Cap

Elliott brought this up elsewhere a while back and my gut response was Aja. I have since flipped on this and am pretty comfortable with that. I think Bull's top matches stack up pretty well against Aja's, but they are often different types of great to me. Aja is a punch in the mouth (literally and figuratively). Her best matches tend to be really smart well told stories wrapped in the package of a violent spectical. I feel like when things didn't hit just right you got stuff like the repetition or the slight wandering in places. The more I watch Bull the more she feels like a master storyteller. Watching her from the 80s into the 90s has convinced me that she had a gift (from the start) for grabbing narrative threads and keeping them tied together, even in the most chaotic matches. Both flex incredible creative muscles. I currently have Bull at #9 and Aja at #30. Well within the range for this to flip as I watch more, particularly more late career aja, but for now.... Bull.

I more or less cosign much of what Childs said. I was generous to Orton in the Ultimo comparison. This feels a lot easier to me. Gordy's output doesn't match the reputation and the buzz, but I sometimes think the pendulum did its thing and swung a little far back on him. I would say his tag work alone produces more quality wrestling that I actively want to watch than Orton's career, but he is also not without some solid singles performances as well.

On first brush with thinking on this... Orton strikes me as a guy who is good when he wants to be but doesn't always want to be and Ultimo strikes me as a guy who always wants to be good but doesn't always get what he wants. I'm not sure that will hold up under more thought. Neither guy has a real shot at my list, but gun to my head I probably prefer Ultimo in theory, but think Orton is a better wrestler.

I'm not even joking, I came back to this thread to make this exact point. Beat me to it.

This is the one I put forward on the GME board because this is my working #1 (Bryan) and #2 (Kobashi). Lots of road in front of us. Either could fall, but I think it is more likely that Kobashi gets jumped than Bryan right now. At some point I'll provide some version of what I wrote over there breaking down the why, but Bryan edges this out for me as of right now.

I've been talked into it. Selfishly, Eddy is one of my favorite wrestlers ever, so I think it would have been cooler to see him go over Brock without Goldberg being involved and I think the match would have been slightly elevated in the way I generally think of a "great match" (usually more in a vacuum). This is also partially because I love Guerrero and Brock and I really don't care much for Goldberg HOWEVER, the match, with the interference and all, remains a significant line on Brock and Eddy's resume, perhaps even more so than it would without

haha.... of course I understand its purpose in the broader sense. Sure, I think the match would be better without the Goldberg's involvement, but what I meant was that they didn't need the interference to have Eddie go over Brock convincingly, which always felt a little like part of the calculation. What they accomplished in the body of the match was more than enough to get that crowd and the broader audience to buy Eddie beating Brock. There were still other reasons to have him involved of course, but I still wish he wasn't. Especially given how that Goldberg v Brock match ended up.

Yeah. The Eddie match is top shelf. Totally agree about wishing the Goldberg run in wasn't part of it because I don't think they needed it at all.

I can't think of anyone who my opinion of dropped more than Rollins over time. When he was Tyler Black and even really early in his WWE run he was never my favorite, but I saw he had some good qualities. It felt like he had the ability to sharpen his game into something really good. Then it felt like he did the opposite of everything that would have made him resonate with my tastes. He is the embodiment of a lot of criticisms that I think get thrown around in wrestling in bad faith too much. He is athletic and physically talented, but everything looks the same and nothing really feels like it matters. I think the biggest indictment on him might actually be his best WWE match, the triple threat with Brock and Cena. I still think the match is a ton of fun, but when he and Cena are left alone I was bored to death. It lost all its urgency and I really think it should have been on Rollins to bring a lot of that. It was an abject failure in that little section of the match for me I don't mean to harp on the negative side of this, but I'm sort of just with most others. Adams is a long shot for my list, but he has a shot. He is a indeed a somewhat underrated wrestler who I have enjoyed, but never really explored the work of actively. Rollins is someone I have been exposed to a lot and find no connection to.

I am lower on Kerry than most I think. I still like him a great deal, but he is a long shot to make my list to be honest. Reigns is also a long shot, but I am really high on him. I'd say right this second I'd probably rank Kerry higher, but I'd be pretty shocked if Reigns didn't pass him by some distance sooner rather than later.

