|
|
Post by markyhitch on Apr 20, 2022 5:22:21 GMT -5
I go with whatever the creators decide. If they're released under the LOW banner, they're legends. Though I separate them in decades so say, an 80s guy like Bob Backlund won't meet a 90s guy like Juventud Guerrera in the ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Olson on Apr 20, 2022 8:28:14 GMT -5
This may be a dumb question but are these Legend or Indy? Lenny Lane Shawn Davari Sinn Bodhi Madison Rayne Matt Cardona Brian Myers James Storm I wrote the stats for the Matt Cardona, Brian Myers, and James Storm cards and all 3 of them are considered Indy cards. As a follow-up, Chad or I made the stats for Lane, Daivari, and Bodhi. Pete's post is a very good one, analyzing all the possible aspects of a wrestler's career, as far as whether to categorize him in the Legends line or the Indies line. In summary: There's not always a good answer.  |
|
|
|
Post by TTX on Apr 20, 2022 9:03:16 GMT -5
Especially when you consider even back in the territories day there were feds that were more big time and others more Indy like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Apr 20, 2022 9:12:42 GMT -5
I wrote the stats for the Matt Cardona, Brian Myers, and James Storm cards and all 3 of them are considered Indy cards. As a follow-up, Chad or I made the stats for Lane, Daivari, and Bodhi. Pete's post is a very good one, analyzing all the possible aspects of a wrestler's career, as far as whether to categorize him in the Legends line or the Indies line. In summary: There's not always a good answer. I think that Pete's analysis is one of the most articulate and accurate looks at our process. Cory's summary is the most succinct. The only other piece of the puzzle is where the "source" of a signing comes from. If an Indy fed helped us sign a wrestler for one of their sets, then the wrestler is going into that Indy set even if they might otherwise be classified as a "legend" under one of Pete's other criteria. (See: Charlie Haas, Shelton Benjamin, PJ Black, etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by Carlzilla on Apr 20, 2022 10:12:39 GMT -5
Are Lenny Lane, Sinn Bodhi, and Shawn Davari legends in the sense that I would define a legend, not even close, are they Legends cards, according to the official card listing, yes.
The others aren't considered Legends cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by justme on Apr 20, 2022 10:43:47 GMT -5
I have a little different set of "parameters" for myself... i basically cut the line for legends/indies at the early 90's into the monday night era... to me it feels that wrestling in general really changed in that time frame and (for better AND worse) it became a different creature... the high spot mentality and the over the top promo work (yes, it traces its roots to the 80's and arguably even further back... Rogers, george, billy graham, etc)... but as a whole, wrestling changed... so its easier for me to keep the 90's and up as the "Indy" side of things... having said all that, certain wrestlers can kind of bounce between as i feel (100% subjective) they could have "hung" with the legends eras (Styles, danielson, shane douglas, jeremy wyatt for example)... I also use a chunk of the lower Indy folks as jobbers and JTTS's in my LOW stuff...
and that is my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by kaeden31 on Apr 20, 2022 13:48:40 GMT -5
Can someone definitively say if there is a power break between Legends and Indy though? Are they rated on a curve? I've been wondering this my entire LoW booking career, and it makes me anxious to bring in "Indy" cards, for fear of upsetting the apple cart.
It would stand to reason, that Indy cards have a hierarchy, like Legends do. We can dispute the validity of Rahl and associated rating systems, but there is clearly a sort of banding between talent levels. My concern is consistency between the brands.
For example, a guy like Quack is effectively a demigod in Chikara, and should be statted as such. But when compared to a Harley Race, or a Randy Savage, Quack is barely a speed bump. It's a classic case of Big Fish, Small Pond. I assume, the self-contained sets, like Chikara, or RoH, or AIW, etc were intended to be balanced within their own ecosystem.
So when they make cards for guys like James Storm, whom I love and desperately want in my Legends program, is he statted to be competitive with Indy, or will he stand up against Legends, punching (arguably) above his metaphorical weight?
|
|
|
|
Post by aceldamas on Apr 20, 2022 14:43:47 GMT -5
Uh oh. We're going to get into the old Nick Bockwinkle vs Kevin Steen argument again.  |
|
|
|
Post by Travis605 on Apr 20, 2022 15:07:40 GMT -5
Can someone definitively say if there is a power break between Legends and Indy though? Are they rated on a curve? I've been wondering this my entire LoW booking career, and it makes me anxious to bring in "Indy" cards, for fear of upsetting the apple cart. It would stand to reason, that Indy cards have a hierarchy, like Legends do. We can dispute the validity of Rahl and associated rating systems, but there is clearly a sort of banding between talent levels. My concern is consistency between the brands. For example, a guy like Quack is effectively a demigod in Chikara, and should be statted as such. But when compared to a Harley Race, or a Randy Savage, Quack is barely a speed bump. It's a classic case of Big Fish, Small Pond. I assume, the self-contained sets, like Chikara, or RoH, or AIW, etc were intended to be balanced within their own ecosystem. So when they make cards for guys like James Storm, whom I love and desperately want in my Legends program, is he statted to be competitive with Indy, or will he stand up against Legends, punching (arguably) above his metaphorical weight? Like you said....I wouldn't specifially use "set" specific releases in Legends (Danielson ROH card, etc) since they are tied into that specific era. |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Apr 20, 2022 17:09:55 GMT -5
Can someone definitively say if there is a power break between Legends and Indy though? Are they rated on a curve? I've been wondering this my entire LoW booking career, and it makes me anxious to bring in "Indy" cards, for fear of upsetting the apple cart. It would stand to reason, that Indy cards have a hierarchy, like Legends do. We can dispute the validity of Rahl and associated rating systems, but there is clearly a sort of banding between talent levels. My concern is consistency between the brands. For example, a guy like Quack is effectively a demigod in Chikara, and should be statted as such. But when compared to a Harley Race, or a Randy Savage, Quack is barely a speed bump. It's a classic case of Big Fish, Small Pond. I assume, the self-contained sets, like Chikara, or RoH, or AIW, etc were intended to be balanced within their own ecosystem. So when they make cards for guys like James Storm, whom I love and desperately want in my Legends program, is he statted to be competitive with Indy, or will he stand up against Legends, punching (arguably) above his metaphorical weight? Like you said....I wouldn't specifially use "set" specific releases in Legends (Danielson ROH card, etc) since they are tied into that specific era. I personally take it on a case by case basis. If we're using the Bryan Danielson example, yes his card is very strong but I don't personally mind because he's had a pretty stellar career and he's someone I personally like and feel could/should be at the top of the LOW rankings. Same with AJ Styles. BUT there are definitely some indy cards that are higher than I would like them for my Legends fed. I understand why, I'm not here to the great work that people like Zeke and Ty do. It would suck for Indies players if all of their cards were ranked so they always had really short matches or something. So, I either choose not to use cards that aren't statted the way I would want them for my fed, or I make adjustments like making their pin rating higher. I feel like a lot of the guys who are in this gray area of whether they should be in Legends rather than Indies, fall pretty squarely as a mid-carder stat-wise, which is usually pretty right on. There are probably some specific examples that people could argue about but overall, I've been very happy with most of the ones that I actually care about. |
|
