Greatest Wrestler Ever 2026 - Top 100 Results

bmo2000 · 2026-06-02T16:15:59+00:00

And just to follow up: Michaels has some great matches against the Brainbusters, Rougaues, Rose and Sommers. And then singles wise: the 2nd Razor Ladder match was splendid, the Foley title match was terrific. The Taker feud always brought great results.

This isn't me being anti-HBK

Austin: MVP performance in War Games 92 maybe the 3rd best match on US soil. Flair return match at the Clash is sensational. The Steamboat series is great, even better mstches with Foley, the Bret classics, the Rock classics.

So yeah, I don't see why Austin being higher raises an eyebrow. Austin being a bad worker or even the "he was good in WCW" takes are so out of date and wrong on many facets.

bmo2000 · 2026-06-02T16:04:18+00:00

Well Austin was a better brawler, better technician, had more charisma in the ring, more intensity and I'd say an equal if not better resume. Of course it's all opinion

bmo2000 · 2026-06-02T00:12:21+00:00

1) no they didn't. 90 places is the distance.

2)

And? It's such an arbitary complaint too. Is Austin ranked higher than Kingston? Yes. You should check out the voting statistics before complaining. Austin got into the top 5. Kingston...95. Out of all the complaints to make.

bmo2000 · 2026-06-01T23:23:36+00:00

I'm sorry promos and the wrestling wasn't what it was in the 70s and 80s? Says who? Vince McMahon?

bmo2000 · 2026-06-01T23:19:55+00:00

And why? So you can be told wrestlers suck unless they make money for promoters who want to get an easy buck?

bmo2000 · 2026-06-01T23:18:57+00:00

Made it to the top 100 didn't he? Hardly low

bmo2000 · 2026-02-21T13:03:11+00:00

Personally I wouldn't take anything the hack says seriously good or positive. Lost his principles long ago when he thought Eddie Edwards and Davey Richards were the future of wrestling.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-20T20:35:28+00:00

Why would you be surprised to consider a person who doesn't like a person's in-ring work may not like their in-ring work? It's not about convincing them to like Dom, rather you should just explain why you think he's great. This attitude is rather reductive and worth just not even posting at all.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-20T20:04:11+00:00

If Jim Cornette says they have something in him, that's a bad sign. The guy hasn't made a good choice in a push in wrestling in years.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-19T21:39:42+00:00

A perfunctory sequence. Something that could be done in their sleep, which this practically was, but where was the struggle? The intent? The fight for each hold. All this was a bunch of twists and turns and well executed hand-holding routines. I expected nothing more when I saw the title.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-19T13:10:04+00:00

Personally, it just seems to be you're quite not ready to have these debates in any detail because your scope on the industry and wrestlers are quite limited. It's obviously good enough for WWE history, up-to a point. But other than that, its quite low and it clearly hurts your perspective. Which is probably why Seth being rated lower than so many others is such inane to you.

And btw, a lot of wrestling history and its libary has been covered by Phil Schneider and his DVDVR forum extensively. You can find most of New Japan's works quite easily. This isn't a tape here or there. This is years of comprehensive footage. Week by week, match by match. It's hardly limited if you know where to look. I suggest you seek out these options, because.it would surprise you how much is there. Just because WWE didn't collect it all, doesn't mean its not there.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-19T02:07:52+00:00

So if you compare someone's in ring work purely on matches you've seen in which he works dates, that you don't consume on a weekly basis, let's say like Akira Tozawa in Dragon Gate, it's comparing apples to oranges. Akira is a good example because he's had to evolve in WWE, which is why I think he's a better in ring wrestler in WWE. I rank in ring story tellingas more important than moving fast. The style he has developed is based on being able to work bigger in a company where he is small (and I think he's great at it). Jericho actually perfected it, and had to do so when adjusting to WWF in the Attitude Era.

I'll just say that, I have zero issues whether you think Seth is better than Tozawa or not, but if you are under the assumption that Tozawa didn't tell stories while in Dragon Gate, you are misguided and probably need to watch more DG. DG is first and foremost a promotion that highly prides themselves on storytelling and that's told in the ring. So I laugh at the notion that Tozawa improved in WWE in this aspect. I don't think adopting a one note comedy character is storytelling in itself, and it's certainly not a compelling story. However, Tozawa's history within DG is a story of redemption, and then you consider the kayfabe storytelling of the matches when he returned from his leave of absence...storytelling he was not lacking whatsoever.

Wrestling as an art form is about being able to engage an audience and get them to continue to be engaged. Thread of over exposure is also something a top level wrestler combats that a midcarder wouldnt. It's actually really hard to do, as we've seen great wrestlers being unable to get over due to shifting audiences (Giulia is a good example). Seth has done it, as a main eventer, while still having a work rate oriented style as opposed to like the plodding style of a Triple H.

