WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[jdw]

John since you are up and in the thread are you up or down on Patera at this point? I know you think he is a viable candidate, but are convinced and if not what would it take?

He's a viable candidate. I haven't figured out my 10 yet, so I don't know if I have a slot for him or he just misses the cut.

 

I also might have to make a strategic choice. There may be someone that I think is slightly more deserving, but (i) not get close to enough votes to get in while (ii) getting plenty to stay on the ballot. In turn, Patera may be at risk of falling off the ballot due to a low number of votes. In that case, I might have to vote for Patera to keep him on.

 

That can be a bit tricky as it's not exactly a "wasted vote" on that other person. With perhaps the exception of Ventura, when guys reach a certain % of votes, they tend to go in within the next few years. So there is value in trying to help candidates you think are worthy of getting up into the 50%+ range, especially the 55%+ range.

 

It's a bit of a tricky thing. I wouldn't take a vote away from Schmidt because I feel the need to keep pushing that % as high as possible to keep him on the cusp of getting in (or putting him over the top). On the other hand... I think Koloff is probably more deserving than Ken even though I'd rather watch Ken any day. Ivan is going to have plenty of votes without me. Ivan will eventually go in, and we all can predict the "no later than" time for him going in. So when I sift through a 10, it might be someone like Ivan that I don't vote for an instead try to make sure Ken stays on the ballot.

 

John

[Loss]

It may be a money loser, so I'm not so much recommending this as a business proposition as I am something that I personally think would be awesome. But PWI has the most extensive wrestling photo library in the world, and it would be cool if they did a coffee table book of the prime PWI years. I know the magazine is still out there, but something to capture the glory years of the 70s and 80s would be great.

 

I think PWI started in 1979, so 1979-1989 would be great. For The Wrestler, which I think started much earlier, they could go farther back.

 

So yeah, I don't expect it to happen, but it would be great if it did.

[Loss]

And back on the subject of the WON HOF, Bill Apter would get my vote for sure. Apter is at least as deserving as Dave Meltzer, and I think Dave is a slam dunk pick for his own HOF.

[jdw]

Really the magazines are by far the biggest/best promoter not already in. I know John and others want to know more about the role of Apter before they support him, but it really seems silly that PWI isn't represented on some level already. Probably the single most obvious case of a "group" that should be inducted.

Put in the Company rather than Apter.

 

Bill is just symbolic of them, rather than the guy who did Everything That Was In PWI. We don't know how many of the pics were his. We don't know how much he actually wrote. We don't know how much he worked the phones with the non-New York territories to make sure to get their storylines and pics. We don't know how much he worked on layout. Etc. We're giving Bill credit for things that we have no idea about, simply to have a Face of Wrestling Magazines.

 

Put it this way.

 

If we didn't know who really ran Memphis, would we would be advocating Eddie Marlin in the WON HOF as the promoter/matchmaker of all that great Memphis stuff that everyone creams over.

 

That would be fucked up. But we would do it because if didn't know better.

 

With the London Publications, we simply don't know better. We also aren't likely to know better because (i) it's a dead industry, (ii) the other big guys in the office have long since moved on, and (iii) Bill is a nice guy and no one is going to burst the illusion.

 

John

[jdw]

And back on the subject of the WON HOF, Bill Apter would get my vote for sure. Apter is at least as deserving as Dave Meltzer, and I think Dave is a slam dunk pick for his own HOF.

Here's the difference:

 

95%+ of what's in the WON is Dave. Closing very rapidly on the 30th Anniversary of the WON.

 

How much of what was in the London Mags is Bill?

 

Here's the second difference:

 

Dave changed how pro wrestling is covered.

 

Bill didn't.

 

John

[khawk20]

It may be a money loser, so I'm not so much recommending this as a business proposition as I am something that I personally think would be awesome. But PWI has the most extensive wrestling photo library in the world, and it would be cool if they did a coffee table book of the prime PWI years. I know the magazine is still out there, but something to capture the glory years of the 70s and 80s would be great.

 

I think PWI started in 1979, so 1979-1989 would be great. For The Wrestler, which I think started much earlier, they could go farther back.

 

So yeah, I don't expect it to happen, but it would be great if it did.

I believe the entire PWI/Weston photo archives were bought by the WWE. At the very least, they have some sort of working agreement with whoever owns those photos as they use them at times in their documentaries and HOF bios, with full credit attached to the photo.

