2026 Ideas

[Matt D]

2 minutes ago, Loss said:

If it helps, I sort of imagine my own pre-submission process as a list of the 100 greatest wrestling *stars* ever, and then when you start drilling into the specifics, some people fall more down the list and others emerge. So Hogan starts at the top because of the reactions he was able to generate and how great he was at being Hulk Hogan. Then you start looking at times he struggled, times something didn't click, areas where he was weak as a performer, and some things work against him and some don't. Eventually he ends up where he should be. Some ranked above him do so because of some truly great skills shining, and some just win wars of attrition.

I know that you are fully aware of what you are doing to us here. I remain sympathetic because of how you have been ingesting and categorizing wrestling as of late and because of our deep personal friendship.

[Loss]

1 minute ago, El-P said:

That would be funny as hell actually. And really, Nash did bump off Rey's dropkick, which is not that much realistic when you think about it.

It's not realistic and I don't think it has to be but the question becomes did they condition the crowd to give them the reaction they wanted before they did it. And they did, and one reason was because of what preceded it in the match itself, while another was Nash just being a relentless bully toward him in ... the promos that set up the match.

[Loss]

Just now, Matt D said:

I know that you are fully aware of what you are doing to us here. I remain sympathetic because of how you have been ingesting and categorizing wrestling as of late and because of our deep personal friendship.

I'm not telling anyone else what they should be doing or not doing. 

[El-P]

6 minutes ago, Loss said:

It's not realistic and I don't think it has to be but the question becomes did they condition the crowd to give them the reaction they wanted before they did it. And they did, and one reason was because of what preceded it in the match itself, while another was Nash just being a relentless bully toward him in ... the promos that set up the match.

That's too much of a psychological approach to me. Which is also why I don't need the promos. Matches should work in and out of themselves. You don't need a promo to set up a spot that will work. Pro-wrestling isn't rocket science. It works within its own flux of movement. Just has to flow well and everything is fine. Sure, they did set up the spot *during the match*, but really whether they cut promos beforehand or not is irrelevant, anyone is able to get what is happening when it does ie Nash bumping off Rey's dropkick despite the fact it's not "realistic".

[Loss]

It was effective because it was set up during the match. It was likely more effective to fans who were ready for Nash to get his.

You don't need promos to set everything up. But if you're in an environment where promos matter and can help and you're not using that tool in the toolkit to do anything, you're only limiting yourself. If you're going to overcome that, you have to be pretty incredible at something else to justify it.

[El-P]

What do you prefer ? Awesome promo work leading to a so-so match or so-so promo work leading to an awesome match ? You know where I stand. Of course, awesome promo work leading to awesome match is better overall, but if I can't judge the promo work because I don't speak the language (here I am talking in circles now), the only thing I can judge is the "awesome match" part of it. So, for the sake of equity, I'd better ignore the promo work altogether. 

[Matt D]

This all becomes harder in differentiating your 83 and your 84. Where it might matter the most if you're trying to figure out your 5 and your 4.

[El-P]

If I can figure a nice top 20, I'll be happy about it.

[Loss]

1 hour ago, El-P said:

What do you prefer ? Awesome promo work leading to a so-so match or so-so promo work leading to an awesome match ? You know where I stand. Of course, awesome promo work leading to awesome match is better overall, but if I can't judge the promo work because I don't speak the language (here I am talking in circles now), the only thing I can judge is the "awesome match" part of it. So, for the sake of equity, I'd better ignore the promo work altogether. 

I prefer awesome promo work leading to an awesome match, and if wrestlers can overcome bad booking to have a great match, I think that works even more in their favor. However, I do think it works in favor of someone like Michael Hayes that he was able to talk people into getting excited over matches. Sometimes, they delivered and sometimes they didn't, which is where he loses something. But I should be very clear that no one could make a list like this if they can't get it done in the ring.

[Grimmas]

If I was forced to choose great promo work/angle and ok match I prefer to great match with a shitty build up.

[Loss]

I think about someone like Dusty Rhodes, a legitimate all-time great. I think if you're not factoring in promos at all to how you evaluate Dusty Rhodes, you are missing a significant part of what made him Dusty Rhodes. I don't see how you can separate that from his case.

[Grimmas]

3 minutes ago, Loss said:

I think about someone like Dusty Rhodes, a legitimate all-time great. I think if you're not factoring in promos at all to how you evaluate Dusty Rhodes, you are missing a significant part of what made him Dusty Rhodes. I don't see how you can separate that from his case.

His charisma in ring is out of this world.

[Loss]

It is! And I don't think Dusty's case is non-existent without the promos. I just also don't see how you can have a full understanding of him without it. I'd hate anyone to toss it aside as unimportant when considering the greatest wrestlers of all time. It doesn't matter if Kenta Kobashi was a great talker or not. It matters that Dusty was.

[Grimmas]

13 minutes ago, Loss said:

It is! And I don't think Dusty's case is non-existent without the promos. I just also don't see how you can have a full understanding of him without it. I'd hate anyone to toss it aside as unimportant when considering the greatest wrestlers of all time. It doesn't matter if Kenta Kobashi was a great talker or not. It matters that Dusty was.

