Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
I don't think you do. The tournament field is supposed to represent the greatest pro wrestlers of all time. Or since 1948 as per KB's wishes. Looking at this years field do you really think it does?
2016 WrestleZone Tournament Live Draw
- Thread starter klunderbunker
- Start date
I don't think you do. The tournament field is supposed to represent the greatest pro wrestlers of all time. Or since 1948 as per KB's wishes. Looking at this years field do you really think it does?
Putting in a handicap time frame sucks in a way, but I get it. Most voting have no clue about the really old school guys. At least you can feel good knowing that you and a few others educated some newer fans, Ech. The last two years they have fared a bit better than normal.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
I'm skeptical about that when I see matches like Warrior vs Sami Zayn and Andre vs Bobby Roode. It's as if the top guys are getting free byes. I can't see very many arguments past "I love Sami Zayn, but he's going to die here" or "Roode is a strong worker in TNA but this is Andre the Giant."
Imagine if Warrior faced Rick Rude first round. Or if Andre faced Scott Steiner. Those would be matches worth discussing.
We would need to get to a field of 64, or maybe 96, to get first round matches like that, and it won't happen. I personally liked it at 256, where the top guys may have gotten "byes" over some rejects, but the middle matches were all closer and had more debate. But, I know 256 will never happen again.
Agreed. I understand why not, but I liked it better then. Mr. Kennedy vs The Miz was a classic 1st round match in 2009 or so.
It would also prevent it being a big deal if people got their guy in, because they would probably have a competitive match with a career midcarder rather than get squashed.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
True. And I would have a much easier time getting a legendary pioneer over a modern mid carder, then I would trying to throw Jim Londos over the Randy Savage mountain.
Kennedy v Miz is actually a perfect example. Neither of those guys are going to beat (pretty much) anyone in the current field of 128, but against each other, it's a fun debate, and it gets some people into the flow of the tournament. And then in the 2nd or, more likely, the 3rd round, they get stomped out, and rightfully so.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
Goldust has made a very niche gimmick work for 20 years, he has headlined PPVs and his career has spanned the period that most of us have been watching wrestling. Everyone had him on their list in the 70s or so, and as a result his cumulative position is quite high.
He was also successful in WCW under his real name, and had a run in TNA. We won't talk about that.
His presence in the tournament shouldn't come as a surprise and he has previously reached the round of 32 before.
This year we have fewer odd inclusions than ever before. Richards always gets in, because he is an underrated wrestler from the Attitude Era and ECW - two things that people like to get behind. Kofi Kingston has held 7 mid card championships and 5 tag team championships - his place is warranted. Who else in there has absolutely no warranted place? Zayn and Ownes? Maybe but their dominance in NXT is not significantly different to regional big names of the past or former ROH champions that we've had in here before. Owens is a mid card champion that beat John Cena clean, that makes for interesting conversation. The positions of the seedings is another discussion that I shan't talk about now, but if you look in the All Stars, you'll know what I mean.
I will admit that I have previously tried to get favourites in - specifically Essa Rios and a very long time ago, possibly the year I helped to run it, I tried to engineer The Genius vs Hulk Hogan because he beat him once upon a time, but the seedings didn't work out and I never bothered again.
Last year, I put Scott Norton at number 1 because I wanted to start a conversation about why we lauded Vader for being big in Japan but ignored Norton. The only way I could get him in was to give him a high seeding myself. Klunderbunker didn't use my list, but as a couple of others put him in, he did get in. Again, I couldn't have had an impact because he didn't include my list. As people have literally discussed Norton being an interesting conversational topic in the build up to this year's tournament, I would say that I achieved what I intended.
This year I put Michaels at 128 because last year's tournament embarrassed the forum. This is true - the fact is that Slyfox didn't give a shit, but the vast majority of every other 'elder statesmen' of the forum publicly spoke out about it. It caused Gelgarin, consistently one of the tournament's best posters for the past 6 or 7 years to leave the
forums. I don't think a small protest at that nonsense, when I knew Michaels would get in anyway, is particularly unfair.
He was also successful in WCW under his real name, and had a run in TNA. We won't talk about that.
His presence in the tournament shouldn't come as a surprise and he has previously reached the round of 32 before.
