Dylan Waco Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 So as outlined elsewhere Dave has been running polls on the website with list of potential HoF candidates. John also has a thread at Classics for discussing the same issue (new, different candidates missing from the ballot). In this thread I'll look at the candidates in the polls, one poll at a time. If I think the person should be on the ballot I'll bold them. If there is a greater than fifty percent chance that I would vote for them I'll put them in italics. If I feel like I don't know enough either way I'll note it and move on. Ultimate Warrior On the one hand Warrior is a better candidate than Angle in my view. While he didn't work out as champion, he didn't bomb to the degree some others did and he was at least something of a draw for a couple of years. The Skydome Mania match was hardly the first "super" match in WWE history, but it was a major face v. face match on the biggest ppv of the year in front of one of the two or three biggest crowds in the history of the promotion at that point. He is still one of the most recognizable names of that era, moved a lot of merch, when he came back to WCW popped a major rating (before shitting the bed), et. There are at least some measurable plusses. Having said that his peak run was really short and I don't think anyone would lobby hard for him for the HoF. Seems crazy to put a guy on the ballot unless their being on the ballot will increase research/discussion on the person that might uncover new things or there is an actual constituency for that person to be elected in the immediate. Warrior fails on both fronts. Kerry Von Erich I'm not positive I would vote for Kerry, but I absolutely could be convinced to do so so I put him in italics. If we had RnR HoF rules The Von Erichs sure seem like a unit that should go on, but then you do have the problem of trying to isolate what unit. As an individual Kerry was a part of that huge Texas boom and headlined lots of major shows as a result. I tend to think the Freebirds are what set the territory ablaze but the Birds minus the Von Erichs would not have worked. Kerry getting his head slammed in the door is what kick started things. Kerry winning the title from Flair is one of THE matches people think of from that time period. For at least four years Kerry was a MAJOR draw in wrestling no matter how you slice it. Excluding the occasional drugged out performance and time off for injury Kerry was also a very good worker for the entirety of the 80's. He's not a home run candidate and there are plenty of negatives (short peak, never drew again after the collapse of World Class, was a drugged out mess toward the end, et.). But I think of someone like Chris Jericho as a sort of middling candidate that I'm not hugely opposed to but I'm not sure really should be in. I think Kerry is lateral to Chris and would lean toward saying he was a better candidate if forced to choose. Rick Martel Should be on the ballot because it will encourage people to think more about that period of the AWA and also encourage people to look more into Montreal (well I'm speaking ideally here but you get the point). I wouldn't vote for Rick based on what I know but his in ring work has been underrated over the years. Looking back on the footage it's clear he was a much better worker than you would think based on how much he is talked about now (not much). Probably a top three AWA worker for the 80's, and while his championship run did not draw outside of Canada, it did not bomb nearly as bad as people seem to think. Was a red hot opponent for Buddy Rose in 1980 in Portland and I suspect if we had more research done on Montreal we would find that Martel was in fact a draw there. The WWF stuff is mostly irrelevant. Killer Karl Kox Still haven't read the bio Meltz did so I'm not going to comment. BlackjackMulligan I don't know enough to comment but the Blackjacks SEEM like an important team and Mulligan is still regarded as a huge deal where I live so I wouldn't be seriously opposed to him on the ballot. Archie "The Stomper" Gouldie I don't know a lot about Gouldie BUT there is no way he shouldn't be on the ballot because in my view if you are widely regarded as the top star in the history of a territory you should at least get a shot at the ballot. I have seen numerous people suggest that Gouldie was the most important single figure in the history of Stampede. My understanding is that he was a fairly big star later in TN as well though that's not where his strength as a candidate would be. Baron Von Rachke What's the argument for the Baron? From what I can tell he was never the top guy or even in the top four or five guys in any territory he was in. Am I wrong? Bill Eadie Would need someone to convince me that he belongs. He's someone I want to know more about as I know he was a star in Georgia, WWF, et but I don't know the scope of it. Demolition Axe is actually a pretty good "post-prime" relative to a lot of other guys for whatever that is worth. Tiger Jeet Singh How big of a draw was Singh? I know he did some big figures over the years but was it long standing and consistent? Chavo Guerrero Sr. Was a huge star in LA based on everything I know and I've heard that he was a big star in Texas too. Great worker during his prime. I'm being a little generous with my "bold" here, but if it could get people to dig into LA figures I'd back it. Dick Slater What's the argument? I honestly don't even see him as a "hall of very good" candidate. Johnny Powers I have no clue how well the Pedro Martinez fed drew and the only source I've heard talk about it is Powers so I am skeptical. He claims to have been a big draw in Canada and the States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I once asked Meltzer why a promo guy as good as Stomper used a mute foreigner gimmick outside of Western Canada. He said it was because Gouldie's runs as the Mongolian Stomper drew better than Archie "The Stomper" Gouldie did. Good enough promo guy and big enough star