Daniel Bryan

[InYourCase]

 

 

And another great match from this run that flies in the face of the argument that he played to the crowd too much is VS Shelley during the whole CZW deal. That's a great piece of working against a crowd to draw them in and definitely in my top 10 in Danielson's career.

That's a very good match to highlight. From Arena Warfare or whatever the name of the show was. Those two guys were so close to being booed out of the building and Danielson not only played a great heel, but won them over with his work.

[kjh]

I think part of the blame for Bryan going too long at times goes on the booker.

[Quentin Skinner]

Although I do agree that Danielson did go needlessly long sometimes, more often than not I find myself enjoying those matches so that's not gonna be a huge knock on him from me. Very fair criticism though.

 

Bryan is in play for my number 1, the thing that really makes him standout for me as a contender is just how much he's been able to get out of so many people. Off the top of my head, these are people who you could make a fair case for having the best matches of their careers with the guy (In the cases of Morishima, McGuiness, Wyatt, and Sheamus, it's almost a lock in saying they have their best matches with him. Maybe less in the case of Rave because of his 2015 run). I think that's a lengthier list of opponents than I could come up with for a ton of people.

 

Nigel McGuiness

Homicide

Paul London

CM Punk

John Cena

Bray Wyatt

Jimmy Rave

Takeshi Morishima

KENTA

Dolph Ziggler

Roman Reigns

Sheamus

Roderick Strong

Austin Aries

Samoa Joe

Davey Richards

AJ Styles

Chris Hero

El Generico

James Gibson

Shingo Takagi

Naruki Doi

Low Ki

Go Shiozaki

Cesaro

Seth Rollins

Randy Orton

Triple H

[Clayton Jones]

I'd disagree with a fair amount of that list but he definitely had the best match I've ever seen of Brad Bradley's career.

[Grimmas]

It's been a week or so since his retirement and I never really thought about where to rank him before (probably 25ish), but now that I know his career is over and I can look at it as a whole he will probably be 5-15.

[InYourCase]

Although I do agree that Danielson did go needlessly long sometimes, more often than not I find myself enjoying those matches so that's not gonna be a huge knock on him from me. Very fair criticism though.

 

Bryan is in play for my number 1, the thing that really makes him standout for me as a contender is just how much he's been able to get out of so many people. Off the top of my head, these are people who you could make a fair case for having the best matches of their careers with the guy (In the cases of Morishima, McGuiness, Wyatt, and Sheamus, it's almost a lock in saying they have their best matches with him. Maybe less in the case of Rave because of his 2015 run). I think that's a lengthier list of opponents than I could come up with for a ton of people.

 

Nigel McGuiness

Homicide

Paul London

CM Punk

John Cena

Bray Wyatt

Jimmy Rave

Takeshi Morishima

KENTA

Dolph Ziggler

Roman Reigns

Sheamus

Roderick Strong

Austin Aries

Samoa Joe

Davey Richards

AJ Styles

Chris Hero

El Generico

James Gibson

Shingo Takagi

Naruki Doi

Low Ki

Go Shiozaki

Cesaro

Seth Rollins

Randy Orton

Triple H

To add to this:

 

Arik Cannon

Alex Shelley

Spanky

Mike Quackenbush

Doug Williams

Scott Lost

Delirious

BJ Whitmer

Jimmy Jacobs

Lance Storm

Rocky Romero

Erick Stevens

Jon Moxley

Jigsaw

Bobby Fish

Munenori Sawa

Young Bucks

The Miz

Kane

 

Not saying all of these guys have had their best match against Dragon, but there is a case to be made for all of them.

[JerryvonKramer]

I was saying to someone in a private chat earlier that I do buy into the idea of Bryan as "the Flair of this generation" and his career is probably as close as it is possible to being that in this day and age.

 

The major difference for me is -- and I'm afraid that this might come out sounding badly, even though I don't want it to -- is that Flair's list of opponents is full-brim of bona-fide WON-HOF, WWE-HOF ring wearing type legends. As in, it's not just a who's who of who was around, it's a who's who of actual wrestling history.

 

And with the greatest respect, we're talking about the difference between The Funks or Wahoo McDaniel and literally Dolph Ziggler or Sheamus.

