JRGoldman

I've been watching a lot of DWB stuff recently because I thought of him as sort of a hole in my viewing previously, and I think he's made his way on to my list and is slowly climbing. I think he just so clearly understands his role in what I've watched of him. Really does nothing to come across as likable, which is a lost art. He bumps huge. He's one of those people that bumps like there is extra gravity around him just slamming himself in to the mat. Muta does that on offense to make his stuff look better, but I can't think of too many people that crack down so hard to make other people look good.

I'm not sure anyone fits the bill better than Onita. I think on other parts of the internet, Undertaker would probably get a lot of love for this question. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it's probably a major opinion.

If Big Show had the resume he does but as a non super heavyweight, I think he would be looked at a lot more favorably. I think the sheer volume of feuds and TV matches he has goes against what many people want out of a monster Andre-esque special attraction, and we can't help take off points. I think Parties did a good job summing up the sheer volume of what Big Show has done. I think Show probably has the best celebrity match ever, which is noteworthy when thinking about his candidacy. I don't think too many other big guys could have pulled off that match. I'm not going to deny that there are long periods in which I didn't find him interesting or particularly motivated, but from 2008 t the present, the only people with more good TV and PPV matches from WWE will probably all make the list. I was surprised to read this thread and see that most aren't considering him.

I agree almost one hundred percent about your points on Buddy and his peak. I would agree that everything w have from Buddy in the late 70s is tremendous, and I would grant that Flair in the late 70s had not reached his peak as a worker. That being said, I think once Flair starts having good matches in 81-82 he surpasses Buddy and doesn't really look back at any point. I love Buddy's stuff with Somers in AWA, but I'm not sure I would buy it as better than Flair for those same years. I'm not accusing anyone of cherry picking because we are arguing over two people who will both be top 5 on a lot of ballots and number one on some others, but I think in the years in which both were active and relevant, Flair was better in more of those years. Whether or not you think that matters is a totally different argument that I'm not interested in having because people can vote on any criteria they want. Personally I think I will probably value peak very highly because there are only so many people who can lay claim to being "the best" for any length of time and that should absolutely matter. That being said, when peaks are roughly equivalent or even in the same ball park, the ability to maintain and sustain has to be taken in to account, which I think is what I'm trying to say with this Flair vs. Buddy business.

I love Buddy and he's going to end up very high on my ballot, but he might be the highest ranked wrestler that I feel has no shot at number one. I just can't convince myself that he is clearly better than Lawler or Flair, both of whom I view as contemporaries of Rose. This says nothing of people from Mexico or Japan. I feel like if you can't lay a claim to best wrestler from your time period and geography, you can't lay a claim to number one. I probably like Buddy more than Flair, but I'd be interested to hear the argument for putting Buddy ahead of him.

I hope this comparison makes sense, but when I watch Rusev (who at this point has no shot to make my ballot purely due to lack of volume) I think in a weird way it makes me want to rate Hansen higher. I think Hansen in Japan really took the formula of "foreign monster who is secretly smarter than other people" and perfected it, and I think a lot of Rusev's success can be attributed to him working with this formula. Granted he has been great in his own right and has added tweeks to it, but Hansen really laid the foundation for the run Rusev initially got. Maybe I'm making a bit of a stretch here, but I hope people can at least see where I'm coming from.

I would add his ROH title matches vs. Jimmy Rave (4th Year Anniversary?) and his title match against Homicide at Final Battle 06. I think they are strong matches and show his ability to defend a belt and make things seem important, which was a rare trait for that period of Indy wrestling.

I love Bryan and will rank him very high, but I think saying he was the best wrestler each year in the past decade is a bit of a stretch (which is how I read Grimmas' post, if you just meant wrestler of the decade that's an easier case to make). Bryan had a couple pretty listless years towards the end of his ROH run and prior to winning Money in the Bank. Not saying he wasn't very good during these time periods, or that either of these periods were his fault, but there were people on TV who were doing more than he was. I remember reading long posts about how Bryan had reached a point in ROH were we had seen his big match formula so much and without much variety that he had to rely on blood to get stuff over (like the Jimmy Jacobs match he did, for example). Even if those matches were good (and they were) they represented a marked decline from his peak in the company.

