Benbeeach

I think it says something for all the muscle bound freaks that never make it that we consistently roll our eyes at, Batista is one that actually did, and did in a spectacular way. Never became a super worker but became more than competent and like others said, never stopped trying to improve, even when he was getting close to and well past the big 4-0. Not sure he should get extra points for not being Mason Ryan, but a guy like Bobby Lashley is right there with comparable physique and exponentially more physical and athletic gifts, and I'd probably take Batista in every measure that there is as it pertains to rating a pro wrestler without giving it a second thought. Is he the only net positive in HHH's dossier?

Agreed as momentum shift. Cut off, shine move, the way Ricky used it could be masterful. It's not the sistine chapel of wrestling aesthetics or creativity however. The guys with the all time body slams, side headlocks, and fireman's carries deserve their just due too I'd reckon. Again, I can meet in the middle and say most of the stuff Steamboat did do, looked great (although I wouldn't shed one tear if I never see another overhand karate chop again for the rest of my life) and his offense was perfectly fine for the time and logical. I really liked his Flair Formula press slam.

If I were to make the case for Misawa's offense as all time great, I'd certainly have to include the elbows, but that wouldn't be it. Even if that were it, I could probably still make the case. Not sure I can buy Steamboats otherworldly arm drags as some kind of catalyst for which to make the same case. The Rock threw nice arm drags.

Give or take.

Was it great? I agree with all the rest.

Damn shame. I wasn't in the war room obviously, but I would've fought tooth and nail for it. Thought it was top 10 material on an absolutely stacked set. But you guys were watching boatloads of footage at the time, it's somewhat understandable. That said if someone asked me to name the best Inoki singles match ever, it'd probably be heads on an "I don't really care what other match you pick as tails" coin. Felt unjust to not include it, in relation to something like this.

I like that in 2016 Dean Malenko is getting some kind of reverse just due. Also intentional or not it's good Tenta was used because he isn't exactly the slam dunk loser the way a typhoon or . . . 1990 Nikolai Volkoff or something would be. (Unless someone want's to make that argument. I'd listen) Also I think Steamboat did have a cap. I don't think offensively Steamboat ever rose above "good" Was perfectly fine, effective offense for the 80s, if not a tad bit uninspiring. Conservative. Which makes it sound like a MOVEZ argument for the sake of moves, when it isn't. (Well kind of) Steamboat was obviously effective at all the things he did, and executed and performed all his moves at the right times in the right ways for maximum affect and effect of the crowd. But I can't think of a Misawa or someone of his ilk and think Steamboat was quite THERE. Close, but even Ricky had his limits, self imposed or what have you. Maybe he really could have done anything in the ring he wanted to, maybe it's best he didn't.

Everything from inception to about Mania 15 was gold to me. I was 7 when it formed. Some stuff was over my head at the time, most of it wasn't and it was some real holy shit stuff for a kid at that age. Wrestling got more juvenile and subsequently made me more mature if that makes sense. Shawn's my favorite ever so I was never going to hate it. I'm real high on the New Age Outlaws. They were always a fun time, until they weren't. X-pac was x-pac. Was always kind of weird not seeing 1-2-3 kid be . . . 1-2-3 kid. That's the role he was born to play, and everything else besides that always felt off. But yeah the comedy, skits, the goddamn THEME music. All worked for me. I have a genuine soft spot for DX Also always thought it was cool that that DX army were a huge faction but not main eventers together or alone. Was a stark difference from the NWO and lots of factions before and after that ate up huge amounts of TV time and storyline. DX was just really high upper mid card fun. Not going to bother talking about 2006. That doesn't count

Like GOTNW I really like Inoki's approach, especially in big matches. He's got the 8/8/88 IWGP title match with Fujinami that didn't make it onto the DVDVR 80s set (I believe the full match wasn't availale in time for the deadline), that'd I easily go near the full 5 with. It's one of the best draws ever, some of the best selling, almost the epitome of the old strong style condensed into one match. It's FAR from boring. But in yoda speak "doesn't make a man, but one match"

Guess you've forgotten Tanahashi's matches vs. Devitt and Yano. Yeah he's totally not going to stop doing that stuff. Those don't even come to mind in terms of "bad habits" That's booking, they're antics, he's going to be the top heel of sorts. It's par for the course, especially in his transition. Been quite the winding road for Omega, as a guy who was overlooked by a lot of promotions for his . . . shtick (in the not given the ball, headliner sort of way) to having said shtick carry him to being potentially the top gaijin in New Japan. Not the typical narrative but I'm here for it nonetheless.

