Dylan Waco

If we are counting tags that's probably not a top fifty Windham match.

Jerry Lawler or Chris Benoit? This is very, very close in some respects, but I think Lawler is better. Part of that is preference as a I prefer the "feels like a fight" style of Memphis and Southern wrestling in general to the junior heavy hybrid of Benoit. And Lawler never did anything in the ring as annoying to me as the rolling german suplex shit that ruined a lot of supposedly "great" Benoit performances. But my main reason for thinking Lawler is better is the fact that the high end Lawler matches have a transcendent feeling to them like you are watching something incredible and special. Benoit's great matches just feel like mechanically sound exhibitions devoid of emotion. There are exceptions, but Lawler combing raw in ring talent with Dusty like charisma is a major plus. Robert Gibson or Matt Hardy? This is actually very close to, but I'll take Matt Hardy. Hardy has looked rough this year, but as a singles worker in 05-07 he was way better than Gibson ever was in tags or singles. Just a consistent guy, who had an authentic classic with Edge of all people (arguably two) and made guys like MVP look like legit great workers. Gibson is a FAR better heel and probably would have been considered an all time great if he played that role more often. John Cena or The Rock? The Rock never had a year as good as Cena's 07, but 07 is starting to look like a diamond in the rough for Cena. Rock has almost all the same plusses as Cena and almost all the same negatives as well. I'm really calling this a wash for now. If I had to pick I'd go with The Rock because he had more great matches. CM Punk or Diamond Dallas Page? In two years the answer may be Punk. Now I think it's Page. Page from 97-99 is one of the most underrated heavyweight wrestlers in recent history.

Man, this is a comparison that no longer means much to people. Their loss. It's funny how out of fashion certain things go while others become the talk of the day. Speaking entirely for myself, I OD'ed on Joshi about eight or nine years ago and I've never been able to watch it or even think about it in a major way since.

This came up on another board: CM Punk or Diamond Dallas Page?

Getting caught up: Has there ever been a better Japanese wrestler than Fujiwara? Fujiwara combines the big match feel of a Choshu with the mechanics and thrill of the AJPW guys. That's probably a bit of a clunky point to make, but it's the best I can come up with. Still I don't feel that I've seen enough of Fujiwara's best to rate him as THE BEST at this point. He's still a guy I'm exploring, whereas most of the other puro greats are guys I closed the door on long ago. I'd rather watch Fujiwara at this point than almost any other Japanese worker besides Otsuka or Fujinami but that is pure preference and nothing more. This is something I hope to be answer more honestly in another year or two. El Hijo del Santo or Negro Casas? Based on what I've seen I like Casas better. The fact that both guys are still solid workers is really impressive in general, but the big match Casas performances always come across as bold in a way that the Santo matches don't. I do cop to being a mark for some of Santo's offensive makeup, but that's probably another clunky point. Still both of these guys are more like Fujiwara to me than anything. There is a lot for me to explore. Barry Windham or Arn Anderson? Arn is way underrated in most circles, but I think Barry is one of the best wrestlers ever if we are going on peak alone. Arn was a great tv worker to be sure, but to me Windham was just as good - maybe better. Very good heirachial style worker in a country where that style of work hasn't been well done. Arn was more consistent and never had the lows Barry had though. Both of these guys would be in my top fifteen American wrestlers ever. Probably top ten. Marty Jones or Dynamite Kid? I like Marty much better. He has the capability of working several speeds, whereas DK is really a one speed worker. Jones is one of those guys that makes big spots feel big, whereas DK is one of those guys who just makes lots of big spots. Not a knock on DK because he's one of the most exciting wrestlers ever, but he's not the craftsman Jones was. Not even close.

Fujinami is pretty clearly better than Sayama at minimum.

\Boredom?

Not meant as a troll, but can someone tell me what is so good about the DK/TM series besides the "innovative" qualities.

