Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Should I Vote For Jumbo?


Dylan Waco

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Voting for people like Inoki is an expression of humility from the voter, an acknowledgment that there's more to being great than just the voter's personal enjoyment. It's something I've struggled to put properly into words, because I think the reaction seems to be to respond by taking it to the other extreme that people who think like that are somehow slaves to canon. It's not that either. For me, it was a list driven by personal opinion while also trying to acknowledge that greatness isn't defined by my personal enjoyment. Wrestling doesn't exist solely to please me-me-me, so someone can be great whether I like watching them or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why bother watching wrestling at all really.

 

 

Sarcasm is fun. I do understand that the journey is more the point of this project than the end result. I probably won't end up submitting a list now, especially since some people seem to be dismissing lists submitted by non-pwo regulars before they see them. But the process has been valuable to me already since I discovered that I absolutely love World of Sport.

 

Why are you so worried about those "some people" as if their opinions somehow invalidate yours? Especially when the guy who keeps trying to push his "I'm the only really objective person" narrative has totally discounted certain styles of wrestling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding on my previous post, I would never vote for greatness that I can't see with my own eyes just because that's the reputation. But sometimes, I can see it and it just doesn't appeal to my sensibilities as a fan. That doesn't make it somehow worse than the things that do. I would rank someone where I can see the greatness for myself, even if it does nothing for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding on my previous post, I would never vote for greatness that I can't see with my own eyes just because that's the reputation. But sometimes, I can see it and it just doesn't appeal to my sensibilities as a fan. That doesn't make it somehow worse than the things that do. I would rank someone where I can see the greatness for myself, even if it does nothing for me.

That's exactly how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding on my previous post, I would never vote for greatness that I can't see with my own eyes just because that's the reputation. But sometimes, I can see it and it just doesn't appeal to my sensibilities as a fan. That doesn't make it somehow worse than the things that do. I would rank someone where I can see the greatness for myself, even if it does nothing for me.

 

My list has elements of this, certainly, even in my top ten. On the other hand, there are sensibilities and then there are active things you think are negative elements (bad wrestling as opposed to wrestling you just aren't as into). There are very few people that could have made my list and that I am familiar with that I don't have some strong feeling one way or another one. If I don't "like" a wrestler, there's probably a reason for that. I will absolutely go out of my way to try to understand why someone else might "like" that wrestler, though and try to understand why I don't. I'll factor that in, try to weigh the positives that other people see and feel and the negatives I see and feel (and the negatives others see and feel and the positives I do), and maybe the wrestler will rate, but it's a balance and they have to overcome it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why bother watching wrestling at all really.

 

 

Sarcasm is fun. I do understand that the journey is more the point of this project than the end result. I probably won't end up submitting a list now, especially since some people seem to be dismissing lists submitted by non-pwo regulars before they see them. But the process has been valuable to me already since I discovered that I absolutely love World of Sport.

 

Dylan, Charles, and I have all said we want ballots. If you enjoyed the process at all, we would love to see your ballot.

 

We've got 15 singles ballots in already. With 11 different people voted in the number one slot, including one number 1 vote for a guy that nobody discussed as even a top 20 guy. All ballots are worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more bothered by subjective dismissals of consensus greats when they're not backed by any analytical rigor. But if you've done the work, and lord knows Dylan has as much as any of us, then vote your bliss.

 

Pretty much this.

 

I can give Dylan a pass because as often as I disagree with him, honestly there is probably no one alive who is watching more wrestling. He can post whatever he wants.

 

People that just look to dismiss traditional wisdom in favor of something new because they can without even stopping to consider that maybe traditional wisdom isn't always wrong, I can't even be bothered to finish reading their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are doing a pretty good job of making me consider throwing out Inoki, Shawn, Rey, Mil, Dandy and other such guys I don't care for and replacing them with Garvin, Red Pants Kobayashi, Bruno and other such guys whose skills I value more.

 

Will think it over.

