Curious as to what wrestlers the board would classify as at the top right and bottom right of that chart.
I appreciate Strand Peanut's posts in this thread.

 

Obviously, this doesn't cover everything, because there's Mark Henry's physical ability and then there's Evan Bourne's physical ability. There's charisma which would go under Pro Wrestling Understanding but then there's a sort of physical charisma that might go under ability. Then there's the difference between understanding something and using that understanding to create good matches. Michaels is an example of someone who would use his understanding of pro wrestling to make himself look good at the expense of a match, sometimes.

 

I think that there's still some utility in this though.

Wonderful chart and idea. Something like this would be very interesting in conjunction with the GWE project.

 

Obviously there would be differences in opinon, but it would be an interesting visualization tool to track opinons.

 

Matt, have you plotpointed anyone on this a reference?

The only thing I can think for bottom right is current Satanico.

 

It's tricky. I think late-era Andre would be up there, but that, in and of itself, shows some of the dangers of the chart. Andre may not have had physical ability but he certainly had a toolbox (in his size, his reputation, and his opponents' willingness to sell for him), even when completely immobile, that let's say Mr. Electricity Steve Regal didn't at any point of his career. Of course, pro wrestling understanding is all about using WHATEVER tools you have available to their maximum effect, but you can't cancel out some of these things.

 

And like the Shawn Michaels mention before, I actually think that Brody would have scored pretty well in that top right column, because his stamina was legendary and he certainly knew what he was doing. It's just that what he was doing wasn't meant to make good matches, but instead to protect himself.

 

So I do think that this isn't the answer, but it could be a useful tool or at least a way to inspire some discussion.

Another guy this thread makes me think of is Nishimura. The guy can clearly do way more than what he does in any given match, but he uses the tools he chooses to within a match so well that it hardly matters.

It'd be interesting as maybe a post-GWE exercise ?

 

Plot point the top 50? With enough participants you could get some common ground perhaps to build it as a useful reference...