|
|
Post by Duck Holliday on Dec 1, 2013 20:07:17 GMT -5
I think these are good ways to gauge "Greatness" but as I think was suggested certain things need more weight. I think in this list Charisma and Engagement of crowed duplicates eachother a bit... because having charisma effectively means having the ability to engage the crowed. Technical ability (10 points) Match Quality (10 points) Mic Skills (5 points) Gimmick and Presence (10 points replacing charisma/look/engaging crowd) Psychology (5 points) Impact Upon Sport (10 points also a way to gauge renown or inventing moves, but never achieving Hogan/fame) I think this covers the aspects of wrestling and gives you a nice 0/50 system. So Bret might score 10,10,2,8,5,8= 43 Someone who is considered a "Great" should probably score a 40+ For contrast Matt Hardy 6, 7, 3, 6, 3, 4= 29 Someone who was a good worker, but over all average should score high 20's maybe a 30 |
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Dec 1, 2013 23:13:15 GMT -5
You could also easily put Owen in their category too. To me, those 3 guys are in a league that no one else will ever touch in terms of being the best "complete packages". Bret has charisma? His voice may have been a bit monotone, but yes. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:16:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 4:34:46 GMT -5
It depends on your values. Mine would be different to most of the people on here in the sense that I was always drawn in by wrestling as a spectacle rather than as a technical exhibition. I'd much rather watch Rock vs. Hogan at WM-X8 than Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart in an empty arena, which is probably different to most people here. I always enjoyed matches where the competitors drew me in with a story I was invested in, and then kept me there through an interesting match with great selling that could go either way. Its why I stopped watching in 2008 - there were plenty of great wrestlers, but too few that drew me in with new and exciting stories. Based off of these values, for me The Rock is the greatest ever. His charisma was top drawer, his work-rate was (in my eyes) underrated, and he sold fantastically. He would always rise to the big occasion, and I struggle to think of a match he had on a major stage that was below par. Above all, through his promos, actions and everything he did, he made sure that I was emotionally invested in every match he ever had, be it a throwaway match on SmackDown! vs. Test or a 'Once in a Lifetime' collision with Cena. How many superstars can you say that about? excellent post Mike. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 2, 2013 12:15:33 GMT -5
It depends on your values. Mine would be different to most of the people on here in the sense that I was always drawn in by wrestling as a spectacle rather than as a technical exhibition. I'd much rather watch Rock vs. Hogan at WM-X8 than Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart in an empty arena, which is probably different to most people here. I always enjoyed matches where the competitors drew me in with a story I was invested in, and then kept me there through an interesting match with great selling that could go either way. Its why I stopped watching in 2008 - there were plenty of great wrestlers, but too few that drew me in with new and exciting stories. Based off of these values, for me The Rock is the greatest ever. His charisma was top drawer, his work-rate was (in my eyes) underrated, and he sold fantastically. He would always rise to the big occasion, and I struggle to think of a match he had on a major stage that was below par. Above all, through his promos, actions and everything he did, he made sure that I was emotionally invested in every match he ever had, be it a throwaway match on SmackDown! vs. Test or a 'Once in a Lifetime' collision with Cena. How many superstars can you say that about? This was an exquisite argument from an empirical standpoint, but it lacks from a rational standpoint. I just can't call someone as lacking in technical ability the irrefutable greatest. Everything else you stated though was perfectly viable & it was terrifically written. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 2, 2013 12:23:48 GMT -5
If you want to make it simple, I think you can break down greatness to these aspects: - Ability to engage the crowd. - Technical skill (includes moves, athletic ability, selling etc). - Renown. - Charisma. - Look. - Match quality (includes ability to have good matches with anyone, wrestling different styles and different match types etc). I think these are good ways to gauge "Greatness" but as I think was suggested certain things need more weight. I think in this list Charisma and Engagement of crowed duplicates eachother a bit... because having charisma effectively means having the ability to engage the crowed. Technical ability (10 points) Match Quality (10 points) Mic Skills (5 points) Gimmick and Presence (10 points replacing charisma/look/engaging crowd) Psychology (5 points) Impact Upon Sport (10 points also a way to gauge renown or inventing moves, but never achieving Hogan/fame) I think this covers the aspects of wrestling and gives you a nice 0/50 system. ***EVERYONE READ THIS PLEASE***** Here's the issue. One's impact on their craft is not in itself a skill, but the product of putting those skills to use. Another concept you mentioned was one's "look" That's not a skill. One's ability to make their look work to their advantage could qualify, but otherwise it's not a logical tool to judge someone's ability. Here's the definition of an "All rounder". It is a wrestler with adequate or exceptional overall skill in every necessary facet of the art. So for everyone in the thread I say, we need to try & fix the way we go about assessing talent. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:16:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 12:44:30 GMT -5
