Redo End of the Year Awards

[justtxyank]

Woof. I just finished 1988 with DOTT and Andre the Giant won Wrestler of the Year and was #1 in the top 100 with only like 10 matches worked in the first few months before going down with an injury. Meanwhile, Ric Flair works like 40 matches with an A average and ranks 3rd behind Andre and Harley Race who, like Andre, worked only 12 matches and has been out of work since June.

[James Casey]

It's been said again and again and again. The awards are subjective - they're not meant to be the absolute last word on who rocked, and who sucked. Otherwise Tommy Cornell would never lose :p I personally like them, as they combine match quality with overness with various other things - exactly as a real reader poll (which I think this is probably supposed to be) would do.

[EricAdams]

I'd like to see a change here, but in a different department. If the great Eric Adams wins best young wrestler and that goes in his titles/awards list, then I think him winning a MOTY should go there as well.

[cyberkitten01]

Explaining how in the real world John Cena wins Wrestler of the Year

[DeleTe]

He's over (Sadly), he works a ton of matches (Sadly), wins most of them (Sadly)

[justtxyank]

[QUOTE=cyberkitten01;403352]Explaining how in the real world John Cena wins Wrestler of the Year[/QUOTE] I just looked. Andre worked 11 matches total in the year. I just don't see how that compares to a worker that someone isn't fond of winning. This is a guy who barely worked at all.

[jonlawson]

Well, if you think about it, Undertaker didn't wrestle a whole lot this year, BUT he's got potential MOTY's and possible WOTY, at least I think so. His overness is one of the major things, not match quality or anything like that. The voting system, though, in TEW puts everything into consideration. If Undertaker wrestled at a "small" fed, then he would be lower in the WOTY votes, right?

[D16NJD16]

[QUOTE=James Casey;403330]It's been said again and again and again. The awards are subjective - they're not meant to be the absolute last word on who rocked, and who sucked. Otherwise Tommy Cornell would never lose :p [/QUOTE] Why shouldn't they be though? It's a game and there are only one set of awards. Shouldn't they be accurate?

[Phantom Stranger]

[QUOTE=jonlawson;403446] If Undertaker wrestled at a "small" fed, then he would be lower in the WOTY votes, right?[/QUOTE] Last two years running my Cult (at the time) fed Ring of Fire landed Davis Wayne Newton a Wrestler of the Year award, both richly deserved, both specifically 'for his work in ROF' as CGC and CZCW wasted him. Neither CGC nor CZCW were beyond Cult, and their influence meant he didn't even get on the top 100 list overall. But he was WOTY.

[Phantom Stranger]

[QUOTE=D16NJD16;403454]Why shouldn't they be though? It's a game and there are only one set of awards. Shouldn't they be accurate?[/QUOTE] They are... subjectively. Which is to say, the game simulates a bunch of game-people doing the judging. They might have this bias or that, or favour this guy over that guy, or what-have-you - but they vote their subjective opinions. I like it that way, to be honest; it feels more appropriate. I know my guys had a great year, but should they all show up on a Top 100 probably voted on Stateside? No - but the best of them will, dotted about the place, as the judges remember the UK.

[AfRoMaN36]

Think of this as a paraody of PWI top 100 or 500 or whateveryouhaveitnowadays who consistently votes Cena as one of the tops despite the fact he is only an average worker. Hell in my game, Sunny.... Yes THAT Sunny was in the top 5 because I put her in various intergender tag team matches against a dX that had Triple H and HBK both in their prime. It was that day that I realized.... their was no god.

[Jouzy]

[QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;404273]Think of this as a paraody of PWI top 100 or 500 or whateveryouhaveitnowadays who consistently votes Cena as one of the tops despite the fact he is only an average worker. Hell in my game, Sunny.... Yes THAT Sunny was in the top 5 because I put her in various intergender tag team matches against a dX that had Triple H and HBK both in their prime. It was that day that I realized.... their was no god.[/QUOTE] There is certainly a lack of a spelling God.

