WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[NintendoLogic]

What are you reading about Daddy?

 

I strongly disagree that someone needs to be Hogan level to offset his shit level of work, but that's just a personal view of how I weight those sort of things.

 

Does anyone dispute that Daddy was the biggest cultural figure and draw in the history of native produced British wrestling? I'm seriously asking as I don't know. I'm hardly an expert on the Brit scene, though I have studied it some.

The big things are that the numbers don't support the notion that he was a HOF-caliber draw (you can count the number of 10k+ houses he headlined on one hand) and that he's universally regarded as a joke. Yes, he's a cultural icon and a household name. But so is Tinieblas.

 

Just for the hell of it i watched a few Big Daddy matches on youtube, and he comes off as a guy who played his role very well, between soaking up the admiration of the crowd on the way to the ring (and knowing how to return it effectively), to sort of being a big immovable object in the ring. I haven't seen nearly enough, though, and I have other things that are more of a priority to me right now. Did he at least "play his role" well, even if detractors for one reason or another find that role reprehensible and embarrassing?

I suppose, if you consider his role to be a fat sack of shit who never bumped, sold, or gave his opponents anything.

 

Moving on, here's a Dave post about his role in the voting process and luchador representation in the HOF.

 

Wagner Sr. should have been on the ballot last year but there was an error. This is nothing to say he would have been voted in last year without the mistake given he's been on the ballot for years (it is entirely possible he would have since he does well, just not HOF numbers, almost ever year). If he would have, then it'll likely work out this year as he's on the ballot again and probably will be for years if he doesn't go in, since he always gets votes and I don't see that changing.

 

I have dozens of voters from Mexico who are, like in the business, have been in the business, etc. for decades. The Hall is filled with Mexican wrestlers. Several have been voted in. And regarding Cien Caras, there are so many of his contemporaries voting that if they perceived him as a slam dunk, he'd be in. There are two who I've voted for for years that haven't gotten in. Caras is a very viable candidate. Everyone on the ballot is a candidate. Is he one of the ten best candidates on this year's ballot? Perhaps, but that's not a slam dunk at all. And if he gets the votes, he's in. He's fallen off in the past and has never come close, but it's unpredictable. As the years go by, a lot of voters change as older voters start dying away and are replaced by newer voters. It's a cycle and some guys are helped and some are hurt. If 60% of the voters from his region believe he's a Hall of Famer, he's in. If not, he's not.

 

I'm so sick of people who don't get the process and say stupid things like I saw him and didn't like him and that's why he's not in. There are hundreds of people voting. I never talk about the Hall on radio during the balloting season (at least as far as candidates), refrained from it all year even when relevant like when Bastien passed away and it's one of the reasons my big Bastien bio may be held until after the election closes. Occasionally I'll do research pieces to perhaps help with seeing if some figures have been overlooked as far as record goes, but I have no idea where they are going when they start and they're usually to help with guys from the 50s and 60s for people who care and for myself to see if there's something I missed about people. I will do maybe one show a year on it, perhaps two, not until after balloting is completed and you want to blame me because your favorite isn't in because the guys who work with him or were around when he was around didn't vote for him. Fine, ignorance is bliss. But given that level of ignorance, it kills your cred even if you had validity to a complaint.

[Matt D]

I suppose, if you consider his role to be a fat sack of shit who never bumped, sold, or gave his opponents anything.

So he's a more over Brody on the Blow Away diet?

[Dylan Waco]

I totally reject the Farmer notion that 10k houses is the only way to measure a draw of HoF stature. If that is the metric NO ONE from the UK ever gets in.

[Matt D]

I guess my question is this: Was what Big Daddy did effective? Was it what he was sent out there to do? Was it effective over time? For what he was supposed to do, did he do it the way he was meant to? Did it WORK? Did it work over time? If he had changed it, would it have had an impact (this being supposition of course)?

 

When we figure that out, then we can move on to whether or not we personally liked it or disliked it and the long term effects it had on British Wrestling and the business of it. I have a hard time holding it against a guy for doing what he was supposed to when it worked for a relatively long period of time, especially because it just doesn't conform to what our idea of good wrestling is. Not when we're looking at other metrics.

