Grimmas

Part 1: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/33786-reactions-to-the-list/

Actually probably time to end this thread and start a new, so it's not insane to go back and read in the future.

That's probably the best assessment. Number of great matches being weighted so heavily bugged me a lot, especially if it was more important than how someone performs. Some people were just in positions to have a TON of great matches and to have those seen by a lot of people. Others did not. The folks who didn't get those chances aren't necessarily worse than those who did. Being in position means they still have to take advantage of that opportunity. And doing so may very well be why they're so often put in such a position. True. However looking at someone like Bret who constantly had to face pirates, dentists, clowns and everybody else and compare that to Kobashi who got to face Misawa, Kawada, Taue, etc.. There is no way Bret would ever be able to equal that many great matches in that situation. Does that mean Kobashi is automatically better? He may be better, but there is more to it than that. Bret had a ton of disadvantages with respect to his opposition. The house style is also not to be discounted. If you dropped Fujinami or Hashimoto Baba's world rather than Inoki's its possible we may view their careers very differently. I also have no idea how one would begin to argue Bret over Kobashi unless you're adamant that the end product really doesn't matter and are only evaluating the ingredients someone brings to the table. If the performances are consistently that excellent then at some point the output should reflect it. May, if, coulda, woulda, shoulda We don't use GWE to re-write history. Skill vs Output. Some value one more than the other.

If Tiger Mask's mask came off in 1990 and it was Bret Hart under it and he was treated the same as Misawa going forward, Bret would be the GWE! IF? We rank on what happened, not what might have happened. Kobashi is a great example of what I mean about supposed negatives over-indexing. He absolutely curb-stomps Bret in just about every way conceivable, and yet you low-balled him cos you want to make some point about head drops. Disagreed. I like Bret's ability to tell stories in the ring better. Bret's seller is different, but I enjoy his take more than Kobashi's. Like Bret's offense better. Love Bret's finishing sequences better. Kobashi had better fire and better excitement and more great matches, outside of that I will take Bret in every category.

Love the bolded part.

For someone I had never even heard of her rankings were really high from those who ranked her. I probably need to watch some of her career.

If Tiger Mask's mask came off in 1990 and it was Bret Hart under it and he was treated the same as Misawa going forward, Bret would be the GWE!

287 - Azumi Hyuga 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 231 # of Ballots: 4 Average Vote: 43.25 High Vote: 10 (The Great Puma) Low Vote: 75

He was my 101, one place above the Rock at 102. There was a moment on the WTBBP special where I think Chad thought he was going to come in at 100 but I rescued Ron Garvin and then aftrer the show remebered that Buddy Rose should have been there. You mean Buddy Rhodes?

Yep, she was 79 last time. Joshi fandom was at an all-time high in 2006... it isn't now.

The second person from the 2006 top 100 has dropped off.

288 - Dump Matsumoto 2006 Ranking: 79 Points: 230 # of Ballots: 12 Average Vote: 81.83 High Vote: 46 (Badlittlekitten) Low Vote: 100

If you really think about it, Bret's list is pretty short too. Replace Bret with Sean Waltman and Triple H with Edge and you get the same result.

Having a lot of great matches means you are probably great. However it does not mean you are automatically better than someone who had a lot less great matches. Different people are in different positions. Bret Hart is a better in ring wrestler than Triple H in every way. However you can probably count more great matches for Triple H than for Bret. Why? Due to quality of opponents, ways they are presented and opportunities.

That's probably the best assessment. Number of great matches being weighted so heavily bugged me a lot, especially if it was more important than how someone performs. Some people were just in positions to have a TON of great matches and to have those seen by a lot of people. Others did not. The folks who didn't get those chances aren't necessarily worse than those who did. Being in position means they still have to take advantage of that opportunity. And doing so may very well be why they're so often put in such a position. True. However looking at someone like Bret who constantly had to face pirates, dentists, clowns and everybody else and compare that to Kobashi who got to face Misawa, Kawada, Taue, etc.. There is no way Bret would ever be able to equal that many great matches in that situation. Does that mean Kobashi is automatically better? He may be better, but there is more to it than that.

289 - The Iron Sheik 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 228 # of Ballots: 7 Average Vote: 68.43 High Vote: 34 Low Vote: 97

290 - Jamie Noble 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 227 # of Ballots: 12 Average Vote: 82.08 High Vote: 55 (The Great Puma) Low Vote: 98

My last post on this though, it's not that they aren't great, it's just that it doesn't automatically make someone greater than someone who had way less great matches.

I have no issue with that at all. Number of great matches is absolutely a factor for a lot of people, self included, but to imply that anyone thinks it's the only thing that matters ... I thought we knew each other better than that. I didn't want to imply that is all that matters, just that it is weighted way too heavily to me.

That's probably the best assessment. Number of great matches being weighted so heavily bugged me a lot, especially if it was more important than how someone performs. Some people were just in positions to have a TON of great matches and to have those seen by a lot of people. Others did not. The folks who didn't get those chances aren't necessarily worse than those who did.

Parv said he ranked Rick Steiner based on his top ten matches and nothing else. Although he used BIGLAV, so that might discount what he said.

It's not that. It's going by only looking at the great matches and that being the whole case.

This is why great match theory sucks.

291 - Adrian Street 2006 Ranking: unranked Points: 225 # of Ballots: 11 Average Vote: 80.55 High Vote: 45 (Dean Rasmussen) Low Vote: 100

Are you discounting Harper's indie run? I took Tenta over Yamada and Morishima, as both of those didn't make my list and Tenta did.