Dylan Waco

Owen was a better natural athlete, but I'm not sure he ever had a more impressive run than Pillman did from 89-92. He MIGHT have, but it's been a while since I saw early Owen and I think 94 was as much Bret as it was him.

Wait Foley v. Vader doesn't hold up, but Flair v. Vader does? Really? I don't even think THAT highly of Foley v. Vader, but I can't see any argument for those matches aging more poorly than Ric v. Vader.

I'll listen to part two tonight and go through the list myself, but I really think Kurt's picks are interesting and somewhat odd. The reasoning he uses is also something I find a bit strange, which just shows you how different the thinking of the actual voters is from what some people think the voters should be voting on.

He was doing things that others couldn't do isn't the best argument that he was a great worker unless one wants to argue Jack Evans and Jarelle Clark are two of the best in wrestling history.

PG-13 or Doom?

Dustin Rhodes or Shiro Koshinaka? Been a long time since I watched Kosh and I just watched a shitload of Dustin, but really I can't think of any major Kosh performances that are as strong on as many levels as stuff like Dustin v. Vader, Dustin v. Buck, Dustin v. Austin or even something modern like Dustin v. Sheamus. All around Dustin is just better. Raven or Sandman? Sandman. Sandman is not a tremendous worker, but there was a period where he was clearly a good worker and I don't just mean garbage style either. Guy lived his gimmick, had a reckless style to be sure, but had a unique athletic demeanor in spite of this. He was shockingly good off the hot tag and there are some unreal selling performances by him even as late as his TNA run that almost make you care about otherwise terrible matches. He was never as disappointing as Levy who seemed to constantly get decent opportunities and blow them, whereas Sandman was often stuck in junk scenarios and made the most of them. Mastered the gimmicky garbage brawl in a way that made them look credible, whereas Raven popularized bullshit like the drop toehold/chair spot. Levy's probably got more good matches, but I'm not sure he's got more good performances and I'd take Hak v. Bigelow over pretty much anything Raven has done sans maybe Jarrett v. Raven (which was a total Jarrett carry job). Abdullah the Butcher or Bruiser Brody? Abby is better. More entertaining and giving in the ring. Shane Douglas or Eddie Gilbert? Shane is underrated in a way. I was shocked out how good a babyface he was in my WCW rewatching. His ECW run really isn't horrible, but he is so fat and uninteresting during most of it while working a "technical" gimmick that it just makes you want to barf. Eddie was a much better brawler and really an excellent, excellent babyface in 88/89 so I would go with Gilbert. Sid or Kevin Nash? I'd rather watch Sid, but I think Nash is more likely to have a good match. Jim Powers or Paul Roma? I like Powers dropkick more than anything Roma could do. Undertaker or Vader? I think if you are looking at best work v. best work and peak match v. peak match it's Vader. But if you are looking at mechanics and versatility I think it's Taker. Taker has a general match outline and formula now, but he plugs people into that in ways that go beyond just standard Taker stuff. Vader never really did. I can't imagine Vader having the matches with Angle that Taker did or even the matches with Bret that Taker did. On the other hand I'm not going to say that Vader should be viewed poorly because he worked to his strengths and new what he was capable of. Overall I'd say Vader. Finlay or Bret Hart? Already touched on this elsewhere. Yoshiaki Fujiwara or Volk Han? I like both, but I think Fujiwara is much more compelling in the sense that I get excited about seeing more of his stuff or rewatching things of his and I have no such excitement with Han. MX vs. RnR Express or MX vs. Fantastics? Express v. Express. Rick Martel or Tito Santana? Tito was probably a hair better. Hard to explain, but he seemed more natural in the ring than Martel. I also think he was a babyface that could work a blood feud, whereas Martel was never a babyface I could buy in a blood feud. Martel MIGHT have had slightly better mechanics move-to-move, counter-to-counter, but Martel is a guy that you almost feel disappointed by as if he never reached his potential. Tito is a guy that feels like a lost worker. Both underacheivers but for different reasons. Butch Reed or Ron Simmons? I love Simmons, but what is the argument for him in this comparison? Reed was great in a way that Simmons never really approached being. Edge or Christian Cage? Christian's always been better. Better at match structure, better bumper, better seller, moves better around the ring, et. He even has better offense and offense is his weakest point. Edge has been in matches that are higher profile and arguably better because of booking. He had a monster performance against Hardy in 05, but he's never reached that height before or sense and there is no reason to think he ever will again. Christian has never looked that good, but I can't imagine Edge working matches as smart and well laid as Christian v. Ryder or Christian v. Swagger. It's also worth remembering that Christian was good more often than not during his TNA run which is where good workers go to suck. Not anything classic, but I remember liking the Kaz match, some of his tag work, stuff v. Sting, et. I think Edge would be horribly exposed in TNA. Edge has been going down hill since the TLC match with Cena and I doubt he'll ever recover. Christian only gets better. Karl Gotch or Lou Thesz? Not enough footage to be fair. The composites just aren't enough. Nobuhiko Takada or Tatsumi Fujinami? I like Fujinami better, but at this point Fujinami is one of my favorite wrestlers ever. He's one of the few NJPW guys who I really feel holds upon multiple levels. Great junior, great heay hitter when it called for, liked his seling, et. I'm not as down on Takada as some people in this thread are, but I've never liked a Takada match as much as Fujinami v. Maeda or Fujinami v. DK and I thought Fujinami was the best wrestler in both of those matches. Volk Han or Stan Hansen? I'd rather watch Hansen, but this is an oddball comparison. Harley Race or Genichiro Tenryu? I think Tenryu wrestles a style that translates better. For old, grumpy, rugged, longshoreman types Race actually DOESN"T fit the part in a lot of ways despite having the look. This is not a knock on Race and I'm not sure I buy the "Race was Kurt Angle" point that tomk or Phil had going on a while back, but there is definitely a disconnect between Race's look and what Race does. No such problem with Tenryu so I guess I'd take Tenryu even if I think Harley is really impressive. Dan Spivey or Jimmy Snuka? Both largely sucked, but Snuka was charismatic so I'll take Jimmy.

