Gregor

This was another one that I hadn't watched in a while, and it was still funny. Maybe it's because I'm a D'Lo Brown fan but I loved the parts with him and the limo.

I hadn't seen this in years. It's still funny. "Excuse me, sir. I'm America's role model. I need to see the chief."

It was always going to be a tough fit. Warrior kind of had to be a main-eventer, and the natural feud was with Hogan. By 1998 Hogan was less cartoonish, so how do you make Warrior fit? If you take away the Moon, the stars, destrucity, and foke, what's his character? I assume that those things were the appeal to people who liked him. Regardless, it probably wasn't a good idea to have him to do the standard long live promos. Maybe he could have finally had that elusive match with Bret, although that seems like an even odder pairing of personalities than Warrior and Hollywood Hogan.

The hardest part for me about getting into new promotions is finding a hook. If I ever try to make a foray into TNA, it will probably start with D'Lo Brown matches.

The WWF toughman contests from late 1996 are really fun. I love the name, I love the heel vs. heel matchups, and I love that even someone like Owen Hart got to show his nastier side.

I didn't think that it was bad when I last watched it. They built it up like it was going to be something special, though, and then Bret and Flair wrestled their standard 1992 house show match. There was no attempt to make it anything special. "Disappointing" sums up what I thought about it, too.

This was fun. I appreciated everyone's contributions, and I especially thank those who went through the work of making and submitting a list. I apologize if at any point I said something that offended or annoyed anyone (if so, it was unintentional) or if I bored people with repetitive defense of Shawn Michaels and the standard Shawn Michaels matches like the Mind Games one. The best thing about this was how much discussion it seemed to create, and ideally that won't go away now that it's coming to a close.

I'm surprised that Flair got that many second- and third-place votes.

Is there going to be a thread in which everyone can list their ballot?

Happy to see that Michaels did well, and maybe it's good that he didn't do well enough for people to really get mad and start making a bunch of threads about how he's overrated. With him I guess that we've already had those, though. I also like that El Dandy was ranked as one of the truly great luchadores. I'd have predicted him to fall closer to Blue Panther, so I was happy to be wrong about that.

The only Bret matches from his peak that I found overrated were the 1997 match with Sid (Bret did too much slugging and not enough treating Sid like a monster for me) and the Survivor Series '96 match. I will never understand the greatest-of-all-time praise that one gets. There's that spot where Vince shouts, "They're going underneath the table!" like it's the craziest thing that he's ever seen, when really it's just two guys rolling around punching each other and they happened to be near a table. Then there's the classic spot where Bret whips Austin to the ropes, but Austin reverses the whip, but then Bret reverses the whip again, and it's one of the bigger moments in the match. There's the technical stuff that isn't particularly brilliant technically. Maybe I'm just annoyed that anyone could rate it above Mind Games for 1996 WWF MOTY, but the truly great matches don't have that many flat moments. The Final Four match doesn't get praised much around here. I had my gripe about the list last week, but at the end it's going to have Eaton, Anderson, Rhodes, and Regal very high; a smattering of names that don't get talked about much on most wrestling sites; and a top-30 ranking for John Cena, above Shawn Michaels. It's not a perfect encapsulation of this site, but it's decent, and it's certainly different from what you'd get with this type of poll in other places.

Not in a world where Angelo Poffo exists.

I don't really buy that there was ever a time when Undertaker was capable of having great matches at will. Even then, did he just not care at all from 1999-2001?

I might be wrong, but I think that the last wrestler in the top 100 to get nominated was Samoa Joe. That was on page seven of the 24-page nomination thread, and it was on September 28, 2014, 17 days after the thread was started.

I smile every time that I go through the list and see Scott Steiner giving the finger to anyone who can't believe that he got a first-place vote.

A Rock promo about missing the top 100 would be far more interesting than a Cena promo about it. Cena's been smiling and saying that the fans can react however they want for years.

