Reactions to the List: 25-11

[Dylan Waco]

Well even the AJPW names are effectively U.S. names in the sense that the vast majority of Japanese wrestling is highly Americanized. The least Americanized styles, promotions, et. (WOS, shootsyle, lucha, at least arguably Joshi) did the worst in terms of being represented in large enough volume to register in high places on the list.

 

I think the characterization of the list as "mainstream" is questionable for a variety of reasons, but I absolutely think it's fair to say that in order to do really well on this list you had to work within a style/promotion that was either American or an outgrowth of American cultural imperialism.

 

To me the most interesting guys in the top ten are Bryan and Rey, because while both fit as a part of the American wrestling culture, they are different expressions of it than you find in the other guys who made the top ten. I think it's especially interesting that none of us really seem to think of Rey as a luchador anymore, and I wonder if that speaks more to actual changes he's made in his work, or the fact that where he works has subconsciously taken him from the "them" to the "our" camp.

 

I'll have more to say on Flair when he eventually drops, but its been an interesting journey for me with him, that's led to some interesting (and sad) conclusions.

[El-P]

Very interesting post. Would New Japan be considered more "foreign" at heart than All Japan, whose house style originally steamed from the NWA style of the Funks ? By that I refer to the more shoot-stylish aspect of it through Inoki's and UWF's heritage and also the Mexican influence on the whole juniors through Tiger Mask then Liger ?

 

The fact Rey is actually american probably plays a part. The fact he hasn't worked full-time for a lucha promotion since he left AAA in the mid-90's also plays a part. The fact that he became a star in WCW then WWE clearly makes him not-a-luchador.

[NotJayTabb]

With regards to how mainstream the list is, I think it's important to look at the number of wrestlers who made ballots. 557 different wrestlers received votes, which to me is a testament to how much footage people we watching. The mainstream US/puro guys will have done well because people have been watching them for years. People have seen countless matches by Bret, Savage, Arn and other guys who were deemed unreasonably high. When we're discovering new styles and areas, we don't have that built in knowledge, so we can only follow the recommended matches and make our journey from there. Guys like Santo and Casas are almost a gateway into lucha, the first guys you watch to get into the style, so it's likely that people getting into lucha will have rated them highly. From there, people will have taken different routes. I gravitated towards La Fiera and LA Park, both of whom scored well on my list, other people will have gone off in different directions and favoured other guys they're discovering for the first time. Same with WoS - Breaks did well amongst people who will have watched it for the first time because he's so easy to get into. From there, the number of WoS candidates spread throughout the honourable mentions shows that a lot of people have been watching the footage. We've been watching the mainstream guys all our wrestling lives, some of us have only been watching WoS/lucha/Japanese indys for a couple of years. People talk about "the journey" of GWE, but I think it's most important aspect will be it's legacy. GWE is nearly over, but I'm still watching WoS on YoutTube, still planning on working through the lucha DVD's I bought last month that I've not watched yet, and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

[elliott]

I know Matt keeps saying the top 125 should be the list we talk about, but I really like the top like 200 or 250. 150 people is a lot of voters and 100 slots is a lot of individual votes.

 

I feel like it should be Kamala time before we jump to the top 10. Everyone needs to experience the Kamala and El Dandy interactions once in their life.

 

[Loss]

It's not that I'm anti-Flair, I had him at #20, he remains one of my all-time favourites, but I don't think he's the greatest wrestler ever. And more than anything, the fact that a progressive thinking board, sometimes to absurd degrees, in 2016, goes back to the old gospel of the 80's, to the most boring candidates of all after having Jumbo being called a boring candidate, is kinda disapointing to me. Like I said, although I wouldn't agree at all, Lawler #1 would be a more exciting result honestly. Anyone would be. I've said it pretty early in the countdown, apart from a few über-pimped names, this is mostly a return to the US mainstream and a pretty conservative list. (and yes, a bunch of AJ sacred cows are still in the top 10, but there's no way these names were gonna just disappear)

