DMJ

Sadly, I agree. The justice I think some of us were hoping for was that Vince's name would be mud, that his legacy would be so tainted and so toxic that the company would never speak his name again. It's too early to say whether that's happened but I don't think you need psychic powers to see that Vince's name will be, sooner than most of us hope, celebrated on WWE TV again in some shape or form. In some cases, the fans themselves have vocally supported a return. Whether or not he will personally appear on TV before he croaks is a bit harder to predict because, even before all this went down, people who worked with him/for him have stated that Vince was vehemently against a Hall of Fame induction and it is very unlikely that Vince would come back to do a storyline. But, yes, absolutely, when he kicks the bucket, there will at the very least be a "In Memoriam" slide. As for an on-screen return as the Mr. McMahon character? I don't even think he'll do a cameo. For the past few years, the company has repeatedly played-up The Rock's role as The Final Boss and, for a good stretch, was the on-screen heel Authority. Meanwhile, Triple H and Stephanie McMahon have completely dropped any elements of their kayfabe characters when they do appear on-screen, which, somewhat ironically considering Triple H's "origin story," is often in business-exposing projects like the Netflix series Unreal and Stephanie's overly sappy and vapid podcast. When people talk about who "runs" the WWE, the names you hear now are TKO, Nick Khan, Ari Emanuel, and, yes, Paul Levesque, the lone "wrestling guy" of the bunch. Could Vince show up to kick-off next year's WrestleMania? Sure. But I think that's about as much of an olive branch Nick Khan, Emanuel, and the TKO execs are willing to extend to the guy. Khan may have some fondness for Vince personally and Vince did hire him, but the ousting of Vince McMahon was motivated by business, which is really all that Emanuel and Khan care about at the end of the day. Their company is doing great business right now. Depending on what happens with AEW's TV deal, they are potentially poised to once again have a monopoly on pro-wrestling in the US with both AAA and TNA also under their thumb. They're eyeing the potential of having AI replace their already incredibly cheap (non-union, largely uncredited) writing staff. This is not a company that needs Vince McMahon for anything - not business ideas, not marketing ideas, not creative ideas, not even as an on-screen character.

EDIT - Sorry! I thought you were seeking recommendations when I posted this. BUT if you are interested in watching a shit match, try the one reviewed below: Crush vs. Tatanka (05/23/1994).

