WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[jdw]

I compare Bischoff's WON HOF credentials to Marvin Miller's credentials for the Baseball HOF.

 

Without Miller's work in eliminating the reserve clause in MLB, the game would be vastly different today. Without Bischoff going w/ Hogan as a heel and coming up w/ the NWO, wrestling would be vastly different today.

 

Some might argue that baseball and wrestling are actually worse off today because of Miller's and Bischoff's actions, but I think those people are wrong.

 

Yes, both Miller and Bischoff are mainly known for doing one thing, but that one thing made such an impact that it altered the course of baseball/wrestling forever.

 

If I had a vote, both Miller and Bischoff would be in the HOF. Miller has a stronger case, though, IMO.

Eric's lasting impact is buried:

 

Turning pro wrestling promotions into Television Production Companies where a significant portion of their revenue comes from Television, not simply using television to promote what once were the primary revenue sources which were originally house shows then house shows + PPV.

 

Eric went there and made a mint for WCW and in turn Turner / Time Warner.

 

In turn, Vince went there and made a mint.

 

Vince's TV ad revenue and rights fees were in the range of $20M in FY1998 (May 1997 - Apr 1998). They went like this:

 

FY1998: ~$19.9M

FY1999: $39.2M

FY2000: $90M

FY2001: $125.4M

FY2002: $136.3M

 

Or in another way:

 

$28.8M --> $74.1M Arena ticket sales

$43.9M --> $112.0M PPV

$33/6M --> $86.1M Merch

$19.9M --> $136.3M TV Advertising & Rights Fees

 

There was growth all around for the WWF in those years, but the growth in actually turning TV into a cash cow was something that no one imagined. Not even Eric.

 

John

[ohtani's jacket]

What was the time frame for Sting being on top? I've always been a bit partial towards Sting as I think he was capable in the ring, but can you really blame him for not drawing with shit like the White Castle of Fear and all of his other escapades? Sting was a poor promo and a shabby actor which stopped him from being a bigger star IMO, but Bret was no great shakes in that department either. The difference between them is that when Bret had his annus horribilis in '95 someone had the good sense to make it part of the build-up to the Survivor Series '95 title shot with those cool sitdown interviews which were also the beginning of Diesel seeming actually bad ass. What did Sting get in '95? Dungeon of Doom? The Flair feud? Spare a thought for what he had to work with.

[Dylan Waco]

Spare a thought for who he had to work with? That's the entire crux of the pro-Sting argument every time out. "Sure he didn't draw, but look at the situation he was in." You can certainly make a good case that Sting is the ultimate "wrong place, wrong time" guy and that in an ideal world he could have been a much bigger star and more important player. But you can say that of a ton of other guys and even if Sting is the single most "fucked over by the bookers" guy in the history of wrestling (and I don't think he is), it doesn't explain why the "face of the company" who was "better at the chase" than as the ace drew worse v. Flair than Luger, Funk, Hogan and Savage during his prime.

[El-P]

I tend to agree with Dylan. At some point, we' just have to look at the cold facts. Would have String be a bigger star if he had jumped in WWF and took the Warrior's place ? Maybe. Did he get some really bad stuff to work with ? Yes he did. But it's not like he's the only big babyface who had been fed shit feud to work with. And it's not he only had shit feud either.

 

_He won the belt from Flair in a bad situation, as it had been delayed because of the knee injury, but the reality is Luger drew much better with Flair and had better matches to boot then. People remember the Black Scorpion angle as being terrible, and it was, but the first Clash with Sting vs Black Scorpion (not Flair, Al Perez I think), actually did an excellent rating, although he did had Flair vs Luger second to the top, and they did look like much bigger deal than the Stinger.

_Halloween Havoc had Sting vs Sid, which on paper looked like a big deal, but really wasn't (Sid is interestingly enough another one of these guys who look like a much bigger star than they actually were).

_Then Starrcade flopped with the big blow-off feud, and before too long Flair had the belt back because the Sting experiment didn't work, and he was back at upper card big babyface working against guys like Nikita.

