Jump to content
ProWrestlingOnly.com Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Grimmas

Reactions to the List: 25-11

Recommended Posts

I'm more interested in viewing this list as a case of stock going up, stock going down. So you see cases like Steve Austin with a mild decline, Buddy Rose with a huge increase, etc. There's no Right Way To Look At This List, but for me, more so than the number next to the name, that's what's telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More than anything, I'm interested to hear from someone who decided that Rose was worth ranking, but only in the bottom 25. That's a position that no one has really addressed for anyone throughout this project, and is inherently more interesting to me than leaving a person off a ballot completely.

 

I did. And I did adress why. Familiar with the AWA stuff and the Hennig feud in Portland. Basically : not seen enough for him to go higher. I'll be honest, I've heard so much hardcore pimping of Buddy Rose Portland years, that I have a hard time believing it can live up to such a hype at this point. I'll only know if/when I'll check it out.

 

Yep. I had Austin at #61. Really enjoyed his entire WCW stint, it's actually his WWF Attitude Era years that hurt him. Basically, nothing stands out after his injury except the Foley matches (and the Taker SummerSlam match), then he has ons of bad stuff (like mostly everybody else) until he comes back and has maybe his best year ever in 2001. I just need to see his rookie USWA feud against Chris Adams.

 

 

I basically squeezed Adams on my list of the strength of it. Austin is green as hell during it but you can see what he could potentially be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

More than anything, I'm interested to hear from someone who decided that Rose was worth ranking, but only in the bottom 25. That's a position that no one has really addressed for anyone throughout this project, and is inherently more interesting to me than leaving a person off a ballot completely.

 

I did. And I did adress why. Familiar with the AWA stuff and the Hennig feud in Portland. Basically : not seen enough for him to go higher. I'll be honest, I've heard so much hardcore pimping of Buddy Rose Portland years, that I have a hard time believing it can live up to such a hype at this point. I'll only know if/when I'll check it out.

 

 

I'm not saying this is what happened, but do you feel like you're punishing Rose because of his vocal fanbase? It seems like your viewpoint on this is inherently contrarian. It's like picking apart a movie just to be different from all your friends.

 

And here we have the first Godwin point of this thread with the infamous "contrarian" bullshit. If I was trying to be contrarian, I would not have voted for Lawler or Rose at all, I would not have put Fujiwara higher than where he ended up (#27 on my list), I would not have voted for Rey in my Top 20 (I did despite my disdain for the 619), I would not have voted for anyone from the 00's (as a relic from the 90's that I'm supposed to be too) and I would probably have put a bunch of woman in my top 10, Ric Flair around #80 and Bockwinkle at #1 on the strenght of only his past 45 work. That's being contrarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More than anything, I'm interested to hear from someone who decided that Rose was worth ranking, but only in the bottom 25. That's a position that no one has really addressed for anyone throughout this project, and is inherently more interesting to me than leaving a person off a ballot completely.

 

I did. And I did adress why. Familiar with the AWA stuff and the Hennig feud in Portland. Basically : not seen enough for him to go higher. I'll be honest, I've heard so much hardcore pimping of Buddy Rose Portland years, that I have a hard time believing it can live up to such a hype at this point. I'll only know if/when I'll check it out.

 

Yep. I had Austin at #61. Really enjoyed his entire WCW stint, it's actually his WWF Attitude Era years that hurt him. Basically, nothing stands out after his injury except the Foley matches (and the Taker SummerSlam match), then he has ons of bad stuff (like mostly everybody else) until he comes back and has maybe his best year ever in 2001. I just need to see his rookie USWA feud against Chris Adams.

 

As long as you can stomach some pretty bad violence against women in the feud, you'll love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

More than anything, I'm interested to hear from someone who decided that Rose was worth ranking, but only in the bottom 25. That's a position that no one has really addressed for anyone throughout this project, and is inherently more interesting to me than leaving a person off a ballot completely.

 

I did. And I did adress why. Familiar with the AWA stuff and the Hennig feud in Portland. Basically : not seen enough for him to go higher. I'll be honest, I've heard so much hardcore pimping of Buddy Rose Portland years, that I have a hard time believing it can live up to such a hype at this point. I'll only know if/when I'll check it out.

 

Yep. I had Austin at #61. Really enjoyed his entire WCW stint, it's actually his WWF Attitude Era years that hurt him. Basically, nothing stands out after his injury except the Foley matches (and the Taker SummerSlam match), then he has ons of bad stuff (like mostly everybody else) until he comes back and has maybe his best year ever in 2001. I just need to see his rookie USWA feud against Chris Adams.

 

 

I basically squeezed Adams on my list of the strength of it. Austin is green as hell during it but you can see what he could potentially be.

 

Damn, maybe I could have squeezed Adams because of it too. His 80's Texas stuff just wasn't enough.

