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

[elliott]

2 hours 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.

 

Basically for these reasons, Austin Idol for the top 25! 

[Clayton Jones]

Absolutely Ma Stump Puller, Tenryu is someone who benefits so much from a project like this. Checks every box imaginable and somehow always has something great you're still discovering for the first time.

[Matt D]

2 hours ago, Clayton Jones said:

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.

This resonates a lot with me. The names that come to mind for me are Funk, Tenryu, Casas, Rose. The guys you never want to look away from because you'll potentially miss something, because they're always in the moment and always acting and reacting to what's happening around them. (For current wrestlers, Athena is the one who is living and breathing it for me in that same way). What names are on your list along those lines?

[Clayton Jones]

1 hour ago, Matt D said:

This resonates a lot with me. The names that come to mind for me are Funk, Tenryu, Casas, Rose. The guys you never want to look away from because you'll potentially miss something, because they're always in the moment and always acting and reacting to what's happening around them. (For current wrestlers, Athena is the one who is living and breathing it for me in that same way). What names are on your list along those lines?

You nailed some of the names that have had the strongest showings with this criteria for me so far (except Athena but I really like that observation). Rose is someone who I have no problem putting peak above all else for because his peaks are among the best ever when it comes to what I'm looking for. The easiest names to back up this kind of case for are the more expressive ones, Hokuto, Masami, Piper, Bock, Kingston, Kandori, and Thatcher are some that glancing over my notes have jumped up for me with this criteria. But even some of the more subdued greats like Grey, Akiyama, Satomura, Ishikawa, Jack Brisco I think are exceptionally strong at this "don't dare look away" factor like you said. And a few who I'd guess I'm a bit higher on than most that I think excel along these lines are Shelley, Bate, HARASHIMA, and Strickland, just throw out some of my less "safe" candidates who I'm still analyzing my cases for.

[SAMS]

Just chucking this little update out there for anybody who's interested.

My previous approaches felt like they leaned way too hard into output, and when trying to compile any kind of list, I resorted to just looking at my match star ratings. I just felt like that too often resulted in me attributing credit in the wrong places. Just because somebody was involved in a 4* match for example, doesn't mean that they delivered a 4* performance. Likewise, somebody could give a 5* performance in a match that only ended up being in the 3* range due to a myriad of factors (booking decisions being the obvious one). I want my rankings to be based on the performances a wrestler delivers, or their input, over anything else. Also, anybody familiar with Thinking Basketball and Ben Taylor's work, especially his top 40 best careers list, will know that his system works on a player accumulating championship value over the years. I'm sort of continuing in the same vein with my approach, with wrestlers accruing in-ring value instead.

For each year project I complete, I plan on categorising wrestlers into 4 tiers. Those are "World Class", "Great Worker", "Flashes of Greatness", and "Notable". The titles of the tiers don't really matter, but essentially it works to organise those who made tape for that year in a pyramid style structure. Each tier has a weighted value, which gets applied to each wrestler within that tier, then simply I'll add up the total for each year of a wrestler's career to get their final score. Ideally this will give me a general baseline and a strong idea of which brackets I want to place each person, but I want to be open enough to move people around as I see fit for the final rankings.

I think it was in the GWE launch party podcast, but Grimmas raised the point of how to balance somebody who was say, a 7/10 for a long time, against somebody who was 10/10 but for only a few years. I guess my way to address this is weighing the higher levels to a degree that the results don't over index on longevity, while also still rewarding those who are able to carve out long productive careers. In my case the bottom tier "Notable", is worth a single point, then the next tiers are worth 5, 10 and 15 in order. In my case the "Flashes of Greatness" tier is probably closest to 7/10. Somebody would have to have 15 years of this quality to equal 5 years as "World Class", which intuitively feels fair to me. 

My system is likely hugely flawed, and I'll almost certainly tweak it as I move forwards, but I like to think it'll allow me to have some sort of consistency as I assess different wrestlers over different years. Ultimately this project is supposed to be fun and I love lists, I love numbers and I love spreadsheets, so it kind of allows me to combine them all at once. 

