ethantyler

Dave clarified on WOR that it's 6 voted in - including tag-teams as one act - and 2 auto-inductions. My prediction: Rocca & Perez, Slaughter, HDA, Ibushi, Mistico and Bobby Davis voted in, Lou Daro & Johnny Doyle auto-inducted. I've campaigned for both of those auto-inductees and if it is them, then it should be known that Dave listened to the feedback on the Don Owen induction last year. Doyle in particular will send a strong message to those voters, stronger than I expected, but I'll go into more detail if it is revealed to be them.

In April/May 1970, the IWE promotion in Japan polled their fans on which foreign star they wanted to see that had never wrestled there before. Arion topped the poll, beating the likes of Mil Mascara and The Sheik, which gives you an indication of how global his fame was at the time. Combine that with the Australia, Greece, and Bruno data (Dave thinks he was Bruno's best ever opponent acutely) to end up with a very strong case. Unfortunately, he's another one that'll be lucky to survive vs having a realistic chance of being inducted. That section is extremely competitive, and the public conversation gets dominated by one of its weakest candidates - Big Daddy. Compare Daddy to similar names in that section - drawing power based - like Arion, DeNucci, Tarres, and L'Ange Blanc. He objectively loses to all 4, and yet comfortably outpolls them all. Most of this is down to his supporters being "visitors" to that section of ballot. By that I mean they really don't have enough knowledge to be in there, but have heard of a few names and feel that's good enough. It makes things extremely difficult for the guys actually worth considering. A shame.

I didn't say no other women wrestled seriously. Gail Kim vs Awesome as mid-card for a small promotion is not an example I would use to illustrate the business treating women seriously. It goes beyond the in-ring work. Having women wrestle real matches is one thing, elevating them to the top level based off of that is another. Burke, Byers, and Lynch epitomize the latter.

I can personally agree with the "we don't know" conclusion on how good Burke was, but Dave would've based her induction in 96 on mostly hearsay. Regardless of unreliability (we agree on that too). He wasn't led to believe that she was as good as Thesz, Gagne, or whoever and that is key here if you wish to argue that Burke is in for in-ring ability and historic sig vs Lynch's pure historic sig. I see it as one type of historic sig vs another. The bar is, roughly, the same. Rejecting Lynch means we're raising it. That is my view. I meant primitive literally - women's wrestling was at the beginning of it's development. Expecting any of them to be Lou Thesz level is ridiculous. I don't necessary see the hair-toss, comedy male ref rollover, style of the time as a bad thing either. It's very stereotypical to us today because we've seen so many terrible versions of it but back then it was brand new. Again, women's wrestling had only been a regular thing since 1934. I see it as simply another form of entertaining wrestling that worked for those who liked that sort of thing. Clara Mortensen got over using that style and her looks. I think - and this is pure speculation - that you have an evolution with Burke, Byers, Mae Young, etc. Those were "real" wrestlers. They still did the 2022 stereotypical stuff, but less so. From there you'd expect the evolution to continue but a combination of factors - summarized as Moolah giving in to what society wanted from women's wrestling - prevented that. In the 60s you essentially go back to the original style of the late 30s and stay there till 2014. Then it gets serious again with the horsewomen generation. If you really wanted to capture the history of women succeeding in North America as serious wrestlers then Burke, Byers, and Lynch would sum it up fairly well.

Gordy List questions are neither here nor there. Ignore the fact that Burke's a woman and she doesn't get in. Period. Same applies to Byers - who wouldn't even make the ballot - and Lynch. That in & of itself tells you it's all about historic significance. Speaking of which, the official standard from this year's ballot: "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." Significance. Not influence.

Nintendo called her an elite worker before clarifying that he meant among the women only. Elite to me means top-10ish among your peers with zero segregation. Yes, I did explain how I reached that conclusion - Jeff Leen's book where he spoke to people from that era about Burke. To expand on that, Mae Young had huge respect for her but never claimed equal ability to the top guys. Cora Combs thought she was good, and that's it. The likes of Ethel Brown and Penny Banner thought Byers was better but still didn't give the latter equal status to the top guys either. Notice that I have avoided opinions from men because I can see you dismissing them outright from a mile away. The best women's wrestler, just as good as the standard guys, etc is the general consensus. Still impressive considering how primitive women's wrestling was, having only become a regular thing in 1934/35.

