W2BTD

This is a great post. I think it is almost universally agreed that candidates are on the ballot too soon, most of the time while still in their primes or on the back end of their primes. Also completely agree that the ballot is too muddled, which is exactly why we see years like this one where very few candidates get in, just like the 1945 baseball vote. This is why I have no issue with the 15/50 rule, which is actually incredibly lenient compared to most other sports halls, and gives these candidates a million chances to get in. I find it impossible to feel bad about a candidate that failed to get in after 15 years, especially when they stay on the thing if they stay over 50%, and especially when they can and in most cases will be brought back later as historical candidates. There is plenty of opportunity to get in. At some point, you just have to move on and move forward.

Bobby Fish, Shelton Benjamin, Rip Rogers, Danny Davis (territory guy, not WWF guy), Terry Taylor, Jake Roberts, Yoshinobu Kanemru, Shane Douglas, John Morrison, Yoshinari Ogawa. I'd say Terry Taylor is pretty much a lock, but I don't see him talked about much, so I tossed him in there. Can't see Fish not making it either, I've always thought he was an under the radar great wrestler. The rest are very much on the fence.

No particular order, as they come to mind: Kobashi Misawa KENTA Akiyama Michaels Hart Dynamite Tiger Mask Liger Flair Guerrero Bryan Zayn Tanahashi Angle

Yeah, passing out fliers on rival turf is VERY common and usually results in amusing indie beef. Around here Sharmell & Booker go insane when promotions do this at ROW shows. Mostly Sharmell. Booker plays good cop in that relationship.

I agree completely with James in terms of ranking players within their own era. Personally I don't think that directly correlates to comparing a deathmatch wrestler to a Toryumon wrestler to a joshi to a Memphis brawler to a shoot style wrestler, because this is where personal preferences will inevitably come into play. If somebody thinks the Toryumon style is shit but loves southern brawlers, it doesn't matter how good a wrestler is compared to their peers in that style, that person is very likely going to prefer the mediocre southern brawler to the elite Toryumon wrestler. The thing is, I didn't drag sports comps into this. Other people did, even though I ran with it and things ended up being derailed a bit. They only work to a certain extent. This has gotten way too convoluted. I think men are significantly better wrestlers than women. I'm not comfortable ranking them together for that reason. If that's closed minded or something, so be it. That's how I feel.

Again, it isn't about raw athleticism. It's about how raw athleticism relates to ability and the application of that ability. And to be fair, i've stated numerous times on this board that I find it very difficult, and even somewhat impractical, to attempt to compare wrestlers from completely different styles. So if nothing else, i'm being consistent. The example I always use, is how on Earth can you compare Bill Dundee to Masato Yoshino, when they may as well be working on different planets in terms of what they're trying to accomplish with their work? So much just comes down to style bias, and it's a big reason that I may end up ultimately not compiling a list.

So, when pushed you would be able to rank them together and you would have some men behind some women? What this boils down to is that no women would make your top 100, because there are a 100 better men. Please stick to that, and not to the weird you can't rank them together and they are not as athletic. That just sounds way worse, whether you intend that or not. You are twisting my point. People asked for the reason, I gave it. The athletic components are too much to overcome and give the men a huge advantage. These lists are based on achievements & relative skill, which is fine. I've already said i'm not personally interested in considering relative skill in things like this. Bill is. I have no idea who Nancy Greene is, but I can guarantee you she is an inferior athlete to Donovan Bailey and several thousand other male Canadians. Oscar Pistorious has no legs. I mean, c'mon. These lists are cute, but not not rooted in reality unless we are talking accomplishments & achievements.

Also, dragging WWE women into this is a dangerous game. Most of them wouldn't be able to sniff a job with that company (let alone be anywhere near TV) if they were men at the exact same skill level. Let's be real. They aren't held to the same standards as the men. Note that I said "most", before i'm pilfered with examples, but even the elite ones are behind the skill curve of plenty of men who will never be hired.

I'd rank them separately, but if I were forced to rank them together all of the women would be near the bottom, and ahead of very few men. Khali for sure below most of the women aside from probably Eva Marie or Rosa Mendes. I don't know what that accomplishes other than to shit on the women for no good reason, when they could be fairly compared to each other instead. Same with the minis, I would prefer to rank them among themselves. As far as the hockey, same deal as my basketball & tennis examples. It would be so silly to rank any female hockey player on a list of all time greats with men. That has nothing to do with whether there are great female hockey players or HOF worthy female hockey players. But they aren't better hockey players than the men. I'm simply not interested in weighing relative skill. And again, this doesn't directly correlate to a worked sport, other people brought real sports into it so here we are.

