Dylan Waco Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I think he'll get in eventually because Dave supports him and will do what he can to make a case for him. Having said that I think if anything Edge is a Sting-like candidate that will look WORSE as time goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I've argued Sting's candidacy before here and other places and don't want to totally rehash it.... But I'll just say that I think his lack of drawing power is really overstated. Nobody could draw in early-mid 90's WCW. That promotion was a f'n mess. I really don't hold WCW's poor houses against him, it was due to total promotional failure. Also, PPVs Sting headlined in that time frame did measurably better than ones that he wasn't on top of. Did they do great numbers? No. But he hit better than the company's average. Also, WCW's hottest run was when he was built as the top babyface opposite the nWo. People discount that because he wasn't in the ring, and because WCW bungled the payoff so bad, but it was an entire year of building up heat and anticipation for Sting that 100% worked, and you can't not give him credit for that. Dave on the HOF WOR show that he thought Sting has become a stronger candidate due to his TNA run, and the voting has showed it. It's been talked about many times that nobody can move the needle for TNA by themselves, so I look at Sting's run based on performance, and it's been good. I also think if Sting chose to go to WWE, that he'd be a big draw for them. Sting/Taker would be huge. Sting/Cena would be huge. Sting/Punk would be huge. If they could drag HBK out of retirement for a match with Sting, that would be huge. Sting is majorly popular and has huge name value still, even after a decade or so of being out of the big spotlight. I'm kind of disappointed in Dave's analysis of him. If Sting had gone to WWE at some point I think he'd be a much stronger candidate in Dave's eyes. He penalizes him for being in WCW during the lean years, when Sting really wasn't part of the problem, and I don't think anybody could have been the solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 We have been over this before and I would say that it is wrong to frame the issue as Sting being "penalized" because WCW did poorly across the board for a long stretch. What we should say is that it is wrong to give credit to give major credit to someone simply for being on top with little in the way of results. Is it possible that shows with Sting did better than shows without him? Sure and even though I haven't looked at the numbers I would say that is probably likely in most cases. But it doesn't explain why Luger was a much better drawing opponent v. Flair than Sting. It doesn't explain why the ascension of Sting into the companies top babyface slot coincides almost exactly with the decline in business. It doesn't explain why a company with less than a tenth of the media penetration and resources, operating out of the same general geographic area, was able to do comparable or better numbers (or at the very least very successful numbers relative to their size) with Bob Armstrong and the RnR Express as the companies top faces and a much leaner over all roster. If we give Sting credit by saying "it wasn't his fault things were the shits" why not Sid? Sid headlined two shows that up until the advent of Mania becoming a yearly mega-dome show were among the absolute top tier shows in terms of raw in attendance in North American history and was on or near the top for a long time. Why not Nash? He inherited a shit situation in the WWF, had a much longer "anchor" run than Sting even despite that, and was one of the spearheads of the MNW and Nitro boom. Why not Luger? He was a better worker than Sting at his peak, was hurt at least as much by booking as Sting (probably more), was on or near the top for just as long if not longer, was much more successful when positioned on top as a babyface (especially during the pre-MNW era) and remained over for years. I'm not saying all or any of these guys are BETTER candidates than Sting or even AS GOOD as Sting because as I have noted many times before I do give him some credit for the Crow bit. Still the point is if we are going to give Sting credit for something that really should be considered a negative (failure to draw when positioned as the top dog in a promotion), then we need to reevaluate how we look at a lot of other guys. As I said on the show Dave and I did the other day, the thing about Sting is that if you dropped him into a list of guys who are already in from his era he wouldn't look out of place. He has name identity and is remembered as the babyface face of the second biggest promotion in the U.S. during a period where there were effectively only two promotions. But he doesn't have the positives that other guys who are in from that era have, or at least no one has ever tried to make the case that he does. I will say that I do think if he had gone to the WWE and worked Taker a couple of years back that may have been enough to get him in. If the show had done a very strong buyrate and the build to it had done good ratings it might have put him over the top as a guy who's name means something big in the business. Right now he's a guy with a name that is recognizable, that means something to a core group of fans who grew up with him, but outside of a year long period where he was in the rafters has never meant much in terms of