Dylan Waco

How about lateral presses?

Pins? Anyway I stated the people I would vote for under what I assumed the implication of the term is.

Isn't this basically the same thing as the Most Outstanding Award or am I misreading you?

Is it really that difficult to understand? Yes. If you disagree please tell me what "technical wrestling" is.

What if Sting turns instead of Hogan? No way in hell it would have worked as well. I'm not saying it wouldn't have worked and it would have been a huge shock. But Hogan turning had an impact unlike anything in modern wrestling history and I say that without a hint of hyperbole.

This is a good question and I think a more interesting way of framing things at this point in the discussion. If I were ranking them in order I would go: JYD Mr. Wrestling II Kerry Von Erich Sting Batista The Ultimate Warrior I think Warrior is clearly last - he was the worst worker of the bunch (yes worse than JYD in my opinion, though his best matches are probably better), and he's not the draw people assume he was. Batista and Sting is closer than I'd like to admit. Batista has done some good numbers and headlined some big time shows. At times he was good in the ring. But he was never the top babyface in the U.S. and you can certainly make the case that Sting was for most of 1997, which was a huge period for wrestling. I could be convinced Batista is a better candidate, but my initial thought is that Sting is my a small margin. KVE was ultimately the biggest star of The Von Erich's during a period where they set records all over Texas. Yeah I tend to think the Birds were driving that train in many ways, but The Von Erichs were rock stars and no way the Birds could have had a run like that with someone who wasn't waiting to explode. Kerry was a very underrated worker and did well some territories and places outside of Texas as well (particularly St. Louis). He doesn't have the longevity of Sting, but his peak as a star was substantially longer. I would need to re-read KrisZ's bio on MWII, but he was a guy who could and did actually sell out the Omni and other buildings a whole lot. In some ways he set the table for Tommy Rich and TBS explosion. I'd put him slightly ahead of Kerry. JYD is the only one of these guys I absolutely think should be in. Record setting draw and cultural figure in Mid-South, particularly New Orleans where he took the town from absolute shit and made it maybe the single hottest wrestling town in the country. I'd give the Dog extra points for being the first black babyface "ace" of note in the South, but I understand not everyone would. When he left Watts for the WWE he was actually utilized well around the loop as a guy who could and did draw on his own absent Hogan. He should be in.

I live in the heart of Carolina's which in theory is the birthplace of "Sting" as a main event player and this is almost completely the opposite of my experience. I'm not going to say Sting wasn't over because he damn sure was, but at my high school - outside of perhaps a three month period right after Uncensored 97 - he was nowhere near as well known, talked about, "over" with the casual fans as even someone like Rikishi would be a couple of years later. Even if we restrict it just to WCW Goldberg and DDP smoked him in popularity among casuals, to say nothing of the NWO or Flair (though to be fair Flair is disproportionately loved around these parts). If I were to "rate" WCW figures from the boom era in terms of crossover appeal during that era Sting would struggle to make the top five, despite the advantage he had over some people of having been regionally significant before the boom. If we are extending it to WWE performers no way in hell he makes the top ten. I don't think this necessarily means anything in and of itself, but I did want to respond because my experience is so radically different than yours. I would also note that the issue of whether or not Sting could have been replaced in his role is something that has been talked about in this thread at least two other times and for my part I would answer "no." That doesn't make him a Hall of Famer in and of itself though, and no one has taken up the Orndorff comp which is too bad because I think at minimum it would clarify some of the differing perspectives in the thread.

I think Michaels' induction was primarily for his 1992-96 work, although that his election was contentious at best and misguided at worst probably supports what you're saying. It was and it was a terrible induction in hindsight.

How is it an odd argument? Why should guys from the 1990's get affirmative action points pushing them in when they don't have HoF careers? Also worth noting that Vader was a big star in Japan which helped him as much as anything he did here in the ring, and Steamboat was considered a great worker going back to the mid-70's and had at least some periods of drawing. Both really shouldn't have been put in by fiat, but both should be in the HoF.

