El McKell

If you want excuses to deduct Undertaker points you could remove the +1 for ability to work tags, because since when was Undertaker ever good in tags beside that one Shield match and at a stretch the SNME match w/Flair against Sid and Hogan. Unless that +1 is going to basically everyone who worked tag matches, then ignore me.

Yes. I think that The Undertaker is better than Vader.

​I will watch whatever Necro in IGF stuff you think I should if you can provide me a way of watching Bob Sapp vs Necro Butcher

Not gonna rank either of them but I think Super Dragon is significantly better. Although Necro does create a great sense of danger about everything he does it doesn't often translate into an overall entertaining performance to me. I think Necro Butcher has quite a lot of really bad matches and only a couple of gems like the Super Dragon and Low Ki matches (The Samoa Joe match is fine but I don't love it like a lot of people)

Rey Mysterio

I'm against the minus points because it'll look dumb when someone appears on a couple of bollots and has a score of -6 or whatever. It's not actually a punishment anymore than 0 is when you increase all the other scores by one, the results would be identical. You could give -50 for not appearing -49 for being 100th and so on that wouldn't be any sort of a punishment for not being top 50

​But can't you say the exact same thing with the roles reversed for 03-05 NOAH

I have been sold on this. The five minute Gangrel episode will be must listen stuff. Is Gangrel even nominated?

What? Doesn't weighting it mean that you can do better while appearing on fewer ballots? Shouldn't luchadores be hurt for failing to appeal to everyone? Can you suggest a system where 'great luchadores' aren't hurt because some people leave them off other than just disregarding ballots that dont' include Negro Casas?

Yeah it does seem weird to not drop off as gradually as possible. 5 point variance to 4 points to 3 and so on. Edit: actually no it's not

Well Misawa did get a +1 for carrying the promotion so that is an advantage wrestlers who homesteaded can have over those who didn't. There is a certain amount of give and take there although 3 points for different markets when the maximum you can get for psychology is also 3 might be a bit much, but you can scale your ratings to whatever you think is important. Mind me asking what the justification for AJPW -> SWS counting as different markets but not counting AJPW -> NOAH and SWS -> WAR.

I could be wrong but I suspect it's because the UFC weight limit for Light Heavyweights is 205

Does that system maybe undervalue simply appearing on the ballot? Like if 5 people place someone at 100 that's not as good as 1 person placing them 94th. This probably isn't that important to anyone as it won't affect the upper tier of results but just thought I'd throw it out there.

Other than the finish being kinda fucked up, I remember really enjoying it.

I wouldn't ever consider voting for Del Rio, lazy, boring on a week to week basis, his best stuff is good but not stand out at all, and he was part of one of worst tv matches of the decade that nobody seems to talk about w/The Miz & Tommy Dreamer vs 3MB. That being said I think Case is way off to suggest he's the worst wrestler nominated.

.

Just looked up this Laprade method. I like it other than the -1 point for not appearing on a ballot. I just think it'll look dumb if we have someone on 3 or 4 ballots finishing with -3 points or something. Just make not appearing worth nothing and add 1 to every score in the 100, then the system is the same and absolute zero can be 0 instead of negative the number of ballots handed in. Awarding a certain number of points for certain positions does feel a little bit arbitrary, but I can't think of a better way to do it. I did briefly think about if you could adapt a single transferable vote system to this kinda thing but I couldn't think of a good way that wouldn't take a huge amount of time and work to count the ballots. (or allow someone to come first without getting any first place votes, not sure if that matters)

This might not be feasible, but at some point I'd like to be able to see all the ballots so we can play around with different ways of counting the votes and see how the results are affected by it.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the decline in Bockwinkel's mental state due to dementia

I think that this was just Jim Ross and it stopped close to 15 years ago. But yeah, it made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

could you list the HHH matches? vs Benoit vs Shawn Michaels (Wrestlemania 20) ​ vs Mick Foley (Royal Rumble 2000) ​ vs Daniel Brian (Wrestlemania 30) vs Mick Foley (No Way Out 2000) vs Batista (Vengeance 2005) vs Chris Jericho (Fully Loaded 2000) Evolution vs The Shield (Extreme Rules 2014) The ones I gave the same rating (****) to are: w/Steve Austin vs Chris Jericho & Chris Benoit (Raw 5/21/2001) vs Jeff Hardy (No Mercy 2008) vs Shawn Michaels (Summerslam 2002) ​Evolution vs The Shield (Payback 2014) ​

I definitely think there's a lot of Flair in Triple H in the way he takes offense/bleeds/stumbles around from like 2000 to 2004. ​I know this thread is moved on from comparing Andre The Giant to Hunter for great matches but I looked into my database of star ratings and there are 7 Triple H matches that I've given a higher rating for than the best Andre match I've seen (vs Hansen in NJPW) and a further 4 I gave the same rating. Not the best way to compare guys and admittedly I'm not a big Andre fan but I just thought I'd put that out there.

Ranking Triple H is really hard for me because it becomes about how much do I weight the bad stuff. Rating Hunter on his best work clearly puts him on my list and I'm not sure if that's unfair or not. If I look at a guy like Buddy Rogers where I've seen less than 10 matches and I dunno if there are even more to see and he looks awesome and I feel like he should be on my list. Well if all I'd seen of Triple H was ten of his best performances he might look even better than Rogers, so I need to properly think about reconciling stuff like that. Also there's stuff like the Booker T WrestleMania match, where it's terrible because you think about the angle and how the finish was such a terrible conclusion to that story but I think the match in isolation is pretty good. Hunter is probably going to be on my list but he's one of these guys who's difficult to place because my feelings about him as a wrestler are all wrapped up in feelings about him personally, how he was booked and boring 30 minute promos to open Raw at various times from 2002 to 2016.

I didn't think my second paragraph was really a jackass view or even in opposition to my first paragraph. I was just trying to offer an explanation for why this thread for Crusher Blackwell is very positive for someone who might not make a lot of people's ballots. Why do people like me not post our negative thoughts in the threads for wrestler like Blackwell, y'know.

I am not high on this guy at all unlike many people here but I never thought of it as him getting an easy ride. I just figure well these people don't care as much about cool moves or ability to work long singles matches as I do and also think they think that cage match with Sgt Slaughter against Masked Superstar, Patera and Al-Kaissy was some kind of great match. There probably is some amount of him not getting as much criticism as someone who has been considered great for a long time going on. The only people who actually care about Crusher Blackwell are people who kinda discovered him, for lack of a better word, and then thought he was awesome and unheralded. People who've seen bits and pieces of him and think he's fine don't have enough of a reason to say here's the list of things wrong with Jerry Blackwell because he's not touted as great by enough people or for a long enough time.