Never said Burke wasn't one of the elite women. It's her and Byers. Who's better was subjective. Penny Banner strongly maintained that it was Byers, Mae Young said Burke, and on & on it goes. To take it further and say she was top-10 in that era, just as good as the elite men, etc based on highlights isn't a serious position. It's fine to dismiss the views of people who lived through it if you actually have solid evidence to the contrary. Highlights aren't solid evidence. Dave said something similar today on WOR when it comes to retrospective evaluation of wrestlers based on minimal footage. Lynch's legacy - historic sig isn't just about influence - will literally be that she was the first woman ever in North America to eclipse the guys as the top star. There is no "remains to be seen" on that. It's factual regardless of longevity. That's like saying records don't count until you retire. Yes, they do. Dave is voting for Lynch. He clearly believes that the unique historical importance of her case is solid enough, now, to eclipse any longevity concerns. He's right. Rousey absolutely opened the door. She's the reason they headlined Mania. She had nothing to do with Lynch getting over, nothing to do with Lynch continuing to be top ratings draw 6+ months after Mania, and nothing to do with women headlining other PPVs like Survivor Series and TLC in 2019. I'm happy to credit her as a catalyst but I won't disrespect Lynch by saying everything post-Mania happens with or without her because Rousey. Not true.

On the latest WOR, Dave reveals he'll also be voting for Becky Lynch. That should help a hell of a lot more than anything I'm saying, and is hopefully enough to save her. His argument is the same - too strong to ignore on historical significance.

This is a disappointing response. We don't have a single full Burke match available for view and yet you feel confident enough based off highlights to claim she's "miles" better than Byers. This retrospective 2022 eyesight test of 1940s/50s workers is apparently all the evidence we need and more valuable than any opinion of the time. I can't, and won't, take this position seriously. We're knee deep into "this is how I feel and that's the end of it" territory. No fighting that. On any topic.

Mildred Burke was not an elite worker. At no point in her era was anyone comparing her to Thesz, Rogers, Gagne, O'Connor, McShain, Red Berry, or any other true elite. Nobody was saying she was top-10 at any point. She was good, yes, but that's it. Exactly the same would apply to Byers. The difference between the two on both peak drawing power & in-ring ability was minimal - even Jeff Leen, the author of the Burke book, admits to that. Lynch's case is based primarily on historical significance - not drawing power. The latter simply leads to the former. If you were to totally ignore the fact that she's a woman, then her case becomes considerably weaker. But why am I suddenly deciding to strip away all historical context just for Lynch? Did we do that for Burke? Jackie Sato? Dump Matsumoto? How about Bearcat Wright? Are we doing that for JYD? Are we doing that for Byers? The answer is no across the board. Based on precedent, factually, the decision to knock out Lynch isn't justifiable. It just isn't. If that decision is made then there is no getting round it: the bar as been dramatically raised. Terrible look as Sek69 pointed out, and also leads to me being far more stringent with my picks. I'd rather avoid both outcomes.

I had the same mindset with the modern WWE talent that you do, but it simply isn't fair to dismiss them altogether because metrics change. It isn't. You apply a brand discount and focus more on TV ratings - at least that seems the most logical approach to me. I applied a brand discount to all modern WWE wrestlers for the 2019 rankings. This ranged from 25% on small house shows to 75% for Wrestlemania, Rumble, etc. That's why you see Lynch listed 9th rather than 1st, which would've been possible otherwise but also totally misleading. I'm confident that 9th is a worse case scenario for her. Lynch was clearly the biggest WWE star in 2019 based on ratings - her movement eclipsed everyone else's. That in itself is notable because to be ahead of the top male talent - Reigns, Rollins, etc - on a weekly basis is another first for a woman. Burke & Byers never did that because they were special attractions, and neither did the T&A draws of the attitude era+. It's also worth noting that card position wasn't always in Lynch's favor. She had plenty of mid-card bouts in 2019 including a notably bad feud with Lacey Evans. Yet, still the biggest ratings draw. This isn't someone being gifted the top positions by WWE - she earnt it. Her and Bryan Danielson are the only stars that I can think of that the fans pushed onto Vince and he begrudgingly accepted. It is worth noting that we are not having this conversation about Charlotte. And nor will we ever be. Again, based on these fairly standard metrics she's contextually the biggest draw of them all. You can question how expansive this is in relation to the Joshi talent - fine, fair enough. Dave does that too. But North America? No way. Burke & Byers were attraction draws who had a ceiling of 7,000ish everywhere they went. If they stuck to one territory, even the biggest one, weekly we wouldn't be placing them in this conversation today. Of that I'm certain. So even if you limited overall drawing power to North America, it's still very clearly HOF-level historical significance. We should be talking about when/if she gets in rather than her chances of scrapping 10% to survive.

