Jump to content


How do you factor in agents/trainers when evaluating wrestlers?

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#41 fxnj

  • Members
  • 620 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 11:47 PM

We define it and give it meaning.


One could argue that the current WWE environment actually has led to the death of truth, and I think people in this thread have occasionally done just that, but I think the discussions we have here all the time about specific matches and wrestlers say otherwise.

I don't deny that there are things that can be gleaned from watching footage. You can see stuff like a wrestler's physique, what moves they do, their execution, etc. The thing is that these seem more useful for someone scouting out talents than they are for ranking someone's overall ring prowess. What I disagree with is the idea that you can watch enough and somehow bridge the gap from "Stan Hansen seems great at working brawls" to "Stan Hansen is the 3rd best wrestler of all-time" or "Terry Funk is better than Stan Hansen." The former statement involves deducing that someone could succeed in filling a particular role based on what you've seen. The latter statements involve trying to figure out who's better among guys regarded as world-class without really having much of an understanding of what it's like to actually work with any of the guys being discussed. What does better even mean? It's seems kind of ridiculous that we've had so many discussions about who is a better performer while no one agrees about whether it means they had a better prime, had more great matches, or were more versatile, etc. 

#42 ohtani's jacket

ohtani's jacket
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 5931 posts

Posted 17 May 2018 - 01:31 AM

The reason people compare performers is that it's fun. Even people who take it seriously get some form of fulfillment out of it. Does it really matter if people don't have a clue what they're talking about? At the end of the day, it tells you more about the poster and their preferences than it does about the worker. You can argue or disagree but you get to know the people who post a bit better and have a bit of fun debating age-old topics. If we just stopped and didn't compare anyone anymore it would be pretty boring. 

#43 Matt D

Matt D


  • Members
  • 11164 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2018 - 04:44 AM

I'll happily concede that the biggest problem with GWE, if we were trying to make some sort of authoritative list, was the lack of agreed-upon criteria, though peak vs longevity wasnt nearly as big an issue as the people who wanted to judge on out of ring elements. The second biggest was the name which was simple but could be misconstrued. What was not a problem at all was the fact what we'd never been in the ring with someone. If it was an issue it was due to the name.

I agree with OJ that individual lists are worth more than the aggregate. I disagree with fxnj that if you watch 1000 matches of wrestler x and 1000 of wrestler y, you can't have a very educated opinion on which wrestler was better on maybe a dozen different valuable and interesting qualitative metrics.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users