Alright. So our next countdown is set. It'll be similar to the Greatest ECW & WCW Wrestler Countdowns we did a few months ago on the old PW which I'm sure most of the people likely to vote on this one participated in.

Only take into consideration what a particular wrestler did between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1999. What happened before and after those dates shouldn't factor into it.

Like the ECW & WCW Countdowns, this will be a ballot of 50. Although I will also accept abbreviated ballots.

Anybody who had a televised match in 90s WWF is eligible. This includes Vince & Shane McMahon, as well as Chyna & Sable. And if for some weird reason you think Aja Kong or Mikey Whipwreck or Doug Gilbert were among the Top 50 WWF Greatest Wrestlers of the 90s then by all means vote for them.

The tag team question surfaces again....should we include tag teams or not? I say we do. BUT I feel like tag teams were hurt on the ECW & WCW countdowns, and others agreed with me. So I'll leave this one up to you guys.

Deadline will likely be some time in early January but I'm not even going to set a tentative date yet.

I think it will be interesting to see what eras are most represented. WWF experienced a lot of changes through the 90s. Early 90s WWF was basically still 80s WWF with Hogan, Warrior and Savage on top. Then we got the critical & financial flop that was the New Generation.....yet that era has always been popular on PW, and there is no bigger proponent of New Generation WWF than myself. And finally we close out the decade with the wildly successful Attitude Era.

I feel like the Top 25-30 will have a nice mix of the 3 eras with the major stars from each one being represented. It's the bottom 20-25 spots that I feel could go in just any direction depending on whether the voter prefers Hulkamania, New Generation or Attitude.

Use this thread for discussion. Pimp your favorites. Come out against wrestlers you don't think belong. In the past I've been hesitant to go in depth on this kind of stuff for "spoiler" reasons but I'm changing my approach this time around.

I'm confused by the tag team question and forget how we handled it for the ECW countdown.

Can you clarify for us (me) dum-dums? :$

Dec 16, 2017 3:09:54 GMT 🤯 said:

I'm confused by the tag team question and forget how we handled it for the ECW countdown.

Can you clarify for us (me) dum-dums? :$

In the past you could vote for tag teams as well as singles stars but it didn't always work out well with teams like the Outsiders & Steiners finishing far lower than many of us thought they should have on the WCW countdown, for example. A lot of people would vote for, say, Hall & Nash but not the Outsiders, or vice versa. 

Actually.....how about we keep the main countdown confined to singles entries only (meaning you could put Hawk at #33 and Animal at #34, for example, but could not vote for the Road Warriors as a unit at, say, #20), and then do a supplemental Greatest WWF Tag Teams of the 90s countdown with a 10 entry ballot? 

And I forgot to mention in the original post that we'll also be doing a regular supplemental non-wrestler countdown for commentators, managers, announcers, authority figures, valets, etc. That will also be a 10 entry ballot.

Dec 16, 2017 3:41:55 GMT Baker said:

Dec 16, 2017 3:09:54 GMT 🤯 said:

I'm confused by the tag team question and forget how we handled it for the ECW countdown.

Can you clarify for us (me) dum-dums? :$

In the past you could vote for tag teams as well as singles stars but it didn't always work out well with teams like the Outsiders & Steiners finishing far lower than many of us thought they should have on the WCW countdown, for example. A lot of people would vote for, say, Hall & Nash but not the Outsiders, or vice versa. 

Actually.....how about we keep the main countdown confined to singles entries only (meaning you could put Hawk at #33 and Animal at #34, for example, but could not vote for the Road Warriors as a unit at, say, #20), and then do a supplemental Greatest WWF Tag Teams of the 90s countdown with a 10 entry ballot? 

And I forgot to mention in the original post that we'll also be doing a regular supplemental non-wrestler countdown for commentators, managers, announcers, authority figures, valets, etc. That will also be a 10 entry ballot.

LOVE IT.

Perfect. Solves a lot of problems for me.

I was playing around with this and now I'm thinking we should include tag teams in the main countdown after all. Mainly for the New Age Outlaws & LOD. Both were huge acts. I'd probably rank one in the Top 20 and the other would have a decent shot at cracking the Top 25.

Initial hot take: WCW had a lot more depth. Though, to be fair, we did have 3 additional years to work with in that one.

Dec 17, 2017 0:22:11 GMT Baker said:

I was playing around with this and now I'm thinking we should include tag teams in the main countdown after all. Mainly for the New Age Outlaws & LOD. Both were huge acts. I'd probably rank one in the Top 20 and the other would have a decent shot at cracking the Top 25.

Initial hot take: WCW had a lot more depth. Though, to be fair, we did have 3 additional years to work with in that one.

I'm good with this too. I just need to know!!! @otherpeople, weigh in!

I had tag teams split up on my initial draft but it's no big deal to change it back.

