Dylan Waco

Worth noting the HOF piece itself is much longer than this and includes some interesting insights into the way Dave thinks about his own HOF. He did mention that he's putting Rocky Johnson and Bob Ellis back on the ballot next year based on his research. Dave is enamored with Johnson or it seems that way, but I don't see him as anything special as a candidate. Ellis I actually researched a bit myself fairly recently and he's someone I would at least consider and include a good re-addition. Still Dave didn't seem in a hurry to add Bearcat Wright to the ballot despite putting him over some in his research notes and that bothered me. On the surface level Wright strikes me as an easily better candidate than Johnson and probably at least as good a candidate as Ellis. The Johnny Weaver and George Becker team also came out looking good in his research, though I don't think he went into any detail on them in his write-up. That bothered me to. To me Weaver and Becker really should be in over any MACW team. Part of that might be bias based on the perception that was sold to me of them as a kid, but my own research and looking at the little bit Dave compiled makes me think that my gut is right here. I know for a fact that they held attendance and gate records for main events in several South Carolina towns including Charleston for long periods of time, and if you believe some people this wasn't even their hottest area in the region. I also thought Dave's comments on The Andersons were interesting. He's said this before, but he basically said again that Ole should really be on the ballot solo, but voters pushed for the team so that's the way Dave went. I'm skeptical of that because I don't know how much voters input and influence there was back in 99 when they first appeared as a team, but Dave does go on to make a very reasonable case that Ole should be on the ballot as a single. This made me wonder whether or not Dave would put Ole on the ballot as a single if The Anderson fell off. I kind of think he would, which is an interesting back door loophole if the 15 year rule kills them. One final note. You might get the feeling from reading the Ole stuff that Dave is remaining firm on the idea that guys can't be in twice, and that no one is getting in as a single and a tag or in two tags (as Stan Lane would if the Fabs were to be put on the ballot and get in). But I don't know about this. When talking about Taue he had a line about not really thinking Taue was an HOF singles, but thinking Kawada and Taue had a really good case as a team. This got me thinking that maybe it's time to lobby for them as a team as a way to break down that wall.

I already said this at the board, but Patera's peak really wasn't 80-84. It as 77-81, maybe 76-82 depending on how you want to measure things. Also while I understand the JYD and Kerry comparison and think it works on some levels, I ultimately think it falls flat because while JYD was the driving force for change in Mid-South, it was the Birds that changed thinks in Texas

Not all styles are created equal.

I can't see it, but he's worth thinking about at least. He did have an ROH run I liked (overall) and he is a rare guy who has been good in TNA, and at least for a time legitimately great. Still seems like someone who has never completely put it all together, and I'd be more likely to rate someone like James Storm, but I could see indie fans rating him

Decided to watch some Ron Starr tonight There is a very fun, JIP lumberjacks with straps match from Stampede between him and a young Dan Kroffat on Youtube. Kroffat is solid selling in the match, but I thought Starr's stooging and heel tactics carried it. Really liked Starr's running knee and boxing stance jabs. The finish of this was bullshit, and some of the transitions felt a bit flat, but for a seven minute clip this was well worth watching. He also has a short match with Ron Garvin from Georgia that is too back and fourth to be anything of note, but it was interesting to watch these two work the mat and then watch Garvin drop big bombs left and right. He threw a headbutt and a boot in this that looked absolutely brutal. I wish we ha a full arena match between them on tape. I absolutely love the Ron Starr and Leo Burke match on youtube. I've seen it before, but watching it again tonight you really get a taste for how good both guys could be. In some ways it had the feel of a Tito v. Savage match, as you had the opening standard babyface control spots, leading to the cheating heel work, then some violence on the floor with weapons, a babyface comeback, and a screwy but still somewhat satisfying finish. The knees that Starr was throwing while on top were pretty great. About four or five different variations of knee strikes all of which looked brutal and were well timed. Leo's selling was really good, but I also liked the way they set up the cut off spots as they were based on formula but with little variations that you don't often see. Starr might have gone a bit over the top with some of his bumps down the stretch, and Leo's blade job was weak, but otherwise this was really good

Nominating Doug Furnas via 80's project and Jackie Fargo who I believe has three reviews on PWO (if Grimmas has a question about that shoot me a PM).

