Dylan Waco

Hmm. Seems excessive, but we'll see. Honestly it's just a staple of the style. There are points where you can argue it doesn't "work" or "feel right" but it's what they did in the AWA and more often than not it actually works in the matches favor

Double heat is the norm in the AWA. Get used to it

I'll comment more when I get out of work but I really like CJ Banks, James Mason, Robbie Dynamite, Rampage BRown and to a slightly lesser degree Dean Allmark. I enjoy Nathan Cruz too and probably others I"m forgetting. Mastiff's best stuff is awesome, but I think he's hit or miss. Same with Ligero

I'm always wary of contributing to threads like this because I don't know what is to inside baseball and/or what would be fair game, but I would be interested in hearing Dusty talk about the differences in feel and significance between working in places like Toronto, the Kiel and MSG. I'd also like to hear whether or not he preferred working solo as a heel or teaming with Murdoch.

There is. You can choose a category, and then vote for nobody if you feel none of them are worthy. This is different than not choosing the category and not being counted as part of the voting field. Really? I have never heard of this before. Yup. From the ballot itself: "The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked." Okay but do we know if you check a category and vote for no one that it counts as a no vote against all of the above ?

As Dave mentioned and has been discussed here before I think Jarrett suffers a ton from the fact that he was a shit payoff guy as I would guess he pulls little from wrestlers. Then there are some historians who are more "purists" in their thinking and aren't likely to vote for any candidate responsible for Memphis style wrestling. I am sure others have their reasons. John doesn't vote for him if I remember correctly, so maybe he wants to weigh in.

There is. You can choose a category, and then vote for nobody if you feel none of them are worthy. This is different than not choosing the category and not being counted as part of the voting field. Really? I have never heard of this before.

I pretty much agree with you. What bothered me the most was that Dave ignored the things about Owen that set him apart from his dad and other promoters in his reply. I just want more particulars on the Crockett's and while I think Dave provided some, it's not at all what I would call a complete picture.

Am I crazy for thinking there should be a "None of The Above" option in each category?

For those with WON subs there has been an interesting debate in Alan's forum about promoters, with Dave coming out as harshly against Don Owen calling him "average at best" as a promoter and saying people vote for him for the same reason they vote for Moolah. I can't speak to why people vote for Owen, but it's pretty clear Dave's position is that his promotion was too small time. I understand that position and can see a case for keeping promoters like that out, but was kind of shocked at how much of a joke Dave seems to see Owen as a candidate when Stu Hart got in by fiat and Heyman got in primarily as a promoter. I was starting to get slightly more optimistic about Patera's chances of staying on the ballot, but the more I think about it the more I think he is definitely going to fall off. I think in a lot of ways it will be like last year with Rose (though I think Patera is a much better candidate) where I know virtually everyone who votes for him. I just can't see Patera pulling any real votes with modern wrestlers and it's unlikely he will do well with retired wrestlers either. There are a lot of people who seem receptive to him in the historians/reporters camp but I think a lot of them view him as a guy who is just below the cut off or they would vote for him if they had fifteen picks but they only have ten. Hopefully he survives this year. I really want to do some similar research with other guys (finishing The High Flyers, Valentine and to a much lesser degree Sarge who I actually have already started on) but I'm not going to waste my time either.

First year I just want him to stay on the ballot. The toughest thing is convincing people that he belongs in the discussion because the perception of him is almost entirely based around the last little bit of his career, which is a tiny percentage, but the only thing that occurred post-boom. Ultimately I think he should be in and I won't really be happy unless that happens, but it's not going to happen in the first year and very possibly might never happen. Still he has to stay on the ballot and then the vote total has to grow.

Wrestlers almost never release their ballots and they vote much, much differently so I can't see that working. There are several voters who have gone public with who they plan to vote for and a few who have released ballots. All total probably around fifteen or so. Complete ballots of Dave Musgrave, Kurt Brown, Karl Stern, KrisZ, Bix (assuming he doesn't change his) and evilclown are the ones I know of off hand.

The Shield podcast was with Alan and Justin Shapiro over at the figure four/observer site back in May. If you've got a sub it's in the archives.

Obviously I am thrilled you voted for Patera, and in general I agree with virtually all of your ballot, but I am curious as to why you chose to vote for Gorilla Monsoon? I don't think he's a terrible candidate, but I've never seen someone articulate a case for him

Can't speak for Will and I liked the last disc more than the guys doing the podcast did IIRC, but I would have to say yes. Having said that you still have two matches on that disc that will do very well on my ballot (Kerry v. Jerry and the Olympians tag)

I will say that I don't have a fully formulated opinion on Perez. When I think of him I immediately think of Rocca. I know there was a period where he was working MSG without Rocca, but I don't see any error in NYC as being the "Perez era," whereas I do think there was a Morales era if that makes sense. Anyone who has watched the footage knows the "Brody died, business went with it" talking point is wildly exaggerated, but I'd be interested to hear what factors you think led to the decline of WWC. One thing I was going to mention on the show but didn't because of how we jumped around was that I think one great argument for the magazines desperately needing some sort of inclusion is the fact that a guy like Sting is considered a "lock" Hall of Famer by so many who should know better. As a kid reading the magazines Sting was presented as an absolutely legendary figure on par with the top faces of the era like Hogan and Savage. That sort of perception creation is why the magazines were so important.

Also on Big Show I suspect if you and others email Dave and ask to put him on he will but he's not going to put someone on the ballot who he thinks will get no votes. I like Big Show a lot and he was a part of some major shows and moments, but it would take a hell of a lot of convincing for me to see him as an HoFer

Looking at the results of that it looks like it is heavily slanted toward people from the modern era. That is one of the reasons I am so suspicious of numeric calculations being a basis for voting in and of itself (see Farmer's 10k plus attendance metric). It's not that it has NO value, but any metric that rates Koloff, Patera and Snuka below Del Rio, Sid and Booker is transparently flawed in my view.

I sent in an email to Karl Stern (it was one of many apparently) and he ended up putting Patera on his ballot which was a nice surprise.

Dave and I had Bix on for part 2 of the HoF discussions we've been having on the Wrestling Culture podcast. it is linked here http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...=0#entry5564668

Dave beat me to it. This show was really awesome and very thorough. I think we explored a variety of candidates and some from angles that have never been explored before that I know of. We had spirited debates on Pedro Morales and Edge, went into great detail on some of the non-wrestlers, explored whether or not California wrestling is under represented (follow up on Kurt Brown's point from last show) and dug as deep on Lewin as anyone has. Lots of side tangents and there was even more we could have discussed. I want to keep talking about it in this thread, but I will wait for other people to (hopefully) chime in first.

My memory is that Hardy did very well on the house show circuit. I know he and Punk did a really strong crowd in Charleston. Rey being gone has also probably hurt house shows, because I honestly believe aside from Cena he's the only real house show draw.

I'd listen to an argument for Hawk. I know he was considered a big deal in the early days of Wrestling At The Chase and was huge teaming with Swede in the Carolinas, but I need to see what else there is.

How could that be?! I thought it made sense to have Punk lose/fail to win every match for a year!? I was told that was genius booking!? I thought Brock was an HoF level draw, even in wrestling!? Man Bryan is such a terrible draw he obliterated the strengths of Punk's booking and the Jim Londos level drawing power of Brock in one fail swoop! Why does he even have a job?

Michaels belongs in now, but really didn't when he got in in my view. There are a lot of guys who are currently active who are guys that have real HoF potential, but I can't justify supporting them now.