I really think that depends on what we are talking about, really how much someone drew is an important aspect to being a HOFer, but is it really important for the  best performer?

[El-P]

28 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

If I was forced to choose great promo work/angle and ok match I prefer to great match with a shitty build up.

Doesn't that contradict your criteria for the GWE then ? 

To me it's the opposite. I don't care if the build was shit if at the end I get a great pro-wrestling match. The pay-off is the match. The pro-wrestling is the match. All the rest is just a way to make me want to watch the match. It's commercials.

17 minutes ago, Loss said:

It is! And I don't think Dusty's case is non-existent without the promos. 

Dusty's case as part of making my list is non-existent even including the promos and in-ring charisma. Because the matches aren't very good or interesting to me. That doesn't mean I don't understand his case, but when I see a great Dusty promo, the issue I have is that I'm gonna have to watch an actual match. That goes with many other from the same era like Piper for instance. Yeah, great promo. I don't need to see the match, thanks. That was the double-edge sword of SMW : super fun angle & promo territory, but the pay-off in the ring was very often subpar to say the least.

[Grimmas]

Just now, El-P said:

Doesn't that contradict your criteria for the GWE then ? 

 

What I prefer and what is the GWE are not the same thing. 

I prefer Charli XCX to Rolling Stones, that doesn't mean Charli XCX is a better musician.

[Matt D]

We're going in circles here but I'll factor in the promos in as they gave Dusty a tool to use in-ring and then I'll examine how he used that tool to his advantage. If he used them well, great, he'll be better off on my broader list. If he didn't, that'll hurt him. That he was able to have the tool in the first place isn't something I'm examining.

[Loss]

5 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

I really think that depends on what we are talking about, really how much someone drew is an important aspect to being a HOFer, but is it really important for the  best performer?

Once again, nothing to do with drawing. Promos are a performance too. Everything a wrestler does in front of an audience is performance.

[El-P]

4 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

What I prefer and what is the GWE are not the same thing. 

I prefer Charli XCX to Rolling Stones, that doesn't mean Charli XCX is a better musician.

Well, actually, it kinda is, because we can't pretend to objectivity. At all.

As far as Charli XCX, I absolutely could make the case she's the much more interesting artist than the Rolling Stones, as she has brought an experimental edge in pop music like very few have done in a long time now by having ears on the PC Music scene and working with AG Cook & SOPHIE. That's what the Beatles did too, not the Stones.  

[Grimmas]

Just now, Loss said:

Once again, nothing to do with drawing. Promos are a performance too. Everything a wrestler does in front of a camera is performance.

If you want to include it, I'm not going to stop you.

I'm seriously okay with the Great Khali #1 voters, as long as they can explain and are comfortable with it.

I do not take promos into account, although I do take into account how awful a human being a wrestler is, so maybe I am a hypocrite.

[Grimmas]

1 minute ago, El-P said:

Well, actually, it kinda is, because we can't pretend to objectivity. At all.

As far as Charli XCX, I absolutely could make the case she's the much more interesting artist than the Rolling Stones, as she has brought an experimental edge in pop music like very few have done in a long time now by having ears on the PC Music scene and working with AG Cook & SOPHIE. That's what the Beatles did too, not the Stones.  

Charli is great, so maybe a bad example, but it's not about being objective, it is realizing your favourites are not always the best. There is a difference between liking and greatness and I think that is pretty obvious to most.

Otherwise, my #1 is John Tenta and i'll just bow out of discussions for 5 years.

[El-P]

Just now, Grimmas said:

I do not take promos into account, although I do take into account how awful a human being a wrestler is, so maybe I am a hypocrite.

I was actually thinking about that one, especially if we get more younger voters. I was asking myself for a while now, are gonna some names get "cancelled" ? 

[Loss]

6 minutes ago, El-P said:

That was the double-edge sword of SMW : super fun angle & promo territory, but the pay-off in the ring was very often subpar to say the least.

This touches on a bigger issue, but I should point out that this last part is changing the way I think about wrestling lately. The payoff in the ring wasn't subpar if it delivered on the hype. Sting-Hogan at Starrcade '97 did not have a good payoff. Hogan-Andre did have a good payoff, even if it's not a great technical match, because the match had a clean finish, the big bodyslam spot, and an iconic staredown image. If you set up these matches and get people excited and they leave disappointed, that's a huge black mark. If they leave happy, it isn't. Most of the time, people left Hogan and Dusty matches with the desired reactions -- either thrilled they won, or angry that they were screwed. That's good.

[El-P]

Just now, Grimmas said:

Charli is great, so maybe a bad example, but it's not about being objective, it is realizing your favourites are not always the best. There is a difference between liking and greatness and I think that is pretty obvious to most.

I assure you there won't be a name in my list I don't really, really love. 

[Grimmas]

1 minute ago, El-P said:

I was actually thinking about that one, especially if we get more younger voters. I was asking myself for a while now, are gonna some names get "cancelled" ? 

Lots of Benoit voters last time, so yeah.