DMJ

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.

- I had Yoshinari Ogawa at #77 but was surprised to see he was #24 for someone else. If this was a ranking of my favorite wrestlers to watch, he'd probably be in my top 50. - IIRC I was the one who nominated Charlotte so I'm surprised I wasn't even close to the high voter on her either (I had her at #70). Charlotte is divisive and arguably even a "problematic" nominee because she's not always been super professional or safe (that TLC tag match w/ Becky against the Kabuki Warriors was unforgettable in a bad way), but for Big Fight Feel and often making you wonder if you're about to see a trainwreck or a great match, she's amazing. For someone who has so often been criticized as being "hand-picked" or "forced," she's maybe the least polished, least manufactured, least phony personality they have. Her desperation for fan approval, peer approval, even critical approval...its been on her face since NXT, which is also why none of the first couple babyface runs really worked. People like confidence. She's better as a heel because, as a heel, she played the cocky, arrogant athlete with obvious insecurities. Its classic Disney. The Evil Queen in Snow White with all the power in the world, all the riches, but none of the inner beauty or peace. And, real or fake, she was great in that role. I think this tag run has been solid - and well-received - because, eventually, thanks to that Players Tribune article and also (hopefully) just a general softening of the crowd in understanding how absolutely shitty the company she works for is and how many fans are absolutely awful, entitled pieces of shit towards all wrestlers but women wrestlers especially. Oh, and then there was her being Ric's kid, her brother dying, and the multiple failed marriages/relationships. At a certain point, the Evil Queen becomes a pretty sympathetic character and I think some fans actually just want her to not end up living at the bottom of a vodka or pill bottle when this is all over. But, in the words of Taz, I digress...she made my list because she has a resume of matches I really like.

Surprised I wasn't the high vote on DDP this time around (I had him at #67). When people talk about the best "TV workers" from the Monday Night Wars on, DDP should make everyone's shortlist. You could give him 5 minutes, 8 minutes, 10 minutes...and he made them count against a very wide variety of opponents, some of whom were absolute stiffs or were well past their prime. Also, the knocks against him "scripting" his matches seems silly to me in 2026 when its fairly clear that many top performers script their matches and have been doing so for years (Jericho included a rundown of his Mania match against Punk in one of his books, for example). Scripted or not, Page would often put creative twists and transitions into his matches that felt organic. Anyway, I guess I'll have to change my avatar. I also had Rhea Ripley on my list and am surprised I wasn't the high for her either (I had her at #74). It's a shame we'll probably never see this fully-formed, "peak" version of her anywhere but the WWE, but I can overlook that and say she's been the best female "ace" the WWE has ever had. She didn't shatter the glass ceiling like Becky did, but she's better in-ring. More consistent than Charlotte and more versatile as a heel/face. I ranked Mercedes Mone higher (as well as other women), but I don't think any could carry the division the way Rhea did/has as the "face of the company" (which I do think is fair to consider). She checked a lot of boxes when I went through my ranking system.

With the 400s and 300s, I've finally seen some names of mine drop but I'm not too bummed or surprised. They've all been in the 80s-90s range. I know I've stated it multiple times over the past year, but I'm an admittedly "generic" US wrestling nerd who grew up with WWE/WCW/ECW, some TNA, a lot of AEW now...blah, blah, blah, I'll spare the details. So, yeah, you can expect to see Dolph Ziggler and Drew McIntyre on my list. The "pool" of wrestlers I could even consider for a list like this is probably something like 150-200, not 500 or 1000 like some of the other voters. That being said... Even if I had to list 200, folks like Kane and Abyss wouldn't make my list. Even if we're talking about getting carried to great matches, I'd put the Ultimate Warrior above them. At least Warrior has the Savage matches, WM6, and the Rude matches plus he was a better promo. Hell, I might put Warrior above Adam Cole too, which is probably crazy to some folks, but Cole is kinda like a one-man Young Bucks to me. With the Bucks, I can overlook that they are two small dudes doing lots of high-energy offense because two cruiserweights doing a dizzying array of high-impact, high-flying moves creates chaos and unpredictability and it can wear down a team of heavyweights. Its not totally dissimilar psychology to the Rockers or Rock n' Roll Express. But Adam Cole is just not my thing. I'm probably splitting hairs but I just find him less believable than a Rey Mysterio or Danielson or Darby Allin.

Classic Rollins. Undeniably athletically talented, but he might have the worst instincts of any major WWE star ever. Wrestles like a spirited, "pop-the-crowd with spots" babyface when he's supposed to be a heel. Wrestles like a boring, methodical heel when he's supposed to be a babyface. His idea of "character" is wearing garish outfits. At least Koko B. Ware had a bird. Incredible "pick me" energy. I voted for him on my GWE list because I do think he has a very respectable resume of good matches (and because so much of my life as a fan has been WWE-centric, my list reflects what I've seen), but I can't wait till 2036 when I think it'll be that much easier to leave him off entirely as I broaden my viewing and watch less WWE.