I like him as a tools guy. Just in terms of sheer number of things he could do well was astounding to me. He wasn't a wizard on the mat but looked like he could at least take it there to some reasonable level of credibility if ever booked to do so. Just didn't. Was an amazing base. Had almost unparalleled cardio (kind of a given but still) Amazing character actor. Could fly. Could brawl. Threw the best punches on television for like 6 years. (Honestly why doesn't anyone ever bring up angles punches? They were masterful) As a whole I was never invested in him enough to make an argument one way or the other. But I think he sits firmly between "Greatest" and "Worst" ever. He more than Michaels (Who I think at worst should find his way onto at least the bottom of most lists) is a guy who I can totally see arguments for on plenty of and absolutely no lists. Again as a raw, moldable, create a wrestler, Angle ranks very high. Devils in the details

And the beauty is probably that both parts are right. Sabu's probably top 100 in a way most workers on this list aren't. But that's ok

It's not foolish and it can be done. If you think Lawler is all character development and promos, I am not going to convince you otherwise. I have devoted enough time on podcasts and in projects trying to get people to see the Lawler love. Some get it. Others don't. I am perfectly fine with it. I didn't mean to say that jerry was some hamfisted worker who's charisma and mic skills carried him into good matches, but Memphis as a promotion/region/territory very much had its own distinct feel, in and out of the ring, largely, mostly of Jerry's imprint. In suffice that he is one of the better "total package" guys in the history of the business, I can't personally watch him and not think great feuds and promos and angles and extra curricular "stuff." I don't personally want to and I'm not sure that's how the stuff was intended to be viewed anyway. It's all extra gravy on an already stout resume. That sorta of thing doesn't detract from a Benoit or something (he's got plenty of his own little and gigantic asterixes) but it does ADD to a lawler. With some guys that extra stuff helped the work dots in the ring connect. If people want to judge workers without that stuff, that's commendable and respect you for it. If it helps make things feel more objective than subjective by all means more power to you. With some workers it's easier to separate than others. If it helped make the ring work better, enhanced the story, got the crowd to pop during the match, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander I say.

I'll repeat my point-Kobashi was a terrible promo but he had amazing body language. Worked out just fine. Whatever works

When it comes to a guy like lawler, there is no separating it, and I think it's foolish to even try

I think that's fair, especially at this point, a year plus into the project. My list would've been like 90% in-ring as well, with maybe 10 or so personal faves, or workers I "couldn't see not making the list" that would require some gerrymandering. But I think it's good this thread exists and the questions have been asked. I like that Parv has a BIGLAV and other people have something similar. The universal criterion would be nice, but perhaps a pipe dream

Something like this always struck me as odd, because again, if the list was 100 greatest in-ring workers of all time, then fine I could totally see Dusty being off. But the idea that Dusty Rhodes in his entirety isn't one of the 100 greatest wrestlers of all time sounds bonkers. (And who knows, he might not be) Is Roderick Strong better at all the things pro-wrestling encompasses than Dusty Rhodes was? The entirety of the package does matter in some ways. It makes what were already murky, difficult lists, that much more difficult I know, but again pro-wrestling is spectacle and pomp and circumstance. Be honest with yourselves and ask yourself how a Savage or Austin realistically do on a list like this if you aren't factoring in promo's and extra stuff. Even the in-ring work that we value so much, is enhanced by the total package. Nobody's top 10, 20, 25 matches are heatless affairs. The extra curricular doesn't summarily dismiss entire regions the way it's being made out to be either. Santo was a movie star. Luchadors cut promos all the time. Japanese wrestlers frequented the variety show circuit all the time. Jumbo's playing freaking super mario brothers in his thread. All that stuff matters, and helps their particular audiences form connections with them. The post match faux news conferences Japanese wrestlers have after title matches might mean diddly to us, but it doesn't mean they mean nothing as a whole. What factoring in some larger scale, or seemingly ancillary criteria does, isn't so much make the list "unfair." It just makes it . . . hard. Inexact, surely, but this already was. If this was easy however all our lists would be done, and we'd have nothing to talk about. To wipe away xy and z criteria, I'm not entirely sure is being done as a service to the workers, as it is a, I don't want to say crutch, but an ease of use, quality of life tool for us the list makers. I don't even think this necessarily changes the top 10, 20, 25 of most people's lists, because the idea that those workers weren't already getting graded as total packages is a farce. How could you not. Do I *know* for a fact Kenta Kobashi was some killer promo in his day? Not the faintest clue. But I know he was doing *something* to garner those kinds of reactions from the audience. If it was ALL ring work, which sounds unlikely, but possible, then more power to him, doesn't take away from his standing on the list as that's the most important criteria, but if it wasn't, thats ok too and I wouldn't dock him down any because the proof is right there. I say all that to say this. I think everyone on the board is using matches (not necessarily great ones, and therein lies more murk) and ring work as the definitive tool of discernment. I think ring work and matches are a tool, big tool, probably biggest tool, in pro wrestlings overarching major goal, of getting us the audience to care about characters and stories. They're not mutually exclusive nor independent variables. If the project is left purposely vague by just being the 100 greatest wrestlers period, full stop, then all this needs to be taken into consideration. ....and Flair's probably the clear cut number 1.

