Kayfabe's & Prime's

[TheOneBigWill]

Now, before I get started I'd like to explain this thread holds no connection to anything related to what Shocky is doing with the tournament. It's of my own opinion, simply looking for a possibly better answer. Now then...

Kayfabe & Prime​

Why does this truly matter? You see, when I started posting in this tournament - I went by the overall Wrestler's career. What they've accomplished through title reigns, character development, progress from start to finish.. things of that nature.

I never really got into using Prime as a standard to vote by. Because let's face it, no two people are going to completely agree on One specific Superstar's "Prime". For example, someone might say..

"Bret Hart debuted in 1984, however wasn't considered in his prime until 1992-1997". Obviously, this can be argued. Because what is a "Prime"? A prime, to me, is someone at the peak of their career. The only problem with that, is determining what a certain "peak" is. Now this is where, to me, it gets stupid and complicated.. to me, a "peak" is when you raise to the top and stay there. When you fall, it's no longer considered your "peak" and thus you're no longer in your Prime.

That is also very easily argued, and debated, because of guys like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair, who several years after winning their last Heavyweight Championship - can still return, and defeat the top Superstars on whichever show they show up on, and even come to win more titles. I think stuff like that shouldn't be discounted.

So.. when using "Prime's", how does one determine any one Superstar's Prime, without roughly accepting the majority of their career? (In Lesnar's case, the whole thing) In which case, what's the overall point of "Prime" to begin with?

Now, this is where I jump to the other big issue that's becoming to me. "Kayfabe", what would be considered Kayfabe?

And most importantly.. when it comes to two Superstars facing each other, from different eras (take for example; Stan Hansen against Christian) how do you determine which individual Superstar would defeat the other, through this logic?

Especially when neither individual, for the most part, can be said beyond a shadow of a doubt to definitely win against the other.. when it's entirely possible for both individuals to have competed in different time frames and obviously era's, thus making it almost impossible to tell if they'd make it during that time as well. Once again, no two individuals are likely to agree on the same exact thing.

So, my biggest question is.. while I've tried to use both Kayfabe's and Prime's, why are they so detrimental to picking a winner and a loser? Especially when you can argue each and every time, that it was a different era, a different time.. and for the most part, that blows kayfabe and prime straight out of the water.

Most people who've voted try and claim you can't hold this or that against one person - then in the following round try to use what they didn't want held against their guy before, against the other guy then.

So, this is a general widely asked question. What do these two phrases; Kayfabe and Prime, mean to you? Why do you use them, in determining your vote? And why is it theoretically possible to use them one moment - then claim they can't be used the next??

 

[NSL]

I'd agree that a wrestler's prime is the peak of their career, but I'm also pretty sure my view on it is different than others. I'll use Jericho as an example. While I think (rad: know) he was a better wrestler in ECW and WCW, it's pretty obvious his prime came in WWE, when he won all the gold, and was beating guys like HBK.

I don't use prime when I vote. I also only use kayfabe to a certain extent, such as in my vote for Liger over Lesnar. Lesnar would obviously toss Liger around like a rag doll, but in kayfabe, wouldn't stand a chance in ECW. I look at the wrestler's career as a whole, in the ring. I don't use mic work or time as a face/heel to determine who was better, otherwise we'd have Rock v. Austin in the finals year in, and year out.

 

[Shadowmancer]

The first year of the tournament it was run at a combination of when they were at their best physically with their best years combined in with what the experiences they have had during the course of their career including the decline in certain cases. It is where you get the scary ideas of guys like Steve Austin which has the physical body of Stunning Steve, and the Mental stuff of Stone Cold, or an even better example, Flyin Brian combined with the Loose Cannon.

 

[The Todd]

To be fair I don't remember anything official saying you had to vote based on primes or whether you take their whole career. Each vote is to their own. If people want to vote Wrestler A over Wrestler B because they can do a suplex better it is up to them or if they think Wrestler B was better at cutting promos that is fine too. You vote how you want. The job is to counter all the arguements that people put against your wrestler. And of course people will twist arguments different from round to round to get their favourite through, it's to be expected. It's like a wrestler using different tactics from match to match depending on the opponent.

 

[Tastycles]

I personally vote on kayfabe, because I think it allows the tournament a certain freedom to throw up suprises. BAsed on careers, Bret Hart is always going to beat Kane. In a first blood match, Kane would win in kayfabe, it makes it more interesting.

