Cap

I really need to get my hands on some of those CZW and other not readily available Kingston matches hyped on SC. *wink wink, yall. I'm high on him and fairly familiar with his career, but a few of those I remain blind on.

It might be the greatest single line in his GWE resume. It feels like he shoulders more of the load in that one.

I still prefer the MS-1 match I think, but it is really close, honestly.

2/28/86? That is an all timer in my book. Chicana is a guy who could be #1 in my mind if we had more from his prime. Even still, his case is pretty strong. I'd be shocked if he wasn't on my list. I'm not even being hyperbolic, I don't think I have ever seen a better move/spot in all of wrestling than his haymaker left, especially as it signals his comeback. It is always so well timed and executed.

Elliott has made that Kandori/Brock comparison before and it makes more sense to me as time passes. To me, Brock is a lock. Does he have dips in quality? yes. Did his other interests clearly draw his attention away even when he was actually in the ring? yes. I still think his highs are as high as just about anyone. One of the big reasons is that i am big on "singular" wrestlers, wrestlers that I think are radically unique in their combination of skill set and charisma. I don't agree at all that anyone could have done what Brock did in his spot. Yes he was pushed to the moon and booked as strong as anyone in wrestling history and he squandered some of it, but I just don't see someone like Ryback or even Lashley having some of the matches, creating the moments, and bringing the presence that Brock brings to his big matches. He is a good to great seller (when he wants to be admittedly), an incredible offensive wrestler, has quite a resume of good to great matches, and is able to elevate a match by doing so little. I also think he deserves a lot of credit for some of his bigger matches. Bryan is my favorite wrestler ever and my working #1, but I really think Brock deserves a lot of credit for bouncing around like he just saw his first Ricky Morton match. I would say the same for the Eddie, Punk, Cena, Balor, Styles, and all the good taker matches. Those matches don't exist and aren't pretty big bright spots on those wrestlers' respective resumes with anyone other than Brock Lesnar. The Brock hate is always sort of perplexing to me. He is just so self evidently good to me. I agree he can feel disappointing in places and even patches of his career, but when I look back I see a truly elite pro wrestler. The other thing about Brock to me is that he is a case that forces me to deal with necessary evils. I'm not entirely sure his highs would be as high if he were more consistent in his effort and his givingness. I know he wouldn't be as good or feel as special if he didn't go off to do football and mma for while. I'm not sure he would be as strong a presence if he loved wrestling. I don't know that the positives of his case exist without the negatives.

Honestly, someone i went on a little side binge watching not long ago after seeing the hyped Jaguar match. I haven't watched quite enough to evaluate, but she definitely deserves consideration. I came away with the impression that she knew how to place meaningful punctuation in matches that grabbed the attention and kept things engaging. Underdeveloped thought, but that was my initial take away.

I want to take back everything I said in that 2016 post. No idea what I was on about. I love those matches. I'm not saying he didn't have flaws, but I don't believe my take from 5 years ago anymore.

I can't cosign this line of praise enough. A while back (it might have even been as far back as 2016) a friend of mine said something to the effect of "one day everyone will be on board with Kingston as an all time great". I saw it at the time and I knew what he meant, but I wasn't as enthusiastic on my buy-in of that point as I am now. I love his AEW stuff, but his case extends far beyond that. He has, in a variety of contexts over the past 15+ years, stood out amongst talented rosters. He is a gifted storyteller with such a knack for understanding who he is, who is opponent is, and how to accent and flesh out their dynamic in the body of a match. He gets a lot of (earned) credit for his mic work, but I am just talking about curtain to curtain. He strikes me as someone who you don't need to know in advance to appreciate in a match.* It is an old cliche; you don't have to believe in wrestling, but Eddie Kingston makes you believe in him. You mix that with his clear love of the craft and you get magic. In a wrestling landscape that has been stacked with physically gifted athletes, his storytelling, attention to detail, and passion of have really set him apart. Absolute lock for my list. I'm guessing top 50

Ohhh yeah.. I was just making a point about his singles matches, but if I were including tags every one of those would be on my list. I love every one of them.