Okada will win the most improved award because NJPW is in vogue.

1. LOU THESZ/RIC FLAIR AWARD - I might send Meltzer a "column" for the site where I argue for None of the Above in this category. I honestly don't think there is anyone who has enough major positives to really feel like a "wrestler of the year" type guy. It's possible I'll vote for someone in this category, but I really don't feel strongly about it and there are any number of ways I could go because I don't think there is anyone close to being a transcendent star. Cena is the default pick because of the success of the show with The Rock, Punk will have his supporters because of the year long title run that spans the entire voting period, Tanahashi will likely win because he's the ace of the number two promotion in the world and is thought of by many as being a great worker. A part of me wants to vote for Aries just because he had a career year in the hardest promotion in wrestling history to have a career year in, but he meant absolutely nothing for business. I'm open to suggestions. 2. MMA MOST VALUABLE FIGHTER: Won't vote here as I haven't followed closely. 3. MOST OUTSTANDING WRESTLER: This is really tough as you have guys who had really good "chunks" of the year, but because of availability/guys missing time/guys being put in situations where it's harder to stand out, it doesn't feel like there is any one candidate who has an overwhelming case. I am tempted to vote Derrick King number one, but he doesn't have any match I would call a MOTYC. Finlay's indy tour was the best thing in wrestling while it lasted and it lasted for about half the year, but that's half a year. Bryan had some great stuff, but then he got lost and while he still performers strongly when given the chances, the chances don't come as often. Casas has some excellent stand out performances and always stands out in trios, but the footage on him is very spotty. Villano IV showed up less than a half dozen times, was awesome every time and had the single best performance of the year, but he showed up less than a half dozen times. Not as much high end Navarro or Terry as in recent years. Punk's best stuff was great, but there is a lot of "eh" stuff compared to last year. Virus is another guy that is awesome when he shows up, but I'm not sure he has the one big match that jumps out. Panther and Santo have a couple of those matches that really pop out, but again the amount of footage is not overwhelming (particularly in the case of Santo). Callihan was on pace to have a case and then didn't do anything for what seemed like months. Aries had an incredible year considering he works in TNA, but off hand he still only has four matches that really stand out (though they REALLY stand out). Okada or Tanahashi will win, but I don't think either guy is all that good (in the case of Tanahashi I'm being generous). As of this moment I THINK I'm going Casas, Finlay and King in that order. 4. MOST OUTSTANDING FIGHTER: Won't vote here as I haven't followed closely. 5. BEST BOX OFFICE DRAW - I kind of hate this award and don't care enough to research it. It feels wrong to give The Rock the top spot, but I guess I will. Cena kind of has to be two. After that? Maybe Punk...I guess? 6. FEUD OF THE YEAR - Compelling storyline plus great matches? I don't know that Finlay v. Callihan is a feud. I don't speak Spanish and have no clue what the intricacies of the storyline are one could make the case for Casas v. Panther and El Hijo Del Santo v. El Hijo Del Solitario. I wouldn't fault anyone for voting Cena v. Punk or Punk v. Bryan. I don't really know the history but Frankie Tucker v. Derrick King brought me great joy. Aries v. Roode was better than I would have guessed and delivered one of the better "moments" of the year. This is a tough category because there are things that have elements of what you would look for, but nothing that has a complete picture. It's likely I will go Casas v. Panther, Santo v. Solitario and Aries v. Roode in that order, but I could be convinced to go a different route fairly easily. 7. TAG TEAM OF THE YEAR - The award says best working and most valuable, but I don't know that there is any team that is really that valuable. I'll go with Chip Day and Corey Hollis up top. Really good indy team that works all sorts of indies and styles. The Colon's were good every time they were given a chance. Prime Time Players are an act I really like and a team I enjoy so they'll round out the top three. Tempted to vote for Villano IV/El Hijo Del Santo and El Hijo Del Solitario/Angel Blanco Jr one and two but that feels like cheating. 