I haven't seen enough Dutch Mantell or Wahoo McDaniel. I would say that I do have Terry Funk as #1 on my GWE list. Here's how he ranks against Stan Hansen for me, though - and I'm a Hansen fan who had him on my GWE list. I'll also preface this by saying that my criterion are my criterion. There was some discussion on the Reaction thread that certain voters "got it wrong" when they included things like promo ability or performance in angles. I've been here awhile now and participated in the 2016 poll and I do not recall any real parameters as to what can/cannot be used to rate or rank wrestlers. Maybe I missed it. I took "Greatest Wrestler Ever" to be a fairly broad concept and my criterion reflect that. Average Match Score: I've reviewed 79 Austin matches and only 22 Hansen matches, which, mathematically, makes this criteria a bit less valid. That being said, Austin earned an average match rating (again, totally admittedly subjective) of 3.18-out-of-5, while Hansen earned a score of 3.02. There are likely lots and lots of great Hansen matches I have not seen. There are probably not all that many great Austin matches I have not seen. I'm not going to award a "point" to either. Influence/Impact: Obviously, this is one of those things where some voters are automatically going to say "Well, that wasn't the point." I get that. I think the influence/impact a wrestler has on the industry is fair game. Austin gets the point from me. Tag Work: Hansen is great in tags. But so is Austin. I'll give the point to Hansen. Carrying Ability: This is a category where my lack of knowledge of Hansen might hurt him. Having watched so much of Austin's career, though, I've seen him bring audiences to their feet against some pretty boring or one-dimensional workers - Kane, Vince McMahon, Big Show, the Outlaws - and give some guys their best WWE matches (Savio Vega comes to mind). Point to Austin. Reliability: This one is a tie. Cue up a Hansen match and you're likely to see something cool. Cue up an Austin match and you're just as likely to see something cool. If you want to watch some fun wrestling, you can rely on both guys to deliver it. Heel/Face/Character Versatility: Another point to Austin. Again, I could be off base here because my knowledge of Hansen is fairly limited to him being a ruthless badass in Japan and him being a heel in NWA/WCW. Austin, over the course of his career, showed a very respectable amount of versatility, not only as a heel in WCW and then in the WWE in 96' and then as a Babyface from then on, but also changing up his wrestling style over time. Peaks (Were They The Best In The World At Any Time?): This is going to be controversial because this is sort of another influence/impact question, a criteria that has more to do with positioning or opportunity than it does with a wrestler's in-ring ability, which, according to some is the most important aspect of determining the Greatest Wrestler Ever. So, let's throw out the fact that Steve Austin was the most popular wrestler in the US (world?) from 1997-to-1999 and arguably longer. Was Austin the best wrestler in the world at any of those times? No, but neither was Hansen at any point in his career. Was Austin the best wrestler in his company at any of those times? I'm going to say he was at least #2 behind Shawn or Bret at some point (and maybe Owen). Was Hansen ever the best worker in NWA? In WCW? In AJPW? Was he ever #2? I honestly can't answer that question definitively so I'm just going to throw out this category. So, just to recap, Austin leads 3-1 having thrown out some criterias as either ties or admitting I don't know. Charisma: Another tie. Though, I'd probably lean towards Austin if I had a gun to my head. Hansen has a ton of charisma and aura, don't get me wrong, but Austin was such a magnetic, captivating performer that he was the centerpiece of an entire company for years. Hansen was very, very charismatic but I don't see the range that Austin had. Still, no point awarded. Longevity: Hansen takes this one. 3-2. Though, just to note, longevity is another "controversial" criterion to some. To these voters, who want to strictly look at what happens between bells, whether a wrestler competes for 5 years, 10 years, 15, or 20 shouldn't really matter. I think having high-end matches over decades is the mark of a Greatest Wrestler Ever candidate and Hansen had high-end matches across multiple decades while Austin really just had the 90s. Offense: Hansen ties it up. 3-3. Bumping/Selling/Athleticism: Austin wins this point for me, but maybe, again, that's based on my limited viewing of Hansen's career comparatively. With Austin, I can always point to the Stunning Steve/Hollywood Blondes years. With Hansen, he's obviously a good seller, but at 6'4'' and 300 pounds, you're not going to see much pinballing. It also didn't fit his character (based on what I've seen). Based on my criterion, Austin narrowly beats Hansen 4-3 with multiple categories either being ties or thrown out. Ultimately, I think what it comes down to is, based on my admittedly limited viewing, Austin showed more versatility across his career. Stan Hansen is a great brawler and maybe even the best brawler of all time, but Austin was a very, very good brawler and, in his prime, a very, very good mechanic/technician who proved to be both a great heel and a great babyface.

