Matt D

I caught JBL's speech which was pretty much what you'd want it to be and expect it to be (albeit lacking enough stories). On the phone, I can rewind. On the PC, I can't. So I had a few minutes to pop back in and the Bella Twins reading off a screen and referencing "s-heroes" is brutal in comparison and I can't jump back to the previous one.

Did anyone see the good performance Satanico supposedly had this week in his 70s? I didn't feel qualified to vote for Japanese candidates in 2016. As it is, if I add in joshi, French Catch, shootstyle, 70s-90s AJPW and NJPW, and whatever else I can make work in 5 years, I am going to have to kill so many darlings off my 2016 list through no fault of their own.

Re: Jumbo, I'm most of the way through watching every AJPW match we have from 89 now and I've done conscious sweeps backwards to give me the context I needed for it and Jumbo will certainly rank on my list. I say that without giving a real look to 90 and 91 as well. I don't know if he breaks into the top ten because of stylistic reasons. I do feel like I've fully cracked the narrative structure of 89 AJPW tags, to the point where I could make a flow chart that would cover and categorize almost all of them. So I get how they work. But it's not my preferred sort of pro wrestling storytelling and that'll probably hurt Jumbo for me. For what it's worth, I absolutely loved 10/11/89, more so than 5/7/89.

For me, it’s more that I have enough to rank Wahoo 60 but not enough to rank him 20. That sort of thing.

To me, there are two elements to footage as it pertains to people towards the top of your list: The first is your own level of confidence. For instance, I tend to rank people on two things: 1) their theory/instinct/understanding of pro wrestling and 2) their ability to put this into practice/create purposeful success with it. In order to understand this, I'd like to see them in multiple situations over time and against multiple opponents in multiple situations if possible. I'd point here to my case for Bock post which sums up what I'm looking for in order to understand someone enough to be at the top of my list. I understand that people will have different criteria and different goals than me, though, so how much footage you need to rank will vary based on what you value and what you're looking for. I will say this about a specific example since you invoked him. I watched a Yatsu match from 89 vs Abby/Tiger Jeet Singh the other night and he worked it completely different than I've seen him work any other match in 88/89, much more vulnerable, selling bigger, fighting back less, getting over the threat of his opponents and building things up for Jumbo's big entrance. It was an element of earnest (as opposed to scrapping) versatility that I honestly didn't know 89 Yatsu was capable of (or willing to tap into even if the match called for it) until i saw the match and it was very effective within the match. That's the sort of thing which might have him land one spot higher on my list. Not anything monumental but just something that broadens my understanding of him as a total pro wrestler. The second importance of footage is in your ability to back up what you're saying vs rep alone. I'd point to Patterson vs Stevens here. We probably have a few more Patterson matches than Stevens matches, but not a ton, but you can far more clearly see what made Patterson great in those matches than what made Stevens great. I recently (finally!) found a few Stevens performances I sort of liked (in 80, teaming with Snuka in JCP), but it's certainly not on the level that Patterson is or that Stevens' rep has him. Whatever memory Dave or Flair have of Stevens, we don't have the performances. So you can rank Patterson well off of his performances but you can't easily back up, in a communal/social sense, ranking Stevens high on footage alone.

One thing you have to understand about the French footage too is that you get a lot of guys who weren't French. Spaniards, Italians, Belgians, Peruvians, Brits, Canadians, Americans.

I see Invader 1 as a top 25 candidate for my list so that’s two.

I can see 3-5 but I’m biased and they’ll be limited on how high I can actually put them. We do have the footage-over-time and “different scenarios” for guys like Delaporte and Bollet and Corn. On the other hand, if you are someone who feels like you can rank a wrestler high based on only 2-4 performances, your list could have 30 of these guys easily.

Everyone should watch as much French catch as possible, but maybe not for this project....

My experience early on was that whenever Tony started to talk about someone earnestly, Conrad would goad him into giving him a funny name instead. But that might have changed,

Personally, there's no chance of Tony Oliver making my list on one or two matches, no matter how great he is in them. Some of the guys like Peruano or Sola or Bernaert or Jacky Corn where we have them over a span of multiple years and multiple settings and multiple opponents, that's a different story. But one element of my list is clarity. I have to be sure that Wrestler X is better than Wrestler Y to be ranked above them and I generally need a number of performances in a number of settings to be sure. Even with Heenan, there just isn't enough of Heenan out there for him to break my top 80, I think. That said, in the last few years, we've gotten better/extended footage of the Comiskey Park 70s Brazil/Bruiser tag, one or two AJPW matches (like Jumbo/Tenryu vs Heenan/Larry Z), and one or two AWA matches like Andre The Giant/Hulk Hogan vs. Bobby Heenan/Nick Bockwinkel/Bobby Duncum/Ken Patera. Plus him in certain other settings like seconding Bockwinkel vs Ricky Morton in Houston. He didn't make my list last time and I don't seriously see that changing this time.

