Batista? Really?
He didn´t come to my mind when I thought about the top 10, he would not even be close.
My problem with him is the same problem I have with Cena: his in-ring work doesn´t convince me.
So I hope the list will get better. But as long as HBK will be on top everything is fine with me!

RESPONSE FROM KE: It's not really about in-ring work as much as it's about who the biggest stars of the decade were. If we were doing a list of the biggest stars from 1980 to 1989, would Hulk Hogan be left off the list? Anyway, Batista is better in the ring than people give him credit for. He does a good job as a power-based wrestler. Not everyone has to be Evan Bourne or Nigel McGuinness.

Just exactly how were the Batista vs. Undertaker matches "classic"?

RESPONSE FROM KE: If you've watched them you should know.

Batista is a reasonable choice for number 10. I had him at 11 though, with Mysterio at 10.

I hope this doesn't mean Mysterio wont make your list. The only place I see Batista above Mysterio is in world titles. I believe Mysterio has had more memorable matches, been just as active, and if we ask the average fan these days, prob more star power also.

Oh well... guess we'll see as the days go by.

I was going to question this pick, but didn't realize that Batista has had five world title reigns. Having just got back into wrestling in '07, I guess I missed him at his prime (not that I'm really complaining).

Injured an awful lot. Still to this day not very good on the mic, and he is much better than he was 5 years ago. Seemed as if WWE had no idea what show to put him on after his latest injury, then turned him heel ( better move) on Smackdown. Top 10 seems a stretch.

I actually agree with this, and I think Batista has been trying to improve his skills and move base over the decade as well...but already the people who love to disagree with you are lining up with the reasons he shouldn't be on the list at all.

Batista should be on this list just for 2005 alone. His rise against HHH was simply one of the best pushes that I've ever seen in my life. It was almost impossible not to root for him at that time.

LOVED his match against The Undertaker at WrestleMania 23. Batista can be a really entertaining wrestler when given the right opponent. I feel he should have been a bit higher than this, but then again, he didn't really take off until midway through the decade (2005).

RESPONSE FROM KE: The other reason I didn't put him higher is because when I added up all the time he missed due to injuries, it was close to two years.

Okay , here come all the "injured all the time because of steroids" comments.

Many people knock on Batista ability to work in matches, but you have to blame that partly on most of the opponents he gets matched up with. He consistently puts on great matches when matched up with other good workers like the Undertaker and Rey Mysterio.

I wouldn't have thought to put Batista in the top 10 for the decade. Maybe I'm wrong, but off the top of my head:

John Cena, Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, The Rock, Austin, HHH, Edge, Jeff Hardy, Orton.

Those are the first 10 that came to mind and I can't see any of them being lower than Batista.

Batista belongs here because for 3 full years (minus the time between Jan. 06 and July 06.) He main-evented every single paper per view. A lot of that was due to the injuries to Taker and Edge, but when he was healthy, he was in the world title matches. 3 years is more than an accident. The man made an impact on the business, more than most. If it was between him and Mysterio, Rey is obviously the better worker, but he is injured just as much if not more. He is also less of a draw, was never taken seriously as a world champ, and is horrendous on the mic.

Kevin, I think you're going to make a lot of people unhappy between now and the first day of 2010 just because of the criteria:

• Star power and impact on business
• Memorable matches and programs
• Titles won and placement on card
• Activity

Batista is not one of my favorite wrestlers either, for the same reason John Cena isn't. Both of them are pretty much just big, musclebound guys that do (as the crowd at "One Night Stand" chanted at Cena back in 2006) the same old s*** in the ring.

Both of them got to the top, yes, both of them have multiple world championship title reigns, yes, but not everybody feels that they deserve that spot.

That's why Batista got this kind of reception from longtime ECW fans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZS5BMq-SWc

That's why Cena was subjected to the same treatment at One Night Stand 2006 (and if you have never seen this clip, fellow comment-leavers, watch it, for it is hilarious):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elOlIt2OfbQ

Unfortunately, if I understand your criteria correctly, a wrestler who is considered undeserving by the internet wrestling community and perhaps by all fans could still make this list just because somebody made the decision to push him.

Star power and impact on business? Sheamus could pass this one right now, since he always gets booed and putting the title on him, however undeservedly, did make an impact on the business.

Memorable matches and programs? Sheamus already has one to his name, and despite what I said about Cena you could argue that some of the credit for that has to go to Cena for putting Sheamus over. A program with The Miz for the U.S. title (although Sheamus would have been more deserving of that at this point in his career) would not have been as memorable a match nor would his winning that title have made as big of an impact.

Titles won and placement on card? Sheamus has one WWE title win already, and is at the top of the card. Or, to use an example other than Sheamus, the Great Khali is a former World Heavyweight Champion and has been in the main event of a number of pay-per-views.

Activity? Even poor old Charlie Haas could pass this one, if it just means wrestling X number of matches and not being retired or out injured a lot.

Vince McMahon would probably tell you that a lot of the top names in wrestling would never have been stars if he hadn't made them into stars, and unfortunately he would probably be right. Some guys made it because they legitimately busted their butts in the ring, won over the crowd, and made their bosses take notice and consider them for a main event spot. Those people would be stars no matter what promotion they joined as long as they weren't buried by that promotion.

