Greatest Wrestler of All Time

[S.L.L.]

When it comes down to it, it's really all about personal taste. There's no real right or wrong top 10 wrestler list.

Well, not strictly speaking, no. But people don't pick their favorite wrestlers by throwing darts at names on the wall. It's not completely arbitrary. People base their opinions on something. And sometimes that basis might not make any sense, or might not jibe factually with what that wrestler actually did. There are both objective and subjective elements to it.

[Resident Evil]

When it comes down to it, it's really all about personal taste. There's no real right or wrong top 10 wrestler list.

Well, not strictly speaking, no. But people don't pick their favorite wrestlers by throwing darts at names on the wall. It's not completely arbitrary. People base their opinions on something. And sometimes that basis might not make any sense, or might not jibe factually with what that wrestler actually did. There are both objective and subjective elements to it.

 

Yeah, people base their opinions on personal taste.

 

The basis they explain for their opinion may not make sense but the actual basis they do have that makes a favourite a favourite does make sense otherwise they would not have that opinion. Now wether that basis is loyalty and the bias that comes with that (see sports in general) or it's just something that's difficult to explain is up to debate. See also the basis of bias and the loyalty towards dislike that works for someone disliking a wrestler or a sports team.

 

I want to say I have no problem with someone saying Michaels is better than Kawada. I think he is in someways. I have no problem with someone saying that the great Rip Rogers is better than Kawada. Likewise, it is fine with me in saying that Kawada is better than Michaels or Rogers. I just don't like it when people say that Kawada/insert wrestler x is better than Michaels/Rogers/wrestler y like it's a fact. Wrestling is a unique art form cnd there's too many variables/factors that go into it. It's not a pure sport with rules and regulations (despite having sport elements) where it's easier to say who's better than who.

 

A lot of it is taste. Even a lot of the so called objective elements are I find subjective.

[Guest STAN]

Danielson though?

 

Next thing you know CM Punk will grace the top 200

[Resident Evil]

Danielson though?

 

Next thing you know CM Punk will grace the top 200

 

I've heard from an opinion I trust that Danielson has improved. I'm not an expert on ROH or Danielson though because I don't watch it enough.

[smkelly]

Danielson?

I know, I know.

 

And just so you know, the ten I listed are my favorites, not who are the best ever, although most of them would remain.

 

I didn't include Tsuruta simply because I haven't seen enough of him to actually base an intelligent opinion on. I've seen a lot of his later matches, when he was already slowing down, but haven't seen a lot of the stuff where he's at his best.

 

I didn't include the Destroyer for the same reasons. Although, if I did watch a considerable amount of footage of either guy, I'm sure my list would be altered considerably.

 

Flair - I picked Flair because I've always enjoyed his great matches, and the ability to carry lesser known wrestlers to great matches. His charisma is another factor, even today, it sets him apart.

 

Kobashi - The man is a modern day miracle to science and medicine. Scientists and Doctors should be studying him 24/7. Plus, he just flat out rocks in the ring.

 

Kawada - One of the stiffest bastards to ever lace up a pair of boots. His eyes just scream hatred, which I'm a mark for in wrestling.

 

Benoit - Dismissing the fact he's a cold blooded murderer, he was one of the best to ever lace up. He was willing to sacrifice his body at any given moment. His intensity was awe inspiring.

 

E. Guerrero - A complete dick head heel, or a sympathy getting face. He could go with the best of them, he could fly, and he could act. A true package performer.

 

Hansen - One of the best big men ever (I consider him a big man due to his weight). He is the definition of grizzled veteran. The tough guy who sits at the end of the bar and everyone avoids like the plague.

 

Liger - The NJPW junior. Has had so many great and memorable matches, it's hard to list them all. He took what Sayama/Billington did and pushed the envelope even further.

 

Billington - I'm a mark for intensity, and Mr. Billington had plenty of it. He made "little men" a highlight, and a must watch. I'm also a mark for determination and strong willed individuals. He wrestled with a broken back, unlike HBK.

 

Misawa - Took the reigns from Jumbo and never looked back. Although his greediness will forever be his downfall, he could work with the best of them and keep up no problem.

