|
Post by kingoftheindies on Jan 21, 2024 15:27:27 GMT -5
I actually think the ranking system is fine, but as others mentioned using Dark and Elevation to pad stats so you could have Butcher and Blade get a tag title shot and justify it while FTR was ranked number 1 for half a year and didn't get a shot? Gotta work around it. Or only really draw attention in certain aspects. Like Britt climbing the rankings for the Women's title was a good angle
|
|
mystermystery
Dennis Stamp
Still in the White Hummer
Posts: 4,365
|
Post by mystermystery on Jan 21, 2024 15:28:09 GMT -5
There was never a problem with Dark/Elevation influencing the rankings.
People get a winning streak on Dark/Elevation and then lose on Dynamite. The person beating them is now a higher ranked person despite having less matches.
It's boxing. I watched so much Friday Night Fights and had Teddy Atlas explain it nearly every week. Main Event. Two Undefeated Fighters or an undefeated guy versus someone with one or two losses. Teddy says one undefeated dude has been padding his stat with 'lesser competition' and now that they're on TV, they're having to step up their competition in order to ever deserve a title shot (sometimes the dude with the inflated record was getting a title match for some random belt and Teddy was calling how poorly it would go for them...and he was usually right).
If AEW wanted a "realism" set-up...they had it.
FTR upset they weren't getting a title shot despite their rankings? Go ask Manny Pacquiao about Floyd Mayweather. Them NOT fighting was the Event of the year in 2010 and they didn't fight until 2015.
Realism isn't always fun. That's the problem. They had a realistic set-up, but people complained because it's a staged business so, in people's eyes, it made even less sense to not give FTR a match although in reality the 'best' quite often get pushed off because the champ sees a way to make more money against easier competition on a hot streak of popularity (Oh, hi Hook/Samoa Joe match that allowed Joe to look like an unstoppable juggernaut).
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,658
|
Post by Kalmia on Jan 21, 2024 15:35:49 GMT -5
I think people need to remember that rankings are just another story tool and they're just as worked as any other system in wrestling. AEW should kinda acknowledge that as well and make it clear that wins are weighted, so beating a wrestler ranked no.2 means more than winning five matches against wrestlers that always lose. Maybe even establish a rankings committee who have the job of deciding the rankings each week instead of it being purely scientific or mathematical.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jan 21, 2024 16:05:43 GMT -5
I think people need to remember that rankings are just another story tool and they're just as worked as any other system in wrestling. AEW should kinda acknowledge that as well and make it clear that wins are weighted, so beating a wrestler ranked no.2 means more than winning five matches against wrestlers that always lose. Maybe even establish a rankings committee who have the job of deciding the rankings each week instead of it being purely scientific or mathematical. You can integrate it into some of the stories, too. Stokely could be rejected as Kris’ manager and get his way to the Rankings Committee because of his experience as part of the ROH Board of Directors and basically fudge Kris a way to a title shot over Willow and build more tension between the two, as one example.
|
|
dbsot
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 588
|
Post by dbsot on Jan 21, 2024 16:35:48 GMT -5
One of the things I would like to see is that the guys with the best records (or most points) for the year are the ones picked for the Continental Classic in December.
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Jan 21, 2024 17:06:28 GMT -5
Didn't work before and won't work this time, but it seems to be an idea they just can't quit.
Whoever said before 'realism isn't fun' summed up the key issue with this.
|
|
|
Post by daaave on Jan 21, 2024 17:33:45 GMT -5
Having rankings doesn't mean it wint be fun. The C2 was fun and that was pretty much rankings
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jan 21, 2024 17:46:10 GMT -5
Having rankings doesn't mean it wint be fun. The C2 was fun and that was pretty much rankings Ahh, but a lot of people didn’t like the C2 because they couldn’t tell who was winning and losing even though the most popular sport in America is all rankings.
