There's always a gap between what you want to quantify and what you feel like we can actually quantify. A good example of this is looking at "top drawing feuds".
It's a valid exercise: Want to prove someone is a Hall of Famer? Want to show how evidence that a wrestler is capable of moving the needle and making a difference?
However, like many 'wrestlenomic' experiments, a lack of reliable sources that cover enormous swaths of time can be quite a hindrance. Additionally, there's something to be said when you're trying to compare events from different eras. And whenever you're trying to qualify something as top - that implies that you're also capable or establishing who was at the bottom and what's a valid baseline to use. In short, it's difficult just to pick out the "best" unless you can also rank a lot of what is clearly "not the best". And then there's the whole aspect of trying to determine who "drew" the crowd. (Was it the title match? Was it the match that went on last? Was it the match with the "biggest" star involved?)
When you look at all of this, it's a pretty daunting task.
Usually, I try to build things incrementally. I tackle smaller time periods and attempt to expand the range larger and larger until I've covered a decent slice. Yet, I know that my methods are always going to be imperfect and the lens of history gets pretty foggy.
"On the idea of looking at the "Top Drawing Feuds in WWE History""
No comments yet. -