 

Danielson - Like Billington and Benoit, his intensity is cool as shit. I just like the little things he does, working over a bodypart by picking it apart. I especially like the way he works over a hand, or arm. Out of all of the current wrestlers performing today, Danielson is by far one of the best, and most entertaining to watch. I disagree with how he treats his body though, but he's a grown man.

 

This list may change since I'm buying a lot of stuff from GH right now

[S.L.L.]

When it comes down to it, it's really all about personal taste. There's no real right or wrong top 10 wrestler list.

Well, not strictly speaking, no. But people don't pick their favorite wrestlers by throwing darts at names on the wall. It's not completely arbitrary. People base their opinions on something. And sometimes that basis might not make any sense, or might not jibe factually with what that wrestler actually did. There are both objective and subjective elements to it.

 

Yeah, people base their opinions on personal taste.

Sure they do, but to just say "personal taste" by itself means nothing. In fact judging something purely on "personal taste" by itself is logically impossible, because it still has to be personal taste in something. And then that personal taste has to reflect what's being judged in some specific way. You never see a review of anything that just says "personal taste", it's always how personal taste reflected certain specific aspects of the work being reviewed. "Personal taste" means nothing when stripped of context.

 

The basis they explain for their opinion may not make sense but the actual basis they do have that makes a favourite a favourite does make sense otherwise they would not have that opinion. Now wether that basis is loyalty and the bias that comes with that (see sports in general) or it's just something that's difficult to explain is up to debate. See also the basis of bias and the loyalty towards dislike that works for someone disliking a wrestler or a sports team.

But people aren't always honest about that. Or they act like their personal hangups and biases are something more than that. In my experience, people who play the "it's just my opinion" card are almost always people who got into the argument stating their personal biases like they were fact, and that anyone who disagrees with them are crazy morons. Then, when the dissenters dissect their own opinions, they fall back on that old saw. I have no problem with people who disagree with me who can be honest about their opinions and can recognize their biases as such. It's everyone else who bugs me.

 

I want to say I have no problem with someone saying Michaels is better than Kawada. I think he is in someways. I have no problem with someone saying that the great Rip Rogers is better than Kawada. Likewise, it is fine with me in saying that Kawada is better than Michaels or Rogers. I just don't like it when people say that Kawada/insert wrestler x is better than Michaels/Rogers/wrestler y like it's a fact. Wrestling is a unique art form cnd there's too many variables/factors that go into it. It's not a pure sport with rules and regulations (despite having sport elements) where it's easier to say who's better than who.

 

A lot of it is taste. Even a lot of the so called objective elements are I find subjective.

Again, logically impossible, because subjective opinion requires objective fact for basis. Go ahead, try and have a subjective opinion right now about something that doesn't exist in objective reality. I wouldn't even know where to start.

 

As best I can tell, opinions on professional wrestlers are formed when a wrestler's talent - an objective quality, unless you want to tell me that there's nothing Kawada can do differently than Giant Gonzalez that will make him a better wrestler, and that opinions on both men have no reflection on what they do in the ring whatsoever - are judged by a viewer through the prism of their personal taste - a subjective quality, and even then, one that usually falls within the usual range for our species or our given culture. And while that doesn't mean there's a "right" top 10, it means that any given top 10 is going to be based on a certain standard that, to some degree, will match up to other top 10's, even if the exact results don't. If it doesn't, that doesn't necessarily make the opinions "wrong", either. But it does mean that the person stating them will need to do serious explaining so as not to be misunderstood.

[Resident Evil]

When it comes down to it, it's really all about personal taste. There's no real right or wrong top 10 wrestler list.

Well, not strictly speaking, no. But people don't pick their favorite wrestlers by throwing darts at names on the wall. It's not completely arbitrary. People base their opinions on something. And sometimes that basis might not make any sense, or might not jibe factually with what that wrestler actually did. There are both objective and subjective elements to it.

 

Yeah, people base their opinions on personal taste.

Sure they do, but to just say "personal taste" by itself means nothing. In fact judging something purely on "personal taste" by itself is logically impossible, because it still has to be personal taste in something. And then that personal taste has to reflect what's being judged in some specific way. You never see a review of anything that just says "personal taste", it's always how personal taste reflected certain specific aspects of the work being reviewed. "Personal taste" means nothing when stripped of context.

