Reactions to the Honorable Mention List, Part 3

[goodhelmet]

The way this is going makes me wonder if some of the guys that were seen as candidates for number 1 like Lawler and Terry Funk end up way lower on the list than expected.

i have seem several lists and Lawler wasn't on half of them. Those of us who love Memphis are all in. Those who don't, didn't even consider him. Lawler won't be #1. All that matters is he was my #1.

[Microstatistics]

With these additional non-PWO/anonymous votes I am more convinced Flair is gonna win the whole thing easily.

[Shrike02]

I am sorely tempted to start quoting passages from The Anxiety of Influence to see how far Parv wants to draw parallels between the canon of English literature and the GWE project ...

[El-P]

With these additional non-PWO/anonymous votes I am more convinced Flair is gonna win the whole thing easily.

 

Me too. And honestly, that's so lame if that's the case (not Flair winning, although it is in a way, but Flair winning because of this).

[El-P]

I think you're ignoring how those consensus picks came to be. Parties already touched on films that were panned at first; think about the Cahiers du Cinema and how it completely revolutionised film criticism with auteur theory. Their ideas were completely radical at the time but enough people believed in them and a new consensus was formed.

 

It has also been put in question as it as happening by the Positif review, and it's pretty much recognized now that they were *wrong* on several issues. Plus the auteur theory has done its share of damage to the mentality of producers/filmmakers too.

[Childs]

 

 

You see interesting consensus picks in film criticism. There are various different canons, but across all of them you get certain picks that recur with such stunning regularity that you wonder if it really can be a totally subjective thing. Can it?

 

I think you're ignoring how those consensus picks came to be. Parties already touched on films that were panned at first; think about the Cahiers du Cinema and how it completely revolutionised film criticism with auteur theory. Their ideas were completely radical at the time but enough people believed in them and a new consensus was formed. All it really takes is for one person to come up with an idea and if enough people believe in it then the consensus will change. We've seen clear examples of that during the present reveal. We've also seen examples of new ideas that haven't gained quite enough momentum to bring about change. And there's always trends to consider. Styles that fall out of favour. Older thinking that's rejected.

 

We're not just looking for the Shakespeare of wrestling (i.e. the No 1 pick) we're looking to fill in the top 10, the top 20, the top 30 and beyond. The wider you spread that net the more diversity you're going to find. Once you get outside the consensus picks that's where the action is really happening. If someone comes along and says Magnum is better than Kobashi then first of all that's an interesting idea and much better than reading the same tired old bullshit about Kobashi, but morever it'll probably lead to Magnum gaining traction rather leapfrogging over Kobashi. It would gain my attention anyway, but Kobashi would still receive the same amount of boring votes. To make a film analogy, Kobashi is a boring ass pick like John Ford. It's just a safe, boring pick. Did I mention the word boring anymore? The Magnum idea, now that's like thinking Nicholas Ray is a master. Now you're talking. If one or two like-minded people think it's a cool idea then it's not going to go anywhere, but if it takes off a bit then it will really stir the pot. Then John Ford fans will come along with their lists of **** and above John Ford films and try to shove it down our throats as evidence, but we know what we like and it's Nick Ray. The undervalued, the underrated, the under-appreciated, the overlooked. Magnum may be a far fetched example, but if it wasn't for that sort of mentality we'd still be arguing about all sorts of outdated ideas. To me the stance you're taking doesn't factor in progress or change.

I appreciate that you have this mentality because you open up worlds for the rest of us. Phil Schneider is the same way, always looking for the next thing to be excited about. I'm too conservative to let go of my Ford/Kobashi entirely, but amen to the explorers.

[Timbo Slice]

OJ just became my spirit animal.

[El-P]

Exploring and discovering new things is great. But more often than not, what's pimped as better than the old boring picks in these discoveries end up being, well, not really better at all and only pimped that hard because it's new and exciting and exotic.

