Dylan Waco

After Tito, today has kind of been a murderer's row of guys who were talented and maybe even great for a time, who also come across as badly exposed post footage explosion. I'd regard all of them as overrated on the list (though I don't really mind any of them making it) and would be interested to know how many posters here agree.

I don't think I thought differently about Arn than how I thought about Ric or Hansen or whoever when it came to ranking them and I'm kind of confused about what in my post would have led you to think otherwise. I was just stating the obvious point, which is that Arn was never really competing for a number one position in my eyes. Arn does not have a career that is going to get him to that level. Saying that does not mean that I didn't look at the same basic things when thinking about Arn as I did for Misawa, Bock, Funk, or whoever. I also think Arn's 92 was pretty exceptional, and a good bit better than Ric's 91 was for whatever that is worth.

I do count those matches as positives for Ric. Ric will be WAY above Arn on my ballot. They aren't fighting for the same spot to me. That said I would take Arn in 92 over Flair in 91. or 92. or 93. or 94. I haven't thought enough about Rude's 89 to say how I would rate that in relation to Flair's 91, but I didn't even rate Rude.

I don't recall ever seeing a Hansen match that would work against him. He had disappointing matches against some good/great workers, though not in the sense that they were disappointing because they were outright bad. In the random AJPW stuff that comes up he always looks good and I don't recall going through any AWA footage where I thought he underwhelmed Edit: I responded, but I'm not ready to say where I rated Hansen yet.

The contrarian line is a cheapshot and you should own it if you mean it. Even when you praise Flair you are a contrarian now. The only acceptable stance is praise, worship, and complete devotion. Watching footage only matters if it is used in the service of Ric, drawing other conclusions, and discovering others who might be at his admittedly all time great level in a given year is a grave sin that must be dismissed as hipsterish trolling. That is my takeaway from interacting with you on Flair in this thread, even though I think I was actually very fair in my treatment of someone who I see as an all time great too.

I honestly struggle with the idea of Parv being anti-Christian. He's basically a Misawa tribute act during his WWECW run. Regardless of his rating on Matt's list vis a vis Ted, he feels like a guy JVK would like during that period if nothing else

Have you finished the 80s NJPW stuff yet? If not I'm not sure if it's really fair to make a definitive statement on Fujinami that is that strong. Can't remember if it was you or Loss (probably both) who said Flair's real case is made from 82-89. I basically agree with that, though I'd probably extend it to 90, and "the good years" likely means more to me than it does to you. In any event I think Flair in 82, 85-89 is definitely top ten in the World at least going from memory. IIRC 83 is one of those weird years where there isn't a deep amount of great Flair on tape, which might possibly keep him out of a top ten. Drawing a blank on 84 right now for some reason too, though I love the Steamboat match from the Meadowlands that year. Anyway, the point is that I think very, very highly of Flair in those years. And yet if pressed I could probably find someone in everyone of those years who I think was at least in the discussion for being as good or better. I do agree with the general sentiment that Flair at his best was better than most anyone ever.

I respect that, but I can't really give serious credence to it. I have no real doubts that Flair and Steamer were great then, that Terry was great as NWA champ, that Bock was great all throughout the 70s. I think we can look at those scraps as addendums to a case and gladly do so myself, but in the absence of at least a couple complete matches of some length I really struggle to see why those years should be seen as gimmes in this sort of calculus. I'd say Flair was top 30 on Earth every year from 82-90. Most of those years he's no worse than top 10. 91? I'd listen to an argument, but I don't think it's readily obvious at all. 92? I'm not sure he was even top 10 in the U.S. That year, Lucha had some guys making great runs, and Japan was really deep. Maybe but it's not a gimme at all. 93? Without digging too much, and just thinking about it on the surface, it seems unlikely. 94 I'd say almost certainly not. That said, I agree that from 82-96 Flair was no worse than good, and in more than half of those years great. Because I care about entire careers, I could probably be convinced to give him 05 and 06 too on that scale. The longevity of Flairs run as a great worker is vastly overstated by many, but he was a good or great worker for 17 or 18 years cumulatively.

Not a troll - what Flair footage do I need to watch from 78-80 that illustrates Flair was top level on Earth those years?

Happy Tajiri did as well as he did. I had him a bit higher than this, but not so much higher that this placement feels like a slight to me on any level. He's a guy who is way more versatile than people give him credit for, and also has a case for being one of the more consistent wrestlers of last 20 years or so. He's also a guy had a deceptively long run of quality wrestling, along with an amazingly strong peak, even if it's a peak that virtually no one else has explored as completely as I have.

