Should I Vote For Jumbo?

[Grimmas]

 

I'm putting Flair in the top 15, and I don't like Flair. Although I do enjoy watching his matches, so it's not like Dylan and Jumbo.

 

I can't think of a wrestler I hate watching that I will be ranking. Although I can't think of a wrestler that is great that I hate watching.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"?

 

This is a serious question at the heart of this.

 

I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring.

[Childs]

 

The real sports comparisons don't work in this case. We know Tom Brady is great because he puts up superb numbers and wins a ton of games. We don't have to judge him based on aesthetic preferences.

That is true, but Dylan admits to thinking Jumbo is great, he is just someone who he doesn't enjoy watching. My point is if he acknowledges his greatness he should rank him based on that greatness, despite his personal feelings. I'm not a huge lucha fan, so I'm probably not going to spend much time watching Negro Casas or El Dandy, but they're both on my list. They wrestle in a style that I either am not a big fan of or don't understand, but that doesn't take away the fact that they are great at it.

 

 

I hear you, and it's a genuinely tricky question that a lot of us have pounded on in various forms throughout the process.

 

 

I'm putting Flair in the top 15, and I don't like Flair. Although I do enjoy watching his matches, so it's not like Dylan and Jumbo.

 

I can't think of a wrestler I hate watching that I will be ranking. Although I can't think of a wrestler that is great that I hate watching.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"?

 

This is a serious question at the heart of this.

 

 

With Inoki? Sure. Inoki was pretty hateful to watch week to week, and his great mound of lazy, selfish performances outweighs his smaller mound of great ones. Now, you'd have to be an idiot to argue against him as one of the most important stars in wrestling history. But that's not what we're doing here.

[WingedEagle]

 

 

Rey is probably my benchmark example. He's a guy I'm really very low on, VERY. And I would go as far as to say that he stands for things I actively dislike in wrestling.

 

But his case is there, I can't ignore it, I have to give him his due. It's grudging, but there he is somewhere in my top 30 or wherever.

 

That's how I've always seen the GWE.

That makes sense and I appreciate that you're sticking to your formula. Rey is definitely a great example of that as when looking at his specific qualities I find a whole lot more to like than the final output.

 

Yes, but I'm not claiming "objectivity" because I still found ways to low ball him. I don't think his great matches are as great as other people do. I hate his offense. etc. etc. The personal dislike absolutely factors into things, but even beyond that Rey can post some impressive things that are pretty undeniable even to a hater.

 

Which is kind of the definition of "greatness" in my view. That even a hater has to give you your due.

 

But since not everyone has been thinking like that, I don't see why Dylan should necessarily have to do the same with Jumbo, especially if he sees the entire process as being entirely subjective.

 

 

I'm sure everyone recognizes that subjectivity plays a large part in their rankings. Most probably make an effort to be objective about the process, but at the end of the day it comes down to objectively organizing and framing subjective evaluations.

 

There may be wrestlers I don't want to watch at this point in my life, but if I sat down and forced myself to do so and enjoyed the matches, that counts for something and if the matches are good enough to rank the participant as a top 100 all timer, so be it. If I'm so averse to a wrestler that the matches are the shits and really not enjoyable then they're probably not one of the best ever in my eyes.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

 

I'm putting Flair in the top 15, and I don't like Flair. Although I do enjoy watching his matches, so it's not like Dylan and Jumbo.

 

I can't think of a wrestler I hate watching that I will be ranking. Although I can't think of a wrestler that is great that I hate watching.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"?

 

This is a serious question at the heart of this.

 

 

I would call Inoki important, not great.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

I'm putting Flair in the top 15, and I don't like Flair. Although I do enjoy watching his matches, so it's not like Dylan and Jumbo.

 

I can't think of a wrestler I hate watching that I will be ranking. Although I can't think of a wrestler that is great that I hate watching.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"?

 

This is a serious question at the heart of this.

 

I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring.

 

Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about".

 

It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list".

 

I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it.

[Matt D]

People don't say that. They say "Bossman did this, this, and this better than Inoki," or if it's apples and oranges then "Bossman was better at doing this than Inoki was at that." Or "Bossman wasn't quite as good at this but he sure did that way better and I value that more."

