Dylan Waco

It's not Heyman unless he has DRASTICALLY changed his view on Punk over the years. The line about the lack of women in the crowds along with the implication that it is someone who is older rules out Gabe.

Flair has down periods and was clearly on the downslide for virtually the entire decade. You cannot say that for Arn.

Jerry Jarrett?

Should be clear with my intent. I'm not prepared to rattle off an organized top 100 list for U.S. guys from the 90's. I am having trouble with an order in a top ten myself. But 100 guys from U.S. better than Lance Storm in the 90's? That is not a list that strikes me as hard work.

No clue what the argument for Saturn would be. Lance Storm is an awful choice. I actually think if I was restraining myself to U.S. names alone I could come up with 100 guys who I think were safely better. I've never been a fan of Storm's, but I was not expecting to find him as shitty as I did when I watched all the ECW footage. Aside from the Dreamer miracle match at Hardcore Heaven and a few tags, Storm has very little of note from that decade.

I think guys like Smothers and Scorp who were active for most of the decade are really interesting candidates precisely because of that reason. I also think Arn is a really interesting case. I wouldn't take it as far as OJ, but I agree with the sentiment that Arn was incredible in 92 and I'd put his year that year next to the best years of anyone in the U.S. in the 90's. But that's not all he has. He was really consistent throughout the six years of the 90's that he was active. Even in 95 when WCW was shit, he was still quite good and was likely the best guy in the promotion that year. He was great in the Studd Stable in 94. I was a big fan of the tv title stuff in 90 and I really like some of his tag matches from that year teaming with Flair and Barry as well. 91 and 93 are years I'm drawing blanks on to some degree, but I remember some strong tag matches and I like Arn's matches with Regal and Barry from 93 more than most. In a decade where a lot of guys missed time and or had spotty runs, Arn had six years of being pretty damn good.

Savage should have been on my original list. He's got enough there where you could see him in a top ten. I agree that the Savage v. DDP stuff is better than Flair had post-92 (well, maybe post-94). Not sure that I buy Savage as better than Flair for the decade. I'd have to go back and look at the match lists for both guys.

Scorpio and Foley (besides Smothers) are the two guys that strike me as "hidden gem" guys. Foley really is a less a "hidden gem" guy than a guy who tried hard in every match no matter what the context. Scorp is a guy who has tons of really strong matches on shows where he easily could have phoned it in.

Thinking about this today I think if you are favoring consistency and longevity throughout the decade it really is very hard to argue against Bret. Also I think you could make a case for Smothers in the top five if you value those same things. Yes he has a few gaps, but he started the decade in a very good tag team, moved to SMW where was great in singles and in tags, and closed he decade in ECW as part of a very good tag team with Guido before having a run in Dec. of 99 of several really strong singles matches. The USWA stuff I haven't seen a ton of, and Freddy Joe Floyd was basically a dead period, but he has a lot of good stuff throughout the decade in a variety of different settings.

The heel turn hurt him a lot. He was a great babyface and it is likely that he only would have gotten better. As a heel he had moments, but he was simply not as good. It played away from his strengths. The Loose Cannon character was extremely entertaining at the time, but it was a character designed to move away from a focus on in ring stuff. I actually think Pillman is the ultimate "What If" guy when it comes to U.S. wrestlers. I think you could make a serious case that if he stays healthy and stays babyface he becomes a Ricky Morton/Ricky Steamboat level guy.

I will say this for Sabu - he had a novelty quality that always made you want to watch him, especially against bizarro opponents. It's also worth pointing out that Sabu's series of matches v. Funk, Scorp and Mikey hold up really, really well. And I say this as a guy who would not even really consider putting Sabu in my top ten.

Sabu has his fans. Sloppy or not there are plenty of good Sabu matches out there and while I think he was rarely the best guy in those matches it would wrong to say he didn't add something to them. On Dustin I'm actually pretty miffed about how anyone could find him to be bland. I thought he always worked hard and brought a variety of cool and different spots to his matches.