I don't believe people are being deceitful. It's a figure of speech. I really don't see the point in carrying on with this at this point because when you start talking about how people can't "objectively" prove things you know you've hit a while where it's just going to be "my opinion differs from yours" from here on out. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not going to write tl;dr rants that are going to be answered with stating obvious things like "wrestling opinions are opinions." On the specifics of Hogan, there are some matches in there I might think are medicore or even bad, but very few that are terrible. My issue with critics of Hogan has always been the same - there is a segment of fans that claims Hogan is an awful worker in spite of the fact that he has a large number of good matches and as shown himself to have an effective routine that goes beyond the "Hulk Up" schtick. I'm not a fan of the "Hulk Up" at all, I'm not an advocate of Hogan as a top worker, and I didn't even rate him above Dusty in this thread. I just think he's a guy that deserves more credit than he gets (and fwiw I actually liked at least one of his WCW matches with Savage, don't recall a multitude of Hogan v. Sting matches, never saw Beefcake have a good singles match with anyone, and don't remember seeing a single Flair v. Hogan match that wasn't at minimum entertaining.)

Again, wrestlers do the same spots ALL THE TIME. Even more ridiculous, wrestlers do the same bumps ALL THE TIME. A large number of said wrestlers are considered great wrestlers. Criticizing Hogan for only doing one "matwork" spot would be like criticizing Kawada for not doing moonsaults. Again, mixing things up is not a problem. Trying new things is not the problem. *Occasional* innovation is not the problem. But when someone says to me "that wrestler is innovative!" I almost immediately know it's going to be some shitty indy spot monkey that starts all of his matches with an obligatory matwork section far more contrived then what we get from one trick pony Hulk before "building" to a sequence of shitty head dropping moves that are no sold in order to set up silly looking dive spots. Innovation being elevated to some sort of really important quality in wrestling is ridiculous. Southern tag wrestling is anti-innovative. Traditional wrestling roles are anti-innovative. Hell even a lot of wrestlers that were innovative in one way or another were extremely predictable wrestlers that settled into effective routines (i.e. 96 Rey Jr.). Point is not that all innovation is terrible, but that innovation is overrated as a "quality" in wrestling. As for Rodman/Malone it's pointless arguing about it because I haven't watched it recently and I"m certain you haven't either. If I have a second I'll watch it again soon. I anxiously await your "boatload" of terrible Hogan matches, much like I await your explanation for the bizarre "Taker v. Michaels at Mania was better than any Rockers match!" comment. I expect neither.

Almost all wrestlers have routines, special spots, formulas, tricks they pull out of their bag that are by their nature repetitious. Most of what we call ring psychology is based on established routines and formulas. I don't see how that is a knock. Innovation is probably the most overrated thing in wrestling actually. Mixing it up is important of course and that's what Hogan's "matwork spot" is. But being "unpredictable" in the ring is often a recipe for suck. Not saying Hogan's never had an awful match. My point is that Hogan's rep for having a boatload of terrible matches is mythological. Even broken down WCW Hogan had good matches with someone as worthless as Piper. I'm not "the guy" you refer to on the Malone/Rodman match - it was merely good, not great.

I'm not sure Ziggler is ready for an I-C title reign, given how important that title has been to SD over the last few months. On the other hand there is no better option. To answer Loss' question it should effect his drawing power - but it won't.

If the WWE is smart they'll use this opportunity to do a house show title switch. It might boost business and it hurts nothing if it doesn't because Rey has to drop the strap anyhow. I'd put Dolph up against Matt Hardy or John Morrison at Breaking Point so that he has an over face to work against and keep Finlay v. Knox in tact as an undercard bout.

