WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[jdw]

This is all ground that's been covered before. 35 was there because AJW workers retired at 25 and thus had been retired for 10 years. With the exception of Dave, everyone now agrees the age should be pushed up to at least 45 and the "years as a worker" probably should be completely tossed overboard. It frankly should have been put in place the second he was confronted with Angle being eligible for the ballot: clearly it was too early for him given how long he'd been worker, and a new requirement needed to be come up with.

 

This is old, old, old stuff. :/

[cm funk]

I've made the case for them before on this board and DVDVR

 

Sabu was the biggest thing going in the post-territory indy boom of the early-mid 90's. Sabu was on the card, people went to see it. He practically reinvented hardcore wrestling by hybriding it with high flying and high spots. Mileage varies on that take, he wasn't the first, but he popularized it. Without Sabu do we see table matches as a regular thing? TLC? Shit, Sabu had as much influence on the biz in the 90's as anybody, no argument. Also, he's an old school dude and a really good worker.

 

Sting? I think you can go back a few pages and see my argument for him. He gets saddled with the "can't draw" label unfairly. WCW couldn't draw. They botched their potential to draw with him and Flair, then when he finally got the ball he totally delivered but the company and business as a whole were sinking fast. When he got the ball again he became the most over dude in the hottest year possibly ever for any company, at least in the cable TV era. Then WCW dropped the ball again. He's one of the biggest stars of the 90's/00's, and a damn good worker for most of his career. His TNA run has been icing on the cake in terms of performance, TNA is just hopeless when it comes to competing with WWE

[cm funk]

I mean honestly, Dave is pimping Edge as a stronger candidate than Sting? Somebody tell me Sting wouldn't have drawn more money given the spot Edge had. Please. Dave's grasp on historical context is really slipping. Sting would run circles around Edge in terms of overness if they were contemporaries in WWE

[Dylan Waco]

I mean honestly, Dave is pimping Edge as a stronger candidate than Sting? Somebody tell me Sting wouldn't have drawn more money given the spot Edge had. Please. Dave's grasp on historical context is really slipping. Sting would run circles around Edge in terms of overness if they were contemporaries in WWE

 

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot.

[EricR]

Meltzer would say a worse-worded version of that ^ and then the next 14 posts would say "Dave'd".

[Dylan Waco]

Expanding on this, tell me why Sting is a better candidate than guys like JYD or Kerry Von Erich who have either never been on the ballot or have been but have fallen off. Better yet, tell me why Sting is a better candidate than contemporaries of his like Luger or Barry Windham who no one would even take seriously as candidates even if they were on the ballot.

[cm funk]

I mean honestly, Dave is pimping Edge as a stronger candidate than Sting? Somebody tell me Sting wouldn't have drawn more money given the spot Edge had. Please. Dave's grasp on historical context is really slipping. Sting would run circles around Edge in terms of overness if they were contemporaries in WWE

 

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot.

 

I played the "what if card" because it was right there for the taking. It doesn't change my opinion on whether Sting deserves to be in or not. I think he belongs in on merit, but it wouldn't be logical to discard existing or hypothetical realities

[cm funk]

Expanding on this, tell me why Sting is a better candidate than guys like JYD or Kerry Von Erich who have either never been on the ballot or have been but have fallen off. Better yet, tell me why Sting is a better candidate than contemporaries of his like Luger or Barry Windham who no one would even take seriously as candidates even if they were on the ballot.

I never said Sting is a better candidate than JYD or Kerry or "guys like them", so can't help you there

 

Sting is a better candidate than Luger, no doubt. But like I said before in this here very ring thread, I wouldn't have a problem with Luger going in.

 

Windham? Eh. He's ok. I think he's overrated, personally.

[Dylan Waco]

I mean honestly, Dave is pimping Edge as a stronger candidate than Sting? Somebody tell me Sting wouldn't have drawn more money given the spot Edge had. Please. Dave's grasp on historical context is really slipping. Sting would run circles around Edge in terms of overness if they were contemporaries in WWE

 

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot.

