Cesaro

[Dylan Waco]

Yes.

[goc]

So, if a great wrestler gets buried in a mediocre spot, is he still great?

Yes because the reverse isn't true. It's not like people are considering a guy like Big Daddy for this just because he was on top for so long in England.

[WingedEagle]

Not if mediocrity means he doesn't get opportunities to be great.

[goodhelmet]

I really want to see where this tag run goes because Cesaro has been killed as a singles guy since the Sheamus feud ended. If Cesaro can get a MOTY on a show with Kidd then he'll probably be a lock for my list because we know he c an be great but now he has to be great with limited opportunities.

[Stiva]

Man, I was actually optimistic about Cesaro having a main event run around this point. If the best we can hope for throughout 2015 is a tag series opposite The Usos and The Lucha Dragons, he won't make my list. It's a shame because he's easily my favourite WWE worker but man, his treatment Post Mania 30 is maybe the worst I've ever seen an over worker be treated. He could have been having long, main event matches but instead, he's faltering in the midcard

 

there's still a chance for him and Kidd to pull a great tag out of someone (probably The Usos) but Cesaro could have been so much more.

[Timbo Slice]

Not much has changed with Cesaro, unfortunately, and he's looking like he'll be outside the list when it's all said and done. I really do like his tag work, and he's had some pretty cool singles standout matches, but he's mixed in with a whole bunch of other guys that I'm considering at the bottom of my list and I can't think of many things he's done that will outshine some of them.

 

That being said, I REALLY hope he proves me wrong because he's one of the few guys that I'll set time aside for.

[goodhelmet]

With my interes tin modern day WWE at an all time low (Bryan gone, Kane and Orton in the main event, sacrificing guys like Rusev), Cesaro is one of the few guys I still look forward to watching. We still have some time before I throw in the towel and I still want to go revisit some early Indy stuff.

[Jimmy Redman]

I am finding a place for Cesaro. It's a shame that he's been so neglected for so long, but the nature of WWE programming means that even if you aren't being pushed, you still usually have opportunities to have long TV matches on a regular basis. My point being, even when he's not being featured he's still usually doing really good work regardless.

 

He's a weird case for me because he doesn't really have a strong list of really, really high end matches that I'd like for a guy that I'm ranking on only a few years' work. Like, a guy like Sheamus has the Show and Bryan matches which I think are legitimately two of the best matches of the decade, whereas there's no single match of Cesaro's that I'd put on that level. But the fact that I'm ranking him anyway speaks to his other strengths: his good-great output, his ability to bring guys up, his talent and crazy spots, and just his ability to be interesting in basically any match.

 

He might be the most versatile worker in the company. He can job to Sin Cara on Superstars one week, and then look completely at home against Cena in the Raw main event the next. It speaks to both his credibility and his versatility as a worker, being able to work up and down the card and be anyone to anyone at any given moment. He can be a base for flyers, a bully heel for small guys, a big bruiser in a hoss match, a workratey guy in a workrate match, he can do comedy, tag matches, clusterfucks, anything. And crucially, he's usually the most interesting part of the match, or bringing something unique or vital to it.

 

Love the Cena matches on Raw. Love the Sami feud, they had four matches and they were all great and the in-ring story they wove through them all was outstanding. That spot in 2/3 Falls where he counters the tilt-a-whirl into an uppercut was amazing and possibly the most GIF-worthy spot of all time. Any time he has a big match he's always pulling out something that makes you go "Holy Shit!" In the monotony and overexposure of WWE TV, that's not always the easiest thing in the world. And it could be anything - an awesome counter, a ridiculous feat of strength, some brutal striking, an insane high spot, a dickish heel move, anything.

 

He brings the best out of so many guys, particularly ones you wouldn't expect. He had Santino Marella's best non-comedy matches in WWE, and it's not even close. Like, there is so much daylight after that that I cannot do it justice. And we're talking "hey, this was a pretty good match", not anything spectacular, but he brought more out of that guy in the ring than he ever showed with anyone else. Back in NXT, before Bo Dallas figured out his character and was still in that "atrocious wrestler with go away heat" stage, Cesaro had an absolute fucking miracle match with him. Thinking about it, it's still probably Bo's best singles match, and he was about as big a broomstick as a guy could be in this match, it was all Cesaro. He's one of Miz's best singles opponents, and their matches are notable for being quite well worked in a way that you don't expect from Miz, and again that's down to Cesaro's influence. Nobody else likes Kofi like I do, so it's probably another feather in his cap to others that his matches with Kofi were so great. He's had really good matches with both Sin Caras. He's on the list of good Khali opponents.

 

He's also a good tag worker and has been part of three good working teams I can think of - Kings, Real Americans and with Tyson. He's just a guy who, like I said, will do good work no matter what position he's placed in, or what is asked of him. He's one of the most interesting "on paper" guys currently in wrestling.

