BillThompson

I think it makes sense to compare Flair’s post-50 output to other 50+ year old wrestlers, IF the rest of those wrestlers’ careers compare favorably to the rest of Flair's career. Wrestlers like Terry Funk and Lawler were clearly better at an older age than Flair. If I had Funk & Flair neck-and-neck over their careers to that point, Funk’s work at an old age would give him the edge. If I think Flair was a better worker as Funk for the bulk of their career, the fact that Funk was better than Flair at an age where most guys are retired and the majority that aren’t are not very good, doesn’t hold much weight in my evaluation. Flair’s WWE career as a guy in his mid-50’s shouldn’t be dismissed, but it has to be viewed in the proper context. If someone is deciding between Flair and Funk/Lawler at #5 on their list, then absolutely their 50+ work comes into play. If someone just generally drops Flair down a few pegs because he wasn’t a good 55 year old wrestler, I don’t agree with that. Well said, almost exactly how I feel about this issue. It's the same approach I take with actors, directors, etc. Being older isn't bad in and of itself, but if you are still wrestling at 55 and your matches aren't that good then it does negatively effect your overall career. I just can't look at someone's career and not see the whole package. The thing that helps most wrestlers is that an overwhelming majority of them get worse in their twilight years. That way most of them are on an even playing field of sorts.

Same boat as Thatcher? His career is twice as long, probably 5 times the matches and was on a higher level 7 years ago than Thatcher is now. I wasn't that high on Cesaro during his indie run. He's only really become an elite wrestler the past two years, and in that regard he's had about the same output as Thatcher, only not as high quality.

He'll probably make it for me. I hear all the arguments against him, and they aren't without their validity. The thing is, I value the skills he did have, and he impresses me very much in the great matches he is in. At the end of the day I think he has the volume of great matches/performances to make the list.

No, were he more active I'd lean towards yes. Has all the tools, the charisma, the personality, he just doesn't wrestle enough.

A definite yes, probably very high as well. The all time best face-in-peril certainly deserves a spot.

Nope, he had great stretches, but so much of his career was spent in terrible matches and terrible feuds.

Probably a bottom 100 guy for me. He does everything well, it's just that there are a bunch of guys I think do it better.

I need to see a lot more from AJ. I liked him well enough in TNA, but a lot of the time I felt he downgraded himself, if that makes any sense. He's shown that he has top flight skills, but in TNA he would defer to his more spotty tendencies. I haven't seen much of his non-TNA work though.

As much as I love Arn I'm not sure if he makes my list. He's on the very edge of the top 100, and I wouldn't begrudge anyone who does have him in their top 100. But, I think he made a career out of doing just what was needed of him and of being consistently very good. Both are admirable qualities in a pro wrestler, but I don't know if they're top 100 material.

I can see the arguments being made against, but I don't buy into those arguments. I'm not hesitant to say that Savage was the complete package; tremendous bumper, excellent seller, understood pacing and psychology splendidly, and could work over a crowd like no other. Very high up in my rankings.

Bock is in contention for my number one. Great work across a few decades, and the type of mat wrestler I lose my shit over on a regular basis.

I'll echo what Timbo said. Orndorff was the consummate pro, but the body of work for a list like this just isn't there.

In the same boat as Rogers; tremendously skilled and definitely has a shot at making it provided I can find enough footage.

Liger will make my list, it's just a question of where. He's the very definition of sustained longevity, and that has to count for something. Still, I often find myself taking Liger for granted, and I think that's due to how often he falls into the good but not great trap. Maybe not top 50, but definitely top 100.

I love Taka, but he's never done enough to make the list. Early M-Pro Taka is great and loads of fun, and I appreciate later dick heel Taka. But, he does have all those WWF years where while entertaining he didn't exactly set the world on fire in the ring.

Very enjoyable to watch, but I don't see him as a guy on my list. No real reason either, as shallow of an answer as that is, but he's just not a guy I watch and say, "Yep, top 100 right there."

Nope, and I can't really see a case for him making the list. Too much of his career was spent throwing, and too often botching, suplexes and being downright reckless in the ring to varying results. Then there's old Steiner who could connect with the crowd but often times stumbled around the ring due to a total lack of mobility.

I need to see more of younger Casas, because older Casas will be making my list. Almost flawless in the ring, the master at making his opponent look great, able to draw deep emotion from the crowd, and has an uncanny ability to transition from serious to comedy without losing a step.

Great promo, and he knew how to connect with the crowd, but I don't think the high end work is present.

I think I have him just a little below you Steve, which is to say I found him to always be an impressive bumper and a very solid worker. I don't think he's a top 100 guy though, because in his later years when the bumping was toned down I think his inability to be more than that shone too bright for him to overcome.

Had Luger's career ended in 1993 I think he would deserve consideration. It's true that for a while he was as green as grass and getting carried by far better workers. But, come 1988-1989 he really came into his own and was bringing just as much to a match as his opponents. 1989 Luger especially is very impressive, putting in work that I would rank with the very best of that year. Unfortunately post-1993 did happen, and that Luger is more often than not awful and drags Luger far away from making the list.

A few years ago I would have said he was at best a top 50 guy. However, after watching his 90s WWF output he's a definite contender for my top 10. So many great matches and feuds with a wide variety of guys. His WCW work doesn't help his cause, and I can see the argument that he didn't put in a high quality effort night in and night out. Still, when he did put in that effort I felt he was top notch and at a level very few ever reach.

A no for me, I've never been that impressed with Larry. I would gladly change my mind if his AWA stuff wowed me, but his work in WCW never made me think best of all time.

No, he's not awful, but I find him as bland as can be.

I'm eagerly anticipating making the time for the Ultimo Guerrero match, and as of right now he's a low end top 100 guy. Smooth in the ring, and a real tremendous understanding of placement of moves and ring positioning.