MoS

I thought I was the youngest on the board at 23. I also look younger than I am. I was in America last year for a semester, and when I was buying beer, this woman looked very suspiciously at my Indian driving license and my birth date, as if she did not believe a single word of it.

Off-topic, but I am curoous about this: if an Indian dude who is a proud Hindu is signed by WWE, and then is shown to have the swastika tattooed - the millenia-old Hindu swastika, mind, not the Nazi perversion that Hitler stole - would the American public/corporate executives accept it? Hindus have been using it for a very, very long time; to them, it means nothing but a symbol of pace and good wishes, and is no different from a Christian tattooing the cross on their skin, but in PR and in the public spotlight, perception almost always matters more than reality.

Words cannot express how happy I am that Tajiri is still in this.

See, I thought of this topic as Lawler's "punches" v. Flair's chops. I thought all his punches were being collated into one spot. The way you say this is interesting; I am tempted to go watch my collection of Lawler-Dundee to see which punch he uses in what scenario.

I don't think either the Lawler punch or the Flair chop is multi-layered. I think both are just a simple offensive spot used to nove things along; like a lot of offensive spots, they can be used in multiple situations. So, it just comes down to the aesthetics for me. I recognise that some criticisms of Flaur are stupid, but when the man himself says that most of what he did, he did just to pop the audience, then you can hardly blame people for calling his spots that, and thinking your in-depth analysis of Flair's chops are hugely reaching. I watched Flair-Sting and Flair-Garvin yesterday, and I couldn't see any of the layers in his chops. Maybe I need to rewatch them. I am not saying you can't have your own interpretation of those chops, but it is hardly as if they conclusively debunk the tired criticism that frustrate you. I am sure if you tried really hard, you could also see the Flair flop as a clever strategic move to lull his opponent into a false sense of security and underestimate Naitch, but ultimately, it's still a stock spot, which some hate and some don't mind.

I would pick Lawler's punches, simply because aesthetically, Lawler punching and breaking down his opponents looks so much more beautiful to me than Flair's chops. I don't like chops in general, so there is that.

I am always surprised when Khali gets praised haha. People used to loathe him back in the day. I still maintain that giving him a token world title run was a good business move. His title win was reported on all the "pulpy" news channels here, he became a hugely recognisable star, and now India is WWE's 3rd biggest market. Really, I am surprised they are not trying to recruit more people from here. I guess the fact that Khali was an aberration in the sense that most Indians are smaller than Americans plays a part here, given Vince's love for huge men.

I think I might be irrationally hateful of the slow sweet chin music spot because of my utter dislike of HBK's facial expressions and selling when he is trying to show how he is exhausted and yet wants to fight. That running his hands through his hair and screaming is only slightly better than Edge's psycho shit. It is pretty striking that Hulk Hogan, someone who in so many ways was much less skilfull than both, would do the exhausted babyface trying to catch his breath and go all out spot so ridiculously better.

I voted for him, but it was with a heavy heart. I think what made me do that was that I listen to a bunch of Beatles almost every day, despite Lennon being a flaming asshole, although his misdrmeanours obviously cannot even be compared to murdering your wife and child. Still, in a GOAT music conversation, I wouldn't at all hesitate to put The Beatles at no. 1, and I try to not be a hypocrite as much as I can, although obviously I don't succeed always.

Wow, the objectivity/subjectivity and the entire greatest vs favourites divide was just as strong 10 years ago.

Man, today has been brutal for my list. Colon, Christian, Waltman, Hero and Grey out in one fell swoop. I was the no. 100 on Waltman, so has Grimmas stopped naming the low voters? I am asking because I never intended to make my ballot anonymous, and I just want to check if I made a mistake.

I get that but a little harshness is part of the deal. I don't see it verging into incivility very often. And the tone is so much gentler than it was in earlier days of internet wrestling discussion. I remember reading the Smarkschoice threads and my god there were some vicious exchanges. This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown. I now have a morbid curiosity to check out those threads, just for the trainwreck potential of it.

I am sure all the highly pushed WWE legends will get no. 1 votes, with the possible exceptions of Triple H and Rock.