In every single match, I've used kayfabe arguments, with the exception of RVD vs Savage vs HHH, where I still used them but voted Savage when in reality, I though HHH would win.

In determining the primes, I basically work to the following mantra: when were they beating everyone, when were they jobbing out. For Hart, it is quite clearly from 1991 to 1997 were he was a legitimate threat to everyone. For Hogan, it is probably from about 1984 to 1990, then another from 1994 to 1998. For multiple World Champions, it is usually obvious, but for others, like say, X-Pac, I do it on relevance, so 1999, in his instance.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I vote however I want. Sometimes it's kayfabe, sometimes it's prime. I'll be voting against certain wrestlers because I don't like them, I'll be voting for others because I'd rather see different matches in the next round. I'll be voting for RVD in every round because I prefer his attire over anybody elses in the whole of wrestling. I'll be voting against wrestlers if I think posters are trying to be too smarky. I'll be voting for The Great Khali because if the Undertaker goes out it makes the whole tournament more intresting. I'll be voting against wrestlers because they don't generate intresting discussion and I'll be voting for Finaly because he has a midget in his corner. I'll be voting against super heavyweights because the Irish/Canadian has single-handedly made all the good ones appear overrated.

Basically you should vote however you want because the end result isn't the slightest bit important.

 

[The Hiphopapotamus]

The problem with using primes to judge who wins a match can be a number of things.Firstly,as was said,it's hard to judge when a wrestlers prime is.Many people can differ.Is it when they were the champion?Was it when they won the most matches?Was it when they wrestled the best and worked the best matches?It's hard to decide on what the prime is.I'll take Samoa Joe sa an example,so bear with me.People can argue his prime was being the TNA world champion,because he held the main title.Others argue his prime leads up to this,ie 2005-2008,because it was where he had some of the best matches in TNA,like with Angle,Styles and Daniels.This was what got him his rather mediocre title reign.And some would say his ring of honor work is his prime.His matches against Punk and Kobashi were excellent,but many won't count that.So there are 3 different primes,for different reasons,which is where confusion on primes can occur.This is the case for many wrestlers,like in the Jericho vs RVD thread,a la when was Jericho in his prime.

Another factor in determining peaks is exposure.A wrestler can wrestle somewhere with few or less exposure than the big companies,like in the indies or Japan.And here they can wrestle superbly and truly be in their prime.But if they come to the main promotion and have a good run,their prime can be judged here.Even if it is not as good,more exposure = prime.This can cause problems.Vader is a good example.Arguably in his prime in Japan,but cam to WWE and WCW and is judged a lot on that as being his prime.

Primes can last different amounts of time.If one wrestlers "prime" lasts 4 years,and his opponent's only lasts 6 months,based on opinions,that gives the advantage to the longer prime.You might say "Oh but a longer prime makes him better".But this unfair on the basis of using this method as choosing a winner.The wrestler with the shorter prime can also have the better career.He can have lots of good spells,they just chose this period.What wrestlers do during their primes is the basis for a lot of choices,so if someone has a longer "prime",they are probably going to get more accomplishments.

In order to have a prime,a wrestler must also disprove(i think).What's to stop a poster using this period as the basis only for their decision.They can tie this in with the interpretation of the prime.

Primes are not only used for the two wrestlers in competition,but for wrestlers they beat during their careers.I often hear "Well wrestler X beat wrestler Y" and the rebuttle is "But wrestler Y wasn't in his prime".This is used a lot,just to twist an argument into your favour.When i mentioned AJ Styles beating Angle in his thread with Trips,I was greeted with "Angle wasn't in his prime".That annoys me.Angle might not have been in his prime,but it's hard to determine when he was,as I have pointed out already.

 

[LigerBomb]

Here's a spoiler'd cut n paste on what I think of the oh so mixed bag of Kayfabe and why it is the definition of illogical but can work in anyone's favor. There are pro and there are cons but it really is a flawed system only because it is utter non-sense through and through. I think you can get my opinions here even though I didn't spell them out explicitly.

