Dylan Waco

Does this make Ken Patera the Albert Belle of the WON HoF?

That's a great post John and the sort of thing that is worth thinking about, but I would say that I do think Vic has a point. Now I would not give Sting very much credit for the initial onset of the Nitro boom, or the NWO explosion. But I do think he was the right guy to do the "who's side is he on?" gimmick with and rafters bit with. It worked in part because it was Sting. It was a guy who had been the face of WCW and the most identifiable WCW guy and he was accused of being a traitor by those who should have known better. Does this mean Hogan and the NWO would not have gotten over as strong had someone else been in the role? Hard to say. The heel side was definitely the right guys, particularly Hogan who was ripe for the turn. On the other hand who else could have been the guy accused of betrayal, who in fact had been betrayed and watched on from the rafters teasing something big week to week? Flair? He was over for sure, but I don't think anyone would have bought him in the role for obvious reasons. Luger has similar baggage. Absent those two I'm not even sure there is a theoretical option worth entertaining. Of course if you think Crow Sting was a piddling part of the equation it doesn't really matter one way or the other. I tend to think he was a very important part of the equation, albeit a part that is hard to quantify.

One thing I would note is that EVEN IF we grant Sting the maximum amount of credit for Crow Sting run as is feasibly possible, I find it very hard to see how he can get in absent either A. a sustained run of being a solid ace, who did well at the box office if not outstanding or B. another very hot run of note, that lasted at least a couple of years. I see nothing like that on his resume. I'm not sure this is the best comparison, but looking at Sting next to Kerry Von Erich, it is very hard for me to see how Sting is a better candidate in any area other than longevity as a star. Kerry is someone who has never really mustered much support. I would honestly like to see someone compare Sting to guys like Kerry and JYD who aren't in and likely never will be. Perhaps a comparison to Taker or some other figure who people think is comparable in some sense who is inside the Hall would be interesting too.

It was definitely sold that way. I was at the show live and the anticipation of Sting being there was a major, major aspect of the show. People were defeated when he didn't show up to stop the NWO from winning at the finish and when he came down from the building the pop in the building was insane and unlike anything I have ever been a part of before or since.

As many as need be. To be honest I'd prefer to have the Edge argument, but I don't think anyone here is going to bite.

I don't know if you could rate Taker above Sting as a face from 92-98. Crow Sting was a big part of the hot run and Sting during that period was a much better in ring performer than Taker. Taker is another guy who I think got in to soon, but I think he definitely belongs now. The Streak ended up becoming the most important title in wrestling and Taker as "special attraction" has become a major drawing card for the biggest show, the most successful company in wrestling runs every year. In any event I think Taker has had a better career than Sting, but I think where he pulls ahead is 98-present. Savage I think is interesting. He had the heel turn in 97 (I think it was early 97 anyway) so he's playing with a shorter span of time, but I agree with a lot of the points Matt makes. I am tempted to see him as lateral with Sting in many ways. The problem Sting has is that even if we grant him the slot as the number two babyface of the era based on the fact that he was top face of the second show, it's very hard to see the argument once you start peeling back the layers. I like Sting as a worker more than most, and was a big fan of his as a kid. I think Jastrau97's post is a good one that sums things up well. Sting's name would not look out of place in an HoF because of the perceptions many of us have from childhood, but if you were to cover up his name and look at his career record/accomplishments I don't think very many people would conclude he was an HoFer, let alone a guy who's exclusion is outlandish.

I like the Nitro era more than you (though I agree it is insanely overrated, particularly the cruiser division stuff), but yeah, Studd Stable v. Dustin and co. was the last stand of WCW as a "Southern" wrestling promotion. Great stuff week in and out and several matches that among my all time favorites.

Orton has been badly hurt by the fact that he is a shitty face, but every time he gets over as a high level heel the fans cheer for him and end up turning him face again. If the booking were better and he were a better all around performer they could work with that, but neither thing is the case. There have been times where I really enjoyed Orton and other times where I have thought he was just awful as an act. I don't think he's ever been bad as a worker, but there are things he doesn't do very well that really jump out. Having said that he's had far too many good matches to be considered poor.

