W2BTD

If dave praised those things heavily, maybe more people would sample them (although I'm not totally convinced, because he praises CMLL three times per week very publicly on Twitter and on his radio show, and I'm not seeing any kind of palpable uptick in CMLL interest in and around F4W), but I'm not convinced the masses would parrot his praise. I again refer to his current fascination with the CMLL streams. I'd also refer to his overrating of stuff like any Randy Orton match, which has become a meme at this point, with dave essentially on an island. I don't ever see Orton bouts filling up the MOTY leaderboards and dave is always going ****+ on his stuff. There is an entire generation of fans under the age of 35 or so that has never read a word of the Observer and never will. They largely don't care about dave, and a good number of them see him as an out of touch "garbage person"/racist/sexist and have no respect for him. dave certainly has influence and is still a tastemaker to some degree, I'm not denying that, but I think his influence shrinks a good deal with each passing year. Is there a big time CMLL MOTY contender that dave has gone overboard with this year? I can't think of one. That would be a decent test case, but I'm really not seeing dave's current love affair with CMLL trickling down to the masses to any palpable degree.

You keep trying to push the idea that the reason lucha does not get its due is because of some inherent refusal of the populace to try it. I would contend that people have, and they just don't like it as much as you do. Especially when you are talking about voting pools as hardcore/niche as WON Awards or whatever. A popular phrase around here is that "not all styles are created equal". I agree with that. If you like lucha and think it's the best pro wrestling around, awesome. I love Dragon Gate but readily accept that lucharesu is never going to have broad appeal. Stomping around and insisting that people bury themselves in something until the GET IT isn't going to work. I've probably watched at least a thousand lucha matches. Trust me, I get it. I just don't think it's very good, and i'll be honest, I think it's kind of insulting to suggest that people who don't like it aren't rejecting it in good faith. I'm not sure why we have to search for deep psychological reasoning for not liking something. And I don't think you're giving people (especially people here, who are dedicated wrestling aficionados) enough credit for knowing full well what they like and do not like. Basically, this paragraph is a more polite way of echoing Parv's "lucha sucks", because it reality, that's kind of what it comes down to for people who don't like it. What will it take for grimy lucha brawls or Dragon Gate matches or Joey Ryan/Dick Justice comedy style bouts to win MOTY polls instead of puro? It would take lucha or luchresu or comedy being a more appealing style to the masses than "traditional" puro. It just isn't. Just like Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler movies aren't winning Oscar's any time soon. It isn't a matter of people not giving lucha a chance, it's just a matter of people not thinking it's as good as you do. Not all styles are created equal.

Blaming Mexican culture for not being "cool" enough for wrestling fans strikes me as odd in world where Lucha Underground exists, when you really can't get any more cool or hip than the style & presentation of that show. Meanwhile, the NJPW television show is a stoic, boring, overdubbed collection of second run matches where 60-year old Jim Ross is pushed as the draw. But hey, Lucha Underground is probably the "wrong" kind of lucha. Sort of like Meltzer, THE EVIL TASTEMAKER~! who watches live lucha three times per week and tweets about it while doing so, liking the "wrong" guys like Volador Jr instead of the "right" guys like Virus. I'd be willing to bet Dave has watched more lucha this year than puro, and constantly praises it while doing so. So let me get this straight. Some of you are whining that lucha doesn't get a chance, but then when it DOES get praised, it somehow doesn't count, because it's the "wrong kind" of lucha. Hmm. I have a million other problems with that Parties post, but it didn't exactly help the idea opined earlier in the thread that lucha fans are arrogant as fuck, an idea that I scoffed at when I read it a couple of days ago, but that I'm starting to come around on after reading some of this bullshit.

