2026 Ideas

[Matt D]

There are ways to recontextualize things like "drawing power" to purely in-ring work by thinking about things like connection to the crowd. Full houses, hot crowds, ok, it's chicken and egg, but what does the wrestler DO with that situation. Look at a guy like Hogan and see how he uses the hot crowd to his advantage in crating a match or how he squanders it. Someone like Cena knows what sort of reaction he's going to get with five-knuckle shuffle set up. How does he use that relative to other people in other situations, that sort of thing. There are a lot of interesting ways to think about "in-ring" other than just great matches. It just all has to come back to "in-ring" in the end.

[El-P]

24 minutes ago, Matt D said:

There are ways to recontextualize things like "drawing power" to purely in-ring work by thinking about things like connection to the crowd. Full houses, hot crowds, ok, it's chicken and egg, but what does the wrestler DO with that situation. 

I disagree because it's not happening in a vacuum, plenty of things that have zilch to do with the actual work are responsible for drawing power aka the marketing power of the company, the number of stations they're in, the promos etc...  Connection to a crowd is not drawing power. Just like getting a pop is not drawing power.

What a worker does with a crowd, I agree, the exemple I always use is the infamous Saturn vs Raven match from WCW where the crowd could not give a flying fuck at the beginning and by the end of the match they were molten and going crazy for Raven's dog & Pony show. That to me is way more impressive as far as good work connecting with a crowd that anything Hogan will do with a captive audience that no matter what he will do will be super hot anyway, because they are already conditioned to be.

24 minutes ago, Matt D said:

 There are a lot of interesting ways to think about "in-ring" other than just great matches. It just all has to come back to "in-ring" in the end.

Agreed.

That said, I'm absolutely and more than ever a Great Match Theory supporter, because at some point if you're a great wrestler you're at least gonna have great performances and unless you're very unlucky or work against very shitty opponents all the time or work in the less "great-match-friendly" conducive environment, you're gonna end up having some great matches. So, at the very least, I'm a proponent of Great Performance Theory.  (although I hate the term "performance")

[Matt D]

Yeah, it's more indirect. If you're a big draw, you're going to have a big, probably hot crowd. You may be able to have longer matches. You may be able to have matches with bigger stakes. There are opportunities involved in that. We can then see how the wrestler utilizes the opportunities.

As per GMT, when we're dealing with the best hundred (or especially the best 25) wrestlers ever, all of them are going to have great matches, and a lot of times, just like drawing power, the sheer number of them comes down to bookings and opportunities as well. So instead of making it a numerical exercise at that point, you break down what a wrestler does with opportunities they have.

[El-P]

3 minutes ago, Matt D said:

Yeah, it's more indirect. If you're a big draw, you're going to have a big, probably hot crowd. You may be able to have longer matches. You may be able to have matches with bigger stakes. There are opportunities involved in that. We can then see how the wrestler utilizes the opportunities.

Agreed. I mean, that is why Taker's arc at Mania is quite interesting.

3 minutes ago, Matt D said:

As per GMT, when we're dealing with the best hundred (or especially the best 25) wrestlers ever, all of them are going to have great matches, and a lot of times, just like drawing power, the sheer number of them comes down to bookings and opportunities as well. So instead of making it a numerical exercise at that point, you break down what a wrestler does with opportunities they have.

There's no way to make it a numerical exercise, really, for a number of reason, one of which being time obviously and the other being access to footage. And on the global level of the poll, the third being subjectivity, especially in what we each look at that makes us go "This is a great match". 

[Kadaveri]

The only 'criteria' I think should be insisted on is that this has to be based on footage so you can explain your picks by pointing to a wrestler's performances on film and talk about what you like/didn't like about them. It's no fun someone saying Ed Strangler Lewis is on their list because some old wrestlers said in books that he was great so I'm gonna believe them even though there's no proof. That's like putting a 1930s movie lost in WW2 bombings on a "Top 100 list" because the reviews at the time said it was amazing. We know from cases with footage that a wrestler's reputation doesn't always live up to the hype (e.g. Bruiser Brody). The main purpose of these projects really is it's a vehicle for discovering lots of great wrestling, like I would never have become a big fan of Mariko Yoshida if it weren't for people eloquently pushing her case in 2016, and her case is entirely "just go watch her matches!". If there's no footage to check out (e.g. someone ranking Hogan for being so famous) then there's no point.

Other than that, people should be free to choose their own criteria because what exactly makes a wrestler "great" is a big part of the discussions. For example I'm probably a bigger John Cena supporter than most on here. Do I think John Cena is a great technician? Absolutely not. I've never heard anyone claim he is; we all accept his execution is at least a bit sloppy at times. The real interesting debate is how much a flaw like that actually matters. I'm happy for people to have all kinds of eccentric criterias so long as they can justify them in good faith, in fact this should be encouraged to open people's minds more. I see absolutely no problem with @Dav'oh ranking PAC above Jumbo, his explanation was in the spirit of the project.

