|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 4, 2018 21:29:45 GMT -5
I have a feeling this is going to be a subject that gets a fair amount of attention. So I would like to start this as a space to maybe direct philosophical discussions of the distinction.
So where do you stand on the difference between favorite vs best? How you square that away for yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Jan 4, 2018 21:32:09 GMT -5
I would watch my favorite matches over and over again. They don't even have to be good or anything, I just have to enjoy them. Something like Suzuki vs. Mecha Mummy would be something I would consider a favorite match because I probably watch it for a laugh every couple of years.
Now a truly great match. I might watch it once, see it's greatness and appreciate it and never feel the need to watch it ever again. I'm thinking a lot of the big All Japan matches here. There's something about them that doesn't speak to me or that makes me love them but I can see how good they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by World's Worst Man on Jan 5, 2018 23:07:01 GMT -5
In many ways, my favourite matches tend to be the ones that I wasn't expecting to be as good as they were. Something like Togi Makabe vs. Shinsuke Nakamura from the G1 2009 finals would be a good example. The match was fantastic and I consider it to be great, but it's not really close to being a greatest match ever contender.
I would also say that if someone were to be incapable of separating "best" from "favourite" in their own mind, then in my mind their opinion is much less valuable that it would otherwise be. Obviously quality wrestling is subjective but there's something to be said for at least attempting to be objective I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kadaveri on Jan 6, 2018 6:29:00 GMT -5
I think the separation is your 'favourite' matches are ones which connect with you in a very personal way but you admit won't for most people. Like your favourite wrestler winning the world title is gonna be special for you, but I'm not gonna nominate John Cena vs. JBL at Wrestlemania however much I enjoyed Cena winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grimmas on Jan 6, 2018 11:15:24 GMT -5
I've never had a problem with favourites vs greatness.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Mckell on Jan 7, 2018 4:02:43 GMT -5
I think the separation is your 'favourite' matches are ones which connect with you in a very personal way but you admit won't for most people. Like your favourite wrestler winning the world title is gonna be special for you, but I'm not gonna nominate John Cena vs. JBL at Wrestlemania however much I enjoyed Cena winning. But the fact that it connected with you so strongly is a real merit in the matches favor, an enormous part of what makes wrestling great is giving people that enjoyment. If it does it for you but nobody else then it did it for one person then thats something and should be acknowledged in some way on the list. |
|
|
|
Post by gordi on Jan 7, 2018 10:49:03 GMT -5
I grew up in Vancouver. The Canucks have never been the best NHL team. They have always been my favourite.
Beethoven's concise, lively, joyful, and entertaining 8th is the Symphony I listen to most and the one that brings me the most joy. That does not prevent me from seeing that the 9th is a towering work of absolute genius that is The Greatest Symphony.
A lot of my favourite matches don't belong in this discussion because they are not GREAT matches...
....
...BUT, a match like Tenta and Vader teaming up against Albright and Yamazaki in the UWF that is both ****3/4 + and tickles me pink? That's the kind of match that will end up VERY high on my ballot.
In other words: Only great matches on my ballot, but from that point on, I am more than happy to play favourites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on Jan 7, 2018 12:36:29 GMT -5
I think the separation is your 'favourite' matches are ones which connect with you in a very personal way but you admit won't for most people. Like your favourite wrestler winning the world title is gonna be special for you, but I'm not gonna nominate John Cena vs. JBL at Wrestlemania however much I enjoyed Cena winning. But the fact that it connected with you so strongly is a real merit in the matches favor, an enormous part of what makes wrestling great is giving people that enjoyment. If it does it for you but nobody else then it did it for one person and thats something and should be acknowledged in some way on the list. I think more along these lines. I am able to recognize some distinction, but I generally don't draw as much of a line between favorite and best. If I like it I look for why I like it and think about what connects with me as a fan. There is a vague-intersubjectie notion of what constitutes GREAT wrestling, but even that is not something universal and measurable. That is based on tastes, various taste-makers, and how each evolved over time. I guess ultimately I just stopped caring about what is "objectively" good and started caring more about what I like and what good wrestling looks like TO ME. The only real distinction I make is when I love something because I saw it live, if it was part of a story I particularly liked, or if it was a match from one of my all time favorites. Even then, any sort of distinction I make is pretty minimal. I guess maybe for me the take away is that I am much more likely to pull a match that is a "favorite" up and call it great than I am to see any sort of clear distinction between the two. The vast majority of examples I can think of are matches I rate highly and stand by as great matches. There are very few matches that I think of as "favorites" but don't rate that high and wouldn't consider for a project like this. |
|
|
|
Post by nintendologic on May 11, 2019 23:16:16 GMT -5
This was the biggest challenge for me in formulating my list. Of course, my personal taste was the primary determinant, as I'm sure it was for everybody else. But saying that favorite and best are indistinguishable strikes me as lazy and reductive. For one thing, wrestlers aren't working for my personal enjoyment, especially decades after the fact. it seems unfair to have the sole basis of quality be something they weren't trying to accomplish. Plus, great works of art tend to be denser and more challenging than more easily digestible fare. Something like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is more easy to enjoy than War and Peace, but does that make it better? I'm not saying that wrestling should be evaluated like art and literature, but I think the principle that more enjoyable doesn't necessarily equal better holds.