 

The basis they explain for their opinion may not make sense but the actual basis they do have that makes a favourite a favourite does make sense otherwise they would not have that opinion. Now wether that basis is loyalty and the bias that comes with that (see sports in general) or it's just something that's difficult to explain is up to debate. See also the basis of bias and the loyalty towards dislike that works for someone disliking a wrestler or a sports team.

But people aren't always honest about that. Or they act like their personal hangups and biases are something more than that. In my experience, people who play the "it's just my opinion" card are almost always people who got into the argument stating their personal biases like they were fact, and that anyone who disagrees with them are crazy morons. Then, when the dissenters dissect their own opinions, they fall back on that old saw. I have no problem with people who disagree with me who can be honest about their opinions and can recognize their biases as such. It's everyone else who bugs me.

 

Eh, it goes both ways there.

I want to say I have no problem with someone saying Michaels is better than Kawada. I think he is in someways. I have no problem with someone saying that the great Rip Rogers is better than Kawada. Likewise, it is fine with me in saying that Kawada is better than Michaels or Rogers. I just don't like it when people say that Kawada/insert wrestler x is better than Michaels/Rogers/wrestler y like it's a fact. Wrestling is a unique art form cnd there's too many variables/factors that go into it. It's not a pure sport with rules and regulations (despite having sport elements) where it's easier to say who's better than who.

 

A lot of it is taste. Even a lot of the so called objective elements are I find subjective.

Again, logically impossible, because subjective opinion requires objective fact for basis. Go ahead, try and have a subjective opinion right now about something that doesn't exist in objective reality. I wouldn't even know where to start.

 

What is being said is that some qualities people "claim are objective" have subjective elements about them

As best I can tell, opinions on professional wrestlers are formed when a wrestler's talent - an objective quality, unless you want to tell me that there's nothing Kawada can do differently than Giant Gonzalez that will make him a better wrestler, and that opinions on both men have no reflection on what they do in the ring whatsoever - are judged by a viewer through the prism of their personal taste - a subjective quality, and even then, one that usually falls within the usual range for our species or our given culture. And while that doesn't mean there's a "right" top 10, it means that any given top 10 is going to be based on a certain standard that, to some degree, will match up to other top 10's, even if the exact results don't. If it doesn't, that doesn't necessarily make the opinions "wrong", either. But it does mean that the person stating them will need to do serious explaining so as not to be misunderstood.

 

Ok, I agree with most of what you say here. Wrestling talent is there. It exists so in that sense it is an objective quality but it is also a subjective quality. Because of it's purpose and what people think actual talent is.

 

The range of personal taste though I think is biiig and should be accepted and treated as such. We see it in judging wrestling matches and the wrestlers themselves. I think this has shown has up to be as fact during the last few years in the IWC.

[jdw]

I always love the "there are no wrong opinions" claim. It allows one to defend saying Sid was a better worker than Flair or Jumbo or the Funks or Lawler or Kobashi or Shawn.

 

There are stupid and wrong opinions. We all know this. We all apply this to aspects of our lives every single day, on all sorts of things.

 

A friend of yours thinks his girlfriend is great. You happen to know she's fucking another friend behind his back, and know his opinion is delusional.

 

Your boss thinks a co-worker is great. You happen to know the person does nothing, and just plays on the internet all day, doing the bare minimum to avoid getting caught.

 

Your friend thinks Godfather 3 is the best movie of the series. You laugh - he's fucking nuts!

 

A friend thinks Skinemax is the best porn in the world. Well hell, you surf the web and have run across porn from all over the world over the decades that smoke Skinemax like a cheap cigar, and you know your friend just doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

A friend thinks White Castle is the great burgers on the face of the earth. You're not exactly a good snob, as you like mediocre fast food... but you also know that White Castle if dogshit bad.

 

We do this every day. We hear other people's opinions, we have our own, they are often opposite, and we often think the other person is full of shit. Every single one of us. We never slow down and say:

 

"Well, I happen to disagree with you on White Castle but technically you're not wrong. Since it is your opinion that they're great and tasty, that's perfectly valid since opinions can't be wrong."

