Your Criteria/Process/Method at the Start of the 2026 Cycle

[Matt D]

I thought it would be interesting if people checked in with their criteria/process/method here at the start of the cycle. This could be what they're looking for, how they're judging/rating wrestlers, how they're planning on going about things, etc.

I'm going to focus a bit more on process/method/purpose here, though criteria is absolutely tied in. It's just a little harder to pin down for reasons you'll hopefully see, and this will already be a lot to cover. Also note that I say at the start of the cycle as this is a journey for all of us and we'll be honing things as we go over the next five years. Finally, while I'd encourage people to interact with one another, be curious and interested, point out holes constructively, etc., I don't think this is the right place for heavy combativeness. Our starting point here has to be that everyone is operating in good faith.

So that brings us to where I am now:

In judging/ranking a wrestler, I am focused primarily on two things: the wrestler's philosophy/understanding/mastery of the craft/art/performance/occupation/sport of pro wrestling and how well they accomplish/execute/manifest/deliver upon it. In order to judge that, I need to utilize footage to understand the wrestler as much as possible. This means I want to examine a wrestler throughout their career, in all sorts of situations, against all sorts of opponents. The more scenarios I have, the better I can see how a wrestler acts and reacts, and the better I can synergize what I see. Having multiple instances of the same situation is also useful because it reinforces what I'm seeing and allows me to look for slight variations.

So yes, I want to see a wrestler in a great match, but I also want to see them in a squash match. I want to see them in their prime, but I also want to see them dealing with a physical limitation to see how they react and respond and adapt. I want to see them in their home territory, but I also want to see them in front of an unfamiliar crowd. I want to see them in singles, in tags, in gimmick matches, in short TV matches. I want to see them open a show and end a show. I want to see them as a face and a heel, against similar opponents and wildly different ones, against the same opponent multiple times if possible. Ideally I'll see everything there is to see, but as that's not possible, I'll be looking to cover as many situations as I can, and as many as i need to feel confident in what I'm doing. I'm trying to reach a Holistic Situational Understanding of a wrestler (which sounds better than Situational Holistic Understanding, even if that has a better, lucha-based acronym).

Flaws/concerns/comments:

Obviously, this is an arrogant approach to a degree. There are things we aren't going to know with most wrestlers, but it's all ultimately based on footage. Where I supplement with other knowledge, I still have to connect that to the footage. Maybe I'd be reading too much into things in that moment, but for my list, it's going to be consistent across all wrestlers. I'm taking everyone equally and trying to achieve the best understanding possible based on what can be seen in the footage. As for the arrogance of it, the idea that I can reach any understanding on any wrestler, first, that pushes me and drives me to do my best and to really think things through and do my home work. The journey matters more as we so often say. Second, my list will sometimes have someone ranked lower if I feel like I can't understand them as well due to lack of footage. They'll still be represented but that's an element. I don't necessarily need to understand every point of their career, but if I feel like I'm missing data points that I might have if footage existed, there might be a lower ceiling for them. They may be somewhat handicapped based on my limitations.

This is not a "peak" approach or a "longevity" approach. Longevity gives me more data points to work off of. I'm not looking for who was the greatest wrestler for a short period of time. I'm looking who was the greatest wrestler ever based on the above approach and method. Likely, people who were brilliant for a short period of time because they were able to channel their physical gifts in their physical prime but were then not able to adapt will do worse on my list than those that were able to adapt, but that is, I think, consistent with the above.

Along similar lines, some might say it undervalues execution. I'd argue otherwise as I'm focused on whether or not the wrestler could achieve their ends as much as I'm focused on the perceived value of those ends. It balances the two instead of focusing primarily on execution (or workrate or anything else). Both thought and action are represented.

Great matches are important, but that's heavily based on opportunity and just one part of the equation. Overall greatness should happen across multiple situations, ALL situations if possible, even if constrained and contained. They're important but no more important than being effective in a TV studio or in front of a live crowd in an unfilmed setting relative to what they were tasked to achieve in that setting. Not every wrestler had the same career, so everything is taken into account. I'll have more data points in more situations for wrestlers who had more opportunities and that's going to allow me a more complete understanding. At the end of the day, we're not looking at What Ifs? but at the footage. I will say that "ability to perform well in big matches" is no more or less important than "ability to perform well in small matches" to me, so the idea of "one of the best big match workers ever" isn't going to automatically be more important than "one of the best ten minute tv workers ever." In some ways, the level of difficulty is higher with the latter.

So that brings me to the elephant in the room on this (past the arrogance, so much arrogance): once I feel like I do understand two wrestlers as noted above, how do I rate one against the other? What's the actual criteria here? And that I'm still working on. It's not as simple as me agreeing with their philosophy/understanding/mastery of the craft/art/performance/occupation/sport of pro wrestling but it does align with what I think is the best/greatest of that. And that's something that can be developed and expanded upon over the next five years, which is why this post is more about process/method/mindset/goals than actual criteria.

So, what do you got?

[soup23]

Biggest thing I need to remind myself throughout this process is there is too much shit out there to cover.  2006 had questions of whether there were 100 great wrestlers to begin with. 2016 rectified that but I do think I leaned to heavy on historically perspective than looking at modern candidates or certain candidates within a style specialization. I continually want to feel good about each of rankings and I do take this process serious (too serious at points) that I also have a desire to have acclaim and justification by others thinking the same way. 2001 is a great example of that. So far in 2021, I have watched over 1,000 2001 matches and I am only into June for the year overall. I feel really good about the top of my WOTY list for this given year at this moment in time. However, OJ has watched much of the same stuff and we have wild differences of opinion.  I respect OJ and have to accept that no one person can be an overall authority on any given topic or wrestler in regards to wrestling.  That doesn't mean that I devalue persuasive viewpoints.  I am still really intrigued to hear a detailed argument for someone considering Hokuto as #1 for example. 

My method until 2026 is to just plug away at the years/footage that I want to watch. These lists will be a "moment in time" projection no matter what. I am coming more and more to the realization that my true enjoyment of pro wrestling died with the Villano III Jr. vs Aereo apuestas match right before COVID took a stranglehold on the world. Sure in the next five years, someone like Takeshita may revolutionize modern wrestling and get me invested again but the lingering thoughts of Ospreay, Omega, etc dominating the scene for the next five years is not the type of wrestling I really want to invest and become embedded with.  So I will stick to the years project that I am working on.  WIth my increased organization over the last few years, I can still feel pretty good about my overall narratives of those years watched.  It has been 2 years since I finished 2000, but I still feel pretty comfortable with that year overall.  Right now I am in 2001 and 1983.  After that?  Who knows as I am itching to maybe jump to a year like 1992.  I do like the years approach as they help fill in the gaps. I think most of the high point arguments for each candidate are known but I do really like that week to week viewpoint.  It can hinder some workers that I adore (Casas 2001 for example) but it also elevates other with surprises in my eyes (Misawa and Santo 2001). Overall, it gives me more comfort in concluding stuff that "Casas took a back seat in trios for the most part in 2001 up until June and wasn't given opportunities to shine".  That is compared to some generalized statements you see and I am guilty of as "Imagine how great Casas 1986 was if we had weekly footage."  That is possibly the case that the footage would show that but it isn't definite. In the above where Casas has been in the background in 2001 so far, I think this is where my barometer is more strict compared to someone like Matt where I would penalize Casas for that and say even though he didn't get the opportunities, I do expect more for someone still in their general athletic prime than a top 80 performance as WOTY.  This is an extreme case but Casas is someone bantered about as a #1 contender too so I do believe he will be someone with increased scrutiny.  Finally, I do weigh big performances more than others. I still in my head can't equate arguments like Kawada's 12/3/93 selling and put it on equal footing with conclusions I agree with like "Bill DUndee is the best studio tv worker in history".  The latter gets Dundee on my list but only to a certain point.  The former puts Kawada in contention for top 20 and where I like to hear arguments centered around him as #1.  This is perhaps a fault of mine currently but I do see it as too close of a prickly path where you can conclude that Sable had the 2nd best reactions of anyone in WWF in 1998 which is one of their most successful years so she deserves a spot on the list. 

