2026 Ideas

[dkookypunk43]

I've gotta say this discussion has really been inspiring me to get back to work. I've got a big tax return so I'm getting a big tax return so I'm getting a laptop and gonna feel inspired to do some GWE video content when the launch happens

[Clayton Jones]

Yeah the Greatest VS Best gets into the criteria discussion which I'm actually planning on going back and rereading everyone's takes on last time just as much as I'm planning out what footage to watch. I can already get a sense that I'm developing a flowchart for my ballot in terms of great matches, great accomplishments, great promos/presence, and innovation/influence. But at the end of the day I'm sure the conclusion I'll come to is everyone has to find their own method.

[ohtani's jacket]

It depends how you define obscure. There are overlooked areas of wrestling even in our circles. Personally, I don't think 50s US wrestling, British wrestling, French wrestling, German wrestling or 80s Joshi are obscure, and I definitely think you can find top 100 candidates from each. The list ends up being longer than 100 wrestlers anyway. It's closer to the top 500 wrestlers of all-time. 

[El-P]

Speaking of "obscure" but not obscure at all, is there any footage of Dara Singh ? In the short clip of the match against Rikidozan in 55, that mofo looks great.

[Grimmas]

I don't think we are really talking about Avatar as the greatest movie ever.

[Matt D]

6 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

"Which of the greats was the best in-ring?" is sorta the way I'm looking at it. My starting criteria for inclusion, and first-draft heading, is We Built This Motherfucking City, and I can only come up with forty dead-certs and forty-five hmmmmms at the moment.

Otherwise I feel like I'm ranking toeholds and dropkicks, which would be dry as the dead dingo's donger I've mentioned previously (it's the only simile I have), and that would be no fun . I just cannot take the Pro out of this equation, and can only approach this as the Greatest PRO Wrestler Ever. If that invalidates my final submission, I'll still have enjoyed my time watching pro-wrestling

On the other side of the coin, it's Danny Hodge project over, or one of the grapplefuck shootsyle guys project over. It's a tough one to balance.

You're not just ranking people for toeholds and dropkicks. You're ranking them for how they use the toeholds and dropkicks, how they sell the toeholds and dropkicks, the effect they get from using the toeholds and dropkicks, when they decide to use a toehold instead of a dropkick, when they decide to use neither a toehold nor a dropkick, if they utilize the toehold and dropkick differently in situation A as opposed to situation B, all of which is way more interesting than how many times they main evented MSG. It's not just about technique, it's about craft. For me, technique is a pretty small part of it, but it's still almost completely about in-ring pro wrestling. The "pro" is using the physical motions in the ring to create effect and narrative.

I'm not going to tell you how to do this, but if you're coming at this from a wildly different direction than the rest of us, it's going to be dissonant to say the least, so I will try to show you both why that may be problematic and the richness that can still be found in a purely in-ring footage based approach.

Also, it would never be the Danny Hodge project because we don't have the Danny Hodge footage.

[El-P]

22 minutes ago, Matt D said:

I'm not going to tell you how to do this, but if you're coming at this from a wildly different direction than the rest of us, it's going to be dissonant to say the least, so I will try to show you both why that may be problematic and the richness that can still be found in a purely in-ring footage based approach.

TBH, there will be a lot of dissonance anyway. For instance, you and I agree about the fact it should be strictly in-ring based (although again, there's no way cognitive bias aren't gonna play a big part in term of people being influenced by for instance what they know about this or that guy promo ability and how it will affect their view of the in-ring work, not even mentioning every other cognitive bias at play in term of cultural familiarity, mainstream appeal, ideologic posturing, sentimental attachment to a certain period or certain workers, excitement of discovering a brand new fresh favorite worker etc...), but I don't think I'm wrong when I say we'll probably have a very different approach to the matter and very different opinions on the exact same footage because of the difference of approach itself. Which doesn't mean we won't agree about some stuff in the end (the greatness of Bockwinkel for instance), but when you'll talk about "narrative" I'll talk about "flux" and we'll you'll talk about "psychological flaw" I'll talk about "pace or form mattering more than psychology", so there is dissonance anyway.

