WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[FLIK]

That's a minus ?

Well, yes & no. When you're doing a comparison like this and trying to rank someone for a world wide hall of fame there's an awful lot of ppl who've been top lvl wrestlers for longer then that. Masato Tanaka's been great for like 17 years.

[jdw]

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.

I could see him on the ballot. He isn't worth a vote, though.

 

 

Toyonobori

 

Did he draw in LA?

Not really. He didn't work in LA regularly, and I don't recall him popping things when he came in. I do recall Baba drawing a big house against The Destroyer... don't recall the same for Toyonobori.

 

 

Going off memory his run seemed really short, but he did fill the gap between Rikidozan and Inoki/Baba IIRC.

He was the initial choice to take Rikidozan's spot. It's a sign of how well that went that the company went with Baba instead, and Toyonobori was bounced from the company. He failed in his first opposition attempt, and dragged Inoki into it. The early IWE wasn't terribly successful, and it was Kobayashi and Kimura who emerged as the top stars.

 

 

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.

 

I wouldn't cry if he's on the ballot. He's not worth a vote.

 

Which gets to a key question:

 

Is the intent just to have people on the ballot who will then draw less than 5% of the votes and drop right off? Or is the intent to get people on the ballot who actually should be seriously considered for inclusion in the HOF?

 

Vinny Castilla was on the baseball HOF ballot this year. Eric Young. Tony Womack. Phil Nevin. These guys weren't even consistently *good* players of any length. I suspect folks think Castilla was, but it was the park:

 

BA/OBP/SLG

.331/.377/.598 Career Games Played in Denver Parks (Mile High & Coors)

.251/.295/.420 Career Games Played in Non-Denver Parks

 

.251/.295/.420 for a "power hitting 3B" in that specific era... it's just sucks.

 

Every year the ballot has guys like that pop up and go away quickly. It's generally a waste.

 

There was some truly *good* players who pop up and go away quickly, simply because while they're good, no one thinks they're HOFers. Tim Salmon was on the ballot this year for the first time. Good player... real good player. If he played in New York from 1993-2001 instead of Paul O'Neill, he's be a remembered player. But O'Neill fell off the ballot after a year, and Salmon did as well.

 

Those are two good players who go on and fell off... and really didn't warrant being on the ballot since they never were going to draw a ton of votes.

 

Bernie Williams got less than 10% of the vote this year, which surprised me since I would have thought he'd get a bit more than that. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Bernie eventually goes in via the Vet, though he's unlikely to get in via the writers.

 

So where's the cut off?

 

I would argue that someone at Bernie's level is: you could make a reasonable argument that he'll eventually will get in via the Vet even if the writers don't vote him in.

 

Salmon and O'Neill? Not going to happen.

 

I'd make that argument with trying to get people on the WON HOF Ballot. Does Toyonobori ever have a shot of getting in, even 20 years when/if he drops to a WON Vet Committee to consider? Or is he just a guy who is going to fall right off the ballot quickly each time he's brought back?

 

If the point is to "recognize" Toyonobori... it's kind of a waste. He's dead and doesn't give a shit if he's on the ballot.

 

 

 

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?

He played second and third fiddle to Toyonobori and Baba and Inoki after Rikidozan died. One can pretty much always see the progression of someone's push relative to Yoshimura:

 

All Asia Tag Title

 

Rikidozan & Toyonobori --> Toyonobori & Yoshimura

 

Rikidozan dies, Yoshimura moves up to be Toyonobori's partner.

 

 

Toyonobori & Yoshimura --> Toyonobori & Baba

 

Baba returns and is pushed as Toyonobori's partner.

 

Toyonobori & Baba --> Baba & Yoshimura

 

Toyonobori gets bounced, and the title eventually go to Baba.

 

Baba & Yoshimura --> Yoshimura & Ohki

 

They create the NWA Int'l Tag Title, and that goes to Baba. He's too big of a star for the All Asia.

 

Yoshimura & Ohki --> Inoki & Yoshimura

 

Inoki gets the push.

 

Inoki & Yoshimura --> Yoshimura & Ohki

 

Inoki gets moved up into the NWA Int'l Title with Baba.

 

They bounce the title around Yoshimura, Ohki and Inoki holding it, with Inoki & Yoshimura holding it when Inoki gets kicked out of JWA.

