The Man in Blak

Brock is one of the biggest crossover stars for the company and arguably the biggest crossover star they've ever had on the wrestling/MMA spectrum - he's a former UFC heavyweight champion that immediately lends any match he's in a sense of legitimacy. He has more leverage over the company than the rest of the full-time roster combined and, not only does he know it, but the fans know it and that lends any of his matches the potential for something unpredictable to happen. I don't say these things to celebrate Brock as a performer, necessarily, but I do think it's kind of silly to keep comparing him to a guy that's such an unthinkably talented monster that he hasn't even had a match in three years. The WWE machine is powerful and they've certainly shown that they're willing to be stubborn, but I would suggest that even Ryback would quickly reach its limits trying to recreate the Lesnar phenomenon.

I feel like a candidacy for Trish is less of an argument for her resume and more of a proxy argument for how much context (or let’s say “environmental or external factors”) weighs into your ballots and how that sort of consideration carries over to other workers. Five years is a long time to dig into the contexts of all the candidates, Trish included. I think we can make the most of that time.

Okay, now that I've watched that match, I am very interested to hear what makes those performances stand out because, to me, it's a decent but ultimately forgettable match. If anything, I would actually credit the agenting more than the Rock and Waltman (though they did their jobs well too) -- the run-ins and interference spots with DX were expertly setup and the near-fall from the retaliation low blow (due to HHH distracting the ref) did a great job of hooking the crowd. But, to me, that's less about anything that Waltman added to the match and more about the value of good booking and good layout. Before the shenanigans, it's standard shine-heel-comeback stuff that's done well, but not necessarily elevated. What elements of Waltman's performance upped the stakes for you? If your definition of the Attitude Era includes 2000, then I feel like there is a whole raft of matches between Hunter, Rock and Angle that year that would absolutely be in that discussion - how does this match compare with those?

Yeah, this is basically where I landed with Waltman last time around. I figure I'm going to catch more of his TNA work, as I'm trying to do a more thorough journey through TNA/Impact footage this time around, but so much of his WWF and WCW work after 1997 left me cold. Also, what are the standout heel performances to check out for Waltman? One of the reasons he barely missed my list last time around was that I thought he was disastrous as a heel in general (and especially late in his WWE run with X-Factor).

I half-agree with this. Thumbs up for ditching subjective/objective divides, thumbs down for defining strict criteria for evaluation. What’s tricky is that some of the best discussions from GWE were actually the ones where people articulated and defended their criteria at length. For all of the angst surrounding GMT and BIGLAV, I actually think the discussions in those threads were the most useful in helping me form my own criteria. Those discussions became adversarial when they became pitched as truth vs. opinion, as though people that didn’t subscribe to a particular set of criteria were ignorant fools that were ruining the vote. *That* is what soured so much of the process, especially at the end when it came to discussion of the results. My suggestion wouldn’t be to limit the vote to people that participate in the threads (or discord, whatever), but to take cross-sections of the voting data based on simple, measurable things: have a result set for all votes, a result set of people who posted in the forum/discord, a result set of people who posted and nominated a wrestler, etc. It’s an idea that came up a little too late (after the results, IIRC) for 2016, but it seems feasible for 2026 if we can plan ahead for it.

So, I haven’t subscribed to the Network since the Saudi shows, but we already had a Peacock subscription and I noticed that they added an episode of Evolve on there today: Kyle O’Reilly vs. Ricochet and Bryan Danielson vs. Munenori Sawa. Did they have Evolve on the Network before?

I think Hiromu/Taiji felt long because Takahashi spent what felt like fifteen minutes walking directly into forearm shots from Ishimori over and over again.

Cornette has said in various shoot interviews that he had brought up the idea of a double-cross (albeit with someone like Shamrock) early on when things were starting to get more acrimonious with Bret, so it would be a little surprising to hear that he had a more involved role in it after that. Cornette has never seemed shy about his involvement with anything else - why spend years downplaying his role here?