[Matt D]

5 minutes ago, El-P said:

TBH, there will be a lot of dissonance anyway. For instance, you and I agree about the fact it should be strictly in-ring based (although again, there's no way cognitive bias aren't gonna play a big part in term of people being influenced by for instance what they know about this or that guy promo ability and how it will affect their view of the in-ring work, not even mentioning every other cognitive bias at play in term of cultural familiarity, mainstream appeal, ideologic posturing, sentimental attachment to a certain period or certain workers, excitement of discovering a brand new fresh favorite worker etc...), but I don't think I'm wrong when I say we'll probably have a very different approach to the matter and very different opinions on the exact same footage because of the difference of approach itself. Which doesn't mean we won't agree about some stuff in the end (the greatness of Bockwinkel for instance), but when you'll talk about "narrative" I'll talk about "flux" and we'll you'll talk about "psychological flaw" I'll talk about "pace or form mattering more than psychology", so there is dissonance anyway.

There's scope and scale though. If someone's talking about drawing and promos and we're talking about what someone brings to the table in-ring, even if our metrics are different, it matters. You and I would be talking about the same thing in different ways and focusing on different areas or values of that same thing. Not so hypothetical third person would be talking about something else completely.

[El-P]

Of course, that's understood.

12 minutes ago, Matt D said:

You and I would be talking about the same thing in different ways and focusing on different areas or values of that same thing.

Which makes the mutual love for Bockwinkel (who was higher than Flair on my list in 2016 I believe) kinda puzzling.

[elliott]

I'm glad Grimmas is gonna lay out the criteria in advance. 

[Dav'oh]

56 minutes ago, Matt D said:

You're ranking them for how they use the toeholds and dropkicks, how they sell the toeholds and dropkicks, the effect they get from using the toeholds and dropkicks, when they decide to use a toehold instead of a dropkick, when they decide to use neither a toehold nor a dropkick, if they utilize the toehold and dropkick differently in situation A as opposed to situation B, all of which is way more interesting than how many times they main evented MSG.

With much respect, that's still "toeholds and dropkicks", just deeper. It's like the poll is asking us to ignore charisma and character and success for - I'll stay away from 'workrate' - variants of the quoted toeholds and dropkicks analysis?

Microscopic is obviously great for those who analyse pro-wrestling matches down to their barest bones - and I thank all who do that, it makes for some great reading -  but I don't think many (any?) here need to get out a theodolite and Antikythera to work out what's what and who's who (I understand it can be fun, though). Pro-wrestling is big and bog-simple. Of course there's subtleties and nuance, but I watch from the cheap seats, the way it's designed (IMO). For the record, all my draft names came from the 2016 Poll, so I don't necessarily think my list would feature many if any different names (Missing Link is a greyhound I backed at Darwin recently, not a candidate for GWE), and I try not to insert myself in conversations above my station. It's not a linear list of biggest draws, either. Daniel Bryan, I'm sure, would be above Hogan if they make it because Bryan's in-ring is better by more of the metrics I'd use. I take a different route to you, yes; not to railroad or troll or because I got hit in the head with a wombat, but to be true to who and what I believe is great (in-ring) about this great love of ours, including ear-cupping and Yes!Locks. 

4 hours ago, Matt D said:

Also, it would never be the Danny Hodge project because we don't have the Danny Hodge footage.

Grapplefuck shootstyle it is, then?

 

2 hours ago, El-P said:

but when you'll talk about "narrative" I'll talk about "flux" and we'll you'll talk about "psychological flaw" I'll talk about "pace or form mattering more than psychology",

I love your work, El-P. I'd be the one talking about the size of a wrestler's trunks (bigger is better).

[Matt D]

1 hour ago, Dav'oh said:

With much respect, that's still "toeholds and dropkicks", just deeper. It's like the poll is asking us to ignore charisma and character and success for - I'll stay away from 'workrate' - variants of the quoted toeholds and dropkicks analysis?

