|
Post by gentlemanjeff on Jun 23, 2011 8:45:27 GMT -5
Seems like we've got a handle on pushes now. How do you all handle work rates? Not just the top guys, but going down the ladder.
My quick-n-dirty method is this:
100 = 5 star match under ideal circumstances (equal opponent, sufficient time, heat for the match)
95 = 4 star worker under ideal circumstances
90 = 3 star worker
85 = 2 star worker
80 = 1 star worker
75 = dud-ley doo-wrong
70 and below = lumbering oaf
This is not scientific, but it lines up with my observations. Here's how I would rank certain wrestlers:
100 = Bret Hart ('93-'97), Shawn Michaels ('94-'96), Angle ('00-'02), Steamboat (late 80s), Savage (mid 80s), Austin ('96-'97)
95 = Owen Hart, Triple H (2000), Austin ('98-'01), The Rock ('00-'01), Jericho ('97-'01), Michaels ('06-'10), Bret Hart (early WCW), Brian Pillman (WCW)
90 = Razor Ramon ('94-'95), The Rock ('99), Bret Hart (late WCW), Sting Classic, Ultimate Warrior (WM6-WM7), WorkerTaker, King of Kings HHH, John Cena
85 = Razor Ramon ('92-'93), Blue Chipper Rocky Maivia, Diesel ('95-'96), Crow Sting, Hulk Hogan (80s), PhenomTaker, BikerTaker, Blue Blood HHH, Racist HHH, Randy Orton
80 = Scott Hall (late WCW), Hulk Hogan (90s), EarlyTaker
75 = Hollywood Hogan
65 = Roddy Piper (WCW)
Two points here: First, constant work rates are an ephemeral concept--our favorites moved around in skill and effort more than we remember and their primes were shorter than we think; and second, a lot of guys have bad matches because of how they were _booked_, as opposed to their skill level.
The Ultimate Warrior is a good example. He had few matches under ideal laboratory conditions (feud + match time + no BS ending). In these, he tended to bring it. Some he had Savage to carry him, in others he had Hogan to work with. In non-big matches, Warrior squashed opponents--so of course those were bad. To a smaller extent, same is true of Hogan.
The Undertaker and Triple H have both been all over the workrate chart.
I think the 50s and 60s assigned to a lot of workers in default TNM are crazy.
I don't have much affection for the current crop of main eventers.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 23, 2011 11:39:12 GMT -5
The Ultimate Warrior is a good example. He had few matches under ideal laboratory conditions (feud + match time + no BS ending). In these, he tended to bring it. Some he had Savage to carry him, in others he had Hogan to work with. In non-big matches, Warrior squashed opponents--so of course those were bad. To a smaller extent, same is true of Hogan. Warrior's best matches were usually heavily booked in detail. (I'm not sure how much heavily booking a match in TNM will boost the rating - other than booking lots of near falls.) Also, his Stamina sucked (I think he was notorious for blowing up during his ring entrance). Really, any big PPV match that is heavily booked (not to be confused with overbooked) in detail ahead of time usually turns out pretty good even with very mediocre wrestlers. Someone else will probably chime in with better knowledge of Oliver's programming of TNM, but my general perception of Work Rate is that on average 50 = DUD, above 50 = positive stars, and below 50 = negative stars. I don't know if it works out this way; it probably actually skews higher were 60 = DUD. The scale I've generally noticed from exports is something like this (this is a really rough list and I know it): 100 = excellent technician (Benoit, Bret Hart, Flair - in their primes) 95 = excellent but not really technical wrestlers (Shawn Michaels, The Rock) 90 = really good wrestlers other than powerhouses (Savage, Austin, early Sting), the best flyers 80 = the best power wrestlers (Undertaker, Vader in his prime?), good but really spotty flyers, good but not great wrestlers (DDP?, Hall?, crow Sting?) 70 = above average (Luger, Nash?) 60 = vanilla jobbers, decent power wrestlers, really mediocre non-power wrestlers, the best hardcore brawler types (Hulk Hogan, early Ultimate Warrior) 50 = botchy random no-sellers, lousy powerhouses, mediocre wrestlers with limited movesets (Hollywood Hogan, Andre, late career Road Warriors) 40 = nearly always bad (Vincent, Ultimate Warrior in WCW) 30 = matches are always terrible (Duggan, late career Brian Adams) I don't have any particular hate for Vincent or Brian Adams as wrestlers (I did think Duggan sucked); those are just the numbers the exports have and I haven't seen enough of them to disagree. I don't think you'd ever have someone with a Workrate worse than 30 because those people wouldn't be able to keep jobs.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjeff on Jun 23, 2011 12:06:32 GMT -5
I believe two 50 work rate wrestlers stand a very good chance of getting you -***** in TNM7. Certainly in the -*** neighborhood on average.