I have Austin at #2, but I'm not going to go crazy defending my view as much as I'd like to at least pose a theory about why he did so well this time around. I think Austin's appeal may reflect a "poptimist" vote . Poptimism, to those new to the term, refers to a shift in music criticism in the 2000s when "serious" music journalists became increasingly celebratory and positive about pop music, specifically acts like Justin Timberlake or Beyonce who, in the late 90s, had been generally maligned as "disposable" music performers for ignorant teenagers. Poptimism argues that commercial appeal does not necessarily mean unimaginative, bland, or without merit. It has since been applied to film and television. To the hyper-critical, super-learned fan, Steve Austin might not seem like a legitimate No.1 candidate. At the peak of his popularity, the matches he was most famous for were also the exact opposite of what many serious wrestling fans consider great wrestling. He mastered sports-entertainment, the worst version of pro-wrestling. So much of the character was what he did outside the ring - beer trucks, crushing cars, flipping the bird - and, to the serious wrestling fan, its all fluff. Then, when the bell rings, you get crowd-brawling in lieu of scientific wrestling, more bird-flipping, and a million-and-a-half run-ins. It's all so low brow. And yet, for lots and lots of people, it's also AWESOME. And why wouldn't it be? Anyone who listened to Austin's podcast (the original run) knows that this guy has a brilliant mind for wrestling. And, like any genius, Austin wisely plucked elements from his idols to create the Austin character. Is Austin's relentless, reckless defiance not Terry Funk? Did Austin not see Hansen's trademark bullying stomps and think "What if I did those, in rapid succession, in the corner"? Were his big right hands not indebted to Jerry Lawler? In his athletic prime, Austin's bumps were straight out of the Buddy Rose playbook. In no case did Austin improve or better any of these things - I doubt Austin would ever claim he did - but he did bring them together into a PG-13 character that turned an entire wrestling company around. From 97' through 99', Austin was the most entertaining, captivating pro-wrestler on television, easily the biggest star the wrestling world had seen since a decade earlier. There was some discussion on the GWE Reaction Thread that high voters on Austin "didn't get the assignment." Hogwash. In the very same thread, there was lengthy debate about how Bryan Danielson should've approached his match with Triple H based on their storyline. Austin's in-ring performance is inextricably linked to the context of his matches (built up by storylines and promos). Against Bret Hart, he was cool and calculated, a mirror of the Hitman. Against the Undertaker and Foley, essentially mercenaries hired by an evil boss, he treated the matches like brawls. When he finally got Vince alone in a cage, he sought punishment, savoring the opportunity to beat the hell out of his nemesis. But Austin's case doesn't start there and I'm not sure why he's being called a "peak" candidate. In the early 90s, he was already a consistent highlight on WCW broadcasts. There's Clash 18 with Rude vs. Sting and Steamboat, Clash 20 against Steamboat 1-on-1, teaming up with Zybysko against Windham and Rhodes at SuperBrawl II, the Hollywood Blondes stuff, the matches with Dustin and War Games...if wrestling was the Oscars, Austin might've been a Best Supporting Actor nominee for all those years. And, of course, looking at who he was working with, Austin continued to soak up knowledge to the point that, years down the road, he would use those same dozen ingredients to create crowd-pleasing mini-blockbusters on a weekly basis. I would never put Austin on the shortlist of "greatest TV workers," but how else could one describe the guy who anchored 4-5 segments per sold-out Raw, for 2 years, if not wrestling in the televised main event often wrestling in an untelevised "dark" match after the cameras cut off? Who was That Guy? And, again, the naysayers want to discount Austin's remarkable popularity by arguing it isn't a valid criterion. So what if Austin was so popular that he almost single-handedly turned the tide of the Monday Night Wars (which, before Austin's rise, was a war that the WWE were very much losing in terms of TV ratings)? But isn't an essential element of what makes a great pro-wrestler their ability to connect to the crowd? Their drawing power? To be extremely cynical, if wrestling is, at its core, a "carny" business, isn't its most important, most credible metric the ability to separate the "marks" from their money? Austin did this as good or better than any wrestler in US history. We watched his show, bought tickets when he came to town, wore T-shirts with his mottos and logos because we connected with Steve Austin, who can only be described as a pro-wrestler. "But popularity has nothing to do with in-ring performance," his detractors say. My response would be that this is looking at things backwards. Austin's popularity came from his in-ring performances, not the other way around. Sure, the Austin 3:16 promo is an integral part of Stone Cold's origin story, but, as highlighted above, Austin didn't fall out of the sky in 1996. He had built up a reputation for being a very good in-ring worker already. Even to fans who only knew his WWE work, before and in the months immediately after King of the Ring 96' it was clear that Austin was way, way, way more exciting to watch than any of the other young stars the WWE was pushing at the time - Marc Mero, Savio Vega, an arrogant blue blood named Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Ahmed Johnson. There's a reason Bret Hart wanted to work with him for his return match over Helmsley or Ron Simmons or The Sultan. Bret was seeing the same undeniable future that lots and lots of wrestling fans saw. Austin wasn't just a good promo - he was a terrific and very smart worker, one who would end up having to adapt his style considerably but only become more popular for it. It's yet another attribute/accolade that exhibits Austin's skill. The fact that, when asked to reflect on these things, Austin is usually humble or gives off a workmanlike attitude that he was simply "doing the best he could in the circumstances" makes it easy to ignore just how smart of a worker he was. Austin made being the most popular, most beloved wrestler of his generation by a wide margin look easy. So easy, in fact, that there are voters who either can't see how good he really was or are willing to twist logic to explain away what their eyes see when they hear the glass shatter.

Some good points here, but I was also under the impression that for much of that time in the 80s and early 90s - at least up till Bischoff takes over and Turner really starts competing with Vince - the WWE guys were making more money than their WCW counterparts, a major reason why Bret would've never left in the 80s or early 90s. Based on the little I know about the house show circuits each company ran, didn't the WWE wrestlers presumably make more money because WWE's house show business was better than WCW's too? Along with WCW's merchandising being notoriously mismanaged and weak compared to the WWE's marketing and merch machine? Feels like Hall, Nash, and others were "leveling up" when they came to the WWE, while Jake Roberts and British Bulldog and the like going to WCW was a step down in the early 90s. As noted earlier, that does seem to change a bit around 94'-95' when both companies start throwing more money around to sign guys like Hogan, Savage, Mero, Dustin, Vader, Pillman, etc. but prior to that I don't think WCW was offering Bret anything close to what Vince was willing to do for him financially.