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn't have to mean we have to be lazy about the compromises we make in what we consume or support. I cancelled my network membership after the last Saudi event and my biggest regret in the months that have gone by is that I didn't do it sooner -- for me, the WWE wasn't worth making that compromise. Sometimes, it doesn't have to be a line crossed as much as a levee finally breaking. But, like Loss and Al, I also think that sort of decision is always a personal one. If you want to make your case as a broader part of The Discourse, so be it; talking about this stuff can help clarify that decision for other people, as well as yourself. But all that discussion will never change the fact that everyone's math is always going to be different.

Congratulations on the relaunch! One question that jumped to mind - have you considered opening a PWO Patreon? There are a number of independent sites or creators that use Patreon to allow their communities to support their work.

I think the forum was worth a shot and I'm thankful that it existed but, in retrospect, the timing was all wrong. It was a natural home for some of the extracurricular discussion that spun out of GWE, but the ending and fallout from GWE also put a lot of that discussion on ice.

I'd actually say it's a triple whammy because I feel like his original heel turn that broke up the Shield is a candidate for this discussion as well.

Fuck, America conducts much of its foreign policy at the behest of Saudi Arabia. If you're an America, billions of dollars of your tax money are going toward military operations and funding that serves no legitimate American interest, because Saudi Arabia desires it. And several hundred thousands of Middle Easterners in places like Yemen and Syria are murdered in the process. So all in all, I think WWE putting on a wrestling show there shouldn't produce too much outrage in comparison.Or you can see both things as being repellant and worthy of outrage. This doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. http://wrestlingnews.co/wwe-news/vince-mcmahons-reaction-to-titus-oneils-epic-botch-at-the-greatest-royal-rumble It's only been a couple of years or so since McMahon had to be talked down from firing Titus after their "altercation" at the end of Raw, so this shouldn't surprise anybody.

Oh, sure, when I think of undefeated streaks in wrestling, I immediately think of Tatanka's thrilling countout win against Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania IX and his five-minute marathons with Rick Martel. I mean, did anything have more juice than "The Narcissist" Lex Luger earning a bigger babyface pop than Tatanka after a fifteen-minute draw at King of the Ring '93?

The defense of the promo was bad -- and once Prichard said that Gewirtz wrote it, you had to know it was coming -- but I actually thought the discussion that immediately followed it was more, um, illuminating: - countering that people would have thought it was okay if the Rock had said "nappy hair" instead - calling Booker a "realist" for going with the flow (including a offhand mention/joke of "you're black? really?" after saying how Booker is proud and is willing to stand up for "being a man") - a bizarre hokey-pokey into a discussion of minority stars like JYD, Eddy, Rey Misterio and (amazingly) Alberto Del Rio being draws because they drew "everybody", while also asserting that it's Marketing 101 to market minority stars to their groups/communities Without getting into more political territory (since there's a whole forum for that), I'll just say that I don't think it's all that hard to discern how Prichard views the situation if you consider those comments and the rest of the defense that Bruce tried to forward for the angle. He acknowledges that it was wrong, that it was a different time, and that he'd hope that 2018 WWE wouldn't go there, but he doesn't really say why. Ultimately, I think Bruce sees the controversy as being more about the blowback than the real underlying issue, which sort of reveals that he doesn't really see the issue at all (which is why he reflexively turtles up when Conrad pressures him on the R-word).

I think it's easier to say that when you've been a long-time wrestling fan, especially if you were watching Raw live in the 90s when Ross would needle Lawler about that on live broadcasts. In 2018, when Lawler is presented as a WWE Legend and the company itself is presented with an different corporate image, I don't think you can assume the broader audience has that same level of knowledge. I'd also agree with Bix that the general narrative surrounding this specific case is different than what's presented tangibly in the documents, even if it lines up with what most people "in the know" would infer.

