ethantyler

Before the Reigns heel turn, you could've made the case that this was failure vs failure. From Kerry's perspective it's more of a "what could've been" story - yes, he and the rest of the Von Erichs were a big deal for a while but he really should've been so much more and, for reasons that we're all aware of, he wasn't. From Reigns' perspective, if you end his career with that babyface run then he has a strong case for being the biggest flop in pro wrestling history. No one comes close to that level of sustained failure on such a big stage in this business. But, the heel run is good and might save him - ongoing, tbd, etc. For now, I'd go with Reigns. Reserving the right to change my mind if he flops when they turn him face again.

This was on 1947-3-13, not 3-20 as the thread title states. Full card: https://www.wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=shows&show=245971 Date: Thursday, 1947/03/13 Venue: Boston Arena in Boston, Massachusetts Audience: 7.200 1) Brother Jonathan defeated Jack Kelly 2) 2 out of 3 Falls Match Bull Curry vs. Roland Meeker ended without a winner at 1 fall each 3) 2 out of 3 Falls Match Don Lee defeated Wilbur Nead 4) 2 out of 3 Falls NWA World Women's Title Match Mildred Burke (c) defeated Mae Weston by 2 falls to 0

This is the only footage we have (so far) of the relatively unknown Patsy Miller. She broke into the business in 1940, was billed as the "Texas Cowgirl" from Fort Worth, and that's all I've got. Mildred Burke needs no introduction. All of her footage is valuable and, as expected by those familiar with her, she's a beast. A real athlete who achieved more than she had any right to in that era. This footage was released to theaters on April 3rd, 1941 but the actual date for when the match took place is a little difficult to pin down because these two faced off frequently in early 41. I want to say March 24th, Camden, NJ or March 27th, Washington, D.C. but I could be totally off with both. Anyway, enjoy.

Taue has always been an interesting candidate to me because, on the face of it, proving he's a HOFer isn't that difficult. We know he ticks the historical significance box - they call it the four pillars for a reason. We know proving he, alone, was a real draw is impossible. So it comes down to in-ring ability. Calculate his Observer star rating average in the 90s, minus the matches that included the other pillars, what do you get? And how does it compare to everyone else in that era? An easy way to see if the "you could've put anyone else in his position and they would've done just as well" take has any validity to it. And yes, I know the star rating system isn't exactly objective but you've got start somewhere with this type of comparison. I was tempted to do the analysis myself this year but got too caught up in nerdy Bob Ellis research.

Talk about loaded with star power. We're dealing with 4 top 100 all time guys here in Bruiser, Gagne, Rocca, and Reggie Lisowski (the future Crusher). Rocca is clearly the star of the pack - one of those "entertainers" who would've been hated by the older wrestlers of the time despite clearly being a once in a lifetime talent. Bruiser's one of the biggest draws ever in pro wrestling but is still pretty green here - one of those unique characters that you'd find in the territory days that no longer exist anymore. Gagne ranks up there with Thesz, Rogers, O'Connor as the best in-ring worker of the 50s - underrated today because of how long he stuck around on top. Snyder is probably the strongest candidate to make it on the WOHOF and not get inducted - great worker, consistent top 10 draw, no real weaknesses. This is a fun, interesting, 6 man that's worth watching just to see how all this star power meshes together. The crowd reactions are very revealing too.

The Europe/Aus/Rest of the world section of the ballot is, in my opinion, the most competitive of them all (I voted for 4 guys in that section alone last year). Adding more names would only make it more difficult to get anyone inducted and risks eliminating guys who are deserving, but suffer from lack of voter knowledge. The names on that list, Phil, are likely to fall into this category. As would guys already on the ballot like Billy Joyce. The best UK wrestler of his generation, hugely influential for the likes of Billy Robinson & Karl Gotch, yet polled at 11% because voter awareness of UK wrestling pre-TV exposure is incredibly weak. From that list, L'Ange Blanc would be the strongest candidate for me. I'd suggest gathering support behind 1-2 current candidates and then adding him (or others) to the ballot as the best way of maximizing their chances of actually getting inducted. For what it's worth, my strongest two picks in that section would be Billy Joyce and Dominic DeNucci.

