Reactions to the Honorable Mention List, Part 3

[ohtani's jacket]

I agree that it's the tone. Especially if you're not around often, are newer or have thinner skin. Personally, I know most the people around here well enough now where I think it's funny.

 

I was the high vote on Scott Norton. My literal first reply to the discussion threads was about that...ha. I expected to take more shit for that one, honestly. I could see someone else taking it the wrong way if it were directed toward them or their pick as it can read like "hey, you're a fucking idiot" which will immediately make some people feel like they're being attacked, questioned & put them on the defensive though, ya know? Like the "OMG, you put him WHERE?" That's part of the fun for me though.

 

But at the end of the day, we're a bunch of fucking nerds arguing about pro-wrestling on an internet message forum. There's not a lot shit we're gonna be able to hold over one another's heads big picture wise.

 

I don't think anyone's ever got upset over Scott Norton, though it may have happened at some point, somewhere. I actually want to go watch a Scott Norton match now.

[donsem43]

In Chigusa's case, the spectre of early retirement was forever hanging over her. A rule that to this very day is like Logan's Run. Chigusa's Run was pretty great. I adore her matches with Leilani Kai, enjoyed watching her butt heads with Yukari Omori, instill life lessons in Akira Hokuto and duel with Itsuki Yamazaki. Even he matches with Asuka, which feature some of the most ridiculous selling in Joshi Puroresu history, are undeniably great to me. All Japan came really close to booking a Kandori/Chigusa match in 1989 and that's a match I would have loved to have seen. She packed a lot into a short run and her star shone brightly.

 

This was the main reason I had her at 6. The post-Dump part of her early career is something that is slept on. To me, it's right up there with some of the best runs of all time. Combine that with Dump stuff, a really good early work and even some entertaining stuff in the early part of her comeback she ended up being that high on my list.

[Loss]

 

I think in some cases it's not so much having a say (which should be part of the reveal process), it's that the tone in some cases can come of as being harsher than intended/needed (and I think it doesn't help that it's sometimes hard to pick up nuance of tone in writing).

I get that but a little harshness is part of the deal. I don't see it verging into incivility very often. And the tone is so much gentler than it was in earlier days of internet wrestling discussion. I remember reading the Smarkschoice threads and my god there were some vicious exchanges.

 

 

This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown.

[Coffey]

Is it just me or HHH better than Angle? I can't believe he has a chance at the top 100.

 

 

I feel like Kurt Angle regressed as a worker or maybe peaked too early & his style became more about just getting all his shit in and not selling. Angle had a lot of potential but he got too comfortable & got to a point where he was happy with his matches & it feels like he didn't wanna push the envelop anymore after that. I'd say the Rumble match with Benoit. Whereas Triple H is... bloated. Like he wrestles a lot of fake epics, with long, drawn out matches & a ton of 2-counts & finisher kick outs. It comes down to which of those two styles offends you less. For me, I put Angle a few spots higher mainly because Angle entertained me sometimes with comedy wrestling & some tag stuff. A big problem with Triple H for me (I had him at #100) is that a lot of his matches feel the same. Regardless of the opponent. Plus his "reign of terror" era doesn't age any better than it was the first time around either. He takes himself WAY too seriously. If I were to re-do the end of my list, I probably would have bumped Triple H for someone like Chris Candido, that didn't make my list.

 

I guess the majority of WWE main events nowadays are like that Triple H style of match though...

[JerryvonKramer]

 

With Sting still being out there, and Luger dropping. Does this list trump all the polls over the years of who is better Sting or Luger. I believe the last poll was won by Luger. LOL

Shaking my head. Luger is so much better than Sting. Ridiculous.

Is it just me or HHH better than Angle? I can't believe he has a chance at the top 100.

It's all just subjective. Any and all views are possible and valid. No view is wrong. No view is ridiculous. If someone thinks El Gigante personally connects with them more than Kenta Kobashi, hey, who is anyone to disagree!

 

Let's just embrace it. I, for one, will not be reacting to a single other placement. I am just going to note which of my guys fell and when.

[The Thread Killer]

 

 

I think in some cases it's not so much having a say (which should be part of the reveal process), it's that the tone in some cases can come of as being harsher than intended/needed (and I think it doesn't help that it's sometimes hard to pick up nuance of tone in writing).

I get that but a little harshness is part of the deal. I don't see it verging into incivility very often. And the tone is so much gentler than it was in earlier days of internet wrestling discussion. I remember reading the Smarkschoice threads and my god there were some vicious exchanges.

