Shining Wiz

I'll have to watch more of his AJPW stuff, but off the top of my head he's just below Vader and Hansen in the big man ass kicker category. He stood out as something different in WCCW and I really enjoyed him in mid-south/UWF. Also have a soft spot for his WCW tag run with Williams in 92-93.

Probably going to be quite high on my list. One of a small group of guys who kept my fandom alive during a period where YouTube wasn't what it is and everything readily available was awful. One of the few wrestlers whose character comes through in almost everything they do in the ring, jumping up several levels beyond what his matches would be otherwise. And, for all the knocks his in ring work takes from a lot of people, there is a pretty solid list of wrestlers who had their best matches against Punk, and I think that might end up being a big part of my voting criteria.

Daniel Bryan, Ricky Steamboat and Misawa would probably be my top 3 right now if you put a gun to my head. I'm looking forward to seeing how that changes with refreshing myself on some (Bockwinkle) and being introduced to others, having some good sized Lucia, WOS and joshi gaps in my fandom. I also have a dark horse who hasn't been nominated yet who I would likely rank higher than most. I will get around to nominating a few candidates soon.

Just because they land doesn't mean they're good. When it comes to pro wrestling, that could actually be the definition of a bad punch.

As you can tell, I'm pretty negative on Necro belonging on this list. I can't think of any reason to even consider him among the top 100. His punches were horrible, I can't think of a single move he did well that doesn't involve a staple gun and......he's just not good. I will admit he was a fun part of the ROH and CZW feud because he was different, but just look at how pointless his ROH run was after that. He's a guy who got over purely on spectacle, and stayed over for a short time because of more spectacles, and quickly faded away. This all sounds like I am way more invested in his exclusion than is reality, but I was really shocked to see him listed.

I saw that match live. Really fun brawl, but neither guy is remotely top 100 worthy.

By "The Guy", I would limit that tos Bruno, Backlund, Hogan, Austin and Cena. Savage never overtook Hogan, Bret was the champion, but never the guy the way the others were. As for the STF, using it as a choke would be illegal! (Please read in a joking voice). Less jokingly, it is meant to go across the face though......the F does stand for face lock.

A point for discussion: Of all "The Guy"'s in WWWF/WWF/WWE history, Cena is behind only Austin as a worker.

Wow.

It's going to be fact specific to each case I think. I'd want to see a minimum of three matches, against three different opponents over at least a couple of years to be certain. Roughly. In general.

I'm prepared to be lambasted for this, but he's a strong contender for #1 for me.

I've seen a fair amount late 80s Jarrett, which while not bad still never blew me away. I'll check out some early 90's, but I am very top 100 doubtful.

I don't buy Lawler as not physically skilled, he is still throwing a dropkick in his 60's and is a really athletic bumper, he isn't AR Fox or someone, but he has plenty of physical skill I don't mean to say he's as un athletic as I am, I just mean out of wrestlers who are going to make my top 100, he's going to be at the bottom athletically.

Of all the names on the list, this stands out to me as the least deserving. By no means was he a bad wrestler in his prime, but even at his best he was as bland as wonder bread.

Best fat wrestler ever?

In a technical sense, Lawler is going to be the least physically skilled wrestler in my top 100. But he has just about every intangible you can imagine in spades. Being a god in Memphis really adds to his matches as well. He is probably the epitome of charisma raising someone up 3 or 4 levels in the ring.

Yes.....I see that now.

Are nominees going to have individual threads where they are discussed? Or is everything going to be contained in the nominees thread?

I think it's an obvious factor that has to be taken into account, but position on the card is not determinative one way or the other. If someone moves away from main events and but still puts on good matches for a few more years in openers, I'm not going to penalize them for not being in the main event. That being said, people in the main event often get put in the position to have better matches. Particularly with the kind of people we're going to be talking about here, main event spots often equal the chance to put on a classic. That being said, being in main event position for 30 years, with at least 10 of those WAYYYYY past your prime isn't going to help someone out in my eyes, and it may even hurt them since they're still in that position to put on classics, but their inability to do so is gong to be more glaring because of that. Guys who know their limitations and how to work with them get a + in my book.

+1

The purpose it to promote discussion and to re-evaluate. Anyone getting a vote should at least have some discussion on there matches. Also, it means that that footage must exist to be nominated. I am completely on board with the discussion/need for video. Just limiting it to matches reviewed here is the part I was concerned with. The discussion will obviously happen once their nominated, and if there is no video available, then eliminate them. I say let the discussion be fresh and with our purpose in mind, not using someone else's/your own older out of context opinions for a starting point. Again, just my two cents.

Your deal, your rules, so run this however you like, but why the three match review rule?

Don't you end up running the risk of making a list of who people think are the best ever, as opposed to making a list of who you actually think is better? I mean, it's wrestling......it's not the same as saying your favourite tennis player to watch is Andy Roddick, but Roger Federer is obviously the better player. If the point of pro wrestling is to enjoy what you're watching, isn't the wrestler you enjoy watching more the better wrestler, even if only to you?

If you love watching DDP wrestle, but don't enjoy Toyota, or at least enjoy DDP more, why would you rank her over him?

Since I know it will be well thought out and backed up with evidence, I'm curious about your opinion of Punk. I'm not averse to the notion of Punk as a Hall of Famer, but to me there is absolutely no good reason to vote for him now, especially with the new rule threatening a litany of candidates with resumes at least as good as - and in many cases clearly better than - his. But even setting that aside there are two problems I have with Punk relative to this years ballot. A. I think he's a borderline candidate at best at this point. This sounds more dismissive than I mean it to sound because I think it is possible that in five-ten years time Punk's argument on influence is going to have the sort of perspective it needs to be a really serious one. But it's too early to tell. As a star, he was not someone I saw as a top tier guy for very long at all, and in some ways I NEVER saw him as a top tier guy. He was a merch mover of note, but he's a guy who came out of his run as ace - which was really long - looking worse than he did coming in. That's not his fault, but it bothers me when thinking about him as a candidate. He is also a weird case of guy who's peak matches and angles are all time greats, but doesn't stand out as someone I could seriously consider an all time great worker. B. He's not one of the ten best guys on the ballot. He just isn't. I could run down the list of guys who I think he's a better candidate than, but not sure that's what you are asking for. I was just curious.....actually sounds like we have similar thoughts in that Punk is an overachiever in that he had way better matches than his physical ability suggested he should have been capable of. I think that might be more of a mark in his favour to me than it seems to be to you, but I completely see what you're saying. Seems like a big problem is guys becoming eligible too early. I know wrestlers never really retire, so that can't be the point of eligibility, but 15 years after starting seems to invite issues like Tanahashi last year and Punk this year. But I don't have a vote, so it's no biggie to me.