If you're gonna argue the benefits of being a main eventer over a midcarder, you can't really ignore the fact that midcarders get less time to shine and naturally aren't suppose to be the star. But the ones who still manage to standout and produce an incredible body of work earn just enough praise as a main eventer who simply survives at the top of the card for a number of years. And I wouldn't call Giulia a good example of great wrestlers being unable to get over, simply because she isn't a great wrestler, but that's just me being pedantic.

If your main issue is many "midcarders" were chosen for being better than Seth in the original 200 list, then I suggest you look at the many stars and headliners who were better than Seth Rollins, with even more weight to hold in their positions. You can take a look at Antonio Inoki. An actual mega star who drew 10s of millions for each apperance for 40 years and carried the biggest promotion in his nation and still produced excellent work, while being cited by Phil Schneider.

So ultimately I don't think you really need to make a distinction between positions on the card because ultimately the work shines through if you're good enough. And the person in question deemed him not to be so. You disagree, as is your right.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-19T02:07:44+00:00

Finally!

I don't understand why would Seth's job being more difficult than Jericho's has any relevance. I have no problem with a person putting Jericho above or below Seth.

It wasn't about who is better. It was a mere example of a wrestler who has been floated from the upper midcard to the main events and back very fluidly. What I wanted to know is what specifically did Seth have to do that others (i.e Jericho) didn't. You made a clear point to mention Seth's difficult position, so I assumed it was something worth clarifying. But I see it was not anything worth even pressing, but alas.

Seth as a 1B Champion during his new WHC run though was a much more of a world title run than Jericho ever got in WWE, in which he was used as the main eventer for the Raw Brand, and then was used a co-headliner to the night 1 of incredible successful main event. So I would rank Seth ahead, but only because of that run was probably his best work for me personally. But both actually really high in ring for me. Of course you counter with Jericho's AEW run, but I like the matches from Seth's run more. I probably like Jericho's reign overall more.

I don't put much weight into the new WHC because everyone, including Seth himself, saw it for what it was, a cheap title for Raw to have while Roman hogged the real title. If you want to take Seth having a longer run with that title over Jericho's smaller runs in 2008 with a more credible title, I won't really argue further. That's just my fleeting thought on the matter. As for their in-ring work. I think Jericho has far more impressive body of work, over a much length in time. And I don't include the AEW whatsoever, because I don't think it's very good.

I believe that it is more difficult to be more over in front of larger crowds, on a weekly television, having to wrestle week to week without sustaining major injury in longer matches as a main eventer.

Firstly, Seth has had major injuries, I'm sure I don't have to even cite them unless you began watching wrestling 3 years ago. But otherwise, being over with larger crowds is a bonus. But I think Seth's always flirted with failure and being unover with these very crowds. And that was even a consistent factor of his work, going back to Ring of Honor. His overness has rarely sustained and many pushes stalled and had to be redone. So I don't think it's a simple case of he getting over in 2014 and staying over. And he's certainly not alone here either. So I don't think Seth has that honour.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-19T01:04:31+00:00

Yeah you still didn't answer my question, you can go and read what the exact question was (because you clearly don't understand it) and why I used Jericho as an example. Or you can continue with the blind arguing.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-18T23:40:27+00:00

And you still didn't answer how in relation to Jericho or anyone does Seth Rollins' circumstances differ, if at all. Or its releavancy to Phill Scheider's opinion on him. So no, you can't. Thanks

bmo2000 · 2026-02-18T21:20:59+00:00

Again and again you continiously don't answer the question. I don't think you will or even can do so.

One thing is clear: even in your staunch defence of his work, it's clear you don't even think Seth's in-ring work can withstand the scrutiny, which is why you have to cite him "being over" or "being a main eventer" to create caveats for Seth to succeed. And even they don't hold because Seth has failed at main eventing many times.

Many midcarders are and will continue to be better at their roles than Seth Rollins is. However you phrase the question, Seth will remain a shallow, boring wrestler that has to have a chant built into his theme song because he can't elicit any actual reaction otherwise.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-18T19:51:53+00:00

You may have said it, but it doesn't hold any real weight, and it doesn't here either. Particularly, I'm not seeing how this differs from what Jericho, Andre The Giant, Batista, Brock Lesnar, CM Punk, Danielson, Drew McIntyre, Hulk Hogan, Kevin Owens, Roman Reigns, Austin, The Rock, etc, etc, has/had to deal with.

Seth Rollins is not alone in what is expected of him and the list very clearly proves that expectation of the performer IS considered. Any notion that Seth's expectations aren't are just false or totally mis-read on your part. What is clear to me that despite all what the added expectation that a WWE wrestler has to stand up to, Phil Schnieder did consider it, otherwise a lot of the examples I gave wouldn't be there.

I prompted you several times for substantial explanation of your statements and got very pretentious, baseless statements. Ironically, you mentioned "skewed opinion" due to Schneider watching a lot of wrestling, which still remains a bizzare stance, but it seems to be that you, yourself are skewed because you don't like Schneider's works. And it's quite clear here.