Not forgetting the matches, but the scenarios aren't comparable. Cena had a run of great matches against a wide variety of opponents. Several of the matches and opponents called for pretty large modifications in his work even though he managed to stay within the same general and believable formula. Sting had great matches with Vader and Foley in 92, but offhand I can't think of any one else. This isn't a carrying argument, it's argument about depth of strong matches, diversity of opponent base, and adaptation. I'll comment more on some of these other comparisons later.

Sting or Cena Cena. Sting has never had a year like Cena's 07, and though I don't buy the argument that he was "along for the ride" in all of his big matches, it's also unfathomable to imagine him getting a good match out of Lashley - let alone Khali. Really Sting was more interesting as a offensive dynamo of sorts and Cena is better as "defensive" wrestler bumping and selling so they are less similar than they might appear on the surface. I will say in Sting's defense though that he was the perfect matchup for Vader and Cena has yet to find a perfect opponent of his own despite what the WWE hype machine might say. Necro or Brody Necro. Brody wasn't good at any point. Maybe not as bad as Ole Anderson, but never good. Hansen or Dr Death Hansen. Doc at times felt like a wrestler without an identity to me, sort of uncomfortable jerking between big bruiser and Mike Rotundo with a bigger belly. He was damn good to be sure, but I don't think he had "It" like Hansen did. Danielson or Dynamite Danielson. Dynamite is a mechanically good wrestler, with lots of disappointing matches. The Bulldogs are overrated as shit. Danielson had more great matches in 06 than DK had in his whole career.

Rocco has the best chance because he has name value, credibility and a reputation even with people who know little to nothing about the Brits. He's "over" with the right people. Not saying that's "right" but after listening to Bix's podcast with Kurt you get an insight into the HoF voter and it tells you that sort of thing means a lot. I'm not running down Kurt but when you can't find room on your ballot for the RnR's or Bill Miller but include Jericho and agonize over a guy like Curt Hennig (who isn't even as good a candidate as Barry Windham, Goldberg, et.) I think people who want the Brits represented would be smart to start with a guy that fits the bill that the voters seem to be looking for.