People underestimate just how badly Sarge bombed in the AWA. Check out the attendance/gate figures for yourselves. He didn't draw a dime, which suggests that his "star power" benefited greatly from the stacked WWF cards of the early 80s. Had Backlund stuck around post-title run, I'm pretty sure he would've struggled (even more than he did) to make it into the HOF as well. Also, the fact that he's still in kayfabe mode about serving in Vietnam is a problem for some voters. Bullshitting about stuff like that tends to go down badly.

Or, alternatively, it means that whoever put together that list didn't know as much about wrestling as you think they did. My evidence is short and sweet: no Jim Londos. The greatest draw in pro wrestling history. Credibility = shot out the window. I say this with as much respect as possible, if you managed to find 557 wrestlers ahead of Jim Londos in a "greatest ever" list then you simply don't know enough about pro wrestling.

Oh Reigns will certainly return to the ballot. He won't "get in easily" without an incredibly strong heel run though. According to the promoter himself, Jim Barnett, the top babyface in Australia during that era was Dominic DeNucci, followed by Spyros Arion, and then Mario Milano in 3rd. I'm actually pleased Milano has been knocked off because it may lead to more votes consolidating behind DeNucci, who should've been in ages ago but is hurt by the fact that most voters aren't aware of his success in Australia while being very aware of him being a mid-card tag team guy in the US.

Unless he has a really strong heel run, you're in for a rude awakening in a couple of years.

In a year that was looking like one of the weakest of all time (voting patterns had guys like Don Owen & Sputnik Monroe as favorites to get in), the final inductees have surprised on the upside. Those are 5 good names that are hard to argue against. Its been a good year for the voters. Job well done.

Which should tell you how Dave feels about Torres. He's borderline. Some historians campaign super hard for him and others, like me, are in the "meh" category.

Sent my ballot to Dave a few days ago. I'll post it here in case anyone else is interested (if any of my choices confuse people, just ask and I'll explain my rationale): I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES June Byers Cowboy Bob Ellis Rocky Johnson I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES Bill Goldberg Rick & Scott Steiner I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES Medico Asesino I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/PACIFIC ISLANDS/AFRICA Spyros Arion Dominic DeNucci Billy Joyce George Kidd NON-WRESTLERS Dave Brown Morris Sigel Ted Turner Stanley Weston I also recommended adding Dory Dixon to the Mexico section next year & Johnny Doyle to the non-wrestler section. Doyle, for me, is a no-brainer. Too much success in too many territories for too long a timeframe. He's forgotten because he passed away in 1969.

Torres is a super borderline candidate for me but I always edge more towards "no" than "yes". He's superseded, greatly, as a draw in that era by Baron Michele Leone who's never made it onto the ballot. He's superseded greatly for longevity, and is around the same level on historical significance & in-ring ability, by Bobby Managoff, who's also never made it onto the ballot despite many historians making his case over previous years. If those two are considered too borderline to get in, then I'm afraid so is Torres. For the historical candidates section, I'll be voting for Rocky Johnson, June Byers, and probably Cowboy Bob Ellis. I say "probably" for the latter because I need to double check his drawing power was as strong as I remember it being.

TV ratings would be the primary measure today. If someone is a star, we'll know about it via that measure - we sure did in the attitude era. By the way, most of the voters already take the lack of star power into account while putting more emphasis on in-ring work/historical significance. The Bucks are a good example of this - sure to be inducted based on in-ring work and historical significance alone. No one, in pro-wrestling history, has been as big a failure on top as Reigns. One of these days I'll do an analytical thread showing my evidence for that statement, but today is not that day since he's got no chance of being inducted this year. Suffice to say that 5 years of consistent, irrelevant, failure trumps any failure you could possible associate with Becky Lynch.