[Manatee]

Currently I am on two tracks. I started off watching everything from 1983 with the idea that I will make a list of the top workers from that year and then do that for other years. I took a detour after I read the Alexa Bliss thread and got the idea that I should watch a selection of her matches. I ended up watching 35 Alexa Bliss matches, mostly of her working 10-15 minute ppv singles matches but also of her against different opponents with different levels of talent, in tags and multi-person matches and tv matches. Now I am working my way through about 60 Sean Waltman matches. I will go back to 1983 but I suspect I will find watching a career will be more useful and less time consuming than watching an entire year. I know my interest in this project will go through peaks and valleys and I won't get to every worker that I want to explore, which is very frustrating for me as a completist. Right now I am choosing people based on the footage that is available to me and if I can put together a list of their matches spanning their entire career.

I have not exactly developed a criteria yet. I mean, right now it is pretty clear that I would rank Waltman over Bliss because he had more good matches and he was a more dynamic worker. I don't know how well that criteria will hold up when I throw more people into the mix.

[Grimmas]

I started last year going through all the joshi from the 1980s (the main stuff) and starting in 1990 very thoroughly and I'm up to 1992. By 2026 I hope to get caught up to 2017 when I started watching. The Shimmer pod is getting me through that footage which is important. Outside of that, there is a few other folks I need to explore which will happen whenever, plus the Watch Parties and putting together those playlists will help. That's my plan for footage watching.

This time I am more focused on how great someone is at wrestling and less focused on the greatness of their career. To me, someone who is a 9 for 4 years will rank higher than someone who was an 8 for 7 years. 

[Ed.]

When it comes to watching footage, I have a decent idea of what I want to do.  I enjoy modern wrestling, so 2021-2026 footage takes care of itself and I won't really be taking my foot off the peddle on that front.  However I'll be trying my best to avoiding rewatching matches I've already seen before and instead focus on the wrestlers, promotions and eras I've barely scratched the surface on.  The watch parties are great for getting a taster on a wrestler and if I like what I see, I'll keep watching more footage like I have done with Mercedes Martinez this week.  I know what I'm like with big projects, and if I say well I'll focus on joshi for the rest of 2021, then lucha in 2022 it won't work.  I'm more comfortable with the idea of focusing on one wrestler and watching them for a week with different snapshots of their career than daunting projects that take months to get through. 

When it comes to judging wrestlers and list placing, I haven't given it much thought yet, but I guess that comes secondary to footage watching and I have years before I need to make a decision on that.  I really like Matt's point about greatest being shown in how a wrestler does in multiple situations and that's something I'll be weighing into my rankings come 2026.

[MichaelZ]

I love this topic. I have a lot of catching up to do on numerous fronts and want to give unfamiliar styles and candidates a fair shake. I've been trying to take a multi-pronged approach to make decent progress.

1) Keep a list of wrestlers that I need to watch more of; decide on 2-3 to focus on for some time. Watch their recommended matches in the Google doc and other famous matches, plus just watch some matches taken at random.

2) I am also participating in Greatest Matches Ever, so I want to cover matches that have ranked highly that I haven't seen. Sometimes that will happen organically from the wrestlers I am focusing on, but sometimes I will just grab a match from that nomination list.

3) Have a long term watching project to fall back on (e.g. AJW classics)

4) Attend the Saturday Watch Parties to give me a taste of a candidate and a chance to chat with others, and follow up as needed.

Having a few different wrestlers to focus on helps me assess wrestlers against each other and is letting me make new discoveries. And having a number of different avenues is keeping things fresh for me.  I realized already that this variety works better for me than a deep dive, at least right now.

[ZubazKid]

I've got a lot of catching up to do on various eras, promotions, styles, etc. So I outlined a rough plan to do so. Right now I'm watching comps for 80s Memphis, AJPW, NJPW & Lucha. I'll watch a couple discs of one then move onto the next so I don't get burned out on any one style. Next year I want to fill in some WWE gaps, take another look at my ROH collection & check out Portland & AWA, and so on. I may switch things up, focus on a candidate that interests me along the way, but having some semblance of a plan will help me see if I'm on track. 

I'm rating matches from each comp as I go, but I am trying to decide how to keep better track of candidates that appear in many different places. I am keeping a working list and will move candidates up & down it, but I don't add anyone until I feel like I've seen enough to consider them so it's nearly worthless now.

Lastly, I'm not going to beat myself up about it. I want to watch as much as I can because I enjoy watching wrestling & want to see new stuff. I'm taking the project seriously & I'll consider everyone I can, but if it's more about the journey than the destination (and I believe it is) if I can't get to everything or something derails me hopefully I'll have still seen a bunch of great new stuff. At least I'm saying that with 5 years left.

[Clayton Jones]

I'm judging 90% on bell to bell performance as objective as I can. I really like how Matt stresses the craft of being a pro wrestler and developing and utilizing a toolbox. I'm trying to incorporate that mindset as much as possible. I'm giving myself 10% leeway to judge whatever subjectively I think helps contribute to being a great wrestler. Promos, presence, innovation, influence, elevating a promotion or division or feud to something I have to watch even if it's for reasons beyond bell to bell, really whatever tickles my fancy. This is hardly an exact ratio and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up more like 95/5, but either way it's my method to give me a sense that my personal touch can break a tie or a close call.

I'm going to build up far far more than I'm going to tear down. I'm sick of dwelling on the negative. I understand the argument against positivity's for positivity's sake and the modern trend more in this direction. And I don't entirely disagree. But I'm doing this to enjoy myself, not to get worked up arguing about a hobby I use to decompress.

I have a working list that is at 160 right now. When it hits 180 no more names are getting added for consideration for 2026. Even that's probably too ambitious but it at least puts some sort of limit on things. 180 was based on the rate of footage I was watching for a stretch, although after my daughter brought home a case of strep from daycare and then the worst stomach bug I've ever seen weeks before I started a new job, I realized I'm going to lose a month here and there in the blink of an eye.

Which brings me to my last personal rule, which is basically Zubaz's "Don't Beat Yourself Up" rule. If I had to turn in the ballot I have right now at the end of today, I'm fine with that. I'm going to do the best I can while enjoying the project as much as possible and staying as present in my real life as possible. Some months I'll be banging footage out, some months I'll be managing a sick ward, some months I'll be starting a new job. Just trying to find a balance and keep it fun.

The vast majority of that doesn't touch criteria. I'm trying to develop that more as I watch footage with GWE26 in mind, but that's still very much a work in progress. I'll check in as it becomes more clear to me.

