their place there guaranteed but I'm not so sure about Rey, Kawada and Lawler. But who could take their spots?
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 25, 2021 8:38:57 GMT -5
The overall? A lot of it is up to the voting population, but quick guess... Flair, Funk, Hansen, Kobashi, Bryan, Misawa, Liger, Rey, Jumbo, Eddie (being hopeful on this last one)
I could see Kawada, Lawler, Tenryu, Savage, Casas, Steamboat, or maybe even Vader in the conversation too.
I would also like to think Bockwinkel would making a good showing again, but that one seems subject to quite a few variables.
|
|
|
Post by tetsujin on Jan 25, 2021 9:11:00 GMT -5
Hopefully Bock does even better next time. Clear #1 to me. And I think Tenryu has pretty high chances of getting a top 10 spot too.
|
|