Let's try this again. Here is what I said: "Men are better athletes, stronger, more physical, and more believable in a physical setting. These are all valuable components to pro wrestling, and most of the time it is too much for most female wrestlers to overcome in comparison to men especially when dealing with the elite of the elite in a project like this." "There are plenty of quality female wrestlers. I'd have no problem ranking them among other females. Ranking them with men is no less silly to me than trying to rank Cheryl Miller with men's basketball players, or Serena Williams with men's tennis players. Neither would rate in the top several thousand if we are being fair and not using a curve or handicapping. I understand wrestling is slightly different, but for what I look for in wrestling women just don't rate with men, and I have no interest in pretending otherwise just for the sake of coming off progressive or whatever" If you disagree with the bold, fine. That is how I feel. That is why I stopped watching joshi, which I used to watch pretty frequently in its heyday. That is why when I sample modern joshi, I struggle to get into it. I find men deliver what I am looking for in wrestling better than women, so I prefer watching men. If that makes me sexist, so be it. Again, I have no interest in being progressive just for the sake of being progressive. I think men are better than women at pro wrestling, and I won't pretend otherwise to avoid being called names. To me, what would be incredible sexist, would be to somehow shoehorn women into the rankings with the men when I don't feel they can be compared, by forcing myself to judge them on some sort of curve of handicapped scale. I'd have no problem doing an apples to apples women's list (actually, if I am being completely honest, I probably wouldn't do that either, due to lack of interest, but I assume you get the point), but again, as explained in the second paragraph, I find that no less silly than ranking women in other sports to their male counterparts. If you were to rank Cheryl Miller or Serena Williams with men in their sports, what you are really doing is ranking them based on what they've done vs other women against what the men have done vs other men, which to me is eye rolling levels of silliness, because the women simply aren't on the same level as the men, which is why they are segregated to begin with. That's why I just chuckle at Bill's nonsense from earlier in the thread. He's overthinking. Serena Williams would get killed by any professional male, and a lot of high level amateurs. It would be insulting & dishonest to rank her ahead of men based on relative skill. If you are truly ranking the top tennis players based on how good they are - period - Williams doesn't rate with thousands of men. If that's sexist, go argue with science & mother nature, not me. Back to wrestling, which is worked. To pol: "Well first we have to pin down what is meant by "athleticism" to begin with"...seriously? I'm not trying to be condescending, even though it will come off that way, but if you are attempting to argue that men & women are on even close to level playing fields here, I can't waste my time with that. Sorry. But if you are looking for an explanation of what I mean by athleticism, see below. I think the disconnect here might be with speed, which is continually being brought up. Athleticism as it relates to wrestling is more than just speed or "flipz" or spots. Strength, explosiveness, agility, coordination, balance, timing, adaptability, power, etc. All of these components are very important not only in sports, but also in building pro wrestling matches. Not to mention things like raw physicality, which you can mention all of the big, tough, females you want who bring that to the table, but they bring it to the table in comparison with other women, just like Serena Williams brings her skillset to the table in comparison to other women. Men are better athletes than women, and if you guys or Meltzer or anybody else has a problem with that statement, well, take it up with how nature works. This is not to say that all men are automatically better than all women at pro wrestling, but I still personally find it silly to rank them together. Maybe you don't. Fine. If you notice, i'm not lobbying for anybody not to do so. I just said that I wouldn't. Then I was pressed to explain why, so I did. If it makes it easier to label me a sexist, fine, I have no problem with that because I know where i'm coming from with this, which is no different than examining it from an athletic perspective like any other sport. Worked or not, athletic components matter to me a lot. I don't grade on curves, and never will. I may think Cheeleader Melissa is a better wrestler than some shitty middle aged Memphis brawler or Japanese garbage worker or something, but I can come up with literally hundreds of men with minimal effort that work her style that I think blow her away if we are judging on the same scale. So to me it's insulting to rank her with the best men just because she's a great woman. And I don't think it's insulting at all to rank her against other women exclusively where I feel the comparisons are more fair, or to say something like "she's a great female wrestler, one of the best in the world". Because she is.

Has anybody brought up either Haystacks, Calhoun or Giant?

I always forget that there is a Jose Gonzales match on the WWE Network, vs Jan Nelson from the 6/27/77 MSG show in the Old School section. It's not much of a match, a 9 minute opener which is about 6 minutes of Nelson working an arm bar with fiery young (actually I think he was 30 or 31) ethnic babyface Gonzales hope spots tossed in every 60 seconds or so. Probably isn't anything that would sway a ballot, but it's a quick watch.

Ironically I used to really like joshi a lot in the 90's. This isn't some sort of joshi style thing. I think men are better at pro wrestling than women, and greatly prefer watching men's matches. It really isn't any deeper than that. There are female wrestlers I enjoy, none would sniff a top 100 anyway, so this is a moot point.

