ethantyler

Re Bob Ellis - strongest draw in the Historical section. That's the gist of the case. Neither Curry nor Firpo can come remotely close to him in this regard. Drew 10,000+ coast-to-coast in pretty much every major territory of his era covering LA, San Fran, St Louis, Omaha, Indianapolis, Detroit, and New York. Also drew equivalent to the touring NWA champion in Kansas. Clearly one of the top babyface stars from 1959-65. Add to this a couple of major title reigns, some legendary feuds that were remembered fondly by fans for decades (vs Bruiser, Rogers, Gouldie, etc), pinfall wins over current HOFers, and the fact that some of these HOFers considered him one of their best opponents to draw with. Buddy Rogers, one of the greatest draws of all time, said that Ellis was his best rival (this covers a lot of ground). I agree with you on Street. Weakest candidate in the section, fortunate to have even made the ballot, would be an outright bad induction should that happen. The induction relies on votes from ignorant American reporters who, puzzlingly, continue to participate in a section they clearly don't understand. That means it's a strong possibility moving forward unless those voters spend some time learning about the alternative, stronger, choices. I hope they do.

I voted for Shingo. HOF-level worker for well over a decade in my view, with every objective advantage possible over Ishii. Cima feels a little weak, but not enough for me to outright object to it. I have Japan as the weakest section on the ballot and agree that the "next candidate up" mentality could become a major concern. I appreciate many of the cases, but it's the only section on the entire ballot with no candidates that I'm clamoring to induct. Hayabusa is next line so for those who support him, I think it's a safe bet for next year.

Cough. You're welcome. Kidding aside, I doubt I was the only one but I did push hard for Leduc, Marino, Kellett, and Grey to be added to the ballot because we need more votes in that section. That means more candidates. All, at a minimum, have ballot worthy cases.

I ranked Fujiwara 5th in the Japan section this year. Great worker, very good historic significance, and has something to offer in drawing power as a key rival to HOF-draws. Despite being a fan, I don't see him as HOF-level in any category, which is why I described him as a Hall of Very Good candidate on WOR. It's not a derogatory term even if some folks took it that way. Some friendly advice to Eric/Control21: if your goal is to convince voters to pull the trigger on Fujiwara, or anyone else you're advocating for, spend far less time questioning our credentials and more emphasizing the candidate's credentials. You could learn a lot from Dylan's approach in that regard.

He headlined a 50,000 capacity stadium show against Dara Singh, the biggest star in India's history, in 1975. Billed as "Firpo Zbyszco", out to avenge the loss suffered by his "uncle" Stanislaus Zbyszko at the hands of the Great Gama more than half a century earlier. We don't have attendance data, but it drew well enough that they repeated it in Namibia (small, wealthy, Indian population) later in the year. Singh actually invited Gordienko back for a 3rd round in 1976, but he had retired by that point. All of this indicates that he was still a major name in the mid-70s, but not in North America. He was never, actually, a major name in North America. Hence his placement in the Rest of the World section. Physically yes, he was done by the early 70s. My evidence for that is the anecdotal reports from fans & wrestlers who had nothing but the upmost respect for him - no reason for these folks to lie. Born in 1928, started wrestling in 1946, in-ring peak I'd guesstimate to be somewhere around the mid 50s - late 60s. My grandfather raved about seeing him live here in the UK during the 60s. As did most UK fans of that era. Along with Japanese fans who saw him vs Billy Robinson in Japan 1968, or Canadian fans who saw him vs Dory Funk Jr in 1969, etc. No doubt in my mind that he was a HOF-level talent during his prime.

I ranked Saint 7th out of 10 in that section. He was never a draw/main event talent, so his case is all about work (HOF-level for me) and historic significance. The latter I perceived to be no more than "good". His influence is mostly indie level, which isn't HOF-level under any circumstances. How he stacks up vs the competition: Jose Tarres was a HOF-level draw, the biggest star in Spain's history (stadium sized crowds), one of the biggest star's in Europe's history (top-10 all time for sure), but not much of a wrestler. Kills Saint in 2/3 categories and has every objective advantage over him. Is Saint's in-ring advantage strong enough to overcome all of that? George Gordienko was a great draw outside of North America, a perennial headliner throughout the 60s into the mid-70s, and considered arguably the greatest heavyweight wrestler of his era. Saint's only advantage here is maybe historical significance via influence. Is that enough to counter the massive drawing power & longevity-on-top gap? Billy Joyce wasn't much of a draw, was rarely one of the UK's top headliners, was considered a HOF-worker, and has great historical significance due to his direct influence on HOFers like Karl Gotch & Billy Robinson along with his role in the shooter lineage tree that meant a lot in that era (unlike today). I have no idea how you could rationally justify Saint > Joyce. Joyce drew more, headlined more, has more historic value, and no evidence to decipher the in-ring gap (if any) between them so....? I also consider DeNucci, Arion, and the Royal Brothers to be stronger candidates than Saint. To be clear, I see these 6 candidates as vastly superior to Saint. It's not a particularly close contest from my perspective. Dinamitas always poll well and are expected to do so again this year. Agree with you re Dixon. He's the strongest candidate in Mexico by far for me, mostly due to his overwhelming historical case - which involves both Mexico & the US.

