Current top 10 contenders

[DR Ackermann]

It took me a minute to realize it was Big Van. I kept thinking he threw in some extra random letters

[jdw]

Yeah, I pulled out the Vader and Blackwell, then went looking for a J and thought... "Is this fucking Scrabble and those are the rest of his tiles?!?!"

[Matt D]

Given it was me, that's not an unfair thought.

[rvd356]

This is really hard! I have 16 guys that I am trying to fit in to the Top 10 spots.

 

These guys are deliberately out of order, because that would kind of spoil it right?

 

Vader

 

Brock Lesnar - My favorite is the first 2 year run, heel or face. even if he just had the WWE 02-04 run, he'd still be on my top 10. But the '12-Present WWE run is the weight behind his placement. The 2 best WrestleMania main events in history: vs. Angle XIX and vs. Reigns XXXI

 

Kenta Kobashi - maybe best baby face ever?

 

The Undertaker - best gimmick ever. 96-99 Deadman is a great wrestler with that gimmick. I don't love American Badass of 00/01 but when he becomes "Big Evil" at the end of 01-03, that is honestly my favorite period of his career. And when he really molds both characters in 06 he becomes one of the best.

 

Ric Flair - nuff said 70's, 80's and 90's. But I watched the 01-08 WWE run live, and I think he's still a top 10 in the world untill 06.

 

Mitsuharu Misawa - Died for his art. I love his whole career, even if Tiger Mask 2 was kinda lame, the Dynamite Kid math in 85 was rockin. I love 1990 punk kid Misawa, especially 09.01.90 the best by far though.

 

Toshiaki Kawada - the more I see, the more I love. Unlike Misawa, I love many many years equally.

 

Steve Austin - So much goodness. His career is like 4 different guys in 1. My favorite is the heel run of 2001. Might not make the Top 10.

 

AJ Styles - Ive said enough on him. One of the top 5 of this century. Thank God for his NJPW run so people can respect him. I hope people give his TNA stuff a look because it's the evidence that makes his spot real.

 

Randy Savage - Ultimate pro. The ultimate EPIC match performer. So many classics. Only had 1 bad year in 1999-2000 and even in that there was some highlights.

 

Chris Benoit - Personal lives don't factor into my picks. This guy IS workrate to me. Hundreds of great matches, best Canadian wrestler of all time. Definitely Top 10.

 

Rey Mysterio Jr. - Best Juinor heavyweight of all times. Best high flyer. Definitely Top 10 if not Top 5.

 

Shawn Michaels - The Rockers stuff from AWA and WWE weighs heavily. But I love the midcard IC runs fro 92-95, as he got better and better. 96 Title run is golden. 97-98 he's one of the best of all times. And I personally love most of the 2nd career, although a real heel run with the title would have solidified him in my Top 10.

 

Stan Hansen - can't get enough. He's such an artist. Just recently watched Hansen/Kobashi 06.05.96 triple crown match and it's truly art. It's not the 1993 Mach in quality, but the story is just as good. Hansen is like the dad that always won the fights with his son, and Kobashi is finally 'The Man' and starts rocking Stan with closed fist punches and Hansen sells the shut out of his hurt arm. Love Stan.

 

Genechiro Tenryu - Like Flair, nuff said. vs. Jumbo 06.05.89 and vs. Mutoh 08.06.01 are two of my favorite matches with two totally different guys. Also Tenryu/Kawada for the vacant TC title in 2000 and Tenryu/Hogan vs. Road Warriors in 91 are a couple other favorites. I do need to see more though.

 

Eddie Guerrero - Pound for pound best ever? I saw Eddie/Rey Havoc 97 live, and I watched his career live from 97-05 and he's definitely Top 10. So naturally talented.

 

EDIT:

 

EDIT 2: yeah Joe doesn't belong near these guys. Unfortunately 2 great years in ROH and 2 great years in TNA don't weigh out.