8. MOST IMPROVED - Rush used to suck and now he's pretty damn good so he's number one. For the two slot I'm going Aries. Yes we all knew he was talented and he's had other good runs but this was a guy who seemed lost in obscurity and had a real breakout year. Third I'll have David Otunga who has tapered off a lot on the back end of the year but for a while was an entertaining character and his in ring performance drastically improved in Dec of last year carrying through the first half or so of this year. 9. BEST ON INTERVIEWS - I actually don't think anyone had an extraordinary year this year as a promo. No standout run of promos like Punk last year or consistent quality like Henry. The one guy who comes the closest to me is Aries because I fucking hate TNA and he made me care about TNA angles/storylines more than once and not just with his ring work. I guess on some level that is as impressive a "stand out" run as someone can have. I don't think Daniel Bryan's promos have been out of this world, but he had some really good ones in December and early this year, plus the comedic stuff with Kane is actually fairly funny even if I think it's a misuse of his talents. Punk is probably the guy with the highest average of decent-to-good promos after those guys so I guess my ballot will be Aries, Bryan, Punk in that order. That's not a ballot line I ever would have expected to see. 10. MOST CHARISMATIC - I suppose The Rock has to win. I'll go with Daniel Bryan in the second spot as he's really incredibly over everywhere he goes and no matter what he does. Austin Aries is a guy who's charisma shined through in TNA of all places so that has to count for something, though I feel bad leaving Santino off the ballot. 11. BEST TECHNICAL WRESTLER - I literally don't know what "technical wrestler" means and the description Dave provides really isn't that helpful. If it means "guy who does lots of moves smoothly" I would probably go Blue Panther, Negro Navarro and Virus in that order. 12. BRUISER BRODY MEMORIAL AWARD - Villano IV, Sami Callihan, Derrick King. IV only showed up a few times, but every time was a great brawling performance and one of them was one of the best brawling performances I've ever seen. Callihan is great at the super indy style of brawling and King is great at Southern brawling. This is actually a category where there are a lot of decent contenders, but I can't see leaving any of those guys off the ballot. 13. BEST FLYING WRESTLER - ACH, Freelance, AR Fox 14. MOST OVERRATED - Davey Richards is employed and was employed in a high profile way for a while so he has to be one. I feel like I should include Eddie Edwards too, but he gets a pass because I can't remember much of anything he did this year. Chris Jericho will be my number two. He was badly exposed during this run. Not sure about third. Maybe Shane Douglas actually. 15. MOST UNDERRATED - Derrick King will get my number one vote since I think he's one of the best wrestlers in the world and he has virtually no visibility. Will likely vote Drew McIntyre second as he's easily the best wrestler in the WWE who gets no real time to do anything. Not sure about third, but I might toss a vote to Andrew Alexander who is another Southern indy guy no one has heard of. 16. PROMOTION OF THE YEAR - It will be interesting to see if New Japan beats out UFC this year. I think there is a chance of that because Dave is such a big fan of NJPW at this point. I don't like Chikara enough to vote for it here, even though I think it gets the most out of what it does relatively speaking and it feels really odd to vote WWE one here. For that reason I'll probably go CMLL, WWE and Chikara in that order. Wait, when was Ring Ka King taped? 17. BEST WEEKLY TV SHOW - WWE Main Event, Smackdown, NXT. I am tempted to vote for CMLL tv here, but I have no clue what show is what as I don't speak a lick of Spanish and just consume whatever gets put up on youtube. 18. PRO WRESTLING MATCH OF THE YEAR - I'm really torn between Cena/Lesnar from Extreme Rules and the Santo/Villano IV v. Solitario/Blanco Jr tag for number one. Those will be my number one and two for sure, just not sure of the order. I'll probably rate Blue Panther v. Negro Casas hair v. hair third. 19. MMA MATCH OF THE YEAR - I'll likely leave this blank as I haven't followed MMA all that closely in the last couple of years. It is tempting to vote CM Punk v. Random fan though. 20. ROOKIE OF THE YEAR - Apparently some people are arguing ACH should be in the running. I don't see how, but if he qualifies for some weird reason I could see an argument for him. I'll vote Dinastia number one and if ACH isn't eligible I won't vote for a 2 or 3. 