Parties

I also forgot about Taker-Festus from Smackdown '08 - definitely one of the best Taker matches, possibly even the best. A hoss war that wouldn't have looked out of place on the Texas or Watts sets. Taker as "touring champion defending his world title on TV in a one-off against the local upstart" was really cool and different at the time, even if that match was pretty much the only time they ran with that idea.

I was trying to think of who I would compare '99 Taker to and the best I can come up with is Mil Muertes. Banderas is a much better worker, but the genuine scariness of that character and his status on the card feels similar in some ways.

I did vote for Benoit, in that I think there's more to be learned from the dissonance of "If this guy hadn't killed his family, he'd make almost every ballot". Look: a GWE poll is infinitely, universally insignificant compared to what happened to that family. Where he ranks, if he ranks, who votes for him, who else you vote for if not him - all of it is clearly so, so, so trivial in comparison to the real matter at hand. In no way did I vote for him out of any sort of lasting fandom. Far from it. We can all say "That guy isn't worth celebrating" and feel some sense of righteousness about it, but unfortunately I do think it's a little more complicated, in unknowable ways that are really uncomfortable and confusing to discuss. Not voting for him is completely understandable, and I haven't watched many (if any?) of his matches since. This was the guy who was #3 in the SC poll a year before his death. Most people in the IWC at the time thought that assessment was correct or close to it. To me one of the sad lessons of Benoit is that you can be one of the greatest artists in a field and still be either an unthinkably horrible person, or the product of extremely tragic and horrifically damaging mental collapse, or some combination of the two. Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and OJ came to mind in the process, but I realize none of those are really sound comparisons. It's a very disturbing idea, but in the end it felt more honest for me to include him than not include him. I might feel differently about it if I tried to retroactively watch more of his work: perhaps I'd be sickened by it and no longer think him to be that great artist. There's a cognitive dissonance at play: we don't want to believe that someone who did this could still be a "great wrestler", and we don't want to believe that a "great wrestler" would do this. That said, including him totally sucks, the place where I ranked him (middle of the ballot) is a really weird choice that I never really made peace with, and I'm not so heartless as to say that I don't have a lot of mixed feelings and perhaps even regrets about doing so. It certainly feels easier to leave him off altogether, but I can't say that doing so would feel quite accurate to my true read on the situation. To me, Benoit is one of the 100 greatest wrestlers of all time. And that is quite possibly the all-time worst thing about wrestling.

Most of the Taker matches being cited here aren't that good. Like I'm possibly one of the biggest Rey fans on this board and I'll say that the Rumble '10 match is underwhelming. None of the recent Mania stuff has worked for me, though I like the Batista match a lot and think it may be his overall best. That said I think '98-99 Undertaker actually doesn't get enough love. The opportunity to be a Satanic top heel in the Attitude Era brought out a good bloodthirst in him, where for a while it felt like he was getting real heat. He also had some of the right stuff in terrible situations: the Over the Edge match with Austin is good work (in some ways perhaps too good, given the circumstance), and I've long said that him and Big Show vs. Kane and X-Pac from Summerslam '99 is an inexplicably great match at a time when all four of those guys were purported to suck. The groin injury that put him out for like a year was either in that match or shortly thereafter.

Man, the pacing of this is awesome. I like that the top 20 are getting five days, as there's gonna end up being a ton of discussion on who's where.