[Dylan Waco]

I'll probably include him at this point. I think when he's been around he's been the best wrestler on Earth for a few years, he's just been hurt by injuries and bad WWE booking. I have only gotten around to watching a bit of his indie run. It doesn't really help him in my eyes, but doesn't hurt him either. That said he's been so brilliant, versatile and dynamic during the WWE run that it would feel ridiculous to leave him off.

 

I agree with almost everything Jimmy said above, though I actually think he has a lot of great matches. What he lacks is the booking to have the iconic matches on major shows that you ideally want. That said even something like the aforementioned Sin Cara match, or his lengthy Main Event match v. Sheamus from a couple of years back, are matches that I would rate above many of the ppv "classics" of someone like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels.

[Jimmy Redman]

It's not that I don't think he has great matches - he has plenty - it's that he doesn't have all-time level matches. His best match is probably that Sheamus match, and it's fucking awesome, but it's not something I'd call a high end MOTDC or put on my Top 100 Of All Time list or anything. Same thing with what I'd consider his other best matches - Cena, Sami, Bryan.

 

Like I said it's hardly a knock because he does have a bunch of great matches, and he shows his strength in other ways and I'm ranking him on that basis. I guess my point is that if he had some incredible, all-time matches to point to, on top of everything else he has going for him, I could really rank him quite high.

[Rah]

When did Cesaro start getting noticed? He didn't seem to quite have the following other Indy "stars" like Rollins or Owens had coming into WWE and I hazard his peak is a lot longer than what he's getting credit for. Comparatively, he only ever had a few fans talking him up as must-see before he blew up in 2013. That said, and as much as I view Cesaro as my favourite contemporary wrestler, he's the best case study for longevity vs peak arguments. Watching mid 2000s RoH, in hindsight, was rather frustrating whenever Claudio got involved. You could see he had good ideas, but he felt too clunky and unpolished. There's better flashes of brilliance in 2007 but I only think he put things together, properly, as late as 2009 (even then he's a weak link in Team Uppercut) and transitioned into the world beater he is now in late 2011. That's a near decade of his career that I wouldn't think makes any case in this poll.

 

But, ever since he signed with WWE, he's been one of if not the best wrestlers on the planet. In 2013, when Bryan got touted as having a career year, I'd argue Cesaro was easily better - and that was working week after week with less talented, boring opponents. Watching Cesaro literally drag Kofi from place-to-place and have a TV MotYC out of it is a huge feather in his cap - most especially because it was given over 20 minutes. Perhaps he was never given the opportunities he should have, and he'd be a great candidate to bring up in the next iteration, but Cesaro delivers. Whether in tags or singles, throwaway C-show matches or main event Raw matches, PPVs or house shows. I just don't think it's fair to limit a guy's placement for "what ifs", if he's given indication he'd most likely excel at that arena, too.

 

His only knock to me is, as I say, him putting the pieces together as late as he did. It's what would give someone like Sami Callihan (a wrestler I thought who knew his place/audience from the get-go) a higher ranking even if I don't think their peaks are in any way comparable.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dylan, you are not voting for several really notable guys, including Ted Dibiase.

 

What do you think Cesaro has over those guys? Just one of those things I wonder about.

 

Virtually nothing this guy has done has stood out to me in cards I've watched over the past couple of years (which is only big PPVs), apart from the fact that he seems quite strong. Is he someone I should spend any time actually considering?

[Dylan Waco]

As noted elsewhere I think he's a brilliant t.v. match worker, which is another way of saying he's as good as it gets from the modern era.

 

To me the power spots are pretty incidental to his greatness. As an offensive worker he's almost without parallel in that his toolkit is extremely varied, but can be tailored to almost any situation. He can work stiff/snug Finlay/Regal inspired grappling spots or strike exchanges, fired up high flying offense, or the big power stuff and never look silly or out of place doing any of the above.

 

He's very good in a tag setting, very good as a face or a heel, can play a goof, a super serious tough guy, a fired up hot tag babyface, et. He's very good at "struggle" spots which is something that has really been lost with a lot of otherwise very good wrestlers today. You can ask him to go 20 minutes with just about anyone and get a very good to great match that is built around the strengths of whatever his opponent has to offer, and virtually never has bad matches.

 

You can watch matches from various time and places within his WWE tenure and see how he changes things up. The guy seamlessly adapted to being a tag worker when called on to do so and seemed really interested in making his teams feel like real teams with signature spots and strategic approaches to the matches. His psychology is good. He bumps very well for a guy of his size, and while he's not someone I would point to for their selling prowess I've never once thought his selling hurt a match. He's also possibly the best base I've ever seen who didn't have a lucha background.