Oh and on promos, I think taking them into consideration should be allowed as it's still footage and part of a wrestler's performance. Whether you should include them or not is something to be debated; people can decide for themselves when they make their list. I think it's fair to make the argument that they should not be taken into consideration, but it shouldn't be imposed on people as a rule.

[concrete1992]

I think what Grimmas said previously is probably more the camp I'm in then "People should have to be part of the discussion". It is about creating an environment, systems, and platforms in place that make people want to discuss. That also means that in 5 years if 100 folks that you didn't see participate drop lists into the system, got to let that roll off your back. It isn't ideal but maybe making people want to participate is better than removing folks that don't.

And I think "based on footage" is a safe enough metric. Even if it comes with an asterick that "Most folks will be considering in-ring work as their main/sole criteria". I would love for it to just be the latter but sometimes it feels like we get wrapped up in that minutia so much that we spend more time on the rubric than the process. The process is extremely fun!

[Shrike02]

2 hours ago, Matt D said:

Yeah, it's more indirect. If you're a big draw, you're going to have a big, probably hot crowd. You may be able to have longer matches. You may be able to have matches with bigger stakes. There are opportunities involved in that. We can then see how the wrestler utilizes the opportunities.

As per GMT, when we're dealing with the best hundred (or especially the best 25) wrestlers ever, all of them are going to have great matches, and a lot of times, just like drawing power, the sheer number of them comes down to bookings and opportunities as well. So instead of making it a numerical exercise at that point, you break down what a wrestler does with opportunities they have.

This is an interesting observation given that, for example, Bruno Sammartino didn't crack the top 100 in 2016 despite being a huge star with tons of matches that feature big, very hot crowds. I suppose by this line of reasoning, many voters felt he didn't make the most of those opportunities.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to rate Bruno highly because he was extremely charismatic, had a special connection to the crowd, and yes delivered some all-time great promos in the epic feud with Larry. The fact that Bruno didn't do a lot of fancy moves really doesn't matter to me.

Anyhow, I hope to participate in 2026 and it's definitely a good idea to try to establish consensus on what the criteria should be for this project a long ways out.

[elliott]

I really enjoyed the community aspects of things and I hope we can explore more things in that realm. I can't remember the site but we did the live chat with matches we could watch together. That was fun. I know there were 80s set viewing parties. I think by now a lot of us are used to participating in awkward Zoom meetings with people we barely know. We could inject some wrestling into that. 

Along those lines, we could have zoom meetings or viewing parties with a curatorial aspect. Join Grimmas as he takes you through why Akira Hokuto is the greatest. An Evening With Matt D and Nick Bockwinkel. Loss Presents Ric Flair One Last Time. Stuff could be recorded and put on youtube for people who are interested in the topic but were unable carve out the time to join in. This may promote a more communal feeling than just "Listen to these 100 hours of podcasts." I'm not saying like do a power point presentation or a lecture. (I'm also not discouraging that! I'd go to Bockwinkel 401 w/ Professor Matt lolol!) Think of it more like a book club where the book of the month (or wrestler) is your selection so  you're the one leading the discussion. Like pick a few matches, everyone can watch them together and discuss. Use the matches we all watch together as a jumping off point for deeper discussion. Something like that could be fun! 

[Grimmas]

1 minute ago, elliott said:

I really enjoyed the community aspects of things and I hope we can explore more things in that realm. I can't remember the site but we did the live chat with matches we could watch together. That was fun. I know there were 80s set viewing parties. I think by now a lot of us are used to participating in awkward Zoom meetings with people we barely know. We could inject some wrestling into that. 

Along those lines, we could have zoom meetings or viewing parties with a curatorial aspect. Join Grimmas as he takes you through why Akira Hokuto is the greatest. An Evening With Matt D and Nick Bockwinkel. Loss Presents Ric Flair One Last Time. Stuff could be recorded and put on youtube for people who are interested in the topic but were unable carve out the time to join in. This may promote a more communal feeling than just "Listen to these 100 hours of podcasts." I'm not saying like do a power point presentation or a lecture. (I'm also not discouraging that! I'd go to Bockwinkel 401 w/ Professor Matt lolol!) Think of it more like a book club where the book of the month (or wrestler) is your selection so  you're the one leading the discussion. Like pick a few matches, everyone can watch them together and discuss. Use the matches we all watch together as a jumping off point for deeper discussion. Something like that could be fun! 

