|
|
Post by elliott on Jan 7, 2018 0:57:17 GMT -5
No. Because that story is part of what makes the match so rich and part of what makes it one of the 100 greatest matches ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Mckell on Jan 7, 2018 3:51:00 GMT -5
Wrestling is entertainment, the greatest match to me is the one that entertains me most, the greates match to the group is the once we are most collectively entertained by.
Any attempt for me personally to apply a fixed criteria to all matches to make the list will simply lead to me putting matches ahead of other matches I think they aren't as good as.
|
|
|
|
Post by smash1992 on Jan 7, 2018 6:31:00 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. At no point here do you present a reasoning that would go beyond the standard criteria. Now, if, if your reason is that it was the climax of a big story and you have no knowledge of the story (not saying you even have to watch most of the build frankly) and it is just a bullet point that you think looks good I think that's a different story but I think the people doing that would be few and far between. For the most, I will also say that most people were coming at GWE from the same scope. They may not have been using the same rubric, BIGLAV, but I rarely saw where factors unrelated to the project were considered. Some people just weighed certain areas more, as well as judging those areas completely differently. |
|
|
|
Post by fadu on Jan 7, 2018 13:37:29 GMT -5
I do find it odd tho that almost no one would consider a great comedy match for anywhere but the vanity end ranks of a list like this. Especially when I personally think comedy is the greatest form of social commentary we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by elliott on Jan 7, 2018 14:31:36 GMT -5
I do find it odd tho that almost no one would consider a great comedy match for anywhere but the vanity end ranks of a list like this. Especially when I personally think comedy is the greatest form of social commentary we have. Put up some nominations for comedy matches. I'm not opposed in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by gordi on Jan 7, 2018 22:27:45 GMT -5
It would be foolhardy to try and apply any strict set of criteria here. There are just SO MANY ways a match can be great. Imposing an extrinsic set of ideas that every match on the list must fit will only serve to limit the diversity that a list like this should display.
It's like if you were making a list of the greatest paintings: If you insist that all great paintings must have strong use of light and shade and make proper use of every square inch of canvas, you are eliminating Japanese Zen-Style paintings from the conversation. If you insist that a painting is great based on how well it reflects the incomplete nature of the universe, you are pretty much only going to get a list of Japanese Zen-Style paintings.
Neither of those lists would be very good.
I just nominated Ebessan vs Kuishinbo Kamen and Vader and Tenta vs Albright and Yamazaki. I don't even want to try to come up with a set of criteria that embraces both of those, but I sincerely think that both Osaka Pro and UWFi need to be represented on our final list. Any truly useful set of criteria would have to be so flexible as to be basically meaningless.
Let's not go down that road.
|
|
|
|
Post by smash1992 on Jan 14, 2018 15:57:06 GMT -5
Does anyone consider pushing boundaries as part of this? If something is successful at being structurally unique I consider that a positive.
I would do this for a MOTY list too if I think he positively displayed this trait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kadaveri on Jan 14, 2018 16:04:35 GMT -5
Yes. For example I love Hiroshi Tanahashi vs. Minoru Suzuki 10/08/12, but when you realise it's a great 29 minute match with only 1 pinfall attempt it has to get bonus points for pulling off something so unconventional.
|
|
|
|
Post by gordi on Jan 14, 2018 20:48:53 GMT -5
Innovation is a good and useful aspect to look at, but like Crowd Heat or Blood, it probably shouldn't be the main criteria, and it definitely shouldn't be the only criteria. It's absolutely possible to wrestle a great match by following a formula that has been used hundreds of times before... But, yeah, extra points if you can wrestle a great match while doing something new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grimmas on Jan 14, 2018 23:32:31 GMT -5
It really needs to stand out too. Either the best of a style or doing something different is bonus points with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by microstatistics on Jan 15, 2018 18:04:11 GMT -5
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts so I'd say structure and pacing is the #1 consideration for me. The next come all the other factors: the narrative/storytelling, character work, violence, intensity, struggle, memorable individual spots, attention to detail, transitions, drama, emotion, crowd heat, uniqueness and general entertainment value.
All these aspects are extremely subjective though and vary greatly. There is no universal standard or template across styles and era. I don't expect Ikeda/Ishikawa levels of struggle or Santo/Casas style exchanges in a joshi match and nor do I want them. The diversity of pro wrestling is what makes it so special.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossrock on Jan 15, 2018 19:08:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't think so, because the history between the two could add some important context to the match. i.e. previous encounters can add to the quality of a match. Although I would expect the match to be good in a vacuum. For example, the December 1990 match between Satanico and Dandy is a great match on its own, but their encounter in October also adds some major context to the finish.
|
|
