El-P Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 He wasn't ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Personally, I like Jesse's WCW work better than his WWF stuff with Jesse and Tony being my favourite WCW pair. The WWF may not have skipped a beat when Jesse left because they had Bobby, but listen to some '93 commentary after they've both left and tell me Jesse wasn't missed. Alternatively, listen to the rancid Bobby/Tony pairing and tell me Jesse was replaceable. Jesse was an awesome part of pro-wrestling from that era. One thing that needs to be taken into account about heel commentators is that Lawler had to gradually move away from a heel colour gig otherwise people would have gotten sick of him. Plus it didn't really fit the attitude era of shades of gray. Another thing I wanted to point out is that it's bullshit that Walton didn't bury workers or matches. He did it all the time. He also made uncomfortable racial comments especially when Kwango wrestled, but I think that was more a byproduct of the times. Walton was an easy one to get in because voters can watch one or two WoS matches and think he's worthy. Getting guys like McManus and Pallo and Kellet in is going to be much tougher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Personally, I like Jesse's WCW work better than his WWF stuff with Jesse and Tony being my favourite WCW pair. The WWF may not have skipped a beat when Jesse left because they had Bobby, but listen to some '93 commentary after they've both left and tell me Jesse wasn't missed. Alternatively, listen to the rancid Bobby/Tony pairing and tell me Jesse was replaceable. Jesse was an awesome part of pro-wrestling from that era. I like Jesse in WWF a lot, but from what I know of his days in WCW (being mostly PPv's and Clashes thus far), I agree Jesse and Schiavone were the best combination, and one of my favourite ever. One thing that needs to be taken into account about heel commentators is that Lawler had to gradually move away from a heel colour gig otherwise people would have gotten sick of him. Plus it didn't really fit the attitude era of shades of gray. Lawler became an unlistenable parody of himself by 2000/01, I don't know how people didn't get sick of his lecherous old man act which was a lot worse than his standart heel act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I have a lot to say in response here and to make cases for each of those 5 guys, but wonder if Dylan would prefer the non-wrestler candidate talk to happen in a different thread in which case some sort of split from my post and the replies to it would be merited. Don't want to derail the conversation Dylan intended here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 And now Lawler has dropped most of the lecherous act (he does still play the role of the announcer who's excited about Divas' matches, but he's incredibly toned down) in addition to being presented more seriously now that he's positioned as a legit legend within the company, so he's pretty much completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 HHH wasn't just the top opponent of a top draw. He wasn't ? I've made the comparison before to Hogan's run with Kamala doing boffo box office back in the day. It wasn't that people were THAT into Kamala, it's that everyone REALLY wanted to see Hogan. Substitute Rock and Trips for Hogan and Kamala and I think the same thing applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 So as outlined elsewhere Dave has been running polls on the website with list of potential HoF candidates. More results --Which of these guys most deserves to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Chief Jay Strongbow 25.2% Haystacks Calhoun 18.6% Boris Malenko 14.9% Gino Hernandez 13.8% David Shults 6.1% Dino Bravo 5.8% Leo Nomellini 4.8% Lonnie Mayne 4.5% Primo Carnera 3.7% Bugsy McGraw 1.3% Bull Ramos 1.1% Dean Ho 0.3% --Which of these guys deserves the most to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Larry Hennig 34.0% The Spoiler Don Jardine 26.6% Bob Orton Sr. 14.8% Wild Bull Curry 6.3% Cowboy Bob Ellis 4.1% Luther Lindsay 3.6% Lord James Blears 3.3% Ilio DiPaolo 2.4% Hardboiled Haggerty 1.8% Missouri Mauler 1.5% Hans Mortier 1.5% Ron Etchison 0.3% --Which of these names deserves the most to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Sputnik Monroe 36.3% Sweet Daddy Siki 14.6% Waldo Von Erich 9.5% George Scott 9.1% Mike DiBiase 7.3% Sailor Art Thomas 5.5% Pampero Firpo 5.5% Ricky Romero 3.4% Buddy Colt 3.4% Dutch Savage 2.7% Sammy Steamboat 