Jump to content


Photo

PWO 1988 - 1992 Draft Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
526 replies to this topic

#21 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:47 PM

I'll change it to Uranus when I've got time.

har har.

 

My plans depend on it!



#22 LowBlowPodcast

LowBlowPodcast
  • Members
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:25 PM

https://www.gillmeis...-sort-list.aspx

 

Thank you to whomever created that tool.

 

Draft orders have been done... double check if you think I have made a mistake. Everything looked good to me but I am tired.

 

Draft started Monday morning @ 8am. 

 

Keep up the fun conversation here if you'd like... I am sure everyone is keeping their cards close...

 

I will go on record and say 1992 is a WEIRD year for  lot of guys... some great youngsters starting while older guard fading... lots of fun people to look into and pick from. 



#23 Beast

Beast
  • Members
  • 1299 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:33 PM

See, with Power & Glory, I feel like you should be able to draft a 1990 or 1991 version of them. Same with 1988 or 1989 version of The Twin Towers. If a team was together for over a year, that seems like a legit pick.

 

If that makes everything too muddled, that's fine, but that feels like a different situation than The Megapowers, Megabucks, Mega Maniacs, Jim Duggan & Nikolai Volkoff, The Enforcers, etc...



#24 LowBlowPodcast

LowBlowPodcast
  • Members
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:05 PM

See, with Power & Glory, I feel like you should be able to draft a 1990 or 1991 version of them. Same with 1988 or 1989 version of The Twin Towers. If a team was together for over a year, that seems like a legit pick.

 

If that makes everything too muddled, that's fine, but that feels like a different situation than The Megapowers, Megabucks, Mega Maniacs, Jim Duggan & Nikolai Volkoff, The Enforcers, etc...

 

I agree to an extent.. Savage and Hogan are so much more than a tag team plus their tag encounters can be counted on one hand... perhaps that the is the equation behind it. If the team had more than 20 matches... that makes them a team?



#25 Beast

Beast
  • Members
  • 1299 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:42 PM

I think a distinct number of matches is the answer for sure. But a little higher, maybe 50?

 

That solidifies Power & Glory, Twin Towers, Enforcers, etc... gets rid of any makeshift teams I believe.



#26 gordi

gordi
  • Members
  • 1448 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:17 PM

Great work on this, LowBlow and co. 

 

Should be really fun. Looking forward to Monday. 



#27 dkookypunk43

dkookypunk43
  • Members
  • 333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheltenham, PA

Posted 04 November 2017 - 10:03 AM

Philadelphia for me

 

Do we have a spreadsheet of the available names



#28 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 November 2017 - 10:16 AM

Philadelphia for me

 

Do we have a spreadsheet of the available names

No, just anyone from 88-92, and pick what year you want them in.



#29 LowBlowPodcast

LowBlowPodcast
  • Members
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 November 2017 - 10:25 AM

Philadelphia for me
 
Do we have a spreadsheet of the available names


I understand the idea of having a spreadsheet but honestly if we were to try and compile a list it would have thousands of names on it especially since we're going from all over the world and it would just be too much to try and grasp. I can give you some links to look at some people that were active at that time maybe look at the pwi lists or something like that as a reference I know that's what I did to make my big board that's got over 200 names on it already and that's just people that I'd like to draft not necessarily the thousands that are available to draft

#30 Lee Casebolt

Lee Casebolt
  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 04 November 2017 - 03:03 PM

 

Philadelphia for me
 
Do we have a spreadsheet of the available names


I understand the idea of having a spreadsheet but honestly if we were to try and compile a list it would have thousands of names on it especially since we're going from all over the world and it would just be too much to try and grasp. I can give you some links to look at some people that were active at that time maybe look at the pwi lists or something like that as a reference I know that's what I did to make my big board that's got over 200 names on it already and that's just people that I'd like to draft not necessarily the thousands that are available to draft

 

 

I just poured over cards on Prowrestlinghistory.com and Wrestlingdata.com from '88-'92 that were similar to the style I want to run and started putting together a depth chart. If you've got a clear vision of what you want your card to look like, it's a ton easier than going over a spreadsheet and trying to remember who is who and what they were doing when.



