WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[Dylan Waco]

Sputnik Monroe

 

I'd like to see him on the ballot. If the desegregation stories are even half true it is something fairly major even though I'm unsure as to how much it influenced the rest of the South. Memphis Heat seems to suggest that he and Billy Wicks did great business opposite each other. Not sure how long his run was he is a name in history that seems like it is worth closer review.

 

Sweet Daddy Siki

 

He helped train Edge which is a big negative in my book Major star in Toronto and one of the more recognizable looking guys in wrestling. I am a fan, but I don't know that he is a serious candidate. puropotsy may know more.

 

Waldo Von Erich

 

Obviously was a heel star. Not sure he was even a top three guy with a Nazi gimmick. Think he was one of many good opponents for Bruno, but I never got the feeling he was a stand alone star or even the sort of touring heel that was guaranteed money against a variety of aces.

 

George Scott

 

Feels like he should be on the ballot. I have heard people arguing that his booking wasn't really that successful and others argue that it was masterful and super important. The Scott Brothers were a major tag team that worked a lot of places and drew money here in the Carolinas. I think if you combine both things he should at least get a crack at the ballot.

 

Mike DiBiase

 

Was he ever THAT big a star? IIRC he feuded some with Dory Sr. in Amarillo and I know he wasn't a cellar dweller, but he's not someone that comes up a lot when you hear about people from that era.

 

Sailor Art Thomas

 

Pretty big star in the early 60's. Not sure how big a deal he was in relation to other black stars of the era.

 

Pampero Firpo

 

Another guy who had one of the early wild man gimmicks. Not sure he was ever a draw of any note anywhere, nor am I aware of a period where he was a consistent top guy for a territory. Possibly Detroit?

 

Ricky Romero

 

The lead non-Funk star of the Amarillo territory. Perhaps as large a star as the Funk's at certain points and in certain towns. I would need some real data to look at and I don't know how long his run was. But he is someone that might be worth digging into at least.

 

Buddy Colt

 

Major heel star for the Funk's and also allegedly one of the better drawing cards in the history of Central States. He was also a star in Florida and Georgia though I think his status as a main eventer in those territories may have been overstated by some after his death. I'm not averse to Colt if his biggest fans are right about him being a big draw, but I would need numbers to prove it.

 

Dutch Savage

 

Second biggest draw in Pacific Northwest history after Buddy Rose. Was pretty much the face of the company that handed off to Buddy in 77. Not sure how well regarded he was in the ring, but he was also a star in Vancover when that meant something. I could be convinced he deserves consideration, though I'm not sure there are any numbers from Owen's territory.

 

Sammy Steamboat

 

I know he was a major star in Hawaii. Not much else. I've heard he was overrated as a performer by some people over the years, but I never really knew anyone who rated him.

 

Duke Keomuka

 

Certainly a major name in Texas. I don't know how successful he was elsewhere, but any time you talk about Texas history he seems to come up. Kind of like Romero in that he is at least worth digging deeper into.

[JerryvonKramer]

Lord James Blears

 

Primarily a tag worker from what I can tell. I know some say he was a good in ring performer. He was a pretty questionable announcer in the AWA. I assume he must have been a major star somewhere for Dave to have included him on the list. Seems weird to put him on here soley as a guy held a bunch of tag belts.

Wasn't this the guy who had some Jack Tunney-style role in All Japan for like 20 years? "Commissioner" or PWF Chairman or something. Stan Hansen took over from him in 2001! Apparently he held that post from 1974 till 2001. He would have been 79 in 2001. Shit.

[PeteF3]

Sweet Daddy Siki

 

He helped train Edge which is a big negative in my book Major star in Toronto and one of the more recognizable looking guys in wrestling. I am a fan, but I don't know that he is a serious candidate. puropotsy may know more.

The first black heel of any note (maybe the first ever, period). That was a pretty bold move at the time and has to count for something, though I'm not sure how much.

 

Sailor Art Thomas

 

Pretty big star in the early 60's. Not sure how big a deal he was in relation to other black stars of the era.

Not saying it's enough to keep him out, but if work is a factor then he's going to get docked. Even his biggest fans admit that he wasn't much in the ring and got by on presence and likability far more than skill. I can't fathom how he could have been as big of a deal as Bobo, either, and once we start talking about "second-biggest" I personally start looking elsewhere. (Which, again, doesn't mean "no"--but it's pretty unlikely).