Spoiler: OLD TOURNEY POSTS PROBABLY TOO LONG TO READ

"On the matters of Kayfabe:

Kayfabe is to supposedly treat wrestling as if the stories, angles, and events are "real". Sounds great, but the only problem is that at the end of the day wrestling is still booked as a worked series of events to elicit a specific desired outcome that falls in line with the story you want to sell. What that means is that in the "real" world of Kayfabe Land you can perpetually have a broken arm like Cowboy Bob Orton, you can confess murder by burning your parents alive like the Undertaker and suffer no legal repercussions, eat rats in a boiler room whilst pulling out your hair and then get gainful employment in the WWF like Mankind, hunt vampires like Edge, be a vampire like Gangrel, jump off the Titan-tron to your "death" like Road Warrior Hawk, rise from your grave time and time again like the Undertaker etc etc etc.
Point is, Kayfabe isn't believing wrestling is real; Rather, it's the suspension of your utter disbelieve so as to try and enjoy the product produced. But Kayfabe is also the land of fairly tales, where upon a friend's tragic passing you muster up your courage, strength, and abilities to succeed and go farther then ever before by slaying giants and winning the gold a la Rey Misterio Jr., It's where once unstoppable monsters learn to speak and grow to have a heart only to be twisted into something different entirely like the unmasked Kane, it's where the smaller irresistible force conquers the larger immovable object at Wrestlemania III, where Taz can dominate in ECW against much larger foes, where a Pretty Boy named Floyd can topple a really Big Show. Clearly Kayfabe allows things that you think couldn't happen, that you think shouldn't happen, that you think are the most impossible, to become real. Well, not real real... but 'Real'. Kayfabe is where David often beats Goliath because it's the better story, the one that will sell tickets, put butts in seats, and the one that no one believes can happen yet secretly wants to see. Monsters are the insurmountable odds that are only there to eventually be overcome and test the hero's resolve. And throughout human history we've held on to our hopes and we write stories that lay the monster low, slays the dragon, and topples the giant. Kayfabe is belief in story telling no matter how impossible you believe the tale seems to be. Kayfabe is where a Thunderous Jushin Liger can pin a Green Monster like Brock Lesnar."
___________________________________________________________________________________
[My response to someone talking about Liger's palm thrust it's damage, selling of the guy who takes it, and why Brock Lesnar could not only no-sell it for real, but why he should no-sell it in a match and ultimately no-sell his way to a win]
...It's stuff like this that makes this tourney... difficult. In the very same paragraph, if not sentence, people are debating the damage strikes did/do/could do, and the punishment wrestlers can/could/did take back and forth in and out of Kayfabe simultaneously... Which is it? Fucking pick one and have the courage to stick with it all the way... Brock was booked to no-sell to build his 'monster' character reputation. Either [Liger's] palm thrust hurts 'cause it's a powerful strike connecting to a normal human skull or its a devastating move that gets sold well... either way your argument is it wont hurt Brock because either A. In Kayfabe Land his head is some kind of non-bone alloy that's impervious to applied force hence the no sell... or B. 'cause he just no sells for real cause he's just that tough... with BS like that he's damn near Superman in and out of the ring real or fake.... Problem is as Sly said eventually monsters get less monstrous.... Kane, Show, Andre, Umaga, Khali, etc etc etc. You build up a monster only to make money on the rise and then get a babyface over and make more money on the monster's fall. Liger is David Lesnar is Goliath especially in ECW where the booking was 180 degrees from normal... I wouldn't fly a guy in from Japan just to have him get squashed by the apparently now superhuman, no selling green monster.
______________________________________________________________________________________
[Finally my post after I was sure Liger would be outvoted]
"Unless the tourney suddenly gets swept up in Liger revelry the likes of which have never been seen before ,it's with a fair degree of certainty that I concede a defeat, of sorts. In regards to the somewhat lopsided outcome, oddly enough, I'm surprised and yet... not, and all at once to boot. I should think its clear to all but perhaps the most ocularly challenged few that this match up mostly began and ended with the obvious disparity of size between both competitors. What little bit of argument was left was largely brushed aside by the opposition's continued citation of Brock's staged meteoric rise. Brock's two year dalliance with WWE resulted in a 'lasting legacy' akin to a proverbial drop in the Pro Wrestling bucket. However, since his departure from the sport, said meteoric rise has mutated into an ever living shrine to Kayfabed greatness and accomplishment with such virulent proficiency that swine flu should take notes as to how to reach such vaunted Pandemic status just as quickly. Kayfabe being the ****ty ****e she is has seduced many a poster to believe in her tarted up false realities and illogical logics to the point that only the most chaste of men could see through the perfumed commotion and stumble upon the somewhat sticky floor of truth left behind. That truth of course being that Kaybe herself is the unreal made "real"; a sort of Dan Brown Angles and Demons-esque Antimatter touching Matter conundrum that explodes common sense from the inside out upon impact leaving one to not so much scratch their head in confusion, but instead treat the gaping head wound in an attempt to prevent blood loss induced death. Kayfabe isn't real... hell, "reality" isn't real. WWE offered up the tainted goods and some of us even bought it, or at least shrugged our shoulders and went along for the ride. Who knows, I'm one to flip a good flop on occasion and can often cover up past transgressions by claiming learned hypocrisy. However in the case of Brock Lesnar 'the Pro Wrestler' I wasn't even given the chance to reel in my past character assassinations let alone change them to glowing praise. The next big thing wasn't even around long enough for me to fully compare it with the last big thing or even the current big thing in any meaningful and thoughtful way."