You've answered your own query in bold as to how Becky Lynch was a bigger contextual draw than both Beauty Pair or the Crush Gals. I've cited the databases I've used to make those statements and I'm happy to re-calculate if you have more data to add. My analysis had nothing to do with celebrity. It was about drawing power based on ticket sales - a historic measure used as an indicator - and TV ratings for modern era US because that's clearly the primary metric today. This type of analysis has been done by Dave, Matt Farmer, and countless others more knowledgeable than me. It's not perfect, but still provides valuable information for those who seek it. I have said the word "contextual" ad nauseam for a reason. Becky Lynch in her era is a bigger draw based on these metrics than the other women in their eras. Contextually, she's ahead of more of the pack. Yes, you can blame the insane competition (particularly for the Crush Gals and everyone in 93-95) but that doesn't really change the statement. The Joshi stars were absolutely draws, they just weren't as strong as others at the time based on these metrics. That isn't me downplaying them - just telling it like is. They're still easy HOFers based on in-ring ability and historic sig (insert mainstream appeal here) - as I stated in the write-up. I strongly disagree with the final sentence. Most people view Lynch as WWE's biggest star for a short period of time and that's it. It is vital to give historical perspective on how she ranks in order to accurately push her case forward. Context is key and the line from Burke to Lynch is absolutely there to be drawn, but it isn't straight. You have to discuss Joshi from Beauty Pair to the 90s stars, then move to the ratings movers of the attitude era, and then get modern with it - as I did. I never meant to downplay anyone I mentioned and if it came across that way I apologize unreservedly.

Once you're inducted, it's over. Precedent is set and at that point should be followed. So, this conversation has a risk of turning into practical irrelevancy but lets give it a go: We have 3 set criteria for the hall of fame: drawing power (peak & longevity), in-ring ability (peak & longevity), and positive historical significance. On historical significance, you'll struggle to find any credible historians who think Mildred Burke shouldn't be in. She may never have been a HOF-level draw, but her steady consistency on-top established a standard for women that remains unsurpassed. Becky is the go-to for peak drawing power, Burke for longevity-on-top. There is no double-standard for drawing power. There is for historical significance because our forefathers made it so. In theory, you should treat every single candidate regardless of sex, race, etc equally but at some point that theory has to come into contact with reality. Then it'll need to be altered accordingly because men & women were not treated equally, neither were people of color, etc. If you continue to prioritize theory over reality, then you're left with zero context and false conclusions. In other words, factually inaccurate historical significance. I talk about this more in the write-up with reference to Burke/Byers' accomplishments being far more impressive than the numbers themselves suggest. History needs to be reflected accurately, not spun all over the place with manufactured equality. Becky has set the standard for women's peak drawing power. That makes her a pioneer. I don't think it's a particularly controversial viewpoint to suggest that significant pioneers, like her, should be inducted into the hall of fame. Or, at a more minimalistic level, not dumped off the ballot in round 1.

