WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[Robert S]

If being famous is a killer criteria for being in then I would guess there are several people worldwide which are not seriously considered Hall of Fame material. Otto Wanz would be one such name. He was a great self promoter who knew how be present in the media. I would assume every Austrian over the age of about 25 to 30 would know who he is.

By the way: I would really like someone to make a depper analysis of pro wrestling on the continental part of Europe. If you look at the WON HOF ballot you would think that it just did not exist (Hoffmann is one because he wrestled in Japan and the US, otherwise he would just be ignored), but for example my father (who does not care about pro wrestling at all) can easily name 5 Austrian pro wrestling stars from the 50ies and 60ies, so it wasn't just around but had to be pretty big.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Sting *really* isn't all that famous though.

Well to wrestling fans he is. To be more specific, Alvarez' point on Sting (which I sorta agree with actually) was that to a whole generation of ppl that grew up watching he was the man and that once more older voters are faded out and replaced by the folk that grew up on him he'll get voted in by them.

 

That he wasn't main stream famous is irrelevant really, a great bonus if you can gain that staus (which only a handfull ever do) but in no way a negative if you can't.

 

I can't see the case for Sting as a HOF wrestler. Sure, Sting was perceived as the man from probably Baltimore down to Atlanta until WCW's boom happened, but we're talking about a guy who headlined a company that often had trouble putting in 600 people in an arena despite drawing comparable ratings to the World Wrestling Federation in the time period. The following might be a fact that Alvarez refuses to admit due to his anti-Hogan hate but, though Hogan was never perceived as "the man" for WCW, he was "the man" empirically because his PPVs did the best numbers by far with no one being close. Past Hogan, Goldberg was "the man" who never had his day in the Sun for political reasons. Sting could have been "the man" after Starrcade 1997, but booking didn't favor that. And even if booking did favor Sting and that Starrcade 1997 wasn't totally botched, who is to say Sting would have drawn from that point on? Some only draw as chasers and not as champions. And this all overlooks that Bischoff's teasing, Hogan's unbelievable heel heat, and Sting as the last face to not get crushed by WCW by the mere accident of his hernia all led to Starrcade's 1997 number.

 

On the flip side, John Cena isn't perceived as "the man" at all and is more often than not seen as a tool, but whenever Cena headlines, he tends to pop the rating or draw - not to the extent that Hogan did for WCW, but Cena is certainly invaluable to the WWE's bottom line.

 

There is no argument that Sting can get in as a draw. In fact, his lack of drawing power should even hurt him because there was no excuse for any company to draw less than 1,000 people for years at a time when they had similar ratings to the WWF, especially when everyone loves to poke fun at Kevin Nash's 1995 reign as champion when he was doing double the numbers that Sting was. Influence is hard for me to access. I mean, he has been headlining TNA for years, and Sting might have helped TNA seem like a more serious wrestling outfit to companies like Spike. In that sense, if true, he deserves credit. But Sting isn't a HOF worker, though he has a nice collection of matches throughout. And like in the case of John Cena, fan perception is a tricky variable to play with, and I would expect nothing less of Alvarez to use an argument like "He was seen as the man" to argue for his candidacy, which is just a bad argument. In fairness, I do remember Legends of Wrestling 3, a video game, drawing well because of Sting - at least a video game vendor told me that.

 

With more drive and better promotional backing, Sting would be a shoe-in. Had Sting thrown caution to the wind for a WWF run and popped a huge number, he would be a more serious candidate. But Sting's career struck me as very long and drawn out and also as very mediocre for the opportunities he was given. It was Hogan who carried WCW on buyrates, not Sting. When Sting was headlining the company, the numbers were simply atrocious in WCW's notorious way of being atrocious. In 1997, there were many reasons, with Sting getting partial credit (I'm not undermining him here, really), for the Starrcade 1997 number. He was just as much at fault for that angle blowing up as WCW's own incompetency, even if the latter was all that was needed. Goldberg incidentally became the draw months after that, possibly for the same reason Sting was: because he was the only credible face left with enough credibility to defeat the nWo.

 

I just don't see a case for Sting past the argument that he was the face of a distant, second best North American promotion for a very long time.