 

The fuck?

 

Look... I understand the notion of being open to the opinions of others. I'm far less argumentative on stuff like that these days. I don't really care anymore if someone puts Shawn in the Top 10 of all-time. Someone putting him #1... if it was someone either of note doing that, or a person who's opinion might mean a bit to me, I'd be interested in seeing the justification and might probe it a bit. But overall... I'd frankly rather read a book that worry about someone having Shawn in the top 10.

 

But that doesn't mean that opinions can't be utterly full of shit. We all know that.

 

 

John

[Loss]

For the record, I like Bryan Danielson. I just want to let him accomplish a little more before I rate him that high.

[Jingus]

A friend of yours thinks his girlfriend is great. You happen to know she's fucking another friend behind his back, and know his opinion is delusional.

 

Your boss thinks a co-worker is great. You happen to know the person does nothing, and just plays on the internet all day, doing the bare minimum to avoid getting caught.

 

A friend thinks Skinemax is the best porn in the world. Well hell, you surf the web and have run across porn from all over the world over the decades that smoke Skinemax like a cheap cigar, and you know your friend just doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't think those are really equitable with arguing about wrestling, though. Those examples rely on the observer to have knowledge of information which the other person doesn't have. That can work in the context of arguing with someone who says "Triple H is the greatest wrestler of all time" and has never seen a match from Japan, which thus attenuates his range of "greatest wrestlers" to choose from. But for two people who've seen the same thing and came away with different reactions, like two people who watched the same match and one liked it but the other hated it, it's not the same thing.

 

A friend thinks White Castle is the great burgers on the face of the earth. You're not exactly a good snob, as you like mediocre fast food... but you also know that White Castle if dogshit bad.

 

We do this every day. We hear other people's opinions, we have our own, they are often opposite, and we often think the other person is full of shit. Every single one of us. We never slow down and say:

 

"Well, I happen to disagree with you on White Castle but technically you're not wrong. Since it is your opinion that they're great and tasty, that's perfectly valid since opinions can't be wrong."

 

The fuck?

This is where your argument completely lost me. You can factually prove that White Castle is inferior to other fast food? The fuck? That's like saying that ketchup is inherently an objectively better condiment than mustard, or something. There's no objective argument whatsoever there, it's just that you personally don't like White Castle's over-salted onion-saturated stomach bombs.

 

I'm sure there is indeed someone out there who thinks that Sid > HBK and that Part 3 was the best Godfather flick. But I don't see how you can factually, objectively, definitely prove them wrong. After all, "proof" is defined as being incontrovertable fact, something like an algebraic equation where all different people can run the permutations over and over again and yet still come up with identical answers. That only works in math and science. I don't see how it's possible in something like arguing over performance art. The closest we can get is general consensus among a certain group of people. Sure, Meltzer's opinion on a match means more than some little kid's does, to us. Others would just stare at him funny and say "What do you mean Ric Flair is the best rassler? Hulk Hogan would kick his ass!" Would we dismiss that person's opinion as stupid and wrong? Of course, because it's so different from ours. But the very nature of the word "proof" implies that you could show it to absolutely anyone and get the exact same reaction every time. You can prove that one plus one equals two. I don't see how you can prove that Danielson isn't entertaining enough to warrant that spot on smkelly's list. If you can actually do it, I'd love to see it; not being a smartass either, I'd truthfully love to see how you can prove anything regarding whether someone's opinions on these matters are right or wrong.

[ohtani's jacket]

First you've gotta care that the opinion's wrong... I don't even know what fast food my friends like let alone thinking they're full of shit... If someone said Ozu, Eric B and Rakim or Yoshiaki Fujiwara suck, then I'd care. Otherwise they can like or dislike whatever they please.

[ragemaster]

Okay, I'll bite...what's your rationale for putting Shawn ahead of Eddie and Bret?