 

This is where I have a disconnect from so many people and I'm still trying to understand this. The disconnect isn't with the idea that anyone but Flair can be number one. The disconnect is the idea that coming up with something fresh should be a deciding factor in how I rate wrestlers just for the sake of it, and that reaching similar conclusions that people did in the past is somehow of less value because it's less unique of an opinion. To me, that comes across as being more about self-expression from the voters than an appreciation of the talent and merits of the wrestler himself (or herself), and I just have trouble with the idea that old opinions are bad simply because they are old opinions.

 

It disappoints me because I have always defended Pro Wrestling Only against criticisms from the outside that we are primarily interested in tearing down conventional wisdom so that we can replace it with our own unique brand of fascism. To me, the mantra is going after Flair, Michaels, Angle or Tanahashi or whatever other darling has never been to ensure that we decide they aren't as good as others say they are in the end, but rather just that we would treat them the same way we would treat any other wrestler. No one is sacred, and any claims of greatness will be put through the ringer, regardless of the historiography that comes with saying it. If we reached the same conclusions about wrestlers that fans reached 30 years ago, so be it. We just wanted to get there in a way that was ours. However, when I read posts like this, it suggests that somehow the project has failed because the conclusions reached are too similar to those in the past. That strikes me as the message board equivalent of pink hair and a nose ring.

 

Ric Flair has been -- by far -- the single most scrutinized and debated wrestler of the past 18 months at this board. He has gone through the critical ringer more than anyone. I said at the time that this bugged me, not because I think Flair is beyond reproach, but because I don't think the same level of scrutiny has been applied to anyone else. For whatever reason, most wrestlers -- Terry Funk, Stan Hansen, Negro Casas, Jerry Lawler, Yoshiaki Fujiwara, Genichiro Tenryu and Randy Savage, to name a few -- have generally been approached in their threads from a perspective of affirming their status, while Flair and Jumbo have not. Maybe that comes with the territory, but posts like yours suggest that it's more that the idea is to put anyone but those guys in a top spot and work backwards from there, and I have a real issue with that.

 

Again, I don't think the issues have anything to do with a bias toward mainstream wrestling or American wrestling, and I wish someone would engage me on this point. I think it's the idea that people want their top picks to be time-tested to see how they feel about them over a number of years. GWE is *not* the ideal format for discovering new wrestlers, even if it has served that purpose for many posters here. To me, it's a bit too pressure-packed to try to get to know a wrestler while figuring out their place on an all-time list. That's why I do not believe the top picks on this list represent a bias toward safe picks or mainstream picks or American guys or anything like that. Instead, I think what's motivating it is that the top spots are largely going to guys who people know they aren't going to get tired of a year from now.

[El-P]

Maybe that comes with the territory, but posts like yours suggest that it's more that the idea is to put anyone but those guys in a top spot and work backwards from there, and I have a real issue with that.

 

Not at all. My Top 10 is half-full of boring consensus picks (and some relic consensus pick from 15 years ago, so I'm really not the one to point a finger to in term of wanting something fresh and different at all cost). But to me Flair is both overrated and a boring old consensus pick. So, since Jumbo, Hansen and Funk (my top 3 and who I objectively believe are the three best pro-wrestler ever) won't win, might as well be someone new rather than good old Ric Flair.

 

As far as level of scrutiny, are you totally sure about that ? What I saw most a whole lot of people going insane in the Flair praise side of it, trying of find excuse to each of his obvious shortcomings and doing a hundred podcasts to prove once and for all that there wasn't any other choice possible, all hail Ric Flair and woooo. You don't think Tenryu has been scrutinized ? That Lawler has been scrutinized ? That Kawada and Misawa and Hansen and Kobashi have been scrutinized for years ? That people have been talking about Rey-Rey for ever now ? Come on. It seems like another "but poor Ric Flair is getting too much unfair criticism". Honestly, if I wanted to pick apart what I don't care for in Flair anymore, I could have done it, but it was too boring and too frustrating to go against the tide. I tried my best to make a case for Takada...