Yeah, this is it. For me, his style doesn't hit every time, but when it does hit it's a home run... and it hits plenty. I think I am more a peak-oriented fan, so that doesn't bother me in the least.

I don't trust my memory, but I do trust my own little spreadsheet and the comments I put in there. Sometimes things move, but every once in a while I will watch something again on a whim or of a podcast or something and I will rate it without looking at what I said before and my rating is almost always exactly the same (or VERY close) and my comments are often very similar. In turn, I feel pretty good about it as a refresher when it comes to the massive amount of wrestling as data I'm trying to sort through for something like this or GME.

Fujiwara will do very well for me. He is just my type of wrestler and feel he is really one of the smartest workers ever. He maximizes movement and really excels when it comes to physical storytelling. I really like wrestlers who jump off the screen immediately and feel singular. He does both of those things. He is very likely to be in my top 20, maybe my top 10.

I'm in on it. I think it counts as great. List of singles matches from what I have rated that I would consider great. This is FAR from exhaustive as others would have watched more, rated more and/or have a better memory. Backlund (9/30/80) Andre (9/23/81)* Funk (9/11/82) Funk (4/14/83)* Idol (10/10/83) Baba (7/30/85) White (3/13/86) Hennig (5/31/86)* Colon (1/6/87)* Colon (2/28/87) Colon (3/14/87)* Kobashi (9/4/91)* Kobashi (3/27/92) Kobashi (7/8/82)* Kawada (2/28/83)* Kobashi (4/16/93)* Kobashi (7/29/93)* Kobashi (4/10/94)* Kobashi (9/5/96)* *Elite Some Caveats and Thoughts 1. I am admittedly higher on the Kobashi/Hansen series than most. I think it is the greatest series/rivalry in the history of wrestling, so I'm obviously going to skew high on it and both wrestlers. 2. However, I am lower on the Bock, Inoki, and Misawa matches than some. I also either haven't seen or haven't seen to rate many other praised great matches from him (example, I haven't seen a singles match with Tenryu since I started trying to keep track of stuff like this), so I consider it sort of a wash at worst. 3. To me it is less about the great matches and more about the elite. On my list of 4.75 and higher matches Hansen is second only to probably Kobashi. 4. All a matter of taste obviously, but I don't think I am some crazy outlier here. Some may have different matches of course. 5. All told that is 19 great matches and I actually think I am probably underselling it.

Yeah... I just don't see the argument that he isn't a great singles wrestler. He has - for my taste - a slew of very good to elite singles matches, all outlined above. I don't think we are talking about "good matches" as the line of demarcation at all. I'm a touch lower on the Misawa matches myself, but even with that I think of Hansen as a quality peak candidate in both tag and singles.

I have that as my #2 match bewteen the two and it makes me appreciate the 7/29/93 match even more.

LOVE to see that Eddie Kingston add. He is most certainly on my list.

Yeah, Hansen is on the short list of "most great matches" wrestlers for me. His approach is great for producing organic magic that feels like it couldn't be duplicated or planned... in turn it is great for producing elite matches (for my taste at least). It is also produces some uneven stuff, but uneven stuff that is rarely entertaining to me. In short, he has as high a ceiling as anyone and he also has a pretty high floor. I have read that quote from him and heard him talk about it in interviews a few times. Intuitively, I love it. I think Matt D's point is a good one though. It is a roll of the dice. Hansen's philosophy on wrestling is more or less accepting that something could fall apart in the pursuit of something viscerally awesome. It isn't sure fire, but I Iike that it feels like he is always shooting for the best version of wrestling (in his mind and maybe mine) He would have probably been #1 if I voted in 2016. Right now he is my working #3. This is despite me discovering how much I am in love with the entire Kobashi/Hansen rivalry (I know it isn't novel, but I'm crazy high on quite a few of the lesser hyped matches) and getting turned onto a smattering of gems I hadn't seen 5 years ago. I can imagine him landing anywhere from #1-#7 depending on how things shake out, but I'd be pretty shocked if he wasn't in real contention for the top spot on my list.

love me some Andre. Someone I have really wanted to dig into more for a while. There is quite a bit from him that I have only seen in passing or haven't sat down with at all. The french matches sound intriguing for sure.