I did specifically point out that she was the biggest WWE draw - men and women - for 2019. Both in terms of ratings and attendance. You could say that she was the biggest draw in the business period if you're just looking at TV ratings - biggest ratings mover for the biggest promotion with business driven more by TV than any other metric - but I'll leave that decision up to the reader. The argument for her is that she's the greatest contextual female draw of all time, which goes far beyond simply being WWE's top draw for 14 months. It's pioneer level and gives her incredibly strong positive historical significance that no man of this era will come close to matching. Factually. It also means, factually, that she has a stronger drawing power case than every single woman already inducted. That includes Mildred Burke who was auto-inducted in 1996. So, again factually, you're not lowering the standard - you're actually keeping up with it based on precedent. For her to not get in is difficult to justify long-term. For her to be dumped 1st time out even more so. The voters would be raising the bar dramatically for that section. I'm not sure they realize that, but it's what would happen.

Posting this here too for the sake of eyeballs: Based on early trends, it looks like Becky Lynch will be knocked off the ballot 1st time out despite contextually being the greatest peak female draw of all time. Instead of just saying this is what she is, I'm going to show my work and hope it convinces some to vote for her. Methodology Contextual drawing power refers to where you were ranked compared to your peers at the same time. Top-10s per year, like that seen in the Aug 5 2009 Observer, are an easy way to illustrate this. The databases I used were predominantly wrestlingdata.com & luchadb.com. We have to deal with some major limitations for Mexico & Europe and, where relevant, I will openly disclose these. In the Observer issue, the lists were based on 10,000+ attendance but I found that too limiting so expanded it to 7,000+. This way, we can include standout numbers from smaller territories - Amarillo, Stampede, etc - and reduce the risk of creating a list that suggests you had many different top-draws in one place (almost always false). To expand it any further, say to 5,000, seemed unwise as it would lead me to including not-so impressive crowds in too many places. This analysis won't be perfect - it never is - but it's a hell of a lot better than just saying stuff with zero evidence. Results The first woman to bring up, despite not being eligible based on the criteria above, is Clara Mortensen. In 1937 she consistently drew between 5-6,000 in places like Chattanooga & Shreveport (big numbers for these towns in those days) and appears to have been the first major female headliner that did good business. She may have been top-20ish for that year but, since all her numbers are all sub-7,000 I can't say for certain. Regardless, I see her as a pioneer and she deserves a shoutout here. From there, we go to Mildred Burke & June Byers. I'm linking these two together for reasons that will become apparent in a minute. In the Aug 5 2009 Observer Burke is mentioned as a top-10 draw for both 1939 & 1941. I have found zero evidence for the former, and can outright disprove the latter. The 1941 claim was based on the myth of her drawing 19,000 in Louisville vs Elvira Snodgrass. This never happened. The best we have for her is 7,123 on Feb 11 and even that has to come with a disclaimer since it was a co-main (Orville Brown vs the Masked Superman Hans Schnabel for the Ohio heavyweight title went on last). Regardless, she has a case for being a top-15ish draw for both 1941 & 1947. Burke really was remarkable for her consistency as a draw more than her peak, which really isn't too different to June Byers. Speaking of which, I have Byers as a top-15 draw for her 1948 peak (headlines in front of 7,000 3x and co-mains for 10,000). My list: 1) Gorgeous George 18.69 2) Yvon Robert 5.5 3) Frank Sexton 5.25 4) The Duseks 4.8, 5) Bill Longson 4.56 6) French Angel Maurice Tillet 4.19 7) Bob Wagner 3.94 8) Enrique Torres 3.71 9) Primo Carnera 3.42 10) Lou Thesz 3.14 11) The Zaharias brothers 3.12 12) Larry Moquin 2.8 13) June Byers 2.63 Disclaimer: lack of data on Billy Watson and Jose Tarres with severely limited data on Tarzan Lopez. The points, in bold, are based on a variety of factors (headline draws, multi-man main events, co-main events, etc) and the differential tell a bigger story than the exact numbers themselves - Gorgeous George is clearly the biggest draw in the business for example. I'm certain that the 3 mentioned in the disclaimer were major draws but incomplete data means I can't position them accurately. So June Byers' real position may vary from 13-16, which puts her in the same category as Burke. This is notable because June Byers was the no.1 contender - not the champion. For her to outdraw Burke and match her 41 & 47 ranking is extremely impressive to me. Lots of historians complain about the way the title changed hands in 1954 (Burke essentially being forced out by Billy Wolfe) but based on business metrics, you have a valid case for a switch in 1948-49. I assume it didn't happen because Burke didn't want it to happen. Fast forward to 1954, and we have Burke's best when she goes on an extremely successful short tour of Japan that draws between 8-13,000 on a regular basis. This is the year you can say she was a top-10 draw overall. My list: 1) Rikidozan 34.4 2) Antonino