There are few things that stand out in my mind as clearly as that kung fu sequence with Red from Road to the Title. I remember seeing it for the first time and thinking that I was actually watching the future of wrestling. Not just two wrestlers who were in line for great things, but this was a glimpse in to what wrestling was going to look like some number of years down the road. I think Low Ki was the last wrestler I can think of that had this Sabu like quality to him; you heard his name from people, and you knew you had to check him out and he just had this different aura about him that made him stand out so much. It's sort of bizarre that he isn't really viewed as a peer of the Punk/Joe/Bryan group that really put ROH on the map, because I think his work from 2002-2006 rivals what they were able to do with their later peaks. He's one of the few guys in Indy history that was able to be a believable special attraction (like a tiny Andre), and the fact that he was so protective of that role probably ended up being to his detriment. I think he will probably end up making my ballot, although he will end up lower than he should be simply because he was never able to have a sustained run outside of ROH. No matter how much I love that match against Necro Butcher or some of the JAPW stuff, I can't justify it being as meaningful as Punk or Bryan's WWE runs, for example.

I didn't include Hansen on purpose. I think his contemporaries are Japanese, as his work there is the bulk of his argument.

I'm on twitter @wrestlingbubble

Aside from Lawler, how many American contemporaries does Flair have that have a shot at finishing higher than him on a ballot?

If anything, having "wwefan4eva" submit a ballot adds a dimension that the project could end up lacking. We are all knowledgeable and have well thought through opinions on wrestling, but the thought process here and DVDVR can get a little incestuous. I guess it depends what you want this project to be. Is it a top 100 that is representative solely of our tastes? Or is it a top 100 that may have some things that people here might roll their eyes at, but is probably more representative of wrestling fandom as a whole?

I remember really liking the Erick Stevens stuff in FIP and ROH. I should probably rewatch that. I think overall, Roddy has been uninteresting for long enough periods where I can't imagine giving him real consideration. Bizarrely, I think he has ended up as the best wrestler from Generation Next, which I wouldn't have though even a few years ago.

So I worked in high level professional theatre for about a decade. National tours, New York, Regional Theater, you name it. I've always felt that the parallels between working in theatre and working in wrestling have been notable, and I guess can add to this conversation in some way. When you start working in theatre, and your goal is to be a professional actor/stage manager/director/whatever, everyone's goal first and foremost is to make a living or career out of it. There are constant new levels that people judge your success on; whether you are in the union, then if you have worked enough weeks to get health insurance, if you have to keep a consistent day job and so forth. I remember someone once telling me that the only true barometer of success in theatre is how often you can turn down work. It's a competitive business that forces people to work for less than they are worth and takes advantage of a complicit workforce. That being said, despite many (most?) of the people involved viewing theatre as a business first and foremost (because it is), I think that the finished product of a stage show would be considered art by most. Probably even by those involved. I guess what I'm driving at is that despite money and success being what drives people in theatre, that does not preclude them from trying to perform at a high level or feel as though they are contributing artistically. Something being a business and the finished product thereof being art are not mutually exclusive. I know others have driven home that point as well, but I thought the comparison might help in some way. If asked point blank if pro wrestling can be art, I think my answer would probably be "It can be", and my answer would be the same if pro wrestling was substituted for a great many things. I don't buy that some mediums are inherently more artistically valuable than pro wrestling, nor do I buy the argument that art can only be processed if it's in some sort of sacred space like a gallery. Art is not judged on permanence. It can take place in the moment, and resonate for short periods of time.

Footage may be an issue, but what about Buddy Rose? He started training in 73 and was awesome by the late 70s. Is there reliable footage of him under his real name or earlier than 77?

The obvious ones are the Callihan/Finlay matches, and the Hero/Hidaka match from Evolve 2 was pretty good. I haven't seen much of it, but I have heard the Busick/Thatcher/Gulak stuff that is good everywhere is also good in Evolve.

Knowing what we do about wrestling culture, especially from that time period, is it particularly surprising that Stevens is lauded? I mean, the ability to maintain your athleticism while still drunk/hungover is probably enviable as most who try wrestling can barely figure things out sober. I'm not saying he wasn't a great wrestler, but every generation of workers have traits that are valued highly amongst peers and less so with fans. Flair and others looking at Stevens and seeing a guy who could rock and roll and still make it through the next day six times a week was probably more impressive than another guy with better in ring stuff.

