Loss

That is the part that throws this out of whack. I believe he was told this story, but I do not believe this story happened, at least not to that degree.

Bray Wyatt's completely nonsensical promos are horrendous. Stop with the bad poetry and put-on Jimmah Carter voice and get to the point.

The thing about Angle-Steph is that he'd be a lot more discreet than talking about it at a WWE show with cameras in front of him, you would think. I stand by my prediction: HHH attacks Jason Jordan and he doesn't have to explain why because he's The Game. *Maybe* he does some convoluted promo about how Angle wasn't hired as GM to use Raw as a platform to fix his personal problems, this is a business, etc. Angle wants revenge and sets up a match at Summerslam. Jason Jordan turns on his dad because reasons, which is being foreshadowed with his hints of aggression in matches. *Maybe* he cuts a promo that his dad was never there for him, he's a self-made man, etc. Father vs Son months from now at Wrestlemania without the heat one would expect because they will veer off course.

The only thing I can see making sense there is that they are parodying themselves in terms of hyperconcern over their image the past few years. But if a lesser albeit more contemporary star faces no repercussions for a sex tape that was a lot more recent, then I don't think he has to worry.

I have to admit, there would be very little that would be more entertaining to me personally than the idea of a bunch of fans protesting outside Titan Tower with a particularly overzealous one chaining himself to Vince's Corvette. The Reignsistance!

I am guessing some version of the story happened but that this is wildly exaggerated. If Dave had waited another next week to report it, Braun would have thrown his drink in her face when she asked for the autograph, then offered to bloody her son's poor little head and use it as the pen so he could sign the autograph in the child's own blood. Braun would have seriously considered leaving wrestling to join the church when he realized it was Karen Jarrett before re-enacting "What I Should Have Said Theatre" from Saved By The Bell.

Well that gets us to the core question that we have got to address: Should this Hall of Fame be a place for revisionism to happen? Yes or No?

Its interesting that you feel that way about Kobashi/Kikuchi vs Can Ams. I actually think you would be an outlier in this sense. I think back to last year's WON HOF thread where I tried to get people to talk about Daniel Bryan's case outside of his in ring work. People kinda refused to engage because "HE's THIS GOOD AND THEREFORE SHOULD MAKE IT! IN RING IS ENOUGH! ITS ONE OF THE CRITERIA!!!" In terms of the WON HOF, I'm more on your side. I said in that same discussion that I wouldn't vote for Tamura for the WON HOF even though I think he's the best in ring Japanese wrestler ever. So I do get where your coming from, even while admitting your super high ranking of that match absolutely played a role in the existence of the Critically Acclaimed section. I just think its a tougher reality for a Pro Wrestling Matches HOF because there are so many matches, we're starting from scratch and we're not putting anything in by fiat. Each WON HOF has 1000s of matches to their name so its not an apples to apples comparison. Assuming we have a broad criteria, similar to the WON HOF, based on drawing, in ring quality, influence, etc, where all criteria are given equal weight, what does the first ballot look like? Could un-taped matches be nominated? If so, we would also have to nominate matches that have literally no importance but only "in ring work" as their defining HOF criteria. So what does that do to a "small ballot." Presumably we would want the ballot to reflect this sort of equality in the criteria. If the ballot doesn't reflect that, then (in a way) we're saying either one or the other (importance or in ring quality) is more important than the other. If we lumped all of the criteria into one bucket and tried to weigh things equally and honestly, then I think the ballot would most likely be almost entirely Ric Flair & All Japan matches. And that's no fun. In regards to viewing matches in a vacuum, and I suspect people won't like this, but that's kind of the point of the Critically Acclaimed/Artistic Quality/Workrate Category. I mean, take Gilbert Cesca vs Billy Cantanzaro. That has been universally praised by basically everyone since it appeared in our circles. Do we know much of anything about that specific match, those workers, or French Catch at all? It exists not completely in a vacuum, but pretty damn close. Should it be disqualified from nomination? What about something like El Santo vs Black Shadow? We know its a major match and important and "HOF worthy." But nobody could speak to the quality of the match. How do you compare those matches? I think a Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame would be silly without stuff like Santo/Black Shadow or Gotch/Hack. But at the same time, I think in a community like ours that is so footage & match quality based, a "Pro Wrestling Matches" Hall of Fame would seem totally bizarre if an El Dandy or Fujiwara or Buddy Rose match was never even nominated for the ballot. When the ballot gets released, there will be Critically Acclaimed Matches in the "Historical Significance" section and historically significant matches in the "Critically Acclaimed" section. I don't entirely disagree with this. I think the baseline for every match for me is impact. And the impact is not something based on facts and figures, but more based on rose-colored glasses. In wrestling, that type perception is reality. If people think Tiger Mask and Dynamite Kid revolutionized junior heavyweight wrestling, they did even if they didn't, if it meant that they inspired Jushin Liger, Great Sasuke, Ultimo Dragon, and Shinjiro Otani to follow in their footsteps. So I look at impact first in that sense. In that case, the impact is influence, but the impact doesn't always have to be influence. Hogan-Andre's impact is that it's an iconic, generation-defining match. HHH-Reigns and Flair-Inoki actually happened in front of larger crowds, but no reasonable person would argue that the impact is in the same universe. After you determine the amount of impact it had, you determine why the match made an impact and determine which ultimately meant more to pro wrestling. And yes, that's vague as hell and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but that's the fun part. So yeah, if someone can show me how some of the great hidden gem matches we have dug up really did make a lasting impact, even on a smaller scale, the match would have a chance of getting my vote. But just being a great match isn't enough, even if it's out of this world, just like a match filling the entire state of Texas would have no chance of getting my vote if no one who watched cared, the crowd turned on the match, and the build was nothing special or memorable.

