Dylan Waco

Jaxson James is actually an SC guy but he works all over the place

Discuss Here.

Of all the World of Sport/Brit guys by far the one I'm most conflicted about is Mark Rocco. I tend to admire the effort of the Dynamite matches even if I don't love them, I agree that he could bump, and also see him as someone with a broader base appeal (at least theoretically) than most other Brit performers. On the other hand I've seen him in Japan and he stinks there. I don't mean by comparison either. He's not any good. So I wonder if the idea of him being a more universally accessible talent really holds up to scrutiny. I do think there is something admirable about Rocco's act in that he was constantly aggressive, a consistent pace pusher, an obvious asshole. There was nothing subtle about him in a national wrestling landscape where subtlety seemed to be the norm at times. That consistency, and commitment to his act are by far his biggest positives, and I do think he deserves at least some credit for being a trend setter when it came to cutting a pace both as a brawler and a grappler. On the other hand I think that a lot of his pace pushing sort of obscured his failings. This will seem an odd comparison to some, but as a brawler I find him remarkably similar to Brody in that his constant moving forward, uniqueness, and vibe seems to overshadow the weakness of his strikes, and a clunkiness of motion. I'm not saying I find him to be as bad as I find Brody, but I do wonder if Rocco's aggressive tone was a deliberate cover for some of his mechanical failings. If it was it would almost enhance the way I view him as a worker, but then if it's not apparent to the viewer how much does it matter? I know OJ really likes him in the late 70's, and I agree that it is his best period, but he really doesn't strike me as an especially skilled wrestler even that era. He's certainly not bad, and would stand out big time in today's world, but in that setting I don't see it. This might come across a wee bit trollish, but I don't think I ever saw him look as smooth as Tony St. Clair did v. Jones, nor am I entirely sure that he was as good a ground worker as peak St. Clair in general. At the very least I think it's close. If aura means a ton to you, I could see rating him really high. He has that in spades. What's funny to me is that watching him in bulk kind of validates the claim often made in WON HOF debates that Rocco was a big star, and possibly even a meaningful drawing card. On the other hand I'm not sure it validates the claim that he's a great worker. Rocco is especially difficult for me to get a real feel for because even within the context of a single match I will often swing from "I've been underrating this guy, he's really great" to "he's fine, but I have no clue how anyone sees him as an all timer." He's certainly great at being a bastardly heel, but something about him is very incomplete. Lots and lots of pretty good to good matches, and even a few great ones. But I don't feel nearly as strongly about his best matches as I do the best matches of guys like Cortez, Breaks, Saint, Grey, or Myers. I wouldn't rate his peak performances at the level of Rudge, Haward, Boscick or Sarjeant either, and I could probably go on from there. And yet I don't feel comfortable completely rejecting him fro consideration. At the end of the day my 100 is going to be very difficult to crack, so Rocco probably gets left out. But he's a curious case of a guy who seems like he should be in a top 100, even though my analysis trends in the other direction.

Bumping this both to note that I have been writing up some of the nominated guys over recent days and will continue to do so, and also as a sort of reminder that if anyone in this thread is someone you are considering voting for but hasn't been nominated yet, please get that nomination in ASAP. Only a couple weeks left for them.

I am a podcast guy, but the roll out should absolutely be on the board. It should probably be something like the SC thread if not exactly like it.

Myers gets lost a bit, and seems like he's less on the radar for inclusion than someone like Grey. I get why as I'd rate Grey above him, but I don't think the gap is THAT big, and I honestly can't imagine rating one and not the other. I completely agree with Yo-Yo's in that I really think Clive would have gotten over anywhere. I love Breaks, but if I'm being completely honest with myself I think Myers is the most translatable, and clearly charismatic great worker to appear on WOS t.v. His look, the way he carried himself, the style he worked, and especially his facial expressions make him a really fun guy to watch wrestle. He's not the best worker of the bunch, but if you gave me the option of going down a rabbit hole watching any of the greats from that place and time I'd probably take Myers first. He's just a magnetic personality. While I do think some of his act could be a bit repetitive, I also think he was so good at what he did that it doesn't really wear thin. When it comes to fast paced exchanges, bursting into highspots, and throwing strike flurries, I think he's almost certainly the best Brit based worker of the 70s or 80s. His timing on a lot of this is actually pretty mind blowing for the era, and would stand out as upper tier even by the more high energy standards of today. In terms of exciting spots, flash, and charm I'd actually rate him ahead of Saint, though I'm not positive he was a better worker than Saint as a whole. As a criticism I would say that there are times where his matches feel more like a collection of nice sequences, rather than a complete match. I also think that while his best matches are excellent, and he has lots of good ones, I don't think his peak performances are at the level of Grey, Breaks, or Cortez. Still he was a dynamic guy that jumped off the page for the right reasons. I can't imagine rating World of Sport performers and leaving him off my ballot. He's in.