_The next big feud for Sting was against Rick Rude, who was supposedly a hot WWF transfuge and a credible main-event player. The fact is, Rude vs Sting didn't draw either (none of the Dangerous Alliance did really and we can't blame this for being shitty wrestling), and Sting getting the belt from Luger didn't last because Watts had another idea in mind.

_When it came time for Sting vs Jake Roberts, another hot WWF transfuge, Watts build of Halloween Havoc actually worked well and it is probably the best Sting on top drawing card (despite being a quite shitty PPV infact).

_Then the failed Ron Simmons experiment ends and the big main-event feud goes to Vader vs Sting. Say what you want about the stupid mini-movies, you can't blame that for keeping them from drawing, it was Sting the big babyface of WCW vs Vader the incredible monster champ. Then they threw Sid into the mix again, along with the Bulldog who was again a rather hot WWF transfuge, coming off main eventing the biggest outdoor Stadium show in years (in his home country, yes, but still). None of that drew well.

_In early 1994, Sting gets put back in the mix by Flair, gets the Gold Belt from Luger and then a unification match with Flair.

 

That's where I am thus far in my WCW watch, and when you look at the facts, yes Sting got some back luck and bad booking, but he was programmed against Flair, Rick Rude, Jake Roberts, Vader in big feuds on top. At some point, excuses don't cut it. When you don't draw well, you don't draw well. The more I watch it unveil in context, the more Sting looks like more the Mascot of WCW rather than the Franchise to be honest.

[Loss]

Sting is someone who should have been bigger than he was, and was put in many impossible situations. No doubt. But I don't like the idea of using a Hall of Fame to right wrongs.

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't care about the WON HOF and find this all a theoretical exercise but I don't think you can disregard the booking. Major stars are booked well. How many instances can people think of where this wasn't the case? If you're going to argue that Sting couldn't draw alongside Rude, Roberts and Vader surely that means that the heels couldn't draw either.

[Loss]

And of those, only Vader is in the HOF.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm snowed under with marking here, but there is one little statement I made in my recent argument that I'd like to interrogate further:

 

(NB. you don't compare WCW figures with WWF figures, but WCW figures with other WCW figures and same in the other case ... the idea we can look at one guy and pin an entire company's hopes on him is a misnomer created by exceptional people like Hogan or Austin). Each other normal "mortal" main eventer is only going to affect so many people. I think in the cases of Bret and Sting we can measure that, even allowing for a Bill Watts booking run or Pat Patterson departure.

I think that idea needs to be looked at a bit more closely.

[Log]

But you can say that of a ton of other guys and even if Sting is the single most "fucked over by the bookers" guy in the history of wrestling (and I don't think he is), it doesn't explain why the "face of the company" who was "better at the chase" than as the ace drew worse v. Flair than Luger, Funk, Hogan and Savage during his prime.

Don't want to derail this thread, but who do you think is?

[JerryvonKramer]

Of people who actually made it to main event, it's clearly Luger. Although fans of The Renegade may quibble with that.

[evilclown]

Of people who actually made it to main event, it's clearly Luger. Although fans of The Renegade may quibble with that.

Not to sidetrack this discussion, but the idea that all the most screwed over wrestlers in "wrestling history" all wrestled in the 1990's is a fairly myopic viewpoint. That is almost certainly not true.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think The Renegade is legit in the top 5. I mean, there's an argument to say he was driven to suicide because of the way he was booked -- pretty extreme case, but it's one where you can see how his life was affected by mishandling by bookers.

 

With Luger, his main-event career is affected at almost every turn by bookers turning him face or heel at inopportune moments, to an extent where I can't think of many parallels.

 

Sorry if I'm forgetting to take main event runs from the 1940s and 1950s into account. I mean seriously, what you expect here evilclown? A full consideration how Abdul the Turk was booked in 1947-8?

 

Give me a break.

[Loss]

It's easy to name and describe tons of wrestlers victimized by bad booking, but there's no reason to say who the MOST screwed over ever is.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm snowed under with marking here, but there is one little statement I made in my recent argument that I'd like to interrogate further:

 

(NB. you don't compare WCW figures with WWF figures, but WCW figures with other WCW figures and same in the other case ... the idea we can look at one guy and pin an entire company's hopes on him is a misnomer created by exceptional people like Hogan or Austin). Each other normal "mortal" main eventer is only going to affect so many people. I think in the cases of Bret and Sting we can measure that, even allowing for a Bill Watts booking run or Pat Patterson departure.