GME can happen if people really want it, but I don't think PWO is the place for it. We'll probably never do "Greatest ____ Ever" for anything here again if we hope to maintain any sense of community.

Elliott, what's interesting about that post is that believe it or not, I'd have to stop and think about Kobashi-Kikuchi vs CanAms as a HOF match. It's possible it is, but I don't see it as a no-brainer, even though I do think it's the best match of the 90s. Talk about brain twisters. To me, even on the match quality side, and I don't necessarily think everyone has to consider this, but I want to see some indication that it didn't exist entirely in a vacuum. So I don't think it's as great a match, but something like Savage-Steamboat at Wrestlemania III has a far stronger case in my mind. So you're right that in many cases, the two ideas just cannot be separated.

That is where it gets AWESOME to me. Comparing things people would usually never think to compare. I want to compare a death match from Big Japan to Bock-Hennig at some point in my life. And CapitalTTruth, I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful response and the work you're putting into it. I really didn't intend to be overly dismissive in my post, and re-reading it, it seems that way, so I apologize for that. I only intended to just state that I am someone who generally appreciates all aspects of wrestling, and I hope that in showing appreciation for one style or one aspect of it that I don't have to disregard another. If whatever system we get allows for that balance, then count me in.

I just edited the topic title. This is correct. Thanks for the info!

Vince does change his mind a lot, to be fair.

I lost enthusiasm for this when I started seeing a movement toward unnecessary choices between drawing and quality. I think the criteria should be intentionally vague: matches with the most positive and significant contributions to pro wrestling. Of course, that can come in many forms. I'm not interested in doing all of one or all of the other. Why make the choice? Both types of matches have a worthy place in history, and both are too quickly dismissed by the other side. Aside from the fact that the binary is something that I think smart fans created themselves (which is a separate discussion), there's no reason to exclude either type of match from consideration.

The first one had that 4.5 star great great great Rhodes Brothers vs Shield match where they got their job back and Dusty was in their corner, at least. I sort of don't count that one since it was in September. WWE sucks at doing July unless they are fake retiring Mark Henry. Or CM Punk is fake leaving as champ. There is also that.

The first one had that 4.5 star great great great Rhodes Brothers vs Shield match where they got their job back and Dusty was in their corner, at least. I sort of don't count that one since it was in September. WWE sucks at doing July unless they are fake retiring Mark Henry.

It seems like Battleground is horrible every year, though. It's always the PPV that seems to draw the most ire from everyone.

Not to take this too off topic, but just thinking about the closest historical comparison that comes to mind. When Hogan was champion in 1997 and went six months between title defenses (February and August), he was the key ingredient in a turnaround, the biggest difference maker they had, and turned them from a money pit into a $250m company. He was making about $6-8m per year at that point, and he was doing a lot more work and the company was seeing a lot more benefit. It's the closest comparison I can even think of. (In fact, I would argue that when WCW decided Hogan needed to be around more often and on TV every week in multiple segments is when his value slowly started to plummet. Hogan supposedly told his friends at the time that he knew that was the problem, but when he got paid so much per appearance, how could he say no?)

He has two more years on his contract. However, either side has the option to terminate if they want to do so at the end of the third year. WWE supposedly has no interest in terminating for reasons completely beyond me, considering that there's not really been any return on their investment, nor does there appear to be one in sight.

I sometimes get frustrated that WWE doesn't push more people under 25, considering the success in the past of people like the Von Erichs and Tommy Rich. Then I remember why WWE doesn't push more people under 25, considering those same people. The track record of wrestlers working on top and making big money young just isn't great, sadly.

Becky Lynch is the MVP of the division. Not the single biggest star, but holds her own, and almost always gets others more over.