It definitely bubbled over there, but I think frustrations were already simmering before that, even before the reveal of the final tally started. There had been so much dismissive and prescriptive judgment thrown around about people's criteria near the end of the process; once we made it to the reveal -- and the room for discussion about what the list could be began to disintegrate -- I think it was difficult to not draw conclusions.

The only alternative commentary podcasts that I've ever enjoyed are the match commentaries from Austin's podcast and it's primarily because they're short. Schiavone and (especially) Prichard can occasionally land on some insightful notes and subtleties about the production, but it's tough to slog through an entire three hour PPV to pick up five to ten minutes of worthwhile observations. As for the Prichard show in general, I think it's a good podcast, but it comes with a couple of caveats that become very clear after a couple of episodes. You're going to get an interesting view of the internal processes and machinations of the WWF/WWE creative team at the time, but you're never going to get any meaningful criticism of Vince or Triple H along the way because Bruce has so dutifully internalized and compartmentalized their faults. (Judging by the conversations with Vince that Bruce has shared on the podcast, that might be the only way to work with someone like Vince for so long.) You're also going to get a lot of gimmickry and schtick, even more than you might expect from a long running show. But I think it's a worthwhile listen, especially once you get past a dozen or so episodes. (The 1990 Survivor Series episode is a great place to start.) The difference between an earlier episode like Montreal -- an episode that was utterly useless and probably in contention with the Houston episode for the low point of the show -- and the episode on Bret's '97 run isn't that Bruce has softened up over time; it's that Conrad has become much more adept at navigating the issues that will make Bruce become reflexively defensive and getting a little closer to the truth. It might be a truth that Conrad has to recalibrate through Vince's (and, thus, Bruce's) skewed lens, like the straight-faced explanation that Crockett had crossed a line by getting into pay-per-view with Starrcade, but it's still a little closer to reality than the propaganda that you'll get from the WWE on the Network and other WWE-produced features.

I think we need to answer a different question first: are we moving forward with the (for lack of a better description) "wrestling in culture" subforum that has been proposed by Loss? I know we've already enjoyed a little bit of latitude with this discourse outside of the normal parameters for the "Only in Pro Wrestling Only" and I don't see the immediate response to this question offering any sort of finality to this discussion.

I want to try and expound further on this at some point when I have more time, but to keep it short and sweet: I think everything is political, even when it's deliberately intended and stated not to be, and that's probably the single biggest difference between the person I was ten years ago and the person I am today. Some things are more political than others, but I tend to find more value in criticism that acknowledges, incorporates and challenges cultural context as a part of its critique.

I think people should have voted with whatever criteria and exposure they wanted - the idea of a "purity test" for a given ballot is a poisonous one, regardless of the aesthetic philosophy that would set the baseline for such a thing. I see this exercise as an exploration on the journey to submit a ballot and, ideally, an ongoing exploration coming out of it. What bothers me, though, is that the featured postscript on this entire exercise seemed pretty content to put a bow on all of this, complete with conservative dogwhistles like "silent majority" to imply that the matter is settled because we have "consensus" now, even though a minimal amount of examination and introspection reveals a number of unanswered questions and concerns. I don't agree with everything Dylan has to say here -- I feel like a number of the points he was looking for in the input/output and subjective/objective discussions (which are not the same thing) were brought forward, albeit by some folks outside of the more well-known voices of the site -- but I feel like he's at least willing to examine and explore the implications of what the process and results mean for wrestling critique moving forward. That's a welcome message to me and, to be frank, it's a message that seems more in line with the other consolations that have been offered to folks that have, at one point or another, been frustrated with GWE.

