Grimmas

Problem was that Shawn was the heel and he completely baby faced himself in that match, but working a style that would put the crowd in his corner. Contrast that to a year ago when Bret faced Owen, and they were careful to not get Owen over as the face by doing what Shawn did.

PM goodhelmet.

I had this theory and then Dylan stated it later on Talking Sheet Mid-Week show, so I'm feeling more confident. Reigns beats Triple H for the title. Triple H helps Shane win control of Raw, Shane gives Triple H Smackdown. Brand split. Stephanie is pissed, but Triple H defends it as the only way to get rid of Vince and get control of the WWE from him.

Wrestling match hall of fame?

I think it's fair some people are better in their physical peak, while others are better after they have gained a lot of experience.

His linked in page: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-ward-16b75910

Those are directly inverse career trajectories. So? One is a great peak and the other is a down period for the guy. It just happens to be at different ends of their careers. Why not treat them the same? Sarcasm or you believe this? A question. One guy got great earlier and then when his athletics failed him had a down period. The other took longer to get great, but once they did they stayed great until they retired. What is wrong with treating a slow starter to a slow finisher?

Those are directly inverse career trajectories. So? One is a great peak and the other is a down period for the guy. It just happens to be at different ends of their careers. Why not treat them the same?

Why can't we think of prime Bockwinkel as the 80s and treat 70s Bock like 2000s Flair?

You can't tease something like the authority out of power that everybody wants and not deliver. That's just beyound stupid.

Perhaps the two greatest in ring heels. I'm having so much trouble figuring this one out.

To clarify that spot us just a sign of Harley's problems. Every time I see him, there are issues with him.

It bumps Terry down from 1 to somewhere in top 5.

I feel like it was Poffo or SD Jones or someone like that. Can't recall now. Like I said above, it's not purely that. All of his matches are filled with things that make no sense to me.

If he stopped the bomb throwing with no selling, then yes. I can't get over the piledriver on the floor as a normal spot in a match. That spot basically never hit. It is Harley taking a backdrop 99% of the time. I believe I've watched every match of Harley's on tape up to 1983. He did it in the WWF against a JTTS. Seems like a good reason to disqualify him from your list. If any wrestler thinks a piledriver on the floor should be treated like a bodyslam in the ring than they are wrestling morons. That's not the only reason though. Harley wrestles matches in ways that make me always ask questions. When I am constantly thinking to myself that "this made no sense" or "why would you do that" then I don't see how you are a great wrestler.

It feels odd that someone could be thinking of rating Christian very highly but have Matt Hardy on the bubble. They feel very lateral to me as far as their careers and abilities. If I was doing a singles ballot I'd probably have Matt Hardy over Christian to be honest. I have Christian comfortably over Hardy. I think he is a much better babyface work. Really his ECW run is all-time great as a face.

If he stopped the bomb throwing with no selling, then yes. I can't get over the piledriver on the floor as a normal spot in a match. That spot basically never hit. It is Harley taking a backdrop 99% of the time. I believe I've watched every match of Harley's on tape up to 1983. He did it in the WWF against a JTTS.

The forum says it prevents it, and you do have to enter a name. Not sure if it does it by IP address or if it's an honour system. If someone is making up fake names and changing their IP addresses to vote more than once, then I don't know what to say.

Sarcasm is fun. I do understand that the journey is more the point of this project than the end result. I probably won't end up submitting a list now, especially since some people seem to be dismissing lists submitted by non-pwo regulars before they see them. But the process has been valuable to me already since I discovered that I absolutely love World of Sport. Dylan, Charles, and I have all said we want ballots. If you enjoyed the process at all, we would love to see your ballot. We've got 15 singles ballots in already. With 11 different people voted in the number one slot, including one number 1 vote for a guy that nobody discussed as even a top 20 guy. All ballots are worthwhile.

That's exactly how I feel.

Yeah, filling out the ballot takes time.

People still debate Gretzky vs Orr, stats are there.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"? This is a serious question at the heart of this. I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring. Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about". It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list". I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it. I think there is a big difference between listing categories and saying Inoki is better in this one, Bossman in this one, and someone saying Bossman was great at this stuff that I value more importantly. That is not picking favourites, that is just people using different criteria. "Stuff that I value" feels pretty favourite-y to me. or stuff I value is the criteria someone thinks is important for being great. Replace "stuff I value" with "stuff that is important for someone to be great".

If he stopped the bomb throwing with no selling, then yes. I can't get over the piledriver on the floor as a normal spot in a match.

I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"? This is a serious question at the heart of this. I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring. Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about". It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list". I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it. I think there is a big difference between listing categories and saying Inoki is better in this one, Bossman in this one, and someone saying Bossman was great at this stuff that I value more importantly. That is not picking favourites, that is just people using different criteria.