I feel like each promotion has it's own set of criteria.

ECW was all about picking guys with an edge to them that could appeal to a specific type of fan. As the list went further down, it became more about good hands and guys who busted their arse to try and make a name for themselves.

WCW was about the blue collar guys who reveled in the physicality of Pro Wrestling. In my mind, WCW was always trying to recreate 1989 and the more you fit that mould of a star or a good-worker, the higher you were going to feature in that list. If memory serves, I tried to feature as many 89 guys as I could.

WWF is a lot tougher because you've got three different philosophies of what a star is, and what wrestling should be. From over the top gimmicks, to more athletic in-ring action and then just complete and utter vulgar wrestling. What do you guys think made a great WWF superstar in the 90s in general?

This is why I struggle to do lists of actual Greatest Wrestlers lists. There's so many aspects to consider, and peoples perspective on what defines a great wrestler can differ quite a fair bit. I mean, Al Snow, Kevin Nash, Hogan, Hall ect will tell you the best is what or whoever drew the most money. If we go by that logic all we would have to really do was find a chart that revealed earnings and do the math. Even the money thing can be broken down, though really, by how much they drew for the company and how much they earned for themselves.

It being the 90s makes it tough and interesting. Obviously the likes of Taker, Shawn and Bret are helped by being there for most of the decade, whereas we only get the end of Hulk's run (while it was fading) and we miss the end of Austin and Rock's runs. But it would be boring and easy to just do Greatest Stars of Hulkamania era, New Generation, Attitude era.

Including tags could get tricky. You put in the Outlaws but that doesn't then include any of their other stuff that decade. Shawn Michaels as Rocker, HBK, DX all included in his ranking, but Billy as a Smoking Gunn or Rockabilly is not (perhaps helping him unfairly) if you place the Outlaws.

If you put in the Outlaws, can you then argue for HHH/Chyna or Savage/Liz as a package? Road Dogg and Billy Gunn have enough separate stuff to both be included and in wildly different spots. If you want to put in LOD, then just put them in back-to-back spots with your favourite one spot higher.

I try to factor in a blend of somewhat objective measures, ranging from totally kayfabe shit to concrete actual facts to consensus subjective opinions, when determining "greatest". L

Things like titles won and length of reigns, with which titles or variety of titles helping to separate guys...

Things like main events wrestled in, with added weight for winning those main events or the main events being PPV main events...

Other kayfabe accomplishments like Royal Rumble wins, King of the Ring wins, triple crown/grand slam wins, PWI 500 rankings, WON awards, etc.

Things like quality of opponents defeated; i.e., a win over Hogan or Stone Cold, especially on PPV, is worth a LOT more than a TV win over Bob Holly...

Harder to measure things like "overness" and/or number of "great/memorable" matches or segments (with matches weighing more than segments, and "great/memorable" admittedly being tough to exactly define)...

Things like consistency and persistence... Was the wrestler around for the whole decade, or just a part of it? While they were there, were they a jobber/midcard/main event act throughout, or did they rise through the ranks? Bonus points for rising through the ranks, extra bonus points for doing it more quickly, and ultimately the most bonus points for the more time spent as a main event act.

Similar to above, if an act received a considerable push or pushes. How hard and how sustained was the push are factors, as well as if it was ultimately successful...

Character evolutions/reinventions get bonus points in my book.

I can't think of what else right now, but that covers a large swath of it. That's the same mindset with which I've approached the ECW and WCW greatest wrestler lists.

Not sure if that helps anyone or not. Probably not. :lol:

Dec 17, 2017 13:49:38 GMT Strobe said:

It being the 90s makes it tough and interesting. Obviously the likes of Taker, Shawn and Bret are helped by being there for most of the decade, whereas we only get the end of Hulk's run (while it was fading) and we miss the end of Austin and Rock's runs. But it would be boring and easy to just do Greatest Stars of Hulkamania era, New Generation, Attitude era.

Including tags could get tricky. You put in the Outlaws but that doesn't then include any of their other stuff that decade. Shawn Michaels as Rocker, HBK, DX all included in his ranking, but Billy as a Smoking Gunn or Rockabilly is not (perhaps helping him unfairly) if you place the Outlaws.

If you put in the Outlaws, can you then argue for HHH/Chyna or Savage/Liz as a package? Road Dogg and Billy Gunn have enough separate stuff to both be included and in wildly different spots. If you want to put in LOD, then just put them in back-to-back spots with your favourite one spot higher.

I think this hits the nail on the head for why I really liked Baker's supplemental countdown idea for tags.

Dec 17, 2017 13:49:38 GMT Strobe said:

If you put in the Outlaws, can you then argue for HHH/Chyna or Savage/Liz as a package? Road Dogg and Billy Gunn have enough separate stuff to both be included and in wildly different spots. If you want to put in LOD, then just put them in back-to-back spots with your favourite one spot higher.