Do you actually think any of those people are great, or that they are clearly considered great? I personally don't think Inoki or Mil Mascaras are great wrestlers. They are basically two guys who were pushed as great, and put in a position so that all of their best moments seem like huge events. If you were to put the aforementioned Big Boss Man in a position where all of his matches were treated as the most important matches on the show, all of his good matches would seem great too. I honestly think Inoki, Mil, Hogan, etc. are all capable of having the occasional great match, but their great matches get seen as legendary because of their place on the card and in the heart of fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's hard to respect traditional wisdom when you grew up on the likes of Moneyball and A People's History of the United States

 

it's doubly hard to respect traditional wisdom when evaluating its sources in this particular business, and seeing how many of them are outright con men or at least non-analytical types (not a fan of "idiot savant")

 

the tl;dr version of my solution to this is "judge each case on its own merits, but give the benefit of the doubt to those less privileged within the subculture". would like to hear more from others who feel somewhat similarly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You guys are doing a pretty good job of making me consider throwing out Inoki, Shawn, Rey, Mil, Dandy and other such guys I don't care for and replacing them with Garvin, Red Pants Kobayashi, Bruno and other such guys whose skills I value more.

Will think it over.

 

Do you actually think any of those people are great, or that they are clearly considered great? I personally don't think Inoki or Mil Mascaras are great wrestlers. They are basically two guys who were pushed as great, and put in a position so that all of their best moments seem like huge events. If you were to put the aforementioned Big Boss Man in a position where all of his matches were treated as the most important matches on the show, all of his good matches would seem great too. I honestly think Inoki, Mil, Hogan, etc. are all capable of having the occasional great match, but their great matches get seen as legendary because of their place on the card and in the heart of fans.

There's an output argument as well as in input argument. There are specific matches to consider, the case is made of more than just what I personally make of any one wrestler.

 

And Mil, Inoki and Hogan have all been in really good matches that one might give ****3/4 or ***** to, several of them, whereas I'm not sure that is true of Bossman.

 

You can change the names and specifics here, they aren't really important. You can replace them with The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and John Cena and Bossman with whoever you want. There is the worker and then there is the body of work and the career. And the body of work to some extent can't be denied. I accept arguments that want to poke holes in the body of work or argue that great matches aren't great. I am less keen on the arguments that only consider the input side because that seems to get away from tangible measurables. And, like I've said before, too crap shoot-y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's hard to respect traditional wisdom when you grew up on the likes of Moneyball and A People's History of the United States

 

it's doubly hard to respect traditional wisdom when evaluating its sources in this particular business, and seeing how many of them are outright con men or at least non-analytical types (not a fan of "idiot savant")

 

the tl;dr version of my solution to this is "judge each case on its own merits, but give the benefit of the doubt to those less privileged within the subculture". would like to hear more from others who feel somewhat similarly!

 

I don't know if I feel similarly quite yet. Can you define "less privileged", naming specific wrestlers who you think are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You guys are doing a pretty good job of making me consider throwing out Inoki, Shawn, Rey, Mil, Dandy and other such guys I don't care for and replacing them with Garvin, Red Pants Kobayashi, Bruno and other such guys whose skills I value more.

Will think it over.

Do you actually think any of those people are great, or that they are clearly considered great? I personally don't think Inoki or Mil Mascaras are great wrestlers. They are basically two guys who were pushed as great, and put in a position so that all of their best moments seem like huge events. If you were to put the aforementioned Big Boss Man in a position where all of his matches were treated as the most important matches on the show, all of his good matches would seem great too. I honestly think Inoki, Mil, Hogan, etc. are all capable of having the occasional great match, but their great matches get seen as legendary because of their place on the card and in the heart of fans.
There's an output argument as well as in input argument. There are specific matches to consider, the case is made of more than just what I personally make of any one wrestler.

 

And Mil, Inoki and Hogan have all been in really good matches that one might give ****3/4 or ***** to, several of them, whereas I'm not sure that is true of Bossman.

 

You can change the names and specifics here, they aren't really important. You can replace them with The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and John Cena and Bossman with whoever you want. There is the worker and then there is the body of work and the career. And the body of work to some extent can't be denied. I accept arguments that want to poke holes in the body of work or argue that great matches aren't great. I am less keen on the arguments that only consider the input side because that seems to get away from tangible measurables. And, like I've said before, too crap shoot-y.

