Childs

Yeah, I wasn't going after you at all. I was just belatedly responding to that part of what he said.

Misawa worked himself to death, which is tragic but in no way evil. Benoit killed his wife and child. It seems frankly absurd to link them.

You're stating as fact that Colon orchestrated Brody's death? That seems irresponsible.

Benoit's rank on this list won't capture how good he was or wasn't, and there's no way around that. I have no problem watching his matches and recognizing him as a great wrestler. But many people feel differently and that's fine. It strikes me as an issue where debate isn't really necessary, because I have no desire to persuade anyone.

That's insulting. I don't think it's insulting. Dusty was one of the greatest characters in wrestling history, but Taker's best in-ring performances were better than Dusty's best.

Dynamite isn't a bad pick. His misfortune is that his most famous stuff is far from his best. But even there, I blame Tiger Mask and WWF tag formula more than I blame him. I didn't vote for him, but he was a gifted wrestler who managed to stand out in a lot of places. I would have voted for him before Taker or Angle.

I was really shocked that Low Ki ranked as high as he did, and I say that as a fan of his work in early ROH, I never would have guessed he had the body of work to rank anywhere near that high. He is not on my list. But hey, I guess some people saw things I didn't, in terms of footage and longevity. Also + 1 points for the usage of the phrase "self-serious ponce." If I regret something massively, it is ranking Low Ki.Why? Highly skilled worker with several notable peaks and great matches 15 years apart. Unique aura in his context. He was a really easy pick for me.He's someone I can admire / appreciate while having basically zero personal connection with anything he does. He might as well be a robot or a computer game character. I really have no fondness for the era or type of wrestling he represents. He is a poster-boy for inauthentic wrestling. I didn't use my list to make any grand statements, I used it to try to accurately reflect the 100 GWEs as I see it. Low Ki is one of several workers I have a deep personal loathing for who made it on my list. That's interesting. I share a lot of your antipathy for "inauthentic" wrestling and yet I've never felt that way about Low Ki.

That's pretty evenly split between sorry to see them go and good riddance.

I was really shocked that Low Ki ranked as high as he did, and I say that as a fan of his work in early ROH, I never would have guessed he had the body of work to rank anywhere near that high. He is not on my list. But hey, I guess some people saw things I didn't, in terms of footage and longevity. Also + 1 points for the usage of the phrase "self-serious ponce." If I regret something massively, it is ranking Low Ki.Why? Highly skilled worker with several notable peaks and great matches 15 years apart. Unique aura in his context. He was a really easy pick for me.

Yeah, I didn't vote for Virus but am pleasantly surprised he made it.

I have 74 left, 48 of my top 50 and all of my top 25. So not too bad, I guess. I was most heartened to see Ishikawa and Ikeda get in despite all the shootstyle carnage. Grey and Sano are my two highest out at 28 and 29, respectively. I really do hope more people dig into the British footage going forward, because I think Grey blows away so many of the remaining workers on skill level, output and consistency.

They both made it, right?

I'm bummed about Kerry making the top 100. I know some people whose opinions I really respect are advocates. But he had a short peak and I don't know that I've ever felt he was the better guy in a great match. I don't hate him or anything. I just see him in a similar class to Luger or Sting, and when I look at the list of those already eliminated, I see dozens of more skilled workers.

Did you read his thread?

Seven reveals today and five were on my list.

I'm breaking up with this list. It hurts me too much.

