Dylan Waco

Don't look now, but we have people in the Sting thread on Classics comparing Sting to Ernie Banks....

Another thing to keep in mind is that digital technology has made it far easier to watch all the footage you get. I have shit tons of tapes in my house, many that I NEVER got around to watching. Being able to skip ahead by chapter, or look out for more easily digestible matches in a slew of shit is a major advantage DVD's/streaming sites/DL's have over VHS tapes.

Let's not forget that the AWA was never a favorite of Dave.

How was he not a failure on top? If people want to say "well it wasn't all his fault" fine. But as the ace of the promotion he failed and it's silly to say "Sting gets no credit for poor business when he was the ace and all the credit for everything good he did." I actually like Sting a good bit and a part of me wants to argue for him because there are very few wrestlers I saw more in person than Sting over the years. But I keep coming back to two things - the guy who was supposedly "better in the chase" didn't even draw well in that role, and the dark years of the company coincide almost exactly with the period when he was slingshotted to the top, to the period where he was overtaken in the top face role by Hogan.

Well, I was raised Lutheran and did go to junior seminary...

Kane's peers love him. Rufus Jones was exceptionally popular with the boys.

If you aren't into bios you are going to have limited pickings. It's worth noting that all the Oliver/Johnson books are books filled with mini-bios. Shooters is by far the best non-biographical wrestling book I've ever read. Hornbaker's NWA book suffers from some organizational issues but would still probably be second.

The Heels is really good, though I like the more recently released Heroes and Icons better. Shooters is a great book that everyone should read. I'd pass on the Hornbaker book

My favorite Don Owen thing was when he would complain about loser leaves town matches, because he couldn't afford to keep flying in new talent all the time.

I really hate that cage match, Dylan. Re-read that again carefully

I don't think those stats are final words either. I got interested in those two by talking about them with others and watching their matches. The rest came later. I also had no plans to "pick apart" any other names you would have mentioned. I was just curious.

It's arguable. What's notable about Rose is that he's not just considered the cumulative best draw though. He's considered the PEAK best draw too. People talk about Rose/Piper and say "well it was Piper." But the Martel feud did nearly as well and even three years later the stuff with DK, Hennig, et was pretty close to that level. If you believe Piper, Hennig and others Buddy was offered shots in multiple places including GA and MACW. There are some who think he didn't go because he was afraid of failure. Others think he didn't go (and this is what he always said) because he made great money in Portland, working a small loop, for the most honest promoter in wrestling, where he was home every night. It's funny as Sting is sort of the ultimate "what if" candidate, but I always look at Buddy and think "if Don Owen wasn't as smart a businessman and ran a 10k seat building in Portland every week with Rose on top of 5k plus weekly shows consistently....." But it's a what if. And I don't hang my hat on Buddy's drawing power. To me it's a piece of a unique puzzle.

That's not the argument I would make against Edge. Does anyone make that argument against Edge?

St. Louis was a single town so it doesn't make a good comp, but take something like Patera in 83-84. He was past his prime at that point as a star (though still a good worker) but he was consistently at the top of the card in mains or semi-mains for the AWA around their very expansive loop. And he was also taking some shots in Montreal. And he was still a star who was booked well on the cards in St. Louis. And he was down in Memphis main eventing with Lawler fairly regularly. And he worked a NJPW tournament. Or you could look at something like 78 where he started off in New York, then was working around the loop in MACW where he was a semi-main or main event guy (he main evented a lot of the second tier markets during that run, which doesn't show up in my latest breakdown of major market main events), but was also being brought in and positioned very well on the Toronto shows and was brought in as Dusty's opponent for the semi-main of the Superbowl of Wrestling show in Florida. That's sort of muddled but my point is that while you can't compare your "single shot's" like St. Louis, Toronto, Montreal or Memphis to WCW in the 90's they weren't the only thing he was doing at the time. He was working for major promotions AND doing those things. On your broad point I understand it and basically agree, but I've never been a guy who was going to post on a discussion forum and not have a discussion.