I think these are good ways to gauge "Greatness" but as I think was suggested certain things need more weight. I think in this list Charisma and Engagement of crowed duplicates eachother a bit... because having charisma effectively means having the ability to engage the crowed. Technical ability (10 points) Match Quality (10 points) Mic Skills (5 points) Gimmick and Presence (10 points replacing charisma/look/engaging crowd) Psychology (5 points) Impact Upon Sport (10 points also a way to gauge renown or inventing moves, but never achieving Hogan/fame) I think this covers the aspects of wrestling and gives you a nice 0/50 system. ***EVERYONE READ THIS PLEASE***** Here's the issue. One's impact on their craft is not in itself a skill, but the product of putting those skills to use. Another concept you mentioned was one's "look" That's not a skill. One's ability to make their look work to their advantage could qualify, but otherwise it's not a logical tool to judge someone's ability. Here's the definition of an "All rounder". It is a wrestler with adequate or exceptional overall skill in every necessary facet of the art. So for everyone in the thread I say, we need to try & fix the way we go about assessing talent. But you could argue that look and impact are necessary to be considered great. For example, Dean Malenko was a great technical wrestler. But he had a boring look and had as much charisma as a wet fart. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 2, 2013 13:41:46 GMT -5
***EVERYONE READ THIS PLEASE***** Here's the issue. One's impact on their craft is not in itself a skill, but the product of putting those skills to use. Another concept you mentioned was one's "look" That's not a skill. One's ability to make their look work to their advantage could qualify, but otherwise it's not a logical tool to judge someone's ability. Here's the definition of an "All rounder". It is a wrestler with adequate or exceptional overall skill in every necessary facet of the art. So for everyone in the thread I say, we need to try & fix the way we go about assessing talent. But you could argue that look and impact are necessary to be considered great. For example, Dean Malenko was a great technical wrestler. But he had a boring look and had as much charisma as a wet fart. Is Miley Cyrus better than than Wyton Marsalis because she has a more attention grabbing look or sells more records?  no. One's impact on history is one of the traits you use to judge their place in history. Not how you judge their general ability. The whole reason I started this thread was a matter of determining how one judges an "All rounder" in the wrestling profession. We have to define this before we start placing people in their rightful, respective positions in history. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:16:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 13:56:21 GMT -5
But you could argue that look and impact are necessary to be considered great. For example, Dean Malenko was a great technical wrestler. But he had a boring look and had as much charisma as a wet fart. Is Miley Cyrus better than than Wyton Marsalis because she has a more attention grabbing look or sells more records? no. One's impact on history is one of the traits you use to judge their place in history. Not how you judge their general ability. The whole reason I started this thread was a matter of determining how one judges an "All rounder" in the wrestling profession. We have to define this before we start placing people in their rightful, respective positions in history. Look isn't everything, but it factors into it. A wrestler who was as good as Dean Malenko but also had a good look would be better than Malenko by default. A good look helps someone connect with the audience. I think a lot of the reason I was such a huge Billy Gunn mark when I was 7 (he was my favorite in 99) was because of his awesome look and attire. There was also something about Neidhart/Bret's looks that made me fans of them when I was as young as 2 years old. We're talking about all rounders here, look is an important character trait I'm afraid. Imagine if The Undertaker came out wearing a pink tutu and wore that as his attire when he debuted, would he be considered as good then? Nope, he'd have been a joke since the start. It may not be as important as other things, but look is important in the world of wrestling. |
|
|
|
Post by Duck Holliday on Dec 2, 2013 16:31:00 GMT -5
I think these are good ways to gauge "Greatness" but as I think was suggested certain things need more weight. I think in this list Charisma and Engagement of crowed duplicates eachother a bit... because having charisma effectively means having the ability to engage the crowed. Technical ability (10 points) Match Quality (10 points) Mic Skills (5 points) Gimmick and Presence (10 points replacing charisma/look/engaging crowd) Psychology (5 points) Impact Upon Sport (10 points also a way to gauge renown or inventing moves, but never achieving Hogan/fame) I think this covers the aspects of wrestling and gives you a nice 0/50 system. ***EVERYONE READ THIS PLEASE***** Here's the issue. One's impact on their craft is not in itself a skill, but the product of putting those skills to use. Another concept you mentioned was one's "look"
