Great at Wrestling Does Not Equal Being One of Wrestling's Greats

[Dav'oh]

As a society, semantics are all we've got. If we don't agree on the meanings of words, we can't communicate properly, and it's global Anarchy in the Arena.

Say "Hello" to Eugene Schnitzel. Eugene has been the star of Baltic Extreme Thug-Life Pro-Wrestling Yeah! for over twenty-five years. He once technically sold-out Legia Warsaw's home ground (only three hundred tickets were on sale, and it was held in the car-park, but it counts!) 

Eugene can work as face or heel. He's very good in both singles and tags. He impressed as a fiery Young Elk, and as the grumpy old vodka tragic with delirium tremens. Although he specialises in First Scrotum-Blood Matches and the like, he is very much at home trading holds (see his matches with Brad Wurst, links below). He has successfully played a couple of (slightly) different characters and his mic work is the best this side of Vilnius. He is a great, great, great wrestler.

Does this mean he is in the Pantheon of the Greats? He was never invited to 16 Carat Gold in Germany, not even 6,000,000 Roentgen Gold in Kyiv. His audience were the Extreme Thug-Life Choir, as it were. He said he didn't travel because he didn't trust promoters (he was only ten when Bruiser Brody died).

But enough Schnitzel. Does someone who is great at pro-wrestling, become by default a great of pro-wrestling? Or do you think it takes something more? Do you have to be one of the greats to be eligible for the Greatest Wrestler Ever? 

The list of nominees here is at times - how do I put this politely? - fucking risible. You can bang your Eugene Schnitzels up your clacker, as far as I'm concerned.

[El McKell]

What this project has been to me the whole time is who are the 100 greatest at pro-wrestling. For me, it’s about judging what I see on-screen: the storytelling, the athleticism, the presence, the ability to make me care. I don’t consciously factor in stardom, historical impact, or the size of the audience. 

It is a little ironic, though, to argue that we all need to agree on semantics while also arguing in favour of a definition that goes against the grain of how most of his here seem to already be interpreting "greatest wrestler ever". (please don't read this too harshly, I like that this thread exists).

I 100% agree that the list of nominees includes names that make zero sense to me as candidates, whether that's Jim Londos who doesn't have any full matches on tape,  Great Zako who's recommended matches appear to be in small rooms without a even a wrestling ring, or one note comedy acts like Antonio Koinoki and Andreza Giant Panda. But even though I'd never vote for any of these people, and don't really understand why anyone would I'm glad they have threads because they informed me a little about wrestling I'd otherwise not even know exists.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

3 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

As a society, semantics are all we've got. If we don't agree on the meanings of words, we can't communicate properly, and it's global Anarchy in the Arena.

Say "Hello" to Eugene Schnitzel. Eugene has been the star of Baltic Extreme Thug-Life Pro-Wrestling Yeah! for over twenty-five years. He once technically sold-out Legia Warsaw's home ground (only three hundred tickets were on sale, and it was held in the car-park, but it counts!) 

Eugene can work as face or heel. He's very good in both singles and tags. He impressed as a fiery Young Elk, and as the grumpy old vodka tragic with delirium tremens. Although he specialises in First Scrotum-Blood Matches and the like, he is very much at home trading holds (see his matches with Brad Wurst, links below). He has successfully played a couple of (slightly) different characters and his mic work is the best this side of Vilnius. He is a great, great, great wrestler.

Does this mean he is in the Pantheon of the Greats? He was never invited to 16 Carat Gold in Germany, not even 6,000,000 Roentgen Gold in Kyiv. His audience were the Extreme Thug-Life Choir, as it were. He said he didn't travel because he didn't trust promoters (he was only ten when Bruiser Brody died).

But enough Schnitzel. Does someone who is great at pro-wrestling, become by default a great of pro-wrestling? Or do you think it takes something more? Do you have to be one of the greats to be eligible for the Greatest Wrestler Ever? 