(that actually makes me think it is some sort of working agreement as opposed to owning the photos outright, as they wouldn't need to put the credit on them so prominently otherwise)

 

If the WWE doesn't own it all already, I think they will at some point...which probably gives a better chance for a PWI/Weston/Apter Mag photo coffee table book of some sort to be released eventually, albeit with a WWE logo attached to it.

[Loss]

Really the magazines are by far the biggest/best promoter not already in. I know John and others want to know more about the role of Apter before they support him, but it really seems silly that PWI isn't represented on some level already. Probably the single most obvious case of a "group" that should be inducted.

Put in the Company rather than Apter.

 

Bill is just symbolic of them, rather than the guy who did Everything That Was In PWI. We don't know how many of the pics were his. We don't know how much he actually wrote. We don't know how much he worked the phones with the non-New York territories to make sure to get their storylines and pics. We don't know how much he worked on layout. Etc. We're giving Bill credit for things that we have no idea about, simply to have a Face of Wrestling Magazines.

 

Put it this way.

 

If we didn't know who really ran Memphis, would we would be advocating Eddie Marlin in the WON HOF as the promoter/matchmaker of all that great Memphis stuff that everyone creams over.

 

That would be fucked up. But we would do it because if didn't know better.

 

With the London Publications, we simply don't know better. We also aren't likely to know better because (i) it's a dead industry, (ii) the other big guys in the office have long since moved on, and (iii) Bill is a nice guy and no one is going to burst the illusion.

 

John

 

We also don't know what many promoters and bookers in the HOF did in terms of day-to-day operations. For wrestlers who are in on work, we don't know if they called all of the matches that people remember fondly. For wrestlers who are in on drawing power, we haven't interviewed each person in attendance to confirm that the main event is what motivated them to buy a ticket. I don't think a lack of knowledge surrounding his day-to-day job duties are enough reason to say he shouldn't go in. There are probably many people that have played a huge role in the success of companies like WWE and New Japan whose names we will never even know, and that's because the person at the top typically gets the credit.

 

Can anyone confirm Bill Apter's actual job title? It was not on his Wikipedia page. If he was the top-ranking editor at London Publishing, he should get credit for their accomplishments during that time, even if the term "Apter mags" is a colloquialism.

[Matt D]

He called himself "Senior Editor" here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBFKSbH0YeQ

[Dylan Waco]

John since you are up and in the thread are you up or down on Patera at this point? I know you think he is a viable candidate, but are convinced and if not what would it take?

He's a viable candidate. I haven't figured out my 10 yet, so I don't know if I have a slot for him or he just misses the cut.

 

I also might have to make a strategic choice. There may be someone that I think is slightly more deserving, but (i) not get close to enough votes to get in while (ii) getting plenty to stay on the ballot. In turn, Patera may be at risk of falling off the ballot due to a low number of votes. In that case, I might have to vote for Patera to keep him on.

 

That can be a bit tricky as it's not exactly a "wasted vote" on that other person. With perhaps the exception of Ventura, when guys reach a certain % of votes, they tend to go in within the next few years. So there is value in trying to help candidates you think are worthy of getting up into the 50%+ range, especially the 55%+ range.

 

It's a bit of a tricky thing. I wouldn't take a vote away from Schmidt because I feel the need to keep pushing that % as high as possible to keep him on the cusp of getting in (or putting him over the top). On the other hand... I think Koloff is probably more deserving than Ken even though I'd rather watch Ken any day. Ivan is going to have plenty of votes without me. Ivan will eventually go in, and we all can predict the "no later than" time for him going in. So when I sift through a 10, it might be someone like Ivan that I don't vote for an instead try to make sure Ken stays on the ballot.

 

John

 

Patera isn't on the ballot this year

 

Buddy was put on and I have reason to believe it was largely because of some things I said to a voter who is in pretty good with Dave and has said he would vote for him. Patera is my pet project to get on the ballot, not because I think he should be recognized but because I think he SHOULD be in the HoF. In the case of Patera I don't even feel I need to qualify that statement, though I acknowledge he's not a slam dunk level guy (but then at this point few are).

 

I'd vote for Schmidt over him for sure and I think he'll get in this year. He'll get the death bump and I know of at least one new voter this year who definitely voted for him and another new voter who I think is likely to. He missed by two votes last year as I recall (though the electorate could be much larger this year for all I know).

 

Ivan I would vote for but I'm not sure I'd vote for him over Patera. I think they are fairly lateral. I could certainly see a case for Ivan and it's possible if I had researched Ivan to the degree I have Patera my view could flip.

