I seem to detest the WON HOF a little more each year, but my reasons for detesting it seem to change each time around. In the past I've complained about it being a place to acknowledge WON-driven historiography over history, and while my complaints this time around are rooted in that, it's really something bigger. I think the way WWE has changed their methods of making money has really flipped the entire lens through which hardcore fans view pro wrestling, of which this HOF is a celebration, on its ass. The idea that we can just declare who drew money and who didn't based on limited data, virtually no context, and awfully opinionated numbers is problematic. There are genuine draws in wrestling history to be certain, but I think most people that we label that way (or purposefully label *not* that way) are either those who have the good luck or misfortune to live off the top of an already thriving or sinking promotional run. I don't think the idea of a HOF is completely useless, but I do think the standards most people use are at best an outdated paradigm. I personally find it much more fruitful to treat it as a chance to learn more about the people who are on the ballot -- and stop there -- instead of assessing anyone's candidacy. Going that route, I've learned quite a bit of interesting stuff about Johnny Barend and June Byers already.