WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[tomk]

Cena was easily booked beneath HHH in 2005.

 

The 2006 HHH v Cena match, Cena was booked beneath HHH and was still randomly for no purpose getting pedigreed on TV a month later. HHH used the Cena feud to start his own face DX run. DX were then booked stronger than Cena for the next year with the idea being at the end that HHH was going to win back the title at the next Mania. HHH gets injured again so HBK takes his place in a feud where HBK looses the Mania match to Cena but wins the series.

 

On the road to HBK v Cena Mania, Cena does get to bleed opposite Umaga in a PPV which does feel like the beginning of the fed getting behind him. We know WWF was a promotion where only your top star gets to bleed in his PPV match (only one match per show was allowed blood when blood was allowed). Cena wasn't entitled to right to bleed till here. I don't know how much you can put into that since HHH isn't around and HBK was in the rumble which is a non-bleeding match.

 

HBK and HHH both are injured and Cena does get a nice little run as top guy. From about May to October 2007 (when Cena is injured) is probablty first period where he's actually booked as an ace. I'm not really sure how invested the fed in at protecting him, booking him or presenting him as the ace at this point either. He wrestles Lashley at the Great American Bash, where Lashley earns a rep for being uppity because he wants to turn heel. The fed apparently thought it was more important to protect long term investment in face Lashley than have a heel opponent for Cena.

 

Cena comes back from injury for the Royal Rumble and is booked lower on the card then HHH (when not in matches with HHH) on PPVs for about next 6 months. Loses to Batista in the main event of Summerslam. Then it's back to being booked below the HHH/Edge/Hardy series and then below HHH v Orton w/ legacy series.

 

Around 2009, HHH did start taking a back seat but I still don't know if the WWE "presented, booked and protected [Cena] as the ace of the promotion" at that point. It was clear for a couple years that people only cared about Cena as the #1 star in promotion but don't think the WWE was any more invested in protecting him than they were in Orton or Batista. Maybe more invested than they were in Edge or Hardy. who the fuck knows?

 

Still I'd say Cena's period as an ace would be May to October 2007, and April 2009-today. So a little over three years. During that period he has been pushed about as hard as Austin 96-98, not post Tyson Austin.

[NintendoLogic]

Cena was easily booked beneath HHH in 2005.

That's true during the Batista feud. But HHH disappeared for several months after that. When he came back, he worked the midcard against Flair and Big Show. When Cena was drafted to Raw, it was clear that he was being positioned as The Guy. Even more so after Batista was drafted to Smackdown.

 

The 2006 HHH v Cena match, Cena was booked beneath HHH and was still randomly for no purpose getting pedigreed on TV a month later. HHH used the Cena feud to start his own face DX run. DX were then booked stronger than Cena for the next year with the idea being at the end that HHH was going to win back the title at the next Mania. HHH gets injured again so HBK takes his place in a feud where HBK looses the Mania match to Cena but wins the series.

Cena made HHH tap out at Wrestlemania and pinned him in a triple threat match at Backlash. And again, I fail to see how beating up on Vince McMahon and the Spirit Squad in the midcard constitutes being booked stronger than contending for the world title in the main event.

 

On the road to HBK v Cena Mania, Cena does get to bleed opposite Umaga in a PPV which does feel like the beginning of the fed getting behind him. We know WWF was a promotion where only your top star gets to bleed in his PPV match (only one match per show was allowed blood when blood was allowed). Cena wasn't entitled to right to bleed till here. I don't know how much you can put into that since HHH isn't around and HBK was in the rumble which is a non-bleeding match.

Austin bled in the 2001 Rumble. And Cena bled plenty of times before the Umaga match. Like the I Quit match with JBL. And the Elimination Chamber match where Edge cashed in his MITB.

 

Cena comes back from injury for the Royal Rumble and is booked lower on the card then HHH (when not in matches with HHH) on PPVs for about next 6 months. Loses to Batista in the main event of Summerslam. Then it's back to being booked below the HHH/Edge/Hardy series and then below HHH v Orton w/ legacy series.

Cena/Jericho was booked above HHH/Edge/Kozlov at Survivor Series.