1.5% Duke Keomuka 1.2% -- Which of these names most deserves a Hall of Fame ballot spot? J.J. Dillon 44.3% Bob Armstrong 27.1% Johnny Weaver 7.5% Billy Red Lyons 7.3% Yukon Eric 3.7% Miguel Perez 3.2% Ron Fuller 2.6% Ed Francis 1.3% Bobby Managoff 1.1% Count Billy Varga 0.8% Ron Miller 0.6% Don Eagle 0.3% Which of these names most deserves a Hall of Fame ballot spot? Booker T 26.3% Dr. Jerry Graham 16.4% Kane 10.5% Kyoko Inoue 9.9% Christian 9.7% Thunderbolt Patterson 8.7% John Bradshaw Layfield 6.7% Tommy Dreamer 5.6% Don Curtis 2.9% Medico Asesino 1.5% Ricky Romero 1.0% Blackie Guzman 0.4% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 He wasn't ? This thread breaks down the numbers in laborious detail. http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=40728 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 So as outlined elsewhere Dave has been running polls on the website with list of potential HoF candidates. More results --Which of these guys most deserves to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Chief Jay Strongbow 25.2% Haystacks Calhoun 18.6% Boris Malenko 14.9% Gino Hernandez 13.8% David Shults 6.1% Dino Bravo 5.8% Leo Nomellini 4.8% Lonnie Mayne 4.5% Primo Carnera 3.7% Bugsy McGraw 1.3% Bull Ramos 1.1% Dean Ho 0.3% --Which of these guys deserves the most to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Larry Hennig 34.0% The Spoiler Don Jardine 26.6% Bob Orton Sr. 14.8% Wild Bull Curry 6.3% Cowboy Bob Ellis 4.1% Luther Lindsay 3.6% Lord James Blears 3.3% Ilio DiPaolo 2.4% Hardboiled Haggerty 1.8% Missouri Mauler 1.5% Hans Mortier 1.5% Ron Etchison 0.3% --Which of these names deserves the most to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Sputnik Monroe 36.3% Sweet Daddy Siki 14.6% Waldo Von Erich 9.5% George Scott 9.1% Mike DiBiase 7.3% Sailor Art Thomas 5.5% Pampero Firpo 5.5% Ricky Romero 3.4% Buddy Colt 3.4% Dutch Savage 2.7% Sammy Steamboat 1.5% Duke Keomuka 1.2% -- Which of these names most deserves a Hall of Fame ballot spot? J.J. Dillon 44.3% Bob Armstrong 27.1% Johnny Weaver 7.5% Billy Red Lyons 7.3% Yukon Eric 3.7% Miguel Perez 3.2% Ron Fuller 2.6% Ed Francis 1.3% Bobby Managoff 1.1% Count Billy Varga 0.8% Ron Miller 0.6% Don Eagle 0.3% Which of these names most deserves a Hall of Fame ballot spot? Booker T 26.3% Dr. Jerry Graham 16.4% Kane 10.5% Kyoko Inoue 9.9% Christian 9.7% Thunderbolt Patterson 8.7% John Bradshaw Layfield 6.7% Tommy Dreamer 5.6% Don Curtis 2.9% Medico Asesino 1.5% Ricky Romero 1.0% Blackie Guzman 0.4% Thanks for this. I'm gonna go back and keep them in order that they were posted in the other thread with my responses, but please keep them coming! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Here's the latest. Yet another strange grouping. Which of these is the strongest Hall of Fame ballot contender Jimmy Hart 187 48.4% Bill Goldberg 61 15.8% Yuji Nagata 47 12.2% Skandor Akbar 29 7.5% Ultimo Guerrero 15 3.9% Cima 12 3.1% Los Hermanos Dinamita 12 3.1% Masato Tanaka 11 2.8% Hector Garza 7 1.8% Naoya Ogawa 4 1% Manabu Nakanishi 1 0.3% Also... For whatever it's worth, Earthquake v Hogan at Summerslam supposedly drew more than Warrior v Hogan at Mania (only time summerslam outdrew Mania). I could be wrong, but I think 1997 was the only time Mania wasn't the top drawing WWF/E ppv of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Great Sasuke I'm not sure how confident I am about him on the ballot, but as a worker I think he was really strong during his peak. He was the centerpiece of a promotion that seems to have been fairly successful and is someone people rightfully associate with the "big" era of junior heavyweight wrestling internationally. It's funny to think that if he had gotten over in the WWF as intended he maybe could have been a bigger star but then there is no reason to believe Vince was ever going to give a fuck about that division. I'm really indifferent to the notion of Sasuke as a candidate and can't see myself ever voting for him but it seems wrong for Ultimo and Hamada (to be fair I'd vote for Hamada) to get a crack at the ballot and not him. Maybe that's just a perception thing. Kevin Nash I actually like the idea of Nash on the ballot on some level because I think it exposes the poverty of the candidate class at this point as Loss talked about. On the other hand who is his constituency? He drew poorly as WWE champion and while The Outsiders run was big, most of that was piggybacking on the Hogan heel turn. Beyond that he really has no serious strengths. The weaknesses are obvious. Ken