I feel like the general consensus here is the ideal: we compartmentalize to the best of our ability and stick to the in ring work. It is the cleanest and easiest way to deal with a concern that starts messy and gets downright disastrous if we dig too deep (as many have pointed out in various ways). However, I do think it is a legit question because and ideal is... well, an IDEAL. It is easier said than done. We will all be able to draw some line in the sand. The discussion of Benoit in this thread is enough to prove that there is a line to be drawn. Some will vote for him; some will maybe watch and maybe vote; some are out. There isn't even consensus on him, but enough people are conflicted in one way or another that thepresence of this dynamic and conflict is unquestioned. The fact that there is the possibility of a slippery slope and that the issue could be blown up doesn't negate that there is an issue. To me, the more interesting question is of unconscious bias more than conscious demarcations and this conversation helps me sort of reflect on that. As I said earlier, I don't like Lawler as a human being and it is really tough for me to tell if that effects the way I see his in ring work. I mentioned the reasons I think it might be affecting me before. I would like to remove that element of bias if I can and if it is there, but it is a process. I generally try to avoid digging into the scummy part of wrestling for just this reason. I won't turn a blind eye to thinks like speaking out, but I'm also not going around looking for stuff. It will always come back to "its a personal thing" and I'm with the general consensus that we should do our best to demarcate the in ring work from everything else, but for some of us there is a line to be drawn and then there is maybe even some unconscious bias to try to process if we are going to - in good faith - strive for that above-mentioned ideal. Maybe some folks here are capable of such radical objectivity, but I just don't believe in it personally. I think projects like this are self-explorations of fandom as much as they are evaluations of wrestling (regardless of our intent or best efforts) and in turn, I think questions like this should be asked and revisited over time.

Yeah... Gresham has a pretty solid case. He has been quite good for a decent amount of time. What's more he really does have a knack for pulling good stuff out of his opponent. If that opponent is limited he is pretty good at covering and making them look good. If that opponent is also great he helps them level up too. I know that latter one might sound easier, but I'm not sure it is. Having a really good to great match with Hero and ZSJ in 2016 isn't exactly unique... but having a matches that stand out among their respective impressive catalogue at the time is quite impressive. Great tag worker as well. Has shown an ability to be put just about anywhere and find success. I enjoyed his 2019 quite a bit, but haven't kept up as closely with him since. So I'd probably need to see him continue to be good to great between 2020 and 2026 for him to make my list.

I'm on the side that his AEW run (so far) really helps his case. Not only do I think he has lots of good matches (I would really add the Page/Omega vs FTR to that list, but I know I'm a little on an island with how high I am on that), but I think we are seeing him flex different in ring muscles. He is wrestling to different parts of the card and against people with carrying skill sets. Regardless of how you feel about Joey Janela, he ain't no Naito and Omega had some entertaining matches against him. I personally don't see the lack of motivation. I think he came off less motivated (sweat pants, aloof body language) while tagging with page to set up this heel turn, but I don't see any genuine signs of a lack of motivation. Again, just personally. Kenny is quite likely to make my list. I've enjoyed his work in varying ways and to varying degrees across a number of promotions. I get he isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I find a lot of value in his brand of modern wrestling (a different conversation for a different space probably). Within that style, it is hard to pick someone better. His physical body control and timing are crazy. I also quite appreciate that he tells (in the ring) wrestling stories that are often really focused on friendship first and animosity second. He doesn't always do this, but often, enough to make him stand out in this regard. He strikes me as a physically gifted wrestler who is passionate about telling stories in his own way. His way just happens to connect with some fans and REALLY miss others.

