Dylan Waco

Odd to go after Ambrose for his performance in that match sense it's the least comical he's looked in months in a match.

One other thing before I forget - I argued this at the time over at DVDVR and other places, but I agree that in Bryan's "peak" year in WWE Cesaro was the better worker. I say that to illustrate how highly I think of him, not as an indictment of Bryan.

I don't see myself as grading him on a curve. To be honest a lot of the more modern guys are hurt for many, possibly even myself, by virtue of the changes in the wrestling landscape. There are far more good matches now than at any point in wrestling history (and yes I really do believe that), but the booking generally stinks, over saturation is a major problem, and as a result very little sticks out. Cesaro is one of the few guys who has come through that standing out. I'm terrible with dates for modern stuff for much the same reasons I mentioned above, but I could try to throw together something this week as far as key matches to watch.

I've seen maybe one or two bad Matthews performances and I've watched pretty much every taped match he's had over the last seven years or so, and many more from the years before that. He's the closest thing to a guaranteed good match I've ever seen in wrestling.

As noted elsewhere I think he's a brilliant t.v. match worker, which is another way of saying he's as good as it gets from the modern era. To me the power spots are pretty incidental to his greatness. As an offensive worker he's almost without parallel in that his toolkit is extremely varied, but can be tailored to almost any situation. He can work stiff/snug Finlay/Regal inspired grappling spots or strike exchanges, fired up high flying offense, or the big power stuff and never look silly or out of place doing any of the above. He's very good in a tag setting, very good as a face or a heel, can play a goof, a super serious tough guy, a fired up hot tag babyface, et. He's very good at "struggle" spots which is something that has really been lost with a lot of otherwise very good wrestlers today. You can ask him to go 20 minutes with just about anyone and get a very good to great match that is built around the strengths of whatever his opponent has to offer, and virtually never has bad matches. You can watch matches from various time and places within his WWE tenure and see how he changes things up. The guy seamlessly adapted to being a tag worker when called on to do so and seemed really interested in making his teams feel like real teams with signature spots and strategic approaches to the matches. His psychology is good. He bumps very well for a guy of his size, and while he's not someone I would point to for their selling prowess I've never once thought his selling hurt a match. He's also possibly the best base I've ever seen who didn't have a lucha background. He's a rare instance of a contemporary worker who's managed to incorporate all the positives of being a freak athlete into his style, without letting the negatives take hold. I consider that very impressive. He's got a ton of output just within the WWE. I'm actually surprised you have such a narrow view of him, as I basically see him as being weird version of 1990 Scott Steiner if 1990 Scott Steiner actually knew how to work and wasn't an egomaniac.

Well basically. This is leap year. Still if you have anyone left that you want to get nominated now is the time. Cutoff is March 1.

This is weird to say, but Cesaro being out with an injury now makes me feel oddly more comfortable voting for him. He's clearly missed from the WWE shows, and I don't think there has been a better week-to-week talent in the promotion in the last ten years aside from MAYBE Rey who is the best t.v. match wrestler of all time.

I thought he was great in the Tanahashi match, and he's had some other matches in NJPW I liked (the Dorada match at INvasion Attack was really good for example). Of course he also has a catalog of stuff I absolutely hate. He's clearly really talented and I actually think he's the kind of person I would legitimately like if I ever met him, but I'm not a fan. That said, he probably deserves a nomination because he's been a favorite of many people for years and years now.

Discuss Here.

Won't come out until 2019 anyhow so no biggie

Riddle is incredible live. As in one of favorites that I've seen in the last decade or so in that setting. Completely authentic. Hearing rumors that my begging for Yehi v. Sabre Jr. will happen on one of the NYC shows, but if not I'd love to see it in Dallas. Marty v. Hero was set for the Sat. show before PWG announced it. Not sure if that will lead to them changing things or not.