Shamrock No. Just no. Hiro Matsuda Was hero a draw? I don't know. I know he trained some big stars, but I'm not someone who sees that as a particularly important criteria. Akira Taue I'd vote for Taue. I can see the argument against him as the least of the workers of the AJPW big four and the least of them in stardom. Having said that they are called the four pillars for a reason. I am someone who believed HHH got in in large part because a lot of people couldn't envision an HoF with Rock, Austin and Foley in and not HHH EVEN THOUGH they acknowledged that HHH was a distant fourth behind those guys. The point is you can not write a history of a hugely successful period of AJPW wrestling without Taue coming up multiple times. When you consider the fact that he was also a great worker in my view (no worse than "very good" for a long time), was a key part of many of the best matches of all time, and was clearly successful when positioned at or near the top of the card for a several year stretch I think he has more positives than negatives. Great Kabuki First to get over a gimmick that was copied a bunch? Maybe? Is there any other obvious strength I'm not seeing? Was he ever a draw? Yoshiaki Fujiwara My view is that if you are a legit contender for the best worker of a certain style (shoot style, junior heavyweight, best brawler, et) you probably at least merit consideration. If you have an increasing number of people talking about you as an all time great in the ring, you get more consideration. If you have a fair number of people that consider you one of the absolute top tier ever in the ring, plus you were influential in developing a style of wrestling, plus you played a role in some of the best matches of all time, plus you were at least somewhat involved in a hugely successful period of business, et, et. Well yeah I think he should be in the HoF. He's not a "holy fuck this guy is so obvious it's ridiculous!" candidate, and I'm not a fan of the picking from the bottom rung to compare, but does anyone think Fujiwara is a worse candidate than Saito, Funaki or Hase? I think Fujiwara is clearly a better candidate than all of those guys, even if he's not on the level of Inoki or Baba. Bearcat Wright I know he was somewhat importantly historically and depending on who you ask may have been the first black World heavyweight champion. I've heard and seen some indication that he was something of a box office draw, but I've never seen or heard anything to suggest he was near the level of someone like Bobo who I have seen him compared to in the past. Would need more persuasion. Minoru Suzuki I'm being short here because I don't see the argument and would like to see someone explain why he would even appear in a poll like this. Clearly I'm missing something. Rusher Kimura I really want someone to expand on Rusher for me because I don't know if he was much of a draw. But he was the top star in IWE for a long time, he was something of an international star and he supposedly got over the "death match" concept in Japan by importing Cage Matches (though I think that is a big stretch). Still as a guy who was a top star in a fairly long lasting promotion I would error on the side of inclusion. Toyonobori Did he draw in LA? Going off memory his run seemed really short, but he did fill the gap between Rikidozan and Inoki/Baba IIRC. I would need more figures but it seems like he SHOULD be on the ballot. Seems like an important enough figure in Japanese wrestling history where it would be wrong to treat him like an entity that isn't even worth the thought. Michiaki Yoshimura My understanding is that he was a second fiddle type to Toyonobori after Rikidozan's death but I could be dead wrong. Does anyone know the details here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I could be wrong, but I think 1997 was the only time Mania wasn't the top drawing WWF/E ppv of the year. From prowrestlinghistory.com: Wrestlemania VI: 4.5 buyrate Summerslam 1990: 3.8 buyrate Wrestlemania 13: 0.77 buyrate Summerslam 1997: 0.8 buyrate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yep, Taker vs Sid was a main event people were just dying to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yep, Taker vs Sid was a main event people were just dying to see. 97 also suffered from Shawn's bailing in the months building to the show. In defense of Warrior (I can't believe I'm saying that), WM VI did have the second or third biggest attendance figure in WWE history up until that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yep, Taker