Grimmas

I think Goldberg is a better wrestler than Sydal.

263 - Matt Borne 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 293 # of Ballots: 17 Average Vote: 83.76 High Vote: 49 (Andrew Lacelle) Low Vote: 100

264 - Gorgeous George 2006 Ranking: honourable mention (139) Points: 282 # of Ballots: 6 Average Vote: 55 High Vote: 5 (Lee Casebolt) Low Vote: 95

265 - Goldberg 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 282 # of Ballots: 13 Average Vote: 79.31 High Vote: 33 Low Vote: 100

266 (tie) - Matt Sydal 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 279 # of Ballots: 9 Average Vote: 70 High Vote: 28 (anarchistxx) Low Vote: 97 266 (tie) - Satoshi Kojima 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 279 # of Ballots: 9 Average Vote: 70 High Vote: 45 (anarchistxx) Low Vote: 94

Would these matches have helped your Hansen ranking in GWE?

I think that presentational style is part of it and adds to the confusion actually. The replays and so on in the middle of matches serve to compound the sense of "I literally don't have a fucking clue what's happening here". I do not get that feeling with any other pro wrestling, including shoot style, which I can follow easy enough but just don't like. Have you ever seen the whole show of When Worlds Collide, like Elliot suggested?

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case. And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park. The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18. He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it. It's not about willfully overlooking things as much as just reaching a different conclusion. Steven rates output but he rates input more, as he's admitted. So even if he agrees with you vis a vis the relative outputs of Kobashi and Bret (and I don't think he does since he'd probably give Bret a bit more credit there), it's the input that makes the difference for him, since he ranks Bret's input a fair bit higher than Kobashi's. And he's not wrong for that. You've sort of decided that Kobashi is levels above Bret and anyone who disagrees is wrong but nobody is fucking wrong here. That's where people take issue, where you've decided the objective answer and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "willfully overlooking evidence". Steven has evidence. He has it in all of the little things Bret does. All of the touches he adds to his matches, all of the neat finishes he comes up with that play off stuff, all of the ways in which Bret portrays realism and serious wrestling in a WWF ring, all of the good things he was able to do with the scrubs he was working with, with all the crispness and effectiveness of his offense and moves, all of the ways in which he works EXACTLY like Steven wants a wrestler to work. AND he has it in all of the great matches Bret has. THAT is Steven's evidence. Kobashi doesn't do those things for Steven, or at least he doesn't do them nearly as much. What Bret inputs into his work is better than what Kobashi inputs into his. Steven values input highly. Therefore he put Bret higher on his list. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Someone like Taue has more great matches than a guy like Ted, but you put Ted higher (if I'm remembering right). Why? Because of all the shit that Ted does better than Taue. Steven has justified his case for Bret over and over. Just because you disagree doesn't make him wrong. Wow, that is everything I've tried to say. Thank you.

Bret has the handicap, not Kobashi.

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case. And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park. The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18. He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it. How am I ignoring output at all? I have Kobashi at freaking 18. I think I factor in the handi-cap more than you. Bret has better skills. Kobashi has more greater matches. Kobashi also had more chances and better opponents to have those matches. Factor in the handicap of that and the fact Bret has better skills puts him above. However let's compare to people with the same opponents and opportunities. If one has way more great matches, they are probably better.Skills wouldn't factor in as much. I can't look at someone in the WWF in the 90s and someone in AJPW in the 90s and use output as the main factor. It's not fair for either of the two people.

If your life was on the line you'd take Joe Montana, who had less skills but higher output. If you gave me the same exact players around each qb I'd take Marino every time and live long and prosper I suppose, but we don't know that. Back to what Jerry von Kramer was saying, we know for a fact that Joe Montana could get the job done. We assume that Dan Marino can get the job done. We have to judge these guys on what they did, not on what we assumed they could do. Being great has as much to do with taking full advantage of your opportunities as it does with what skills you do or don't have. Kobashi was in a position to have great matches with great wrestlers, and he went out there and had a whole barrel full of great matches. That shouldn't be held against him because Bret Hart was wrestling a dentist. Who is the best actor of all time? I bet you he's in a shitload of great movies. I bet they are, but it's not automatically the person in the most amount. That's the point. You look at the movies and use that to judge the performances of the participants.

The majority yes. However there are lots of people convinced it's Orr, Lemieux , Howe or Eddie Shore. Also sports is a horrible analogy.

I don't think the analogy is looking at Picasso's brush strokes. I think the analogy is looking at how effective Picasso's brush strokes were in one of his lesser paintings. You're completely separating input and output as if they're distinct from each other but they're not. People looking at input are looking at the output to find the input. Wow, how did I not say this? We are all saying the same thing. One of these times Parv will understand it.

By the way, nobody says this actor is better than this actor look at these films, aren't they great? No, you look at the performances and what they bring to them.

People argue that players are better than Gretzky in hockey, even though Gretzky has all the records by far. Output is not everything.

I hate comparing wrestling to other mediums. They don't work.

If your life was on the line you'd take Joe Montana, who had less skills but higher output. Sports is different than wrestling

Having great typing skills makes you a great typer though, even if you have a shitty keyboard so your speed might not be as high. Typing skills and writing are completely different.

Fuck nobody is discarding output. The matches show people what the skills are. On the pod, I bought up why people were great, then pointed to matches as examples or for people to see. You can't write an essay and not point to evidence to show your points. But you can make up imaginary evidence by imagining "what if"? That's the bit of this I don't get at all. Like so what if Bret had to work Diesel and Isaac Yankem, that was his career. I've said this before. Ted could have been NWA champ. He wasn't, it was Flair. Steve Keirn could have been WWF champ. He wasn't; it was Bob Backlund, and so on. There's no "what if" in a GWE case. I don't use the what ifs. The what ifs are stated to show you the handicaps.

Also music and wrestling are different things. If Bowie wrote and performed the same and his band was the shaggs and they were starting their careers now, would he be great?

Please explain how lucha is hard to understand? It's wrestling, people are trying to pin or submit their opponents.

Fuck nobody is discarding output. The matches show people what the skills are. On the pod, I bought up why people were great, then pointed to matches as examples or for people to see. You can't write an essay and not point to evidence to show your points.

Bret was a big fish in a hugely diluted pond that was US and Canada wrestling in 92-97. I stack Kobashi being a guy with huge crowd appeal from a young lion to the day he retired in 2013 as a better testament to his connection to the crowd. Bret certainly has good matches with lesser talent but also has mediocre to mundane matches with really good talent which weighs into the house show effect with him. I again hate playing the what if game. Bret had plenty of matches with good workers as a tag wrestler and singles star. Bret did have a chance to have a showcase match in 1992 vs. Shawn Michaels. This match headlined a PPV and was given 26 minutes. Most at best call it very good. Name a Kobashi performance on the big stage where he was that flat for a huge performance making opportunity. Even the excessive Kobashi matches have pretty great heat. Kobashi never wrestled hbk in 92 in a WWF ring.

This is the second time in this thread that someone has imagined what Bret would do if given a set of circumstances that never happened. Is it a measure of what happened or what we imagine might happen if we fantasy booked it? Sorry if I sound incredulous but what is the hypothetical scenario stuff about? Skills vs output. Bret has better skills (to some of us). You can't look past output, so it is us trying to get on your way of thinking.

Parv nobody is saying you can't look at matches to elevate a wrestler. That is impossible.