MoS

I mentioned before that I think Gawker was in the wrong for doing what they did,but that doesn't mean I feel sorry for Hogan for the humiliation and the criticism and all the flak and potential financial damage he got as a result. Petty of me, I know, but when I hear someone say outright that they are racist, along with using racial and homophobic slurs, I am not going to feel sorry for them when someone else being an asshole cause them to get fucked.

I think of it as the opposite, but I have always thought of it in sports terms, and not from a pro wrestling purpose. For example, Novak Djokovic might end up being the best of all-time, but for his sheer talent and beautiful play, Roger Federer will always be the greatest for me. I do not really know how to import it into pro wrestling though.

Hogan is a racist, homophobic twat, but even racist, homophobic twats have a right to privacy, so while I am sure that gawker will try to be very self-righteous here, the fact is that they are in the wrong.

Rock is someone I thought of when I read the OP. He is known primarily for his promos, but he had quite a few really good matches.

It's 4 A.M in my part of the world, and I am really not thinking clearly. Neymar has Windham-like potential, and is Kobashi-like in his awesome rookieness. Hopefully, he goes on to realise his potential. Football is beautiful.

Right now, I will have to go with Steph McMahon. I think she has sold and shown fear for a maximum of 5 people in the last 10 years.

I can't believe I fucking did not realise Sara Del Rey was not nominated. I feel pissed at myself. She would have easily made my top 100.

Amongst the All Japan pillars, I have 1) Kawada 2) Misawa 3) Kobashi The gap between 2 and 3 is much closer than the gap between 1 and 2. Kawada is one of the performers whom I find transcendent.

The one point where I seem to disagree with most people here is the Lesnar-Angle ironman. Most people here consider it a pretty bad match, while I think it's actually the best 60-minute Ironman match WWE has ever done. I would be curious to see what the specific criticisms of the match are.

I am about to start on a 41 GB compilation of Eddie from 1989-1999. I really loke his WWE rin, so this binge-watching will determine where e ranks for me.

IIRC, Vince wanted a heavyweight-only MMA league, because he was so far in the wrestling bubble that he thought only big strong men could draw in the casuals. That turned out to be pretty short-sighted; with the exception of when Brock was champion, the heavyweight division has been one of the lowest drawing divisions of the UFC.

This is weird, but I learnt that while I love fluid, smooth matwork sometimes, I do not love it all the time. To make it clear, I can watch Hansen brawl for 6 hours and not get tired. I can watch Breaks for an hour and love it, but probably not for more than that. I also realised that while I do not mind formula, I do hate repetitive spots, particularly if said wrestler is eating those spots. I have no issues with Lawler matches following a formula, and involving only punching and brawling, but after the fifth time I watched Flair get thrown off the top rope in the exact same way, it started to really annoy me. Not annoy me in the sense that "This match is horrible. 1 star!", but more like "Fucking hell, this takes it from 4 stars to 3.75/3.5 stars." Pre-comeback Shawn smokes post-comeback, and I have zero idea how so many people claim his 2nd run is better than the first. I fucking love Sara Del Rey, and I think she is criminally underrated. She is someone who understands selling and psychology really, really well.

I am curious to see how far Eddie will drop this time. Benoit I know is going to drop significantly, because of both his actions as well as him being considered, rightly or wrongly, the progenitor of the go-go-go no-selling style. Also, the juniors stuff has not aged well. Plus, he was ranked way too high as it is. But Eddie, at least in my mind, always liad more emphasis on selling and at least attempted more to have long-term storytelling in matches. I did not run around in these circles in 2006, but I did visit some websites back then, and mainly, people used to like Benoit more because he was stiffer and had more vicious offence. Those things have aged worse than Eddie's best attributes.

Is there any agreement on when he became an indisputably great worker? I know mileage varies on the quality of his WCW run, for example, but it is generally agreed that he was a great worker in those years. Was he considered one before that as well? He was pimped pretty heavily by Tenay in his first few matches in WCW.

