2026 Ideas

[Grimmas]

1 minute ago, El-P said:

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

Yes, I love everyone on my list, but my list is not ranked on my love level.

EDIT: Actually I don't love Flair, I dislike Flair, but I don't feel like I can truly live him off. Atleast at this point.

[Matt D]

4 minutes 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" ? 

It'll be tricky. I don't want to watch Benoit matches so I can't rate Benoit. I have no problem watching Invader I matches so could well be in my top 30. Not that he'd make my list, but I'm not watching Buck Zuhmofe so there's no way I could or would rate him. I'm generally ok watching Lawler matches, so he will probably make my top 10. 

There will 100% be lists on my name I don't love overall, though even in those cases, there'll be matches/performances of theirs or elements of their wrestling that I do probably love.

[El-P]

I'm not sure I would vote for Benoit this time. I know for sure I won't watch any of his stuff and will avoid any of his stuff with other guy I will vote for.

2 minutes ago, Loss said:

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.

Agree. Although as much as Hogan vs Andre did absolutely deliver, never in a thousand years I would call it this a great match, it was basically acceptable. I mean, in the Taker at Mania thread I touched on this about the second HHH match. Did I think it worked in the end ? Yes. Did I think it reached the "epic" quality ? Yes. DId I think it was a great match ? No. It worked, I put it in the W column, it reached the epicness it was reaching for. It was not a great match. I barely even enjoyed it.

[Loss]

I don't see how it can be a huge factor, unless someone voting has never made significant mistakes in their own personal lives. Otherwise, do they really have the moral authority?

[El-P]

2 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

EDIT: Actually I don't love Flair, I dislike Flair, but I don't feel like I can truly live him off. Atleast at this point.

I mean, I'm bored with some candidates because I have already watched their stuff over and over too many times, but is there someone I actively dislike that I would put in my top 100 ? I don't think so. Maybe in the end, who knows.

[Matt D]

Dynamite is a guy that I absolutely loathe after a certain point, that I strongly dislike at a point before that, and that I think can be absolutely excellent at times for a point before that. He could end up low on my list for his 80-84 work. That sort of thing. If I rank Michaels, it'll be at the very bottom of my list because of his ambition (though it so often fails) and elements of his tag work, but he's not someone I would say I love overall.

[El-P]

The "cancelled" stuff will be interesting, especially if we can get the origins of the votes (like you said, PWO, whatever other discord or community, the "Twitter crowd" etc...). Would be interesting also for stats if we get enough women to vote to see the differences and trends between genders.

[Grimmas]

I will be tracking that data this time, expect a slower roll out of results, but more details.

[GOTNW]

The most important idea I can think of is to have everyone who was in the discussion in 2016 automatically nominated again, preferably with a link to their 2016 thread. Hopefully there's someone smart enough around here to figure out how to automate that process (at least just the thread creation) so it doesn't amount to hours of manual work.

I think this is important because the point of the process is to be inclusive, and the nomination process serves as the bare minimum test of if someone was actually a wrestler with a couple of matches on tape.

To that point, I think the nomination system last time was fine, but this time I think just providing proof someone has several matches on tape should be enough for them to be nominated. I don't think forcing someone to write reviews does anything (except potentially burn someone's enthusiasm for the project), and if someone truly cares about spreading positive propaganda about a worker they're not gonna be able to do so efficiently without making a good case for them anyway.

[Grimmas]

15 minutes ago, GOTNW said:

The most important idea I can think of is to have everyone who was in the discussion in 2016 automatically nominated again, preferably with a link to their 2016 thread. Hopefully there's someone smart enough around here to figure out how to automate that process (at least just the thread creation) so it doesn't amount to hours of manual work.

I think this is important because the point of the process is to be inclusive, and the nomination process serves as the bare minimum test of if someone was actually a wrestler with a couple of matches on tape.

To that point, I think the nomination system last time was fine, but this time I think just providing proof someone has several matches on tape should be enough for them to be nominated. I don't think forcing someone to write reviews does anything (except potentially burn someone's enthusiasm for the project), and if someone truly cares about spreading positive propaganda about a worker they're not gonna be able to do so efficiently without making a good case for them anyway.

Thank you, and this is all settled and will be announced on the launch podcast! You'll be happy with the decision.

[dkookypunk43]

@Grimmas is there a good starting point for classic Joshi?

[Grimmas]

1 minute ago, dkookypunk43 said:

@Grimmas is there a good starting point for classic Joshi?

@elliottis better at this than I, but really the classics have a great widebreath to it, but that's 80s, if you want 90s start with the big shows. Dream Slam, Dream Rush, Big Egg Universe, etc..

[dkookypunk43]

Thanks Steven

I also created a little thing with the series I'm doing on my YouTube Channel

 

[Gregor]

3 hours ago, Loss said:

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.

Is the goal for people to leave happy, or is it for them to leave with the desired reactions?

A match that's always fascinated me in that regard is Michaels-Sid from Survivor Series. In one way that match was an objective failure, as what was supposed to be the tragic fall of the heroic babyface was met with roars of approval from the crowd. At the same time the fans didn't go home feeling ripped off or angry. A lot of them probably remember it as a highlight of their time as a wrestling fan. The workers could have changed up the spots when they realized that the audience was going to erupt for stuff like Sid clotheslining Michaels after the nip-up, but if they'd tried to have Sid revert to his cowardly 1995 persona, for instance, they'd probably have killed much of the crowd and hurt his character for the sake of one arena. The end result was a match that the fans loved, more than they were really supposed to. You could credit the wrestlers, but every decision that popped the crowd did so inadvertently to some extent. The WWF viewed it as such a failure that they immediately began revamping Michaels' image. At the same time it wasn't something like Goldberg-Lesnar or that Cena-Orton match that had the crowd turning on the match as a whole. Almost everything positive or negative that you could say about it comes with a qualifier.

