Dylan Waco

It's worse than that honestly. They don't talk about the other demands/begging she did to the DA people among other things.

I think Christian's run that year is wildly underrated. He had very good to great series v. several people that year. Hell the Regal series may not have even been the best one (neck and neck with Swagger). I need to go back and rewatch that stuff but I'd rate Christian's 09 very highly. That said I will try to stick to 85 stuff in this thread going forward. May be a good idea to do threads like this for other years.

Haven't watched the match in question and I don't like Daniels so I imagine I wouldnt' like it. That said I watched a bunch of pre-Spike TNA a month or so ago and was shocked at how well some of the AJ matches held up including ones that are never talked about (v. Red for example).

Not sure if I am supposed to be comparing my picks to the guys listed or not. I struggle to think of anyone who absolutely has to be added to that list.

I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've come into a match expecting it to be at that level. Can't imagine why that would be the expectation for Hansen in AWA.

Screwed that up. Would have 09 Christian, Rey and maybe Navarro in 1985 top ten. Was thinking of Black Terry's great year, but that was 2010.

Yeah I have seen others say Hansen was a disappointment in the AWA but I don't get it. The Slaughter feud was more very good than great, so I guess that may be part of it, but the match with Blackwell, the match with Baby Vader and the match with Hennig were all excellent. Hell that Hennig match is one of my favorite sub fifteen minute matches of all time, and I'd rate it above every television match in the entire career of people like Bret Hart. I didn't really consider Hansen a number one contender prior to watching him in the AWA and Puerto Rico, but after that he's in the mix.

This is a more general comment, but I tend to think that being the top guy in the World now is that not really any different from being the top guy in 2005, and nowhere near as different as you might think from say 1985. To me the bigger drop is not so much on the top end, but once you get out of the upper handful of guys. A year like 1985 has a much deeper pool of great wrestlers, and the fortieth best guy in 1985 might be a top ten contender in 2015, but I'm not sure the top guy(s) in 2015 would struggle to make a top forty in 1985. Hell in a year like 2009 (which wasn't that long ago) there are probably three guys I would rank top six or seven for 85, maybe even higher. Of course you could argue that 85 isn't as tough a field as 86, but by the same token you could argue that 99 is a joke of a year compared to 2015. It's really a year by year thing a lot of the time.

If someone saw Pat in real time and regarded him as an all timer and top ten contender for something like this I would have no problem with it.

What do you mean by this? To me Jericho is a guy who loses a ton on rewatch. There is no question that he stood out as different among the WCW cruiserweights and even to a degree later in the WWE. In real time I think that helped him. If you are Meltzerian this might be an argument for putting him in a pretty high position on a top 100. But as someone who believes you can evaluate things in the rearview I think there are very few wrestlers who hold up as poorly as Jericho. Those flaws have become more evident and obvious with time. As an aside I thought the feud with Michaels was good as a feud, but the ladder match blowoff was fucking awful, and I don't think any of their matches was better than good

Dustin had a much longer career than Austin. His valleys were in Attitude Era WWE, dying days WCW (where I didn't think he was terrible at all really, just nothing special much like everyone else) and TNA. Most of his other "down time" were just period in the 00's/10's where he wasn't with the WWE. In terms of number good years if you account for injury I think you really have to stretch to make a case for Austin over Dustin. His worst periods will hurt him some with me and keep him out of the absolute top tier, but there is only so much I can penalize someone for being bad in places where damn near everyone was bad.