I consider Bobby Davis to be the strongest candidate on the entire ballot and have uploaded a timeline of his career, attendance data (5k+), and newspaper archives that talk about what kind of a manager he was here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ntw9DNyscIxo0tNx5nFcC6P1J3mmeERq?usp=sharing Summary: Drawing - managed the no.1 draw in the business for 3 years (highest peak of any manager in history), managed 4 different top-10 draws across ~6 years, overall longevity-on-top ~7 years. Ability - HOF-level. The best of his era, one of the best of all time. Overall longevity of work ~8.5 years. Positive historic significance - HOF-level. The blueprint for a TV-era heel manager. At a minimum, direct influence on Ernie Roth, Bobby Heenan (HOFer) and Gary Hart (HOFer). At a minimum, indirect influence on Jim Cornette (HOFer), and Paul Heyman (HOFer) who are both on record admitting this. The foundation he laid is still alive in 2024 with Heyman, but the name of the man has been long forgotten. 4th year on the ballot, I hope we correct that this year.

Ballots were sent out to us over the weekend: This is our ballot for the 2024 Hall of Fame. This ballot is being sent out to major wrestling stars, past and present, major management figures in the industry, writers and historians. If you are getting this, you are being asked your opinion on who should be inducted into this year's Hall of Fame class. The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling, as well as having historical significance in a positive manner. A candidate should either have something to offer in all three categories, or be someone so outstanding in one or two of those categories that they deserve inclusion. The names listed below are those under consideration for this year. To be eligible, a performer must have reached their 35th birthday and completed ten years since their debut as a full-time performer, or be someone who has been a full-time pro wrestler for at least 15 years. Longevity should be a prime consideration rather than a hot two or three year run, unless someone is so significant as a trend-setter or a historical figure in the business, or valuable to the industry, that they need to be included. However, just longevity without being either a long-term main eventer, a top draw and/or a top caliber in-ring performer should be seen as relatively meaningless. There are more changes in the rules this year largely because the modern U.S. & Canada category is so full of viable candidates. Each category is separate and the number of votes in a category allowed will be one in every three people on the ballot, so each category will have a different number. The idea is categories with fewer balloters won't be easier to get in, and categories with a lot of balloters won't be so difficult that it causes a logjam. The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked. The ballot is also broken down to wrestlers and those who are not pro wrestlers but have been valuable parts of the industry. You can pick as few as zero in categories if you don't believe anyone on this list deserves inclusion or you can skip voting in categories that you don't believe you are familiar enough with to vote in. All responses are confidential. There is nothing to worry about politically about any involvement in this process. Your selections will not be revealed unless you choose to do so yourself. Anyone who receives mention on 60% of the ballots from the geographical region and time frame (broken down as Continental United States & Canada; Mexico; Japan; and the rest of the world) will be added to the Hall of Fame in the class of 2023. If you are unfamiliar with any of the candidates due to geography or having never seen them, that is fine. Ballots are sent to many people from all over the world and from different wrestling cultures so that everyone has as fair a shot as possible. The breakdown for modern and historical performers is 30 years ago, or 1994. So if the last year the person was a headliner, or was a key figure in the industry, was prior to 1994, they would be in the historical class. All performers who receive mention on 10% to 59.9% of the ballots from their geographical region or era will remain on the ballot for consideration next year. All those who receive less than 10% of the vote will be dropped from next year's ballot. They can return in two years based on if there is significant feedback from voters who say they will vote for them. This is mostly for wrestlers who are still active who may improve their career legacy, but can be for retired wrestlers if voters believe they should be put on or returned to the ballot. In addition, in following the lead of the baseball Hall of Fame, which is the model here, we have a 15-year-rule. The following candidates have been on the ballot since 2008. In baseball, this would be their last year of eligibility. Here, if they don't get at least 50% of the votes in this year's election they will be removed from the ballot. If they are modern candidates, they can be brought back in the historical performers era in two years if it is more than 30 years since their career as a Hall Fame level performer is up: The following candidates will be dropped from next year's ballot unless they are elected in or garner 50% of the vote: Johnny Saint Huracan Ramirez HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA (Seven maximum) Ole Anderson Afa & Sika Anoa'i Bob Armstrong Tully Blanchard & Arn Anderson w/J.J. Dillon British Bulldogs (Dynamite Kid & Davey Boy Smith) June Byers Wild Bull Curry Junkyard Dog Cowboy Bob Ellis Pampero Firpo Black Gordman & Great Goliath Archie "Mongolian Stomper" Gouldie Hart Foundation (Bret Hart & Jim Neidhart) Sputnik Monroe Dusty Rhodes & Dick Murdoch Johnny Rougeau Iron Sheik Ricky Steamboat & Jay Youngblood Mad Dog & Butcher Vachon Kevin & Kerry & David Von Erich MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA (Seven max) Asuka/Kana Mark & Jay Briscoe Young Bucks Edge Bill Goldberg Samoa Joe Matt & Jeff Hardy Becky Lynch Jon Moxley Kevin Nash & Scott Hall Paul Orndorff Randy Orton Kevin Owens C.M. Punk Roman Reigns Cody Rhodes Trish Stratus Rick & Scott Steiner Jimmy & Jey Uso Sid Vicious Bray Wyatt Sami Zayn JAPAN (Four max) Cima Satoshi Kojima & Hiroyoshi Tenzan Yoshiaki Fujiwara Hayabusa Antonio Inoki & Seiji Sakaguchi Kento Miyahara Zack Sabre Jr. Meiko Satomura Tiger Jeet Singh Shingo Takagi Yoshihiro Takayama Manami Toyota & Toshiyo Yamada MEXICO (Four max) Angel Blanco & Dr.Wagner Sangre Chicana Psycho Clown El Dandy Los Hermanos Dinamita (Cien Caras & Mascara Ano 2000 & Universo 2000) Dorrell Dixon Gran Hamada El Hijo del Santo & Octagon La Parka AAA Huracan Ramirez Mascarita Sagrada Volador Jr. EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/PACIFIC ISLANDS/AFRICA (Three max) Spyros Arion Dominic DeNucci George Gordienko Billy Joyce Killer Karl Kox The Royal Brothers (Bert Royal & Vic Faulkner) Johnny Saint Adrian Street Jose Tarres Otto Wanz NON-WRESTLERS (Seven max) Dave Brown (U.S. & Canada modern) Zane resoff (U.S.& Canada modern) Bobby Bruns (Japan) Bob Caudle (U.S. & Canada historical) Bobby Davis (U.S. & Canada historical) Joe Higuchi (Japan) Jim Johnston (U.S. & Canada modern) Larry Matysik (U.S.& Canada historical) James Melby (U.S. & Canada historical) Rossy Ogawa (Japan) Reggie Parks (U.S. & Canada modern) Morris Sigel (U.S. & Canada historical) Tony Schiavone (U.S. & Canada modern) George Scott (U.S. & Canada historical) Kevin Sullivan (U.S. & Canada historical) Mike Tenay (U.S. & Canada modern) Ted Turner (U.S. & Canada modern) Roy Welch (U.S. & Canada historical) Stanley Weston (U.S. & Canada historical) Grand Wizard (U.S & Canada historical) Koichi Yoshizawa (Japan)