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 23, 2011 15:18:53 GMT -5
I'm personally not a big fan of negative matches as a rating anyway. For my eyes, since TNM is skewed a bit to give higher match ratings to what you might give in real life, for me, a 1 or 1.5 star match is a pretty shitty match. And if it gets negative stars, it's just abysmal. Just superhero bad.
I have rarely seen a match in my life, even if it's just awful, where I would go, "that was -***."
|
|
|
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 23, 2011 17:31:11 GMT -5
I pretty much use "Japanese game ranking" to scale my exports. I've always been terrible at determining stats, but I'm getting a little better at it since I started thinking this way (not just for work rate, but for all stats.)
SS Rank = 100 S Rank = 95-99 A Rank = 90-94 B rank = 80's C rank = 70's D rank = 60's F rank = Anything below
Now, think about this... the Wrestling Observer standard seems to be that *** 1/2 and up is notable. They are either MOTY candidates or matches that are going to end up on people's Top "X" lists for the year. Now, given that each country (and even regions of countries) has its own style and it is impossible to make a objective scale for such a thing so I'm willing to let is slide a bit. So really, you should rarely see any WWE TV match going over ***. Most of them should really be * - ** 1/2 star matches. So that means there should only be a handful of workers right now in the WWE rated over 90 at this point. There is no one in WWE currently deserving of my "SS" ranking. A few guys could be deserving of the S rank - namely Mysterio, Punk, and Bryan. It is tricky for me to determine who should get the A rank. William Regal is definitely there. I'd also say that an argument could be made for Christian and Triple H (although maybe not now that he is not full-time). The B rank has a ton of guys - pretty much anyone who can put on a decent match and is capable of having good matches with the right people. On the higher end you have guys like Bourne, Chavo, Ziggler... maybe Orton and Morrison (they would probably be middle of the road because of their position on the card). This is also where I'd put Sin Cara right now (where as Mistico he'd be an S rank.) On the lower end you've got guys like Swagger, Sheamus, Del Rio, Kofi, Gabriel, and the better Superstars guys (Primo, Goldust, etc.) C rank will give you the lower tier of Superstars guys plus guys like Barrett, Slater, Miz, etc. on the top end. John Cena is pretty much the model 75 work rate wrestler. Kane and Santino are probably around there, too. Low 70's would be Henry (maybe another 75 guy, but I'm a mark for him), Big Show... then you are getting into the D's. There aren't really a ton of these right now - I'd probably put Zeke, Otunga, Ryan, Kozlov, etc. And then the F rank... Great Khali.
Things are somewhat universal, though. The best indy guys are probably A ranked. Most of ROH would be in the B range. I'm not sure if there is someone truly deserving of the S rank on the indys right now. Guys that talented usually don't stay indy guys for very long. At any given time there are probably 2-3 guys on the planet deserving of the SS rank at most. I honestly don't know if there are any right now because I'm not as in-tune to international wrestling as I used to be. And that is where card position can come into play. If Daniel Bryan got the push that Eddie and Benoit got when they were both World champs he'd probably be there. If he was out of the WWE he might be there, but right now I can't see giving it to him. I think this is where personal judgment comes into play.