Top 10 1. Terry Funk 2. Mitsuhara Misawa 3. Nick Bockwinkel 4. Tatsumi Fujinami 5. Jushin Liger 6. Negro Casas 7. El Satanico 8. Toshiaki Kawada 9. Stan Hansen 10. Daniel Bryan 11-25 11. Ric Flair 12. Eddie Guerrero 13. Shinya Hashimoto 14. Randy Savage 15. Jerry Lawler 16. El Hijo del Santo 17. Yoshiaki Fujiwara 18. Genichiro Tenryu 19. Buddy Rose 20. Rey Mysterio Jr. 21. Vader 22. Jumbo Tsuruta 23. Kenta Kobashi 24. El Dandy 25. Billy Robinson 26-50 26. Bret Hart 27. Jun Akiyama 28. Barry Windham 29. Sangre Chicana 30. William Regal 31. Jaguar Yokota 32. Dustin Rhodes 33. Ricky Steamboat 34. Yuki Ishikawa 35. Arn Anderson 36. Aja Kong 37. Akira Hokuto 38. Rick Martel 39. Bull Nakano 40. Jack Brisco 41. Chigusa Nagayo 42. Akira Taue 43. Kiyoshi Tamura 44. Blue Panther 45. Riki Choshu 46. Yoshihiro Tajiri 47. Shinobu Kandori 48. Naoki Sano 49. Fit Finlay 50. Mick Foley 51-75 51. Manami Toyota 52. Ricky Morton 53. Atsushi Onita (note: I also had Nigel McGuinness in this slot at one point, then clumsily forgot to add him to my GWE ballot) 54. LA Park 55. Jim Breaks 56. Harley Race 57. Dick Togo 58. Virus 59. Dynamite Kansai 60. Yoshihiro Takayama 61. Yoji Anjoh 62. Steve Austin 63. Sgt. Slaughter 64. Shinjiro Ohtani 65. 2 Cold Scorpio 66. Daisuke Ikeda 67. Carlos Colon 68. Devil Masami 69. John Cena 70. Bobby Eaton 71. Ronnie Garvin 72. Yoshinari Ogawa 73. Volk Han 74. Lo Ki 75. Chris Hero 76-100 76. Emilio Charles Jr. 77. Jerry Blackwell 78. Sabu 79. Bill Dundee 80. Owen Hart 81. Perro Aguayo 82. Greg Valentine 83. Andre the Giant 84. Tito Santana 85. Megumi Kudo 86. MS-1 87. Antonio Inoki 88. Samoa Joe 89. Brian Pillman 90. Pirata Morgan 91. Hiroshi Hase 92. Mayumi Ozaki 93. Christian 94. Masaaki Mochizuki 95. Undertaker 96. Steve Grey 97. CM Punk 98. Ted Dibiase 99. Wahoo McDaniel 100. Animal Hamaguchi Last ten cuts were Keiji Mutoh, Roddy Piper, Larry Zbyszko, Hector Garza, Johnny Saint, Minoru Suzuki, Kantaro Hoshino, El Samurai, Osamu Nishimura, Jon Cortez. As far as I know, I didn't have a high vote for anybody except for Funk at #1. If I had to change up anything, I would almost certainly swap Austin with Yoji Anjoh, if only because their current placements look so weird. There are a couple of other lowball votes that I'd like to adjust, in retrospect: the first and foremost is Bobby Eaton at #70, but Volk Han, Pirata Morgan, and Steve Grey all look a little low as well. Even though he wasn't the #101 cut, I'd probably put Saint into that 99 spot instead of Wahoo, just to get another WoS candidate on the ballot.

Thanks to everybody that took part in the discussion, submitted a ballot, recorded a podcast, and (especially) tabulated and posted the numbers.

To put it as concisely and as dispassionately as possible: there are some stunning mischaracterizations of what actually went down in the discussions as a part of this process. It's hard to tell how much of this is straw and how much of it is sheer lack of empathy; either way, pretty much everything that I found grating, petty and disappointing about GWE (which has otherwise been very rewarding to me as a fan) is not only present here, but in full plumage. An unflattering victory lap.

Yeah. Before Bryan's placement was revealed, I had a little ray of hope that he could have ended up #1 by virtue of being the only guy (at one point) who was on all ballots. If it's down to Flair and Funk with those numbers, I would be stunned if Flair didn't end up at the top. Funk was my number one, though.