21. BEST NON-WRESTLER PERFORMER - I assume Heyman will win this and it will be interesting to see how many votes AJ pulls as she is so polarizing. For my part I see no one worth voting for and certainly don't see three people worth voting for. 22. BEST TELEVISION ANNOUNCER - William Regal, Jim Ross, Nigel. Regal is easily the best. Nigel is kind of a sympathy vote, although I do think he can be pretty good calling matches, which is saying something since I don't even like the promotion he works for. 23. WORST TELEVISION ANNOUNCER - Kevin Kelly, Tazz, Mike Tenay. Lots to choose from in this category. I don't hate Cole as much as others and I've grown to really hate Kelly. 24. BEST MAJOR SHOW - Extreme Rules, Evolve 5/11, CMLL Anniversary show. I was surprised by how few contenders I saw for this. Extreme Rules is a pretty easy number one for me, but after that it was tough. That Evolve show had four matches I really liked and while the CMLL show only has one match I loved, there was fun stuff filling out the card. There were actually TNA shows I would have considered with one or two more quality matches. "CATEGORY B" AWARDS. PICK ONE IN EACH CATEGORY. WINNER CHOSEN ON THE BASIS OF FIRST PLACE VOTES. 1. WORST MAJOR SHOW OF THE YEAR - Nothing stands out here, perhaps because I tend to ignore companies that I hate. If forced to pick I guess the first Extreme Rising event was the sort of cumulative disaster that deserves mention. 2. BEST WRESTLING MANEUVER - Vince McMahon's slip'n'slide tope suicida over the announce table. 3. MOST DISGUSTING PROMOTIONAL TACTIC - Balls/New Jack "worked-shoot" angle to set up another RF booking they needed for drug money. 4. WORST TELEVISION SHOW - ROH TV comes on twice a week in my market and I almost never watch it because it bores me to tears when I do. 5. WORST MATCH OF THE YEAR - Unless someone can point to something truly horrid, I will likely vote Elgin v. Richards. It's probable I saw matches this year I thought were worse, but I don't remember them and none were as long and soul draining. 6. WORST FEUD OF THE YEAR - There are feuds that have produced matches I have liked less, but offhand I kind of want to vote for Orton v. Del Rio which has been boring as piss from the jump, feels like it has gone on forever and both guys seem worse for having been in the feud. 7. WORST PROMOTION - ROH. 8. BEST BOOKER - I need confirmation on this, but I think Rob Naylor and Dusty are basically co-booking NXT. Whoever is booking NXT gets my vote. It's not even that it is THAT great, but stuff makes sense and they use what they have better than any other promotion I can think of. 9. PROMOTER OF THE YEAR - I would have voted Quackenbush last year and I probably will vote for him this year. In a time when all the other super indies appear to be leveling off or in decline, Chikara has been able to expand. No, they aren't doing huge business, but it's smart business and they now run shows in the Deep South, The Carolinas, the Midwest and Canada. KOT remains the biggest indy event of the year and they have a loyal base of fans that actually buy their DVD's/shows online. I don't even like Chikara and obviously no one is getting rich off of there model, but in terms of weighing positives against the negatives I think Quack deserves this award. 10. BEST GIMMICK - I saw Sandow on a house show in Dec of last year and it was about as great a "gimmicked" performance as I've seen in several years. I have not been as enamored with him on tv, though I still can't think of a better gimmick in current wrestling. 11. WORST GIMMICK - Davey Richards as "Bandit"/homeless man's Maeda. 12. BEST WRESTLING BOOK - I actually think this is the hardest category this year as both Shooters and Heroes and Icons were extremely enjoyable books that I learned a lot from. Shooters obviously has a better narrative and the most interesting things in it were more interesting than anything in Heroes and Icons. On the other hand I was pretty ambivalent about the Brock stuff in Shooters. I know why it was in there and it made sense for it to be in there but it still was probably the least interesting part of either book to me. I thought the latest Hornbacker book was pretty disappointing and while I enjoyed the JYD book more than most, I don't think it's close to either of these two. I haven't read the Robinson or Booker T books yet and I can't remember if the Duggan book was from this year (I did read that and it was better than expected, but nothing special). Still undecided between Shooters and Heroes and Icons at the moment and both would be in my upper tier of wrestling books ever written. 13. BEST PRO WRESTLING DVD - I will try and watch the NWO DVD before the vote because I've heard good things about it. As of now I would go with the Punk DVD, though I would note that the marathon SMV shoot with Kevin Steen was shockingly interesting and made me start to like a guy I was previously pretty "eh" on.