The Elimination Chamber with Cena was booked above the Elimination Chamber with HHH at No Way Out.

Cena/Edge was booked above HHH/Orton at Backlash.

[FLIK]

Has Victor Quinones ever been on the HoF ballot?

I don't think necisarily think he should be in but he's got a heck of a resume.

 

- Involved in wrestling for almost 30 years

- Booked for a # of promotion's in multiple countries

- Was the talent agent for even more promotions and was responsible for a TON of guys getting their big breaks outside of their native countries with the biggest example being probably Tajiri who he helped get into Mexico, ECW & the WWF.

- Helped start up atleast 3 promotions, most notably IWA Puerto Rico

- Worked for the WWF for several years and for a while IWA PR was a dev territory for them

- On screen manager for many of the companies he worked for

 

Seems weird not to have a guy like that atleast be in the discussion.

[Dylan Waco]

Over at Classics McAdam has come out as a fierce opponent of Buddy Rose which is not surprising. What surprises me a bit his how easily he dismisses Jimmy Hart for the same reasons ("Big Fish, Little Pond!"). He touts Albano as a definite Hall of Famer at the same time which I find odd. It's an interesting thread for those interested in taking a look

[jdw]

Gave you a Patera leg. Have no real dog in the Rose fight. The Hart one... I don't get McAdam's critique, but see no point getting into a pissing contest with him on that since others have it covered.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

Nice post John.

 

I think Patera is actually a much different candidate than Rose, Blackwell or even JYD all of whom have been guys I have pimped at Classics pretty heavily over the last few months.

 

With Rose I almost feel obligated to "help" him out as much as I can since I have pretty good reason to believe that it was my pimping of him that helped get him on the ballot. To be frank I don't think he has a shot in hell and I'm nearly certain he will fall off the ballot right away. He suffers immensely because he's the worst combination of a variety of things - Great Worker who has probably been seen less than any other widely touted Great Worker. Hugely successful regional star and draw who had no true "second" hand to help him out whose success came in one of the smallest and least seen territories. Other successes on top during dying dies of promotion (San Fran) or as a middling place holder v. superstar (Backlund). Most "iconic" matches were tag team affairs during the death throes of the AWA. It's just not a candidacy that is easily absorbable. Even if there weren't legitimate arguments against him (and there are even if I don't agree with them), he's never going to be a "sexy" candidate.

 

Blackwell is a project that grew out of the AWA Set. I think it is interesting that those who know the AWA find him to at least be a discussion worthy candidate. I've sort of waffled on him some, as I do think the brevity of his run hurts him. But I do not think he is nearly as easily dismissable as some people say and if you were on the ballot and I had a vote I'd vote for him to keep him around if nothing else.

 

JYD is someone I haven't explored in great detail, but I do enjoy watching people contort themselves into pretzel's trying to come up with a reason why he shouldn't even get a crack at the ballot. Record setting draw of the most beloved smart territory in history can't even get a sniff? Really?

 

But Patera is different than all of those guys. He checks off as a quality worker (at least during his peak). He checks off as a guy who was a star in multiple territories and had feuds against a huge variety of "name" opponents. He checks off as a guy who had a lengthy run on or near the top (12.5 years, his entire career before prison, twice as long as Blackwell for a sense of perspective). He checks off as a guy who has numbers you can point to showing he was a draw. He checks off as a guy that was brought in as an "attraction" the big towns (Fla, Toronto, Houston, St. Louis, Memphis, et). He checks off as a guy who had meaningful and important title runs. He checks off as a guy who played a very important role in hot, money making runs for what are generally thought of as the three "biggest" territories of the era in which he worked, WWWF, AWA and Mid-Atlantic.

 

Frankly Patera strikes me as a guy who would already be in if his name wasn't Ken Patera and he wasn't remembered for his worst period.

 

Hart is a guy who should have gone in by fiat in my view and I could hardly even conceive of a good argument against him

[kjh]

Albano vs Hart is an interesting comparison, given that in Memphis Hart was unquestionably the top manager who the territory revolved around, while Albano was at best the most important of a trio of managers that all had their runs managing opponents for Bruno/Backlund, but never the sustained focal point of the promotion. Hart was one of the managers WWE brought in to replace the Three Wizards and though his work there wasn't as memorable as in Memphis, he still had a successful run.