 

Buddy Colt

 

Major heel star for the Funk's and also allegedly one of the better drawing cards in the history of Central States. He was also a star in Florida and Georgia though I think his status as a main eventer in those territories may have been overstated by some after his death. I'm not averse to Colt if his biggest fans are right about him being a big draw, but I would need numbers to prove it.

Colt is still alive. It was Bobby Shane who died in the same plane crash, while Colt had his career ended. Stuck around for almost the entire rest of CWF's existence as a color commentator, though not a good one, thanks to being miscast as a babyface. I have to think he's in that category with Magnum T.A., Bo Jackson, and J.R. Richard. Even if he was HOF-bound, he didn't actually get there.

[rzombie1988]

Waldo was one of Bruno's top rivals here in Pittsburgh along with Bill Miller.

 

Pampero was one of the Sheik's draws/mainstays in Detroit.

 

I think Duke may have been a name in Hawaii also. He really comes across as someone who was big in Texas from what I've read.

 

I would not have Show in there by any means. Like alot of guys that will be coming through, he will have the WWE benefit of them not being able to come up with new stars and needing to use the same older guys forever. His in ring work has gotten better over the years, but I'd put him below both Kane and Edge and I don't think either is a good choice.

[Loss]

Big Show is someone I would argue should be nowhere near a Hall of Fame. He's become good with time, and I think a lot of it can be attributed to him being brought into wrestling in such a weird way and being booked inconsistently, but he's the definition of underachiever for me. Had he reached his potential, he'd be a top guy and major draw, and the most feared guy in wrestling.

[Jingus]

Big Show had kinda already been ruined before he ever hit his prime. Debuting in the goddamn Dungeon Of Doom in the midst of what might've been Hogan's worst-ever face run sure as hell didn't help the fledgling Giant, nor did monster trucks and a complete inability to ever pin Hulk in anything even resembling a clean finish. In fact, looking at his bio, it seems like he wasn't treated like any kind of unstoppable monster in his freshman year. Lotta DQs on that list, plus a few jobs to Sting and the like. His few title defenses tended to be squashing such luminaries as Craig Pittman, and let's not forget that stellar minifeud with Giant Haystacks. And then he stepped into the WCW/nWo Revolving Face-Heel-Face-Heel-Turn Door OF DOOM and never stepped back out again. And despite his remarkable displays of relative agility, he never quite figured out how to put it all together and have consistently good Big Man Matches.

 

Then he went to the WWF, and we all know how that went. Debuted in a hot angle, but was almost immediately shoved back down the card into a do-nothing role. He turned no less than 3 separate times within a six-month span (yeah, it was 1999 and Russomania was running wild, but still: 3 times?!), and feuding with Kane and teaming with Taker felt more like killing time than anything else. His first title win was a fluke outta nowhere, being a poor substitution for Stone Cold in a 3-way match. Which of course was in the middle of a fucking endless feud with a way-past-his-prime Big Bossman, which resulted in months of Wrestlecrap and Botchamania fodder. And then he was abruptly turned heel again and needlessly added to the Wrestlemania main event, before promptly getting turned back face and now doing the comedy impressions gimmick, before being shipped down to OVW to lose weight (which he seemingly never did).

 

After all that, is it any wonder that nobody gave a damn about him by the time he really managed to find his groove? Kinda like the Red Rooster did for Terry Taylor (although admittedly nowhere near as badly), the stupid bullshit which filled up his early years made plenty of fans just not give a shit about the guy.

[GSR]

Mean Gene Okerlund

 

5. Charisma - he had this vibe of having been around the block and being nobody's fool. Okerlund's on-air personality was that he was a shrewed operator with a hint of being a guy who liked a cocktail or two after hours and an eye for the ladies -- the latter part became sleazier into his WCW career. But whichever way you look at it he was a BIG personality. You couldn't call him a bland company man.

What has someone's 'Charisma' got to do with it when it comes to determining whether someone should be in the Hall of Fame?

 

Charisma is part of the overall package (be it a strong or weak point) in pretty much everyone associated with pro wrestling, is it not?

 

IMO it definitely has it's place when talking about someone's credentials in a discussion like this.

Whilst Charisma is absolutely part of the overall package associated with pro wrestling, I personally don't see the relevance it has to someone being in the Hall of Fame or not. With say Benoit, would the fact that he had zero charisma have been held against him? Would that have even been bought up? With Jericho who went in fairly recently would his charisma have been mentioned? How about Steve Williams who went in last year? The only guy who I could see it as having been discussed would be Rock. Just my opinion mind.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think it is absolutely crucial, yes.