Another guy who's stock went way up with me after watching the ECW FanCams. One of the more consistent guys you'll ever see, as he never really had a bad match. Not dissimilar from Spike Dudley in the sense that he could work a variety of different roles in ECW, though I don't think he got all the chances to show that. Still I really liked him as a comedy tag worker and as the junior/battlarts workrate guy in the second half of his run. I actually think night-to-night his series with Tajiri was better than the Tajiri v. Crazy series, in large part because it was more varied, with each match feeling really different from the last. He also often stole the show in their triple threat bouts with his insane bumping (really he's one of the most underrated bumpers of all time). He is hurt by the fact that he lacks that one out of this world memorable singles match, but I do want to watch some of his WWE b-show stuff to see if there is anyway I can justify cramming him into one of the last couple of slots

I can't see Sami on my list but I wanted to nominate him because my theory is that anyone who I ever thought was the best in the world in a given year at least deserves to be thought about. In 2012 he was traveling the world having good matches with scrubs and great matches with high end guys and random vets like Rhino. He had plenty of good stuff in the years before that, but I agree that he was peaking when the WWE signed him to sit around and do nothing in Florida. I'm not sure he'd be a good fit there anyway, but it really is annoying to know that he's been Evan Bourne-d without even getting a shot

I didn't even make it one week before I got bogged down. I'll try to get to everything here eventually

Technically semi-main under Watts getting a title shot against Funk, though the match with Kox was the heavily promoted feud coming into the show

Was Murdoch as influential as Hamada? To me Hamada is an influence candidate. I think he has plusses as a draw that aren't that dissimilar to Murdoch's (never "the guy" in a huge money spot, but guy who could be plugged into main event slots and feuds in three different decades), but it's his weakest category. I think he's an outstanding worker based on what we have, but we have very little of his prime (though his post-prime MPro work I love). Ideally every candidate should get a strong amount of research, though there are limits to what can be done based on availability of results, clippings, footage, et. I researched Hamada a good bit myself this year, but there is probably far less readily available on him than there is Murdoch. To me that makes it even worse than Murdoch hasn't gotten a thorough look over, but I'm biased because I went insane researching a guy who isn't even one of my favorites.

I decided to turn in my ballot a few days before the deadline, so by the time the podcast had dropped my ballot was already in Dave's hands. I was very glad to see the podcast had been done, because Murdoch is a candidate that I have found increasingly bothersome over the last couple of years. I said this on the Voices of Wrestling Podcast I did on the modern candidates, but if you put a gun to my head and asked "is Dick Murdoch a Hall of Famer?" I would say yes. Still I felt uncomfortable voting for him for two reasons. 1. I think his supporters have overplayed their hands a bit. This is tough because by supporters I am talking about a lot of people I am friendly with, not the old timers who have voted for Dick for years but don't talk about this sort of stuff publicly. Here my point is that up until the podcast and the research being presented by Keith, Kris and Will in the other thread, the general line on Murdoch has been "come on it's Dick Murdoch, he has to be in!" He's been on the ballot for fifteen years and I'm not sure I've seen a meaningfully detailed argument presented for him prior to this week. The one exception is Will and a few others saying "he should be in on work alone," but A. I don't believe anyone should go in on work alone and B. even if I did I don't think Murdoch is even close to the level of worker I would feel comfortable putting in just on work. 2. The argument by assertion for Murdoch bothers me even more because I think he's the exact sort of candidate that needs to be researched and deserved to be researched. I don't say this because I think guys like Murdoch don't deserve to go in, but because I believe researching them is the way that we can show that the standard concept of strong territorial stars (especially heels) is often flawed. It's not just "was a guy a traveling NWA champion or a monster heel with a crazy gimmick, okay they get in and everyone else can fuck off." That mentality is one that I think ruled the roost for a while, but research into guys like Patera, Shibuya, Koloff, Torres and others has shown to me that this is a really narrow way to look at wrestling history. Work needs to be shown on Murdoch to make the case because candidates of his ilk don't have the obvious go to's. That doesn't make them worse candidates. In fact it might make them BETTER candidates than a lot of people with stronger "traditional" credentials. Would Murdoch have made my ballot if I had two extra spots? Prior to the podcast and data dumps no. After them? Still no, but not because I think Murdoch's case is weak, but rather because changes in the ballot hurt Murdoch to me. Yes he is one of the people in danger of dropping off via the 15 year purge rule (which Meltzer has now openly stated was designed to make it easier for modern candidates, something I think is ridiculous and will completely change the way I think about voting in the future), but he's nowhere near as strong a candidate in my mind as Cien Caras. I chose to vote Caras which opened the door for me as a lucha voter. From there I voted for Signo/Texano/Navarro and really should have voted for at least two other candidates, but I felt I had commitments elsewhere on the ballot. Murdoch did not need my vote as much as Hamada (I think Hamada is better candidate anyway to be honest), I don't think he is as strong a candidate as JYD or the RnRs, there is no way he was taking Patera's spot or even Ivan's, He's not in the same universe as Colon as a candidate, nor do I think he is nearly as strong as Torres. The only guy I could maybe see rating him over that made my ballot is Shibuya, but I'm still not convinced Murdoch is a better candidate (fairly lateral based on early research returns) and even still it would have been really hard for me to vote Murdoch over Villano III or The Andersons. If the 15 year rule didn't exist I probably would not have voted lucha. If that happens there is a good chance my ballot would look like this: Torres, JYD, RnRs, Colon, Shibuya, Patera, Koloff, Hamada, The Andersons and Murdoch. Though even then there is a chance I would have voted for a second Japanese candidate or Lewin over Murdoch (or even two Japanese candidates as Taue, Volk Han and The Sharpes are all candidates I really like for one reason or another). What theoretically helps Murdoch with me is that I think at least a few of my picks will go in (Colon, Caras and the RnR's), plus I think at least two will fall off the ballot all together (Patera and Shibuya). Having said that if Patera falls off Murdoch is basically forever fucked with me because Ken dropping off so easily will change the way I vote. From that point on I will never again vote for any candidate who is not clearly and easily better than Patera. While I can see an argument for Murdoch over Patera, it's not a clear and easy case. So if Patera drops from the ballot, Murdoch drops from my radar.

