BillThompson

I was wondering yesterday how we're factoring in tag teams? Is this strictly a project for individual wrestlers, or are we nominating tag teams as well? I'd be perfectly fine with it being for individual wrestlers and maybe later doing a poll just for tag teams. That's my two cents at least.

It either Hansen or Hijo del Santo for me presently. Guys like Vader, Flair, Funk, and Hashimoto probably have an outside shot. But, when it comes down to having very complete and very long careers with sustained levels of greatness Hansen and Santo set themselves apart from the pack.

I always thought Butcher had great punches, they were similar to Lawler in their appeal being that they actually hit. On the other side of the coin would be someone like Matt Hardy who I've always thought has terrific worked punches, where he's barely connecting but it looks like he's hitting the guy right in the sweet spot.

Ugh, that's right, that's what I get for typing off the top of my head.

I really need to see some more of his AWA stuff, and his early WWF stuff. Because based on his later WWF and WCW stuff he probably doesn't make the cut but I can see a wrestler who with a better body of work could make the cut.

Foley is going to be an interesting case, because I really do see the argument for him being top 100 or 50 of all time. He had plenty of great matches and before his body started letting him down he was the kind of wrestler you could count on to give an all out performance regardless of venue, opponent, or placement on the card. What really makes Mick shine is his ability to have different types of matches with different wrestlers where his base approach remained much the same. As Dude Love he had some great comedy matches, of particular note is his MOTYC against HHH at One Night Only, where he was able to generate great crowd interest through comedy spots. As Mankind he was the crazy bumper and madman who then turned into a beloved sympathy machine. Finally there's his Cactus Jack persona, which is my favorite, and the forebearer to his time as plain Mick Foley, where he was all three personas at the same time encompassing a very complete pro wrestler.

Did Shawn have plenty of great matches, yes, I won't deny that. However, he's a wrestler that upon closer inspection belongs nowhere near a greatest of all time list. He often put in listless performances in matches that he didn't think mattered. If it wasn't a gimmick match or he wasn't in the ring with a better worker it became all too clear what his limitations were as a wrestler. There were massive holes in his selling, bumping, offense, etc. Honestly, to borrow from the Ultimo thread, if this were a list of the greatest 500 wrestlers of all time Shawn wouldn't be on that list of 500.

Regal has a shot at making my top 10. I think the body of work is there in regards to great matches, but what really aids him is that the body of work is there of him being great in tons of average to merely good matches.

I wouldn't call Ultimo trash, he's still someone I'd consider a great wrestler. However, great enough to be on a greatest of all time list, no.

His brawl versus Chessman from earlier this year is a prime example of great old man Villano III bleeding and brawling for your enjoyment.

Watching the first Santo matches on the 80s set confirmed him as a possible #1 for me. There's a fluidity to his style that is believable in a way that fluid wrestling often isn't. I'm not really looking to knock Christopher Daniels, but too often I find his stuff to be so fluid that it's too choreographed. Santo has the same level of fluidity, but he makes it look so real, and so earned that I believe he's really that fluid and that graceful and not just taking part in a well choreographed dance. The 80s stuff also shows his inventiveness, like how he reaches for a behind the back arm drag during a running the ropes exchange, a move I've never seen anyone try since.

Just for clarification purposes: if a wrestler already has three matches reviewed here on PWO we can post those when we nominate the wrestler, but if they don't then we can start a microscope thread for the wrestler and post three of our own reviews so they can be nominated?

On the above point, if I think a career mid-carder is deserving of being among the best of all-time then I will certainly nominate him/her. I'm looking for quality of wrestler, not placement on the card. It doesn't mean that it's all I'm familiar with either, but that I legitimately think Wrestler A deserves consideration as one of the greatest of all time. My criteria is probably hedging towards being close to Matt's. I'm looking big picture, and what a wrestler brought to each and every match. Great matches will certainly help, but if I think Wrestler B is great in a squash then that's still a great performance.

I like this idea. My main issue with drawing and context is, why should I care? It's great that a match drew a ton or was important to the history of wrestling, but ultimately all that matters to me is match quality. Not even in a workrate sense, but just that the match be of a certain quality. I have never read a compelling argument for why a match making money for a promoter should matter when it comes to that match being viewed as a great, good, bad, etc. match. To use an analogy, Transformers made a ton of money, it drew huge and one could argue that it's use of CG was important. But, neither of those things matter when it comes to the actual quality of the film. Wrestling and wrestling matches are the same, making money is great for those who get some of the money but otherwise it's a metric that has little to no value in a respectable "greatest of" discussion. (Unless of course that discussion is specifically about who drew the most/made the most money).

If we factor in drawing then I'm out, as that's not an element that matters to me whatsoever. I'm in the minority I know, and it will still be a worthwhile project, just not one I feel the need to contribute to.

He hit his spots like a robot, with no meaning or emotion behind them. And at the end of the day outside of the Red Arrow his spots aren't that impressive.

On the NXT match, it was pretty good, but like usual Neville dragged everyone else down. He's only good as a spot machine, and even there he's far behind the others in that match.

I agree with Sam, really like this as a concept. I've never hidden the fact that I am very much a project watcher, and this, along with the GOAT project, and my own personal projects will give me more than enough structured watching for some time to come.

Interesting, I thought this one was good, but it paled compared to the Dungeon match. That came across to me as containing more ingenuity, more savagery, and a smarter all around layout compared to this match.

I like the more simplified approach we're currently going with. I feel that if we keep splintering it and making the process more complicated then it will become more like a job than a fun project.

Rewatching a lot of old WCW I find this very much to not be the case. From the moment he starts in WCW Regal gets psychology and structure better than most of the roster. That's why him in throwaway matches with the likes of Iaukea never actually felt like throwaway matches. Because it is a better match? It's worked better, has a better finish, tells a better in-ring story, etc.

I'd be down for this.

Those matches won't influence a generation of wrestlers though. What happens in the ring, IMO, is only one part of what makes a match great. This goes back to the WWE's incredibly ability to make its history matter (when it wants to, which it usually doesn't for NXT). And while I'll readily admit I haven't seen the match, I honestly have a hard time believing that a flabby, unmotivated Kassius Ohno was better than Steamboat or Macho Man at anything on any day. I get that these ROH indy guys have a following on the internet, but that seems like a pretty big stretch. I'm not sure on your first point. You can already see Regal's influence in the young talent in the WWE today. Did any of those matches have the same reach or impact as Steamboat/Savage, no, they didn't. But, the matches I listed have shown to be influential to the current crop of young WWE talent, and at the end of the day they are examples of great in-ring wrestling and that's all that really matters to me. Your second point doesn't merit much of a response as it's a complete strawman. Especially directed towards me, a guy who is usually very critical of RoH and most of their big names. But, great wrestling is great wrestling, doesn't matter where it comes from or who is involved. Then there's your unmotivated comment, watch two minutes of that match and I can't see anyone coming away saying Ohno was unmotivated.

I loathe the Attitude Era, and there's very little work that impresses from that time period. Even guys like Austin and Foley who I really enjoy in the ring are shells of themselves during the Attitude Era. Sure, they were over, they brought in big crowds, huge ratings, and sold lots of merchandise. But where it matters to me, in the ring and in the angles, what came out of the Attitude Era was trash. Now, that being said it doesn't hurt Austin or Foley that much because of what they did before, and the little they did after.

I adore Regal, but has he EVER had a match as good as Savage/Steamboat? Regal/Ohno is far better, while Regal/Cesaro and Regal/Steamboat from Fall Brawl '93 are around the same level, maybe slightly better.