Perhaps it's the academic part of me, but I've always tried to consider a range of different views before drawing conclusions. The process is something like:

 

- draw initial conclusions

- consider the field of views

- synthesise and figure out if I still stand by initial conclusions

 

When this works at its best, I feel that's when the most enriching discussion has happened.

 

I remember reviewing Stan Hansen vs. Kenta Kobashi (09/05/96) and going through OJ's criticisms of the match and then Childs's take, and it led to much more engaged criticism. Your opinions actually become more robust if you are forced to deal with counter-arguments and to think properly about what people are actually saying.

 

I guess it's one reason why I prefer talking about matches than about workers, because some aspect of that critical process feels like it goes missing and the discourse feels much less intelligent as a result. Which is less a knock on the project or anyone posting here, and more, I think, in the nature of the difference between reviewing a match and making a case that wrestler X is an all-time great.

I wish Tito was higher but it really is a big jump from last time.

I like Tito Santana a lot. But him making the top 100 is exactly what I refered to when I said this Top 100 was conservative. Tito is the ultimate formula worker, his idea of a pro-wrestling match is the most basic who can think of. The fact he was so good at it helps a lot, and he's got two excellent feuds in the 80's, Savage & Valentine. Some of the best fire comebacks who can find. Still, he's not a top 100 guy to me, although I can understand why people voted for him (contrary to guys like Piper, Dusty or Hogan for instance). He's also the first guy I saw that was involved in a memorable match, the IC tournament final against Perfect.

 

Not everyone watched or cared about the fucking DVDVR 80's set either

I think it's important to recognise that lots of people here did care about them, and that they have really helped to form our views on a lot of guys. As well as brought us together as fans. The 90s Yearbooks were too, but I personally missed the boat on them cos I couldn't keep pace.

 

I realise you've been around since the 1990s, and see recent developments either as old hat or trifling matters, but you don't seem to recognise or respect the current make-up of the community.

Yeah, I wasn't around for the voting process when everyone watched these sets together. But, I love going through these now and comparing my thoughts to the old results and discussions from the board. I completed the Memphis and AWA sets prior to making my list, and I can say they definitely helped in forming my views on a lot of guys.

I like Tito Santana a lot. But him making the top 100 is exactly what I refered to when I said this Top 100 was conservative. Tito is the ultimate formula worker, his idea of a pro-wrestling match is the most basic who can think of. The fact he was so good at it helps a lot, and he's got two excellent feuds in the 80's, Savage & Valentine. Some of the best fire comebacks who can find. Still, he's not a top 100 guy to me, although I can understand why people voted for him (contrary to guys like Piper, Dusty or Hogan for instance). He's also the first guy I saw that was involved in a memorable match, the IC tournament final against Perfect.

 

I would (and will) argue that being the best at what is most basic and primal is exactly why he should be on a list like this.

 

I like Tito Santana a lot. But him making the top 100 is exactly what I refered to when I said this Top 100 was conservative. Tito is the ultimate formula worker, his idea of a pro-wrestling match is the most basic who can think of. The fact he was so good at it helps a lot, and he's got two excellent feuds in the 80's, Savage & Valentine. Some of the best fire comebacks who can find. Still, he's not a top 100 guy to me, although I can understand why people voted for him (contrary to guys like Piper, Dusty or Hogan for instance). He's also the first guy I saw that was involved in a memorable match, the IC tournament final against Perfect.

 

I would (and will) argue that being the best at what is most basic and primal is exactly why he should be on a list like this.

 

Yeah seems like a great argument in his fire. Great fire, great at all the basics and some great feuds and matches. That's why I voted for him.

Grimmas, sorry to be a pedantic arse, but you've got that Gordy got 0 top ten votes, but also that the highest vote was an 8

Grimmas, sorry to be a pedantic arse, but you've got that Gordy got 0 top ten votes, but also that the highest vote was an 8

Oops. Fixing now.

 

I like Tito Santana a lot. But him making the top 100 is exactly what I refered to when I said this Top 100 was conservative. Tito is the ultimate formula worker, his idea of a pro-wrestling match is the most basic who can think of. The fact he was so good at it helps a lot, and he's got two excellent feuds in the 80's, Savage & Valentine. Some of the best fire comebacks who can find. Still, he's not a top 100 guy to me, although I can understand why people voted for him (contrary to guys like Piper, Dusty or Hogan for instance). He's also the first guy I saw that was involved in a memorable match, the IC tournament final against Perfect.

