Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Recommended Posts

I alluded to asking this in another thread, but it turned into another discussion, so I am making a new thread.

Update: Official rules and launching pad will be revealed on a Pro Wrestling Super Show podcast during WrestleMania week this year.

Until then, things are being ironed out. There is some cool new changes and add ons for 2026 that we have cooked up, but things can always be made better. If you have any ideas hit them up here, if you haven't already privately done that to me.

Outside of having great discussions, the other aspect of this project I really want to focus on is not making an all boys party. I'm looking at ways to make this more inclusive and diverse, but if you have any let me know as well.

Just a small hint of things to come, maybe there will be more than one way/place to have discussions?

Okay people, you are all wise, let's make 2026 so much better than 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things have been suggested by others but will jot them down here anyway:

  • Way to catalog recommended matches if possible. Sometimes there would be recommended matches across 5 threads and 20 pages where it became difficult to figure out what to watch despite people sharing their thoughts on the matter
  • In general, give folks more resources. I don't think all of this needs to be an "official" GWE thing, but providing the link of active streaming services, any wrestling review sites/blogs that might be helpful, link to similar projects done in the past (The WWF and ROH lists)
  • Improvements to the Nomintation process. I like the three match rule in theory but that didn't carry over to the actual thread. It stinks cause multiple people have said that they would like tweaks here but folks including myself aren't really able to say concretely what else would be a viable solution. Even if it was a quick 3 sentences on why you might vote for a person and then have that start their thread, that would be helpful I think to start a thread with a dialog in place
  • Start watch parties earlier
  • No anonymous voters but continue to leave it open
  • Have a central hub but it is 2021 so accept early on not conversations will take place there. A lot of folks were mad in 2016 when Parv posted an article on a website that had connections to PWO and was easily acceptable. Acting like he was "hiding" his thoughts or not opening himself up for discussion. And while context matters, if folks want to post their passionate case for Sasha Banks or Akira Maeda on their blog or in a 3 hour podcast, that should be encouraged. As a community we just have to figure out how to allow that to be part of the discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your suggestions, yes some of these ideas have been floating around.

Do NOT expect this to be a centralized project. If you only visit one site, you may not hear a lot of discussions and debates people are having. People will have to just accept that part. However, there can be links from one to the other so people are aware. 

2026 will not be the PWO GWE List or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A discord server because I think that's the new way of communicating and I would be more inclined to be involved if we embrace the new way of communicating. I don't think it could be the primary but maybe as a secondary thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen with some recent projects that having a live chat platform being the main place to articulate your thoughts, you get a lot of circular discussions. Imagine every day being a new discussion on Ric Flair but you can't really avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that would be a problem with this base because we have years of knowledge and we would put a stop to that. I think it would be a lot easier to communicate and do live watches and things like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There obviously needs to be a monthly web-zine with a collected summation of all of the big discussions going on everywhere. I nominate Steven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Matt D said:

There obviously needs to be a monthly web-zine with a collected summation of all of the big discussions going on everywhere. I nominate Steven.

Are you legit asking me to do a monthly newsletter to everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I liked least about 2016 were all the randos who voted after not participating in any of the discussion. But I'm not sure what you do about that; I wouldn't want to see onerous requirements that might dissuade fresh outlooks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Childs said:

The thing I liked least about 2016 were all the randos who voted after not participating in any of the discussion. But I'm not sure what you do about that; I wouldn't want to see onerous requirements that might dissuade fresh outlooks. 

Yeah, I just want people to discuss. If you want to vote for Great Khali #1, go for it. However, let's just talk it out first.

Not sure how that would be forced though, I think if we can find a way to make people more comfortable discussing wherever and however that is, we are in a good spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there a universally-agreed upon set of criteria  for what constitutes the "Greatest Pro-Wrestler"? Or was that entirely open to one's interpretation? Was a 1.Londos 2.Hogan 3.Austin 4.Bruno ballot considered less "valid" than 1.Misawa 2. Volk Han 3. Jumbo 4. Bockwinkel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dav'oh said:

Was there a universally-agreed upon set of criteria  for what constitutes the "Greatest Pro-Wrestler"? Or was that entirely open to one's interpretation? Was a 1.Londos 2.Hogan 3.Austin 4.Bruno ballot considered less "valid" than 1.Misawa 2. Volk Han 3. Jumbo 4. Bockwinkel?

Your own criteria, but based on footage so no Londos, because we have seen nothing?

Although, I don't know anyone who claims the greatest movie is the one who made the most money, but whatever floats your boat ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NintendoLogic said:

There's actually a fair amount of Londos footage available. In particular, a match against Bronko Nagurski from 1938 a lot of people are really high on.

Well if you feel you have seen enough then vote Londos all you want!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I said in the 2021 thread I poked at:

Quote

1. It's absolutely imperative that you guys define your criteria. I'd suggest something extremely simple such as "This is based on in-ring work as can be proven by footage." Otherwise you get people putting down Dusty for his promos or Hogan for his drawing or someone like Danny Hodge when there's barely enough footage to know anything at all and you just get a mishmash of confusion. That said, "how good a wrestler is in ring" can be informed by interviews and other things because they help you see patterns. For instance, I think each and every one of you (Stace, I'm looking at you), should hold the last few years of NXT against Michaels, but feel free to give Arn a few points for coming up with all of the best Cena finishes (like the Batista LMS finish). 

So I went with Hodge instead of Londos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder so many people had to be committed after the last one. Sounds like a bugger. I got this far:

I like PAC.
I don't dislike Jumbo.
I've seen more PAC, but I've seen some pimped Jumbo. I saw Jumbo well before PAC.
Both are proficient at the rudiments, but I find PAC's work crisper, smoother, slicker and more exciting and innovative (by modern standards, which I know to be unfair). I also find PAC can do a lot more, and do it at a very high level.
Geordie and Japanese are both foreign languages to me, but I still like PAC's promos. Both can sell well. I don't recall being put off by either PAC or Jumbo's psychology.
I've kept this bog-simple for illustrative purposes, but by those metrics, I think PAC is a better wrestler.

