Control21

I think this is especially prevalent in the younger generation. I'm sure previous generations have done the same, of course, but there are so many fucked up things about our current context that I think younger folks seek deeper meaning in what they connect with. That's perfectly valid. I'm sure people connected with Dusty Rhodes because he was the "everyman."

I think 1988-1992 Suzuki more than makes up for his NJPW sins, and you can't blame him for taking it easy/blending in after all the mileage he put on his body. He had a few good years in his NJPW work, notably the 2010-2014 period and his stuff with Suzuki-gun.

You could have Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels, which is generally considered a great work of modern American fiction. You could also have Allen Guelzo's Gettysburg, which is a highly praised modern non-fiction account of the battle of Gettysburg. Both cover the same topic and could be considered works of art in their own right. In this sense, Pancrase could be considered a work if pro wrestling art even if it is mostly real. I think in this analogy, UFC would be something like a historian going out to the gun range to test out the account of a Union sniper using a certain rifle to take out a Confederate officer

One branch of Christianity doesn't believe in the trinity, but the other one does. Yet, they both believe in the same deity. Does that make sense?

I think the key distinction is that Pancrase is not purely MMA. They weren't trying to do what UFC or Pride was trying to accomplish. The idea was to have pro wrestling matches without predetermined finishes....which is what pro wrestling essentially evolved from. The earliest stages of wrestling history was pretty much two catch as catch can guys having a match and no one knew who was going to win beforehand

Think about it like...two branches of the same religion or something.

Yeah, that's basically where I am too.

I think anyone who wrestled in Pancrase from 1993-1997 could be considered a pro wrestler if you accept the premise that being predominantly a shoot doesn't stop it from being considered within the pro wrestling context. It probably helps if they did stuff outside of Pancrase like Suzuki or Funaki, or Rutten for that matter. I wouldn't vote for Schilt because he's not interesting enough to me though. Remember, Pancrase had lots of shades of gray with predetermined matches as well.

I think it is. Compare it to PRIDE or UFC, and it's clear it has more in common with pro wrestling than not

Has anyone actually watched that three-hour Chris Hero match?

I think it's dumb when people start to impose their own definitions of what is considered pro wrestling and who is considered a pro wrestler, especially in projects like this. Pro wrestling is defined more by shades of grey than black and white. The evolutionary history of the sport is complicated, and if someone wants to nominate and vote for Muhammad Ali, and the footage is there, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. It's not like someone wants to nominate Rickson Gracie.

He had two other worked pro wrestler vs boxer matches in the lead-up to the Inoki fight.

Just as a fun exercise, here's how I would rank the top 100 if I had to combine it with my original ballot:

I just think ruling out a bunch of 80s/90s guys because they didn't make the Top 100 is a bit silly. We are effectively cutting out historical candidates for modern wrestlers with that sort of rule.

This is extraordinarily arbitrary, and it would rule a lot of people out.

I think we only had 4 or so in 2016

Some tough drops today. Buddy and Yoshida should have been ranked much higher. Losing ZSJ is also tough, but not entirely unexpected. I'm glad Volk, Tamura, Ishikawa, and Ikeda will all be in the top 100 though.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think there is enough grey area in what Frank Shamrock did between U-Style and Pancrase to make him eligible.

Agreed

The Inoki-Ali match is so important to the story of pro wrestling. Thumbing your nose at it is a bit silly. Regardless of whether or not it was a shoot (pro wrestling started as a shoot). Regarding the Shamrock nomination, there's a very good argument that Pancrase can be considered pro wrestling. It was mostly a shoot, but it was also contested under pro wrestling rules. Early Pancrase was more or less treated as a branch of pro wrestling by the Japanese press. It was included in the big Tokyo Dome show for a reason. You can't just automatically think "shoot = MMA" that has no relevance. I actually posed this question on Twitter a few years ago, and Grimmas told me they didn't have a problem with it. I know people have strict definitions of pro wrestling, but this project is all about grappling with the many definitions it has taken over the years.

Yeah, I checked those clips out, and I really don't get it.

100%

Darby being ranked higher than Billy Robinson doesn't sit right with me, but at least he's not higher than Akira Maeda.

Hasn't Takada been doing BJJ with Rickson in the past few years? It was kinda cool seeing photos of the two together

Billy Robinson got disrespected