[Childs]

Inoki is a strong candidate if you care only about the highs in a wrestler's career. But I believe in punishing for negatives, especially if those negatives are persistent and well-represented even during the wrestler's peak years.

[Childs]

As an offshoot to this discussion, does every voter here have a "Jumbo?"

 

For me, it's Toyota. I'm happy to call her remarkable but can't bring myself to call her great, largely because I dread her work. I'm not ranking her.

[JerryvonKramer]

As an offshoot to this discussion, does every voter here have a "Jumbo?"

 

For me, it's Toyota. I'm happy to call her remarkable but can't bring myself to call her great, largely because I dread her work. I'm not ranking her.

Verne Gagne probably, who I conveniently classed as a 1950s worker and didn't give ratings to.

[Matt D]

My issues are almost purely time related. In the last 3 years I focused hard on lucha, went from 0-lots of candidates but I have so little time to watch basically the entire country of Japan, which I'd also be starting from scratch with. I tried and quickly realized that I couldn't pick up the context I needed in a considerable way, given my ass backwards approach to rating people that involves a holistic look.

 

Past Benoit, which is a tangential issue, there's no one that I feel is great that I'm not ranking.

 

My bigger issue is about "well, that wrestler wrestled the right match for that crowd" when I don't agree it was a GOOD match. That's what I have a harder time wrapping my head around and where my strongest bias is.

[Jetlag]

As an offshoot to this discussion, does every voter here have a "Jumbo?"

 

For me, it's Toyota. I'm happy to call her remarkable but can't bring myself to call her great, largely because I dread her work. I'm not ranking her.

 

This may seem very weird, but I'm really dreading watching Ricky Morton. Particularily because he's so synonymous with a certain match layout. Call it the Seinfeld effect.

 

As for Jumbo, I find the guy overrated, but I have no problem with Jumbo himself. He'll crack my Top 100 just fine. Generally I'd say it's wrong to place someone because of perceived outside pressure and not perceived greatness. It's that simple. If you really can't decide flip a coin.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

I'm putting Flair in the top 15, and I don't like Flair. Although I do enjoy watching his matches, so it's not like Dylan and Jumbo.

 

I can't think of a wrestler I hate watching that I will be ranking. Although I can't think of a wrestler that is great that I hate watching.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"?

 

This is a serious question at the heart of this.

 

I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring.

 

Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about".

 

It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list".

 

I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it.

 

I think there is a big difference between listing categories and saying Inoki is better in this one, Bossman in this one, and someone saying Bossman was great at this stuff that I value more importantly. That is not picking favourites, that is just people using different criteria.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

 

 

I'm putting Flair in the top 15, and I don't like Flair. Although I do enjoy watching his matches, so it's not like Dylan and Jumbo.

 

I can't think of a wrestler I hate watching that I will be ranking. Although I can't think of a wrestler that is great that I hate watching.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"?

 

This is a serious question at the heart of this.

 

I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring.

 

Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about".

 

It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list".

 

I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it.

 

I think there is a big difference between listing categories and saying Inoki is better in this one, Bossman in this one, and someone saying Bossman was great at this stuff that I value more importantly. That is not picking favourites, that is just people using different criteria.

 

"Stuff that I value" feels pretty favourite-y to me.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm putting Flair in the top 15, and I don't like Flair. Although I do enjoy watching his matches, so it's not like Dylan and Jumbo.

 

I can't think of a wrestler I hate watching that I will be ranking. Although I can't think of a wrestler that is great that I hate watching.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"?

 

This is a serious question at the heart of this.

 

I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring.

 

Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about".

 

It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list".

 

I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it.

 

I think there is a big difference between listing categories and saying Inoki is better in this one, Bossman in this one, and someone saying Bossman was great at this stuff that I value more importantly. That is not picking favourites, that is just people using different criteria.

 

"Stuff that I value" feels pretty favourite-y to me.

 

or stuff I value is the criteria someone thinks is important for being great. Replace "stuff I value" with "stuff that is important for someone to be great".

[MoS]

Of course "stuff I value" is favouritey. While judging an artform, any kind of analysis or judgment will have an element of favouritism, because the crteria used will depend on your personal preferences. You are giving bonus points for getting over in different territories and promotion, which is also stuff you subjectively value more.