But there's no way I'm putting PAC above Jumbo in a "Greatest" poll....

What's a boy to do? I'm following the kayfabe in my heart voting Jumbo. Is it this friction between head and heart that caused people grief?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

No wonder so many people had to be committed after the last one. Sounds like a bugger. I got this far:

I like PAC.
I don't dislike Jumbo.
I've seen more PAC, but I've seen some pimped Jumbo. I saw Jumbo well before PAC.
Both are proficient at the rudiments, but I find PAC's work crisper, smoother, slicker and more exciting and innovative (by modern standards, which I know to be unfair). I also find PAC can do a lot more, and do it at a very high level.
Geordie and Japanese are both foreign languages to me, but I still like PAC's promos. Both can sell well. I don't recall being put off by either PAC or Jumbo's psychology.
I've kept this bog-simple for illustrative purposes, but by those metrics, I think PAC is a better wrestler.

But there's no way I'm putting PAC above Jumbo in a "Greatest" poll....

What's a boy to do? I'm following the kayfabe in my heart voting Jumbo. Is it this friction between head and heart that caused people grief?
 

Ric Flair is not in my top 1000 favourite wrestlers, I feel the pain. Last time I put Flair 10, because I felt I had to. I regret that now, but I don't know how low I can put him. It's s struggle between what we like and what we think is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

It's s struggle between what we like and what we think is good.

 

5 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

But there's no way I'm putting PAC above Jumbo in a "Greatest" poll....

What's a boy to do? I'm following the kayfabe in my heart voting Jumbo. Is it this friction between head and heart that caused people grief?

We think we like things because they are actually good for us, when in fact we convince ourselves things are good for us because we like them.

In other words, there is no such things as objectivity in aesthetical judgment. The list will never represent anything more than a snippet of the time and the people who put it together. 

Which is why two things annoyed the fuck out of me last time around and it became *not fun* in the end

1/

13 hours ago, Childs said:

The thing I liked least about 2016 were all the randos who voted after not participating in any of the discussion. 

This. Ridiculous amount of last minutes voters who were nowhere around the discussions and sharing, which really screwed up the results.

2/ The forcing by people who had seemingly all the time on their hand to incessantly promote a few candidates (you know who I mean) to the absolute detriment of the overall discussion. Absolutely frustrating, took the fun right out of the process.

There's no way of rationalizing criterias for such a list, as I already see people talking about promo ability, which by default penalizes everyone not English speaking (and really, anyone not from the US scene). Then again, what would the point be of rationalizing one element when you have a hundred others who can't. Using promos is an advantage toward English speaking workers but not using promos don't change the fact the list will be put together mostly by English speaking people, and mostly americans. Not everybody can watch 3000 matches. Watching 3000 matches doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things (just like having 30 years experience at a job means shit, as you can suck at it for 30 years). Not everyone has access to the French stuff Dan & others are watching. Not everyone will want to watch old joshi puroresu. Not everyone has a taste for old shootstyle nor has access to it. By default the most mainstream and biggest promotions will always gets favorited one way or another. By default the "museified" (it it's not a word now it's officially one) candidates will always have a huge jumpstart over all the others because of a status that can be too heavy to discuss. Not everyone will want to revisit for the thousands time old Ric Flair or Bret Hart or Jumbo matches, because it has been exhausted. There will always be recency bias (both in term of "this is exciting because it is new" and "this is exciting because it's just been discovered"). There will always be trouble to find a common ground even when discussing things like "selling" and "psychology", because everybody has a different take on it... Etc.

So. My advice to all would be to CHILL THE FUCK OUT.

If you do a list, what matters most is the process, and the process should be FUN for everyone involved. If not, I don't even see the point. 

What @Grimmas said about not wanting to be a boy's club is probably the best idea too. As long as people involved discuss together and we don't get some of the same bullshit as the last time (like the anti-lucha/pro-lucha debacle, on both fronts BTW, for instance).

If I make a list, the only criteria will be that both my *own* process and my *own criterias* will basically work *for me*, taking in consideration whatever time I have in my life, whatever time I want to give this and most of all as long as it doesn't feel like WORK. Too many people got "afraid" last time around or did not feel like they "watched enough" (which is the worst argument ever, really) and were literally drove away by the ugly side of the process. That was a bit sad, honestly. 

So there, that was my ranting about the GWE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for defining criteria out of the gate. I also think it's important to add that objective/subjective debates are a waste of time. If someone states an opinion, saying, "Yes, but that's your opinion" adds nothing. Everyone understands that opinions aren't facts. No reason to point it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only criteria I am comfortable with his it's based on footage.

Art is so subjective, what people think are great is so widely varied. Is it variety, is it length of time, or prime, is it great storytelling matches or the most awesome execution, is it in ring charisma, is it their ability of selling, is it having great matches or is it pulling good matches out of other shitty wrestlers, etc... 

I'm not sure what criteria we could actually make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

The only criteria I am comfortable with his it's based on footage.

Agree 100%.

6 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

I'm not sure what criteria we could actually make?

Strictly in-ring work, no promo. But like I said, there's no way English speaking voters won't be affected anyway by what they *know* of the promo ability of X or Y, there's no way around cognitive biases like. Not to mention a shitload of other cognitive biases.

So yeah, probably, the only reasonable one is "based on footage".

And maybe some negative criterias about factual stuff like : drawing power is NOT a criteria.

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

×