Dave on WOR said that the only reason Jackie Pallo didn't survive this year, 50%+, was due to American driveby voters (mostly reporters) who popped into the section only to vote for Big Daddy. With Daddy gone, those voters are likely to leave the section with him and I think that benefits all the other candidates. I'd keep the ROW section as it is for the time being.

I considered Rocca & Perez to be the strongest candidates in the US historical section, same applied to Beauty Pair for Japan, and George Kidd for Rest of the World. Suffice to say, I'm very happy with the results overall.

Takayama was eliminated from the ballot in both 2003 & 2005, but might make a 3rd appearance next year. He's one of a few names Dave's considering.

Hase would be the HOF precedent used to justify Ishii. Both come down to how highly you value their work, which is completely subjective. Neither were draws, consistent headliners, major champions, or anything else of that nature. Based on this, I don't see Ishii as a new low bar.

I think he's counting a tag-team as one "new member". Regardless, my prediction: Rocca & Perez, Slaughter, Orndorff, Beauty Pair, Ishii, Los Hermanos Dinamita, and Blue Panther.

I did a show on the Rest of the World section (and Becky Lynch) that can be found here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/wrestling-hall-91712548

I've sent my ballot to Dave. For anyone else interested: HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA (eight maximum) Argentina Rocca & Miguel Perez Cowboy Bob Ellis Jack & Jerry Brisco Johnny Rougeau June Byers Kevin & Kerry & David Von Erich Mad Dog & Butcher Vachon Tiger Jeet Singh MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA (five maximum) Becky Lynch Bill Goldberg Paul Orndorff Young Bucks JAPAN (three maximum) Shingo Takagi The Beauty Pair (Jackie Sato & Maki Ueda) MEXICO (three maximum) Angel Blanco & Dr.Wagner Dorrell Dixon Sangre Chicana EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/PACIFIC ISLANDS/AFRICA (four maximum) Billy Joyce George Kidd Jackie Pallo Jose Tarres NON-WRESTLERS (six maximum) Bobby Davis (U.S. & Canada historical) Morris Sigel (U.S. & Canada historical) Roy Welch (U.S. & Canada historical) Stanley Weston (U.S. & Canada historical) Ted Turner (U.S. & Canada modern) - I'll note that Mike Marino made the ballot thanks to my longevity-on-top research from earlier in the year, but I couldn't justify voting for him with a 4 vote max in that section. If he gets knocked off, I hope he can return again in a few years time.