[Exposer]

Great post Loss.

 

I think a flaw with any list (especially one that has been done before with intense discussion & analysis) is that people almost inherently want change from each list to the next. A progression of change each time it's done. This means the "original" GOATs like Flair or Jumbo are going to be scrutinized the most. They've been #1 before. They've won before. The number one spot is naturally going to be the most talked about in a list like this. So when a new list is planned people are seeking out progression, change, or something new. They want the new list to be new & different from the previous one. I think it's a human flaw more than anything else.

 

Personally, I wouldn't say I'm very critical of most wrestler's. I dislike no selling & moves that I think look stupid as fuck but that's about it. I haven't explored deep analysis of professional wrestler's yet. I admit I didn't really do that for this project. A lot of my placements for people were comparing what I liked & what I have seen then placing them accordingly. For example, I haven't seen nearly enough of 80s Flair or 80s Jumbo. I've seen many of the big time matches from both but also haven't seen other big time matches from them as well. They both finished in my top 15 I believe, but could have finished higher If I'd seen more footage. I'm hoping to explore critical analysis of wrestlers as the next stage of my fandom because I truly am not sure I've ever actually done that.

[Loss]

Look at the threads. He has gotten way more scrutiny in this project than any of the other names you mentioned. It's not inherently unfair to criticize Flair. I'm just saying if you look at the threads, you won't see anyone else getting that scrutiny for this project.

[Matt D]

I know Matt keeps saying the top 125 should be the list we talk about, but I really like the top like 200 or 250. 150 people is a lot of voters and 100 slots is a lot of individual votes.

 

 

I think people should look at the 150. It's an inclusive, special list, one that can be daring and cheeky but still has a lot of rigor and is full of at least a few wrestlers that I think all of us still have room to explore.

[Loss]

Great post Loss.

 

I think a flaw with any list (especially one that has been done before with intense discussion & analysis) is that people almost inherently want change from each list to the next. A progression of change each time it's done. This means the "original" GOATs like Flair or Jumbo are going to be scrutinized the most. They've been #1 before. They've won before. The number one spot is naturally going to be the most talked about in a list like this. So when a new list is planned people are seeking out progression, change, or something new. They want the new list to be new & different from the previous one. I think it's a human flaw more than anything else.

 

Personally, I wouldn't say I'm very critical of most wrestler's. I dislike no selling & moves that I think look stupid as fuck but that's about it. I haven't explored deep analysis of professional wrestler's yet. I admit I didn't really do that for this project. A lot of my placements for people were comparing what I liked & what I have seen then placing them accordingly. For example, I haven't seen nearly enough of 80s Flair or 80s Jumbo. I've seen many of the big time matches from both but also haven't seen other big time matches from them as well. They both finished in my top 15 I believe, but could have finished higher If I'd seen more footage. I'm hoping to explore critical analysis of wrestlers as the next stage of my fandom because I truly am not sure I've ever actually done that.

Great post as well. And I should be clear that no one is automatically entitled to their spot on the list, regardless of their previous placement. That's in the spirit of PWO in my mind. It's more that you'll find enough Flair debate to see he didn't get a high ranking just by coasting on reputation. We put him through the ringer and he survived.

[ChuckScumm]

I don't have a back-up of my list. Is there any way I can have a look at my list? My laptop crashed and many files went bust.

For real, same thing happened to me.

[BAMptb]

As someone that's new to the board I can absolutely affirm the level of scrutiny that Flair got. Honestly it was one of the surprises that I had when joining.

[MoS]

I really do not like Flair's shtick, nor do I ever want to rewatch any match of his again, but Loss is absolutely right in saying that no one has been subject to as much scrutiny as Flair. Hansen, for example, was being unanimously praised without any disagreement until Matt started speaking about his issues with him.