 

I played the "what if card" because it was right there for the taking. It doesn't change my opinion on whether Sting deserves to be in or not. I think he belongs in on merit, but it wouldn't be logical to discard existing or hypothetical realities

 

 

The "what if card" is ALWAYS right there for the taking. For example I love Brian Pillman. He's not a very good candidate on merit, but what if he doesn't flip his jeep and destroy his ankle? Does coked up Pillman go on to become Austin's biggest rival in the WWF? At worst does he go on to be a major main event player in the mix with Austin, Foley and The Rock? Forgetting that what if Pillman had been elevated as a face in WCW during the period where he was one of the most exciting young workers in the business and regularly getting the biggest babyface reactions in the company? What if the booking there had been better and he became a huge money making star? You can certainly theorize a world where such things occurs, but it doesn't make him a HoFer, regardless of whether or not they are or aren't a stretch.

 

I've seen you say that cards did better when Sting was on the shows than when he wasn't. Well define "better?" We can look at instances where Jerry Blackwell wasn't on cards and attendance plummeted only for attendance to go back up when Blackwell starts showing up again. I've had people counter this by pointing to other circumstances, but the fact is that it happened two years in a row, and some of those shows where Blackwell came back saw houses go up fifty percent or more and end up as sellouts or 10k plus houses when he returned. Does Sting have anything like that to point to?

 

We hear about how Sting did good ratings and better buyrates than others but I haven't seen very much in the way of examples and again there is the question of what is "better" and what that really means. The indy in my area drew more paid than TNA did not that long ago. Does that mean Chris Masters is a better draw than Jeff Hardy? More to the point if Masters did that in twenty cities around The United States would that make him a good HoF candidate?

 

If Sting should be in, he should be in by more than mere assertion. To me the entire case for him at this point seems to be that he is a well remembered star who was the babyface face of the number two company in the country during a period where no one was drawing. Well, that and longevity I guess.

 

Pointing to Crow Sting and one big buyrate isn't enough. Davey Boy Smith headlined one of the biggest drawing shows in wrestling history. Danno O'Mahoney was the biggest draw in the sport for a couple of years. Goldberg was a hotter babyface act than Sting ever was in the same company for a snapshot in time.

 

The information is available. Even without making a Patera-level pitch if someone really want to make the argument based on numbers they could. I wish they would and I wish it would go beyond "this is pretty good relative to what others in the same company did," and instead look at whether or not the numbers are actually impressive.

 

Edit:

 

Also why is there "no doubt" that Sting is a better candidate than Luger? For guy who was allegedly "better at the chase" he sure didn't draw better than Luger in that role. Did Sting ever have a single year as an all around performer as good as Luger in 89? I could see an argument for Sting to be sure, but the more I think about it, I don't think it is clear at all that he's a better candidate.

[Matt D]

I think, in our head, Sting is the guy who is "the second biggest babyface in the US from 90-98." And that's probably not even true, but it's an emotional thing. And it's very hard to argue against that, even with all the numbers in the world.

[Victator]

Make the case for Sabu and Sting

They're awesome, already in the Hall Of Victator.

[cm funk]

I mean honestly, Dave is pimping Edge as a stronger candidate than Sting? Somebody tell me Sting wouldn't have drawn more money given the spot Edge had. Please. Dave's grasp on historical context is really slipping. Sting would run circles around Edge in terms of overness if they were contemporaries in WWE

 

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot.

 

I played the "what if card" because it was right there for the taking. It doesn't change my opinion on whether Sting deserves to be in or not. I think he belongs in on merit, but it wouldn't be logical to discard existing or hypothetical realities

 

 

The "what if card" is ALWAYS right there for the taking. For example I love Brian Pillman. He's not a very good candidate on merit, but what if he doesn't flip his jeep and destroy his ankle?

 

Sure, but you don't have to play the what if card in Sting's case. That was my point. Pillman had HOF potential. Sting has HOF credentials, the what if stuff is icing on the cake

[Dylan Waco]

I mean honestly, Dave is pimping Edge as a stronger candidate than Sting? Somebody tell me Sting wouldn't have drawn more money given the spot Edge had. Please. Dave's grasp on historical context is really slipping. Sting would run circles around Edge in terms of overness if they were contemporaries in WWE

 

It's telling that those who make the arguments for Sting ALWAYS end up playing some variation of the "what if?" card. The problem is you can play that with every wrestler in history to one degree or another. I would take Sting over Edge as a candidate, but I don't think either should be in and I wouldn't take him over Edge because in some theoretical universe that doesn't exist he would have done better in Edge's spot.