As of this moment I have Kobashi #2 and Hokuto at #13 (which feels too low - I don't feel good about her not being in the top 10). If I had to guess Kobashi could land somewhere between 1-5 and Hokuto could land somewhere between 3-15, so there is a chance I change my tune on this, but right now it is Kobashi for me. Hokuto is unreal talent in really every sense. Her offense and selling are great. She is a masterful storyteller. She can help elevate those around her. She has high highs and good matches over a very respectable time period. I think the thing for me is Kobashi is a wrestling force of nature unlike any other. His top match output is INSANE. To me, he embodies pro wrestling boiled down to its purest form. He does almost everything well, but somehow he is still better than the sum of his parts.

I agree with Kid Dracula's rankings of the 3. I would also say I am probably relatively high on the Bryan match and low on the Styles match, so for me there is a pretty big gap between 1 and 2.

Thanks Matt D. I guess I just have to really dig into the French Catch stuff and see for myself. I have been saying for 2 years it is on my to do list, but I keep getting distracted. Regardless it is a MUST before 2026, so I'll figure it and how it affects Andre out one way or another. I do find the differing interpretations on how it affects his case interesting. Andre is a guy who - like I said - is a lock for me, but he has sort of been raising in my mind the past couple years. I was sort of pondering this last night after I responded and I think instincts and timing are two things that really do jump off the screen with him. He "gets" wrestling in a big way. I feel like the range of outcomes that seem reasonable to me for him is much wider than Arn.

Strong is interesting and I think his case is deceptively strong already. Around 2015 I thought he was legit one of the best in the world. I think he has been a bit stop-start since then, but I sort of suspect that has a lot to do with opportunity. He carries a lot of the load in those early UE matches in my book. His match with Riddle in 2019 is one of my favorite NXT matches of the past 3-4 years (ironically enough his 2016 match with Riddle is one of my favorites from that pre-nxt riddle period a lot of folks were high on). I think his offense is good. He sells quite well. More than anything, when given time and the chance he has shown time and time again that he can put together a strong story in a modern setting. He reminds me a little bit of Hart in his commitment to reality in the little things, regardless of what others are doing around him. He, of course, has his indie-rific moments, but he has a long career and has aged really well in my book. I REALLY like the pieces in that Diamond Mine group, but have zero faith that they are going to get to make it something special. I hope I am wrong, I really really do. Strong is the kinda guy who could - given the chance - could really string together some genuine case building stretches, so I am just happy to see him back on my TV in a position with potential. If I were making the list right now I doubt he would make it, but there is a chance he sneaks in. I'd have to think long and hard about the earlier parts of his career. Tons of strong stuff (as I remember), but a lot of forgettable and excessive stuff for my taste.

Good to know. I'll personally sort of lump it in with my "unseen Andre" section because there is still more of that than there is for Arn (for me).

Nothing to do with the substance of this conversation, but I remember very distinctly as a child getting like half the WCW galoob figures as a child and it opening up my wrestling figure booking. I "booked" some feuds and results as I went and planned some stuff out in advance. I had a battle royal shortly after getting the arn figure where Arn and Andre were the final two after Andre eliminated Barry and Flair. Though Andre won it kicked off a feud that would help elevate Arn. 100% arn spine bustered Andre eventually, but it took months. I told my grandma about it and she was probably the only person who knew (and much like grandmas... she simultaneously couldn't care less and more at once) until now. Sorry yall got subjected to this nonsense, I've never had another chance to tell this dumb ass story that stuck in my brain. I had YEARS playing with wrestling figures and that is for whatever reason one of like 3-4 things I remember. this is tough. Their resumes are built very differently. I feel like it would be tough for me to properly rank andre without watching the french stuff. Even still he is more or less a lock. I think he has great high end matches. I also REALLY like watching him beat the piss out of savage on SNME. He has lots of relatively quality performances like that. Does he have enough to get him over the consistency machine that is Arn? There seems to be a whole really important section of Andre's career I need to see, but there probably isn't that for Arn.I suspect they are really close on my list because - gun to my head - I'd have Arn a bit higher right now. The TLDR version is that Andre's highs are higher but Arn is an old standby you can put out there any time. Both used their physical skills masterfully, Andre having some more obvious advantages and disadvantages in this regard and Arn being really good at standing out despite not... well... physically standing out. Both have great input and both have differently great output.