The Elijah match was fine, I agree. I've edited my post to not be as absolute. Still doesn't come close to changing the overall view of him in that category. The 1976 tag with Haystacks vs Szakacs and Veidor is one of the most infuriatingly embarrassing matches I've ever seen considering the caliber of his opponents.

Otto's peak drawing power would be good-to-great. Best he did was 20,000 in South Africa 1977 vs Don Leo Jonathan, drew at least a couple of 10,000+'s in the AWA including 12,000 for his world title win vs Bockwinkel (a card without Hogan too) and I think he did 15,000 vs Terry Funk in his 1990 "retirement" match. Longevity-on-top would be HOF-level if it wasn't for 1990s negatives. Otto's booking philosophy was based around size. Not a shocker considering that's what got him over, but it hastened the demise of the CWA in my view. Once WWF hit television it was always going to end badly, but his philosophy accelerated things. Fighting Vince based on looks & size was a recipe for disaster. People complain about him staying on-top for too long, true, but the issue was his philosophy and that would've applied regardless of whether he was on screen or off. 1991-2000 work badly against him so, have to drag it down to great only. In-ring, I thought he was terrible. Entertaining enough, but really needed to be carried to a decent match. Vader, Leon White, performed miracles in that regard back in 1990. Not as bad as Daddy, Wanz did sell for his opponents, but still negative. Historical significance is tough. He was The top guy for over 20 years. A mainstream icon thanks to phone book tearing Guinness record and winning the AWA title at his peak in the early 80s. He also did contributed significantly, if secondarily, to the demise of his promotion but that did take a while so...I would say he's ok here. Not enough to place him in negative. Great/great/negative/ok = 3 points max for me. Slightly higher than Daddy because I don't think Otto specifically was as devastating to his domestic industry. His promotion lasted from 1977-2000, that's not a bad run.

