Midnight Zeus

Its how i've interpreted the topic title, that he wanted to know the 10 guys who wrestle better, if he'd had said top 10 total packages in wrestling, then I would have consideredphysically, verbally, emotively and so on, I'd have probably put the Rock in, seeing as I always get caught up in a Rock match or segment, because he's got a good amount of every thing that needs to go into a great wrestler. But, using the Rock as an example again, looking purely on his wrestling, the way he does his moves for instance, he works very loose, his ring work doesn't look incredibly impressive. Watch how he applies a sharpshooter, or a figure 4, or executes a samoan drop, they all look bad. Thats why I chose the guys I chose.

I never look that closely at how holds are applied or how 'loose' they wrestle - I'm very shallow in my viewing of wrestling, such that the odd bit of no selling or inconsitancy in the 'stoty' of the match will generally pass me by. That's probably why I can't and don't rate wrestlers simply on how they physically apply holds and how loose or tight they wrestle - I personally can't and to be honest never really try to extract that kind of analysis from a wrestler's performance. I just rate a wrestler on the match he has with all the various components incorporated in that one assessment.Things like skits and interviews I can rate exclusively but once the match has started, that's it for me! I'd probably get on well at an All Star show, though the thought of being labelled a retard or senile isn't one to relish - then again, look who the label originates from!!

Because the topic says based on wrestling ability I am picking people on base of technique and ability in the ring for the wrestling side of wrestling, rather than the performance side of wrestling,

You see to me that's all down to perspective and very much open to interpretation - while you interpret 'wrestling ability' to mean one thing I interpret it to be another. It is my belief that everything that goes on in the ring whether it is physical contact between two wrestlers or verbal banter from one wrestler is still all part of a wrestler's 'ability'.I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Some wrestlers rely on one side more than the other but the best wrestlers (IMO of course) will use both and that is why wrestlers who rely too much on the 'physical' side don't appeal to me and don't get rated as a 'wrestler', again by me, as highly as wrestlers who utilise all aspects of their ability, both physically, verbally and emotively.

The first point that probably needs adressing is that 'widely thought to be terrible' and what I think are usually two very different things Moving on, I don't tend to take a theoretical average of a wrestler's whole career but rather if a wrestler has enough good matches on a consiatant basis then that qualifies him in my mind to be a good wrestler.Taking Hulk Hogan as an example - when you take into consideration my bizarre ability to like what may be classed as bad matches then on the whole I have pretty much enjoyed the whole of Hogan's career ranging from good to absolutely awesome and mindnumbling mark-worthy. This enables me to still rate him as one of the all time greats, irresepctive of bad matches he may have had.As long as a wrestler has enough good matches and not just a couple of good matches then I tend to compare their best work rather than all their work. That's why although Hogan's bottom 20% of matches may not be as good as Benoit's bottom 20% of matches, but because I apply far more weighting on the other end of scale, Hogan comes out on top by a long way.

Let's try and make a discussion. LOP, based purely from an in-ring point of view how are Shawn Michaels, Keiji Mutoh, Yuji Nagata, Hogan or Rocky anywhere near the top ten. Seriously.

Because what they do in the ring, they are, IMO, the very best at it!Let's take the obvious bone of contention - Hulk Hogan. Now to me, the way he plays for the crowd, uses facial expressions, and basically draws me into the match is as important as any other aspect of in ring wrestling.As good as Benoit is, he has never connected with me like Hogan does. I have never cared or become emotive in a match of Benoit's like I sued to with Hogan and did again at Wrestlemania 18. Now to me that puts Hogan above Benoit.At this point people may come back and say, but as a purely in ring worker Benoit is better and I will disagree. Wrestling to me is all about being drawn into a match, caring about what happens and at the end of a match knowing you've been thoroughly entertained. Now if Hogan does that in a different way, using less tools of physical contact than Benoit then so be it, but he still does it within the confines of the ring then he rates as a good in ring wrestler.So he no sells sometimes and is plodding - no denying that, but he still manages, with the work he does in the ring with his opponent and via crowd interaction etc, to give me a better experience than a Benoit match and that is why I rate him as one of the very best.These 10 wrestlers are some of my favourites and I don't think best and favourite are mutually exclusive. The way they work matches appeals to me therefore I rate them as better wrestlers like yourself who don't get the same out of their matches that I do. If Benoit's matches connected with me more and gave me more entertainment than Hogan's matches then I would rate Benoit above Hogan. Fact is that they don't and until they do I will rate Hogan above Benoit as a wrestler.I don't expect a flurry of agreement from anyone with what I have written but I'm simply stating what I feel based on the way I watch wrestling and how assess what I have seen.

Shawn Michaels - the best ever as far as I'm concerned. Even more kudos to him that he comes back after so long out and puts in performances like he did against Jericho at Wrestlemania which is far superior to anything else in the WWE this year.Bret Hart - I never used to like Bret that much, I was a big HBK fan and they spent a lot of the time on different sides so I got it into my mind that I couldn't like both! It's only recently that I've started to like Bret more from watching past matches.Keiji Muto - captivated me as the Great Muta 14 years ago, and then when I started watching him in Japan I saw him as Keiji Muto too, his 2001 was one of the best years I've ever seen a wrestler have.Yuji Nagata - probably the best wrestler to effectively use lots of kicking and striking that I have ever seen. One of the greatest 'carriers' in the world today.Hulk Hogan - I don't care if he doesn't fit the description of a great in ring wrestler, I like what he did in the ring and thoroughly enjoyed his matches, that's reason enough for me for him to be included.Eddie Guerrero - while HBK was out of the game there was Eddie G, now they are both in the WWE at the same time and I am thoroughly spoiled. Like HBK, a fantastic all rounder.The Rock - always moaned at for having few moves but when you use them as well as Rocky does you don't need 000's of them. Had far more great matches than he'll probably ever be given crdit for.Steve Austin - like Muto, and maybe even more effectively, changed his style and remained as superb as before, maybe even better. Disturbingly underrated as a 'mat wrestler' when you read people talk about him.Ric Flair - one of the very best ever and like most others in the list, so very good at making his opponent look good.Bobby Eaton - probably not an expected inclusion but a worthy one all the same. One of the many unsung heros of the 80s and 90s who tirelessly gave his all and had fantastic matches with a multitude of partners in tag matches and had some fun as a singles wrestler when given the chance.

T'would also lose a large amount of the new demographic.

Yeah, but how big is that in the first place ?

Indeed - a demographic made up of 0.005% of the population offers far less audience growth potential than a demographic made up of say 5% of the population.

In saying that, thouugh, criticising the FWA when you (not you in particular, MM) haven't attended one of their shows is a bit lame, in my view.

On that basis we should disregard 99% of people's views on Japanese or Mexican wrestling when they are less than favourable opinions. Why is an opinion of the UK scene based on video footage any different to the usually uncontested opinions of other counties' wrestling scenes also based on video footage?

What school is this then?

Where ever it is, he shouldn't have left when he did!

Bret Hart for sure.Kurt has never been involved in anything that actually made me care. Bret exudes class and competitiveness where as Kurt is for the most part a goofy suplex machine. Nothing Kurt has done ever comes close to the stuff Bret did with owen or as part of the 1997 Hart Foundation let alone the 2 Steve Austin classics.Kurt Angle has good matches but Bret Hart has excellent matches that actually meant something. It's not really fair on Angle to even judge at this stage because he's only had a few years as a pro and can't be expected to be at Bret's level yet, whether he ever will be is left to time, but I for one doubt it.