 

Inoki & Yoshimura --> Sakaguchi & Yoshimura

 

Saka takes over Inoki's old role as the #2 in the promotion, being the "top" guy in the All Asia Tag team, the #2 guy in the NWA Int'l Tag, and the UN Champ.

 

In turn the NWA Int'l Tag:

 

Baba & Yoshimura

 

Inoki was out of the promotion at the time if I recall. Tooyonobori is gone by this point. So Yoshimura is the #2 to Baba when they create / bring in a higher tag title.

 

When Inoki comes back and show's he's a good boy:

 

Baba & Yoshimura --> Baba & Inoki

 

When Inoki gets tossed:

 

Baba & Inoki --> Baba & Sakaguchi

 

On *placement*, I don't think Yoshimura deserves to be on the ballot.

 

There are two things that might benefit him if we knew more:

 

* front office

* worker

 

He was a player in the front office. Of course JWA eventually failed, but in the transition from Rikidozan to Toyonobori to Baba, the front office made the *right* choice. In the choice between Baba and Inoki, the promotion made the right choice: Baba was the more stable wrestler. Inoki went out, bombed, came back and they got roughly five years out of the double header of Baba & Inoki. Things did eventually blow up, and perhaps they could have been avoided if the front office was smarter in giving Baba a cut in the promotion and more power. But overall, they did seem to do well in the post-Rikidozan period when they could have fallen apart.

 

How much of a role did Yoshimura play in the front office relative to Yoshinosato and Endo? I don't know. Perhaps something Hisa could help fill in, but even then it might be a little fuzzy.

 

On the worker side, if there was as much material available from the 60s as there is from the 70s, perhaps we would have some understanding if Yoshimura was the workhorse of some of those teams and a hidden strong worker. It's a thin argument for the HOF, but if he were say the Arn Anderson or Bobby Eaton unsung worker of the promotion, it would be interesting.

 

Since we don't really know either of those things, he's just someone who would fall quickly off the ballot.

 

John

[Al]

If it's an active/recently retired performer, sure you want him/her on the ballot if they're anyone of note. If they had a long career, headlined a bit, they deserve a look. But as a veterans' committee type of vote, no. And it's the wrong approach. It shouldn't be whether Toyonobori belongs on the ballot. It's whether Toyonobori is the best (or among the best) possible candidate.

[sek69]

I know HHH was really pushed down people's throats before he finally got over, but to say he's the Kamala of the 2000s makes you sound as ridiculous as Dave did in the 80s with his obsessive Hogan hate. His politics have been debated ad nauseum and he sometimes is too smart for his own good ("I'm good enough to have a long match with Scott Steiner!"), but lets not start pretending he was just another broomstick who happened to nail the boss's daughter.

 

 

*Note that I'm not even a huge HHH fan but some of the arguments against him here seem kind of silly.

 

 

 

Also the mention of Ken Shamrock earlier reminded me that the story about the ESPN piece on fighter pay is giving Dave plenty of chances to mention Ken being the guy that put the Zuffa era UFC on the map. I get the feeling he's going to start pushing Ken on the basis of that.

[Matt D]

Shouldn't we be comparing Hunter to Larry Z?

[jdw]

If it's an active/recently retired performer, sure you want him/her on the ballot if they're anyone of note. If they had a long career, headlined a bit, they deserve a look. But as a veterans' committee type of vote, no. And it's the wrong approach. It shouldn't be whether Toyonobori belongs on the ballot. It's whether Toyonobori is the best (or among the best) possible candidate.

You're talking about two different things.

 

The "is the best possible candidate" is for *voting*, not for whether they deserve to be on the ballot. If that were the case, then it would be a short ballot.

 

But "anyone of note" is a massive list.

 

Honkytonk is someone of note. On the ballot?

 

Bossman is someone of note. Kamala is someone of note. Tito is someone of note. John Studd is someone of note.

 

Where is the line? Everyone who headlined against Hogan from 1984-92 is in some degree "someone of note": he was the biggest wrestler of all-time, and his opponents all were of some note simply because they got rolled out against him.

 

That was the analogy I was trying to make with the baseball examples. Bobby Womack was on the ballot... and hardly the *worst* guy on the ballot. It's a waste for him to be there: he's not going to get in, and will get so few votes that he will fall off.

