concrete1992 Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 I can separate work from the significance of Muto/Chono's importance because I don't have to actually have to watch the match to understand the perception. If you are telling me part of the reason it was such a big deal was the quality then why would I need to make judgement on its artistic merit if that's baked in? Same for a Tanahashi vs. Okada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concrete1992 Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 I'd say a GWE-style Greatest Match Ever project would be a much better way to go as opposed to a Match Hall of Fame. That's just my opinion. I second this. Though this project does sound interesting. I'm still up for making this work somewhere but I think I'd need to find a more static place than the VoW forums where I had started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 I can separate work from the significance of Muto/Chono's importance because I don't have to actually have to watch the match to understand the perception. If you are telling me part of the reason it was such a big deal was the quality then why would I need to make judgement on its artistic merit if that's baked in? Same for a Tanahashi vs. Okada. Well that gets us to the core question that we have got to address: Should this Hall of Fame be a place for revisionism to happen? Yes or No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 I can separate work from the significance of Muto/Chono's importance because I don't have to actually have to watch the match to understand the perception. If you are telling me part of the reason it was such a big deal was the quality then why would I need to make judgement on its artistic merit if that's baked in? Same for a Tanahashi vs. Okada. Well that gets us to the core question that we have got to address: Should this Hall of Fame be a place for revisionism to happen? Yes or No? I think that is up to the individual. There are a few that feel wrestling is for that moment, while others feel it should be judged as any other art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliott Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 I can separate work from the significance of Muto/Chono's importance because I don't have to actually have to watch the match to understand the perception. If you are telling me part of the reason it was such a big deal was the quality then why would I need to make judgement on its artistic merit if that's baked in? Same for a Tanahashi vs. Okada. Well that gets us to the core question that we have got to address: Should this Hall of Fame be a place for revisionism to happen? Yes or No? Quite simply, I'm hoping more for "reality" than "revisionism." So sure its a place where revisionism can happen if revisionism is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 Ok.... I have been absolutely swamped with work stuff lately. I can separate work from the significance of Muto/Chono's importance because I don't have to actually have to watch the match to understand the perception. If you are telling me part of the reason it was such a big deal was the quality then why would I need to make judgement on its artistic merit if that's baked in? Same for a Tanahashi vs. Okada. Well that gets us to the core question that we have got to address: Should this Hall of Fame be a place for revisionism to happen? Yes or No? Perhaps I am being dense, but what is meant by the question? I am not 100% clear on what we are really getting at in each of the above quotes. Is the issue that the categories eliminate conversation about certain qualities by imbuing the match with that quality outright? And what is meant by "revisionsism"? Revisionism of what and from what? I have been keeping up with the thread and kept some of this in the back of my head and I a can't quite get clear on what people are asking/asserting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 The question is: Is the goal to look at matches through a fresh lens and induct matches that weren't recognized for their greatness at the time? Or is the goal to recognize matches that are already canonized at the highest level (which I'd consider Dave for the most part), either because of their quality or significance? I love doing the former these days, and see it as pretty much the entirety of my wrestling fandom at this point. But I've noticed that sometimes I'll rewatch something old and love it, and then rewatch the same thing again a couple of years again and not like it as much. So if the HOF is going to allow for that, I think that's great. But I think maybe there should either be a super-high threshold or an option to say, "Hey, we made a mistake" and kind of think about what that process would look like since that will happen from time to time. Hopefully we'll scrutinize the revisionist matches enough the first time that it would be very rare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 Ok... that makes sense and goes a long with my line of thinking on what I hope the process will accomplish. The long and short is I think between lively debate and the voting system itself we should have a pretty high standard for admission. It will be years of consistent entries to start to really "catch up" since we are not streamlining anything in and keeping the ballot small. I hadn't thought about the idea that we may mess up at some point and want to reconsider, but that will take some more though (as will the first part to be a bit more specific. For now though I gotta get ready for my road trip to SCI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliott Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 The question is: Is the goal to look at matches through a fresh lens and induct matches that weren't recognized for their greatness at the time? Or is the goal to recognize matches that are already canonized at the highest level (which I'd consider Dave for the most part), either because of their quality or significance? My goal is for both of those things to be happening. That may not be the answer you're looking for, but it is absolutely my hope. My previous posts may not have been helpful because I keep calling the match quality section different things like "Critically Acclaimed" and "Artistic Quality." Its less about recognizing the canon and more about vetting it. The matches that make the "historical significance" bucket are going to be pretty obvious. You could probably guess most of them. There's one "revisionist" sort of match that I had never heard of before (but I will absolutely vote for now) in that bucket thanks to Steve Yohe. The "match quality" section has a few more "revisionist" sort of picks. We tried to use as many tools at our disposal in coming up with those matches including: WON MOTYs 80s Sets Results The Old DVDVR 90s Poll Lists PWO's Very Own MOTD Thread Loss' top 500 of the 90s Countdown Our own impressions of (extremely) general consensus of communities like PWO. So almost everything nominated at first is going to be part of the Canon (as much as one exists) but we tried to set things up to allow for inducting or considering matches that weren't beloved at the time. I don't think we would need a process for removing something once it was voted in. I think the 25 year gap in time as well as the discussion process will prevent that from happening. I'm open to allowing a mechanism for that somehow, but I really don't anticipate that being a problem at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeg Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 Are the puroresu.tv Before the 80s Results going to factored in the selection process? That may have been the most fun project I ever took part in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 Are the puroresu.tv Before the 80s Results going to factored in the selection process? That may have been the most fun project I ever took part in. It was definitely used for a gauge on what people think are the best matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.