[Microstatistics]

Great topic. I feel predefining selection criteria is a key element as it allows prioritization of what people truly value and makes the actual ranking feel less arbitrary. Matt D's approach is an extremely rigorous one and I respect the commitment behind it but something like that might not be suitable for everyone.

For instance, in general, I am going to heavily emphasize high-end output, since that to me is the most important thing in wrestling. It won't be as simple as "who has the most great matches" but will be sort of like a top-down approach and account for more objective metrics (variety of opponents, settings worked, roles played, styles mastered) to intangible, subjective components (contribution to match greatness through selling, offense etc.). This would help factor different elements into consideration while keeping the focus on the main thing, i.e., quality and volume of top matches. 

[dkookypunk43]

I'm finding watching someone's greatest hits easiest. I find the group watches really really helpful and I like watching the high end output like Micro. I also am going to taking slowly to start and then ramp it up when I have more time at certain points of the year

[Loss]

- What do they look like on their best night?
- What do they look like on their worst night?
- What do they look like on an average night?
- What did we get the most of?

[brockobama]

Right now I'm in the weeding out portion of making my list. I started out with about 70 or 80 wrestlers who A. have a good shot of making my final list and B. I know well enough that I'd feel comfortable voting for them if we turned ballots in today. Along with that I put together another group of about 300ish wrestlers who fall somewhere in the spectrum of "I'm fairly familiar with this wrestler and know how I feel about their career" and so far I've been whittling that list down to a more reasonable number. Generally what that means is watching a few dozen of their most famous, well-regarded matches or at least matches from their most notable runs and giving a simple pass or fail grade based on whether they have any real chance at making the top 100 if I do a deeper dive on them later in this process.

What I find myself looking for most often are moments of transcendence, which isn't just exciting performances in big matches. It can be how someone carries themselves in a post-match angle or how they interact with the crowd on a smaller show or what they do when a match goes south. What I want is an indication that somebody is more than just a person who learned how to do a scoop slam that didn't kill anybody and was charming enough to appeal to children, something that indicates an exceptional quality of some kind.

A lot of times that can simply mean taking me by surprise, subverting a preconceived notion I had about them going into a match. I was watching some Rick Rude stuff recently for this project and found myself sort of wowed by how fun and engaging Hacksaw Jim Duggan was in this random SNME match, in spite of never having any sort of love for the guy in the decade plus that I've been watching wrestling. So all of a sudden he's going on the list of people I want to dive deeper into.

In that vein I'm also keeping in mind that I'm going to keep running into these wrestlers I'm deleting from the big list as I do deeper dives into the ones that remain. I think it's useful to stay open to the idea that someone could creep back into consideration later on in this process and not get hung up on the fact that I went "hmmm, naw" back in 2021.

[Grimmas]

I have started a new process, doing it on the Maybe Not Taue podcast.

I'm going to rank the top 25 wrestlers of each year, as far back as I can until 2025. Then use a weighted system to form my initial master list. Obviously intangibles will affect things after that, but that will be my starting point.

[elliott]

In the Bruno Sammartino thread @CurtainJerker had a great post that has got me thinking. I didn't want to derail the Bruno thread so I wanted to reply to it here. I have lots of random thoughts so I thought it was best to have some fun and respond to it like its tOA in 1999.

Here's the original post

 

https://forums.prowrestlingonly.com/topic/28765-bruno-sammartino/?do=findComment&comment=5967701 

Quote

 

I do agree that everyone has an argument, and I did not mean to be controversial in any way. I have a feeling many others have hesitations about where to fit such popular stars. I hope discussions here, the official GWE podcast. and Discord channel can make things more clear to me on what I am judging when I watch video.

 

Oh I dont think its controversial to not vote for Hogan, Dusty, Rock, Bruno types. The best any of them did is 75th (Hogan, and he was still behind Brian Pillman & Kurt Angle). I think proposing those top guys are great in ring performers is gonna be more controversial for a lot of people 
 

Quote

 

It's a different debate/thread and I haven't made up my mind for sure, and I certainly don't want to gatekeep anyone's choices, but to me Hogan and Rock are so dependent on their total career value, drawing power, pops, booking, big moment opportunities, mic work, storylines, access to the best opponents, and marketing that if I just focus on in-ring, there are probably 100 wrestlers who were better. Tito Santana was a better wrestler than Hogan, unless we insist it was Hogan's psychology that made him millions and not his looks or booking. I do appreciate Hogan's selling and the Rock's timing. Both are masters of psychology, and I still am befuddled how to account this list for crowd connection.

 

 

I think Hogan's psychology & talent had a ton to do with why he became literally the biggest star in the history of wrestling. It was definitely not just the looks & the booking. If it was, there would've have been more stars on the level of Hulk Hogan. Lord knows they tried to create more but they could neve replicate the magic, because Hogan had the looks & and the booking but as importantly Hogan was also a great pro-wrestler. All the great booking, marketing and mic work don't mean anything if you can't perform when the bell rings. Hogan brought the goods. He was great at selling, phenomenal puncher. Really excelled in 10-15 minute sprints. He was a better athlete than we remember. More than willing to bleed. Underrated tag wrestler. He's awesome working the apron and waiting for the hot tag. Like one of the best apron workers of all time. Great on the hot tag too. His offense is limited but its good. The punches look good, the big boot often looks good, his body slam is perfection, great atomic drop, good lariat, I have no issues with the leg drop either. He'd mix in other stuff too on occasion (suplexes or backbreakers) and it tends to look good because Hulk Hogan wasn't gonna try and do stuff that he couldn't do. There are pros & cons to this for sure that we could get into if necessary. When he did step outside of his comfort zone he showed he could do more than what Vince asked him to. 

Rock you could argue became a huge star in spite of the booking. Nobody looks back at the Russo Era fondly for the booking. After Russo left HHH really rose to power and he wasn't trying to do The Rock any favors. Rock's 1999 PPVs look like this:
Rumble - Beat Foley

St Valentine's Day - Double KO w/ Foley

WrestleMania - Loss to Austin

Backlash - Loss to Austin

Ove the Edge - Beat HHH by DQ

King of the Ring - Loss to Undertaker

Fully Loaded - Loss to HHH in a No DQ Strap Match

SummerSlam - Beat Billy Gunn in a "Kiss My Ass" match 

Unforgiven - Loss to HHH in  6 pack challenge also in the match Mankind, Big Show, Davey Boy Smith, Kane 

No Mercy - Beat Davey Boy Smith 

Survivor Series - Loss to Big Show (HHH also in match and to be fair HHH took the fall amazingly)

Armageddon - teaming with Foley beat New Age Outlaws

This is not the big match resume' of someone who is benefitting from a ton of booking & access to quality opponents. 

Rock was an incredible athlete & bumper for his size. He understood how to work heel & babyface and how to adjust his ring work accordingly, even in the same match if necessary. Underrated offensive wrestler at different stages of his career. Knew how to change up based on his opponent. He didn't work the same against Austin as he did Hogan as he did Kurt Angle as he did against HHH. 

I would push back on the idea that they had "access to the best opponents." Hogan definitely got to wrestle some great opponents in his prime. Bockwinkel & Savage the obvious ones, I think Orndorff is really underrated & Piper eve more so. But he had to work with a lot of bad-mediocre wrestlers too. I love King Kong Bundy but they were trying to make the 2nd biggest show in wrestling history happen and Bundy was Hogan's opponent. I would argue that Ric Flair consistently got to work with a higher level of opponent than Hogan did. When HOgan was against good opponents, he had good to great matches. He gave some people the best match of their career: Kamala, Ultimate Warrior, Tenta, Bossman. 