Hardy. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but Morrison is a guy that really struggles to do anything other than big moves in singles matches. Watching him try and sell from underneath, work a hold, or develop a cutoff spot is cringe worthy at times. Hardy is reasonably good at all of those things - at times great at them. I'm in the minority on the net, but to me Morrison is a guy that has been exposed as a singles wrestler, though he was very strong in tags.

I should probably just drop this because it's going nowhere, but I do have a serious question for you John - how often do you feel the need to share your mastubatory habits and fantasies in casual conversation in the real World in order to "prove a point?" I really do have a morbid curiosity as to whether or not this is some sort of bizarre internet habit of yours or if you regularly drop references about how you "enjoy" watching various sex on acts on video all the time because you have such a deep commitment to quality analogies. The fact that you can't tell the difference between talking about how much you loved to watched Ginger Lynn get fucked and commenting on a wrestler taking bumps is seriously disturbing.

Totally anecdotal, but during the Benoit murder period when steroid talk was everywhere my colleagues were constantly coming to me asking questions about how bad the problem is in wrestling. Rey being a roidhead was something many of them put forward to me as "obvious."

Briscoes smoke the Bulldogs, but the Bulldogs are probably the most overrated team in history so that's not surprising.

To be clear the porn/wrestling and even porn star/wrestler comparison doesn't bother me. The "I used to love watching Ginger suck cock and get assfucked!" stuff however is something that I think is pretty bizarre. It just isn't needed to prove any point and it pretty clearly falls under the TMI category.

I like that HHH/Flair match myself, but it's not the best WWE Cage match from that year, nor is it the best Flair v. HHH match from that year.

I'm kind of stupified that we are such prudes that we can't talk about the sex in Porn, but we don't think twice about talking in detail about wrestlers slicing their foreheads, or the details of Misawa's neck getting snapped in taking a wrestling move, or the details of Benoit's muerder rampage, or the homoerotic aspects of a video piece that hurt Jeff Jarrett's babyface heat in Memphis. This is a bit like the fetish Mike Oles would have whenever someone used the term "shit" or "crap". John Honestly if you can't figure out why people might not want to read about your sexual fetishes and 80's pornographic icons you regularly beat off to twenty years ago I have no clue what to say in response.

Too much information is too much information similarities between porn and wrestling not withstanding.

Dustin was beating people like Terry Taylor during much of that 91 streak if memory serves. Not saying that makes it right, but he wasn't a major focus of tv and wasn't a centerpiece of the promotion in any sense.

This thread just took a very disturbing turn...

I thought the WWIII match was all about Rey getting controlled and making comebacks. Seriously, a lot of his WCW stuff saw Rey selling his ass off for long stretches getting his ass kicked before the flashy comeback. One of the things that annoyed me about some of his matches with Dean is that Dean didn't break up the domination as much as say Dragon did in the WWIII match, so you felt like you were getting 12 minutes of Rey getting his ass kicked and 1:30 to 2:00 of the Big Rey Comeback. John Your memory of the WWIII match is pretty off IMO. I like the match a great deal, but when I watched it recently it was pretty evident that the match is basically an extended squash with Ultimo murdering Rey. There are very few Rey comebacks or hope spots to speak of. Ultimo is the flashier wrestler in the match as well. But it really is a vicious mauling of sorts. It's an offensive showcase for Dragon more than anything else, albeit an extremely entertaining one due to the punishment Rey is willing to take. The Hog Wild match is considerably more competitive though not as good. This is not to say that WCW Rey was incapable of doing the things that I think have made WWE Rey so good. It's just that WWE Rey is better about doing these things. The Dustin comp should be interesting. I was shocked when Dustin had more matches in my WCW top hundred ballot (20) than anyone else.

All smark opinions can be viewed as trendy to an extent. I've been on the net for almost fifteen years and I don't remember Jumbo ever being regarded as a consensus "best ever" guy until jdw and others started touting him as such. People randomly paying attention to Dick Beyer after years of him languishing in obscurity is another good example of this. I'm not sold on Fujiwara either (I was a Memphis fan as far back as 97) but I don't see how being willing to take a look at a newly pimped worker makes one a trend follower.