I'll probably include him at this point. I think when he's been around he's been the best wrestler on Earth for a few years, he's just been hurt by injuries and bad WWE booking. I have only gotten around to watching a bit of his indie run. It doesn't really help him in my eyes, but doesn't hurt him either. That said he's been so brilliant, versatile and dynamic during the WWE run that it would feel ridiculous to leave him off. I agree with almost everything Jimmy said above, though I actually think he has a lot of great matches. What he lacks is the booking to have the iconic matches on major shows that you ideally want. That said even something like the aforementioned Sin Cara match, or his lengthy Main Event match v. Sheamus from a couple of years back, are matches that I would rate above many of the ppv "classics" of someone like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels.

I don't object to Eaton over Morton, or even the calculus you are laying out here JVK, BUT I think penalizing someone for "all the things he can't do" is probably a bad way of putting it. The fact is that in most cases we don't know for sure if they could or couldn't do something. In many cases I would argue they SHOULDN'T do certain things because it directly conflicts with the roles they are kings of. Penalizing for what they don't do is probably a better way of putting it. Unless you really think someone is put in a role to protect them from their flaws.

You have seen him live more than me, but I have seen way more of him on tape than you. I think he's kind of the anti-Ace Rockwell in that Ace is a babyface that has the handful of transcendently great singles matches you ideally want out of something like this but lacks the consistency where Matthews lacked those matches but had the consistency. Until last year. Kyle missed some time last year because of the birth of his fist child but the stuff he did that made tape was really great. I am the biggest Jimmy Rave booster on Earth, but I strongly believe that if Kyle had worked a full schedule last year he would have been right there with Jimmy as a best in the world contender. His best five matches last year were probably as good as anyone's best five matches and that's without the Empire War Games match being available v. Talon Williams in a match build all around compelling limb selling against a solid and hard working opponent, but one who rarely works singles bouts v. Brandon Collins in a match where he worked as a redneck maestro for the first half, then went into peril, and they went long in a very strong match against an improved but still greenish Collins v. Fry Daddy from NWA Atlanta in a brilliant match that was as good a high octane indie match as I saw anywhere on Earth last year, against a guy who has never had a singles match near that level v. Jimmy Rave in the best match to take place in the great AWE promotion, and a match I had rated in my top ten on Earth for the year v. Rush in the aforementioned Street Fight, which brought out a totally different side of Kyle, and was my number 3 match of the year (and my top match of the year involving males). I also thought his triple threat match v. Jimmy Rave and Fry Daddy was a great match worked under that stip and he had several other matches last year I would rate good or better. The Rush and Rave matches mean a lot to me when it comes to a GWE ballot because in the past he hadn't really had the matches that felt like big deals within their respective universes even when I thought they were legitimately great (i.e. other Rave matches he's had, v. Tempers, v. Hamill, et.) with the exception of the eight man elimination tag from DSCW several years back where he was just one of many guys. To me those two matches take him from being a guy I really wanted to rate with my last spot or two but I wasn't sue I could justify, to a guy who I feel much more comfortable about rating. Still not an absolute lock for me, but I think last year strongly helped his case.