This is a phrase that gets thrown out a lot and I get the feeling it means radically different things to different people. To be fair I think it does mean different things (to some degree) in different eras, but I am really curious what the common perception is of the term or even if there is a shared view of what the term means. To me a mid-carder is someone who is not put in a position to draw, but is not pure undercard fodder either. In the WWE today when I think mid-carder the sort of names that pop into my head are Kofi Kingston and Cody Rhodes. You aren't going to see either guy dropping falls to Heath Slater, but you aren't going to see them main eventing a ppv and it's unlikely they would be in a bout featured and heavily promoted for the shows. I think some people consider anyone who doesn't work in the absolute main event night in and night out a mid-carder. In the modern context I sort of see the argument, but think it's excessive. In a discussion of territorial wrestling I think it is way off. There are lots of shows where Andre the Giant worked second or third from the top, seems insane to me to call him a mid-carder. Maybe with some guys it's just how they "feel" in terms of presentation. That's another aspect that can be explored in the thread I suppose, though I don't know where to go with that. Anyway I'm curious to hear how people define the term.

I thank Flik for dragging those results over. I think to a large degree they tell us what we already know, but it's nice to have something in front of us. It's not the full story because house show attendance still mattered as much or more than buyrates/ratings for a big chunk of the era in question, but it's nice to have someone do the legwork.

I think Sting is a better candidate than Nash for the simple fact that Sting was the top face in the U.S. for a year in a company that was very successful and I tend to think he was a much better (and generally underrated) worker than Nash. Nash at his peak was the clear number two (if not three counting Bischoff) in the heel pecking order. I would like someone to make the case that the single year in question should be enough to push Sting over the top as a hall of famer. I would even be willing to grant for the sake of argument that it was a "centerpiece" year (even though i don't believe it for a second and see no reason to support that theory at all). This goes to the point about Sting as a draw. You say there is no reason to doubt that he was a performer who drew based on the fact that he was part of this historic angle/period where wrestling blew up. But no one has been able to cite any other examples of Sting drawing before or since, outside of a few references to good tv ratings during a period where ratings were not even close to being the be all and end all. No one even tries to dispute the fact that Sting - the draw who can not be doubted - couldn't draw worth a shit v. Flair. All we get is "well the promotion was booked like dogshit." Well okay that sucks, but it doesn't change facts. There are a lot of people - myself included - who don't think Paul Orndorff was interchangeable and the perfect foil for Hogan during a period where wrestling exploded. It was a record setting feud, that greatly helped establishing new markets and solidifying the national expansion. This was a feud they went to more than once it was so successful. Mania, The Big Event, key SNME's, major house shows, et were all either built around this feud or this feud was a heavily, heavily featured aspect. Is Sting a better candidate than Orndorff (who had more pre-prime positives than Sting for sure)? Is he a better challenger/foil for Hogan? Is Orndorff a Hall of Famer? More importantly why do you think it is that Sting gets far more discussion than Orndorff? These aren't trolling questions and I'm actually glad someone is trying to make a case for Sting that doesn't consist entirely of "well he didn't get a fair shake!" But I am seriously curious about how someone who is pro-Sting for the reasons you are pro-Sting would rate Orndorff and perhaps more importantly how much weight we should give to one hot - albeit record setting - year.

