Matt D

And I'm going to say that this, along with Hogan, Dusty, etc, is much more about workrate not being the end all king that it was ten years ago. There's value in a different sort of babyface performances than Steamboat in Savage vs Steamboat and that's more appreciated now. Sting is not on my list, mind you.

Malenko did fall 34 spots from 2006 though. If I recall correctly, the 2006 countdown was also full of people feeling vexed that the results did not match the discussion. So perhaps it's just endemic to this process. Falling 34 spots feels more like a natural response to the bigger pool, etc. He didn't keep up relatively, but he didn't fall on his own merits or lack thereof or any real reevaluation that seemed to matter.

Placements aside, 101-200 was much more interesting than 100 will be in that regard. It will be a very interesting top 200 list though.

Scarlet-Left wins I think. He's got the most interesting list but is still entirely earnest about it.

We all have gaps. (I'm not one to talk). It's just that more people have that one than anything else, it seems.

I just like my wrestlers I picked and want them to do as well as possible. Do you think it's possible people are taking things a lot more seriously than us at this point? There are a few things I'm frustrated with. I get what's going on with lucha and even 5 or 6 in the top 100 will be a good thing, but the fact that WoS is down to 2 people left and likely only one of them making the top 100, an entire subgenre of wrestling, one with a ton of footage online for free, and so much of it so excellent and engaging, especially when we're in the midst of a revival that draws so much from it. That just seems messed up to me. In general, we're just having fun, but I do think there's something not unreasonable to my previous post.

I think some of the griping and frustration is that there is a sense that the last 18 months of discussion was for "nothing," when results pop up that aren't representative of the discussion in the Nominees thread at all. It does make for a better, broader more credible list in some ways. Something like Malenko, though, where there was so much discussion over the last few years pulling him down from his pillar and barely any defense of him and that barely registering or mattering. There is a sense of "Well, what was the point if this was just going to be the result anyway," full of people who were obviously unfamiliar with the discussion or at the very least unmoved by it. It only bothers me so far, but I can see how it could really bother someone else who was thoroughly engaged for months upon months in this.

I feel like we're about to lose a bunch of the guys that I would love to have in the 100 the most. The Christians and Larry Zs (and yes, Blackwells and Morgans). Subversive picks against the classical conventional wisdom but potentially deserving ones. But the top 115 is no small accomplishment.

Ah I woke up to Blackwell and Morgan gone. What a hell of a run for Blackwell, a guy I don't even think I had heard of more than once or twice before the AWA 80s set and that's been overlooked by certain circles for decades before that. CFCW is a champion for helping him get so far. I've got a feeling many of the next 15 names or so will be brutal for me.

That's one very fun thing about the list. Someone who knows the historiography of wrestling fandom will be very confused by it. "How does Andre, Dusty, and Hogan place in the top 120 except for on drawing or reputation or star power, but then Brody and Tiger Mask don't?" Then they can just assume it's WWE history bias of course and dismiss the thing, but that's not what's going on at all.

I'm a big fan of Bigelow's WWF run in January 93-January 94. The Bret match in MSG, the one in Europe, the Tatanka Rumble match in 94. The fun tag with Yoko vs the Steiners. But it only takes him so far in a case here.

I rewatched this today before reading what you wrote. I don't necessarily want to talk about the quality here (I'm not as high as you are, but I'm not low on it either, especially relative to what follows it. The flaws, I think are with Shawn as are many but all of the strengths). We have a better arena for that. I do think that I had different reads on certain parts of the narratives though, which I find interesting. I think you're underselling Michaels' initial strategy, actually. He's being a dick. He's Shawning it up, but everything he does in this match is also to win. (Or at least almost everything). There's hubris, absolutely, but the hubris is in the build. The hubris was to get to this point, to get his shot at the streak. The early portion of the match is him trying to take any opportunity he can, to annoy Taker into making a mistake, to show him that he's not afraid, to enrage him. Shawn doesn't want him to make a mistake. He NEEDS him to. Those first chops look terrible (And so much of that is Taker's selling later on), because there is literally nothing Shawn can do (save for maybe a Superkick, which is teased early) to hurt Taker at moment zero. He has to chop at the tree, but more than that, he has to get Taker to make a mistake. Let's talk about two things here at the same time. The first is that the most natural emotion in the entire match is when Shawn comes off as old. There are two moments specifically. The first is when he's selling relatively early on, maybe around that first kip up, and he just looks like an old man. He's the one who just retired Ric the year before, and maybe he'd been through the Jericho feud but I think there was an element that Taker was the Monster and Michaels was the Monster Hunter, the Myth and the man at the peak of his power about to bring him down. It would be more clear the next year, but I do think it comes through the cracks here, like an ominous sunlight shining through, and it's the most real thing in the match, especially after the dive when it's clearly apparent that Michaels hubris WAS in the build. He understands what winning means. He needs to win, but he'll win at any cost, not caring if the fans think him a man for it or not, not caring if they boo him. All that matters is the win because the task is so monumental. I'm not sure there's ever quite been a cinematic moment in WWE history more so than Michaels praying for the countout, and it works, not in the way it was supposed to, i think, but because once again, that age shines through. He's an old man praying for a miracle. Looking back, the second Taker made it back in the ring, it was inevitable. Michaels just didn't have the weapons in his arsenal. See, I think you're wrong here. It's a valid reading, one that shapes the way you look at the match, but I think you're wrong. Taker isn't desperate. He's not deep enough to be desperate. Yes, he's bloodied, a wounded beast, first and foremost by the dive that he missed. But he's angry at the kick out after the Last Ride. He's faced Michaels. He knows him. They're contemporaries. And he's angry at Michaels' gall, that he contrived this situation, that he dared to, and then he dared, once again, to kick out. Taker knows he still has the tombstone. He went from chokeslam to Last Ride. Tombstone would be next. He's not desperate because he always has that. What he is, instead, is pissed off. The attempt at the elbow drop is not about desperation. It's about punishment. It's punitive. It's the poetic notion of punishing Michaels with what he's known for, to show him that Wrestlemania belonged to the Undertaker. And maybe it, like the dive that came before it, were the mistakes that Michaels was goading Taker into earlier in the match, the ones that really gave him a fighting chance in the match.

There's a massive difference in footage between Patterson and Stevens.

The only person I'm calling out on the Triple H vote is Goodear. He needs to explain himself. I'll give everyone else a pass.

Magnum has been helped by the Houston footage too.

Mine's a mess.

The biggest Bigelow talking point is he had his best match in his rookie year. That doesn't really bug me but I didn't rank him. I hope Blackwell makes the 100.

I said my money was on Kris' list.

I'm rooting for Christian and Larry Z

120 is pretty much the mathematical definition of B+.

It'll shift to Angle soon. Very fun reveal, Steven. I had to hide the fact I was grinning like an idiot because I didn't want to explain why.

A fine choice for 285.

Grey and Breaks and no one.

He's got to be 120, right?

Wait, someone nominated Dean Malenko?