 

I reckon if you did a straight up "Who should be in the HoF, Dory Funk Jr. vs. Terry Funk" poll that Terry would beat Dory by over 90%. Why? What's the big difference.

 

Comes down to charimsa in my view. Dory was probably the better NWA champ too.

[Loss]

Terry is not a better candidate than Dory because of his charisma. He is a better candidate because he drew more money and was a better worker. Maybe he accomplished those things because of his charisma, but the HOF is about accomplishments, not traits.

[rovert]

I think it is absolutely crucial, yes.

 

I reckon if you did a straight up "Who should be in the HoF, Dory Funk Jr. vs. Terry Funk" poll that Terry would beat Dory by over 90%. Why? What's the big difference.

 

Comes down to charimsa in my view. Dory was probably the better NWA champ too.

Dont let Dylan see this post SERIOUSLY

[khawk20]

Terry is not a better candidate than Dory because of his charisma. He is a better candidate because he drew more money and was a better worker. Maybe he accomplished those things because of his charisma, but the HOF is about accomplishments, not traits.

Charisma often translates into the enhanced ability to draw money, does it not?

 

"Accomplishment" is such a confusing concept to me when talking about Pro Wrestling, given that you have to have something special to get noticed and pushed.

[Matt D]

Isn't "being a better worker" a trait?

[Loss]

Being a better worker is a trait, yes. Having better matches is an accomplishment, which Terry did. What good does it do to be talented if you do nothing with it? Some of the most talented guys in wrestling history have no business in a Hall of Fame because they weren't able to translate that talent into a good career. Barry Windham was more talented than Ric Flair, but Ric Flair did more with his talent than Barry Windham. Buddy Landell has done some of the best promos of all time, but he squandered so many opportunities that he has no business in a Hall of Fame. Jesse Ventura was a funny, entertaining guy -- probably more so than Jim Ross or Lance Russell -- but I don't know what the WWF ever had to show for that, which is why I'm skeptical of his HOF case.

 

And khawk, that's what I said if you re-read my post. It's not the charisma that puts Terry ahead of Dory. It's what he did with it.

[khawk20]

And khawk, that's what I said if you re-read my post. It's not the charisma that puts Terry ahead of Dory. It's what he did with it.

that did seem like it was there when I read it the first time, but it just didn't read right to me. Reading comprehension in the morning =

 

carry on...

[JerryvonKramer]

Doesn't charisma make someone a better worker?

[Loss]

Yes. Did I say anything to the contrary?

 

I said charisma alone is meaningless unless it results in good matches or money drawn ... some type of tangible accomplishment.

[Loss]

Big Show had kinda already been ruined before he ever hit his prime. Debuting in the goddamn Dungeon Of Doom in the midst of what might've been Hogan's worst-ever face run sure as hell didn't help the fledgling Giant, nor did monster trucks and a complete inability to ever pin Hulk in anything even resembling a clean finish. In fact, looking at his bio, it seems like he wasn't treated like any kind of unstoppable monster in his freshman year. Lotta DQs on that list, plus a few jobs to Sting and the like. His few title defenses tended to be squashing such luminaries as Craig Pittman, and let's not forget that stellar minifeud with Giant Haystacks. And then he stepped into the WCW/nWo Revolving Face-Heel-Face-Heel-Turn Door OF DOOM and never stepped back out again. And despite his remarkable displays of relative agility, he never quite figured out how to put it all together and have consistently good Big Man Matches.

WCW did a better job using Show than the WWF in spite of all that, but I always wonder what could have been if WCW sent him to New Japan for a year before even getting started in the U.S. at all. Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything, but I think it's an interesting topic to ponder. While they broke in during a fairly successful time, Goldberg and Giant both had tons of potential -- some of it realized, some of it not -- and came into a really fucked up system where the headliners did as little as possible to get by instead of trying to have good matches, there was open drinking in the locker room and people could just coast on past success. So I think that's how they learned wrestling and Show probably fell into that, while Goldberg may not have, but he didn't really have anyone guiding him.

[Matt D]

Being a better worker is a trait, yes. Having better matches is an accomplishment, which Terry did. What good does it do to be talented if you do nothing with it? Some of the most talented guys in wrestling history have no business in a Hall of Fame because they weren't able to translate that talent into a good career. Barry Windham was more talented than Ric Flair, but Ric Flair did more with his talent than Barry Windham. Buddy Landell has done some of the best promos of all time, but he squandered so many opportunities that he has no business in a Hall of Fame. Jesse Ventura was a funny, entertaining guy -- probably more so than Jim Ross or Lance Russell -- but I don't know what the WWF ever had to show for that, which is why I'm skeptical of his HOF case.

