evilclown

Neither here nor there, but I don't think Dave feels this way at all. We had a long discussion about it once at a UFC event and I think Cornette's role as a WWE booker would make him an even better candidate in Dave's mind. Not sure who to vote for. Want to think about it a little more before I turn it in.

Is there a good starting point for reading about him?

I really liked Steve Williams and he was gracious enough to talk with me. But HOFer? That's a head scratcher.

I haven't done much research specifically for this, at least yet, so these are the candidates that interest me at first glance: Gene & Ole Anderson: A weak class of historical candidates, but there is something here. Maybe it's because I grew up in the Carolinas, but these guys had an aura about them, even years later. I disagree with the idea that staying in one territory is necessarily a negative. I think it's also incredibly complimentary—their act obviously played well enough that they didn't HAVE to move to another territory. John Cena: The closest thing to a main event star the business has seen in a decade. If not Cena, who? Rock & Roll Express: Just as good as the Midnight Express and more important to the box office. I don't know about this team, but I was a big fan. Sgt. Slaughter: Interesting candidate. Excellent worker in his day and a top star for several years. But the gimmick's staying power, or lack thereof, maybe kills his candidacy. Volk Han: Best technical wrestler I've ever seen. If there is such a thing as a "worker" candidate, it doesn't get better than Han. Non Wrestlers: Jerry Jarrett: Great promoter. Innovative promoter. Certain guys being in before him eats me up. Gorilla Monsoon: I love Monsoon as the voice of our first national promotion. I'd like to know more about his role behind the scenes. Thoughts? How am I wrong? Why? I'd like to know.

What weight do you give Lesnar's MMA success? Can, or must, this be considered? If you only consider pro wrestling, he's a horrible candidate.

There is a thread over at Classics where Yohe was pushing him as someone who had to go in. I will work on this happening.

I also have a ballot this year. Question for the veterans of the process: has there ever been a movement to get Gus Sonnenburg in the HoF? He was the biggest star in wrestling for a couple of years and a box office draw for a decade.

Thanks

Where can I get this stuff?

How much time do you have on that? John Actually, I don't know it will ever happen. Total MMA had a second and third printing, but the MMA Encyclopedia didn't thrive and never will. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts though, and can change things when the rights come back to me eventually.

Thanks all for the kind words. Dylan, I'm interested in which areas felt "off." If we do well enough, I can have them fixed for a second printing. Also, an Amazon review would really mean a lot. I know it takes a few minutes, but it makes a huge difference for online sales if you can add one. Thanks. Jonathan

Wrestling companies looking to MMA for help should consider that TNA outdraws the Ultimate Fighter and equals UFC on FX events. WWE programming kills UFC programming. Why would you turn to something that draws less eyeballs than pro wrestling to invigorate your wrestling product? I do think there is a room for an MMA inspired character. Shooters have always had their place in the business. But it should be used sparingly, as a gimmick, not as a direction for an entire company.

I think it was more a matter of "Greg Gagne-itis." Dustin just didn't have it. He's a fine wrestler, nothing more, and to pretend he was held back by the man doesn't seem quite right. The truth is, if he wasn't Dusty's son, no one with his look/physique/ability ever gets his spot.

This is an aside, but I think you really hurt your cause when discussing someone like Shawn and using Dustin Rhodes as your comparison. It's been the "cute" thing to do for a long time in these circles, but it is a bad approach for any attempt to substantively discuss Michaels or reevaluate his place in history. I understand the shock value of it. But when you use someone who wasn't especially well received at the time (or historically) by most fans, the strong points you make are lost. When you are preaching to the choir it may work. It doesn't work for any kind of discussion with anyone outside this narrow circle.

Some factors in this: 1. Theatricality: I love the broad comedy of a Shawn Michaels match. While others prefer a more realistic style of bumping and selling, I enjoy HBK's ramped up version of the Flair/Race model. He was often put in the position of making his opponent appear to be monstrous and this was a good role for him. 2. Big Match Performance: I understand the argument that he dogged it at house shows or when he wasn't interested. I've only seen him a couple of times at a house show and that was after his return and he was playing for comedy. That's okay with me. At a certain point you go to shows just to see your favorites in the flesh. What matters to me is whether he delivered on a show I purchased looking for him to put on the "Shawn Michaels Show." Whether he reportedly had a good match in San Jose or San Antonio on the road is of no interest. 3. Moments: I'm a sucker for those Pat Patterson moments that you never forget. I think that's way more important than the body of a match, which satisfies me if it has a couple of clever spots and never drags. I like the pathos and flair someone like Shawn can bring to the table when the match is on the line, when a near fall goes the wrong way, when the surprise heel turns, etc, etc. It's the same reason I'll always take Kobashi over old Crow's Kawada. Give me a sign you've got blood in your veins please! 4. Drama: Not just in the match itself. There was always something going on beneath the surface of an HBK match. What were the political implications? Who was going over? What was the mood in the locker room? Shawn's matches always told two stories, the shoot and the work. They were about characters and about people. Was that intentional? A fluke that benefited a legitimate sociopath? Either way—wildly entertaining.

I'm probably among a handful of people who have seen many if not most of your holy grail wrestlers and matches, yet remain steadfast that HBK is one of the best wrestlers I've ever seen.

I don't know, Stann vs. Lombard was a much easier fight to hype to the public with Stann's military background and Lombard's undefeated streak. Shogun vs. Vera has nothing going for it. I know people would have complained about it, but they would have been much better doing Shogun vs. Machida III and Bader vs. Vera on the undercard. They need to make Stann and I trust UFC to know how to push his background, but he needs a name opponent to pop a rating, and none of the name Middleweights or former Middleweights are available. Franklin and Wanderlei are booked, Leben is suspended, Hendo is booked for a title shot at 205...Bisping would've worked well but he was booked on another show and then got injured. They can't make Stann. That's the problem. Either you're good or you're not.

I don't understand the UFC's plan for Fox at all. And they aren't really open to discussing it rationally.

This is a blatant shill from a regular lurker, infrequent poster. My new book is out this week, all about wrestling's real life tough guys. I hope you'll consider buying it, telling your friends about it, etc. http://www.amazon.com/Shooters-The-Toughes...=zg_bs_16594_38

Actually, being "wrong" in this case was the most right thing that could have possibly happened for Vince and co. I wish I could be wrong that successfully once in my life.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

My Bleacher Report debut features interviews with both Morton and Nash as they (possibly inadvertently) borrow from the headlines for a wrestling angle this weekend. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/890895-...e-class-warfare

I vaguely remember a bit of "Saint Mania" after he did some M Pro shots in the 1990's. American hardcores have wanted to love him for quite awhile.

Sorry. I'm doing this 80's wrestling book and am on a real wrestling kick. I probably shouldn't share too many opinions or risk offending all the Windham fans. I like to watch Windham, I do. I have one of those mammoth Windham collections. Maybe that's the problem? I find isolating one wrestler like that makes it hard not to get a little sick of him after a disc or two.

The thing about Windham that strikes me is how little charisma he had. There's just a void there where there was supposed to passion and will. I think that's why he wasn't embraced by the fans the way he has been by hardcores. There was never really the feeling that Barry Windham cared about what was going on. It always seemed like he was going through the motions, though they were beautiful motions.