I posted this on the Observer board but will share here for others interested. I'm a UK-based voter by the way: My Rest of the World shortlist of 7: Billy Joyce, Dominic DeNucci, George Kidd, Jackie Pallo, Jose Tarres, Mike Marino, Spyros Arion. Lets talk about Big Daddy. Based on the key categories under consideration for this HOF, I'm going to explain his case and then match him up against the 7 candidates listed above. The problem, once you remove any emotion from the situation, should become clear very quickly to rational-minded voters. Scoring system from the best to the worst: HOF-level (3 points), great (2 points), good (1 point), ok (0 points), negative (-1 point). Peak drawing power: Daddy's peak would be the first half of his babyface run from late 1977-82. This is when he was tremendously popular, TV was strong, as was attendance for the most part. However, and this applies to all UK candidates post-1950, the drawing power wasn't strong enough to reach HOF-levels (top 10-15 globally) with only 1 10,000+ crowd (vs John Quinn) under his belt. That leads us to conclude that he was a great draw, but no more than that. Longevity-on-top: Daddy was, for the most part, The top domestic star from 1976-1988. Under normal circumstances anyone who's on top for more than 10 years has hit HOF-levels unless the time period is negative for the business as a whole. In that case, the headline status should work against them. Here, Daddy's heel run to start with is just fine, we have the hot 77-82 period, and then a very noticeable decline that is detrimental to British wrestling as a whole from 83-88. That's 46% of his run, 6/13 years, that count against him. As a result I cannot say his longevity-on-top was HOF-level but it still falls into the "great" category. Only a 1 step downgrade. In-ring ability: Terrible. This is an active negative that should count against Daddy. We have little evidence that he was a competent wrestler at any point in his career and what we know about his TV run is that he was, the vast majority of the time, truly awful. Daddy matches are notoriously painful to watch because he doesn't sell and isn't physically capable of pulling out an all-attack type of match. His physical limitations mean he was in tag matches 99.9% of the time, and you'll have to hope for 3 great workers to pull off something palatable. Mark Rocco and Steve Grey come to mind as guys who might make it work. Just. Other main event stars like Tibor Szakacs, Steve Veidor, and Fit Finlay were actively hurt by participating in these Daddy matches. He's arguably the worst wrestler on the ballot, and would be the worst wrestler to be inducted should that happen. Negative. Positive historical significance: At his peak Daddy is arguably the biggest star the UK business had ever seen. The problem is, when he started to falter, the UK wrestling scene hit record lows that it never truly recovered from. Can 6 great years counter 6 terrible ones when the impact of the latter is still felt decades later? I would argue, no. The Big Daddy experiment is one of the main reasons wrestling was removed from terrestrial television because it didn't appeal to the key demo aka the "right demographic". That was an active decision made by Max Crabtree, brother of Daddy and booker/promoter at the time. He pushed the idea of Daddy being the kids and grandma's favorite extensively. Foolish. The warning signs were there in 1983 when you can see the dwindling TV crowds. By the time time we get to 1985, I believe it was too late. Damage was done with the audience decline exceeding the gains during Daddy's peak. Joint Promotions, the promotion in question here, deserved to die due to this intentional sabotage but wrestling as a whole on terrestrial television didn't. Brian Dixon, promoting All Star wrestling, offered something new. Maybe had he hit the TV scene a few years earlier it might have worked, but instead the audience found it difficult to decipher the difference between the two promotions. The Big Daddy poison had spread too far by this point. Dixon survived for decades to come, but wrestling on terrestrial television was no more. This death, I believe, was preventable at least for a few years. WWF, with its better production, would've taken over eventually but not as quickly as it actually did. To this day, Daddy is brought up by casuals as a symbol of British wrestling - a negative, not a positive, for those actually involved in the industry. Overall, Daddy's historical significance case is negative. Detrimental to the business as a whole > peak drawing power. Daddy's final scorecard: great/great/negative/negative (2 points total) Now, we move on to the versus battles: Vs Billy Joyce: Daddy's great/great/negative/negative (2 points) vs Joyce's negative/ok/HOF-level/HOF-level (5 points) = Joyce wins. Billy Joyce wasn't much of a draw, and despite headlining often as a 6x heavyweight champion he only qualified as a top-10 domestic headliner once. He was one of the best wrestlers of his generation and tremendously influential on HOFers Billy Robinson and Karl Gotch. Joyce's in-ring & historical significance superiority are more than strong enough to overcome the drawing power weakness vs Daddy. Vs Dominic DeNucci: great/great/negative/negative (2 points) vs DeNucci's HOF-level/ok/ok/great (5 points) = DeNucci wins. At his peak in Australia, when it was the number 1 territory globally drawing 9,000 every week, DeNucci was easily a top-3 global draw and arguably no.1 overall. These were mostly tours though (some short, some long), so the longevity is limited to around 3 years total. As a worker, he was there. Not bad, not good. For historical significance, he's the biggest regular TV star in Australia's history. The lack of any true negatives with regards to in-ring ability and historic significance gives Denucci the win here vs Daddy. Vs George Kidd: great/great/negative/negative (2 points) vs good/ok/HOF-level/HOF-level (7 points) = Kidd wins. George Kidd was the biggest star in Scotland's history but can't score higher than "good" for drawing power because of the UK issues I mentioned previously when making global comparisons. As a worker, he was one of the best in the world and footage of him in his prime is on the Mount Rushmore of discoveries for a lot of video hunters. He was tremendously influential with his style being heavily imitated by the likes of Johnny Saint and even today, you can even see hints of it in the way Zack Sabre Jr works. The drawing power weakness vs Daddy is easily countered by the in-ring & historic superiority. Vs Jackie Pallo: great/great/negative/negative (2 points) vs good/HOF-level/ok/great (6 points) = Pallo wins. This is also Jackie Pallo's, potential, final year on the ballot and he really is the guy that deserves the rally of support to try and save him. Pallo was a very good draw who is best known for his feud with HOFer Mick McManus, arguable the greatest UK rivalry of all time, and his phenomenal talking ability that lead to stardom once TV arrived. Heavyweights dominated the UK main event scene pre-TV and it was Pallo, McManus, etc who changed this by getting over with their personalities. He has 12+ years as a top-10 headliner, which is easily HOF-level. As a worker, I think he was limited but the charisma & promo ability unquestionable. For historical significance, some folks judge him negatively for the book he released in 1985 "exposing the business", which is nonsense in my eyes. The press had consistently reported the true nature of wrestling in the 60s in an attempt to slow it down. Mark Rocco's wife gave a TV Guide interview in the early 80s talking about what a wonderful family man he was at a time when he was the top TV heel. Etc. Pallo does sound bitter in the book, but most of what he said was already known and truthful. Shouldn't hurt his legacy at all. Overall, the lack of real negatives (a developing pattern) gives Pallo the easy win over Daddy. Vs Jose Tarres: great/great/negative/negative (2 points) vs HOF-level/great/negative/HOF-level (7 points) = Tarres wins. Jose Tarres was, at least, an easy top-10 global draw in the late 40s with many crowds over 10,000 in Spain. He was a top-headliner into the 1960s but lack of data makes it difficult to put a real number on him, so it's "great" longevity-on-top instead of "HOF-level" for me. As a wrestler, we have a few full matches of his from the French collection and I think he's extremely limited. Very gimmick headbutt heavy offense. It does go over great with the crowd though. For historical significance, he's arguably one of the top-10 draws in Europe's history. This is a great contest to see how you counter negative in-ring ability. If you're drawing power and historical significance is super strong, you should be fine. Vs Mike Marino: great/great/negative/negative (2 points) vs good/HOF-level/ok/good (5 points) = Marino wins. Mike Marino was a top-10 headliner 19/26 years from 1951-1977. The only person who is competitive with this would be Mick McManus. The peak drawing power is unclear, but I just can't see a guy being on-top for that long while drawing poorly. "Good" is a safe prediction. He did have a bad run as booker in the mid-70s when his eagerness to push young talent led to business declining further, but that's such a tiny portion of his overall career that I can't see it knocking him off HOF-level for longevity-on-top. A lot of his peers said he was a good technical worker, but I think his style might be a bit too "dry" more most people so I erred downwards and said he was "ok". For historical significance, he held multiple titles including a 15-year run (1966-81) as the British Mid-Heavyweight champion. When he passed away from leukemia it received a lot of attention on TV with a memorial tournament held in his honor. He died with 3 titles around his waist and, out of respect, they didn't crown a new World Mid-Heavyweight champion until over a year later. That match (won by Marty Jones) was dedicated to Marino with his wife present & others making emotional speeches. He was one of the few wrestlers highlighted as a legend on the final 1988 episode of wrestling on terrestrial TV and Kent Walton always spoke highly of him too. No negatives is again, the difference maker in this contest. Vs Spyros Arion: great/great/negative/negative (2 points) vs HOF-level/good/ok/good (5 points) = Arion wins. This is an interesting contest because back in 1979 Arion had a nice but short run here in the UK. He was billed as the World Champion after Tony St Clair had jumped ship to Brian Dixon's All Star promotion and was, I think, supposed to drop the title to Big Daddy. Apparently, Arion pulled a "that doesn't work for me brother" and ended up losing to Wayne Bridges instead. Anyway, Arion's a HOF-level draw thanks to his WWWF run with Bruno Sammartino, his run in Australia as the 2nd biggest regular star for the hottest global promotion, and his tours in Greece with matches that drew 10,000+ a few times. The longevity is slightly limited because both Australia & Greece were mostly short tours and the Bruno feud was a 1 year thing. Solid worker, who stood out in WWWF because the standards were lower, but nothing to write home about in my view. He's one of the biggest TV stars for Australia, one of the biggest stars (top-5 maybe) for Greece, and the best opponent short-term for Bruno. He did have a rep for being difficult to do business with in Australia - leaving without dropping the title at least twice - which stops me from saying his historical significance is "great". I think this shows, logically, why voting for Daddy isn't justifiable based on the competition in this section of the ballot. None of these contests were close, with a 3 point gap minimum, and if you're losing to 7 candidates with a 4 vote max in the section then...yea. Not good. I'm happy to engage with folks and debate the topic so long as we take the emotion out of it. Thanks for reading. My longevity-on-top analysis for the UK, referenced a few times in these posts, can be found here: https://members.f4wonline.com/wrestling-observer-newsletter/may-15-2023-observer-newsletter-aews-big-announcements-wwe-backlash

