Larry Matysik's 50 Greatest Professional Wrestlers

[JerryvonKramer]

I knew St. Louis was a major wrestling town, but I've never heard it called "the Harvard" of wrestling before. In my mind it was just another major wrestling town alongside Houston, New York and few other key places. They were comparing it to New York on this show, and saying basically that if you were chosen to headline a St. Louis show that meant you were a made man. And also, unlike New York, you could keep going back for 15 years.

 

So, yes and no. Yes, I knew St. Louis was a major town. No, I didn't think of it as the jewel in the crown, or "the Harvard" of wrestling towns.

[JerryvonKramer]

I should elaborate a bit: I'd always assumed that Wrestling at the Chase could have top talent on its cards because Sam Muchnick both had maximum respect in the industry and basically controlled the world title. Who wouldn't want to be on there? I can see a level of prestige being attached to it, but I guess I hadn't thought about St. Louis being head and shoulders in front of any other major town.

 

I mean if you look at Houston cards over the years booked by Paul Boesch, they are also full of big names -- and mostly the same ones who headlined St. Louis. I'd never thought of those island city type towns as being the equivalent of a top university -- and the more I think about it, the more that seems like a strange analogy for anyone to make.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I think what surprised me most about the interview was Meltzer's perspective. It's surprising that he was contemplating Lawler as a top 100 guy.

[Dylan Waco]

What is surprising about that?

[JerryvonKramer]

Meltzer did say he'd put him top 50 but he wasn't a "slam dunk". I did get the impression he was being polite to Matysik too though.

 

There's one moment where he differs slightly on something else too and Matysik says quite pointedly "it's ok disagree then". Which was a nice reaction for a guy trying to encourage debate. Can't remember what that was about now. There's definitely the feeling of him being an old man set in his ways.

 

That said, it was interesting to hear him talking about the views of long-dead oldtimers.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

What is surprising about that?

When your generation are debating how Lawler ranks between Flair and Terry Funk as a top 5 guy and Meltzer isn't even sure that Lawler is top 50, there seems to be a shaky foundation somewhere along the way. Of course, there's a matter of preference. In Meltzer's mind, he sees Kurt Angle as a far better worker than John Cena, and it's obvious that Meltzer's bias stems from his perception that Angle comes off as more of the real deal. In light of that - not that I'm trolling - but you have to wonder how he'd rank Dan Severn. It's all a difference in bias, though Meltzer did once say surprisingly that he didn't vote for Steve Williams in the WON HOF.

[Dylan Waco]

Lawler and Funk would not be top five all time guys if we are extending beyond the realm of in ring work. Flair might be, but it's hardly a lock

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Lawler and Funk would not be top five all time guys if we are extending beyond the realm of in ring work. Flair might be, but it's hardly a lock

Yes, no doubt about that.

 

Do you see any possible way that Bruiser Brody is top 50 of the Western world but that the Sheik isn't?

[Al]

Lawler is closer to the back end of the top 50 when you look beyond ring work. That shouldn't really be an insult to Lawler. It's a crowded field.

 

The Sheik against Bruiser Brody is a good argument. The fair knock against Sheik would be that he jobbed less than Brody and his act salted the earth for anyone following him in a territory.

[Dylan Waco]

There are people who claim Brody killed San Antonio.

[KrisZ]

The Mark Lewin match in general

[jdw]

I'm listening to Matysik's show now. It's surprising to see Matysik dismiss Lawler as a top 100, much less a top 50. It's obvious to me that Matysik's criteria for "believability" to be his way to fudge up some of his favorites. Meltzer follows him and says "believability" is the key component to drawing.

Do these guys even stop to think if a comment like this passes the laugh test?

 

2. Ric Flair

4. Hulk Hogan

 

Yeah...

 

 

I mean, seriously... they're just making up their excuses as they go along, without pondering how it applies to other people.

 

Flair wasn't "believable", except as a loud mouth who bitched out to fat Dusty Rhodes left and right. And he drew doing it.

 

Hogan wasn't "believable", except he Beat The Heels. And he drew doing it.

