Jump to content


Photo

PTBN GWWE


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#41 soup23

soup23
  • Moderators
  • 10652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2017 - 02:25 AM

The rubric is more of a guidemap when formulating your list. We wanted to have a set criteria to judge the listing by. My personal reasoning for this is because I think without a rubric, Vince could really easily be #1 on a lot of lists. That is all well and good but I don't really forsee this list as a "most important WWE figures" and I do think that is easier to earmark than with GWE. There is not rigid requirement that you have to go through every candidate and mark a number for each one and whatever the numbers tell you, that is your list (like Parv did with BIGLAV). I am unsure with how you will vote on this in relation to something like the WON HOF but I know for someone like Elliot, the workrate factor in the WON HOF carries fairly little weight to him individually as he has Tamura as one of his top five workers of all time but wouldn't vote for him in the HOF. We tried to create a metric where you could do similar weighting. If you do prefer intangibles and longevity, then your list can look vastly different from someone who prefers workrate while still using the same basic guidelines. 



#42 Jimmy Redman

Jimmy Redman
  • Members
  • 2480 posts

Posted 02 June 2017 - 04:19 AM

I'm basically using the same criteria as i would have for GWE, and I don't see a problem reconciling that with the NJPW.

Broadly speaking the criteria seems to me to just be rating their on screen performance as wrestlers. (Excluding drawing and off-camera contributions, things like that.)

#43 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10224 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2017 - 07:49 AM

The rubric makes it tougher for me because I think it does shift the meaning into a discussion of star power and importance and away from work. That is fine, but if others aren't approaching it that way I don't want to either. I'm torn because I don't think drawing power was covered but I don't see how it could possibly be left out of a project like this. It's much easier for me to dismiss that stuff when we are explicitly talking about bell-to-bell work - it doesn't seem that we are here.

#44 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 11230 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2017 - 07:52 AM

It ends up as Input > Output and Results. 



#45 MLD1083

MLD1083
  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 02 June 2017 - 07:38 PM

Thanks for bringing attention to the FB group, I just joined.  this is right in my wheelhouse.  I followed the GWE threads from afar but felt I still have so much more to watch and abstained from voting because I wanted to be more well rounded globally and didn't think it was fair to vote with my limited perspective.  But WWE/F, I grew up on this, happy to participate!



#46 The Chief

The Chief
  • Members
  • 1660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Clinton, NY

Posted 03 June 2017 - 12:03 AM

Ax is going way too high on my list.

If we're allowed to count pre-Hogan era, I got your back. I love that Eddie Gilbert angle so much!



#47 JKWebb

JKWebb
  • Members
  • 930 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 June 2017 - 06:23 AM

I joined FB for this party. Looking forward to the discussion.

#48 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 8288 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 03 June 2017 - 11:44 AM


Ax is going way too high on my list.

If we're allowed to count pre-Hogan era, I got your back. I love that Eddie Gilbert angle so much!

Seems like it goes back to Capital Wrestling so Masked Superstar and Machine eras count.

#49 Ricky Jackson

Ricky Jackson

    The Only 5 Time Champion

  • Members
  • 3103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Vancouver Territory
  • Interests:Wrestling, music, comics, beer, movies, history, sports...good manly stuff.

Posted 03 June 2017 - 01:41 PM

Yep, 1953 to present are the parameters

#50 elliott

elliott
  • Members
  • 1364 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 04:42 AM

I had a question regarding Vince McMahon's candidacy. Soup said:

 

 

1. We have made the determination to not include strictly on air characters that never wrestled. This resulted in the removal of Jim Cornette, Jimmy Hart, Grand Wizard and Miss Elizabeth from the nominations list. Our reasoning is since we are asking people to use the NJPW system and W stands for workrate, it was unfair to accurately these candidates by that same criteria since they never wrestled. By the same token, if you include the above then Gene Okerlund, Howard Finkel etc should be in consideration.

2. We have also decided that commentary is not a part of the process when judging such candidates like Gorilla Monsoon, Jesse Ventura, Vince McMahon and Jerry Lawler. Please keep that in mind when arguing their cases.

 

and this
 

The rubric is more of a guidemap when formulating your list. We wanted to have a set criteria to judge the listing by. My personal reasoning for this is because I think without a rubric, Vince could really easily be #1 on a lot of lists. That is all well and good but I don't really forsee this list as a "most important WWE figures" and I do think that is easier to earmark than with GWE.

 

I still haven't really decided how I will weigh "promos, out of ring character work, and memorable moments" vs in ring work (how I approached GWE). But I'm just curious, with commentary out as a criteria, what are we considering the beginning of Vince's candidacy? Does it start with the Montreal Screwjob/solidification of the Mr McMahon character? Or later when he has his first match in 1999? Or do "Welcome to WrestleMania III!" and "Stand Back!" count as a Memorable Moments?

 

Serious question because Vince is tricky. He was an on screen presence forever and should definitely be nominated under the criteria. But given the criteria he wouldn't be nominated until 1999 when he finally had a match. Up until then he was still in Cornette/Jimmy Hart/Grand Wizard mode.