[Dylan Waco]

Albano vs Hart is an interesting comparison, given that in Memphis Hart was unquestionably the top manager who the territory revolved around, while Albano was at best the most important of a trio of managers that all had their runs managing opponents for Bruno/Backlund, but never the sustained focal point of the promotion. Hart was one of the managers WWE brought in to replace the Three Wizards and though his work there wasn't as memorable as in Memphis, he still had a successful run.

This is pretty much the way the debate is breaking down over at Classics.

 

I'd be interested to see if you or anyone else here has anything of note to add on the matter:

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimate...ic;f=7;t=000531

[NintendoLogic]

So I was thinking about what the HOF would look like if it were limited to slam-dunk picks. I mean, if you think about it, a hall of fame should be limited to the best of the best, those whose candidacies speak for themselves. If you have to make a case for someone, he probably doesn't belong. Let's take Yohe's ratings as a starting point.

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbc...ic;f=7;t=000294

 

Under this system, it would take a minimum score of 7 to be inducted. My initial impression is that he overrated Bob Backlund and Keiji Mutoh and underrated Jerry Lawler, Randy Savage, and the joshi wrestlers (particularly the Crush Gals).

[Loss]

So I was thinking about what the HOF would look like if it were limited to slam-dunk picks. I mean, if you think about it, a hall of fame should be limited to the best of the best, those whose candidacies speak for themselves. If you have to make a case for someone, he probably doesn't belong. Let's take Yohe's ratings as a starting point.

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbc...ic;f=7;t=000294

 

Under this system, it would take a minimum score of 7 to be inducted. My initial impression is that he overrated Bob Backlund and Keiji Mutoh and underrated Jerry Lawler, Randy Savage, and the joshi wrestlers (particularly the Crush Gals).

I totally disagree with this. As Dave has said in the past, most people in a Hall of Fame in any sport aren't remembered, which is the point of having a Hall of Fame. The good candidates aren't always self-evident.

[Al]

It's almost impossible to create a Hall of Fame like that. Lesser candidates always get elected, it opens the floodgates. And I think the reason is that people want to see candidates get inducted. Halls of Fame want new inductees because a lack of them will completely kill interest. I mean, this Hall of Fame is one thing since it's hypothetical. But what if the Baseball Hall of Fame had no induction ceremony for say, four years?

[JerryvonKramer]

Hey Dylan, if it was between those three right now, who would you choose?

[Dylan Waco]

Good question

 

My favorite of the bunch is Buddy. That's not a knock on the other two, but I'm not sure I could name three guys I enjoy watching more than Rose. I'd take Blackwell easily over Patera in terms of who I would rather watch, so from that perspective it is Buddy, Jerry, Ken.

 

As HoF candidates?

 

Well I'll look at the unique advantages of each guy briefly, followed by looking at where they are weak.

 

Jerry Blackwell Pros - Of the three Blackwell is the only one who was the top draw of a territory that was doing no less than 5-6k in every major building it was running, with multiple 10k plus/sellout runs to his credit. He is also the only one who was both the top drawing heel and top drawing face of the territory doing that sort of business in the same year. He was a more important part of a super hot run than either Patera or Rose were, the "MVP" of the AWA from 80-84 according to two of the three most knowledgeable AWA fans/historians on the web. Of the three Blackwell is the one where we have numbers that show trends of business slipping in his absence and spiking upon his return. He was most certainly the best worker of his size from the era for whatever that is worth and other than Vader I struggle to think of another super heavyweight better or even on his level.

 

Jerry Blackwell Cons - His entire candidacy rest on his AWA run, particularly from 80 through the middle of 85. This was a hot period for wrestling and though AWA haters/Blackwell deniers are spinning their wheels when they try and argue Blackwell wasn't a draw and a massive part of the AWA's success, Blackwell was not a top ten star in the States during that period, and it can't conclusively be shown that he was a top ten draw during the period either. Guys with comparably "brief" but hot runs, who were more obviously "aces" like Tommy Rich and JYD haven't even been on the ballot, and both could be argued as "more deserving." Though he was a star in St. Louis too, he was not really in demand anywhere else and was a mid-carder at best everywhere he went before his AWA run.

