A mostly negative thread here. I can see why, on first impression, Jeff Hardy doesn't seem like what you would traditionally define as a "great" wrestler, let alone one of the 100 greatest of all time, as a representative of the hardcore WWF/E tag matches of 25 years ago; however, as his defenders have pointed out earlier in this thread, there's more to him that meets the eye. I very much agree with the notion that Jeff was one of the best babyfaces in the WWE, probably in all of North America at minimum, between 2006-2008, and he did this while working fairly standard singles and tag matches with his brother. I stand by pretty much all of the matches Jimmy Redman recommended for this period, and I think the Triple H series is especially a feather in his cap considering the dearth of quality in Hunter's other singles work during this time period. I do think, though, as Redman also stated, that the hardcore period of his career, 1999-2003 to be specific, gets misconstrued; he's not as good of a seller then as he is later in his career, but he's not exactly lacking in this department either. Despite the matches he partook in often being considered car crashes, the dangerous feeling those matches provide still holds up decades later because of Jeff's commitment to take the nuttiest bumps possible and then his commitment to selling the weight of that work.
Am I going to vote for Jeff? If I did, he'd probably be my vanity #100 for sentimental reasons, being my first favorite wrestler and someone whose work I still enjoy. But I think he's worthy of discussion, too, and probably a little underrated in this bubble of wrestling discussion.