I was thinking of Will, but could have just as easily been talking about my brother. Also I would say he was the best in the world from the period between 77-84. I would listen to cases for a few other guys (Flair, Funk, Fujinami, Lawler), but everything I've seen points to Buddy. At his absolute peak I'm not sure there is anyone who I thought was better. As good? Sure. Better? No.

Rose is a special, unique case. I don't think he compares well to anyone. Maybe the Brits, but even that isn't right for a variety of reasons. He's the only small territory wrestler I can see a case for offhand. I've said this before but Rose is a guy who's case is that he was the best drawing ace in the history of a promotion that last for seventy plus years and he was a top tier HoF level worker. If he was just an HoF level worker he doesn't get my support. If he was just the best draw in Portland history he doesn't get my support. He got my support - which amounted to shit - because he had both. I am not someone who puts a ton of stock in sports analogies for wrestling Hall of Fame discussion, but there is something that intrigues me about trying to find the right sports analogy for Sting. A part of me wants to say Roger Maris, but I'm not sure that really fits. I've said this before elsewhere, but Sting is unique in his own right because I don't know that there has ever been an ace/top babyface in the history of the business who failed harder than Sting and is remembered as fondly as he is.

I really haven't written that much on Rose as a draw because the data isn't there. Also I wouldn't lump Patera in with Rose for two reasons. 1. Rose was an ace and Patera never was. 2. The "seemingly little territories" in Patera's case were regularly running buildings as big or bigger than the ones run during the period Sting was ace of WCW - and filling them up. Often. Again it comes down to how much credit you are going to give someone for being on or near the top when things aren't going well. I'm not someone who believes longevity for longevity's sake is very meaningful. I'm also not someone who believes "being on top" in and of itself is all that telling. Even granting the extremely generous "mainevented a company for 12 or 13 years" point, it doesn't mean much if the company wasn't doing well.

Totally out of curiosity and not meant as "LOL PROVE IT!" type of troll, but who are some other names you think are HoFer's that would generally be dismissed?

The term was tossed at Patera on WC. Dylan appears to have been interested if there was any definition of what a mid carder is. The thread tends to illustrated why it's problematic. John John's basically got it. I would add that the term in general is one that I have always seen used rather haphazardly to describe a huge swath of people that don't appear to me to be all that similar. I realize that there will always be issues with categorization, but I was curious about whether or not this is a term that has anything close to a shared meaning. In particular I thought the Patera thing was puzzling because it was a response from Matt Farmer after he went through all of the research/data dumps I have posted at Classics. There are legitimate criticisms of that research and Patera as an HoF candidate, but I don't think "he was a mid-carder" is a serious conclusion that can be drawn from anything I have posted.

I am assuming CM funk posts as dailyskew on Classics. In the Sting thread over there http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimate...9963;p=3#000102 he's now pimping Sting as a "sabermetrics" candidate. I would be interested to see what people here think of this argument. I'll reserve my criticisms of it for later.

Maybe he was a small package expert?

New Jack on Jenny Jones as someone brought in to motivate at risk teens to behave, which he does by violently cursing them and calling them pieces of shit while raving about how only their mama's really love them and Jenny pleads with him to stop has to be high on the list.

I don't cross vote with MMA. I like MMA though I haven't followed it closely in two years, but it just feels wrong to try and make a direct comparison with pro wrestling for the purposes of something like this. Your book is very, very good. One of the better wrestling books I've read. Most years I would vote for it without a second thought, but Oliver/Johnson/Mooneyham put in a really good effort. In all likelihood I'll vote for it as it has a true narrative flow/structure to it and their book doesn't (albeit for obvious reasons).

Wait, by whom Shane Douglas has been rated to begin with, in 2012 ? What did he do except work his disastrous Extreme Reunion show ? The award says guys who are overpushed relative to talent in description. This guy has headlined two of the bigger indy shows of the year.

But small packages are?