 

Odd as this may seem but factoring out Starrcade 1997 and amplifying the variable of perception, I don't see Sting as being a much better candidate than Davey Boy Smith. For example, I was watching the Bulldogs v. Malenkos months ago, and my 21 year old roommate recognized Davey Boy and smiled fondly saying "It's the British Bulldog! WOW!" And he wasn't even a wrestling fan but for a brief time as a kid. Bulldog was very well liked too, but no one would say he is HOF worthy because of his mediocrity in terms of output.

[Matt D]

Do we have any idea what sort of merch figures Sting has?

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think Sting should get in, but I think he will eventually get in. I don't think it will be this year. He's also case of someone where I wouldn't be that worked up if he did get in mainly because I think it's inevitable.

[Cox]

Do we have any idea what sort of merch figures Sting has?

My completely uneducated guess is that it would be somewhere between "highest merch mover in WCW from 1990 through 1994" and "not nearly enough to make WCW financially solvent," so I'd guess that his merchandise numbers, while not terrible, probably aren't anything to hold in high regard either.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Do we have any idea what sort of merch figures Sting has?

My completely uneducated guess is that it would be somewhere between "highest merch mover in WCW from 1990 through 1994" and "not nearly enough to make WCW financially solvent," so I'd guess that his merchandise numbers, while not terrible, probably aren't anything to hold in high regard either.

 

Pretty much. I mean, we're talking about WCW, and WCW's merchandising line was poorly done even during their boom period. They never had the organization and sophistication that the WWF had behind their licensing line.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I don't think Sting should get in, but I think he will eventually get in. I don't think it will be this year. He's also case of someone where I wouldn't be that worked up if he did get in mainly because I think it's inevitable.

Why do you believe Sting will get in? I'm supposing you don't think Curt Hennig or Owen Hart will get in eventually, and both were polling better than Sting was as of a few years ago. I looked up the most recent numbers, and Sting has really shot up lately, but it's still well under that 60% mark. Jesse the Body Ventura polls better than him, though I think Ventura might get lucky one year in getting in. I can only see Sting getting in either if Meltzer backs Sting (and he doesn't) or if the WWE hits a WCW-like rock bottom where suddenly Sting drawing 600 people doesn't look too bad.

 

EDIT: Sting ranked 20th of those who didn't get inducted into the HOF: http://carltonprescott.proboards.com/index...y&thread=13 [.]

 

In fairness, I do think Sting is a better candidate than Brock Lesnar.

[Dylan Waco]

The drawing power argument is not one that I think a lot of voters really study or think about. There are very few voters that comb through results, look at trends, et. Or at least there are very few PUBLIC voters that do those things.

 

In general voters tend to look more at things like star power and the old "does this wrestler FEEL like an HoFer." That may just be my perception, but I don't think it is as I've debated the HoF with voters for over a decade now.

[FLIK]

There are very few voters that comb through results, look at trends, et. Or at least there are very few PUBLIC voters that do those things.

Eh, at best all you can really say is Public voters on a statement like that

 

Seems like a good time to bring up this post NintendoLogic quoted of Meltzer's from a few weeks back again

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...p;#entry5513121

 

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.

[rovert]

Dave JUST posted there is roughly 200 on the panel.

[Cox]

Question: is this like the Baseball Hall of Fame, where if a wrestler is on the ballot for 15 years and doesn't make it, they fall off? I think this is the 15th year of voting, and I don't think anybody has ever hung around that long so there probably isn't a litmus test (though I guess Owen has been on almost every year, as has Murdoch), but it seems that at some point, some of these guys who hover between 10-40% without ever making it in should probably be removed so the ballot doesn't get overstuffed.

[Dylan Waco]

There are very few voters that comb through results, look at trends, et. Or at least there are very few PUBLIC voters that do those things.

Eh, at best all you can really say is Public voters on a statement like that

 

 

 

I've been arguing and listening to the comments of public voters for over a decade. I have no reason to believe public voters are disproportionately more likely to not look at those things. In fact I would guess the opposite would be true as people doing the hardcore research tend to want to get their work out in the open.