 

Hi its very simple i feel Shawn has a better body of work than ether Bret or Eddie. Don't forget as great as Eddie was, after his car crash his work suffered a lot. He did do some good work. some great work on the right night but he wasn't as consistent and maybe that's affected my view of him. Now as for Bret i think he did do some awesome work but in my opinion his best work doesn't hold up with shawn's best work plus shawn has a much larger body of great work under his belt. Ok not the most in-depth answer but i just finished a night shift and need my sleep. Also why do people here seem to hate Shawns work, out of my top ten he was the only one people focused on as wrong. Just as a note if i was voting for my favourites Owen Hart and Randy Savage would be in there. I did have trouble when i got to number six finding the last four wrestlers to put on my list and maybe it should be a top 5 and then the next number on the list is number 20 or something to show how great they are compared to the rest on the list.

 

Mr Rage

[S.L.L.]

Ok, I agree with most of what you say here. Wrestling talent is there. It exists so in that sense it is an objective quality but it is also a subjective quality. Because of it's purpose and what people think actual talent is.

 

The range of personal taste though I think is biiig and should be accepted and treated as such. We see it in judging wrestling matches and the wrestlers themselves. I think this has shown has up to be as fact during the last few years in the IWC.

The range is pretty wide, no doubt. That said, despite the wide range of possible and even existing opinions, I do think it's a mistake to overlook the frequency of certain opinions compared to others, and I also think it's a mistake to chalk that frequency up to coincidence. I don't know if there's quantifiable proof that a White Castle burger is not as good as a really fine New York diner burger, but I think when you look at the frequency of opinions from those who have tasted both, it's kind of hard to deny that there's something happening right with one that isn't happening with the other. And again, that doesn't make the dissenters "wrong", but they're going to have to explain their position if they don't want to get looked at weirdly by everyone else.

 

Hi its very simple i feel Shawn has a better body of work than ether Bret or Eddie. Don't forget as great as Eddie was, after his car crash his work suffered a lot. He did do some good work. some great work on the right night but he wasn't as consistent and maybe that's affected my view of him. Now as for Bret i think he did do some awesome work but in my opinion his best work doesn't hold up with shawn's best work plus shawn has a much larger body of great work under his belt. Ok not the most in-depth answer but i just finished a night shift and need my sleep. Also why do people here seem to hate Shawns work, out of my top ten he was the only one people focused on as wrong. Just as a note if i was voting for my favourites Owen Hart and Randy Savage would be in there. I did have trouble when i got to number six finding the last four wrestlers to put on my list and maybe it should be a top 5 and then the next number on the list is number 20 or something to show how great they are compared to the rest on the list.

Under ideal circumstances, none of this is "wrong", so to speak. But....

 

1. A lot of us feel Shawn has a lesser body of work than Bret and Eddie

2. A lot of us feel Bret and Eddie both became consistently great workers before Shawn did

3. A lot of us feel that Shawn's run as a great worker didn't really outlast Bret's

4. A lot of us feel that while Eddie was pretty inconsistent for about a year after his accident, after that he was pretty consistently one of the best workers in the world until his death, to the point there would be a section within this group that actually feels Eddie was at his best in this period

5. A lot of us feel that Bret's best work holds up better than Shawn's best work

 

...so while I recognize that it's entirely possible to believe the above, it's kind of puzzling for someone like me who definitely believes the first four points and thinks that Bret's best work at least matches up to Shawn's to read what Ragemaster is saying.

[tomk]

Maan I used to have a pot pinned on the DVDVR about how saying "it's all subjective" should be the beginning of discussion and not the end. With the death of nos stick I don't know if I can find that anymore.

 

Hi its very simple i feel Shawn has a better body of work than ether Bret or Eddie.

Can you point to examples of this body of work? What are the matches that you like?

[S.L.L.]

Maan I used to have a pot pinned on the DVDVR about how saying "it's all subjective" should be the beginning of discussion and not the end. With the death of nos stick I don't know if I can find that anymore.

It is kind of a shame that the deletion of Non-Stick erased a lot of really great discourse about what makes stupid arguments stupid.

[goodhelmet]

I think one of the biggest problems people have with HBK is his blatant unprofessionalism in many of his high profile matches. You have the over-selling and promo after the Hogan match. There were the tantrums thrown mid-match in Bulldog and Vader PPV matches. The unwillingness to drop a belt almost at anytime in his career. Personally, I think the one area where the in-ring work may have been in HBK's favor over Bret was in the tag team dept. as I have enjoyed more Rockers matches than Hart Foundation matches.