Rock probably peaks around 2001. He has 4 matches that year opposite Shane McMahon not Jun Akiyama. His career rivals are Austin (great) and HHH (the worst). Rock wasn't Flair or  Misawa out there working with Kenta Kobashi and Ricky Steamboat for the better part of a decade. 

 

 

Quote

 

If crowd connection is such a valued attribute, then our lists would be the most popular wrestlers of all time. Or if it was based on titles, main events, and awards, I'd just copy + paste my spreadsheet that ranks that, and give it to Flair, Thesz, Londos, Bruno, Hogan, and friends.

 

Its not just about crowd connection. And no one is talking about titles or awards. Its about the work & performance. Connecting with the crowd is certainly part of that. I think connecting with the crowd is a more important trait or skill a for pro-wrestler than doing the smoothest dropkick or the best bridge on a german suplex.
 

Quote

 

I think, say, Rick Steamboat does everything better than Hogan/Rock except make more money, and if I was doing some kind of draft the only reason why I'd choose Hulk or Rock over Steamboat would be because of charisma/drawing power, not because of wrestling skill.

 

RIcky Steamboat doesn't work heel better than Hogan or Rock. I'm not sure I'd say Steamboat is a better brawler. Hogan got over better & has better matches in Japan than Steamboat. And that's not an access to opponents thing unless you want to argue Inoki or the Road Warriors are better wrestlers than Flair, Tenryu & Misawa. If I were doing some kind of draft I'd choose Rock or Hogan over Steamboat because I'd be able to hire an army of Steamboats with all the money I rake in with HOgan or Rock  But thats not what this project is about. This project is about the performance. 
 

Quote

 In my world, Bob Orton, Jr and Paul Orndorff actually wrestled better than Hogan in the 1980s. X-Pac was technically better than The Rock in the 1990s. I view Bob Backlund as being more of an "actual" pro wrestler than an entertaining strong man like Hogan, just as Dory Funk, Jr. is more "technical" than Bruno. Pat Patterson was probably a better ring general and bump taker. Terry Funk once observed that joshi he saw were better than the men- they "did more", were faster, had innovative highspots, worked stiffer, showed more toughness, etc. In a vacuum, Hogan, Rock, Dusty, Bruno, and Austin are rough around the edges in ring, more comparable to Mid South Jim Duggan or The Crusher than to all around, classic athletic performers like pre-Model Rick Martel or Jack Brisco. Those rough guys had more exciting matches, though. So excuse my ramblings.

Everyone you mentioned here has a strong chance to make my list other than Crusher or Dory Funk Jr.

I got room for Abdullah the Butcher and Rick Martel. 

 

[club]

This thread has been a really interesting read.

 

In terms of my own process, the first thing is to recognise is that for me at least this is an impossible task in that there’s so much footage of so many people, and not enough time. There are areas that I’ll likely not get to at all, partly due to time, partly due to the product not appealing to me. And that’s fine.

 

I’ve come to this from the GME project, which has really rekindled my interest in wrestling after it being on the wane for a few years. The starting point is finding people whose matches I enjoy watching. There are people I’ve wanted to check out properly for 20 years and never quite found the time. There’s stuff I haven’t seen for 20 years. All of it needs watching. There’s plenty to get through, I tend to watch lots from a 2-3 wrestlers for a few weeks then move on when I get bored.

 

Having a greatest hits or primer on wrestlers I’m less familiar with has been a realistic way to delve into the careers of a lot of these wrestlers. It doesn’t give a full picture but it is an achievable way of getting a taste of a wide range of people.

 

From there I’ve gone down rabbit holes for the people I’ve enjoyed the most to get a fuller picture of wrestlers I really enjoy. I’m basically only really looking at when they were good. It’s interesting to see more, but for this project there’s no way I could do that with everyone I want to watch.

 

In terms of a criteria, I know greatness when I see it. It’s a subjective thing for me and it varies from performer to performer. I expect this to lead to plenty of inconsistency, but will ultimately give me a better understanding of what I mean when I say great.

 

A bit of a tangent but I’m also trying to better understand the performers within the context of the promotion and the wider culture. I think this is something we can take for granted in culture and promotions that we’re familiar with, and make assumptions about with ones we aren’t.

For example I understand Randy Savage’s role in late 80s - early 90s WWF very clearly. I was there, I lived it and understand his character, his role in the promotion, the WWF house style and at least in part the culture at the time (I’m British). Likewise I have a reasonably good handle on the context for say 90s Sabu, 00-10s Hiroshi Tanahashi and 70s-80s Jim Breaks, and it helps me to better appreciate them. I can’t really say the same for the likes of Jackie Sato, Jerry Lawler or Negro Casas. Not yet anyway.

[cheapshot]

Like Chad said earlier, you can't watch all the footage. Just enjoy the process. 

[brockobama]

Wrestling wasn't meant to be enjoyed, much less something like this.

[Dav'oh]

It's pulp fiction, it's a penny dreadful. To be read and tossed aside. There's always another match, always.

I wouldn't say it's not to be enjoyed. Nor that there aren't people who enjoy treating every match as a Shakespearean tragedy, to be analysed and criticised and contextualised and various other "-ised" words. The Wrestling Intelligentsia, if you will. 

It's all valid. But if you're not enjoying it, what's the point?

[CurtainJerker]

Hi Elliot,

I had to digest what you said here and on Discord for a long time.

You are blowing my "access to opponents" line (which was in a listing many other items) way out of proportion. I never said Hogan didn't carry worse wrestlers, or that it relates to him getting over in Japan. I meant that Vince would heat up good opponents for him in important events seen by many. Compare that to a Rip Rogers or John Tatum type. My point is not all wrestlers have the same opportunities in the big show against big opponents. Hogan over in Japan because of his unique looks, not because of his in-ring work.

I grew up with him and watched all of his matches on video. I can see he was good. I don't want people reading this think I am against him. I just don't see how he was a better wrestler than the technical ones or specialized brawlers/high flyers. He was more entertaining, though.

Jim Londos was a great wrestler, but he was #1 in box office because of his looks. He got the push because of his looks. He made the best of it. Great format: beauty vs the beast, make the comeback. 

I don't think you convinced me that you are judging Hogan just based on his matches. I'm not sure why Hogan's superstardom and being pushed in the main slot (and others being unable to take his place) should count for GWE. Or stuff like Vince asking him to do stuff outside of his comfort zone.

Not sure why him excelling in sprints (something almost everyone in Stardom does) overrides him not having stamina. Not sure why he gets "points" for the occasional suplex compared to The Steiners making up new suplexes.

You had a lot of faint praise for Hulk: underrated tag wrestler, limited yet efficient moveset, willingness to bleed, good puncher, and not as a bad athlete as we remember. Do you use that same criteria for others? Hogan may rank #593 in willingness to bleed. Why is it even a factor?

There are many others who were better sellers and tag wrestlers than Hulk. Was he in the Top 10 of each? Maybe selling, but I didn't list them out. But having great apron work reminds me of when Jericho says he is GOAT because he reinvents himself every few months. Since when is that a criterion for GWE? Maybe it is, since anything goes as long as we watch the videos. When I read debates, it seems like everyone just makes their own system up. Maybe I should, too. Except when I bring up using canon or titles or awards, I am told that is not GWE.

