WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[PeteF3]

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?

Robinson has the Comiskey Park main event with Verne on his resume (22,000 in 1974 and the biggest event in AWA history to that point, maybe ever or up there with Super Sunday). Someone else is going to have outline specifically what he did or didn't draw in Japan, but his match with Inoki was a big, BIG deal and upon jumping to AJPW he was positioned at the top of the card for several years and given the PWF Heavyweight title, so Baba must have had some faith in him. "Drawing" in the UK is a whole other matter and it was probably not even considered when he was decided on (pretty sure Billy was a charter member), but he was clearly a top-of-the-line draw among heavyweights, on the level of Kendo Nagasaki and Albert Wall. There are other little things, like Memphis main events while Jerry Lawler was on the shelf for a year.

 

I have no problem buying Robinson as a bigger draw than Ivan.

[JerryvonKramer]

My point is really that it would be quite close. If you put Robinson's biggest shows agaisnt Koloff's biggest shows from MSG with Bruno, or Backlund, it would be close. The differentiator is Robinson's work.

[Loss]

I'm not a huge Dynamite Kid defender, but there's a huge difference between him being in the WON HOF and Koko B. Ware being in the WWE HOF. The Tiger Mask/Dynamite Kid matches -- whatever we think of them now -- were considered the greatest matches of all time by many when they happened. They also introduced a completely new style of wrestling to Japan. Dynamite was considered the best wrestler in the world in the early 80s, and those who didn't see it that way at least talked about him at that level. His return with Davey Boy to Stampede in late 1988 popped the territory. Along with Abby and the Mongolian Stomper, he was at worst one of the three biggest draws in the history of Stampede Wrestling. There are arguments to make against him, but that's a much stronger case than Koko in the WWE HOF.

[JerryvonKramer]

My point was mainly that for WON being "a great worker who had great matches" is enough to get in.

 

Whereas for WWE, being "a loyal slave to the WWE" is enough for Vince to get in.

 

The point was that neither is really objective is it?

[Loss]

It's not. That why people vote and that's why these heated debates are a good thing. If a candidate can survive that, they should go in.

[Childs]

These arguments invariably become a mess, because it really isn't clear what constitutes a WON Hall-of-Famer. We have some sense that it should take more than work (and the written guidelines say so) but there are clearly inductees who defy that logic. Loss, you talk about Windham not accomplishing enough, but is it clear that he accomplished less than Kurt Angle or Ultimo Dragon? It's a poorly defined honor, so it's easy for people to claim that it means whatever they want it to mean. This is a problem with all HOFs.

[Ricky Jackson]

I've always been a DK fan and I'm curious, is the modern DK hate more to do with the idea his legacy (no-selling workrate clones) has ruined indy wrestling for many fans, or is it the perception that his HOF credentials (drawing power, great matches, great worker) are not HOF worthy and he shouldn't have been inducted in the first place?

[Loss]

It's not clear, no, but I used Flair as my goal post, not Ultimo or Angle. Is there any doubting that point that Windham was more talented than Flair, but that Flair did more with what he had? My point in bringing that up was that there are people not in the HOF who are better than people who are in the HOF. My other point was that there's a difference between being talented and having lots of great matches. One doesn't always mean the other, and I think the output is what we should discuss, not whatever personal skills anyone may have in reserve. Anyway, if the HOF discussion is a mess, so is everything in the world that's subjective. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be any fun at all. We would just create an algorithm, have an automatic yes or no for everyone, and it would be out of our hands. The subjectivity is unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Matt D]

Obviously we need our own hall of fame.

[Loss]

NOOOOOOOOO.

[jdw]

Doesn't charisma make someone a better worker?

Sid had (spotty) charisma and look. Couldn't work a fucking lick.

 

John

[Matt D]

Doesn't charisma make someone a better worker?

Sid had (spotty) charisma and look. Couldn't work a fucking lick.

 

John

 

Imagine if he DIDN'T have charisma though.

[jdw]

It's just that where Meltzer and co have Dynamite Kid, Vince has got Koko B. Ware.

*scratches head*

 

Didn't Vince have his Dynamite Kid?

 

04/07/86 The British Bulldogs over The Dream Team for the WWF Tag Titles

01/26/87 The Hart Foundation over The British Bulldogs for the WWF Tag

 

When I think back on the era, they *felt* like the hardest pushed tag team of the era at their peak. I know Demo and the Harts were around longer, and Vince invested a lot into Demo as his Faux Road Warriors. But there really was a sense in 1986 that the Bulldogs were the WWF's "team" and there wasn't any end in sight for how long they would dominate that division.

 

Koko was pushed, but never pushed in the WWF remotely to that level.

 

 

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.

Dynamite got in for work, impact and influence. One certainly can debate whether the 1980's and 1990's judgement of his work, impact and influence was correct... but it's why he's in.

 

Davey never really sustained the level of esteem in work/impact/influence that DK had.

 

 

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.

I don't see how great managers shouldn't go in. I also don't see how great announcers shouldn't go in. You're comment reads like:

 

"If the announcers that I like don't go in, then NO announcers should do in."

 

Which is... kind of a waste.

 

I think Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker are better than a number of 2B's in the HOF. I think they, over the course of their careers, are better than some recent non-2B who went in, such as Jim Rice and Andre Dawson. Is it worthwhile to jump up and down that Grich and Lou aren't in and thus no one should go in?