How is it being pompous? There are guys like Gordienko who had far worse problems related to even getting booked, then anything Renegade or Luger envisioned. I often disagree with evilclown, but I don't see how he is off base here at all.

I'm not saying Sting was playing a role anyone could have played. In fact if you have followed the discussion in the thread over the last couple of days you'll see a post where I specifically argue that Sting was the only person in the promotion who could have been in the position he was in. I have no problem giving Sting credit for his part in that run. I was at Uncensored 97 live and know full well what he meant at that point to the broader wrestling landscape. Having said that in asserting that Sting was the "centerpiece" and literally not mentioning anything about one of the two or three biggest draws in wrestling history who just happened to be Sting's foil during that era, you seem to be implying that the great bulk of the credit for that run should be given to Sting. And in my view that is literally an insane position. Everyone knows that a possible Sting appearance was a big part of Nitro/WCW for 97. This is the best Sting in the chase/challenger role he ever had. But to imply that he was carrying the promotion by himself during the period is comical. And if you aren't implying that you need to explain what your "centerpiece bit" was all about. If its wrong for Sting's detractors to give him credit for nothing, it's also wrong for his supporters to elevate his accomplishments to a level that is far beyond what they actually were. And even if we are going to pretend that Sting was the "centerpiece" around which everything revolved for a huge one year boom, it doesn't answer the question of whether or not one year should ever get anyone in.

You may have had one or two of the Pillman/Barry matches above it.

I'm trying to ascertain what you mean by "shithouse territory" since there is no reference to any such thing anywhere in my previous post. It's curious how this act of "transcendence" only manifested itself when Hogan turned heel and an invasion angle involving two of the top stars from the other promotion had started. Strange how Sting's ability to "cultivate a loyal fanbase" consisted of bombing as the ace of a company and being at BEST the fifth best drawing challenger for Flair between 88-96 in the company he was the babyface "face" of, up until the NWO was on the scene. Odd how this "centerpiece" of the boom that expanded the national audience to levels unseen before, had fewer matches and promoted appearances during the run in question than any other performer in wrestling history credited with anything close to this. If you think "single great year" is selling Sting short that's fine, but pretending that year was one of the greatest in the history of wrestling is delusional.

Who is engaging in that "bit?" I always go out of my way to give credit to Sting for that run. For a year or so he was a very hot act. For the rest of his career he wasn't. Show me someone who is in for a single great year and then we'll talk.

I think that idea needs to be looked at a bit more closely. As I said before I think you should do it. I'm not going to because I'm already doing enough wrestling related stuff, but who knows maybe you'll find something you don't expect. I agree that Luger was more screwed over by the book then Sting. I also agree with the implication of evilclown's statement that if you go farther back in history you will find a ton of other candidates for the "honor" of "most fucked over by bookers."

Spare a thought for who he had to work with? That's the entire crux of the pro-Sting argument every time out. "Sure he didn't draw, but look at the situation he was in." You can certainly make a good case that Sting is the ultimate "wrong place, wrong time" guy and that in an ideal world he could have been a much bigger star and more important player. But you can say that of a ton of other guys and even if Sting is the single most "fucked over by the bookers" guy in the history of wrestling (and I don't think he is), it doesn't explain why the "face of the company" who was "better at the chase" than as the ace drew worse v. Flair than Luger, Funk, Hogan and Savage during his prime.