 

It's less an indictment on Bryan, he was as good as he possibly could have been, it's just that he wasn't fortunate enough to be born in a time where there was a lot of all-time greats still active and working.

 

The 90s generation -- unlike the 70s generation in the 80s -- didn't really stick around to pass the torch. Flair got to work with ALL of them (70s, 80s, 90s, even 00s), but Bryan didn't he only got to work with his contemporaries.

 

It doesn't really make a difference in terms of my list, but it does make a difference in terms of how I see the achievement. It's one thing to produce a list of names, another to produce that specific list of names that Flair can point to. And for that reason it is impossible for me to see Bryan's achievement as even comparable to Flair's. It is grossly unfair, but it's a case of right guy and right place.

 

Of course, some guys might look at a list like that as see the Samoa Joes of this world as somehow being comparable to the grandiose echoes of wrestling history when you look down the list of names on Flair's list. I see a guy who spent a lot of time in TNA. In a different era, Joe could have been Wahoo McDaniel, in this era, he was that guy. I probably sound ridiculously elitist, but it is what I think.

 

Part of the Flair list is the generational aspect, the bridging from 70s to 80s to 90s to 00s. It's a truly one-off achievement. That is the quantity alone doesn't make the Flair list special, but the time span and who is on the list as well.

[JRGoldman]

Couldn't you make a case that Bryan being viewed as "this generation's Flair" is more astounding considering the talent he had to work with? Flair, by your admission, had all time greats challenging him for the belt pretty consistently. His matches should and do reflect that. Bryan has a resume that is comparable while wrestling people like Arik Cannon and Jigsaw. I'm not sure you could say Bryan did more with less, but I think you could certainly argue that Bryan did slightly less with way less, if that makes sense. If degree of difficulty is part of a voter's criteria, Bryan should be heavily considered for a high ranking.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm not arguing that Bryan shouldn't be ranked highly or given huge credit for it.

 

I'm just noting that for me, and I'm sure others too, his achievement cannot really rival what Flair did for the reasons I outlined. It's not even as simple as saying I think wrestling is better in the 80s than now, it's more that Flair's career is an actual index of American wrestling history. I mean literally guys from the 60s to guys who died 30 years ago to guys who are still on the active roster now. It's just mind-blowing when I think about it.

[Grimmas]

I'm not arguing that Bryan shouldn't be ranked highly or given huge credit for it.

 

I'm just noting that for me, and I'm sure others too, his achievement cannot really rival what Flair did for the reasons I outlined. It's not even as simple as saying I think wrestling is better in the 80s than now, it's more that Flair's career is an actual index of American wrestling history. I mean literally guys from the 60s to guys who died 30 years ago to guys who are still on the active roster now. It's just mind-blowing when I think about it.

Mind blowing fact that Dylan brought up is that Daniel Bryan is the greatest wrestler ever that has his hole career on tape. From the beginning to the end.

[Dylan Waco]

JVKs argument here may have inadvertently convinced me to vote Bryan over Flair

[InYourCase]

JVKs argument here may have inadvertently convinced me to vote Bryan over Flair

Yeah, this. I already had Bryan ahead of Flair but there's no way that's changing now.

[Grimmas]

Bryan is someone who is pushing for top 10 since his retirement. He could edge out Flair. I certainly like him more than Flair.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't really care which way people vote at all, like in no single way. If I've convinced you to vote Bryan, whatever knock yourself out.

 

I'm just noting why I think what I think. Nothing more, nothing less. To me, there's something almost mythical about the career Flair had. So improbable, so unlikely. So many contingencies that could have derailed it. And yet there it is, a guy who worked with them ALL: anyone who was anyone in four decades of wrestling history. If that means nothing to you or if Bryan working the index of 00s indies guys means more to you, that's cool with me. I'm just articulating why I treasure the Flair career more.

[Hobbes]

To me, there's something almost mythical about the career Flair had. So improbable, so unlikely. So many contingencies that could have derailed it.