 

Ken Patera Pros - Easily the most in demand of the three, Patera wrestled everywhere as a top of the card wrestler from the early 70's until he went to jail in the middle of 85. He worked programs in money making slots on the card against nearly every major star of his era including Billy Graham, Bill Watts, Bob Backlund, Andre The Giant, Dusty Rhodes, Wahoo McDaniel, Hulk Hogan, Jerry Lawler, Tommy Rich, Tony Atlas, Pedro Morales, Bruno Sammartino and main evented multiple times in virtually every major wrestling town in the United States and Canada during the same run. Holding the I-C and Missouri titles at the same time seems like a kayfabe accomplishment but is a good illustration of his relevance at the time. Of the three Patera is the only one that started off his career near the top of the heap and didn't really fall from that perch until after his release from prison.

 

Ken Patera Cons - Even at the height of his value and drawing power, Patera was never the ace or top draw of any company he was in, nor was he a staple of cultural significance to a particular territory. It is arguable that he was not even the top heel in the WWF during his hottest year, though I would view that as a stretch. For these reasons Patera is forgotten or remembered as the shell of his former self that he was after he got out of jail, a perception that is hard to counter since that was the only Patera that many modern fans know. Though he was not a bad worker, and at times was great, he was not anywhere near as consistent as the other two and would not be considered anywhere near the top of the heap in that regard when looking at wrestlers from that period.

 

Buddy Rose Pros - Of the three Buddy is the only one who can say he holds gate records in every town on the loop he worked and obviously is the only one who can say he was the best draw in the history of a territory of note with a seventy-plus year history. On top of being the best draw in the history of Portland, he was also the best worker in Portland history. He was well regarded as a great in ring performer during the era and we now have more than enough evidence to support this. In my view he was the best worker in the world from 77-84, and of people I know who have seen big chunks of relevant footage from that period no one has seriously disputed this. Unlike Patera and Blackwell who were drawing well and having high end matches with some of the most talented names in the business, Buddy was holding the fort down, having great matches and setting records against a variety of green, over-the-hill and/or outright shitty performers with no true consistent "second" (like say a Dundee in Memphis). He is the only one of the three that was the top star and draw in two promotions at once (Portland and San Francisco). When Buddy left things were never the same in Portland and attendance plummeted which is evident if you watch the footage.

 

Buddy Rose Cons - Has the same perception problem that Patera has as he is remembered by some solely as the guy from the "blowaway diet" bit. The fact that he never worked for any length of time during his prime outside of Portland leaves him with the rep of a homesteader who was a "big fish in a small pond." It's possible Rose only worked in front of 10k plus audiences a couple of dozen times in his career and he was likely only on top of those cards a handful of times. Though he was the top draw in Portland from the time he took over the lead heel role in 76, until his last big gate match v. Piper at the Don Owen Anniversary show in 85, his run as a top guy is not incredibly long, and after his stint with in the AWA ended in early 87 he was never really relevant in the business again.

 

I would vote for all three guys. If I am being honest and weighing all things I think Blackwell is the least of the three, because of the brevity of his run and the fact that outside of St. Louis (where he was more of an semi-main guy, than a main guy) he wasn't a star anywhere else.

 

Between Rose and Patera I think it is a really tough call.

 

Rose has some advantages that are tough to factor in. Yes Portland was small, but he was the ace, he was working very limited talent and yet he was biggest act in the history of a promotion that was financially viable for years. The matter is really complicated because of Don Owen's business model - particularly the fact that he owned his own building. The lack of attendance figures from Portland makes it tough, but it is possible - probable if we guestimate based on the footage - that there were weeks were Rose was main eventing two shows in the PSA each drawing 3k plus and starring on a television show that did massive looking ratings. Buddy was a cultural fixture in a way that Patera wasn't anywhere and few wrestlers have been. He was a much better worker than Ken, to the point that even in Ken's best year (1980) I would struggle immensely coming up with a case that Patera was better.