38 fallen soldiers on my list: 413) Jackie Sato, 371) Kengo Kimura (highest voter), 364) Brazo de Oro, 357) Alan Sergeant, 343) Cassandro, 325) Kantaro Hoshino, 319) Espanto Jr., 312) Mascarita Sagrada, 257) Eric Embry, 233) El Solar, 232) Masakatsu Funaki (highest voter), 208) Osamu Nishimura, 202) Steve Keirn, 190) Gran Hamada, 189) Mocho Cota, 186) Kazuo Yamazaki, 179) Negro Navarro, 172) Yoshiaki Yatsu, 167) Dutch Mantell, 166) Michael Hayes, 164) La Fiera, 163) Terry Rudge, 160) Masa Saito, 155) Fuerza Guerrera, 151) Black Terry, 149) Sabu, 143) Villano III, 138) Marty Jones, 136) Butch Reed, 132) Antonio Inoki, 127) Alexander Otsuka, 126) Naoki Sano, 117) Pirata Morgan, 114) Jaguar Yokota, 111) Masa Fuchi, 110) Chigusa Nagayo, 108) Steve Grey, 105) Akira Maeda Of those, I can't say I have any regrets. I ranked them all where I think they should be. In terms of where these workers landed on the ballot, I'm not shocked by any of the rankings. I guess Jackie Sato should have been higher given the number of Joshi workers on the ballot? Kantaro Hoshino's fans are pretty passionate, and if you were a fan of the New Japan set, I feel like he warrants a vote. Gran Hamada should have done better, but I get that people don't feel like he has the matches on tape to get there. I can't really gripe about anyone who made the top 125 (or 126 in order to count Sano). One guy who I do genuinely think should have done better is Dutch Mantell. I thought he was amazing on the Memphis set, he kicks ass in Puerto Rico, and he has solid if unmemorable work elsewhere. Not sure if the Zeb stuff hurt him or if he's an afterthought even for Memphis fans, but I love that dude and #167 really is pretty good in its own right. There's no one I really regret not voting on. I completely forgot about Kikuchi when making my ballot, but I wouldn't have him over my 100 even though he is awesome and really close. Otherwise the only guys who I really feel bad couldn't make it on were second-or-third tier shoot style workers (in particular Yoji Anjoh, but also Nakano, Usuda, Greco, Ono, Yamamoto). Piper and Tajiri were both on my list before falling off. Backlund is a guy who I think is really fascinating and honestly probably does deserve to be top 100, but I didn't rank him as I've just seen too many weird matches of his fall apart, even is his best stuff is truly incredible. Overall having 62 of mine make the top 100 is awesome, and I'm pretty stoked to see the list. Of that remaining 38, there are some very solid choices of people who I didn't pick (Hogan, Austin, Cena, Slaughter, Samoa Joe) and probably ten or so that I don't agree with at all (Zayn, Angle, Michaels, Punk). The three people I'm most happy to see make the top 100 are Yuki Ishikawa, Daisuke Ikeda, and Dick Togo. That all three of those guys made it on completely validates this list. That Ishikawa and Ikeda both made it is particularly surprising as I did not have high hopes for Ikeda. Like, the idea that Ikeda made this list and Jaguar Yokota didn't is pretty weird. One guy who's barely come up in conversation who I'm really curious to see the placement on is Harley Race. He was #12 on the Smarkschoice poll, and I think as high as #2 or #3 on a less formal poll among DVDVR editors sometime in the early 2000s. He's felt like a huge non-entity in the discussion threads for a guy who 10 years ago was still strongly revered.

Listened to this yesterday and thought it was not only tremendous as a show, but that it actually enhanced my experience of the project. In laying out the various reasons for why people are/aren't on their lists, there's this very cool vibe of empathy through the whole thing wherein you get a sense of "favorites" who don't make the cut, why some are personal picks, others are on thanks to a shorter run, others for consistency, others still for their great ability to play their character/role. It kind of put into perspective that my own list contains a mix of different people for very different reasons, rather than holding all to the same standards. Strong recommendation that people check this out, along with the excellent Charles/Childs and the Grimmas/Tim shows (those being the only other ones I've had a chance to hear yet).

I don't consider him to be one at all: don't like his ROH stuff, find him pretty overrated in NXT compared to a lot of his peers there. Even if it is a pervasive opinion, the 2010s indie guys are too high for my taste. I have fewer objections to guys like Hero and Joe being this high, but neither made my list. But I've said elsewhere that I'm wary of having guys currently working/in their primes on my list. Cesaro barely made my 100 and he's the best of the bunch right now. I'm sure people will disagree with this, but Zayn feels like one of those picks that will make this list look dated in ten years. I wouldn't even say he comes close to Joe, Styles or Hero, either now or in overall career. But I tend to not be a fan of workrate babyfaces of Zayn's ilk.

