jpchicago23

That's a very good question. I've always liked him and was surprised at all the hate he got, especially when he started to get lumped in with guys like Triple H. He may not be the smartest worker but dog shit terrible seems a bit harsh.

I personally can't wait to see the outcry when Angle finally gets revealed. I personally like a lot of his stuff but the visceral hate will be fun to watch.

I think Jay Briscoe and Chris Hero could have that same argument.

Man huge props for putting this Playlist together. This will help me with discovering the guys I didn't rank or ranked low in the top 100.

Damn Waltman was one thing but Hero hurts worse. My current favorite and a guy I feel like I've been on board with for at least 10 years. I guess he still made a pretty good showing

Noooooo not Waltman. He made my top 30 and this one stings the most. Sure his sex tape performance wasn't his strongest but he was clearly past his prime. If we had the Jenna Jameson footage he'd rank higher

The first 5 minutes of this week's episode made Brian Last my new best friend. Agree with all those sentiments about Storm. He and Alvarez are the two hardest podcast guests/hosts to ever listen to.

Damn I just lost the wild eyed southern boy. I wouldve almost guaranteed he made the top 100 in the 80-100 range

Lost Psicosis off of mine. I kind of thought Hayabusa would rank higher evenumber though I didn't rank him

Damn it sucks to see Jay go as he is one of my personal favorites and made my list. He did better than I thought though

Welp another two bite the dust for me as Embry and Raven fall off. Raven was more personal and Embry just screams southern wrestling to me which I love

Your argument is saying Kobashi had the better matches, Stevens is saying Bret is the better wrestler. At least to me it's that simple

I don't think the analogy is looking at Picasso's brush strokes. I think the analogy is looking at how effective Picasso's brush strokes were in one of his lesser paintings. You're completely separating input and output as if they're distinct from each other but they're not. People looking at input are looking at the output to find the input. Wow, how did I not say this?

The yards and the touchdowns are the matches and they're the main reasons he's regarded as great. The way he threw the ball is the skill but if it didn't lead to the yards and touchdowns, he'd be Jeff George. So actually, Dan Marino is the ultimate great match quarterback. We'll that completely fucked up my argument now didn't it? Thanks

If your life was on the line you'd take Joe Montana, who had less skills but higher output. If you gave me the same exact players around each qb I'd take Marino every time and live long and prosper

I'd say input leads to output but having opponents with better input and more opportunities for great output will lead to a higher level of both

Dan Marino never won the Super Bowl and is widely regarded as a top 3 or 4 Qb of all time. He doesn't have the matches but he has the skill

Yea I'm certainly not discarding output either as I just listed some of Brets matches in my argument. I kind of use a little bit of both as well as personal investment in my criteria I guess.

This is the second time in this thread that someone has imagined what Bret would do if given a set of circumstances that never happened. Is it a measure of what happened or what we imagine might happen if we fantasy booked it? Sorry if I sound incredulous but what is the hypothetical scenario stuff about? Skills vs output. Bret has better skills (to some of us). You can't look past output, so it is us trying to get on your way of thinking. Yes, what Steven said. If you can see the skill or if you enjoy the skill you can use that as a metric more so than longevity and output. Some people have ranked guys fairly high I'd imagine and may have only seen a handful of matches from said person. Therefore they recognize the skill of that wrestler. I'm not saying it's the correct way to go or even better than the theory of great matches but it's where some of us come from in our arguments

I disagree about the selling, universal crowd affection is something I'm not as familiar with when it comes to Kobashi but Bret was a huge baby face overseas for a long time as well as Canada and the US until 97. I think Brets offense was also a tad better and have seen Kobashi called a spotty offensive wrestler which isn't always true but more so than Bret in my opinion. I think Brets ability to have great matches with low grade opponents has also been over looked. He has good to great matches with guys like Diesel and Carl Oullete. He might have had Undertakers first great match if that was before the cell and he also had a pretty good match against The Patriot in 97. I'm not as familiar with Kobashi being able to do that so if he has excuse my ignorance. I would also like to imagine that if Bret were able to have matches against Austin for a five year period of time his list would be doubled.

In the rankings does anyone take personal investment into account? Just curious. I tend to think if you're invested in a worker you might have a tendency to hide negatives and accentuate positives maybe a little more. I know I do. Now being invested can also help the case of someone being great if you're invested based on their performances instead of an instance where you met said wrestler once or liked their theme music or whatever else.

So if you were to say Bret only had 4 or 5 great matches, what's stopping someone from saying Kobashi only had 10. Not that I agree with that but star ratings will vary as will people's respective BIGLAV and so on. Could there be a better metric to rate someone?

4 or 5 great matches for Bret? Seriously? Perfect 91, Piper wm 8, Bulldog 92 and 95, Diesel Series 95, Austin at both Series 96 and Mania 13, Taker One Night Only, The whole King of the Rings 93 performance, the Lawler matches, vs Owen at Mania 10, there's a Savage and Steamboat match from maybe 87? The Flair iron man is pretty damn good. One of the best TV matches against Kid. I'm missing a few but yea more than 4 or 5

I named John Cena.I would love to hear someone try to make a case that Cena is great based on his skills rather than his output. It cannot be done in my view. John Cena had great fire, gets great sympathy with selling and can do very hot comebacks. He builds drama better than most. Cena is a great wrestler. Yes his execution stinks, but the stories and feeling are there. All these things are true of other wrestlers who don't have the laundry list. I don't believe for a second anyone would rank Cena as highly as he has been if he didn't have the list. You are delusional if you think otherwise. It is his case. His whole case. I'll openly admit to trying not to use great match theory for most guys but it definitely built Cenas case for me. He's a guy who I can watch and say he's not a great wrestler but I can easily name 20 great matches or so. It seems like that would mean there are some redeeming qualities but not as much as most guys

I agree with Parv and only partly with Steven. I don't think Cena is as great a seller as people say. In the Nexus match at Summerslam 2010 he takes a ddt on the floor to only make a quick comeback and get the pin. I also think he sells for the sake of selling and not because he's had any pain inflicted on him. The term Super Cena has come from this as well as his speedy recoveries from imjury. I am however curious to hear examples of his great selling though. I'll agree about the fire as he has that in spades. I just think the execution at one point was poor enough to extinguish the flame.