 

Honestly the guy I need to watch more of is Jumbo Tsuruta. Because he's in my #1 Misawa match in 90 and my #1 Tenryu match in 89, but I only give those guys credit here. I just went into those matches years ago with the preface that "Jumbo is the #1 guy, the Ace" and that Tenryu was first the heir, and then Misawa became the heir when he left. He's THE guy I have to watch more of because I can see him knocking off Austin, Shawn, Randy & Tenryu atleast. The others im pretty set on. But there's always room I mean I have 100 spots.

[El McKell]

I finally have a real top ten that I'm actually happy with, so just 90 more positions to decide on (or 89 cos I've got CM Punk slotted at 11) also this list may change as I keep watching stuff

1. Shawn Michaels
2. Kenta Kobashi
3. Ric Flair
4. Mitsuharu Misawa
5. Toshiaki Kawada
6. Hiroshi Tanahashi
7. Bryan Danielson
8. Akira Hokuto
9. Bret Hart
10. Bull Nakano

[Graham Crackers]

Unless I see something really incredible before the deadline this is my top ten (order tbd)

 

Yoshiaki Fujiwara
El Satanico
Mitsuharu Misawa
Negro Casas
Jerry Lawler
El Hijo Del Santo
Yuki Ishikawa
Stan Hansen
Shinya Hashimoto
Volk Han

[smkelly]

Haven't thought about this for a few years, but this would be my tentative top ten:

 

* Bryan Danielson

* CM Punk

* Toshiaki Kawada

* Stan Hansen

* Mitsuharu Misawa

* Kenta Kobashi

* Jushin Liger

* Ric Flair

* Jumbo Tsuruta

* Bret Hart

[Microstatistics]

Tenryu, Liger, Satanico, Casas and Kobashi would be certainties.

 

Other contenders include Fujiwara, Terry Funk, Fujinami, Jumbo, Misawa, Akiyama, Shawn Michaels, El Dandy, Santo, Aja Kong, Chigusa, Kiyoshi Tamura, Vader, Eddie Guerrero, Akira Hokuto, Steve Austin, Ikeda

[Microstatistics]

My Top 10 (in order) at this point

 

1) Genichiro Tenryu

2) Jushin Liger

3) El Satanico

4) Negro Casas

5) Kenta Kobashi

6) Terry Funk

7) Yoshiaki Fujiwara

8) Tatsumi Fujinami

9) Jumbo Tsuruta

10) El Dandy

[Grimmas]

Posted two months ago:

 

 

1. Stan Hansen (1)

2. Jerry Lawler (5)

3. Negro Casas (9)

4. Terry Funk (2)

5. Toshiaki Kawada (8)

6. Jumbo Tsuruta (3)

7. Ric Flair (4)

8. Rey Mysterio Jr. (6)

9. Jushin Liger (7)

10. Bret Hart (unranked)

Time for a new update:

1. Stan Hansen (1)

2. Negro Casas (3)

3. Jerry Lawler (2)

4. Terry Funk (4)

5. Toshiaki Kawada (5)

6. Bret Hart (10)

7. Ric Flair (7)

8. Rey Mysterio Jr. (8)

9. Jumbo Tsuruta (6)

10. Jushin Liger (9)

No newcomers to the list, but some movement.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd be interested to know your reasons for 1) including Bret in that sort of company and 2) putting him above Flair and Jumbo.

 

In my view, Bret doesn't have the resume to be in that top most tier. Just doesn't have the matches or the career. And if you say "well matches just don't matter to me", then fine but why does the rest of the list look the way it does?

 

If being a smart worker is the ultimate most important thing (for example), why isn't Bock your number 1?

 

It's all your own list and that's all cool etc. etc., but if this process is to be in any way interesting, the reasoning is where that interest lies.

[Grimmas]

I'd be interested to know your reasons for 1) including Bret in that sort of company and 2) putting him above Flair and Jumbo.

 

In my view, Bret doesn't have the resume to be in that top most tier. Just doesn't have the matches or the career. And if you say "well matches just don't matter to me", then fine but why does the rest of the list look the way it does?