 

In the performers category the people I would vote for before Patera that are currently on the ballot are Carlos Colon, Cien Caras, John Cena, Hans Schmidt...err....umm.......

 

There are other guys I would consider lateral perhaps and I don't know enough about Torres to be fair (I would lean toward maybe giving him a slight edge over Ken, but I would want to look into it more myself), but I actually think Ken would be one of the absolute best guys on the ballot if he were on this year.

 

Regardless it is cool to see someone else who would vote for them, albeit depending on the situation with the ballot.

 

Of course I don't have a ballot so it's largely irrelevant who I would vote for

[rzombie1988]

Bill was almost always called the "Senior Editor".

[Dylan Waco]

I would have no problem with inducting all of PWI/London Publishing/Whatever term you want to put on it, but there is one problem with this:

 

Unless we are counting the Dusek's who were fiat picks and maybe The Freebirds there has never even been a group on the ballot, let alone one voted in (I'm exempting the Birds, because they were brought in more as a unique three man team than anything else). The idea that the test case for this would be a business enterprise and not a group of performers is something I see zero chance of happening. In fact the idea of group inclusions ever taking place strikes me as highly unlikely.

 

No one seems to be arguing against the notion that the magazines should have some representation, but the argument is that we don't know who did what and why should Bill get credit for everyone? On top of Loss points which I generally agree with, the other question you have to ask is is it right to totally exclude the magazines forever because Dave won't put groups on the ballot? To me at this point they are most glaring omission, but I tend to think they were effectively brilliant promoters that made fuck tons of money for people territories and wrestlers all over the country. If we want to say Apter gets to much credit that may be true, but I think it's also silly to pretend he was just a guy they trotted out there for public appearances because he was so nice (frankly you aren't going to find many more people less photogenic than Apter).

 

In the Schmidt thread at Classics John argued for picking battles regarding the issue of Sonnenburg who he now seems to think will go in by fiat (I think John is right to be honest). I think this is another clear case of picking your battles. Is it more likely that Meltzer is going to open things up to groups particularly a fucking group of magazines or that Apter is a silly pick because we don't have a shit ton of inside analysis regarding what went on at London for his run there?

 

I have zero problem with Apter getting in as a placeholder for the mags, particularly because I tend to believe he was far closer to the "majorly involved" end of things than the "peripheral presence" end of things.

[Cox]

The Midnight Express (Condrey/Eaton/Lane) were also a group pick, and realistically should have been inducted with Cornette (who was a fiat pick who made it in largely based on his work with the Midnights). So the idea of a group being on the ballot and getting voted in is not entirely unprecedented, though inducting London Publishing as a group would still seem rather unusual on the surface. It's not like a booking team or a booking committee has ever been nominated.

[Dylan Waco]

The Midnight Express were effectively inducted as a team like The Freebirds

[jdw]

Can anyone confirm Bill Apter's actual job title? It was not on his Wikipedia page. If he was the top-ranking editor at London Publishing, he should get credit for their accomplishments during that time, even if the term "Apter mags" is a colloquialism.

He wasn't the top guy. That was Peter King and later Stu Saks. They were the top guys in the office who were essentially the Editor-in-Chief / Managing Editor types.

 

Saks did an interview here:

 

http://www.kayfabememories.com/Interviews/stusaks.htm

http://www.kayfabememories.com/Interviews/stusaks-2.htm

 

Allow me to rant here about a pet peeve of mine: the constant reference to our magazines as the Aptermags. I love Bill and have the greatest admiration for him and what he brought to this company. He was trusted within an industry that is understandably very guarded. He was our front man, for sure, but he was not the only man. He was part of a team. Again, taking nothing away from Bill, because he has earned everything he ever got in this business, it bugs me to see the contributions of so many people reduced to a handy label, Aptermags. How about Westonmags? There wouldn't have been a Bill without a Stanley.

That's about as strong and read-between-the-lines as you'll get any one of them to make the point on Bill.

 

From the first part, it looks like King was EoC back into the 70s. I know he was still there into the well into the 80s until he moved on and Stu moved up.

 

I don't have a problem with the HOF entry being this:

 

Stanley Weston & London Publishing

 

That would be fine. I actually don't know if we have a good overview of *all* the mags going back to the 50s, and beyond just the London banner. Should we put Theodore Axeman in first, then Weston?

 

John

[jdw]

Patera isn't on the ballot this year

WTF?

 

Eventually I'll have to open the e-mail and look at the list.