Alright, I can get behind this mentality, but only in this specific situation (though of course, it IS what we're talking about). If we're talking about something other than a HOF, I still don't feel confident with "great matches" as the indicator since opportunity is a huge thing. Tito Santana, for instance, if he had spent his career in Memphis or Crockett or Mid South might have had a slew of much better matches.

[JerryvonKramer]

Here's the thing though, with non-wrestlers, you can't really point to facts and figures or saw how much they were a draw.

 

The case has to rest on a guy's quality and such things as being associated with and contributing to hot promotions at their hottest time.

 

Charisma has to be part of Okerlund's case. That's one of the reasons we're talking about him and not Craig DeGeorge right now. It's one of the reasons why even if Michael Cole stays with the company another 10 years+ he wont be thought of as HoF worthy. It's an intangible, sure, but it has to play a part.

[Loss]

Being a better worker is a trait, yes. Having better matches is an accomplishment, which Terry did. What good does it do to be talented if you do nothing with it? Some of the most talented guys in wrestling history have no business in a Hall of Fame because they weren't able to translate that talent into a good career. Barry Windham was more talented than Ric Flair, but Ric Flair did more with his talent than Barry Windham. Buddy Landell has done some of the best promos of all time, but he squandered so many opportunities that he has no business in a Hall of Fame. Jesse Ventura was a funny, entertaining guy -- probably more so than Jim Ross or Lance Russell -- but I don't know what the WWF ever had to show for that, which is why I'm skeptical of his HOF case.

Alright, I can get behind this mentality, but only in this specific situation (though of course, it IS what we're talking about). If we're talking about something other than a HOF, I still don't feel confident with "great matches" as the indicator since opportunity is a huge thing. Tito Santana, for instance, if he had spent his career in Memphis or Crockett or Mid South might have had a slew of much better matches.

 

Well, we're talking about a HOF, which is what actually happened, not a chance to right wrongs. If someone makes the argument that Tito is better than someone pimped in JCP, they're going to have to change the framework beyond just a list of best matches in order to effectively make the case ... most likely.

[Matt D]

We're not just talking about a HOF but about a specific one with specific criteria that have been used over the years (for the most part at least). It's just about the only time that we, as a community, really care about drawing when comparing one wrestler to another.

[Loss]

Here's the thing though, with non-wrestlers, you can't really point to facts and figures or saw how much they were a draw.

 

The case has to rest on a guy's quality and such things as being associated with and contributing to hot promotions at their hottest time.

 

Charisma has to be part of Okerlund's case. That's one of the reasons we're talking about him and not Craig DeGeorge right now. It's one of the reasons why even if Michael Cole stays with the company another 10 years+ he wont be thought of as HoF worthy. It's an intangible, sure, but it has to play a part.

Charisma alone doesn't mean much, unless you can say Okerlund used his charisma to get over Wrestler X, who became a huge draw, or Okerlund's segment with Wrestler Y was huge and played a big part in him being a star. I agree with you that gates can't really be used to make a case for an announcer, but there are still tangible accomplishments we can point to in order to build the case. The more I think about it, the more I like Gene for the HOF because I do think he and Hogan were great together, but not because of his talent alone ... because of what he accomplished with his talent.

[JerryvonKramer]

If the HoF is just about drawing then I don't know why half the guys there are there. Or why anyone would ever mention Chris Benoit in connection with it because it's total bullshit that he was ever a draw.

 

And Warrior is a shoo-in

 

And if it's only about "what happened" then the case Okerlund I outlined can be replaced with:

 

"Gene Okerlund was with AWA when it was hot, then he moved to WWF and his tenture coincided with the boom period, he left the company in 1993, just before the WWF tanked and entered a real dark age -- he resurfaced in WCW when the company was on an upswing and was its mainstay announcer during its peak years of the Monday Night Wars. All-in-all, he was the most visible and successful on-air interviewer in that 20-year period". THAT's "what happened".

 

But it's obvious to me looking at the list of inductees that it's about much much more than just drawing and much much more than simply "what happened".

 

Was Billy Robinson a bigger draw than Ivan Koloff? Could the fact that he was one of the best technical wrestlers ever and the other a mediocre-at-best one have anything to do with it? When was Dynamite Kid a massive draw? Warrior probably in one year drew more than Robinson and Dynamite did in 10.

 

I'm calling BS on this "what happened" stuff big time. Just moving the goalposts if you ask me.

 

If Robinson and Benoit get in on workrate, then why not Okerlund or Ventura on charisma? Just seems totally arbitrary.