 

He's a rare instance of a contemporary worker who's managed to incorporate all the positives of being a freak athlete into his style, without letting the negatives take hold. I consider that very impressive. He's got a ton of output just within the WWE.

 

I'm actually surprised you have such a narrow view of him, as I basically see him as being weird version of 1990 Scott Steiner if 1990 Scott Steiner actually knew how to work and wasn't an egomaniac.

[JerryvonKramer]

Anything specific I should look at?

 

I also want to ask: are you grading him on a curve? As in, relative to the other workers around him? Because, from what you say, it does sound like that. Specifically these phrases: "as good as it gets ... From the modern era" and "rare instance of a contemporary worker". I'm just trying to understand if you are judging him purely against the standards of his own time or against all workers ever.

 

I ask this partly because I think someone -- maybe it was elliott? -- might have tried to argue that it was pretty common for guys in the 80s to be able to work a lot of different roles or with any sort of opponent and so we should give them exponentially less credit for it. And obviously, I care about that because those guys make up a good chunk of my list. Like to my way of thinking the 80s were just better than now for wrestling so it makes sense you'd have a greater number of great workers active then.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't see myself as grading him on a curve. To be honest a lot of the more modern guys are hurt for many, possibly even myself, by virtue of the changes in the wrestling landscape. There are far more good matches now than at any point in wrestling history (and yes I really do believe that), but the booking generally stinks, over saturation is a major problem, and as a result very little sticks out.

 

Cesaro is one of the few guys who has come through that standing out.

 

I'm terrible with dates for modern stuff for much the same reasons I mentioned above, but I could try to throw together something this week as far as key matches to watch.

[WingedEagle]

Cesaro's been one of the most consistent WWE performers the last few years, but it hasn't been long enough nor with enough true highlights for me to rank him. That plus never finding his pre-WWE stuff to be out of this world means he's just not a contender this time around. Hope that changes next time.

[Dylan Waco]

One other thing before I forget - I argued this at the time over at DVDVR and other places, but I agree that in Bryan's "peak" year in WWE Cesaro was the better worker. I say that to illustrate how highly I think of him, not as an indictment of Bryan.

[Jimmy Redman]

Anything specific I should look at?

 

Without wanting to step on Dylan's toes, here's what I would say off-hand were Cesaro's best WWE matches:

 

vs Sami Zayn - NXT 23/5/13, 12/6/13, 21/8/13 (2/3 Falls), 27/2/14

 

These guys play off so much and build the rivalry match-to-match that it's a good idea to watch the whole series in order. The first one is the shortest and least necessary of the bunch, but it's Sami's NXT debut and the finish sets the stage for what follows.

 

vs Sheamus - Main Event 5/6/13, SD 14/6/13

 

Their ME match is their best one, but I also like the SD rematch a lot, and they've had many matches since then, including a PPV match in 2014, and they're pretty much all really good. They match up well together.

 

vs Bryan - Raw 22/7/13 (as part of Bryan's Gauntlet Match)

 

vs Cena - Raw 17/2/14 (I think you already watched this), Raw 29/6/15, Raw 6/7/15

 

vs Kofi Kingston - Raw 14/4/13, Main Event 1/5/13, Main Event 11/9/13

 

Again, the first ME match is probably the pick of the bunch, but they're another pair that always matched up well. For people who hate Kofi they're probably a big feather in the cap for Cesaro.

 

vs Owens vs Rusev - Raw 13/7/15

 

Tag matches:

 

w/ Swagger, Sandow vs Cena, Cody, Goldust, SD 1/11/13

w/ Swagger vs Big E/Henry, Raw 16/12/13

w/ Tyson vs New Day - Extreme Rules 2015, Payback 2015

 

If you want to see what he can do with scrubs:

 

vs Miz, Elimination Chamber 2013

vs Bo Dallas, NXT 3/7/13

vs Santino Marella, SD 9/9/13

 

Most of this is concentrated in 2013, half because it was his best year and half because I stopped watching closely and writing stuff down after 2013. I'm sure Dylan and others could point to more recent matches as well. Ones I bolded are the wham bam essentials.

[Loss]

I just wanted to make a post about something that has bugged me for a while. I think there's something in Cesaro others see that I don't, and I'd like to be able to see it. He strikes me very much as a moves guy. He does strength spots like the suplex from the floor even in cases where I don't think it makes sense. I can't recall a great selling performance or a great heel performance, and I don't think his facial expressions are anything special either. He strikes me as a physical beast, but not really a guy who can emotionally connect with people beyond being athletically impressive. I'd like to better understand what it is about Cesaro that makes him a complete worker beyond just a guy who can pull off really impressive feats of strength and athleticism. I do believe there's more there. I'm just not seeing it for whatever reason.

