JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 What is the argument for Lesnar going in based on his pro wrestling career? Well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 What is the argument for Lesnar going in based on his pro wrestling career? Well? MMA is Pro Wrestling, Jerry. Have you watched MMA, Jerry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 I watch MMA. Have from the start. Pro Wrestling isn't MMA. MMA isn't Pro Wrestling. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Well, I didn't even spell his last name right, so obviously he was a nobody in pro wrestling. Seriously though, his career was simply too short to be seriously considered, despite any great strengths he had as a performer. There literally must be 100 candidates with better resumes. Still, based on how the winds are blowing these days, my gut says he gets in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 What is the argument for Lesnar going in based on his pro wrestling career? Well? MMA is Pro Wrestling, Jerry. Have you watched MMA, Jerry? Yes, I've seen it. And ... what? No it isn't. For a start, pro wrestling is worked. MMA is a shoot, correct? How are they in any way the same thing? Because they have belts, entrance music, do promos and their matches take place in a ring? Come on. Is Boxing pro wrestling too? I don't see how this can be argued unless MMA is worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 The most glaring omission is Schmidt. John I pretty much agree with this, but unless you have done the research or (as I have) looked at the research, numbers and strengths others have compiled Schmidt just comes across as a name to a lot of the voters. That is the problem with the pre-modern era candidates. Frankly it is astounding how close Schmidt got this year. I do basically agree with Loss as well that the Rock N Rolls are upper tier of the names currently left on the ballot. What are your thoughts on DeGlane as a candidate John? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Observer poll results from the Friday update -- Which of these people is the strongest Hall of Fame candidate? John Cena 36.1% Brock Lesnar 23.7% Buddy Rose 14.6% Hiroshi Tanahashi 10.4% Domenic DeNucci 5.0% Sharpe Brothers 3.0% Mario Milano 2.8% Johnny Barend 2.8% Masahiko Kimura 1.7% Amazed that some people find Buddy Rose a better candidate than John Cena, and I loved Buddy Rose, was his friend and trained with him. I'm the biggest Buddy Rose booster there is and I would not vote for Rose over Cena. Having said that the really "amazing" thing here is that almost a quarter of the reader base that voted thinks Lensar is a better candidate than Rose. Frankly Tanahashi getting ten percent is far more ridiculous than Rose getting 14. It is interesting to see Rose finish third here even if it is a distant third. The problem is he'll be in a category with those other two guys and I think the propaganda campaign against him as a serious candidate has already started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 The most glaring omission is Schmidt. John I pretty much agree with this, but unless you have done the research or (as I have) looked at the research, numbers and strengths others have compiled Schmidt just comes across as a name to a lot of the voters. That is the problem with the pre-modern era candidates. Frankly it is astounding how close Schmidt got this year. What are your thoughts on DeGlane as a candidate John? Eventually I will work my way through this whole thread and comment on earlier stuff, but I want to suggest people read the Enrque Torres obit as I think he feels like a really strong interesting candidate to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Shame you missed the tail end of the McAdam meltdown over at Classics in the Blackwell thread Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 What is the argument for Lesnar going in based on his pro wrestling career? Well? MMA is Pro Wrestling, Jerry. Have you watched MMA, Jerry? Yes, I've seen it. And ... what? No it isn't. For a start, pro wrestling is worked. MMA is a shoot, correct? How are they in any way the same thing? Because they have belts, entrance music, do promos and their matches take place in a ring? Come on. Is Boxing pro wrestling too? I don't see how this can be argued unless MMA is worked. He's being sarcastic. It's becoming a talking point of Dave Meltzer that wrestling and MMA are exactly the same thing, except one is worked and the other isn't, based on the promoting style of convincing people to pay to see matches between people they care about. We both know that means the promotion is similar, not any other aspect, but he is pretty locked into this view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 I think Torres is wothy as well, and voted for him. Just think Hans was a bigger star, and frankly think in the context of his time is a terrific worker in what I've seen. It's not just one match. On DeGlane... we know next to nothing of his European career. His US career doesn't strike me as remotely close to warranting inclusion. Had a long conversation with Steve about it on the car ride out to PWG tonight, and tossed McMillan and Browning at his as bigger stars in the US, and he pretty much agreed that he didn't have a good comeback to that... nor that either of those two were slam dunk candidates. Heck Steve was more high on Danno than he is on DeGlane. I tend to think that 1925-40 is pretty well represented. I'm not saying pefectly represented and that there isn't a major star in there who doesn't warrant consideration. But it's not poorly represented. If we look to add someone from that period, I'm not at all sold that DeGlane is the #1 candidate based on what he did in the US. I just think that several voters got enamoured with DeGlane for some reason. I wasn't involved in those discussions where folks got enamoured with him, so have a hard time even attempting to get across what they were thinking. I think... he's just not a strong candidate. I have difficulty getting across to Steve and through Steve to others that they really need to focus on a candidate at a time. Figure out who is #1, and build the case for him. Then when he's in, move onto the next. Then the next. Etc. Instead, the bounce all over the place. They think the job is as well done as it will even be for Hans, so they're looking around at others. DeGlane got tagged for reasons that beat me. Steve's now distracted on Snyder, which I think is an utter waste: Steve doesn't think Snyder deserves to be in based on what we know, and seems intent to walk through the data to show it. Well... look at the votes Snyder had this year. He's not freaking going in anytime soon. So why waste the time on someone you don't think should go in... when they're not going in. It just distracts him away from stenghtening the case for Hans. I generally try to avoid getting dragged into those discussions because the lack of focus and organization makes me feel like it's banging your head on the fucking wall. I suspect that's how I missed the DeGlane stuff in the past. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Hall of Fame debate really needs to start with "who is the best deserving candidate?" rather than "is wrestler X deserving?" The latter question leads to a Hall of Fame ballot like this one. Look at next year's list. 71 candidates! My god, that's overkill. At this point I think the process needs an overhaul, specifically creating a method of paring the nominees down to 20-30 total. A runoff perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 I assume the Deglane push was just a response to new category Europe opening up and there being lower level of votes needed to get in there. I have no idea why the Historical candidates section is only US and Canadian. But if you're a guy who cares about the historical candidates and it turns out that Kinja Shibuya did a tour of the Bahamas and is moved to the "Pacific Island category", you vote for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Hall of Fame debate really needs to start with "who is the best deserving candidate?" rather than "is wrestler X deserving?" The latter question leads to a Hall of Fame ballot like this one. Look at next year's list. 71 candidates! My god, that's overkill. At this point I think the process needs an overhaul, specifically creating a method of paring the nominees down to 20-30 total. A runoff perhaps. Completely agreed. That's a ridiculously long ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Totally disagree. I prefer the ballot being bigger for two reasons. The first is I don't trust Meltzer and co. to chop it down to the right 20-30 guys. The reality is that if fthey are working on a 30 person limit for a ballot (let alone a 20 person limit) guys like Edge and Lesnar will be on the ballot every year. Guys like Shibuya, Blue Panther, hell even the R N R's might not even make the cut. You can forget about Buddy Rose ever getting on the ballot or anyone else like that. Second reason is I think the number of names on the ballot helps with points of comparison. At least in the theory it gets people asking more questions about everyone. Whether or not that aspect works the way it should I don't know, but if I was a voter I think I'd find it helpful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Dylan, I wouldn't suggest taking the chopping away from the voters. Quite the opposite. An ideal re-worked process might carry these three parts. (I say might because there's several ways to skin a cat.) 1. A solid nomination process. At this point wrestlers are added randomly at times. Perhaps a petition where 5% of voters, or a portion of Observer subscribers can nominate a worker for the ballot. This actually could be an excellent way to get the general viewing population involved. 2. A runoff. Take the current ballot as an example. Have your voters take a poll on them, and the top 20-30 go to the final ballot. That's the same voters as now, just a different process. Not Dave and company deciding the ballot. 3. Those 20-30 on a final ballot, flat 60% for induction. What you do here is not change the standard for induction. You still need 60%. What you do is streamline the final ballot. Otherwise you get an issue where there are so many qualified candidates that no one can reach a consensus. You get few qualified inductees, a backlog forms and eventually there's a backlash and the backlog gets admitted alongside candidates that are not as qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 If you are going with 20-30 candidates on a final ballot, and people are still allowed to vote for up to ten guys, I really can't see a good reason why the needed percentage for induction shouldn't go up. If that is supposed to represent the creme of the crop, where consensus should be fairly obvious, 60 percent seems awfully low. I don't agree with the proposal in general, but even if I did I would think that needed percentage should rise to 75% - maybe higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 I am pleased that Atlantis gets that much support among active wrestlers, also amused that Edge is top ten candidate amongst retired wrestlers but his actual contemporaries don't buy that. And in all the talk about Buddy Rose and Lesnar....what is the case for Dominic Denucci? For North East Italian, has Illio Dipaolo ever been on the ballot? For tag partner of giant draw, has Miguel Perez? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Meltz buried Cien Caras as a HOFer last night saying that he was never a HOF guy at any time of his career. Wow. Looks like we need to start the push for Groups again as a way to get the Dynamite Brothers in. BTW, since Cien Caras (and the Dynamite Brothers) were clearly a big draws, what would keep Cien out of the HOF? Could it be... Bringing over from wrestlingclassics Matt, in this week's WON, Dave took an amalgram of your lists above, and came up with the top 15 eligible HoF candidates who headlined + 10K crowds. That list is: 1. Batista 133 2. Edge 129 3. Atlantis 127 4. Cien Caras 120 5. Dr. Wagner Jr. 112 6. Carlos Colon 89 7. Sgt. Slaughter 86 8. Pedro Morales 82 9. Sting 81 10. Villano III and Blue Panther 76 12. Vampiro and Kensuke Sasaki 73 14. Ivan Koloff 72 15. L.A. Park 67 Dave said there were other factors he wanted considered. Pointing out things like when the promotion is hot, and the guy is part of the mix, not the actual draw. Specifically pointed out Atlantis as having a