Episode 3 is up: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkC...2658&cmd=tc This was a two show week since we missed a week. Show three is Dave Musgrave and myself joined by pro wrestler/pro wrestling historian Kurt Brown (Incredibly Strange Wrestling, Slammin Stan Podcast, et). We cover the whackiest gimmicks in pro wrestling history, which includes Kurt giving a really cool history lesson on the wild World of Argentinian promotion Titanes En El Ring, me ranting about the complexities of the FBI gimmick and Dave talking about the more bizarre aspects of the Canadian indy scene (and clubbing baby seals in New Foundland). Two hours of comedy and intrigue!

I actually like Sting more than most and considered putting him in the first listing, but assumed that he was someone that would struggle to make anyone's top ten when I thought about it more. Same with Jarrett. Waltman is interesting I had forgotten all about him and would have no problem with him in someone's top ten. Despite how annoying he got as a presence he has a strong body of good matches. He was not the best worker in the States in 99. That would be Tajiri by a safe margin. If you want to disqualify him because of where he was born I would probably go with Little Guido in the two slot. On Dustin, I could see how someone could like Sting more, but I can't conceive of anyway that he was a better wrestler. The charges of mediocrity against Rude, Austin and Arn interest me. What matches were these? I ask because something like Austin v. Dustin at HH 91 I regard as a GREAT match, on par or the better than any Sting match I've ever seen that didn't involve Vader. In fact I think Dustin's two matches with Vader are on the level of Sting's matches with Vader as well. I think Dustin smokes Sting as a tag worker, had a better since of structure, took better stock bumps (twisting bump, missed crossbody skip bump), was a much more consistent seller and I don't believe for a second that Sting was a better brawler. I love Jimmy Golden, but it is inconceivable to me that Sting could have had matches close to as good with Golden as Dustin did. I would put the top ten Dustin matches from the 90's next to the top 10 Sting matches without hesitation and STing doesn't have the depth to catch up. If anything he was less consistent than Dustin through the WCW years and post-95 both guys were spotty.

Not really the spirit of the question/discussion. Volk Han and Stan Hansen aren't Japanese, but if I were rating the Best Japanese workers from the 90's, I would include both in the discussion.

This is a spin off from another thread, but I am interested to see if the consensus has shifted here. For years the standard opinion was "Bret" with a smaller contingent talking up Shawn and a few people throwing Benoit up as a possibility. Other possible candidates for a top ten if not a top slot would be... Too Cold Scorpio Owen Hart Steve Austin Eddy Guerrero Vader Ric Flair (wouldn't be near the top of my list but I think we need to be realistic about names that would pop up) Dean Malenko Rey Misterio William Regal Mick Foley Ricky Steamboat Arn Anderson Brian Pillman Psicosis Juventud Guerrera Sabu Guys who I think I could see being contenders for my personal top ten, but might not rate so highly for others would be... Tracy Smothers Mikey Whipwreck Little Guido Terry Funk Jerry Lawler Dustin Rhodes

I agree that the best WoS stuff is from the 70's, but also think an 80's Set could at least help people become more acclimated with the style.

I should be clear - I would not AGREE that post-comeback Shawn has put him above Bret. I dislike most of post-comeback Shawn work. But it puts him fresher in peoples minds and it is a run that definitely has it's fans. It also has opened him up to a whole different grouping of fans that have little idea of who Bret was or the value he had as a worker to the promotion. I don't have access to the older comments of Dave. What I do know for a fact is that I was a clear minority in arguing that Shawn was better than Bret 11 years ago (in hindsight I don't agree with even that for the record, opinions change). I'm not saying that the DVDVR/SC represents full consensus. I'm saying that EVERYWHERE you looked ten years ago that was the consensus, and even moving forward among smart fans I know - of all types - Bret has consistently been rated above Shawn (especially if you are isolating just 90's work). Perhaps Meltzer himself was an exception like myself. I don't know. I wasn't a WON Subscriber. One thing that is worth pointing out is that while Bret got in in 96, Shawn got in on his run through 98. Whatever one thinks of Shawn as an HoFer now, I think Shawn's candidacy through 98 is probably weaker than Sting's candidacy to bring this full circle.