 

I don't know... maybe people get a warm and fuzzy feeling seeing Hercules on the ballot for a year. He headlines against Hogan and got a SNME match against him. One against Steamboat for the IC Title as well.

 

But truly... he's going to fall off, and it's a waste of time for voters to even have to scan through his name, along with others below a certain level.

 

I loved Tim Salmon. He's better than a number of players who have gotten some HOF run over the years, and better than some in. I'd like to see him remembered for being a good player. But I'm not sure that being on the ballot and getting less than 5% of the vote the first time out accomplishes anything.

 

John

[Mad Dog]

I think Jimmy Hart should be an automatic in for a Hall of Fame. He had a huge influence behind the scenes and he had a really good career as a manager.

[Dylan Waco]

I think virtually everyone agrees that Jimmy Hart is an obvious pick that somehow got flubbed out of the gate and in an even more odd situation was never noticed as being MIA until a couple of months back.

 

To answer John's question to me this thread has a few functions

 

1. It's just fun to talk about the careers of various guys.

2. It's interesting to run down the list of people being suggested to see how many of them even border on being serious candidates

3. It's an exercise in trying to find where that line is.

 

I don't have an answer for it. In general I think people should not go on the ballot unless they either have a constituency that you can assume would support them or they are someone who deserves to be scrutinized more closely. Some would argue that scrutinizing people more closely should be what you do to get someone on the ballot and not vice versa. In principle I agree but with something like wrestling I think it is easier to make a case for someone on the ballot/do the leg work to see where they do or don't stand than it is to try and force them into the discussion first using the data. That could just be an error in my perception.

 

The only other reason I would argue for including people on the ballot is as pure reference points to sort of expose the weaknesses of others. This is purely self serving on my part, but to me the career of Edge looks less like an HoF career sitting next to the career of Lex Luger's than it does if you isolate it and read it through the standard WON talking point prism. Again this may be an error in my perception.

[JerryvonKramer]

The fact that people are now talking up Jimmy Hart only strengthens the case of the 5 guys I outlined. I will put cases together for each of them.

[Dooley]

I know HHH was really pushed down people's throats before he finally got over, but to say he's the Kamala of the 2000s makes you sound as ridiculous as Dave did in the 80s with his obsessive Hogan hate. His politics have been debated ad nauseum and he sometimes is too smart for his own good ("I'm good enough to have a long match with Scott Steiner!"), but lets not start pretending he was just another broomstick who happened to nail the boss's daughter.

It's about *2000*, not the decade of the 2000's. The Kamala comparison is more about Rock being Hogan. Rock was EVERYWHERE in 2000, perhaps even moreso than Hogan was in '87. Mainstream TV, music videos, you name it. He had that "it" factor that transcended rasslin and everyone wanted to see him and play "sing along with the champ". HHH may as well have come out in a robe that said "opponent".

 

People like to tout HHH's 2000 as this great year for him but it's the white elephant of his career. It just doesn't exist.

[Tim Cooke]

Jimmy Hart is someone who should have been automatically placed in 1996 by John and Dave. It was an oversight - it happens. I don't see ANY comparison between Hart and Tony Schiavone. Just because Tony worked for the NWA from 1985 to 1988 and then 1990 - 2001 doesn't equal HOF. Longevity is only one factor and he was so horrifically bad from 1998-2001 that anything good (which would need to be defined and I'm someone who isn't totally down on Shiavonie). Same with Okerlund. Okerlund was a complete detriment to WCW from 1998 until they stopped using him. Monsoon has nothing on Jimmy Hart or Lance Russell for historical impact, longevity, ability to draw (in Hart's case as a draw, in Russell's case as the key guy helping get the people into the arena by helping to sell the story).

 

Finkel, maybe. I can see at least arguing a case.

[Mad Dog]

Those guys don't even touch Hart. You could completely take away Jimmy Hart's onscreen role from the discussion and he still merits being included for how much influence he's had.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think it is far less cut and dry than that. Especially in Ventura's case, but with all 5 guys. I need to watch All Japan tonight, but tomorrow when I get 30 mins I will outline my position(s) and respond to individual comments. I think Okerlund, Fink, Ventura and Gorilla should have been in in 1996. Schiavone is a more debatable one.