Hulk Hogan or Dusty Rhodes ? This is a lot closer than it looks at first glance. I've grown to really appreciate Hogan over the last couple of years even if he doesn't have a ton of great matches. What Hogan does have is lots of memorable matches, "better than it should have been" matches, and really fun matches. Hogan has a rep of having a lot of stink bombs, but to be honest I don't know where they are. He was never going to carry a slug to anything special, but if you give him some one who is willing to bump for him, he's smart enough to work a compelling match with the tools he has. For a guy that has a rep of "sucking" he has a remarkably broad range of good matches going back to his bouts v. Dibase and Backlund in 79/80, through the AWA stuff with Bock, into the initial Hulkomania run v. Funk, Race, Piper, et. and even through to the NWO era and beyond. I'm also a mark for Hulk's occasional matwork schtick which always looks good and suggests that he is fundamentally sound in ways he doesn't get credit for often. Dusty on the other hand has a very impressive ability to make otherwise unimpressive bouts look incredible by virtue of his natural charisma. Hogan had boatload of charisma, but I don't think that this ever really helped make any of his matches feel like transcedent epics, with the exception of his bouts with Warrior and The Rock at Mania. Dusty had that quality and it was on display all the time. Even WAY past his prime Dusty was able to do this in the Studd Stable feud in 94 and to a lesser extent in his feud with Corino in ECW. I'm not saying these matches are great (well the Studd Stable matches are) but they FEEL great at times in spite of their flaws. Dusty was also a tremendous natural athlete for such a slobbish guy. Not Buddy Rose level there, but Dusty working in his dropkicks and rope running spots thirty minutes into matches with Flair is something that never ceases to amaze. Another plus is him having the only decent Billy Graham matches I've ever seen, though that could be Dusty's "it factor" fooling me again. All in all I think I like Dusty a hair better, because his matches feel like struggles and not fun one sided beatdowns. Still Hogan is better than people give him credit for. Steven Regal or Fit Finlay ? I *think* Finlay is better. Regal has some very strong, forgotten matches and is fundamentally tremendous. Finlay is very similar in that regard obviously, but I think he's a guy that is really capable of making terrible people look good. I'm not saying Regal can't do that, but I really don't see Regal as a guy that could convince me Bobby Lashley might have an upside. Still both guys are pretty great no matter where you plug them in on the roster. Actually now that I think about it, I think Finlay is a better tag worker too, though when I saw them work each other here a while back, Regal was tremendous stalling and jawjacking with the crowd. So close, and I really wouldn't argue the point much, but again Finlay by a hair. Marty Jannetty or Davey Boy Smith ? Damn this is another really close one in theory as if you look at raw production on paper I think they are pretty even. Still if you adjust for booking advantages, who had the chances and consistency, I think you have to go with Jannetty. DBS has a rep of being the best suitcase around, in the sense that a good worker could almost always carry him and get the most out of his skills, but I think DBS held up his own end more often than not. The Bret SS 92 match is the exception really. I think the best thing about Davey was that he was a very versatile guy. You could buy him working mat exchanges with Owen (underrated match) or Regal (overrated match), you could buy him working as a powerhouse jock, you could buy him as something of a junioresque guy against the right opponents and you could buy him as a meathead brawler on occasion. This allowed him to be the ultimate "plug in" guy which is part of the reason I think he has the rep he has. His best single matches are better than Jannetty's best single matches and DBS performance in them was always good with that notable exception. But Jannetty got fewer chances, and yet he ALWAYS looked good. I thought The Rockers smoked the Bulldogs as a tag team and if Jannetty was the lesser worker a la Bulldog (and I don't think Jannetty was) he was a considerably better "weak link" in that setting. Just a very good, hot babyface, great at taking bumps and illiciting sympathy and tremendous at timing offensive comebacks and making creative double team offense look effective and not hokey. I've always thought one of the reasons Jannetty always gets brought back is because you can throw him in there with anyone and have a good match. I really can't recall a bad Jannetty match. His makeshift tandems in later years were almost as good as The Rockers and a lot of that had to do with Marty (he was also a GREAT apron working tag partner). Though he isn't known as a singles guy it's notable that he had one of the last good Angle matches in the WWE and he got a miracle match out of the overrated Al Snow in SMW. If Jannetty hadn't been such an addict he could have been Ricky Morton 2.0. Atsushi Onita or Mick Foley ? Foley. I like Onita a great deal and regard him as similar to Dusty in his ability to make less than great things seem tremendous because of his raw charisma. But Foley was a workhorse and up until very recently a remarkably talented worker. I'm not going to try and sell Foley as the be all and end all, but after watching tons of WCW he was a guy that was always working hard to make matches entertaining even back then. Sort of Flair like in that he had a standard match, standard bumps that he was going to get to, and not a whole lot of offense, but what he did he did well and he mixed things up far more than he is given credit for. His work against guys like Van Hammer, Nasty Boys, Paul Orndorff, Sting, Dustin Rhodes and Vader was very similar on the surface, but when you dig deeper every match has a different emphasis and theme and Foley is almost always the better guy in those matches. Even as late as his 04/06 appearances he was still adding more than he was taking away to the matches he was involved with, which is more than most post-"retirement" wrestlers can say. Mima Shimoda or Takako Inoue ? Aside from Nakano v. Kong in the Cage and Thunderqueen I haven't watched any Joshi in a long, long time, though I'm inclined to favor Shimoda without thinking to deeply about it.