Wait, Zayn is still in this? I'm sorry, but that's pretty bad. I'm not a Waltman fan, but Waltman is pretty similar to Zayn in terms of role/style/history/etc., and Waltman is better in every way. To say nothing of the 100-200 or so guys who've already fallen that I would have put ahead of Waltman.

If Flair ends up #1 (and for the record, I don't care at all whether he does or doesn't), it will say as much about WWE's successful marketing of wrestling's past over the last 10 years as it will about the votership. Flair doesn't strike me as someone who benefitted as much as others from the Youtube boom, but his DVD collections, retirement angle, and close association with both the WON and WWE HOFs hold a lot of water.

Too high a ranking for Low Ki. Such a self-serious ponce, and it hurts his work in the ring. I haven't yet seen the Mysterio match, but in terms of character I'll say that even when he was with the Rottweilers, he always came off to me as the type of kid in school who studied karate, had a pet snake, and would run away crying if anyone scuffed his sneakers in a fight. But I have no love for early ROH prior to Joe's reign of terror, so I get that he's acclaimed as a master of that style and era.

Steve Grey was my #33 and the 36th worker on my list to fall. I actually think the workers who rank in one's 30s are maybe the toughest of all to rank, in that on a different day I could have Grey as low as 45 or so. I have Breaks higher than him and hope at least one WoS guy cracks the top 100: it would be a bad under-representation if none of the British rounds style makes the cut. Grey was compared in his post to Tito Santana, but to me he could even be called the Danielson of that time and place, in terms of his character and methods.

There are many workers who've already dropped that I'd put over Larry, but the new appreciation for stuff like the Enforcers tag and the Regal match likely put him over the top. I enjoy his Dangerous Alliance run for sure, but I also wonder if his trifecta of being a WWF/AWA/WCW guy didn't help him a lot with U.S.-minded voters. Re: his shtick - it feels like poor man's Bockwinkel to me. The idea of watching a mediocre Larry Z match sounds brutal, but when you're really good in 3 or 4 of the better US matches of the 90s, a lot can be forgiven. Someone I probably need to watch more to be better informed.

Backlund vs. heel Hogan from the Spectrum in '80 is excellent. Hogan-Funk from SNME isn't great, but it's kind of amazing to watch those two together at the beginning of '86.

We’re a tribal species. We find consensus comforting. It is true that Shakespeare’s writing is widely loved: it has the ring of truth for many. But don’t you think that part of Shakespeare’s appeal is that he’s “Shakespeare”? We love him in part because we’re conditioned to believe he’s the best. We sniff out and reiterate the value in that which has been presented to us on a pedestal as not just brilliant, but “universally” brilliant. To adapt one of his better lines: Shakespeare achieved greatness, but from the way he’s thrust upon us today, you’d think he was born great. We want consensus for many of the same reasons we want gods. I don’t think any of us (or at least very few of us) are of the generation who crowned Flair, Kobashi, and Jumbo as pillars. There are other past aces who today carry less acclaim. Time kills all idols. Consensus in film criticism is a mixed bag. Citizen Kane was rejected by most on arrival, as were The Third Man, Psycho, Night of the Hunter, and Vertigo. The Shining was panned as a rare Kubrick misfire. Pretty much every David Lynch movie after Blue Velvet has suffered the same fate. Critics deemed Stanley Kramer highbrow and judged his stuff more favorably than his far more avant-garde contemporaries. Kurosawa took a lot of heat in his time. Note that in each of these cases, the work later deemed by “consensus” to be great is initially rejected for being too dark/edgy/different. So there's hope for us Eric Embry fans yet. We pursue consensus not to be "correct", but because community and commonality feel good. That doesn’t make consensus “objective” per se. Our opinions and beliefs are to me clearly shaped by that desire to agree with one another, or at least find our own sub-division who see things the way we do. I would be lying if I said that I’m not more inclined to like wrestlers held in high regard by people to whom I feel a kinship. Regal tells us to go watch Terry Rudge, and suddenly we all love Rudge. Partially because Rudge really is quite awesome, but also because we like learning more about Regal’s influences, deem his recommendation valuable, and want to feel hip and knowledged. Consensus in art is more of a desire to fit in than a lab-tested formula. To Parv’s point: it is not just an “accident of subjectivity”. If there were no discussion threads and we all voted based on our uninfluenced views, I suspect many of the rankings would be quite different. But in those threads, certain workers were touted or panned, rediscovered or diminished. That’s discussion, that’s influence, that’s subjectivity, all of which adds up to consensus.