[Dylan Waco]

The fact that people are now talking up Jimmy Hart only strengthens the case of the 5 guys I outlined. I will put cases together for each of them.

I think you are showing your ignorance of Memphis wrestling here.

 

I have no problem considering Gene or Fink as candidates though I'm largely indifferent to either. Ventura and Monsoon drew less money as workers than Hart did as a manager - combined. Hart's music videos/music innovations were more important than any market innovations we would like to pretend Jesse or Gorilla had. I am open to listening to arguments for anyone but Jimmy destroys them as candidates.

[Dylan Waco]

Iron Sheik

 

I like Sheik in the ring better than most but I can't see a legit argument for him. I'm not sure he was ever a draw outside of the Slaughter feud. For stereotypical heels from that part of the World Adnan is the better candidate.

 

Larry Zbyszko

 

Looking back Larry's feud with Bruno really did do MASSIVE business. I also like Larry more as a worker than most anyone else does. But I don't think he's an all time great in the ring, and he really lacks any other blockbuster feud or run. In fact the other major pushes of his career that come to mind were all business low points for companies (dying days AWA, DA era WCW).

 

Don Muraco

 

I just don't see it. I don't think the scope of his stardom is enough. I've seen people make the point that he could have been more, but I don't think that means anything in this argument and I generally agree with John that he was lazy as piss a lot of the time. Was a part of some very memorable moments, had some great matches with Backlund, but i don't see it.

 

Peter Maivia

 

Ultimately I would want more info, but it seems like a stretch. Was he a serious draw in Hawaii or San Fran? He did better for Vince than is sometimes remembered as he comes across as a tier above the Strongbow/Putski level when talking ethnic babyfaces, though obviously not on the Pedro/Bruno tier either.

 

Rocky Johnson

 

No. Had a fine mid-level career, but I don't know of anywhere where he made a serious long term effect on business.

 

Bob Orton Jr.

 

Is there any record of Orton being a draw? Orton is a better worker than is remembered IMO, but I don't think he was ever a guy known for making money. Being Piper's sidekick is a pretty trivial "plus."

 

Stan Stasiak

 

Well he held the WWWF title. Um. Other than that....

 

Jerry Blackwell

I think my feelings on him are well known Should note that while I included him italics, I could be convinced that he doesn't belong in the HoF, though I lean toward thinking he does.

 

Cyclone Negro

 

Don't know enough.

 

Bob Roop

 

What is the argument here? For guys with tough guy rep is he as good a candidate as Meng?

 

Victor Rivera

 

I know he worked some pretty big name guys in feuds, but nothing else I know seems to indicate that he is more than a surface level candidate.

 

Blackjack Lanza

 

I would think that Mulligan is a better candidate than Lanza, and Mulligan was someone I didn't go to bat for.

[jdw]

Jimmy Hart is someone who should have been automatically placed in 1996 by John and Dave. It was an oversight - it happens.

Really don't recall why we didn't. Like I said earlier, neither of us were down on him. Fall through the cracks stuff... but what's a little more amazing is that it didn't come up in 1997 where we caught a few folks, or really since then.

 

 

I don't see ANY comparison between Hart and Tony Schiavone. Just because Tony worked for the NWA from 1985 to 1988 and then 1990 - 2001 doesn't equal HOF. Longevity is only one factor and he was so horrifically bad from 1998-2001 that anything good (which would need to be defined and I'm someone who isn't totally down on Shiavonie).

He was a voice of the primary opposition to the WWF in the initial war and in the Monday Night War. That does have some meaning/value. Was he good? Open to debate. I'm not much of a fan, but there are folks who like him. He's not the quality that I would vote for... but I'm not going to cry if he went in. Suspect there are better announcers out there that we don't even know of.

 

 

Same with Okerlund. Okerlund was a complete detriment to WCW from 1998 until they stopped using him.

I think Gene was a detriment from day 1 of going to WCW. It just made them look like they were ripping off the WWF. It's one thing to rip off wrestlers, but when you rip off their longstanding shill, it just looks week.

 

I'd say it was entirely different when the WWF stole Gene from the AWA: Gene wasn't truly "national" at that point, and it's more like moving from doing the news in Atlanta to New York: a move upward.