There are guys throughout this process who's stock will go up. And then there is Terry Rudge. Rudge went from a guy I had seen a few times, and knew had some fans, but had no real opinion on to being a guy who I want to watch the entire available catalog of. In more concrete terms he went from being off my radar for this project to being a guy who will probably be my second or third highest rated 70s/80s European worker, and a guy who will make the upper half of my ballot. It's alluded to above, but if you are a fan of the Regal, Finlay, Dave Taylor version of Brit Isles wrestling, Rudge is pretty clearly the prototype. I'm not saying there weren't guys before him, or other people who had those elements, but when you can immediately read his influence on those guys. What do I mean by this? Well, for one he's the most hard nosed, of the hard nosed Brits other than maybe Pat Roach who was a fucking giant. He approaches everything with malice in his eyes, wrenches all his holds in tight, wears a nasty facial expression, et. More than that he is really good at subtle stuff involving leverage, posture, and body language that most wrestlers don't "get." He always looks like he is legitimately trying to deliver the maximum amount of punishment, and his unique way of positioning himself also gives off the vibe of him being an expert that knows more about hurting people than mere mortals. The thing is this does not preclude him from doing smooth stuff or exciting stuff. In fact he kind of integrates the flashy with the violent. He'll do something like the little spinning escape that a lot of the WOS wrestlers would do...and he'll try to work a double wristlock variation while mounted on someones shoulders. He can play at both speeds, and play them well. I also really like him in struggle spots, like the staple "will this end up a cross body press or a body slam" routine, which he does better than anyone else by a safe margin. If you are fan of logical, persistent, and strategic offensive attacks, Rudge is pretty much the king within this universe. I would actually rate him at or near the level of someone like a Buddy Rose or Bockwinkel when it comes to picking a method of attack and sticking with it. He will identify a target, hone in, strike, and keep striking. I greatly appreciate this as it elevates the level of drama in his matches dramatically, and gives the viewer something consistent to focus on across falls. Unlike some guys who may have been slightly better pure grapplers, Rudge seemed to relish working the crowd into a frenzy. I genuinely think he enjoyed working comedic matches in Reslo as much as he enjoyed working long classic contests from the WOS peak years. Watching his match v. Robbie Brookside from Reslo I really got the feeling that he would have fit in great in today's Southern indie scene, which coming from me is a huge compliment. Because he gave off a bad ass vibe his bumps meant more, and I think he was a very good theatrical bumper. I'd actually rate him only below Pete Roberts in that regard among the guys that had any real weight on them. He was also probably the best "in between falls" asshole, often throwing his trademark mini-headbutts on the breaks there, among other dick heel tactics that added heat and tension. Another big plus for me with Rudge is that I liked him more the more I watched him. Early on I thought he was really, really good, but as one thing led to another I became convinced that he was an excellent wrestler. To me that means he holds up to scrutiny very well, which is something I worry about a bit with guys where I am watching 3 matches or so of them for the first time in seven or eight years. I know everyone is high on the Jones match, but I honestly doubt the match would even make my top five Rudge match list. Rudge is absolutely awesome in it (and Jones is Jones...I'll have more to say on him soon but he's a really tough one for me to get a handle on after being a big fan at points in the past), but i prefer the longer of the two Ray Steele matches, the Van Buyten match, the Singh match, the Thorton match and possibly others. The point being that he has a healthy volume of very good-to-great matches, and I actually think they tend to be worked pretty differently. So yeah. Great, great wrestler. Will be tough to figure out where to rate him in relationship to Steve Grey, but he's easily on my ballot.

I am honestly shocked he isn't talked about more. I guess OJ is right in that he isn't super charismatic and that may be it, but I also don't think he's completely devoid of charisma like say a Ray Steele (who I would nominate, but I doubt I'd vote for him and no one else seems on board with him). In fact I think Roberts is pretty exceptional at building to a dramatic moment over the course of a match and then delivering in the boldest way possible. His selling of a wild bump to the floor, or nasty shot that knocks him out/injures him works really well every single time. That might not be a sign of him being charismatic, but it does speak to a certain quality that goes beyond pure mechanics, and I don't think it should be downplayed. I'd argue for finishes of that sort in the WOS setting, Roberts does them better than anyone. As for technique, I think he's a master. No he's not at the level of a Cortez or a Steve Grey, but he's not terribly far off. He's very capable of mixing in nasty, tight looking holds, and the sort of flashy mat highspots that most people associate with the Brit grappling style. His single arm handspring escape is a thing of beauty, and one of the more impressive signature spots anyone was doing during the period. He was also a very capable striker. It's not a major thing, but he has an all time great level elbow drop, and he seemed to know when to bust it out for maximum effect. His stand up striker was equal as good, and I enjoyed the ways he would introduce it into tough matches. It's interesting that OJ is down on Marty Jones v. Roberts, because I actually found those matches to be really good, and maybe the only time in this mass watch/rewatch of British stuff where I thought Jones looked like an excellent worker. I really enjoy the Roach and Hayward bouts. His matches with Bond, Singh, Barry Douglass and Skull Murphy are all really good too. Best of all I think these matches are all pretty different, which is something that I like to see. Roberts doesn't have the number of blowaway great matches that some others do, but I like that we have wide range of his stuff available and that he seems to adapt to opponents. If he's in there with a smaller man he works bigger and plays the size advantage where he can. If he's in there with a bigger guy he will be an absolute bump freak, will sell is ass off, and comes across as vulnerable without being weak. Charisma or not there are moments where he is in there with a bigger man where you can sort of watch the wheels turning in his head as he scrambles to adjust tactics. I love that sort of thing. One final thing to note about him is that he's someone I could see JerryVonKramer and others who want to see throws, bigger spots, et. loving. I've watched dozens and dozens of Brit matches this week, and he's the one guy who will bust out multiple suplex variations, almost always for a finish of a fall. As mentioned before he'll also take crazy bumps, has some really neat escapes, and does other things that feel more "highspotty" in a way that is in keeping with American wrestling. His matches always seem to escalate in a very logical and effective way that goes beyond just the issue of grappling prowess. I still see him as a very European style performer, but I could see him being extremely accessible for those who have struggled with style. Pete Roberts is a great wrestler and will make my top 100.