 

I honestly think the hardest thing to do is to try to objectively look at people who are asked to do completely different things based on their roles. It was not Hogan's job to go out there and put on 5 star classics, his job was to sell out arenas. He sold out arenas for years, and occasionally had good to great matches. Did he overachieve as a worker or underachieve? I currently have Hogan on my ballot, but I have no idea where to put him. He was the biggest star in the business and the style he rode to the top was a handicap to his ability to have great matches. His matches were based on building to a ridiculous comeback sequence, that threw all selling and psychology out the window. Yet, some of those matches were really good. How do we give proper credit to a guy who had great matches that were some of the most successful ever, especially when he was wrestling in a way that made his matches worse? Is he better because he overcame the limited structure of his matches, or is he worse because he created a character that made that structure limited?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hogan is worse because he could have been better and still been Hulk Hogan.

 

I don't know if that's necessarily true - from an in-ring standpoint, the things that made him so popular and iconic were the aspects of his performance that were so utterly contrived and hackneyed that anybody could hook onto them.

 

Or to put it another way: I think it's very easy to fall into a trap of conflating historical importance with artistic/aesthetic greatness. Yes, there are moments in time where they synch up perfectly, but there are other moments where a performer or a match or any creator/work can be good enough in the right way at the right time to the right audience and end up being becoming important and influential at a scale far beyond the actual qualities of their work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things that made him popular were his size, physique and charisma. He needed to work a match that made sense for that, but he could have been Super Workhorse Hulk Hogan and he'd still be Hulk Hogan. Steve Austin's success wasn't dependent on him being such a hard worker in the ring, but he was anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple od diferent categories here:

 

Firstly there's people like Jumbo and Liger whom I've just gotten bored of. I still think they're great wrestlers but I've found much of their work disappointing and they've taken a just hit in my rankings. But they're still there, because I still think they're great wrestlers, just not as great as other people think they are.

 

Then there's someone like Samoa Joe. I think his best stuff holds up, I still think it's great, but like half of his career isn't very appealing to me, and the great stuff isn't great enough for me to look past it, so he isn't on there.

 

Someone like Zayn/Generico is hard for me because if I were basing it just on amount of great matches he'd have to be in. Yet voting for him just didn't seem right. I went back and watched some of his indy stuff and the magic seems to be gone for me. I haven't been crazy about him since he returned either and him still being an active performer only further complicates things. I think it's a matter of my taste shifting, and I'll reserve judgment on him for another GOAT project.

 

 

Then there's someone like Manami Toyota, who I think has had great matches in a style that I'm not really for, but I find screaming and other joshi tropes too distracting to dive into her work enough to rank her. Maybe she'll rank for me when I do something similar in the future, maybe she won't even get a consideration.

 

 

 

I'm not doing a list based on favouritism. It may butthurt you I don't think *insert 80s american wrestler* is all that special but considering how many great wrestlers that didn't have the privilege of working in the time and style this board favours are going to be handicapped because of it I feel just fine. If anything that I might have to cut a bubble guy like Tamon Honda hurts me, because I do think he is a great wrestler and doubt he's getting much consideration from anyone else and I'd hate to see him make zero ballots but I intend on staying true to myself and part of that will include cutting guys I love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that a Super Workhorse Hulk Hogan draws the sympathy required for a match to make sense with Hulkamania as a narrative conceit, as a performative phenomenon where Hulk Hogan becomes a sort of audience surrogate/avatar that gets miraculously revived and super-powered by the "power of his Hulkamaniacs." It might work in an NWA setting where legitimacy carries the day, but I'm skeptical that it takes off in that period of the WWF where conflict is framed as a larger than life struggle.

 

I mean, yeah, it's ridiculous. The big comeback, the wagging finger, the big boot and leg drop that miraculously carries the same impact as an intercontinental ballistic missile...all of it is completely absurd. But it's basically the concept of Hulkamania manifested in the ring itself and, without that reinforcement of the concept in the ring, I don't know that Hulk and Hulkamania engage fans in the same way, no matter how jacked up and charismatic Hogan would become. (And I feel like you can look to the later periods of Hulk as a babyface, where the sympathy was gone and his connection with the fans had disintegrated, as to how intrinsic that synergy was to his success.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple od diferent categories here:

 

Firstly there's people like Jumbo and Liger whom I've just gotten bored of. I still think they're great wrestlers but I've found much of their work disappointing and they've taken a just hit in my rankings. But they're still there, because I still think they're great wrestlers, just not as great as other people think they are.