I'm one of those people of the opinion that it wasn't just one of AEW's greatest shows ever, but on the shortlist for best PPVs ever from any company. I didn't think a single match was a 5-star classic - certainly not Takeshita/Okada (which was very good, just not an all-timer) - but there no match was less than good and I think I was pretty conservative in my own ratings (cheap plug: Kwang The Blog) compared to some of the scores on Cagematch or that Meltzer gave. Aside from just the uniformly good-to-great wrestling, I think the show was very wisely structured, and, rather shockingly, restrained (at least in terms of AEW). There wasn't any over-the-top gore and, in the better matches, including Allin/MJF, they let things breathe between the bigger spots. I'll use a few examples to highlight my point: in the opener, we saw a flaming table spot but it actually only involved one of the four wrestlers in the match, which was smart because being put through a flaming table should be an automatic match-ender. AEW gets a ton of criticism for having guys withstand uncanny amounts of violence and kick out of the craziest moves, but that wasn't the case here. Then, when Edge busted out "Spike," it was treated like a match-ender, and not like any ol' weapon. Fast forward to the main event and, if one was actually watching and not just giving bad faith knee-jerk reactions, Darby Allin took a ton of punishment to his neck but after each big spot, MJF also struggled to make a real cover, often having to bring Allin back into the ring from the outside (like the piledriver on the steps) or reposition him or gather his own bearings. The actual finish not only played-up Darby's exhaustion but MJF finally stringing together the right move - a piledriver from the top - in the right position (center of the ring) to win the match. I'll also say, without checking on match runtimes, it felt like there was some variety there too. I really liked Ospreay/Joe and the Thekla match and Swerve/Bandido and the Stadium Stampede and I don't really know how long any of them went (aside from the Stampede being 30+ with all the entrances and hijinks) but they all felt like they got enough time without veering into repetitiveness or "self-conscious epic territory." Even O'Reilly/Mox, with its "No Time Limit" stipulation - usually a tell that the match is going to go 25+ - didn't feel too long. In fact, despite being a bigger fan of Takeshita (who had a similar stipulation match with Mox not too long ago), I think Mox and O'Reilly simply have better chemistry. I would've preferred a better, more exciting show-ending angle than the Kevin Knight turn - something that probably could've been saved for Dynamite, to be honest - but that's a small gripe based on AEW sometimes ending their shows with these big reveals/returns/debuts (which don't always pan out anyway). I don't think fans were expecting any sort of big angle at the end so I wouldn't consider it a disappointment and I'll at least give credit to TK for attempting to make Knight a bigger star by giving him that spotlight moment. Again, it may not pan out long-term, but at least he's trying to keep things fresh at the top of the card.

I had Foley at #17. I don't really care that he wasn't a technical wizard (though, its not like he couldn't throw a decent snap suplex in his day or have a good-looking working punch). I also think calling him just a "glorified stuntman" is ridiculous. Foley was very inventive and really knew how to make individual matches and performances stand out. I'm a huge Darby fan, for comparison, but as we saw at Double or Nothing, he does seem to go to the same bag of tricks (as amazing and fitting-to-the-character as that bag of tricks is) in many matches. With Foley, there's just ridiculous breadth of the "hardcore ouvre." Mind Games is different than King of the Ring 98' which is different than the brawls with the Nasty Boys which is different than Rumble 99' which were different than the matches that he had with Triple H in 97' which were different than the Sting matches and the Vader matches and the Austin matches in 98' and that Van Hammer match and the underrated New Age Outlaws match at SummerSlam 99' (I think?)...its just a ridiculous resume. And, yes, he does have more than a few patented spots/bumps that he would do in a bunch of matches, but there was also usually something new thrown in there that you'd never seen before and, more importantly, had a thematic/symbolic element that made it iconic. Anyone around in 2000 or 2001 saw countless guys do "Foley spots" - Shane McMahon, Rikishi, I think Crowbar or maybe Vampiro did a bunch of goofy Foley-esque shit in WCW? - and none of them are remembered or talked-about the way Foley's are because Foley made them count in an emotional way. Even more recently, I think Seth Rollins went through a table off the side of the cell and nobody cared (and its not just because we'd seen it before, its because when Foley took those bumps, you felt them with him). I had AJ Styles at #6. He's the most influential wrestler in the US of the past 25 years. I can't speak on Japan or Mexico, but in the US, AJ became The Guy the way Shawn was considered The Guy for awhile and Flair before him. Athleticism, agility, clean look, Japanese-inspired striking, high work-rate, wide variety of moves and submissions and pinning combinations...that describes so, so, so many guys considered the best workers today (Omega, Ospreay, Swerve, Fletcher, Rollins) and AJ sorta put all of that together into one package and now that package is what we consider an "all-arounder," which is crazy because, a decade before him, an all-arounder would've been like Stunning Steve? Or Ted DiBiase?