 

When I listen to Anatolian Pop, I won't say everything is awesome and better than every classic I've ever listened to because I'm excited about it. I try to keep an objective ear. Sure, Elektronik Türküler by Erkin Koray and the first Selda LP's are indeed masterpieces, and there are other great stuff there and I'd rather listen to this than any Bob Dylan or Rolling Stone classic stuff (but I really don't listen to either Dylan or the Stones to begin with). But there are also some stuff that just aren't as good yet are pimped as awesome and important by vinyl collectors and hipsters because it's the new thing and cool labels are re-releasing it. Bunalim's compilation is good, with a few great tracks, but it's a *good* overview of a footnote of a band, not an amazing album. Anyway, dunno why I went on a tangent here. Probably because I'm been immersed on this stuff for a while now.

 

All I want to say is that discovering new things is awesome and super fun but it doesn't mean the classics are now boring. In the end, you'll always come back to it. That's what makes them classics I guess. Or maybe not, as a guy who'd rather listen to minor albums or minor bands sometimes, maybe Dan is absolutely right after all.

[pol]

It's worth noting that even universal, unwavering consensus is still nothing close to objectivity.

[ohtani's jacket]

 

I think you're ignoring how those consensus picks came to be. Parties already touched on films that were panned at first; think about the Cahiers du Cinema and how it completely revolutionised film criticism with auteur theory. Their ideas were completely radical at the time but enough people believed in them and a new consensus was formed.

 

It has also been put in question as it as happening by the Positif review, and it's pretty much recognized now that they were *wrong* on several issues. Plus the auteur theory has done its share of damage to the mentality of producers/filmmakers too.

 

 

Andre Bazin also critiqued it at the time and he was their mentor as you know. One of his criticisms was that a true auteurist would automatically find a second-rate film by an auteur to be superior to a first-rate film by a non-auteur, which he thought to be nonsense. I think that was in retaliation to Eric Rhomer "demolishing" John Houston, a director whom Bazin admired. To tie this back to the GWE, since many of us apply an auteurist approach to wrestling, I wonder how many of us are guilty of Bazin's criticism. Is that second-rate Dibiase match truly better than a first-rate Shawn Michaels match?

[ohtani's jacket]

 

 

You see interesting consensus picks in film criticism. There are various different canons, but across all of them you get certain picks that recur with such stunning regularity that you wonder if it really can be a totally subjective thing. Can it?

 

I think you're ignoring how those consensus picks came to be. Parties already touched on films that were panned at first; think about the Cahiers du Cinema and how it completely revolutionised film criticism with auteur theory. Their ideas were completely radical at the time but enough people believed in them and a new consensus was formed. All it really takes is for one person to come up with an idea and if enough people believe in it then the consensus will change. We've seen clear examples of that during the present reveal. We've also seen examples of new ideas that haven't gained quite enough momentum to bring about change. And there's always trends to consider. Styles that fall out of favour. Older thinking that's rejected.

 

We're not just looking for the Shakespeare of wrestling (i.e. the No 1 pick) we're looking to fill in the top 10, the top 20, the top 30 and beyond. The wider you spread that net the more diversity you're going to find. Once you get outside the consensus picks that's where the action is really happening. If someone comes along and says Magnum is better than Kobashi then first of all that's an interesting idea and much better than reading the same tired old bullshit about Kobashi, but morever it'll probably lead to Magnum gaining traction rather leapfrogging over Kobashi. It would gain my attention anyway, but Kobashi would still receive the same amount of boring votes. To make a film analogy, Kobashi is a boring ass pick like John Ford. It's just a safe, boring pick. Did I mention the word boring anymore? The Magnum idea, now that's like thinking Nicholas Ray is a master. Now you're talking. If one or two like-minded people think it's a cool idea then it's not going to go anywhere, but if it takes off a bit then it will really stir the pot. Then John Ford fans will come along with their lists of **** and above John Ford films and try to shove it down our throats as evidence, but we know what we like and it's Nick Ray. The undervalued, the underrated, the under-appreciated, the overlooked. Magnum may be a far fetched example, but if it wasn't for that sort of mentality we'd still be arguing about all sorts of outdated ideas. To me the stance you're taking doesn't factor in progress or change.

I appreciate that you have this mentality because you open up worlds for the rest of us. Phil Schneider is the same way, always looking for the next thing to be excited about. I'm too conservative to let go of my Ford/Kobashi entirely, but amen to the explorers.