Links to other podcasts that go into more detail on things we discussed on the show: Bix's interview with announcer Craig Johnson http://www.archive.org/download/LoserLeave...6bixpodcast.mp3 Bix and Rob Naylor on Joe Gagne's show discussing Global in detail http://www.thecubsfan.com/jvstw/JVSTW49.mp3 Bix and Rob Naylor on Joe Gagne's show discussing IWCCW in detail http://www.thecubsfan.com/jvstw/JVSTW60.mp3

Missed this earlier. I don't know who you are and don't care. Frankly if you dropped dead tomorrow it wouldn't effect my life at all, other than possibly benefiting it extremely mildly as the number of inane, worthless posts on this message board would drastically decrease. Having said that this line of attack is one I always find odd because it usually comes after someone's feelings have been hurt because someone said something mean about their pro wrestling heroes. "You over analyzing son of a bitch, you don't think the guy I pretended to be when I was six should be in a wrestling Hall of Fame!" Now it is unquestionably true that I waste hours of time analyzing wrestling (among other things). But it's also true that I don't generally dance around in front of a mirror, in a pair of undersized tight whitey's, singing along to the "man called Sting!" theme song, while searching desperately for that right shade of mascara that will help me be the perfect all grown up "little Stinger." Can you really say the same about yourself sir? In any event for the purposes of this thread, which is about the HoF in general, it is a shame you are unwilling to make an argument that's depth goes beyond "when i was a kid jim ross said sting was the best." But if you aren't willing to you aren't willing to. Just don't feed me some bullshit line about how you are some busy man, who doesn't have time. We all know that isn't true.

You don't have to do that. You are the guy who thinks he should be in and you literally can't formulate an argument for him other than "he might have been a bigger star if WCW booking wasn't horrible." I would assume someone who thinks he clearly should be in like yourself would at least have a bullet point argument of positives that could be pointed to with no real research at all. When asked for specifics it really doesn't take much effort at all in this day and age to find it, particularly on candidates from Sting's era. That you are unwilling or unable to do so tells me he's a pretty shitty candidate.

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot. I played the "what if card" because it was right there for the taking. It doesn't change my opinion on whether Sting deserves to be in or not. I think he belongs in on merit, but it wouldn't be logical to discard existing or hypothetical realities The "what if card" is ALWAYS right there for the taking. For example I love Brian Pillman. He's not a very good candidate on merit, but what if he doesn't flip his jeep and destroy his ankle? Sure, but you don't have to play the what if card in Sting's case. That was my point. Pillman had HOF potential. Sting has HOF credentials, the what if stuff is icing on the cake You missed a post up there where I asked you to outline those credentials

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot. I played the "what if card" because it was right there for the taking. It doesn't change my opinion on whether Sting deserves to be in or not. I think he belongs in on merit, but it wouldn't be logical to discard existing or hypothetical realities The "what if card" is ALWAYS right there for the taking. For example I love Brian Pillman. He's not a very good candidate on merit, but what if he doesn't flip his jeep and destroy his ankle? Does coked up Pillman go on to become Austin's biggest rival in the WWF? At worst does he go on to be a major main event player in the mix with Austin, Foley and The Rock? Forgetting that what if Pillman had been elevated as a face in WCW during the period where he was one of the most exciting young workers in the business and regularly getting the biggest babyface reactions in the company? What if the booking there had been better and he became a huge money making star? You can certainly theorize a world where such things occurs, but it doesn't make him a HoFer, regardless of whether or not they are or aren't a stretch. I've seen you say that cards did better when Sting was on the shows than when he wasn't. Well define "better?" We can look at instances where Jerry Blackwell wasn't on cards and attendance plummeted only for attendance to go back up when Blackwell starts showing up again. I've had people counter this by pointing to other circumstances, but the fact is that it happened two years in a row, and some of those shows where Blackwell came back saw houses go up fifty percent or more and end up as sellouts or 10k plus houses when he returned. Does Sting have anything like that to point to? We hear about how Sting did good ratings and better buyrates than others but I haven't seen very much in the way of examples and again there is the question of what is "better" and what that really means. The indy in my area drew more paid than TNA did not that long ago. Does that mean Chris Masters is a better draw than Jeff Hardy? More to the point if Masters did that in twenty cities around The United States would that make him a good HoF candidate? If Sting should be in, he should be in by more than mere assertion. To me the entire case for him at this point seems to be that he is a well remembered star who was the babyface face of the number two company in the country during a period where no one was drawing. Well, that and longevity I guess. Pointing to Crow Sting and one big buyrate isn't enough. Davey Boy Smith headlined one of the biggest drawing shows in wrestling history. Danno O'Mahoney was the biggest draw in the sport for a couple of years. Goldberg was a hotter babyface act than Sting ever was in the same company for a snapshot in time. The information is available. Even without making a Patera-level pitch if someone really want to make the argument based on numbers they could. I wish they would and I wish it would go beyond "this is pretty good relative to what others in the same company did," and instead look at whether or not the numbers are actually impressive. Edit: Also why is there "no doubt" that Sting is a better candidate than Luger? For guy who was allegedly "better at the chase" he sure didn't draw better than Luger in that role. Did Sting ever have a single year as an all around performer as good as Luger in 89? I could see an argument for Sting to be sure, but the more I think about it, I don't think it is clear at all that he's a better candidate.