I had Bull Nakano at #14, my highest rated women's wrestler. I'm glad she made the top 50. I haven't seen enough Joshi to argue with the more knowledgeable folk here about her being better than Aja or Hokuto (or Dump), but her "It" factor is off the charts for me. Spending the last 18 months trying to watch as much classic AJPW and 80s/90s joshi as I could - while still watching lots of AEW and territory stuff and old TNA PPVs on YouTube - I would get bored and need to switch things up every few days. Bull was someone who, if her match was next on my playlist, I was almost always excited to watch. Infinitely watchable to me, even if maybe the highs aren't as high as some of the other women who haven't dropped yet.

* Had Moxley at #41, but as I've written about countless times now over the past year, I have some very, very big blind spots in my wrestling knowledge (basically all of lucha, NJPW, FMW, post-95 joshi, WoS) so I totally get why people with broader tastes and knowledge wouldn't even consider him. * Had Shawn at #9. Sometimes I feel like the Shawn backlash is contrarian-for-contrarian's sake. It's not quite at "The Beatles Actually Sucked" levels but I don't see how someone can watch Shawn and not see him as a top 20-25 guy. You can hate the melodrama, sure, but I just don't see how over-the-top bumping can be a knock against him and not countless other workers people tend to love. Not a perfect comparison, but sometimes the criticisms levied against him are more for what he inspired rather than what he himself did, similar to what people might say about Eddie Van Halen and how his guitar-playing inspired some of the most soulless, over-the-top "watch what I can do" guitar-playing of the 80s. * I had Cena at #33 too! I predict that if we do this again in 10 years, he'll end up somewhere closer to 50. I wrote about it elsewhere but his final run with the failed heel turn is a negative mark on his overall career. Hogan added to his case with the Hollywood stuff while Cena's heel work was needlessly "meta" and resulted in some loathsome matches. I think he thought he was doing something smart and almost post-modern and maybe I should give him more credit for his ambition but, at the end of the day, it flopped hard.

35 of the top 50 made my ballot. Most that didn't make it were "ineligible" to me based on my own personal "rules", specifically that I didn't vote for anyone who I had not reviewed a minimum of 20 matches of. (Which meant no Tanahashi for me, no Meiko, no Fujiwara, no Fujinami, no Volk Han, no Onita, no Inoki, no Blue Panther, no Negro Casas.) Considering my 2016 ballot was probably 95% WWE and WCW workers from 88' on, I'm proud that I expanded my viewing over the past 10 years beyond mainstream US wrestling and I'm excited about seemingly all the great wrestling I still need to see in the future.

- To echo what El-P wrote, with Darby, Christian, Jericho, Swerve, MJF, etc. not making the top 100, I think the "AEW dominated the list" talking point can be put to rest a little. Theoretically, guys like Jericho and Christian should've done better because, while Jericho lost a lot of...appreciation (dammit)...over the past couple years, its really only because he stayed on TV too long. I feel like Christian is as beloved as ever. I would assume AEW-centric voters would have voted for them as essentially "the legends" of the company the same way a WWE-centric voter might vote for The Miz. Darby not making the top 100 is a big blow to the argument too. Darby is arguably the most AEW of AEW guys, for better (if you like AEW) or worse (if the mere thought of AEW makes you puke). High work-rate, plenty of false finishes, gore, crazy bumps, every match being treated like its an epic - all the stuff that the AEW critics point to as negatives, Darby does it. If there really were 100s of AEW-centric voters casting ballots, there's no way Darby doesn't make the top 100. And then we have Will Ospreay. As El-P wrote, if the voting base was overwhelmingly pro-AEW, its hard to imagine Ospreay not cracking the top 50. - Speaking of Ospreay, I'm one of those people who voted for him but not in my top 25. I had him at #49. As someone posted above, my appreciation for Ospreay (right now) is based on my opinion that he is the best fireworks show in wrestling. Still, I tend to see greatness as more than just physical/athletic prowess. I like character depth and breadth and longevity and to see how a wrestler adapts over time or changes style to match changes in character or setting. To be honest, seeing how Ospreay adapts post-injury is very intriguing to me and is arguably more important than what he accomplished at his physical peak. donsem43 called him a pro-wrestling Mary Sue, but now we have the neck injury, which means, to sustain his career, Ospreay is going to have to figure out how to maintain match quality while also respecting his own physical limitations. The truly great workers, the all-timers, the people who made my top 10 and top 15, were generally able to do that, shifting their style without losing their greatness.