Having Hawk and Animal ranked as individuals is tough because can you honestly place them ahead of Billy Gunn? Combined though they had a bigger impact.

My list is close to being done but I just need a final confirmation on how we are handling tag teams.

Dec 17, 2017 5:04:44 GMT Big Pete said:

 What do you guys think made a great WWF superstar in the 90s in general?

I'm with 🤯 on this one. My main criteria is always a combination of importance/star power/kayfabe success with maybe a little bit of sensible favoritism coming into play just for the last few spots. Meaning Orndorff & Zbyszko might get the nod in a WCW countdown over folks with similar resumes like Johnny B. Badd & Alex Wright but I'd never consider less important Baker Guys like, say, The Gambler & Maxx Payne for those spots.

This wasn't necessarily a conscious decision but I just realized that in the past I tended to favor certain eras over others. For example an ECW midcarder in 95-96, or an NWA/WCW midcarder in 1989, is going to finish above a guy in that same spot on the card in 2000 ECW or WCW.

I also have a problem with part timers. A credible midcarder who wrestled on tv every week is likely to finish above a part timer/non wrestler who only wrestled 10 matches a year. I'm having problems ranking Vince & Chyna for that very reason. I'm sure they'll end up making my ballot in the end for importance reasons but can't imagine either finishing above #45. I'll also have to check to see just how active Piper was. He was hurt by this on the WCW countdown.

What makes this one difficult is WWF's philosophy changing so much during the decade. A solid 1990 midcarder had like two feuds per year, maybe 20 squash wins on tv, and only 4 pay per view matches, with half them being big multi-man tags or Rumble appearances. A title win would have been huge for that theoretical midcarder. Meanwhile the same solid midcader in 1999 had competitive (2 minute) star vs. star matches every single week, won and lost a title every other week, and was probably involved in a new Jerry Springeresque feud every three weeks. Then you have a 1995 solid midcarder being somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. 

I'm going to put up a poll to answer The Tag Team Question once and for all after this post. Now I'm leaning back towards not including tag teams....but not running a Tag Team Supplemental Countdown either for fear that people will leave important wrestlers off the main countdown while "rewarding" them with a good spot on the Supplemental Countdown. 

Strobe I don't really think you can compare the New Age Outlaws to Savage & Elizabeth for the simple fact Elizabeth never wrestled. I also don't think Chyna & HHH were a 'real' tag team, even if they may have teamed a handful of times. The regular supplemental countdown exists to reward the Elizabeth's of the world. While Chyna has a strong case for inclusion in both the supplemental (non-wrestler) countdown and main countdown.

OK, I can't figure out how to add a poll Maybe you can only do that when starting a new thread?

So just type YES in you want to include tag teams as a unit and NO if you'd rather break them up into individuals.

I vote NO

I vote NO. I think it makes it too complicated to include tag teams and a supplemental list is a lot easier and will a better representative.

Count me in as a NO.

I don't think I could bear seeing the Blackjacks or the Acolytes in the Top 50.

NO

No.

For what it's worth, my brain always interprets Supplemental lists as completely separate, as in I never compensate one thinking about the other. It's two different things. I finish one, then do the other.

No

Looks like the nays have it.

That's fine. It makes it easier to deal with the members of Money Inc & the Quebecers and now I no longer have to worry about finding room for the Smoking Gunns.

So here's the deal....

The main Greatest WWF Wrestlers of the 90s countdown- 50 entries per ballot- NO TAG TEAMS
Supplemental Countdown for non-wrestlers- 10 entries per ballot.
And I'll still do a Greatest WWF Tag Teams of the 90s countdown- also 10 entries per ballot.

Deadline will be some time in early January but I'm not going to set a date yet.

NO

Dec 17, 2017 21:36:51 GMT Baker said:

Strobe I don't really think you can compare the New Age Outlaws to Savage & Elizabeth for the simple fact Elizabeth never wrestled.

Neither do I as such (since it is greatest "wrestlers"), but isn't including the NAO pretty much the same as including Isaac Yankem with no consideration to Fake Diesel or Kane? Why should tag teams be different? Or within the NAO are people including Smoking Billy Gunn, Rockyabilly, Real Double J, etc.? If we were splitting gimmicks up then I'd have no issue with tag teams. I get that the Outlaws and LOD (in 90-92) were two of the most over acts of the decade and therefore why people would feel inclined to include them, but it doesn't work for me. I think if the team literally did nothing but team together then I could see the argument, but Hawk and Animal did wrestle singles matches, Animal tagged with Crush when Hawk left and you had the Droz deal as well.

Dec 17, 2017 23:38:13 GMT Strobe said:

NO

Dec 17, 2017 21:36:51 GMT Baker said:

Strobe I don't really think you can compare the New Age Outlaws to Savage & Elizabeth for the simple fact Elizabeth never wrestled.