The Memphis/Lucha thing is interesting. I think it definitely correlates to some extent, but to me there are two distinct styles within lucha. High flying dive oriented lucha (which I enjoy casually and in small doses but can not ever get invested in hardcore) and brawl/mat based lucha. Maybe the latter should actually be split into a second and third style, but I associate them together for whatever reason. People who like Memphis do tend to really enjoy lucha brawls, which makes a ton of sense. I don't like Memphis and I can't really stand lucha brawls or mat based lucha at all. See above. For whatever reason, I tend to lump the two together, probably unfairly aside from the fact that there is some crossover among the guys who do both. Here is some of the Black Terry stuff I tried, I'm hardly an expert, but these would be mat based "maestro" style bouts no? Can't find the Hechicero match I had in mind, but you get the idea. Not sure I've ever seen a Black Terry brawl, fwiw

Old man grapplelucha might be my least favorite genre of wrestling in existence, so keep that in mind, but I find Black Terry to be as close to unwatchable as any semi high profile wrestler around. There are some styles I dislike (shoot style, for instance) where I can appreciate the skill of the participants even if the style isn't for me. I find grapplelucha so dull and silly looking that it's hard for me to understand what people love about it. This isn't meant to come off as a troll. I've followed this entire thread from the shadows, and Black Terry triggered me to respond. I tried to get into his stuff a few years ago when he first became a thing (I recall a super hyped Hechicero match, and to be fair, I'm a Hechicero fan now), and in 30+ years of watching wrestling I don't think I've ever been more baffled about the appeal of any pro wrestler. What this tells me, and this relates to the last few posts, is that at some point you just have to handwave a style an accept that it isn't for you. And that's OK. I don't need to force myself to buy a ticket to every Wes Anderson movie to confirm I don't like his stuff. Two or three tries was more than enough. Anderson is never gonna make a Martin Scorsese film, and grapplelucha is never gonna appeal to me either. It's like opening the refrigerator 19 times in the same day when you have no food in the house and magically expecting exciting new options to appear.

I agree with this but just as some people don't like Memphis brawls because "they sell too much for simple punches" or whatever I don't like some of the Japanese wrestling I've seen because I think immediately popping back up to deliver a clothesline after being dumped on your head with a suplex is not selling enough. Right. And we all have those personal lines that certain styles can cross. I can accept guys popping up from shit when I'm watching certain styles because it's an accepted facet of the psychology within those universes. I get why you can't. Circling back, I understand where Parv is coming from when he calls lucha "floatie". A lot of moves/holds that are sold as impactful or dangerous in lucha fall flat for me and it's hard for me to get past how "soft" they look. I can suspend disbelief to an extent, but just like some people can't get into head drop pop ups, I struggle to get past wacky cooperative looking submissions that feel like they take forever to clamp on. I can appreciate lucha to an extent, but I've never been able to totally buy into it or emotionally invest.

Of course not. This is where personal taste comes in. And that's where a lot of debates end.

This is drifting off topic a bit, but good/bad selling is not consistent across all styles. What constitutes good selling, or even what is sold/not sold and to what extent, is context dependent to the style/universe.

I mean, Dragon Gate is rooted in lucha. It's a direct descendant of it.

The Memphis/Lucha thing is interesting. I think it definitely correlates to some extent, but to me there are two distinct styles within lucha. High flying dive oriented lucha (which I enjoy casually and in small doses but can not ever get invested in hardcore) and brawl/mat based lucha. Maybe the latter should actually be split into a second and third style, but I associate them together for whatever reason. People who like Memphis do tend to really enjoy lucha brawls, which makes a ton of sense. I don't like Memphis and I can't really stand lucha brawls or mat based lucha at all.

Debatable for sure. Maybe Natalya at Takeover or Roadblock. I'd lean Roadblock I think between the two. But she put on solid marquee matches with Becky and Nikki too in the past year or so. I know some people were fans of some of those Paige matches as well. I really liked those Paige matches a lot, but some people hated them. Very divisive.

