Dylan Waco

Bumping this because I really want to start digging into his work but want to know where to start

This "I'm taking my ball and going home" gimmick is getting old.

I went back and watched some WWE Spike a couple of days ago and man alive was he good there. I saw matches v. Raven, Rodney Mack, Brock, Steve Austin and two v. Rey. All of them were worked differently and Spike was great in all of them. The guy gets a ton of credit for his bumping, but he was really creative both in terms of the bumping and in terms of putting together offensive sequences. All of the matches are short and easy to find on youtube if anyone cares

I think Keirn is someone who is way, way better than people give him credit for. I really liked him in his New Japan appearances as a sort of bruiser technician, and that is the same sort of thing I've seen out of him in the limited Florida and Georgia footage I've seen him in. I really want to see the Keirn v. Saito match that was reviewed on Titans a while back because it sounded great. I also absolutely love him in the Fabs. There is a Flair v. Keirn handheld on youtube that I may watch soon because I'm interested to see how those two worked together.

A bridge too far in what way?

Really interesting guy to me,in that I think he was always good, at times very good, but I'm not sure he was ever really a great wrestler. He kind of reminds me of DDP in that regard, though I don't think his best matches are as good as DDP's best matches. I could see maybe tossing him a low end vote because of his consistency over a long time. Even as recently as the last few years you could argue he was the best guy in Puerto Rico week-to-week. On the other hand he's not even in the same universe as Colon or Invader 1, and I'm not not sure his best stuff rates with the best stuff of Invader 3. Plus I'd rate the PR work of Ron Starr and Eric Embry ahead of him safely. So yeah, he's a bubble guy to me, but one that could safely break through if I were to find a bunch of good 90's PR work from him.

I'm not sure light is the right word. Maybe unconvincing.

The idea that OJ is an open minded critic is hilarious to me.

This is a weird one, but I could see voting for Jay Briscoe or someone like that around the 100 mark. I actually think there are a few other potential voters who might vote for him, but if they did I think they'd be likely to vote him higher than that. So I could end up being the low voter for a few guys where I am only one of a couple of guys voting for them at all.

Nominating TNT/Savio Vega via 80's Set Reviews. I can drag them over if need be

Gordy definitely won't make my list, and I say that as a Chattanooga boy who would desperately like to include him. I just can't do it. At this point I legitimately prefer too many others.

I have actually deliberately stayed out of this thread up until this point because I have a position on this that won't be popular, but here it is - anyone who says they won't be strategic voting to at least some degree is either A. a liar, B. kidding themselves, or C. has a very narrow definition of what strategic voting is. Don't get me wrong. For most voters I don't I think there is a ton of calculation along the lines of "X will be getting four first place votes, but I don't really think he's a top ten guy so I'm going to drop him from number 24 on my ballot to number 62 to offset those others." That sort of thing probably does happen here or there, but I think it's reasonably rare, and I think weighted voting can incentivize more honest voting at least in the upper quarter. Having said that I think that especially after you get out of what I call the upper tier, there is a lot of stuff that I would call strategic voting. For example voting for Ernie Ladd because he might have been great and he was ahead of his time as a heel is a strategic vote in my view, even if you throw him a bone at one hundred. What you are saying is "this guy should be recognized in some way, so even though I can't quite justify it the way I would ideally like to, I want to see his name on the sheet at the end of the day." To me that is strategic in a sense. On Shawn and being a top 100 guy of all time...to me it really comes down to the post-prime and how you view it. Some people don't even consider it a post-prime. They consider it a second prime and think it makes Shawn an upper tier guy. If I'm being honest it hurts him in my eyes. So much of it I regarded as either tired, silly or mediocre at the time, and I have no desire to rewatch any of it. I do think he was a great young tag worker, and very good/occasionally great from 94-97. That's enough to put him on my bubble, but if I"m having to choose between him and another bubble guy the post-prime hurts him, especially because I know that others put so much stock in it.