I almost always come away from the Ozaki matches I have watched thinking more about Ozaki than anyone else in the match. I don't mean that in a "she overshadowed everyone" kind of way as much as as to point out everything she does jumps off the screen. I know it is genuine with her because when I first started watching Joshi nobody I was talking to at the time was explicitly hyping her up to me. She was never one of the names that people were going out of their way to praise. I really like rough around the edges wrestling generally, be it organically rough around the edges or contrived, and Ozaki seems like someone who's work is rough around the edges in both ways. I really like her brand of violence and the personality she gives it. Her facial expressions both on offense and while selling do so much to get who and what she is in a match over and to really elevate the wrestling itself. The greatest example of this might be the street fights with Dynamite, esp the 3/17 match, which is an all timer to me where Ozaki pulls more than her weight with her absolute sociopath performance. She also seems relatively versatile, flexing her singles, tags, traditional, plunder, and even death matches muscles at one point or another. She is penciled in on my list now and I'd be surprised if she fell of it.

I'm not entirely sure if or how it will all impact my list. For the most part, I sort of agree with what seems like the prevailing sentiment so far. Wrestling is stacked with terrible people, some we know a lot about... some we know a little about.... some we think we know about.... some we don't know about. It isn't to excuse shitty behavior at all, but I sort of think we all at least tacitly understand and accept some duality in this. I can't imagine anyone being on this board or participating in this project while NOT knowing about the dark side of wrestling. I'm also not sure I conceptualize this as a process of "honoring" people, but I guess I can see that, especially at the absolute top of one's list. Regardless, it is probably best practice in my view to not think of it as a matter of honoring wrestlers. That risks muddling the criteria more than is helpful) Again... just me. That said, for me it doesn't mean I can compartmentalize everything cleanly. To Kadaveri's point, Benoit is probably not on my list because of how frequently I am reminded of what ultimately happened in the body of his matches. I can throw on a random match here and there, but I don't enjoy it in the same way that I used to and I can't dive into him or even get a good refresher on his work. I've never been able to really figure out if I am just lower on Jerry Lawler than others or if his reputation (and his announcing work) just pull me out of it subconsciously. It isn't that I don't think he is good or that I will not rank him (I likely will), he will just likely be a good bit lower on my list than many others, esp those with similar tastes to mine. He strikes me as an example of how knowing what I know (or what I think I know) might affect my list despite my best efforts. I just genuinely don't know. I'll probably also go back and forth on this a little bit in the next 5 years as I think more carefully about specific wrestlers and cases, but for the most part I think I can more or less compartmentalize things and feel fairly comfortable with doing so in a project like this. However, there are exceptions and I recognize there might be some just subconscious ways outside the ring stuff seeps into my evaluation of inside the ring stuff.

I'd second the point about Bruno. He isn't going to wow anyone with "workrate" as the term is often throne around today, but he is slept on and far too quickly dismissed. This isn't an apples to apples comparison, but I sort of think of him like Baba. I think Baba is much better on the whole, personally, but you have to appreciate both for what they are and how they use their physical skill-sets. It took a while for both to click with me, but once each did I find a lot of enjoyment in how they hone their craft.

I didn't participate in voting in 2016, but barring something crazy I will participate this time around. I've at least skimmed through most of this thread by this point and there are some interesting ideas and discussions already bubbling up. One of my favorite things about the last run was all the interesting content and all the fantastic wrestling I learned about. No doubt this will yield much of the same. I don't want to get into the weeds, but I do want to echo Microstatistics. I think the best way to get the most out of this is to be conscious of how our own investments can quickly lead to not so civil conversation if we aren't careful. To a point that was made on page one of this thread (by Childs, I believe), I also think that is the best way to be inviting to all who are interested in participation and to bringing them into the conversation and not just the voting process. I talked about this some in the leadup to 2016, but being an involved community with a culture for a number of years that is having in depth conversation over a number of years.... while also being inviting to new folks is harder than it sounds and think it takes some effort. That just comes with the territory. None of this is new. I don't mean to rehash tired tropes about the project. I am just excited to get into some of this discussion, see what there is to discover, and interact with some of yall I don't interact with over at the GME project board. Should be fun!