 

As for Eddie, I am currently working on a 30+ disc comp of his career that will highlight his stuff from Mexico, Japan, the CW's up until the end of his life. From what I have seen, I think it will be sufficient proof that Eddie was pretty great for well over a decade and was far more consistent than many other great wrestlers.

[tomk]

One of the things that Shawn pimpers always point to is "ability to work with a variety of opponents" but the question the tantrums ask is were their styleistic match-ups that he was incapable of working.

 

Yeah he threw a tantrum with Shamrock.

 

But is their any reason to believe that he was capable of stylistically matching up with Shamrock as well as Vader, Sano, Owen, Bret or fuck Ron Killings?

 

He threw a tantrum opposite Vader.

 

But is their any reason to believe that he was capable of stylistically matching up with Vader as well as DBS, Pillman, Inoki, Cactus Jack, Dustin, Sting and a rack of other people.

 

Could he have matches up with Hogan as smartly as DDP or the Rock?

 

Are the tantrums a sign of immaturity or just an acknowledgement of the limits of his abilities?

 

We'll never know for sure.

[tomk]

It is kind of a shame that the deletion of Non-Stick erased a lot of really great discourse about what makes stupid arguments stupid.

I don't see any reason that that thread should have dissapeared but can't find it.

[S.L.L.]

It is kind of a shame that the deletion of Non-Stick erased a lot of really great discourse about what makes stupid arguments stupid.

I don't see any reason that that thread should have dissapeared but can't find it.

 

I thought Non-Stick was deleted entirely. There was stuff saved?

[tomk]

Still appears for me. Didn't realize it was hidden.

[Bix]

Yeah, NSW really needs to be brought back as a read-only folder, or at least have its more interesting/amusing threads moved to a new read-only archive folder.

[S.L.L.]

Yeah, NSW really needs to be brought back as a read-only folder, or at least have its more interesting/amusing threads moved to a new read-only archive folder.

Yeah, it was a sewer, but I'd hate to see all those amusing anecdotes and elaborate hit pieces on various idiots and their stupid opinions lost forever.

[Guest STAN]

I think one of the biggest problems people have with HBK is his blatant unprofessionalism in many of his high profile matches.

I can't be the only one entertained by that stuff though. When he was smiling & grinning while getting beaten & bludgeoned by Bret Hart in the SS '97 match, I was laughing. Maybe I don't take pro wrestling seriously enough, but most of that shit just added to Shawn's greatness in my eyes. I mean he had the audacity to do it to guys who could legitimately kill him with their bare hands if they wanted to. And he got away with it. I chuckle just thinking about it.

[S.L.L.]

I think one of the biggest problems people have with HBK is his blatant unprofessionalism in many of his high profile matches.

I can't be the only one entertained by that stuff though. When he was smiling & grinning while getting beaten & bludgeoned by Bret Hart in the SS '97 match, I was laughing. Maybe I don't take pro wrestling seriously enough, but most of that shit just added to Shawn's greatness in my eyes. I mean he had the audacity to do it to guys who could legitimately kill him with their bare hands if they wanted to. And he got away with it. I chuckle just thinking about it.

 

I got more than a few laughs out of Shawn over-overselling for Hogan, myself. That said, if we're really appraising Shawn as a worker, that kind of thing has to count against him.

[Guest STAN]

I think one of the biggest problems people have with HBK is his blatant unprofessionalism in many of his high profile matches.

I can't be the only one entertained by that stuff though. When he was smiling & grinning while getting beaten & bludgeoned by Bret Hart in the SS '97 match, I was laughing. Maybe I don't take pro wrestling seriously enough, but most of that shit just added to Shawn's greatness in my eyes. I mean he had the audacity to do it to guys who could legitimately kill him with their bare hands if they wanted to. And he got away with it. I chuckle just thinking about it.

 

I got more than a few laughs out of Shawn over-overselling for Hogan, myself. That said, if we're really appraising Shawn as a worker, that kind of thing has to count against him.

 

I suppose, if we're doing a poll on the most professional in-ring technicians of all time, that is true. Topic says "Greatest Wrestler" which is definitely more vague. You almost have to break it down into different categories, no?