seabs said:
He'd not be viewed as a bad one as he's meshed with three completely different styles there, Kid is a high flier / technician, Bryan is alot more technical and Punk is more of a striker than anything now a days. I'm not talking a full evaluation btw just as a fair justification to say if X is better than Y.
In that case, my answer is completely dependent upon how much I've seen of the wrestler I'm comparing "X" too.
However just in general, it only takes me one single ten-fifteen minute match to be able evaluate a wrestlers ability. Unless said wrestler is spending that match getting his ass-kicked that much will normally tell whether or not I'll be able to enjoy the wrestler and give me a basis for what my feelings towards most of their matches will be. I know it may seem too quick to a lot of you guys, especially based by looking at the answers here but it's worked out well for me. Except for the when people obviously take the time to further develop there skills into something greater, it pretty much always work. I feel the same way about Del Rio's ability that I have when I saw his first match against Rey during his Smackdown debut, average with one really good move. It also doesn't always mean that I have to like the first match, because within the time-frame I've supplied enough time to get a good feel of the wrestler and what he could bring to the table. The first Benoit match I saw wasn't that great, however it allowed me to get a good feel for his style, his selling, and other little things that would allow me to rate him higher than I actually would rate the match. Now I didn't project him becoming one of my all-time favorites, but based off my initial opinion it's also not very surprising.
Okay, now I understand the flaws. John Cena for example. My first impression on him based off the first match I've seen that fits my little model there, was an average wrestler. Nowadays, after experiencing and viewing more of his matches, I can safely say he is an average wrestler who when pitted against the right person can excel into something better. So yes, it doesn't lead into the most developed and founded evaluation on someone but I can often get a very good base for my opinions and usually it's proven right. It's in the same vein of how you really only have to watch one Seth MacFarlane show to get a decent grasp on all of them. Even American Dad! which is fairly different from Family Guy, and The Cleveland Show, still has several trademarks of MacFarlane's work. Although it's much easier to get a feel of a wrestler based off one fifteen minute bout than it is to get one of an author since certain changes in style is common. What I mean is Triple H isn't going to suddenly wrestle one match as high-flyer focusing mostly one aerial maneuvers but a writer whose body of work is mostly comprised of [humorous in tone] sailor stories can write a horror story called The Monkey's Paw.
In conclusion, I normally have only needed one singles evenly fought ten to fifteen minutes match to be able to evaluate a wrestler's in-ring ability. My answer is derived from the fact that typically the first match I see of a wrestler that fits those conditions tends to form the opinion I have about that wrestler years later. Yes, it has it's flaws and it doesn't always turn out that way (even not counting when wrestlers don't just work their ass off and improve) but most of the time it does. I wasn't answering this question based off how to compare them to someone else or how to tell if they're going to be a main event player, Lockard covered that already. Just answered this subjectively.