I think that idea needs to be looked at a bit more closely.

 

As I said before I think you should do it. I'm not going to because I'm already doing enough wrestling related stuff, but who knows maybe you'll find something you don't expect.

 

I agree that Luger was more screwed over by the book then Sting. I also agree with the implication of evilclown's statement that if you go farther back in history you will find a ton of other candidates for the "honor" of "most fucked over by bookers."

[Victator]

I think Sting had a really good 95 myself. I really enjoyed the feuds with Quake, Bubba and Meng and the big feud with Flair.

[NintendoLogic]

A Hall of Fame is supposed to celebrate extraordinary achievement. What about Sting was objectively great? No one's claiming that he was a super worker. As for drawing, even if we assume for the sake of argument that he drew better than anyone else in early 90s WCW, that's hardly a feather in his cap. Being the tallest pygmy is not a HOF qualification. Neither is being a guy who was in the mix during, but not the main catalyst of, a boom period. The only thing extraordinary about Sting's career was his push, which is explicitly not what the WON HOF is supposed to be about.

[Matt D]

He is special in our hearts because we were little Stingers. You wouldn't understand that with your Nintendo Logic.

 

No, I've got nothing more than what I already said. He feels important enough to be in. He isn't.

 

Can we dismiss Kevin Sullivan in a few posts so it stops bugging me then?

[blueminister]

I would probably be more in the anti-Sting camp if not for the clumsy "Sting was never a draw, except in 1997 as one of the hugest angles ever which had absolutely nothing to do with his building a successful rapport with his audience" bit. To discount his major role in an era where part of the implicit, if not explicit, appeal of the product was seeing him interfere in main events because it falls outside of how wrestling "should" work seems myopic and petty -- the suggestion that people did not care about Sting until the nWo made them equally so.

[Dylan Waco]

Who is engaging in that "bit?" I always go out of my way to give credit to Sting for that run. For a year or so he was a very hot act. For the rest of his career he wasn't. Show me someone who is in for a single great year and then we'll talk.

[blueminister]

A single great year? Equating Sting transcending WCW's chronic dysfunction through charisma and hard work to cultivate a loyal fanbase and leveraging that modest gain to become the centerpiece of a feud that exploded wrestling's audience at a national level to, say, a nice PPV run as part of a working promotional machine run or popping crowds in some shithouse territory probably isn't as instructive as you believe it to be.

[Dylan Waco]

A single great year? Equating Sting transcending WCW's chronic dysfunction to cultivate a loyal fanbase and become the centerpiece of a feud that exploded wrestling's audience at a national level to, say, a great PPV run as part of a working promotional machine run or popping crowds in some shithouse territory probably isn't as instructive as you believe it to be.

I'm trying to ascertain what you mean by "shithouse territory" since there is no reference to any such thing anywhere in my previous post.

 

It's curious how this act of "transcendence" only manifested itself when Hogan turned heel and an invasion angle involving two of the top stars from the other promotion had started. Strange how Sting's ability to "cultivate a loyal fanbase" consisted of bombing as the ace of a company and being at BEST the fifth best drawing challenger for Flair between 88-96 in the company he was the babyface "face" of, up until the NWO was on the scene. Odd how this "centerpiece" of the boom that expanded the national audience to levels unseen before, had fewer matches and promoted appearances during the run in question than any other performer in wrestling history credited with anything close to this.

 

If you think "single great year" is selling Sting short that's fine, but pretending that year was one of the greatest in the history of wrestling is delusional.

[blueminister]

name='Dylan Waco' date='Dec 1 2012, 10:42 PM' post='5521342']

I'm trying to ascertain what you mean by "shithouse territory" since there is no reference to any such thing anywhere in my previous post.

It isn't a specific reference to anything in your post, just a chuckle at the idea that Sting-nWo 1997 was essentially transitive because lots of wrestlers have great runs now and then.