 

I would (and will) argue that being the best at what is most basic and primal is exactly why he should be on a list like this.

 

100 percent agree. If WWE took a more "basic and primal" approach to how it operates its current product, imagine how much better it would be. Basic and primal in pro wrestling is usually a good thing. No need to out-think yourself.

"Greatest British wrestler ever."

 

Ouch. I like Dynamite at times (mainly as a heel), but considering the Brits who didn't make the list who are far superior, that kind of hurts.

He's not even the best wrestler named Dynamite.

He's not even the best wrestler named Dynamite.

or Kid

Frankly, I prefer the Danish Dynamite.

"Greatest British wrestler ever."

 

Ouch. I like Dynamite at times (mainly as a heel), but considering the Brits who didn't make the list who are far superior, that kind of hurts.

 

There are better British wrestlers than him who didn't garner one vote and there are better British wrestlers than him who didn't even get nominated.

 

Good to see the last three, especially Gordy and Dynamite. Dynamite was one of my first favorite wrestlers as I moved from being a fan into being super-dork-fan. That was of course due in part to a lot of the hype around him and especially his match with Tiger Mask. However, I really like him more on rewatch than a lot of people. He is so crisp and aggressive (perhaps TOO much so). But that sort of urgency is really important to me and I think it makes even his bad matches better. His later stuff always disappointing me, but whenever I catch his earlier matches I usually enjoy them. Good tag wrestler, good singles wrestler, hybrid style, highly influential.

 

Gordy on the other hand is someone I came to really late and I find him almost mesmerizing. The way he moves for his size. His selling and bumping always impressed me. If anything, I always wanted more Terry offense. I always thought that if Gordy acted more like a monster and balanced that a little bit better with his bumping and he fit politically he could have had a really fun NWA title run. He did his job really well most of the time though.

I had Terry Gordy at #75. Still the best Freebird by a wide margin, although Gordy was clearly not at his best yet and facing crappy opposition in Texas. Terrific worker in Japan and in Mid-South. He's above Doc, as he should.

 

Did not rate the Dynamite Kid this time around. Too short of a peak, not as good as the guys emulating him later on (Benoit, Liger). It's not a travesty that he's making the top 100 though.

Enough of this Dynamite Kid British stuff. He was the best of the WoS teenage workers and would have easily been as good as Finlay, Rocco and Jones if he'd stayed in England instead of going to Calgary.

Enough of this Dynamite Kid British stuff. He was the best of the WoS teenage workers and would have easily been as good as Finlay, Rocco and Jones if he'd stayed in England instead of going to Calgary.

And by that logic, Bret Hart should be #1.

 

I'm not saying Dynamite shouldn't be #212 or something.

I didn't really like those DK vs. Rocco matches. DK vs. Jones is great and you wish he'd worked like that all the time. I don't really care for his post-england work.

 

Tito making the list is kind of a shock to me. Higher than Garvin or Parka too. I thought he was considered borderline. Great worker for what he is though.

By what logic should Bret Hart be #1? My point is being it's no affront for DK to be considered the greatest British wrestler.

I had Tito in the back end of my list. Fire and explosiveness just about sums it up. Great tag worker too. Maybe my favourite hot tag guy. And the flying forearm is one of my favourite moves also. Arriba!

 

I think Gordy just snuck onto the bottom of my list.

By what logic should Bret Hart be #1? My point is being it's no affront for DK to be considered the greatest British wrestler.

If he had ended up in Mid-Atlantic or Mid-South instead of WWF. If he had jumped to WCW in 1991. If he had homesteaded in New Japan instead.

 

From the evidence we have, Dynamite might have become the best of the WoS workers of his era if he stayed. I get that point. He didn't stay though. He jumped to Calgary and became something else instead. And now he's above all of them, generally by far.

Becoming more shocked with each roll out that Angle hasn't dropped yet.

Andrew, come and talk to us about Rick Rude.

Rude just missed my top 100. He got dropped in favor of Onita and a bunch of others. I really love his peak,but then again, it's too short to warrant a spot, especially since he fell off a cliff before having to retire. I'm kinda surprised he gets higher than in 2006, but then again, conservative list, the mainstream US guys will do better this time around.