 

Hell, even while discussing sports, analysis veers towards your favourites, though to a lesser extent. The statistics for Messi and Ronaldo are right in front of everyone, yet people use them to come to different conclusions.

[Grimmas]

People still debate Gretzky vs Orr, stats are there.

[Phil Schneider]

As an offshoot to this discussion, does every voter here have a "Jumbo?"

 

For me, it's Toyota. I'm happy to call her remarkable but can't bring myself to call her great, largely because I dread her work. I'm not ranking her.

 

Mine are Jumbo and Toyota

 

Probably am going to rank Jumbo somewhere, because I do like his late 80s stuff a fair amount, he will be way low though as I find his stuff before 88 or so pretty boring

[supremebve]

As an offshoot to this discussion, does every voter here have a "Jumbo?"

 

For me, it's Toyota. I'm happy to call her remarkable but can't bring myself to call her great, largely because I dread her work. I'm not ranking her.

I don't have Toyota on my list either. I have a few Joshi wrestlers, but I think she's vastly overrated. I love her as a hot tag, but that is about it. I feel like she is a worker who needs her opponent to do all of the work, while she just does flashy moves. She's in a lot of really good to great matches, but I don't attribute many of them to Toyota.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

As an offshoot to this discussion, does every voter here have a "Jumbo?"

 

For me, it's Toyota. I'm happy to call her remarkable but can't bring myself to call her great, largely because I dread her work. I'm not ranking her.

Mine are Jumbo and Toyota

 

Probably am going to rank Jumbo somewhere, because I do like his late 80s stuff a fair amount, he will be way low though as I find his stuff before 88 or so pretty boring

 

Just out of interest while you are around Phil, don't you like his 70s matches vs. Robinson, Terry Funk, Funks in tags, etc?

 

I think he has so much more spunk and fire during that run than he does during early 80s.

[S.L.L.]

 

As an offshoot to this discussion, does every voter here have a "Jumbo?"

 

For me, it's Toyota. I'm happy to call her remarkable but can't bring myself to call her great, largely because I dread her work. I'm not ranking her.

 

Mine are Jumbo and Toyota

 

Probably am going to rank Jumbo somewhere, because I do like his late 80s stuff a fair amount, he will be way low though as I find his stuff before 88 or so pretty boring

 

Toyota here, too, though I haven't completely dismissed the idea of ranking her...just almost entirely.

 

I never soured on Jumbo the way some others have, but I can't deny he was hurt after watching the DVDVR All Japan 80's set and seeing he wasn't the clear-cut best guy on it, but rather a bronze medalist behind Tenryu and Hansen. Sure, those are great guys to rank behind, but when you're supposed to be the best of the best, it does take some of the air out of your candidacy.

[Manatee]

I don't really get Parv's argument that Inoki is self-evidently better than Bossman. Why bother watching footage for this project if it is just going to come down to who has a more impressive bio?

[Matt D]

I don't really get Parv's argument that Inoki is self-evidently better than Bossman. Why bother watching footage for this project if it is just going to come down to who has a more impressive bio?

 

Some people are just known Ring Generals.

 

[GOTNW]

I don't really get Parv's argument that Inoki is self-evidently better than Bossman. Why bother watching footage for this project if it is just going to come down to who has a more impressive bio?

Why bother watching wrestling at all really.

[goodhelmet]

Let me start by saying this - I do think he was a great wrestler. He has lots of great matches, and a long stretch of time when he was at minimum a good worker, and often times great. I can't really argue against the idea that he's one of the 100 best wrestlers of all time...kind of.

 

 

This quote by Dylan makes me think he should put him on his list. He thinks he is a great wrestler. He thinks he has great matches. He thinks he was a good worker... kind of. This is different from someone like Kurt Angle who I think is NOT a great wrestler and will not be on my list but similar to my general apathy for someone like Bret Hart who will be on my list.

[Manatee]

Why bother watching wrestling at all really.

 

 

Sarcasm is fun. I do understand that the journey is more the point of this project than the end result. I probably won't end up submitting a list now, especially since some people seem to be dismissing lists submitted by non-pwo regulars before they see them. But the process has been valuable to me already since I discovered that I absolutely love World of Sport.