Yes it is, but I question how much history Bischoff actually changed. Guaranteed contracts and the expansion of cable market in wrestling were big deals, but his challenge to Vince was short lived. Bischoff was a part of a big boom and I'm not completely dismissive of the notion that he should be in. But if he gets in he'll be alone as a candidate, in on four years or less, with a major negative that arguably runs lateral to his biggest positive.

I compare Bischoff's WON HOF credentials to Marvin Miller's credentials for the Baseball HOF. Without Miller's work in eliminating the reserve clause in MLB, the game would be vastly different today. Without Bischoff going w/ Hogan as a heel and coming up w/ the NWO, wrestling would be vastly different today. Some might argue that baseball and wrestling are actually worse off today because of Miller's and Bischoff's actions, but I think those people are wrong. Yes, both Miller and Bischoff are mainly known for doing one thing, but that one thing made such an impact that it altered the course of baseball/wrestling forever. If I had a vote, both Miller and Bischoff would be in the HOF. Miller has a stronger case, though, IMO. My problem with putting Bischoff in is that his "peak" as a promoter is incredibly short. In many ways promoters have had a more difficult time getting in, in my view because of the fact that people remember the negatives (i.e. the companies dying) and the positives get obscured by those broader failings. It took a long time for Roy Shire to get in and he was a clear Meltzer favorite. Jim Crockett Jr, Don Owen, Jerry Jarrett, Ray Fabiani and others with clear promoting positives aren't in. We could argue that Bischoff's peak was bigger and more substantial than any of those men - but all of them lap him in longevity. Hell Carlos Colon laps him in longevity as a promoter and drew some huge houses on shows he promoted and he can't get in. It's not just promoters either. If we are being really generous we can give Eric four years as an HoF level promoter - who is in the Hall of Fame for four years or less? Sayama maybe. Perhaps The Rock. Maybe Foley though I suspect most people would factor in his pre-WWF career as a worker and things like the KOTM show if they were being honest. Angle, but just about everyone here views him as a mistake pick. There may be others, but the point is the number is very, very small and none have the negatives of Bischoff. I wouldn't reject Bischoff out of hand as a candidate, but there are guys with peak runs of similar length and more positives before and after their peaks that aren't in and may never get in. It's hard for me to see how ATM Eric merits inclusion, before JYD.

"Right place, right time" is the story of wrestling in many ways. I suspect there are many people who believe Backlund could have been replaced by any number of people. There are those who think Flair's job could have been done just as well if not better by Dibiase. I suspect Ken Patera could have done at least as well as Billy Graham as WWWF champ. But that doesn't change what actually happened. What actually happened is that Bret was on top of one of the five biggest drawing shows in history, during the exact same period when Sting struggled to get a couple thousand people into buildings that had been strongholds for the promotion just a couple of years before. I would never point to Bret as a strong, HoF level draw. But he does have positives you can point to. He also was not the bomb as an ace that Sting was which gives him less negatives. I would be all for you going through and pulling the results to see what they show and if I'm wrong I'll be the first person to admit it. I honestly don't see any similarities between the way Edge and Jericho work and the way Sting works. We can argue about how much of an influence Bret had on them stylistically (though I think you could argue that Bret was one of the guys who set the table for the modern WWF main event style), but I don't know that picking two guys that grew up/were trained in Canada is a favorable comp for Sting on any level. You hear a lot of wrestlers say Bret and Shawn were their favorites in the 90's. Not very many say Sting was.

I don't have time to give the sort of in depth answer I want to give to this at the moment but I agree with Loss that Bret is one of the guys that should not have gone in by fiat. Others who shouldn't have gone in that way off the top of my head include Jim Cornette, Dynamite Kid, Ricky Steamboat and Ted Dibiase. Having said that I think Bret is a stronger candidate than Sting and I do think you can demonstrate that he was a better draw than Sting was. I also think he was clearly a better worker. And I think Jerry's argument about Sting being influential because he pounded his chest after moves is...well...totally bizarre and not a very good one.