If I had it to do again I would still require nominations, but ditch the three match rule and replace it with something more straightforward. More specifically I'd probably just have it where anyone can start a thread at any time on any wrestler without the need for a larger nomination thread, the only catch being that they need to write something about why they are nominating them. I don't care if it's a single sentence or longer (I'd prefer a paragraph in an ideal world), just something saying "this is why I may vote for X." The whole reason the nominations idea was in play was because I remember how utterly fucking stupid it was during the Smarkschoice Best WCW matches poll when an active poster voted for a match number one without mentioning it a single time throughout the process. It was a match no one else had seen or heard of. To me that defeated the entire point of the project, and I didn't want to have a repeat of that here.

Taker is better than Angle. Just wanted to be that guy. More later. Carry on.

I'll wait at least until the marathon show Kris and I dropped before I get to this, but I rate all of the vaunted AJPW workers from the 90s well and on the show even mention that if pressed I'd probably still call it the apex

Never had a craft beer in my life

My advice: - Be conscious of the fact that as a viewer and critic you create narratives about certain wrestlers, promotions, matches, et. but also your thinking about various wrestlers may be effected by a master narrative that serves to inflate or obscure the impact of their careers. - Talk/write about the guys you like or don't like. - Don't allow anonymous voters. I don't care if they are part of this or any other board, I just think it's better if the voters are public. - Keep nominations, but maybe ditch the three match rule in lieu of something else.

There are people I know and respect who think Sami Zayn is one of the 15 best wrestlers ever, and one of the handful of best babyfaces ever. Tanner believes this also. I myself don't get that level of praise for him at all BUT as with Tanahashi who will show up eventually I get how he'd make a top 100 and does speak to a real sentiment and view point among a segment of hardcore, "watch everything" fans. I'm just happy guys like Garvin and Onita made it this far. I had Garvin high up in the bottom half and Onita even higher, but they are type where it wouldn't have surprised me to see them fall in the 200's. Glad that didn't happen.

It's interesting because I think most people disagree with me on Austin. For me he benefited some from never really being bad, but it was the fact that I kept coming back to matches of his that I thought were exceptional examples of certain things that kept him on my list

I for one am shocked that someone would make up and or subscribe to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about a successful black Puerto Rican being responsible for the death of a legendary white wrestler, while trying to paint another white legendary wrestler's murder of a woman and child as an unfortunate byproduct of his hard work ethic. Except I'm not.

I love the Markoff match and always have for whatever that's worth

The next battleground is me v. AJPW consensus

My favorite part of the review was the burial of the six-man main event which I knew was coming, but it still didn't disappoint. Obviously I really enjoyed it, but I was there live and no clue how I'd feel on rewatch. On Thatcher v. Callihan I do agree that it was better than some were saying, but I'm also tired of making excuses for Thatcher. The guy is a great grappler, but I don't think I've ever seen a wrestler as a skilled as him who had a worse sense for feeling the crowd and timing comebacks. I can't tell if he doesn't care or what, but there points in that Sami match where the crowd was starting to get up for it and he'd just lay through the crowd involvement almost like he was viscerally opposed to the idea of feeding off of a reaction. I still like the guy a lot, and he's had some matches this year I've loved, but it's still hard to ignore that. Glad everyone is on board the Riddle, Yehi and even Williams trains. All three of them are outstanding.

Biggest shock of the process to me is that someone had Scorpio higher than my brother Dustin did. I absolutely did not see that coming.

I specifically mention it here because I could hear your criticisms from the future My combativeness was really in the form of advocacy. I don't think there was anyone who I didn't praise. That said when you get to some guys you controversially have higher than most or lower than most in order to make the arguments you kind of have to address the other arguments. I don't think I was unfair to anyone though, and was probably TOO fair in at least one case

I'm actually shocked by how fired up I still was by the time we got to the end of the show. I admit that there was probably a bit more of the combative "old" Dylan on this show than on episode one, but it largely came through when I was talking up certain guys. Thanks everyone for listening to Part 1 and I hope you continue the LONG journey with us through part 2.

I didn't vote for him for reasons that include all of the main ones already mentioned in this thread, on top of the fact that I've increasingly soured on his work anyhow. I would also note that as a father there is something that I find especially disgusting about someone killing their own wife and child.