[concrete1992]

From the mindset of looking at a poll for "The Greatest Wrestler Ever" I have zero issues with Flair at #1.His "detractors", more so those that believe he is an all-timer but not THE greatest, as well as his supporters having these debates will probably be what lead him to #1. No other worker has had as many cases made for or against him with each side picking apart the other. I love Casas, clearly, and should have tried putting more of a case up for him but I'm just so simply terrible at that and can't say I've seen close to amount as others. It was me hoping someone would do what I didn't believe I could do justice, and actually could end up hurting someone I wanted to do well. With Flair all the pros and cons would be accounted for.

 

Now, as far as the meta-game of a hugely built to, once a decade lists are concerned I hope Flair isn't #1. And that comes from a place of change for the sake of change. If he is #1 after the level of scrutiny that he was put under and others weren't then it is going to be harder to talk about Flair in a decade or 8 years or WHATEVER. Why bother trying to dissect him again unless new footage randomly unearths itself? While if he isn't #1 then the supporters still have a reason to try and push him again. I think the pillars are going to be the most affected next round even if only to drop one of the big 3 out of the top 10. But I could be entirely wrong. I honestly don't know if anything changes if Flair is #1.

[El-P]

Ok, if by scrutiny you mean "the most talked about", ok. Then, let's take this issue in reverse. And if the fact he was the most talked about, the one who got the most scrutiny after all, in the end was the reason why he'll end up at #1 ? Simply because people talked about Flair more than any other candidates. In comparison, even Jerry Lawler got only four pages of discussion, which is extremely low for a guy a number of people around here consider a legit #1 contender. Tatsumi Fujinami got a whole five of them. Stan Hansen and Jumbo Tsuruta got respectively 10 and 11. Buddy Rose, another #1 contender for some people, got only 3. Flair got 16 pages of discussion plus an endless serie of podcasts thread.

 

Don't you think this actually helped Flair more than anything ? Not that he just passed the test of scrutiny, but because Flair is the #1 in the american wrestling mythology and people just have this in mind. Plus he's the easiest one to watch. So people talk a lot about him. He's the most accessible great wrestler this side of Rey, whose been on TV for almost 20 years now (and Rey only got 7 pages).

 

I do think the "level of scrutiny" aka "people talking a lot more about him than anyone else" actually helped Flair a lot. Because, of course he's a great wrestler, no question about that. But he's the great wrestler that has been talked about the most. And in the end, I think it weighted quite a bit. Draw your own conclusions.

 

I do understand why some Buddy Rose guys were disapointed by people "not watching the footage" (yours truly included, my bad) while endless debates about freaking Ric Flair were going on and on and on. So yeah, maybe he was the most scrutinized. But at the end of the day, I do think it probably helped his case more than anything else, not because he passed through the "wrong" criticism thrown at him, but because it made a lot of noise around the official #1 wrestler of all time in the established canon. Which helped him, while new darlings weren't talked as much (Lawler, Rose, Fujinami, Bockwinckle) and old japanese sacred cows were seen as "boring picks" (Misawa, 7 pages, Kobashi, 8 pages, Kawada, 7 pages, Akiyama, 5 pages). Because talking about Ric Flair never gets old it seems. Well, it does for some (me included), but for the vast majority, it doesn't.

 

So, I guess it was his turn.

[Loss]

I should also clarify that if I had it my way, all wrestlers would be even more critiqued than Flair has been. I hardly see that as the gold standard, but rather the best we have. I want everyone in the top 50 to have a podcast series and 20+ pages of discussion. And even in the case of Flair, I do think there's more work to do. Most of his matches that made tape don't have a review here, for one. But we will get there eventually for everyone if we stay the course.

[ChuckScumm]

Lawler will be at #11 because he never worked All Japan.

Not sure if it ever made tape, but I thought he did do one tour.