[James Casey]

[QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;404273]Think of this as a paraody of PWI top 100 or 500 or whateveryouhaveitnowadays who consistently votes Cena as one of the tops despite the fact he is only an average worker.[/QUOTE] Cena, of course, pulls it out time and again in the big matches, on the big stage, in front of (tens of) thousands of fans... To pick a (wildly exaggerated) example, it's kind of the same reason that Daniel Day Lewis or Denzel Washington get the Best Actor Oscars - they're in films that people see worldwide, compared to Ahsan Nobody, nationally acclaimed leading man in Kurdish cinema whose performances may make DDL and DW look like day one drama students. Look at some of the Best Picture winners from recent years: Driving Miss Daisy over My Left Foot or Field of Dreams? Forrest Gump over Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction? Braveheart over Sense and Sensibility and Appollo 13? I could go on - but ultimately they're a simulation of awards being given out in a video game. And I think they do a pretty good of it. Your milage, of course, may vary - but so does your milage vary from the in-game journo's and voters.

[AfRoMaN36]

Fair point. Then it would be safe to say that Cena's exposure would be the sole reason of him consistently winning that award. But what about people like Sunny managing to make it so high? I admit, I am a Sunny mark as I have an autographed photo of her hung on my bedroom wall for all my girlfriends to see and shoot for. Because of this.... its safe to say I kept her in the spotlight. But she wrestled in 5 matches yet somehow manages to rank in number 5? A person who by all means cannot wrestle? Its not just for this, its also for the people who fit that Andre the Giant description given above. I dont think a complete rehaul is needed. I just think a higher minimum of matches required is needed. 20 maybe? Thats fair enough.

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;404450]I just think a higher minimum of matches required is needed. 20 maybe? Thats fair enough.[/QUOTE] Not unless you want to potentially eliminate a ton of people. Anybody who works entirely for a promotion without TV for example, as they'd only get a maximum of 12 (monthly events) to work per year.

[crayon]

Perhaps not a set requirement barring them from the rankings, but any less than the set number (for example 20, which does seem a little high) has a negative effect on their potential ranking? So that the top tier would only be for those with decent exposure, and the rest duke it out in ranks 30-100 or something? If we are looking at this in terms of a subjective survey, it's probably reasonable to expect that a worker who's on a no-tv promotion would be known by less people, and therefore have less of a fanbase to get him up those rankings. Course, I'm sure that also wouldn't be a sure-fire fix and would probably be open for it's own issues

[Adam Ryland]

[QUOTE=crayon;404488]If we are looking at this in terms of a subjective survey, it's probably reasonable to expect that a worker who's on a no-tv promotion would be known by less people, and therefore have less of a fanbase to get him up those rankings.[/QUOTE] Again, it's meant to be a spoof of the PWI 500 - if you've ever read it you'll know that they always put a bunch of obscure luchadores and whatnot into the list to show off their "knowledge", even though most people have absolutely no idea who they are. There's usually at least one guy in the top 20 who 95% of the readers wouldn't even be able to pull out of a police line-up, let alone have seen any matches of theirs.

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=crayon;404488]Course, I'm sure that also wouldn't be a sure-fire fix and would probably be open for it's own issues[/QUOTE] That it would. For one, it would almost eliminate great performances because Joe & Debbie Average didn't see it (because it wasn't on free TV or wasn't broadcast in the good ol' US of A). Quick, name the top ten feuds in wrestling history. Yes, many people would immediately jump on Flair-Steamboat but your criteria would completely eliminate Kudo-Tsuchiya in favor of Doink-Brawler or Boogeyman-Finlay or some such nonsense. Under your suggested criteria, someone like Sable would rate higher than pretty much any women's worker [I][B]who can actually wrestle[/B][/I]. The awards are subjective and done by two different organizations (which is why Wrestler of the Year is oftentimes not #1 on the top 100 list). Making them binary isn't going to make them better. It'll just make them useless (like any booker worth their salt doesn't already know who's doing well in their game world).

[AfRoMaN36]

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;404473]Not unless you want to potentially eliminate a ton of people. Anybody who works entirely for a promotion without TV for example, as they'd only get a maximum of 12 (monthly events) to work per year.[/QUOTE] Thats true. Then again, if this is a spoof of the PWI 500, those guys wouldnt be on the list anyway. They wouldnt be mainstream enough. An any BIG indy guy who would be considered good enough for the top 100 would deffinately not be tied down to just one indy promotion. So he should be able to pass 20 matches in 2 months. I'd just like to see a list where valets who were obviously carried by better workers dont top the list. I doubt Top 500 would be THAT stupid. Or better yet, you can limit the top 100 to "Active" or "Semi Active" wrestlers. People would probably say then that their managers cant get in well.... dont make them managers.