I agree with all of the sentiments expressed on Roach above, but I'm trying to write on these Brit candidates at length, so I'll go a bit deeper. One thing about Roach that I don't think is fully articulated in others comments is that he was a giant, but as a character he seemed to work against this until he reached a breaking point. In Roach matches you'll often see him work the mat in a very sporting manner early. He's this giant guy, working dudes that literally look half his size in some cases, and he's doing rolling neck bridge outs on the mat that would inspire "holy shit" chants from most crowds today. It's not an exaggeration to say he was a very god mat worker, and the way he carried himself it was almost like he had a chip on his shoulder and wanted to win that way. But if you pressed him... Well if you pressed Pat Roach he would fuck you up. And I really mean that. There are very few guys in wrestling history who are better at getting across the ferocity of a forearm flurry - especially when presented as a counterattack of sorts - than Pat Roach. I absolutely love the rare occasions when he would bust out the big boot or diving headbutt off an Irish Whip too, as they came across as especially hearty fuck you's to a challenger who had either frustrated him, annoyed him, or worst of all pissed him off. I like him as a heel, and his size obviously works best in that role in theory. He has a great look too, and I can imagine him having been a super fun wrestler in the U.S. if life had ever led him there. That said I also really enjoy him as the guy who snaps when heels like Skull Murphy piss him off. I'm not a huge fan of his backbreaker, though he delivers it with conviction, but the rare cases when he would drop a guy on his face from a Gorilla Press position ruled. To me Roach actually deserves credit for doing a lot of things that made him stand out. On top of the obvious look/size thing which enhanced the impact of his flashier grappling spots, the aforementioned strikes of which he showed a great variety, and the delayed way he would take certain bumps that seems to maximize the visual impact, he would also do completely unique shit that I can't recall seeing out of anyone from that era. For example, last night I saw him work a match v. Tiger Dalibar Singh, where he actually dropped into a his fucking guard to work a submission. In 1980. I'd love to see his German brawls if they are up somewhere I don't know about. He's kind of a bubble guy for me, in that I want to include him, but his resume feels a little thin to secure a definitive spot. I really love him as an opponent for guys like Singh, Ray Steele and Pete Roberts, but in an ideal world I'd like to find one or two more truly great matches before I commit to rating him in a top 100.

