I edited and expanded that post.
Port was THE prog metal drummer, the groundbreaking dude everyone else listened to and took after since then. Isn't that innovation of a sort? He also - if this counts - combined Bonzo & Peart's style into a sort of combo style that still sounded fresh and that no one had done before to my knowledge.
As far as influence goes I think it's tough. Collins automatically gets big points for being one of the big 4 groundwork/foundation prog style drummers with Bruford, Palmer, Giles. These guys all had a similar style that was IMMENSELY influential in drums and they did it all together at roughly the same time, invented and cemented that style as a big deal in rock. All four were and are heavily, heavily listened to as being a 'school' of drumming kinda. All four deserve co-credit in my book.
Come to think of it that whole paragraph applies equally to innovation, and spells out why Collins honestly deserves a lot of points there too: he co innovated prog drumming and helped cement the style which had a very specific sound and feel and touch
But as an individual influence I think Collins is the weakest of those 4 early prog drummers, and Port's very influential. It could go either way between these two on influence (and maybe innovation) in my book, fwiw
When you say Port's awesome but 'just doesn't do great by this criteria'...hmm. Do you think that there's something 'missing' from the criteria?
All that Portnoy stuff counts for influence. Him taking two other DRUMMERS styles and combining them goes to show the other drummers influence on a drummer. Innovation would be taking genres of music and doing things with music never done before. Taking two drummers styles, one of which was built off the other anyways, and building on it more doesn't necessarily give innovation credit. Prog metal drummer everyone copies is influence, and that's what he has going for him other than skill. I think I did a good explanation of innovation a while back.
Appice vs. Copeland is tough and as far as I'm concerned can go either way. I'm far more familiar with Copeland than Appice, and I'd give Appice Influence and Originality, and tie them in creativity (which I think I did before anyways). And then they end up tying and Appice wins due to influence. I did that breakdown before in Appice's favor, however I said I didn't know enough about Appice over all to make a fair decision, and asked for opinions. I got 3 members who decided Copeland should get Creativity and are close in originality. With that I said Copeland > Appice, but it's still open for debate and can go either way. Carey's wins over Lombardo in skill and originality are large enough to cover any gap Lombardo has with his two wins. Yes he's vastly more influential, but you need more than one mega gap to cover. As in if the gap in their creativity was far smaller, and same with originality, I'd be inclined to consider a Lombardo victory. As is, I don't see it.
No one did a benjamin ward breakdown, it was never requested and I really don't care about how we switch those two's positions unless there's a complaint. I found it fine with Benjamin > Ward. I'd give Ward influence and originality, then probably Benjamin takes everything else but skill. They may tie in originality and then Ward takes Innovation. Or Ward takes Innovation, Originality, and Influence and thus wins. Which sounds best to you guys?
What's 'missing' from the criteria is really nothing, it's the question of what you consider greatness. Take the greatest rock artists thread, the list I will never care about because what suits the criteria's positions goes completely against everything I believe in regarding music. Example, I think The Doors are greater artists in every sense of the word than Modanna, but due to criteria, she's way, and reasonably ahead. I think the Allman Brothers are a far greater band than Nirvana in every sense of the word, and yet they are more than 50 spaces apart. Does that mean that something's wrong with the criteria? No, it means that the list defines greatness according to overall attributes. Portnoy is fantastic at what he does, and I think he's easily a fantastic drummer that's up there with anyone in the top 10-40 range in terms of drumming. And really out of all the drummers there are, the gap between 30 and 10 is insignificant. However overall Portnoy is not as great as some of these other drummers, and does poorly in areas where other drummers are far more well rounded. This doesn't mean that as a drummer with his merits, many wouldn't consider him as good a drummer. It gets down to opinion at that point. I like Portnoy a lot, that's my opinion. I think he's a fantastic drummer, that's my opinion. I think he is far more skilled and talented than most drummers in the genre, that's nearly a fact. I also say he's not as well rounded as all the drummers above him. That, as for what we're going for, should be fact.