^ Yeah. I think, to us, there's still stories we'd love to see told, but maybe there's not enough "meat on the bone" to really pad out a 42-minute show. My dream episode, for example, would be about Ranger Ross, who wasn't really a huge star but ended up committing a series of bank robberies as "The Motorcycle Bandit." Then again, I think that story, embellished and with lots of creative liberties like a thrown-in love story and an of-the-times soundtrack, would make for a tremendous and potentially hilarious movie or TV series. The actual facts of that story might be kinda straight-forward and boring. Plus, again, he wasn't some huge star (though that hasn't stopped them from making episodes about other non-stars either). I'd also posit that this show was always going to struggle after 2-3 seasons. First, the wider audience is really only interested in the wrestlers they care about (stars), which is why episodes about Savage or Owen or Benoit made sense while an episode on Ranger Ross probably wouldn't work. Second, some stories are so sadly commonplace and unsettling that they're off-putting. For example, Buck Zumhofe. There's just not that much of a story beyond he was a child rapist who was a pro-wrestler. I'm not interested in 42 minutes about that just like I'm not interested in a documentary about any other random child rapist.

I'd disagree with the word "influential." Successful? Powerful? Important? I think those are better descriptors and, even then, I don't know if he's the definitive number 2. I mean - yes, Ted Turner changed television so, by default, that includes wrestling and baseball and basketball and news and syndication. It's a bit like saying Les Paul is the most influential guitarist in the history of rock n' roll, punk, heavy metal, funk, jazz...yes, obviously the guy who designed/innovated the electric guitar is incredibly important in the history of music in general, but parsing it out like that is a weird way to look at it. Also, if we're going by that definition, what about the computer/internet pioneers who changed the way professional wrestling was produced, consumed, sold, etc. over the past 20 years? Or the people who invented/innovated digital video? Would these folks take the rest of the top 10? In the grand scheme of things, they're much more meaningful/influential in the production and consumption of pro-wrestling (and all media) than the guy who invented the Royal Rumble. I just don't think that's the right way to look at it. Ted Turner was never WCW's booker. He was the money man that hired Hogan. He was the guy who took on Vince by giving WCW 2-hours of prime-time on Monday Nights. Those decisions can't be downplayed, but the further we get from the Monday Night Wars, the more its clear that, in the grand scheme of things, we are talking about 83 weeks out of 40+ years of WWE dominance and the influential aspects of Nitro - exposing US audiences to lucha wrestlers like Rey Mysterio, for example - have never been credited to Ted Turner anyway. Now, I don't have a clear "second behind Vince" person in mind. Maybe Paul Heyman? He's fairly influential in that ECW, even if it was being funded by Vince, was viewed as "independent" and "anti-mainstream." It's not hard to draw a line from ECW to Ring of Honor to AEW, for example. I'm sure the more knowledgeable folk around here could argue that there are figures in Japanese or Mexican wrestling history that are incredibly important. My point is, I'm thankful and grateful that Ted Turner created WCW, but let's not go overboard with crediting him for much of what we, the fans, actually saw on TV week-to-week.

- The New Day are a very good tag team and took a terrible gimmick and got it mega-over with the live audiences and sold a ton of merch through chemistry and personality. They'd be a good signing, even if only for a year or two. You bring back the trombone, you give them a "chant-able" name, you let them be them, and the live crowds are going to be engaged and loud (just like they always were in WWE) and that looks good on TV. Also, the fact that so many of their colleagues are tweeting support is only helping. The bullets that the "anti-WWE smarts" load in their guns against any former WWE talent coming to AEW are getting pulled out by every pro-New Day tweet that the Bucks or MJF or Mercedes or Swerve sends out. While I agree that AEW has established itself as a place for great wrestling/great wrestlers, that doesn't just mean the Ospreays and Swerves of the world. Kofi and Woods are solid in-ring, safe workers, have good signature stuff, etc. This isn't AEW going out and signing The Ascension or The Highlanders or the Prime Time Playas or the Bloodline or Wyatt Sicks rejects, these are guys with experience who can hang with the best tag teams.* - As for the Reigns thing, I'm guessing this is just another example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. * I know it was across many years and some were singles and not tags, but Kofi and Woods had some good matches against Danielson, Cesaro (& Kidd), Mistico (I think? Not sure who was playing Sin Cara at the time), FTR, Shelton, Samoa Joe, etc. These are not guys who will need to have their hands held to get them through a good match.

As someone who really only watched WWE and WCW with some ECW, some TNA, and then AEW up until a few years ago, my ballot is very "major US promotions centric." I'm likely going to be the high voter on a fair number of WWE guys and gals from the past 20 years and even I only had him at 45.

I posted my list over at my blog. I must admit, I'm not especially proud of it or even agree with all of it, which is weird to say, but this time around, I really tried to stick to some self-imposed rules and a "system" designed to keep it from just being a list of my favorite wrestlers.

Wow. Genuinely surprised to see New Day leaving. They both seem like smart guys so I'd hope they're not hurting for money and got a nice chunk of all that merch they sold over the years. I'm not necessarily interested in them going to AEW long-term, but would kinda love to see them do a few dream matches there and maybe do some international work/indie stuff just for the fun of it. I doubt they'll go to TNA.

