Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Wrestlers who had a lot of great matches but aren't great


Grimmas

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

 

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.

 

At this point I tell you that I think you are nuts and we move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Skill vs Output. Some value one more than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Cena is a great exemple. Although I don't think I would agree with the greatness of most "great" Cena matches, lot of them being WWE manufactured self-conscious epics with kicking out of finishers and such.

I think there's a bit of a semantic problem with the whole question though, because Cena IS great but he's great precisely because he has the laundary list. Ditto Backlund.

 

Someone once wrote: "some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit I am guilty of using something similar, but it would be "epic match theory" more than anything, and I only somewhat used it when ranking people in like my top 20 and comparing their absolute peak. I don't really think there are wrestlers who I don't think are at least very good at matches I think are epic. For matches that are great it can be a case of more of a guy with a particular skillset, or, as Matt would describe them, "a tool" following along. In fact I was very conflicted on how to rate Danielson because he was the driving force in so many great matches but I don't think he ever really has a match I thought was truly transcendental.

 

- Who are some wrestlers who have a long list of great matches that aren't great?

First names that comes to mind for me is Roderick Strong. I don't know how long his list if but Randy Orton would fit the description as well.

 

- What is it about those wrestlers that made them have so many great matches in spite of not being great?

As mentioned above, having a skillset that great opponents could use to get to those results. Maybe being reeled in by the agents or something similar. Would need to think more about it.

 

- If great performances don't result in a great match, why is that? What do you think is usually missing in a not-great match that contains at least one great performance?

This is almost impossible to answer for me as a general thing. Whas is the goal of the match? What is the greatness of the performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I said this on the podcast, but the way I come at Great Match Theory is that, for the purposes of this project I'm looking at guys and what they can do. What they are capable of, at their best, really looking at the positives. Sometimes, what I find is great work on a micro level, or great work in terms of what they input into matches, or the easiest way for me to express why they're great is through analysing their input. And then sometimes, what I find, or the easiest way to express why they're great is to point to a list of great matches. Sometimes it's both, sometimes it's other things. But in the battle between input and output, I think I value them equally. It just depends on the wrestler, both what kind of wrestler they are and how much I've watched of them and how I've watched them.

 

I don't think a guy who's greatest capability is "having a lot of great matches" is any more or less great on principle than a guy who's greatest capability is "all the things he brings to matches". In the end it's just a matter of who I like more. Well, rate more. But all the ways in which guys can prove their greatness are valid, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skill vs Output. Some value one more than the other.

But Kobashi kills Bret in both. He had more offense than Bret. It hit harder. He could just do more. He was better at selling a hold. He was better at showing he was in pain. He was better at bumping. He was better at hitting bombs.

 

And he was better at putting that vast array of tools together to have compelling matches again and again and again and again. And you can't have god knows how many 5-star matches without understanding psychology.

 

I honestly think this position is bonkers. In some ways, even more insane than your position in the Bret vs. Flair debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that a wrestler is only as good as his matches, just like a painter is only as good as his paintings. I don't really care how good you are at all the things that make up wrestling if it doesn't lead to great matches. If a painter is great at brush strokes and color mixing, but then the canvas looks like a bear shat on it when he's done he isn't a good painter. I put HHH at #100 on my list, because at the end of the day he has a lot of good to great matches with a large variety of opponents. He's not the best worker in a lot of those matches, but he carries his half more often than not. I think his biggest flaw is that he is a completely uninteresting worker unless he's in some sort of gimmick match. Is it fair that he was given the opportunities he was given over other wrestlers who may have been technically better? Probably not, but he was and that is what I have to judge him based on what he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a Kobashi expert by any stretch so I don't want to go down that line although I would be happy to go through some of Bret's...

 

In no particular order...

 

vs. Roddy Piper at Wrestlemania countering the sleeper

vs. Steve Austin at Survivor Series countering the Million Dollar Dream in a call back

vs. Steve Austin at Wrestlemania Sharpshooter stoppage (which wouldn't work if you put Sting or the Rock in there because their versions of the hold stink)

vs. Davey Boy Smith Summerslam being countered during a sunset flip

vs. Bam Bam Bigelow King of the Ring victory roll

vs. Owen Hart Wrestlemania countering the victory roll

vs. Diesel Royal Rumble small package finish to counter the powerbomb

vs. Curt Hennig IC Title win countering legdrop into the Sharpshooter

vs. The Quebeckers stoppage when couldn't stand attempting the Sharpshooter

vs. Jerry Lawler getting DQ'ed for not releasing the sharpshooter

vs. Davey Boy Smith at In Your House, La Magistral cradle

vs. Bob Backlund - Helen Hart 'throws in the towel' via crossface chickenwing

 

I mean I did that off the top of my head? That seems pretty varied to me while still holding to the technician gimmick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Skill vs Output. Some value one more than the other.

 

 

I happen to think that Kobashi laps Bret in both fields, but can understand someone arguing for Bret's skills. There are undoubtedly merits to discussing both, but arguing Bret over Kobashi on the basis of skill reads like like judging a chef based upon on the grocery list rather than the meal. If a given wrestler is that much more highly skilled than another, shouldn't be be able to utilize those skills to put together a pretty impressive resume of big matches?

 

Parv made the points about the various skills, roles and finishes on Kobashi's resume that lap Bret's. I don't see a compelling argument for Bret in any of those departments, but let's say someone does. I'm struggling to see where checking those boxes in isolation overcomes the actual matches that result from those tools. Its not like we're working with a small sample of footage from either and being forced to extrapolate from there as though there's a great unknown about what they could do on a given day, which understandably lends itself to a much more open question. Its all on tape and we've seen it. It has to be more than just applying a handicap for their respective opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Skill vs Output. Some value one more than the other.