I have, in fact, brought up Yoshimura as a candidate for his booking work. One of many that drew my attention after Don Owen's induction. Voter ignorance will hurt him, and we do have a few names ahead in the promoter/booker cue, but I'm happy to bring him up again Kinch. Dave did a fantastic job last year getting Lou Daro (LA) and Johnny Doyle (LA, Mid-West, Boston, Australia) inducted on the promoter/booker side of things. Next on the list should be Morris Sigel (on the ballot) and Al Haft (Columbus, Ohio - will suffer tremendously from voter ignorance if/when he hits the ballot). Progress is ongoing in this area and not something to be concerned about.

I like the idea of treating each section as its own separate ballot. We'll see when the results come out how it worked in practice. I'm certainly not going to shit on it from the get-go. I will say that this does solve the Mexico statistical weakness problem that I pointed out last year. Not enough voters + trigger happiness + not enough candidates = potentially weird results. Strict vote limits address that. Not having to worry about an overall voting limit may also help neglected sections like US historical & the Rest of the World, but I suspect that's an education issue more than anything else.

Thank you Allan. Gary Will has kept me updated with the JYD to historical and James Melby to non-wrestler corrections, but I see Dave has also fixed the Beauty Pair (Ueda, not Fumiake) error. OP has been edited accordingly. Gary also said historical has moved to 8 maximum rather than 7.

