Childs

I've been following this thing since the beginning and all of ONE person has talked about factoring in promos, accomplishments etc. in their rankings so this topic feels like a big over reaction to one person's criteria. I would think the fact that it hasn't come up until now would have made it obvious that it's not really an issue. That was my first reaction as well, but as I said, I went back and read the organizing thread, and brainfollower is not the only one to talk about voting on factors such as promos and drawing/star power. So I'm not sure how sizable the disconnect within the voting pool is. But if those elements are included, it's an entirely different poll, and I do think the difference is significant enough that Steven (aka Grimmas) should clarify.

I read through the organizing thread, and there was more ambiguity about this issue than I realized--probably too much. This project was cast as the 10-year successor to Smarkschoice, which was about ring work. And if you read the threads for this project, it's obvious ring work is the focus. But if a lot of people are looking at it the way thebrainfollower is, it would be good to know.

If people are bringing in promos, etc., you're getting more into "Who was the biggest star in wrestling history?" To me, that's more of a WON HOF question. And if that's what the poll is, I don't really have any interest.

I'm not even really seeking a debate on the merits at this point. But I think most of us have proceeded on the belief that we're ranking in-ring work. If that's not the case, it really unsettles 15 months worth of discussion.

If you read the Trish Status thread, you'll see thebrainfollower talking about factoring promos and other out-of-ring elements into his ballot. As I said in that thread, this post is not meant to target him for criticism, merely to clarify the purpose of the project. My understanding all along has been that we're voting on in-ring, not on promos, drawing power, etc. Obviously, there are some gray areas with elements such as charisma, impact, etc. But I want to make sure we're all moving forward with the same understanding. So if Dylan, Steven and other GWE founders (if there are any) could weigh in ...

I'm going to make a general post about this, and it's not targeted at you brainfollower, but my understanding has been that we're ranking in-ring work here, not promos and out-of-ring star power. Obviously, there are some gray areas with issues such as charisma and impact. But I think we need to clarify the intent of the project.

No I get it, I just think it's a difference in methodology worth fleshing out. How far do you go in grading on a curve, you know? Anyway, enough of that. I agree the Trish-Mickie Mania match was quite good and that Trish deserves ample respect for making chicken salad.

You said how lousy it was in the '80s. Then Jingus followed with a post, glowingly endorsed by you, in which he described how thin a talent pool surrounded Trish. And yet you say Trish is the greatest North American female of all time. It's hard to read those posts and not infer that women's wrestling in this country has been shitty. I mean for fuck's sake, you're saying the GOAT North American woman topped out at 3.5-star matches. If that strikes you as a bang-up resume for one of the 100 best ever, that's fine. But it strikes me as an incredibly thin case, especially given the brevity of Trish's career.

Why not isn't an argument. You and brainfollower have laid out an excellent case for how shitty women's wrestling in this country has been. When there have been so many sources of great wrestling over the years, why reach to reward a well that just hasn't produced much outstanding work?

All of that sounds like a wonderful argument for why Trish was an admirable figure. None of it speaks to why she might be considered one of the 100 best ever unless you're determined to stick a U.S. woman on your list.

I actually liked later Kanemoto better than '90s Kanemoto. Younger Koji was really good when he focused on being a hard-hitting dick but much less so when he was trying to be spectacular. Honestly though, I can't think of any area where he rates ahead of Liger--offense, selling, projecting his character, great matches, duration as a top worker, ability to get over in different places. That said, I'm happy to see a full-throated defense of Kanemoto, who hasn't been talked about a ton for this project.

Where can I find Cota/Casas? That's a match I've wanted to watch for awhile. Edit: Never mind, found it.

I guess I could see the case for Sano based on versatility and Ohtani based on peak. But Kanemoto? I need to hear that explanation.

I just don't see any real relation between Hansen and young Taker. Hansen was never a super-limited worker who needed to be kept in a tightly managed role to be effective. Taker certainly grew past that but is anyone really arguing that he was building his great wrestler case in 1992? I don't see the quality output, even when grading on a curve.

Yes, weird.

Because it's more mat-based? That's often not to your taste.

First off, you're overstating the degree to which Hansen's style was shaped by the role Baba wanted him to play. Hansen was already Hansen before he jumped to All Japan. And no, his case doesn't much relate to early Undertaker's. Hansen wasn't "protected" in the sense he didn't have to do much. He wrestled lengthy main events against the top guys in the company, as he had in New Japan. Taker, by comparison, wasn't asked to grow as a wrestler until what, 1997? I don't care how well he played his role. His role didn't call for him to be a great or even good in-ring performer. He existed largely because the WWF production studio created him. Hansen created himself.

I don't think the robot criticism is way off base when applied to the Liger series. That always felt like two guys showing off how good their shit looked and not much more.

This was my exact first thought. I instantly became a fan (or bigger fan in the case of Andre and Savage) of anyone who turned on him. If Hogan was the American ideal, I don't blame Sarge for going traitor

From the night of Mania on I've felt the same thing: the finish was defensible as a piece of booking but took the starch out of a brewing classic and left a sour taste as the conclusion of their biggest show.

Here's a Q&A I did with Necro in 2009 if you're interested. Well-spoken guy for sure: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/2009/04/qa_the_necro_butcher.html

Definitely agree about the last part. It's a deeply polluted culture.

That's great in theory. It's just not a realistic view of how the world works. These guys have really good jobs that countless other people would take in a blink. Most of them aren't going to be inclined to rock the boat, especially in a company run by the whims of an insane megalomaniac.

Because most people get to tell their bosses to fuck off when they're handed lousy material and told to make the best of it? If that's the world you live in, bless you sir.