Dylan Waco

Dave's lost touch of reality when it comes to looking at scale, business models, et. and even trying to make reasonable comparisons. Reading him on stuff like that is sub-1wrestlingtalk.com level discussion.

I like how Dave massively exaggerates the relevance of Edge's run "on top," the length of it, the length of time he was a quality worker and the importance of the IC title during Edge's reign. Honestly other than news reporting (where he is still clearly the best), Meltzer's "analysis" is not any better than Wahlers, Martin, et.

I'm not sure I buy the argument for Rude as a better candidate than Edge, but Rude is the better worker, and neither of them is someone I would even consider voting for at this point. Still I'm begging you to drag over some Meltz quotes from that thread as it sounds hysterical

Of the "old" guys on the ballot Schmidt and Koloff are the two that really strike me as "should be in" candidates. Red Bastion is interesting to me because based on what we know he was a Benoit-like superworker for his period and yet because he wasn't a smark-era guy I don't think he'll ever get in.

The real problem with someone like Wahlers having a vote is that there are probably twenty regular posters on this message board who are better qualified and more deserving to be voters - and I don't think anyone here would consider themselves a historian or a reporter.

I don't see any argument for Lesnar's case is up for debate using your standard. Based on buyrates alone it's fairly evident he should be a no brainer if this argument you are presenting is something you think ought to be applied consistency.

How is politics unrelated to pro wrestling?

These are good shows Bix. Obviously there were sound issues here because you had the setup for the show going on around you, but I think you are getting stronger as an interviewer. I hope you'll keep up with these. A couple a month would be a nice habit to form.

Serious question for OJ - should Jesse Ventura go in? He was clearly one of the most well known figures in American pro wrestling. He most definitely used his wrestling name as a wedge in politics. He was still involved as a commentator while being the mayor of a city. He referreed a major PPV wrestling match while Governor.

With time change it's at least theoretically possible that Muraco could have worked both, no? Still that is an insanely random.

Actually - and I am absolutely not advocating for him - Brock Lesnar would be an interesting comparison to Kurt Angle and I would be fairly shocked if Dave doesn't put him on the ballot when he's eligible.

There are very, very few people who are in on work alone from what I can tell. Actually I would argue that really no one was in on work alone, as there was always some sort of complimentary argument about someones drawing power or influence. The most obvious exception here would probably be Angle, but he's also the guy most often pointed to as a discrediting error for the Hall so I see no real defense in citing him. Money drawn is the only real metric stat you can go by with wrestling and ultimately is the most important thing in a non-competitive athletic exhibition anyhow.

The arguments are terrible and so stupid that I can only conclude he doesn't actually mean them.

Whoever is booking his autograph signings is an idiot. He had a signing in my area a couple of months back that got no advertising, no word of mouth, et. It still drew about 400 people to a Wal-Mart in the middle of nowhere, but this could have been a major money making deal if any effort had been put into it at all.

When can we disqualify Meltzer from voting for his own HoF?

Man that is one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard.

Road Dog has been a road agent for a while. Douglas was definitely brought in for a short term feud with Daniels that was stupid as fuck and never made any sense. Raven I thought was supposed to be back for good but that didn't last.

Kind of funny to think that Jeff Hardy's storyline "forced" retirement might last longer than 60 year old Flair's grand send off.

They did nothing with Cornette so really both of these decisions are immaterial.

These negotiations have been going on a lot longer than three days. Mooneyham told me months ago that Flair was going to be working a foreign tour against one of the biggest names in wrestling history because the money was supposedly too much to turn down. It'll be interesting to see what kind of houses they draw.

I'd also agree that Sasaki is a better candidate. I'm not dead set on the argument that he should be in, but he sucessfully reinvented himself when the business collapsed and the freelancing has made him a commodity of sorts at least to this fan from afar. Was he the first guy to really make a major go of it as a freelancer?

That's not a credible argument, thats just evidence that Alvarez is an idiot.

1) The problem with the stardom argument is that it applies to a whole lot of people. For example if you are going by "stardom" as some sort of indicator I don't see how Edge is a better candidate than Sid. Sid was always insanely over wherever he went, was always hovering around the main events, won World titles in both promotions, headlined several ppvs, worked on top in two of the largest houses in wrestling history, et. Obviously Edge was a better in ring worker - though Sid has been in an unusually large number of solid matches for such a poor in ring talent - but if "stardom" is the issue that's not applicable. So if "stardom" is the metric, I think you open the doors for Luger, Sid, Nash and any other number of guys that most people would think have no business in the HoF. 2) Angle is a terrible candidate for an HoF and definitely discredited the entire project. I'm hesitant to run down a laundry list of why I don't think Angle belongs in the Hall, because I think the better way to look at it is "what is the argument for him being in?" I have never seen anyone articulate it.

Murdoch as lazy guy is something I find really uninteresting for the reasons Bix mentioned. Murdoch not wanting to work hard because he thinks his opponent is the shits or because he's pissed off about a payoff strikes me as less absurd than Owen and Foley working a shit match with popcorn plunder spots just so Meltzer would LOL at the ridiculousness of it. I"m actually fairly down on Murdoch as a worker at this point as people keep pointing me to great Murdoch performances that I just don't enjoy very much, but laziness is not something that I would consider a defining trait of his work.

Speaking entirely for myself, but "innovation" and "carrying ability" are really the only two qualities that I really think smarks and hardcore fans put too much stock in. It's especially funny to me when someone like Cena establishes himself as a "carrier" of sorts (see v. Khali, v. Lashley, v. Snitsky) and certain fans will still insist that while those matches are good, he's not good because he's so stale - i.e. not "innovative."