Boss Rock really summed up my initial thoughts exactly. For a while Aja was clearly the choice in my mind, but I have cooled just at touch. That isn't an insult at all. She just went from probably a sure top 15 to somewhere between 15 and 50 for me. At the same time Vader has slid up a bit in my mind, so this is really tough. This is one I would genuinely be interested in diving in a bit on sooner rather than later (just as soon as I get time to watch wrestling again and watch the other 500 things on my list).

I discussed this with sleeze on his podcast. The thing that is most impressive about shoot is how they can remain tight and fluid in their grappling without hurting one another. It is similar to "flow rolling" in bjj. Now, I am shitty at jits, but it is so hard to cooperatively grapple quickly, especially on the fly. Even watching great grapplers flow roll you can see that moving that fast and making your grappling look really convincing is tough. You can see it when you watch even m mediocre shoot matches and you know well and good that the wrestlers have grappling chops. Shoot match wrestling is just a unique skill unto itself. Tamura even stands out amongst his peers. He almost NEVER looks choppy or clunky, even against very limited grapplers (such as Vader). As other said, he is an athletic freak. I can't imagine how physically and (even more so) mentally quick he would need to be to do what he did. I went with Tamura on this. Casas is a guy I sort of go back and forth on. I always recognize him as elite, but more often than not I am not motivated to go seek out Casas matches much anymore. That is more a taste/mood thing than a statement on his quality of work of course, but I am slightly lower on him than his biggest fans. Tamura excels at one of my favorite styles of wrestling, one that really resonates with me as boiled down and concentrated version of what I love from my in-ring wrestling. OJ outlined some of the trickiness (and I think the utility) of making such a comparison. This is close enough to me that it could flip by vote time, but for now I am going with Tamura for being just an other wordly physical story teller.

Two greats who's cases will be built quite differently. So... as these things go.... Who You Got?

This is a great comp. Obviously, I am going to take Kandori, but it is closer than one might imagine. I'd say this mostly boils down to footage from their respective primes. We have enough of Sangre Chicana (or at least I have seen enough) to know he is great, but I am not sure we have enough for me to put him over Kandori. I will say that if he had a breadth of matches available on par with some of his best (Satanico, Aguayo, and of course... MS-1), he could be a true #1 contender to me. Also, his haymaker left hand might be the most perfect wrestling move ever.

I'm also going with Chingusa on this one. The pairing is a good one though because I think they have a lot of similar strengths. I think if anyone can give Morton a run for his money in selling and taking an ass whoopin' it is Chingusa. Her output just exceeds Morton's for me.

I presently have both in my working top 10, but still feel fairly comfortable voting for Bryan at this point. Taking just a few quick points off the top of my head... Flair probably has the best match between the two, but I think Bryan's top 5 or top 10 hold up really well. That extends out to top 20 or 30 as well. I think they are really close on top matches, but I'd probably argue that Bryan pulls a bit more of the weight in his top matches. Bryan's top matches are with quality opponents, but my guess is when you take the average position of Flairs... say.... top 5 opponents vs Bryans, Flair's are going to do much better. I much prefer Bryan's offense I also prefer how he puts a match together. I don't subscribe to the notion that Flair had a bland formula, but I do think Bryan provides a little more variety, especially if you start thinking about their top 30 matches or so Both rank highly in consistency, but I can't think of a bad Bryan match really. He always goes out and maximizes minutes in the ring. Bryan did more with less in terms of card positioning often as well. Flair is probably the better bumper, but overall selling might be a bit close. Bryan is pretty good at consistent selling and generally dropping it when it makes sense. Flair works and sells for the cheap seats a bit better, but I think Bryan's approach to wrestling is more varied on the whole so I think he does subtle stuff pretty well. This is something that I will ponder a good bit, but right now it is Bryan.

I actually think it is pretty close. Over on GME I took Vader in this comparison by a hair, but that was using our makeshift categories/point system (which is helpful for conversation, but considers a lot beyond the in ring stuff and is a far from a perfect system). Look at it in this context, I want to take Rey.... but I suspect these two will wind up somewhat close on my list.

