The deadline

[Loss]

I'm starting to wonder if there's any reason this has to end at Wrestlemania XXXII. I don't think anyone will have seen everything they want to see from all companies in all eras, even by fully engaging themselves in this project. Is there any reason this can't span five years or even longer? I have spent the last five years viewing wrestling from just one decade and I've been quite busy doing it. And I'm still not done.

 

Has even one person here seen everything there is to see, or are they at a point where they can hit that mark by spring of 2016? I personally see no reason to rush it.

[BillThompson]

Hmmm, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think the stop point is a must. There's no reason this can't be an ongoing project where we update it every five years, but there should be a definite point where we stop and offer the current list. If not in turns into a never ending promise with no payoff. Kind of like GnR and their Chinese Democracy album, where they kept working on it and working on it to the point where it became a joke and when it did finally see the light of day the music world had moved on. If we keep this going for too long without producing a list I think the same thing could, and probably will, happen.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah, if there's no deadline in sight people will lose interest.

 

I also feel like wanting to give everyone time to watch everything is an admirable idea, but not really practical. No matter how much time we have, we'll never get to watch everything.

 

The list won't be perfect. No list ever would be. What it will be, just like the 2006 list and the next list after this one, is a snapshot of how we viewed these wrestlers, both individually for your own ballot, and collectively for the final result. We need to stop somewhere and write this stuff down in pen.

[WingedEagle]

I'm going to try to watch a lot of guys I'm interested in and not familiar with as well as rewatch many near the top so that I'm hopefully comfortable with that part of the ballot. But I don't think its remotely possible that I'll see nearly enough to have a "fair" ballot. Maybe that means WoS, indys, or 80s lucha get shorted. Maybe something else. We'll all have to draw lines somewhere because this will be happening around the rest of our lives and at least personally, I wouldn't be comfortable ranking someone I've seen 5 or 10 times ahead of someone I've seen dozens or more.

 

There needs to be a deadline. But Mania 2016? I'd hope the deadline is somewhat flexible and imagine it'll have to be unless a substantial number of people are comfortable with how much they've watched. Could always consider a 6 or 12 month extension early in '16 and go from there, but we probably want a goal in mind, even if its written in pencil rather than pen.

[Loss]

Fair enough. I think it's too soon. I'll continue participating in the discussions, but if I don't feel like I have a good handle on everyone who seems to merit consideration by the deadline, I'm probably not turning in a ballot.

[pol]

Five years to me seems like enough time for a person nobody's even heard of right now to potentially make a top 100 case for him/herself and is therefore excessive IMO. Could it be pushed further back than 2016? Yeah maybe.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah I wouldn't be against extending the current deadline by 6 months or so, or even until the end of the year. But Loss threw out five years as an idea, and I feel is really talking about a nebulous, "until everyone has seen everything" future date, and I don't agree with that.

 

I don't see why you wouldn't turn in a ballot Loss. You probably do more wrestling viewing as it is than most of the prospective voter base. You're as well informed as anyone to vote. Like I said, it is impossible to watch all the wrestling ever. You will never find anyone with a perfect knowledge base.

 

If you vote and then later feel like you didn't or couldn't give certain people or areas a fair shake, then fix it when we do the next poll next decade. Like I said this isn't going to be a definitive list, just like the 2006 version wasn't. All it will ultimately show is what we all thought about wrestling in 2016. I'm pretty sure none of us would hand in an exact same ballot in 2017.

[Matt D]

I need way way more time. I'd be ok doing it at the deadline and updating it 3 years later.

[Grimmas]

All points on both sides. We are sticking with 2016, just so it can be 10 years since the last poll. WrestleMania was picked, because that is the peak of interest for people in wrestling through the year. Obviously, if we need to, I would be ok in extending this to later in the year.

 

Of course this isn't going to be definitive. If you gave us 20 years, we would still be missing on gaps, because of new found footage and new wrestling happening daily.

 

I like the idea of re-visiting in 2026.

[Matt D]

We're going to be so damn smart at the end of this.

[stomperspc]

My thoughts would be to keep the March 2016 deadline and if it went reasonably well, make it a semi-regular (every couple of years?) exercise.

 

It goes without saying that in 18 months, everyone involved will be submitting a bunch of imperfect ballots that are based on incomplete viewings/knowledge of all the matches that are out there. That will always be the case even if this poll goes on forever. At some point I think it makes to put our pencils down and make a list, with the obvious caveat that this list is far from perfect and based on incomplete information. Keep the forums and discussion alive and a year or two down the road (whenever people feel a refresh is needed), another poll can be created.