[puropotsy]

From this week's Observer:

 

Frye had a good run with New Japan and headlined some Tokyo Dome shows that sold out, including a then-record gate with Antonio Inoki in 1998, but he’s only a Hall of Famer if you include his MMA career. It’s one thing for a Masakatsu Funaki and even more Kazushi Sakuraba as historical figures in Japan, particularly Sakuraba because of how he was viewed by the public, but with hindsight, Frye should be in an MMA Hall of Fame and not a pro wrestling one. Funaki and Sakuraba are weird again because if you view things as they are today, neither should be in. If you view things as they were during the period they were being inducted for, Sakuraba is a slam dunk (and he actually got 86% of the vote to go in, one of the bigger numbers of all-time) because of the lay of the land and how he was viewed and how his world was at the time. Today, same circumstances, does a Sakuraba get in? Probably not.

I don't think anything has ever better illustrated why Dave's "15 years in the business/35 years or older" threshold is far too soon to properly judge HOF candidates. Time and perspective are very important to evaluating the career of a Hall of Famer, and trying to make calls on guys who are still in the prime of their career is asinine. When Funaki and Sakuraba were elected, the MMA fad was still very prominent in Japan, and without any distance from it, Funaki and Sakuraba made the HOF when they probably wouldn't if on the ballot with more perspective. It's a shame, because I do think the WON Hall of Fame is the closest thing there is to an actual Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame, which is why silly things like this drive me up a wall, because I want to expect more out of it, but know that I shouldn't.

 

All of this is to say, I'm going to be very upset when Brock makes the HOF next month.

 

Just wanted to throw out the flip side is that the argument shows the importance of the keeping in mind the context of the time.

 

One guy in the HOF that might not seem like as good as a candidate now is Paco Alonso who went in 2008, after which business fell off in Mexico.

 

Perhaps a comparison is that Big Daddy should be voted for because I'm pretty sure most people who were fans of wrestling in the UK at the time couldn't imagine a HOF without him and it is looking back that he seems like a terd.

[FLIK]

and it is looking back that he seems like a terd.

1-24-1981 Big Daddy & Sammy Lee (Tiger Mask) vs Grand Vladimir & Mel Stuart

 

A giant 400lb dude in a sparkly top hat & cape teaming with a young Tiger Mask in a yellow & black Bruce Lee suite carrying a kendo stick and a fuckin 40 deep childrens marching band leading the way as they go into battle to kick the shit out of giant french mountain man lookin mother fuckers. Toothless fat broads are flippin off the heels, old ladies are loosing their shit, kids are spazing out and generally every fan in the building is going crazy. WHO COULD HATE THIS??????????

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I can't see how the past four years would hurt Paco Alonso's case.

[FLIK]

Yeah, that's a bit of a head scratcher, he'd allready been in the business for like 30+ years by 2008.

 

Question: is this like the Baseball Hall of Fame, where if a wrestler is on the ballot for 15 years and doesn't make it, they fall off?

Nope, unless someone gets below a certain vote % they stay on the ballot otherwise.

[Ricky Jackson]

I think if a wrestler gets less than 10% of the vote they fall off.

[EricR]

I've also enjoyed a lot of Big Daddy stuff I've watched, but I do tend to have a thing for fatties. But jeez people talk about him as if he's Giant Gonzalez or Giant Silva level bad.

[cm funk]

Based on what I know about Big Daddy, he'd probably get my vote. How many wrestlers, worldwide, have crossed over to become mainstream cultural icons the way he did? It's a short list, and personally I think that level of fame trumps workrate. If you're going to have a separate category for the UK he kind of has to be in

 

I'd also vote for Apter, and despite questions I think we have a fairly good idea of what he did (principal photographer, liason with offices/wrestlers, some ghostwriting, part of the panel that decided on creative directions/rankings/etc.). I think it's probably better to honor the "Aptermags" as a group, but Apter wouldn't be out of place.

 

I like Hamada, Colon and Morales as candidates. I've been supporting Sting for years. I don't like a candidate like Cena going in only 10 years into his career and I wish they'd change the requirements (recent inductees Jericho and Mysterio had been wrestling almost 20 when voted in just as an example), but he's about as slam dunk as an active wrestler could ever be. Would vote for practically everyone on the non-wrestler list, but Owen, Jarrett, Gary Hart, Monsoon and Ventura for sure.