[Grimmas]

I have found this process of doing years individually, ranking top 25, and then making a master list based on those awesome. I still have many years to finish, I won't do them all by 2026, but my overall list is already something that would be acceptable to submit and will only get better the more years I do. I post them on the blog. Very happy with this method, then at the end I won't have to struggle, it's a simple points thing.

[HeadCheese]

Is listing of as many wrestlers I alot wrestlers that I think might my top 100 (conical all timers, favorites from now, favorites from childhood, and wrestlers that are just generally interesting to look at the career off).

I make a section for wrestlers who I feel will make my lists with evidence to back it up. 

I list of the matches I have watched for the project. If a wrestler pops out, I add them to the overall list.

I'm also working on occasionally reorderings of my list.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zjmhE5bpN9Iiog8_4Z1BC1jEfWDYGyeywmOSg8vGISY/edit?usp=drivesdk

Currently I have 173 wrestlers overall, 83 wrestlers that have a good chance so far, and I have 136 matches.

 

I'm don't know what my system yet is really.

When looking at wrestlers I try to factor range (how they do in a variety of settings), longevity, match quality, my personal wantingness watch them wrestle, how they help make me feel, how do they make their opponents look, and vibes. bonus points if after watching them they routinely inspire me to check out their opponent and/or have someone on the lists best match.

Also with ranking especially 90-100, I try to have wrestlers that are just personal favorites or wrestlers that I think we're exceptionally in their style/region/era/etc.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Hello all and thank you for having me on your forum.

I thought I would jot down my own criteria for what makes the greatest wrestler ever, mainly to hold myself to account with a strict, at least partly quantifiable rubric. But as all of us fans of pro wrestling know, sometimes there’s just a magic that can’t be quantified.

In any case, here are five points I will be considered when ranking my greatest wrestler ever.

 

1. Look/Presence

 

The first criteria is the one that is most immediately apparent. The airport test. The look. The aura. The presence. Wrestlers, of course, may not have a lot of control over their gimmick. They may not be able to choose what they wear. They may not be able to choose how tall they are, or how much hair they can grow. But they do have a choice in how they look. The Shockmaster may have been a shit gimmick, but Lex Luger would have looked a hell of a lot better under that bedazzled Stormtrooper helmet than Fred Ottman.

But it is not all about muscles, rips and tears and striations and vascularity. Your presence and body language is just as important in the ring. Tajiri has always had a pretty unimpressive physique, and I would characterize his ring gear as “fancy trash bag pants”. But the way he moved in the ring made him seem quick, sudden, lethal. How many times have bookers tried to replicate Goldberg, and how many have failed because they lacked his physical charisma?

The greatest wrestler of all time will have a great look and presence.

 

2. In-ring ability

 

I characterize this as everything a wrestler does from bell-to-bell. It means the spots, it means the moves, it means the worked punches, it means the selling, the bumping, the flips, the dives, the flops and the finishes.

But it also measures how good someone is at the art of professional wrestling. The art of the blade job, of the hot tag, the bump and feed. How quickly a match can be re-called on the fly to win a crowd back, or settle them down for a long haul. How good is someone at getting their opponent over, of getting an angle over, of being unselfish, or being incredibly selfish when the time demands.

It also measures how safe a wrestler is. Wrestling is a work. It’s kayfabe. It is fake and gay. Hurting your opponent is the opposite of what you’re supposed to do, and in my mind, an unsafe worker could never be the greatest wrestler of all time.

 

3. Promo

 

If I wanted to watch amateur wrestling, I would. But I want great promos. I want great angles. I want to believe, and it’s still real to me damn it. This measures how good someone is at cutting promos, of selling me on a match. Of giving interviews, of controlling a live audience. This is an incredibly important aspect of being a wrestler.

There’s an obvious barrier in that I do not speak Spanish and I do not speak Japanese. But human connection more often than not transcends the language barrier. I don’t need to speak Japanese to hear the crowd’s adoration for Naito and their indifference to Shota Umino. I can hear it clear as day. Some international promotions do not have as many promos as North American companies. But then, some wrestlers do not have as many matches available on tape. It’s all a balancing act. But the greatest wrestler of all time will be a great promo.