A discord where people can share their screens and videos has been play tested for months now and will be ready to go for the official 2026 announcement. Live watches will be a thing from day one.

[Phil Schneider]

6 hours ago, El-P said:

 

Not everyone has access to the French stuff Dan & others are watching.

 Just a clarification on this, we post links to youtube for every single French match we review. So if you have youtube you can watch the French Catch

[El-P]

5 minutes ago, Phil Schneider said:

 Just a clarification on this, we post links to youtube for every single French match we review. So if you have youtube you can watch the French Catch

Ok, thanks. I thought it was from the INA archive site, which is not free unless you have a special access.

Extensive Youtube references would indeed be very precious for the next GWE btw.

[Grimmas]

The ideas lined up being alluded to by people makes me happy.

[Phil Schneider]

31 minutes ago, El-P said:

Ok, thanks. I thought it was from the INA archive site, which is not free unless you have a special access.

Extensive Youtube references would indeed be very precious for the next GWE btw.

That hurts my feelings, we have loathed each other for years, least you could do is read my blog

[Matt D]

27 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

The ideas lined up being alluded to by people makes me happy.

Yeah sure, but you still have to write the zine.

[Grimmas]

17 minutes ago, Matt D said:

Yeah sure, but you still have to write the zine.

Is it the 90s?

[El-P]

30 minutes ago, Phil Schneider said:

That hurts my feelings, we have loathed each other for years, least you could do is read my blog

You know what, I might just do that and check some of this French Catch...

[Loss]

I'm proposing a rule that we ban the phrase "Great Match Theory", a label that until El P did it above no one ever used to describe their own approach to watching wrestling to my knowledge. Continuing to say it 8 years after the thread that prompted the phrase also feels like a cheapshot. Can we move on from bashing it? 

[Phil Schneider]

42 minutes ago, El-P said:

You know what, I might just do that and check some of this French Catch...

It is all amazing stuff, and tremendously varied. I'll give you a starter pack

 

http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2020/02/tuesday-is-french-catch-day-tony-oliver.html

 

Tony Oliver vs. Bert Royal 2/27/57

Put a gun to my head and make me pick, I think this is the best match we have watched, Oliver looks like an all time great (we have two matches total unfortunately) just a miserable prick of guy to wrestle and Royal is a dynamic babyface

 

Modesto Aledo vs. Teddy Boy

http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2020/07/tuesday-is-french-catch-day-leduc.html

 

 

Aledo is a slick maestro in the mold of Blue Panther or Fujiwara and he tools Teddy Boy early until Teddy Boy unloads with some super violent stuff, ends up almost like an All Japan match

 

Le Petit Prince/Francis Louis vs. Jacky Richard/Daniel Noced 2/22/71

http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2020/07/tuesday-is-french-catch-day-robin-royal.html

 

 

Basically a 1995 Michinoku Pro tag in 1971. Prince is like Rey Mysterios grandfather, and the rudos are great bases. Ends up with some real violence too

 

 

These are three of the best matches, but the week to week quality of this stuff is off the charts. 

[El-P]

41 minutes ago, Loss said:

I'm proposing a rule that we ban the phrase "Great Match Theory"

YES ! I absolutely used it in jest earlier on. (well, I mean, I am looking out for the great matches, which like you said are easier to judge than individuals, but the GMT name always annoyed me plenty)

24 minutes ago, Phil Schneider said:

It is all amazing stuff, and tremendously varied. I'll give you a starter pack

These are three of the best matches, but the week to week quality of this stuff is off the charts. 

Well thank you. I'll probably soon need stuff to get my head off that damn 6pm curfew that will never end and the fact there hasn't been any social life in months now and maybe the third lockdown is incoming... 

[dkookypunk43]

I was one of the random people that actually voted in the project without knowing the whole scope of the project back in 2016 because I became intrigued by the project in its last stages because I didn't find PWO til say 2015. And then realized oh shit I shouldn't have voted in this too many people put too much investment into this where my vote was throwing off actual tallys. But but my concern is if someone wants to get into a project that is a fan that is intrigued by this like I was are we just going to cock block them. Because people get older people become smarter and people watch more footage and stuff like that and people have the tendency to discover more maybe there's a new fan who wants to come on here and discuss. I'm trying to advocate for that fan because I was that fan back in 2016

[Dav'oh]

If I'm reading this correctly (and thank-you to everyone who has chimed in):

*Greatest in-ring performer, based on available footage*

does not equal

*Greatest technician / "scientific" wrestler* ?