I voted for Misawa because I can actually tolerate watching him wrestle. I wasn't going to contribute anything more to this thread but then soup took a shot at those who value being entertained so now I feel obligated. I am as big a list guy as there has ever been, but I have never seen "best of ballots" as an excuse to breakout the old spread sheet and get down and dirty with math. I don't object to people doing this but I have never viewed wrestling that way, and I doubt I would be the list geek that I am if I viewed an enterprise like GWE in that fashion. To me there is nothing wrong with weighting Great Matches heavily, or even more than anything else, but I can't take seriously the argument that such a thing should be the only metric that matters. For example I don't buy the NintendoLogic "if you were great when you wanted to be you are great" argument because I have seen too many guys over the years who I thought stunk, were mediocre, et. have great matches. The idea that Warrior is a great wrestler because he had great matches a couple of times simply doesn't fly with me. Consistency matters. Being able to make the best out of the worst situation matters. Wrestling the right kind of match matters. I would never vote Funk number one if his sole positive was that he was always entertaining (if that was the standard JT Smith would be in my top five). Nor would I vote Misawa or Jumbo number one if they came out on top in a game of count the snowflakes. To me the individual performance matters. This isn't a "who had the most great matches?" project, it's a "who was the greatest wrestler ever" project. They might be the same person when all is said and done but I don't think they HAVE to be the same person. To keep this somewhat topical, Misawa was a guy that immediately jumped off the page the first time I saw him. I had been reading about AJPW on the internet and in the Torch and despite his stoic nature, I connected with him immediately. I still think the 96 tag league final is the best match I've ever seen, and the majority of the commonly cited Misawa classics felt that way to me and deserved that mantle. I do not like NOAH Misawa nearly as much as some, and he was in arguably the most disappointing match I've ever seen (v. Hase), but by and large he was someone who lived up to the hype. Jumbo to me is the god that failed. I had seen a decent amount of Jumbo before he started being touted by a large contingent as the GOAT and never thought much of him. Not to say I thought he was bad, but he never felt like a guy at that level. As the hype around him built I watched tons of Jumbo and concluded that while he was definitely a great wrestler, he was a guy who's individual performances rarely connected with me. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to call him sterile and emotionless, but he often came across that way. Going back and watching everything for the best of AJPW in the 80s I left with largely the same feeling - undeniably great wrestler, but one who only excited me if he was in there with certain guys. I don't buy Phil's line that he's the Japanese Terry Taylor, but I kind of do think of him as the Japanese Chris Benoit (not that way), in that he's a great worker, who churned out a lot of high end matches, but I lacked the emotional investment in his matches that I want out of an all timer. As an aside I will note that I think the argument that Cena has as many duds as he does classics is a massive exaggeration. While it is true that he has had the massive disadvantage of being the top guy in the most saturated era of all time (and yes I think the volume of good matches hurts guys like Cena, Rey, et. in many ways because those matches are seen as throwaway now because of how common place they are), and as a result has had some stinkers, I don't see the huge list of bottom feeding bouts that Will apparently does. Also you can add Colon to Will's master list of guys who dominated promotions if that is something that you put a lot of value in.

I'm not dismissing him out of hand, and I'm not a great match theorist, but if you are going in on so little footage/so few years of footage you need something big like some all time classics, or a great run of a couple of years. I agree that what we have of Paterson gives us a real glimpse at what he probably was like in his working prime in San Fran. But I don't vote on probablies. I wouldn't fault anyone for voting for him in the bottom tier, but not sure he has much of a chance with me given the depth or the field.

Do you think 79 Paterson was one of the best years in wrestling history? Because to get in on one year on my list it would have to be a top ten all time year at worst

Is there enough meat for him to be anything more than a lower tier "I want to include him" pick? There are very few people I would even consider for this project on less than 4 years of footage (by that I mean a reasonable sample size from a 4 year period), does Pat have that? If not does he have 5-10 all time classics that could hurdle him onto the bottom tier of my ballot even without the extended run?

What formerly great in ring performer was most brutally crushed by the weight of 80s WWF style/schedule?

I think at the end of the day with these two it comes down to who you think was better in Japan. Comparing them in other ways it's kind of amazing how close they are. Funk was better in Memphis and WCW, with all time great feuds in both. Hansen was better in Puerto Rico with an all time great feud there. Because of footage issues I'm not positive who was better in the WWF but of what we have I'd say Funk. That said Funk does not have Hansen's AWA run which was very good, with some all time classic matches, and Funk had nothing like that in the WWF. Funk was better as an independent wrestler, but Hansen didn't do a ton of that. Funk was better in the 70's, Hansen was better in the 90s and it's hard to say who was better in the 80s. Both had good-to-great tag teams with partners who otherwise left a lot to be desired. Funk was both an all time great face and an all time great heel, but Hansen is probably the best ever at what he did. Hansen has more four star plus matches on tape, but Funk is one of those guys who was always entertaining where Hansen would occasionally eat guys up and not be so fun in the process. Hansen is the best ever homesteading gajin, while Funk is the best ever "loser leaves town" outlaw wrestler. Again it really comes down to Japan. I can honestly see arguments both ways there depending on what you emphasize. This will probably be one of the last decisions I make before I turn in a ballot. No way I can vote now.

