Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Indie Guys


Dylan Waco

Recommended Posts

Several people who have a case that rests largely on indie work have been nominated, but there are others still out there that people seem to be high on. I asked via Twitter for some recommendations, but I don't want to be the guy nominating all these people, especially since I don't like a couple of them at all. Here are the names I've heard that haven't been nominated:

 

Richochet

Evan Bourne/Matt Sydal

Low Ki

Kevin Steen

Mike Quackenbush

Roderick Strong

Christopher Daniels

Austin Aries

Homicide

Amazing Red

Ian Rotten

Johnny Gargano

Tyler Black

Davey Richards

Bobby Fish

Kyle O'Reilly

Sara Del Ray

Nigel McGuinness

 

Others worth considering

 

Jon Moxley/Dean Ambrose

Brodie Lee/Luke Harper

Sami Callihan/whatever his WWE gimmick is

 

This thread is mainly here to drive some people to start nominating/reviewing matches from these guys so they can get representation in the process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Serious question - was Jon Moxley getting any buzz before he became Dean Ambrose? I had never really heard anyone talk about him at the time, so maybe I just missed it.

Moxley was getting buzz for his promos and CZW (I think?) work about six months before he got picked up by the WWE. If I remember the timeline, right. Basically, he never got the Ring of Honor/PWG/etc. run that other people got, because he got plucked just as he was about to replace guys like Rollins who also got picked up by the WWE in the timeframe.

 

Of course, I could be completely off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aries maybe.

Ricochet has some fun stuff recently, but not enough.

Ki had potential, but could never stay out of his own way.

Lee/Harper is really good, especially for being so big, but not enough work yet.

Ambrose - see above.

Nigel got good at working the ROH big match style, and had some really good ones, and there are some good matches in TNA, but too short a run.

Everyone else is a no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel is similar to Joe in that he might've been a top 5-10 guys for a few years but has little case beyond that. As much as I liked him at one time, I don't see the point in nominating him.

 

Aries has a better body of work and is another rare guy who made TNA interesting.

 

Ki was among the few indie guys who had the special aura, and he's probably my favorite from this list. I loved his heel run in ROH with the Rottweilers, and he had great, memorable matches with Danielson, Necro, Hero and others. I don't see a great top 100 case, but I'll probably nominate him if nobody else does.

 

Then there are a bunch of guys I like who haven't done nearly enough, from Harper and Ambrose to Sami to Ricochet, etc. I don't think it's anti-indie bias to say most of those guys have very thin cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only guys on the list above I would personally consider would be Aries, Ki and maybe Nigel (though I am so down on him after his documentary it's hard for me to be objective). But since the indie thing was made an issue of I do think these guys should get threads. I just don't want to be the guy who has to nominate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the huge issues with a lot of these guys (guys I would love to nominate as I feel they are in MY top 100 of all time) is they are still building their resumes so it's hard to make a true argument about them. I've made it very well known how big of a fan I am of both Ricochet and Johnny Gargano.

 

They are two of my favorites in the indies, I've seen them work some of my favorite matches in a number of different settings over the course of the last five or so years but what's the next step for them? I always feel weird voting a guy as one of the greatest when we don't know what the future has in store for them.

 

I'll absolutely nominate Ricochet as I think his body of work has some great stuff already (even if it's small). Gargano has a little ways to go and unfortunately most of his great stuff is hidden behind WWNLive promotions and is hard as hell to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel is similar to Joe in that he might've been a top 5-10 guys for a few years but has little case beyond that. As much as I liked him at one time, I don't see the point in nominating him.

 

Aries has a better body of work and is another rare guy who made TNA interesting.

 

Ki was among the few indie guys who had the special aura, and he's probably my favorite from this list. I loved his heel run in ROH with the Rottweilers, and he had great, memorable matches with Danielson, Necro, Hero and others. I don't see a great top 100 case, but I'll probably nominate him if nobody else does.

 

Then there are a bunch of guys I like who haven't done nearly enough, from Harper and Ambrose to Sami to Ricochet, etc. I don't think it's anti-indie bias to say most of those guys have very thin cases.

 

Ki definitely deserves to be nominated. I know when Tim and I watched a bunch of his 2000 - 2002 recently it held up remarkably well. He had a totally unique style that he could adapt to high flyers (Amazing Red), more traditional opponents (Eddie Guerrero), mat work heavy wrestlers (Danielson at the time), strikers, ect. Agreed that his ROH heel run was awesome as well. He might be the one guy that makes my list (if he does) almost entirely based on his work on the indies.