[Cap]

I like this idea of "Americanized" wrestlers being the more telling way of parsing out the list and how it has played out so far. I was thinking about this yesterday in a way, but was thinking of it in terms of how wrestlers for areas/eras/styles that have had a fair amount of capital in American wrestling (internet) subculture for a while. I have always kind of thought that the indy boom of the early/mid 2000s had a good bit to do with this. It brought a lot of styles together in a sort of laboratory for wrestling in some ways. People were trying different things, pulling from different points of influence, and in some ways it was a relatively safe place to make mistakes. When I look back at this I see a lot of the "Americanized lucha" , ALL Japan heavy, and new japan juniors style being some of the most animating forces. I have always thought that the boom kept the conversation about and interest in some of that stuff going, grounded some of it for mainstream fans. My first intro to the All japan stuff was hearing about it after I got into the indy scene in 2002. Of course a lot of it became canonical before that for a variety of reasons, but the the potential indy influence is compelling because I think the of wave of talent getting momentum right now is starting to pull primarily from different sources as a way of setting themselves apart. There were WOS inspired wrestlers during the big boom, but I see it a lot more now. I see more shoot style influence. Especially if those guys get some momentum in more mainstream outlets I hope that can spark some organic interest in other styles for those who might not be motivated. Even still it might not resonate as well because those other styles are very Americanized in the action itself.

 

All this being said, it might not resonate with people who have been part of this community and its predecessors. I am not sure. I wasn't around.

[Matt D]

I should also clarify that if I had it my way, all wrestlers would be even more critiqued than Flair has been. I hardly see that as the gold standard, but rather the best we have. I want everyone in the top 50 to have a podcast series and 20+ pages of discussion. And even in the case of Flair, I do think there's more work to do. Most of his matches that made tape don't have a review here, for one. But we will get there eventually for everyone if we stay the course.

Some of this is tricky. I think Satanico is someone who had good legwork done for him, but even then, it was extremely one-sided. You only get a long thread if someone's engaging you back. We also have the microscope so sometimes it didn't make sense to redo effort.

[goc]

Yea like Matt said the only way to have a long discussion is if people are going to counter the praise. There wasn't nearly the amount of push-back against Bock, Rose, Lawler etc. like there was Flair and thus their threads weren't nearly as long. After I've laid down "this is why I think Lawler is #1" and no one really challenges it, what else is there for me to say on the matter?

[ohtani's jacket]

People have a hard time scrutinizing the workers they like. The only reason that Flair gets more scrutiny than others is because people have gone off him. It's easier to scrutinize something you don't really like or you're tired of. With a worker like Satanico most people are still discovering him. People haven't gotten tired of him because there's still a lot to see. A handful of people mentioned that they had a hard time getting into him as opposed to other lucha rudos, but they didn't really elaborate on why, perhaps in fear of a full blown argument. Really, unless you find a Devil's Advocate for each of these guys it's difficult to have a discourse that even approaches the discussions people had about Flair.

[Loss]

It's hard for me to know how truly great a wrestler is until I also understand their shortcomings, if that makes sense.

[El-P]

It's hard for me to know how truly great a wrestler is until I also understand their shortcomings, if that makes sense.

 

Makes sense to me. I also agree I would have liked more talk about candidates that were like roses in bloom and others that had been sent to the pits of hell in recent years.

[ohtani's jacket]

I agree with you, but different workers are at different stages. Looking at the list right now, I bet more people can point out the shortcomings in Curt Hennig than Jim Breaks and that's basically because people have been taking about Hennig for longer than they have Breaks. Reading the arguments that folks have, and taking a side, is kind of an unspoken aspect of smarkdom, but it plays a huge role in how workers are perceived. In the case of Breaks, nobody is arguing about him.

[Childs]

People seem to forget that Flair finished 8th in the SC poll, so actually, a win for him would represent change of a minor sort. But I'm still not convinced he's beating Hansen.