 

Gene to WCW was like CBS taking Gumble to do their morning show after he'd peaked with the Today Show. I'll grant that CBS at the time needed to do *something* with their morning show since they were getting hammered for decades by the Today Show and GMA... but it came across weak. Gene was worse because WCW looked like they were trying to beat the WWF by being the WWF. When WCW finally took off strongly, it was with their own "feel" in 1996.

 

Monsoon has nothing on Jimmy Hart or Lance Russell for historical impact, longevity, ability to draw (in Hart's case as a draw, in Russell's case as the key guy helping get the people into the arena by helping to sell the story).

I wouldn't have Hart in the discussion with Monsoon since they're two different roles.

 

Finkel, maybe. I can see at least arguing a case.

I could see Fink on the ballot, though it worries me a bit since that section of the ballot is so light that he may end up going in easy rather than people thinking about him. I've got to say that the past decade or so have shown that he didn't add a ton on whether a match/card/show/promotion was good or bad. Seriously... when was the last time that you watched a "great" WWE match and thought, "Damn... this would have been a lot better of Fink did the ring intros and instead it kind of isn't so great"?

 

Was Flair-Steamer better or worse due to the ring announcer? Jumbo-Tenryu? Austin-Hart? Taker-Shawn?

 

Don't really want to belittle what he did, but in the end... it means dick. He's the best at what he does, but for fuck's sake... Kevin Dunn's production crew had a hell of a lot more to do with the salad days of the late 90s / early 00s and whoever the heck had that role in the 80s did as well compared to Fink. We don't even know who the fuck that guy was in the 80s.

 

Here's Dunn's bio:

 

http://corporate.wwe.com/company/bios/k_dunn.jsp

 

Fink has something on *that*?

 

It's just a feel good thing because Fink was a constant in people's memories. But in terms of importance to WWF/WWE product? It's pretty laughable that he'd get on the ballot while 90% of pro wrestling hates Kevin Dunn.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

jdw, why is Jimmy Lennon in the HoF but not Finkel? Just seems a bit pretentious to me.

[Loss]

I think that's a great question, and it's not one I wish to ignore. At the same time, it would be fun to debate the merits of a Finkel candidacy on the merits alone, without regards to Jimmy Lennon's inclusion. Let's discuss Finkel's candidacy on its own. I'm interested in that conversation because I have no idea where it would go.

[Matt D]

I think everyone's underestimating the sheer amount of hours Finkel put in backstage in the 80s too.

[Dylan Waco]

Fink isn't a backstage candidate. I have no qualms with him getting in as he is recognized at the best at what he did. But that's not a real strength for him

[Jingus]

When I was a ring announcer, a good 75% of my verbal schtick was stolen directly from Fink. He's the only emcee I thought was ever good enough to be worth ripping off. Plenty of others were competent, but he's the sole example I would argue was legitimately great at his job. And no, the ring announcer doesn't mean dick to the overall bottom line. But it's still part of the overall presentation, and you can't run a wrestling show without one. (Well I guess you could, but it would be pretty confusing to lots of the marks.)

 

And hey, question. Does anyone have a list of what Dave's official guidelines for qualifications are? Like what sort of qualities are supposed to count, how much some count more than others, that sort of thing.

[Dylan Waco]

Paul Orndorff

 

He's been on the ballot before and fallen off. I think he's an interesting case really because he was an excellent challenger for Hogan and I think there is at least some perfunctory evidence to support the notion that he was a draw elsewhere. Having said that I don't see him as someone with a really broad constituency of support, nor do I see him as someone whom we know a lot more about now than we did before.

 

Greg Valentine

 

Valentine is a good example to me of someone that seems worse when you first think about him, but stepping back I think he is the sort of guy who deserves a much more thorough examination. When running through the results for Patera I was somewhat surprised to see how often Greg came up as a headliner or semi-headliner in Mid-Atlantic and the WWWF. He was brought in multiple times as a Backlund opponent over a span of six years, they had very strong chemistry together and they made good money opposite each other. I would like to flesh out more of the MACW years but the Wahoo and Piper feuds were money makers and that seems like the tip of the iceberg. His biggest weakness is his post-prime and the relative brevity of his peak as a star, but he was a good worker through early 1990, wish actually gives him a solid run as quality worker. I'd also be curious to see if the Tito feud was a draw because it sure got great heat from the live crowds. Anyhow I think Valentine is worth a very close investigation and a spot on the ballot.