 

 

This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown.

 

 

Michael Elgin hasn't appeared on the list yet, has he? Because if he does, then I reserve the right to...

 

Okay, not really.

 

I have now lost 39 of the names from my Top 100, before we have reached the Top 100. Today's eliminations were not kind to my list.

[El-P]

This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown.

 

I kinda remembered it was brutal, but I forgot all of this !

[Woof]

 

This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown.

 

 

Charming. Glad I wasn't around in 2006.

 

Anyway, my apologies if anybody thought I was complaining about civility. Not my intent. I was trying to comment on the how certain names incited a very specific reaction that I found curious, as it seemed to point towards a bigger issue than simply "I disagree with that pick".

[Matt D]

I won't react to Angle, for the sake of my own sanity and yours. Anything else, though, I'll react to.

[Childs]

 

 

 

This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown.

 

Charming. Glad I wasn't around in 2006.

 

Anyway, my apologies if anybody thought I was complaining about civility. Not my intent. I was trying to comment on the how certain names incited a very specific reaction that I found curious, as it seemed to point towards a bigger issue than simply "I disagree with that pick".

I think you're seeing that in part because people went deep in exploring styles that were less familiar and found a lot of exciting stuff. But then you get to the results and realize most of the voters didn't take those same journeys (understandably) and the traditional big names win out over a lot of the more beloved niche candidates. As OJ said, it was inevitable. But you could understand why that might be frustrating for a voter who fell in love with a particular British worker or luchadore or whatever. The footage boom has been a wonderful thing for a lot of us, but some are probably learning it hasn't changed the world as much as they expected or hoped.

[Timbo Slice]

I'm at 82 for the Top 110.

 

My point about the whole objectivity/subjectivity matter isn't to limit the discourse at all. My point is that everyone's opinions matter, and regardless of how much people have dove into wrestling and have their views on what makes it good or not, that they have a say in it. The goal is for the list to be representative of the majority, not of the minority who happen to have the most abrasive opinions. People who have lurked here have come out and given their opinions on why they've made their decisions and I'm way more in favor of that than possibly any other part of the process. The more people who feel good about voicing their opinions on the project, the better. Gives us more information to think about when it comes to how people enjoy wrestling.

[Death From Above]

I'm actually prepared to defend Hogan as a worker as I think the notion that he was terrible in the ring is pretty badly misguided and honestly not supported by the available footage.

 

He is a giant ham. But he's the best giant ham that ever was.

 

I'll be prepared to go into more detail on that later, but I think it's best to save it until he actually drops.

[Childs]

I'm actually prepared to defend Hogan as a worker as I think the notion that he was terrible in the ring is pretty badly misguided and honestly not supported by the available footage.

 

He is a giant ham. But he's the best giant ham that ever was.

 

I'll be prepared to go into more detail on that later, but I think it's best to save it until he actually drops.

I don't know that there will be much friction over Hogan. I mean, I viscerally dislike him but wouldn't ever deny that he knew what he was doing in the ring and had plenty of good matches. I have no objective argument against him making the top 100.

[Loss]

I would love to argue against the idea of Hogan making this list in any form, and look forward to the opportunity to do so.

[MoS]

 

 

I think in some cases it's not so much having a say (which should be part of the reveal process), it's that the tone in some cases can come of as being harsher than intended/needed (and I think it doesn't help that it's sometimes hard to pick up nuance of tone in writing).

 

I get that but a little harshness is part of the deal. I don't see it verging into incivility very often. And the tone is so much gentler than it was in earlier days of internet wrestling discussion. I remember reading the Smarkschoice threads and my god there were some vicious exchanges.

This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown.

I now have a morbid curiosity to check out those threads, just for the trainwreck potential of it.

[Childs]

So forget what I said about the friction.

[Exposer]

My thing is even if I disagree with it I appreciate folks who come in & explain their picks. I respect that. I think it matters more that someone share their opinion & explains it rather than what that opinion or explanation is. It's very hard to change someone's philosophical approach to something. Parv obviously values objectivity more than subjectivity in his wrestling viewing. I value subjectivity a bit more. That's an approach that's difficult to reverse. When someone argues something I think the goal should always be to have others who disagree to understand their argument & maybe even change their opinions a little. I think understanding a different opinion is easier than changing that opinion. I'm betting 9/10 times an effort to change one's opinion doesn't work. Ive read pages upon pages, threads upon threads where Matt & Parv have argued philosophies of viewing wrestling & what they value more. They've agreed some on details. They've disagreed some on details. But I don't think they've ever changed their outlook on what they value more or the way they look at wrestling in any significant way. And that's because it's the basis for everyway they look at wrestling & that's very hard to change. It's hard to change core values

[Goodear]

I won't react to Angle, for the sake of my own sanity and yours. Anything else, though, I'll react to.