I’m really trying to not take the bait on this conversation and I agree with OJ that its a byproduct of not having new rankings to discuss, but a few not-so-quick points here: * To paraphrase TomK’s perfect statement on this from a DVDVR thread years ago (I think it was something in Purotopia where people were likewise getting riled up about “tone” and their opinions being “challenged”): subjectivity is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of it. When met with a subjective opinion, there are a wealth of options beyond a shrug. What is debate if not a spirited analysis of subjective views? * If you sincerely believe that your own list of the one hundred greatest wrestlers of all time is in any way “objective”, then you are misusing the word. Applying “criteria” to a list of opinions does not make it (or anything else) objective, especially if one of those criterion is “intangibles”. The very fact that 150 other people submitted different lists makes the process inherently “subjective”, as is the case with virtually all assessments of art. Your list is entirely the product of your own biases, feelings, viewpoint, etc. “Objectivity” as a concept is in itself arguably subjective, given that it is used to describe both philosophical and scientific truths. As Parv correctly notes, “objectivity” is for the most part just an extension of consensus. Even those ideas which we hold to be most objective (laws of physics and natural science) are predicated on what we know of our world here and now, and will be constantly revised over generations, as they have been since time eternal. Recognition of one’s subjectivity is (in my opinion - ha!) a necessary facet of becoming emotionally mature. Getting comfortable with the idea of being human, etc. * “Passion” for a belief is entirely subjective, which is part of what separates passion (an emotion) from fact. If you don't believe me, ask that guy who cheated on Sandra Bullock. Passions are entirely worth discussing strongly: that’s what makes them passions. That they are singular to each individual does not deflate them: rather, it is what makes them wonderful, in that debate is as much an inquiry into our own psyche as it is into the minds of other people. * Despite my pedantic spiel here, I empathize with what Parv’s saying in that I personally wouldn’t get much out of making a list and then not talking about it. Or worse still, not talking about it and then getting frustrated when anyone else wondered why I voted the way that I did. “It’s all opinions” is a lame way to approach any conversation. I even think it’s fun and substantive to come up with one’s own criteria, as Parv did. But it’s important to recognize it as yours and yours alone, and that those who value the same concepts (“consistency”, “innovation”, “influence”, “carrying others”, “technique”, etc.) will each apply them differently, and often in contrast to their fellow voters. My “consistency” is not your “consistency”. I suspect a big component of this is that some people on message boards welcome debate of their views, while others view such discourse as combative: they just want to give their take without being questioned or scrutinized. I've always figured these are the types of people who think it's rude to discuss politics at the dinner table, but that's just a guess. To Parv's point: not all opinions are of equal merit - some are more knowledged than others. Which I think tends to be the pressure point in a lot of these wrestling convos about "subjectivity": people are uncomfortable with the idea that someone who disagrees with them may have seen more wrestling and thus likely have more insight. Personally, I'd rather be dead wrong (as I often am here) and learn something new than never get in the shark tank. There are people on here who've seen way more matches than I have, but I am comfortable disagreeing with some of their takes. * I don’t know which other worker rankings Woof is talking about besides Triple H at #120. Triple H is probably the most scrutinized figure in what have now been the first 20(ish) years of internet wrestling fandom. His matches and legacy are heavily criticized everywhere, though he clearly also has supporters. I don’t think any (maybe one or two?) of the people who voted for him have posted to talk about why he’s on their ballot. The ribbing of his placement (my own included) was pretty gentle and really not an affront to any other voter’s taste. Grimmas posting the voters is its own thing - maybe you think it’s in good fun, maybe not - but FWIW I’m someone who has said early and often that I think anonymous voting is lame and that ideally every voter for each worker would be posted. Not to hold a witch trial, but because it benefits conversation/context/a degree of genteel accountability/etc.