That also may explain the radical drop for Torres last year

I like Sekimoto, but I don't think he's a particularly great, or even good, wrestler. For every match of his i like there are two that are built around fighting spiritish Schtick and things of that ilk. He's not even one of the best 20 guys in modern Japan by my tastes.

All great questions. I have a LONG answer to this, but I think it may be better suited for the WON HOF thread. Can you repost this there?

How much Shaun Tempers do modern indie fans watch? How much Puerto Rico made the yearbooks? How many people have seen every ecw Fancam allowing for more informed opinions on guys like Little Guido or Bigelow. I think I've found another reason to hate Great Match Theory

Loss taking on the role of 2006 JDW is bizarre to me. I mean...I get the point. But I'm not sure what value there is in expressing it at this point, nor do I think finality is even possible with something like this. I love PWO, but reading this line from the sites owner makes me wonder if this project should even be hosted here and that in and of itself just makes me...sad?

As I have thought about this project today I keep coming back to Embry as a guy where I understand the arguments against him (relatively short run of greatness, lack of footage for other runs and/or JIP footage, et), but I just can't see not voting for him. In some ways he is similar to Smothers to me as a guy who always hung out on the margins of wrestling, but I think he made the most of that time in an even more impressive fashion than Smothers. That's not say I think he was better than Tracy necessarily, but when I look at Embry's best stuff I think it is better than Smothers and it is also broader in scope. 1989 was one of the best years ever for in ring work, and yet working in a fed that had been dead on it's ass prior to him taking things over, Embry was able to renew interest and produce some great and memorable matches as a face. In Puerto Rico whenever he was around (most notably 86 as I recall, but he was in and out), he was an incredible performer, having some of the best matches in the history of the island in both singles and tags - as a heel. The Memphis stuff and Southwest stuff I've seen I've all liked, but Embry is weird case of a guy I have such a visceral reaction to based on a couple of relatively brief runs that I find it hard to even dream of not including him.

