Mickie James

[Grimmas]

I said: 

In 2016 I didn't think so, but Mickie just keeps adding and adding to her case. She's been great as a face and heel. She's really great at portraying her character into the ring. Great brawls or regular matches. She can really play up drama to make very emotional matches. Mickie is making it harder and harder to deny her.

vs Deonna Purrazzo (Impact, 2022-01-09)

vs Trish Stratus (WWE, 2006-04-02)

vs Asuka (NXT, 2016-11-19)

[Jetlag]

I have serious doubts she would make a Top 100 Female Wrestlers of all time list.

[Grimmas]

17 minutes ago, Jetlag said:

I have serious doubts she would make a Top 100 Female Wrestlers of all time list.

Thanks for adding so much to this thread. I do appreciate it.

[Jetlag]

I mean, the opening statement says it's getting hard to deny her, but I found it quite easy. How is she a greater worker than, say, Yumi Fukawa or Maika Matsumoto? Saying she had a handful of good matches and was really great at portraying a character doesn't really tell me a lot.

[Grimmas]

27 minutes ago, Jetlag said:

I mean, the opening statement says it's getting hard to deny her, but I found it quite easy. How is she a greater worker than, say, Yumi Fukawa or Maika Matsumoto? Saying she had a handful of good matches and was really great at portraying a character doesn't really tell me a lot.

Cool, so ignore the thread. I find going into threads to just say no to be the most pointless activity that people do in GWE. What is the fucking point? If you aren't adding anything, then why post?

[newtalkingwall]

The point is that trying to reach a critical consensus of the 100 greatest wrestlers EVER is a pretty big endeavor and will take forever if people have to explain why Mickie James - who by your own nomination has 3 great matches in a 20-year career - is not somebody worth considering for this type of project. She has been on TV for 20 years having perfectly fine but far from great 5-minute or so matches, just like hundreds if not thousands of other people that are not worth considering here.

[Grimmas]

17 minutes ago, newtalkingwall said:

The point is that trying to reach a critical consensus of the 100 greatest wrestlers EVER is a pretty big endeavor and will take forever if people have to explain why Mickie James - who by your own nomination has 3 great matches in a 20-year career - is not somebody worth considering for this type of project. She has been on TV for 20 years having perfectly fine but far from great 5-minute or so matches, just like hundreds if not thousands of other people that are not worth considering here.

So should I go into hundreds of threads and just type "Nope" to all the people I don't think are worthy? Would that be helpful?

[Matt D]

Voting is a zero-sum proposition. 

[Ma Stump Puller]

I can get why she's here to a certain extent considering we have Trish (who could be argued as having less big big matches to work with than Mickie despite her having more of a impact overall) on here as well, albeit that wasn't exactly taken very seriously. She's had some super nothing title runs (not her fault of course because booking and the divisions at the time being bare bones as shit until way later) and I always used to cringe when she was in TNA trying to work with people who mostly couldn't really work (at least 5+ matches anyway) albeit she did eventually start to get better opponents and brought some legitimacy to the division. For what it's worth, I feel like she's a fairly solid act that even in her very very early days showed a lot of promise and athleticism right off the bat, and did eventually mature to a good upper-card act that sorta became a expert in carrying less able acts to good matches. 

Top 100 is the issue through, because as other have said there's a LOT of acts that were more beneficial in that they got to work with great opponents right off the bat and have far far better high ends than her at the moment. I didn't feel anything for the Purrazzo matches (maybe that's because I just don't like her style at all lol) and James's high ends are few and far between to compare. Like she's had good matches, but the vast majority of them for me just equate to just being, well, decent. She's sound in the ring and showed she could work with some of the better wrestlers but I would need to really see some truly big performances for her to have a shot, even as a outsider pick. Give her a few more years with her current workrate, then I'll rethink this. 

 

[Tetsujin]

I have no issue with people arguing against anyone's case for the top 100 at their threads, if it's done with respect.

