|
Post by Grimmas on Jan 4, 2018 16:57:18 GMT -5
Meta topic.
|
|
|
Post by stunninggrover on Jan 5, 2018 0:17:26 GMT -5
The Greatest Match Ever should be able to grab your attention from start to finish and it should contain the following aspects...
-Great in-ring work -Great psychology -Great character work -Intensity -Drama -A hot crowd -A backstory -And, if it's a brawl, blood would be great too
|
|
|
Post by smash1992 on Jan 5, 2018 15:44:51 GMT -5
Did they gig? If yes then it stands a chance.
|
|
|
Post by thepumalives on Jan 5, 2018 16:57:21 GMT -5
Curtain to curtain is very important to me, as is the back story and how it plays into the bell to bell action. The best example of this is Flair vs. Lawler from 1982 on Memphis TV. Flair comes in as the cocky world champion and is suckered into a 10 minute time limit Championship match by Lawler's southern jive. Flair has Lawler on the brink of defeat when the time limit is up, so he demands the match continue. Cue Lawler's fiery comeback and he chases Flair out of the ringside area for the countout victory! Flair comes back and is all pissed off and fired up and puts a bounty on Lawler; the whole shebang is one of the greatest angles of all time. Now as a match, bell to bell, it may only be really good; but curtain to curtain and this is an all time classic.
Now I need to go nominate this one.
|
|
|
Post by Kadaveri on Jan 6, 2018 6:33:26 GMT -5
Something else I always consider is did the match have a great and memorable finish? For example Austin passing out in a pool of blood in the sharpshooter, Vince attempting to screwjob CM Punk and it backfiring on him, Kawada rage powerbombing Misawa until he stayed down. I think for a match to be in the 5 Star category it needs something creative like that.
|
|
|
Post by shrike02 on Jan 6, 2018 16:06:13 GMT -5
This is a crucial topic.
Without some sort of codified criteria that attempts to be an objective scale, how can one properly evaluate and rank the nominated matches?
Without rigorous criteria this fun project's results are likely going to be relatively unproductive beyond getting people to watch matches they haven't seen or haven't watched for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by smash1992 on Jan 6, 2018 21:18:27 GMT -5
This is a crucial topic. Without some sort of codified criteria that attempts to be an objective scale, how can one properly evaluate and rank the nominated matches? Without rigorous criteria this fun project's results are likely going to be relatively unproductive beyond getting people to watch matches they haven't seen or haven't watched for a long time. Is this post genuine? I don't agree with it but that might be the intent.
|
|
|
Post by shrike02 on Jan 6, 2018 22:28:38 GMT -5
This is a crucial topic. Without some sort of codified criteria that attempts to be an objective scale, how can one properly evaluate and rank the nominated matches? Without rigorous criteria this fun project's results are likely going to be relatively unproductive beyond getting people to watch matches they haven't seen or haven't watched for a long time. Is this post genuine? I don't agree with it but that might be the intent. Feel free to explain why you might disagree. There are valid positions to be taken on both sides of this issue but either way the discussion needs to occur.
|
|
|
Post by fxnj on Jan 6, 2018 22:38:57 GMT -5
There is never going to be an objective criteria for what makes a good match, let alone the greatest match ever. Aesthetic judgments are subjective by definition. This is a topic that was already discussed quite a bit in GWE.
|
|
|
Post by smash1992 on Jan 6, 2018 22:45:14 GMT -5
I guess it is fair. Is anyone considering historical significance, drawing power, or build(directly) ? I'm treating this how I treat MOTY votes. Based on the artistical merits of the match, none of the outside garbage.
|
|
|
Post by shrike02 on Jan 6, 2018 23:06:57 GMT -5
There is never going to be an objective criteria for what makes a good match, let alone the greatest match ever. Aesthetic judgments are subjective by definition. This is a topic that was already discussed quite a bit in GWE. I did not take part in GWE. Do you feel a consensus was reached on the criteria for that project? Or did people just use a variety of subjective criteria instead to create personal lists with no way to measure and compare respective criteria on how lists were arrived at?
|
|
|
Post by fxnj on Jan 6, 2018 23:19:57 GMT -5
Well, they did go the route of everyone having their own criteria and there was a fair amount of people talking past each other, but I also think there's higher priorities in these projects than comparing lists. The idea isn't to establish some rock solid canon for future generations, but to spark debate and expose people to new styles. As long as that happens, the project can be considered a success even if no one agrees completely with the final list. I'm personally trying to avoid boxing myself into a specific criteria for what makes a great match going into this project because my main goal in participating is to expand what I can appreciate as great.
|
|
|
Post by Grimmas on Jan 7, 2018 0:13:16 GMT -5
The idea isn't to establish some rock solid canon for future generations, but to spark debate and expose people to new styles. As long as that happens, the project can be considered a success even if no one agrees completely with the final list. That is the best description of what I care about for this.
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Jan 7, 2018 0:19:35 GMT -5
I don't mean to speak for Grimmas and Cap, but when we decided on putting this together, "Historical Significance" and "Drawing Power" weren't things we were all that interested in for this particular project. I said, I think in a Jumbo vs Misawa thread, that I wanted to see people directly compare that super famous match to some random indy match. That's what we're going for. "Artistic Quality, Ring Work" whatever words you want to frame it. That doesn't mean things like atmosphere and heat shouldn't or don't matter. That shit important to match quality. But if someone says they're not going to vote for Flair vs Steamboat from the Clash because it didn't draw for shit, then they're missing the point of the project. Likewise, if someone votes Hogan vs Andre #1 because it drew 90,000 (or whatever, I'm not doing that argument) and is the most famous match ever. They're also missing the point of the project. In terms of criteria. We have criteria: Was the match filmed? Can we watch it? Is it one of the 100 greatest matches ever? That's your universal criteria. Anything more than that is totally unnecessary. I was turned off by the NJPW criteria for the Greatest WWE wrestler project and I couldn't help but notice listening to various podcasts during that process, even with a set criteria, this shit doesn't actually matter and people are going to vote how they're going to vote. I want as many weird comparisons as possible. If people just participate to figure out if they like Misawa vs Kawada or Misawa vs Kobashi more, then I'll be bummed out. I want people to compare Misawa vs Kawada to Fujiwara vs Super Tiger to John Cena vs Daniel Bryan to Santo vs Casas to Lawler vs Dundee to Ishikawa vs Ikeda to Michaels vs Undertaker to etc into infinity. Now. To the question of "What makes a greatest match ever?" I would say.... Sangre Chicana.
|
|
|
Post by shrike02 on Jan 7, 2018 0:54:22 GMT -5
If I say that my number one match is Jumbo vs. Tenryu in '89 - I assure you it's by default in my top five - and I explain that part of my criteria for ranking this match so highly is the climax of a big story of a decade-long simmering rivalry, is my reasoning invalid? I don't get how one should try to make comparisons if the listed criteria is simply what's listed above and nothing more. Surely there should be some broad guidelines to inform making these comparisons between hundreds of nominated matches.
|
|