Grimmas

You may disagree with it, but pretty bad? El Generico was a top worker in the world for a decade now.

104 - Chris Hero 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 2148 # of Ballots: 52 Average Vote: 59.69 High Vote: 18 (Mrzfn) Low Vote: 99

I think people forget Bob Backlund is still around. Also Kerry.

4 left till we get to 100!! 3 of them are on my list. 1 is one of the biggest stars in wrestling history. 1 is still adding to his case. 1 is a big time draw in their home territory. 1 is Canadian.

Forgot to put it in, but Maeda was 61 in 2006.

He is still kicking... for now.

105 - Akira Maeda 2006 Ranking: 61 Points: 2113 # of Ballots: 52 Average Vote: 60.37 High Vote: 13 Low Vote: 97 Recommended Match: Akira Maeda vs vs Tatsumi Fujinami (6/12/1986)

Next time someone gets that many is the number 98.

Man, this loss was the hardest. I blame myself and not campaigning enough for Waltman. Sad days indeed.

106 - Sean Waltman 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 2073 # of Ballots: 68 Average Vote: 70.51 High Vote: 23 (topropepodcast) Low Vote: 100

Low Ki was on my list. Three postings today, lost two.

"I think Bill Dundee may be too high because no one has been able to point me to any non-Jerry Lawler matches that could be argued as classics." goodhelmet

107 - Low Ki 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 2046 # of Ballots: 58 Average Vote: 66 High Vote: 2 (Mando>Eddie) Low Vote: 99

108 - Steve Grey 2006 Ranking: honourable mention (135) Points: 2017 # of Ballots: 42 Average Vote: 53.02 High Vote: 7 (Frankensteiner) Low Vote: 97 "Steve Grey was a higher end Tito Santana for the British scene. He was so easy to root for." Moonsault Marvin

What Parv said. I will add more to this once his spot is revealed.

I talked to him up.

Anyone who thinks its absolute either way its nuts.

I might put this in my sig until it is explained. Seriously? He did every aspect of wrestling better and for longer with better results. Virtually everyone believes this and would co-sign it, so why isn't it an objective given that Bryan > Gigante? I see nothing gained by insisting on the hypothetical Gigante advocate in a world where 99.99%+ of wrestling fans would see it as a no brainier Bryan is better. The insistence on absolute subjectivity makes a mockery of what you just said. Why go to the extremes? I never said it was absolute subjective. However I also would never claim it's absolute objective. Middle ground, like all art, is where it's at.

I was hoping he could get into the 100s. I really love his work and its incredibly varied over his career.

109 - "Living Legend" Larry Zbyszko 2006 Ranking: honourable mention Points: 2014 # of Ballots: 52 Average Vote: 62.27 High Vote: 12 (Andrew Lacelle) Low Vote: 99

I might put this in my sig until it is explained. Seriously? He did every aspect of wrestling better and for longer with better results.

Exactly. I think people mistake what I'm talking about when I say "objectivity", it has nothing to do with my list or with BIGLAV or anything like that, it has to do with pointing at evidence, whether input or output, a guy's career, what actually happened etc. etc. Objectively, Kenta Kobashi had more matches period than Magnum TA. This is a fact. Magnum TA's career was short. These are tangible, measurable things. Who had more "great matches" is a subjective value judgement, but most people who have seen a good chunk of both careers, would say Kobashi had more of them than Magnum. Again, this sort of thing is in the realm of objectivity. I have a hard time thinking about the argument that takes that evidence about both bodies of work and comes out with Magnum TA as the #1 worker. To me that goes against the grain of what is there. I really hate this part. Wrestler A has more great matches than Wrestler B. Does know automatically come to the conclusion that Wrestler A > Wrestler B. Yes Kobashi is better than Magnum, however there is more to being a worker than the end quality of a match. When does match quality matter? When does it not? It's a part of the overall thin, it's just not everything. I have Christian over Michaels, yet Michaels had more great matches.

In retrospect I really should had pushed for Tyson Dux and Eric Young to be nominated.

Exactly. I think people mistake what I'm talking about when I say "objectivity", it has nothing to do with my list or with BIGLAV or anything like that, it has to do with pointing at evidence, whether input or output, a guy's career, what actually happened etc. etc. Objectively, Kenta Kobashi had more matches period than Magnum TA. This is a fact. Magnum TA's career was short. These are tangible, measurable things. Who had more "great matches" is a subjective value judgement, but most people who have seen a good chunk of both careers, would say Kobashi had more of them than Magnum. Again, this sort of thing is in the realm of objectivity. I have a hard time thinking about the argument that takes that evidence about both bodies of work and comes out with Magnum TA as the #1 worker. To me that goes against the grain of what is there. I really hate this part. Wrestler A has more great matches than Wrestler B. Does know automatically come to the conclusion that Wrestler A > Wrestler B. Yes Kobashi is better than Magnum, however there is more to being a worker than the end quality of a match.

There is a difference though, since reporting on the others is reporting on a wrestling company, while LU is reporting on a tv show. They don't do houseshows or live shows or anything, it's all canned taped stuff. Its wrestling. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter has always covered it. There is no difference. I don't really care, I don't have a sub. Him chastising anyone for caring is silly though. Helps to subscribe or be familiar with it before getting mixed up in the discussion. I follow him on twitter. I've got to stop, ti's the worst. It's just him making fun of people.