Jump to content

The Bret Hart scoring system


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have to apply The Albert Coefficient™ 

It’s a convoluted system that’s not worth thinking about. We should stick to the old-fashioned method, scoring out of 5 (maximum score 7).

I score HBK a 26, just because Bret is a moaning old fucker and HBK will always be better than him. It’s like D.C. and Jones. 

  • Paid Members

It’s a convoluted system that’s not worth thinking about. We should stick to the old-fashioned method, scoring out of 5 (maximum score 7).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)

Would some score differently as a baby face vs when they were heel?

Somebody scored Charlotte 5 for promos, and she probably would be when she's a babyface, but as a heel I think she'd score higher.

Also Hogan's work in Japan is much better than it was in the WWF/E so Japan era Hogan would score differently from, say, TNA Hogan. There are a lot of variables that could be taken into account.

Edited by jazzygeofferz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
Just now, Tommy! said:

You have to apply The Albert Coefficient™ 

How does Albert compare to Giant Bernard, and both of them to Lord Tensai? 

Would Sparky Plugg score better or worse than Hardcore Holly? 

What about Mankind/Dude Love/Cactus Jack? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:

How does Albert compare to Giant Bernard, and both of them to Lord Tensai? 

Would Sparky Plugg score better or worse than Hardcore Holly? 

What about Mankind/Dude Love/Cactus Jack? 

Sparky Plugg's mullet scores an automatic 10 for look

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)

Not a great system, because there are so many things it doesn't consider. It's been touched upon earlier in the thread, but by what criteria are we judging to come to the final rating anyway? Do we measure Hogan's "Work" by the athletic/technical ability he displayed as is, or the athletic/technical ability he displayed in the context of his character/persona? His Japan work showed that he was capable of more, so it's clear he made a professional choice not to work that way in the US - thus, couldn't it be argued his "Work" (not "Wrestling") could be rated much higher? And how about Randy Savage, who, despite a bit of high flying, was pretty much a brawler? Yet he his matches were brilliant; he has a body of work that's up there with the greatest. Of course, there's also Steve Austin - we all know all the technical stuff he could do, but as "Stone Cold" he nailed the style perfectly, only busting out technical stuff in big-time matches when he was getting desperate from his usual offence not putting his opponent down (see WM17).

Ric Flair's "Look" could be measured by how he actually looked (he was still in pretty good shape stood next to any average bloke, but amongst a horde of bodybuilders, was never going to look tip-top), but do we take into account the sheer big-time glam he radiated in his suits or robes that offset his in-ring look? Foley was never going to get cast as a Chippendale, but he looked absolutely right for his characters. Cena has an awesome look body-wise, but his gear has always looked shite, only suiting him when he did the white rapper gimmick.

"Promo" should be scrutinised the same way: Raven did those dark, poetic promos that were commensurate with his grungy, disaffected GenX misfit, but Tommy Dreamer cutting similar promos was rotten a) because it eroded the uniqueness of Raven's promos, and b) didn't jibe with his character (which could be defined by more what it wasn't than what it was) - just sounded like a grunge/Goth teen cutting the promos he thinks would sound cool to him.

Not to mention that timing is also important. WCW Chris Jericho with the "ARMBAR" promo was perfect for where he was supposed to be at the time in the midcard. Probably wouldn't suit him at main event. And his current act now is superb, utilising his age and his look to put across a character that wouldn't have worked 15 years ago. So does that mean his "Work" or "Promo" criteria should be rated highly because he knew how to make the most of what was needed and what was available at the time?

Edited by Carbomb
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

I'd say Angle's look was a 10 - gear fit the gimmick, and physique-wise looked like a wrestler because, well, he was one. Work-wise, I'd say 8 or 9, just because he spammed finishers and could sometimes be a bit of a spot-monkey at times.

Promo-wise, I'd be tempted to give him a 10, just because of the adaptability you mention - there aren't many who can pull that off, even amongst the greats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
3 hours ago, Carbomb said:

Do we measure Hogan's "Work" by the athletic/technical ability he displayed as is, or the athletic/technical ability he displayed in the context of his character/persona?

It’s clear by Brets grading of Hogan and Dynamite for “work” as to how it’s measured. That’s if you care about another mans system. Which nobody should. One mans Mania XII Iron Man snorefest is another mans “best wrestling match I ever saw, just beautiful.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
12 minutes ago, air_raid said:

It’s clear by Brets grading of Hogan and Dynamite for “work” as to how it’s measured. That’s if you care about another mans system. Which nobody should. One mans Mania XII Iron Man snorefest is another mans “best wrestling match I ever saw, just beautiful.”

I know how Bret measured it, but I was referring more to about how anybody else might use such a system, as we tend to apply our own standards in preference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
20 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

And according to the teary eyed president of Top Trumps, they would be the best set ever released. 

Best Top Trumps there was, best Top Trumps there is...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things like this never reflect reality as its so subjective. 

Warrior would be

Look:10

Promo:1 or 10 (depending on what you go for) 

Work: 1

So he scores either 12 or 22 and yet earned far more than anyone not named Hogan from about 89-98  and still had Vince trying to reverse sacks of cash onto his driveway in 98 due to star power.

Everyone dogged on Warrior yet I doubt none wouldn't have traded places with him in a heartbeat! 

 

 

 

Link to post
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...