bringing dollars to the promotion he was working for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Your last sentence there is interesting, Dylan. Sting was probably a bigger draw not wrestling and not talking than when he was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Is Sting a better candidate than Randy Orton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Is Sting a better candidate than Randy Orton? I would say yes because I don't think Orton has ever been as hot as Crow Sting was and I think Sting was a noticeably better worker. I would listen to arguments for Orton though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I think the best argument for Sting is what Dylan said on his podcast: he wouldn't at all look out of place in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 I think Nash's negatives outweigh the positives. He was an acceptable worker when motivated and in there with the right opponent (Michaels and Hart, and the surprisingly good Taker match at WM), but he didn't have good matches with a wide range of opponents. His work generally went to shit in WCW, I struggle to come up with one good and memorable Kevin Nash match from his entire run there. If somebody wanted to nominate the nWo as a group for the HOF I'd give it a long look. Nash or Hall as individual candidates? Not so much. Sid? Not a good worker and too inconsistent of a career. Luger? I wouldn't have a problem with Luger going in TBH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted November 9, 2012 Report Share Posted November 9, 2012 Is Sting a better candidate than Randy Orton? Right now, yes. Sting's also been wrestling for 25 years. Orton's a decade in. Depending on how the next 5 or so years of his career go I think he'll very likely look like a strong candidate. Stronger than Edge most likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 I think Nash's negatives outweigh the positives. He was an acceptable worker when motivated and in there with the right opponent (Michaels and Hart, and the surprisingly good Taker match at WM), but he didn't have good matches with a wide range of opponents. His work generally went to shit in WCW, I struggle to come up with one good and memorable Kevin Nash match from his entire run there. The Fingerpoke of Doom was certainly memorable. Nash as a candidate is interesting, because he was hugely influential if nothing else. Hall is a big NO primarily because he became such a liability in a hurry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSR Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Hey, Mick McManus. Nice one. How did Pallo do?McManus went in with 78% of the vote. Pallo was actually the next UK candidate with 46%, Rocco with 43%, Saint at 40%, Daddy at 23%, Breaks on 15%, Joyce at 11% and Nagasaki with 10%. Marty Jones got less than 10% and drops off next year's ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nell Santucci Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 I think Nash's negatives outweigh the positives. He was an acceptable worker when motivated and in there with the right opponent (Michaels and Hart, and the surprisingly good Taker match at WM), but he didn't have good matches with a wide range of opponents. His work generally went to shit in WCW, I struggle to come up with one good and memorable Kevin Nash match from his entire run there. The Fingerpoke of Doom was certainly memorable. Nash as a candidate is interesting, because he was hugely influential if nothing else. Hall is a big NO primarily because he became such a liability in a hurry. I've long wondered what kind of numbers Nash would pull if he were to go away for 20 years, namely because from a purely objective, i.e. historical and therefore removed, standpoint, he has had a huge impact on the business but it's hard to imagine a headliner over the last 20 years who has less respect amongst his peers than Nash. Nash being a polarizing character works against him. But in fairness, his being arguably the worst draw in WWF history would have to work against him. His run as booker is a serious strike. You almost have to wonder if Nash has only been able to keep himself relevant by being friends with the right people (a view that I've long held and a view that most of his peers probably hold, even if that might not tell the whole story). The New World Order being a collective candidate would be interesting partly because the above would play a role when considering Nash, that Hall is an obvious no, and that Hogan was really the drawing card of the nWo (some might disagree with me, and I'm open to hear that case). So the thinking would be "Why vote for the nWo from a purely historical standpoint if the nWo's relevancy depended on Hogan's presence when Hogan already is in?" It would be a type of HOF gerrymandering such that one could weasel Nash and Hall into the HOF by just calling them the New World Order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Anything positive Nash ever did is outweighed by his part in killing WCW. It wasn't all him, but was a large part of the reason people stopped watching their TV shows and buying their pay-per-views. And that just wasn't any decline. It completely changed wrestling for the worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Marty Jones doesn't belong anywhere near the Hall but that still sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nell