 

FWIW, as bad as Ki looked in AJPW at the end of last year he looked really good in three matches he had for Preston City Wrestling in May of this year and the little TNA work of his I have caught this year wasn't too bad. He could definitely contribute somewhere in 2014, but unfortunately he has burned a lot of bridges and really narrowed his options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low Ki is another that may have a better resume in 2006 then he does in 2014 just by having some stinkers along the way. Even his NJPW run left a lot to be desired for and, honestly, he's never going to work in a major company again so he's going to have far less opportunities to build on that resume. He's still absolutely worth a nomination though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of a way to put this without coming across as being massively heelish, but is there any reason at all for me to waste mY time on any of these guys where we're meant to be considering everyone from Lou Thesz and Buddy Rogers to CM Punk and Daniel Bryan?

 

Given that most of us are having to catch up on stuff like WoS and filling in significant gaps elsewhere, there has to be a priority list and to be brutally honest these guys are right at the bottom of that list. If anyone can think of compelling reasons to elevate them higher than that, I'm all ears, but that's where I am right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to discount and ignore everything that's been done over the last 15 years on the independents, that's your prerogative.

 

I can turn that around and say, "Why should I waste my time on 1970s wrestling when there's so much wrestling going on right now all across the world?" I'm not saying that, but one of these will be accepted far more openly than the other. I'll let you guess which.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he was discounting the indie guys as much as he was pointing out that he has lots of viewing gaps and was trying to figure out if there's anything he doesn't see on the surface that makes this group of guys worth prioritizing over his other viewing gaps. There may have been some value judgment, but that wasn't really what his post was going for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't want to discount it, but are you seriously asking me to consider Bobby Fish alongside Ric Flair, Lou Thesz, etc.? This is a GOAT project, I'm going to start with the all-time greats. I've seen some of them, I've not seen all of them. I guess the real question is ... well is there any point in even considering these guys? Why?

 

I'm not trying to be a prick here, but it's like ... in considering your greatest actors you're going to start with the Brandos, Hoffmans, De Niros, etc. not the part-time dude doing a fringe show that's getting buzz in your local theatre.

 

Extreme example, but I just can't really see the point in even considering Quakenbush if he doesn't have a hope in hell anyway, it's literally a waste of time. Whereas Jim Breaks might have a real shot, so it's not a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can turn that around and say, "Why should I waste my time on 1970s wrestling when there's so much wrestling going on right now all across the world?" I'm not saying that, but one of these will be accepted far more openly than the other. I'll let you guess which.

Well I hate to state the obvious but it's because Harley Race had a rep as being on the of the best workers in the world and was NWA champ for almost a decade. Same reasons for Brisco and Dory Funk.

 

Why watch Lou Thesz? "Because's he's fucking Lou Thesz"

 

So missing out those guys is like doing a GOAT film project and not taking time out to watch Citizen Kane. Let's not pretend there is no context to this.

 

Not considering Quakenbush isn't like not considering Citizen Kane, it's like not considering I dunno You Me and Everyone We Know, the indie movie from 2005 which had some mild buzz but people don't really talk about.

 

I hope you understand where I'm coming from here. Honestly not trying to be a dick, but it feels like I am coming across like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point in considering them is that we're submitting ballots of 100. Looking solely at genuine GOAT contenders only is limiting when you have another 90 spots to fill out. You may feel as though you have enough names in mind to do that without exploring more marginal or middling candidates. But other people might not. I know I certainly don't. And if my ballot is going to have any merit beyond the top names, I need to properly vet everyone who has a shot of going on.

 

Everyone will have to prioritize their research, and I don't blame you for not wanting to spend time on a time period that you're predisposed to dislike and to not rate that highly from. But you seem to be asking why we should look at anyone who is probably only a candidate for the bottom half of one's ballot. And the answer is that we have to fill out the bottom half of our ballots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are being too tough parv. I don't think anyone would consider Quack for their top 5 unless it was an extreme aberration. Where WOS is a huge blind spot for us both, I see no reason why Quack, Styles etc can't at least be in the conversation with the tier two European workers for a spot on your list. I do think at least not watching a primer of Indy stuff is doing a disservice to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I can understand where your coming from, Parv, but isn't this meant to be what you/me/every single other person considers the greatest wrestler list? It sounds a bit like you want to set out a standard list of matches as required viewing for yourself, rather than organically going toward what they like.

 

I know you weren't being quite that draconian, but it could take the fun out of some of this if everything's laid in stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest Parv, how much time are you honestly willing to invest in due diligence on the 2000s?

 

Because I'm pretty sure we as a collective can make you a short remedial viewing list to get you going. I could put together 10-20 matches from WWE that give a good overview of the top workers at their best. The relevant people could do the same for puro, lucha and the dreaded indy scene. Then if a particular wrestler/match/style jumps out at you, you can look into it. If not, you at least took a bite just to make sure you didn't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, these guys won't ever be GOAT material if you're not watching them. I'm giving everyone a fair shake, because I do believe that there are recent indie guys (including at least one on the list provided) who belong in the GOAT discussion.

 

Bingo. It's easy to keep up the narrative that current wrestling sucks or isn't worth your time if you never watch it or give it time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...