ElHijodeGorgeousGeorge

I want to say that this has been a beautiful project to read and I, too, suffer from depression and reading these reviews helps ease that quite a bit! It's wild to look back at this era and realize that this TNA bizarro world has been alive and well since the very start of that company.

To me. Graves is so good at commentary when he ISN'T pulling the heel shtick thing. I do like that he really pours it on with certain guys and doesn't even really care about messing with others, heel or face.

It depends on the product. For instance, I rarely skip around a NXT show yet I can't stomach most other modern shows in full.

If this list was about raw talent, Windham would be easily top of the list.

Amen! Just like your quote said in the reveal thread, he just holds up for me. I've been critical of him just like anyone else but he just fits my mold for a pro wrestler.

I don't think people will look back at the Joshi rankings as harshly as they will the American divas I feel like, depending on if this supposed "Divas Revolution" continues to make that division mean something. Also, I've been pleasantly surprised by the list so far and feel like it is echoing what I figured the average of us PWO browsers think.

It is definitely crazy that Panther was lower than Angle. Just shows a bizarre mixture of voters.

Legendary Will and Dean podcasts make my heart happy. Not to mention, knowing it helps Cross Faced through tough times so it's a win-win.

If anything, TNA is the most squandered promotion in history. If you look at the roster they had in 2005-2006 compared to today and you weren't around back then you'd think they were on the rise. It's just a long, sad story of bad booking and "too-good-too-late" signings that haven't amounted to anything substantial.

There is just something so oddly comforting seeing fat rednecks go through panes of glass. I especially loved the "glory days" of IWA-MS when you'd see cards with Punk and Hero going like 2 hours while the rest of the card is just complete murder.

This list proves that wrestling is so opinion based and that there is no "right" way to look at it. That's where the intrigue comes from me because you'll have your workrate fans that absolutely can't stand anyone that isn't a great worker and of course the character fans. I will say I was absolutely shocked to see the active competitors that are on the list, mainly Zayn and Nakamura but that's the beauty of the board.

Glad we're getting closer to the true 100 list. I have a lot more names to be revealed so this will be interesting.

Keeping you in my thoughts.

Dave is just like too many other people that are fans of wrestling; if it isn't in their wheelhouse, it is shit. It's a real shame too because there's so much in wrestling that can be appreciated without all the negative dogshit.

I couldn't agree more on that lucha. I guess what I mainly meant was that because I was so young in my internet 'rasslin fandom during the ROH peak, it's hard for me to associate him with any other company. I definitely love Evolve for what it is and I think you're right about it changing perceptions that fans have that are in the IWC.

They were in Texas. It was a Texas Chainsaw Massacre homage. Yeah a lot of people really missed that and it is a shame. Then again some people probably shit on it simply because it involved Finn but hey, it wasn't awful. I will admit though that I was confused for a minute until it clicked for me.

What is lacking in the booking to you? I ask because to my taste they have the right level of very limited realistic competition based booking that you could ask for, so much so that when they do try to add in some sports-entertainment style angles they stand out and actually feel more important because they are rare. Most of the stories and character development in done in the matches and almost everything is done in the ring in front of the live audience which for me is what wrestling really should be. Again I am curious do know what more you would like to see from Evolve booking wise and in no way am I trying question the validity for your opinion I'd just like to have better understand of what a fellow fan thinks is missing from what I see as an almost flawless product. Honestly I think I'm just such a child of those ROH days with Gabe that his approach in Evolve just sits odd with me. That and all too often I feel like the finishes of matches are lacking either in proper build or direction. I absolutely agree that they try to do the storytelling with the matches and I also feel like that is a breath of fresh air. Although I will say that lately the product has done some very good things with the addition of Catch Point as a catalyst, heel faction against the rest of the roster along with PAB to a degree.

Evolve is the most inconsistent yet oddly awesome promotion perhaps in the world. They have these really good workers that have strong matches yet the booking is so often lacking. Not to mention the aforementioned technical issues. It makes me sad because I loved Sapolsky era ROH and this isn't anywhere near that for me.

Yeah Lince is a big head scratcher for me as well. I think he would be good fodder for a bigger name so let us hope that is the case.

I used the analogy because it's the same as what that poster is doing - imposing current standards onto something that had a different meaning, or at least multiple meanings, in the '70s and '80s. Exactly. People need to take historical context into account if they're going to argue about something. You can't just take 2016 standards and retroactively apply them to 1985. Characters in Twain's books owned slaves, which obviously isn't good, but you can't suddenly say Twain wrote them as villains when he didn't necessarily do that. It was a different time, with different standards and different perceptions. You can look back and say how backward those characters were by today's standards, but you can't say the author intended them to be bad people just because that's the way they'd be seen now. I understand not wanting to give Michael Hayes the benefit of the doubt because of Mark Henry and other incidents, but the fact is, the Rebel Flag outfits the Freebirds wore did not give them racist heat at the time. That was clearly not the intention back then. The sad reality is that we live in a world where anytime someone tries to discuss this kind of issue it just draws ignorant and overblown arguments. In other news, I'm actually digging this collections idea they're going with. Helps encapsulate careers or eras.

I used the analogy because it's the same as what that poster is doing - imposing current standards onto something that had a different meaning, or at least multiple meanings, in the '70s and '80s. Exactly. People need to take historical context into account if they're going to argue about something. You can't just take 2016 standards and retroactively apply them to 1985. Characters in Twain's books owned slaves, which obviously isn't good, but you can't suddenly say Twain wrote them as villains when he didn't necessarily do that. It was a different time, with different standards and different perceptions. You can look back and say how backward those characters were by today's standards, but you can't say the author intended them to be bad people just because that's the way they'd be seen now. I understand not wanting to give Michael Hayes the benefit of the doubt because of Mark Henry and other incidents, but the fact is, the Rebel Flag outfits the Freebirds wore did not give them racist heat at the time. That was clearly not the intention back then. The sad reality is that we live in a world where anytime someone tries to discuss this kind of issue it just draws ignorant and overblown arguments. In other news, I'm actually digging this collections idea they're going with. Helps encapsulate careers or eras.

I continue to echo your sentiments, shoe. I felt like Zayn and Nakamura was hands down the match of the weekend yet I do agree that the Ospreay and Sabre Jr match was right up there.

Mostly like it'll be the Attitude Era guys on my ballot. Guys like Undertaker, Austin, and Bret Hart are probably my most notable high votes but that is what makes this thing so intriguing because it's all opinion based.

I feel like a huge deal of the criticism towards Hunter is the way he was booked and while sure, there is a huge percentage of his career as the boss' in-law I do think we need to recall that he was very capable before any of that ever happened. Triple H was already on the trajectory towards being a top guy going all the way back to late 1998 so I feel like a lot of his legacy would have gone unchanged until present day with his COO stuff. Also, I think there's a huge problem with people fixating on his political history and they pretty much ignore the fact that he worked pretty much everyone WWE had come through the door for about a decade and as was already mentioned, had some pretty fantastic matches for a good while. I have Triple H on my list and I'm not ashamed of that. In the last 15 years, Triple H has been a staple and has been very good for a big part of that. Don't worry, Arn Anderson is much ahead of him

This feels like a huge troll or something overall because I just can't help but feel like WWE is the one place where this awesome talent isn't going to do a bit of good. It all boils down to if the booking process is left alone with one concise vision, much unlike WWE as a whole, or if Vince gets his dirty hands on it. I feel like this is a big Triple H project though and if so, I have high hopes.