 

Having said all that if I only had one choice between the two I would pick Patera for one simple reason - every other wrestler with the range of success in programs with names that big and towns/territories that broad over a span of time that long is in. The only possible exception would be Hans Schmidt and he should be in and I believe will be in this year. Patera has twelve years of being an in demand drawing card against the biggest names, in the biggest buildings, all over the country. Someone like that really belongs in the Hall of Fame unless he has some sort glaring negatives that cannot be ignored which Patera does not have.

 

Buddy is almost a project in and of himself to see how we are supposed to view an utterly unique candidate. A guy who was a great, record setting, best in the history of the territory, draw in a promotion that didn't often run major venues. A guy who was a cultural figure in a town that wasn't terribly big at the time and was remote from the rest of the wrestling world. A guy who was regarded as one of the great workers of his era at the time, but no one really saw the footage believing it didn't exist and now many won't watch or seek out the footage because it was "just a little pond" or "you can't get an accurate look viewing things out of context." He really has no point of comparison in some ways, though I would guess the Brit candidates are the closest (for the record I'd vote for Jim Breaks if he were on the ballot and I had a vote...I think).

 

Patera should be in because he meets and exceeds the criteria that has generally been accepted as standard for HoFers.

 

Rose belongs in to but he it will require a lot of thinking outside of the box to get him there.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Konnan being a sources is an old joke.

Konnan is definitely a source I wouldn’t put full faith in since he has always struck me as a sensationalist. Konnan, for example, claims that as a start-up midcarder named Max Moon, he has personally seen a WON on Vince’s desk. That sounds ridiculous because it is doubtful that Konnan was ever in Vince's office more than for their initial meeting, and it's doubtful that Vince would be so open about reading the WON. I remember questioning Steve Yohe on his claim that Vince reads the Observer, and he didn’t defend his assertion which I thought was quite telling. Frankly, the WWE is so much larger than anything that the WON could ever cover or understand, with all due respect.

 

 

"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.

All you’re pointing out is both systems have different methodologies. The difference between the WON HOF and the WWE HOF is quite simple. Whereas WON, despite their hatred for Vince McMahon or Shawn Michaels, are more than willing to vote them into the HOF on merit alone, Vince will refuse to put in people on his shitlist unless he can sell DVDs off their name. Furthermore, the WWE standard is quite arbitrary in every way. The WON clearly works off of precedence not unlike Supreme Court of the United States rulings, and it’s always a debate within the WON HOF circles on the existence of some multi-dimensional infimum (greatest lower bound) where that infimum is still either aesthetically (workrate), historically, or financially Hall of Fame worthy.

 

The distinction between objectivity and subjectively should hint itself as a categorical error when any application of the meaning “subjective” can draw an equivalency between WWE’s HOF and WON’s HOF. The better model to distinction the two is precedent, which the WWE clearly has no precedent and the WON obviously works from precedent. There is nothing wrong with that method. That’s why so many had problems with Kurt Angle getting in because his entry set a dangerous precedent where guys could get in off of a few years of peak work provided that they have celebrity status because of amateur wrestling marks like Meltzer.

 

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.

That’s an unfair statement to make. First, Davey Boy Smith was the perennial underachiever who could have been one of the biggest deals this industry had ever seen but more often than not got fired because of his troubles. Second, Davey was never seen as a guy who could carry average opponents to good matches. Davey’s matches have always been with top notch workers of his era likely induced by his motivational level. (Even Davey wasn’t pulling good matches with Mr. Perfect in 1991 when virtually no one could screw those up.) Davey is a guy who, despite his ultra impressive talents, decided to get himself over on body alone. Davey wanted to cast himself as the Warlord whereas Dynamite strove to be the best of his junior heavyweight category, which either he or the much less famous Marc Rocco were in the early 80s. (I feel it would be a very difficult case for one to argue that Tiger Mask was better than Dynamite.) Also, what made the Bulldogs tag team unique was Dynamite’s innovation and bump taking. I don’t think their matches in the WWF were worth much, and even their matches against the Hart Foundation never struck me as better than anything notable the Rockers would do later on, but their tag work in AJPW certainly holds up.