Cortez is tough for me because I do value volume, and he doesn't seem to have as much as I would ideally like for a top tier guy. The real shame of this is that if I were rating on pure skill, technique, and ability to build compelling matches from that talent Cortez might be my number one pick from the WOS/Brit crew. Along those lines there is a sense in which Cortez is the single most impressive guy out of the entire bunch. Where Breaks, McManus, and possibly even Saint or Grey with the right packaging, are guys who I think could have made it relatively big in at least some U.S. territories, Cortez is perhaps the only guy from that universe who I think could be airlifted into a true shootstyle setting and immediately excel with no hiccups at all. His grappling really is excellent and feels tighter than anyone elses from that scene. Where the others rely on craftiness and flash, with Cortez the holds often have an aura of real danger. There is a way he has of making the routine look violent that is a massive trait in a WOS setting. In part due to the fact that he projects intensity onto both the basic and the difficult things he does, the transitions and momentum swings in his matches come across as especially dramatic. In general I think he either understood escalation better than most, or his style and approach naturally lent itself to it. Either way his matches almost always impress. I also think he did interesting things with leverage that made his grappling feel more honest without departing from the theatrical elements you need in a pro wrestling match. It's an odd observation perhaps, but he seemed to work angles on escapes and holds that seemed to be in keeping with what I would expect in a true contest. I'm not saying others didn't do this, but I do think Cortez was especially good at it. I do think he showed a good bit of range in terms of being able to work sprints, work longer affairs, make the most out of limited opponents, and hit home runs with other greats. Still, I wish there was more of him available. I'm likely to include him at this point, but probably in the bottom twenty or so.

Going through a lot of the World of Sport a second time has really led to me changing my opinions on a lot of guys. I wonder how much of this is that I have a broader base of knowledge about the stylistic quirks and elements of what to expect out of the Brit scene now than I did when I first encountered it. In any case I have probably done a more dramatic swing on Grey than anyone. Steve Grey is a tremendous wrestler and will easily make my top 100. This is a pretty shocking thing for me to say, because when I first saw the matches with Clive Myers years and years ago they seemed too cute to me, and lacking in anything approaching authentic drama. In hindsight I think I was probably taken aback by the lack of venom or violence in the series, but with more context now I think the matches are absolutely excellent, and probably have as much competitive spirit in them as any truly great wrestling series. While the first watch puts a lot of emphasis on the crafty and almost comical escapes and theatrical counters, I think the real genius in the series is way the pacing is worked, as both guys can adjust speed on a dime in a completely believable and effective way. The Myers matches are the calling card, but I actually think they are a mistake to watch first. To me you get a greater appreciation for the chess game mentality that those bouts have at times, if you have seen Grey against a variety of other talents before hand. To me the most impressive thing about Grey is that he's so adaptable. While he does use many of the same spots in every match, they are rarely center points of the match, so he doesn't ever come across as repetitive. More than that if you watch him work Cortez, McManus, Haward, et the approach he employs feel different every time. In general I think he excels most as a counter striker, but he is really good at folding his spots and style into his opponents schtick. He straddles the fence between being a true technical wizard who you believe can out wrestle anyone, and being a real underdog who is at the mercy of stronger, nastier, or even occasionally more skilled, opponents. I think he has by far McManus' best taped match (at least from the 70's as I have not seen the 62 match), and he very well might have Cortez' too. In fact, I think it's possible that Grey has a larger volume of truly great matches than any other Brit wrestler from the WOS era other than maybe Breaks. I think I've seen all but one of the matches OJ listed above and I think I would safely rate all of them at borderline great at minimum, with several in the excellent category. On top of that I've watched him work people like Johnny England and Richie Brooks and have very entertaining matches with them. I may try and check out the aforementioned 86 series with Mal Sanders too both because he's a joy to watch, and because I am considering him for a reasonably high spot so would like to dig as deep as possible. I can see an argument for rating him as the top WOS worker. At the moment he's still below Breaks on my list for two reasons. The first is that Breaks was a guy who grabbed me immediately and jumped off the page, where I had to grow into Grey. That sort of instinctual attraction is hard to quantify, but I do think it says something about a worker's talents. The second reason is that I think Breaks is a slightly more complete worker who could translate more places. Some might reject that sort of thought experiment approach to analysis and that's fine. Having said that, Breaks was a guy who could work both a crowd and a match in a very animated way that went beyond what Grey was doing. Perhaps that's a bit unfair to Grey because the role he played almost required him to be somewhat mild mannered, but on the margins I'd still rate Breaks over him at this point.