There is no hang up. I just don't think they are as good as men at this, and none of them would have a prayer of making my top 100 anyway. As such, I think it's unfair and a disservice to compare them to men. It isn't a level playing field in my view. Men are better athletes, stronger, more physical, and more believable in a physical setting. These are all valuable components to pro wrestling, and most of the time it is too much for most female wrestlers to overcome in comparison to men especially when dealing with the elite of the elite in a project like this. There are plenty of quality female wrestlers. I'd have no problem ranking them among other females. Ranking them with men is no less silly to me than trying to rank Cheryl Miller with men's basketball players, or Serena Williams with men's tennis players. Neither would rate in the top several thousand if we are being fair and not using a curve or handicapping. I understand wrestling is slightly different, but for what I look for in wrestling women just don't rate with men, and I have no interest in pretending otherwise just for the sake of coming off progressive or whatever (not that anybody made that accusation, but just to be preemptive).

I always thought Bagwell was perfectly average until the NWO stuff got out of hand and everybody sucked.

Grunge is a good one.

But then the problem inherently becomes, if you aren't at least passable in the ring, and don't have a gimmick that connects, then you don't last very long. So what we end up having to choose from, are dudes who stink who ended up having a career because they connected with a character.

Right, and to be fair, i've seen very little pre-Boogie Woogie Man Valiant from his younger days.

It's performance art that relies heavily on athleticism. At least in the way that I enjoy it. Women often look far less coordinated in the ring than men, and are almost always a step slower and less fluid. Those are things that lose me when it comes to suspension of disbelief. The idea that athleticism is one of the least important components of pro wrestling is patently and utterly absurd, but that's a discussion for another thread, and we've been down that road and it leads to nowhere.

Why? Just curios if you were doing greatest actors or musicians would it include women? What about figure skaters or dancers? Even sports. Say, greatest track and field stars would include women on it. I'm confused by your statement there. Musicians yes, actors maybe, anything athletic absolutely no chance. Dancers I have no idea, because I know nothing about that world. Why on Earth would I include women & men on a list of greatest track & field stars? Men are bigger, faster, stronger, and better at everything track & field entails. I suppose you could handicap the times or distances or whatever, but that's silly to me. Men vs men, women vs women. That's the only fair way, otherwise you are either shortchanging the women or overcompensating unfairly for them when men are so obviously superior athletically. As far as wrestling, men are simply better at it in my opinion. A lot of that is because they are better athletes. A lot of that is they convey themselves as physical threats more convincingly. In general, I don't like women's wrestling. It's aways a half step slower, except in the case of elite joshi's. They don't wrestle each other, so there are no common opponents or points of comparison. I'd rather just rank the men with the men, and the women with the women. The women are at a severe disadvantage athletically, it just isn't fair to me.

No women will make my list. I personally think it's silly to rank men & women together.

As for Sandman, he's a tricky one. I think he's about a million times better than Valiant, if for no other reason that Heyman brilliantly positioned him as a white trash South Philly everyman, which was THE perfect gimmick for the guy, so he came off much more credible than Jimmy Valiant's...well, I don't know...crazy homeless guy you pass on the way to work every morning? Valiant had very little credibility as a physical threat, especially as he got older and places like JCP kept booking him for some unknown reason. Sandman was the guy in the bar who would fight anyone (and lose half the time), but you knew he was dangerous if for no other reason that he didn't care about his own well being and would fight you until he couldn't stand. Valiant struck me as a skanky old biker whose breath was probably the most dangerous thing about him. Maybe I need to see him when he was younger, but I never took him seriously in Memphis or JCP, and he was always the kind of guy that I would roll my eyes at and wait for his segment to end. Sandman, even though when push comes to shove was a shitty wrestler, was always entertaining. Even in his brief WWE run.

I dont know if Jimmy Valiant i the worst wrestler ever, that might be going to far, but he's easily one of the bottom ten "legitimate" long term wrestlers i'd ever want to watch. Total go away heat for me. His character was the absolute shits, and he was shitty in the ring. Valiant stinks.

dave went a little too far with the Mundo/Puma match, but it was a really awesome match. It would be the best match on most RAW's, just about any Impact, and a good chunk of ROH shows this year. Wouldn't be crazy to call it a Top 20 TV match this year.

re: Gedo & Jado getting over "tons of headliners" - It really depends how you define the word "tons". Styles is a legitimate headliner now. So is Ishii. Plus obviously Okada. I'd argue they got Suzuki over as a headliner two or three years ago. Ibushi is well on his way. Shibata. Devitt was headlining before he left. Not to mention they've managed to get over not one, but two secondary titles, both completely from scratch with no history or tradition to help. The IC title routinely headlines shows without missing a beat, and the NEVER title was literally a throw away nothing title a year ago, and is now stronger than probably any title in the world aside from IWGP heavy, IWGP IC, WWE, Dream Gate, and maybe ROH or Triple Crown but I would argue for NEVER.