It almost feels like people are rating 80's WWF guys on a curve. If he were in any other promotion I doubt a guy who had a couple good feuds over 5 years would be getting much top 100 consideration, especially when as you said, even if it may be good for 80s WWF it doesn't hold up too well when you compare it to the puro and lucha from the time period. This is a bizarre claim. Tito's rep has gone up with many people precisely because of the fact that his feud with Valentine - and to a lesser extent his feud with Savage - are regarded as top level feuds. The Valentine feud in particular is something I would stack up next to any feud or series of matches from any place on earth from any time in the history of wrestling. I also don't get the argument coming from OJ, mainly because it's coming from OJ. You are a guy who is likely to rate Euro workers based on a couple handfuls of matches. You think Satanico is the best guy of all time based entirely on his 80's footage as I recall. You have always championed peak over longevity. So are you arguing that in the case of Tito he has too much excess so the peak is hurt, or are you arguing that the peak isn't that impressive, or...what are you arguing? It just seems very inconsistent with the line you have historically taken in these discussions.

Steve Keirn needs a thread via 80's project. I also nominate Little Guido and Bully Ray who both have the needed reviewed matches in the yearbook threads. I can provide links if need be.

This is sort of similar to what I did with the indie thread. I don't want to do all of the heavy lifting bringing over reviews myself, and I am also certain that some of these names would have zero chance of making my list. Still these are all guys who have been talked up in various corners of the lucha watching world over the last several years. I honestly could see nominating about half of these names, though I'm not sure there is a single person on this list I would be able to vote for by 2016 (guys like Cavernario, Hechicero and Rush are on the rise and have great resumes for what is out there, but who knows). Anyway the point is as of now these guys don't have threads. We don't have to run off and start them all now, but this is something to keep track of possible guys to include as time unfolds and resumes thicken. Freelance Chico Che Trauma I Trauma II Dr. Cerebro Hechicero Cavernario Rush Valiente La Sombra Volador Jr. Averno Mistico Titan There are a couple of mini's I could see mentioning as well but I'll leave it here for now. I may edit in more later

Since no one else has bitten on nominating Austin Aries I'll do it. I really do think Nigel merits nominating as well. My gut tells me I should nominate Sami Callihan too (who definitely already has three reviews on this board in my show reviews thread if nothing else) Anyway here are three Aries reviews. Go ahead and start a thread for him and Sami if you can Grimmas Bully Ray v. Austin Aries Sacrifice On paper this is the best match TNA has to offer. It was nowhere near as good as the Styles LMS match from last year, but it was still a really good match. Bully Ray is a tremendous douche and these guys seemed to find great joy in stiffing the fuck out of each other. Aries big bump to the floor was fucking nuts and Bully Ray reacting to it by going straight to the back was awesome. I didn't care for the Chris Parks shit, but it was actually a decent way to set up Aries come back after the cutter near fall and Bully Ray's bump on that brainbuster looked sick. Finish was probably better on paper than in execution, but it still worked. Really stiff, quality match. Aries v. Roode 7/8/12 I think this match badly exposed Roode as a guy who can not piece together a compelling heat segment. It's funny but Kash and Daniels had much "less" to work with from a storyline perspective and were still far more engaging in their respective heat segments. Still it would feel wrong to "no" this match because it was structured well and it was a match about putting over Aries as a believable ace which it absolutely succeeded in doing. I was a pretty big fan of Aries from bell-to-bell here, including the way they teased his big spots before delivering them later. That tope into the railing was insane. I also loved the finishing run as Roode as poor man's Flair cheating to win is exactly what I expected and they crossed it up perfectly. Without that finish I'm not sure it's a YES, with the finish it is. There is already a Joe v. Aries match review posted in this thread. Does James Storm have three reviews on PWO?

Point of comparison is part of HOF debate. You can argue that focusing on one person who isn't even in the HOF is too much, but at some point you do have to make the comparisons

Whole feud is not available, at least not to my knowledge. PR t.v.tapes are weird in terms of what we have, what we don't have, the chronology, et.

Wildly overrated at one point, now I'm not sure what the general feel on him is. I think he was really inconsistent. There are moments where he looks like a legitimately great worker and other moments where he can really derail things with his schtick. I had almost completely soured on him a few years back, but I do like him in Portland in 79, and the AWA stuf is certainly more good than bad, with some very good mixed in. I also have grown to like some of his late stages WWF work more than I used to, though none of it is great. On the other hand I've always been pretty low on his big Backlund match that others love, and with the exception of one great handheld match from the WWF, I really don't like his team with Murdoch at all. I especially dislike him in NJPW. I don't know. I can't completely dismiss him because he has high points that I love, but he really doesn't stand out to me as someone with a lot that I need to rewatch, so I'm not sure how he makes my ballot