I figured I would drag this post over from WKO. Back in 2009 I challenged EricR of Segunda Caida on this choice of Finlay for his number one spot on his WKO ballot. Here is his response. I would say I'm probably guilty of putting Finlay at #1 as a "well I like him a lot" pick. But maybe I can explain why... Everybody always points to Finlay as a "model of consistency", but I think it's more than that. YES, he might be the most consistent worker in the world, but I put him at #1 for the same reason I had him #1 last year: He always looked like the best worker in every single match he was in. j He has had more opportunities in past years to have "MOTYs", but no matter what situation he was in this year, no matter the quality of his opponent, no matter the length of the match, no matter what...he was ALWAYS the best worker in the match. Which is not to say that he is selfish, as I also think he makes other workers look their best. ~He had the only good Jericho singles match other than the Rey ones ~THEE good Ricky Ortiz match!! Good Ricky Ortiz match!! That did NOT happen with anybody else ~Had the best Ziggler match (9/17 was better than the Rey PPV match) ~Best Tyson Kidd singles match ~never wrestles the same match, and is able to work awesomely within time constraints. If the match is booked to go 3 minutes, he doesn't do the standard WWE formula and still work in a chinlock. His "under 150 second" matches against Drew McIntyre were very engaging and felt like that had tons of neat stuff squeezed into a VERY short amount of time. ~was able to work great singles, great tags (both tag work and his awesome apron work), worked the best two 3-ways of the year, and was able to have awesome 4-ways as well. All of these matches were good to great IMO. There are a lot of stumblebums in mixed in there, and Finlay gave awesome performances each time out. vs. Birchall (ECW, 1/27/09) vs. Swagger (ECW, 2/3/09) vs. Brian Kendrick (SD, 3/13/09) vs. Kidd (ECW, 4/28/09) vs. Zach Ryder (SS, 5/7/09) vs. Tyson Kidd (ECW, 5/12/09) vs. DH Smith (ECW, 5/19/09) vs. Jack Swagger (SS, 5/28/09) vs. Ricky Ortiz (SD, 7/3/09) vs. Ziggler (SD, 7/24/09) w/ Mysterio vs. Knox/Ziggler (SD, 7/31/09) vs. Ziggler vs. Knox vs. Truth (SD, 8/7/09) vs. Ziggler (SD, 8/14/09) vs. Knox (SD, 8/21/09) vs. Knox vs. Ziggler (SS, 8/27/09) w/ Khali vs. Knox/Kane (SD, 9/4/09) vs. Knox (Belfast Brawl, SD, 9/11/09) vs. Ziggler (SS, 9/17/09) w/ Morrison vs. Knox/Ziggler (SD, 9/25/09) vs. Knox vs. Ziggler (SD, 10/16/09) vs. Chris Jericho (SS, 11/5/09) Drew McIntyre series In particular, I would put the Kidd matches (especially the 5/12 match), Smith match, 9/17 Ziggler, Knox Belfast Brawl against ANY top matches of any other worker from 2009. Finlay is my definition of what a wrestler is. He is the guy to beat every year. But I really don't think I was out of line saying he was #1 in 2009.

I think we should have a poll on vote weighting. I like the Laprade method myself, but this should be up to a vote in my opinion.