Echoing everyone else's thoughts, but Vince's energy is just SOOOO different from everyone else's on the roster. He still feels like a giant deal in a way that no one else does. Getting trotted out week after week can kill anyone's buzz, surely, Vince probably knows as well as anyone, but his mere presence flipped the entire script. I commend the old man for just saying "if you won't get him over, I will"

The best Roman's been booked in in like a year and a half. He earned that one tonight.

fascinating that this is a dead stalemate

The Pescado neckbreaker really is a one shot 10/10 move. I have no qualms with that. When it comes to BIGLAV "If it works for you" I like the basic premise. It is a sort of baseline, and I'm sure we all have one for ranking. Like Loss said, some wrestlers cases aren't built off of how well they did in category a) and largely off an otherworldly b ) and it makes the scores look rather skewed in a way. No system is flawless though, and I mean at least you have one. It's certainly better than "great worker, who I never want to watch again, and thusly am ranking lower because I'm bored with them" Will you rank Bobby Eaton over Bret Hart? Or does this serve as a baseline, for well another baseline, in rankings. Or for instance does scoring a 38 and above mean said wrestler was a greater wrestler than/will be ranked higher than Misawa? Also what does it say for wrestlers who's peaks weren't a decade plus, but we're very good workers capable of greatness over a long stretch? (An elder statesman Misawa comes to mind, can there be a plus one for still being great after the peak is over? Is Liger like a 12?) Feel like there are quite a few luchadors who seem like locks for a 40 score but alas . . .

I'm thinking about doing something like this for U.S. indy women too. Just how much of a gap (if there even is one) is there between Sasha and the likes of Sara Del Ray, Cheerleader Melissa, MsChif, Serena Deeb, Madison Eagles, Mercedes Martinez, etc? Is Sasha just getting hyped due to more exposure? ...yes But she isn't undeserving by any means. But I mean yeah, more people probably saw her Takeover matches than have ever watched Shimmer in its entirety, ever. Life

Missed the initial discussion wave, but I voted Sasha/Bayley. It touched me in ways that no other match this year has. In a way not a whole lot of matches have period. It's the only match I've heard parts of the internet speak of with "moved to tears" as legitimate praise. From pre match hype videos to the post match, it was nearly flawless. There are a lot of qualifiers you can put on it, history, context, relativity, and so on that add, or will add to the match's lore, rightly or wrongly (and I don't think matches exist in a vacuum so it all counts to me) but what happened from bell to bell is undeniably good, and definitely a MOTYC I think Brock and Reigns was special in its own way, and certainly very good, and was on its way to accomplishing some really great things, but it isn't the total package Sasha Bayley was. It also isn't the best match in Mania history. (I think I'd comfortably put Bret/Austin above it, and maybe some lesser spoken of matches) But it's on the short list definitely.

I've seen people make the same argument against Shawn for taking too long to tap to the Ankle Lock. Damned if you do . . .

Bill wrote a fantastic piece the day after the Celtics won the title in 2008. Felt like the culmination of not just the Celtics season/redemption but of his writing itself. That was 7 and a half years ago though