I've just received my ballot so, it begins: This is our ballot for the 2023 Hall of Fame. This ballot is being sent out to major wrestling stars, past and present, major management figures in the industry, writers and historians. If you are getting this, you are being asked your opinion on who should be inducted into this year's Hall of Fame class. The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling, as well as having historical significance in a positive manner. A candidate should either have something to offer in all three categories, or be someone so outstanding in one or two of those categories that they deserve inclusion. The names listed below are those under consideration for this year. To be eligible, a performer must have reached their 35th birthday and completed ten years since their debut as a full-time performer, or be someone who has been a full-time pro wrestler for at least 15 years. Longevity should be a prime consideration rather than a hot two or three year run, unless someone is so significant as a trend-setter or a historical figure in the business, or valuable to the industry, that they need to be included. However, just longevity without being either a long-term main eventer, a top draw and/or a top caliber in-ring performer should be seen as relatively meaningless. There are more changes in the rules this year largely because the historical U.S. & Canada category is so full of viable candidates. This year what we are doing is each category is separate and the number of votes in a category allowed will be one in every three people on the ballot, so each category will have a different number. The idea is categories with fewer balloters won't be easier to get in, and categories with a lot of balloters won't be so difficult that it causes a logjam. It's an experiment that I think will make the process better. The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked. The ballot is also broken down to wrestlers and those who are not pro wrestlers but have been valuable parts of the industry. You can pick as few as zero in categories if you don't believe anyone on this list deserves inclusion or you can skip voting in categories that you don't believe you are familiar enough with to vote in. All responses are confidential. There is nothing to worry about politically about any involvement in this process. Your selections will not be revealed unless you choose to do so yourself. Anyone who receives mention on 60% of the ballots from the geographical region and time frame (broken down as Continental United States & Canada; Mexico; Japan; and the rest of the world) will be added to the Hall of Fame in the class of 2023. If you are unfamiliar with any of the candidates due to geography or having never seen them, that is fine. Ballots are sent to many people from all over the world and from different wrestling cultures so that everyone has as fair a shot as possible. The breakdown for modern and historical performers is 30 years ago, or 1993. So if the last year the person was a headliner, or was a key figure in the industry, was prior to 1993, they would be in the historical class. All performers who receive mention on 10% to 59.9% of the ballots from their geographical region or era will remain on the ballot for consideration next year. All those who receive less than 10% of the vote will be dropped from next year's ballot. They can return in two years based on if there is significant feedback from voters who say they will vote for them. This is mostly for wrestlers who are still active who may improve their career legacy, but can be for retired wrestlers if voters believe they should be put on or returned to the ballot. In addition, in following the lead of the baseball Hall of Fame, which is the model here, we have a 15-year-rule. The following candidates have been on the ballot since 2008. In baseball, this would be their last year of eligibility. Here, if they don't get at least 50% of the votes in this year's election they will be removed from the ballot. If they are modern candidates, they can be brought back in the historical performers era in two years if it is more than 30 years since their career as a Hall Fame level performer is up. The following candidates will be dropped from next year's ballot unless they are elected in or garner 50% of the vote: Big Daddy Kendo Nagasaki Jackie Pallo Sgt. Slaughter HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA (eight maximum) Ole Anderson Bob Armstrong Tully Blanchard & Arn Anderson w/J.J. Dillon Jack & Jerry Brisco British Bulldogs (Dynamite Kid & Davey Boy Smith) June Byers Wild Bull Curry Junkyard Dog Cowboy Bob Ellis Pampero Firpo Black Gordman & Great Goliath Archie "Mongolian Stomper" Gouldie Hart Foundation (Bret Hart & Jim Neidhart) Sputnik Monroe Dusty Rhodes & Dick Murdoch Argentina Rocca & Miguel Perez Johnny Rougeau Iron Sheik Tiger Jeet Singh Sgt. Slaughter Ricky Steamboat & Jay Youngblood Mad Dog & Butcher Vachon Von Brauners & Saul Weingeroff Kevin & Kerry & David Von Erich MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA (five maximum) Mark & Jay Briscoe Young Bucks Edge Bill Goldberg Matt & Jeff Hardy Becky Lynch Jon Moxley Kevin Nash & Scott Hall Paul Orndorff Randy Orton Seth Rollins C.M. Punk Roman Reigns Trish Stratus Rick & Scott Steiner JAPAN (three maximum) The Beauty Pair (Jackie Sato & Maki Ueda) Cima Satoshi Kojima & Hiroyoshi Tenzan Yoshiaki Fujiwara Hayabusa Antonio Inoki & Seiji Sakaguchi Tomohiro Ishii Meiko Satomura Shingo Takagi Manami Toyota & Toshiyo Yamada MEXICO (three maximum) Angel Blanco & Dr.Wagner Sangre Chicana Los Hermanos Dinamita (Cien Caras & Mascara Ano 2000 & Universo 2000) Dorrell Dixon Pirata Morgan Blue Panther El Hijo del Santo & Octagon La Parka AAA Huracan Ramirez EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/PACIFIC ISLANDS/AFRICA (four maximum) Spyros Arion Big Daddy Dominic DeNucci Billy Joyce George Kidd Killer Karl Kox Mike Marino Kendo Nagasaki Jackie Pallo The Royal Brothers (Bert Royal & Vic Faulkner) Johnny Saint Adrian Street Jose Tarres Otto Wanz NON-WRESTLERS (six maximum) Dave Brown (U.S. & Canada modern) Bobby Bruns (Japan) Bob Caudle (U.S. & Canada historical) Bobby Davis (U.S. & Canada historical) Joe Higuchi (Japan) Jim Johnston (U.S. & Canada modern) Larry Matysik (U.S.& Canada historical) Rossy Ogawa (Japan) Reggie Parks (U.S. & Canada modern) Morris Sigel (U.S. & Canada historical) Tony Schiavone (U.S. & Canada modern) George Scott (U.S. & Canada historical) Sanshiro Takagi (Japan) Mike Tenay (U.S. & Canada modern) Ted Turner (U.S. & Canada modern) Roy Welch (U.S. & Canada historical) Stanley Weston (U.S. & Canada historical) Grand Wizard (U.S & Canada historical) James Melby (U.S & Canada historical)