 

But then I don't know enough about this. Which is why I'm asking.

[Bix]

The Dale Martin version of British wrestling was not about big houses. It was about getting as many wrestlers as possible over as TV stars so they could promote as many house shows as possible each night pushing that TV wrestling stars would be appearing. Yeah, they ran a handful of super shows at Wembley Arena but there was no reason for them to do so regularly.

[Dylan Waco]

The best argument against Daddy is that in his "success" he killed traditional and unique Brit model for effective promoting which eventually led to the decline of the business over there. The extent to which that is true is something I would like to see explored in more detail. It may be that the best draw in British history is not as meaningful as it sounds on paper and in fact may have been a net negative in a way that is impossible for us to understand. I am skeptical of this, but willing to listen to a serious argument with more details explaining it.

 

Saying Daddy didn't draw a bunch of 10k houses is irrelevant - they didn't book 10k buildings - not even close most of the time. They didn't want to for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the fact that the dispersed multi-show model was more affordable to run and brought in good money at much lower risks. I mean if you subscribe to the theory that financial viability of promotion/setting records for promotions is not as important as raw numbers that is your choice but I don't want to live in a World where Edge is a better HoF candidate than Ricky Steamboat. Put another way I like The High Flyers and actually think they should be on the ballot, but how many people would treat the notion that they are better candidates than the already inducted Midnight Express seriously? They were certainly on or near the top of more 10k plus drawing shows than the Midnights I would guess.

 

On some level I am impressed with the Euro voters because they went with Walton as the first inductee from the region and beat down the looming scourge that is Johnny Saint. That's not to say Saint is a totally absurd candidate, but he would strike me as another Ultimo type getting a bump from U.S. visibility, rather than what his supposed strengths are. Walton was a "safe" pick, but a good one as he was a big part of getting over the various talents for a promotion that truly relied on various talents.

 

Beyond Walton is tough because the people arguing against Daddy are effectively saying "the biggest known draw in British wrestling should not be in, but X should." To those less familiar with the Brit scene it seems weird even if there is merit to the argument and while one could argue that Pallo and McManus have reasonably strong claims to getting in over Daddy, I know of no one who says they were known figures the way Daddy was.

 

For what it's worth I'm happy Jim Breaks was added to the ballot and if I had a vote would be very tempted to vote for him.

[JerryvonKramer]

All I'm saying is, ask anyone over 40 or so in Britain to name one wrestler and 9/10 are going to say Big Daddy, even now.

 

People talk about Carlos Calon, the UK is a lot bigger than Puerto Rico.

[Matt D]

All I'm saying is, ask anyone over 40 or so in Britain to name one wrestler and 9/10 are going to say Big Daddy, even now.

 

People talk about Carlos Calon, the UK is a lot bigger than Puerto Rico.

Big Daddy was huge... he's now a joke figure. People remember Mick McManus, Jackie Pallo, even Les Kellet with fondness. I've never heard a single positive retrospective comment on Big Daddy. Not one.

See, I'm curious about the intersect between these two comments. When MJH is saying that, who is he talking about? The average person over 40, or the average person he talks to who is still really into wrestling. There's a difference and it matters.

 

I don't think the average person who grew up with the WWF in the US when it was big nationally would mention Dynamite Kid or Ricky Steamboat before they got through guys like JYD and Duggan.

[Dylan Waco]

All I'm saying is, ask anyone over 40 or so in Britain to name one wrestler and 9/10 are going to say Big Daddy, even now.

 

People talk about Carlos Calon, the UK is a lot bigger than Puerto Rico.

I wouldn't rate Daddy over Colon because Colon effectively created PR wrestling, he was actually one of the biggest draws in the business for years, and he ran/promoted the territory with great success (hell it still does reasonably well). But your point is the point that is hard for anti-Daddy people to shoot down. If you don't take the most well known, culturally significant guy from the country, who also happens to be universally regarded as it's biggest native draw in history, who do you leapfrog over him, why and how?

 

It's a tough situation

[JerryvonKramer]

Also, saying his run as a top draw was short isn't seeing the bigger picture.

 

The UK is not New York or Philly or Atlanta. Wrestling is not a big part of our culture. Working class towns have football ("soccer") and boxing.