 

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.

Yeah, one can’t measure it but can only know of it when they see it. Zack Ryder is a charismatic performer, and kids love him. But he’ll never be a draw, so no one serious would ever put him in the WON HOF. By my precedent category above, how would one find a greatest lower bound for “charismatic” performer in wrestling? The notion is ridiculous on its face.

 

Like many others have said, charisma is part of the package and that charisma only means something insofar as the more objective parts result from it, e.g. money. I should note too, though I’m speaking from a general belief, that pure workrate doesn’t draw anyway without heat. Heat is an absolutely necessary condition to draw, and charisma is needed for one act to get serious heat to draw over a long period of time.

 

Inducting Dynamite Kid for his work or "great matches" is no different from inducting Okerlund and Ventura for their charisma.

I suspect a categorical error since we have a paradox of sorts. I suspect you’re confusing necessary conditions for performance. For example, it is a necessary condition that charisma be part of the package of a man conducting interviews or for a color commentator. But charisma is not a sufficient condition to be a good color commentator or a good interviewer, i.e. having charisma implies being a good commentator or interviewer. You’re confusing ontological status for conditions. That’s why no one gets elected for their charisma. So I’ll break this down in a way that I hope we can agree on.

 

First, we have the question of existence, i.e. can a color commentator be voted into the WON HOF based off of their work alone, and can an interviewer be voted into the WON HOF based off their work alone? The color commentator part has been set as precedence. The interviewer part has not been set per se. So you must justify why it is necessary for an interviewer to be in the WON HOF. So existence is done with.

 

Second, we have a question of the infimum, i.e. the greatest lower bound. If Jesse the Body Ventura’s commentary exceeds that greatest lower bound by precedent, then he should be in the HOF on that alone. If he does not exceed that precedent, should the greatest lower bound bar be lowered so that Ventura gets in? That at least implies Ventura was well above the pack of his other commentary peers. Similarly, if you can show the existence of an interviewer, then all you must show is that Mean Gene is head and shoulders above the pack of other interviewers. If he is, then he’s in. If he’s not, then either he and a set of equivalents get in, or they all sucked and no one gets in.

 

That should clear things up.

 

How big was Thunderbolt Patterson at his peak?

Meltzer remarked that he couldn’t work at all but that his promo routine was totally ripped off by Dusty Rhodes. He could have been a bigger star had it not been for (a) politics and ( Patterson’s attitude.

 

The other thing is that [the Big Show’s] size is really not special anymore. Not like you couldn't find tons of guys in the NBA that big and he's not even the tallest guy in the company.

Definitely. André, though protected and supposedly a decent worker in the 70s, had little competition in height. He came from an era where guys were not so overexposed as today, and he came from an era with few guys who were near his height. Nowadays, Big Show isn’t even the tallest guy on the roster and had to compete with other tall men like the Undertaker, who had been around for years. This isn’t to say that Show couldn’t of been a major draw, but he only would have been a major draw if bookers went out of their way to protect him at the expense of everyone else. (That, or book him as a special attraction, which isn’t plausible in today’s environment and for reasons of jealousy not unlike Bret’s WCW contract.)

 

Even Andre though. He really only wrestled in WWF full time in 1988-1989. The rest of the time he would come in for a few months, usually for a specific feud, and either tour or recover or whatnot. It's hard to book a monster type character over a long period of time. He either eventually beats everyone on the roster, or you beat him and his mystique is done. Mark Henry, yes you can build him up, but eventually he has to come back down again.

That’s all the more reason why I feel Goldberg wasn’t sustainable in the long-term. I grant that WCW screwed things up big time with Goldberg, but that his drawing power was so fragile speaks for itself. Is it just me or do other people find it to be a strange claim that Goldust’s wig being put on Goldberg somehow killed Goldberg’s heat? I don’t buy it. Goldberg was an unbelievably protected act, and part of the reason WWE can’t create serious main event acts is because they’re so willing to job them out like jobbers when they’re in the midcard. Some might not grant me the following analogy, but would Mike Tyson have been the draw he was had he been beaten in his first ten fights? Perhaps Tyson’s charisma and heat with other boxers could have carried the day, but I’m skeptical. It’s hard for some wrestler x to be perceived as larger than life when x loses regularly.