Ok, so I started typing and I can get wordy when I'm trying to avoid real work and that is what happened. It is mostly blathering nonsense, so I'll give you two versions. TLDR Version: Foley is perhaps the most important person to my own enjoyment of the attitude era, fond memories I have from that era, and determining what I will go back and enjoy as a fan. What's more I think - without the ability or willingness to substantiate this much further - that his contributions to the overall success of the era are vast (if often less obvious and quantifiable) enough to at least put him in the conversation, but of course under any conventional or discernible rubric he is in the very least behind Austin and The Rock in terms of importance without much question Full Version: Imperfect as it might be, I'll stick with my NFL analogy for this. And remember, this is independent of this project. This applies to the passing question of: who is the most important wrestler to the attitude era. Foley, The Rock, Austin, Taker, etc... they all did different things. They played different parts. The Rock and Austin where your star RB or WR and QB. Everyone knows their names. They will 100% get the MVP votes or the Heisman votes They will 100% end up on the commercials. They were the stars and the plays were designed to get the ball in their hands because they could make things happen. Foley was a lineman.... a really good lineman. Linemen don't get that kind of stardom, but Foley was so good that he did get some credit. He is the Anthony Munoz of wrestlers in this analogy. If you don't have a really good lineman out there blocking your QB isn't going to look as good (ask Mahomes about his experience in the last super bowl). Now... we all know if you pluck your star qb or "skill player" out of the lineup then the performance of the team goes down. So of course if you take the Rock or Austin out the Attitude Era is vastly different. Things change in a big way because we see it in the production, what we are often trained to see as fans. We don't SEE the production of those trench players in the same way. They are more butterfly effect type contributions, harder to quantify (esp for even the above average fan) and when you do quantify them there are probably more variables that add doubt to the equation (Ex: NFL - hows the guy directly to his right or left blocking? WWE - how are other people doing at elevating their fellow wrestlers or shifting character gears to fit the story or feud. Both - how much extra weight are you pulling). To me, Foley's contributions were never going to be measurable in the same way that the Rock or Austin's were. They were asked to do very different things and I would venture (based on how Foley talks about his own career) they conceptualized their part differently. Foley wound up being champion, but his biggest contributions came in trench-esqu wrestling and that isn't going to win you traditional MVP awards. However, if someone is interested in in all these other aspects of wrestling it can become a talking point. Football, like wrestling when we are thinking of this question, privileges certain skill sets, but those aren't the only ways to measure success or importance. DeVonte Smith won the Heisman last year, but he was drafted after the top lineman in the draft. So was The Rock and Austin more important to the success of the WWE in the Attitude era? Of fucking course! That is easy. We can measure these things. No need to discuss it. Even still... I think of Foley as a low key MVP of the attitude era because I see his finger prints all over a lot of my favorite parts. I see his matches as many of the best, his moments as many of the most memorable FOR ME. I think he is the best promo of the era. I think he is a better in ring performer than the Rock and probably better than Austin. I personally like him more and for my enjoyment of that era he is probably the most important. This is why I think we are having different conversations. I don't see this as any part of his case for this project. I don't see this as a question of measurable success. I see it simply as my perception of the attitude era and what made it enjoyable. Just so I am not side stepping the key point that I think launched this, I do still think that Foley had key feuds and key matches with all the big names mentioned that helped elevate them at very crucial points in their career. Was that elevation always measurable or discernible, probably not, but it is my gut feeling about the ebbs and flows of the product. So, as I said before, of course they would all (maybe not HHH) be stars without Foley, but I don't think it is a given just how big a stars they would be because not only did foley have those key feuds and matches, he had many other contributions that I think resonate throughout the attitude era in crucial ways and raise everyone's stock.... but none of that as particularly quantifiable and to be perfectly honest I don't have the energy or give a shit to comb through an era of wrestling that I mostly don't like to provide a detailed articulation of how I suspect his match with HBK, Hell in a cell bump, early feud with taker, comedic timing etc etc rippled through the era so at a certain point my laziness will end my willingness to engage this in any way that resembles helpful. Honestly, the more accurate way to say what I meant would have just been that the attitude era wouldn't have been what it was, rather than picking out individual wrestlers.