 

Lawler wasn't believable... except as a face, he Beat The Heels... and as a heel, he bitched out to the faces. And he drew doing it.

 

This isn't rocket science, for fuck's sake.

 

John

[jdw]

Note: I have nothing invested in Lawler, and really don't care if he's in the Top 50 anymore than I care if Hansen does (who I have more invested in). Lawler isn't my cross to bear in guys to pimp.

 

On the other hand, I tend to hate stupid inconsistent arguments that don't even get out of the batter's box.

 

John

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I'm listening to Matysik's show now. It's surprising to see Matysik dismiss Lawler as a top 100, much less a top 50. It's obvious to me that Matysik's criteria for "believability" to be his way to fudge up some of his favorites. Meltzer follows him and says "believability" is the key component to drawing.

Do these guys even stop to think if a comment like this passes the laugh test?

 

2. Ric Flair

4. Hulk Hogan

 

Yeah...

 

 

I mean, seriously... they're just making up their excuses as they go along, without pondering how it applies to other people.

 

Flair wasn't "believable", except as a loud mouth who bitched out to fat Dusty Rhodes left and right. And he drew doing it.

 

Hogan wasn't "believable", except he Beat The Heels. And he drew doing it.

 

Lawler wasn't believable... except as a face, he Beat The Heels... and as a heel, he bitched out to the faces. And he drew doing it.

 

This isn't rocket science, for fuck's sake.

 

John

 

Hi John,

 

Your response is confusing me. Are you attacking my argument against his criteria, or are you attacking Meltzer and Matysik? You're using the plural, so I'm supposing you're criticizing the latter. Regardless, I'm not sure I understand your argument.

For my part, I think "believability" is a really dumb criteria. Fans of purely competitive sports tend to believe everything in wrestling is fake, from Jack Brisco to Doink the Clown. Casual fans often believe someone like Brock Lesnar might be real but that the Boogeyman is not. Marks tend to believe most things are real. These trends start and vary from an early age.

 

The biggest problem I have with believability for a criteria is how it's used arbitrarily by Matysik. For example, I know many casual fans of pro-wrestling who liked real sports and practically all of them like Bret Hart more than Hulk Hogan precisely for the reason of credibility. I've known adult male fans, not necessarily of that group (though a few were), who viewed Shawn Michaels as some homosexual wimp who couldn't beat the average street fighter. Yet, Michaels ranks higher than Bret Hart while Matysik uses that "believability" criteria to fudge in Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle for "credibility" reasons, even though when reading between the lines, it's obvious that Matysik (a) doesn't believe his own argument since he goes on to state the obvious intuition that their wrestling careers don't necessarily merit inclusion (well, with Lesnar that was the case, though he obviously embellished Angle's career by overstating its importance), and ( he sets up counterfactuals without coming to its logical conclusion, knowing that such an argument would be bad.

 

What annoys me about Matysik is that he has a very fixed view of what constitutes a star, just as WWE has a very fixed view of one but for different reasons. Matysik believes pro-wrestlers are supposed to be almost always mat wrestlers who are sportsmanlike and often have one-hour draws in a respectable fashion, whereas WWE sees top guys as basically over-the-top Hogan clones. But pro-wrestling has always been a performance art such that what constitutes a star is really relative to the audience, era, and general trends and, as such, there is no unique, Platonic set of properties that determines a star. It's why unbelievable loud mouths like Rowdy Roddy Piper and CM Punk (I might get some shit for grouping Punk like this, but I've seen a ton of comments on places like YouTube where it's obvious many casuals don't see him as a bad ass) get over, as well as rough necks like Johnny Valentine, flamboyant types like Flair, rappers like Cena (another guy many see as not being tough despite his drawing power) get over whereas other tough guys like Lesnar, Angle, and Severn didn't get over as much but for different reasons (Lesnar only truly got over as a draw after leaving WWE for the first time, Angle was always second fiddle to the top guys, and Severn just never had the charisma to be a top notch wrestling performer despite practically any casual fan who was also following UFC knowing that Severn could beat up any WWE guy on the roster short of Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Undertaker).

 

Now, I'm reading the book now and will add in comments, questions, criticism, et cetera based off the profiles I read.