Expanding on this, tell me why Sting is a better candidate than guys like JYD or Kerry Von Erich who have either never been on the ballot or have been but have fallen off. Better yet, tell me why Sting is a better candidate than contemporaries of his like Luger or Barry Windham who no one would even take seriously as candidates even if they were on the ballot.

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot.

Posted the new stuff at Classics. Debating whether or not to post it at the F4W board now or hold off. I really have no clue what forum to put in over at that place.

Jimmy Hart will get votes. He has never even been on the ballot before. Make the case for Sabu and Sting

Edge is going to get in. Dave and Bryan are both far too supportive of his candidacy for him to stay out. Edge is a guy I would love to see Dave debate the merits of with someone who really opposes his candidacy, but I doubt that would ever happen.

The bar was lowered for Michaels in 03. In many ways 04 was actually the low point as you had Ultimo, Angle and Sakuraba go in in the same year, all of whom are controversial picks for different reasons. There have been several picks I disagree with since then, some of who I don't really understand the case for (Saito and Hase especially), but no one that even approaches the level of Low Ki or Gabe. I'm not saying we might not get to that point, but if anything Dave seems to be admitting the dearth of quality candidates for the modern era, and has opened up the ballot/overlooked historical candidate part of the ballot dramatically as a result. We could argue that may end up having some major bad sides as well. But I don't see how the floodgates are going to be opened to the point where people are going to have candidacies SOLELY built around ROH/IWA-MS/PWG careers.

I am shocked this didn't come up sooner actually. I am going to leave this up here for one more day before I spread the most recent posting around to Classics and the F4W board. If anyone sees anything that needs a correction/clarification let me know.

The Foley match is great. I think the Cena match from SS 07 is really great too, though I haven't watched it in a while.

Really? We get upset about Kurt Angle and Ultimo getting in and "we aren't sure" about Super Dragon.....? If one wants to point to indy runs as being clear positives and even "the bulk" of a candidacy of a guy who will be pushed on pure work like Danielson I don't think it's out there. I agree that the indy boom was impressive, but it's not something I can see being argued as the primary support for an HoF candidacy. Of the guys on that list Danielson and Punk will get in (I agree with John), but I'm not sure either guy gets in if they don't end up as main eventers in the WWE. By the time they get onto the ballot they won't even be thought of as "indy guys" in any meaningful sense, even if you could argue they were the two most important people in U.S. indy wrestling during it's highest point. Cide, Ki and Joe are busts to varying degrees. Joe might be able to redeem himself if a miracle occurs and TNA catches fire, because he does have a three or four year stretch where he was thought of as one of the two or three best guys on Earth and he did headline the two biggest drawing TNA ppvs of all time for whatever that is worth, but he'd have to put in a massive amount of work to get to HoF level. Ki and Cide don't have his positives and their negatives are probably worse. I'm not sure Super Dragon is even one of the best five hundred candidates not on the ballot. I doubt it to be honest. In any event Punk and Danielson will get in, but how much of it will be for the indy runs at the end of the day? Cide, Ki, Joe and Dragon won't get in and frankly none are even close to being as good a candidate as Tito Santana - and he's someone I wouldn't even consider seriously.

I wouldn't vote for Sabu, but there were plenty of people - including a lot of people who vote - who likely considered him a "positive" influence in many ways. Anyhow the point is if Sabu couldn't get enough "influence" love to stay on the ballot, I see no way in hell that will be a serious argument for Low Ki

Sabu went nowhere on influence.

I don't see it. Of modern guys Ki is WELL down the list of guys I could see getting the ballot and being argued heavily in favor of even by people who I almost completely disagree with