WON 2010

[Loss]

It's about time for Rey.

 

The Jericho bio is remarkably well-written for something I'm sure he had to put together quickly.

[jdw]

I suspect he's known for sometime that Jericho was getting in. Ballots were due at the end of last month. I know he use to keep track of WON Awards results pretty much as he got them:

 

"You won't believe this, but Sabu might win Wrestler of the Year."

-Dave in 1994 while ballots were still coming in

 

Setting aside Rey's qualifications, there really is something uncomfortable about a 35 year old going into the WON HOF. I really wish the age limit was pushed up to 45.

 

John

[KrisZ]

I think that Dave knew that Jericho was pretty much a lock anyway so he had that one ready to roll.

[jdw]

I'm hoping in a coming issue he comes through on his statement that he'll publish clear details on *votes* in each "region" and be each voter category. That "Top 10" that he did this week doesn't come close to answering the questions people raised last year.

 

John

[KrisZ]

I like how he used Chris Benoit as an example for the age/active wrestler thing to be addressed but I think Kurt Angle is as big of an example for it personally. Him getting in when he did was totally ridiculous and everyone should know that by now.

[rovert]

Something funny from Jericho's twitter:

http://twitter.com/IAmJericho

 

# Hello Internet experts. Allow me to explain something to u kiddies. Winning and losing means nothing if you do it properly. about 3 hours ago via TwitBird

 

# I would be happy to lose to every single one of you and watch your faces as I walk out of the arena with more heat than before. about 3 hours ago via TwitBird

 

# Watch and learn children. Sit back and let the real experts work our magic as we make u behave like the puppets that you are. Cheers! about 3 hours ago via TwitBird

Then later:

 

Was just informed that I was voted into the 2010 Wrestling Observer Hall Of Fame. Quite an honor!! 15 minutes ago via txt

[Al]

Setting aside Rey's qualifications, there really is something uncomfortable about a 35 year old going into the WON HOF. I really wish the age limit was pushed up to 45.

100% agreed. I'd like to see a system similar to the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. 25 years after debut.

[jdw]

Doesn't help much with Rey - he's past 20 years, and would get to 25 before reaching 45 years old regardless of how one counts it.

 

I'd just make it a straight 45 years old.

 

John

[Loss]

It would certainly make the voting more interesting.

 

Steve Austin, Mick Foley, Shawn Michaels and Undertaker would be eligible for the first time this year.

 

Eddy Guerrero and Kurt Angle would be discussed three years from now, and Benoit and Kenta Kobashi two years from now.

 

Jericho wouldn't even be on the ballot until 2015.

 

Liger would have showed up on the ballot for the first time last year.

 

Jim Cornette would have been on the ballot in 2007 for the first time.

 

Interesting.

[shoe]

I think the being 45 minimum age to get in is much better than the current 35.

[kjh]

I'm hoping in a coming issue he comes through on his statement that he'll publish clear details on *votes* in each "region" and be each voter category. That "Top 10" that he did this week doesn't come close to answering the questions people raised last year.

It's interesting comparing the votes needed for inclusion in the Hall Of Fame over the last couple of years:

 

Last year:

 

Votes needed for inclusion in the Hall of Fame: U.S. & Canada modern (121), U.S. & Canada historical (59), Europe (32), Japan (59), Mexico (45)

This year:

 

Votes needed for induction into the Hall of Fame: U.S. & Canada modern (109), U.S. & Canada Historical (81), Japan (69), Mexico (45), Europe (38)

By my calculations this means that there were 20 less U.S. & Canada modern voters, yet 36 more U.S. & Canada historical voters, 16 more Japan voters and 10 more Europe voters, while Mexico stayed flat. If there were the same number of U.S. & Canada modern voters as last year, Chris Jericho would have missed the cut by 6 votes. The Assassins and Hans Schmidt got enough votes this year to get in comfortably last year. Not really sure what this all means, but it's worth noting.