 

Kevin Von Erich

 

As a unit with Kerry and David under RnR HoF rules I would strongly consider him. Outside of that unit he doesn't have the career highs of David let alone Kerry.

 

John Tenta

 

Well apparently the Earthquake/Hogan SummerSlam match drew really well. Other than that he was involved in some cool angles but I can't see him anywhere near the HoF.

 

Tommy Rich

 

I think it is very difficult to argue against him being on the ballot. Was a major star in the early 80's in Georgia where he drew so much money that the company effectively went national and opened up a second office hundreds of miles to the North. The feud with Buzz Sawyer is legendary of course, but Rich drew against a variety of people during this period. In many ways he was the first national tv wrestling star of the modern era. His run as a heel in Memphis was brilliant as well and did good business too from memory. We don't have nearly as much of Rich's peak years on tape which is a shame because what we have indicates that he was a great Southern worker both as a face and a heel. His weakness is that he Flared out dramatically after seven or eight years, but he was still a good worker in his post-prime and I think the value of his peak is more than most would initially assume. I would almost certainly vote for Rich were he on the ballot.

 

Ken Patera

 

Was on the ballot once and fell off but that was way back around 98 or so IIRC. Obviously I've laid out a big case for Patera elsewhere but it is worth noting that he main evented v. Billy Graham, Andre, Watts, Dusty, Pedro, Backlund, Bruno, Wahoo, Lawler, Rich, Steamboat, Atlas, and a shitload of people I'm forgetting. The bulk of these main events were programs that went around the horn. He consistently main evented the biggest buildings in the biggest towns in wrestling including St. Paul, Chicago, St. Louis, Greensboro, Atlanta, Memphis, Toronto, Montreal, New York, Philly, Boston, et, et. He was in great demand at his peak and from the moment of his debut in late 72 through his jailing in the Summer of 85 he was a consistent semi-main/main event guy everywhere he went. His post-prime was weak, but relatively short as he only had a brief couple of years a as a mid-carder in the WWF after getting out of prison, a small AWA run and was then effectively off the scene. I think Patera's 12 1/2 year run is a very strong run, where he was clearly one of the top heels in the business and a guy who was seen as a money maker anywhere he went. I would vote for him.

 

Badnews Allen

 

Badnews is interesting because while he was a really big deal in Stampede he did a shitload to kill hurt the territory as well. Since his Stampede run is by far his biggest strength I don't see how he could be argued for.

 

David Von Erich

 

See Kevin.

 

King Kong Bundy

 

A very underrated big man, but I don't know how consistent a draw he was and I certainly don't think he has a big enough body of work in that respect to justify him being in the HoF, nor do I think there are a ton of people who would disagree.

 

John Studd

 

Studd actually seems like a really weak candidate from the perspective that his look and size should have made him a much better drawing card than he was. To my knowledge he was never a special attraction draw and only really worked opposite Andre. I could be forgetting something, but that's sort of the point. Very forgettable "big man" and one of the all time worst in the ring.

 

Fishman

 

Don't know enough.

 

Dory Dixon

 

What's the argument here? The little bit I know about Dixon makes him seem like a flash in the pan at best.

[kjh]

Rocky Johnson

 

No. Had a fine mid-level career, but I don't know of anywhere where he made a serious long term effect on business.

I think Johnson is a guy who's hurt by his career not being very well remembered. I think early on in his career he was a good drawing card. I'm sure Meltzer has talked about him drawing well for Roy Shire in the Bay Area and he had a memorable feud with Lawler in Memphis too.

[kjh]

Regarding Greg Valentine, my gut tells me that Mulligan was a bigger draw than he was in the Mid Atlantic area. Not sure his case is as strong as you think, Dylan.

[Dylan Waco]

Regarding Greg Valentine, my gut tells me that Mulligan was a bigger draw than he was in the Mid Atlantic area. Not sure his case is as strong as you think, Dylan.

I wouldn't doubt that Mulligan was a better draw in MACW though I'm not sure it would be by a wide margin. There are plenty of Valentine results available online and it was my surprise at seeing how strongly he appears to have been booked that led to me to pushing him a little here. His time in and out of the the WWF from 79-85 is underrated too.