 

EDIT : violence against women... I dunno, if it's only the heel doing it, well, it's "acceptable".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hash basically held his spot from '06, same as Taue. There was a big point jump from Windham at 25 to Austin and Hash at 24 and 23. So if you're looking at it in terms of tiers, that was a dividing line. It's sort of amazing that 32 hardcore wrestling fans couldn't find a place for Shinya Hashimoto, but so it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

More than anything, I'm interested to hear from someone who decided that Rose was worth ranking, but only in the bottom 25. That's a position that no one has really addressed for anyone throughout this project, and is inherently more interesting to me than leaving a person off a ballot completely.

 

I did. And I did adress why. Familiar with the AWA stuff and the Hennig feud in Portland. Basically : not seen enough for him to go higher. I'll be honest, I've heard so much hardcore pimping of Buddy Rose Portland years, that I have a hard time believing it can live up to such a hype at this point. I'll only know if/when I'll check it out.

 

 

I'm not saying this is what happened, but do you feel like you're punishing Rose because of his vocal fanbase? It seems like your viewpoint on this is inherently contrarian. It's like picking apart a movie just to be different from all your friends.

 

And here we have the first Godwin point of this thread with the infamous "contrarian" bullshit. If I was trying to be contrarian, I would not have voted for Lawler or Rose at all, I would not have put Fujiwara higher than where he ended up (#27 on my list), I would not have voted for Rey in my Top 20 (I did despite my disdain for the 619), I would not have voted for anyone from the 00's and I would probably have put a bunch of woman in my top 10, Ric Flair around #80 and Bockwinkle at #1 on the strenght of only his past 45 work. That's being contrarian.

 

 

I wasn't speaking about your list as a whole, merely your stance on this one person. I also opened my question (which was a question) with "I'm not saying this is what happened". I also didn't compare you or your list to Hitler or Nazis. You seem to be getting a bit defensive about an honest question asking for clarification of your earlier point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet... I feel this is very much a case where the holistic view of Windham and his skill set doesn't match with his output especially in terms of longevity. I mean I love Barry like soooo much and even I'm wondering if he's ranked too high in the position of 25.

I agree with everything said here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of "but" makes it a preterition of sorts.

 

But anyway, on the contrary, I'm feeling like I was doing with Buddy exactly the same thing as I did with AJ Styles and one or two others, which is giving them a positive benefit of the doubt. Since what I saw of Buddy was excellent against Hennig in the early 80's (don't remember the year) and since he was great in the AWA, I ranked him with the idea that he might have been just as good in-between. However, I couldn't get him higher because I really don't know. Buddy could get dramatically up, or not. Same for AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Hash at #11. Above Kobashi. The quintessential New Japan wrestler. Great big match worker. Tokyo Dome. G1. Left us way too young. Amazing music theme that used to give me shivers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And yet... I feel this is very much a case where the holistic view of Windham and his skill set doesn't match with his output especially in terms of longevity. I mean I love Barry like soooo much and even I'm wondering if he's ranked too high in the position of 25.

I agree with everything said here.

 

 

See, I think the underachiever line has been stuck to Windham for so long that some people actually underrate his output. We have him looking great on tape as early as 1983. He has the outstanding 1986-88 peak and then another run nearly as good from 1990-93. And within those peaks, he shined in nearly every role you could imagine him occupying other than promotional ace. Honestly, can Bret or Savage better that? Can Austin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually a little surprised at the Austin backlash in the discussion threads because of the guys that have been WWF/E ace (Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Hart, Michaels, himself, Cena, Triple H, The Rock, The Undertaker), to me he is the guy that overall has the best stuff for us to look at for his career. There are cases you can make for a couple of the other guys above him, but his overall career is pretty damn strong too. And that's despite him being the ace in the Attitude Era when for a couple years match quality and WWF rarely got on the same page. I have no problem with him this high, and it kind of feels like reactionary outrage that hasn't totally been thought through to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In agreement with Childs here. Barry's career could be viewed as a disappointment, but he was having good-great matches as early as '83 facing Harley Race and Ron Bass. He has a sneaky great output level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually a little surprised at the Austin backlash in the discussion threads because of the guys that have been WWF/E ace (Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Hart, Michaels, himself, Cena, Triple H, The Rock, The Undertaker), to me he is the guy that overall has the best stuff for us to look at for his career. There are cases you can make for a couple of the other guys above him, but his overall career is pretty damn strong too. And that's despite him being the ace in the Attitude Era when for a couple years match quality and WWF rarely got on the same page. I have no problem with him this high, and it kind of feels like reactionary outrage that hasn't totally been thought through to me.

 

It's not outrage. But how many years was Austin great in the ring? Give him mid-1996 until the Owen injury and 2001. Then give him points for being good to very good for three years in WCW and a few more for inhabiting a larger than life character during the Attitude era. That's it. And even his peak years weren't among the best peak years anybody ever had.