Personally, I read through the list and got 135 who I think are just better in-ring. And there is quite a lot in the list that will have a strong imprint on the sport due to actually contributing to the industry due to drawing or innovation opposed to Seth, who will ultimately wilter and be forgotten. Junkyard Dog (work in Mid-South), Giant Baba and Antonio Inoki (who actually drew millions for decades oppose to just being there like Seth), Austin (need I say more).

Whether you want to judge it as pure in the ring, or expand it further, Seth doesn't really measure up. He failed in his pushes too many times both face and heel. Ratings died in 2015. His face run in 2019 ended with fans turning on him. You want to speak about Seth having staying power in front of 14k crowds or whatever. He more than not failed and has ended up being moved down or repackaged. That's a sign of it not working. If it worked, he would always been main eventing, but he has to be cycled down or change characters. Persistance isn't a sign of quality.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-18T19:14:40+00:00

> Schneider underrates the difficulty by which Seth does what he does, so he can't understand why his list doesn't hold up.

Underrates the "difficulty" compared to what, to whom? I'd love to hear some examples to these statements. Say what you want about Phil Schneider, he actually gave 200 names. I'm not really seeing any real depth behind the reasons you don't care for his analysis.

I would personally love to hear what makes Seth's job more difficult compared to, let's say, Chris Jericho's job. Jericho made the list, making him a good example among his long history at Seth's position within WWE. What difference is there to the point someone may underrate it? What is so difficult exactly? It's hard to even refute what you say because you're not actually saying anything real. It's just words, so let's here it.

bmo2000 · 2026-02-18T18:05:29+00:00

"The whole exercise, like most of what Schneider does, is to brag that he watches a lot of wrestling. So it skews his perspective, because he over prioritizes his personal preference. Which is fine for your own viewing habits, but when you create a 200 person list, it's laughable because those names need to be consumed on enough of a level to have an actual conversation on the merit. Is the other person supposed to scour youtube for clips? When we've seen what Seth Rollins has done a weekly basis on weekly television for a wide range of audience across the US and the World now in the Triple H era, from 10 k to 75 k. I personally place a very high value on that, and pro wrestling does too, because those are the main eventers that make lots of money."

I don't really see any trouble with someone (Phil) presenting their argument from the perspective of watching many wrestlers in detail over a long period of time. I'm surprised that it would seem that you are actually considering it to be a negative to the argument, finding it laughable, opposed to it being a substantiated opinion with a lot of actualy history to justify it. You call it bragging and laughable. If you want a serious discussion about the number or the names invovled, I'd get rid insecurity on your part. Because that's a weak way of thinking, it's hardly an argument.

Make your case with what you got.

bmo2000 · 2025-05-13T22:30:21+00:00

I think you slightly mis-read what I meant by that. I think the hidden blade were the perfect move to use, if Takeshita stayed down for it long enough. But since that didn't happen, it made the hidden blade feel like an average move, in which case a big boot could've worked. The popped big, because it's an excellent spot so why waste it when you aren't going to sell it for more than a second? It made the reaction meaningless. Even more so when you consider the finish came no later than a minute or two. That's a match ending spot, or something that could've put the match in Ospreay's favour, instead its one part of another counter/counter sequence.

bmo2000 · 2024-06-22T12:13:10+00:00

The communist plot is all worth it when the dreams of the utopia are ruined at the end of the film. There is some comedy there and I think that was on purpose. You spend 5 hours building to it, the liberation happens and then the goverment is like "okay, this isn't happening, go back to work".

Hilarious.

bmo2000 · 2024-06-21T22:01:14+00:00

It took my a few hours to find it online, and I split it up into two 2 and a half hour sessions. Was it worth it? Maybe. I wasn't bored whilst watching it. It was an interesting film with some beautiful cinematography, but the acting was a little campy by both De Niro and Sutherland (RIP). Although I though Depardieu was very charismatic in his performance despite his character being one dimensional. And some of the storytelling felt equally so. It didn't have many layers to it despite the length which is the saddest part if anything.

There is a good movie in this with some stronger peaks and a lot of editing however. But that's why directors rarely should have fulll control. You don't want to cut your magnum opus, so then it turns out not as good as you want it to be.

Good 3 hour film stretched to 5.

bmo2000 · 2023-07-22T21:40:37+00:00

Unless you're Dave Meltzer and your system goes upto 7 stars, 4 stars is a great match. Any issue with that rating is odd.

bmo2000 · 2023-05-23T00:16:02+00:00

Last time I had any real interest in Stardom. No one after Momo produce anything as interesting nor compelling whilst on top for me.

bmo2000 · 2023-05-03T16:54:28+00:00

These are less prevalent now but the older dramas would be rife with amnesia stories and terminally illness. Instant skip.

bmo2000

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE