Dylan Waco

There is an interesting and surprising discussion at Classics where a couple of people are presenting Suzuki as a no brainer and JYD as someone who should be one and done. I find that...odd

I think Cena is the clear winner at this point both for the reasons you list, the fact that business did go down in his absence and the fact that he rushed back and immediately produced. I am not an Okada fan, but he will be my number too, barring something strange. I am not at all possible who will by my number three. Possibly Bryan, but he's not a particularly strong candidate

This is as good a place as any to ask, and I may have before, but how do you feel about Tillet John?

Do you have anything to add to the thread, or just more trolling, and whining when people expose you as the liar and fraud that you are?

So basically you are a coward. Good riddance scrub

How do those guys compare to Tanahashi?

How are their cases at all similar? No one is crediting Bryan with any period as a company's ace but rather an incredibly long and sustained period of work. I don't remember seeing anyone suggest that Tanahashi's candidacy and election this year was solely due to his work but rather his work in tandem with his run on top and impact on business, primarily over the last two years. Leaving aside whether you think they belong, because that is irrelevant, I don't see any way to pretend that their resumes for inclusion are remotely comparable. The people most actively defending Tanahashi here and elsewhere are defending him on work. Bryan is a work candidate. Most people don't want to engage the idea of Tanahashi's drawing power, because it's largely a myth of perception manufactured by those who really enjoy him. That's not to say he was a bad draw from beginning to end, but the idea that he is an HoF draw is transparently comical on it's face. Not going to reread every post here on Tanahashi, but it strikes me as inaccurate to say that people defending him here have done so while staying silent on him as a draw. I don't care what you think of him as a draw as its irrelevant. But it is relevant to plainly ignore that facet of his candidacy in arguing for or against him for any reason, much less because it lets you slot Bryan somewhere. Especially given that Bryan is hardly someone who needs such tenuous shortcuts to support him based on work. What is the point of this post? If you aren't going to read what was written, how can you possibly know what is or isn't inaccurate? If you don't care what I think of him as a draw, why are you responding to something I wrote at all that is directly related to the subject? Why are you lying and claiming I ignored the drawing facet of his candidacy, when I am one of the few people who has discussed it at all in any detail in the months leading up to the vote?

How are their cases at all similar? No one is crediting Bryan with any period as a company's ace but rather an incredibly long and sustained period of work. I don't remember seeing anyone suggest that Tanahashi's candidacy and election this year was solely due to his work but rather his work in tandem with his run on top and impact on business, primarily over the last two years. Leaving aside whether you think they belong, because that is irrelevant, I don't see any way to pretend that their resumes for inclusion are remotely comparable. The people most actively defending Tanahashi here and elsewhere are defending him on work. Bryan is a work candidate. Most people don't want to engage the idea of Tanahashi's drawing power, because it's largely a myth of perception manufactured by those who really enjoy him. That's not to say he was a bad draw from beginning to end, but the idea that he is an HoF draw is transparently comical on it's face.

I asked this in the thread for the latest WC podcast, but I will ask it here - has there ever been an ace with a spottier drawing record inducted into the HoF? On the surface I would argue Michaels, but his case wasn't entirely related to his run as an ace.

I'm not sure there is evidence to support the statement that Akiyama was inferior as a draw to Tanahashi. Perhaps if you really hold the current state of AJPW against him you could make that case, but comparing their respective run as aces? Well the perception of Akiyama's was that it was worse and that he failed as the heir to Misawa and I don't even disagree with that aspect of it. But I don't buy the perception that Tanahashi has been the catalyst for some massive turnaround. I would want to look at a big sampling of the big shows from both guys, but on the surface level, I don't think it's at all clear that Tanahashi was a better draw. As a worker it is what it is, but I think Akiyama destroys Tanahashi, and even if I was more of a Tanahashi fan than I am, if you are a "body of work" guy, I'd say Akiyama has him beat just by virtue of how long he's been around. I meant to ask this on the podcast to Dave, but offhand I don't know that an ace with a spottier drawing record than Tanahashi has ever been inducted. Maybe Michaels.