 

Fun fact: [big Show] used to call Dave to criticize how WCW used him, saying that he was on TV too much, took too many bumps, didn't have the aura he should and so on. So Vince gets him and does an even worse job of all of those things.

I remember reading a story about Show refusing to sell Mysterio’s offense when Regal walked up to Show and called him a fat bastard (or something like that) and ordered him to do it. LOL

 

have to take into acoount in 99 that Russo was still writing and he's not a fan of the unstoppable monster gimmick in wrestling. It's the first thing he wanted to change about Goldberg when he jumped to WCW

Christ, reason 951 for why Vince Russo sucks. Is there a Russo hate thread?

 

Regal's had more of a Hall of Fame career than a lot of these other guys.

I agree, and I would never consider voting Regal in. His autobiography, which I loved, captured Regal in a lot of ways – an above average wrestler with a unique style that is integrated with a British comedy Schick.

 

And in WWF/E, I think the biggest problem is that [big Show] wasn't "Vince's creation" and thus he didn't really have a reason to get behind him in a way that would take advantage of Show's strengths -- hence he had no reason to go against the flow of however he was booked

I think one could make a much more convincing case that Big Show suffered from bad timing in that he came in during a hot shot period of the WWF that was booked by Vince “Low Investment” Russo.

 

Bill Goldberg

 

Even though I would never vote for him, I tend to favor him because I think if you were one of the three or four biggest stars in wrestling during a period where wrestling was at it's (arguable?) all time peak you probably merit some consideration and you definitely are a good yardstick to use to compare others against. It's debatable how big a draw he was, but I'll be god damned if he wasn't a massive household name and he certainly SEEMED to be the co-equal or superior of Hogan at his peak. Would be interested in seeing the quarter hour comparisons there but I'm far too lazy to do it myself.

I criticize Goldberg’s drawing elasticity, which must have been rather weak, but it is true that he should be considered since he was one of the top 4 names of the Monday Night Wars (Hogan, Goldberg, Austin, Rock being the biggest names imo). But I remember Meltzer remarking that every time Goldberg wrestled, the quarter hour increased. What does that tell me? WWF fans liked him in ways that they liked no one else from WCW with the possible exception being Ric Flair who moved quarters as well.

 

one of those are the reason that Meltzer thinks HHH got into the HOF. When he does the bios of the HOF members HHH is listed as biggest drawing heel during the attitude era. I'm not saying that that's why he's in...but that's what Meltzer argues as basis of his candidacy.

Interesting, though the Undertaker must have had a higher peak in 1999. His foot injury (I believe?) put him out, and he returned as a face in May of 2000, which made HHH the de facto #1 heel.

 

If we want to rewrite the 80s wrestling wars as a fight for Tv dominance and not for ring attendance than I imagine we'd have to credit Ted Turner as the greatest wrestling promoter of all time...as no one has had more success from promoting wrestling tv programing.

Excellent point as a counter to any thoughts of Ventura getting in. But what do you say about SNME being the mainstreaming of the WWF, with Ventura and Vince being the non-wrestling faces to Hogan, Savage, and Elizabeth as the mainstream’s biggest stars?

 

 

I want to do a study of Buddy Rose.

 

I saw a poll today on the Wrestling Observer where Lance Storm polled ahead of Rob Van Dam. Granted, Van Dam didn’t peak, but by what parallel universe is Storm a better HOF candidate than Van Dam? I would never vote for Van Dam, but Van Dam has far more positives including being the face of ECW after Douglas’ first run, being somewhat successful in the WWE (despite the politics), and being a worker who, though inferior to Storm technically, had a much better overall package.

 

The historiography of the Ultimate Warrior as a below average draw has never made since to me given two facts (i) the bubble had burst after the Hogan/Savage blowoff in 1989 and that Hogan/Hennig didn’t draw that well, and (ii) Warrior had no heels to take on in 1990 who weren’t fresh heels already being fed to Hogan. I don’t doubt Hogan could have drawn with Rick Rude, but I wonder how Warrior would have drawn against Earthquake had the roles been reversed. Furthermore, Warrior did draw very well with the Undertaker, and I believe that was the top drawing feud of 1991 WWF (over Hogan/Flair, Hogan/Slaughter, Savage/Roberts). In other words, the necessary conditions for someone to draw weren’t met sufficiently for Warrior.

