Jump to content
ProWrestlingOnly.com Forums
Loss

Dear 2026 Wrestling Obsessives

Recommended Posts

I would like more discussion in the threads leading up to the reveal if you think you are going to be on an island on a particular pick. As fun and shocking as the Scott Steiner and Scorpio #1 picks were, I went through their respective threads and didn't see even a hint of the projection some individuals were going to throw upon them. I wouldn't say I was immune of this either as it looks like I will be one of the high votes for someone like Tamura and I wish I would have done longer form posts in presenting my argument.

I am someone who will most likely be the sole #1 vote for a candidate and I didn't make the case for them in their thread. I thought the guy had a decent chance of placing pretty well and I worried there may be some backlash like Parv got for his Flair case. I will definitely defend the vote once his ranking is revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would like more discussion in the threads leading up to the reveal if you think you are going to be on an island on a particular pick. As fun and shocking as the Scott Steiner and Scorpio #1 picks were, I went through their respective threads and didn't see even a hint of the projection some individuals were going to throw upon them. I wouldn't say I was immune of this either as it looks like I will be one of the high votes for someone like Tamura and I wish I would have done longer form posts in presenting my argument.

I am someone who will most likely be the sole #1 vote for a candidate and I didn't make the case for them in their thread. I thought the guy had a decent chance of placing pretty well and I worried there may be some backlash like Parv got for his Flair case. I will definitely defend the vote once his ranking is revealed.

 

You should have noticed pretty much no one else got any kind of backlash for pimping their candidates. No one came after Elliot for making a big case on Satanico or OJ for pimping a lot of British guys. Mostly because they didn't try to insinuate that people's reasons for not voting their guy #1 was because they were trying to be "trendy" or "cute" with their ballots. There's nothing wrong with making a case for a guy until you start trying to attack people's intentions for not seeing them as the super awesome great candidate that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would like more discussion in the threads leading up to the reveal if you think you are going to be on an island on a particular pick. As fun and shocking as the Scott Steiner and Scorpio #1 picks were, I went through their respective threads and didn't see even a hint of the projection some individuals were going to throw upon them. I wouldn't say I was immune of this either as it looks like I will be one of the high votes for someone like Tamura and I wish I would have done longer form posts in presenting my argument.

I am someone who will most likely be the sole #1 vote for a candidate and I didn't make the case for them in their thread. I thought the guy had a decent chance of placing pretty well and I worried there may be some backlash like Parv got for his Flair case. I will definitely defend the vote once his ranking is revealed.

 

You should have noticed pretty much no one else got any kind of backlash for pimping their candidates. No one came after Elliot for making a big case on Satanico or OJ for pimping a lot of British guys. Mostly because they didn't try to insinuate that people's reasons for not voting their guy #1 was because they were trying to be "trendy" or "cute" with their ballots. There's nothing wrong with making a case for a guy until you start trying to attack people's intentions for not seeing them as the super awesome great candidate that you do.

 

Those are established, respected community members and I am just some new guy. In hindsight I do wish I would have stumped for my guy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long was the nominating/viewing period? 18 months? Two years? I'm not sure it needed to be that long. I know there are a lot of people who used that time to their own benefit, but would the final list have been that much different if we'd crammed it all into nine months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long was the nominating/viewing period? 18 months? Two years? I'm not sure it needed to be that long. I know there are a lot of people who used that time to their own benefit, but would the final list have been that much different if we'd crammed it all into nine months?

 

Have no idea, but on a related basis I always wondered how strong a recency bias enters into voting. Fujinami & Martel were the two big names I hadn't seen a ton of coming into this, and on the flip side they both rated incredibly highly for me. Did they belong there, or was I blown away by their material being not just great, but also fresh? I have no idea but definitely thought about that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch more lucha. Watch more Puerto Rico. Watch more Portland and Memphis. You have ten years until the next one, so there's plenty of time to fill in your gaps: WoS, All Japan pillars, Joshi, currently the indy wrestling. No telling if someone just starting on the independent scene will grow leaps and bounds like Sam Zayn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No nomination, no committee, just let people discuss and vote for who the fuck they want, really.

While a lot of names didn't get a proper amount of discussion I can only imagine how much worse it would have been without the directory and the ability to at least see threads for all the nominated wrestlers. I think a system in place at least nudges people into discussion a little more. Maybe I'm full of it.