Why deduct a point from Steamboat for not being a heel, when he perfected being a babyface, while Hogan was basically an anti-hero as a babyface? Give Hulk a bonus for being a great heel with the nWo. That should not be a negative for Ricky especially since promoters refused to turn him.

Vince McMahon, Sr., Sam Mushnick, Verne Gagne, and "the boys in the back" viewed Bob Backlund was a better wrestler and worker than Hulk Hogan, but Hogan was the better mainstream draw, more popular, had better look/size, had more charisma, and was better on the mic. Hogan knew Backlund was the better wrestler. Backlund at his peak had great crowd connection, but he lost them toward the end of his run. So did Hogan, by the way. In fact his peak is a lot smaller than many believe, as was his match output.

When Hogan and Dusty Rhodes try to wrestle like Backlund (armlocks, submissions) they almost always failed and those sequences were boring. In other words, they were poor mat wrestlers and had poor execution of the basic fundamentals of being pro wrestlers. But boy, they could sell, had great comebacks, had charisma, and made tons of cash. It feels like the Pro Wrestling vs Sports Entertainment debate, which taken to its logical conclusion results in "anything goes, all styles are created equal, wrestling is absurd". 

All the voters all value different things. Lots of it is based on us being entertained. Some say we are just voting for our favorites.

Last time in the GWE, Hogan averaged #41 and Backlund was #54.

Where would you rank Backlund if you have Hogan penciled in at #75?

[elliott]

Quote

 

Hi Elliot,

I had to digest what you said here and on Discord for a long time.

 

Hi! Its been a year. I had to re-read all of the threads to know what was happening! LOLOL

 

Quote

You are blowing my "access to opponents" line (which was in a listing many other items) way out of proportion. I never said Hogan didn't carry worse wrestlers, or that it relates to him getting over in Japan. I meant that Vince would heat up good opponents for him in important events seen by many. 

I had to check what was said because I had no idea because its been a year. You said:

Quote

 

"It's a different debate/thread and I haven't made up my mind for sure, and I certainly don't want to gatekeep anyone's choices, but to me Hogan and Rock are so dependent on their total career value, drawing power, pops, booking, big moment opportunities, mic work, storylines, access to the best opponents, and marketing that if I just focus on in-ring, there are probably 100 wrestlers who were better." 

 

The line was  "access to the best opponents." I was just pointing out that Hogan's opponents weren't always the best. Sometimes he'd be out there with Nick Bockwinkel or a Randy Savage, other times he was in the ring with a Nikolai Volkoff or a Big John Studd. "Access to the best opponents" doesn't at all read like good oppoents were heated up for him in important events seen by many. It just read like "Access to the best opponents."  But I've seen enough Volkoff & Studd to know that there's no amount of heating up possible that makes those guys good opponents for anyone.  But I don't see what the problem is? The job of a wrestling promoter is to heat wrestlers up and pit them against each other to draw money.  Lots of people got to work in heated up programs against hot opponents. We can point to a million hot programs over the years.  We can point to people who delivered when given those opportunities and we can point to people who didn't. The performance is what matters

You did list many other items but I wasn't sure how to respond to some of them or the point of others or something. I dunno its from a year ago. I'll hit them now though if you like. 

Total career value - Not sure what you mean by this. I'm just watching the matches and performances and seeing if they're good or bad. 

Drawing power - Not something I care about I haven' t looked at one card and said "ah, sellout, great!" Terry FUnk is my #1 and he was the worst drawing NWA champ of his era. I still love the crazy bastard and no one's taking that #1 spot. 

"Pops." I don't even know what to say to that.  Wrestling is a form of performance art that engages its live audience. Reactions are the point? Who is responsible for those pops?

Booking, I don't care about booking. I probably am the most forgiving person possible of a shitty rip off finish. I don't care who wins or who loses or where you are on the card. Was the match good? Were the performances good?

Big moment opportunities - "Big moment opportunites" are important only in the sense of are you delivering  or aren't you. Not everyone gets big opportunities. Not all careers are equal. 

Mic work - I'm literally not watching any promos. The last promo I watched was a Matt Borne as Doink promo like over a year ago. I couldn't possibly be a more wrong person to suggest I place any value on promos. I fast forward that. I'm just watching the matches. The only time I'll ever get excited about promo's is Andy Kaufman but I'm not considering his promo's as part of his case. 

Storylines - See above. I just watch the matches. 

Access to the best opponents - we covered that. 

Marketing - Don't care. When I watched Hogan vs Kamala at MSG and thought it was a really good match, I didn't listen to the local radio spots beforehand or buy any Hulkster shirts. I watched the match 30+ years later and thought "that was a really good match" 

 

Quote

 

Compare that to a Rip Rogers or John Tatum type. My point is not all wrestlers have the same opportunities in the big show against big opponents. Hogan over in Japan because of his unique looks, not because of his in-ring work.

 

On your first point, we agree. . Its about making the most of your opportunities and delivering with the opportunities you're given. I've said several times throughout this project that i find it impossible to have a set in stone criteria becasue not all wrestlers have the same opportunities so you have to look at what each wrestler did and consider it on its on terms. I

What I would do is watch a bunch of Rip Rogers or John Tatums, think about what they do and don't t do well, highlight performances I like and go from there.  

On your 2nd point we agree & disagree. Hogan's unique look definitely plays a huge role in him getting over everywhere. Absolutely. Nobody would deny that. The look is part of the total package.  The fact that he was able to stay over for so long was because he delivered. If Hogan's performance & skills didn't matter, they could've easily just replicated Hogan's drawing power & appeal with Ultimate Warrior. Lord knows they tried. Warrior couldn't hold up his end of the bargain.  Anecdotally, all of my friends in high school who were those Attitude Era teenage fans, they all quit watching in 2002-03 when it became all about HHH. HHH wasn't delivering with his wealth of opportunities because HHH stunk  

Getting the opportunity isn't whats important, its what you do with it. 

 

Quote

I grew up with him and watched all of his matches on video. I can see he was good. I don't want people reading this think I am against him. I just don't see how he was a better wrestler than the technical ones or specialized brawlers/high flyers. He was more entertaining, though.

 

I grew up with him and watched all his matches on video. I loved him as a young kid but hated him as a teenager. I thought he was slow and old and was an asshole holding down my favorites like Juventud or Rey Misterio. I wanted to watch this new stuff I was learning about like MIchinoku Pro or All Japan. I've only come around on Hogan somewhat recently and see him as a great wrestler. Things Hogan is good at like structuring his matches, psychology, selling, engaging with the live crowd are some of the things I value most in wrestling at this point. 

 

Quote

Jim Londos was a great wrestler, but he was #1 in box office because of his looks. He got the push because of his looks. He made the best of it. Great format: beauty vs the beast, make the comeback. 

 

Jim Londos isn't someone I'm considering for the project becasue we don't have the matches to see how good he was. Jimmy Londos is #1 in a different project. Not this one. 

 

Quote

I don't think you convinced me that you are judging Hogan just based on his matches. I'm not sure why Hogan's superstardom and being pushed in the main slot (and others being unable to take his place) should count for GWE. Or stuff like Vince asking him to do stuff outside of his comfort zone.