From a thread at Classics: About your point system, I wouldn't do from 100 to 1. I've been doing these kind of rankings for Quebec wrestling every year for 10 years, and I based myself on something the NHL did 15 years ago. There should be more of a difference between #1 and #2, and between #2 and #3 and so on for the top 10. Because without that, there's nothing special about being voted #1 and even if 10 person would vote for the same guy as #1, if one voter place him #10, he's losing all of his edge. Ex: 10 x 100 + 1 x 90 = 1090 Ex: 8 x 99 + 1 x 98 + 2 x 100 = 1090 So someone who would be voted 10 times as the best wrestler would share first place with someone who has been voted only twice, only because one voter put him 10th once. You should start at 125 points. 1- 125 pts 2- 115 pts 3- 110 4- 105 5- 102 6- 99 7- 96 8- 94 9- 92 10- 90 11- 89 12- 88 13- 87 All the way to 98- 2 99- 1 100- 0 Plus, every one not voted in by someone should receive -1 (minus 1) point. So if we take the same example: 10 x 125 + 1 x 90 = 1340 8 x 115 + 1 x 110 + 2 x 125 = 1280 Now the same guy has a 60 points lead and it would take more than one voter to affect his ranking. He would need a few more 10th position to lose his edge and if that's the case, well maybe he deserved to lose his first place.

I strongly prefer a weighted system. The Laprade method minus the subtraction of points if someone doesn't appear on every ballot is the one I prefer. I'm not violently opposed to doing it with points allotted via inverse order of placement, but the weighted system puts value in who people actually see as the greatest of the great, and also serves as something of a balancing act regarding those who are writing off entire styles from their personal lists for one reason or another.

I won't do a mock up draft until the week of. I'll second guess everything because that's how I am, but I won't submit anything I can't justify.

Austin has faded for me with time. It's odd because I tend to think most of his matches I really liked at the time they happened still hold up well. And I certainly think well of him. But over the course of the years he seems less exceptional and impressive to me. In a sense that is weird because he was so over, and no one today is near that level. You would think that he would stand out more. But when I look at his good runs and years, it's from the perspective of having watched whole runs of guys on FanCam, complete runs of what is available on taped television for others in certain promotions, and a multitude of WWE performers over the last fifteen years or so who have had brilliant week-to-week runs in terms of output. In that context Austin's peak years as a good t.v. worker feel less impressive - or at least they don't stand out as much. It's also worth noting that 2001 was probably the closest thing I ever took in my life to a "break" from wrestling. I wasn't watching weekly at the time, though I still watched all the ppvs, and caught t.v. when I could. Still that is often cited as Austin's peak year, and I have no close connection to it because I didn't watch it in real time. I'm not sure he'll even make my ballot. It's possible, but he doesn't have the depth of great matches that Cena has, the skill and range of Bret Hart, the maximized effort of Foley, or the personal emotional connection of Savage. He's kind of a great wrestler without a calling card or something grabs me and says "he has to be included."

Hase is one of those guys where if you are voting partially on skill level and flash I could see rating him fairly high. He was extremely gifted in the ring. Had a ton of tools, applied them in interesting ways, and certainly had an "ahead of his time" vibe in a way without being someone you think of as innovative or a high flyer. I also think he had a cool and unique look which fit his work and there is a sense in which that kind of matters to me when I'm looking at tiebreakers for something like the GWE. The problem with Hase for me is that for all the flash and flare, there are almost no matches or performances that stick out. There are U.S. indie guys over the last fifteen years where I could rattle off a list of five or ten matches that knocked my socks off with ease. Many of them have half the talent of Hase or less. But when I'm looking at output resume I can immediately go to that. I would have to be told what Hase's best matches were despite the fact that I've likely seen them. That hurts him to me because it means that while he might be mechanically brilliant, he lacks a certain intangible quality I look for in an all timer. It also hurts him to me that his AJPW run was so disappointing. Yeah it was late in his career, but for years prior one of the talking points had been "if only Hase was there he would be having all time classics with guys at his level." It wasn't all bad, but the Misawa match was the shits and that stink has always stuck with me. He's probably one of the 100 best wrestlers ever, and I'd consider going back and watching some of his matches in the next six weeks before the ballot is due. That said he's not anyone I feel compelled to rate at all. And I might not.

Discuss Here.

Discuss Here.

Discuss Here.