The other Jacobs/Whitmer match, the no rope barb wire one, is also quite good. There are a ton of good TPI matches. The year II Cold Scorpio was in it was great because he just stiffed the crap out of a bunch of dudes that were both smaller and less athletic than him.

The Sami Callihan vs. Danny Havok Cage of Death is pretty great, if you like Death Match stuff. I remember liking the Moxley v. Callihan match from 4/10/10, although I haven't seen it in a while so I don't know how it ages.

I know that people have previously decried the transitive property in wrestling, but for two guys roughly in the same spot in the card at the same time in the same company, I think it is a useful tool. Personally, I think you can point to Austin having the better match with every major like opponent I can think of with the exception of the Undertaker. Austin's matches with Bret, HHH, and Foley are all better than Michaels' matches with the same people. I dunno, can you say that Michaels had better matches with Angle? I have no memory of the big Austin/Angle matches, so I can't judge. This obviously isn't the whole story, but I think it's telling. Austin seems able to vary his style a little more and find ways to make things interesting with other peak workers, which was really his job for a good portion of his run. I can see voting for HBK based off of his tag stuff, or the overall quality of work prior to main event matches, but in terms of the style and work they are both well known for, Austin's output far exceeds Michaels.

I think Holly is a great example of how execution doesn't necessarily make for a great worker without other things to back it up. Everything Holly did looked perfect, but his matches were always still rather middling.

I think you could make a case that Jimmy Rave had the best ROH match for Nigel, Punk, AJ Styles, and maybe even Bryan (that title match is an overlooked classic). He did so while being one of the only people in ROH to get reliable heel heat. For wrestling fans, first impressions can often color what people think of a worker for far too long and I think that has happened at various points with Rave. When he first started in ROH, people really hated him not because of anything he was doing character wise, but because there was a perception that he was not as good a worker as the rest of the roster. Gabe was wise to use that and start the whole Embassy gimmick, but even when his matches started getting routinely very good, it was attributed to Alex Shelley being a part of the tag stuff or his opponent carrying him in singles stuff. I think it's sort of fitting that he has been nominated at the same time as Roman Reigns, as Roman has run in to similar criticisms over the past few years. How many times can fans claim a great match was a carry job until a performer is given his due? With Rave, I'm not sure that time ever came because after his jaw injury in ROH, he never really had an in ring show case in a national spotlight. He had that awful guitar hero gimmick in TNA, right? After that I think he's just done southern indies. Whenever something has surfaced it's been great, but it hasn't really worked it's way back to the majority of wrestling fans, or those who shape the opinions of the majority of wrestling fans. All that being said, he's probably right on the cusp of my ballot. If he gets a vote from me, it's probably in the 90 to 100 range, and it probably happens knowing full well that I'm leaving someone objectively better off of the ballot. I just don't think he should be dismissed out of hand in comparison to the other indy workers and mid 2000s ROH roster that will inevitably place much higher than him.

I liked this match a great deal, and I think that a lot of the underwhelming feelings surrounding it are due to the fact that it wasn't best of three falls. I mean, the structure of the match is basically the same as it would be had it been 2/3, but without a third fall. I really love Casas comeback and I'm not sure I agree with Matt's "stilted" criticism, but the end of the match and the single fall really felt as though it was actually Casas tying it up and we were going to get a third fall to see who the real winner is.

I nominated Cassandro, and I'm honestly not sure he will make my ballot, but I have to give it a lot of thought. Talk about an absolutely snake bitten career, basically every time he has looked poised to start getting more widespread recognition and bookings, some horrific injury has set him back at least a year. That being said, basically everything from 2006/2007 on that has made tape has been fantastic. I think quality wise, Cassandro has a much better case than a lot of the lower tiered luchadores. That being said, anyone who thinks Cassandro doesn't have enough work to warrant consideration would be well within their rights to leave him off. Any interesting "what if" question is to think about whether Cassandro's career would have been better or worse had he not left TNA amid accusations of homophobia.