Loss

Just wanted to bump this because I think the people who are going to be hurt the most by this are New Japan guys from previous eras, since NJ is aggressive about taking down footage. Your Hashimotos and Ligers are going to do fine since most people are familiar with them, and 80s set cult favorites like Hoshino will probably get at least a few votes. But YouTube is where I think guys like Hiroshi Hase, El Samurai, Koji Kanemoto, and other New Japan stars who peaked in the 90s will struggle.

They remain steadfast in their attempt to create a new Rey.

Supposedly, a lot of this is being conceived as an idea to get La Sombra over big right out of the gate.

Gallows would make a perfectly suitable Undertaker opponent if he was built up properly, and they'd probably have a pretty good match too. I'm not sure what their plans are there, though, and if I'm WWE, I'm building up Gallows as a Roman Reigns opponent later in the year by pushing him HARD. A loss to Undertaker right away wouldn't destroy that, but it would work against that idea.

He's metaphorically demonstrating that he's not a capitalist. Actually, it doesn't bug me because his content is both very much worth reading and easy to read.

I think the question at that point becomes how much it affected their matches to not be able to do it all. If you think Ricky Morton's matches would have been better if he demonstrated more range, then that's good reason to knock him down a few pegs. Morton isn't a number one contender and I agree that categories like variety are very important when trying to determine who is number one. I'm not sure how much it matters past the top ten.

This is why I felt like intangibles should be worth more than a fixed number of points.

The other thing: If we do -1s, I think we should close off new nominations. I know I'd hate seeing more names nominated because the very act of putting more people up for discussion penalizes those who are already there.

I'd probably find examples in both directions of what's important to me, but I didn't want to keep flooding the BIGLAV thread with posts about this, so I thought I'd start a thread for it. I don't think not being able to do everything is critical unless the wrestler had a career where they were expected to take on roles they were unable to perform. So Ricky Morton being the greatest sympathy babyface tag team wrestler ever means more to me than Chris Jericho's ability to work face or heel in any spot on the card and get over doing it. Both are impressive, but Morton was a standard bearer in his one thing which is extra special.

If Pillman in multiple markets is being argued in his favor, I think it's worth noting that he did not have any matches in ECW, and while he was over fine as an Austin foil in 1997, that had nothing to do with his work. That's what I mean. It's definitely not as impressive a run as Misawa had in All Japan. I get and agree with your larger point about how many of the built-in advantages and disadvantages cancel each other out.

The reason I find that interesting is that getting over means different things to different people. Dave has argued that Jerry Lawler didn't get over in the AWA, Southwest, WCCW, Florida or Georgia, for example.

I only mentioned the Budokan sellouts because it doesn't seem right to give him a +1 for All Japan the same way we would give someone like a Brian Pillman +1 for getting over in WCW. It feels like the threshold for getting over in multiple places is low, which is fine, but getting over exceptionally isn't exceptionally rewarded.

Doesn't Misawa hold the all-time record for Budokan Hall sellouts with most of them happening consecutively? That's something more impressive than +1 for getting over in a different place when all that may mean for these intents and purposes is that live crowds reacted a few times. Would you argue Bruno as someone who could only get over in one place? I think the two are comparable in that regard. I'm not even saying that to challenge the rating. It's just that Misawa wasn't just over with live crowds in All Japan. He was a gigantic star, the ace of the company and the most important ingredient in whatever success they had during his time on top.

I think when you expand on it, it's worth explaining if this is a new reality that involves young, rural, low-income people who don't go to college too, since that's historically at least the majority of wrestling fans.

I am interesting in reading it and reacting to it here myself.

Ole also came back in in 1992, so it's possible he was involved but as a Watts surrogate.

I would probably not opt to go to a desert island for this reason.

There were "discussion" threads just like we have here for the previous GWE, but they weren't nomination threads, and you could vote for anyone with or without a discussion thread.

Yes, John McAdam ran this and it was based in New England. I don't think we see him on camera here, though.

I just had this crazy idea to do super short podcasts on each person. Like, actually set a timer and allow it to go five minutes and when the bell rings, "We're out of time!" and end the show. It would create a fun urgency to explain the appeal of various guys and be an easy listen. When you get to the top 100, maybe expand to 10 minutes and then for the top 10, maybe each person gets 30 or something. Maybe #1 could get a full show proper.

Smarkschoice simply did 1 point for a #100 spot, 2 points for a #99 spot ... ... ... 100 points for a #1 spot. Then they ranked EVERYONE who got even one vote, with all the people who got one #100 vote tied for last place. I do like the method Dylan proposed. However, this isn't a statement about the method as much as it is a hope that if we go that route, the ranking difference between #2 and #3 is about the merits and not an attempt to strategically place wrestlers in certain spots to ensure a good final overall ranking. But I guess there's no way to control that, and it would probably happen under any method. It just really stood out to me when I read that more than it had when the topic of strategic voting had come up before.

Rumor has it HHH is down to 215 already!

WWE doesn't want its wrestlers playing to the crowd because they think that riling up a crowd doesn't translate to viewers watching at home, who are the "real" audience. Yeah.

I've heard both, but I remember reading it in the 1992 WONs.

Torch subscribers can look through the archives around this time and find an interesting column by Bruce Mitchell on Jim Ross being way too visible on WCW TV.