vs Sid was a main event people were just dying to see. 97 also suffered from Shawn's bailing in the months building to the show. In defense of Warrior (I can't believe I'm saying that), WM VI did have the second or third biggest attendance figure in WWE history up until that point. Maybe...but Shawn couldn't draw flies to shit during his title run in 96, so I'm not sure if he would have made much of a difference. Maybe for a rematch with Hart, but who knows. Hogan vs Warrior was a very appealing match at a time when face vs face matches happened once in a blue moon, especially in the main event scene. Warrior was super over and *seemed* like he would be a draw, but he wasn't. I wonder if part of the problem was Hogan setting the bar so high. I've bashed Warrior a lot over the years myself, but I'll admit he was a part of quite a few memorable matches and angles, at least between 88 and 91/92. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Steiner Brothers They've been on the ballot at least once, possibly twice, and have fallen off. I am marks for them despite the fact that I don't think they were really that great an in ring team. I also think they were kind of unique in that they were a team that felt like a unit that was equal to the top tier guys (Flair, Luger, Sting). Still I would NEVER vote for them and apparently not that many people did when they were on the ballot before. Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard How long were they really a team? I like the team a lot, they had some great matches, they complimented each other well and I'm sure if you went back they headlined some pretty strong shows. But they were in no way influential and I'm not sure they even have four years as a regular team. You'd have to be extremely influential, great in the ring and a great draw to get my vote as a singles worker based on less than four years. Dudleys Pretty sure they've been on and fell off too. Not an advocate but I actually think they are slightly better candidates than in initially thought. They were pretty much the top act in ECW for close to two years and were super over/big part of the over all package of the WWF boom once they came over. Mind you I would never vote for them and I now think they are just pretty bad candidates as opposed to laughable candidates. But I still struggle to see any argument for them. Afa & Sika Unquestionably had value as supporting player heels in the WWWF and they have the iconic chairshot moment that people will always remember. Still I'm not sure they meant any more or less than Ivan Putski and I don't see Ivan Putski as a serious candidate for the hall of the very good, let alone the hall of fame. The Sheepherders Which unit? Herders gimmick was fairly hot in Portland and Mid-South, but it was not sustained enough either place and again you have the question of what unit you are considering. Black Gordman & Great Goliath I'm fairly ignorant, but another one that has been on and fallen off. My understanding is that they were something of a draw though, so if someone could point to a string of positives and push it they are probably more deserving of another chance than a lot of other more famous teams. Jimmy & Johnny Valiant I'd have to go back and look at the numbers. The story is that they were a strong drawing team up North though I have no clue how much of that is bullshit or not. Still with teams the issue of "how long" is really important to me in terms of building a solid case. Greg Gagne & Jim Brunzell I'm not a hundred percent positive that I would vote for Greg and Brunzell, but excluding the RnR's and maybe the Fabs they are the only team I would strongly consider. If you subtract for time off as a unit, tagged for close to nine years, which is more than the Midnights, though maybe a bit less than the RnR's. They were very solid draws, that topped a whole lot of strong drawing shows. They did this against a wide variety of opposition, starting in the mid-70's and bleeding into the mid-80's. Also unlike with the RnR's and Midnights there entire run as draws was in the big arena's around the loop as the AWA did not run secondary house shows that often. They were a very good in ring team with a high quality matches that hold up very well. The big negatives against them is that they were never stars anywhere else other than the AWA and they were not influential at all. I could see how some people would keep them out because of that, but when you look at their record as drawing cards it is hard to say they don't make up some of the