The list of nominees here is at times - how do I put this politely? - fucking risible. You can bang your Eugene Schnitzels up your clacker, as far as I'm concerned.

I mean the answer to the question is plainly writ if you just look at even the top 25 or so of the 2016 list:

25) Barry Windham
24) Steve Austin
23) Shinya Hashimoto
22) Negro Casas
21) William Regal
20) Tatsumi Fujinami
19) Arn Anderson
18) Randy Savage
17) Bret Hart
16) Nick Bockwinkel
15) Ricky Steamboat
14) Vader
13) Genichiro Tenryu
12) Eddie Guerrero
11) Jumbo Tsuruta
10) Jerry Lawler
9) Toshiaki Kawada
8 ) Kenta Kobashi
7) Rey Mysterio Jr.
6) Jushin Liger
5) Daniel Bryan
4) Mitsuharu Misawa
3) Stan Hansen
2) Terry Funk
1) Ric Flair

You won't be shocked to discover that barring one or two exceptions, all the top picks were also all main-event level players at one time or another in the biggest wrestling promotions in the world. Even Regal was about to get a main event run before he wellness'd himself. It turns out that truly great pro wrestlers like making money and wrestling in front of big crowds full of hot fans, and will work throughout their career to make that happen. 

What are the circumstances where someone who has the ability of a Top 100 GWE decides to just work in front of 30 people for peanuts for their entire career as a matter of choice? That simply doesn't exist.

 

[El McKell]

I just read Dav'oh's post in the WALTER thread where they talk about favourite or best vs greatest, that I think prompted this thread. I do not see any distinction between these at all for me. Firstly, it seems to me that some people talk about favourites and they mean things like: wrestlers they enjoy more then everyone else around me does, wrestlers who they have some childhood attachment to or wrestlers who they are currently excited about for whatever reason. I don't think I have favourites like this, my favourites are who I am most entertained by watching and I think that's also what I mean by greatest wrestler for the purpose of this project (and also what I mean if I said best wrestler).

Wrestling is entertainment. So I believe the wrestler who is best at wrestling is the wrestler who is most capable of entertaining people. I am not making any distinction between best and greatest for the purpose of this project, I think from what Dav'oh said in their post in the WALTER thread they are inferring that greatest to them should include the scale at which the wrestler performed, big stages etc.  I am reading greatest to mean greatest in ability to entertain. I think if we are all supposed to vote based on what we can see in the footage that makes more sense than greatest in scale and I think it means my criteria are both coherent to me and relatively in line with what most people voting are doing.

This last point is not directly tied to what you're saying, but I think what I've said above might raise the question of how I determine who's most capable of entertaining and I think I have no choice but to rank these wrestlers based on how much they entertain me (adjusting for the opportunities to do so they are given by their promotions). Trying to gauge how capable a wrestler would be of entertaining the aggregate wrestling fan is an impossible endeavour & in the end the overall list is a version of that aggregate anyway. 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

4 minutes ago, El McKell said:

This last point is not directly tied to what you're saying, but I think what I've said above might raise the question of how I determine who's most capable of entertaining and I think I have no choice but to rank these wrestlers based on how much they entertain me (adjusting for the opportunities to do so they are given by their promotions). Trying to gauge how capable a wrestler would be of entertaining the aggregate wrestling fan is an impossible endeavour & in the end the overall list is a version of that aggregate anyway. 

I agree that trying to gauge a wrestler's ability to entertain a mythical "aggregate" fan is difficult.

But it is a clear marker of a wrestler's quality if they are able to entertain a wide range of audiences and continually have them invested in your matches (Flair is over in the NWA, he's over in WWF, he's over in Japan, he's over in Puerto Rico). If a wrestler never leaves their comfort zone in front of an audience they've worked many times before, be it the American Legion Hall in Reseda, the Asylum on Lister Street in Glasgow or the Thornbury Theatre in Melbourne, then it can and should be held against them. Their ability to capture different crowds in different eras should be a credit to them, and can be used to aid your decision making, in addition to who you personally like. 