I haven't seen Rey's pre-WCW stuff except a bunch of pimped AAA matches. What's the consensus on when he became a great wrestler or one of the best in the world?

^Co-signed on that. The organisation has been superb. Kudos to Grimmas, Loss and everyone else at the helm. This has been insanely fun. And for someone like me who is not so much knowledgeable about wrestling, this has been extremely educative too. When this thing started, I am pretty sure I had never heard of at least 30% of the wrestlers nominated.

It is the internet, and if someone really wanted to, they could cheat the system through some means. There is no point worrying about it too much. As it is, if someone goes to through great pains to affect a list about the 100 Greatest Wrestler Ever, done by a fringe board of an already niche entertainment form, that would honestly be more amusing than infuriating.

Of course "stuff I value" is favouritey. While judging an artform, any kind of analysis or judgment will have an element of favouritism, because the crteria used will depend on your personal preferences. You are giving bonus points for getting over in different territories and promotion, which is also stuff you subjectively value more. Hell, even while discussing sports, analysis veers towards your favourites, though to a lesser extent. The statistics for Messi and Ronaldo are right in front of everyone, yet people use them to come to different conclusions.

I assume you are talking about Bryan? And is the singles and doubles thing a baseball reference? I am Indian, do all I know about baseball is "the game that looks like Cricket, which has given birth to sex innuendos" haha.

I know Funk's most recognised heel run is in 1989 vs Flair, but his empty arena match against Lawler is his single best heel performance I have ever seen. I do not know if it is a controversial opinion, but I genuinely believe it.

Do you have an updated mastersheet for all wrestlers? Apologies if you have posted it already.

I understand the concern, but, for example, I do not post often - I have only 170 posts or so despite being a member for almost 3 years - because I either don't feel as if I have anything to add, as people more knowledgeable than myself say the things I feel and in a much better way, or because I am mostly always short of time, but I have been following the project and the discussions since the very beginning, and it is quite possible that a lot of people who will vote/make accounts to vote will have done the same. I do know a very good friend of mine who has been following the project and reading PWO for a very long time, but who was hesitant to create an account because he felt a bit underqualified as 99% of people have watched tons of more wrestling than he has. I know the feeling, because that is exactly what I used to feel and still do to some extent. Nevertheless, this project, and PWO in general, have got us to watch a lot of wrestling we would never have. And this project has also given him the final impetus to create an account and start posting. I feel that more than being a comprehensive list, the worth of the project is not only in the discussions it will spawn, but also in people who will start posting here. start discussing their favourite wrestling, as well as get introduced to new wrestling, like I have. So, to that end, I do believe the project should have open nominations.

They are almost certainly the two best wrestlers of the past 16 years. They are also perhaps the only 2 babyfaces in WWE in the last decade who have been loved and cheered across all demographics. Their biggest runs came as underdog scrappy babyfaces. Bryan has the advantage of being a very good and very over heel over Rey, but Rey was such a defining, transcendental babyface that it almost doesn't matter. For me, it is really tough. I rate the best Bryan matches above best Rey matches, but Rey delivered more consistent good quality matches. There was a 2-3 year span where he was actually having multiple good TV matches every week, and which still hold up, something which is pretty mind-blowing when you think about it. On the whole though, I will have to go with Bryan by the slimmest of margins, purely because when he was on, and he was on most of the time, he got me invested and immersed in his matches in a way Rey didn't quite at that level. It is very close though.

Agreed with the first point, but as for the 2nd point, it can be easily explained that the announcers guessed that a pissed-off wrestler was going to put another one through the table, and they did not want the wrestler to get crippled for life, which is what those monitors could do, and therefore, they took initiative on their own to minimise injury.

One of the more bizarre ones for me is when Ambrose and Rollins started on top of te cell in their HitC match, Lawler said something like "Has anyone ever started a match on top of the cell before? Unprecedented!" It's Lawler, and not necessarily WWE, but given the fact that attitude's most famous match started that way, it was head-scratching.