 

I played the "what if card" because it was right there for the taking. It doesn't change my opinion on whether Sting deserves to be in or not. I think he belongs in on merit, but it wouldn't be logical to discard existing or hypothetical realities

 

 

The "what if card" is ALWAYS right there for the taking. For example I love Brian Pillman. He's not a very good candidate on merit, but what if he doesn't flip his jeep and destroy his ankle?

 

Sure, but you don't have to play the what if card in Sting's case. That was my point. Pillman had HOF potential. Sting has HOF credentials, the what if stuff is icing on the cake

 

 

You missed a post up there where I asked you to outline those credentials

[cm funk]

I've done it before, I don't care enough to do it again. I'm not Dylan Waco who spends hours wasting time analyzing shit that nobody cares about

[Victator]

I've done it before, I don't care enough to do it again. I'm not Dylan Waco who spends hours wasting time analyzing shit that nobody cares about

That is some weak shit right there.

[cm funk]

ok, let me go watch hundreds of hours of wrestling and scour the internet for statistics to back up Sting's WON HOF case

 

brb

[jdw]

I think, in our head, Sting is the guy who is "the second biggest babyface in the US from 90-98." And that's probably not even true, but it's an emotional thing. And it's very hard to argue against that, even with all the numbers in the world.

That's an interesting concept. I wonder if it's true.

 

Hogan was a babyface in that period through mid-1996. Even with time off due to juice and the time off at the end when he went heel, I'm not sure Sting would stack up in terms of a draw next to Hogan. Heck, given how much time Sting spent up in the rafters *not* working and also out with the knee, it's not like Sting was main eventing 9 straight years. Okay... change "not sure" to "I doubt it" instead. Suspect in just 1990-91 that Hogan put up more big draw numbers than Sting did in the entire decade. That even if that's close, then add in the Hogan-Flair and Hogan-Vader series in WCW in 1994-95 as doing better total buys than pretty much every Sting did... other than opposite... hey, That Hogan Guy.

 

Okay... so we have to find someone else?

 

Bret wasn't exactly a house o' fire as a draw. But... Bret-Yoko, Bret-Lawler and Bret-Taker-Diesel did some fine numbers. I suspect the buys would lean towards Bret rather comfortably... hell, even Bret-Flair on a throwaway WCW PPV did a better than expected number. My guess is that if we broke it down, Bret would rate ahead.

 

The two are largely peers, in opposing companies, and generally thought of as the Plan B's that the companies kept going back to when things failed. Not terribly sure if that's accurate as the WWF went back to Bret more often, and to a degree Flair was as much the Plan B in WCW as Sting was.

 

Anyway, Sting was probably the #3 babyface in the US in that period. The other two happen to be in the HOF, and if one goes further down the list, you'll find a number of "top" babyfaces from that era below Sting that are also in. It is an argument that splits both ways.

 

Full Disclosure: I never have voted for Sting, and he's well down the list of guys that I would consider voting for.

[Dylan Waco]

ok, let me go watch hundreds of hours of wrestling and scour the internet for statistics to back up Sting's WON HOF case

 

brb

You don't have to do that.

 

You are the guy who thinks he should be in and you literally can't formulate an argument for him other than "he might have been a bigger star if WCW booking wasn't horrible."

 

I would assume someone who thinks he clearly should be in like yourself would at least have a bullet point argument of positives that could be pointed to with no real research at all. When asked for specifics it really doesn't take much effort at all in this day and age to find it, particularly on candidates from Sting's era. That you are unwilling or unable to do so tells me he's a pretty shitty candidate.

[Dylan Waco]

I've done it before, I don't care enough to do it again. I'm not Dylan Waco who spends hours wasting time analyzing shit that nobody cares about

 

Missed this earlier.

 

I don't know who you are and don't care. Frankly if you dropped dead tomorrow it wouldn't effect my life at all, other than possibly benefiting it extremely mildly as the number of inane, worthless posts on this message board would drastically decrease. Having said that this line of attack is one I always find odd because it usually comes after someone's feelings have been hurt because someone said something mean about their pro wrestling heroes. "You over analyzing son of a bitch, you don't think the guy I pretended to be when I was six should be in a wrestling Hall of Fame!"