There needs to be at least SOME reference points or criteria outside of picking your favourites, or else the discussion simply isn't as interesting.

[El McKell]

I think your post conflates two things that I see as separate, getting reactions from crowds and ability to work well in different environments. If I'm trying to gauge how capable a wrestler is at entertaining me seeing them do it in different contexts  demonstrates this capacity more than doing it in one context. A wrestler who works well in many environments is best, someone who works well in one environment but poorly in others is obviously worse, and it is not clear which box someone who only worked in one environment would  fall into if they did work other places so they should be somewhere in between those two I just mentioned.

How over they are and what reactions they get is only relevant to me for how my engagement is enhanced by a hot crowd, crowd reactions are an instrumental positive for me not a good in and of themselves.

I don't think there the discussion is less interesting if the criteria revolves around picking who we enjoy watching. There's so much to discuss in what we think they do well, what we think they do badly, why do we like or dislike those things, how long were they good, how much does longevity actually matter, how much of their great matches is to do with them and how much is their dance partners, do they adjust to their opponents or do they force their opponents to adjust to them (and which of those things is actually more evident of greatness). I don't think adding a discussion of how over they were adds all that much. Although that could definitely still be discussed  in the context of favourites/personal enjoyment, for example I think the best thing Bruno Sammartino has going for him in terms of making me enjoy a match is that the crowd reacts so big to everything he does, their excitement is somewhat contagious for me.

[Graham Crackers]

I think wrestling can be a lot of different things and I personally enjoy watching a bunch of different styles of wrestling. That's part of why my list includes a number of workers who were big stars in different regions. Yes, being entertaining has frequently led to big crowds. That said, I think the attitude presented in this thread conflates success with quality in a way that reduces the scope of wrestling's potential. There are things you can do in front of those big crowds that you can't do in front of a small crowd and vice versa. There's a reason that historically we don't see grappling based around fine details in large stadiums, even from wrestlers who have excelled at that kind of skill while working in other territories. I think a list of the greatest should represent a wide variety of approaches. 

Negro Navarro is an interesting example because he has a reputation as a wrestler who was a draw and great worker, innovating trios matches in the UWA. Unfortunately we don't have much of that work on tape and for the purposes of this project, his reputation is not how we build his case. I'll also point out that the limited footage that has gone around of his financial peak left many of us lukewarm (not that our community is a monolith). Navarro reinvented himself during his late career as a maestro, primarily working small independent shows. These matches typically involve a lot of grappling including many bizarre holds. He's been someone I always want to watch for almost as long as I've been posting about wrestling on the internet (nearly 20 years, my god). I don't expect everyone to view him as a slam dunk and I know he has his detractors but to me this is a unique interpretation of what a wrestling match can be and one that I think deserves to be represented by a list honoring wrestling that has been seen by our community. I think that's the key to this whole project, we're evaluating wrestlers based upon what we've seen.

From all this time reading others discussing wrestling, I have noticed that many fans are more interested in the sounds the audiences are making than I am. I get it to a point. The atmosphere of a hot crowd is fun. But comparing this to another idiom, the hostile audience on Metallic KO is novel, but I really just want to hear the Stooges play. There is value in understanding the context in which media is created, including how audiences perceive it and how economic factors influenced what we're seeing. That's not quite the same as arguing that "something can only be great if it has been seen by many." I'm not even sure that poptimism, which this notion has been compared to, argues that. I thought poptimism involved discussing the aesthetic merit of a commercial product. In the end that's still an analysis of the text. 

[HeadCheese]

On 8/13/2025 at 10:54 PM, Dav'oh said:

He is a great, great, great wrestler.