Bottom line is for my tastes I shouldn't be getting **** on a weekly basis. If you take WWE there might be handful of TV matches that get there in one year - the rest are on PPV. Some people might have a different view on things, though, and I respect that.
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 23, 2011 18:01:05 GMT -5
I like your idea, Impaler, but I am really surprised someone thinks that Orton is a better wrestler than Miz, Barrett, or Cena.
|
|
|
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 23, 2011 21:25:40 GMT -5
It is one of those cases where his positioning and who he has worked with bumps his value up a bit. He's definitely better than Cena... and I don't spout a ton of hate for Cena. I think he is fine for what he does and the man bends over backwards for the company so it's nothing like that. Barrett is about the same level as Orton and Miz is better, but they haven't had the same strength of opponents lately. And out of those 4 guys I like Orton the least. I did say he was kind of middle of the road... he probably straight out deserves an 80.
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 23, 2011 21:40:54 GMT -5
I was probably just nitpicking since you had Orton in the 80s and Cena at 75. It's possibly my complete hated for Orton, but there are so many more big matches that I've enjoyed from Cena than Orton.
|
|
|
Post by rebelins313 on Jun 23, 2011 22:46:30 GMT -5
I'd say Bryan is the closest thing to an SS in America, I'd also put Drew McIntyre(SP?) in the S-A range, dude is great at nearly everything in the ring.
|
|
|
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 23, 2011 23:20:11 GMT -5
I was probably just nitpicking since you had Orton in the 80s and Cena at 75. It's possibly my complete hated for Orton, but there are so many more big matches that I've enjoyed from Cena than Orton. And I'm with you on that one. I'd also be willing to say that maybe Cena deserves more than 75. I just would tend to put Orton slightly ahead because most of Cena's matches are kind of paint-by-numbers. Also, if you look at the past couple of years Orton's improvement has been a lot more distinguishable, but that probably indicates how bland he used to be. Once he started doing "Viper" Orton he found his niche and he did it well. However, it now makes it mind-numbing for him to act the same way as a face. Sure, Austin was able to do it, but Orton has neither the charisma nor the ability that Austin did (even after the neck injury).
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 24, 2011 11:58:26 GMT -5
I don't know how well it can be agreed upon, but to get everyone to correctly understand workrate it would probably be best to compile a large list of well-known wrestlers to provide lots of visible benchmarks. Jeff's list is a great starting point.
I might not break each wrestler down as detailed though. Does it really matter that Razor Ramon argueably had a 90 vs a 85 in different years or Undertaker fluctuated between 80 and 85? I'd essentially average it out. Obvious, some wrestlers will be better at some peak during their career and not as good at either end of their career and will occasionally have surprisingly good matches.
On the other hand, a major shift between companies (Razor/Hall, Diesel/Nash, Hogan, Bret Hart) or something like an injury/retirement (90s Michaels vs 00s Michaels, Pillman pre & post injury).
Using Jeff's scale what about:
Ric Flair? 100 in his prime, 90 in late WCW, 70 in WWF/TNA?
95 CM Punk, Eddie Guerrero, Dean Malenko, and Rey Mysterio Jr
90 Scott Steiner (pre-freakazoid)
80 DDP, Lex Luger
75 Goldberg, vanilla jobbers, Scott Steiner (freakazoid)
60 Jim Duggan (WCW), Andre The Giant, Yokozuna, average WWE diva wrestler
50 average celebrity/non-wrestler
What about some big name Japanese guys like Muta or Misawa?
Brock Lesnar? Kane? Big Show / Giant? Harley Race?
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 24, 2011 13:14:08 GMT -5
Oh, man, you guys are klling me! Yokozuna was a great big man pre-1996. He was at least as good of a wrestler as Goldberg and Big Poppa Pump.