 

Now it is unquestionably true that I waste hours of time analyzing wrestling (among other things). But it's also true that I don't generally dance around in front of a mirror, in a pair of undersized tight whitey's, singing along to the "man called Sting!" theme song, while searching desperately for that right shade of mascara that will help me be the perfect all grown up "little Stinger." Can you really say the same about yourself sir?

 

In any event for the purposes of this thread, which is about the HoF in general, it is a shame you are unwilling to make an argument that's depth goes beyond "when i was a kid jim ross said sting was the best." But if you aren't willing to you aren't willing to. Just don't feed me some bullshit line about how you are some busy man, who doesn't have time. We all know that isn't true.

[Matt D]

I think, in our head, Sting is the guy who is "the second biggest babyface in the US from 90-98." And that's probably not even true, but it's an emotional thing. And it's very hard to argue against that, even with all the numbers in the world.

That's an interesting concept. I wonder if it's true.

 

...

 

Anyway, Sting was probably the #3 babyface in the US in that period. The other two happen to be in the HOF, and if one goes further down the list, you'll find a number of "top" babyfaces from that era below Sting that are also in. It is an argument that splits both ways.

 

It's tricky, and that's why I framed it as I did, as an emotional thing.

 

Personally, without looking at numbers, I'd be tempted to suspect Taker (92-98) as higher. Even when he didn't have the belt, he shared that #1 spot with Bret most of the time. Boy did he have some shitty guys to feud with a lot of the time though.

 

And Savage is probably a compelling case. He was basically the biggest draw for Summerslam 91 (or at least Dave thought so at the time), then he had high profile, memorable (and I think decently drawing) feuds with Jake and Flair, basically got Razor over as a top level heel, and he was even used in Early-mid 93 as an anchor on house show cards vs Doink and Lawler. More than that, he was considered invaluable to Vince as a top announcer on Raw, Superstars and Mania 9, not to mention the very public charity work he did in 93 (which is spotlighted all over TV that year) in order to help shake some of the scandals of 92. Macho was the go to guy for that. Late in the year he had the Crush feud which rode things out til Mania X.

 

And we've talked plenty about how he drew vs Flair in WCW in 96 before the NWO came in.

[WingedEagle]

I think, in our head, Sting is the guy who is "the second biggest babyface in the US from 90-98." And that's probably not even true, but it's an emotional thing. And it's very hard to argue against that, even with all the numbers in the world.

That's an interesting concept. I wonder if it's true.

 

...

 

Anyway, Sting was probably the #3 babyface in the US in that period. The other two happen to be in the HOF, and if one goes further down the list, you'll find a number of "top" babyfaces from that era below Sting that are also in. It is an argument that splits both ways.

 

It's tricky, and that's why I framed it as I did, as an emotional thing.

 

Personally, without looking at numbers, I'd be tempted to suspect Taker (92-98) as higher. Even when he didn't have the belt, he shared that #1 spot with Bret most of the time. Boy did he have some shitty guys to feud with a lot of the time though.

 

And Savage is probably a compelling case. He was basically the biggest draw for Summerslam 91 (or at least Dave thought so at the time), then he had high profile, memorable (and I think decently drawing) feuds with Jake and Flair, basically got Razor over as a top level heel, and he was even used in Early-mid 93 as an anchor on house show cards vs Doink and Lawler. More than that, he was considered invaluable to Vince as a top announcer on Raw, Superstars and Mania 9, not to mention the very public charity work he did in 93 (which is spotlighted all over TV that year) in order to help shake some of the scandals of 92. Macho was the go to guy for that. Late in the year he had the Crush feud which rode things out til Mania X.

 

And we've talked plenty about how he drew vs Flair in WCW in 96 before the NWO came in.

 

The key word there here is emotional. I would imagine (and happily be shot down) that the demographics here skew towards folks my age and older, which means they were in the 8-14 range when Sting became a national figure in '88, had the Muta feud & team with Flair team in '89, followed by the knee injury at the hands of the horsemen, the scene on crutches at wrestle war / capital combat and then win the belt at the GAB in '90. Combine all of that with the bonde buzz, the facepaint, the splash and the howling? The guy was everything cool about wrestling as far as I was concerned and was hooked from thereon out.