What the hell happened to Ring Psychology Bix?

Yeah, see that makes me really believe that match is going to be number one overall. Even though I never considered it for one, I couldn't imagine leaving it outside a top twenty, and that seems to be a consensus view. I'm almost certain it will be the only match on every ballot and even if it tops off at four in a poll where the votes aren't weighted that very well might be enough. This thread really gives you an idea of how broad the deviation is going to be. Without double checking everything, or giving away to many particulars from my own ballot, I know for a fact that both you and Floyd left matches off your ballots that were in the top ten on mine. I know that you had a match in the top five that didn't even make my top sixty. I know that Floyd rated my favorite Vader v. Sting match - and a match that I had in my top ten - lower than any other Vader v. Sting match on his ballot. I know that OJ had a couple of 92 tags in his top five. Granted we are four voters that may vary more than others, but that is a lot of variation. Eddy v. Rey seems like the safest staple pick and the "stock" great match from the second half of the 90's. I think the fact that is is recognized as both the peak of cruiser wrestling by the cruiser fans and an island of excellence amidst the relative mediocrity by fans of the early 90s makes it sort of the compromise pick of sorts. Personally as much as I like the match, I think it will be odd if it finishes above things like WarGames 92 and Chi-Town Rumble though I can't really put my finger on why.

No way. I appreciate the variety. I had Eddy v. Rey in my top ten, but I really wonder if anyone else will have the match higher than you have it.

I think we have topped off on disparities, as I figure I can guess what your top five is, even if I can't guess the order and all of those matches are on my ballot. Still 51 is a fucking massive deviation number.

a) It's not necessary and I really wouldn't hold up TAKA as an example of much anything since he hardly carved out a huge niche for himself by not working as hard as he had in years past. I doubt seriously he learned any such lesson working for Vince, and I'm not a big fan of the in ring product of that time.

Rey was better during his "awful" period than some people think. Not saying he was lighting the world on fire, but I was actually shocked at how good Rey looked toward the end of his WCW tenure when I watched it recently.

Psicosis v. Rey is one of my favorite matches ever. I actually felt bad having it as low as I did, and I had it at number 20. Both Rey and Psicosis eating security railing on dives was nuts.

What I really don't get about a statement like that is that someone could find something like late 80's WWF better than 04-07 WWE. I understand people are in to different things but week in - week out quality wise, I can't think of any argument for late 80's over ANY year this decade in WWE.

Not saying Rey had no psych or no storytelling pre-WWE, but I honestly can't see how anyone could watch Rey's 06 run where he was having great bouts with Finlay, Orton, Henry, et. next to his 96 run in WCW and think that his matches hadn't got dramatically better on those respective fronts. The only areas where Rey's matches have gotten noticeably "worse" is in the wildness of the highspots. On Bret v. Owen, I think Owen had far more natural talent than Bret, but he didn't get the chances Bret got for a variety of reasons. If we are talking versatility and mechanics I think Owen wins for sure, but you can't discount the fact that Bret had a huge number of quality matches over the years. There is a reason that Bret was the star that came out of that family.

I'm not looking for esoteric meaning at all. But obviously you wrote what you wrote for some reason that related to my comment about Michaels peak being during his tenure as a Rocker. If not then the statement is just ridiculous and serves no purpose in the thread. I mean I could say something like "I really enjoyed CW Anderson" right here and it would be an accurate assessment of my feelings, but it would have no logical place in this thread. "I liked Shawn v. Taker more than any Rockers match" is obviously supposed to mean something more than just that in this context. If not it's just ridiculous.

"Being honest"? What the hell does that mean? I think that Shawn's match with Taker this year at Mania was better than any Rockers match that I've ever seen, and with that opinion I'm being honest. It means I'm "being honest." Actually I think your counterpoint (if you want to call it that) is much less clear. Not sure what on Earth Shawn having a great match with Taker at Mania means here. Are you arguing that Shawn's performance v. Taker was better than any Shawn performance during Rockers era? If so are you arguing that Shawn's one performance v. Taker somehow means that Shawn's real peak was the first three months of 09? Literally have no clue what the fuck you mean here. I like Rockers era Shawn a great, great deal. Always have. Not arguing that Rockers era Shawn had better matches than any other era Shawn, but booking advantages that came along later in his career are seemingly obvious enough where they don't merit being pointed out. Do they?