 

#21 Bret Hart

 

Matysik feels the need to bury Stampede. Maybe Stampede deserves that, but he remarks "No established star went there" (290), which is clearly false. Harley Race, André the Giant, and Archie the Stomper Gouldie toured there at various points. It's obvious the author has great difficulty in separating his grudge with WWE from historical accuracy, which is precisely why he wanted to exclude John Cena from the top 50. That plays well into the fact that, despite having valuable information, it's not a history book and that its notions of legitimacy, induced by his experiences in St. Louis, has resulted in a very biased list.

 

An interesting note is his crediting Bret Hart and Bulldog for SummerSlam 1992 when Meltzer credits Warrior and Savage for drawing 80k.

 

#31 John Cena

 

He wasn't going to put Cena in the top 50 until Meltzer talked him into it. He felt the need to publish his burial of Cena, which I thought was odd. It's typical of his doublethink that's present throughout the book. On p. 227, he compares Cena to other guys, which is worth some debate. Is Cena better than Bruno Sammartino? That's debatable. Sammartino seems more important if only because Sammartino's carrying of the company wasn't aided by help from part-timers, which greatly overinflates Cena's historic value. What would the historic view of Cena be if Wrestlemania was drawing somewhere in the neighborhood of 750,000 buys without the Undertaker, Rock, Ric Flair, and other nostalgic acts helping him? Is Cena better than the Funks? It seems obvious that Terry is better, but I can't speak for Dory Funk Jr. Better than Brody? Definitely. Londos? No way. But all the guys are in different eras, and Cena has been exposed in ways that Austin, Hogan, Flair, or anyone else has never been exposed.

 

His praise of the Wrestlemania match between Cena and the Rock made me question whether Matysik watched the same match. I doubt he watches much of WWE product.

 

On what basis should Bret Hart be ranked 10 spots higher than John Cena? Cena was obviously a much bigger star, and it's star power that puts Hulk Hogan in the top 5.

 

#10 Frank Gotch

 

I hate when Matysik argues that guys like Gotch could have been big stars in any era. No one can possibly know that. Obviously the potential was there, but guys get over for different reasons. Meltzer argued on that radio show that guys like Eddie Guerrero should be marked down a few notches because people like Guerrero (and Mysterio) couldn't get over until the 90's (and even that was questionable). But neither consider that guys like Guerrero, precisely because that barrier was broken, can get over in any era from here on out (I'm guessing). I don't deny that Gotch could have gotten over, just that it's a claim that they need to justify on a case-by-case basis.

 

EvilClown, were most of Gotch's matches worked? Matysik makes it seem like his match against Tom Jenkins was a shoot and so were his matches against Hackenschmidt.

 

#48 Brock Lesnar

 

This is where Matysik exposes himself. Why is Lesnar even in the list? Because in Matysik's mind, Lesnar brought legitimacy to professional wrestling and therefore his dad would have pushed him to the moon. He chose Lesnar because "Lesnar is real" (119). He went on to say "Even skeptics, upon seeing. . .Lesnar. . .have to admit that pro wrestlers are reasonably tough and athletic" (120). I'm not even sure why the opinion of the masses is relevant in this case, especially since it's obvious that he wrote his book for specialists.

 

#36 The Undertaker

 

As much of a bad ass as the Undertaker has been over time, I can't think of a more unbelievable character on the surface. Would he be higher on Matysik's list if he didn't use his powers to turn on the arena lights?

 

#16 Johnny Valentine

 

How much footage is available of Valentine's work? He seems like a remarkable worker in many ways, though I'm not sure if his slow style would get over today in today's TV environment where matches are often 3-minutes in length. (William Regal has noted himself that he's a better worker at house shows than on TV because he, unlike many other guys, has a hard time incorporating his style into a fast paced match.) Valentine's toughness makes me sort of see him as the Haku of his era, except he was obviously far more important. I see Valentine's modern equivalent as being Chris Benoit in the sense that Benoit worked for the front row and not for the balcony - the kind of guy who could command respect despite losing, the guy who made it look real every time, and a guy who no one looked at (besides Eric Bischoff and Kevin Nash) as a guy they'd try to take out at a bar.

