WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[Loss]

I think you can start from either but I always say November 1988 since that is when Turner bought JCP.

[El-P]

I think you can start from either but I always say November 1988 since that is when Turner bought JCP.

That seems to be the most accurate. This is when it became corporate wrestling. 1991 was just a name change to establish a brand that was different from the old NWA, which didn't mean anything at this point. Flair leaving with the NWA belt and not returning it jumpstarted the rebranding of the titles as WCW titles.

[JerryvonKramer]

In that case, I think a Lex Luger case would have to be based MAINLY on his WCW career.

[Loss]

Lex Luger is not in the HOF. If he was, he would be in because of the crowds the Flair feud drew in the dying days of JCP, a few months before the buyout. The Flair/Luger feud in 1990 was comparatively better than what was around it, but still played to a lot of crowds of 2,000 - 5,000 - a pathetic number for a national promotion.

[Dylan Waco]

The guys who have the biggest claims based on WCW alone are Sting, Luger, Goldberg and DDP. Vader might have been someone you could have argued for on the ballot as a result of his WCW run because his work was so good and he did some good business v. Hogan, but no way in hell he was getting in on that alone. When you look at the other four names, the only guy who has ever even been on the ballot is Sting and I think we all know none of the other guys would get enough support to even merit placing them on the ballot. I guess you could include names like Hogan and Flair on this but it seems weird to try and divorce them from their other accomplishments.

 

Not sure the Patera stuff with Dave is worse dragging over. It's basically him repeating "he's a viable candidate, top ten on the ballot is a stretch" or some variant of that over and over. I quit arguing for the time being because I think I made my point.

 

The High Flyers stuff is more amusing because I really wasn't even touting them as candidates. I just mentioned them generally in reference to good drawing tag teams who would never get in. It wasn't even a critical statement really as I was noting that it is (justifiably in my view) harder for tag teams to get in than singles guy. Dave responded with:

 

I watched the High Flyers every month live. They were good, but if they're a Hall of Fame tag team, then nearly every babyface team that was put over that was above average were. The only thing they had is they were together a long time, but they were good. Far far from great, unless doing acceptable semi-final matches makes you a Hall of Fame tag team. For a comparison, couldn't hold a candle as workers to Gordman & Goliath (when they worked as faces), Rock & Roll Express, Rockers, Steamboat & Youngblood, Patterson & Johnson, Graham & Keirn, Briscos and a lot of others from that era.

 

I responded with:

 

I wasn't advocating for them as workers, though I think suggesting they were just a middling "good" team that was standard for the era is selling them short. They had plenty of very good matches against a variety of opponents many of which are readily available for those who want to find out for themselves. I definitely agree that teams like The Rockers and RnR's were better, but I think the Flyers were better than a lot of teams that are remembered more fondly. They seem to be a very pleasant surprise to many people I know who are watching them now for the first time (or rewatching them for the first time in years) and Jim Melby of all people went on record in saying "The High Flyers, when I worked in the wrestling business, were the best tag team in wrestling. In their era nobody compares." I wouldn't go that far, but they were a very good in ring team and they have the matches against a wide variety of opponents to prove it.

 

It's also simply untrue to say the only thing they had is that they were together for a long time. Yes they worked second to last often, but that was more often than not a featured program/semi-main event slot in the AWA. It certainly was a slot that meant more than The Fantastics/Midnights slot did in WCCW. On top of that they often went on last, even in the biggest markets, on shows that drew big money. They had strong money feuds against a variety of teams working in arena's in SLC, Denver, Winnipeg, St. Paul, Chicago, Green Bay and Milwaukee that were considerably bigger than the B show arenas the Midnights and RnR's often headlined for Crockett. The Midnights had the Mid-South run and they drew money, but it's pretty hard to argue that The High Flyers weren't a money drawing team when all the available evidence including AWA fans from the era, the responses of live crowds and tv angles that we can see from the available footage, and the massive amount of results with attendance figures point in that direction. That's not to say the Flyers are better candidates than the Midnights or the RnR's - I don't think they are. But arguing that they were just a decent, standard babyface team that worked second from the top in solid matches is a massive underselling of them.

 

Then Dave came back with:

 

You didn't see them live every month. They weren't special over anymore than a babyface tag team would be. Yes, in Minneapolis because of the Gagne name they were strong, but in places like Denver and Chicago they were the babyface tag team, no better or worse than any other pushed face team of the era. They went to St. Louis and were okay, but were over like mid-card guys.