 

 

Kobashi was the guy Parv mentioned. It could have been any of the top picks really. I like Kobashi though I think Parv goes overboard in his praise for him.

[El-P]

 

 

I think you're ignoring how those consensus picks came to be. Parties already touched on films that were panned at first; think about the Cahiers du Cinema and how it completely revolutionised film criticism with auteur theory. Their ideas were completely radical at the time but enough people believed in them and a new consensus was formed.

 

It has also been put in question as it as happening by the Positif review, and it's pretty much recognized now that they were *wrong* on several issues. Plus the auteur theory has done its share of damage to the mentality of producers/filmmakers too.

 

 

Andre Bazin also critiqued it at the time and he was their mentor as you know. One of his criticisms was that a true auteurist would automatically find a second-rate film by an auteur to be superior to a first-rate film by a non-auteur, which he thought to be nonsense. I think that was in retaliation to Eric Rhomer "demolishing" John Houston, a director whom Bazin admired. To tie this back to the GWE, since many of us apply an auteurist approach to wrestling, I wonder how many of us are guilty of Bazin's criticism. Is that second-rate Dibiase match truly better than a first-rate Shawn Michaels match?

 

 

Yeah. Chabrol also said later that they demolished movies that didn't deserve it and were actually really good (aka, the Takada's ). Plus, just like PWO, it's not like they all agreed. They were very different people with very different tastes, but they had common disdain for the same stuff.

 

Your exemple doesn't work though because first-rate DiBiase isn't nearly as good as first rate Michaels to begin with. But yeah, I agree. The whole "Flair's good matches are better than most workers great matches", which is of course ridiculous. Then again, at this point, I'd rather watch a really good Choshu match than a great Liger match for instance.

[ohtani's jacket]

All I want to say is that discovering new things is awesome and super fun but it doesn't mean the classics are now boring. In the end, you'll always come back to it. That's what makes them classics I guess. Or maybe not, as a guy who'd rather listen to minor albums or minor bands sometimes, maybe Dan is absolutely right after all.

 

I actually like the classics. Whenever I get into something new I hit up the classics first because who doesn't want to experience the best of something? But for me the classics are a springboard for immersing myself in a style and from there I find my own way. I don't think Parv is all that different. He embraces some of the classics and tosses others aside. He just has an incredibly strong attachment to the workers and matches he thinks are best.

[El-P]

Funny thing is that I never cared much for the classics, neither in movies nor in music. It has to follow a personnal path. Watching a classic because it's a classic just feels like homework to me and I usually don't care that much at the end. That's why I can understand the importance of "Breathless" but I won't get much out of it. I have no particular interest in Bob Dylan's music so I couldn't care less about listening to his stuff. Maybe I'm missing out. Probably not, life is short. Then again, the day I got into free jazz, I felt the need to listen to "The shape of jazz to come" and loved it (although it took a while because, ya know, free jazz). So there are the classics I care about and the ones I don't. Anyway, this is drifting away from PWO.

[ohtani's jacket]

Yeah, when are those next ten names dropping.

[spookysaku]

But there are also some stuff that just aren't as good yet are pimped as awesome and important by vinyl collectors and hipsters because it's the new thing and cool labels are re-releasing it. Bunalim's compilation is good, with a few great tracks, but it's a *good* overview of a footnote of a band, not an amazing album.

Fair warning this is a shit post, but reading this it occurred to me that I could easily see myself agreeing with the wrestling equivalent of a comment like this, but as a comment about music or film or what have you, seems unfair and dismissive. It feels like a lot of people here and elsewhere (including myself) experience wrestling in a way that is a lot more tied to consensus relative to other art forms.

 

I care way more about music than I do about wrestling, and an equivalent 'Greatest Musicians Ever' based heavily on technical proficiency not only sounds horrific but also doesn't come close to touching on why music is great, or how we relate to it. Why I'm on board with that type of thing in wrestling terms doesn't make any sense to me, and I wonder if the fundamental difference is the form itself or the culture of criticism around it.