 

#33 Kurt Angle

 

His reason for including Angle also has to do with his "realness" which, I maintain, is wholly arbitrary in pro-wrestling as fans don't care if you're real as much as the perception of you being real, which is independent of whether or not you're really real. With people like Matysik, it's clear why Angle is in the HOF. "Angle is and was the real deal" (214), which to me is an analogue of insecure pro-wrestlers jumping off of 20 foot balconies to the cheers of smarts who already know wrestling is worked anyway. He pushes Angle throughout the book on the basis of his athleticism despite his deficient psychology (214). He remarks how Jack Brisco said he'd pick Angle over any other wrestler of WWE's roster to wrestle, though Matysik doesn't explain the nuance, namely that Jack, like Angle, was an amateur, though I don't think Jack thought Angle was a better worker than Benoit or X-Pac. (Maybe he did, but success in the amateurs shouldn't be factored in pro-wrestling rankings.)

 

I loved the following line: "Angle's matches were so outstanding that many casual fans forgave the promotion just for the opportunity to watch Angle perform" (215). Besides the obvious hyperbole, since WWE programming is self-contained and as such no one watches the promotion just to see one guy (like Angle), Angle wasn't a major draw. He sets up a counterfactual by basically blaming TNA for why Angle isn't a bigger deal (214). He attacks Vince McMahon for making Angle into an arrogant American hero heel in 1999 (215) when Angle did get over with ease. (It's for that reason why I said that it's doubtful Matysik watches WWE with any regularity.)

 

It's clear in Matysik's eyes that Angle could have been the biggest star in the business without the injuries and inept booking. What's sad is it's clear that Matysik ranks Angle higher than he should be on the basis of that counterfactual.

 

#18 Nick Bockwinkel

 

Does anyone here see Bockwinkel as a top 20 guy? I remember there being a lot of varying revisionist opinions on his work. He's one of my favorite promos.

 

#43 Ray Steele

 

Steele seemed to be the Chris Benoit of his generation: the workhorse who got almost everyone over and was rewarded with the title for being such a good hand for many, many years. I'd like to look more into Ad Santel, as he was also an important figure in Frank Gotch's career (at least if you believe the seemingly discredited story that Santel injured Hackenschmidt before Gotch/Hackenschmidt II in Chicago).

 

His match against a boxer named Kingfish Levinsky seems to be a shoot since boxing promoters discouraged such matches. Maybe it was a work and turned to a shoot.

 

 

 

 

Interesting read so far, but Matysik's rankings seem dishonest, whether he did that intentionally or not.

[Dylan Waco]

No way Santel makes a top fifty. He's an interesting figure, but even Thesz had to admit that he was only marginally successful in the business.

 

I don't know if Bock is a top twenty guy or not, but I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand. He was able to get value out of himself as a traveling champion and he was a heel figurehead that could draw and people could believe in in the AWA. It sounds insane, but watching the footage you get the feeling that the AWA was completely lost when he left. Obviously they were well into the decline already, but I don't think they were ever really the same after they took the belt off of him for Jumbo. He was also a great star, with drawing power as a tag worker before all of that. Eighteen does seem high on the surface, but I'm not sure it really is all that high.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

No way Santel makes a top fifty. He's an interesting figure, but even Thesz had to admit that he was only marginally successful in the business.

 

I don't know if Bock is a top twenty guy or not, but I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand. He was able to get value out of himself as a traveling champion and he was a heel figurehead that could draw and people could believe in in the AWA. It sounds insane, but watching the footage you get the feeling that the AWA was completely lost when he left. Obviously they were well into the decline already, but I don't think they were ever really the same after they took the belt off of him for Jumbo. He was also a great star, with drawing power as a tag worker before all of that. Eighteen does seem high on the surface, but I'm not sure it really is all that high.

Yeah. Ad Santel is clearly a historical figure who seemed to lurk around. I was just surprised he was said to have played a role between Gotch and Hackenschmidt, and trained Ray Steele. That tells me the early shooters were a small, closed group.