[Loss]

If the HoF is just about drawing then I don't know why half the guys there are there. Or why anyone would ever mention Chris Benoit in connection with it because it's total bullshit that he was ever a draw.

Did I say at any point that the HOF is only a place for people who have drawn money? Did I say that once? Did I not agree with you that you can't really use that as a guide for announcers because they have more of an indirect affect on the gate? No one ever argued that Benoit got in the HOF based on his ability to draw money either. Yet I'm the one moving goalposts ...

 

And Warrior is a shoo-in

If you look at the gates for 1990 WWF, actually, no he's not. At all.

 

And if it's only about "what happened" then the case Okerlund I outlined can be replaced with:

 

"Gene Okerlund was with AWA when it was hot, then he moved to WWF and his tenture coincided with the boom period, he left the company in 1993, just before the WWF fucking tanked and entered a real dark age -- he resurfaced in WCW when the company was on an upswing and was its mainstay announcer during its peak years of the Monday Night Wars. All-in-all, he was the most visible and successful on-air interviewer in that 20-year period". THAT's "what happened".

 

But it's totally fucking obvious to me looking at the list of inductees that it's about much much more than just drawing and much much more than simply "what happened".

 

Was Billy Robinson a bigger draw than Ivan Koloff? Could the fact that one was one of the best technical wrestlers ever and the other a mediocre-at-best one have anything to do with it? When was Dynamite Kid a massive draw? Warrior probably in one year drew more than Robinson and Dynamite did in 10.

No one has ever argued that Robinson and Dynamite are in because of their drawing power, to my knowledge. But they are not in because they were talented. Plenty of wrestlers are not in who were talented. They are in because the voters could point to great MATCHES. They have accomplishments to show for their talent. I have pointed to examples that make that case in point -- like Windham being a better athlete than Flair -- that I would like to see you directly respond to if you're going to engage in a debate. For wrestlers, if they're going in on work, you point to their matches. Their matches that "actually happened". For announcers, you point to specific angles they were involved in, or specific interactions, specific points they made at the booth that MADE A DIFFERENCE in how that wrestler was perceived. That doesn't mean that Lance Russell made Jerry Lawler a star, but it does mean that maybe some of Lawler's angles would not have gotten over they way they did without Russell's hard sell. If you can't point to those types of things, then what's the point of putting them in a Hall of Fame? Because they entertained you as a kid?

 

This idea that Warrior was a huge draw is a case of rose-colored memories. You're also looking at things SOLELY from a WWF-fan-at-the-time perspective and seem hostile to any other viewpoint. The fact is -- he was not really a draw. You should check out some of the WONs from that time period and some of the things that "actually happened". For example, the WWF knew he wasn't a draw and tried to modernize his look, thinking that was the problem. Road agents reported that he was bombing almost every night. You perceived him as a star as a child. So did I. That doesn't mean he was a draw and it doesn't mean he should go in a HOF.

 

I'm calling BS on this "what happened" stuff big time. Just moving the goalposts if you ask me.

 

If Robinson and Benoit get in on workrate, then why not Okerlund or Ventura on charisma? Just seems totally arbitrary.

Because it's WRESTLING. It means more to be a great wrestler than to be a great announcer. And when it's an industry-wide Hall of Fame not confined to one company, and it's not even a consensus that they were great announcers by anyone except people who were kids in the 80s, it's going to be debated. That's not moving goalposts.

[JerryvonKramer]

Could you point to segments then, for interviewers, rather than angles? Or matches that were enhanced by their commentary? (benchmark example being Heenan at Rumble 92)

 

I mean I could do that, but it'd take ages, and the list would be really long -- in Ventura's case practically every match he ever called.

 

"Wrestling is more important than announcing" is a value statement, it's ideological. If WON has specific values that need to be met, then sure, I can accept that. But all pretences of objectivity need to be dropped. The WON HoF is as skewed as the WWE's.

 

It's just that where Meltzer and co have Dynamite Kid, Vince has got Koko B. Ware. Strictly speaking, neither belong in any sort of hall of fame. The fact that Dynamite is in the WON HoF but Davey Boy isn't tells you everything.

 

Also, from this, I don't understand the rationale of any of the non-wrestling picks that aren't promoters. Surely it just comes down to the personal tastes of Meltzer and his base of voters. So sure, there's no case for Moonsoon and Ventura, whereas the case for JR is watertight, because WON readers love the NWA and rag on WWF. Fine, but if that's what it is, let's just call it like it is.