ground they lose on those fronts. Brute Bernard & Skull Murphy Don't know enough, though Brute Bernard is still well regarded in my home town with the old timers. The Interns Heard some great things in passing, but don't know nearly enough. Rip Hawk & Swede Hanson Were a big time tag team, in a tag team territory. They were definitely positioned to draw in the Carolinas and did draw in the Carolinas they I don't know how well. Seems weird to even think of them without the Scott Brothers also being considered and honestly I don't know enough for sure to feel safe arguing for them seriously, though they do intrigue me. The Gallagher Brothers Don't know enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yep, Taker vs Sid was a main event people were just dying to see. 97 also suffered from Shawn's bailing in the months building to the show. In defense of Warrior (I can't believe I'm saying that), WM VI did have the second or third biggest attendance figure in WWE history up until that point. Maybe...but Shawn couldn't draw flies to shit during his title run in 96, so I'm not sure if he would have made much of a difference. Maybe for a rematch with Hart, but who knows. Hogan vs Warrior was a very appealing match at a time when face vs face matches happened once in a blue moon, especially in the main event scene. Warrior was super over and *seemed* like he would be a draw, but he wasn't. I wonder if part of the problem was Hogan setting the bar so high. I've bashed Warrior a lot over the years myself, but I'll admit he was a part of quite a few memorable matches and angles, at least between 88 and 91/92. I think it's clear that Shawn was a very weak draw as champion, but I doubt seriously Mania would have bombed as much if he was on the card. Impossible to say of course but that was a really bad number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't think it was Shawn's absence that hurt the show as much as the fact that his up and vacating the title out of nowhere sent the booking off a cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Meltzer In North America, Mania went from being gigantic for the Hogan vs. Savage to being a huge disappointment for Hogan vs. Warrior to the point the plan for a rematch was dropped and Slaughter was brought in for Hogan the next year. Almost all the Toronto tickets were sold before the match was announced so that's like listing the Atlanta attendance and saying Hogan vs. Goldberg was big. There was no mainstream interest at all in Hogan vs. Warrior, and Hogan vs. Earthquake at SummerSlam beat it on PPV which is the only time in history a SummerSlam match beat a Mania match in the same year. It was a big event because the Toronto crowd made it big for those who watched, but to the public it was the beginning of the fall of WrestleMania in North America. You can say it was big to you. I can pretend Ray Stevens vs. Superstar Graham was the biggest match in wrestling history because it was when I was in fourth grade, but in the real world, neither are the case. WrestleMania I was gigantic, II was big only because of Refrigerator Perry, and III and V were huge to wrestling fans. From there, the next one to capture people's attention in a big way was 1998 because of Tyson. QUOTE(NintendoLogic @ Jan 17 2012, 05:18 PM) HHH wasn't just the top opponent of a top draw. He wasn't ? This thread breaks down the numbers in laborious detail. http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=40728 Not sure there is anything convincing there. But that thread is all beside the point. That's a thread from 2007, in 2012 I would have no argument with HHH getting into HOF either. All that said: a) HHH got into HOF much earlier and B)When Meltzer does his list of HOFers with one sentence blurb for each one the sentence for HHH is some variation on top heel during attitude era. There are multiple arguments for Helmsley going into HOF, the argument that Meltzer thinks motivated his entry is "top opponent of top draws." Once "top opponents of anchor" became enough, there has been a desire to add more people who meet that criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Not sure there is anything convincing there. But that thread is all beside the point. That's a thread from 2007, in 2012 I would have no argument with HHH getting into HOF either. HHH was inducted in 2005. He had already done just about everything that you would put on his HOF resume by that point. If you thought he was a marginal candidate in 2005, I don't see how the DX reunion would put him over the