 

Look, I like Austin a lot. As a character, he popped off the screen more than almost anyone in history. He absolutely needs to be on the list. But it's a thin resume in the company he's keeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm most shocked Regal is making it this high. I mean I ranked Regal and not Kobashi but I knew Kobashi would have his fans.

 

By the way I voted, hoping Kobashi, Kawada, Regal, Flair, and Arn will be the next to fall out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually a little surprised at the Austin backlash in the discussion threads because of the guys that have been WWF/E ace (Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Hart, Michaels, himself, Cena, Triple H, The Rock, The Undertaker), to me he is the guy that overall has the best stuff for us to look at for his career. There are cases you can make for a couple of the other guys above him, but his overall career is pretty damn strong too. And that's despite him being the ace in the Attitude Era when for a couple years match quality and WWF rarely got on the same page. I have no problem with him this high, and it kind of feels like reactionary outrage that hasn't totally been thought through to me.

 

Agree with all of this. He had good matches while leading the biggest wresting boom in history. Before that, he had good to great stuff in Texas and WCW. I don't get why Austin finishing where he did has some folks so worked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

And yet... I feel this is very much a case where the holistic view of Windham and his skill set doesn't match with his output especially in terms of longevity. I mean I love Barry like soooo much and even I'm wondering if he's ranked too high in the position of 25.

I agree with everything said here.

See, I think the underachiever line has been stuck to Windham for so long that some people actually underrate his output. We have him looking great on tape as early as 1983. He has the outstanding 1986-88 peak and then another run nearly as good from 1990-93. And within those peaks, he shined in nearly every role you could imagine him occupying other than promotional ace. Honestly, can Bret or Savage better that? Can Austin?

I don't think comparing him to 3 guys who are also getting ranked way too high and who are some of the clearest evidence of the lists's mainstream US slant does much to help him.

 

Windham is overrated as hell. I don't think there's any worker out there who gets the same free pass for disappointing performances and being shit for long portions of his career as Windham. How many other top 25 candidates are there with big matches from their prime as bad as the Muta match at Superbrawl? Looking past the Flair matches his 80's resume is also surprisingly thin and his good 90's work is more fun midcard stuff than it his all-time great level stuff.

 

I think it's a given that he's not better than Santo and Akiyama but I don't even see an argument for him being better than JCP contemporaries Morton and Eaton, both of whom destroy him in output and longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm actually a little surprised at the Austin backlash in the discussion threads because of the guys that have been WWF/E ace (Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Hart, Michaels, himself, Cena, Triple H, The Rock, The Undertaker), to me he is the guy that overall has the best stuff for us to look at for his career. There are cases you can make for a couple of the other guys above him, but his overall career is pretty damn strong too. And that's despite him being the ace in the Attitude Era when for a couple years match quality and WWF rarely got on the same page. I have no problem with him this high, and it kind of feels like reactionary outrage that hasn't totally been thought through to me.

 

It's not outrage. But how many years was Austin great in the ring? Give him mid-1996 until the Owen injury and 2001. Then give him points for being good to very good for three years in WCW and a few more for inhabiting a larger than life character during the Attitude era. That's it. And even his peak years weren't among the best peak years anybody ever had.

 

Look, I like Austin a lot. As a character, he popped off the screen more than almost anyone in history. He absolutely needs to be on the list. But it's a thin resume in the company he's keeping.

 

 

Love Austin. But if we're giving him '96 until '01, you then also have a couple monstrous stretches where he wasn't working at all -- late '97 and a full year from 99-00.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm actually a little surprised at the Austin backlash in the discussion threads because of the guys that have been WWF/E ace (Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Hart, Michaels, himself, Cena, Triple H, The Rock, The Undertaker), to me he is the guy that overall has the best stuff for us to look at for his career. There are cases you can make for a couple of the other guys above him, but his overall career is pretty damn strong too. And that's despite him being the ace in the Attitude Era when for a couple years match quality and WWF rarely got on the same page. I have no problem with him this high, and it kind of feels like reactionary outrage that hasn't totally been thought through to me.

 

It's not outrage. But how many years was Austin great in the ring? Give him mid-1996 until the Owen injury and 2001. Then give him points for being good to very good for three years in WCW and a few more for inhabiting a larger than life character during the Attitude era. That's it. And even his peak years weren't among the best peak years anybody ever had.

 

Look, I like Austin a lot. As a character, he popped off the screen more than almost anyone in history. He absolutely needs to be on the list. But it's a thin resume in the company he's keeping.

 

 

Love Austin. But if we're giving him '96 until '01, you then also have a couple monstrous stretches where he wasn't working at all -- late '97 and a full year from 99-00.

 

 

I think you misunderstood me. I said I'd give him the year from mid-1996 until mid-1997 and then 2001. I agree completely about the substantial gaps in his peak.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×