 

We can just find and replace on Brock Lesnar if we have to.

[Exposer]

And dammit I'll defend Christian when the time comes. If did so on a podcast today & I'll do it again later. "Learned Psychology" is a thing people. And it's awesome

[ohtani's jacket]

I like a lot of Hogan's 80s work, but he's not top 100. It's like that Flair promo after Wrestle War: "Terry, you're not in the top 100."

 

On the other hand, if he goes crazily high I can picture having a lot of fun with it.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm at 82 for the Top 110.

 

My point about the whole objectivity/subjectivity matter isn't to limit the discourse at all. My point is that everyone's opinions matter, and regardless of how much people have dove into wrestling and have their views on what makes it good or not, that they have a say in it. The goal is for the list to be representative of the majority, not of the minority who happen to have the most abrasive opinions. People who have lurked here have come out and given their opinions on why they've made their decisions and I'm way more in favor of that than possibly any other part of the process. The more people who feel good about voicing their opinions on the project, the better. Gives us more information to think about when it comes to how people enjoy wrestling.

I don't really understand the concept of giving reasons for making decisions in that which you have insisted is totally subjective. There is no need to defend. There is no need to justify. There is no need to debate. There is no need to define criteria. There is no need for discussion. "It's my view" is the only argument required. And a shrug really can be the only response. I don't see much alternative if you hold to an idea of zero standards of evidence, burden of proof, or anything else, and only opinion. If you abandon the notion that your views are actually what you believe to be true, then essentially there's nothing at stake. Nothing at all. The passion you showed for each of your picks was passion really for nothing. If you don't deep down believe your top ten guys are really -- actually, totally, objectively, truthfully -- the top ten wrestlers, then what were you getting passionate about? I don't get the concept of arguing strongly for things that you also maintain can't possibly be true, are only relevant to yourself, and cannot be demonstrated with evidence.

[Matt D]

 

I won't react to Angle, for the sake of my own sanity and yours. Anything else, though, I'll react to.

 

We can just find and replace on Brock Lesnar if we have to.

 

I feel very differently about Angle and Brock, though I don't think either should be in the top 100.

[Goodear]

Really? I would have thought your diminishing returns argument for Brock would have fit Angle exceptionally well considering his propensity to up his use of suplexes per matches, blowing out his own finishers and 'give someone the push by letting them out wrestle the Olympian' when everyone did it. I see Brock now as an evolution of Angle tropes blown up to eleven right now.

 

I voted for Brock due to his run prior to the UFC before Grimmas outs me again.

[Matt D]

Really? I would have thought your diminishing returns argument for Brock would have fit Angle exceptionally well considering his propensity to up his use of suplexes per matches, blowing out his own finishers and 'give someone the push by letting them out wrestle the Olympian' when everyone did it. I see Brock now as an evolution of Angle tropes blown up to eleven right now.

 

I voted for Brock due to his run prior to the UFC before Grimmas outs me again.

Well, yeah, the major difference is in his run prior to the UFC.

 

But I don't think that's the only difference. I don't think he's religiously against selling, for one. In some ways, I liken current Brock more to Hansen at his worst, just without a lot of the positives.

[Timbo Slice]

So then what's the argument really about? You not liking someone's opinions because they don't match your own? You thinking the evidence they bring to the table is bunk? What do you think is at stake, anyways? Those questions are all something everyone had to think about, and everybody came up with unique lists. You seem to be arguing both for the discourse and for your methods to be held above all else, which is quite the juxtaposition and only leads to strawman arguments.

 

The evidence you are citing are formed on opinions you've created for yourself. Just like anyone else has in this entire project. Yet you're also suggesting that there is the One True Way To Evaluate Wrestlinf with BIGLAV, an arbitrary system based on the evidence YOU think is vital to what makes a good wrestler and something you presented in a way that was above the processes of others. Your need for burden of proof is much different than others and rightfully so, to be honest.

 

The arguments that have been presented definitely boil down to what I'm talking about in the long run and if you skip through all the arguments, we all just end up shrugging out shoulders, but you've presented your opinions in a way that can belittle how others constructed their lists. My point is that there is no one right way to construct the list, and that everybody's basis for how they made it is just as important as anyone's.