[Phantom Stranger]

[QUOTE=AfRoMaN36;404538]Thats true. Then again, if this is a spoof of the PWI 500, those guys wouldnt be on the list anyway. They wouldnt be mainstream enough. An any BIG indy guy who would be considered good enough for the top 100 would deffinately not be tied down to just one indy promotion. So he should be able to pass 20 matches in 2 months. [/QUOTE] See Adam's earlier note about people you've never heard of. In any case, then consider how the game works; sure, an indy worker on three contracts can get 36 shows in before the year's out - but if he's good, he's expensive for that size of promotion, so they'll only use him on half their shows. So we're down to 18, give or take - and under the threshold. Chances are there'll be a booking clash; 17. If he's injured, or booked in a match against a dismal opponent, his shot at the list got killed.

[TeflonBilly]

I don't know if it coukld be done, but I wouldn't mind seeing a feud of the year make it into the list. It ccould be based on an average match rating between two workers who fight a minimum of X times, with more matches and a longer lasting feud lifting the ranking. Lie I said, I don't know if it could be done, but I just like awards. :)

[Remianen]

[QUOTE=TeflonBilly;405366]I don't know if it coukld be done, but I wouldn't mind seeing a feud of the year make it into the list. It ccould be based on an average match rating between two workers who fight a minimum of X times, with more matches and a longer lasting feud lifting the ranking. Lie I said, I don't know if it could be done, but I just like awards. :)[/QUOTE] I can see your point. But realize that at a certain point, you have SO many awards that they don't mean anything. Think of all the various award shows that exist today. Does anyone really give two craps about the Kids Choice Awards? It's gotten to the point where they refer to a particular part of the year as "Award season" because there are so many clustered into the same period (Grammys, American Music, Oscars, CMT, Country Music, VH1 Honors, VH1 Hip Hop Honors, Billboard, People's Choice, Kids Choice, Sundance and all the various film festivals (like Toronto, New York, Cannes, etc) with awards, Emmys, Golden Globes, Cable ACE, Espys, CLIO, NAACP, BET, and on and on and on). Before you know it, folks will be clamoring for really ancillary awards like 'Entertainer of the Year', 'Brawler of the Year', and on and on. Seems awards are given out so much because folks want to ensure no one gets left out. Besides, feud of the year is exclusive to larger promotions because small promotions can't run the same match over and over again. Or rather, they can but the AI probably rarely would unless there are only two people (or teams) available to face each other. Then again, this is coming from a person who ignores the awards because they're always seemingly biased against my workers. Yes, I can lock down 'Female Wrestler of the Year' but the highest I've ever had a worker place in the top 100 (in TEW07, at least) is 5th. I don't think 'Wrestler of the Year' should be gender-restricted, personally.

[TeflonBilly]

I agree with you that 'Feud of the Year' would be unrealistic, especially since I think it would be too biased toward the player. With the HOI, the year end awards actually do mean something(if I understand the concept), and any player in a large enough fed to gain notice should be able to lock down top feud. I posted it to see who else thought it was interesting, as much as anything else. I just wanted some validation, dang it! :)

[Akki]

[QUOTE=TeflonBilly;405366]I don't know if it coukld be done, but I wouldn't mind seeing a feud of the year make it into the list. It ccould be based on an average match rating between two workers who fight a minimum of X times, with more matches and a longer lasting feud lifting the ranking. Lie I said, I don't know if it could be done, but I just like awards. :)[/QUOTE] You realize that some of the greatest feuds of all time had a very small amount of matches between two workers, right? Take Austin vs McMahon for example. It pretty much created the Attitude era, and was one of the most compelling feuds of all time. But how many times did they actually wrestle together? 2, maybe three time, with Austin winning every time. If you just looked at the matches, it wouldn't be a good feud at all. As for awards in general, I remember a little Tip on the loading screen of TEW05. It said something like "Just because a wrestler is high on the top 100 doesn't mean they're really that good. They might just have had really good opponents." They also might have just been really popular against other popular workers. Things like that.