that he should be in the ballot, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Dylan, explain the title. What did I miss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Meltzer is running polls on whether or not various guys should be on the HoF ballot in the future. Results are in the WON thread in the megathread forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I've seen a lot of Ultimate Warrior matches and promos the last year or two. It's fun to make fun of the Warrior but I really feel like people jump on him a little too much. His promos are goofy and out there but he gets the point across. You have to pay attention but you usually know what he was talking about. His matches weren't all that bad in the 1989-1991 range. He had good matches with Hogan, Savage, Rude, Slaughter and even a few of the Undertaker matches weren't all that bad. I'm not trying to claim that the Warrior is this hidden gem or anything. Just that he has a little more merit than most people are willing to give him credit for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Meltzer is running polls on whether or not various guys should be on the HoF ballot in the future. Results are in the WON thread in the megathread forum I meant the Loss reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Sorry. Loss mentioned in the other thread that he wanted to expand on his point that the HoF is effectively full at this point and everyone that could come up on the docket is basically just a way of keeping the thing alive rather than getting deserving people in. At least I think that was his point. Hence the concept has outlived itself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Baron Von Rachke What's the argument for the Baron? From what I can tell he was never the top guy or even in the top four or five guys in any territory he was in. Am I wrong? He had a good run as the top challenger to Verne in 1974-75. I've always sort of thought of him in the same vein as Ivan Koloff: He could have filled Koloff's role as the guy who beat Bruno and had three weeks as WWWF Champion. One of the reasons his switch to face in the AWA as the avenging angel for an injured Mad Dog Vachon was so hugely received was that he was such a consumate heel for so many years before that. I doubt that helps much, but Raschke was a pretty big name for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm gonna go back and look at the 70's results on the Baron. I trust your judgment but want to see what the picture says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't see how Warrior is that much better a candidate than guys like Angle or Brock. His run on top was awfully short, and wasn't he drawing a bunch of shitty houses as champion in the latter half of 1990? Add that to inconsistent-at-best ring skills and a work ethic which was infamously shitty even by the standards of rassling, and his case isn't so good. The only major thing in his favor is that Jake The Snake Syndrome deal where a really disproportionately high number of former casual fans still remember him fondly long after he hung up his boots. (Hey, that brings up a notion: is Goldberg in the HoF?) Also would like an explanation of Tiger Jeet Singh. He's one of the worst fucking wrestlers ever, a sixth-rate Sheik knockoff, and is notoriously selfish and unwilling to put anyone else over at practically any time. But I'm admittedly pretty ignorant on his 70s heyday and exactly what difference he made to the fledgling New Japan's bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Sorry. Loss mentioned in the other thread that he wanted to expand on his point that the HoF is effectively full at this point and everyone that could come up on the docket is basically just a way of keeping the thing alive rather than getting deserving people in. At least I think that was his point. Hence the concept has outlived itself Yes. I'm not saying every single person who should be in is already in. I am saying that it seems like we've crossed a threshold of inducting obvious people, and now we're just arguing almost entirely about borderline candidates. When that happens, does it mean less to be in the HOF? Wrestling has happened less and the system has produced less stars in the last decade than in any other 10 year period ever. Hans Schmidt should probably be in. John Cena should probably be in. The Rock & Roll Express should probably be in. Jerry Jarrett should probably be in. I'm sure there are others as well. But we seem out of slam dunk picks after Cena goes in this year. If, from here, keeping the HOF open means someone is just going to get in every year, then I think the HOF will weaken over time and in a decade, we'll be inducting anyone who ever had a modicum of stardom. A HOF needs an industry that continues to churn out worthwhile candidates to stay relevant. That isn't happening. Therefore, the concept feels self-serving now. We induct people every year because someone has to go in, not because there are still dozens of worthwhile people to induct (without lowering the bar). While I don't think anyone is arguing candidates that they don't think deserve to go in, I do think most of the people being argued now would not be argued if the system were still producing stronger picks. It just seems like it's run its course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm gonna go back and look at the 70's results on the Baron. I trust your judgment but want to see what the picture says. Understand that I'm not advocating him as a HOF candidate, but I do think he was more of a star than he sometimes gets acknowledged as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Jake Roberts I like the idea of Jake on the ballot even though I wouldn't vote for him because he's a good barometer. Jake to me is one of the all time greats at getting over angles. I can't think of a single non-main eventer who has as many memorable angles as Jake's. Jake is STILL a name casual fans remember and it's not just the gimmick. People remember