I haven't seen the 62 match, but there is plenty available to make an argument for his inclusion. McManus is tough for me because I feel like I'm watching the ghost of a great wrestler, instead of an actual great wrestler. He's not a Ray Stevens, where his post-prime is solid enough but shows no flashes of genius. To the contrary I think McManus shows more than flashes. He has very capable matches and performances against a wide variety of guys with varying degrees of skill. He's clearly a very good wrestler at minimum in what is available, probably even a great one in some ways. That said just as he is not a Ray Stevens, he's not a Nick Bockwinkel either. By that I mean that there is no run of all time classic matches and other worldly performances that make him a true elite level wrestler during the era in question. In no way do I mean that as a major criticism. Bock was an anomaly in many respects for a non-lucha worker, and no one can reasonably be expected to perform at that level in their 50's. Still, McManus lacks a defining bout or series of bouts that make me feel like he absolutely has to be on my ballot. Understand that I am not saying he doesn't have worthwhile matches. Some of them are even very good/great (v. Saint, v. Sarjeant, the excellent match v. Grey). But he never comes across as the best guy in the great matches to me, even though I think his schtick was extremely effective, very well worked, and complimented by a look, body language, and facial expressions, that were a notch above what most of the WOS guys were capable of. In his older years he was clearly a very good mechanic, who could get something solid out of just about anyone, and be elevated when he was with an elite. That's to be commended. He also had an authentic star presence, and the ability to control a crowd that makes me believe he could have gotten over anywhere, even in his old age. I know that doesn't matter to many people, but for my purposes it's a plus. I like him a lot, but I don't love him. I do wonder if I would think slightly better of him if I had seen him before Breaks who I think is a more fully developed and dynamic version of McManus in some ways. And I really should try and see the 1962 match. Still, for now he is a maybe leaning slightly in the "no" direction.

I'll be talking about a lot of the Euro guys I've been watching over the next few days, and figured I'd nominate St. Clair because I think he merits discussion. I actually think he's an interesting case because comparing him to some of the more skilled talents from that scene involves the ultimate peak v. longevity debate. For example, I won't argue that St. Clair is a more talented wrestler than Sarjeant, but there is much more available and I will piggyback on a OJ a bit and say that I think St. Clair's best five or so matches are excellent and not at all lacking in a head to head with Sarjeant's. It's strange because I'm not sure sure St. Clair should necessarily be rewarded for having more available footage than some of these guys, but the inverse of that is how do we know the lack of footage of some of these other guys isn't benefiting them by hiding their weaknesses? It's a tough calculus. I know there was a narrative going around some time ago that St. Clair sucks, but I just don't agree with that at all. He didn't have the technical brilliance of a Cortez or Grey, or the personality of a Breaks or Rocco, or the flash of a Myers or Saint, but when he was hitting on all cylinders he was - to my eyes at least - a legitimately great wrestler. I love the Marty Jones match and thought he was actually the smoother wrestler in it. The Bond match is brilliant in parts, and that's not something that happens within that style if someone isn't exceptionally talented. I enjoy the Rocco matches, really like the Kincaid match, and think he was one of the better guys at working within McManus' schtick. I also seem to like post WOS-era St. Clair more than most. Not that it's anything special, but I don't find it to be bad, and there are occasions (like the Funk match from 93 which I like more than anyone else) where I really think he shines. I very much doubt I'll rate him, but I'd probably be more inclined to rate him than a lot of the people mentioned above, even those who I think were likely better wrestlers but lack the volume to have a super strong case. As an aside I would encourage Jetlag and others to go ahead and nominate any of these people if there is even a 1 percent chance they may include them. The nomination time is winding down and I don't want anyone left out.

Absolutely agree with Parv that Ted had a better career than Hennig. Would vote for Ted over Curt for something like a WON HoF every time. Do not think he was better in the ring. Head to head in the WWF I'd probably take Ted actually, as while I don't his best stuff was as impressive in terms of overall quality, I think he did do a good job getting the most out of a young Dustin and Virgil, whereas Hennig had the advantage of working Bret (though there were some random Hennig tv matches I loved...). Plus I think Ted was less likely to have a shit and/or flat match in the WWF than Curt and he was more well rounded in terms of skill. That said, I think it's fairly close there, and I prefer Curt everywhere else to Ted everywhere else. Part of that is that I'm generally not as high on Mid-South stuff as many (terrible I know), and also that I just haven't watched as much Mid-South as I have AWA or Portland. On the other hand I do genuinely prefer Curt as a babyface to Ted and I like Ted in that role a fair amount. I don't really prefer him as a heel necessarily, but he has far more matches that I think are outstanding performances. Even stuff like the Saito match, or the 6 man tag from Battle at the Bay which NEVER get talked up are Curt matches that I think are excellent and for totally different reasons. I could absolutely see rating Ted over Curt depending on what style you like, promotions you are into, et. But Ted has always felt very samey to me in a way that Hennig hasn't. Ted will not be on my ballot at this point. Hennig will do reasonably well.

Discuss Here.

Discuss Here.