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 24, 2011 15:02:34 GMT -5
That's where this gets tricky. We all have various opinions on what the work rate of certain wrestlers should be. I see you put Yokozuna at 60 and think that's low. I see you put Luger at 80 and think that's way high.
|
|
|
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 24, 2011 17:59:44 GMT -5
Well, the only way to account for personal taste is to do the editing yourself. I know a lot of people just tend to go by multiple's of 5. I like to use the whole range, though, so I can account for things like card position, age, and such. I think what is most important is that we should realize just exactly how few wrestlers there are at any given time that should be 90 or above. Before TNM7-SE the ratings weren't as varied and so there actually were a lot of guys who should have been above that point. After the tweaks that Oliver made, though, the scale expanded so guys who had a 90 would now probably be somewhere from 85-88. I liked the change because now I saw some sense to it (and hence developed my system above).
If you only go by multiples of 5, then a +/- 5 margin of error should be acceptable. I personally see mine as being +/- 3 (The number given is the median range so you have 2.5 on each side and since you can only use whole numbers it gets rounded to 3). I rarely go outside of those values if I'm tweaking an export because it really shouldn't be THAT far off. If it is then the export probably isn't of very good quality in general.
So, I think once you establish that range of acceptable "error" it will be easier to lump groups of guys together as examples. That way you have a disclaimer to say "These are just suggestions"... and then you may be able to put different versions of guys based on the time period he/she is based on. I think that actually does a better job for making the differences clear to most users - compare a wrestler with a past or future version of himself to give them an idea.
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 24, 2011 21:03:33 GMT -5
This is something I've had to deal with a lot with my circuit. Since it's an old school circuit, a lot of wrestlers in my time of 1978 aren't as good as they become in the future. For instance, late 70s Ric Flair isn't mid 80s Ric Flair. I think really it's just finding the balance of what you're comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 26, 2011 14:03:58 GMT -5
Another thing I thought of that I wanted to get the forum's opinion on.
This might also tie in with Charisma, but for you guys (both TNM and real life), does the importance of the moves factor into your workrate rating? For example, there's no question that from a technical standpoint, Dean Malenko was a far superior wrestler than Hulk Hogan. But Hulk Hogan's 6 moves meant a whole lot more than Malenko's 1000 in terms of getting a crowd reaction. So for me, to put Hogan at like a 60 workrate is far too low, because Hogan's matches were never so abysmal to be considered negative stars based on the type of crowd reactions his match got.
Or am I being too broad here?
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 26, 2011 17:32:27 GMT -5
This might also tie in with Charisma, but for you guys (both TNM and real life), does the importance of the moves factor into your workrate rating? For example, there's no question that from a technical standpoint, Dean Malenko was a far superior wrestler than Hulk Hogan. But Hulk Hogan's 6 moves meant a whole lot more than Malenko's 1000 in terms of getting a crowd reaction. So for me, to put Hogan at like a 60 workrate is far too low, because Hogan's matches were never so abysmal to be considered negative stars based on the type of crowd reactions his match got. Or am I being too broad here? I would say Hogan had a low workrate but a 100 Charisma. Dean Malenko had a 95 or 100 workrate, but a 50 Charisma. To me, charisma is how much the crowd cares (Heat) and star rating (at least in TNM) is how good the match is from a more technical perspective irregardless of how much the crowd cared. It's the difference between a movie that sets box office records and a move that wins Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by snabbit888 on Jun 26, 2011 17:49:22 GMT -5
I guess for me it's necessary for both things to be involved for it to be a truly great match. It can be the greatest wrestling match from a technical standpoint ever, but if no one gives a shit, it's not *****. It's the difference to me between a great wrestler and an in-ring mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjeff on Jun 26, 2011 17:59:05 GMT -5
I'm with you, Ryan. A wrestler can have 1,000 moves and botch them all (not that Malenko did). I think work rate is about far more than move set--it's about stringing your moves together to tell a story in the ring and appeal to the audience. Hogan could clearly do that, so he doesn't have a terrible work rate--but he did have a low move set and wrestled a repetitive match, which factors in. I think early 80s Hogan is an 85, late 80s thru early 90s Hogan an 80, and Hollywood onward dipping into the 70s and 60s by 2000.
Same with Yoko. He could tell a story in the match before he went from Samoan to fatty.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 26, 2011 18:15:56 GMT -5
Just did a little experiment with TNM. I made a series of wrestlers who are all nearly identical.