 

If being a smart worker is the ultimate most important thing (for example), why isn't Bock your number 1?

 

It's all your own list and that's all cool etc. etc., but if this process is to be in any way interesting, the reasoning is where that interest lies.

It's difficult, because great matches obviously matter, however I focus more on how great someone is at wrestling, not as much as how many great matches they had.

 

That being said Bock is 11-15 due to lack of footage. Also I connect more with the above guys than Bock.

 

Bret may be the best finish man, smartest at putting a match together and little touches, top echelon seller and on offense and has 3 matches in my top 25 of all-time at least.

 

Flair has the great matches, but is not on Bret's level for intelligence in ring.

 

Jumbo has the great matches, but outside of 90-92 I don't connect with him.

[WingedEagle]

A few questions I'm legitimately interested in hearing folks address so I can understand their process and what they're seeing that I may be missing:

 

1) Great matches may not be the be all and end all -- not a fan of trying to make this process an entirely objective one because it is inherently subjective to each fan -- but shouldn't a great performer produce a ton of great matches? How does one reconcile a great performer who's lacking the great matches department? Is it at simple as grading on a curve and looking at what they did with limited opposition? As an example, I don't have Yoshiaki Fujiwara ranked anywhere near as high as his biggest supporters here seem to. Think he's tremendous at times and an integral part of some classic multi-man matches. But it seems that those who have him super high find his best matches (and thus his performances as well) to rank much higher than I do. Or are people finding he wasn't necessarily a part of so many great / classic matches but somehow put on great / classic performances in these matches? Help me resolve this.

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

[Grimmas]

A few questions I'm legitimately interested in hearing folks address so I can understand their process and what they're seeing that I may be missing:

 

1) Great matches may not be the be all and end all -- not a fan of trying to make this process an entirely objective one because it is inherently subjective to each fan -- but shouldn't a great performer produce a ton of great matches? How does one reconcile a great performer who's lacking the great matches department? Is it at simple as grading on a curve and looking at what they did with limited opposition? As an example, I don't have Yoshiaki Fujiwara ranked anywhere near as high as his biggest supporters here seem to. Think he's tremendous at times and an integral part of some classic multi-man matches. But it seems that those who have him super high find his best matches (and thus his performances as well) to rank much higher than I do. Or are people finding he wasn't necessarily a part of so many great / classic matches but somehow put on great / classic performances in these matches? Help me resolve this.

 

It's not grading a curve, it's just not the focus. Not all great wrestlers have the same opportunities to have great matches. Nobody had the chance Flair had to travel everywhere in main events with as much time as he wanted it and for it all to be taped. The AJ guys got chances for huge matches against each other over and over.

 

Bret had way lesser opponents and when he did get a good opponent he had a great match. Heck he had great matches with shitty opponents too.

 

It's really a balancing act for me. In essence though, I value the performance over the end result.

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

Bret gets value for smart in the ring and finishes, because look at the others in the WWF at the same time who both had Vince, Patterson and the WWF office. None of them are anywhere near his level or even stand out as particularly good at it.

[JerryvonKramer]

People don't tend to give Flair credit for finishes but if you look at his major matches they all have pretty interesting finishes.

 

Luger Starrcade 88 springs to mind, but for some reason few people (other than Chad or I) talk about much else but the booking for those matches. Steamer finishes are all interesting. Flair had a finisher that never ended matches, so that means you get a whole host of different ones.

 

I raise this because seems to me that Bret's five moves of doom were a lot more rote and routine than Flair finishes, which are ALOT more organic, it seems to me, and yet Bret gets the "smart worker" tag. There's a long thread about this somewhere

 

Just my view.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

 

Bret gets value for smart in the ring and finishes, because look at the others in the WWF at the same time who both had Vince, Patterson and the WWF office. None of them are anywhere near his level or even stand out as particularly good at it.

You don't think Savage was a great finish guy? I think if you thought about this for a bit you'd find there are a lot of great finishes to WWF matches in the period that Bret was active 85-97.

