Dylan Waco

Also worth noting that Tabe is about the biggest Takada fan on the web and has been for as long as I can remember

Piper loved Don Owen and would pop up there as a favor pretty regularly for years after he left as a favor to him.

Or the fact that the prices went up and it is insanely easy to steal them in real time now.

On a WrestleMania in New York expected to feature The Rock, Brock Lesnar, The Undertaker and Triple H. He's not a turn off to the extent FLIK suggested, but it's not like he drew that crowd on his own. Exactly one name on that list is a bigger draw than Cena and that guy is one of the biggest draws in wrestling history. I was exaggerating, but the point is that the talk of the company in steep decline is even more exaggerated.

Of course there's lots of other factors besides Cena being on top that have caused the decline, but hey there's lots of other reasons WCW didn't draw well with Sting on top too But yeah, it shouldn't be underestimated that over pushing Cena for so long is atleast one significant factor in turning off a portion of the fan base. Tanahashi has a bit of backlash as well, as does most any wrestler who stays on top for a while but Tanahashi's is more "we like this other wrestler more now & wanna pay to see him kick your ass & beat you for the belt" as opposed to Cena's "we're just plain fucking sick of seeing you, please get injured so we can have a break.....awww shit, you're injured and still all over the damn tv, click to another channel". I think this is really overstated and anecdotal. They just sold out a stadium with 70k seats in fifteen minutes - with Cena as there ace. Sting couldn't get 5k to the Omni. More later.

and on a side note note I'm currently debating the merits of Patera and The High Flyers with Dave on the f4w board.

I didn't say it was the only argument for him. I was kind of addressing Flik's first point.

Tanahashi is a perfect example of why I don't believe anyone should go in on work alone. He may be considered a great worker by a lot of people but I think he's a pretty fucking shitty wrestler. On the business thing Cena was actually handed the keys when the company had gone through HHH hell. Things turned around positively when he was on top. We can point to their problems now, but many of those problems are related to technological changes and the fact that they are carpet bombing the market with product.

I would say yes because I don't think Orton has ever been as hot as Crow Sting was and I think Sting was a noticeably better worker. I would listen to arguments for Orton though.

We have been over this before and I would say that it is wrong to frame the issue as Sting being "penalized" because WCW did poorly across the board for a long stretch. What we should say is that it is wrong to give credit to give major credit to someone simply for being on top with little in the way of results. Is it possible that shows with Sting did better than shows without him? Sure and even though I haven't looked at the numbers I would say that is probably likely in most cases. But it doesn't explain why Luger was a much better drawing opponent v. Flair than Sting. It doesn't explain why the ascension of Sting into the companies top babyface slot coincides almost exactly with the decline in business. It doesn't explain why a company with less than a tenth of the media penetration and resources, operating out of the same general geographic area, was able to do comparable or better numbers (or at the very least very successful numbers relative to their size) with Bob Armstrong and the RnR Express as the companies top faces and a much leaner over all roster. If we give Sting credit by saying "it wasn't his fault things were the shits" why not Sid? Sid headlined two shows that up until the advent of Mania becoming a yearly mega-dome show were among the absolute top tier shows in terms of raw in attendance in North American history and was on or near the top for a long time. Why not Nash? He inherited a shit situation in the WWF, had a much longer "anchor" run than Sting even despite that, and was one of the spearheads of the MNW and Nitro boom. Why not Luger? He was a better worker than Sting at his peak, was hurt at least as much by booking as Sting (probably more), was on or near the top for just as long if not longer, was much more successful when positioned on top as a babyface (especially during the pre-MNW era) and remained over for years. I'm not saying all or any of these guys are BETTER candidates than Sting or even AS GOOD as Sting because as I have noted many times before I do give him some credit for the Crow bit. Still the point is if we are going to give Sting credit for something that really should be considered a negative (failure to draw when positioned as the top dog in a promotion), then we need to reevaluate how we look at a lot of other guys. As I said on the show Dave and I did the other day, the thing about Sting is that if you dropped him into a list of guys who are already in from his era he wouldn't look out of place. He has name identity and is remembered as the babyface face of the second biggest promotion in the U.S. during a period where there were effectively only two promotions. But he doesn't have the positives that other guys who are in from that era have, or at least no one has ever tried to make the case that he does. I will say that I do think if he had gone to the WWE and worked Taker a couple of years back that may have been enough to get him in. If the show had done a very strong buyrate and the build to it had done good ratings it might have put him over the top as a guy who's name means something big in the business. Right now he's a guy with a name that is recognizable, that means something to a core group of fans who grew up with him, but outside of a year long period where he was in the rafters has never meant much in terms of bringing dollars to the promotion he was working for.

I think he'll get in eventually because Dave supports him and will do what he can to make a case for him. Having said that I think if anything Edge is a Sting-like candidate that will look WORSE as time goes on.

I don't think that is necessarily true. Dave thinks Buddy was a very good if not great worker. But Dave also isn't going to go back and watch any footage now.

You could convince me that Eddy was better at his best and he was more versatile. But there are patches of Eddy's career where he was sort of lost or middling to me. Rey is more consistent and has continued to tack on great years after Eddy's death.

On the show I talk about how I will do a Patera write up next year and send it to Dave. I'll continue to bang the drum for him around the net as well. I'll be honest Kris - I think your II bio would have helped if it had gone up a bit earlier. I suspect a lot of ballots were already in. I also think II was hurt some by the fact that the ballot was pretty dense with good candidates this year. With five guys coming in from the ballot, I think his numbers have a good chance of going up next year.