[Badlittlekitten]

+1 on that. I was just about to post on him in the Am I Missing Something thread. His spots are impressive but there's no emotion or intensity there. And to be honest, unless he's in front of a smart crowd or working Byran/Cena he doesn't get much heat outside of those big spots. He reminds me of Neville in that respect. Can't cut a promo to save his life. Find it baffling people see him in main events

[goc]

I also find myself in the "I don't quite get it" group with Cesaro. He has really good matches but I can't remember any that I would really call GREAT matches. He beat Rusev in the DVDVR March Madness poll which I just couldn't believe because as far as work goes I see Cesaro and Rusev as pretty close but Rusev is about 10 times more interesting as a character than Cesaro.

[Jimmy Redman]

I just wanted to make a post about something that has bugged me for a while. I think there's something in Cesaro others see that I don't, and I'd like to be able to see it. He strikes me very much as a moves guy. He does strength spots like the suplex from the floor even in cases where I don't think it makes sense. I can't recall a great selling performance or a great heel performance, and I don't think his facial expressions are anything special either. He strikes me as a physical beast, but not really a guy who can emotionally connect with people beyond being athletically impressive. I'd like to better understand what it is about Cesaro that makes him a complete worker beyond just a guy who can pull off really impressive feats of strength and athleticism. I do believe there's more there. I'm just not seeing it for whatever reason.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but for me personally, that's exactly it. He's a moves guy, and he's fucking awesome at it. He's probably the guy who's case rests on his pure physical ability the most for me. Certainly the most out of the modern guys.

 

Cesaro is just a guy who will beat you up. There's nothing overly heelish about him, other than the times he busts out a kind of cheesy, Batman villain thing (like vs Zayn). His role is more as a foil, or a base, than an outright antagonist. And I have no problem with that. Not every heel has to be evil.

 

Cesaro's appeal is in what he does physically and how well he does it. He has awesome moves, insane strength spots, can base and fly, throws in old school ground spots, and can brawl with the best of them. He's tough and cool and goofy and mean and talented all at once.

 

Which all adds up to me not really about him having a proper heel character.

[Matt D]

I think you're underplaying the "learned psychology" and rearranging of spots in Cesaro matches. He's also very good at teasing things and paying them off later. He often comes off not as a character so much as a force of nature, but in a productive way instead of a Brock way, in a way that really utilizes the WWE house style to the fullest as opposed to a way that actively breaks it.

[Loss]

I think you're underplaying the "learned psychology" and rearranging of spots in Cesaro matches. He's also very good at teasing things and paying them off later. He often comes off not as a character so much as a force of nature, but in a productive way instead of a Brock way, in a way that really utilizes the WWE house style to the fullest as opposed to a way that actively breaks it.

 

I don't want to completely downplay this point, because I think it's interesting. But I would question the wisdom of doing "learned psychology" in a company that doesn't emphasize the specifics of the in-ring style outside of nearfalls and finishing moves. I don't know about that type of wink-and-nod referential wrestling in a company that's supposed to have mass appeal. Without seeing it in practice for myself, it at least sounds on the cutesy side. Wrestling that even the most casual observer can't fully understand seems misplaced in WWE.

[Matt D]

I'm not sure that's true in 2016. There's an entire fanbase that doesn't simply swallow what the announcers are feeding them, the same one that got behind Daniel Bryan. Wrestlemania XXX was Bryan's crowning, but Cesaro was the prince on that show, the same swell of support rising him up, and this was while he was in the Real Americans having tag matches with the Rhodes' brothers. He was not positioned to be the person that people were supposed to get behind, but he was, to a certain section of the crowd, and it was almost entirely due to SOMETHING in his ringwork, and something that wasn't just the standard WWE Mass Appeal that they were trying to push.

 

I think fan-driven narratives are more important in 2016 than ever. Cesaro got himself over through his ringwork alone to the point where they almost had to push him.

 

Slightly different question: do you think it's not important, if you're on TV against the same sorts of opponents on TV week in and week out 2-3 times, plus house shows, to change things up in creative and interesting ways within your matches? If you don't do that, do you think the fans will notice or care, even if the announcers don't play it up one way or the other because they're barely focused on calling the match anyway.

 

Hell, it's not like the live crowd has Michael Cole and JBL bickering in their ears about tangential stuff, and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to think that people excited to go to a Smackdown taping on a Tuesday night won't make extra sure to watch the Raw that week closely, so that they can prime themselves for the show they're about to see. And likewise for the people going to Raw the next Monday when it comes to Smackdown. That's the live crowd that they're playing to. And that goes without asking the question of just who actually watches Superstars week in and week out and whether or not it makes sense to assume those people are paying a certain amount of attention, especially in an age of serialized television that builds season to season as opposed to "Crime of the Week" type shows.

 

I think it could well be a reaction to the current audience base and the current style of TV and really shouldn't be dismissed so casually.