 

I think March 2016 is as far into the future as the deadline should be. That is a long time (18 months from the start) to stick with an undertaking like this. It will never be perfect, so I wouldn't bother pushing it out more. Doing so will only increase the likelihood that the project never finishes.

[Childs]

I think it's a bad idea to extend it. The problem of not having a full handle on every candidate will always be there.

[JerryvonKramer]

I am up for sticking to the deadline.

 

The way this is working seems fine to me.

[Loss]

I guess my problem with the snapshot view of a Greatest Wrestler Ever poll is that it seems like the results often get cited in posts in years that follow as if it is empirical evidence of something more than that it really is. I've always believed that perfect is the enemy of good, which often works against me. And for the record, my goal has always been to get to a point where I only have to watch current stuff and any newly discovered past footage that surfaces. I could actually see myself getting to that point within five years or so, meaning the issue of not having a handle on every candidate actually wouldn't be there anymore. But we will see.

 

I'm going full steam ahead with the idea I'll be ready to cast a ballot by the due date. I just hate to turn in something that I know is not all-encompassing. It seems unfair.

[Dylan Waco]

It will never be all encompassing. You have missed hundreds of quality matches in real time over the last few years while focusing on the 90s. Time doesn't stop.

[DylanZero]

I wouldn't be against the deadline being flexible and whatnot, more time to make a better list on a smaller scale shouldn't be fought against too hard, but Grimmas' point stands true that it being 10 years since the last one just makes the most sense. Wouldn't mind there even being an official "revisiting" of sorts in 5 years time for us all to take an introspective look at ourselves for the time period of 2014-2016 and of course laugh at each other (especially me when I go nuts and put Rush as #1 on my list), and then in 10 years another GOAT vote could easily be established with even less worry of catching up so to speak.

[concrete1992]

I think the deadline of 2016 needs to stay in place. Cause even in 5 years I wouldn't come close to watching all I have wanted to watch. There's also another massive reason in if we actually want a list to come together(I very much do). Some say "It isn't the destination its the journey" but I'd still like to end up somewhere. Maybe instead of waiting 10 years after this one we do it every 5 years. That's a sizable amount of time and it is likely we'll keep on taking down some gaps in that process. The list probably won't change as much but planning 10 years in advance is a terrible idea in my eyes.

[Loss]

Since pretty much everyone seemed to disagree with me on this, I decided to think on it for a while and come back to it. And I still have enough of an issue with this that I don't think I can submit a ballot. I think the process is useful. It's turning people on to wrestling they may not have checked out otherwise. I think that's great. I'll keep participating in the threads as well. But the viewing gaps aren't just gaps, they are deep potholes.

 

I understand the impracticality of expecting everyone to see every recorded match in wrestling history before casting a ballot, and that's not at all what I'm advocating. But I do think everyone should check out all the matches that were getting love from people watching at the time - along with anything else that looks interesting on paper that could have been overlooked at the time - before casting a ballot. I can't do that by the deadline, and I watch a ton of wrestling.

 

I'm not expecting everyone here to have watched every single indy match that is available on tape from the last 20 years, for example, before casting a ballot. But I do think if something got MOTY support or otherwise significant buzz at the time - regardless of what people may say about it now - it should be seen. While none of these sources are all encompassing by any means, I think that means watching every match from everywhere that Dave Meltzer or Mike Lorefice or John McAdam or Herb Kunze or Wade Keller or Steve Sims has ever put at four stars or higher if it's available on tape. I think it means looking at everything someone at this board has called great - both older and more recent - or something that was talked up a lot in old DVDVRs or jdw pimping posts. It means watching all the stuff praised on Segunda Caida or in OJ's blog. I think it's wonderful that this project is acting as the impetus for people who had never seen an AJW or Joint Promotions in their lives to check a few things out, but there is only enough time to scratch the surface.

 

I think the process is awesome. It's the destination that I have a problem with.

[Grimmas]

The only problem with that line of thinking is that I think that even with a deadline that is ten years from today, there would be missed matches that are praised as a great. There is new stuff every day being put out by companies. There is new stuff unearthed every day that is great too.

 

I understand your position, however how much did people watch in 2006? Let's do it now and then, hopefully, again in 2026 and see where people are in viewing footage then. I don't see this project as a one time authority piece, I see it has a another step in an ongoing process.

 

In an ideal world, every ten years somebody will re-visit this topic. I would love to see what the poll would look like in 2026, 2036, 2046, etc...