This year we have fewer odd inclusions than ever before. Richards always gets in, because he is an underrated wrestler from the Attitude Era and ECW - two things that people like to get behind. Kofi Kingston has held 7 mid card championships and 5 tag team championships - his place is warranted. Who else in there has absolutely no warranted place? Zayn and Ownes? Maybe but their dominance in NXT is not significantly different to regional big names of the past or former ROH champions that we've had in here before. Owens is a mid card champion that beat John Cena clean, that makes for interesting conversation. The positions of the seedings is another discussion that I shan't talk about now, but if you look in the All Stars, you'll know what I mean.
I will admit that I have previously tried to get favourites in - specifically Essa Rios and a very long time ago, possibly the year I helped to run it, I tried to engineer The Genius vs Hulk Hogan because he beat him once upon a time, but the seedings didn't work out and I never bothered again.
Last year, I put Scott Norton at number 1 because I wanted to start a conversation about why we lauded Vader for being big in Japan but ignored Norton. The only way I could get him in was to give him a high seeding myself. Klunderbunker didn't use my list, but as a couple of others put him in, he did get in. Again, I couldn't have had an impact because he didn't include my list. As people have literally discussed Norton being an interesting conversational topic in the build up to this year's tournament, I would say that I achieved what I intended.
This year I put Michaels at 128 because last year's tournament embarrassed the forum. This is true - the fact is that Slyfox didn't give a shit, but the vast majority of every other 'elder statesmen' of the forum publicly spoke out about it. It caused Gelgarin, consistently one of the tournament's best posters for the past 6 or 7 years to leave the
forums. I don't think a small protest at that nonsense, when I knew Michaels would get in anyway, is particularly unfair.
I'm not saying his time as Goldust should be forgotten at all. It's worked out very well for him. But, I know the argument will come up, especially against Owens, asking who he's beaten. Well, he had a nice run for himself in WCW/NWA, and that should come into play.
I don't really go for the "prime" argument. I use their entire body of work. Terry Funk may have been at his best as the NWA champion, or even fighting against Hogan in the late 80s, but if he was in a hardcore match with Mick Foley late in the tournament, you bet your ass I'd use his time in ECW to help my case.
I also try to factor in location a bit. The one that really sticks out, to me, is Regal v Roberts in England. Anywhere else, I'd give Jake the win, without much of an argument. But, in the UK, there's a reasonable argument to be made, that Regal would get the win. It'll be interesting to see if it comes into play anywhere else.
I don't really go for the "prime" argument. I use their entire body of work. Terry Funk may have been at his best as the NWA champion, or even fighting against Hogan in the late 80s, but if he was in a hardcore match with Mick Foley late in the tournament, you bet your ass I'd use his time in ECW to help my case.
I also try to factor in location a bit. The one that really sticks out, to me, is Regal v Roberts in England. Anywhere else, I'd give Jake the win, without much of an argument. But, in the UK, there's a reasonable argument to be made, that Regal would get the win. It'll be interesting to see if it comes into play anywhere else.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
Well that and arguing if anyone pre-Buddy Rodgers vs the current era is like arguing a ufc fighter vs a pro wrestler. It's apples to oranges in most cases.
Most folks who want to argue on behalf of that era just want to stroke themselves in public.(not Gelgarin. Never Gelgarin...besides Thesz isn't the type I'm talking about )
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
Eh, not really. The more I learn about the pioneers the more I realize that they were more showmen than actual wrestlers. Even though they could legit wrestle quite well. Wrestling before the founding of the NWA was very cliquish [not that the NWA wasn't. It was; just controlled better] and the wrestlers that weren't on the business end of making money and willing to "play ball" with various troupes were the ones that often found themselves in shoot contests.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
It's barely recognizable/comparable as what we debate in the tournament. Even if they did worked matches part of the time.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
No, most of the time. Not part of the time. You'd have to go back to the 1860's-1880's to find contests that were mostly legit. That's why I personally start with the Gotch/Hack era and the 1910's. By then everything was worked and wrestlers were showmen doing exactly what modern pro wrestlers do today.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
Ok
It makes it hard to debate in a way. Not discounting their importance or ability, but people vote in this with varying criteria. If we all voted solely based on being a legit badass then some would fair better than others from the more modern era. Problem is when things like mainstream popularity, merch/ticket sales, etc are used that causes a bigger hill to climb. Telling someone who has only watched wrestling in the past 15 years or so that these guys deserve a place is a hard sell. The nature and business aspect of wrestling is a vastly different landscape now than back in the early days.
Gotch and others deserve credit, but it is difficult to get anyone to care when all they know is the Attitude era or newer. True fans of the entire sport as a whole are unfortunately fewer around here than those who know nothing but the modern era of sports entertainment. Diferent criteria, different perspectives. That is part of what makes this fun. To have great matches, discussion & hopefully enlighten some on how things used to be.