 

Then there's someone like Samoa Joe. I think his best stuff holds up, I still think it's great, but like half of his career isn't very appealing to me, and the great stuff isn't great enough for me to look past it, so he isn't on there.

 

Someone like Zayn/Generico is hard for me because if I were basing it just on amount of great matches he'd have to be in. Yet voting for him just didn't seem right. I went back and watched some of his indy stuff and the magic seems to be gone for me. I haven't been crazy about him since he returned either and him still being an active performer only further complicates things. I think it's a matter of my taste shifting, and I'll reserve judgment on him for another GOAT project.

 

 

Then there's someone like Manami Toyota, who I think has had great matches in a style that I'm not really for, but I find screaming and other joshi tropes too distracting to dive into her work enough to rank her. Maybe she'll rank for me when I do something similar in the future, maybe she won't even get a consideration.

 

 

 

I'm not doing a list based on favouritism. It may butthurt you I don't think *insert 80s american wrestler* is all that special but considering how many great wrestlers that didn't have the privilege of working in the time and style this board favours are going to be handicapped because of it I feel just fine. If anything that I might have to cut a bubble guy like Tamon Honda hurts me, because I do think he is a great wrestler and doubt he's getting much consideration from anyone else and I'd hate to see him make zero ballots but I intend on staying true to myself and part of that will include cutting guys I love.

I have Honda on my list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that a Super Workhorse Hulk Hogan draws the sympathy required for a match to make sense with Hulkamania as a narrative conceit, as a performative phenomenon where Hulk Hogan becomes a sort of audience surrogate/avatar that gets miraculously revived and super-powered by the "power of his Hulkamaniacs." It might work in an NWA setting where legitimacy carries the day, but I'm skeptical that it takes off in that period of the WWF where conflict is framed as a larger than life struggle.

 

I mean, yeah, it's ridiculous. The big comeback, the wagging finger, the big boot and leg drop that miraculously carries the same impact as an intercontinental ballistic missile...all of it is completely absurd. But it's basically the concept of Hulkamania manifested in the ring itself and, without that reinforcement of the concept in the ring, I don't know that Hulk and Hulkamania engage fans in the same way, no matter how jacked up and charismatic Hogan would become. (And I feel like you can look to the later periods of Hulk as a babyface, where the sympathy was gone and his connection with the fans had disintegrated, as to how intrinsic that synergy was to his success.)

Yeah, this is where I am with Hogan. I was born in 1981, and watched pretty much the entire Hogan era. Hogan "Hulking Up" was the single best part of the presentation to me. I was a kid who liked to root for the bad guys more than the faces, but when Hogan made his comeback I was on his side. It may not be what got him over, but it was a huge part of what got his matches over. Looking at it critically as an adult, it is absolutely absurd, but I can't deny that it worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not doing a list based on favouritism. It may butthurt you I don't think *insert 80s american wrestler* is all that special but considering how many great wrestlers that didn't have the privilege of working in the time and style this board favours are going to be handicapped because of it I feel just fine. If anything that I might have to cut a bubble guy like Tamon Honda hurts me, because I do think he is a great wrestler and doubt he's getting much consideration from anyone else and I'd hate to see him make zero ballots but I intend on staying true to myself and part of that will include cutting guys I love.

My thoughts on the project summarized nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not doing a list based on favouritism. It may butthurt you I don't think *insert 80s american wrestler* is all that special but considering how many great wrestlers that didn't have the privilege of working in the time and style this board favours are going to be handicapped because of it I feel just fine.

 

Every time someone generalizes about the board like this, a small part of Loss' soul cries out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not doing a list based on favouritism. It may butthurt you I don't think *insert 80s american wrestler* is all that special but considering how many great wrestlers that didn't have the privilege of working in the time and style this board favours are going to be handicapped because of it I feel just fine.

 

Every time someone generalizes about the board like this, a small part of Loss' soul cries out.

 

I hope the results prove me wrong.

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...