I think you're ignoring how those consensus picks came to be. Parties already touched on films that were panned at first; think about the Cahiers du Cinema and how it completely revolutionised film criticism with auteur theory. Their ideas were completely radical at the time but enough people believed in them and a new consensus was formed. All it really takes is for one person to come up with an idea and if enough people believe in it then the consensus will change. We've seen clear examples of that during the present reveal. We've also seen examples of new ideas that haven't gained quite enough momentum to bring about change. And there's always trends to consider. Styles that fall out of favour. Older thinking that's rejected. We're not just looking for the Shakespeare of wrestling (i.e. the No 1 pick) we're looking to fill in the top 10, the top 20, the top 30 and beyond. The wider you spread that net the more diversity you're going to find. Once you get outside the consensus picks that's where the action is really happening. If someone comes along and says Magnum is better than Kobashi then first of all that's an interesting idea and much better than reading the same tired old bullshit about Kobashi, but morever it'll probably lead to Magnum gaining traction rather leapfrogging over Kobashi. It would gain my attention anyway, but Kobashi would still receive the same amount of boring votes. To make a film analogy, Kobashi is a boring ass pick like John Ford. It's just a safe, boring pick. Did I mention the word boring anymore? The Magnum idea, now that's like thinking Nicholas Ray is a master. Now you're talking. If one or two like-minded people think it's a cool idea then it's not going to go anywhere, but if it takes off a bit then it will really stir the pot. Then John Ford fans will come along with their lists of **** and above John Ford films and try to shove it down our throats as evidence, but we know what we like and it's Nick Ray. The undervalued, the underrated, the under-appreciated, the overlooked. Magnum may be a far fetched example, but if it wasn't for that sort of mentality we'd still be arguing about all sorts of outdated ideas. To me the stance you're taking doesn't factor in progress or change. I appreciate that you have this mentality because you open up worlds for the rest of us. Phil Schneider is the same way, always looking for the next thing to be excited about. I'm too conservative to let go of my Ford/Kobashi entirely, but amen to the explorers.

So forget what I said about the friction.

I don't know that there will be much friction over Hogan. I mean, I viscerally dislike him but wouldn't ever deny that he knew what he was doing in the ring and had plenty of good matches. I have no objective argument against him making the top 100.

Charming. Glad I wasn't around in 2006. Anyway, my apologies if anybody thought I was complaining about civility. Not my intent. I was trying to comment on the how certain names incited a very specific reaction that I found curious, as it seemed to point towards a bigger issue than simply "I disagree with that pick". I think you're seeing that in part because people went deep in exploring styles that were less familiar and found a lot of exciting stuff. But then you get to the results and realize most of the voters didn't take those same journeys (understandably) and the traditional big names win out over a lot of the more beloved niche candidates. As OJ said, it was inevitable. But you could understand why that might be frustrating for a voter who fell in love with a particular British worker or luchadore or whatever. The footage boom has been a wonderful thing for a lot of us, but some are probably learning it hasn't changed the world as much as they expected or hoped.

I get that but a little harshness is part of the deal. I don't see it verging into incivility very often. And the tone is so much gentler than it was in earlier days of internet wrestling discussion. I remember reading the Smarkschoice threads and my god there were some vicious exchanges.

I've been trying to think of the right way to respond to Woof because he seems to be speaking for a sensitivity that exists for multiple people who are newer to the board. Steven always wanted this to be a wide-open process with flexible criteria, and that's what we've got. Your vote counted as much as his or Dylan's or Will's or mine. You have just as much space and just as attentive an audience if you want to explain why one of your guys got shafted or why your favorite style is underappreciated. But I'm not sure why you need to question the reactions of people who've been invested in this project from moment one and who've spent countless hours building cases for their guys in threads and on podcasts. Is this a land of strong opinions? Of course it is. Do I think my ballot is better than yours? You're damn right I do. Does that in any way cancel out your votes or your platform to explain them? Nope. We are going to end up with a top 100 that represents a broader consensus of hardcore fans rather than a consensus of the people who post here the most. And that's fine. That's what the process was designed to do. But you can't be shocked that the posters who form the core community here are having their say about the results.

He said he was stopping at 110, so no more today.

Dory was No. 69 in 2006, one spot below Tiger Mask. So that's a decent-sized drop. I guess I'm more surprised he finished as high as he did then, but that poll seemed to have more of a pro-legends bent.