Microscopic is obviously great for those who analyse pro-wrestling matches down to their barest bones - and I thank all who do that, it makes for some great reading -  but I don't think many (any?) here need to get out a theodolite and Antikythera to work out what's what and who's who (I understand it can be fun, though). Pro-wrestling is big and bog-simple. Of course there's subtleties and nuance, but I watch from the cheap seats, the way it's designed (IMO). For the record, all my draft names came from the 2016 Poll, so I don't necessarily think my list would feature many if any different names (Missing Link is a greyhound I backed at Darwin recently, not a candidate for GWE), and I try not to insert myself in conversations above my station. It's not a linear list of biggest draws, either. Daniel Bryan, I'm sure, would be above Hogan if they make it because Bryan's in-ring is better by more of the metrics I'd use. I take a different route to you, yes; not to railroad or troll or because I got hit in the head with a wombat, but to be true to who and what I believe is great (in-ring) about this great love of ours, including ear-cupping and Yes!Locks.

I still feel like we're not there, so we'll keep hammering at it.

The pool is definitely not asking anyone to ignore charisma or character. I went on plenty of nonsensical rants about Mark Henry's use of "negative space" where he was taking his time or jawing with the ref or the crowd or his opponent or being methodological about going from one spot to the next and the sort of effect that could create. Or Mocho Cota being a malignant goblin with his facial expressions and celebratory arm motions or taunting dances. One of my favorite examples of anything ever is the crowd chanting boring while Bock had Martel in a hold and Martel shouting at him like the most amazing heel in the world "You're boring them!"

It's not just toeholds and dropkicks. It's anything that a wrestler does within the confines of a pro wrestling match, from the way he stands to the way he moves to what he says within the confines of the match and what he does within the confines of the match. You want to count Cena visibly calling spots against him? Fine. You want to give Cena credit for the various way he uses the You Can't See Me gesture to move the crowd one way or another? Also fine. You want to hold the STF against him? Sure. You want to call him loosening it up because his co-workers were complaining a clever way to ensure that people would work with him well? I mean, I don't know, sure, I guess? But that's still all in-ring things.

[Grimmas]

2 hours ago, elliott said:

I'm glad Grimmas is gonna lay out the criteria in advance. 

by if lay out you mean, who you think was the best based on the footage you have watched, then yep!

[Grimmas]

2 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

] It's like the poll is asking us to ignore charisma and character and success]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Why would you ignore charimsa and character work? That's all part of footage you watched, isn't it?

[elliott]

2 hours ago, Grimmas said:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Why would you ignore charimsa and character work? That's all part of footage you watched, isn't it?

 

I don't understand how but this is where people always get lost. Saying its a footage based project doesn't mean to ignore charisma and character work in favor of discovering who did the best bridge on a german suplex or whatever strawman they want to come up with.

Success I absolutely think you should ignore.

Randy Savage walking to the ring jawing with the crowd, spinning around doing his thing IS part of his performance. Consider and count that. Randy Savage being in Slim Jim commercials and drawing some big buyrates on PPV (clear measures of success and looming large over the business) doesn't mean anything to the project. At least that was how I viewed 2016 and 2026. 

[concrete1992]

Do we consider Randy Savage's work in Spiderman?

[Reel]

On 3/21/2021 at 9:59 AM, Grimmas said:

Adding a question about where you participated in the project to the voting is a very easy thing to do. Then I could list out here is the top whatever for people who participated here. That will be done.

I really like this idea. I don't know how feasible this would be, but I love the idea of getting all 538 and having crosstabs where you can filter out for certain things like if you hand-waved Lucha, you mark that when you submit your ballot, and then you could filter out non-Lucha ballots. 

On 3/25/2021 at 7:00 PM, elliott said:

I don't understand how but this is where people always get lost. Saying its a footage based project doesn't mean to ignore charisma and character work in favor of discovering who did the best bridge on a german suplex or whatever strawman they want to come up with.

Success I absolutely think you should ignore.

The beauty of the GWE, to me anyway, is that it's a list for guys like Virus, who is generally inconsequential to the history of wrestling but has a litany of great matches on tape, and not for a guy like Frank Gotch, who no one alive has ever seen. 

[Matt D]

44 minutes ago, Reel said:

The beauty of the GWE, to me anyway, is that it's a list for guys like Virus, who is generally inconsequential to the history of wrestling but has a litany of great matches on tape, and not for a guy like Frank Gotch, who no alive has ever seen. 

