The first person that came to my mind was Triple H. In his case, I think a lot of his great matches have been a result of institutional support and good dance partners. Even then, I think his performances have managed to drag down even his best matches, with very few expectations.

 

 

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

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.

My first thought on the question of "wrestlers who have a long list of great matches that aren't great" would be HHH.

 

He had the benefit of getting to wrestle main event matches with some of the best wrestlers in the world for a very long period of time which helps him pad the list. Especially with how many gimmick matches he got to have and that they almost always let him be the one match on the PPV that had blood before WWE cut out the blade. His "average" performance is not very good though and I can't think of anyone who had their best match with HHH, while I can think of a lot of guys who had shitty matches with HHH where I feel like he dragged them down to his level.

 

Great performances can lead to non-great matches because not every match has the opportunity to be great. Especially before the modern "everyone should be trying to steal the show" era. Like Rip Rogers has a lot of great performances but not a lot of great matches because his job was usually just to put over a babyface in a short TV match. Same thing with a guy like Adrian Street, there aren't a lot of Street matches on tape where he had the opportunity to go long and have a great match but we have a lot of great Adrian Street performances where he does an awesome job of playing his character.

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.

Does HHH really have a lot of great matches? Sure, he has some, but just thinking through his career in my head, I can't come up with a dozen.

Does HHH really have a lot of great matches? Sure, he has some, but just thinking through his career in my head, I can't come up with a dozen.

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.

 

I do agree with this general point. Given two wrestlers my instinct says to rank closely, the guy with 12 ****+ matches doesn't go above the guy with 11 ****+ matches. But it's also hard for me to think of examples of that in practice. To me, there is a big output gap between Bret and HHH that favors Bret.

I think HHH is a fairly good example. he has a lot of highly thought of matches and I would have trouble calling him "great". I don't think he is really bad though. He is a great case study because the opportunity he got/gets to be in big or great matches work both for and against him. He has a nice little list of matches, probably one that outpaces his actual skill, but he also gets crucified for getting the chance at those matches and sometimes too eagerly dismissed for them.

 

For example, the triple threat match at WM is not a match I particularly love, but it gets its fair share of praise. I rewatched that a few weeks ago for whatever reason and just hated HHH in it. I just mumbled to myself about how this is classic HHH, finding himself in a great position with talent around him, bringing the match down but still getting the line on his resume. That is probably unfair because I don't think he is the shits really. I think he is really good in spots, but the disproportionate opportunities he gets to be in big matches leaves me with a narrative of "fuck HHH"

Does HHH really have a lot of great matches? Sure, he has some, but just thinking through his career in my head, I can't come up with a dozen.

I don't really think he does but a lot of people do.

Yumiko Hotta. Surrounded by some of the greatest workers ever in a workrate environment at its peak

I don't think he said it was ONLY based on 10 or so match. It seemed like just an abbreviated point.

 

I think Rick has a really cool little case. I see him as a reasonable bottom of the list guy if you value tag wresting a lot, like that they had sort of a unique set of moves for their time and place, and especially if you value how his unique face character was brought into the working of the matches themselves.

 

For the benefit of those who have not been following the project closely. I developed a 6-factor system that graded each guy in against six criteria. This system was called BIGLAV. You can find it here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/32545-jvks-six-factor-model-for-gwe-rankings-biglav/

 

Here is Rick Steiner's Score:

 

Rick Steiner

 

Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 1/3 0/3 (+1 for belly-to-belly suplex) = 5

Intangibles 3

Great matches 5

Length of Peak 1989-94 = 5 years = 3

 

+1 ability to work heel

+1 ability to work singles

+1 ability to work gimmick matches

+3 ability to get over in multiple markets (AWA, WCW, WWF, NJPW, AJPW, TNA, indies)

 

Ability to work different styles / roles = 6

 

Variety = 8

 

30

 

With that score he finished 99 on my list.

 

I have also been absolutely consistent -- and far more consistent than some of those having a go -- about two things throughout this process:

 

1. I do not hold poor post-peaks against candidates. I believe strongly that negatives over-index in our thinking. It doesn't matter if Ken Patera wasn't very good in 1987, his case was made in 1977, 78, 79, 80 etc.

 

2. If you were a part of a lot of good or great matches, it is a net PLUS for you as a worker.

 

Steven knows all this, he's just looking for revenge for the stick I've given him about John Tenta; a worker with not even a tenth of Rick Steiner's quality output.

Just for sake of a reference, here are the star ratings from Meltzer on all of HHH's PPV matches: http://www.profightdb.com/wrestler-star-ratings/triple-h-193.html?res=2000

 

That's 34 matches at least 4 stars since 1997 counting stuff like Elimination Chambers and 6/8 man tags but not counting any Royal Rumbles.