That's not a skill. One's ability to make their look work to their advantage could qualify, but otherwise it's not a logical tool to judge someone's ability. Here's the definition of an "All rounder". It is a wrestler with adequate or exceptional overall skill in every necessary facet of the art. So for everyone in the thread I say, we need to try & fix the way we go about assessing talent. The first bolded statement= This scale was an attempt to measure 'greatness.' That category was an effort to put a tangible number to something intangible, also in an effort to create a balance between wrestlers that might have renown based on what they were to the sport like Hogan being the face of the industry for 20+ years (but never being technically innovative) or someone like Malenko who's ability inspired a generation of other workers, but doing so without getting super over with fans. 2nd. Once again... I'm not claiming that your look is a skill, but look mixed with gimmick and what is effectively described as charisma is something you can weigh. Admittedly this concept is a bit more nebulous, however it could be viewed like film critique... its going to come down to personal opinion. How does a performer make you feel just by looking a certain way. How does that performer make you feel when he's insulting you? These things insight an emotional reaction which can be weighed personally adding or subtracting to your view on ones "greatness" So this exercise was to measure something generally intangible like "greatness," not only ones skill should be a determinant factor. As for finding the definition of "greatness" I'll bow to other scholars on that account. |
|
AV1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 15, 2008 9:04:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,870
|
Post by AV1 on Dec 2, 2013 17:23:37 GMT -5
One of the things I like most about wrestling is that it's based on opinion of which most people have a different one. IMO The Undertaker is the greatest of all time. He is good in the ring and can tell story in the ring. He has played his gimmick to perfection that I believe a lot of people would flop with and has remained over with the gimmick over 20 years after his debut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Dec 2, 2013 21:23:32 GMT -5
***EVERYONE READ THIS PLEASE***** Here's the issue. One's impact on their craft is not in itself a skill, but the product of putting those skills to use. Another concept you mentioned was one's "look"
That's not a skill. One's ability to make their look work to their advantage could qualify, but otherwise it's not a logical tool to judge someone's ability. Here's the definition of an "All rounder". It is a wrestler with adequate or exceptional overall skill in every necessary facet of the art. So for everyone in the thread I say, we need to try & fix the way we go about assessing talent. The first bolded statement= This scale was an attempt to measure 'greatness.' That category was an effort to put a tangible number to something intangible, also in an effort to create a balance between wrestlers that might have renown based on what they were to the sport like Hogan being the face of the industry for 20+ years (but never being technically innovative) or someone like Malenko who's ability inspired a generation of other workers, but doing so without getting super over with fans. 2nd. Once again... I'm not claiming that your look is a skill, but look mixed with gimmick and what is effectively described as charisma is something you can weigh. Admittedly this concept is a bit more nebulous, however it could be viewed like film critique... its going to come down to personal opinion. How does a performer make you feel just by looking a certain way. How does that performer make you feel when he's insulting you? These things insight an emotional reaction which can be weighed personally adding or subtracting to your view on ones "greatness" So this exercise was to measure something generally intangible like "greatness," not only ones skill should be a determinant factor. As for finding the definition of "greatness" I'll bow to other scholars on that account. You present valid points. I knew what you meant, but I just had to clarify since I'm hoping everyone reading this thread is reading all of the posts. The only issue is how much you and other contributors are getting hung up in the idea of determining one's greatness as it relates to how they are viewed by history. The goal of this thread was to settle the presaging issue that must be resolved before you can accomplish the task mentioned above. We have to figure out what it means to be an "All rounder". A complete package. The best artists are the most well rounded & the most talented, because that talent is derivative of passion & reverence for the medium. Wrestlers are an ambiguous blend of artists & athletes, the very best of which resonate more with the latter. So moving on, this thread is for defining how we assess ability, as a means to finds definition of wrestling greatness. |
|