 

Not really.

 

John

[jdw]

Doesn't charisma make someone a better worker?

Sid had (spotty) charisma and look. Couldn't work a fucking lick.

 

John

 

Imagine if he DIDN'T have charisma though.

He would have been the Warlord. And still couldn't work a fucking lick.

 

John

[El-P]

Well, I'd say The Warlord in the PoP was much better than Sid.

[Matt D]

I think there are some DBS/Warlord matches which are more coherent than most of Sid's body of work, but they did have a year to work out the match.

[KB8]

I don't care how bad Warlord was at his worst; the PoP v Rockers match from the 1/15/90 MSG show is just about my favourite match ever and he threw Michaels about 12 feet in the air with a backdrop. He's above criticism in my eyes after that match.

 

Actually, upon checking Cawthon's site it seems there were a bunch of Rockers/PoP matches that month. I reeeealy hope there's a handheld or two floating around out there.

[ohtani's jacket]

The Tiger Mask/Dynamite Kid matches -- whatever we think of them now -- were considered the greatest matches of all time by many when they happened. They also introduced a completely new style of wrestling to Japan.

They didn't really. Joshi girls were working the same style from the mid-70s on.

[Loss]

Joshi and NJ junior heavyweight style are the same?

[ohtani's jacket]

They were very similar.

[jdw]

I don't care how bad Warlord was at his worst; the PoP v Rockers match from the 1/15/90 MSG show is just about my favourite match ever and he threw Michaels about 12 feet in the air with a backdrop. He's above criticism in my eyes after that match.

 

Actually, upon checking Cawthon's site it seems there were a bunch of Rockers/PoP matches that month. I reeeealy hope there's a handheld or two floating around out there.

Looking at a handheld list, there doesn't seem to be anything in 1989 or 1990. The two matches involving the teams that seem to be available are the 1/15/90 and 2/19/90 matches at MSG.

 

WWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - January 15, 1990 (11,500)

Televised on the MSG Network - featured Gorilla Monsoon & Hillbilly Jim on commentary:

The Powers of Pain defeated Shawn Michaels & Marty Jannetty at 9:59 when the Barbarian pinned Michaels with an elbow drop (SuperTape 2)

 

WWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - February 19, 1990 (13,800)

Televised on the MSG Network - featured Gorilla Monsoon, Lord Alfred Hayes, & Hillbilly Jim on commentary:

Jim Duggan, Shawn Michaels, & Marty Jannetty defeated Mr. Fuji & the Powers of Pain at 16:38 when Jannetty pinned Fuji after Duggan used his 2X4 as a weapon

 

Gotta think the Rockers and Powers were working most of that second match given the length.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

How does one measure successful output of "charisma?" Ratings, merch sold, tickets sold, sustained crowd reactions. Those largely aren't subjective. Absent that "charisma" doesn't mean anything just like being a good ring mechanic means little if you don't have the matches and performances to back it up.

[JerryvonKramer]

What if you are talking about a non-wrestler though Dylan?

 

Also "matches and performances" are AS SUBJECTIVE as measuring "charisma", which is what I've been trying to stress. Inducting Dynamite Kid for his work or "great matches" is no different from inducting Okerlund and Ventura for their charisma.

 

Both are value calls.

 

I was being rounded on for making charisma part of my Okerlund case, so it makes sense that being a "good worker" shouldn't be part of DK's case or anyone else's. Can't have it both ways.

 

Either "traits" such as charisma and in-ring ability are part of people's cases, or they aren't. You can't say "oh, well THESE traits are important, but THESE ones aren't". That's not a consistent position.

 

Not saying you ever said that Dylan, just clarifying why I brought up DK in the first place.

[goodhelmet]

I've always been a DK fan and I'm curious, is the modern DK hate more to do with the idea his legacy (no-selling workrate clones) has ruined indy wrestling for many fans, or is it the perception that his HOF credentials (drawing power, great matches, great worker) are not HOF worthy and he shouldn't have been inducted in the first place?

The "new" DK hate has nothing to do with his hall of fame credenials or modern indy wrestling. We just watched a bunch of his matches from 1982 and compared them to other matches from 1982 and couldn't figure out why people thought it was the greatest shit ever when Fujinami was right fucking there!!!

[Dylan Waco]

What if you are talking about a non-wrestler though Dylan?

 

Also "matches and performances" are AS SUBJECTIVE as measuring "charisma", which is what I've been trying to stress. Inducting Dynamite Kid for his work or "great matches" is no different from inducting Okerlund and Ventura for their charisma.

 

Both are value calls.

 

I was being rounded on for making charisma part of my Okerlund case, so it makes sense that being a "good worker" shouldn't be part of DK's case or anyone else's. Can't have it both ways.

 

Either "traits" such as charisma and in-ring ability are part of people's cases, or they aren't. You can't say "oh, well THESE traits are important, but THESE ones aren't". That's not a consistent position.

 

Not saying you ever said that Dylan, just clarifying why I brought up DK in the first place.

Of course it's a value call, but there is an extent to where it is really just arguing to argue. I mean I could argue that Hack Myers was the greatest wrestler of all time and point to random stuff and it would still be my view and you couldn't prove it wrong...but I'd be considered crazy for it.

 

Charisma matters if it is part of the overall package that is successful. Same with wrestling.

 

For the record I doubt I would vote for DK. Certainly would no vote for him over Okerland