Just in regards to the GOAT list discussion, and using ratings to make it objective: why would you even want your personal GOAT list to be objective? Surely subjectivity is the point?
Wrestling skill is so subjective though. What if I prefer Savage's character work in his matches over say Steven Regal's technical wrestling or mat work skills? Do I rank Regal higher because he's technically the better wrestler? I guess it will always be a subjective discussion. An interesting discussion none-the-less.
I think the subjectivity is what makes matches and workers fun to talk about. Drawing power is largely fact. It's a fact that Steve Austin drew more than Fit Finlay, but I won't really upright say it's a fact that Bob Backlund is a better wrestler/worker than Kurt Angle, even if I believe it. I mean I wouldn't have an opinion unless I thought there was truth to it, but I can't look at someone who says Angle > Backlund and say 'wrong, here are the numbers'. You can kind of do that drawing power. It's based off of fact and that is kind of boring. I can't look at Buddy Rose's drawing power in Portland and decide whether I like it or not because there's nothing to like or dislike. I can look at Buddy Rose's matches and promos and decide whether I like them or not. Drawing power factors for greatest, but not for favourites.
It also determines how you view 'wrestler'. My idea of 'wrestler/worker' isn't limited to technical skill, it's overall how they perform in a match. Whether they're working mostly shtick, working the mat, brawling, primarily in the air or working the big time main event of WrestleMania, they're still 'wrestling' to me. I think Randy Savage is a better wrestler than Bryan Danielson, but isn't the better mat/'technical' wrestler. The same way Rey Msyterio is a better wrestler than Mick Foley but isn't as good a brawler as Mick.
But if someone DID think Rey was a better brawler than Mick, it can be talked about. Why is Rey better? Examples of Rey being better? What does Rey better in brawls than Foley? This can be argued. Drawing isn't exactly set in stone, but there are numbers and figures, and subjectivity is mostly thrown out of the window. There's little room for argument. The Rock drew more than Sting. I can't argue against that. "Why did the Rock draw more" can't really be asked, can it? As in there's nothing anyone can say to show Sting drew more fans and sold more whatever because it just isn't true. You can't subjectively say Sting's merchandise moved better than the Rock's". I can argue Sting was a far better worker, and "why was Sting a better worker?" can be asked. You CAN subjectively say Sting has better matches and performances.