Childs

I also prefer Jumbo/Taue to Misawa/Kawada. I never felt Misawa and Kawada developed a clear identity as a team the way both guys did with other partners. They were very, very good, because both guys were world-class talents. But I remember their matches more for the rivalries with Jumbo and Taue, respectively, than because of their interplay as partners. Jumbo was the only one of the four who had established himself as a real master of tag team wrestling at that point.

I remain equally unenthusiastic and equally certain to watch. I think what it hurts it for me the most is that I really don't care about Cena-Rusev, even though I expect it will be a solid piece of work.

I'd say he was kookier and more adventurous than Fujinami. Otsuka was great at working the savage, BattlArts style, but he was also just a hell of a lot of fun with the way he peppered in random stuff from other styles. One of the most unique workers ever. He'll definitely make my list.

Wrestling is still very much a kayfabe business in Mexico, and I suspect that the "manslaughter" rumblings are simply people paying lip service to the kayfabe aspect of the business. I really don't think the state prosecutor, speaking to a legitimate news reporter, would give a fuck about maintaining kayfabe. That's ridiculous.

I actually really liked the Benoit-Angle Rumble match the last time I watched it, even if it did signal a bad direction for Angle. It was supposed to be the ultimate showdown between the two most athletic, "serious" wrestlers on the roster, and they established that sense of competition by pushing the pace and avoiding long control sections. That wouldn't work for most matches, but for those two guys at that moment, it fit quite well.

The AP story said the local prosecutor's office is looking at it with a possible eye toward manslaughter charges. Hard to imagine that will be the result, but I was interested to see the story hit the front page of ESPN.com.

Well, they've effectively pretended Backlund didn't exist for much of the last 30 years.

People also actively enjoy bitching about shit they follow, especially in the internet age, when it's so easy. A community of people complaining about something holds just as powerful an allure as a community of people loving something. That's just humanity.

In addition to being level-headed, Cena also embraces wholeheartedly the idea of being a face of the corporation. He seems to thrive on that "more than a wrestler" part of it to a degree most of the others didn't. Rock was probably more interested in becoming a corporation than being the face of somebody else's. Austin was more of an old school wrestler guy. Hogan was, like Rock, more a cult of self guy. Bruno had an unusually rigid integrity, which doesn't seem to be an issue for Cena. He's just a very good fit for what WWE is trying to be in this era.

I would add to that list: How good was his offense? Was it innovative or, if he stuck to the basics, did he consistently find ways to make his stuff look impactful or interesting?

None of the guys mentioned get a free pass. Loss has written plenty about finding Funk's schtick annoying. MattD has written about how Hansen might have been more of a great tool for other workers than a great worker himself. Lots of people have written about how over-the-top and overwrought Kobashi was. Dylan has often said Kawada wasn't the best guy on his own tag team in the late '80s. Flair takes more shots because he gets talked about so much in general and because so many are so familiar with his work. But at the end of the day, he's still probably going to finish top 5 in this poll and could well win it.

I'll have Santo well below Flair. Santo's greatest outings, ones in which he really grinds through the body of the match, I love. But there are a whole lot of matches in which he's pretty ordinary outside of hitting his signature spots beautifully. Now, those signature spots are wonderful and I give him points for hitting them decade after decade in different settings. Hell, I still pop for them. I'm just not sure he can claim as many bell-to-bell masterpieces as the guys who will go at the very top of my ballot.

Probably not. I really liked Eaton's little face run post MX. That's why I say Arn might seem more versatile at first glance but might not have been if you think through each guy's career carefully. Arn cut a few great face promos in the NWO years, but they weren't backed by anything notable in the ring because he was done physically.

Arn feels more versatile on the surface because of his greater body of singles work, but I'm not sure his skill set was actually broader. I probably prefer Eaton because his offense looked so damn good. But both guys will fall in the same middle class neighborhood of my GWE ballot.

I enjoy matches that catch my attention by playing against type. Might I fall into the trap of the film critic who raves about a movie because it's different more than because it's great? I suppose. But I'm past the point of caring. At this point, either a match grabs me or it doesn't.

I've never quite seen in Ambrose what others seem to see. He has an offbeat energy that sets him apart, but he doesn't do anything mechanically to excite me. And some of his shit--the rebound lariat, the flurries of open-handed strikes to an opponent's back--I actively dislike. I'm not sure I've ever watched an Ambrose performance and come away thinking: damn, that guy's great. He was hugely over, no denying that. And I'm never happy to see a young guy stagnate. But his saga doesn't bum me out nearly as much as the Bryan stuff.

I went with the majority in the "low enthusiasm" camp, but hate watch might be more like it. I haven't felt so disengaged from wrestling in many moons.

I hadn't put together that stomperspc was Tim's brother. I'm an idiot.

People who have unusual leverage due to their talent receive perks in all walks of life. Has always been thus and always thus shall be.

OJ, if you had to make your best guess based on what footage we have, how long was Dandy a great worker?

CEOs in their 70s aren't exactly unusual in the corporate world. Sumner Redstone is 91. Rupert Murdoch is 83. I don't think Vince would or could be pushed aside easily.

I'm not defending DeMott, but this is not a good standard for criticism. Lots and lots of people are better at teaching a given skill than performing it. See most of the great coaches and managers in the history of sports.

I find it absurd that people are jumping down Parv's throat for posting a few pictures of the woman. They're not demeaning photos, and they give some sense of whom the hell he's talking about.

Maybe Bryan honestly doesn't care about being "The Man." Perhaps we're wasting a lot of anxiety on a guy who's perfectly happy with his career. Fans of all sports seem to assume every guy with the ability to be the alpha should want that and only that. But great athletes aren't all the same. They have varied definitions of success, as we all do.

The story really doesn't say that.