[Al]

Bockwinkel's hard to judge. He held a world title almost as long as anyone else in history, but it's AWA so it's slightly insulated from the rest of the wrestling world. We don't have footage of Bockwinkel's prime, though he clearly was a good wrestler in his 40s. And there's really no Pre-Bockwinkel AWA financial data to see if he made an impact. You could land him in a range of about 20 spots and have an argument anywhere.

 

While Tim Hornbaker's latest book has its shortcomings, it's a great source if you're looking for general information on the pre-1920 wrestlers. There were obviously worked matches in the 1890s-1910s era, simply because it's impossible to imagine that wrestling was clean while boxing matches were fixed left and right. But I think the turning point was the Strangler Lewis-Joe Stecher disaster in 1916. That was the point where it was apparent that shoot matches were simply no longer viable as entertainment.

[Al]

I might see a separate thread for this. Looking at the Observer Hall of Famers, there was one born in the 1850s, two in the 1860s, four in the 1870s and just one in the 1880s. Seven in the 1890s, still less than any decade until the 1970s. I wonder if that pre-1930 era is underrepresented in general.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Bockwinkel's hard to judge. He held a world title almost as long as anyone else in history, but it's AWA so it's slightly insulated from the rest of the wrestling world. We don't have footage of Bockwinkel's prime, though he clearly was a good wrestler in his 40s. And there's really no Pre-Bockwinkel AWA financial data to see if he made an impact. You could land him in a range of about 20 spots and have an argument anywhere.

 

While Tim Hornbaker's latest book has its shortcomings, it's a great source if you're looking for general information on the pre-1920 wrestlers. There were obviously worked matches in the 1890s-1910s era, simply because it's impossible to imagine that wrestling was clean while boxing matches were fixed left and right. But I think the turning point was the Strangler Lewis-Joe Stecher disaster in 1916. That was the point where it was apparent that shoot matches were simply no longer viable as entertainment.

In light of that, do you think Gotch v. Hackenschmidt's matches were worked? In reading the results, it seems likely that the first match was a work (how do you have a two hour match?) and that the second match was a double cross, where it was agreed that Gotch would go over in both falls competitively but that Gotch, taking advantage of an injured Hackenschmidt, decided to put himself over quickly and convincingly.

[Jimmy Redman]

His praise of the Wrestlemania match between Cena and the Rock made me question whether Matysik watched the same match. I doubt he watches much of WWE product.

Assuming you are baffled by praise of the match in general, rather than something specific, then I dont think it is ridiculous. I loved the match, and I know I'm in the minority, but I dont think it is a particularly absurd opinion or something that really speaks to an ignorance of the current product.

 

Not that he doesnt seem ignorant of the product for many other reasons, but I dont think liking Rock/Cena has anything to do with that.

[Al]

Bockwinkel's hard to judge. He held a world title almost as long as anyone else in history, but it's AWA so it's slightly insulated from the rest of the wrestling world. We don't have footage of Bockwinkel's prime, though he clearly was a good wrestler in his 40s. And there's really no Pre-Bockwinkel AWA financial data to see if he made an impact. You could land him in a range of about 20 spots and have an argument anywhere.

 

While Tim Hornbaker's latest book has its shortcomings, it's a great source if you're looking for general information on the pre-1920 wrestlers. There were obviously worked matches in the 1890s-1910s era, simply because it's impossible to imagine that wrestling was clean while boxing matches were fixed left and right. But I think the turning point was the Strangler Lewis-Joe Stecher disaster in 1916. That was the point where it was apparent that shoot matches were simply no longer viable as entertainment.

In light of that, do you think Gotch v. Hackenschmidt's matches were worked? In reading the results, it seems likely that the first match was a work (how do you have a two hour match?) and that the second match was a double cross, where it was agreed that Gotch would go over in both falls competitively but that Gotch, taking advantage of an injured Hackenschmidt, decided to put himself over quickly and convincingly.