Widely regarded by whom? Dave, Alvarez and others would probably say Shawn Michaels (with Hart up there with him). Some would say Steve Austin, but unless you're just talking perhaps this board and a few others cohabited by several individuals who also post here, I don't think Bret is any runaway consensus. I call bullshit on this. It is possible that because of post-comeback stuff Michaels is regarded as the better of the two by Dave, Bryan and even a more recent wave of fans. What I do know is that at the time Bret got in he was regarded as an especially great talent and was considered a leg above Shawn. In the late 90's/early 00's when the debate came up online Bret was the overwhelming consensus pick over Shawn in both of these categories. Believe it or not about ten years ago I was in the distinct minority of rating Shawn over Bret - I remember one poll I did in 00 where I was the ONLY person of forty voters that had Shawn over Bret (from memory Benoit had number one votes - the poll was for best U.S. worker of the 90's). As a recently as the Smarkchoice Best of the WWE/WWF poll the consensus was that Bret was better than Shawn and that was a poll that attracted a very broad cross section of voters. I certainly believe that the WWE has created a narrative whereby Shawn is SUPPOSED to be the THE GREATEST SUPERSTAR IN THE HISTORY OF THE WWE UNIVERSE! But I see little evidence that this is a prevalent opinion in hardcore fan circles. Having said that if the narrative continues to be pushed by the promotion I think it could eventually take hold. For the record at this point I would probably rate Rey as the best in ring wrestler in WWE/F history. Not sure who I would rate as the best in ring wrestler of the 90's in the States.

Bret is also widely regarded as the best in ring performer in WWE history as well. And for that matter the best in ring performer of the 90s in the States

I know it is smart to try and stay focused on one guy, but I'm itching to start digging into Ken Patera. Buddy Rose is who I really want to focus on, but the attendance figures just aren't available based on the limited archival searches I've done. Still may do a Gordy List on him for shits and giggles.

I suspect he's not a candidate because no one has ever made a case for him one way or the other.

I could maybe be convinced on Pallo and McManus, but I still think Daddy is the best UK candidate other than Walton

Two things. The first is that Vader is a big picture candidate, not a little picture candidate. Vader was more successful on top in Japan than Sting was in the States (how could he not be?), but what makes Vader compelling is that he was a huge star in the States and Japan (and yes Europe) at the same time. The overwhelming majority of people regard him as a decisively better worker than Sting too which leads me too... The second is that I think you drastically overestimate Sting's accomplishments and worth. I have actually been HIGHER on Sting as a worker than most for the majority of the time that I've been around these discussions and yet I think there is no real argument for him as an HoFer on the strength of a high "number of great matches." Number of titles has very little value in and of itself in a HoF discussion. Years on top is also nearly irrelevant. It's what you do on top, not the fact that you are there. There is no question that Sting did not do well on top. If Sting had done exactly the same thing in Japan I think people would be saying exactly the same things. Sting isn't even as good a candidate as Akira Taue and Taue can't even stay on the ballot. If anything he benefits from having been "on top" a lot in one of the two major promotions in the States. As an aside I have written in the past that I don't think Vader is as obvious a candidate as the top of the top tier guys either, but I of course would have voted for him if he were on a ballot and I was a voter so it's a moot point.

I'd be shocked if Baba wasn't in on the original class. I think Dibiase is one of the "weaker" first run candidates, but I have no problem with him being in. He's clearly a better candidate than Tully, Arn, Barry, Rude and Hennig. Dibiase was on the same level in the ring as all of those guys and was clearly a bigger draw and more substantial figure than all of them as well. I actually think in some ways Steamboat is a "worse" candidate than Dibiase. Though again he's someone who should obviously be in.