 

And the knocks on Jim Ross were golden.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm working on a Buddy Rose Gordy List this week

[jdw]

Konnan being a sources is an old joke.

Konnan is definitely a source I wouldn’t put full faith in since he has always struck me as a sensationalist. Konnan, for example, claims that as a start-up midcarder named Max Moon, he has personally seen a WON on Vince’s desk. That sounds ridiculous because it is doubtful that Konnan was ever in Vince's office more than for their initial meeting, and it's doubtful that Vince would be so open about reading the WON. I remember questioning Steve Yohe on his claim that Vince reads the Observer, and he didn’t defend his assertion which I thought was quite telling. Frankly, the WWE is so much larger than anything that the WON could ever cover or understand, with all due respect.

 

There was a running joke about Fink being the person in the WWF assigned to read the WON for Vince. Except it wasn't much of a joke. That's what Steve was likely referring to, and he got it straight from Dave on one of our various trips to see Lucha.

 

I suspect I've tossed this joke from a 1996 phone call out in the past, so it's not breaking WONfabe:

 

Dave: "John... I've got a new best friend."

 

jdw: "Who?"

 

Dave: "Vince."

 

This after Vince called Dave and had a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong conversation about the Evils of what Turner was doing to the Poor Little Old WWF. One of the damned funniest phone calls I ever had with Dave.

 

John

[Ditch]

I have apparently secured enough cred to warrant a ballot. I plan to be a 'Japan' voter, and I'm not sure what that means relative to other sub-sections of the ballot. Can someone explain to me what to do?

[Dylan Waco]

The question for you Ditch is going to be what guy do you throw a vote to to ensure that you will keep getting a ballot. I don't think there are any obvious picks on the Japan section of the ballot, though I would probably vote for Hamada if I had a vote. But I have heard from others that if you don't vote for someone, Meltzer assumes you aren't interested and won't send a ballot again.

[evilclown]

I also have a ballot this year. Question for the veterans of the process: has there ever been a movement to get Gus Sonnenburg in the HoF? He was the biggest star in wrestling for a couple of years and a box office draw for a decade.

[Dylan Waco]

I also have a ballot this year. Question for the veterans of the process: has there ever been a movement to get Gus Sonnenburg in the HoF? He was the biggest star in wrestling for a couple of years and a box office draw for a decade.

There is a thread over at Classics where Yohe was pushing him as someone who had to go in. I recently bumped it to note that your book makes a brilliant case for him as being a clear oversight. If I had a vote or any pull with Dave I would be pushing hard for Sonnenburg who I honestly think is one of the three or four best candidates not already in. I'm thinking if you, Yohe, and others who have votes (there are at least three others that post at this board who have votes - four if you count John who may or may not still vote) emailed him in mass about it he could get put in as an overlooked historical figure (which he clearly is).

 

Here is the link to the thread:

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimate...ic;f=7;t=000520

[evilclown]

I also have a ballot this year. Question for the veterans of the process: has there ever been a movement to get Gus Sonnenburg in the HoF? He was the biggest star in wrestling for a couple of years and a box office draw for a decade.

There is a thread over at Classics where Yohe was pushing him as someone who had to go in.

I will work on this happening.

[Loss]

Stephanie McMahon is now eligible.

[Bix]

Jimmy Hart wasn't added to the ballot. Did anyone who emailed Dave about adding him actually get a reply?

[JerryvonKramer]

Two things:

 

1. There is a massive massive post there from Neil that I've only just seen. I will reply to it tomorrow.

 

2. Bix, please devote all your spare time to getting various people to go through all of the WON ballot with you assessing each of your picks on Loser Leaves Town. Just get Dylan on once and it'll be 15 hours long, you can release it in chunks.

[Phil Schneider]

How many FSM articles do I have to publish to get a ballot? Kris pull some strings