 

They usually had good matches, but very rarely had great matches. Over the space of many years I can recall a pretty good match with Stevens & Patterson just for the entertainment value of them getting booed out of the building, a nice 40 minute match with Martel & Santana (not great, but very good) where Martel & Santana were clearly the better working team, a bunch of *** to ***1/4 bouts with Adrian & Jesse (when Adrian was one of the best workers in the world and you would be surprised how much they got booed in those bouts), some good matches with Patera & Blackwell, but I can't recall one great High Flyers match I saw. For all the talk of being over, I heard enough High Criers chants at live shows in the early 80s that you rarely would get with top faces in those days.

 

Martel & Santana is the best one I can remember. They almost never had bad matches. As a comparison, Graham & Keirn in a similar spot were a lot better. Keirn in those days had explosive real-ness if that's such a term and Graham, a small guy, also came across as real. Brunzell never felt real, just a performer with an awesome dropkick and a good, sometimes very good worker. Greg was solid. Much better than his critics claim. A skinny guy who worked well but was nothing special, but could get over because if he worked with a good heel, they'd make him look good. I can't recall Greg ever having a bad match and rarely having a great match. Steamboat & Youngblood were in another stratusphere. Those two guys were fantastic, maybe the most underrated team of all-time. Among AWA fans, The Flying Redheads were always considered a far, far better team. I never saw the Flying Redheads, but saw enough Bastien to believe it.

 

Then I came back/got the final word with:

 

It's true that I didn't see them live every week. But Jim Melby did and it doesn't look like he agreed with you. Other wrestling historians and regular fans from the Midwest did and don't agree with you. You are entitled to your opinion, but the bulk of people I know who grew up on or watched the AWA at the time tout the High Flyers as a very strong team, who were a big part of the promotions success. When you go back and watch the footage now and look at the attendance figures/results it's almost impossible to dispute that.

 

I will grant that it is likely they got booed heavily at times, in different markets, especially against the wrong opponent (I've heard smatterings of this toward the end of their run in Winnipeg). But that's not uncommon. Mr. "Rock Star Pop" Shawn Michaels is someone I saw get heavily booed live a the height of his popularity/run as ace (a run where he didn't really draw). I saw Sting live dozens of times and despite the fact that he is correctly remembered as the babyface face of WCW I can't count the number of times I was present when fans went rogue and cheered for Flair and even Rick Rude over him. Hell I went to high school gym shows as a kid where significant portions of the crowd were shitting on the RnR's in favor of the Midnights and the RnR's are generally thought to be the best working babyface team of all time (I certainly believe that).

 

That's not to say they were the best team in AWA history in the ring. A team like The Flying Redheads or Race/Hennig very well may have been better (I get that impression from talking to these same AWA fans). It's also not to say that they didn't get some awfully good challengers for opponents - they did. But in talking to multiple people who did see them live week to week for the duration of their run, your position is the minority position.

 

Of course that's not to say they belong in the HoF. As you noted they were only stars in one territory (albeit a massive one geographically). They were not influential at all. And while I think they were a better working team than you do, they were not an all time great working team based on what I've seen. But they were positioned very well on the card, in feuds that drew well and made money all over a very big circuit. That's something that really can't be disputed.

[khawk20]

Wait, Dave saw them live every month?

 

I don't believe that.

 

 

I think I've made my feelings known previously but Dave never seemed to like or understand the AWA or how they did things, from pretty much everything I've ever read him write about it. The arguments he makes in that conversation drive that home in my eyes.

 

Brunzell never felt real? C'mon now. And Martel and Santana, together for all of two months before their Strike Force days later on, were in no way a better working team than the together-for-the-better-part-of-8-years-when-they-faced-off team of Gagne and Brunzell, period.

 

I don't see Dave ever putting them on the ballot, no matter what arguments or evidence are brought forward. It seems like he cannot figure out how Gagne and Brunzell drew, and refuses to acknowledge how good they really were until he can justify their drawing power in his own mind.

[khawk20]

...to this end, it will not surprise me if Dave viewed Patera's year-long pairing with Jerry Blackwell and the Sheik and their AWA tag title reign as the low point of any dissertation on Patera's HOF merit, outside of his pre-jail comeback.

[KrisZ]

He would've saw them at the Cow Palace every month from 81 on which the Flyers were at the end of their peak in that era.

[jdw]

Exactly. Dave saw them when the AWA went into San Fran as Shire fall off / closed.

 

It would be interesting to see what those cards were. I'd suggest a *different* thread for them as it would just clog this one up: Result Lists Of Doom tend to do that. But it would be interesting to see.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

The Bay Area was the death market for Verne. When they ran Battle Royals or had Andre in they did well. Other than that they NEVER really did well in the Bay Area, especially not relative to the rest of the territory. If you go back and look at the results there are periods where the territory is doing sellouts in GB/Milwaukee, 7-9k in Winnipeg/Denver, over 10k in SLC and 15K plus in St. Paul/Chicago with consistency...and San Fran is LUCKY to do 4 or 5k. It was EASILY there worst drawing market. Basing anything purely off of what he saw there is meaningless.

