overbooked

Cable TV changes seem at the heart of this from a practical, rather than political, perspective, but more broadly a move away from the local to the national/international culturally. It also seems wrestling was shifting from the spectacle as a means of making money from/pacifying the masses to consumerism/product fetishism doing the same thing. This was a broader cultural shift seen in say, the closure of cinemas and the rise of various home entertainments. The whole business model of the territories was built around the spectacle - the live show. WWF still made money from that, but the focus shifted to consumerism. Money was to be made from souvenirs, ice cream bars, action figures. Others tried that, but nowhere near as well. WWF became primarily a producer of product. They could make money purely through their products. The spectacle almost got in the way.

I think there are few moves more satisfying that a proper, knock-you-out-your-boots lariat.

I like lightning matches in principle - I have little time and a poor attention span. But in practice they often seem a bit disappointing. However, I think I just need to manage my expectations better. They are fun for what they are.

Just watched Rey Cometa vs. Cavernario and had some issues too. I didn't mind Cavernario being in charge so much, that seemed sensible all things considered, but when he was all over Cometa it all felt a little too controlled and not wild enough for Cavernario. Also Cometa didn't really come across that sympathetic, it seemed like there was more of a focus on cramming moves in rather than selling and general body language and storytelling and all that stuff. Saying that, the dives were great and it was a fun 10 minute TV match.

Was there ever the equivalent of the color line in wrestling? Did wrestling integrate before or after other sports? That may add to the argument...or not.

I think it would be good if this area was for broader discussions than just politics, a sort of space for wrestling critical theory, exploring wrestling from a number of angles. Wrestling writing has on the whole been restricted to match reviews, news and straight historical pieces. I think it would be fun to explore new modes of writing and new ways to analyse wrestling.

Isn't the root of this the fairly dull and obvious point that it is ultimately futile trying to create an objective list of subjective stuff, be it music, books, pro wrestling, whatever else? The best pro wrestling hits you in the heart and gut, not just the mind. And that is an intensely personal experience. Everyone looks for something different from watching pro wrestling, to varying degrees. And everyone has a different frame of reference, in terms of what wrestling they've watched, broader cultural experiences, circumstantial preferences that particular day/week/year etc. And it is all the above that makes watching, then talking, about wrestling so much fun. There isn't a formula to crack. There isn't an absolute right way to appreciate wrestling. The list is an illuminating snapshot of a subset of a subset of a certain type of fan. The process was clearly fun and valuable too, in and of itself. But I think lists work best when seen as the start of a discussion rather than the end of one.

It's a weird one, wrestling criticism. On the one hand, I remember contrary views against say, Jumbo, or Johnny Saint 15 years ago. This journey is nothing new. On the other hand, it is clear that more readily accessible footage has broadened discussions. But I'm not sure we yet have the breadth and depth that wrestling criticism deserves yet, which makes exercises such as this so valuable. This list will work best as a snapshot of wrestling fandom rather than any kind of impossible capital T Truth. But even then, it is only a snapshot of a certain bubble PWO lives within. You would have to be a certain kind of fan to even know the poll exists. It has been funny listening to podcasters suggesting certain picks are "controversial" when most people don't care that much about other people's picks and other voters have been genuinely controversial, probably inadvertently. It seems like the list will offer next steps and the ballots will offer perspective. This feels like the start of something, not the end. Seems like there could be a blueprint for wrestling discussion from this list.

Oh. Stupid me. Ignore me then. And perhaps even more stupidly, I can't find the thread. I was suggesting ordering the list by the "Average vote" mentioned under each entry on the main list. And I don't understand how an "Average vote" list could be created until the main list is complete. Thanks.

Oh. Stupid me. Ignore me then.

I think it is important to at least consider the context of a match, even if you don't actually watch the whole event. It would be easy to criticise a wrestler for working a particular way if you didn't understand the environment they were working in. There is also the issue that matches aren't booked or worked in isolation. They may be disappointing, but that may be because the workers were trying not to upstage the main event, or had to go out and work after a hot angle. The best events have a flow and have peaks and troughs - it doesn't hurt to be aware where a match falls within that wider narrative.

I would love to see an alternative list ordered by average vote. That way those wrestlers who are pretty much consensus picks still get valued, but so do those more niche wrestlers who were really touted by those who considered them. It wouldn't be the perfect system, as there isn't one, but it might put an interesting spin on the process without getting into awkward establishment versus newbies stuff.

I'm a Hansen guy. I'm also not really a strong Great Matches guy, although of course I enjoy good matches. I just don't see Great Matches as the key appeal of pro wrestling. I watch wrestling for those moments where it feels real, where it elicits a genuine, visceral, emotional reaction. That doesn't mean I don't engage with criticism or analysis, more that I think wrestling at its best transcends all that, or at least hides all the cracks and working parts. I want to feel moved by wrestling, for it to feel like a human interaction, not a clinical, purely intellectual pursuit. Snowflakes leave me cold. Excuse the pun. I find value in those little moments, those inconsequential matches. I find that value when there are moments that provoke a real emotion, and an emotion of the real. And I don't think anyone does that any better than Stan Hansen. He is such a force of nature that you have to believe. It doesn't just look real, it feels real, and by all accounts probably wasn't far off being real. Even when things don't fall perfectly in place, his matches present as being real, the struggle looks legitimate. And he does all that without resorting to shoot-style nonsense, he does it all within the parameters of proper pro wrestling. He is compelling to watch. He is exhausting to watch. He makes me believe again.