[kjh]

By the way, I hope this year's election results stops Dave from continuing to bang the "It's too difficult for modern performers to get in" drum.

[S.L.L.]

Doesn't help much with Rey - he's past 20 years, and would get to 25 before reaching 45 years old regardless of how one counts it.

 

I'd just make it a straight 45 years old.

 

John

Why an age metric vs. time spent in the business metric, out of curiosity? In 2010, I'm not really sure what more Rey has to prove in terms of a HOF candidacy. I don't think it would be unreasonable to wait until 2014 (25 years since his debut) to put him in, but 2020 (45 years of age), especially considering the way his body is going south on him, doesn't seem like a date by which he'll really prove much of anything more than he already has.

 

If 45 years of age is the standard, Chigusa Nagayo would have gone on the ballot for the first time this year. She hit the 25 years since her debut mark in 2005. Frankly, she seemed like a slam dunk when she was actually inducted in 1997. I'm really not clear on what she did between '05 and '10 that would give us a better picture of her candidacy.

 

Looking at the names Loss mentioned....

 

Austin goes on the ballot this year regardless of whether you use of 45 year old standard or the 25 years since debut standard. Likewise, Jericho would go on in 2015 either way, and Cornette in '07 either way (though I tend to agree with you that he should have been inducted with the Midnight Express, but that's besides the point)

 

Foley would have gone on the ballot in '08 by the 25-year standard. Has his TNA run hurt his candidacy so much that it would seriously affect him if he went on now? Would having that fresh in our minds really even paint an accurate picture of his career? 45-year standard may give us a less clear picture of Foley's candidacy if anything.

 

25-year standard would have put Shawn on the ballot last year. Same with The Undertaker and Liger. 45-year standard puts all three on the ballot this year. Doubt it would make a difference. Similarly, Eddie goes on the ballot in 2012 with the 25-year standard, and 2013 with the 45-year standard, so no real issues there.

 

Benoit would have gone on the ballot for the first time this year under the 25-year standard, and in 2012 with the 45-year standard. Both would have had a significant impact on his candidacy compared to inducting him in '03, but having an extra two years to think about it would likely change nothing.

 

Kobashi would go on the ballot in 2012 under the 45-year standard, but the 25-year standard would actually put him on a year later. And that brings up something interesting to me: if the idea is that 45 years of age will give us more distance and more time to reflect on someone's career than 25 years since their debut, you forget that some guys get late starts and end up hitting the former benchmark before the latter. They're shitty candidates any way you slice it, but if time and contemplation is your thing, would you rather put Paul Heyman and Kurt Angle on the ballot this year and in 2014, respectively (when they turn 45), or 2012 and 2023 (25 years after their debuts)?

 

Rey not being a certain age when he goes into the Hall might seem weird to you, but I have to think that using a metric related to someone's actual wrestling career makes more sense as a standard than age.

[jdw]

The reason the original age/debut line was set was because of the joshi wrestlers: they "best candidates" all were from an era where everyone retired at 25. Hence, they all were 10 years past their "careers". That even considering those who were returning around then: Chigusa, Jaguar and Lioness. Their real careers of note were back from 15-25. At the time, holding off on them until 45 (20 years after their original retirement) didn't seem to make sense.

 

Our problem is that we built a rule to deal with a relatively small number of candidates and applied it to everyone.

 

If one were to restart it, I'd go with a simple 45 with an exception carved out for joshi wrestlers who retired between 1970-90 due to the age limit. Just what that carve out would be... perhaps 10 years post retirement more than enough.

 

I prefer 45 years old to 25 after debut for the reason you hit upon: folks like Kurt Angle sitting around until they're 54.

 

Vader:

2002 - 45 years old

2010 - 25 years past debut

 

2002 has a bit better feel for someone like him who debuted late. I tend to think with Kurt that 2014 isn't bad at all. 2024 seems a bit long.

 

For most wrestlers, the 45 vs 25 ends up being fairly close. Bret and Benoit and Eddy it's extremely close.