 

He was in that elite tier in WCW for the rest of the decade, whether in genuine classics with Vader, redoing Flair stuff or the crow years, including '97 when he was responsible for the biggest buyrate in company history.

 

At some point during that period you/I start get online, start reading more about the industry in the WON or elsewhere and the world outside of turner & titan, and your perspective becomes clearer. Sting was one of the first (and *the* first non WWFer) wrestlers that got me hooked on the game because of when I started watching. Because of that I definitely look back on him as a huge star and moreso than any off the cuff, objective analysis would suggest is appropriate.

 

If I ever open the mailbox and read his WON HOF bio it'll be awesome. But he probably wouldn't make my ballot if I had one.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't know if you could rate Taker above Sting as a face from 92-98. Crow Sting was a big part of the hot run and Sting during that period was a much better in ring performer than Taker.

 

Taker is another guy who I think got in to soon, but I think he definitely belongs now. The Streak ended up becoming the most important title in wrestling and Taker as "special attraction" has become a major drawing card for the biggest show, the most successful company in wrestling runs every year. In any event I think Taker has had a better career than Sting, but I think where he pulls ahead is 98-present.

 

Savage I think is interesting. He had the heel turn in 97 (I think it was early 97 anyway) so he's playing with a shorter span of time, but I agree with a lot of the points Matt makes. I am tempted to see him as lateral with Sting in many ways.

 

The problem Sting has is that even if we grant him the slot as the number two babyface of the era based on the fact that he was top face of the second show, it's very hard to see the argument once you start peeling back the layers. I like Sting as a worker more than most, and was a big fan of his as a kid. I think Jastrau97's post is a good one that sums things up well. Sting's name would not look out of place in an HoF because of the perceptions many of us have from childhood, but if you were to cover up his name and look at his career record/accomplishments I don't think very many people would conclude he was an HoFer, let alone a guy who's exclusion is outlandish.

[jdw]

I don't know if you could rate Taker above Sting as a face from 92-98. Crow Sting was a big part of the hot run and Sting during that period was a much better in ring performer than Taker.

The trick with Crow Sting is the lack of house shows he worked on and PPV's that he worked on as the main eventer. I agree that he was a big part of the "show". But other than the famous Starcade match, there isn't a lot of "there" there. The return match was disappointing at the time. Then Hogan pulled one of his great spots with the "I don't care about the belt because I have more important things to do" to go off and work the cage match with Savage while telling Hall to chase Sting in the lesser title match. Goldberg was also cresting towards his World Title win, and it was very clear in the Spring of 1998 that Sting's moment had passed and Goldberg was the #1 face in the promotion.

 

Not sure that I'm moved by the emotional thing. It would be like me saying looking at the end result of their careers, it's an emotional choice to me that Kawada was the bigger star than Kobashi. From a fact based standpoint, I would say that my emotional choice there is probably bullshit.

 

John

[Matt D]

The trick with Crow Sting is the lack of house shows he worked on and PPV's that he worked on as the main eventer. I agree that he was a big part of the "show". But other than the famous Starcade match, there isn't a lot of "there" there. The return match was disappointing at the time. Then Hogan pulled one of his great spots with the "I don't care about the belt because I have more important things to do" to go off and work the cage match with Savage while telling Hall to chase Sting in the lesser title match. Goldberg was also cresting towards his World Title win, and it was very clear in the Spring of 1998 that Sting's moment had passed and Goldberg was the #1 face in the promotion.

Do we know anything about Merch? Anecdotally I knew a lot of people who had Sting shirts or what not in high school.

[Victator]

I think Sting was a big part of the nWo getting over. I don't think it would have did as well as it did, without an established hero like Sting railing against them and rallying the troops.

 

He is also the only guy TNA who did not lose his aura in TNA. Foley, Flair, RVD and even Hogan lost what made them special in TNA. Sting became stronger.

 

Neither of these things are Hall of Fame worthy, but it is impressive.

 

ok, let me go watch hundreds of hours of wrestling and scour the internet for statistics to back up Sting's WON HOF case

Nothing says you have to post at all. Either go all in or don't.

 

But what you are pulling is some weak shit.