[Grimmas]

56 minutes ago, dkookypunk43 said:

Thanks Steven

I also created a little thing with the series I'm doing on my YouTube Channel

 

A post like this should be for the GWE Podcasts and Publications section. Post other media and projects there.

[Loss]

1 hour ago, Gregor said:

Is the goal for people to leave happy, or is it for them to leave with the desired reactions?

A match that's always fascinated me in that regard is Michaels-Sid from Survivor Series. In one way that match was an objective failure, as what was supposed to be the tragic fall of the heroic babyface was met with roars of approval from the crowd. At the same time the fans didn't go home feeling ripped off or angry. A lot of them probably remember it as a highlight of their time as a wrestling fan. The workers could have changed up the spots when they realized that the audience was going to erupt for stuff like Sid clotheslining Michaels after the nip-up, but if they'd tried to have Sid revert to his cowardly 1995 persona, for instance, they'd probably have killed much of the crowd and hurt his character for the sake of one arena. The end result was a match that the fans loved, more than they were really supposed to. You could credit the wrestlers, but every decision that popped the crowd did so inadvertently to some extent. The WWF viewed it as such a failure that they immediately began revamping Michaels' image. At the same time it wasn't something like Goldberg-Lesnar or that Cena-Orton match that had the crowd turning on the match as a whole. Almost everything positive or negative that you could say about it comes with a qualifier.

I think there's no one answer to the question, but that it's fun to get into the weeds on this stuff. Over time, you figure out what the cases where the answer is "happy" have in common and what the cases where the answer is "desired" have in common.

[elliott]

3 hours ago, dkookypunk43 said:

@Grimmas is there a good starting point for classic Joshi?

 

3 hours ago, Grimmas said:

@elliottis better at this than I, but really the classics have a great widebreath to it, but that's 80s, if you want 90s start with the big shows. Dream Slam, Dream Rush, Big Egg Universe, etc..

 

Yeah I'll be happy to highlight specific wrestlers, matches, shows, whatever you need to take a look at once the process really starts. 

[elliott]

10 hours 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.

Loss, how do you feel about Bobby Heenan as a candidate? He's someone I didn't really take seriously as a candidate in 2016, but the more I think about it the more I think he probably belongs. Its not like he didn't have matches. He was as good as what he did as anyone else in the business at his peak. Even when he was past his peak he was incredible performer. 

[Loss]

I feel like I need to see more AWA stuff to get a full opinion. Obviously very entertaining in the WWF, but it seems like people who saw him in both places don't see that as Heenan at his best. And he did do a lot more comedy then. I need to see more serious Bobby.

[elliott]

What are your thoughts in general about considering the more active managers? I mentioned it earlier as something I want to think about. Cornette was adding a lot to those Midnight Express matches that got Bobby Eaton such a high ranking in 2016. 

[Loss]

Cornette was incredible at his role. He wasn't a wrestler for the most part though, and was far less than Heenan. I probably would rate both on a 100 Greatest Wrestling Personalities or Greatest Wrestling Performers list, but likely not on a GWE list because of all the stiff competition.

[El-P]

I mean, if we take what active pro-wrestlers have done managing (in term of physical performance, again, not promos), Gail Kim has a shot at my list, because she was not only a great worker and had this classic feud with Awesome Kong (in term of her most famous stuff that was also very much ten years before its time in the US on all accounts), but as a valet/manager with AMW/Planet Jarrett in TNA, she was just doing awesome work that would certainly add to her resume as a worker.

[Reel]

Agree with not viewing Cornette as a wrestler, and Heenan is trickier, but I'd be hesitant to include him unless there are some great matches from the WWA or something that I don't know about. I think the more interesting question is whether or not to factor in Harley's run as Vader's manager into his case. 

[TonyPulis'Cap]

This has been a really interesting thread to read through. I came onto the board towards the tail end of the 2016 project, so enjoyed reading the discussions and the reveal of the list without submitting one myself as I didn't feel in a place to do so at that time. Fast forward to now and I'm definitely interested in getting involved this time, as it feels like this could be just the thing to reinvigorate my love for wrestling which has definitely been waning the last few years due to a variety of factors (general turn offs in the way wrestling is presented esp. WWE, pandemic era pro wrestling, Speaking Out etc.). I'm getting excited though about having something to focus my watching around and really getting to explore wrestlers and styles where I don't have that knowledge and re-evaluate areas I'm more familiar with. The only thing potentially holding me back is that I tend to enjoy episodic wrestling and find it hard to jump into individual matches - no matter how 'good' they are - without context, but having that overall framework or narrative of the project as a whole should help with that.

It's been fascinating seeing the debates already, not about workers, but on how people will be judging them, and on that front, it's always hard given the subjective nature of all this. In saying that, one of the things I look for in a 'great' wrestler is their ability to change up their style or what they do in the ring (and indeed, even their appearance and demeanor) to fit the different context they find themselves in - so that ability to change what they do based on the setting, the storyline, the occasion etc. It's one of the things I hate most about modern WWE - everyone comes to the ring and wrestles as if they are in a computer game. Regardless of whether it's a blood feud or an enhancement match they wrestle it in exactly the same way with the same entrance poses and mannerisms.   

[El Dragon]

Having pretty recently gone through the AWA set, I don’t think ranking Heenan would be crazy and he might sneak into my bottom 20. “Wrestler playing a Manager who can’t wrestle” is a genre of wrestling, and 80% of people who play it suck at it. Heenan was legit incredible at that specific element of wrestling, best of all time at it by a wide margin. Add in he’s a center figure of a match that I have at 4 1/2 (Six man with Patera and Ventura vs. Hogan and High Flyers), and he’s on my list of people to consider