Honestly don't see how Casas v. Maximo is even in the same league as Becky v. Sasha.

That's fine, but saying that women should be treated as a side show attraction (like minis) because they never drew, when they were never put into a position to draw seems ridiculous to me. Ok since MY opinion is "ridiculous" exactly why are the women indisputably a better draw than minis? Kids make up a big part of the wrestling audience too and I'm more inclined to believe that trying to draw kids is a better way to make money than trying to draw women. There is a whole lot more evidence that kids will tune in to a wrestling show in large numbers than women will. What can you actually bring to the table for your side of this argument other than "it works in NXT" and I "I think more women will watch"? Children and minis are not the same. Minis are small men, not children. It works in NXT and joshi was huge in Japan when it was a hugely pushed thing. What other reason would you need to try? 5 years ago, yeah, there wasn't the talent. Now, you have Sasha and Charlotte who you can build around. Thank you for talking to me like I'm a fucking idiot. I did not know that kids and minis are not the same. I thought it was some slick thing Mexican promoters were doing to get around child labor laws. Also why are you now bringing joshi into the argument when you dismissed SHIMMER earlier because it's "completely a women's promotion"? Stage. AJW had a WWE level of stage. SHIMMER is an indie. AJW really didn't have a WWE level stage. Shimmer is an indie but are they big for an indie? Not really. In fact when you consider how long they have been around it's pretty amazing how little growth they have had. Also how many Shimmer fans are women? I know they have some diehard female fans, but watching their shows it doesn't strike me that the audiences are even close to as well distributed between the sexes as WWE shows currently are. Why is that?

I want to go back and watch some 2001 Austin before the vote is due, but I picked Dustin here without a second thought. I just think he was a more impressive worker. What hurts Austin with me is that I don't like his WCW run nearly as much as some people do. It's not that he was bad there, but I thought he peaked at good during that period, and at times he was just there. Every year he and Dustin shared in that promotion I thought Dustin was considerably better. In fact I thought Austin had his best singles match in WCW with Dustin at Halloween Havoc 91. Hell I also think Dustin was better in 1990 v. Ted than Austin was v. Chris Adams. While it is true that Austin had a better run in the WWF, and has the higher profile matches, I think Dustin is a better blood feud wrestler, more versatile, a better tag worker (one of the all time greats in that regard really), and more dynamic. I also think his WWF career is generally underrated as he had three separate runs that I would rate really highly (02ish, the WWECW run, and the last run).

I can't do this yet. This is going to be one of the toughest things for me in the end. Both are number one contenders for me. I think Funk has more versatility as a character, and probably as a worker, but he doesn't have the depth of great performances (at least not on tape). Could easily see these guys as 1 and 2 on my final ballot, but I don't know what order yet.

I think Curt was clearly better during the 80's. I think Bret was clearly better during the 90's. I strongly disagree with Jerry about Curt as a face and also don't agree with the implication that he couldn't carry people. I actually think Bret was a much more bland face than Curt to be honest, but he was in a big time promotion, that got behind him and let him do what he did best. In general I think the place and time where Bret had his big run has a lot to do with how you view him vis a vis Curt, which is not to say that Bret didn't work his ass off for his reputation. I'd certainly rather watch prime Curt than prime Bret at this point, but that probably has as much to do with the overexposure of Bret and my fondness for the AWA. I will say that I genuinely think Curt's absolute best matches stack up very well to Bret's, and I am not at all sure that Bret's resume is deeper either. I still haven't voted but I'd lean toward Curt.

This deserves its own thread.

I should be clear. I think women should be presented better on t.v. I'm just not convinced that actual wrestling fans are being turned off because of the way they are treated now. The argument for treating them better is that it will make the product better over all and/or it may bring in some more people who weren't fans in the first place (younger girls, perhaps some older women, et).

What evidence is there that a large percentage of people are turned off by the WWE's treatment of women?