[MasterJonBurr]

For what it's worth, which is admittedly little 'round these parts, I find the objectivity vs. subjectivity dialogue far more tiresome than any Mempho vs. shoot style debate. Hell, I'll read damned near any epistolary skirmish, so long as its discussing our fair sport. Thusly, I'll call roll of my first ten fallen soldiers and try and detail why they made my list. I promise to hide behind neither the "that's just my opinion" nor the "critical consensus" rhetorics. I'll just do my best to convince you and will squeal with delight as you rend my judgement asunder.

 

I'll run with the following format:

GWE Rank: 306 My Rank: 99 MARK BRISCOE - While I've somehow always found myself fancying the seemingly eventually lesser half of a tag team - Marty Jannetty of the Rockers, Tito Santana of Strike Force, or GASP Tom Zenk when paired with Flyin' Brian spring to mind - this really doesn't signify the return of a youthful contrarian streak. I genuinely think Mark is the better half of the greatest indie tag team and I think that should count for something. I think his character and comedy work is reminiscent of the Dick Murdochs of yore, and his pendulum swings between menace and mugging with great moxie and effortlessness. One of the most fun live workers going today and worthy of the list.

 

GWE Rank: 153 My Rank: 98 TRACY SMOTHERS - A constant in my wrestling viewing lifetime. Whether tearing up Florabama or East Tennessee; whether showing up on The Superstation or one of the last two real territorial TV shows I was able to catch regularly; whether having a great technical southern tag on a PPV or doing his dancing schtick at a local armory, Tracy Smothers has always entertained and maintained a level of excellence. He's been everywhere and done everything, all with a shocking amount of modernity and adaptability.

 

GWE Rank: 512 My Rank: 97 MIKE JACKSON - Simply put, and in more than one way, the boss of jobbers. I've seen SO MANY Mike Jackson matches and damned near every one of them was either good or, at the very least, served its purpose, with him giving his level best.

 

GWE Rank: 122 My Rank: 95 JOHNNY SAINT - I think the backlash has gone too far. He's not my highest rated WOS fellow, but he belongs on the list. I don't think he's nearly as selfish as most, as I think he makes his opponents' arsenal seem devastating and he's - pardon the awkwardness of this phrase - unafraid to show fear in the ring. Complain about his recurring spots, but I can't think of many wrestlers worth a damn who don't do the same thing, only with half the panache and thoughtfulness. His longevity is nearly unmatched and his influence, for better or for worse, took wrestling by storm for a bit there.

 

GWE Rank: 171 My Rank: 94 BIG BOSSMAN - Second best big man bumper ever and able to play so many different roles. Can't really think of a guy who was able to work heel and baby so differently, while maintaining the big man presence. My favorite Hulk Hogan opponent and, really, a guy whose whole career I really enjoyed. Loved his strikes even more than Vader, who, it springs to mind, was a GREAT opponent for Boss Man. So, so agile for his size and a great worker.

 

GWE Rank: 150 My Rank: 92 EDDIE GILBERT - For me, the mental side of wrestling is almost everything. I love athleticism and explosiveness as much as the next guy, but it isn't a prerequisite for my endorsement, necessarily. Eddie and the next guy I list have a lot in common, with their greatest attribute being the ability to get angles over. No matter how preposterous or how unlikely or poorly matched the opponent, the angle was getting OVER. I also think he was way better in the ring than he gets credit for, and could play lots of roles in the ring, from WWF jobber to one of the great chickenshit heels ever. Plus, he ran over Jerry Lawler with a car!

 

GWE Rank: 131 My Rank: 91 JAKE ROBERTS - Everything I said for Eddie goes for Jake, and then some. The undisputed king of getting downright shitty angles with downright shitty wrestlers over. And even when Vince would give him good wrestlers to pair with, something as absurd as a toothless cobra or a blindfold would wriggle its way into the middle of it. Best WWF promo ever and I also love his red pants run in Mid-South, as well. Just trust me on this one.

 

GWE Rank: 201 My Rank: 85 CIMA - I know many people rue DG and its influence, but I contend if half their wrestlers had half the smarts and charisma of its most famous forefather, folks would feel differently. His prodigal Toryumon run frankly blew my mind and I loved the way he carried himself with menace and grace amongst the otherwise unfeeling freneticism of the promotion. CRAZY MAX was the last great stable, as far as I'm concerned, and he was its touchstone. I also think his ability to change his style and function really well in other styles and promotions is a huge selling point, as well. Will watch a CIMA match at the drop of a hat, always.