For each Work Rate level (100, 90, 80, etc) I made one Face and one Heel. Heels added a choke hold to their move list, Heel to their styles, and Heel checked in their attributes. Otherwise they were all identical as such:
6'0" 250 lbs Push, Stamina, & Charisma = 80 Styles = Technician, Brawler, Flyer, Wrestler all had the same 16 moves - all classic moves including a couple submissions, aerial moves, suplexes, and strikes
I then ran several different cards with nobody booked more than once on any given card. All matches were Face vs Heel. Most matches were unbooked, but a few matches (the longer ones) were booked to go a certain number of minutes before ending (Pinfall - Any Wrestler Over Any Wrestler With Any Move After 25 minutes).
Here's the results (not everyone had the same number of matches - not the least due to some matches that crashed TNM for some reason):
Workrate 30 Face pinned Workrate 30 Heel after a power bomb in 0:11:14. Rating: -*****
Workrate 30 Face pinned Workrate 30 Heel after a flying legdrop in 0:06:35. Rating: -**** 1/2
Iron Man Match Workrate 30 Face beat Workrate 30 Heel 9 falls to 7: x 30 H beat 30 F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:08:44 x 30 F beat 30 H via the Workrate Cutter in 0:13:16 x 30 F beat 30 H via the Workrate Cutter in 0:18:35 x 30 H beat 30 F via a German suplex in 0:21:27 x 30 H beat 30 F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:24:24 x 30 H beat 30 F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:26:24 x 30 F beat 30 H via a flying legdrop in 0:30:07 x 30 F beat 30 H via a flying legdrop in 0:30:41 x 30 F beat 30 H via a sleeperhold in 0:35:50 x 30 F beat 30 H via the Workrate Cutter in 0:40:47 x 30 F beat 30 H via the Workrate Cutter in 0:44:01 x 30 F beat 30 H via a power bomb in 0:44:19 x 30 H beat 30 F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:49:48 x 30 F beat 30 H via disqualification in 0:51:25 x 30 H beat 30 F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:55:52 x 30 H beat 30 F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:59:26 x time limit expired (30 F and 30 H) in 1:00:00 Rating: -*****
Workrate 40 Heel pinned Workrate 40 Face after a crucifix in 0:04:19. Rating: -*** 3/4
Workrate 40 Face pinned Workrate 40 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:05:30. Rating: -*** 1/2
Workrate 50 Heel defeated Workrate 50 Face by disqualification in 0:13:57. Rating: -*** 3/4
Workrate 60 Face pinned Workrate 60 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:12:55. Rating: -* 3/4
Workrate 60 Face pinned Workrate 60 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:09:30. Rating: -* 1/2
Workrate 60 Face pinned Workrate 60 Heel after a flying splash in 0:25:10. Rating: -* 3/4
Workrate 70 Heel pinned Workrate 70 Face with the Workrate Cutter in 0:10:34. Rating: 3/4*
Workrate 70 Heel pinned Workrate 70 Face with the Workrate Cutter in 0:07:07. Rating: *
Workrate 70 Face pinned Workrate 70 Heel after a flying splash in 0:25:06. Rating: **
Workrate 80 Heel pinned Workrate 80 Face with the Workrate Cutter in 0:09:41. Rating: * 3/4
Workrate 80 Face pinned Workrate 80 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:07:21. Rating: **
Two-out-of-three-Falls Match Workrate 80 Face beat Workrate 80 Heel 2 falls to 1: x 80 F beat 80 H via a small package in 0:05:48 x 80 H beat 80 F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:10:13 x 80 F beat 80 H via the Workrate Cutter in 0:11:55 Rating: *** 1/4
Workrate 80 Heel pinned Workrate 80 Face after a power bomb in 0:25:06. Rating: *****
Workrate 90 Face pinned Workrate 90 Heel after a flying legdrop in 0:03:40. Rating: ** 3/4
Workrate 90 Face pinned Workrate 90 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:10:51. Rating: ** 1/2
Two-out-of-three-Falls Match Workrate 90 Heel beat Workrate 90 Face 2 falls to 0: x 90 H beat 90F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:07:27 x 90 H beat 90F via the Workrate Cutter in 0:10:09 Rating: ** 3/4