 

I don't feel I could make a judgment on Gotch/Hackenschmidt. But consider what a shoot wrestling match consists of between two legitimate world class wrestlers. Often it will result in a collar and elbow tieup in which neither man will budge. Check out Alexander Karelin/Rulon Gardner on Youtube. I referenced Lewis/Stecher, that match lasted over five hours and it was five hours of complete inaction. Mildred Burke vs June Byers is considered the last pure shoot match. Same story, it was the two women locked in a tieup with neither budging for an hour. So a shoot match could easily last hours. But they wouldn't have been fun to watch.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

His praise of the Wrestlemania match between Cena and the Rock made me question whether Matysik watched the same match. I doubt he watches much of WWE product.

Assuming you are baffled by praise of the match in general, rather than something specific, then I dont think it is ridiculous. I loved the match, and I know I'm in the minority, but I dont think it is a particularly absurd opinion or something that really speaks to an ignorance of the current product.

 

Not that he doesnt seem ignorant of the product for many other reasons, but I dont think liking Rock/Cena has anything to do with that.

 

No, more general in his views. It's clear that Matysik holds technical wrestlers and legitimate guys in higher regard than muscleheads like John Cena and the Rock, so it's odd that he enjoyed the match at all unless he's just a fan of two over, charismatic acts pummeling each other. But if that were the case, why would he try and exclude John Cena despite his impressive record?--because he hates modern WWE's match style? Okay, but how was Rock/Cena any different from any other face/face match they've been putting on since Hogan/Warrior (probably the best analogue for the match)? Reading between the lines - and I could be wrong - it seems like he's trying to sell himself as fair and knowledgeable about modern WWE when it's obvious that he not only dislikes the style itself but that he doesn't even watch it (not that I blame him).

 

I don't feel I could make a judgment on Gotch/Hackenschmidt. But consider what a shoot wrestling match consists of between two legitimate world class wrestlers. Often it will result in a collar and elbow tieup in which neither man will budge. Check out Alexander Karelin/Rulon Gardner on Youtube. I referenced Lewis/Stecher, that match lasted over five hours and it was five hours of complete inaction. Mildred Burke vs June Byers is considered the last pure shoot match. Same story, it was the two women locked in a tieup with neither budging for an hour. So a shoot match could easily last hours. But they wouldn't have been fun to watch.

Fair enough, but word is that Gotch used a lot of headbutts to beat Hackenschmidt in a two-hour match. They were certainly not stalling.

[jdw]

Hi John,

 

Your response is confusing me. Are you attacking my argument against his criteria, or are you attacking Meltzer and Matysik? You're using the plural, so I'm supposing you're criticizing the latter. Regardless, I'm not sure I understand your argument.

It was aimed at Dave and Larry. It seemed clear to me from the text I quoted that you thought they were being a bit goofy (i.e. the word "fudge").

 

John

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Hi John,

 

Your response is confusing me. Are you attacking my argument against his criteria, or are you attacking Meltzer and Matysik? You're using the plural, so I'm supposing you're criticizing the latter. Regardless, I'm not sure I understand your argument.

It was aimed at Dave and Larry. It seemed clear to me from the text I quoted that you thought they were being a bit goofy (i.e. the word "fudge").

 

John

 

In light of that, why did you bring up Flair's and Hogan's rankings? Did you bring up Flair being 2 and Hogan being 4 as absurd if believability is supposed to be a criteria? Bret Hart used to criticize Flair's style as unbelievable. Hogan is a huge guy who looks like he could hurt someone, but I guess after the steroid trial, suddenly he no longer seemed so believable, so he was attacked regularly in the press. Hogan, indirectly, is responsible for the stereotype of pro-wrestlers being just bulky but wimpy weightlifters who tan all day.

[jdw]

I doubt Larry means "believability" to mean "Juiced Up Big Man". I took it to mean guys who could "wrestle" and game across as believable in the ring. Is Hulk really believable for Larry, or just a cartoon?

 

I mentioned Ric because there isn't anything more believable about Ric in the ring than Lawler. Ric played stooging bitch for the vast majority of his prime years. He was as believable as Gorgeous George.

 

That was my point.

 

Lawler was believable to his fans.

 

Hogan was believable to his fans.

 

Flair... well he was believable in what ever role the fans paid to see him in.

 

Except...

 

It's fucking pro wrestling. It's FAKE!

 

John