[thebrainfollower]

Flair, Lawler, Funk, Negro Casas, El Satanico, Bock, Savage, Bret, Jumbo, Misawa, Liger and maybe Tenyru and Arn are fighting for my top ten spots right now.

 

Tag teams I finished. Top 5 are both Midnight Expresses, Arn and Tully, Rock and Roll and the Rockers.

[WingedEagle]

 

A few questions I'm legitimately interested in hearing folks address so I can understand their process and what they're seeing that I may be missing:

 

1) Great matches may not be the be all and end all -- not a fan of trying to make this process an entirely objective one because it is inherently subjective to each fan -- but shouldn't a great performer produce a ton of great matches? How does one reconcile a great performer who's lacking the great matches department? Is it at simple as grading on a curve and looking at what they did with limited opposition? As an example, I don't have Yoshiaki Fujiwara ranked anywhere near as high as his biggest supporters here seem to. Think he's tremendous at times and an integral part of some classic multi-man matches. But it seems that those who have him super high find his best matches (and thus his performances as well) to rank much higher than I do. Or are people finding he wasn't necessarily a part of so many great / classic matches but somehow put on great / classic performances in these matches? Help me resolve this.

 

It's not grading a curve, it's just not the focus. Not all great wrestlers have the same opportunities to have great matches. Nobody had the chance Flair had to travel everywhere in main events with as much time as he wanted it and for it all to be taped. The AJ guys got chances for huge matches against each other over and over.

 

Bret had way lesser opponents and when he did get a good opponent he had a great match. Heck he had great matches with shitty opponents too.

 

It's really a balancing act for me. In essence though, I value the performance over the end result.

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

Bret gets value for smart in the ring and finishes, because look at the others in the WWF at the same time who both had Vince, Patterson and the WWF office. None of them are anywhere near his level or even stand out as particularly good at it.

 

 

Isn't this second as much a function of the same opportunities you're downplaying in the first comment? How many of Bret's finishes before his rise to the top are at this level? As Parv noted above, and I found upon rewatching his big matches on the Network over the last couple years, the bodies of his matches were very formulaic depending on whether he was heel or face. As with anyone there are exceptions (Flair title change, Austin series, DBS at In Your House, Taker sometimes, Michaels at Survivor Series), but he had a a style and stuck to it. That's not at all a bad thing. Just don't see the case that this was someone always thinking outside the box throwing new looks at us. Hell, my big beef with the Owen Mania match is that it doesn't feel enough like a blood feud encounter given the stakes, the fact that it was in fact an actual blood feud and everything that led up to it. That's leaving aside the cage match with Owen at Summerslam. Can only imagine the vitriol that would be thrown at that match if you swapped the name Hart with Helmsley on that one. But that's neither here nor there.

 

On the first point, I can only get so far with the performance if the result isn't there. It feels like quite the extrapolation to say that Bret Hart (or anyone) pulled a few rabbits out of his hat against less than stellar opposition and that trumps classics of let's say a Kobashi or Misawa solely because they had each other. Bret didn't work against Kawada. But how are we supposed to say he's better based on dragging Rusher Kimura up to the Mendoza line on a number of occasions? Is the bar greatness or consistent goodness? Again, I get that its all subjective but that kind of case feels like its rewarding a singles hitter in large part due to a lack of opportunity.

[thebrainfollower]

With the Owen match I think there' still a part of Bret playing that he doesn't want to be there and do this. That it's a blood feud for Owen but not Bret.

[WingedEagle]

With the Owen match I think there' still a part of Bret playing that he doesn't want to be there and do this. That it's a blood feud for Owen but not Bret.

 

While I can see that take, the slow burning build leading to it had me wanting something other than what we got. Anything but a fatal flaw, just something that keeps it from taking up shop in my classics section as it does for others.

[Frankensteiner]

 

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

Bret gets value for smart in the ring and finishes, because look at the others in the WWF at the same time who both had Vince, Patterson and the WWF office. None of them are anywhere near his level or even stand out as particularly good at it.