Does this mean he is in the Pantheon of the Greats? He was never invited to 16 Carat Gold in Germany, not even 6,000,000 Roentgen Gold in Kyiv. His audience were the Extreme Thug-Life Choir, as it were. He said he didn't travel because he didn't trust promoters (he was only ten when Bruiser Brody died).

But enough Schnitzel. Does someone who is great at pro-wrestling, become by default a great of pro-wrestling? Or do you think it takes something more? Do you have to be one of the greats to be eligible for the Greatest Wrestler Ever? 

If Eugene Schnitzel is that great of a wrestler and emotional resenates with you it shouldn't matter that much. This is the greatest wrestler ever project not the greatest wrestler to wrestle in front of (insert level promotion of promotion) or higher project.

One of the coolest thing about this project is hyping up and celebrating Eugene Schnitzel's of the world. I hope someone submits a GWE list with a wrestler I don't know so I can research them, I hope if somebody sees a wrestler they don't know off my list they research them.

I proabably not rank Eugene Schnitzel as high of other wrestlers that wrestled for more promotions because he only wrestled in one place/his comfort zone because I factor range alot. Someome like John Cena have the same problem because he only wrestled for WWE.

[HeadCheese]

 

On 8/14/2025 at 3:05 AM, Mantaur Rodeo Clown said:

There needs to be at least SOME reference points or criteria outside of picking your favourites, or else the discussion simply isn't as interesting.

I think going favorites based is important. I think going favorites with that can be justified with critical lense (range, longevity, how well they made their opponents look, spark they brought to their matches, how they made the voter feel, etc) is the way to go.

Completely abandoning favorites in favor of wrestlers that "objectively great" can lead to pepole doing votes "I don't enjoy watching this wrestler wrestle but, I am voting for them because they are objectively great" which I feel is bad and against to spirit of this list. 

[Dav'oh]

3 hours ago, HeadCheese said:

"I don't enjoy watching this wrestler wrestle but, I am voting for them because they are objectively great" which I feel is bad and against to spirit of this list. 

Interesting. I think there absolutely will be wrestlers I can't stand on my list, because to not acknowledge their greatness would be churlish of me. I watch some people and just can't deny their talents. 

[HeadCheese]

47 minutes ago, Dav'oh said:

Interesting. I think there absolutely will be wrestlers I can't stand on my list, because to not acknowledge their greatness would be churlish of me. I watch some people and just can't deny their talents. 

My take is 100 wrestlers is to small of an amount to have a list with wrestlers you don't like on a subjective level. I think there was a similar conversation in the Will Ospreay thread about someone not liking Hiroshi Hase.

For example Atsushi Onita and Bret Hart are both objectively talented wrestlers and great in alot of areas but, they don't click with me (might change), so I won't vote for them.

I already know pepole are going to vote for Atsushi Onita and Bret Hart too. If I vote for them that takes away a space from wrestlers I like alot more and might not recieve as many votes ex: Pat O’Conner and Sakura Hirota.

[Boss Rock]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not taking star power, audience connection, or overness. Hulk Hogan had an uncanny ability to rile up an audience. But I think he was a very mediocre in-ring wrestler. A movie can do well at the box office but still not be very good. That's how I look at it with wrestling.

That being said, there are a number of critically acclaimed wrestlers that I watch that I just can't get into. Even if I can acknowledge their talent, sometimes their style just isn't for me. Does that mean I should still vote for them? My gut says no, but there is still that inclination to vote for them because I feel like I "have" to. But then I recall a point made on a different thread years ago: if a particular style of wrestling isn't for you, maybe just don't bother with it. And I find this helpful because I only have so much time to watch and revisit wrestling that I DO enjoy and I DO understand. That's not to say I won't completely dismiss potential candidates (i.e. lucha isn't one of my favorite styles but there are a handful of folks I do like so I want to give others a chance). But if you're struggling to fill out a ballot and space is limited, don't necessarily feel obligated to seek out what you know you won't care for.

