Did your other guys necessarily work on their opponents part of the body that the finisher impacted? Yes Flair did like virtually no other, others in your list did but not everyone.
Um, yes, they actually did.
Kurt didn't need to soften the ankle really because the move was booked to be enough on it's own. Seems like such a novel idea now doesn't it - actually building up a big move or finisher to have particular credibility based on believable factors.
You just explained why this was a bad thing on Kurt's end.
This thing of ring work and what makes it good or not is subjective.
You're gonna have to do better than that.
Kurt Angle was at the top of his craft when traditional ring psychology wasn't what it used to be in a lot of cases.
Sorry man but this is completely false. Traditional ring psychology was always a major component used by the very best in-ring performers during his prime. That never went away. He was one of the very few people who completely disregarded it.
Actually, I take that back. He didn't disregard. He just never understood it.
For me, his incredible array of suplexes, ring charisma, general athleticism across the board, and good selling was what was so entertaining. But I don't agree here's a spot monkey full stop.
You just named four things Angle was good at, only one of which actually matter when it comes to making a match good. Suplex's, ring charisma (you just made that up, didn't you?), and general athleticism aren't required to make a good match. They are things you use to make the match good.
And come on now. You can't sit here and claim Angle was a good seller when he has a catalog of matches where he'd take someone's finisher and immediately recover from it to either hit a super Angle slam or use the Angle lock.
I'll give you the last word on this if you want it and then put it to bed.
Nah, I have a better idea.
Tell me, what would your top ten list look like. What makes someone a good in-ring performer to you? I won't comment on your list. That's a point where it becomes subjective and I by no means can claim any of it is wrong. The only thing I can argue against is the reasoning, and on that end, I'll leave it alone.