Here is Rick Steiner's Score:

 

Rick Steiner

 

Basic (offense, selling, psychology) 3/3 1/3 0/3 (+1 for belly-to-belly suplex) = 5

Intangibles 3

Great matches 5

Length of Peak 1989-94 = 5 years = 3

 

+1 ability to work heel

+1 ability to work singles

+1 ability to work gimmick matches

+3 ability to get over in multiple markets (AWA, WCW, WWF, NJPW, AJPW, TNA, indies)

 

Ability to work different styles / roles = 6

 

Variety = 8

 

30

 

Yeah, that's very convincing. Ah, numbers...

 

As a roleplay character creation, it would work pretty well though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

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.

Preach on brother

Ohhh I have been following. That more or less what I was referencing. The second part was more or less my own abbreviated case for Rick. I just listened to the part of the podcast where you got to him and it didn't strike me as odd at all.

 

The verdict on great match theory is that it's a complete failure.

 

Based on what, exactly?

 

Based on anyone ranking someone they dislike, let alone hate, because of it. And because I fundamentally disagree with it also but I'll save that for the other thread you started.

Kobashi was definitively better than Bret Hart. He had a better career, was a better young lion, a better tag worker, had a better title reign as ace, and he was a more dynamic worker both in terms of offense and selling. Anyone who doesn't admit that is either in denial or Canadian.

 

I was physically sickened when Steven low-balled Kobashi at 25 or whatever it was and then had the temerity to rank Bret at #5. Disgusted I was.

Kobashi was definitively better than Bret Hart. He had a better career, was a better young lion, a better tag worker, had a better title reign as ace, and he was a more dynamic worker both in terms of offense and selling. Anyone who doesn't admit that is either in denial or Canadian.

 

I was physically sickened when Steven low-balled Kobashi at 25 or whatever it was and then had the temerity to rank Bret at #5. Disgusted I was.

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!

In response to the Bret-Kobashi point made in the other thread, I would rank Kobashi higher but not because he had 125 ****+ matches to Bret's 50 (just making up numbers to make my point -- those are probably nowhere near anything useful) but more because when I look at his overall career, I see more consistency from Kobashi across big and small shows. It's interesting because Bret Hart had better matches with dentists, pirates and clowns than he did Vader, Buddy Landell and Tom Pritchard. Call it the "on paper" factor -- I penalize wrestlers who have matches that on paper look like they should be good that are nothing remarkable at all. Then when I look closer at that, I realize that examples of Bret Hart having strong "one off" matches with someone that were not part of an ongoing feud are pretty rare, which in turn leads to the more holistic discussion of his run that I think we all want. Input or output -- whichever your focus, I think we're all going to the same destination.

 

Kobashi was definitively better than Bret Hart. He had a better career, was a better young lion, a better tag worker, had a better title reign as ace, and he was a more dynamic worker both in terms of offense and selling. Anyone who doesn't admit that is either in denial or Canadian.

 

I was physically sickened when Steven low-balled Kobashi at 25 or whatever it was and then had the temerity to rank Bret at #5. Disgusted I was.

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.

In response to the Bret-Kobashi point made in the other thread, I would rank Kobashi higher but not because he had 125 ****+ matches to Bret's 50 (just making up numbers to make my point -- those are probably nowhere near anything useful) but more because when I look at his overall career, I see more consistency from Kobashi across big and small shows. It's interesting because Bret Hart had better matches with dentists, pirates and clowns than he did Vader, Buddy Landell and Tom Pritchard. Call it the "on paper" factor -- I penalize wrestlers who have matches that on paper look like they should be good that are nothing remarkable at all. Then when I look closer at that, I realize that examples of Bret Hart having strong "one off" matches with someone that were not part of an ongoing feud are pretty rare, which in turn leads to the more holistic discussion of his run that I think we all want. Input or output -- whichever your focus, I think we're all going to the same destination.

Love the bolded part.

 

 

 

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

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.

My candidates for this would be Bob Backlund and John Cena.

 

I do not think either were great workers in terms of their input, but both have output that puts the vast majority of other US workers to shame. It's because they were company aces for a long time.

 

I don't hold that against them and, to me, both of their cases are centred on the G and V, not the B.

 

 

Kobashi was definitively better than Bret Hart. He had a better career, was a better young lion, a better tag worker, had a better title reign as ace, and he was a more dynamic worker both in terms of offense and selling. Anyone who doesn't admit that is either in denial or Canadian.

 

I was physically sickened when Steven low-balled Kobashi at 25 or whatever it was and then had the temerity to rank Bret at #5. Disgusted I was.

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.

 

 

 

 

Let's just be diplomatic and say some people weighted "number of great matches" more heavily than others when putting together their ballot.

 

Like I can't really say I've seen any GREAT Adrian Street matches but I've seen some great performances of Adrian Street being Adrian Street.

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.