the Arrongance angle/blindfold match, depantsing Rude, DDTing STeamboat on the floor, Damien being killed by Earthquake, Jake's WCW debut, the snakebite angle with Savage, et. His brand is something people remember far more than many main eventers. I know he was involved with some hot angles in Mexico in the 90's though I have no clue to what extent he was a hanger on. In a way I almost seem as a bulwark candidate in the sense that I can't imagine voting for him, but he would be a good tool to point to and say "this guy you support is better than Jake how?" Barry Windham I doubt I would vote for Barry unless there came a deluge of guys going in based purely on ring work at which point the whole "evolving standards" thing Loss is bemoaning means Barry would become a really viable candidate. Still I think anyone who was as good as Barry should at least be given a serious consideration. I would be interested to see if he had any value to the Florida promotion as a draw. Based on the footage we have he was a strong worker from 81-93, with some extremely high peaks. One of the all time great tag workers and widely regarded as one of the great natural talents of all time. It's not uncommon to run into people who think Windham at his best was the most gifted U.S. worker of his era. If I was going to vote for someone based purely on work Barry would be one of the first people I would consider. Rick Rude I am a huge Rude fan but he's basically a lesser version of the Jake Roberts candidacy. Remembered but not as well remembered as Jake and though his in ring peak was excellent and better than Jake's it lasted all of one year. Every time he was given the top belt in a company it bombed and his I-C title run is nowhere near enough to offset that. Davey Boy Smith I like Davey as a worker more than most, but he never gained traction as a main event player and was never even a consistent secondary player that stood out of the pack. I'm actually struggling to think of a clear plus for DBS as a candidate. Lex Luger I actually want to go back and look at Luger's career more, but I think a ballot with room for Sting should have room for Luger. Luger was a better draw opposite Flair than Sting and in fact was a very strong drawing opponent for Flair in general. As with Rude he has one peak year that really jumps out at you (89), but he also had some really strong years on the front and back end of that. The WWF run was a bust, but he came back to WCW and really got over the Sting angle, popped some big ratings (pretty sure his Nitro title run did a strong number), et. Can't remember if he was a solid part of any buyrates or not, but he doesn't have a minus as big as Sting's bust as the "company ace" in the early 90's. Again I wouldn't vote for him but I see practical value in having him on the ballot. Then again I don't think many of the voters compare guys the way I do. Scott Hall I think Hall's Ladder Matches and NWO had a better impact on the sport than he is sometimes remembered but he is a clear peg down from someone I would feel comfortable putting on the ballot. Bam Bam Bigelow I don't see a case. Really feels like an underachiever in just about every respect. The one major plus is headlining Mania v. LT and the fact that isn't something that even immediately jumps out at you. Adrian Adonis Adonis is interesting in that he has journeyman cred and was a player a lot of different places, but he was never around any place long enough to get a real feel for his strengths as a draw. From memory Flyers v. East-West and Backlund v. Adonis did draw well. Adonis was very good in Portland in 79 though he wasn't over to the degree Martel would be in 80, let alone Piper or Rose. Not sure if he ever did any real business in Southwest and he and Murdoch were in NJPW during a business down turn IIRC. Adonis would have to be a super worker to get in and while I think he was a very good worker I don't think he was THAT good a worker. Some people have told me he is a better candidate than Blackwell but I don't see it. I could be swayed on him though. Yokozuna Has he ever been on the ballot? I'm actually a really big fan of Yoko's and would love to be able to formulate a strong case for him, but I don't see it. He did headline two Mania's, was a very good worker for a guy his size, and his tag team with Owen was super underrated. But that's not enough. Sid Vicious Well he did headline two dome shows that drew in excess of 60k (not paid, but still) Big Bossman Can't see it. A memorable gimmick, and I think his series with Hogan may have done good business, but what else does he have going for him? Seems like a huge stretch. Scott Norton Well he did headline the second biggest drawing card in wrestling history In all seriousness I'd be interested to see how much value he had as a draw to NJPW. I don't think there is anyway in hell he had HoF level drawing power, but I'm curious as to if he was booked like a gajin threat consistently. I honestly don't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm gonna go back and look at the 70's results on the Baron. I trust your judgment but want to see what the picture says. Understand that I'm not advocating him as a HOF candidate, but I do think he was more of a star than he sometimes gets acknowledged as. Actually I've been meaning to ask you - what AWA candidates do you think should at least be on the ballot that aren't? Obviously I think Patera, Blackwell, The High Flyers and Martel should all be on the ballot if nothing else. Do you agree with those names? Am I missing anyone obvious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Big Bossman Can't see it. A memorable gimmick, and I think his series with Hogan may have done good business, but what else does he have going for him? Seems like a huge stretch. His series of matches against Vader in WCW were good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Those four entries are the obvious ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Killer Karl Kox Still haven't read the bio