Workrate 90 Heel pinned Workrate 90 Face with the Workrate Cutter in 0:25:08. Rating: *****
Workrate 100 Heel pinned Workrate 100 Face after a power bomb in 0:00:36. Rating: *
Workrate 100 Face pinned Workrate 100 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:08:29. Rating: ** 1/2
Workrate 100 Face pinned Workrate 100 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:09:22. Rating: ***
Workrate 30 Heel defeated Workrate 90 Face via pinfall in 0:01:15. Rating: 1/2*
Workrate 90 Heel pinned Workrate 30 Face with the Workrate Cutter in 0:07:24. Rating: DUD
Workrate 70 Face pinned Workrate 30 Heel with the Workrate Cutter in 0:06:30. Rating: -** 1/4
Workrate 100 Face pinned Workrate 60 Heel after a DDT in 0:25:14. Rating: **** 1/4
Workrate 60 Face pinned Workrate 100 Heel after a belly-to-back suplex in 0:25:05. Rating: *** 1/2
Conclusions:
It looks like in shorter matches, any workrate of 80+ is about the same. The higher workrates shine in longer matches.
70 and below look to get about the same rating any every time, regardless of match length.
High work rate vs low work rate seems to lift the match rating a little higher than what you'd expect if you averaged the two workrates. Presumably representing one wrestler carrying the other in the match.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 26, 2011 18:18:17 GMT -5
I guess for me it's necessary for both things to be involved for it to be a truly great match. It can be the greatest wrestling match from a technical standpoint ever, but if no one gives a shit, it's not *****. It's the difference to me between a great wrestler and an in-ring mechanic. Agreed. I don't know that TNM factors Heat and Charisma into star ratings as much as it probably should.
|
|
|
Post by JoshiQ on Jun 26, 2011 20:05:24 GMT -5
It brings up a good point because I don't know how to rate matches like Hogan/Warrior, Rock/Hogan, Undertaker/Mankind HiTC, Austin/Rock...They aren't really good matches, but a lot of the time they are the matches I want to watch over and over again and definitely the ones I remember.
|
|
|
Post by theimpalertmx on Jun 26, 2011 23:53:05 GMT -5
Charisma plays a big enough part in the match rating. I know at one point, it must have been back in FE, Akira Taue had a work rate of 92 and charisma at 30, I think. You'd never be able to get a good match out him... and this is a guy who has been involved in some of the greatest tag team matches in the 1990's (of course, that's easy when the other guys are Kobashi, Misawa, and Kawada). He was always the #4 guy until Akiyama surpassed him at the end. So while he may not be very charismatic, it shouldn't be THAT low. I lowered his work rate and raised his charisma... I don't remember to what, but he'd be able to get ***+ matches after I made the switch.
I think it is probably something else to do a test run on. If you did the WM 6 match between Hogan and Warrior, you'd probably get something in the ** range. I think that is pretty fair... it accounts for the heat, but doesn't blow it out of proportion to make it look like the technical ability and execution are world class.
|
|
|
Post by LillaThrilla on Jun 27, 2011 11:22:11 GMT -5
Something to remember that doesn't come across in the match ratings with the card results: Heat Meters. You can turn them on then watch a match. Even if the match gets only 2-3 stars sometimes the crowd is absolutely rabid by the end of it thunderously cheering or booing, with both Heat Meters at 10.
That was one thing that Tommy's WCW did that almost no other circuit I recall ever did: showing the Crowd Heat along in addition to the match result.
|
|
|
Post by imtheniz on Jun 27, 2011 14:33:54 GMT -5
That was one thing that Tommy's WCW did that almost no other circuit I recall ever did: showing the Crowd Heat along in addition to the match result. I'd be interested in checking this out. Is Tommy's circuit on these boards? Do you have a link?
|
|