 

I don't know who you are, you're responding to a post from a year ago, I have hardly posted here lately and so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it and know that I completely forgot about this discussion from last year?  If you've followed on the discord then you'll know what when I watch matches I often provide commentary and screen shots on things I like. You won't see me talking about how much the show drew though or the cool interview because I don't care for the sake of this project. I'm just watching the matches and performances and seeing if they're good or not and making observations based on that.  I'm not counting his push or main event spot, you're saying I am. I can't help that. I am so the wrong person to accuse of this becuase like my entire engagement with wrestling at this point is just watching the matches. I don't care about promos, angles storylines whatever. I'm literally not watching them. The commentary often tells you everything you need to know about that stuff and in international stuff you can just figure out whats going on by watching: its wrestling not rocket science. 

 

Quote

Not sure why him excelling in sprints (something almost everyone in Stardom does) overrides him not having stamina. Not sure why he gets "points" for the occasional suplex compared to The Steiners making up new suplexes.

You had a lot of faint praise for Hulk: underrated tag wrestler, limited yet efficient moveset, willingness to bleed, good puncher, and not as a bad athlete as we remember.

 

He was mostly booked to work in short 8-12 minute long matches during his WWF prime. I pointed out that he was good at that style of match. Wrestlers should be good at working the styles of matches they are booked to work. He had enough  stamina to go out and work his style of match. If he was booked to go long and he blew up and his lack of stamina negatively affected the match, that would be an issue. But that wasn't  an issue until much later in his career when his body was breaking down. I tend to be more forgiving than most about that sort of thing. 

I  didn't say "points" for the occasional suplex so I'm not sure why you're using quotes. I did suggest that Hogan knew what he was good at and had enough stuff that he didn't need to use it all in every match but could add in different things from time to time and it would always look good. This is a good trait. I also noted that someone in his position (literally the most famous wrestler in the entire world) probably did play a part in his decision to stick to what he knew he was good at. A year ago, I chose to make no value judgement on that. I I said  "There are pros & cons to this for sure that we could get into if necessary. When he did step outside of his comfort zone he showed he could do more than what Vince asked him to." 

He had a formula but he wasn't doing the exact same match every time. I'm not giving out points or counting up moves.  I chose to make no judgment on it but just noted it as a reality. 

You say its "faint praise" because you choose to view it as faint praise and you aren't looking at the full picture of what I'm saying. Yes I did say he was an underrated tag wrestler (unclear why thats faint praise but that's the value you chose to place on it) but I also said this about his tag work:

"He's awesome working the apron and waiting for the hot tag. Like one of the best apron workers of all time. Great on the hot tag too."

That's not faint praise. That's pointing out things he awesome, best of all time and Great at. These are traits. Ones he's quite good at in my opinion you can see. 

I also didn't say "limited but efficient" moveset. I said "limited but good." I called it straight up good, because Hogan's offense was good. I also said "The punches look good, the big boot often looks good, his body slam is perfection, great atomic drop, good lariat, I have no issues with the leg drop either. He'd mix in other stuff too on occasion (suplexes or backbreakers) and it tends to look good because Hulk Hogan wasn't gonna try and do stuff that he couldn't do."

I called his offense good and then listed a bunch of shit that I think he does well. I even poked a little fun at him for whiffing on the big boot sometimes "the big boot often looks good." Its not a complete list, just a quick offering up of stuff he can do & do well. He's not Akira Hokuto out there. But the stuff he did looked good consistently. 

This is not me damning Hogan with faint praise. This is pointing out good traits. 

Willingness to bleed - I like blood. Sue me. I like it in brawls. Hogan was the biggest star in the world in 1984 and 1985 but he'd bleed a gusher on occasion and good for him. I'm not saying all wrestling needs to have blood or a wrestler needs to bleed to be great. I'm just noting it as something Hogan would do to add to his matches that he really didnt' need to do if he didn't want to but he would on occasion to make make the performance more intense, engaging & dramatic.  Its just one of several things I noted. 

Good puncher - anyone who has ever talked to me about wrestling knows I love punches. Hogan used a lot of punches and they often looked good-great. Not sure what the problem is.

Not a bad as athlete as we remember - Yeah, Hogan was a lot smoother and natural in the ring than his reputation from hardcore fans would lead you to believe. Looking the part both physically (MUSCLES~!) and athletically is a good thing. Hogan didn't have to rely on just being a roided up freak because he was a good athlete too. 
 

Quote

 

Do you use that same criteria for others? Hogan may rank #593 in willingness to bleed. Why is it even a factor?

 

^Bolded by me for emphasis. I think maybe this is our big issue. 

These aren't criteria. 
These are traits. 

I can't remember Kiyoshi Tamura ever bleeding in a match but he's gonna be way ahead of Hogan. 

Hogan being willing to bleed is a trait not a criteria. 

Hogan being a great tag worker is a trait not a criteria. 

I don't have set criteria. Every wrestler is different and should be taken on a case by case basis. I've said this throughout the project.  Everybody's opportunity and role was different. There are general things I like and look for. But I don't have a set criteria or formula or boxes I check off. THat's just not how I engage with this stuff. 

 

Quote

There are many others who were better sellers and tag wrestlers than Hulk. Was he in the Top 10 of each? Maybe selling, but I didn't list them out

I very much doubt I'd have Hogan as a top 10 seller or tag wrestler. But so what? Are the 10 best sellers ever the only people that should be considered great sellers? Are they (whomever they are) the only people who can be praised for their selling? Hogan was great at selling. That is a thing you would want a wrestler to be great at. Whats the problem here? I think selling is the single most important thing in wrestling. Literally #1. So Hogan being a great & consistently logical seller is a meaningful trait to me. You might argue its not logical and the Hulk Up is stupid. And that's fine. We would have to agree to disagree. Because  within the made up world of pro-wrestling, Hulk Hogan Hulks up. It becomes logical because it is treated as such and thats what matters. 

Hogan sometimes worked in tag matches. And when he did he was often great in them, stood out and knew how to do the things that make tag matches special & different from singles matches. He knew how to engage from the apron and from inside the ring. He knew what to do during ref distraction spots. I already mentioned he's an awesome hot tag. That he was great and stood out in them and knew how to work them from different points of emphasis is a good thing that we would want from a wrestler. Why should we ignore it for Hogan? So what if he's not Arn Anderson or Bobby Eaton out there. He can still be a great tag wrestler when he's given the opportunity to work tag matches. 

 

Quote

. But having great apron work reminds me of when Jericho says he is GOAT because he reinvents himself every few months. Since when is that a criterion for GWE?

Its not a criteria, its a trait. I also said he was great on the hot tag but you left that out as well. I will have people on my list who aren't great tag wrestlers and people who are. 

 

Quote

Maybe it is, since anything goes as long as we watch the videos. When I read debates, it seems like everyone just makes their own system up. Maybe I should, too. Except when I bring up using canon or titles or awards, I am told that is not GWE.

 

You are welcome to use whatever criteria you choose to. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. The point is to watch wrestling and talk about it becasue we're dorks who like to watch wrestling and talk about it. If you choose to value like PWI 500 placements or number of intercontinental titles feel free. That's kinda not the point of the project but you are free to do what you wish and engage how you choose. Its just I wouldn't expect much engagement becasue those things aren't what this project is about. 

The only criteria is to enjoy yourself watching wrestling. That's all this is. An excuse to watch a ton of wrestling and then at the end you make a list. What you choose to value is up to you. 

