CurtainJerker

The real shame is that no one watches the match AFTER this one. Marty Jannetty single-handedly carries the six man tag match by selling for most of it, better than Ricky Morton. The fans never lost interest and had much more energy and attention than Hennig vs Nick or anything else on the PPV.

Duggan is deceptively smart and wise in podcasts/shoots. I don't underate his brawling skills nor his popularity and character work. He had "crowd control" and was ultra charismatic. I feel most smarks don't give him a second look because of the Austin job but probably more because of his comic childlike Captain Caveman/USA HOOOO gimmick (which to me is not an objective criticism considering it GOT OVER with the live fans). The drug charge did derail his championship prospects. Perhaps an IC or even World title run would have tricked smarks into looking at him more (like they did with Yokozuna). I first was exposed to Jim in UWF and was amazed. And yes, he held his own and was NOT out of place as a main eventer. WWF fans would have been perfectly happy with Jim in the main even scene for many years. Live fans didn't want him to be languishing in the midcard in WWF or WCW. I could understand Vince punishing Jim for the kayfabe breaking drug arrest, but not Eric Bischoff's "no matter how loud the live pop, Duggan's presence "means nothing for ratings". Whose fault is that? The booker, not the performer.

The original tenants of PWO (and its forerunners) were that as long as you do the work and watch and analyze matches (and show your work) you could come to more accurate conclusions about a wrestler's talent and skill more than actual promoters, fan reaction, wrestlers, magazines, and dirtsheets. In other words, you were encouraged to reconsider everyone with a fresh mind. However as people compared notes, this had created a bit of groupthink years ago, such as the consensus (with John Williams being influential) looking down upon, say, Shawn Michaels, Bruiser Brody, and Kurt Angle while going gaga for, say, Terry Funk, William Regal, and Jumbo Tsuruta (I only found one of those men entertaining to watch). Some leaders of this community made cases for their pet choices like Ric Flair, Nick Bockwinkel, Jerry Lawler, Ted DiBiase, et al. while generally frowning upon new age workers like Kenny Omega and Will Ospreay (yet AJ Styles would get the free pass for some reason). My point: Great Matches are how *you* rate great matches, not any one else's. So just because a wrestler may be amazing technically with attention to detail and character work, but said wrestler never got a real push, doesn't draw much fan reaction or heat, or is just flat out boring to you, don't feel pressured to rank said worker high. I value fan reaction (Japanese culture aside). I know there was a debate about this. Then again everything was debated here. But IMHO, if fans are sitting on their hands in the U.S. the wrestlers in the ring have failed at their craft- even if we- watching from the 2020s- judge the match to be perfectly executed. But this is not an all or nothing thing! When I judge a match fan reaction is simply a part of the overall package, weighted based on my own value system. But ultimately, in my view, it is impossible to give a match 5 stars, 10/10, A+ if the fans fell asleep not matter how great it was. How I judge matches and wrestlers [I am not decided if I will rank based on promos/mic]: Is the opening sequence clear and purposeful? Do the wrestlers establish distinct characters right away? Is there an obvious story seed (title on the line, rivalry, stipulation)? Does the crowd react strongly to the start (cheer, boo, silence)? Are the first few spots technically sound (clean hits, safe bumps)? Can I already see a tentative three‑act outline? Mid‑Match 7. Do the wrestlers vary pacing (slow‑burn vs. fast bursts) appropriately? 8. Is there a clear escalation of intensity toward a climax? 9. Are moves sold convincingly (reactions, facial expression, body language)? 10. Do the performers show good ring psychology (setting up later spots, targeting weak points)? 11. Are transitions smooth with no awkward pauses? 12. Is there a mix of high‑impact spots and quieter “catch‑your‑breath” moments? 13. Do the wrestlers adapt to the crowd’s energy (feeding cheers/boos, adjusting tempo)? 14. Are there any noticeable safety issues (mistimed bumps, overly risky spots)? 15. Do both competitors get moments to shine (balanced spotlight)? 16. Is the match length appropriate for its stakes (neither rushed nor dragged)? 