Well, you used the word "niche" in the post to which I replied, so you can see why I thought that. As someone who's defended Shawn Michaels on this site more than I'd like to admit, I'm aware that people can look at WWE critically and still conclude that the company had elite wrestlers. That's not my issue. My problem is that, if you count lurking, I've been reading posts here for over five years, and it's clear that this isn't a place that generally views Triple H positively, yet he finished in the top 150. Look at the thread for him in the Nominees section - there's an interesting discussion of the Bryan match, a bunch of insults, and very little support for the guy. If his high ranking isn't the result of a bunch of people stopping by to drop off their votes, then it means that the people here who like him aren't interested in defending him, which in a way is just as problematic. Whatever the case, it's made the results less exciting for me. Like I said, I've said a lot of favorable things about Michaels in my time here, and most of the time I felt like there were a bunch of people who disagreed. Instead of once and for all getting to see where the board stands on Michaels, I know that he's guaranteed a fairly high ranking for the same reason that Undertaker, Jericho, Rock, and Owen are (even if they finish in the 101-109 range, that's still fairly high). I understand that not everyone is going to like every style. That's unavoidable. That said, when the end result becomes Sting ranking above Pirata Morgan just because Sting wrestled for U.S. companies and Pirata didn't, that's utterly uninteresting. All it says about the two men is where they worked. I didn't vote because I knew that I'd never be able to get myself to watch styles that didn't interest me. I'm not saying that people who didn't watch a whole lot shouldn't have voted, but to me that was part of the project. Why would someone who doesn't post here care about a goal like that, though? Anyway, I had a lot more sympathy for the point you made about hardcore and Dragon Gate guys dropping off with nary a word said about it. I've always been happy with this being a nice little place, whereas I'm aware that the people who run the site have always wanted more people here, so part of this is me having a different idea of this site and this project than the reality of them. This was longer than I'd have liked. Apologies for not being more concise.

Here's an example: Sting finished ahead of Pirata Morgan. Lucha fans generally rate Pirata as one of the best at that style. I'm sure that there will be some very high votes on Sting, but, in general, he's not thought of as an elite wrestler for the North American style. That's not just one of this board's quirky opinions; that was the prevailing opinion at places I remember reading before I came here. It's understandable that people who appreciate both styles would have trouble reconciling the idea of someone who excelled at one style ranking below someone who wasn't one of the very best at another. I agree with your point about hardcore wrestling and Dragon Gate, even though I'm not a fan of either, but I don't think that dismissing everything other than U.S. and New/All Japan as "niche" is fair. I always thought of this as "ProWrestlingOnly.com's Top 100 Wrestlers" rather than "The Internet's Top 100 Wrestlers," so it kind of bummed me out that there were apparently a bunch of votes from people who don't actually post here. (I didn't vote, so that last line wasn't me saying that my vote should have counted for more, by the way.)

It was a home video exclusive. They extinguished the fire and hacked open the casket only to find it empty. Then Undertaker said something over the loudspeaker.

"People" didn't dismiss it. I was the only one who said anything about it. Given that this very thread had its own sub-discussion about how Malenko's relatively high placement doesn't match the way people here talk about him, I'm not exactly feeling like I misjudged the character of the site. Triple H finished four spots ahead, and even now if someone said that he gets a lot of love here I wouldn't agree. Actually, he's gotten more praise than Malenko has, but that might have to do with the fact that criticism of him here is stronger and more frequent than Malenko criticism.

According to this post, he finished eighth. I don't think that Benoit and Guerrero will finish ahead of him again. Liger seems like someone who will fall, too. On the other hand, Hansen and Funk seem like guys who might move past him. I don't see even the most highly rated guys from Mexico (Casas and Satanico, probably) jumping him, just because there are enough people who aren't interested in their style of wrestling. I'm not sure if Lawler's in that boat or in the one with Hansen and Funk. Mysterio over Flair feels like a long shot but it could happen. I didn't post there, though, so I don't have the best idea of how the voters there compared to those here. Edit: Childs posted almost exactly same thing before I did, which at least makes me feel better about my generalizations about the electorate.

Booyah! Which way did he go? Which way did he go? X-PUNK. Shane amused me in a way that none of the other McMahons ever did, although I don't think I'd go as far as calling myself a fan.

I don't think that this is as surreal as when CM Punk's famous promo led to Kevin Nash sending a text message to himself and culminated in a Nash vs. Triple H ladder match. It's up there, though. The Undertaker vs. Shane McMahon in 2016, at WrestleMania - I really hope that this actually happens.

Arguments against Godfather in the Hall don't even need to involve wrestling ability. He was an over midcard act, but so were plenty of guys in the period. Al Snow and Scotty Too Hotty feel like guys who were more over than he was (in addition to those already mentioned, although I'm not sure about Mark Henry). Gangrel strikes me as about equal - cool entrance, but no one really cared whether he won or lost. Godfather's heyday was when I was 9-11 years old, and I genuinely do not remember him coming up in any wrestling conversations at school or anywhere else. Maybe the appeal was lost on kids who didn't quite know what a pimp was yet. Regardless, he worked for WWE for a long time, and they clearly have their own criteria for worthiness, so there's not much of a point in arguing about it.