For what it's worth, Hogan is an extreme anomaly in that he's at minimum one of the 3-5 biggest stars in wrestling history (and to my mind he's probably #1). He went from being a pretty great wrestler from '80-'87 or even '88 into becoming a mediocre one at what probably should have been the end of his career (say, '92) and then into a genuinely terrible one in WCW before becoming the most problematic, detrimental guy in the business from '97 on. He's maybe the toughest guy to judge of all the nominees. He wasn't on my list, but I can't argue that when he was good, he was great, and that having an 8 year run where you're both damn good in the ring and the biggest act in the business (kicking off one of American wrestling's two all-time peaks) is a singular achievement (depending on how people feel about late 90s Austin). Hogan's contributions are so great that I understand people ranking him, but to me the damage he did and the horrible high-profile matches he had in the second half of his career made him into someone who I didn't want to endorse. People will argue that having polar extremes at the beginning/end of his career makes Hogan no different than Flair and Foley. Which is a fair argument, though Foley didn't make my list in large part because he was so bad and so overused for so long (I love, love, love him from the late 80s through '97). Flair's long peak (say '78-'90) vastly outweighs the 10 years from '01-'11 where he was awful (to the point of being one of the worst guys in the whole business to be regularly making tape during those years, as Dylan and others have noted).

I've been watching nothing but early 80s All Japan this week, and while I didn't vote for Dory, his stock is rising for me. His work in Memphis and Japan shows he actually had a lot of violence and fire when called for, and his technique is awesome. The "boring" rep is unfair even if his long singles matches sometimes fit that description. He's one of those cool examples like Finlay or Regal where he seems to have been at his best near the "end" of his day to day career (early to mid 80s, with the understanding that he worked matches here and there for 20 years after that). You can see Terry rubbing off on him as they got older together. I like his 80s stuff more than the 70s stuff I've seen from him, but even the late 70s tag stuff with Terry against Sheik/Abby/etc. is really well done.

As mentioned earlier, Fuchi is (same as Loss) my highest pick to go thus far at #27. In terms of my rank vs. where lots of others see him, he might be my most important "personal" pick. Though I'm surprised we haven't seen Maeda yet, and hope I'm not cursing him out of the top 100 in mentioning it. Fuchi has one of the best career/consistency cases on my list: great since at least 1981 (more likely '79 at the start of his Memphis run), and he's still watchable today. Was fantastic in the post-NOAH exodus AJPW, carrying the company with Kawada and Tenryu. Extremely underrated juniors champion in the 90s. Many great performances on the All Japan 80s set. But the thing that puts him over the top for me is his '90-'92 run as a tag worker with Jumbo, in matches where he genuinely outclasses Tsuruta as an aging heel staving off the new generation. His hatred and fire in those matches is on par with the best of what we would see from Hansen, Misawa, and Kawada in that era. But being great (or seemingly great based on what we have) for 20 years, plus 15 more years in his 50s and 60s as a very entertaining undercarder now still going at 62 is an amazing run. Having more of him from his 70s runs on the undercard of Mid-Atlantic and All Japan would be so damn amazing.

Alright, I genuinely LOLed at Sorrow's post. Kingliness is an underrated GWE criterion.

