evilclown Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 Where I currently am: I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES Gene & Ole Anderson Hans Schmidt I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES John Cena Rock & Roll Express (Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson) I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES Volk Han Kiyoshi Tamura NON-WRESTLERS Jim Crockett Jr. Jerry Jarrett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 It's an impressive run in MSG for sure. But it's almost like the 70s equivalent of Crow Sting being the hottest star in the business. The criticism of Morales was he always drew well in New York, but not in the other WWWF markets. I think I'd want to see at least some success in other territories as well. Miguel Perez Sr. had an equally as strong and longer record of drawing at MSG as Antonino Rocca's tag partner. Same could be said about JYD in Louisiana. I tend to think that's another old WWWF/WWF myth, along with the old saw of "Backlund never worked in Boston" and "Backlund was dead in the WWF after crying over Superstar breaking the belt". Put it this way, as simple as possible: * the WWWF Title was a prime belt to nearly anyone at the time i.e. the WWWF could practically pick their champ * Pedro held the belt for 34 months * you don't hold the WWWF title for 68 days short of 3 full years if you *only* draw in MSG Vince Sr. and his local promoters would have bounced Pedro if he didn't draw well enough in other cities. 3 years. It's way past the laugh test. It's possible that Pedro fell off in the last year. Possible, but it's kind of a "prove it" thing for people making the claim. The circumstantial evidence is rather strong that Pedro drew well enough to hold the belt that long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I think it's good to be sceptical of conventional wisdom John, but I think Pedro must have been doing something wrong, at least towards the end of 1973, for Vince McMahon Sr. to go back to Bruno and give him such a sweet deal to come back as champion. Regarding Lesnar, I do think he'll eventually get in through a combination of people thinking he should get credit for being a monster pay-per-view draw in UFC and votes from wrestlers who think his MMA victories legitimises the pro wrestling industry. I just hope they wait till next year by which time he should have finally headlined a super successful WrestleMania. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Honestly, if Edge goes in, and goes in so quickly with a strong swell of support, I am not going to be able to take the WON HOF seriously. At least with Angle he was still at his peak when he got in and you couldn't really predict he was going to have such a drop off, and I understand how much of a boost he got from having a gold medal (even though it shouldn't have mattered.) But Edge? He doesn't have a large body of great matches, he doesn't have a record as a draw other than a few weeks of slightly larger than normal TV ratings, he was an ok promo but definitely not a GREAT one, there is NOTHING about Edge that makes him HOF worthy to me. Unless you think every person who has ever had the WWF/E title should be in the Hall. Like, what makes him a better candidate than a guy whose reign has been dogged countless times: Kevin Nash? Nash was also not a draw, also not one with a large body of great matches, but he was a better promo AND had a bigger impact on the business by being part of the nWo. Or Big Show? Is Big Show going to get a bunch of support to go in the WON HOF? Or Kane? I really want someone who thinks Edge is HOF worthy (I know that's not a popular sentiment on THIS board) to explain how he's a better candidate than any of the people I listed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I think my point is: he wouldn't have gotten out of the first year if he bombed everywhere but MSG. Did he start declining at some point in 1973 other than in MSG? I could see that, though I'd like to see the data. But I'm just not buying that he didn't draw anywhere else in 1971 and 1972. Three years of drawing well in MSG and 2 years of drawing well in the balance of the biggest population territory in the country at the time... that's very impressive. On the notion from somewhere in the thread that he was a mid-carder and prelim guy everywhere other than the WWWF, that's not entirely true. He main evented in the second largest city in the country, anchoring the local world title for about a year and a half. He wasn't as hot as Blassie or Destroyer or Bearcat Wright, but did work on top here. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Honestly, if Edge goes in, and goes in so quickly with a strong swell of support, I am not going to be able to take the WON HOF seriously. At least with Angle he was still at his peak when he got in and you couldn't really predict he was going to have such a drop off, and I understand how much of a boost he got from having a gold medal (even though it shouldn't have mattered.) But Edge? He doesn't have a large body of great matches, he doesn't have a record as a draw other than a few weeks of slightly larger than normal TV ratings, he was an ok promo but definitely not a GREAT one, there is NOTHING about Edge that makes him HOF worthy to me. Unless you think every person who has ever had the WWF/E title should be in the Hall. Like, what makes him a better candidate than a guy whose reign has been dogged countless times: Kevin Nash? Nash was also not a draw, also not one with a large body of great matches, but he was a better promo AND had a bigger impact on the business by being part of the nWo. Or Big Show? Is Big Show going to get a bunch of support to go in the WON HOF? Or Kane? I really want someone who thinks Edge is HOF worthy (I know that's not a popular sentiment on THIS board) to explain how he's a better candidate than any of the people I listed. I think the better comp to Edge is Luger. No one even advocates him for the ballot, but when I made the comp between the two multiple places last year no one could give me any real reason why Edge was a better candidate. I don't think Edge is the absolute worst guy on the ballot and I don't mind him being on, but HE IS in the bottom tier of guys on the ballot and there are a ton of guys not even on the ballot who I believe are clearly better candidates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Bruce Mitchell's HOF ballot: John Cena Edge Andersons Assassins Ivan Koloff Lou Albano Jim Crockett Noteworthy statements: Edge: His in-ring excellence over so long a time makes up for his not quite being a top maineventer all that time, and tips him into a Yes vote. Brock Lesnar: I do count his tremendous box office success in UFC but I’m not voting for him, at least, not yet. Bill Apter: I was entertained by his work in his magazine hey-day, but most fans didn’t buy them. His photos helped the careers of stars like Mil Mascaras and Lex Luger, but they weren’t key. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Bruce Mitchell's HOF ballot: John Cena Edge Andersons Assassins Ivan Koloff Lou Albano Jim Crockett Noteworthy statements: Edge: His in-ring excellence over so long a time makes up for his not quite being a top maineventer all that time, and tips him into a Yes vote. Brock Lesnar: I do count his tremendous box office success in UFC but I’m not voting for him, at least, not yet. Bill Apter: I was entertained by his work in his magazine hey-day, but most fans didn’t buy them. His photos helped the careers of stars like Mil Mascaras and Lex Luger, but they weren’t key. No. Have a lot of problems with this line of thinking. 1. Again I'm constantly amazed at how many people think Edge was such a great worker. Again that may be a preference thing and I think I probably like Edge more than most here, but for someone like Bruce to describe that as reasoning for why Edge should get on, what is his reasoning for leaving someone like Murdoch or Rock N Rolls off. I guess with Murdoch he may subscribe to Dave's theory that Murdoch had a lot of off nights but with the Rock N Rolls this is a team that he saw play at least as much of a prominent spot in his backyard promotion and I would be surprised if Bruce thinks Edge was overall a better worker than the RNRs. 2. His Brock Lesnar reasoning is completely ridiculous and I don't need to retread it but everyone talking about Brock being a legitimate candidate for a pro wrestling HOF makes me scream. It is possible to me that Brock is the worst person on the ballot. 3. His opinion on Apter is more apt than the other comments which I think are extremely short sighted but I still feel it is a pretty big straw man argument saying that most fans didn't buy his magazines. More people definitely bought PWI than the Observer and I know Bruce would champion Dave going into his own HOF. I certainly don't want to rehash Apter's influence and responsibility argument that has been rehashed here but saying that not every fan bought his mag seems like a lame excuse to throw out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Jim Crockett Jr. is an interesting candidate to me because I'm seeing a lot of people voting for him when while he was the promoter his bookers were more important to his success than he was. Whether it was George Scott, Ole, Dory, or Dusty the bookers made his promotion what it was. His father and even his brother David was way more important to the promotion than he was at least in my opinion. Jimmy wasn't even a big wrestling guy he was more into the baseball team and other stuff but David was the wrestling mind of the bunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawk20 Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Jim Crockett Jr. is an interesting candidate to me because I'm seeing a lot of people voting for him when while he was the promoter his bookers were more important to his success than he was. Did he appoint the bookers himself? If so, he would get credit for knowing who to put in to be successful (and any associated failings), right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 re: Brock. I'm okay, at this point including MMA stuff in the WON HOF if only because Dave focuses on it so much and it's his thing, but Brock in MMA reminds me somewhere between Goldberg and Magnum TA in wrestling. Am I way off in that? I'm not the most knowledgeable guy in the world there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 re: Brock. I'm okay, at this point including MMA stuff in the WON HOF if only because Dave focuses on it so much and it's his thing, but Brock in MMA reminds me