 

Getting wrestling over to any sort of mainstream exposure is a big achievement and shouldn't be sniffed at. You can't see it as a run on top of just another territory.

 

As a side point, don't think Vince gets nearly enough credit for almost selling out Wembley in 92. In a way, almost as incredible as Mania 3.

[NintendoLogic]

I totally reject the Farmer notion that 10k houses is the only way to measure a draw of HoF stature. If that is the metric NO ONE from the UK ever gets in.

That raises the question of why wrestlers from the UK should be held to different standards than wrestlers from the US or Japan or Mexico or anywhere else.

 

Qualifications for the WON HOF work on a sliding scale. The worse you are as a worker, the better you have to be as a draw and vice versa. With Daddy, his in-ring work is a significant detriment, so his drawing power is all he has going for him. If that doesn't hold up, he has no case at all.

 

Saying Daddy didn't draw a bunch of 10k houses is irrelevant - they didn't book 10k buildings - not even close most of the time.

Actually, they did run Wembley on certain occasions, like for Daddy/Haystacks. It seems pretty clear that they would've run more shows there if they thought they would've drawn. That they didn't is a pretty damning indictment.

 

The Dale Martin version of British wrestling was not about big houses. It was about getting as many wrestlers as possible over as TV stars so they could promote as many house shows as possible each night pushing that TV wrestling stars would be appearing. Yeah, they ran a handful of super shows at Wembley Arena but there was no reason for them to do so regularly.

If the product was a draw rather than any individual wrestler, then nobody from World of Sport has much of a case.

 

Also, saying his run as a top draw was short isn't seeing the bigger picture.

 

The UK is not New York or Philly or Atlanta. Wrestling is not a big part of our culture. Working class towns have football ("soccer") and boxing.

 

Getting wrestling over to any sort of mainstream exposure is a big achievement and shouldn't be sniffed at. You can't see it as a run on top of just another territory.

All things considered, becoming a TV star when your brother owns the promotion and there are only three channels isn't that much of an accomplishment.

[MJH]

All I'm saying is, ask anyone over 40 or so in Britain to name one wrestler and 9/10 are going to say Big Daddy, even now.

 

People talk about Carlos Calon, the UK is a lot bigger than Puerto Rico.

Big Daddy was huge... he's now a joke figure. People remember Mick McManus, Jackie Pallo, even Les Kellet with fondness. I've never heard a single positive retrospective comment on Big Daddy. Not one.

See, I'm curious about the intersect between these two comments. When MJH is saying that, who is he talking about? The average person over 40, or the average person he talks to who is still really into wrestling. There's a difference and it matters.

 

I don't think the average person who grew up with the WWF in the US when it was big nationally would mention Dynamite Kid or Ricky Steamboat before they got through guys like JYD and Duggan.

 

Average person over 40. ITV Wrestling is remembered with a lot of fondness, it was a staple part of most people's Saturday afternoons, and if/when wrestling comes up (which is more frequent than you might think), people are happy to reminisce. With Big Daddy, I don't even have to bring him into the conversation, it's always "but that Big Daddy..." and into a negative comment. You know how the comments section on most old music on YouTube can't help but degrade into a Justin Bieber slagfest? It's pretty much like that, and only marginally less visceral.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd agree that some guys might use Big Daddy to knock wrestling in general. If you know what I mean by that.

 

I'm in no way a fan of his either. But basically, if he doesn't go in, then it's borderline hopeless to talk about the Mark Roccos of this world.

 

Look at this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituari...dy-1286571.html

 

That's his obituary in The Independent.

 

The Queen and Margaret Thatcher declared themselves fans.

Let me ask you how many wrestlers in history have had that level of mainstream cultural penetration?

 

The very fact that The Indy was covering the death of A WRESTLER is significant enough.

[JerryvonKramer]

Also, look at this:

 

The following year, British wrestling, judged too downmarket by the television scheduler Greg Dyke, vanished from the screens.

It's a bit reductive to say that he "killed the territory". If the controller of ITV doesn't like wrestling, then wrestling isn't getting a slot no matter who is on top. And wrestling on the BBC is borderline unimaginable. He'd retired anyway.

