WingedEagle

Sheer madness. What I love about Savage is how he's not someone you'd ever call fast, but is just so damn sudden. The way he'd sling himself over the ropes to the floor, or up to the top turnbuckle. Great 10 yard dash, but horrible 40 yard time. The problem for me when watching him is that in between all of that, and the character work, was downtime. Lots and lots of aimless downtime. Almost like Bad Randy Orton but with a personality. The moments and matches were there, but not a GWE case.

Buddy Rose Good call. But I'll still give Arn the nod.

How can you not love John Cena? https://twitter.com/JohnCena/status/725111591713148928 The guy is a good time.

Mentioned it earlier, but Arn easily ranked highest on my list of anyone who did not have a laundry list of classic MOTYCs, coming in at #16. Beast mentioned it, but who else could flip the switch between assassin-like intensity and comedic stooging that seamlessly from moment to moment, much less match to match? Some will say Terry Funk, I'll say no one. Whether a squash or a brawl, he brought interest and intensity to everything he touched. THE ENFORCAH!

One Night Stand is a great Taker match. I actually loved the Survivor Series match as well. Thought it was heading in a MOTY direction. The Austin rematch at IYH was damn good as well.

Because every one of us wants our guys to rank where WE ranked them. And we'll go the mattresses if they don't Its just something to talk about.

1) Flair 2) Hansen 3) Funk 4) Bryan 5) Liger 6) Kawada 7) Tenryu 8) Rey 9) Misawa 10) Kobashi

Nice edit, Ron Burgandy.

Not familiar with cobcebsys so can't comment on that. No reason to use such language. A point was raised that the actual, comprehensive list might reflect a consensus that does not reflect those who are regularly involved at PWO. That's possible. It might also not be accurate. But it doesn't suggest that such a lit would necessarily reflect merely a few people. Its a thought. You don't have to lose your cool over people having alternative ideas or suggestions or hypotheticals.

Why does it need to be one extreme or the other?

Next thing you know I'd hear from my coworkers how you're a murderer. So much for the rasslin' fan cornering the insanity market in this office.

Pouring out a little sake for the homie Fujinami. Far & away made the biggest jump of anyone over the course of this process for me, as coming in I knew rep & 1991 WCW. That was it.

Uh huh. Try watching a TNA show in full or some a Styles / Joe match in isolation. Very possible you'll want the entire thing to go away by the time you reach the match or later in the show. Whereas if you watch the match in isolation it wont be subjected to that baggage. All that matters are your preferences and what you can make time for.

That's all that matters. Lot of complaining, head shaking, and bewilderment -- on my part as well -- but at the end of the day its about the journey for all of us. Hopefully one that hasn't concluded and sees our own individual list as a rest stop.

My view from the beginning is that the list that mattered then and now is my list, and would hope others view things the same way. Would already change a few things there on the back end, but I like most of the top quite a bit based on what I have / haven't viewed. I think the best thing that can be said about the "comprehensive" list is that no one seems thrilled with it. Seriously.

I definitely voted Casas well below his average and almost assuredly where he'd rank if I'd seen enough of him. But I haven't seen enough of him. Hell of a fan club he has. I don't quite want to say I "don't get" lucha but something there doesn't click the way it should yet, as there are highly touted matches or wrestlers that won't move the needle for me at all. Casas always does, but we're at the point where he's a tremendously consistent worker in my eyes, but has yet to have those classics that jump off the screen at me, other than the Dandy match in '92. In many ways that made him analogous to an Arn or Regal when putting together my list, which placed a lot of weight on all-time performances. That's the area where Arn & Regal came up a bit short, but there are always exceptions that prove the rule, and those exceptions are Anderson and Regal. Back to Casas -- I'm looking forward to more. Maybe with a metric ton of similarly consistent good to very good footage (which from everything I've seen and read sounds undeniable) hell skyrocket up my list. Or perhaps none of it will stand out beyond good to very good. But looking forward to it nonetheless.

Apparently I'm on an island here, but the Savage things boggles my mind as much as Bret. It was pretty early on where he was no longer even in consideration for my list. I knew he'd rank well but had no expectation it'd be this high.

Wow -- Casas was top 10 on nearly half of the ballots he placed? Or does the top 10 figure now include top 3 votes?

My podcast with Tim. By the way, that was just the hardest reveal I had to do yet. The 4 people who considered lucha and did not vote for Casas are insane He said solid

Ha, yep, I read it as from 1996 until 2001.

It's not outrage. But how many years was Austin great in the ring? Give him mid-1996 until the Owen injury and 2001. Then give him points for being good to very good for three years in WCW and a few more for inhabiting a larger than life character during the Attitude era. That's it. And even his peak years weren't among the best peak years anybody ever had. Look, I like Austin a lot. As a character, he popped off the screen more than almost anyone in history. He absolutely needs to be on the list. But it's a thin resume in the company he's keeping. Love Austin. But if we're giving him '96 until '01, you then also have a couple monstrous stretches where he wasn't working at all -- late '97 and a full year from 99-00.

Can be much too high on both collective occasions. Memories for the win!

Finally.

You don't know that. No one does. Can't pretend things did or didn't happen. Might change one's perspective or might not. But its a part of history and his legacy.