Rocca 13.11 3) Verne Gagne 9.12, 4) Pat O'Connor 8.99 5) Medico Asesino 8.9 6) Lou Thesz 7.01 7) Togo Brothers - Great & Tosh Togo (Harold Sakata) 6.67 8) Sharpe Brothers 6.45 9) Killer Kowalski 6.34 10) Mildred Burke 5.4 Disclaimer: severely limited data on El Santo. Until you get to Becky Lynch, this is the best peak drawing performance by any woman in history. We can debate whether Burke's 10 or 11, but there is no debate about anyone doing better. Her and Byers' accomplishments are far greater than the numbers themselves suggest too. Post-WWII you're dealing with rampant US conservatism that hated the idea of a new gender norm. You had mass media campaigns trying to convince women to get away from work and focus on becoming desirable for a husband. The idea of 2 women who were real athletes trying to be taken seriously wouldn't have gone down well because it contradicts what the campaign was trying to achieve. Men watching women because they're desirable? Yes. Men watching women as competitive athletes? No. This is why you see commentators routinely mocking women's matches in this era. The same applied to women in other sports. This attitude is reflected in films and other sources of entertainment at the time as well. For more info on this from the perspective of how the media viewed female wrestling fans (the majority in the early 50s), I'd recommend "The Revenge of Hatpin Mary; Women, Professional Wrestling and Fan Culture in the 1950s" by Chad Dell. Unfortunately, this "return to gender norms" campaign succeeded in pro-wrestling. Post-Byers, women stopped being treated seriously and became something to look at in the mid-card. Japan had a revolution in the mid-70s, but North America had to wait until 2015 - 56 years after Byers' final run as a consistent headliner. While North America was stuck in the Moolah dark ages, Japan had a revolution in 75-79 thanks to Beauty Pair and, predominantly, Jackie Sato. This is arguably the peak of pro-wrestling's popularity with young pre-teen girls, but it wasn't enough to enter as a top-10 draw contextually. The same can be said for the mid-80s Crush Gals and the 93-95 stars (Toyota, Hokuto, Nakano, Aja Kong, etc). Most of these women have already been inducted into the HOF - deservedly based on in-ring ability and historic significance - but it's important to point out that if you think a HOFer should be a top-10 draw, none would qualify. This isn't to downplay any of these remarkable women, but at this point, it's still fair to say that Mildred Burke was the biggest contextual draw of them all. Fast forward to 2019 and Becky Lynch's peak. Lynch was the biggest ratings mover for WWE for around 14 months. The likes of Trish, Sable, etc who were hyped based on ratings movements (in the case of Sable, overrated as she was never top-10 in that category either unless you pay attention to smaller sample sizes) were never no.1. This is worth mentioning because ratings are the primary business metric in this era - not gates. Being number 1 for the number 1 company worldwide suggests the biggest star in the business. But, we're going to dig into attendance data too because 1) it adds to Lynch's case and 2) it's necessary for the comparisons we're making here. For the following, I've applied a heavy brand-discount value for WWE wrestlers. This discount varies from 25-75% - higher for shows that draw on name alone like Wrestlemania, Summerslam, etc and lower for house shows. This addresses the constant criticism of the modern talent that "the brand draws, not them". The list: 1) Omega 7.18 2) Jericho 6.4 3) Okada 4.88 4) Tanahashi 4.87 5) La Nueva Generacion Dinamita (El Cuatrero/El Forastero/Sanson) 4.45 6) Mistico 4.09 7) Ultimo Guerrero 3.89 8) Naito 3.8 9) Lynch 3.63 For those interested, I had Rollins at a distant 2nd place for WWE, Brock's not around enough, and Reigns' beyond dead as a babyface (this is the year he returned from his Leukemia scare remember). Lynch is clearly their biggest star and, unlike with the previous lists, we don't have to worry about severe data limitations. Now, had you not read everything so far you'd think Lynch is a top-10 draw and worthy of a spot on the ballot but nothing more right? But if you have read everything so far, you'd know she eclipses Burke's 1954 and becomes the greatest contextual draw in women's history - not just in relation to North America. HOF-level pioneering even with a heavy brand-value discount applied. Conclusion I've accepted that Lynch has no chance of being inducted this year. That's fine. I wish to avoid the possibility of us voters knocking out a pioneer 1st time out. I take precedent seriously and that'll put me in a position where I can't vote for anyone else - certainly in that section - because the bar has been raised ridiculously high. More than that, it just isn't a good look long-term. I know the heel run sucked. I know we have longevity questions. My response is that the overwhelming HOF-level historical significance, shown here, minimizes those concerns. Her achievement is not one that'll age badly. In fact, it's likely to be valued even greater as time goes on since absolutely no woman anywhere right now is even close to achieving what she did. Never mind eclipsing it. This isn't likely to change anytime soon. Lynch belongs in the same company as Mildred Burke and the Joshi inductees. I hope this doesn't become a Bobby Davis/June Byers situation with people only rating Lynch decades later but if it does, at least I can say I tried.