And then you have guys like Triple H.

I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that Trips is going to be left off this list. Like it or not he did become a star, even though he probably would have gotten much less tv time and several fewer title reigns if he hadn't married Stephanie. Like it or not, he has made an impact on the business. As a matter of fact, he may have more CONTROL over the business than any other active wrestler currently alive. Like it or not, he has been involved in memorable feuds and programs. Like it or not, he's at the top of the card more often than not (even when he doesn't have a championship, as evidenced most recently by the TLC pay-per-view where his match came after those for both the World Heavyweight and WWE titles). Like it or not, he's won dozens of titles, of which a dozen and one were the "world" variety. And he has been active for the past ten years.

Would Mr. Levesque have been successful without marrying into the McMahon family and politicking the way he did? Probably. But would he have become successful enough to make a list like this if he hadn't? I doubt it.

So IMHO there should be a fifth category. Something along the lines of "how much credit a guy personally deserves for becoming a star." Taking into account whether the rise to main event status was due to hard work, skill, and winning over the fans (e.g. Mick Foley, RVD, Chris Jericho) or whether it was due to Vince McMahon wanting to turn him into a star and shoving him down our throats until we accepted him as one(e.g. Triple H, Batista).

RESPONSE FROM KE: The list is about who the biggest stars were of the decade -- nothing more, nothing less. You used Great Khali as an example. If Khali, as bad as he is in the ring, had become as big a star in this decade as Andre The Giant did in the 1970s and 80s, he absolutely would be in the top 10.

Sheamus obviously would need to be on top for years, not just a few weeks, to make it. Using Charlie Haas as an example is way off base. Activity is one factor, not the only factor. Activity means that in addition to being a star, you wrestled for a good portion of the decade. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory.

How someone became a star means nothing to me. Wrestling is and always has been political when it comes to who gets pushed. It's a work. I'll again use Hulk Hogan as example. If I did a list of the top wrestlers of the 1980s, should he be kept off the list because he wasn't a great technical wrestler or because he was pushed to the moon by Vince McMahon and the WWE promotional machine and did not "earn" it? It's preposterous.

And what does it prove that a bunch of ECW marks don't like guys such as Cena and Batista? Did The Sandman or Sabu or Tommy Dreamer, etc. ever headline WrestleMania? I think it's sometimes lost on people that the hardcore ECW fans were nothing more than a very vocal minority. If they were anything more, the original ECW would have been playing to stadiums, not bingo halls.

I agree that Batista should be in the top 10. He has been an huge part of the WWE over the decade dispite abscences.

Off topic I as reading an article on th enew Briscoe Bros tag team. Remarkable resemblance to The Hardy Boys http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/2783111/Two-of-the-independent-scenes-brightest-up-and-coming-tag-teams-may-well-be-heading-to-WWE-and-TNA.html

Batista should definitely be in the Top 10. Those who are disagreeing are simply being myopic, and have clearly not read the criteria.

Sure he isn't Kurt Angle. He is still a guy who can put on a show. His match with Rey this past week is enough to say he isn't as bad as people say he is.

Merry Christmas!

Personally, I can't stand Batista, but it's your list. Can't really argue with your criteria either. This will be a fun read.

"The list is about who the biggest stars were of the decade -- nothing more, nothing less. You used Great Khali as an example. If Khali, as bad as he is in the ring, had become as big a star in this decade as Andre The Giant did in the 1970s and 80s, he absolutely would be in the top 10."

Okay. I guess being one of the top ten wrestlers and being one of the best ten wrestlers are two different things, and I should remember that. I know that a lot of people have said Hogan didn't know the difference between a wristlock and a wristwatch, but of course he was the face of wrestling for most of the '80s and a good portion of the '90s, and TNA still thinks his presence will help them even as old as he is today. He's a wrestler everybody knows about regardless of whether or not they're a fan.

If I were making a list of the best ten wrestlers of the '90s, I doubt he'd be on it. But top ten? I guess he'd have to be.

You could make a case that Hogan compensated for his lack of technical skill with his mic work, though, and I don't think you can do the same with Dave.

"Using Charlie Haas as an example is way off base. Activity is one factor, not the only factor. Activity means that in addition to being a star, you wrestled for a good portion of the decade. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory."

Well, I know it's just one factor, but I'm not sure how much it really proves. If in-ring talent isn't a factor, then the Ultimate Warrior would make a list of the top ten wrestlers of the nineties despite his lack of activity; he was just that big of a star. (Despite making Hogan look like Dean Malenko when it came to technical skill and despite him being, you know, sort of insane.) And to use somebody I think more of as an example, I wouldn't be surprised (although I'm not positive about this) if Mick Foley made your list even though he's been active for less than five of the past ten years. And I definitely won't be surprised if The Rock makes it.

"How someone became a star means nothing to me. Wrestling is and always has been political when it comes to who gets pushed. It's a work."