 

4. Versatility

 

I believe William Regal was the first person I ever heard refer to what he did as his “act”. But it’s a perfect description. Every wrestler has an act, like a vaudeville show. The five moves of doom. The classic NWA Flair match. The PWG Superkick party. All instantly recognisable acts.

It is my belief that in order to be a truly great wrestler, you must be versatile enough to perform several different acts. Babyface and heel. Traditional pro wrestling and hardcore. Singles and tag-team. There are exceptions. Ricky Steamboat only really ever had one act, the babyface, he just happened to be perhaps the greatest babyface of all time.

But the true greats push themselves outside their comfort zones, work opponents and matches and crowds and buildings and stipulations and time limits of all shapes and sizes. The greatest wrestler of all time is versatile.

 

5. Impact and influence

 

This criteria is my most tenuous, but I believe important all the same. How much impact has a wrestler been on the art or the business of professional wrestling? Truly great artists are copied, satirized, mocked, aped, revered, discussed ad nauseum. Why should pro wrestling be any different?

This will, as a matter of course, be slanted towards older wrestlers who have the benefit of time. Who knows if someone like Jungle Boy Jack Perry will go on to be influential to generations of fans? (He won’t). But there are wrestlers we know for certain that have already been canonized as incredibly influential on the pro wrestling business.

Shawn Michaels is a wrestler that has been both lauded and torn to shreds by different parts of the wrestling community. But I don’t think anyone can deny the influence he had on the next generation of wrestlers. From high spots to match structure, a portion of the generation of wrestlers after him emulated him as a high watermark for the professional wrestling they wanted to achieve. Whether the outcome was for better or for worse remains to be argued. But I believe the greatest wrestler of all time must be influential.

 

In summing up, I only note that you should not give a single fuck about my criteria. They are mine, and mine alone. I certainly don’t care about your criteria, and that’s exactly as it should be. It’s the beauty of discussions like this, and I can’t wait to discuss it all with you over the coming period.

 

[Owen Edwards]

I discovered this project by seeing if SmarksChoice was still around and then finding Grimmas' summary of results. This was how I realized that I had taken part in the 2006 poll! It's interesting considering what I can work out from my list there to how I'll likely decide stuff now. 20 years apart - I was 17 then.

 

A few entries are quixotic. Big Bruno Elrington I *think* was a Rob Edwards-related joke. Jody Fleisch i had seen in person a few times and just really enjoyed (and frankly I suspect that's a pretty defensible approach, though not my approach now). Many workers are there from me seeing a match plus some clips - I feel really dubious of this now. I was 17 with very limited access to matches, and I made my best call, but to some degree I probably listed "good wrestlers I've seen once" because I thought I needed to list them. Now I want to know what a worker actually does/"is" as a wrestler before putting them on the list. It definitely changes my priorities...and requires a lot more watching matches.

 

I do think my ability to analyse matches - in an appreciative, enjoying fashion - is much better than it was then. I value workers who can turn up and just make the match work, even against slugs. Jumbo was my #1 then and probably will be again, but now with the added argument that he had a passable match with Abdullah. Billy Robinson is rgeat - though less great - and partly because he also could have a passable match with that particular gentleman. I value workers who don't necessarily have big runs on top, but who turn up every day and do valuable things. Mitsuo Momota will make my list because he adds so much value to all the stuff he's in, and it doesn't matter that for some people the Comedy Six-mans or Rookie Matches aren't big enough viewing to give credit for. I value workers who are just so, so competent. I actually think Flair's charisma and our sense of his "big matches" might underplay his case - have you ever seen a guy just turn up and be so competent so reliably? (This was a big takeaway for me of watching him against Jumbo. Two guys who don't even need to be working "classics" to put together a good match.)

 

So I feel cautious about putting together a list, or least a 100 list, because I have the suspicion that it's too easy to rank people - positively or negatively - for some small sliver of work that becomes disproportionately big in our mind. I guess I'm a "whole career" guy in that sense - or maybe a WAR7 guy, to use sabermetrics. Great Kojika (who will not make my list) is probably better ranked on his scant, decent televised work in the 70s and 80s than the "ancient man does death matches" stuff.