Basically "well he got in, I saw him live and he was okay, but nothing special a all. His kid is better." Obviously not a direct quote but that was essentially the gist of it That's odd. But I agree that Wagner Jr. has got a better HOF case than his dad. Of course I didn't vote for him as we still have to see if his own stupidity doesn't kill what could be one of the 10 most historical mask vs mask matches in history if he ever faces Park, and if he then wins, he could drop his mask to Santo or somebody else in another mega-match. And to reference to a jdw post from a few pages back: poor Cien Caras but if he was paired with his brothers as a trio I think that it would make it even WORSE for him. Today I spoke to Dr. Lucha and next year we'll tag team to produce some stuff on some of the candidates. Excited about that. The Villano III bio you did needs to be spammed all over the voting universe next year. Curious as to why you see Wagner Jr as being a better candidate than his dad. This interests me for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it is one area where I think there has been a huge division among the really knowledgeable Lucha voters.

I agree that Akiyama is a harder sell. I don't think I'd vote for him, and I'm admittedly a huge mark for the guy. But when I look at Akiyama next to both Sasaki and Tanahashi, is really hard for me to see how he's an inferior candidate to either.

Basically "well he got in, I saw him live and he was okay, but nothing special a all. His kid is better." Obviously not a direct quote but that was essentially the gist of it

Dave utterly burying Dr. Wagner Sr. on the HOF podcast today was something. I don't think I've ever heard a more qualified "endorsement" of the voters decision from Dave than that one. Jesus.

We talked some about Punk and Bryan on the podcast. I wouldn't vote for either guy myself, but I think it is going to be really hard to seriously argue against Bryan, if you were someone pushing Tanahashi.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkC...2658&cmd=tc Musgrave and I talk up the results here. The show clocks in at around two hours, an admittedly short show by our standards

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkC...2658&cmd=tc So you don't think we have talked about the HoF enough? Good, Dave and I do it again for two hours, focusing on the results of this years balloting. We talk about all six of the inductees, some of the names hitting the ballot next year, the definition of a "no brainer," future projects and interests of Dave and I and I give the longest monologue/rant in Wrestling Culture history on Tanahashi. Behold, Episode 51 in all it's glory!

I have reason to believe others have vouched for me this year. If others want to I'm not going to stop them and of course I appreciate it. In general the HoF is just an excuse for me to do research, though I do tend to take it seriously, because I take all exercises like this far more seriously than I should.

Most random result Top vote getter among former wrestler - Horst Hoffman

No. I had thought about writing a bio for the site this year but got lazy/busy. I will do it for sure for next year

To be fair, Dave is certainly willing to give ballots to people who have butted heads or disagreed with him in the past. Me, jdw, evilclown, Bix, etc having ballots is proof of that. I think the problem is that you have to be on his radar or fall within one of his buckets of active wrestler, former wrestler, reporter (which seems to include bloggers and podcast talkers) or historian. Since I doubt Dave is crediting my short lived career wrestling Brodie Lee and Colin Delaney, I assume my ballot was considered a reporter. I'm thinking historian fits better for you. But who the hell knows. Dylan should have a vote as a historian. Or a reporter. Or something. Well, I did report to Dave two minor points that have been in the Observer recently....

I already covered the second part, you willfully ignored it as you do with any post I make that you dislike. The first part has been covered a multitude of times on this forum as well.

To Jose's point if Sasaki (who I dont' really mind getting in at all, but could never quite 100 percent support as a candidate) and Tanahashi got in, I really can't see a single good argument against Akiyama or Taue at all.

You aren't following the argument OJ. The argument isn't "listen to what these wrestlers say on Buddy Rose!" It's the fact that is a metric that has been extolled as super meaningful by Dave before I personally don't give two fucks what people thought of Rose as a worker at the time, but the fact he is that he was well thought of, which supposedly "matters more" than people like us praising him now that we have footage to prove it. My problem with Joe's point is that he was basically saying "sure within the isolated niche that is PWO Rose is thought of as an all time great," and while it is true that this little niche are the people most interested in watching the footage that exists, it is a massive stretch to say Rose wasn't thought of highly before hand. He was. It's just he never worked for a major promotion for any real length of time and he didn't have Dave talking him up in every issue of the Observer for two straight years. Also, on Tanahashi as a draw, I think it's unfair to say the Ippv stuff doesn't matter because hey it's a new technology and anyone could have done it. But I also think it is nuts to say "he's the biggest Ippv draw of all time" in 2013, because the medium is relatively new, we don't even have solid numbers on it and if we are being honest Okada heating up is much more closely connected (on paper anyhow) to the NJPW turnaround than Tanahashi himself who was flat for years.

I would note that this thread is how HoF debates should be done. When clown said "eh Ivan Koloff, prove it" people actually did the work and tried to offer something up. That's what I've done with Patera. Years ago it's what James Phillips (I think) did with Kong who was stonewalled for years. To me there needs to be cases made for guys. That's half the point of the Hall of Fame.