Listening to this now. The Jimmy Garvin story is hilarious, especially seeing lots of WCW recently and watching Jimmy be an unprofessional prick numerous times when the Birds were jobbing. This is good shit Bix.

Were all the bashes outdoor shows? I'm trying to figure out where the hell they would have run an outdoor show in Chattanooga.

Venis and Rikishi had at least one very good match. But I don't think there matches made Rikishi look like something beyond the act he had been given if that makes sense?

Really? I agree that Cena isn't at the level he was consistently in 2007, but I'd also blame a lot of that on booking. It's difficult to have great matches in multi-man settings, or with certain handicaps like overbooked finishes. I liked Cena/Michaels more than Rock/HHH for hour-long matches, and felt Cena filled out the hour better than Rock did with the same style limitations. I don't think Rock ever had matches with lesser opponents like Cena did with Khali or Lashley, but those were both in 2007, which only confirms your point. Did Rock really have more great matches? I only REALLY enjoyed Rock/Austin, Rock/HHH and Rock/Jericho as his best work, but feel Cena has delivered on more good-great matches since 2006 on the whole. Stuff like Cena/Edge, Cena/RVD, Cena/Khali, Cena/Michaels, Cena/Umaga, Cena/HHH, Cena/Orton (SS 07 and NWO 08) , Cena/Big Show (the televised matches this year), Cena/Jericho etc I'd put against any of Rocks best (specifically Cena/Umaga), and would say Cena has had more good matches with a wider variety of opponents ranging from awful to great. Rock/Austin WM17 is better than anything Cena has done, true, but that is to be expected, as I'm not sure anything in this era *could* reach that level for a number of reasons beyond just ring work. I think Cena's bumping and selling is better, I think he sets up comebacks better, and I think he has a better sense of match structure than Rock did. Rock was great with maximizing what he did well, much like Cena, but I never got the sense that Rock could have a great match around what his opponents did well, at least not at the same level Cena has proven to be able to. I remember Rock/Test and Rock/Christian being good Rock carryjobs at the time, but neither were Cena/Khali or Cena/Lashley. I do like certain aspects of Rock better like his fired up babyface comebacks and "it" factor, but I don't think they compare in terms of body of work. I'm not arguing that Cena is a one trick pony, but he has been severely handicapped by booking decisions and he doesn't have enough in him to transcend that. I thought he had a very good 06 and a monster 07. Before that he had flashes of brilliance, that are very similar in some respects to the flashes The Rock was showing in 98. In fact I'd say Rock v. HHH Ladder Match is very comparable to JBL v. Cena I Quit in terms of both quality and as a jump point of sorts where you can look and see both guys really starting to "get it." He's had moments this year where he looked tremendous - the first two tv matches v. The Big Show, the "last Jericho match on Raw" and the Michaels bouts early in the year. But he's looked disappointing at other times and really seems lost in a role that creative simply won't let him go beyond. I also agree that Cena is a better bumper and is definitely a better seller. In fact I'd rate Cena as maybe the best "strongman" seller I've ever seen, in the sense that he doesn't have a small frame like the Mortons, Rey's and even Steamboats of the world so he has to rely on other methods to convey pain that are outside of the box and unique. His facial expressions are really off the charts. In general I'm less impressed with carryjobs than others, but I must say that I don't think it's surprising that the first really good Angle match was v. The Rock, Jericho had his best matches with The Rock, HHH was able to have a compelling hour long match with The Rock, et. Goldberg v. Rock is a shockingly good match. Brock v. Rock is a legit great match. He had a match with Rikishi that really made kishi look like something beyond a fat Samoan with a thong which is something NO ONE else was able to do despite Rikishi's talents. And then there are his matches with Austin and Hogan where he read the crowd and literally changed the nature of the match to meet the needs of the environment. I like Cena a lot, but I don't think he's a guy who could do that and in fact I think the booking is set up in such a way where he would never be given the change anyhow. In fact I think in some respects Cena had a huge booking advantage in the sense that he was getting to work TLC matches with Edge and LMS matches with Umaga, whereas The Rock was getting post-prime Goldberg and Foley to work with. Really though I think this is a very close call and I am really wishy-washy on it so take all of that for what it is worth.