I think a drastic overhaul or pissing contest will hurt more than help. Guys like Gelgarin are fucking smart & bring something to the discussion that others dont. Every one of us have our own preferences and areas we are more knowledgeable in & unfortunately if this thing turns out of spite, then the whole thing suffers by possibly losing a few good folks. If some great posters get fed up, discussion dies and many matches will just be voted on by those who go off name recognition only without having reason to discuss anything. If this goes south next year & we end up with lower participation then it could end up killing the thing all together when someone wins for the lulz because nobody cared to actually back deserving wrestlers.
Gotch and others deserve credit, but it is difficult to get anyone to care when all they know is the Attitude era or newer. True fans of the entire sport as a whole are unfortunately fewer around here than those who know nothing but the modern era of sports entertainment. Diferent criteria, different perspectives. That is part of what makes this fun. To have great matches, discussion & hopefully enlighten some on how things used to be.
I think a drastic overhaul or pissing contest will hurt more than help. Guys like Gelgarin are fucking smart & bring something to the discussion that others dont. Every one of us have our own preferences and areas we are more knowledgeable in & unfortunately if this thing turns out of spite, then the whole thing suffers by possibly losing a few good folks. If some great posters get fed up, discussion dies and many matches will just be voted on by those who go off name recognition only without having reason to discuss anything. If this goes south next year & we end up with lower participation then it could end up killing the thing all together when someone wins for the lulz because nobody cared to actually back deserving wrestlers.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar or Ken Shamrock would win every year.
But it's not a shoot tournament, it's a best professional wrestler tournament, with a few varying factors thrown in for spice
I had pitched the idea of doing away with all of the older guys, and naming the brackets after them (i.e. Gotch Bracket, etc), as a way to honor them, without wrenching them into a tournament where they'll get a token win (or two) and then lose.
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
Oh yeah totally, which is why I put a lot of emphasis on drawing power because you at least can compare that to all eras. However there is a lot of factors to normalize that we in the tournament don't do but probably should. I figure if we are going to try and be objective in our approaches then we might as well not half ass it. To some that is a chore and not fun, but for posters like me that have spent hours trying to come up with measurable criteria for all eras, trying to figure the pros and cons of the modern era vs the pre-modern era vs the pioneer era is part of that fun.
The kayfabe approach is fine and all, but most of the time it's only followed when it is convenient. Take last year when Warrior beat Ric Flair but then lost to Bret Hart. Kayfabe wise that makes no sense. Or when Undertaker beat Andre at MSG. Kayfabe wise that makes no sense. Or when D Bry beat Bruno. Kayfabe wise that makes no sense.
Apply that to top pioneers like Londos, Gotch, and Lewis who were like gods in kayfabe and it certainly makes no sense to vote them out as early as we did.
That's why I see the tournament as an educational tool. It has helped me appreciate wrestling history over the years. But you also have to have the desire to want to learn about history in the first place, or it's meaningless.
The tournament is advertised as "greatest of all time" and it should reflect that. If KB and Sly want to make this a more modern tournament next year and kick anyone that worked prior to 1984 then the tournament shouldn't be advertised as "all time" anymore. If not then the field should have proper representation of all eras.
I agree. I think last year was a wake up call for many of us and it wasn't just KB rigging the thing [which for the record I did not care about.] We'll see about this year.
I really don't have the time to look this up right now, but I'm positive there's a list of guys that have beaten Flair, and lost to Bret. Shawn Michaels comes to mind. The early-mid 90s is probably littered with these guys too.
tdmoon
Pre-Show Stalwart
The seeding seems to be all over the place but it really does lead to some intriguing match ups. I've been running through the bracket and my prediction is Thesz beating Flair in the final. Some fun matches along the way were the battles of the "Nature Boy"s(Flair, Rogers) and of the "King"s(Race, Lawler).
Of course it's impossible to agree completely with anyone on a list of this many wrestlers, but I'd be okay with just accepting Bernkastel's as the finished project. Top notch effort.
Of course it's impossible to agree completely with anyone on a list of this many wrestlers, but I'd be okay with just accepting Bernkastel's as the finished project. Top notch effort.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
True, but the trend seemed to be people losing interest after the first round was over because so many matches weren't competitive. Also it makes it far harder to compile/seed a list. Getting together 128 names is enough of a struggle at times and doubling that would be more daunting than it's worth.
Similar threads