 

Flair certainly faced some challenges in his career, and what he accomplished ranks up there with anybody, but is his career any more "improbable" than Bryan's? We're not talking about just another undersized talent that broke through in WWE, we're talking about a guy who was the complete opposite of what WWE values, in terms of appearance, but also in terms of temperament. He didn't have the mic skills of Punk, he didn't have the flash of a Michaels or a Rey, and he certainly didn't have the drive to be the top star that Punk/HBK/Bret had. He was a polite, undersized, unassuming looking vegan who had no desire to play the political games most top WWE/WWF stars throughout history have played.

 

Bryan suffered three concussions shortly after he debuted as a wrestler, and went on to suffer countless more, yet still had a 15 year career. He was fired by WWE twice before he made it as a top star, and WWE went out of their way to bury him as a boring virgin geek character for much of the time he spent there. Yet somehow, he managed to become one of the most over wrestlers in the company, and built a fanbase the hijacked WWE's PPVs and television week after week until they finally relented and built an entire WrestleMania around him. This was a guy that Gabe Sapolsky once thought was a nice complimentary piece but couldn't be "the man" in ROH, a company literally built for guys like him. The fact that he forced himself to the top of not only that promotion, but WWE, is about as improbable as it gets. More so than Punk, Bret or HBK. Only Rey compares.

[JerryvonKramer]

There's no denying that it is the single most remarkable story of this generation. And if that mean's more to you than the Flair story in terms of a Greatest Wrestler Ever poll, then it is your prerogative and there's no criteria for this thing.

 

For me the difference between the two stories is that Bryan's is the story of one man against the odds for this generation, whereas the Flair one is the story of one man through the prism of wrestling history. And for something like a GWE, the gravitas of the latter carries big weight in my mind (note: I've used a rating system so none of this fuzzy feeling stuff has actually played into my rankings).

 

I hate to draw on this analogy again but I can't think of a better one: to me it's like the difference between a Bob Dylan who links the great American songbook and forms a spiritual link from the folk and blues traditions into rock n roll and beyond across the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, and whose career registers American pop music history over its forty or fifty years, and someone like a Kurt Cobain who had an undeniable impact on his moment in history and a remarkable personal story. To someone of my mindset and disposition, who values the long view of history, who sees things on a macro as well as a micro level, who wants to take a diachronic look at these sorts of things, I'm always going to consider Dylan the demonstrably more important figure. This is without getting into the relative merits of the work, which we absolutely should not get into here. It's just a quick analogy.

 

You have to decide what is important for your own criteria. And if you really think that the Bryan story and career > the Flair story and career, as I said, it's your list.

[Grimmas]

Those stories are irrelevant. Who is the better wrestler?

[MoS]

It's difficult to say. I would much rather watch a Bryan match than a Flair match, but Flair undoubtedly had an objectively better career.

 

This will sound incredibly petty, but I might just rank Bryan above Flair because Flair was a total dick to him in the Summerslam panel that got J.R fired.

[WingedEagle]

Those stories are irrelevant. Who is the better wrestler?

 

You're ranking 5 guys because you like them regardless of whether there may be better wrestlers out there. if someone else finds a wrestler's historical context adds to their matches then that's very relevant.

[Matt D]

Personally, it doesn't matter at all to me, except for in thinking how much easier Flair had it relative to the type of guys Bryan had to face. Flair jokes about 2-3 terrible wrestlers he had to face as champion, and even those were good enough or had certain tools that made them a top guy in a territory that drew X number of people on a loop.

 

To me, Flair's greatest strength and his greatest weakness are the same thing, total and utter conviction in the idea of Ric Flair. He's not someone who would look under the hood because he was the absolute. He defined what good wrestling was so it became a self-referential loop. That's evident in his work and it's one reason why he's so engrossing. His belief was off the chart. His "method" was the easiest thing in the world, because he was Ric Flair and there was nothing he wanted more than to be Ric Flair.

 

Bryan thought and occasionally overthought things. There was a match between he and Punk where they cycled in a spot from some recent MMA fight. This wasn't a a house show where they were just having fun. It was either on a Raw or (I think) on PPV, for the World title. I'm sure Dave probably loved in for how "topical" it was, but it's the sort of thing Flair would have never done, because he would have thought that what he was providing anyway, the Ric Flair package, was worth more than that in the first place.