Here's the ballot I sent Dave for anyone else interested: I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES Argentina Rocca & Miguel Perez Cowboy Bob Ellis Johnny Rougeau June Byers Mad Dog & Butcher Vachon I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES Becky Lynch Rick & Scott Steiner I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES Akira Taue & Toshiaki Kawada Kota Ibushi Tetsuya Naito I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES Angel Blanco & Dr.Wagner Dorrell Dixon Los Villanos I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/PACIFIC ISLANDS/AFRICA Billy Joyce Dominic DeNucci George Kidd Jose Tarres Spyros Arion NON-WRESTLERS Bobby Davis Morris Sigel Roy Welch Stanley Weston Ted Turner

I compare the tag-teams against all candidates. You'll find some post-1980 choices to be far weaker when you do that, but so be it. Not so with the more historical ones. For example, Rocca & Perez are the 2nd biggest draws of 1958 & 59 while still top-10 in 57. That's better than any tag-team ever so it should be a done deal. The Vachons were top-10 draws in both 1969 & 70 when they were hot in the AWA - plenty of 10,000+ they headlined topped off with co-headlining the big 1970 Chicago show that drew 21,000/gate of $148,000 (largest documented in the US at the time) - and Canada where the feud with the Leducs did set records in several towns. Blanco & Wagner were perennial headliners from 66-74 and even the break-up stuff drew huge for years (20,000 for Blanc vs Wagner hair vs mask for example in 79 - 5 years after the breakup). Post-80, you're looking at a super hot Von Erichs for a brief period and Kawada & Taue as the key headliners. Steamboat & Youngblood, Toyota & Yamada, etc are more patchy/limited. Hart Foundation, Rockers, Bulldogs, etc are extremely limited. I'm ignoring individual careers for tag-teams, which I think Dave agrees with. So, no, you shouldn't vote for the Hart Foundation because Bret had a HOF singles run. They don't have to be full-time as a tag-team (many weren't including the Briscos), but their careers as a tag-team need to be HOF-worthy by itself. At least that's my interpretation of it. Again, taking Rocca & Perez as the no-brainers here, Rocca has an easy HOF career as a single pre/during/post tag-team run but ignoring that does the tag-team run hold up at HOF-level too? Answer is yes, it does. For single runs I *think* you take into account everything, which can cause logical complications depending on how thorough you want to be. I'm taking into account 6+ man matches where the team (Kawada & Taue) are in it, yes. Kawada & Taue won't have any issues getting inducted John. As a team they're clearly way past the bar In-ring and for historical significance. The drawing power is more than good enough too. I see them getting in easily. For tag-teams in general, Rocca & Perez with Kawada & Taue are my no-brainers. Then it's a shortlist of Briscos, Von Erichs, Vachons, Steiners, Toyota & Yamada, Blanco & Wagner and Villanos. All have strong, but different, cases. We'll see how I play this in the end.