So Dusty can go above Arn (sacrilege, I know), because I think we can't dismiss the purpose of in-ring work, and the effects. Yes, promos helped get fans into the building, but what Dusty did in-ring (shucking, jiving, flippin floppin flyin, bleedin, more bleedin) made them say "yeah, I'll come back next month", no? And more people in more places wanted to come see Dusty in-ring than Arn. I can't separate drawing power (or historical importance) because the in-ring is aimed at future drawing, directly or indirectly. Hogan's in-ring routine made him the biggest name ever - not the promotional machine or Vince or his opponents - because they came to see his in-ring posturing posing and vanquishing. Is a double-arm biceps pose a less valid "in-ring" gesture than Orienteering With Napalm Death?

Basically, are we separating "entertainer" from "wrestler"? Is it honest to do so i.e treat wrestling as a legitimate form of competition, so "of course Fujiwara trumps Hogan"? How do we eliminate intangibles like charisma and "actually looks like a wrestler (bye-bye, Verne!) / carries himself like one (hello, Frank Goodish!)"?

TL;DR (sorry, sometimes I take the long way round )- Is Greatest Wrestler distinct from Greatest Pro-Wrestler? I'd have two vastly different lists for those two, I reckon.

 

 

[Grimmas]

51 minutes ago, Dav'oh said:

If I'm reading this correctly (and thank-you to everyone who has chimed in):

*Greatest in-ring performer, based on available footage*

does not equal

*Greatest technician / "scientific" wrestler* ?

So Dusty can go above Arn (sacrilege, I know), because I think we can't dismiss the purpose of in-ring work, and the effects. Yes, promos helped get fans into the building, but what Dusty did in-ring (shucking, jiving, flippin floppin flyin, bleedin, more bleedin) made them say "yeah, I'll come back next month", no? And more people in more places wanted to come see Dusty in-ring than Arn. I can't separate drawing power (or historical importance) because the in-ring is aimed at future drawing, directly or indirectly. Hogan's in-ring routine made him the biggest name ever - not the promotional machine or Vince or his opponents - because they came to see his in-ring posturing posing and vanquishing. Is a double-arm biceps pose a less valid "in-ring" gesture than Orienteering With Napalm Death?

Basically, are we separating "entertainer" from "wrestler"? Is it honest to do so i.e treat wrestling as a legitimate form of competition, so "of course Fujiwara trumps Hogan"? How do we eliminate intangibles like charisma and "actually looks like a wrestler (bye-bye, Verne!) / carries himself like one (hello, Frank Goodish!)"?

TL;DR (sorry, sometimes I take the long way round )- Is Greatest Wrestler distinct from Greatest Pro-Wrestler? I'd have two vastly different lists for those two, I reckon.

 

 

The answer is basically, whatever you think makes a great wrestler is your criteria, just base it on footage.  If you want Dusty above Arn, go for it. Just lay out your reasoning and criteria.

[MoS]

The only contribution I will have here is that the official starting and process happens as quick as we can process any new footage. Of course, we will always disagree on what the footage meant/means, but we need to get to and understand what that footage means, at the very least! Anyway, discussions and debates will be much more fruitful if we name and link them, just so the newer kids no what we are fighting about

[NotJayTabb]

2 hours ago, Grimmas said:

The answer is basically, whatever you think makes a great wrestler is your criteria, just base it on footage.  If you want Dusty above Arn, go for it. Just lay out your reasoning and criteria.

The one thing I read that stuck with me and helped me last time is that, as long as you're happy with your list and believe you've been honest with yourself, that's the only criteria that matters. My starting list was very different to my end list, people near the top that I wasn't particularly taken with because "that's where they probably should be". By the end, as I got more confident in my opinions, I created a list that I felt represented my thoughts - Flair dropped out of the top 10, Jumbo out of the top 20, Kobashi ended up in the 70s. One of my favourite thing in the project was the podcasts where people explained their unusual picks, like the guy who had B-Boy in his top 20.

As for suggestions, I agree that watchalongs/watch parties were a really fun thing from 2016 that got introduced a bit too late. I think it was a taima.tv channel that was set up with Youtube videos on a loop with at least one match from every candidate that you could just dip in and out of.

[GSR]

11 hours ago, dkookypunk43 said:

I was one of the random people that actually voted in the project without knowing the whole scope of the project back in 2016 because I became intrigued by the project in its last stages because I didn't find PWO til say 2015. And then realized oh shit I shouldn't have voted in this too many people put too much investment into this where my vote was throwing off actual tallys. But but my concern is if someone wants to get into a project that is a fan that is intrigued by this like I was are we just going to cock block them. Because people get older people become smarter and people watch more footage and stuff like that and people have the tendency to discover more maybe there's a new fan who wants to come on here and discuss. I'm trying to advocate for that fan because I was that fan back in 2016

Which is pretty much what JvK was trying/wanting to do with the 2016 project, where he thought only certain people should be allowed to vote.