 

On Patera Dave really hasn't engaged the particulars. I asked him if he could think of any guys not already in or on the ballot getting high totals with a similar resume and he named Jardine (who should be on the ballot and I would think would be a good candidate), Valentine (who should be on the ballot IMO), Muraco, Slater, Masked Superstar, Blackjack Mulligan, Waldo Von Erich, Rocky Johnson and Paul Orndorff. The only one he really tried to comp him to was Orndorff who he said he wasn't sure he'd rate Patera above because of Paul's peak (though he did note that Patera's run was longer). I don't know enough about Waldo, and I'd want to look closer at Blackjack, but I think on the surface level Patera is a better candidate than all of those guys sans maybe Jardine (who I'd also have to look into more). In fact I think Patera is easily a better candidate than a few of them (Johnson, Slater, Superstar) and if you look at things closely a clear step up from others (Muraco, Orndorff). But I let it settle because I don't want to play my whole hand a year before the vote is up.

 

I did get a pretty thoughtful post on Patera over at Classics that was critical of some of the particulars of my argument. I answered those criticisms pretty specifically and to be honest after re-reading through the results in the process of my rebuttal I think his case is even stronger than I originally thought.

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimate...ic;f=7;t=000524

 

Think about this. By the time his second full year in the business had ended Patera had had main events and featured matches on a consistent basis in the AWA, Texas (Dallas office) and MACW. His feuds were with Ivan Koloff (teaming with Graham), Billy Graham (I'd forgotten the Graham feud actually headlined a show at the Memorial Audotorium in Dallas), The Blackjacks, The Andersons, Johnny Valentine and Ric Flair. And this is the period that people consider his WEAK period when he was "floundering" and hadn't "found himself."

 

Then after his prime ended in 81 all he did was sellout numerous buildings on the AWA circuit, feud with Hogan and when he was "way past his prime" (as I was told the other day) in 83 and 84 he was literally in and out of four different territories where he was main eventing or near the top virtually every time (St. Louis, Montreal, Memphis and the AWA). I know I'm preaching to the choir but the closer I look at Patera the more impressed I am. There are guys in the HoF who's primes as drawing cards are nowhere near as impressive as Patera's WEAK periods.

[khawk20]

Exactly. Dave saw them when the AWA went into San Fran as Shire fall off / closed.

 

It would be interesting to see what those cards were. I'd suggest a *different* thread for them as it would just clog this one up: Result Lists Of Doom tend to do that. But it would be interesting to see.

 

John

I'll start a separate thread in the main forum.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I always liked it when Ross or anyone mentioned real sports backgrounds. As stated numerous times, it made guys seem more legit and also it made wrestling look like a legit "sport" for a guy to get into, in a kayfabe sense. I'd rather hear "He was a rough tackle for Miami" then "He was a garbageman who's decided to wrestle"ala the WWF "guys with other jobs" deal.

I'm catching up on this thread, so I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I wanted to chime in on this issue.

 

I hate it when announcers bring up real sports backgrounds. Nobody is going to choose wrestling over a career in football. The NFL is a much bigger deal than wrestling. More money, more fame, more credibility, more women, more everything.

 

Whenever Ross (or any announcer) kept mentioning a wrestler's history in the NFL, it hurt the wrestler, IMO. "Hey, this guy wasn't good enough to make it in the NFL, so he ended up on WCW Saturday Night!"

 

The college football background stuff didn't bother me as much, but it still bothered me. On the one hand, very few college players are good enough to make it in the NFL. I suppose it's fine if you end up wrestling. On the other hand, if he was such a stud in college, then what the hell is he doing wrestling the second match on Clash of the Champions?

 

If you want to make a wrestler sound more legitimate, then talk about his wrestling achievements. If he has no wrestling achievements, just make some shit up or tie him to past wrestlers who did accomplish something.

[Loss]

It stems from an era where many pro wrestlers did in fact choose wrestling over football. The money wasn't always better in football than wrestling.

[JerryvonKramer]

When was that, the 1950s?

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

At no time in JR's era was the money in wrestling better than football.

[Loss]

At no time in JR's era was the money in wrestling better than football.

He was continuing the tradition of that era, whether it was still true or not. Like many things, it eventually became outdated. That said, the idea that playing up the credentials of a wrestler is a bad thing is ridiculous. At least under the traditional wrestling model, which is where Jim Ross said most of these things, the lies they have to tell audiences in wrestling are a lot more believable and effective when surrounded by as much truth as possible.