I don't think he'd have been a main eventer or anything, but he would've probably been used to get over the emerging heels in 96' - Vader, Austin, probably Foley and Goldust too, maybe Farooq, maybe Sid. I don't think his W/L record would've been great, but throw in matches against the rest of Camp Cornette - Bulldog and Owen - and potentially teaming up with Shawn for the random Raw and I think Steamboat in WWE in 96' produces some quality and gets over. In 96', Vince had Marty Jannetty, Jake Roberts, Barry Windham, and, at Survivor Series, Jimmy Snuka and Terry Gordy on his roster and all of them were embarrassingly past their prime. Hell, he brought back the Warrior that year. Vince was mocking the old-timers in WCW with the Billionaire Ted sketches with one hand and putting Jake Roberts in PPV matches with the other. Based on Steamboat's brief comeback in 09', he probably would've come into the WWE in 96' as one of the top 5 best in-ring performers and, at the end of the day, Vince isn't going to throw that away when he's also in the process of trying to make stars out of guys like The Sultan or Mark Henry or Rocky Miavia or Tiger Ali Singh in early 97'.

Aside from the Rumble, I haven't watched a whole WWE show in about 9 months but the WWE product is a hamster wheel so my take is probably as good as anyone's... The women's roster is actually super stacked. IYO SKY is there. Rhea Ripley is there, still very over, still very capable of delivering good matches. Charlotte and Alexa have become a fun tag team and, because they've reeled back on Charlotte being a "main event only" talent, the kneejerk hate for her has faded away. Tiffany Stratton plateau'd as a character and worker, but she's 26 and it's not like she's fallen off a cliff - just maybe wasn't ready for the main event. Kairi Sane and Asuka are still around and very dependable. Sol Ruca in NXT has a sick finisher. Stephanie Vaquer, Lyra Valkyria, Blake Monroe, and Giulia are all works-in-progress, adjusting to the WWE, and its still too early to call any of them "flops," especially Vaquer, who has made the most strides of the three. Roxanne Perez and Raquel Rodriguez have both had moments when they've shown they're worthy of being on the main roster. Liv Morgan isn't a great wrestler, but, for a time there, she was probably among the top 2-3 most over women on the roster not named Rhea Ripley. Becky Lynch was never a super worker and her on-screen work pales in comparison to her Twitter game (where she's been doing a pretty funny Trump impersonation for the past year) but she's still a big name for the company and a valuable piece of the division. Chelsea Green was (is?) super over for a bit there. So...no, the roster isn't poor. In terms of depth, it is much, much deeper than AEW or TNA. Star-power, rising prospects, raw talent, in-ring workers, charismatic characters, it's all there. But, see, the WWE are stupid so, based on just a cursory look at the card, they've taken this all-time great assemblage of talent and stars and booked them so poorly and with such a lack of understanding chemistry or character that you wouldn't be wrong to think the division sucked. IYO SKY: arguably the best women's wrestler on the planet, isn't on either night of a 2-night show. Ditto for Kairi Sane, Asuka, and Stratton (deserved or not, they made a huge deal of her last year and this year she's a non-factor). Liv Morgan: ready-made "comeback from injury" babyface storyline squandered so she could come back, rejoin a stable that was getting stale before her injury last June, and become a singer/dancer reminiscent of the best-forgotten Jillian Hall character. And then she beats Vaquer in under 8 minutes, a wrestler who really shines best when the WWE gets out of their own way and lets her wrestle. The feud will likely continue but who even cares? Becky Lynch: Based on my limited viewing of a clip here or there popping up in my social media feeds, Lynch has been mired in a months-long feud with AJ Lee that feels like a side-plot of the years-long Punk/Rollins feud and never really took off on its own. It's actually kinda sad and embarrassing for both of them. I'm guessing they've tried to elevate it but, to a casual viewer, it gives "My Husband Hates Your Husband So I Hate You Too, Let's Fight!" rather than an actual rivalry over a real personal issue. The opposite of creative, the opposite of interesting, just putridly staid, paint-by-number stuff. Charlotte and Alexa: Over with live crowds, have established good chemistry with interesting hints at a potential split over the past year that could've been the basis of an emotional story...all of it pushed aside so we can spotlight The Bellas and Paige, stars from a decade ago. Bayley wrote a thoughtful piece on social media about the importance of the Women's Tag Team Championships and, even without watching the shows in months, I can assure you nobody in the writer's room gives even 1/100th of the shit she does. Chelsea Green: Injured, but also, instead of making her the host or giving her some sort of backstage segment or doing really anything to keep her momentum, let's just air parts of the Hulk Hogan documentary. Rhea Ripley: Put in the unenviable position of having to carry Jade Cargill tonight. They'll likely have a decent match (maybe even a very good match) because Ripley is a pro and they've probably spent the last 6 weeks rehearsing every spot so that Cargill doesn't look terrible. There's also a non-zero chance that it will be a car crash if Cargill gets lost or there's a hiccup that means she has to improvise a single sequence. Crazy as it sounds but if I hear the match is good-to-great, I probably won't watch it, but if it's an awful trainwreck, I'd be more likely to??