- Loved El-P's troll post about Eaton. Very funny. I just watched a Dustin Rhodes/Bobby Eaton match a couple days ago from Saturday Night (I think it was December 91') and it was terrific. Great Madusa performance and JR is solo on commentary and is great too. I had Eaton at #46. - I won't make the case for Lesnar because he has a whole thread devoted to it, but I had him at #11. If you stopped caring about the WWE after 88' or 93' or 97' or 99', there's no case that will convince you that, in terms of aura and "big match feel" and then delivering great performances, Lesnar is at an elite level.

- Roddy didn't make my top 100, but he wasn't far off. I'll readily admit that I haven't seen a ton of his career but he did meet my personal rule of having watched/reviewed 20 matches and while he scored highly on "average match score," when I ran him through the rest of my criteria, he didn't make the cut. Would've probably been in that 105-110 range. My issue is the same as others have said, he's an incredible mechanic and he's incredibly consistent but he misses me in the "I'm So Excited For Roderick Strong vs. _____" department. To me, its really the "it" factor of me actively getting excited for a match and its just not there for him. I could easily go the other way, though, and see him making my list in 2036 as I watch more footage. - I had Dustin Rhodes at #43. Yes, there are some bad, bad stretches, but I actually think the initial Goldust run is great and showed that he could work a completely different style and pull off a very different character than what he was doing in WCW and get tremendous heat. I liked the ECW run. I liked the tags with Cody and I'm also admittedly one of the few people that really liked the Cody/Dustin match they had in WWE (probably more than even they did). I think he's been good in AEW. - I'm not surprised Owens hasn't "dropped" yet. I rated him pretty high, personally. He's a guy who checks a lot of boxes for me. Part of my thought process for my ranking or selecting was, if I was putting together a roster, is this guy going to be one of my top draft picks. Owens (and Zayn, to be honest) is a guy who makes things better every time, with his promos, with his character work, with his in-ring performances. I'm not sure I've seen him half-ass it despite the bad booking in WWE at times. And then, as soon as you call on him to do a match with a Roman or a Cody, he delivers.

Sure...I mean, I think there are probably times when WCW had a roster just as good (especially if that time happens to overlay with the brief window when they had Bull Nakano and Akira Hokuto working for them), but its not like they had Rey, Benoit, La Parka, El Dandy, Eddie, Regal, Finlay, etc. all getting 15+ minutes a week to deliver high-quality matches. With AEW, it'd be hard to pinpoint an exact date, but there was/is/could be a time, you might see FTR, the Bucks, Kenny Omega, Darby Allin, Brody King, Swerve, Jay White, Roderick Strong, Takeshita, and Claudio Castignoli all wrestle in the same week...and then on the next week, you'd see half those guys again but now maybe Moxley, Hangman, Bandido, Christian, Okada, Samoa Joe, Toni Storm, Orange Cassidy, and Mark Briscoe are rounding things out. (And I'm purposefully leaving out MJF and Cole because mileage may vary, Mercedes Mone [because she barely wrestles on TV], Andrade [the first run wasn't my favorite, but this second run has been awesome], and Willow and Mark Davis [because they're both great but I'm trying not to pile on]). As for people who don't "get" Darby Allin, well, your loss. The view that he is just a "bump machine who sells melodramatically" is an overly cynical underselling of what he does. He may not be your cup of tea, but the days of him being a "just another Spike Dudley" or "Jeff Hardy wanna-be" are long gone. If you're going to compare him to someone, he's much closer to Rey Mysterio. Not as good as peak Rey, not as revolutionary, obviously doesn't have the longevity, but, yeah, I'll say it, that's the more apt comparison now.

Kyoko Inoue not cracking the top 200 is a shocker for me, though I guess she did at least move up from #217 to #204. In 2006, she was #65. I had her at #30 on my list. With Takeshita making #206, I'm thinking Darby Allin will make the 100, which is crazy because he was not on the 2016 list. I wouldn't be mad at it either. I have him at #61.