Fair enough. I guess where I was mistaken was that I was under the impression that if you put somebody on this list, it meant that you felt they deserved to be a star. I realize now that this isn't necessarily true, because of what you said about Khali.

"And what does it prove that a bunch of ECW marks don't like guys such as Cena and Batista?"

It proves they have good taste. ;)

"If they were anything more, the original ECW would have been playing to stadiums, not bingo halls."

Now with all due respect, I don't think that's fair. Think of all the guys from the original ECW who DID headline stadiums after one of the big two made them an offer that ECW couldn't match. Foley. Guerrero. Jericho. Mysterio. Benoit. Raven. RVD. The Dudleys. A big part of the reason why the original ECW wasn't selling out stadiums was because they weren't able to hold on to their talent. Now okay, not everybody on the roster was awesome, and some guys were overrated (I think that the Sandman was, and New Jack was, for example), but still, if Heyman had been able to match those offers from Bischoff and McMahon then ECW would have been a force to be reckoned with.

your list is very hard though Kev you consider since there is no real criteria what do you say abouty someone like the Rcok who aprlayed his wrestling sucess to a thriving movie career or brock lesner who took his wrestling career and is no the top MMA Heavyweight in the World or even Jeff Jarrett who in the early part of this decade was a world champion in the # 2 promotion in the U S then started his own company and carried it on his back for several years and is now the #2 promotion in the US. on a unrelated topic though i was watching WWE classics and they were talking about southern wrestling and then they were talking about current wrestling and people getting pushes mainly JR and i liked what JR had to say the cream will always rise to the top no matter what his case in point was stone cold he was bound 1 day to break out no matter what and my example of that would be Jeff Hardy his brother has always for the most part walked the straight and narrow while jeff is Jeff and it has culminated with i think atleast 2 world title reigns the ony exception to the rule would be current champ sheamus but there must always be some exceptions in the case of eaverything.

uhh eck did you compare Batista to Hogan??? Hogan is the biggest star in wrestling history while Batista has never been a draw besides for a couple months in '05. A more apt comparision would be Nash in the 90's.

RESPONSE FROM KE: No, I wasn't comparing Batista to Hogan as far as their place in the business. Obviously not. My point was that some commenters feel Batista doesn't belong on this list because he isn't a good worker. My point was that Hogan wasn't the greatest worker either, so by that line of thinking, he wouldn't make a list of this type.

Wow Kevin, it seems no matter how well you describe your criteria or your opinions you still manage to piss people off. That's a mighty talent, keep up the good work! :) Oh, and can't wait to read the rest of the list. Merry Christmas!

Rob Brown: Having good taste is a matter of opinion. Old ECW is easily the most overrated thing that has ever been in wrestling. Put the nostalgia away and what do you have: some good, some bad, some new, some old, a lot of different. While they innovated some things, they appealed to a small segment of the audience. Personally, I think that adding in random weapons doesn't make someone a good wrestler. Neither does bleeding a lot or using suggestive gestures. PG stuff doesn't make one a better wrestler either. It all amounts to the persons ability to connect to the fans and tell a story. The ECW marks are quite possibly the most annoying people on the internet because they want their Heyman trash can brawling back, without recognizing that not everyone is entertained by it. The names you had on your list of ECW stars that "made it" all used ECW as a stepping stone. None of them ever held the ECW world title. They went on to bigger and better things elsewhere.

You are basing your argument on the fact that 2500 drunken a------- who couldn't let the past die and booed vociferously. If you want to judge everything off crowd reaction, there are millions of times that Batista and Cena blow the roof off a building with cheers. I'm assuming you are going to say my opinion doesn't matter because I don't agree with yours, but I will clarify before you respond. I take Cena and Batista for what they are, above average strongman wrestlers who are able to hold Vince's world title. They can be entertaining. They can be annoying. They are not as entertaining as CM Punk or Jericho. That's about it.

In closing, take your fanboyish opinion, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and shove it straight up Lance Storm's candy ass because it doesn't matter what you think. At least not to Kevin Eck.

I always thought he was a decent heel, but never bought him as a face. I also thought his intro was a joke. He always looked ridiculous with his invisible machine gun or whatever it was he was doing.

"I'm assuming you are going to say my opinion doesn't matter because I don't agree with yours..."

No, actually.

"I take Cena and Batista for what they are, above average strongman wrestlers who are able to hold Vince's world title. They can be entertaining. They can be annoying. They are not as entertaining as CM Punk or Jericho. That's about it."

We agree that they aren't as entertaining as CM Punk or Jericho, and to me that is the problem: I think that guys like Punk and Jericho, and for that matter Jeff Hardy and Edge and HBK, should be the standard by which all other wrestlers are measured. My view is that it shouldn't be enough just to be a good talker and have your five moves of doom; you should be able to do stuff in the ring that makes the fans want to cheer you not because you're the babyface and they want you to win but because they are impressed by the moves you do.

That's why I think that the Sandman and New Jack were overrated, because their whole thing was just hitting people with foreign objects. Sabu and RVD, on the other hand, were high-flyers who executed moves that you didn't see in just any old wrestling match, so I was impressed by them.