[JerryvonKramer]

Having just done a bit of googling around to see what sort of play Big Daddy still gets in mainstream press, there are plenty of articles and things out there comparing him to Hogan and what not.

 

One thing I couldn't help but notice is that the feud with Giant Haystacks gets massive play and Haystacks is almost treated as being on Big Daddy's level.

 

No one is making cases for Giant Haystacks for the HoF, but really if Big Daddy goes in, he's your logical number 2 over someone like Kendo Nagasaki.

 

To be honest, I have no problem with no British wrestlers going in.

[PeteF3]

I still have to think that McManus is the best British wrestling candidate. From a mainstream standpoint he was arguably ahead of Nagasaki, but Nagasaki's heyday was in the '70s and '80s and McManus' was in the '60s where we don't have footage.

 

Without getting into a debate on it one way or the other, let's say for the sake of argument that Daddy rates as a 10/10 on the Drawing Power scale. He would also rate as a 0/10 on Work--which is a factor for the Observer HOF, period. Mainstream fans may not care about working ability as such but the Observer HOF isn't meant for mainstream wrestling fans anyway. If Daddy is a 10 as a draw then McManus has to be an 8 or a 9--not so much for big gates but for notable FA Cup Day matches (maybe the closest equivalent to WrestleMania for Joint Promotions) and for being a mainstream celebrity himself. Difference is, we do have footage of a past-his-prime McManus from the early-to-mid '70s and he's clearly a charismatic, solid-at-worst worker, and this is from past his prime. It's not at all a stretch to say that '60s Prime McManus would be a 7 or so on the Work scale, too.

 

Past that, there's been written material that I've seen that would put McManus as a plus in the behind-the-scenes/booking portion as well. I think it was when Tony St. Clair posted on the old 1stopwrestling board, about how McManus was able to turn some staid houses around after Mike Marino's run as Joint's...I don't think "booker" was the term they'd use, but the closest equivalent to such. I know, that's not a ton to go on here, but it's something to look into and there's certainly more evidence that favors McManus in that regard than Daddy.

 

I'm not saying that we should be filling out ballots by rating everyone 1-10 and then adding the numbers up and voting for the guys who place highest. But I would much rather see a somewhat lesser draw than McManus get the HOF nod over Daddy if the work is a huge plus in the other direction. If we're going to honor Joint Promotions in the Observer HOF then I really think we need to honor the guys who represent the style. McManus wasn't a trained legit shooter like most of the other Joint workers (including Daddy himself, believe it or not) but that's really the only point of difference from an in-ring standpoint.

 

From an old DVDVR post: "Mick Mcmanus was once one of the biggest sporting names in this country. Still practically everyone over 30 knows who he was. I was watching an old tape of Nigel Benn vs Chris Eubank (which was an absolutely huge fight over here) and the boxing commentator actually compared Eubank to wrestler Mcmanus in a totally non-pisstaking manner, which is the only time I've heard that. He's still very highly regarded by the British Public."

 

Anecdotes =/= evidence and all that, but I'm honestly just as impressed as McManus being used as a point of comparison during a major boxing fight, as third-hand information that Thatcher and the Queen were Big Daddy fans. I can't remember the last time a football announcer talked about Cortland Finnegan's reputation as the NFL's dirtiest player and made a straight, deadpan comparison to Ric Flair.

[Dylan Waco]

That raises the question of why wrestlers from the UK should be held to different standards than wrestlers from the US or Japan or Mexico or anywhere else.

 

Qualifications for the WON HOF work on a sliding scale. The worse you are as a worker, the better you have to be as a draw and vice versa. With Daddy, his in-ring work is a significant detriment, so his drawing power is all he has going for him. If that doesn't hold up, he has no case at all.

I don't think wrestlers from any place can be held to some flat standard. It's not possible because context matters. There are general guidelines that you've got (drawing power, work, influence), but there has never been a rule anywhere, at any point that said "you have to have headlined a bunch of 10k plus houses." If you can find such a standard I will apologize and withdraw my support for Buddy Rose as well.