17. Are there filler sequences (repetitive moves, unnecessary restarts)? Climax & Finish (last 5‑10 min) 18. Does the climax feel earned (previous spots logically lead to it)? 19. Is the finish decisive and satisfying (clear winner, logical conclusion)? 20. If there’s a finish‑run, does it heighten drama without feeling contrived? 21. Do the wrestlers’ expressions convey the outcome (relief, frustration, triumph)? 22. Is the post‑match reaction (celebration, attack, handshake) consistent with the story? 23. Did the crowd’s reaction match the intended finish (cheer, gasp, silence)? 24. Were any surprise elements (turns, interference) integrated smoothly? 25. Did the match leave a memorable highlight moment that sticks out? Overall Quality 26. Does the match follow a coherent three‑act structure from start to finish? 27. Are holds, reversals, and chain‑moves executed cleanly and purposefully? 28. Are all spots tied back to the central narrative or character motivations? 29. Are high‑risk moves performed safely and impressively? 30. Does the match sustain audience interest throughout? 31. Do the wrestlers stay true to their personas from bell to bell? 32. Does the ending resolve the conflict in a satisfying way? 33. Would I want to watch this match again or recommend it? 34. Overall rating (1‑10): ______ Final Quick Check 35. Can I summarize the match’s story in two sentences? 36. Does each phase (opening, middle, ending) have a distinct purpose? 37. Did the wrestlers adapt fluidly to the crowd and each other? 38. Is there at least one moment that will stick with me after the show ends? Wrestler Skill Evaluation Checklist Use this checklist to determine when you have watched enough of a wrestler’s work to responsibly rank their skills. Check items as you go. When most boxes are filled, your conclusions are likely grounded rather than reactionary. Phase 1: First Read (Minimum Exposure) Goal: Establish baseline impressions, not final judgments. 1 early-career, developmental, or lower-card match 1 standard TV or midcard match 1 match vs a similar-style opponent 1 match vs a contrasting-style opponent 1 match with clear stakes or storyline context Checkpoint: - [ ] Initial strengths and weaknesses identified (tentative) - [ ] No final rankings assigned yet Phase 2: Pattern Recognition (Core Evaluation) Goal: Identify repeatable traits across contexts. Total matches watched so far: ____ (target: 10–15) Multiple opponents across different roles Both wins and losses observed Matches of varying lengths Different crowd sizes or environments You can now begin ranking: - [ ] Timing & rhythm - [ ] Selling habits - [ ] In-ring psychology - [ ] Match layout & storytelling - [ ] Facial expressions & body language - [ ] Crowd interaction tendencies - [ ] Character clarity Checkpoint: - [ ] Same traits appear consistently - [ ] Fewer surprises in basic match structure Phase 3: Confirmation & Nuance (Advanced Evaluation) Goal: Stress-test assumptions and uncover higher-level skills. Total matches watched so far: ____ (target: 20–30) At least 2 tag or multi-person matches At least 1 match where the wrestler clearly carries the opponent At least 1 match where the wrestler is outmatched At least 1 match with a cold or difficult crowd At least 1 high-pressure or big-match setting Skills evaluated here: - [ ] Ring generalship - [ ] Adaptability to opponents and styles - [ ] Improvisation - [ ] Crowd responsiveness (reacting, not just leading) - [ ] Consistency across performances Checkpoint: - [ ] Strengths hold up under stress - [ ] Weaknesses are clearly contextual or structural Skill-Specific Confidence Thresholds Use these as guidance for when a rating feels earned. Athleticism & execution (3–5 matches) Charisma / presence (5–8 matches) Mic / promo ability (5–10 promos, varied settings) In-ring psychology & storytelling (10–15 matches) Consistency (15–25 matches) Carry ability (20+ matches) Big match performance (context-dependent) Diversity Check Match variety matters more than raw volume. Different opponent quality levels Different match stakes Different booking roles (dominant, underdog, utility, antagonist) Different eras, if applicable Final Readiness Test I can usually predict their opening structure I understand how they build momentum I know how they adjust to crowd reactions I can articulate what they do well and what they avoid If most boxes are checked: You are ready to rank their skills with confidence. Notes & Observations (Use this space for recurring patterns, standout matches, or contextual caveats.)