[Matt D]

There is no process without a destination. I still think we should have a one-time 3 year update though afterwards. After that, we can revisit at will.

[Loss]

I was told on Twitter that whether it's my intent or not, this comes across as me undermining the whole project, which makes me feel a little rotten because that wasn't my intent. Anything that gets people watching more wrestling is great and worthwhile, and I encourage everyone to participate and watch as much as possible. The world is full of great wrestling worth checking out. Whatever hang-ups I have about submitting a final ballot aren't strong enough to call the whole project a bad idea by any means. I think it's a great idea, and I hope people have fun. This is the last thing I'll say about this topic.

[Matt D]

It's only undermining in that people respect you and your knowledge. Let me put it this way; if you can't feel confident in submitting a ballot, when you have seen way more than I have (and I've seen a lot) and will have seen even more in a few years (though kids getting a little older can slow that down, trust me), then how can I? In general, I trust your expertise over my own when it comes to most of this stuff.

[Childs]

I'm a little puzzled that you're so bothered by this, especially given that these discussion threads have been great for the site. It's the essence of humanity to attempt to organize information that's vastly beyond our capacity for understanding. AKA it's fun to rank things!

[Superstar Sleeze]

Since pretty much everyone seemed to disagree with me on this, I decided to think on it for a while and come back to it. And I still have enough of an issue with this that I don't think I can submit a ballot. I think the process is useful. It's turning people on to wrestling they may not have checked out otherwise. I think that's great. I'll keep participating in the threads as well. But the viewing gaps aren't just gaps, they are deep potholes.

 

I understand the impracticality of expecting everyone to see every recorded match in wrestling history before casting a ballot, and that's not at all what I'm advocating. But I do think everyone should check out all the matches that were getting love from people watching at the time - along with anything else that looks interesting on paper that could have been overlooked at the time - before casting a ballot. I can't do that by the deadline, and I watch a ton of wrestling.

 

I'm not expecting everyone here to have watched every single indy match that is available on tape from the last 20 years, for example, before casting a ballot. But I do think if something got MOTY support or otherwise significant buzz at the time - regardless of what people may say about it now - it should be seen. While none of these sources are all encompassing by any means, I think that means watching every match from everywhere that Dave Meltzer or Mike Lorefice or John McAdam or Herb Kunze or Wade Keller or Steve Sims has ever put at four stars or higher if it's available on tape. I think it means looking at everything someone at this board has called great - both older and more recent - or something that was talked up a lot in old DVDVRs or jdw pimping posts. It means watching all the stuff praised on Segunda Caida or in OJ's blog. I think it's wonderful that this project is acting as the impetus for people who had never seen an AJW or Joint Promotions in their lives to check a few things out, but there is only enough time to scratch the surface.

 

I think the process is awesome. It's the destination that I have a problem with.

What I think I really do not fully comprehend is why this can not be viewed as a checkpoint. There is never going to be finality. There is way more value in seeing how things change than in an "ultimate" list. In fact, I urge people to put together a Top 50/100 ballot now at the beginning as a baseline. Then check to see what their final ballot is in 2016. The change in that 1.5 years is going to be far more valuable than the final ballot ultimately because it represents how much more we have watched and how we changed in our viewing habits.

 

If you are hung up on the semantics of "Greatest Wrestler Ever" is an unattainable goal because people are still wrestling. It is 100% impossible to declare the greatest wrestler ever. Why can't it just be the "Greatest Wrestler Ever Based on What X has seen in his Lifetime Up To Wrestlemania XXXII?" (With X being the voter). The beauty of it is that it is just like pro wrestling. There is no ending. It just goes on and on.

[dawho5]

I never got the need to rank things myself. I just watch the wrestling (or anything else, TV, movies) and decide if I love it, like it, am indifferent, disliked it or outright hated it. There are varying degrees between those, but the point for me is to find things that fall into the first few categories. Trying to actually rank things is always a bit of a challenge for me because I don't always look at things in comparison to something else.

 

As to what Loss (Laser Loss?) is saying undermining the project I don't get it. Seems to me he wants to get it right and doesn't feel like he has the time to do so. That is something I can understand. Working on the 2000s thing I had to hold myself back from going through more than my top 15 again before submitting my ballot. But where is the cutoff point then? Do I get all the way to 100, reorder as necessary and start thinking, "Boy, I really need to take another look at top 20 to make sure I got it right"? But then, going back and watching a few that I hadn't put on my ballot I was really kicking myself for not doing it. So I absolutely understand where he's coming from as far as not wanting to submit a ballot that doesn't hold up to my own review.