 

I ask because if I end up considering promos, character work, memorable moments etc, Vince's placement could be radically different based on an 11/97 or 1/99 start date and he's the only nominee I can think of without a clear defined start of his candidacy and given the criteria, he could theoretically be a major candidate.



#51 bradhindsight

bradhindsight
  • Moderators
  • 1574 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:58 AM

Personally, I'm starting with the first stunner in 9/97. Technically his first match was in spring 98 (Austin one-hand tied behind his back - Dude Love interferes), but I would say the birth of that character. How you weight the promo/character stuff vs. his actual in-ring is, of course, at your discretion.



#52 Bigelow34

Bigelow34
  • Members
  • 1089 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:35 AM

I would say the stunner as well, that was basically when his in ring career started. He took the bump and lit the match for his feud with Austin. He never announced a PPV (or Raw?) after that as well. If you want to go by pure in ring, then yeah 4/98 would be the date not 1/99. That was technically his first in ring match even though it ended before it started.



#53 elliott

elliott
  • Members
  • 1364 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 03:19 PM

So thank to cagematch.net and Cannabliss, the recreational pot shop near my place, I give you the nominee's with the years they appear in the WWE.

 

Spoiler


#54 Ricky Jackson

Ricky Jackson

    The Only 5 Time Champion

  • Members
  • 3103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Vancouver Territory
  • Interests:Wrestling, music, comics, beer, movies, history, sports...good manly stuff.

Posted 11 June 2017 - 04:06 PM

For a second I thought this was your top 100. I was thinking "this guy is such a hipster", but then I saw the Baron at 18 and figured , "Oh, I guess he's ok" Lol

#55 elliott

elliott
  • Members
  • 1364 posts

Posted 12 June 2017 - 06:16 PM

For a second I thought this was your top 100. I was thinking "this guy is such a hipster", but then I saw the Baron at 18 and figured , "Oh, I guess he's ok" Lol

 

Hahahaha. Nobody is cool enough to put Ahmed Johnson #2. Its not possible. :)

 

But really, I just wanted a better sense of how long some of these folks were in WWE. I'm someone who generally favors Peak over Longevity. "Longevity" really only matters to me in terms of "what did they do with that longevity?" I'm not going to guarantee Jim Neidhart or Kane a spot just because they were around for a long time. But its good to have a reminder that when it comes times to consider Arn Anderson, that its just a 2 year run.



#56 elliott

elliott
  • Members
  • 1364 posts

Posted 28 June 2017 - 02:03 AM

I'm curious what people participating think about Pat Patterson? Do we know enough about his behind the scenes work putting together some of the most memorable matches in the history of the company to consider that a point in his favor? Is anyone giving that sort of thing any consideration when thinking about Pat's candidacy?



#57 Jimmy Redman

Jimmy Redman
  • Members
  • 2480 posts

Posted 28 June 2017 - 06:18 AM

Well backstage/non-performing stuff isn't supposed to count so I don't think that should come into it.



#58 JKWebb

JKWebb
  • Members
  • 930 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2017 - 07:02 AM

I initially thought about the same thing with Arn Anderson, but yeah it's not supposed to play a factor. 



#59 elliott

elliott
  • Members
  • 1364 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 12:10 AM

Matt encouraged me to post my ridiculous Bret Hart vs Sasha Banks breakdown I sent Jimmy Redman for both laughs and to Jedi Mind Trick her into voting Sasha above Bret. Then, I later realized it would probably irritate my buddy Matt D, so I sent it to him as well. He oversold it. It isn't 5000 words, but it is really long and really fun.

 

This site has way too many Bret Hart threads, but I have a sort of renewed interest in thinking about him within the context of PTBN's GWWE because he's a knee jerk #1 or at worst top 5 candidate and he was my favorite guy growing up. But the more I thought about him, the more I didn't really view him as a #1 candidate. I expect I'll still rank him highly. I haven't formulated a list yet, but I'd be shocked if he wasn't in my top 20. He's got really strong case, but I also see it as flawed in some respects so he's an interesting guy to compare other people too.

 

So, in our PM's discussing our podcast stuff, our conversations oftentimes get derailed and recently I asked Jimmy Redman who she would rank higher for the PTBN GWWE, Sasha or Bret. She noted that Sasha finished 98th on her GWE Ballot and Bret was in the 60s. But that ranking was based on Sasha's NXT work only and with her WWE work, Sasha obviously moves up the list so they'll probably end up close to each other. She finished with "my heart wants to rank her higher, obviously, but I doubt I'll go that far."

 

That's kind of the answer I was hoping for to have some fun and run wild with a heavily biased Sasha vs Bret comparison and see if I could make a case to rank Sasha higher. I'll just post the unedited version (sorry Izzy, Pittsburgh, Canada, and Bret Hart). Re-reading it, there are some things I'd either re-word or elaborate on, but I was running out of steam at the end of this. I could probably stretch it out to 5000 words. :) 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 



#60 bradhindsight

bradhindsight
  • Moderators
  • 1574 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 July 2017 - 07:24 AM

Hey Elliott - would you mind if I worked that up for a post at PTBN? 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users