No, the WOHOF does not need to lower its standards to accommodate the modern, shittier, candidates. That's just ass backwards logic stemming from incorrectly attributing a flaw to the hall that actually belongs to the modern era. Also, Longevity never held back the list of Japanese women who were easily inducted before. Again, you're attributing blame to the HOF that actually belongs on the modern era of candidates.

Ronda Rousey has no chance because the lack of longevity argument is too strong to overcome. We already have established precedent for this (Danno O'Mahony). Becky Lynch is the first female wrestler in history to be the legitimate top star of a North American promotion. That was the case even after Ronda left - she eclipsed Seth Rollins quite easily. That automatically ticks the historical significance box. Main eventing WM is irrelevant since the draw for that show has always been the show itself and not the wrestlers - that's why the majority buy tickets long before any card is announced. The question marks for her will be over longevity (TBD) and drawing power. She moved ratings. Enough to satisfy voters? Meh. Probably not. Honestly, most of the current gen are going to struggle badly in the drawing power category. Most voters agree that the modern US section of the ballot is the weakest and it's only going to get worse over the next few years. I may vote for Goldberg and/or the Steiners in there, but that's definitely it.

The ratio will change if the increased importance of women in American wrestling leads to more women satisfying the induction criteria. It will not change just for the sake of it because the WOHOF is, for the most part, a meritocracy. Unlike the WWE version where you get token inductions to satisfy equality arguments. My go-to example here is Akira Hokuto. She was inducted because she was fucking awesome. Not because she was fucking awesome for a woman. The best candidate, for me, is June Byers. Becky Lynch may eclipse her depending on how the rest of her career (if she comes back) goes.

Yup. She trained them to work the same style as her too, which wasn't very good to begin with. Moolah is one of those that people assume should be a HOFer based on the WWE stuff, name recognition, etc. But then you dig into the details, as we've all done in this thread, and realize that she actually has no business even being considered, much less inducted.

I'd strongly recommend checking out Kowalski's record in the 1950s. He wasn't inducted because of his work as a trainer. He was inducted because he's one of the greatest of all time. In terms of drawing power, in-ring work, and historical significance. He literally ticks all of the boxes. A slam dunk. Going back to Moolah, she didn't train a single HOFer or anyone who we'd consider to be a HOF level worker. So that angle really isn't going to help her much.

Moolah dragged womens wrestling in North America back decades and it was only recently (2014-15ish) that the damage was repaired. She, along with the rest of the division during her era, was a mid-card attraction like the midgets. Being the leading star of a mid-card act isn't HOF worthy. The main categories of induction are drawing power (with a secondary consideration for longevity on top), in-ring ability, and positive historical significance. Moolah never drew, doesn't have any longevity on top, was average at best in-ring, and has more negatives than positives when it comes to historical significance. She doesn't tick a single box so no, IMO she shouldn't be back on the ballot. Though I'll comfort myself with the knowledge that if she does return, she'll never be inducted anyway. Mildred Burke is in because she was a draw, main evented, and really ushered in the era of womens wrestling. June Byers has a debatable case because she also drew and main evented to a lessor extent, was equal to Burke in-ring, and has positive historical significance although, again, to a lessor extent than Burke. Moolah isn't even remotely close to their level. I may vote for Byers, I'd never vote for Moolah.

More than you think. She's no Moolah. That's all I'll say.

This is the 3rd time on the ballot for the Steiners. They dropped off in 1998 and 2007. 2nd time for both Nash & Hall who also dropped off in 98.

Dave has confirmed that multiple inductions are not against the rules, but he's personally not a fan of them. "Cheesy and waters things down" he says.

I'm following this thread in case some of the voters have an answer to the Stan Lane problem. It's super weird to see him on the ballot again while the decision was made to put Perez on as a single. Rocca & Perez outdrew practically everyone in 58-59, single or tag, and should get in easily while Perez as a single was just another mid-card guy.