There is no question that Dave sees Edge as a much better worker than a lot of us here do, but he always goes out of his way to make the case for him as a star/draw as well. I don't think it's convincing and I suspect it's his way to bolster the case for a guy he just liked as an over all act. But I don't see how he's a good candidate, especially in a world where JYD isn't even in on the ballot.

rovert hit it, but I would have been SHOCKED if Buddy had stayed on the ballot and that was my position all along. I understand that there are arguments against him, but it bothers me that he was so easily dismissed without thought and that the major criticisms of him were in my view either strawmen or poor analogies/comparisons

I really don't think that's much of a factor. I think there are two things that hurt. A. The fact that the super fans don't rally around any one or even two candidates. Everyone wants to get in and there is grave disagreement among the voters about who should get in first/who should be pushed so the vote gets dispersed around. This year Dr. Wagner Sr. was one vote short and hilariously the editor of Superluchas magazine who voted for ten guys left him off. Even more strange Dave sort of worked to downgrade him a bit in his write up which I thought was odd (and to be fair perhaps not entirely intentional). Rather than pushing one or two guys hard like the historians have done with Schmidt and Torres you've got a very wide divergence, with a guy like Steve Sims arguing that LA Park is the most obvious omission from Lucha (which I found bizarre to be frank), while Matt Farmer talks about how big a travesty it is that Caras isn't in and KrisZ pimps Ramirez. The funny thing is that virtually all the Lucha fans would probably agree on at least four of the names on the ballot, but it never really works out. It's just a big split and without consensus , followed by coalescing around a single candidate each year, it's going to be tough for anyone other than Wagner Sr. to get in. B. The second factor is that there are probably a lot of people who vote in the Lucha category that just aren't familiar with much Lucha history at all. I think this is a less a footage thing and more a "we don't know the history thing." People don't know how big a star Villano III is but they know that Atlantis has been around on tv and well positioned for a long time. Same for Blue Panther (who did FAR worse than I expected this year - in fact I apparently know close to HALF of the people who voted for him which is insane). If they knew Villano III or Lagarde or Caras or Ramirez record it's possible they would swing votes to them. But they don't.

Reading through the issue some thoughts on Dave's comments and notes: I think it's kind of funny that he compares Sting favorably as a star to the RnR's because while Sting was certainly pushed as a main eventer far more often, in terms of drawing money I think it's almost impossible to argue that Sting is a better candidate. Hell Morton was a better draw opposite Flair than Sting was as a solo guy. In the early 90's while SMW's average show did worse than WCW's, they were far more successful as SMW's top faces when you adjust for exposure and the buildings they were running than Sting was at the exact same time. They don't have anything like the Crow Sting period, but they certainly did well as consistent main eventers on Crockett b-shows and elsewhere during an era where sellouts were regular in those markets. You can't say that for Sting. So unless stardom solely means "where they were pushed on the card" I don't see how they can be considered bigger stars in any meaningful sense of the term. His talk about how current wrestlers are going to struggle for a variety of reasons is dead on and I think it is clear that Dave is bringing on other candidates both because of the chatter online and so the ballot can remain full with fewer viable candidates emerging from this era than ever before. I think it's interesting that Dave is conflicted on Tanahashi but so sold on Edge. Ultimately he thinks both should be in, but he didn't vote for Tanahashi and admits that he thinks he needs a few more years. I really do wonder what it is about Edge that makes him such a strong candidate in the eyes of many. I don't think he's an insane guy to have on the ballot or anything, but I struggle to see where he is a clearly better candidate than Jeff Hardy who was one and done on the ballot.

Rand won in Kentucky not TN. In fact it is very unlikely Rand could have won in TN.

Here is the show Dave and I just did on the the Observer HoF results. Lots of Patera talk, on top of a rundown of those who got in, others who have been added to the ballot, et. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkC...2658&cmd=tc

A lot to say about the voting this year but for now i'll just add that I don't think Tanahashi goes in next year either but i'm 100% confident he gets in within the next 5 or so. I'd like to hear what else you have to say about the voting. Dave and I discussed Tanahashi on the show tonight. I made the point that I really wish someone would lay out his case as even though I don't like him as a worker I sometimes think I am selling him short as a star.

I think it shows you that Dave is willing to listen to outside voices pimping candidates. I knew Buddy was going to fall off and predicted it the moment he popped up as a candidate last year. I don't even care that he fell off, I just hate that the criticisms of him were mostly bogus or shortsighted. Seems obvious that Morales got in because he was the one guy all the Lucha voters voted on. Musgrave and I just did a show on the results which I will post shortly, but one thing that we discussed is how obvious it is that slam dunk Lucha candidates are falling short because there is no attempt to rally around singular figures and instead people are just casting ballots in a variety of ways. The funny thing is that I think most of the hardcore and super informed Lucha voters would argue that at least four or five of the candidates from that section should absolutely be in, but by spreading things around it dilutes percentages and there is not uniform "this guy belongs in" pick the way Schmidt had become for historians in recent years. My focus this year will be pushing the argument for Patera. He's a much better candidate than Rose and someone that is very viable IF people are willing to set aside preconceived notions and look at his career.

Nothing is impossible. I could sprout a forty inch dick and use it as an atomic pogostick to get to Jupiter right now in theory. But the odds of that are very small. Not as small as the odds of Vince being elected to the Senate mind you, but small.

It's also important to remember that there are tons of people within the GOP who believe that Linda was a puppet for Vince all along. As an aside I have some reason to believe that Vince was the one who wanted to run and was begged not to by state party officials.

This is moot, but Vince would have no shot. It's unlikely he could even win the GOP nomination EVEN WITH his shit tons of money.