When AEW first started IMHO their battle royals were much better than WWE ones. Having most of the people on the outside and going under the top ropes last night sucked big time.

Love Bobby, he was a super bumper with great timing, comedy, and could draw heat. That said I can't see how Elliot can rationalize Heenan being in the Top 5 based on Elliot's own Gordy List remix:

Interesting...will have to watch these 2002 matches. Dustin was amazing in WCW, liked his tag run with Stardust and his AEW work, but felt his 90s Goldust stuff was not good in the ring due to the character directives.

Bill James, the creator of the Keltner List, was a supporter of giving credit to losing seasons due to World War II and not having Negro League stats documented. One would think we ought to extrapolate from missing footage.

Have not revisited Shawn's return run in 10+ years, but I do recall boring headlocks in long matches, which is ironic since it's not what he's known for. I think he was trying to be what Danielson is today.

It's a swerve. Punk vs KENTA will happen.

Glad you said it, because it's true. I'll take it one step further and say if he wasn't such a beloved meme and so nostalgic due to Hulkamania, he would have been cancelled.

Tabletop Face to the Mat: The most creative tabletop wrestling game I have ever played. Super niche, but new sets are produced every two years. Your fed will become alive and offers many surprises. Includes booking plus playing out the matches. Fictional sets and historic and ersatz sets exist as well. It's basically a late 1990s/early 2000s Raw simulator. Champions of the Galaxy: The best fictional wrestlers/ongoing storyline I've come across. Great artwork. Has some strategy due to choices made with dice rolling. Been active since late 1986. Also is digital. Great community. Ultra Quick Wrestling: The best chart I've seen which resolves fights in a few seconds. Great for historical yearly sims. No more new sets or support anymore though. Downey Games has other overpriced wrestling games as well. PC Pro Wrestling Superstar: Digital version of the 1980s tabletop. Was disappointed that there's no real strategy/choices, and matches tend to go on forever due to the point system. Tom Vogel's Wrestling's Finest: Digital version. Insanely priced ($99) and you have to email Tommy to get anything. 1990s GUI. No real strategy. Total Extreme Wrestling (Extreme Warfare Revenge): What every booking game tries to copy. May be the best, but has major design issues and programmer Adam Ryland forces his vision of how pro wrestling works on the users. Wrestling Spirit 2-3: Best text game with play-by-play matches and abilities. Some GUI/database issues. Pro Wrestling Sim: TEW with less features but better GUI. Popular nowadays. TNM7: I'm sorry, but this game still look and plays like it's 1995. Should be shareware at this point, but it's overpriced. Tournament Edition is actually every cool, but the wrestlers only have the bare min. of stats, so it's a crapshoot. Fire Pro Wrestling World: Difficulty is either too hard or too easy. Dislike GUI for selecting/scrolling wrestling. Mobile 80s Mania, etc: Really was my favorite app when it first came out due to the characters and nostalgia. But the lack of strategy, grinding, and cash grabs killed my enjoyment. WWE SuperCard: Really was into this when it first came out. Loved the actual battles and card collecting. Not so much with the tournaments and cash grabs. Journey of Wrestling: Innovative web-based booking sim. So-so GUI. Wish it was downloadable because it feels like one day it will just disappear.

I could see the case for the #1 GWE to be Lou Thesz's if one extrapolates a bit. He technically was the GOAT in terms of mat work and championship defenses. Watched around 25 Lou Thesz matches, most of them twice. His 1950s stuff was his best. Pros: Longevity, long peak, authentic, legitimate, realistic, stamina, most respected and acclaimed World Champion, excellent tweener and heel work, shoot style selling and matwork, Man of 1000 Holds, main eventer, excellent opponents, finishes are "highspots" of the era and are usually flash pins. Cons: Didn't work the crowd and in many matches the crowd was for his opponent. He saw that as a feature, not a bug. His crowd manipulation required fans to pay attention to the match. The stakes were that the crowd was watching what looked to be authentic, so they required patience and there was tension. His sports entertainment qualities were virtually non-existent. He's a thinking fan's wrestler, but some of the longer matches put me to sleep (literally). I prefer heel bumping, movement, and entertainment than Thesz's submission holds. That's just my taste. I found his Memphis stuff to be out of time and over the heads of the studio audience. Same with his Japanese stuff- just feels cringe and he doesn't come off like a Living Legend a la Bruno Sammartino in the mid-1980s. Lou may have had a great look in the 40s and early 50s but he looked (and acted) 10 years older than his true age in every era. Considerations: Incomplete record on video; he has well over 5000 matches in his career. He was the exception to the rule- by the 1950s wrestling was sports entertainment for TV, yet Uncle Lou was the face of wrestling as a non-clown. Thesz was the prototype for Brisco, Backlund, Hart, Punk, Danielson, and FTR as a throwback/model/gatekeeper to what rasslin' "ought" to have been.

Peaks: Cena had 3 years where an argument could be made he was #1 in the world, Bret had 2. Cena was pushed as The Man in WWE longer. Longevity: Hart had 1500+ more matches than Cena, believe it or not. Both have had at least one match in 25 different years. Execution: Of course, Bret. Cena could be sloppy and not crisp. Consistency: Hart, although the revelations of him mailing it in at house shows hurts him. Cena started off bad and improved every year, and eventually became a modern spot monkey during the U.S. Open Challenge. Volume of big matches available: Cena. Went above and beyond with limited opposition and opportunity: Yes, Bret was the King of the Dark Ages. If I was a booker I'd go with Hart to have a better quality match, Meltzer's star ratings be damned.

He seems like a different animal in ROH matches, similar to how his NXT matches were at another level compared to WWE main roster. I still have issues weighing him being a charisma vacuum/forcing a character, i.e. Dean Malenko.

It really shouldn't. It's amazing how it was so offensive to people, even though in the end we are all attempting to quantify the subjective. I'd recommend a Preference Checker to build a list as well: https://czeckd.github.io/preference-revealer/dist/ I may be cynical but it all ultimately comes down which wrestler has the most appealing style to voters, also called My 100 Favorite Wrestlers. I do confess I would have liked some rules or marching orders besides "there are no rules besides the wrestler must have been nominated" and "footage, footage, footage".