Becky is definitely better than Sasha. Bayley i'd like to see in some bigger spots on the main roster, as she really hasn't had the chances the others have had, but I could definitely see the argument for placing Sasha 4th.

I like Sasha, but she was wildly overrated last year (some people were calling her the BITW, which has proven to be absurd), and I still think she is overrated to a degree, although people are starting to come around a bit on what she really is. She tends to be sloppy. She's also very, very driven to be a great wrestler, and as a result she is far too ambitious at times and attempts things that are way over her head. You have to know your limitations as a worker, and she struggles very badly in this area. Her shorter TV matches are never anything special, and often very very bad and disjointed (best example was the Minnesota RAW last year vs Nikki Bella, one of the worst WWE TV matches you will ever see). Sasha is a wrestler who has had incredible peaks (NXT), embarrassing valleys, and a lot of sloppy stuff in between. Also worth noting that the three great NXT matches she had were highly choreographed and practiced for weeks beforehand. Your mileage may vary on what you think of that, but it's worth noting. Charlotte has her flaws as well. She is far from graceful herself, which leads to some (unintentionally) gritty, dangerous looking matches between the two. This isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't make you a skilled worker. Charlotte is the best heel currently in the company. She isn't "cool", she isn't likable in any way, she draws genuine heat (at least by the standards of the era), and she emotes a real asshole vibe. She can do some very athletics things, many ill advised because Sasha is 90 lbs, fragile, and a terrible base, and is seemingly never in a proper position to catch her. Again, I appreciate the ambition, but pick your spots. Charlotte is a far better promo. Sasha ranges from passable to atrocious. Charlotte is the better overall package and the best overall package on the RAW brand. We bang on VKM a lot, but he was right about this one. She should be the face of the women on RAW for a long time, she deserves it.

Not sure about this. I often watch random DG six mans and have them in the *** range, but think to myself, this would be the best match on most RAW's by far and people would be going mental about it for days if it happened on a Monday night. I would like to believe what you are saying is true, even for myself, but context always matters and it is almost impossible for us not to be influenced by it.

I can't deny it.

Study people who are successful in radio/podcasting. And not wrestling radio/podcasting. I've got a group of hosts I study on a weekly basis. Most of them are millionaires but they all have distinctive styles and do things differently. I pay attention to the little things they do to keep listeners engaged and to get their personalities across. I agree with some of what Parv said but disagree with Parv about not "getting yourself over". I believe that personal connection is vital. People can listen to wrestling talk anywhere. What nobody else can bring to the table is listening to Joe Lanza talk wrestling. The best and most successful radio shows have compelling, charismatic hosts and an overall vibe where the listener feels like they are part of a conversation among a close group of friends. I want the listener to feel like i'm talking directly to them, like they know who I am (or at least a reasonable facsimile of who I am, with some things turned up to ten, and others turned down to zero). Let them in on your life, be as honest about who you are as you are reasonably comfortable with. You are performing whether you like it or not. So perform. Entertain. Energy, energy, energy. It isn't a visual media, people will zone out if you don't keep them engaged. When you make a key point, change your tone. Slow down and be deliberate. Raise your voice. Repeat yourself. Whatever type of emphasis the situation calls for. Bad content rarely drives me away from a podcast, it's a lack of energy, it's weak opinions, it's no emoting. Energy. Personality. Passion. People know when you're faking or forcing it. Talk about things your're passionate about, positive or negative. Have I mentioned energy? Be the most compelling version of yourself that you can possibly be.