You don't think Savage was a great finish guy? I think if you thought about this for a bit you'd find there are a lot of great finishes to WWF matches in the period that Bret was active 85-97.

 

 

I think the only guy who can compete with Bret on finishes in the WWF/E is Mysterio. I don't think Savage's matches really had as many great finishes as you think. I would argue the Steamboat match and the Flair match at WM 8 are up there. The Warrior retirement match was pretty memorable for how decisive it was, and I guess it was a great finish for what they were going for, but what else?

 

Then I'm really drawing a blank on the other great finishes in that time period. All of Hogan's biggest matches ended with a legdrop, Shawn's were mostly SCM (I would argue the Diesel IYH finish was great for that match), etc. Tito slamming the cage door on Valentine was great... but overall, I just can't think of any one wrestler who consistently had finishes on Bret's level.

[Childs]

A few questions I'm legitimately interested in hearing folks address so I can understand their process and what they're seeing that I may be missing:

 

1) Great matches may not be the be all and end all -- not a fan of trying to make this process an entirely objective one because it is inherently subjective to each fan -- but shouldn't a great performer produce a ton of great matches? How does one reconcile a great performer who's lacking the great matches department? Is it at simple as grading on a curve and looking at what they did with limited opposition? As an example, I don't have Yoshiaki Fujiwara ranked anywhere near as high as his biggest supporters here seem to. Think he's tremendous at times and an integral part of some classic multi-man matches. But it seems that those who have him super high find his best matches (and thus his performances as well) to rank much higher than I do. Or are people finding he wasn't necessarily a part of so many great / classic matches but somehow put on great / classic performances in these matches? Help me resolve this.

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

On the Fujiwara question, it's not just the performances. His greatest matches--Sayama, Yamazaki, Choshu, Inoki, Takada, Maeda--were classics. He also delivered a bunch of entertaining, elevating performances against lesser opponents. But for those who love him, I'm pretty sure the consensus is he was both a great match and great performance guy. I need the best of the best to be both.

[WingedEagle]

 

A few questions I'm legitimately interested in hearing folks address so I can understand their process and what they're seeing that I may be missing:

 

1) Great matches may not be the be all and end all -- not a fan of trying to make this process an entirely objective one because it is inherently subjective to each fan -- but shouldn't a great performer produce a ton of great matches? How does one reconcile a great performer who's lacking the great matches department? Is it at simple as grading on a curve and looking at what they did with limited opposition? As an example, I don't have Yoshiaki Fujiwara ranked anywhere near as high as his biggest supporters here seem to. Think he's tremendous at times and an integral part of some classic multi-man matches. But it seems that those who have him super high find his best matches (and thus his performances as well) to rank much higher than I do. Or are people finding he wasn't necessarily a part of so many great / classic matches but somehow put on great / classic performances in these matches? Help me resolve this.

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

On the Fujiwara question, it's not just the performances. His greatest matches--Sayama, Yamazaki, Choshu, Inoki, Takada, Maeda--were classics. He also delivered a bunch of entertaining, elevating performances against lesser opponents. But for those who love him, I'm pretty sure the consensus is he was both a great match and great performance guy. I need the best of the best to be both.

 

 

Exactly. That makes sense and is what I would want to hear from someone who has Fujiwara that high. I haven't seen the UWF stuff but the NJ I've seen has some great performances and very good singles affairs, but none of them rank as any kind of classics for me. That's what keeps him outside of the upper echelon of my list. Just can't imagine how one would have him near the top but not regard his best singles output as classics. Need the great performances and great matches.

[Grimmas]

 

 

2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.

Bret gets value for smart in the ring and finishes, because look at the others in the WWF at the same time who both had Vince, Patterson and the WWF office. None of them are anywhere near his level or even stand out as particularly good at it.

You don't think Savage was a great finish guy? I think if you thought about this for a bit you'd find there are a lot of great finishes to WWF matches in the period that Bret was active 85-97.

 

What are the great finishes?

[JerryvonKramer]

Would make a decent thread.