|
|
|
Post by bearned on Jan 21, 2024 19:28:33 GMT -5
As long as TK delegates the management of this to someone else, it might be okay? If it’s just TK making notes in his journal or whatever, then not so much.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 21, 2024 21:04:24 GMT -5
There was never a problem with Dark/Elevation influencing the rankings. People get a winning streak on Dark/Elevation and then lose on Dynamite. The person beating them is now a higher ranked person despite having less matches. It's boxing. I watched so much Friday Night Fights and had Teddy Atlas explain it nearly every week. Main Event. Two Undefeated Fighters or an undefeated guy versus someone with one or two losses. Teddy says one undefeated dude has been padding his stat with 'lesser competition' and now that they're on TV, they're having to step up their competition in order to ever deserve a title shot (sometimes the dude with the inflated record was getting a title match for some random belt and Teddy was calling how poorly it would go for them...and he was usually right). If AEW wanted a "realism" set-up...they had it. FTR upset they weren't getting a title shot despite their rankings? Go ask Manny Pacquiao about Floyd Mayweather. Them NOT fighting was the Event of the year in 2010 and they didn't fight until 2015. Realism isn't always fun. That's the problem. They had a realistic set-up, but people complained because it's a staged business so, in people's eyes, it made even less sense to not give FTR a match although in reality the 'best' quite often get pushed off because the champ sees a way to make more money against easier competition on a hot streak of popularity (Oh, hi Hook/Samoa Joe match that allowed Joe to look like an unstoppable juggernaut). Yep, the example I remember Khan giving early on was NCAA college sports: you have tons and tons of schools and universities around America, and some of them might go undefeated or have a great record, but won't rank if they almost always play against lesser competition. Meantime, another school might have a seemingly mediocre record, but they play in a power conference, ergo they might still rank in the top 25.
|
|
Wardlow on Wardlow 54
Wade Wilson
Don't get Wardlow'd by your Wardlow if you can't Wardlow them back
Posts: 29,504
|
Post by Wardlow on Wardlow 54 on Jan 21, 2024 21:39:07 GMT -5
I like that they're coming back, but I agree that the formatting needs some fine tuning. For one thing, once they had three male singles titles, it became confusing as to who would challenge for what. Nowadays, the International Title is what the TNT Title was originally treated as, the open challenge/television title, so keep that as is. Same for the TBS Title. Right now, I like what's happening with the TNT Title, with Christian choosing who he faces. Eventually, when he loses the belt, you can revamp how it's defended. So keep the rankings for just the men's and women's World Titles and the tag belts. I want to say add the Trios belts, but that's more complex, since there aren't as many active trios rn.
Here are some things that would help the rankings work better than last time:
1. The number one ranked wrestler has right of first refusal for a title shot.
2. Number one contenders matches should be held at least once a month, between the top two or three ranked wrestlers. (if the top ranked wrestler opts to immediately challenge, numbers 2 and 3 face off on the same show to determine the new number 1)
3. If you lose a number one contenders match or your title match, you drop out of the top whatever number they use this time. Keeps a steady flow of fresh challengers at the ready.
4. In regard to what was asked re: blood feuds, I say if the non-Champion isn't ranked, they have to defeat a ranked competitor to take their spot and qualify for a title shot.
That way, you make wins and losses that much more crucial. Wardlow can squash a bunch of j-brones, but if he chokes against Scorpio Sky, he goes to the back of the line. And you avoid the former Champion just taking the spot of the guy who beat them, without earning it.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Jan 21, 2024 21:54:49 GMT -5
Here's the Top 10 rankings for this week
1. Lex Luger, 292 lbs., Chicago, Illinois 2. Great Muta, 237 lbs., Tokyo, Japan 3. El Gigante, 7'7", 454 lbs., Argentina 4. Beautiful Bobby, 235 lbs., Huntsville, AL 5. Nikita Koloff, 123 kilos, Lithuania 6. Sting, 254 lbs., Venice Beach, CA 7. Arn Anderson, 255 lbs., Minnesota 8. Barry Windham, 278 lbs., Sweetwater, Texas 9. One Man Gang, 6'10", 420 lbs., Halstead St. 10. Stunning Steve, 258 lbs., Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Post by Lizuka #BLM on Jan 21, 2024 21:55:52 GMT -5
The problem I had with the rankings was less the Dark stuff (though that sucked too) and more how often they used the "quality of wins" thing completely nebulously, like how Hangman was unbeaten for like a year then got jumped from behind and lost to Brian Cage and it completely knocked him out of the top 5 and he still didn't return to it right away despite beating Cage afterward. When you're doing that kind of nonsense you're better off just not even bothering having it.
