Matt D

It's not that I don't think that Jericho is better than Disco Inferno; it's that I'm just not sure.

Personally, I think Hogan's a much better candidate for the "There can be a middle ground between great and terrible" list. He did what he did almost as well as anyone. There are a lot of things he didn't do well. There are a number of things he actively did poorly, to hurt matches, especially outside of a few year prime. Some of his strengths also led to his weaknesses either due to the ability to get away with neglect or because they overshadowed other things. For years upon years, his strengths were overlooked due to a far too narrow view of wrestling by the pundits. He wasn't on my list, but I'm glad to see him on the main list and above someone like Dynamite, for what he represents. It'll be a list that rewards many different qualities and that's probably for the best.

I can sort of accept Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho because for almost two decades they have been considered incredible in ring wrestlers by the majority of the internet wrestling community. I don't agree personally, and nor do many people here, but they either speak to people or people have been conditioned to accept them as wonderful workers. Whereas someone like Hogan has been pretty much accepted as a poor toaverage worker from all sides - even the praise tends to focus on his charisma and character and the way his big matches are structured. So it seems far more strange to see him so high. Just, you know, two of the most important aspects of being a great pro wrestler. Nothing big or anything. Possibly, but if you take that train of thought you end up taking drawing power and merchandise sales into consideration. He was mediocre in ring, and for all his charisma there are very few of his feuds, interviews and/or segments that are worth revisiting. His charisma often raised his big matches into something greater than the sum of their parts, true. Wait what? No I'm not. Charisma can be an in ring trait, just like athleticism. You can qualitatively judge both of them. Character work is far more important to me than hitting impressive spots cleanly or working really hard or whatever.

I can sort of accept Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho because for almost two decades they have been considered incredible in ring wrestlers by the majority of the internet wrestling community. I don't agree personally, and nor do many people here, but they either speak to people or people have been conditioned to accept them as wonderful workers. Whereas someone like Hogan has been pretty much accepted as a poor toaverage worker from all sides - even the praise tends to focus on his charisma and character and the way his big matches are structured. So it seems far more strange to see him so high. Just, you know, two of the most important aspects of being a great pro wrestler. Nothing big or anything.

Steven should have made a big deal about the next person being "HH" before Hase, and then dropped Hogan right after when people were grumbling about Hogan still being alive.

I've considered this as well. It is the thing that will end up annoying me about Hogan's final place on the list. Since it will effect how Cena's place on the list is viewed. It never even occurred to me that Hogan could finish above Cena on this list, but it's starting to look alarmingly possible. I fully think Hogan could appear on more ballots than Cena, at least. Hogan is on both the revisionist platform and the kayfabe big star platform. Cena is on the great match platform and the revisionist platform and the kayfabe big star platform. I think he'll be ok.

When making my list I factored how I felt about wrestlers at different points of my life. 12 year old Andrew's favourite wrestler was Rick Rude. I had to acknowledge that. Plus I find myself always gravitating to 92 WCW. When I wanna throw on something to watch, that's near the top of the list. Sure there is lots of other stuff out there, but the aesthetics of that era is my favourite. During my favourite time Rude was the best. I believe not all years are created equal. It means more to me to be the best wrestler in a year like 92, 94, 89 or 97 than it would in 09, 12, or 99. All of that is fair enough. Thanks for chiming in.

1.) I don't want to distract from the point. I was mainly naysaying the use of such hypotheticals using the Bret example that we've brought up many, many times here. 2.) That said, it's a good question. I think Bret's quality of opponent would be higher. I think the most interesting thing would be that he would be wrestling different opponents every night (or at least every week), and in doing so, would have developed into a very different wrestler, especially if he jumped over early. If you look at the WWF house show line ups on historyofwwe.com, you can see how they ran the same match night after night after night for months, really, while WCW,, at the same time, barely had the same line-up two nights in a row. I'm not sure what that would have meant for his imagination or creativeness and general match quality in a world where it's much harder to get bored in front of crowds with very different expectations.

Andrew, come and talk to us about Rick Rude.

If he had ended up in Mid-Atlantic or Mid-South instead of WWF. If he had jumped to WCW in 1991. If he had homesteaded in New Japan instead. From the evidence we have, Dynamite might have become the best of the WoS workers of his era if he stayed. I get that point. He didn't stay though. He jumped to Calgary and became something else instead. And now he's above all of them, generally by far.

And by that logic, Bret Hart should be #1. I'm not saying Dynamite shouldn't be #212 or something.

Frankly, I prefer the Danish Dynamite.

"Greatest British wrestler ever." Ouch. I like Dynamite at times (mainly as a heel), but considering the Brits who didn't make the list who are far superior, that kind of hurts.

I wish we had more fancams out of the Europe tour. I only want to see Reigns vs Sheamus so many times, relatively. Usually the Europeans do us one step better. Someone at DVDVR posted this though:

I would (and will) argue that being the best at what is most basic and primal is exactly why he should be on a list like this.

I wish Tito was higher but it really is a big jump from last time.

They're bringing Bret in because he was so brutal in his commentary about the company in the last two months, right? What a screwed up company.

There's a lot to dig through here even if the poster's idea of "best of" is sort of dubious: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/csv29tx/

Well, we disagree there but I've stated my thoughts at length. As for Taker, I am Taker-neutral,

Which ignores the major point for earnest banter, by the way as in i proffered a specific initiative. And I can spell quebradora but boy was it not rolling off the lips.

I really liked Lucas/Morton vs Dynamic Duo. Structurally, it was clever, with the faces being pissed off enough to get themselves DQ'd immediately and then it settling into a more typical shine/heat/comeback format, with the shine lasting through the next fall. I loved them working Gino's arm. Morton showed both the connection to the crowd we know him for and a lot of fun offense, even if not everything was hitting perfectly. Lucas was like an older, more seasoned Morton, which is a different sort of dynamic than Gibson. Tully was super athletic here, again, just dynamic flying around the ring with broader body language than we're used to, I think. I wasn't so high on the hot tag, though Lucas' initial flurry coming in was great. The tag itself was just slightly ill-timed to maximize the moment. I liked the finish a lot though. They did it all so crisply and quickly. It was a BS finish but it worked due to the speed that they moved with it. I could have used a bit more heat but the fact the babyfaces started a fall down, basically, helped, as did the fact that Morton can make a few minutes taking a beating feel like more.

If you think about it, he's got Joe, Nakamura, Sombra, Biff, just to name a few upcoming, plus I imagine he could pull out a better match with Balor than anyone on the roster. He has so many new and interesting match ups over the next couple of years.

If he has another few years at the rate he's going now...

Is anyone who is pro-Andre also anti-Taker? I find that unlikely.

You got a great picture out of it, at least.