Loss

I see a pretty strong case in both directions.

Two guys I see as having outsized reputations, but I think this is an interesting comparison.

It's a tough one and I've had to backspace every time I've started a post because I've realized what I was saying wasn't really correct. I do think Bull's pre-1990 run when she was more up and coming is far more notable with more highlights than Aja's pre-1992 run (although the 1990-92 chase reflects well on both of them). Aja probably peaked higher if you're looking at match quality, but Bull Nakano was able to get awfully close to that without the annoying garbage can and crowdhugging disguised as brawling.

So that Debbie Malenko match still hasn't aired in full on a Classics run or something? Unreal.

Hokuto has the deeper case. Guerrero has the broader one.

Was there any point where Akiyama was clearly the best heavyweight in the world? If so, when? My instinct is to have Liger comfortably ahead, but I'm open to hearing a case.

But he worked some 60-minute matches. I don't understand.

It's a matter of opinion, but if you're asking me, no, not at all. The ideal setting for great matches is a sold out full-sized arena of people who are heavily invested in who wins and loses and are very loud about it.

It's interesting that I think of Bryan as someone in the upper echelon, but when I think of him next to Misawa, Kawada and Kobashi, he feels lacking. I didn't have that same reaction seeing him compared to Flair, my #1 pick in 2016, yet I wouldn't have that reaction if Flair himself was compared to those three. Shows the value and inherent contradictions you find in your own views when you really dive into comparisons, I suppose. I guess in that case, I see Bryan as a far more technically skilled wrestler than Flair who pushed the modern style as far as it was capable of going, and I think that counts for a lot. Flair is a legend, but Flair built most of his GOAT case excelling in an environment where he was set up to excel a big chunk of the time. He was given the ideal setting, opponent, time and crowd, and delivered. The same is true of Misawa, Kawada and Kobashi, who had the benefit of mostly wrestling each other. It's unfair, but it also means that the body of work is just on a different level than it is for Bryan. I see Bryan as the greatest wrestler of the modern generation, but I also see the modern generation as inherently weaker than what preceded it, mostly for reasons the wrestlers can't even control, and that goes beyond the amount of great matches and more into the reason those matches are great. Bryan's moments electrifying huge arenas and stadiums absolutely happened and are part of his case, but he spent a lot of time being a great wrestler having great matches without really transcending that. That's not a knock as much as it sounds like one.

The criticism always seemed to be not that he did it, but that he didn't stop doing it after he hit a certain age. It never bugged me too much, but I get it.

I think Akira Hokuto is better on her very best day than Kenta Kobashi on his very best day, but Kobashi came closer to his best day so many more times than Hokuto did.

Who will you rank higher?

Who would you rank higher?

Who would you rank higher?

I would argue that the greatest wrestler is the one who had the greatest artistic career, but I'm probably opening a can of worms by saying so.

No, and no one is talking about that. He's labeled an underachiever because the 1980s didn't culminate in him becoming a main eventer and world champion.

Not really. To me, he should have been the greatest wrestler of all time. He had more potential than as a good hand that sometimes flirted with main events.

Fair enough. For me, this comes back to the difference between greatest and best. I'd consider Windham a #1 contender on a Best Wrestler Ever list. I see him as a level below that in a Greatest Wrestler Ever conversation.

He was supposed to be a world champion off of the strength of the 1988-89 heel run and then he was supposed to feud with Flair in a role reversal from their 1986-1987 series. When he went to the WWF, he was supposed to feud with Hogan. That was the moment that made him an underachiever. He was on par as a star with Sting and Luger as a star in 1988. He wasn't at that level before that or after that.

What's clear here is that there seems to be consensus on valuing the tools a wrestler has in their personal kit over what they're able to produce over their careers with what they do have. Jericho significantly overachieved based on natural talent. Windham significantly underachieved. Perhaps for voting purposes, it's better to be super talented and not hit your potential than to have more limited in-ring talent and exceed it.

Another Lensar comparison that interests me.

Not really a huge one.

Would love to hear some Brock defenders on this too. I would go higher with Sawyer, but I acknowledge that it's not cut and dry.

I'd like to see Lesnar put through the ringer a little, and I think this is an interesting comparison.

For some reason, the idea of comparing Rollins to really good but semi-underrated 1980s stars intrigues me, so ... here we go.