35 workers off my list so far - if I have 60 of mine in the top 100, that's actually amazing representation, and I'm not at all someone who really cares about where my picks rank on the overall list. That about 75 of my 100 made the overall top 150 is awesome: I have nothing to complain about in the overall rankings even if I think certain people getting as far as they have is wacky. And by certain people I mean Triple H. Mine that have fallen so far: 413) Jackie Sato, 371) Kengo Kimura (highest voter), 364) Brazo de Oro, 357) Alan Sergeant, 343) Cassandro, 325) Kantaro Hoshino, 319) Espanto Jr., 312) Mascarita Sagrada, 257) Eric Embry, 233) El Solar, 232) Masakatsu Funaki (highest voter), 208) Osamu Nishimura, 190) Gran Hamada, 189) Mocho Cota, 186) Kazuo Yamazaki, 179) Negro Navarro, 172) Yoshiaki Yatsu, 167) Dutch Mantell, 166) Michael Hayes, 164) La Fiera, 163) Terry Rudge, 160) Masa Saito, 155) Fuerza Guerrera, 151) Black Terry, 149) Sabu, 143) Villano III, 138) Marty Jones, 136) Butch Reed, 132) Antonio Inoki, 127) Alexander Otsuka, 126) Naoki Sano, 117) Pirata Morgan, 114) Jaguar Yokota, 111) Masa Fuchi, 110) Chigusa Nagayo. I had Funaki incredibly high (#37) as the second wave of UWF II is some of my all-time favorite stuff and Funaki was amazing in it. He also has his thrilling 1990-1991 run moving into PWFG/Pancrase, his great late-career run out of nowhere in 2010s AJPW where he showed up and was suddenly the best worker in Japan in his 40s, his prodigy run in late 80s NJPW. But his peaks in UWF II (the Backlund match, Anjoh, Fujiwara) are transcendent, and his bout with Tatsuo Nakano is (I'm pretty sure) one of my 5 to 10 all-time personal favorite matches, such that I regret not being able to include Nakano on my list (though I couldn't justify having him higher than #95 and I would have had to ditch too many more deserving career-run guys). I totally buy into the sometime-touted idea that it's the all-time greatest "under 10 minutes" match in wrestling history.

I would agree that he wasn't carried in those matches and totally forgot to mention the Vader feud, which is awesome. It is interesting to think that I have a guy like Terry Rudge on my list and like him way more than I like Sting, but that if you put their five best matches side by side they would look more comparable in skill than I think they really are. Is there any good Sting after '95 when he really started to take a backseat to the other stars in terms of the way he was booked? The GAB '95 match with Meng is the latest thing I've seen of his that stands out.

I had Fuchi at #27 and thought I might be the high vote on him. Felt the same way about Navarro and Terry, but wasn't the highest on any of them. In ways both beautiful and ugly, the variance of rankings among such a large number of voters has been amazing to watch.

If you go back a couple months ago into the thread of Highly Touted Workers Who Won't Make Your List, one of the names I mentioned for myself was Malenko. At the time people dismissed it, saying that Malenko doesn't get much love here. But I believe on a podcast even Will discussed him as someone he was ranking or at least considering. I don't say this as an attack or challenge, but to the people who voted for Sting: what got him on your list? Saying someone was pretty good in TNA and had a better Rollins match than expected doesn't seem like enough to me, though I get that he's been favorably viewed as a legend the last couple years. But what were the matches/performances that caused him to make so many ballots? The Flair stuff? Cactus? NWO stronghold? Voting on "ace" rep/star power? Childhood love? Sting was just never my guy, and even in youth I thought little of him, so I'm genuinely curious what people like about him, esp. since so much of the PWO podcast crew conversation of late has been around "Sting shouldn't be in the WON HOF, Sting was not a draw or a good worker", kind of treating him as a fallacy in comparison to the reevaluation of Luger, etc.

Yeah, Webb's post was great. I revise my SMH to a simple ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As noted in the post, it's the most extreme case yet of "I voted off what I enjoy", but sure, why not. I think I initially assumed troll because of the Botchamania cult of Scott Steiner that's built up over the years where he's become a go-to parody. But I will never look on at a Steiner Screwdriver with anything less than awe, so shine on, diamond.