At the crux of all these arguments is what we're supposed to be answering by determining the winner. I dunno, perhaps what we really mean to be saying is that we're not trying to find out who the greatest professional wrestler is but rather what attribute(s) do the majority of us think the greatest professional wrestler ever must posses in order to be considered as such.
As Sly said were it just being unbeatable in the ring men like Hogan and Warrior would have the run of the tournament each and every year (especially since their later work is discounted as it's not their "prime"). Were it just about athletic prowess --like KB noted-- legitimately skilled men like Angle, Lesnar, Shamrock, and old time hookers and shooters would be the front runners. But clearly this isn't the case either.
Then their are other factors like entertainment, drawing ability, legacy, impact etc. etc. etc. Like I said above, I'm not sure what the exaction ratio or formula is but that is what I think we're trying to decided.
I know for some they are voting "kayfabe" but honestly I think that's a problem unto itself, as we all have a different idea of what the term really means as it applies to this tournament.
Personally I have a problem with the entire idea of kayfabe, as for me, it's pure lunacy. For all intents and purposed kayfabe is trying to make the illogical, and perhaps even fantastically improbable, logical or "real" --which is simply impossible-- and then using that as the foundation for decision making and voting.
In general the concept of Logic only works when the rules are the same all the time for everyone/everything, and that just isn't the case in Kayfabe World. The only way I can think to explain myself is to use the movie Last Action Hero as an analogy to this entire tournament. For those who never saw it lemme bring you up to speed quickly:
The film stars Arnold Schwarzeneger as Jack Slater, a fictional LA police detective, and Austin O'Brien as Danny Madigan, a kid, who enjoys watching action films. Danny lives in the Real World, while Slater is a fictional character and the hero of the Jack Slater series of action films. While watching the latest Jack Slater sequel Danny is transported into the Movie World of the Jack Slater films where normal rules don't apply. Rather, Jack's Movie World functions by following the "rules" and clichés of the "action movie" genre of films. Eventually Slater and Danny are both transported to Danny's "Real World" where Jack comes to discover that what works in his world does not work in Danny's.
Using the above as the corollary I consider the idea of pro-wrestling kayfabe to be similar to movie world fiction. The only problem, and the thing that makes kayfabe even worse than action movie fiction, is that unlike the inhabitants of Action Movie World, the citizens of Kayfabe World can't even stick to their own rules and clichés while still in Kayfabe World (never mind if they ever escaped into the "Real World").
So, back to the tourney... and voting kayfabe. I wonder, for all kayfabe voters, is Kayfabe World the location this tourney takes place? Does it take place in the "Real World"? Perhaps all the matches and history of the participants prior to this tourney are in Kayfabe World but the tourney is in the Real World? Since WWE is so vastly different from WCW AWA NJPW etc., do all these promotions exist in the same Kayfabe World? Or much like there's a Marvel Universe and a DC Universe and a Manga Universe does each promotion have it's own Kayfabe World with it's own similar but slightly different rules and clichés? What then does that mean for voting Kayfabe when two "characters" from different promotional worlds, --where for example a punch here may not equal a punch there even though it's the same guy throwing it-- meet up in this tourney?
Veering into comics for a moment ever notice how the same character can behave different when different writers are in charge or when they are the guest in another character's title (No one like to look weak in their own title)? Also, sometimes one writer may hate the direction the previous writer recently took and tries his hardest to undo the supposed "damage" or tries to write the character the way he thinks it "should" be. Because he -- and he alone-- really knows the character and "gets it". Ex: I remember reading a Punisher book that in which Frank easily out-maneuvers Wolverine... yet in the supposedly same "Marvel Universe" (just within Wolverine's titular pocket of it) Logan was able to take on an army of special forces men and beat Castle within an inch of his life with relative ease choosing to spare him as they were on the "same side".
Now those stories both happened, and happened in the same universe to boot. Imagine if they fought members of the DC Universe. Oh wait, that actually happened once and Wolverine beat Lobo... a guy who went toe to toe with Superman... WHaT? I wonder, does that mean that that Frank Castle --who beat up Wolverine-- can beat Lobo? After all Wolverine beat up Lobo once so that's canon... that has to count! And in turn doesn't that mean since Lobo can matchup to Superman that Frank Castle a.k.a The Punisher can go toe to toe with the Big Blue Boyscout as well? That doesn't sound... right.
For me arguing wrestling kayfabe is very much the same as all the above, with all the same problems, if not worse. In Kayfabe practically anything can happen and has happened. And if it happened once it can happen again. And if it happened between two guys then some thing similar could happen with two similar guys... yadda yadda yadda... and likewise the exact opposite could apparently happen just as easily.
Since wrestling is storytelling whatever is the best story, or perhaps most profitable story at the time is the one that goes on TV and in the Kayfabe History books. This makes guys who couldn't, or theoretically shouldn't, win based on who or what they could do as little as a week ago, all of a sudden conquering heroes. And just as fast for storyline reasons --or worse backstage issues-- they're back scratching the bottom of the barrel or languishing in the mid-card.
But see, that's ALL kayfabe. It all counts. It's all fair game. Or fodder if you will. Is this tourney then who can make the best case? Is it just who can swerve people in their direction the most? Are we just finding out who are the best debaters on the board and who in turn they believe is the best wrestler or what makes a wrestler great and greater than another?
In and of itself, on paper, Real World, Rey "shouldn't" and couldn't beat Andre or Big Show... but to say that's holds true in Kayfabe is not 100% correct. At least not 100% of the time. What if this match has a story to it that absolutely needs Rey to win to be told right? Or to make the money? Believe me, fluke as it may be, Rey could and probably would win because even though it defies common sense, it succumbs to business sense, story telling sense, and therefore kayfabe sense.
Who knows... Kayfabe, is this match the beginning of the story when Rey can't seem to win or is it the end of the program when he goes over against all odds? Which match am I voting on when I vote? Neither vote is wrong or right.
Given the proper Kayfabe scenario any of the tournament's match ups could have either man win no matter how much of a landslide some say it "should" be. Are we voting probability then? Are we saying that 9/10, 80/100, or 51/49 times wrestler X would win against wrestler Y? That therefore he should win this time? Most of the time? Every time? And therefore X secures my vote. If that's the case this tourney is just the playground of silver tongued layman statisticians.
Despite all that I'm not saying don't vote Kayfabe. I guess what I am saying is that what shouldn't happen in Kayfabe may makes sense to, and therefore be correct, to someone else; in Kayfabe. Yes? No? I dunno. Kayfabe is fiction written at a whim and never by the same author. What is true today is false tomorrow true next week and never happened next year. But you have to take it all as fact either way. Now use that to make a case. Use half-assed, contradictory, spur of the moment ideas amassed over decades by a virtual army of bookers, writers, and promoters to make reasoned concrete cases. lulz indeed.
Anyway that's why I rarely go to the Kayfabe well, and why the whole tourney frustrates me at times. With Kayfabe being as crazy as I think it is I sometimes wonder if it's any more or less nonsensical than using Lee's "biggest picture" voting method, or other poster's "whoever I like more" or "know more about" criteria. I dunno, this is all half baked nonsense that I'm rambling about at 430 in the morning. But if none of it makes sense for voting then I suppose everything makes sense for voting or can at least in some way be justified. Blah, the end. Good night.