[El McKell]

16 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

Interesting. I think there absolutely will be wrestlers I can't stand on my list, because to not acknowledge their greatness would be churlish of me. I watch some people and just can't deny their talents. 

This idea is something that I am struggling to understand so I would love to hear it expanded on or explained further. If you can't stand a wrestler how do you determine that they are in fact actually great?
- Do you maybe have some criteria of what makes a great wrestler and then apply it to everyone whether you like them or not? If so how did you select that criteria?
- Are you using reputation or business success or crowd reactions (or some combination of these) to determine greatness?
- Do you actually enjoy watching these wrestlers your can't stand work but have some negative visceral reaction to them for some other reason(s)?

 

 

20 hours ago, HeadCheese said:

 "I don't enjoy watching this wrestler wrestle but, I am voting for them because they are objectively great" which I feel is bad and against to spirit of this list. 

15 hours ago, HeadCheese said:

For example Atsushi Onita and Bret Hart are both objectively talented wrestlers and great in alot of areas but, they don't click with me 

HeadCheese is hitting at a very similar idea here, just making a different decision about whether to vote for these people. And again I'd be very curious to know what they think makes an objectively great wrestler when they don't actually enjoy watching them wrestle.  If they could address the same basic questions to them as I did to Dav'oh because I'd be interested in reading their thoughts too.

[Dav'oh]

1 hour ago, El McKell said:

If you can't stand a wrestler how do you determine that they are in fact actually great?

Mitsuharu Misawa. Cant't stand his body, his stoicism, always pulling up his pants (selling his pants, is the term, I think), his attire, his success over the Other Three.

But fuck he's good. His connection to the audience, his endless list of great matches, execution, toughness, how he carries himself (stoicism aside). I don't need to explain Misawa's strong points to anyone here.

These things? No, they're not part of a set criteria. They're what strike me as I watch him.

Business success? Yes, because his qualities set him apart from lower-carders, spoke more to the audience than lower-carders, and so companies put him on top making money for everyone. I do think business success - in pro-wrestling, at least - is an inevitable corollary of "greatness". It is not the exclusive domain of greatness, no.

Crowd-reactions? That's all a pro-wrestler has. Seriously.

Reputation might lead me to someone, but counts for naught once I've seen them.

I enjoy watching Misawa's matches, a) because he's not wrestling against himself, there's a quality opponent (or two) (or three) and a usually rivetting storyline involved; and b) I'm still watching a master of his craft, crappy tights or no.

I can absolutely respect Mitsuharu Misawa, without liking him.

 

[Jetlag]

If it's someone you enjoy watching, what does it matter? 

[Owen Edwards]

I'll be putting down my 100 favourite wrestlers and the aggregate of my 100 and everyone else's lists will give a fair approximation, with footage caveats, of the 100 "best ever". If enough people like Schnitzel, he'll make it. This isn't rendering the whole exercise moot or meaninglessly subjective; the very process determines, in hindsight, the most common criteria. I trust the aggregate and don't think it needs overcomplicating.

[HeadCheese]

3 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

Mitsuharu Misawa. Cant't stand his body, his stoicism, always pulling up his pants (selling his pants, is the term, I think), his attire, his success over the Other Three.

But fuck he's good. His connection to the audience, his endless list of great matches, execution, toughness, how he carries himself (stoicism aside). I don't need to explain Misawa's strong points to anyone here.

These things? No, they're not part of a set criteria. They're what strike me as I watch him.

3 hours ago, Dav'oh said:

I enjoy watching Misawa's matches, a) because he's not wrestling against himself, there's a quality opponent (or two) (or three) and a usually rivetting storyline involved; and b) I'm still watching a master of his craft, crappy tights or no.

I can absolutely respect Mitsuharu Misawa, without liking him.

 

That makes alot more sense on why a Misawa and a more valid reason to have Misawa on your list would make your list. To me it reads Misawa is a great dance partner wrestler.