I saw that too, and you'll notice nobody pre-1980 made the active wrestlers top 31. They are literally the "people who've heard of the 80s candidates only creeping in and fucking things up" group. Same people.

Nintendo - thanks for that. The smaller the total voting pool, the statistically weaker the results. With Mexico, we're dealing with only 94-95 total voters this year. That's 35-36 votes less than the 2nd smallest voting pool (Rest of the world) and translates to needing only 10 votes to survive, 56-57 to be inducted. Combine this with the herd mentality of Lucha voters - the determination to induct at least 1 candidate every year - and you end up with weird results. By weird, I mean, weak inductions specifically. The lack of depth on the candidate side exacerbates the problem. Los Brazos last year at 86% - tied 4th highest of all time (same number as The Rock). Mistico this time at 76% - tied 13th highest of all time (same number as Kawada & Taue). The voting % alone doesn't give you the full story. These are statistically weak results with the candidates looking stronger than they really are. So far, we've been fine. Both Brazos & Mistico are deserving regardless of the actual %. But at some point you are going to induct someone questionable because of all this. Difficult to get knocked off + easy to get inducted leads only one way. We need more knowledgeable Lucha voters, more worthy candidates, or we'll have to consider the viability of Mexico as a standalone section. Statistical strength needs to go up one way or another to maintain credibility. It's one of those problems that you can see coming, so no excuses when the weirdness amplifies.

I'll copy & paste my initial thoughts from the Observer board here but suffice to say Rocca & Perez are going to dominate the conversation: The good: - I'm fine with everyone who got in. Voted for 4 of them. - Becky Lynch survived! I consider that a job well done. - Some disappointing eliminations (Hennig & Race, Blanc, Starr) but nothing too egregious. I was worried it would be a lot worse so, again, fine with this. - DELIGHTED with both auto-inductions. Both Daro & Doyle entered serious conversation after Don Owen got in last year. Both are vastly superior to Owen, and Doyle's induction in particular - as a guy who technically needed to be on the ballot because he isn't pre-1950 - is a direct message to Don Owen voters. Whether they like it or not. The bad: - Something needs to be done about that Mexico section. I've brought it up on the previous page, but now that you got Mistico being inducted on 76% and Los Villanos inducted with only 59 votes the trend is clear. Voting pool too small, herd mentality too strong. I say that as someone who voted for Los Villanos and is happy they got in. The ugly: Rocca & Perez not getting in is the most embarrassing result I've ever seen for this hall of fame. Sorry, but unlike Dave I don't need to play diplomacy and sugarcoat things - that is a really fucking bad result. It is proof - along with other trends like Bobby Davis struggling - that we have too many historical voters that have no fucking business being in there. I'm guessing it's people who've heard of the 80s candidates creeping in and fucking things up. But that's just a guess. The inductees are good, the auto-inductees extremely strong, but Rocca & Perez not making it will overshadow everything, which is a shame. People who wish to disparage this HOF, the best in the business still in my view, will use that solo result to their advantage. I spent so much time trying to save Becky because I genuinely didn't think Rocca & Perez would have any issues. Sigh. Considering who got in, I didn't think I'd be as bummed out as I am but here we are.