What's interesting is that it's the long singles matches that more than anything else that leave hardcore DG fans empty, because the guys leave their wheelhouse and try to do the traditional long puro epic, and struggle to fill the time with the slower pace and longer length. Most of my least favorite DG bouts are the big Open the Dream Gate title matches from the major shows. With that said, I see what Case did here with the recs in terms of strategic choices and introduction to the types of workers that someone like Parv would more likely dig. Case did this right. Tossing a bunch of wacky six man tags or Dead or Alive cage bouts or high spot heavy Brave Gate defenses would have lost Parv instantly. This is a safe introduction to the style, and once some of the personalities and style quirks are established, it'll be easier to transition into trying some of the stuff that doesn't fit into what he normally enjoys. I'm not as shocked as Case is that Parv is enjoying this stuff. Pace wise he didn't rec the super GO GO GO GO stuff, and Parv always enjoys big bomb offense that guys like Shingo and Kondo bring. I'm real curious to see what he thinks when we get to stuff like Flamita vs Susumu or Tozawa & Hulk vs Doi & Ricochet. On the surface, I feel like he won't like it, but after being eased in on more comfortable stuff, i'm curious if he at least appreciates the second gear and the appeal of going that hard in the house style to the hardcore fans.

Pretty sure the Stomper/Archie Gouldie was laughed off when someone asked in the mailbag before he died. Dave saying something like "there's hundreds of guys like the Stomper". Kinda surprised Ox Baker wasn't included with the other recently deceased names added. This is Kerry's third time on the ballot. Looking at the Less than 10% post, there's a bunch of modern candidates likely added too early that are worth considering again. RVD, Dudleys, Steiners, etc. Has Dave released any kind of statement/follow-up on Nakamura mistakenly placed on the ballot after his election last year? He may want to remedy that ASAP as he gets a decent amount of ballots quickly, as he's implied previously. Yes. He sent a corrected ballot and email explanation to the people who received the first round of ballots that included Nakamura: "Due to a mistake in deleting, on the ballot sent last night, in the Japan category, Shinsuke Nakamura was left on and Seiji Sakaguchi was deleted. Nakamura was already inducted and Sakaguchi should be on the ballot"

Exactly. And work is subjective. Another thing people tend to forget about is that the "work" is not only there to entertain. Above all else the "work" is there to get the largest number of people to part with their money and pay for the product. Of course a lot more goes into making money than just ones work. However what they do in the ring, how they project themselves to the audience (the "work") and how they are marketed (today) is the true barometer of someone's work. Work is subjective. This is absolutely true. The problem I have, is I feel some people disregard work because it's subjective, when the voting criteria clearly states that it is to be considered. So until that is removed, I believe it is my responsibility as a voter to continue to vote for candidates who I believe to be all time, elite level workers, the same way I would vote for all time elite level draws. If someone is such a great worker that they can garner 60% based solely on work, then they belong in, and are no less worthy than a great draw who can't work at all. It bothers me when people knock someone like Eddy Guerrero being in because he never drew big, even when conceding he was great bell to bell, because you never hear the opposite complaint. Nobody knocks the great draws who weren't HOF level workers. The second part, to me, speaks more to drawing ability. But to each his own when it comes to interpretation of what makes a great worker.

I agree that wrestlers are very likely doing the least amount of research, but with that said, I can easily see the older, pre indie boom types totally disregarding Bryan (and anything ever done on the indies altogether) while muttering "that little dork never drew dime". Same for Punk (who I didn't vote for, just to be clear). I think as time passes and more & more of the voter pool is made up of people who came from the indies, there will be a natural shift in the voting patterns of the wrestler component of the voting pool.

That is why, and I do understand it. But shouldn't the 60% take care of that? In other words, I could think Chyna is the greatest worker ever and vote based on that, but I'm not getting 60% to agree with me. That sort of fixes the subjective nature of judging work. In the case of Bryan, I think there are voters who feel he's an all timer, but won't vote for him because they don't think he brings enough drawing ability to the table. I relate this to the baseball HOF. Hitting is weighed far more heavily than fielding. You can get in based on fielding, but you need to be SUPER elite, as in one of the greatest defensive players of all time (Ozzie Smith, Bill Mazeroski) to get in strictly based on fielding, and in Mazeroski's case I doubt he gets in had he not hit a legendary HR in the World Series. Drawing ability is hitting, work is fielding. I have no idea what historical influence would be. Maybe Mazeroski's HR. I think Bryan would qualify as an "Ozzie Smith" level worker to where his bat wouldn't really matter. But I would go even further. I think Bryan is more Babe Ruth. His bat makes him a no brainer, and his pitching is good enough to add to his case even if it wasn't good enough on its own.