Santucci Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Anything positive Nash ever did is outweighed by his part in killing WCW. It wasn't all him, but was a large part of the reason people stopped watching their TV shows and buying their pay-per-views. And that just wasn't any decline. It completely changed wrestling for the worse. I agree, though I'd also like a more complete treatment of WCW's history past Alvarez' polemical text. For example, when was Flair booking and for how long? What about Nash? How much blame do Terry Taylor, Mike Graham, Kevin Sullivan, and Bill Busch deserve? What about Hogan, even though Hogan was one of the few reasons WCW ever churned a profit? Alvarez' work leaves a lot to the imagination, and I know the information I want is available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Funny irony on Sting, for all the talk that he wasn't a big draw with the fans, he would be the #1 guy voted in if the HoF was decided via fan voting as he routinely wins the Observer site polls Meltzer likes to do on "which among these names is most deserving to be in" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 When we did this whole debate before I distinctly recall it took the form of overness vs. drawing power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 I'll put it this way. This may be a bold statement, but ... NO ONE deserves to go in the WON HOF solely for what they accomplished in WCW. I can't think of a single person who is in primarily for their time in WCW, come to think of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Tanahashi 39% A lot to say about the voting this year but for now i'll just add that I don't think Tanahashi goes in next year either but i'm 100% confident he gets in within the next 5 or so. I'd like to hear what else you have to say about the voting. Dave and I discussed Tanahashi on the show tonight. I made the point that I really wish someone would lay out his case as even though I don't like him as a worker I sometimes think I am selling him short as a star. Re Tanahashi I'm not his biggest fan or anything so i'm not going to go into a super detailed case but in a nutshell he's a guy who checks all the boxes i'd think people would want out of a hall of famer. - There's a some who will disagree of course but he's considered a great worker by the majority of fans who've seen him. Meltzer's gone as far as to call him the best on the planet for whatever that's worth. - Unquestionably the biggest star & ace of NJPW for the past few years. - 6 time IWGP champ but more importantly was instrumental in re-establishing that the belt was actually something worth having after the title got tarnished by the shit booking of the early 2000's. G1 climax winner, finalist on a few other occasions, headlined multiple dome shows, and lots of other on paper & kayfaybe credentials for those who may value such things - Business has improved with him on top. To make a very simplified comparison to Cena, Cena's a guy who got handed the keys to the kingdom when the company wasn't at it's peak but was still fairly strong and while on top things have gone down with WWE getting lower ratings, ppv buys and attendance then they have in a long time. Tanahashi got handed the keys to the kingdom when not only were things not strong but the kingdom was crumbling to dust, like it wasn't that long ago when NJPW often wouldn't even sell out Kouraken Hall for many of the shows they ran thear. Now, while things still aren't at peak lvl, they've improved greatly for NJPW, they're drawing more fans, sell out or come close to selling out most of their big shows, have more fan intrest & positive buzz and all around are moving up instead of down and Tanahashi on top is a big part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 I'll put it this way. This may be a bold statement, but ... NO ONE deserves to go in the WON HOF solely for what they accomplished in WCW. I can't think of a single person who is in primarily for their time in WCW, come to think of it. How did Sullivan draw in Florida? And for how long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Kevin Sullivan isn't in the HOF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 Tanahashi is a perfect example of why I don't believe anyone should go in on work alone. He may be considered a great worker by a lot of people but I think he's a pretty fucking shitty wrestler. On the business thing Cena was actually handed the keys when the company had gone through HHH hell. Things turned around positively when he was on top. We can point to their problems now, but many of those problems are related to technological changes and the fact that they are carpet bombing the market with product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted November 10, 2012 Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 If Tanahashi got inducted, it wouldn't be because of work alone. A big part of his candidacy is his role in turning business around for New Japan. I don't think he's a strong candidate now, but if he maintains his current career trajectory, he will be in a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 I didn't say it was the only argument for him. I was kind of addressing Flik's first point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2012 and on a side note note I'm currently debating the merits of Patera and The High Flyers with Dave on the f4w board. 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.