For those that don't/won't read the above:
Kayfabe as it stands today is a pretend world severely lacking in standards and consistency. Currently it's akin to a world were the force of gravity, for example, only works part of the time, and only when it's more beneficial for storyline purposes. It gets even worse when wrestling writers try to incorporate the real life achievements of their wrestlers, or of outside participants, or real world events, into story lines because that's when things really stop adding up, and they keep selling the story that 1+1=5.
Every other fictional show on TV tries so damn hard to work within the confines of its setting. Imagine a medical drama like House or E.R. where they write an episode where the doctors magically cure cancer (but only cause the nice guy has it, the bad guy still dies from it), or ignore continuity for the sake of an interesting new storyline. Nope, doesn't happen. Instead they even go so far as to pay people -often times real Doctors- to be medical consultants, and watch over continuity so as to make the show as real as possible; yet somehow they manage to write interesting, dramatic, and compelling shows none the less that routinely engage the audience.
On the other hand wrestling writers/bookers routinely shit on the audience's intelligence and write storylines that make no sense and allow wrestlers to have matches that defy logic (and physics to boot). Now please don't mistake me, I don't want WWE to be mind numbingly boring like MMA, but there has to be a happy middle ground! I just want wrestling to have the same standards as other shows on TV and stop treating me like I'm an idiot with an I.Q. of 80 who just wants to see highspots, common sense be damned. Captivating stories can be created within the confines of even the most ridiculous landscapes. In comic books -where the stories and the worlds they are set in are far more outlandish at times- you have a similar face v heel format and even they have better writing. It's so obviously possible, that for it to not be what I actually see on TV week in and week out, is damn near insulting.
For this tournament I used whatever tools I could to make my points and argue what I needed to. Sometimes I took certain aspects of Kayfabe into consideration but it's just such a weak and illogical format to base an argument on that I used it sparingly. In general Kayfabe was a real point of contention for me but it's so sloppily handled by the actual bookers/writers that you can use it however you need too in the tourney if you're smart enough, and just drive right on through the already established logic gapes and plot holes.
My method was to show that a specific wrestler could beat the other guy, and that as the reader, if you like my pick as well you should feel fine with voting for him as I've provided an argument to make it a real possibility as to why he would win.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Sometimes, I think how I vote has to vary from match to match. Though I almost always use a little bit of everything from Kayfabe to popularity to overall ability to mic work to accomplishments all to varying degrees.

Take Jericho vs. RVD, for instance. It's a match that really could go either way, both guys are damn near equal physically overall, both have scored multiple wins over the other in actual matches in the past, both have won a lot of big name titles, etc. I'll be voting for Jericho because I just simply like the guy more and I'm a fan of his promos. With two guys so evenly matched, sometimes it just comes down to just good ol fanboy nonsense I suppose.

For something like Benoit vs. Hogan the last round, I didn't necessarily rely on Kayfabe so much as I did on overall physical conditioning, capability and the type of match it was. While Hogan was this near unstoppable force circa 1984-1991 or so, he was never in a triple cage match. It was a foreign concept, a different type of cage match than he'd ever been in. He couldn't climb out over the top of the cage and onto the floor and he couldn't pin Benoit or make him submit. Hogan would be out of his element to such a degree that I could honestly buy an underdog like Benoit getting the better of him.

Overall, when it comes to voting, I think you just have to go with the flow sometimes. It's not always about popularity or how many titles someone has won or when you think their prime was. Sometimes it's a little of all of it, sometimes it's very little of any of it.