I tried to rationalize not rating Virus so high because my number for him was absurd on paper and I felt like I really had to justify it but the footage won out. 

[Clayton Jones]

Success matters to me if someone was able to take a promotion or division that was lackluster otherwise and carry it to a must-watch run. A lot of that boils down to in-ring performance, but there are factors beyond that at play. So given two candidates that I see as virtually equal otherwise, that's something that might be a tie-breaker.

After going back and reading the What Are We Voting For conversation I am swayed to think bell to bell should be at least 90% of what I'm evaluating. But I also think that being a pro wrestler, even if we're just talking the craft of pro wrestling, is more than matches. It's mainly match performance, by a wide margin, but I'm still trying to figure out ways to build a small consideration for stuff like presence outside of the ring into my voting. As long as it's based on footage. The key words here being "think" and "trying to figure out" as my ballot process is still in the embryonic phase.

[Reel]

At the end of the day, it's an art, not a science, right? Everybody's calculus is going to be different, and that's sort of the point of producing an aggregate list. I think the point to saying the list should be based on footage is not to emphasize technique or "workrate" as the only or main criteria, but to dissuade people from voting for the El Santos and Gorgeous Geroges of the world. 

 

[Matt D]

7 minutes ago, Reel said:

At the end of the day, it's an art, not a science, right? Everybody's calculus is going to be different, and that's sort of the point of producing an aggregate list. I think the point to saying the list should be based on footage is not to emphasize technique or "workrate" as the only or main criteria, but to dissuade people from voting for the El Santos and Gorgeous Geroges of the world. 

 

All I want from anyone else is enough proof and specifics to have an actual conversation. I require more from myself, mind you. 

[elliott]

2 hours ago, Clayton Jones said:

Success matters to me if someone was able to take a promotion or division that was lackluster otherwise and carry it to a must-watch run. A lot of that boils down to in-ring performance, but there are factors beyond that at play. So given two candidates that I see as virtually equal otherwise, that's something that might be a tie-breaker.

After going back and reading the What Are We Voting For conversation I am swayed to think bell to bell should be at least 90% of what I'm evaluating. But I also think that being a pro wrestler, even if we're just talking the craft of pro wrestling, is more than matches. It's mainly match performance, by a wide margin, but I'm still trying to figure out ways to build a small consideration for stuff like presence outside of the ring into my voting. As long as it's based on footage. The key words here being "think" and "trying to figure out" as my ballot process is still in the embryonic phase.

 

I think this is more than fair. 

I know it was discussed a little last time (I think by Matt) and I think partially in jest but maybe not totally....but this made me think about Pat Patterson and his laying out the finishes for big WWF matches and whether that merits any discussion or thought in regards to his case. Its difficult because its pretty unknowable, but might be worth investigating. 

[Matt D]

3 minutes ago, elliott said:

 

I think this is more than fair. 

I know it was discussed a little last time (I think by Matt) and I think partially in jest but maybe not totally....but this made me think about Pat Patterson and his laying out the finishes for big WWF matches and whether that merits any discussion or thought in regards to his case. Its difficult because its pretty unknowable, but might be worth investigating. 

In the meantime, we’ve gotten Arn note on record specific spots and finishes he came up with in Cena’s matches. Just saying.

[elliott]

Its an interesting thing to think about. 

Something else I'm going to think about is managers. Those Midnight Express matches that got Bobby Eaton ranked 28th overall in 2016 aren't the same without Jim Cornette. I'm sure we can find examples of Sherri Martel working harder at ringside than the guys in the ring. Bobby Heenan, Jimmy Hart etc. 

[ohtani's jacket]

5 hours ago, Reel said:

At the end of the day, it's an art, not a science, right? Everybody's calculus is going to be different, and that's sort of the point of producing an aggregate list. I think the point to saying the list should be based on footage is not to emphasize technique or "workrate" as the only or main criteria, but to dissuade people from voting for the El Santos and Gorgeous Geroges of the world. 

 

I think there's enough Gorgeous George out there to vote for him.