 

 

John

[jdw]

Is it more likely that Meltzer is going to open things up to groups particularly a fucking group of magazines or that Apter is a silly pick because we don't have a shit ton of inside analysis regarding what went on at London for his run there?

 

I have zero problem with Apter getting in as a placeholder for the mags, particularly because I tend to believe he was far closer to the "majorly involved" end of things than the "peripheral presence" end of things.

I think Dave wouldn't have a problem putting in London Publishing or "Stanley Weston & London Publishing" if someone got across to him that's a better way of honoring the history of Pro Wrestling Magazines than putting in Apter.

 

Do I care to make the argument to him? Perhaps... not invested in doing it before this ballot gets done. It's something I might suggest to him to do next year: replace Bill with that. And it will likely get more support. Of course if Bill goes in this year, then it's moot.

 

John

[jdw]

The Midnight Express were effectively inducted as a team like The Freebirds

But a poorly done one. We've talked about this in the past: it should have been The Midnight Express & Jim Cornette back in 1996 (or later) rather than Jim on his own. And I accept blame for that... I should have thought more about it at the time. Jim's HOF candidacy in 1996 revolved around what he did as a part of that "group".

 

John

[KrisZ]

Corny's candidacy on his own looked a lot better in 96 than it does now in retrospect.

[JerryvonKramer]

Do you think Condrey and Eaton would go in based on everything pre-87?

[KrisZ]

I think the group definitely should've been in earlier. Condrey & Eaton as a duo would be a strong maybe but you add in Lane it puts them over.

[puropotsy]

For what it's worth, I do have a ballot now and did vote for Apter. I know that at least personally PWI was a big influence on my fandom and I learned a lot from reading them. Kayfabe articles aside, I learned about NWA title history and really anything that WWF didn't present as the truth as that was the only regular tv I got. It was the top press coverage of wrestling of its era and influenced the direction of wrestling with exposure and promotion of different wrestling. Apter has had a career that has lasted over 40 years and continues to this day. And although this would not be my reason for voting for him, he was an extremely nice man when I met him in April.

[Dylan Waco]

Someone else noted this at Classics, but apparently Henri Deglane was randomly dropped from the ballot this year, which is either a "oops" ala Wagner Sr or an overlooked historical candidate hat tip? Pat Laprade certainly made a strong case for him on the show Dave and I did regarding Montreal wrestling

[FLIK]

Allow me to rant here about a pet peeve of mine: the constant reference to our magazines as the Aptermags. I love Bill and have the greatest admiration for him and what he brought to this company. He was trusted within an industry that is understandably very guarded. He was our front man, for sure, but he was not the only man. He was part of a team. Again, taking nothing away from Bill, because he has earned everything he ever got in this business, it bugs me to see the contributions of so many people reduced to a handy label, Aptermags. How about Westonmags? There wouldn't have been a Bill without a Stanley.

Apter himself has said in many interviews pretty much the same thing. What's funny is that Meltzer is the guy who came up with the term ""Apter Mag" to begin with which Bill never liked but it just ended up sticking.

[Dylan Waco]

Not to discount Saks entirely as I get his point and think it is a reasonable way of looking at things as a rule, but how would we treat that quote if it was say Jim Duggan talking about JYD era Mid-South with Watts as Weston? Or Paul Orndorff talking about Hulkamania with Vince as Weston?

 

On the specifics of who was actually the head honcho on the masthead/theoretically on top of the heap, I can tell you from working with magazines for several years that that means very little in the scheme of things.

 

There is a fairly prominent magazine I have written some things for that was founded by one extremely well known personality and two other fairly well known people in political media circles. There job as editors/publishers was by their own admission to show up, sign checks, talk to advertisers here and there and generally occupy space. All of the real work fell on the Associate Editors. Even after two of the other three left and other more professionally experienced editors were hired in their absence the vast majority of the work fell on the shoulders of one guy in particular who has been promoted to a Senior Editor now, but is technically still below one person on the totem pole.

 

The point is not that the same could be said for King/Saks and Apter. The point is that those guys being "above" him means little about the day to day operations. John is right that in an ideal world we would no more about those operations, but at this point most of the info is murky with the general feeling being that Bill was the public face, Bill was one of the more common photo guys, Bill had the tight relationships with certain wrestlers/promoters, et.

 

Again I have no problem with Weston/London Publishing going in as a group. I just think it is highly unlikely that will ever happen

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Does George Napolitano have any sort of case for being on the ballot?