Ishii has easily become the most overrated candidate on the ballot in my view. If a voter is doing the job properly and focusing on the criteria - drawing power, in-ring ability, and positive historical significance - then objectively Ishii can't make top 5 in that section. Look at these versus battles: Ishii vs Kawada & Taue ends with an Ishii L because he gets destroyed on drawing power & historic sig. Ishii vs Ibushi ends with an Ishii L because he gets destroyed on drawing power (see Ibushi's DDT run in particular) and historic sig. Ishii vs Takagi ends with an Ishii L because drawing power (Dragon Gate success) and historic sig (longevity on-top combined with world title run) clearly gives Takagi the edge. Ishii vs Naito ends with an Ishii L because he gets destroyed on drawing power & historic sig. He isn't so far superior to Naito in-ring to make up the difference here. Ishii vs Toyota & Yamada. Ishii takes in-ring because he has been at that top level for far longer than these two as a team. Drawing power - neither are great, but Toyota & Yamada headlined bigger shows and were in that era seen as bigger stars in comparison. Historical significance - easy W for Toyota & Yamada. Arguably the greatest women's in-ring tag team of all time - up there with the best the men had to offer. Ishii's a great, top-10, wrestler in his era but there is nothing "all-time" that I can add to his resume. Objectively, I don't see Ishii winning here. He relies on the longevity of his in-work to eclipse the main-event status and historic sig of Toyota & Yamada. Not for me. Ishii vs Fujiwara is the eye-opening contest. Drawing power: neither are really HOF-level draws but Fujiwara has the longevity-on-top combined with the habit of headlining major shows for years (vs Takada, Maeda, Inoki, etc) to clearly win. He flopped as a solo draw with PWFG but is proven as an major rival - that's more than Ishii who has never been a main event guy in any real capacity. In-ring: Ishii takes it because he's recognized in his era as one of the best around while Fujiwara really wasn't. I personally think they're equally great, but if you look at the Observer award scores - Fujiwara is shockingly low while Ishii is expectedly high. Historical significance: Fujiwara wins. He's seen as at the top of that secondary level (below Tiger Mask, Maeda, Takada, etc) and widely respected for the links to Gotch, the legit skills, the role he played in popularizing the UWF-style and everything that comes from it, etc, etc. He also trained a bunch of great wrestlers (Ikeda, Anjoy, etc) along with a HOFer (Minoru Suzuki). Ishii, in comparison, is recognized as one of the best in-ring workers of this era. That's his legacy as of today, and I don't think that's enough to beat Fujiwara. Depending on how influential he turns out to be, he might in future. So. We end up with a predictable 2-1 score for Fujiwara and an open question about whether Ishii is dominant enough in the in-ring category to sneak it overall. Objectively, I don't see it but the voters strongly disagree. Last year's numbers: Ishii 38% vs Fujiwara 23%. That's too big a gap for me to justify objectively. These battles have been oversimplified compared to how I really do this, but the result is the same. If a voter is going about this the right way, then sneaking Ishii into Japan's top 5 is going to be difficult. Very difficult. Bordering on impossible.

2015 Rumble is the worst of all time, but I'm not sure we can say it killed the town. 2015/12/14 Raw did 12,000, 2016/3/21 Raw did 14,267, 2016/12/12 Raw did 11,700, 2017/7/23 Battleground did 12,500, 2018/1/28 Royal Rumble did 17,629, 2020/3/8 Elimination Chamber did 14,853, and 2021/9/24 Smackdown did 11,506. You could say that Philly simply isn't an AEW town. The trend for them specifically is very bad: 9,000 on 2019/10/16, 7,043 on 2021/10/6, 6,000 on 2022/4/27, and 5,000 this past week.