I think Jingus makes a good point about the selling of those HHH-Taker matches. Many people think of no-selling when y comes to modern epics, but the ridiculous exhausted over-selling is also something that irritates me. In a weird way, I think that is round-about no-selling; Triple H getting up, grinning, giving Taker the tombstone, and then both of them lying on the mat for 10 minutes after that takes me out of my suspension just as much.

The reactions to the lucha names make me feel guilty. I did not have the time to check luha eyond the consensus GOATs, so I was too ignorant to rank them. Lucha and WoS will be my priorities; hopefully, there is a 2026 poll as well.

So, how will we decide whose ballots should be included in the "PWO-only" selection? For example, I don't post often, but I have been a member for 3 years now, have participated in discussions, and would like to think that I have done my research with due diligence. This is not an infomercial for myself; I know I am not even close to being one of the most knowledgeable fans here. I am saying this just to point out that a lot of the anonymous voters might be people who have lurked around these forums a lot, and have also used GWE as a spring pad to increase their knowledge and vieweing of different styles of wrestling. Of course there will be some who've made a list of just their favourite people and submitted strategic votes, but that was always going to be the case.

I also think that since Jimmy has taken full responsibility of the Triple H ranking, in case he makes it into the top 100, she should be asked to watch every Hunter promo and main event from 2003 for introspection. I am also curious where Shawn will end up. I am now thinking it is increasingly likely he cracks the top 30.

So, who will rank higher, Hogan or Bruno?

There is a very famous online reviewer with a book out whose criteria once upon a time - haven't read him in years - for a great match was "total number of nearfalls". As in, more the nearfalls, better the match was the rule of thumb. To me, that school of thought and the people who adhere to it - and quite a lot do - are the reason why "self-conscious" epics exist; they are targeted to that group. I may hate Shawn, but he can work a great match with almost no nearfalls if he wants to; Mind Games is a prime example of that. But he is smart about how he wants his legacy to survive, burnish and perpetuate, and he chose to do those matches. Then again, Jimmy is right when she says that it is a matter of investment. I love Austin and prime Rock, so I mark out like crazy whenever I watch the WM 17 main event, despite the fact that it probably has more nearfalls than HHH-Taker, a match I loathe. I will say that the logical reason for those nearfalls in WM 17 was that it was a story of how Rock had caught up to Austin, making Austin paranoid and making him agree to a Faustian deal. But I am sure such arguments can also be made by fans of HHH-Taker.

I am curious about how Bruno ranks. I didn't vote for him in the end, but I strongly considered it, and while I did not take drawing ability into context, as far as drawing a huge number at the same arena week after week for decades go, he has to be amongst the top, if not at the very top. Lawler and The Sheik are the only other ones I can think of with the same consistency and longevity.

I guess I shouldn't be too angry at people who don't like Hunter but voted for him in the top 100 bevause they thought he deserved it objectively. I fucking hate Shawn Michaels and his stupid face, and I still put him on my ballot for the exact same reason. That said, fuck Triple H. I can't think of a single wrestler who has disappointed as many times as he has in important main egents and on big shows.

I love Kana/Asuka; pretty sure I have watched her entire pre-nxt career, and I am surprised that a) someone had her at No. 7 and she is ultimately ending below Sasha, whom I did not vote for. I had Asuka at No. 80, I think. Unless Sasha's name has come up already, and like a total goof, I have missed it.

I think most of HHH's most touted matches range from very good to great - in the 3.75-4 stars, if you want to quantify it - which is very good, even if they are not the mythical epics that the WWE machine pretends they are. However, my issue is, to put it simply, that they are great despite HHH being in them. I love the Triple Threat at WM 20 (and Backlash 2004), yet I struggle to remember anything HHH did in that match, beyond tapping out very very slowly. The only time I can think of Hunter actively contributing to make a match excellent was the Daniel Bryan WM match.

I second 'Taker and Kane v. Kronik. Jesus that match was abysmal. Those Undertaker-Kane matches during Kane's 2010 world title run were awful as well.

I had Bret as my number 30, I think, and I actually thought that was a quite generous rank for someone who I think was somehow alnost always a little less than the sum of his parts. (I had Kobashi at 11.)