ElHijodeGorgeousGeorge

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.

I feel like a huge percentage of fans are more excited for this show than they are Mania. Especially that fruitful 18-40 male demographic. I definitely think that Bayley has to stay in NXT just a little longer mainly to help rebuild a Women's Division that was badly dilapidated with the big "Divas Revolution" call up. I think the match with Asuka will blow everyone away and might be on par with the Sasha matches if all goes well. Joe vs Balor II is going to be amazing in and of itself and I'm very intrigued to see what they do in reference to the rumored debuts of Bullet Club. Joe is my dude so he's gotta leave with that pretty belt. Also, don't sleep on that tag title match because both American Alpha and The Revival are solid as hell. Also, Austin Aries in a WWE ring! Just a very smart and stacked show for the flagship of older WWE fans.

I wonder if the Reigns/HHH match bleeds into the big Hell in a Cell match. I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't just 1999 all over again and the finish of the match is a big "ahahah me and daddy were in on it all along" and Vince screws over Taker. If that is the case, this is going to be a really funky development. As was mentioned previously, I'm mainly excited because it is WRESTLEMANIA WEEKEND JESUS.

I'll be in the deepest, darkest Rural Arkansas with a college buddy watching as much wrestling as humanly possible. Mostly the interest is involving the NXT show tonight though for us and as has been mentioned, Mania is Mania so I watch in sordid interest to see if the biggest clusterfuck in history actually happens or if they can somehow salvage the show. Either way this is my favorite weekend of the year.

I think it is a combination of both that makes wrestling work. Wrestling works when things fit in a certain pattern, that is absolutely obvious and while it has been mentioned and I've noticed on my own that every company has their own "formula", they also find ways to re-wrap the package sort of speak. The formulas are what makes us really appreciate the rarities like Lesnar that just take a huge dump on traditional match building. Lesnar does that because honestly, if he worked like everyone else he wouldn't be effective. Let us recall how it worked out when he WAS treated as everyone else back in the early 2000's. Jayme put it perfectly I think because this isn't just wrestling that this kind of formula conversation is in reference to, it is literally any form of storytelling. As humans, for the most part we look for and expect this rhythm of events to placate what we watch for. If the baby face didn't win the huge blow off every time, then wrestling loses it's luster quite quickly.

I really loved this match and didn't expect to based on some similar reviews I'd heard that have been stated previously. I especially loved the nuances that both men used, especially Thesz' little short elbows while in a hold to really sell how fucking vicious he was. Rogers had incredibly poise and that really made me see where he got the reputation that he has had now for decades. I would agree that the match began to drag and actually I've yet to see the Verne/Thesz draw so I'll be on that soon.

Hey this stuff is super exciting though! I'm intrigued to see where everyone's outlook on what makes a great worker to everyone individually.

All I know is that the climate of WWE's business now is very bizarre because more than ever, they go against the grain so heavily. To me, if I'm a businessman in any shape or form and I see the kind of risk-reward analysis that we have with Roman's rise in the last 18 months or so I'm saying what in the blue fuck? While I agree that he's to some degree "over", there are a handful of other talents in my mind that could do as good or better in his role. Ambrose is the obvious name but hell, even a guy like Owens could make a huge difference in a few years when the face turn comes around. The biggest issue with WWE is building stars that are going to be around for the long haul. If you look at the years after the Attitude stuff, you see a huge power vacuum and hence the Triple H run we suffered through in the early Draft days. The most vital approach would be to go with what you have and run with it. That's what made Daniel Bryan's overness so incredibly special because everyone sort of knew he was the best regardless of if he's in a meaningless match or not.

Being someone that wasn't even alive when the show aired, what was this like as a kid fan to see such a weak build for Mania 4? I've always wondered because when you see the show without any context, it seemed like there was this grand road that led them to these matches, no matter how awful they may have been.

I think the Cruiser Tournament will have some fantastic matches but as has already been outlined, will amount to fuck-all. Vince doesn't give a shit and Triple H, while he might very well care, isn't stupid enough to make this into a godly moment knowing that it won't go anywhere. I think those stating this ends with La Sombra as the winner aren't all together wrong. As for the talk about aces, it's pretty clear Vince is obsessed with Roman Reigns regardless of his prowess. It's not about who is over or resonates anymore in WWE, it is about who appeals to the boss and sells enough merchandise to enough of the crowd to warrant the money spent on them. Sad, but true.