 

I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with waiting until Rey is 45. If everyone is 45, there would have been plenty of folks hitting the ballot infront of him.

 

Raising it now is a bit of a problem because the field has been cleared and we'd likely end up voting in a bunch of folks who probably weaker candidates. It probably would have been better to move thing up to 40 five years ago, and 45 for "new" guys by this point. Or back in 2000 move it to 40 (when it was pretty obvious that it was becoming an issue and joshi no longer applied), and then 1 year every 2 years until it was up to 45:

 

2000 - 40

2002 - 41

2004 - 42

2006 - 43

2008 - 44

2010 - 45

 

If you're 39 in 2000, you're hitting the ballot in 2001 (when you turn 40). If you're 38, you're hitting it in 2001 (when you turn 41 and the rule is still at 41). It may sound complicated, but it's easy to mock up a spreadsheet. I recall putting one together back when we first started arguing about 40/45 20/25... which I seem to recall led to that really strange discussion on Classics about Maeda.

 

John

[rovert]

I don’t know if you guys listen to Ringside Rap, I do depending on the guest. This week the normal host Rich Tate was sick so it is just Mike Sempervive and Les Thatcher who have awesome chemistry as a twosome discussing the HOF. Nothing ground breaking but a real pleasant listen.

http://blogtalkradio.com/psp/2010/09/09/ringside-rap.mp3

The show returns this week talking about the results from the outset of the show:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/psp/2010/09/2...lembed=download

[shoe]

For me the 45 age limit works better. A lot of these candidates that got in weren't close to retirement, they were in the prime of their career. I think it hurts the HOF when guys are still working on a national stage at age 39 and get into the HOF. HHH is still headlining and he's in the HOF. People bring up Angle all the time as a glaring example of a guy who went in too early. With a 45 age limit minimum Angle's career is looked at in a different light. Benoit would be the same thing. Their is no rush to get put in the HOF. If the candidate is strong enough time shouldn't hurt his chance at making it into the HOF.

[Sean Liska]

It seemed like there were a few new stories in the Jericho bio that I had not heard before. I wonder if he spoke with Chris before putting it together.

[Ditch]

I'll bring up a rather macabre reason to not lift the age minimum... the number of wrestlers who die before age 45.

 

I don't see where 40 would be a problem. In the case of Angle, it would have pushed things back from 2004 to 2008, and by 2008 people were looking at him quite a bit differently. Benoit died just after turning 40, so I'm not sure how that vote would have gone down, but I'm sure it would have effected things and either forced him to not be considered for a while or... SOMETHING. I dunno. 45 seems arbitrarily long and based mostly on Angle.

[tomk]

My own belief is that Albano was among the strongest candidates on this year’s ballot. Of the 70s performers, I think the two overlooked guys are Albano and Ivan Koloff. Koloff was a pushed star in every territory he worked and a big drawing card as a Russian heel, as well as a good worker. What seems to hurt him is that a lot of voters started seeing him in the late 80s, when he was past his prime, but got the national exposure with Jim Crockett Promotions. I think he was also hurt greatly from a career standpoint when he was rushed out of the WWWF in 1971 after losing the title to Pedro Morales, at a time when he had record level heat for beating Bruno Sammartino.

 

Albano carried the WWWF territory on the heel side for more than a decade. He was one of the five greatest managers of all-time. What hurt him is that he had gone downhill late in his career when people outside the Northeast started seeing him. Plus, he was strictly WWWF/WWF, and when he was at his peak, only people in the Northeast saw him. While the angle with he and Cyndi Lauper was a groundbreaking angle for pro wrestling, that was the tail end of his effectiveness, and he was not good after being turned babyface or in subsequent comebacks. But the 70s version of Albano, when it came to drawing money as a manager, was probably the most effective manager of all-time, and one of the better managers on promos. His physicality when it was called for was not good. Albano did decently in every category but strongest among historians.

So I've never any of this Albano pimping before.