 

Quote

Why deduct a point from Steamboat for not being a heel, when he perfected being a babyface, while Hogan was basically an anti-hero as a babyface? Give Hulk a bonus for being a great heel with the nWo. That should not be a negative for Ricky especially since promoters refused to turn him.

My remark about Hogan being a better heel It was a tongue in cheek response to you saying "Rick Steamboat does everything better than Hogan/Rock except make more money." I'm not deducting a point for Steamboat for not working heel. I was jokingly pointing to something Hogan did better than Steamboat. I think Steamboat is a better wrestler than Hogan. 

I also pointed out that Hogan was better at delivering  in Japan than Steamboat and I stand by that as a non-tongue-in-cheek comment I've always been bored by Steamboat's Japan matches while Hogan has a bunch of stuff I really like. And its not a situation where Hogan is getting better opportunities. Steamboat is getting to go over and work with Ric Flair, Jumbo Tsuruta or Misawa and he has boring matches.  

I also said Hogan was a better brawler than Steamboat. That also doesn't deduct a point from Steamboat. That's just saying Hogan is better at this one thing. Steamboat is better than Hogan at other things. 

I still think Steamboat is a better wrestler than Hulk Hogan. Not all candidacies are the same. Just because someone is better at one thing doesnt mean they're better at all things. 

 

Quote

Vince McMahon, Sr., Sam Mushnick, Verne Gagne, and "the boys in the back" viewed Bob Backlund was a better wrestler and worker than Hulk Hogan, but Hogan was the better mainstream draw, more popular, had better look/size, had more charisma, and was better on the mic. Hogan knew Backlund was the better wrestler. Backlund at his peak had great crowd connection, but he lost them toward the end of his run. So did Hogan, by the way. In fact his peak is a lot smaller than many believe, as was his match output.

 

I don't care what wrestlers or promoters think. I don't listen to shoot interviews or read autobiographies. I don't care about any of that. I'm just watching old matches and coming to conclusions based on that. 

We disagree about Hogan's match output. I think he had lots of very good-great matches as early as 1980 and as late as 2002. I would never argue he was great or even good that entire time as there are some very low points of course. But I have zero problem calling Hogan a great wrestler. I think his in-ring peak is probably 1984-1988 with some amazing stuff before and after that. I would actually say that Hogan has a much bigger output than many hardcore fans believe as evidenced by your response,  but I value different things and see things differently than most hardcore fans.  

 

Quote

When Hogan and Dusty Rhodes try to wrestle like Backlund (armlocks, submissions) they almost always failed and those sequences were boring. In other words, they were poor mat wrestlers and had poor execution of the basic fundamentals of being pro wrestlers. But boy, they could sell, had great comebacks, had charisma, and made tons of cash. It feels like the Pro Wrestling vs Sports Entertainment debate, which taken to its logical conclusion results in "anything goes, all styles are created equal, wrestling is absurd". 

All the voters all value different things. Lots of it is based on us being entertained. Some say we are just voting for our favorites.

Have you seen the Dusty vs Backlund match from NJPW becasue its a lot of fun. What about the Hogan vs Backlund match from Philly that's 30 minutes of young pre-prime Hogan keeping up with Backlund. Its clearly Backlund leading the match...but you would expect the veteran long time world champ to lead the new young villain. 

Anyway, I don't think just like executing armlocks and submissions are all it takes to be a great wrestler. I think there's a lot more to it than that. I'm looking at performance, not just technique. The performance involves a lot more than just who can do the smoothest looking drop toe hold and floatover. 

I disagree that Hogan had poor execution of the fundamentals of being a pro-wrestler. I think Hogan was fundamentally sound and was capable of working good-great matches with a wide variety of opponents of varying levels of talent in different but often extremly high profile settings (thinking about Pressure to perform in stressful situations not ticket sales). I think the fundamentals are related as much to psychology and selling and understanding how to work in a variety of different situations. Knowing all the holds is great but you don't need to know all the holds to be a great wrestler.   If thats what you think, that's great. Just know that I view things differently.  

You are the one who keeps bringing up drawing, stop projecting that onto me. I don't care about that stuff for a project like this. We do the Greatest Match Ever all the time and my #1 US match of all time is Jerry Lawler vs Austin Idol. It drew 85,000 fewer fans than Hogan vs Andre did a month earlier. I still like the Lawler vs Idol match better

I do like charismatic wrestlers. Probably every great wrestler is charismatic. But its not a criteria, its a trait.   Backlund was charsismatic too, drew a ton and had an amazing connection with the crowd. One of the loudest reactions I've ever heard is the finish of the Backlund vs Patera Texas Death Match. Its not like he was Joe Malenko out there wrestling in a vacuum 

I've also said many times that I don't think all styles are created equal. THere are styles of wrestling I don't like and they won't be represented on my list. 

 

Quote

Last time in the GWE, Hogan averaged #41 and Backlund was #54.

Where would you ran Backlund if you have Hogan penciled in at #75?

 

This...this is not what happened. 

https://forums.prowrestlingonly.com/topic/33853-greatest-wrestler-ever-master-rankings-list-do-not-post-in-this-thread/

93) Bob Backlund (2495 points, 57 ballots, 57.40 avg, high: 5 - Scott Bernard, 2006: 76)

75) Hulk Hogan (3155 points, 78 ballots, 60.65 avg, high: 6 - Chris Powell, 2006: 86)

Hogan's average vote was 60.65  Backlund's was 57.40. But Hogan was on more ballots so he finished higher. No clue where the numbers "41" and "54 come in. 

And just to hit absolutely everything, I said that Hogan finished 75 in the 2016 project. I didn't say I had him "penciled in" for 75. He didn't make my list in 2016. He's likely to make my list this time, but I'm not sure where.

If you're asking on a hypotheical list that I made where Hogan ended up ranked 75th where would I rate Backlund in comparison to Hogan? Well sorry to disappoint but I cant answer that.  I have a lot more Backlund yet. I want to watch more of his prime stuff. I LOVE his comeback run in 1994. Heel Backlund is amazing and its the sort of post-prime stuff that definitely helps in my mind. Whenever I've watched Backlund in the past I've always really enjoyed him I just haven't done  a focused Backlund project to really hammer out my thoughts on him. I could still name a bunch of Backlund I already like from his prime though and given how much I like a lot of the late 70s & early 80s WWF I expect Backlund to deliver whenever I do end up watching him in depth. 

But again we seem to value very different things and approach what makes a good wrestler or good performance from very different places. 

Edit:

Wanted to mention since this started in the Bruno thread. Since that thread I've watched almost every single Bruno match I could find and I think he's one of the best American wrestlers of all time. So its safe to say we have different things we look for in what makes a wrestler great. 

[SAMS]

I was too late to the party last time round to submit a ballot, but the 2016 GWE project was what brought me to this site, what got me back into wrestling after my initial fandom tapered off as a teenager, and simultaneously exposed me to a myriad of wrestlers and promotions that I'd only vaguely heard of before if at all. I can't stress enough how highly I think of this project, as it provided thread upon thread of, what seemed to me, a treasure trove of information. Covid and empty arena shows sapped my enthusiasm for keeping up with the latest product but finding out a few months ago that this project was up and running again has really given me the impetus to dive right back in and watch wrestling more consistently again. Special thanks to @Grimmas for his work in running both the previous project and this one and to anybody else I've overlooked.