Neither do I as such (since it is greatest "wrestlers"), but isn't including the NAO pretty much the same as including Isaac Yankem with no consideration to Fake Diesel or Kane? Why should tag teams be different? Or within the NAO are people including Smoking Billy Gunn, Rockyabilly, Real Double J, etc.? If we were splitting gimmicks up then I'd have no issue with tag teams. I get that the Outlaws and LOD (in 90-92) were two of the most over acts of the decade and therefore why people would feel inclined to include them, but it doesn't work for me. I think if the team literally did nothing but team together then I could see the argument, but Hawk and Animal did wrestle singles matches, Animal tagged with Crush when Hawk left and you had the Droz deal as well.

Uh oh, this raises an interesting question. I count the individual as the wrestler, so like Charles Wright to represent Papa Shango, Kama, and Godfather throughout the decade.

Dec 17, 2017 23:52:37 GMT 🤯 said:

Uh oh, this raises an interesting question. I count the individual as the wrestler, so like Charles Wright to represent Papa Shango, Kama, and Godfather throughout the decade.

Which is how it should be done. I'm just trying to point out why tag teams can't really work here. A tag team is not a wrestler. It is two wrestlers. There is a reason that we have tag team or stable lists.

But it seems everyone is in agreement anyway.

Will Charles Wright make a top 50? My gut would tell me no, but I've not started getting names down.

Dec 18, 2017 0:27:30 GMT Strobe said:

Dec 17, 2017 23:52:37 GMT 🤯 said:

Uh oh, this raises an interesting question. I count the individual as the wrestler, so like Charles Wright to represent Papa Shango, Kama, and Godfather throughout the decade.

Which is how it should be done. I'm just trying to point out why tag teams can't really work here. A tag team is not a wrestler. It is two wrestlers. There is a reason that we have tag team or stable lists.

But it seems everyone is in agreement anyway.

Will Charles Wright make a top 50? My gut would tell me no, but I've not started getting names down.

He's an interesting case, at least for me. Unlike Glen Jacobs where only Kane was truly iconic to me, Wright's Papa Shango was iconic (to me) and Godfather was respectfully over with titles to his name. And that's at opposite ends of the decade. In the middle, he even had an interesting Kama run as a 'Taker PPV opponent, and then a run in the Nation rubbing elbows with Rock and feuding with DX. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Wright nabs a fifty spot on my list.

Wright made my list (which I now have to blow up with this latest development) he was around the 42 spot. Being a relevant character in all three eras is a huge plus for him.

Charles Wright is a near-lock for my list. Right now I have him somewhere around #40. He had memorable characters in two different eras. Your mileage may vary on whether Papa Shango was awesome or Wrestlecrap (I happen to be on the side of awesome) but you cannot deny that he was memorable. Then you have The Godfather, who along with Val Venis (another near-lock for my list), is the quintessential Attitude Era midcarder. So Wright is a guy who had memorable characters in both the "cartoon" and Attitude Eras. The only way I can seeing him missing lists is if people want to penalizing him for the dreadfully boring Kama run, and his early nothing happening stint in the Nation, which would be a totally fair assessment.

And since he got brought up in a roundabout way, Big Pete can sleep easy knowing that I didn't even consider Bradshaw, or either of his two teams. And if I didn't consider Bradshaw, I doubt anybody else did. His first two years put him on par with Isaac Yankem as a nothing happening heel who could disappear any day without a single person caring. I personally came around on Bradshaw in January-February 98 but that still only gives him one fan vs. millions who were indifferent. Acolytes were his first successful gimmick but even they didn't really get over until the last few months of '99.

Well, I guess we don't have to worry about me having the Acolytes on my list while snubbing the Dudleys.

I just did a first draft list, unranked, just trying to get the essential people in, and it came to 55. So, I think this is going to be an easy one for me. The no tag teams is phenomenal. I think we should split all these countdowns as singles and tag teams. It just makes things cleaner and easier. Now, the only "tag team" workers I'll have are wrestlers that "graduated" to singles, or somebody who had a cup of coffee as a singles belt holder. Like Marty Jannetty would be under consideration because of his (brief) IC Belt run, not because he was a Rocker.

Dec 18, 2017 3:47:21 GMT Kilgore said:

I just did a first draft list, unranked, just trying to get the essential people in, and it came to 55. So, I think this is going to be an easy one for me. The no tag teams is phenomenal. I think we should split all these countdowns as singles and tag teams. It just makes things cleaner and easier. Now, the only "tag team" workers I'll have are wrestlers that "graduated" to singles, or somebody who had a cup of coffee as a singles belt holder. Like Marty Jannetty would be under consideration because of his (brief) IC Belt run, not because he was a Rocker.

What about his New Rocker contributions?