#31 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 05 November 2017 - 09:30 AM

Thanks to Boricua for giving me a great idea. Being on the Moon has some advantages for booking angles.



#32 Lee Casebolt

Lee Casebolt
  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 09:58 AM

Thanks to Boricua for giving me a great idea. Being on the Moon has some advantages for booking angles.

 

The highspots should be 6x higher if my math is right.



#33 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 05 November 2017 - 10:13 AM

 

Thanks to Boricua for giving me a great idea. Being on the Moon has some advantages for booking angles.

 

The highspots should be 6x higher if my math is right.

 

Amazing!



#34 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 05 November 2017 - 11:36 AM

Just wondering, the idea is he book a super card and can book the build up to it, eh? Like i can book 6 months of TV leading to this one super card?

 

What might be a nice idea, is that we do the draft. Book whatever we want up to one super card, call that year one. Then do another draft with anyone new from 93-97 and anyone each promotion wants to drop and do the same thing with one super card for year 3, and so on.

 

Just an idea.



#35 LowBlowPodcast

LowBlowPodcast
  • Members
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 November 2017 - 02:18 PM

I think it is up to you... for me, I plan on making my roster, creating a post to hype a show and then writing it out.

 

In terms of the next stage... the idea of a Keeper would be interesting... and then to add to it, maybe only one keeper and reverse order from this initial draft to begin the draft.

 

The idea of 93-97 is very complexing to me in terms of the sheer amount of talent who could be top tier guys. I know 88-92 is glamorized but in my opinion, there are more top tier guys in that 93-97 draft than this one. The 88-92 has a ton of complimentary workers which gives it the edge of 93-97.

 

We can do this draft and then outline some plans and ideas. The idea of 1 keeper is something I am interested in for sure. 



#36 El Boricua

El Boricua
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 1564 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:34 PM

With less than 12 hours to go, hope everybody's having fun trying to finalize any potential draft board plan.

I have a question. As I'm looking at the wrestlers I'm finding they're falling into three groups: those that I know what year version I want to use, those that I have no idea what year to use, and those that the year I'd use will depend on who else I draft. Do we have to commit to the year when we draft or do we have a window to change the year up to when the draft ends (after which all years are final and every wrestler must have a year assigned)? What do you guys feel would be best?

#37 Beast

Beast
  • Members
  • 1299 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:44 PM

I feel the year needs to be committed to when the drafting occurs.

 

Drafting Randy Savage 1989 means Randy Savage is off the board for everyone else and it feels a little cheap to be able to say "I ended up with too many heels. I actually don't need "Macho King" anymore so I'm going to use the 1992 version of Savage".



#38 LowBlowPodcast

LowBlowPodcast
  • Members
  • 3032 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:58 PM

I feel the year needs to be committed to when the drafting occurs.
 
Drafting Randy Savage 1989 means Randy Savage is off the board for everyone else and it feels a little cheap to be able to say "I ended up with too many heels. I actually don't need "Macho King" anymore so I'm going to use the 1992 version of Savage".


I agree with that sentiment

#39 SmartMark15

SmartMark15
  • Members
  • 376 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:06 PM

I feel the year needs to be committed to when the drafting occurs.
 
Drafting Randy Savage 1989 means Randy Savage is off the board for everyone else and it feels a little cheap to be able to say "I ended up with too many heels. I actually don't need "Macho King" anymore so I'm going to use the 1992 version of Savage".


I agree with that sentiment

Agreed as well.

#40 El Boricua

El Boricua
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 1564 posts

Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:26 PM

Yeah, Beast's explanation makes me see that committing to the year is more fair for everyone. Alright then, see you guys at 8am.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users