 

 

I happen to think that Kobashi laps Bret in both fields, but can understand someone arguing for Bret's skills. There are undoubtedly merits to discussing both, but arguing Bret over Kobashi on the basis of skill reads like like judging a chef based upon on the grocery list rather than the meal. If a given wrestler is that much more highly skilled than another, shouldn't be be able to utilize those skills to put together a pretty impressive resume of big matches?

 

Parv made the points about the various skills, roles and finishes on Kobashi's resume that lap Bret's. I don't see a compelling argument for Bret in any of those departments, but let's say someone does. I'm struggling to see where checking those boxes in isolation overcomes the actual matches that result from those tools. Its not like we're working with a small sample of footage from either and being forced to extrapolate from there as though there's a great unknown about what they could do on a given day, which understandably lends itself to a much more open question. Its all on tape and we've seen it. It has to be more than just applying a handicap for their respective opposition.

 

I've watched a ton of Bret Hart and a ton of Kenta Kobashi.

 

Bret Hart is a better pro wrestler.

 

I'd take Bret almost all single metric, except fire, charisma and excitement.

 

Does Kobashi have more great matches? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HHH is someone that has a lot of great matches in some eyes and therefore ranks accordingly. To someone like myself and most on this board, he has very few great matches (****+ for me) over his career and therefore doesn't rank well.

 

**** HHH Matches for me after looking at the list of Meltzer ratings that were presented:

 

vs. Rock SummerSlam 1998

vs. Rock Judgement Day 2000

vs. Cactus Jack Royal Rumble 2000

vs. Jericho Fully Loaded 2000

Armageddon 2000 HIAC

vs. Benoit and HBK WM 20

vs. Batista Vengeance 2005

vs. Flair Taboo Tuesday 2005

vs. Orton NO Mercy 2007

vs. Taker WM 27

vs. Bryan Mania 30

Extreme Rules Shield vs. Evolution

 

Those are the only ones I could think of right off hand. Twelve matches over a 18 year career isn't that extraordinary and even if I blanked on a few, I doubt he would hit an average of one great match a year. That to me is not a case of someone built on "great match theory."

 

I do think Backlund and Cena are closer to a legitimate argument that can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Skill vs Output. Some value one more than the other.

 

 

I happen to think that Kobashi laps Bret in both fields, but can understand someone arguing for Bret's skills. There are undoubtedly merits to discussing both, but arguing Bret over Kobashi on the basis of skill reads like like judging a chef based upon on the grocery list rather than the meal. If a given wrestler is that much more highly skilled than another, shouldn't be be able to utilize those skills to put together a pretty impressive resume of big matches?

 

Parv made the points about the various skills, roles and finishes on Kobashi's resume that lap Bret's. I don't see a compelling argument for Bret in any of those departments, but let's say someone does. I'm struggling to see where checking those boxes in isolation overcomes the actual matches that result from those tools. Its not like we're working with a small sample of footage from either and being forced to extrapolate from there as though there's a great unknown about what they could do on a given day, which understandably lends itself to a much more open question. Its all on tape and we've seen it. It has to be more than just applying a handicap for their respective opposition.

 

I've watched a ton of Bret Hart and a ton of Kenta Kobashi.

 

Bret Hart is a better pro wrestler.

 

I'd take Bret almost all single metric, except fire, charisma and excitement.

 

Does Kobashi have more great matches? Yes.

 

 

You really think Bret had better offense? I can't even fathom that as a position, and I think Bret had very good offense.

 

But I'm firmly with Parv on this one--Kobashi eats Bret's lunch in every aspect of pro wrestling that I care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HHH is someone that has a lot of great matches in some eyes and therefore ranks accordingly. To someone like myself and most on this board, he has very few great matches (****+ for me) over his career and therefore doesn't rank well.

 

**** HHH Matches for me after looking at the list of Meltzer ratings that were presented:

 

vs. Rock SummerSlam 1998

vs. Rock Judgement Day 2000

vs. Cactus Jack Royal Rumble 2000

vs. Jericho Fully Loaded 2000

Armageddon 2000 HIAC

vs. Benoit and HBK WM 20

vs. Batista Vengeance 2005

vs. Flair Taboo Tuesday 2005

vs. Orton NO Mercy 2007

vs. Taker WM 27

vs. Bryan Mania 30

Extreme Rules Shield vs. Evolution

 

Those are the only ones I could think of right off hand. Twelve matches over a 18 year career isn't that extraordinary and even if I blanked on a few, I doubt he would hit an average of one great match a year. That to me is not a case of someone built on "great match theory."

 

I do think Backlund and Cena are closer to a legitimate argument that can be made.

If someone doesn't agree the matches are great it makes perfect sense to me not to include them, but not including someone who you think has plenty of great matches doesn't make much logical sense to me. My issue is with people claiming that great matches don't make a wrestler great, which is like saying someone with multiple Pulitzer prizes is not a great writer. I don't think you can have one without the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I had Bret at #3 and Kobashi didn't make my list. But I am a person who considers AJ 90's style excessive and at times almost unwatchable. Misawa and Kawada made my list because they have qualities I appreciate despite the style but Kobashi is someone who embodies the excess of that style in the most negative ways possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like people in the next few hours to LIST OUT:

 

1. Kobashi finishes they can remember.

 

2. Bret finishes they can remember.

 

Cos right now, I can think of lots of 1 and not that many of 2.

This is quite interesting because they obviously approached the finish to their matches differently. Kobashi tended to build his matches to a huge crescendo, finishing with a big offensive move or blow. The majority of Hart's finishes, however, whether winning or losing, were defensive. Sudden roll-ups or cradles, like the PPV matches with Davey Boy, WM10 with Owen, the Piper match, the Austin Survivor Series match and so on. I'm not sure which is better but they are definitely different philosophies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...