Nominating Tony St. Clair Taken from OJ's reviews and with the understanding that OJ may cringe at those reviews being used to nominate him Mick McManus vs. Tony St. Clair (3/14/74) This was an excellent performance from McManus. Pretty much a masterclass. In fact, I think it may be the best Mick McManus performance I've seen. Tony St. Clair had a huge height and weight advantage which kind of translated to some awkward looking lock-ups in terms of him having to bend over, but to St. Clair's credit he was full of fire here and sold well. The match was basically about McManus' cheating and St. Clair's retaliation (like all McManus matches), but St. Clair was pretty damn good at his part. Max Ward was on his case the entire match and there was awesome part where Walton started saying "Is he gone? I think he might be gone" in regards to whether it was a DQ or public warning. The last couple of falls were really good since St. Clair was battling for an equalising fall via submission. Not only was this passable, but I'm actually going to list this since it was a genuinely exciting match and a great Mick McManus bout. St. Clair is 4/4 in passable bouts so far, and while I wouldn't call him a good worker, it seems like his opponents liked the heat they got against him because everyone stepped up their game when they faced Tony St. Clair. Tony St. Clair vs. Dave Bond (11/7/77) Now this was interesting. Dave Bond was a guy who had weight issues for much of his career, but here he was in the best shape of his career enjoying the hottest run he ever had (w/ the Caribbean Sunshine Boys) and man was he a different sort of worker. The CSB vs. Tony St. Clair was one of the best feuds Dale Martin ever ran, but still I was surprised by how good this was. It was one of those bouts that disintegrate into a raft of public warnings, but extremely well paced and sold like you wouldn't believe. This was the best I've seen St. Clair look of his own accord, which may have had something to do with his father, a famous heavyweight himself, being in attendance. It was the first time I've seen him brawl without looking like a daffodil. There was an awesome, awesome submission in this and the finish was a huge bump that I wouldn't expect Dave Bond to take. The camerawork was also top notch, which is something else you don't expect from WoS. Excellent match. Tony St. Clair sucking is a bit of a myth, I'm afraid. Not against the top heels at any rate. Marty Jones vs. Tony St. Clair (9/26/78, JIP Rd 2) These catch weight contests often produce gems, but this was a bit more special than usual as it was the British Heavyweight champion vs. the British Light-Heavyweight champion, so Jones was giving away a fair bit of size. I can't imagine a heavyweight champion in any other promotion putting over a lighter wrestler as much as St. Clair did here. I've never given St. Clair much credit as a worker, instead praising him as a babyface foil for the likes of McManus, Kincaid and Bond, but I thought he was excellent here. Whoever booked this did a great job as they fooled me twice. St. Clair stayed down during the break between rounds with a shoulder injury and I thought maybe we were going to see a bullshit World of Sport injury finish that put Jones over for whatever reason, but St. Clair shrugged off the pain and the two men put on the best round I've seen on these discs to date. Really fantastic wrestling that had the crowd on their feet. Then they did a head clash spot that I thought for sure would lead to a double knockout, but the match kept going. For as shitty as WoS finishes can be, when they decide to pull a swerve or two it works really well. The match was a cracker and both guys came out of it looking good. Why more wrestling can't be booked like this is a mystery.

You are right, but perhaps you should temper the tendency to make analogies that go beyond wrestling. I understand it can be effective in making a point but I think it's easy for everyone to slip out of wrestling talk entirely when that happens. At the very least let's all try to be careful to keep wrestling at the center of our posts and not on the periphery.

Phil Ochs is better than Dylan and I was named after Dylan

Discuss Here.

Will is right, I'd have to be high to have HHH on my ballot.

At work. Will write about Windham and Ted later, but would note that my reasons for not voting for Ted aren't that different than Parv's reasons for not voting shoot style.

Well name names. Don't make claims like that if you can't back them up with specifics.

SPOILER... The defense won anyhow, but my entire approach would have been to argue that the Cabana podcast was entirely irrelevant given how the charge was framed. What Punk said after his career in the ring was over is completely irrelevant.

Unless you are prepared to argue that Blackwell supporters are basing their claims off of 10 minutes I don't see how the last point is relevant.

I watched a bunch of 08 ECW several years back because a ton of it was up on Hulu. I believe Exposer watched a lot of it with me. I came away thinking that Hardy's run - while shorter than Christian's - was comparable in a variety of other ways. Similar sort of feel to the matches, similar range of opponents (Bam Neely to Mark Henry and all points in between). Christian sold better, and the best Christian matches from his run probably edge out the best Hardy stuff, but the roles were similar. I also think Christian's offensive approach, while very much logical, comes across less impactful than Hardy's.