There are three criteria to be considered for the HOF, according to the ballot. Drawing ability, work, and historical significance. Nowhere on the ballot does it say that any part of the criteria is more important than the others, yet there has always been a clear bias towards drawing ability among the voters. Great workers are scoffed at if they weren't draws. You always hear things like "I wouldn't vote for someone based on work", yet you never hear "I wouldn't vote for someone based on drawing ability". I would never tell another voter how to interpret the criteria or how to vote, but to me, I interpret the criteria as equal. If someone is one of the greatest draws of all time, they should get in, even if they're terrible in the ring. And based on history, that person wouldn't struggle to get in. I view Daniel Bryan as one of the greatest workers of all time. As in, Top 10, Top 5 territory,so overwhelmingly great in that area that he is comparable to any of the great draws in wrestling history. To me, that makes him an absolute slam dunk, to the point I find it absurd that he isn't already in, the same way it would be absurd if a Top 5 all time draw wasn't in. And he was great for a decade plus, so he has the longevity, which to me makes him a far better candidate than someone like Goldberg, who ticks one box (drawing ability), but was only elite at his thing for roughly a tenth of that time. Bryan is going to get in eventually, probably this year, so this is sort of a waste of time to complain about it, but I did find it annoying that he didn't make it on the first try. If one of the greatest workers of all time, or at minimum his generation (very few people would argue the latter) can't get in, then just eliminate the working portion of the criteria and call it what it is - The WON HOF of Draws. Someone could go through the extensive academic exercise of breaking down Bryan's entire candidacy, and he'd do well enough in the other categories that in my view it would help him, but to me that just speaks to the drawing bias. It would be no more necessary to break down Bryan in full than it would The Rock. The Rock is one of the greatest drawing stars of all time, his argument ends right there and nothing else really matters. You could make a case for Rock's work and historical significance if you really want to, and he might come up a little short in the work department, but who cares? Bryan Danielson is one of the greatest in ring workers ever, and it really should end right there.

I think the problem is a lack of voters for anything outside US, Mexico, & Japan, and barely enough for Europe. I suspect Colon was driving the total voting pool for the old "misc" category. As a personal anecdote, I felt so strongly about Colon as a candidate that my first year with a ballot, I researched the rest of that pool for the sole intent of being able to vote Colon with a clear conscious of not hurting the other candidates with totally uninformed no votes. I still felt somewhat "dirty" about it, because no matter how many hours you spend combing over drawing records or watching Mark Lewin matches from Australia, a crash course on the history of an entire region isn't really fair. I'm someone who would have likely abstained from the category moving forward, because I'm far from any kind of expert on the rest of the field. I just wanted to vote for Colon, and now he's in. I don't think I'm alone, and let's be honest, I'm not trying to put myself over here, but I doubt a good chunk of Colon voters bothered learning about the Oceania candidates, even at my cursory level. I always felt Colon (and anyone else from the Caribbean) belonged in US/Canada anyway. I think having an Oceania or South/Central America or Africa category(ies) would be a negative, because the voting pools would be minuscule. Adding everyone who doesn't fit to Europe isn't the best idea, either. It's a tricky spot. I don't have a solution.

I've been trying to say this for years. Particularly the bold. Time changes context. Standards are always changing.

In that era, they used to keep a balanced number of regular face/heel teams, probably for the purpose of pairing them up on the house shows. I don't remember if a hew face team showed up at the time (they turned in Spring 1987, taped in April, aired in late May) or if someone else turned, but the explanation could be as simple as that.