 

It's curious how this act of "transcendence" only manifested itself when Hogan turned heel and an invasion angle involving two of the top stars from the other promotion had started.

Yeah, it usually helps when wrestlers aren't actively sabotaged by bad angles, ineffective promotion, and creative inconsistency. So, wait -- are you giving Sting credit for 1997? Or are you suggesting that he was ultimately interchangeable? Because I was told that this was a bit that no one in this thread was engaging in.

 

Strange how Sting's ability to "cultivate a loyal fanbase" consisted of bombing as the ace of a company and being at BEST the fifth best drawing challenger for Flair between 88-96 in the company he was the babyface "face" of, up until the NWO was on the scene.

I don't see how you took my statement that he had worked hard to gradually cultivate a loyal but modest fanbase in spite of a promotion that inadvertently worked against him and replied to it as if I had stated affirmatively that he drew money and initially attracted a mass following, but, uh...

 

Odd how this "centerpiece" of the boom that expanded the national audience to levels unseen before, had fewer matches and promoted appearances during the run in question than any other performer in wrestling history credited with anything close to this.

Seriously? The unofficial main event of countless Nitros and PPVs was Sting Will Fly Down And Do Something Important. Everyone in 1997 understood this, I don't see why enthusiasts are acting as if it wasn't the case so as if to say "whoops, I guess nothing can be proven."

 

If you think "single great year" is selling Sting short that's fine, but pretending that year was one of the greatest in the history of wrestling is delusional.

Unlike, say, pretending Sting-nWo was just another hot run with ultimately no greater significance to the big picture than any other well-drawing feud.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not saying Sting was playing a role anyone could have played. In fact if you have followed the discussion in the thread over the last couple of days you'll see a post where I specifically argue that Sting was the only person in the promotion who could have been in the position he was in. I have no problem giving Sting credit for his part in that run. I was at Uncensored 97 live and know full well what he meant at that point to the broader wrestling landscape.

 

Having said that in asserting that Sting was the "centerpiece" and literally not mentioning anything about one of the two or three biggest draws in wrestling history who just happened to be Sting's foil during that era, you seem to be implying that the great bulk of the credit for that run should be given to Sting. And in my view that is literally an insane position.

 

Everyone knows that a possible Sting appearance was a big part of Nitro/WCW for 97. This is the best Sting in the chase/challenger role he ever had. But to imply that he was carrying the promotion by himself during the period is comical. And if you aren't implying that you need to explain what your "centerpiece bit" was all about.

 

If its wrong for Sting's detractors to give him credit for nothing, it's also wrong for his supporters to elevate his accomplishments to a level that is far beyond what they actually were. And even if we are going to pretend that Sting was the "centerpiece" around which everything revolved for a huge one year boom, it doesn't answer the question of whether or not one year should ever get anyone in.

[EricR]

Sting had 10 years to get over to a massive degree. Goldberg took less than one year of beating Jerry Flynn 20 times and Jackhammering Reis to become a bigger star than Sting ever was. Then after a couple years of inactivity came into WWF and was still a bigger star than Sting ever was. Nobody is arguing for Goldberg's inclusion into the HOF, but to me he seems like a way more worthwhile candidate than Sting.

[evilclown]

I think The Renegade is legit in the top 5. I mean, there's an argument to say he was driven to suicide because of the way he was booked -- pretty extreme case, but it's one where you can see how his life was affected by mishandling by bookers.

 

With Luger, his main-event career is affected at almost every turn by bookers turning him face or heel at inopportune moments, to an extent where I can't think of many parallels.

 

Sorry if I'm forgetting to take main event runs from the 1940s and 1950s into account. I mean seriously, what you expect here evilclown? A full consideration how Abdul the Turk was booked in 1947-8?

 

Give me a break.

I think it's both irresponsible and bizarre to blame someone's suicide on their wrestling bookings.

 

Beyond that, I think if you are on a serious discussion board, particularly one discussing a wrestling Hall of Fame, one with members that span the entirety of pro wrestling history, then it doesn't make sense to use phrases like "best ever" unless that's what you mean. What you meant was "best I could think of off the top of my head."