Dynamite is a guy that I absolutely loathe after a certain point, that I strongly dislike at a point before that, and that I think can be absolutely excellent at times for a point before that. He could end up low on my list for his 80-84 work. That sort of thing. If I rank Michaels, it'll be at the very bottom of my list because of his ambition (though it so often fails) and elements of his tag work, but he's not someone I would say I love overall.

It'll be tricky. I don't want to watch Benoit matches so I can't rate Benoit. I have no problem watching Invader I matches so could well be in my top 30. Not that he'd make my list, but I'm not watching Buck Zuhmofe so there's no way I could or would rate him. I'm generally ok watching Lawler matches, so he will probably make my top 10. There will 100% be lists on my name I don't love overall, though even in those cases, there'll be matches/performances of theirs or elements of their wrestling that I do probably love.

We're going in circles here but I'll factor in the promos in as they gave Dusty a tool to use in-ring and then I'll examine how he used that tool to his advantage. If he used them well, great, he'll be better off on my broader list. If he didn't, that'll hurt him. That he was able to have the tool in the first place isn't something I'm examining.

This all becomes harder in differentiating your 83 and your 84. Where it might matter the most if you're trying to figure out your 5 and your 4.

I know that you are fully aware of what you are doing to us here. I remain sympathetic because of how you have been ingesting and categorizing wrestling as of late and because of our deep personal friendship.

I agree there. But it's tricky to work in promos here. The comparison would be Hogan not adapting to a style of promo changing and thus being less over because of it? Or going from face to heel and not being able to cut promos as well and ... something? If you give him credit for the crowd being into him because of his promos, you should give him credit for the crowd being into him because of his body. It's not just a failure to adapt but him getting over in the first place. Taking points off for not being able to adapt in the ring is something I'm ok with. Penalizing or not penalizing is one thing. Doling out credit is entirely another. The above sort of applies. It's not about "not holding back" but about giving credit.

You have to be very nuanced about it. Bobby Eaton needs a similar amount of credit to Tully Blanchard in this, in as Tully was able to talk for himself and then parlay that into his ringwork but Eaton had Cornette talk for him but he was then able to parlay that into his ringwork. To me, these two things are pretty much equal, so long as they do an equally good job at parlaying.

If you're doing this, I honestly think you should give Hulk Hogan credit for keeping his body up or using roids well then. From your line of logic you've given at least. It's part of Hogan's job as a pro wrestler and part of his aura and part of how the crowd reacts to him. The difference may have even been part of what affected crowd reactions to him in 92-96. To me, like I said, it's potential energy and kinetic energy. How do they use it once they get to the ring.

On this level, I don't know if Promos are any different from "having a great body," as in, we should give Animal similar credit for either using roids well or working hard in the gym and controlling his diet, as his body gets a certain reaction from the crowd. He's putting the work in one way or the other. In both cases, however, it's about how he utilizes that reaction/capital in the ring.

I get where you're coming from, but I'll go with you only as far in examining how they utilize the capital they create with the promos with their wrestling in the ring. If someone has a lot of built up capital and then squanders it by not tapping into it well through their wrestling, that's potentially a knock against, for instance. Otherwise, it's just not what this project is to me at least. I think you can compare ringwork across styles, regions, languages, eras. I don't think you can factor this in as well, except for as I mentioned above. You can think about how Satanico's evil skits were capitalized upon in his ringwork. You can think about how Rusher Kimura's post-match ramblings were capitalized upon in his ringwork. But I'm not going that huge, huge step more.

I binged a lot of Ozaki five years ago to have something to talk to Stacey about on the podcast and liked what I saw, though the 2000s matches kind of got weird with the outside assistance.

Might have missed it but I actually got dragooned into watching the hour-long Toyota vs Inoue match: https://forums.prowrestlingonly.com/topic/34104-the-greatest-wrestler-ever-project-postscript/?do=findComment&comment=5939259 which I liked, but I think a good chunk of of that was because they were legitimately exhausted towards the end and had no choice but to let things sink in and resonate (the hour long joshi epic version of the "now you have to sell my shitty punches" Jake Roberts/Warrior story?) which made everything that came before matter all the more. Anyway, while I am happy to get aboard the joshi zeitgeist express here, as I have five years, and certainly respect Elliott's opinions, I am trying to ease into this a bit, yeah. My guess is that it'll be a bit like 90s lucha, where there's there's a lot that was missed at the time due to the more narrow interests of the people watching/obsessing, that the lot of you have been recontextualizing over the last few years, and I'll catch up to that party. There are general elements (we'll say "absolute emotional commitment to the moment" for instance) that I know I like already, but I've only seen dribs and drabs over the years.

Primarily time. I'd have to go forward to virtually today if I wanted to fully examine him. I know I saw an interesting 2018 match vs Suwama. That's decades of extra stuff without a basis. We'll see what happens but I find it unlikely. He's a 2036 guy for me.

I think someone could, but I don't think I could. Kawada, Kobashi, and Misawa are frontrunners. Jumbo and Tenryu are frontrunners. Choshu's a frontrunner. They're contemporary enough or from the same style. Apples to apples. I personally feel like I can't rate one without rating all. I'm ok with someone feeling otherwise. I think (hope) I can draw the line at Akiyama though, so there is a line.