Watching some of that stuff was a revelation, that both guys were that good that early on. The crowds too!

Failure to engage with the possible reasons behind a tragedy means we're doomed to repeat it. It seems far easier to write the Benoit murderss off as a one-off than acknowledge that wrestling played a big part in what happened, and that this isn't just about watching Benoit but us contining to watch and support an entertainment that will almost certainly lead to more tragedies.

Concerned by this podcasting arms race. It is only a matter of time before one of you guys decides to just 24 hour live stream your life. All of these are shows are great listening though...

Yep, I meant moral disconnect. I'm very much in the camp of wanting and needing to emotionally connect with wrestling, rather than just viewing analytically from a distance. One of my key criteria for my 100 was the ability a wrestler had to make me believe in some sense or other. However, to enjoy wrestling like that I also have to remove myself from the reality that this particular form of entertainment directly and indirectly leads to some pretty horrible and tragic things happening. After Eddie and then Benoit I drifted away from wrestling as the whole form made me feel queasy. I found it hard to watch old footage as I saw a load of deaths, found it hard to watch contemporary wrestling as I was distracted by the possibility of the tragedy to come. Returning to wrestling years later did require some sort of moral disconnect, and emotional disconnect on a "real life" not storyline/match level. It is an odd thing, as I see emotional manipulation at the heart of good wrestling, yet there is this really problematic layer underneath it all.

Professional wrestling has been directly or indirectly responsible for many, many horrendous incidents and early deaths. I genuinely think to be a a wrestling fan you need to have some sort of emotional and/or moral discontent from that, otherwise it would be impossible to enjoy virtually any match as you would be so aware of its consequences.

I voted for him but I think my vote was really for that kid who jumped up and down when he won the title.

I think I watch lucha through "lucha eyes". But then again, I watch wrestling through "wrestling eyes". Pretty fundamental and universal stuff like irish whips, for example, look pretty absurd with a critical, non-wrestling eye. And I watch different styles through different eyes too. I guess you could say I have a lot of eyes. If I'm watching a Southern tag I understand the context, the formula and the tropes involved, otherwise I'd just be annoyed by a referee incapable of turning around, a face on the apron who doesn't get interfering doesn't help etc etc. Essentially, there isn't a universal formula or context for pro wrestling. However, if you've grown up on a particular style, or are more familiar with some kinds of wrestling than others, then it is easy to feel like every genre of wrestling should tick certain boxes. Lucha is far more distinctive than most styles, so I think generally is quite difficult to engage with. It seems to inhabit its own "world" more than most styles. I also think one of the main joys of lucha is the sheer chaos and confusion within. Once I accepted, and then enjoyed, being bemused, confused and perplexed by lucha then it really clicked for me. The random elements, the unpredictability, the inherently unhinged nature of the brawls, dives and wacky submissions is what makes it so exhilarating and fun to watch, but also in its own way a really satisfying challenge too. The lucha and jazz comparisons make sense, but I see lucha more like modernist literature - I don't always know what is going on, but that doesn't stop me enjoying it. And when I'm able to take something from it, it is far more satisfying that your bog-standard mainstream narrative where I can see where the strings are being pulled. All of this makes lucha really tricky to engage with on a critical level. Let's go back to that Southern tag. It is such a standard, and easy to understand, narrative that it doesn't take a whole lot of skill and intelligence to break that sort of match down and see if it works. The style lends itself to that sort of analysis. Lucha is far more about the intangibles, about the feel, and ultimately about the confusion. I think to appreciate it takes a particular mindset, or more the willingness to give up on previous wrestling mindsets. I think to properly analyse it takes a very different set of tools than the tools we would use for most other wrestling criticism.

Yep. The list should only get more reasonable/predictable as it goes on. As one of those lurking, non-PWO regular voters may I reassure those who are concerned: 1. My ballot was pretty bland and non-wacky 2. I didn't vote for Kurt Angle I doubt I'm alone with the above.

I like how at this stage you can pick any six names, and you have your very own fantasy mid 90s WAR six-man tag.

I think it is worth differentiating comedy in wrestling matches and comedy wrestling. The former can work as it is generally within the internal logic of wrestling, offering light relief within a wider narrative. The latter is more of a problem to me as the comedy is the logic and the narrative. Re: Joey Ryan. Is the issue his act, or is the issue actually that his act got mainstream coverage?

Bret Hart? Maybe not big enough, but otherwise effective up and down the card, can have great matches with good workers and can carry stiffs too. Really good face and heel work. Sure, he has his faults, but I think he's a good candidate.

I completely understand a frustration with formula. It can make wrestling seem tired, predictable and phony. But. I also think formula is vital. It is the language of wrestling. Within moves, sequences, angles there are a series of cues and prompts to guide and provoke the audience. Formula provides wrestling with its internal logic to work from, riff from, and ultimately deviate from. Obviously each style of wrestling has its own formula, own language. And half the fun is in deciphering that formula so that when there is a departure from it what you see makes sense and doesn't just come across as a confusing mess.