Loss

Wouldn't that just be Rock followed by Hogan? It's not a money drawing list. It's more of a guys pushed as stars list. I'd think even people like Gene Okerlund and Jim Ross who have been staples forever would do well. So would Goldberg, Road Warriors, Ultimate Warrior, Nikita Koloff, Roddy Piper, etc. I understand that there may not be much interest, as it would be completely subjective with no real objective criteria set except to embellish those rose-colored memories we have kind of declared have no value. But Internet wrestling culture has always been more focused on someone being right and someone being wrong than anything, so I'm not sure everyone would even understand the point.

Dean may not need to tell Lawler how to work, but someone has to work with Cole.

He also left while Vince was in England.

He's working.

I don't think you need something in that style to be considered great either. But people don't see Ric Flair and, say, Mick Foley, in the same category. If you're going to classify DiBiase as a brawler, he's a niche wrestler, which limits him. I think DiBiase is closer to Flair than Foley. In fact, I think Arn and Tully are the perfect comparisons -- widely regarded great wrestlers who don't have that classic, traditional match (although all three have some peak matches that are excellent). And by that standard, he falls short when compared to other similar wrestlers from the same era. He was in my SC Top 100 and probably would be again, but he's not someone I see at the level he's often claimed to be.

I said 1984, but 1983 is a better starting point. The reason I like that year as a starting point is that 1983 was a huge year for many territories and it was the birth of Starrcade, the widely broadcast supercard concept that changed wrestling. It was also near the beginning of the Hogan and Flair eras, cable was taking off, etc. I don't know that one year is going to make a significant difference in voting, but that's always what I classify as "modern era" in my head.

Top 100 Wrestling Personalities of the Modern Era perhaps? Meaning 1984-present? Interesting idea if anyone else supports it.

I'm sure if you did an all-encompassing U.S. only countdown where you look at how memorable someone was and just the overall package without focusing on any objective criteria, guys like Rude, DiBiase, Roberts, Hennig and other WWF upper-midcarders/sometimes headliners of the time would do very well. Call it a PWI-type countdown, which might be a fun project. Your Stings, Lugers, etc. would probably do well too.

Since he's HHH's first recruit, I think that works in his favor politically.

WCW was pretty bad in '99 before Russo came in, but not so far gone that the right person couldn't have turned things around. After Russo had his run, there was no way to turn WCW around. He also created a culture where writers write to show the value of writers instead of to get over talent.

He has done more damage to pro wrestling than anyone else has (although Bischoff isn't THAT far behind), and it's unbelievable that the wrestling business still finds a place for him to be employed.

Some recaps made it sound like Miz gave Cena the Rock Bottom for the win. I guess not.

I am still confused about Rock's involvement in the WM main event and what actually happened. Dave said in the WON that Rock interfered in the match and gave Cena a Rock Bottom. I have not seen that mentioned anywhere else, and if it did happen, it makes no sense that Cena would shake his hand the next night. I guess I have to watch the match to see what the finish is since almost every recap of it has been different.

If a guy is good more often than he's bad, he's good. The more often a guy is good and the less often he's bad, the better he is. I think we have to be careful not to create metrics to define what a good wrestler is. I'm quite the devotee, but I think that would be an exercise in frustration. Most great wrestlers (and some good or average ones) have some intangible quality that makes them seem better than they really are, which is a huge positive. Breaking it down into categories is tough for me, because I don't think it's the right way to compare wrestlers to each other.

I have praised DiBiase in every post I have made here. Where did I say I was underwhelmed? I like DiBiase just fine. But he doesn't even compare to Arn Anderson, much less Ric Flair. Also, the "other people like it" defense is exactly what we roll out to criticize people like Meltzer and Alvarez when they use it to defend matches.

I have no desire to turn this into a DiBiase bashing session. Flair certainly doesn't need DiBiase to be downplayed to prop up his own case. It's just that he's not the type of wrestler he's professed to be. That's really the whole of the argument.

Windham has the great traditional style matches, which is in his favor.

I don't disagree with this. But DiBiase isn't grouped with Cactus Jack or guys like that. He's more often compared to Flair and Steamboat and Windham and Bret Hart and such -- that classic-style wrestler. He just doesn't have any great matches in that style. Blame it on positioning or whatever, but they're not there.

I don't think the criticism of DiBiase has been that he wasn't as good, as much as it is that he was promoted as a Flair/Race-type wrestler and doesn't really have that 30-minute, non-gimmicked title match on his resume that someone can point to. The other thing is that he has the rep, but doesn't really have too many matches that can be pointed to as all-time classics. You won't find too much push back to the idea that DiBiase was really good, though. The debate is over how good.

I'm just a wrestling fan. Some things I like that lots of people do, and some things I like that most people don't. Just like anyone else, I suppose. I tend to get annoyed at anyone who argues that in-ring is everything, just as I do at anyone who argues that no one cares about great matches. Looking at in-ring, promos and angles as distinct, competing entities instead of just different parts of a presentation is a compartmentalization that has always bugged me, and in fact is part of the ever-annoying mindset in WWE that the backstage stuff is an attraction on its own. Anyway, I know where I'm going, but I can't quite find the words to get there at the moment.

Austin had to get stitched up between this and the match with Roberts.

Not only are they planning it, they announced it! They did build up Hogan/Savage for a year in 1988 and 1989, but 2011 Vince McMahon and the creative team aren't exactly 1988 Vince and Pat Patterson, who could really craft something brilliant with this. He's the guy that should be booking the buildup to this match.