Agreed re parallels to other sports/industries. See the disparaging commentary at the 1948 Olympics in London with regards to Fanny Blankers-Koen, who won 4 gold medals, and the way women are portrayed in films during the 50s, etc - desperate to marry rich older men or crazy loons who break up families & lead men astray. Those who succeeded faced an uphill battle and their achievements were very much against the grain. I disagree with the downfall being the early 50s. Tracking June Byers' numbers, 57/58 is when the number of shows she headlines drops dramatically. This coincides with the rise of localized women's titles (Texas, Georgia, etc). Similar thing happened to men during Dick Hutton's NWA title reign. The difference, of course, is that the men recover once you move to Pat O'Connor, Buddy Rogers, Thesz, etc. Women, once Moolah takes over, do not. I feel safe in saying that she held everyone back by many decades. I wouldn't put Livingston at the same level as the other three. She did indeed come before (mid-1910s-early 20s), and deserves a mention, but under no circumstances would you describe her as a headliner/draw. She mostly worked small shows and not in a headline capacity. She would've learnt the hard way that there was little interest in women's wrestling in that era. Fortunate to be married to Paul Bowser, who became one of the greatest promoters/booking agents of all time. I'd second the recommendation for Laprade & Murphy's book and add Jeff Leen's The Queen of the Ring alongside it.

This match made me research Clara Mortensen in more detail. She holds the crown as the first major female star in pro-wrestling - predating Burke, which will be news to a lot of folks. She consistently headlined shows in front of 5-6,000+. This includes 5,300 in Birmingham, Alabama, 5,000 in Shreveport, Louisiana, and a series of 5-6,000+ vs Burke in Chattanooga with the highest being 6,200 on 1/28/37. These are big numbers for those towns. In the matches vs Burke, Mortensen won the vast majority of the time. You won't hear about anyone else handing Burke the Ls that she did. Anyway, her time on-top didn't last long - 1936-37 - which may explain why history has forgotten her (she isn't in any wrestling HOFs as far as I can tell). As dreadful as the commentary consistently is for women's matches, it does provide important historical context on the environment they were battling against. With men constantly belittling them, determined to make everything they do seem like silly comedy spots, it makes the achievements of Mortensen, Burke, and Byers in particular seem far stronger. This was not an environment that encouraged women to draw in pro-wrestling. Very much the opposite. Yet, those 3 did so on a regular basis and, in the case of Burke & Byers, for many years. Long-term, sadly, men won the argument. Women's wrestling became mid-card nothingness post-Byers and stays like that in North America until 2014. 50+ years of awfulness makes you appreciate more the great that came before it. Especially when, all things considered, it had no business existing to begin with.

Hogan vs Orndorff is the greatest house show run of all time, in terms of business, so the repetitiveness of it may simply have been dictated by the numbers. Agreed on Steele being a great interview - clearly a smart guy. Would've made a decent booker in another universe. His view on who should be belted and who shouldn't has always stayed with me. Anyway, he speaks from experience on the "return" problem with Hogan - it didn't exist as much with Bruno. Steele himself, Monsoon, Kowalski, etc all drew well with Bruno many, many times. Hogan was booked so strong and getting anyone to be considered a credible opponent for him was borderline impossible for a while there. Post-87, the options were more limited but some fantasy choices still exist. Brody and Gordy probably being the most notable ones. Both would've drawn well, but obviously other stumbling blocks to making those feuds happen.

Dave was just being nice. When I said on the F4W board that Owen was factually the weakest promoter in the Hall and that he set a precedent for rewarding long-lasting mediocrity, Dave was one of the first guys to agree with me explicitly. It's in the HOF thread. He knows. But, hey, the guy got 60%. Dave isn't pissing into the wind on this - like I am. He's also currently involved in a long-lasting conversation about how to get deserving pre-1970 promoters inducted into the HOF as soon as possible (read the latest newsletter). Guys like Lou Daro, Johnny Doyle, Morris Sigel, etc. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines and figure out what triggered this conversation.

"Noticeably worse" is debatable, but Stu did do 7-8,000 in both Calgary & Edmonton through the 50s-70s, 4-5,500 in Saskatoon, up to 6,000 in Regina. His peak was probably the late 50s when he had access to Lou Thesz, Gene Kiniski, and lots of dates with NWA champ Dick Hutton (one of the few territories Hutton drew well in). Don Owen hit those numbers too but less consistently and in bigger towns (making them less impressive). Stu is the better promoter. Only noticeable if you dig deep into the numbers. He would be in a similar position to Don Owen re HOF candidacy had it not been for the training resume. He has 5 HOFers under his belt and a bunch of other good workers too.

??? Dave isn't behind Mistico. He flat out said he wouldn't vote for him and doesn't see him as a HOFer on the latest WOR.