Meltz did so I'm not going to comment. Cribbing from the Meltzer bio: Master psychologist who you could make an argument to get in for that alone. Hall Of Fame level star in Australia where he was arguably the hottest heel ever in the territory. Probably just under that level in Japan, where he had a few early tours where he was pushed as Giant Baba's main rival and even beat him on occasion. Stuck around too much in the Texas territories, particularly Amarillo where his home was, meaning that in later years he spent quite a lot of time in the mid card. Imaginary friend Alex gimmick was sometimes a drawback in taking him seriously as a top babyface. Deserves to be on the ballot as an international candidate. Not sure the sum of the parts would have been enough to get him in originally, but you can say the same for King Curtis Iaukea, though I think Iaukea on paper is a stronger candidate than Kox. Seems like a Murdoch level gatekeeper candidate without the run in Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 The other thing to mention about Warrior is that his return at WrestleMania XII stole the show from Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, the two biggest WWF stars of that era. Not that I would advocate him going in, but he's certainly better remembered and more famous than many of the modern day candidates already inducted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Bam Bam Bigelow I don't see a case. Really feels like an underachiever in just about every respect. Totally agree. It's funny, you always hear about how Bam Bam was a great worker, but watching his ECW stint, which to me is probably his best, I just don't see the great performances. There's always something missing. He was a good worker yes, but never quite got to the next level, never pushed anyone to the next level. I finally settled on the idea Bam Bam is not that good of a worker and that I shouldn't except anything great from him, and with that in mind, I'm much more comfortable with Bigelow's work, which is always fun, but never great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 What about some more of the non-wrestlers? Gene Okerlund - one of the faces that was synomymous with wrestling during both boom eras as well as in the AWA. Don't see the argument against. Jesse Ventura - why isn't the best colour man in the history of the business inducted? Ok, he was shit in the ring, but he was a decent draw in his day too. But Ventura's commentating career is brilliant from start to finish. Has as much right to be in there as Dick Lane. Howard Finkel - so Jimmy Lennon is in but 'The Fink' isn't? Who is more important to the history of wrestling? I don't see the argument for Lennon, you might as well induct Michael Buffer. If there is one ring announcer to be inducted, it should be Finkel. End of. If it's two, then the Gary Michael Capetta should be the second one. Maybe Boyd Pierce after that. Tony Schiavone - why not? Why Lance Russell but not Tony? He worked NWA/ WCW for almost 20 years. Apart from Flair, there is no man who links all the different eras of Crockett more than Schiavone. He is disliked in the industry, but I don't see how there is an any argument for him not be there when Kent Walton is in. Gorilla Monsoon - well, logic dictates if you have Schiavone, you've got to have Gorilla too. WON might hate him. All of you might hate him. But Gorilla is one of the important announce men in wrestling history. You can debate about whether or not history would have been the same if it had been someone else, but Gorilla was extremely effective at getting over angles and subtle in-ring traits of performers. He's been accused of getting himself over and of burying guys, again, I don't see the argument that Lance Russell, JR and Walton make the cut but he doesn't. If Dave didn't have such prejudices, he would have been in in 1996. I think ALL FIVE of those have a better claims than anyone mentioned in this thread so far. I really do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Okerlund I think played a role in the success of the WWF in the 80s, because his interviews helped get wrestlers (and Gene himself) over. So I would listen to a case for him. The rest of them were just passengers during successful business periods, and weren't the reason the company was successful, so I'd say no -- easily -- to all of them. It speaks volumes to Jesse Ventura's ability to self-promote that anyone thinks he has anything resembling a HOF case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Monsoon and Ventura are already on the ballot. Finkel and Okerlund should be on. I know Finkel wasn't that important from a business standpoint, but given that there is a precedent for a ring announcer being in the Hall Of Fame, he's deserving of being on the ballot. Regarding Schiavone if he deserves to be in, then you'd have to put in any announcer who worked for a major promotion or territory for a significant amount of time. Looking at the latest polls I see Dave has included Tommy Dreamer in people worthy of consideration to be put on the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm sure this is a silly question, but humor me. If Ventura didn't define the role of the weekly heel announcer, who did? I'm trying to think from the various stuff I've seen. Even Ole was a face when he was an announcer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Is there a heel announcer in wrestling in 2012? That answers the question. Yes, he defined it, but it's a meaningless role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Is there a heel announcer in wrestling in 2012? That answers the question. Yes, he defined it, but it's a meaningless role. There is but he's the biggest problem with the product, but that's an issue of execution, not concept.. well and Vince being nuts. And regardless of that, it was a style that lasted twenty years, at least, through two booms. I don't think you can dismiss it so easily. 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.