 

GWE Rank: 133 My Rank: 84 MAYUMI OZAKI - Anyone who brings up botched moves or sloppiness gets an uraken, followed by an Ozakick! The queen bitch of Joshi, for me, who was so sneakily wonderful and charismatic. Some Oscar-worthy mugging and bits of business in the ring, and I really thought she and her roving stable were one of the best acts in wrestling for a good while. I love her tags, I love her straight fights, I love her ridiculous moves.......that she sometimes botches. Ah, shit, I forgive her imperfections and you should, too.

 

GWE Rank: 228 My Rank: 83 SUPER DRAGON - Like an indy Bruiser Brody or Undertaker, if either of those guys could actually go. Unmistakable aura, combined with a nigh complete control of the audience, all behind a hood and getup that concealed damned near his whole body. I enjoyed almost all of his big "DREAM BOUT" type matches and have a great respect for the culture he created in wrestling. An uncompromising figure, from his stiffness to his disappearing acts, but I think there's so much to love about this worker.

 

I'll try to get to my next ten sometime this week and am really having a blast thinking about why we love the wrestlers we do. I hope you guys are, too. Also, I am loving all of the GWE podcasts! Keep 'em coming! If only I could coerce Dean Rasmussen into doing one.....his list is mindbogglingly wonderful.

 

Yours,

JHHBjr

[joeg]

What I've been wondering, is did most people go with their 100 favorites ever or the 100 guys they think are the best ever? Or a mix of both....

[Dylan Waco]

Most of my favorites didn't even make my top 100

[Quentin Skinner]

Yeah some of my favorites made it, but only the ones I felt like I could truly justify. Since last August I went back and rewatched stuff of my favorites to see if they deserved placement. In a lot of ways my favorite wrestler ever is Chris Jericho, but I couldn't in good faith keep him on my ballot over someone I may have seen less of but I think was better like Mayumi Ozaki so Jericho wound up getting cut.

[El McKell]

What I've been wondering, is did most people go with their 100 favorites ever or the 100 guys they think are the best ever? Or a mix of both....

​People have talked about this a lot and it still seems weird to me. I voted for the 100 wrestlers I thought were the best which might match perfectly onto my list of 100 favourites depending on what you mean by favourite.

 

​Like I honestly don't know what we're talking about when we say list of favourites. Are your favourites who you are most into right now? Who you would most want to watch a random match from? Who, hypothetically, you would be most excited to see if you ignore being tired of someone because you've seen so much of them? Who is actually the most likable? Who you would go to bat for that nobody really appreciates like you do?

 

I could probably come up with 100 more different questions for what favourite means that would sound dumb to most people. But I honestly don't get what we're talking about when we say favourites. I have no idea if I handed in a list of favourites or if handing in a list of favourites meant I'd have to include Bob Sapp because I irrationally get excited to see Bob Sapp matches and think his entrance to Madonna's 'Holiday' against The Great Muta was amazing.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Who thinks John Ford is better than Nick Ray? Magnum is more like a Bob Rafelson.

[jamesie_2015]

Someone else made the point that one of the more interesting aspects of this will not be how people compare 1 to 100 but how people compare to their contemporaries. I'll be fascinated to see how the AJPW Pillars end up ranked or who finishes higher between the likes of say Rey, Eddie, Benoit, Regal.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Magnum TA is better than Kobashi because Kobashi never rode a Harley and shoved a wooden shard into Tully Blanchard's eye. Seems pretty simple to me.

[mprice]

What I've been wondering, is did most people go with their 100 favorites ever or the 100 guys they think are the best ever? Or a mix of both....

 

I mainly took the ones that I could see myself calling "The greatest wrestlers ever" and organizing them as such. I mean there might have been 20 more that would have been possible on my list at most, and I attribute that to not seeing as much as some of you others. So in other words, a lot of my favorites are on that list and my way of organizing them was through the simple question....How much do I enjoy them and how much do I enjoy Wrester X in comparison?