 

You have to account for the realities of the places where the people worked and the period where they worked there. I noticed you clipped the comment about the Flyers v. Midnights. I don't blame you because most people would scoff at the assertion that the Flyers are better HoF candidates, including people who don't think the Midnights should have been in. Yet if you look at Raw numbers drawn I doubt very, very seriously that the Midnights have a record like the Flyers.

 

Having said that I do agree with you that there is no reason the UK HAS to have anyone in the HoF. I don't think voters should feel compelled to vote for anyone out of some sense of equity. If people look at the details and say "I really don't think there is anyone here that belongs" I would get it - based on the information would currently have there isn't a grand slam from the UK and the business model makes it extremely murky to parse out the details. But I don't think "well no one ever drew 10k plus a week!" is a valid reason to dismiss all of the UK.

 

I also don't agree with the sliding scale thing (at least not completely) but I'm not sure that's really a major point of what we are arguing here.

 

Actually, they did run Wembley on certain occasions, like for Daddy/Haystacks. It seems pretty clear that they would've run more shows there if they thought they would've drawn. That they didn't is a pretty damning indictment.

This is an interesting theory I've seen tossed out before but there are obvious problems with it, not the least of which is that it presumes to read the mind of promoters. To some extent we all do this, but I'm not sure it's the best way to tear down or build up an HoF candidacy without more information.

 

It also strikes me as a very odd criticism to make given the history of special events in wrestling. To someone from the States it might seem odd that a special event would be a building with an 8k capacity, but in the UK that appears to have been the case. As noted before they weren't going to fuck with a model that worked often and I've seen arguments before that said they would have lost there ass on the bigger shows EVEN IF they drew big money because it would have alienated all of their local audiences and the overhead was higher.

 

Portland is a similar situation. I assume you would oppose Buddy Rose's induction for the same reason and that's fine. But the assumption is generally not that Owen couldn't have drawn bigger houses. It's just that he owned his own building where he could control concessions and had very little overhead. It wasn't worth the risk to go into a bigger building (I've spoken with a few people who have said to me that his profits would have diminished dramatically if he averaged anything less than 7-8k in a bigger building and that does not seem out of line - in a town/area the size of Portland that would have been very difficult to do during the period even with a tv show getting massive ratings as the history of Memphis tells us) because of the more conservative nature of the business model and unique circumstances of the product. It's not as simple as "they were afraid to run big buildings!" It's that they were making money and had made money for decades on the existing model and it made little sense to radically deviate from it. In fact most believe Daddy's success actually HURT the over all business because it crushed the prevailing model, and while I don't think it's a major reason for Portland sliding, the period where they ran a bigger building on rare occasions coincides closely with their rapid decline around the loop.

 

All things considered, becoming a TV star when your brother owns the promotion and there are only three channels isn't that much of an accomplishment.

Do you support HHH being in?

[NintendoLogic]

I don't think wrestlers from any place can be held to some flat standard. It's not possible because context matters. There are general guidelines that you've got (drawing power, work, influence), but there has never been a rule anywhere, at any point that said "you have to have headlined a bunch of 10k plus houses." If you can find such a standard I will apologize and withdraw my support for Buddy Rose as well.

Just to be clear, I'm not using the 10k thing as a hard cutoff (in fact, I think Farmer actually supports Daddy being in the HOF) but as a convenient shorthand. If you want to make a case for someone based on drawing power, there has to be tangible evidence of that person putting asses in seats. Just being famous isn't enough because it opens the door to guys like Ultimate Warrior and Goldberg.

 

You have to account for the realities of the places where the people worked and the period where they worked there. I noticed you clipped the comment about the Flyers v. Midnights. I don't blame you because most people would scoff at the assertion that the Flyers are better HoF candidates, including people who don't think the Midnights should have been in. Yet if you look at Raw numbers drawn I doubt very, very seriously that the Midnights have a record like the Flyers.

I clipped the part about the High Flyers because it's not really relevant to the conversation. Neither the Flyers nor the Midnight Express have a case based solely on drawing power. With Daddy, that's all he has. But when you compare him to similarly situated guys like Hulk Hogan and Billy Graham, he doesn't really stack up.