I don't think James has enough high ceiling to be considered (the same happens with some of the most memorable knockouts like Awesome Kong or Gail Kim), but I'm totally on board with the idea of reivindicate her as a good bridge between the awful USA's womens wrestling situation and the horsewomen booms (again, same with the knockouts division); she's definitely a much more interesting wrestler to remember and focus on than Stratus and Lita.

[Rah]

7 hours ago, newtalkingwall said:

The point is that trying to reach a critical consensus of the 100 greatest wrestlers EVER is a pretty big endeavor and will take forever if people have to explain why Mickie James - who by your own nomination has 3 great matches in a 20-year career - is not somebody worth considering for this type of project. She has been on TV for 20 years having perfectly fine but far from great 5-minute or so matches, just like hundreds if not thousands of other people that are not worth considering here.

Then don't post? It's simple.

There are a myriad of wrestlers I will never vote for and I've left their threads alone because I either can't add anything valuable to spur discussion or I don't have the care to do so. If you want to focus your energy on your list of wrestlers only then do that. Leave these threads for actual discussion on the topic (both positive and negative) because that's the point of the thread - discussion.

If you want to say she's not in the top 100 female workers, great, but why?

[newtalkingwall]

The case FOR Mickie James, as presented in this thread, is that she has had 3 matches worth watching and thousands of forgettable TV matches over 20 years. The argument presented for her inclusion is the strongest argument against her inclusion.

 

[cad]

He listed three matches because that's the format for nominating someone. Give a short description of why you think they're worth looking at plus (exactly) three worthwhile matches. You're not supposed to list every great match they had in the nomination post.

[El McKell]

I think it's worth pointing out that before Jetlag posted we had no discussion of Mickie James, and now we have at least some among the arguing about what should and shouldn't be posted. 

Anyway Mickie James isn't good enough for my top 100. Huge portions of her career where she did nothing of note, highs that are good but not all-time classics, competent but not outstanding when it comes to execution, only very rarely does she do as Grimmas says and "really play up drama to make very emotional matches"

[NotJayTabb]

What the selection of matches does do well is show the length of time that Mickie has had good matches over. She's definitely had a few down-periods as well (just before she got her first WWE release it felt like she wasn't as motivated as when she'd debuted, not helped by trash like the Piggie James angle), but having a career that long and being able to get her motivation back and still have good matches at this stage of her career is a positive. She's one of a very few wrestlers who went to TNA after a WWE release and rebuilt her reputation. Having good matches spread over a near 20 year career shows a level of consistency, even with the lows.

As for my top 100? I like Mickie a lot, but my initial shortlists of Definites/Probables/Need To Watch Mores/Personal Favourites is already 250+, I would be surprised if she makes it

[El McKell]

7 minutes ago, NotJayTabb said:

She's one of a very few wrestlers who went to TNA after a WWE release and rebuilt her reputation.

If you think she was good in that 1st TNA run from 2010 to 2013 fair enough, but to me she was no different at that time to the other ex-WWE performers (Mr Anderson/Kennedy, RVD etc) in there doing nothing worth watching

[TonyPulis'Cap]

Ultimately Mickie James (sadly, as I like her as performer a lot) is not going to make my top 100, but to me, a good representative of how I view this project - half (most) of the joy for me is getting to discuss nominees and exploring matches you haven't seen before/in a while as part of evaluating them, even if deep down you know they probably aren't going to make your list going in.

Mickie is part of the period of women's wrestling when its hard to know exactly how good she could've been, given she was wrestling at a time and in companies where opportunities for women to have good matches and compelling feuds (even if she did have one killer storyline with Trish of course) was much more limited. Ultimately though, we can't judge on what if's. 

She's not the most technical or athletic of wrestlers, but I value the emotion and drama she brings to her matches, and while she has had some memorable moments as heel, think she is a tremendous babyface, that can take a beating and come back with great fire - her matches against Beth Phoenix are good examples. As others have pointed out, she has longevity too, still going strong across Impact and NWA and due at time of writing to be in the Rumble again. I wouldn't disagree with anyone saying she isn't at the level of a GWE list, but welcome the opportunity to talk about her and recognise her abilities.