[JerryvonKramer]

If it does date back to the 1950s, I guess it would have been something Solie picked up on and then JR picked up the habit from him (and to a lesser extent guys like Bob Caudle and even Bill Watts).

 

The 50s seem a long time ago to us, but if you think about it the gap between 1952 and 1982 is the same as the gap between 1982 and 2012.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

At no time in JR's era was the money in wrestling better than football.

He was continuing the tradition of that era, whether it was still true or not. Like many things, it eventually became outdated. That said, the idea that playing up the credentials of a wrestler is a bad thing is ridiculous. At least under the traditional wrestling model, which is where Jim Ross said most of these things, the lies they have to tell audiences in wrestling are a lot more believable and effective when surrounded by as much truth as possible.

 

I don't get how washing out in football can be viewed as a credential. It's all in how you present it, I guess.

[Loss]

I think with someone like a Lex Luger, it's an attempt to say, "See, this guy is a real athlete, not just some no-talent steroid jerk we found in a gym". The anti-WWF share of the wrestling fanbase resented that wrestling was going in that direction. Yes, Luger, Nikita and the Road Warriors being very over, but wrestling is full of double standards. Anyway, up until nearly the end of WCW, market research showed that the majority of their fanbase were bigger overall sports fans than the WWF fanbase. To me, the bigger question than "Why mention it?" is "Why avoid mentioning it?"

[Loss]

If it does date back to the 1950s, I guess it would have been something Solie picked up on and then JR picked up the habit from him (and to a lesser extent guys like Bob Caudle and even Bill Watts).

 

The 50s seem a long time ago to us, but if you think about it the gap between 1952 and 1982 is the same as the gap between 1982 and 2012.

It does go back to the 1950s. You had a lot of guys going into wrestling because of higher pay, and also because they didn't have to deal with an asshole coach bossing them around. They had more freedom to control their schedules as well, as if they had a falling out with a promoter, there were 30 other territories across the country where they could work, so it wasn't a big deal. Dave had a long, interesting post on this at The Board a little while back that maybe someone can dig up.

[NintendoLogic]

My subscription has lapsed, but I recall Dave mentioning how Curtis Iaukea and another guy whose name I can't remember walked out of Raiders camp because they could make more money wrestling and wouldn't have to put up with coaches yelling at them. It was in the context of how fewer of the cream of the athletic crop goes into wrestling today than in past years. On that note, there was a piece in the Observer a while back about how fewer top athletes going into wrestling has made the talent more docile. Elite athletes are used to being coddled and getting what they want, so they're more likely to press the issue if they don't think they're getting a fair shake. By contrast, most of today's talent look at themselves not in comparison to other athletes but to the average American. By that standard, they're doing pretty well, and most of them are just thankful for the opportunity.

[Matt D]

It was also in the presentation. Pillman wasn't just a football player, he was a walk on, spirit award winner. Ron Simmons was a stand out star at Florida State. It's also about the demographics of both mid-south and WCW. There are few things I care about less than football but it matters a hell of a lot to the great majority of people down there.

[JerryvonKramer]

Did you know Lex Luger had a 3.78 grade average too?

[PeteF3]

Into the 1970's, NFL salaries tended to lag behind baseball's. An average player's salary was in the neighborhood of $56,000. Joe Namath's $100,000+ was considered a superstar's salary. Baseball also adopted free agency about a full decade-plus before the NFL which drove the salaries of that sport up higher, quicker. Making more money in territorial wrestling than in pro football wasn't out of the question at all, at least up until around the '82 strike. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case for Wahoo McDaniel and Ernie Ladd, who had legitimate pro careers of decent length and during the AFL-NFL era to boot (pro football's equivalent to the Monday Night Wars, as a point of reference).

 

I don't generally have an issue with pushing strong college careers (like Simmons) or even fringe NFL careers (Goldberg). I think even a cup of coffee in the NFL adds a legitimacy to a guy, especially if they're like most wrestlers and were linemen or linebackers. Now, Jim Ross once talked up Tracey Smothers' quarterback career at "one of the great NAIA programs," Carson-Newman--that's taking things too far to the point of absurdity and is just an excuse for JR to blither.

 

And for the record, pushing Jim Duggan as the SMU "wedge buster" on kickoffs is still about the best ever use of football credentials to get a wrestler over. It was supposedly where he perfected the flying spear and wedge-buster is the craziest, most dangerous role a football player could have--perfectly befitting a tough, unhinged guy like Duggan and something that the fans of the Mid-South would inherently know.

[PeteF3]

Did you know Lex Luger had a 3.78 grade average too?

Permanently branded into my memory banks, it is. Thanks, JR. Did we add that to the 1990 Ross drinking game?