top. From a HOF voting standpoint, he wasn't a Shawn Michaels, much less a Kurt Angle. All that said: a) HHH got into HOF much earlier and B)When Meltzer does his list of HOFers with one sentence blurb for each one the sentence for HHH is some variation on top heel during attitude era. There are multiple arguments for Helmsley going into HOF, the argument that Meltzer thinks motivated his entry is "top opponent of top draws." Once "top opponents of anchor" became enough, there has been a desire to add more people who meet that criteria. First, as the thread I linked to pointed out, he also drew well against guys like HBK and Benoit who didn't have track records as strong draws. Second, I don't think you can reduce HHH's status as top Attitude Era heel to "top opponent of top draws" any more than you can reduce Ric Flair's status as top touring heel champ of the 80s to "top opponent of top local babyfaces." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Second, I don't think you can reduce HHH's status as top Attitude Era heel to "top opponent of top draws" any more than you can reduce Ric Flair's status as top touring heel champ of the 80s to "top opponent of top local babyfaces." You absolutely can. No one bought a ticket during the Attitude era thinking "oh boy! finally a chance to see HHH LIVE!". He was arguably fifth on the pecking order behind Rock, Austin, Foley, and Taker. As I said before, he's the 2000 equivalent of Kamala. No one bought a ticket to see him, they just wanted to see Rock drop the People's Elbow on a warm body. In North America, Mania went from being gigantic for the Hogan vs. Savage to being a huge disappointment for Hogan vs. Warrior to the point the plan for a rematch was dropped and Slaughter was brought in for Hogan the next year. Almost all the Toronto tickets were sold before the match was announced so that's like listing the Atlanta attendance and saying Hogan vs. Goldberg was big. There was no mainstream interest at all in Hogan vs. Warrior, and Hogan vs. Earthquake at SummerSlam beat it on PPV which is the only time in history a SummerSlam match beat a Mania match in the same year. It's worth noting that Mania 7 did a record advance in the week after Mania 6 because people were expecting Warrior-Hogan 2. Also worth noting that if SS '90 did better than WM6 (as we have conflicting data) that the absolutely TERRIBLE booking of Warrior as champ was a factor as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Akira Taue I'd vote for Taue. I can see the argument against him as the least of the workers of the AJPW big four and the least of them in stardom. Having said that they are called the four pillars for a reason. I am someone who believed HHH got in in large part because a lot of people couldn't envision an HoF with Rock, Austin and Foley in and not HHH EVEN THOUGH they acknowledged that HHH was a distant fourth behind those guys. The point is you can not write a history of a hugely successful period of AJPW wrestling without Taue coming up multiple times. When you consider the fact that he was also a great worker in my view (no worse than "very good" for a long time), was a key part of many of the best matches of all time, and was clearly successful when positioned at or near the top of the card for a several year stretch I think he has more positives than negatives. I think it's worth adding that though he was under utilised in NOAH, when he was given the spotlight he usually stepped up to the plate. Indeed, they could have got more mileage out of his title run in late 2005 / early 2006, instead of rushing the title back on Jun Akiyama for another disappointing reign. Bearcat Wright I know he was somewhat importantly historically and depending on who you ask may have been the first black World heavyweight champion. I've heard and seen some indication that he was something of a box office draw, but I've never seen or heard anything to suggest he was near the level of someone like Bobo who I have seen him compared to in the past. Would need more persuasion. Wright has the same issues as Thunderbolt Patterson. Definite draw, but hard to do business with. Would probably have been at Bobo's level if he kept his mouth shut and put up with the racism in the industry at the time. I think he was blackballed after trying to take the WWA title hostage. Consequently doesn't have the longevity that you would want from a HOF candidate of this era. Minoru Suzuki I'm being short here because I don't see the argument and would like to see someone explain why he would even