Loss

From an in-ring perspective, they have a great roster. It's hard to say if they have a roster of talented talkers or not since promo skills are less the issue than the creative structure. I think crowd reactions are at an all-time low, and the number of people who people care about is also at an all-time low. From a creative perspective, they've definitely been better than they are now, and they've likely been worse. Business comparisons don't quite tell the story in this case because of how times have changed. But I feel like if their revenue model was still built around the ability to draw on the road where the storyline was key and they visited most towns more often, they'd be headed for extinction. If their survival was still based on a main event scene that excited people, they'd be headed for extinction too. Lucky for them, unlucky for us that they aren't nearly as accountable to their fanbase as they were in a time long gone.

I feel like I'm going to be the only guy voting for Eddie Gilbert since he was shot down as just an angle guy in his thread. Too bad, because he's a match guy too, and an impressive one at that. I listed quite a few recommendations in his thread if anyone wants to take a look. Gilbert above Tracy Smothers probably seems a little against where most would have him, but I would for sure.

Maybe not based on the 1990s alone, but his 2000 onwards work also has a bunch of good stuff, the biggest example being the Nishimura 9/2006 match. Are there other examples besides the Nishimura match? Just curious. I'd be interested in checking them out at some point.

Batista is by no means a lock, but I like him enough to at least consider him. He had a certain quality that guys like Dusty or JYD had, in the sense that a huge part of their appeal is being Dusty or being JYD. Part of what I like about Batista is his ability to be Batista. It never seems forced or inauthentic, and it makes buying into his matches a much easier proposition.

This would have been the year to throw money at someone in the world of boxing or MMA to come in and face Brock. I don't follow boxing, but I'm guessing even now something like Brock-Mayweather would get people excited and would be an appropriate match for Wrestlemania.

That's one of the best squash matches ever.

I'm 36 and gay so I'm actually 70.

I really enjoy Gary Young and could easily see him in the 80-100 range. Need to think about that one more, but it's not at all ridiculous on the surface. He now manages a Chili's, by the way.

I was thinking he may be the GOAT at portraying an abusive boyfriend or husband, but Randy Savage. Tatum would probably find a way on to a Favorite Wrestlers Ever list of 100 for me, but I don't really see a Greatest case.

It took Big Show too long to get it, and from about 1998 to about 2005 or so, he struck me as a major underachiever who couldn't work up to his potential because of a lack of motivation. He's also never really been able to stay over in a meaningful way in WWE for any length of time, even compared to other guys like Mark Henry and Kane who have been around forever. He also has my least favorite wrestling name.

While I don't really have a preference, I will say that we learned in high school speech class that extemporaneous speaking is the best form of speaking because it's reactive to setting and seems more natural and from the heart.

Does anyone know if the WWF had a separate heel locker room in the 80s? I know everyone had the same entrance. I ask because it was mostly necessary to call matches on the fly at one time because of the fear that you'd be seen talking your match out ahead of time with your opponent. Oh no, suddenly everyone knows it's fake.

This Heat got mentioned in a thread. PWO has peaked.

As long as it's not overly transparent, either way is fine.

I don't think it's an issue of working hard or not working hard enough. I think it's an issue of having better matches. Why did Vader have better matches than Earthquake? Because he was a more compelling character with more aura, more athletic ability and more options for constructing a match because of said athletic ability and aura. Earthquake was able to have perfectly acceptable matches based on ideas of how big men work that existed long before he came along. Vader, to an extent, rewrote the rules. "Big guys shouldn't play pinball because they'll be neutered" might be conventional wisdom, but Vader played pinball without being neutered because he's Vader. "Pro style won't get over in a shootstyle fed" is another piece of convention wisdom, but Vader got pro style over in a shoot style fed again, because he's Vader. There's nothing wrong with John Tenta. It's just that Vader is an exceptional talent. It's not even really fair to point to Vader as how big men should work because he's the exception to so many rules that other guys with less gifts trying to do it wouldn't be able to pull it off. Vader could because he was a very special performer.

Vader will be ranked above Earthquake because he had better matches. I don't care so much about how hard he worked and think that's a false paradigm. He got better results. Earthquake is a summer wrestler. He brings the heat. Vader is both a summer wrestler and a winter wrestler because he can also bring the snowflakes. (That was a dumb enough play on words that I had to share it.)

So many guys like Heath Slater and Titus O'Neill -- even Roman Reigns and even R-Truth -- come across so much better there than they do week-to-week. Miz comes off better week-to-week though.

I would be interested in more people explaining their thoughts on minis.

Dave on Wrestling Classics many moons ago:

I think you can have it both ways, though. The idea is to build guys up throughout the year so that by Wrestlemania season, they are viable opponents for Brock. Just a match with Brock isn't really a form of meaningful movement up the card, much like cashing in MITB rarely works in making a permanent top-tier star.

Oh, I just meant in general. Wrestlers are either "workrate" or "anti-workrate".

I recommended five Espectrito matches in his thread that are a good intro for some of the other guys mentioned too.

I think it's more that WWE doesn't really respect its stars than it is that they see the McMahons as the stars. Those are almost the same thing but not quite. The camera shaking is because they don't know how to work, just like scripting their promos is because they don't know how to talk. Of course they emphasize every week how broke and hopeless all of these guys would be without the benevolent McMahons supporting them. Vince said on The Steve Austin Show that he wanted guys "willing to learn" -- not guys who know a lot and are capable of applying it, but guys who will shut up and do what they are told to do. So these guys are stars, yes, but only because the McMahons allow them to be. Unless they aren't stars, of course, in which case it's because of their own failings.

Why does this have to be a zero-sum game?

I was just thinking for most wrestlers, if I see a big-stage match, a small-stage match, a match with a great opponent, a match with an okay or bad opponent and a freebie (whatever the recommender feels is a good addition, which could be anything), I'm mostly set when it comes to whether I'd seek out more to rank. So I might want to see more from there, but I'd at least know after that starting point if I care to go further or not.