 

This is an interesting theory I've seen tossed out before but there are obvious problems with it, not the least of which is that it presumes to read the mind of promoters. To some extent we all do this, but I'm not sure it's the best way to tear down or build up an HoF candidacy without more information.

 

It also strikes me as a very odd criticism to make given the history of special events in wrestling. To someone from the States it might seem odd that a special event would be a building with an 8k capacity, but in the UK that appears to have been the case. As noted before they weren't going to fuck with a model that worked often and I've seen arguments before that said they would have lost there ass on the bigger shows EVEN IF they drew big money because it would have alienated all of their local audiences and the overhead was higher.

Like I said earlier, if the Joint Promotions business model was based around a bunch of mid-sized houses that de-emphasized individual wrestlers, then anyone who worked primarily or exclusively for them is going to have a tough case based on drawing ability. Mick McManus and Johnny Saint at least have their in-ring ability to point to, and Kendo Nagasaki apparently drew decently in Calgary.

 

Portland is a similar situation. I assume you would oppose Buddy Rose's induction for the same reason and that's fine. But the assumption is generally not that Owen couldn't have drawn bigger houses. It's just that he owned his own building where he could control concessions and had very little overhead. It wasn't worth the risk to go into a bigger building (I've spoken with a few people who have said to me that his profits would have diminished dramatically if he averaged anything less than 7-8k in a bigger building and that does not seem out of line - in a town/area the size of Portland that would have been very difficult to do during the period even with a tv show getting massive ratings as the history of Memphis tells us) because of the more conservative nature of the business model and unique circumstances of the product. It's not as simple as "they were afraid to run big buildings!" It's that they were making money and had made money for decades on the existing model and it made little sense to radically deviate from it. In fact most believe Daddy's success actually HURT the over all business because it crushed the prevailing model, and while I don't think it's a major reason for Portland sliding, the period where they ran a bigger building on rare occasions coincides closely with their rapid decline around the loop.

I don't really have an opinion on Rose's overall candidacy, but I do think that his record as a draw in Portland shouldn't be enough to get him in. But he also drew in San Francisco, headlined in the WWF, and was a talented worker. If Daddy had some good matches to his name and got over in promotions that weren't owned by his brother, I'd be more sympathetic.

 

Do you support HHH being in?

Hey, I'm not saying that benefiting from nepotism is an automatic disqualifier. HHH definitely isn't as big a deal as the WWE makes him out to be, but he's still an easy pick for the HOF based on the numbers.

[GSR]

For what it's worth I'm happy Jim Breaks was added to the ballot and if I had a vote would be very tempted to vote for him.

I'd completely missed seeing this, so I'd be interested what was the impetus for Dave adding him to the ballot or who had been in his ear pimping Breaks. I'm not imagining he'll do too well, but I hope that Cornette at least got round to watching the Breaks discs I sent him a few years back.

[Dylan Waco]

I know Dave at least reads the Classics threads where I have brought up Breaks numerous times. But I have no pull with Dave. I'll respond to NL after work.

[Jingus]

As a side point, don't think Vince gets nearly enough credit for almost selling out Wembley in 92. In a way, almost as incredible as Mania 3.

That's actually an interesting point. You could argue that Davey Boy Smith headlined the best-attended wrestling show in UK history, far bigger than Big Daddy ever had.

 

Basically, it comes down to how many points you subtract for his hideously awful "wrestling" and his selfish business practices. In many ways, Big Daddy is essentially the much shittier version of Dusty Rhodes.

[Matt D]

How big were the crowds during the various UK Rampage tours that Davey were a big part of in 91-92?

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm about 85% convinced that the real draws for that show were Bret and Warrior.

 

Think the idea it was Davey Boy is a WWF-manufactured myth that makes for a neat story.

 

Obviously he was going to be way over with the live crowd but I don't think he sold the show at all.

[Loss]

Davey Boy was definitely a draw in England, and they were building him up in that market long before Summerslam, even giving him a clean pinfall over Flair on a tour earlier in the year.

[JerryvonKramer]

I can accept that he was A draw for that show, but I can't accept that he was THE draw.

 

I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if as many people had bought their tickets to see the Legion of Doom. And I fully believe that more people had bought tickets to see Warrior and Bret.