somewhere between Goldberg and Magnum TA in wrestling. Am I way off in that? I'm not the most knowledgeable guy in the world there. I think Lesnar in MMA is a little more substantial than that. I wold honestly say maybe the best wrestling comparison would be someone like JYD because MMA as we know it only has a 20 year history so far and Brock was the GUY for 3 of those years and was the lynchpin for the biggest buyrate in company history. JYD was a guy that again had a decent length peak but drew the best houses the territory had ever seen. Now, more people in MMA are able to sustain more longeivity so perhaps in another 50 years, Lesnar being there for 3 years will look really fast, but in the era he was one of the most dominant heavyweights in MMA for his era until the likes Dos Santos entered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 The thing with wrestling/MMA (and I'm someone who believes that they are very much intertwined and from the same roots anyway)....is that when it comes to the HOF, Dave opened Pandoras box, then shut it, then occasionally opens it again. For several years he combined the two in the voting. Japanese wrestling/MMA hybrid stars got in more on the strength of their "legitimizing" wrestling and drawing power in MMA than what they actually accomplished in pro-wrestling. To this day he includes UFC in the promotion and promoter and best show categories, and I believe top draw too.... It's his HOF, he sets the criteria, so nobody can help but be confused at this point when it comes to a candidate like Brock.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I think Brock is more analogous to Maurice Tillet than he is JYD when it comes to MMA but even that doesn't really fit for a variety of reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 On the combination of his amateur wrestling background, performance as a pro-wrestler, and success in MMA......I'd vote Brock in. But not yet, just like I wouldn't vote for Cena yet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Apter continues to be, by far, the most interesting discussion point for me. It's been neat seeing the different opinions roll out on him since he came up. The Edge/Luger comparison above feels quite spot on for me personally too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Jim Crockett Jr. is an interesting candidate to me because I'm seeing a lot of people voting for him when while he was the promoter his bookers were more important to his success than he was. Did he appoint the bookers himself? If so, he would get credit for knowing who to put in to be successful (and any associated failings), right? Jimmy appointed bookers yes but when it came to being more hands on David was the guy, Jimmy would get more hands on later and that would in effect help kill his promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I feel like Flair told a few interesting stories about Crockett and things he did do in his shoot but I'll be damned if I remember any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 On the combination of his amateur wrestling background, performance as a pro-wrestler, and success in MMA......I'd vote Brock in. But not yet, just like I wouldn't vote for Cena yet.... How is Brock a better candidate than Ken Shamrock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 Ken Shamrock was more successful in pro wrestling than Lesnar was by a large margin. Look at his Japan resume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 As a hybrid candidate Shamrock strikes me as being pretty clearly better than Brock when you factor in all of the usually applied criteria. He also strikes me as someone who does not belong in the HoF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted September 12, 2012 Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 I still can't figure out how Lesnar got on the ballot after two years wrestling full-time and wrestling part time in three other years. Shouldn't a guy have more than five years (2 years full time) in the business before we're debating his HOF merits? When you can't make a case for a guy being in a wrestling Hall of Fame based on any of his pro wrestling merits, it's time to seriously evaluate the process for which candidates are selected for the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 On the combination of his amateur wrestling background, performance as a pro-wrestler, and success in MMA......I'd vote Brock in. But not yet, just like I wouldn't vote for Cena yet.... How is Brock a better candidate than Ken Shamrock? On one hand I'd say he was a far better performer as a pro-wrestler (and I liked Shamrock a lot in both Japan and WWE) Also, he was an NCAA Heavyweight champion, which used to mean a lot when it came to pro-wrestling, and still does to a lot of people That said, I'd probably put Shamrock in the Observer HOF too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted September 13, 2012 Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 I don't like the Luger/Edge comparison simply for the fact that I like Luger and can't stand Edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 I don't like the Luger/Edge comparison simply for the fact that I like Luger and can't stand Edge. Well I'm not a big Edge fan either.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.