I could see leaving Austin off my list. I doubt I will, but I could see it.

This is a difficult question to answer because some just won't rate at all and I think very few people will be unanimous. For consensus picks? Well it's very unlikely I'll rate Shawn. I'm not viscerally opposed to his inclusion at all,but I do think he gets the benefit of every doubt from a wide subsection of hardcore fandom, so he doesn't need that coming from me as well. When I see people talking about him as a number one pick, or a top ten guy, and then I look at his output I just think "no fucking way," so I'm not going to make room for him in a bottom twenty or so that is likely to be filled with guys I consider every bit as good (or better) than him, but who may have gotten fewer chances. I could see being among the low voters for both Austin and Bret. I enjoy both guys, think both guys could be great at times, but I'm not enamored with either guy. I will say that Austin is someone who might benefit a ton if I revisit 2001 WWE which I've been considering taking on as a project. But even saying that, I was never high on him in WCW and there are big chunks of his key WWE run where he was unspectacular to say the least in the ring. He'll probably make my list but I don't see him as a lock at all. Bret will almost certainly make my list, but I don't see him as the top twenty level guy a lot of people do. I'm not even sure I see him as a strong top fifty contender. Among people who will vote for lucha (and I hope everyone at least makes a good faith effort there, but that's out of my hands), I could see myself as the low voter for El Hijo Del Santo. I"m a fan of the guy, think he has a great routine, and think he's one of the great offensive wrestlers of all time. But the more I think about him the less compelled I feel to rate him in the upper quarter. That could change with rewatches though, and I can't see him rating lower than 40 or so worse case scenario so "lowest" is probably a real stretch. Parv's boy Dibiase is not likely to do well on my list. I don't even consider him a lock for it to be honest, though I'm going to watch some Mid-South Dibiase this week so that could change. I don't think Tanahashi will be a consensus pick, but I think he will do very well among people who do vote for him. He's not touching my ballot.

What evidence is there to support the claim that Ladd is "only lacking footage?" Did he have a rep as a great worker I'm unaware of? Are the glimmers we have indicative of someone who was an all time great in the ring? Maurice Tillet is lacking footage too and was a huge star, but so what? I'm not saying Ladds at that level, but i am wary of the "assume the best!" approach with these older names.

What Ladd matches should I go out of my way to watch? I'd there any reason to believe he was even one of the best 50 in ring guys in the us/canada during his era?

Bad example given the finish

I was thinking about the Owen, Bulldog, Shawn stuff earlier and while I agree that Bulldog is clearly a bridge too far, I'm not so sure about Owen. I guess really it depends on the way you are thinking about it. If you are framing it as most truly great, "big time" matches Shawn has the edge largely because of booking. But if you are talking about consistency of performance, volume of good matches, week-to-week delivery, I actually don't think it's impossible to envision Owen over Shawn even during the years that are often identified as Shawn's peak (94-97). Don't get me wrong. I think the gut reaction there is to go with Shawn, but I'm not sure it holds up when I really start thinking about the details of each guys run during the period. Of course I don't think Shawn was ever the best worker in the States, let alone the world, so what do I know?

Tons of headliners?

Including the Vader and Sid stuff is generous

I feel almost the exact opposite way in the sense that I think he's a guy who has far exceeded his potential.

There 5 minute match from the Elks Lodge is much better.

The Batten Twins were legitimately good in Puerto Rico

That show did the worst buyrate in Mania history IIRC

One thing worth noting about Buddy is that we have a fair amount of footage of him going back to 77. This is relevant because as soon as he starts popping up he is great, and he is great through the end of his AWA run in early 87. So despite being someone who many might identify as having a short peak, I actually think his peak/years as a really strong worker are well documented, diverse and much longer lasting than is usually assumed. I don't think I could rate him in the top five or anything like that, but I also don't think it would be weird at all for someone to rate him that highly.