lengthy career with being in the top mix in trios matches during 2 major boom periods, but was never really THE guy. He came up with a list that was based on the performer as a draw based on "the standards of his time". He didn't exactly define what this meant or the methodology used at arriving at his contrasting list: 1. Pedro Morales 2. Perro Aguayo Jr. 3. Ivan Koloff and Batista 5. Sgt. Slaughter 6. Henri DeGlane 7. Cien Caras and Wilbur Snyder 9. Hans Schmidt 10. Atlantis and Dr. Wagner Jr.] So according to Meltzer, Cien wasn't as big of a draw as we perceive him to be. Meltzer didn't say exactly how he came to that conclusion. I asked Mat if he could provide the list of matches which make up the lucha totals, and he hasn't been able to do that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 what is the case for Dominic Denucci? I remember reading somewhere (probably Meltzer) he was one biggest stars of the old 60s/70s Australian WCW promotion when it was on fire. For tag partner of giant draw, has Miguel Perez? I know Perez was basically dismissed as being a non-factor as a draw unless he was teamed with Rocca. Otherwise, I don't know much else about the guy other than he receives little to no respect by historians, despite the fact only a dozen or so guys in New York/WWE history were part of more big drawing main events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 No actually it's about the guy who drew more among PRO WRESTLING FANS for three straight years, 2008, 2009 and 2010 than anyone else. Who do you think accounted for hundreds of thousands of those buys on every Lesnar show? NFL fans? University of Minnesota students from 1999? Should that count. I'm leaving that to the voters. Anything I say here will get people crying about it in irrational manners. But it's more than a valid reason to put him on the ballot. The Liddell example was ridiculous. Shamrock less ridiculous but there's only one show (Shamrock vs. Ortiz II) where you can make an argument that Shamrock drew more wrestling fans than anyone in wrestling was doing at the time. With Lesnar, not only can you make the argument for three years straight, but it would be very difficult to deny the argument and the only person you could argue would be Cena. Should is matter? The fact it did for Sakuraba means he should be voted on. Shamrock was voted on as well. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 So, the Rock drawing wrestling fans to movie theatres should count for something. This pro-wrestling = MMA stuff is so stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 No actually it's about the guy who drew more among PRO WRESTLING FANS for three straight years, 2008, 2009 and 2010 than anyone else. Who do you think accounted for hundreds of thousands of those buys on every Lesnar show? NFL fans? University of Minnesota students from 1999? Should that count. I'm leaving that to the voters. Anything I say here will get people crying about it in irrational manners. But it's more than a valid reason to put him on the ballot. The Liddell example was ridiculous. Shamrock less ridiculous but there's only one show (Shamrock vs. Ortiz II) where you can make an argument that Shamrock drew more wrestling fans than anyone in wrestling was doing at the time. With Lesnar, not only can you make the argument for three years straight, but it would be very difficult to deny the argument and the only person you could argue would be Cena. Should is matter? The fact it did for Sakuraba means he should be voted on. Shamrock was voted on as well. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I would take this "drew the most wrestling fans for three straight years" talking point a lot more seriously if it was applied across the board. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "The French Angel" Maurice Tillet the top draw in the World for three or four years during a down period in the forties? He's not on the ballot, never has been and I will almost guarantee you never will be. JYD may not have been the single biggest wrestling draw from 80-83 (though I suspect he was), but he was a record setting one, far better by comparison to Lesnar when Lesnar was on top of an actual wrestling promotion. JYD then went on to be one of the bigger secondary faces in the biggest promotion in the World where he drew well on top of the "B" shows. He's never been on the ballot. Goldberg was a draw for around three years if you add up his WCW drawing period with his WWE run. During his WCW run he was one of the two biggest draws in the country, during the biggest wrestling boom in the history of the country. To this day he is a name that regularly comes up in my neck of the woods when discussing the biggest stars in wrestling history. He's not on the ballot and likely never will be. 08-10 was not a high point for the business. Perhaps The French Angel is the best comparison because of that. Maybe Lesnar is a better candidate than Tillet. I don't know. But when you consider the fact that he had seven "matches" during his peak drawing years and as actual pro wrestler was not as strong a draw as Lex Luger I have a hard time seeing him as an HoFer, unless one subscribes to the theory that "guy who drew the most over three year period" has to be in. If that is the case Tillet should be in, JYD almost definitely should be in and Goldberg at least deserves to be on the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Let me show an example of the problem of too many candidates on a ballot. Here's the 1960 Baseball HOF voting. http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_1960.shtml No one garnered the 75% necessary for induction. No one reached 60% either. 40 of those players eventually made the Hall of Fame. Lefty Grove got 2% and he was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. With so many deserving candidates and only so many votes to go around, no one gets elected. Not to say there are 40 deserving candidates for the Observer Hall, but there are clearly good candidates getting passed over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 How in the world does Dave know how many pro wrestling fans bought UFC PPVs to see Brock Lesnar from 2008-2010? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.