 

Also, make cases beforehand and not in retrospect because my "friend" Tanner is a jabroni mark who is going to do it in hindsight and that doesn't help me a lick with my process. I'm selfish, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the alternative to nominating and having the opportunity to discuss individual candidates

If it was a 2 year process again I suppose my own preference would be roll out threads for 4 wrestlers a week. Have everyone working on those wrestlers during that week. Keep the threads open though for later discussion. That is 416 wrestlers right there. Maybe when nominations are ongoing have polls to decide if the nominees are worthy of their own thread at that time. If not revisit them later since they likely will show up at points will working on other wrestlers.

 

I'm not sure of this but I would at least consider the possibility of increasing the amount of workers people vote on. I'd even be open to discussion on the possibility of all voters ranking everyone. Keep people more engaged through the process less risk of faking it through a list not having seen most of the nominees.

 

Maybe you could even go 3 years at 3 wrestlers a week. That is 468 in 3 years. Go with a 500 wrestler project and leave the other 32 spots to the obvious workers like Flair Misawa and Undertaker. I know 3 years sounds like a lot to ask of others but only 3 wrestlers a week would keep things focused.

 

Maybe clear guidelines one what to consider for the list called the Scott Steiner rule. Keep fools that can't help themselves from going too far outside the ropes when making picks.

 

In the end I think it depends on whether Vince puts up enough network footage to motivate everyone. Guy is sitting on a lot of treasure. Plus NWAclassics still has a lot of great content it is rolling out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manatee... you can't become an established, respected community member without putting yourself out there.

 

Bingo. If you have something to say and can say it in a way where you don't insult somebody else, don't hesitate. There probably will be people who disagree with you or call you crazy. Hell, I actually agree that I was crazy for certain opinions expressed on this board in the past. I'm glad I was corrected on my blind Kobashi hate and thank the guys who did that for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long was the nominating/viewing period? 18 months? Two years? I'm not sure it needed to be that long. I know there are a lot of people who used that time to their own benefit, but would the final list have been that much different if we'd crammed it all into nine months?

Did we lose anything from having it be long? Voter turnout was high, interest never seemed to lag and people are having a blast with the rollout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I ask is that they be true to themselves in their balloting.

 

Listen, I already feel like kind of a wrestling dinosaur at 34 that doesn't totally understand some things loved in the modern game. But with only a couple of small things near the bottom I might change, I am pretty happy that my ballot reflects what I do get and like about wrestling.

 

So do that, because you'll never please everyone all the time. Don't waste a second of effort trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No nomination, no committee, just let people discuss and vote for who the fuck they want, really.

 

If I had it to do again I would still require nominations, but ditch the three match rule and replace it with something more straightforward. More specifically I'd probably just have it where anyone can start a thread at any time on any wrestler without the need for a larger nomination thread, the only catch being that they need to write something about why they are nominating them. I don't care if it's a single sentence or longer (I'd prefer a paragraph in an ideal world), just something saying "this is why I may vote for X."

 

The whole reason the nominations idea was in play was because I remember how utterly fucking stupid it was during the Smarkschoice Best WCW matches poll when an active poster voted for a match number one without mentioning it a single time throughout the process. It was a match no one else had seen or heard of. To me that defeated the entire point of the project, and I didn't want to have a repeat of that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long was the nominating/viewing period? 18 months? Two years? I'm not sure it needed to be that long. I know there are a lot of people who used that time to their own benefit, but would the final list have been that much different if we'd crammed it all into nine months?

 

I don't think I could've participated with a 9 month viewing period to be honest. It just wouldn't have been enough time for me to get a look at enough of the nominees and I wouldn't want to hand in a ballot where half the people nominated were people I'd never watched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No nomination, no committee, just let people discuss and vote for who the fuck they want, really.

 

If I had it to do again I would still require nominations, but ditch the three match rule and replace it with something more straightforward. More specifically I'd probably just have it where anyone can start a thread at any time on any wrestler without the need for a larger nomination thread, the only catch being that they need to write something about why they are nominating them. I don't care if it's a single sentence or longer (I'd prefer a paragraph in an ideal world), just something saying "this is why I may vote for X."

 

Yes, I agree with this. Sounds pretty much the way to go. Don't just throw out a name, justify it, and there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2026ers, two things -

 

1) Leave your comfort zone. Whatever you're into, go watch something else for a few months. You're a lucha guy? Shoot-style deep dive. Modern indies your thing? Find all the Golden Age you can. Use that time to fill in your blind spots.

 

2) Embrace your biases. Once you've done the work, you love what you love. Ric Flair leaves you cold after two years of trying to get into his shit? Don't vote for that motherfucker. The revisionist history on AJ Styles drives you nuts? It's ok to have him at the bottom of your list. You're the only one who understands the beauty of Daisuke Sekimoto? Vote early, vote often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×