With all that in mind, here are some of the principles that helped me put together my list.
-I gave bonus points for degree of difficulty. To me, a 30 minute-plus epic title match is clearly harder to do well than a short-ish heated brawl, so those matches did better on my ballot.
-Seriousness of presentation. I'm not saying that wrestling has to be serious business all the time. But all other things being equal, a match that is presented and worked in a serious sports-like manner will feel greater to me than one rooted in theatricality and character work.
-Execution matters. A botch usually won't affect my enjoyment of a match unless it's really egregious. But it's still an objective flaw that has to be accounted for. Specifically, the 1987 Jumbo/Tenryu match would have finished a lot higher on my list, but the crossbody spot near the end was so poorly executed that I had to dock it.
I also tended to defer somewhat to the wisdom of crowds. Don't get me wrong, I didn't blindly go along with the traditional smart fan consensus. But if a match I really like is also generally liked, I figure there must be something to it, especially given that I tend to be contrarian by nature.
Given all that, it's no surprise that the top of my list ended up being dominated by All Japan. They were pretty much untouchable when it comes to high-end serious wrestling. I'm curious as to how everyone else dealt with this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by microstatistics on May 12, 2019 4:19:32 GMT -5
Interesting topic. Also I agree, you can distinguish between best and favorites even in a subjective medium like wrestling. I followed 3 general principles when it came to assessing match quality.
- Compactness: Everything from start to finish fits concisely in the time frame. Little to no wasted moments, limited dragging or unnecessary elongation of sequences/spots. This was a big reason why Hokuto/Kandori Dreamslam was #39 and not #9. Also no 'filler' (e.g. limb work that is no sold in the short term without good reason and never features again). These are not necessarily features of matches that classify as favorites.
- Coherence: A logical progression of spots as the match flows smoothly from one segment to another. My Top 2 WWE matches (Mind Games and Bret/Owen WMX) might have been the best at this. A match that is a collection of fun/memorable moments can be equally enjoyable but the connective tissue matters.
- Content: An obvious one. What the wrestlers are physically doing and why. Matches with better quality sequences and stronger storytelling elements tended to naturally rank higher. This one is more difficult to differentiate for best vs favorite but essentially how 'fun' a spot is doesn't necessarily measure its quality or importance in the context of a match.
|
|
|
|
Post by kas on May 12, 2019 7:22:54 GMT -5
This is something I've been thinking about, and I came to the conclusion that I will prioritise favourites to objectively good matches - Takagi vs Mochizuki finished higher than Kobashi vs Misawa for example - but any two that I can't separate I will look at which match is objectively better. I have a few criteria for what I deem to be objectively good
-Historical Significance: This is my most important criteria, how important matches in the grand scheme of things, like Hart/Austin launching Austin to superstardom, or Jumbo/Misawa establishing Misawa as the next ace.
-Crowd heat: A pet peeve of mine is when people call matches they don't like bad or failed. Omega/Okada at WK11 is an example where many people dislike it (which I can totally understand by the way) but a match you can't say failed because, at the end of the day, they had the crowd engaged the whole way and arguably more heated than the insanely loud Tanahashi/Naito match just before.
-Goals: A match that accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do will get more points in my book. Again going back to Hart/Austin, they clearly set out to do the double turn and it worked perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cap on May 12, 2019 11:34:47 GMT -5
Hey Folks, I moved the posts from the recent thread on the topic to an old one I started near the beginning of the project. I think this is something we all probably struggle with to some degree.
|
|