[goodhelmet]

This is a spin off question from the Hennig stuff but is there anyone who is not currently in that you would/could vote for solely/almost entirely on work? Personally I wouldn't vote for anyone SOLELY on work, but if pressed to the name the guys who aren't in and could hang there hat on that case I'd say....

 

Danielson, Windham, Morton, Dundee, Volk Han, El Dandy, Fujiwara

 

To be honest I don't really think Fujiwara belongs on this list as I consider him to be influential, but I wanted an excuse to mention him . I didn't include Buddy only because I think being the anchor of Portland is a significant "other" aspect to his candidacy. Morton has influence and some drawing power.

 

Of course you could make a case supporting Dundee based on other things. I'm ignorant on Dandy.

 

To be honest all of these guys have "extra" stuff you could point to that is notable other than maybe Windham and MAYBE Han.

 

Anyhow the point is that IF I believed in voting purely on work - and I don't - I think I'd vote all of those guys in just on that alone Am I missing any other obvious ones who aren't already in.

 

I would add Buddy Rose to the list just on work alone, ignoring all the other things Buddy accomplished.

[Loss]

I know I sound like a broken record, but it's worth pointing out that the HOF isn't about in-ring inductions based on work, as much as it inducting guys who have great reputations for their ring work inside the WON bubble, deserved or not. When Benoit was being discussed as a candidate, the number of times he won Most Outstanding Wrestler and Best Technical Wrestler in the WON year-end awards was cited in his favor. To me, that always felt like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Wrestlers who are appreciated retroactively after looking back at the footage aren't represented in the HOF, because Dave thinks that's a useless exercise.

[kjh]

Perhaps a comparison is that Big Daddy should be voted for because I'm pretty sure most people who were fans of wrestling in the UK at the time couldn't imagine a HOF without him and it is looking back that he seems like a terd.

Having talked to some people who used to watch British wrestling, Big Daddy is still looked on with fond memories by the casual viewers of the time. It's only the hardcore fans and the people who worked with him that blamed him for the downfall of the British business that bag on him so much.

[Dylan Waco]

I know I sound like a broken record, but it's worth pointing out that the HOF isn't about in-ring inductions based on work, as much as it inducting guys who have great reputations for their ring work inside the WON bubble, deserved or not. When Benoit was being discussed as a candidate, the number of times he won Most Outstanding Wrestler and Best Technical Wrestler in the WON year-end awards was cited in his favor. To me, that always felt like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Wrestlers who are appreciated retroactively after looking back at the footage aren't represented in the HOF, because Dave thinks that's a useless exercise.

This is a good point but then you have the issue of rep/footage.

 

The two most obvious examples to me are Buddy Rose and El Dandy.

 

Rose was ALWAYS regarded as a great worker it's just that he was seen as a Ray Stevens type where we didn't have the footage so we would never really get to see his complete greatness. Portland footage was considered an unattainable holy grail for years, but Rose was always, always, always discussed as a high end worker even in the absence of this footage. Now the footage is out there. There is a great set that covers his run that is relatively easy to get. And yet many of the same people who were calling Buddy awesome without the footage now say it doesn't matter what conclusions we draw now because of "the context of the time." So in the case of Buddy rep doesn't help him even though he had, because the footage wasn't there/spread around enough for him to have a half dozen or so matches for people to go nuts for. Now that it is they aren't going to watch it even if it confirms something they already believe(d).

 

Dandy is another guy where we have way more of his prime that is in broader circulation now, but among Lucha fans he seems to have been regarded as a tremendous talent during his prime. I talked to two very knowledgeable Lucha fans and voters today who said they saw Dandy as close to a slam dunk and would definitely vote for him. But Lucha is underrepresented because it's not as well followed by WON readers as Japan and even though those in the know regard Dandy as a great worker and did at the time the footage that is out there now is not going to convince people that won't watch it.

[ohtani's jacket]

Dandy footage has always been out there. People just aren't interested.

[KrisZ]

Dandy being a joke in WCW hurts him to the masses.