appear in a poll like this. Clearly I'm missing something. One of the better freelance outsider draws in the last decade. Not quite at Takayama's or Sasaki's level, but not far behind. Given the dearth of new Japanese candidates, it perhaps wouldn't be a bad idea to put him on the ballot at some point. We all know the likes of KENTA and Marufuji will be put on when they're eligible. Regarding Triple H, when he got in in 2005 he really lacked the longevity you would want from a Hall Of Famer. Pushed as a main event level star from the formation of DX in the autumn of '97, but that included long periods where his push wasn't sticking, he was out injured or he was musclebound, hurting his performance in the ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Kyoko Inoue 9.9% Pluses - One of the best in ring workers of all time - Extremely popular big star during the 90's boom period of joshi Minuses - Peak as a great worker was 9-10 years out of a 24 year career. - Didn't get her chance to become the ace until business was starting to go down. She would have gotten the spot anyways even if it stayed up and the fact that it went down wasn't her fault in any way but still. Kind of the equiv of switching from the Hogan era to the Bret era - Never had enough success as a booker/promoter to count that in her favor. Masato Tanaka 11 2.8% I would absolutely 100% vote him in on work alone but that's all he has going for him which isn't enough for a lot of ppl I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Kyoko Inoue 9.9%Minuses - Peak as a great worker was 9-10 years out of a 24 year career. That's a minus ? 9-10 year of being a great worker out of 24 years is pretty strong to me. Most don't even last 24 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Jimmy & Johnny Valiant I'd have to go back and look at the numbers. The story is that they were a strong drawing team up North though I have no clue how much of that is bullshit or not. Still with teams the issue of "how long" is really important to me in terms of building a solid case. Just a few quick notes, as I've got nothing better to do on my day off and it's bitterly cold outside... The Valiants worked three MSG main events against Sammartino and Strongbow: 8/26/74, 10/7/74, and 1/20/75. The only number Cawthon lists is "over 22,000" for the 10/7/74 show, but they must have had some drawing appeal for Vince Sr to go with them three times on top, and even if it was with super draw Sammartino on the opposing side. Not counting the Rocca/Perez era and one time or short time pairings like Blassie and Volkoff, heel tag teams worked MSG main events before--Fuji and Tanaka vs babyface dream team Sammartino and Morales on 10/16/72, and the Mongols vs Sammartino and Rivera on 8/1/70 (Bepo Mongol also worked solo vs Sammartino on 9/14/70 and 10/23/70)--but after the Valiants I couldn't find any others (Afa and Sika worked solo main events vs Backlund in 1980), so they were a "special" team in that regard. In Boston, they also worked three main events: 10/12/74 and 11/9/74 vs Sammartino and Larry Z, and 1/13/75 with Albano vs Sammartino, Monsoon and Strongbow. Philly results for the 70s on Cawthon's site seem to be a little spotty, but on 10/5/74 the Valiants and Kowalski main evented against the awesome combo of Sammartino, Andre and Haystacks Calhoun. No attendance numbers for those shows, though. So, it seems they were a hot act in New York for the better part of a year. But so were numerous wrestlers over the years, many who are not in the HOF. I know they worked in Indianapolis prior to going North and apparently worked in several other areas after (Georgia, Florida, San Fran, Indy again, etc), but I have no clue what kind of numbers they put up. In the end, a great short term act, but not great enough (no record numbers or all-time classic matches) to be HOF worthy. Edit: Regarding the 10/5/74 match in Philly, the description on Cawthon's site makes it sound really epic: Killer Kowalski, Jimmy & Johnny Valiant defeated WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino, Andre the Giant, & Haystacks Calhoun in a Best 3 out of 5 falls match; fall #1: Bruno's team won via disqualification; fall #2: Johnny pinned Haystacks after hitting him with brass knuckles; Calhoun was deemed unable to continue; fall #3: Bruno pinned Johnny; fall #4: Sammartino was bloodied and ruled unable to continue; fall #5: the heels won via disqualification when Bruno returned to the ring to help the outmatched Andre 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.