 

And there are pros and cons to that approach. That's the biggest difference between the two to me, though. Bryan looked under the hood. Sometimes that was a good thing. Sometimes it wasn't. (And in his last run he absolutely didn't, so that's interesting too). Flair felt he didn't have to and that confidence is evident in his work.

[JerryvonKramer]

Personally, it doesn't matter at all to me, except for in thinking how much easier Flair had it relative to the type of guys Bryan had to face. Flair jokes about 2-3 terrible wrestlers he had to face as champion, and even those were good enough or had certain tools that made them a top guy in a territory that drew X number of people on a loop.

 

To me, Flair's greatest strength and his greatest weakness are the same thing, total and utter conviction in the idea of Ric Flair. He's not someone who would look under the hood because he was the absolute. He defined what good wrestling was so it became a self-referential loop. That's evident in his work and it's one reason why he's so engrossing. His belief was off the chart. His "method" was the easiest thing in the world, because he was Ric Flair and there was nothing he wanted more than to be Ric Flair.

 

Bryan thought and occasionally overthought things. There was a match between he and Punk where they cycled in a spot from some recent MMA fight. This wasn't a a house show where they were just having fun. It was either on a Raw or (I think) on PPV, for the World title. I'm sure Dave probably loved in for how "topical" it was, but it's the sort of thing Flair would have never done, because he would have thought that what he was providing anyway, the Ric Flair package, was worth more than that in the first place.

 

And there are pros and cons to that approach. That's the biggest difference between the two to me, though. Bryan looked under the hood. Sometimes that was a good thing. Sometimes it wasn't. (And in his last run he absolutely didn't, so that's interesting too). Flair felt he didn't have to and that confidence is evident in his work.

Considered and intelligent post Matt.

 

My only counter to your first line would be to ask a question: is it REALLY easier to go out there in front of 700 hardcore ROH fans who already worship the ground you walk on AND most probably the ground your opponent walks on too -- some of, I would argue, the most nauseatingly sychophantic crowds in wrestling history -- and wow them with the five-star classic they want to see? Or is it easier to go into Texas or Kansas or St. Louis or whatever shitty arena night after night, with maybe one or two localised promos and "the idea" of the NWA champion to work with whoever? And that "whoever" could literally be anyone, Terry Taylor, Bobo Brazil, Rufus R. Jones, Jim Nelson, Mike Graham, Brody, whoever it was.

 

I just really question this idea that being NWA champ was in any way an easy gig. It was actually one of the hardest gigs in wrestling that burnt out most of the guys who took it on (Brisco most famously), and I don't like to see it being sold so short here.

[Grimmas]

 

Those stories are irrelevant. Who is the better wrestler?

 

You're ranking 5 guys because you like them regardless of whether there may be better wrestlers out there. if someone else finds a wrestler's historical context adds to their matches then that's very relevant.

 

Bottom five go to personal favourites, rest of list is on merit.

 

We are talking to top 15 guys and saying one faced hall of famers and one faced modern guys as a criteria seems odd. George Steele probably has a better list of opponents than Daniel Bryan does too.

[JerryvonKramer]

You've not grasped the argument I've made about the index of American wrestling history etc ( and everything about your post suggests you haven't Grimmas), but really at this stage in the game, who cares. Four days and I'll be done with this forever. Most of the arguments have been made.

 

The solace we have to take is that now, at the end, is that we've all watched more great wrestling as a result and are still friends on speaking terms.

 

The process was what it was.

[Grimmas]

You've not grasped the argument I've made about the index of American wrestling history etc ( and everything about your post suggests you haven't Grimmas), but really at this stage in the game, who cares. Four days and I'll be done with this forever. Most of the arguments have been made.

 

The solace we have to take is that now, at the end, is that we've all watched more great wrestling as a result and are still friends on speaking terms.

 

The process was what it was.

Lou Thesz is an index too, isn't he? Am I missing something?

 

EDIT: It's been great to talk about all these guys. Hopefully this process can be improved upon for future projects.

[WingedEagle]

 

The solace we have to take is that now, at the end, is that we've all watched more great wrestling as a result and are still friends on speaking terms.

 

 

 

This is indeed the the highlight. Forced myself to check out a lot of matches and wrestlers I'd queued up in playlists or elsewhere but never pushed to the top of the list.