Having said that, if the poll had been conducted at the end of 2019 for example, after I'd watched literally thousands of matches, I still would have felt under qualified to submit a ballot. I have too many obvious blindspots and of course, there are plenty posters here who are so incredibly well versed in all things wrestling that it can at times feel a bit intimidating. 

Now I'm not posting this as a criticism of the board, but more of myself. This required of a mindset change from me. I can't point to many posts here, if any at all, where I thought somebody had been less than welcoming to new people on the board, so what I needed to do was to learn to be comfortable with where I was at with my viewing process. I'm dead set on submitting a ballot in 2026, but even if I'm able to crank out a crazy amount of wrestling viewing in the next few years I'm still going to be miles behind where I'd need to be to submit a comprehensive ballot, and I need to be okay with that. There's always 2036!

Maybe others don't feel the same way, but I'd bet there are. I just want to encourage anybody who's newer to the internet wrestling community, anybody who's a serial lurker on this or any other board, anybody who thinks that they don't know enough to submit a ballot, to get stuck in, see where they are by the time 2026 comes around and just try and submit the best ballot they can. As people have mentioned earlier, the reward is in the journey and not the destination with something like this.

In terms of methodology, I know Parv's BIGLAV system gets a lot of shit here, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people use something similar, at least as a starting point. There are too many wrestlers, too many matches, too many years. To try and weigh that just in your mind seems impossible to me, I need some numbers to fall back on just to make sense of it all. I submitted a ballot for PTBN's GWWE poll a few years ago and I used a model of sorts to derive my final ballot, and guess what, I hate my ballot looking back on it. Some of that is because I was rushing to cover as many years as possible and I didn't have the time to dig into the cases that I would have liked for some people, but it was mostly the system I used that needed some major fine tuning. All of this is to say that the method I'm using is currently in flux and is subject to major change over the next few years.

Finally, the process. Everybody has preferences and blindspots and their own way of trying to tackle these. I realised when watching stuff for the aforementioned GWWE poll that I got burned out on WWE (unsurprisingly) and I've heard similar things for those who went through, say 90s AJPW. For me, I've done an initial, surface level run of WWE from 70s-2020, watched the most easily accessible footage for both AJ and NJ in the 70s and then AJ in the 80s, whatever PPVs the Network has for JCP/Mid-Atlantic, the 1990 Yearbook, 2016-2020 New Japan and AEW from its inception until 2020. That leaves some massive gaping holes. MattD has talked about following a single wrestler and branching off of their career arc, others will focus on specific promotions at specific times. For me, my plan is to try and do a chronological approach, yearbook style, starting in 1980. That will involve trying to cover as many promotions, regions and wrestlers as possible for 1980 and the following years. If I focus too much on one wrestler or one promotion I would eventually end up bored and get itchy feet. Here I think, while I'm limiting myself to a certain timeframe, I'm going to get a constant change of styles and settings, which I think will help me stay on track for the duration of the project. The likelihood of me even making it to 1990? I'd say pretty low. But my main aim is to finish the 80s if I can. That means that my ballot should mostly look like it was submitted at the end of 1989. And you know what, I'm ok with that. Where I am right now, I'd rather have a solid, deep understanding of the wrestling landscape of the 80s (only having lived through maybe 1% of it) and the wrestler's that it contained, than spread myself too thin and have a shallower appreciation of the wrestler's that I end up voting for, which is what happened in my GWWE poll. 

This is in no way me advocating that other's should follow the same approach, it's just me outlining how I plan on tackling this project and highlighting the pros and cons of said approach. There will be plenty of people who skew younger who were never able to watch the mainstream stuff in realtime, let alone the more obscure stuff. And with each passing 10 years, the amount of wrestling that you need to catch up on becomes bigger and bigger. I don't blame anybody who literally starts in 2010 and just powers through the last 10-15 years and only has modern guys on their ballot. Each to their own. The more variety we have the more interesting the final list will be.

[CurtainJerker]

On 1/5/2023 at 3:56 AM, SAMS said:

Parv's BIGLAV system gets a lot of shit here

It really shouldn't. It's amazing how it was so offensive to people, even though in the end we are all attempting to quantify the subjective.

I'd recommend a Preference Checker to build a list as well: https://czeckd.github.io/preference-revealer/dist/

I may be cynical but it all ultimately comes down which wrestler has the most appealing style to voters, also called My 100 Favorite Wrestlers.

I do confess I would have liked some rules or marching orders besides "there are no rules besides the wrestler must have been nominated" and "footage, footage, footage".

 

[SAMS]

10 hours ago, CurtainJerker said:

I'd recommend a Preference Checker to build a list as well: https://czeckd.github.io/preference-revealer/dist/

Oh no....You've just guaranteed that I'm gonna sink so much time into tinkering with this!

I do think there's a way to compile a list that isn't purely "My Favourite 100 Wrestlers", but I agree that it all stems from people's subjective preferences and therefore can't be divorced entirely from who they naturally gravitate towards, i.e. their favourites. Either way, having your own system or criteria is good and just helps sift through the mass of information far easier than trying to do it mentally.

I'm wading through 1980 at the minute and just trying to figure out how to do a wrestler of the year list is stumping me atm, I have no idea how I'm going to create a satisfactory all-time list!

[Clayton Jones]

Two years ago I said I'd check in with thoughts on my criteria as it became more clear to me. About 300 matches later (which is about 100 less than I hoped for, but that's life) I feel like a few key traits are emerging for me that help define greatness as it relates to this project. For me thus far, the greatest wrestlers are almost always present. This doesn't always mean great at improvisation, but staying engaged in the moment, with the crowd, with their opponent. The greatest wrestlers know when to make themselves look great and when to make their opponents look great and often can do both at the same time. And the greatest wrestlers always leave you wanting more, at least through their prime. That's a pretty basic set of criteria after two years, but it's where I'm landing right now on what moves the needle for me.

My biggest struggle is peak VS longevity, because I know I'm extremely biased towards the latter, but don't want to discount the great cases for the former.

[Ma Stump Puller]

1 hour ago, Clayton Jones said:

Two years ago I said I'd check in with thoughts on my criteria as it became more clear to me. About 300 matches later (which is about 100 less than I hoped for, but that's life) I feel like a few key traits are emerging for me that help define greatness as it relates to this project. For me thus far, the greatest wrestlers are almost always present. This doesn't always mean great at improvisation, but staying engaged in the moment, with the crowd, with their opponent. The greatest wrestlers know when to make themselves look great and when to make their opponents look great and often can do both at the same time. And the greatest wrestlers always leave you wanting more, at least through their prime. That's a pretty basic set of criteria after two years, but it's where I'm landing right now on what moves the needle for me.

My biggest struggle is peak VS longevity, because I know I'm extremely biased towards the latter, but don't want to discount the great cases for the former.

It's a massive struggle between those two always lol. It typically comes down to 

A. How long is their longevity (is it a reduced workrate over time or the same, do they improve over time with experience and learn new things, their consistency with different opponents and matches)

B. How great is the peak (is it really that great or is it more spread out, how much of a distance is it between that peak and everything else, how much is it down to choice of opponents, pacing and crowd reaction etc)

Typically the greatest wrestlers as you say are nearly always present in their matches and balance the two effectively enough to keep audiences interested. Someone like Tenryu, for instance, is brilliant at both.