 

My impression was that for 70's era WWWF managers, he was always thought of as less than the Grand Wizard, or Blassie.

 

Carried the heel side of the WWWF for a decade? Most effective manager of all time? Top five of all time?

 

I mean the original HOF inductees included Heenan, Cornette, Wild Red Berry, and Blassie. So I assume those are the other four in top five of all time?

 

jdw was around when the other four were discussed. Did number five come up at time?

[Dylan Waco]

Is Albano even a top ten manager? Top fifteen? Dave is a huge mark for wrestlers that have mainstream crossover appeal and I have to imagine that lies at the heart of this.

[jdw]

I mean the original HOF inductees included Heenan, Cornette, Wild Red Berry, and Blassie. So I assume those are the other four in top five of all time?

 

jdw was around when the other four were discussed. Did number five come up at time?

Dave wouldn't rate Blassie that high. He would have Jimmy Hart in his place.

 

The "carried the heel side" doesn't sound right. Someone should track who was the manager of each heel that main evented MSG in the "Albano Era" - i.e. the person who was opposite the Champ and/or the Heel Champs. I don't think Lou come out on top.

 

John

[Johnny Sorrow]

Growing up in the area watching the TV, Lou Abano was THE manager in the WWF.

 

Edit: The Murdoch arguement going round and round on WO radio with Dave and Larry Matysik and Alverez popping in here and there to show he knows these names is interesting.

[rovert]

Worth noting that Heyman did a major, major hype job for Albano shortly after his death on WORadio.

[Jingus]

Back on the age limit topic, I have a question. Do any legitimate sport halls-of-fame induct people who are still active players? I know it's a different dynamic since you can wrestle long after you would have retired in any real sport, but it still seems odd to induct a guy who is still wrestling on television every week.

 

The age limit at 45 is indeed arbitrary, since you could in theory get a guy like DDP or Batista who started really late and then got into the HOF long before they have decades-plural in the business. Or, as mentioned, a fellow like Rey who started really early and would have to wait a pointlessly long time to get into the Hall. If the point is to just keep another Angle from happening, why not lay down a simple 10 or 15 years-in-the-ring qualification? That keeps any flash in the pan from being prematurely inducted, and also doesn't seem needlessly long for anyone who might have already done plenty enough to be worthy of getting in.

[kjh]

People bring up Angle all the time as a glaring example of a guy who went in too early. With a 45 age limit minimum Angle's career is looked at in a different light.

I don't think the WON HOF voters view Angle's career in a different light. I imagine if he was on the ballot this year, then he'd get still more votes than Rey or Jericho and get in much more comfortably than he did originally.

 

By the way, over at the f4wonline message board Dave has been debating the Sting as a candidate compared with Jericho. Some of his talking points are a bit odd:

 

Sting in the late 80s and early 90s in Japan was a bigger star than Jericho was because he was a U.S. superstar.

 

When Jericho goes to Japan now, because he has the perception as being one of our guys who made it big, and because he works Japanese style and is usually put in with a Japanese favorite, he's a far bigger star than Sting ever was in Japan.

By that criteria, drawing money, Jericho is far ahead of Sting. He was No. 90 of all-time at the end of 2009. That's not a slam dunk number, but more guys at that level are in than out.

In the early 90s, someone calculated what the top guys in WCW at the time would have made if they were paid on a percentage like WWE was paying, and it was one-third (and in 1993, one-fifth) of what they were making. Instead of $500,000 it would be $100,000 to $150,000. Jericho on his percentage has million dollar years now and they aren't losing money on him. Mysterio has been doing $1.5 million year and God knows they aren't losing money on him because his merch percentage is so low and that's where he generates most of his money. Granted, it's a 20 times bigger company but the point is WWE has made more money off Jericho and Mysterio while Sting cost WCW money most years he was employed by them. That doesn't disqualify him, but you can't use it as a positive. And the amount of revenue generated isn't close. Granted, bigger company, but even by the standards of the time, what numbers show him as a bigger draw then anyone who is currently in?