|
|
bog
ALF
Posts: 1,002
|
Post by bog on Jan 21, 2024 22:21:44 GMT -5
I think people need to remember that rankings are just another story tool and they're just as worked as any other system in wrestling. AEW should kinda acknowledge that as well and make it clear that wins are weighted, so beating a wrestler ranked no.2 means more than winning five matches against wrestlers that always lose. Maybe even establish a rankings committee who have the job of deciding the rankings each week instead of it being purely scientific or mathematical. I think this is where things get iffy. If you introduce rankings/numbers into things, there will be a large part of the fan base that intensely keeps track of it and are upset when things don't always add up
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Jan 21, 2024 22:35:13 GMT -5
Having rankings doesn't mean it wint be fun. The C2 was fun and that was pretty much rankings There's definitely a difference between a limited series of matches in a tournament and a rankings system that covers the entire roster on an ongoing basis. The whole 'Real sports are popular & real sports have rankings = rankings must be good" argument makes no sense to me. Real sports have to have rankings because they are a legit athletic competition. An actual advantage of wrestling is that it can book shows purely on the basis of what are the best matches and the best stories at any one moment.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 235,149
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Jan 21, 2024 22:36:52 GMT -5
I think the rankings really won't effect a lot of matches, they're gonna flow around the booking of what's already happening anyway and have most number one contender's matches basically be 1 vs 2
I don't think that's really a problem. Honestly I'm the type of person who would love to see it expand beyond a top 5. I'd love to see who is like ranked 17th at any given time lol
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jan 21, 2024 23:49:24 GMT -5
I think the rankings really won't effect a lot of matches, they're gonna flow around the booking of what's already happening anyway and have most number one contender's matches basically be 1 vs 2 I don't think that's really a problem. Honestly I'm the type of person who would love to see it expand beyond a top 5. I'd love to see who is like ranked 17th at any given time lol If it’s anything like my WWE rankings, it’d either be a fringe main eventer/top upper midcarder that wins regularly without winning a belt (since that would give you more points more regularly if you defend it), or is a midcard champion. To pluck a name out of a hat… Colten Gunn.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 235,149
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Jan 22, 2024 1:41:22 GMT -5
I think the rankings really won't effect a lot of matches, they're gonna flow around the booking of what's already happening anyway and have most number one contender's matches basically be 1 vs 2 I don't think that's really a problem. Honestly I'm the type of person who would love to see it expand beyond a top 5. I'd love to see who is like ranked 17th at any given time lol If it’s anything like my WWE rankings, it’d either be a fringe main eventer/top upper midcarder that wins regularly without winning a belt (since that would give you more points more regularly if you defend it), or is a midcard champion. To pluck a name out of a hat… Colten Gunn. Hey he was Mr. Undefeated once!
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,658
|
Post by Kalmia on Jan 22, 2024 3:22:26 GMT -5
I think people need to remember that rankings are just another story tool and they're just as worked as any other system in wrestling. AEW should kinda acknowledge that as well and make it clear that wins are weighted, so beating a wrestler ranked no.2 means more than winning five matches against wrestlers that always lose. Maybe even establish a rankings committee who have the job of deciding the rankings each week instead of it being purely scientific or mathematical. I think this is where things get iffy. If you introduce rankings/numbers into things, there will be a large part of the fan base that intensely keeps track of it and are upset when things don't always add up Which is a mistake, I think. It's still professional wrestling. I doubt Khan is going to start using the Elo rating system or anything. Although maybe he should and we should have a segment every week going through the calculations. Preferably hosted by Scott Steiner.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jan 22, 2024 4:25:46 GMT -5
I always seemed to like the rankings more in theory than in actual practice.
Some good ideas here, though. Weighted wins, for one.
|
|