WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[Loss]

On the other point: I don't care, I'm not withdrawing my claims that evilclown has been pompous.

 

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."

Absurdly pompous.

 

"serious discussion board"

 

"pro wrestling"

 

"serious discussion board"

 

"pro wrestling"

 

"serious"

 

"pro wrestling"

 

 

And for the record, I do not think that any of us on this entire forum can have a serious discussion on any wrestlers who pre-date the 1970s. How can we with no footage? Guesswork based on a few title histories and a few figures? For all intents and purposes, "best ever" might as well mean "Since the 1970s".

 

Since when has "ever" actually meant "ever" in the world of talking about wrestling?

 

Are we going to be that pedantic, that uptight, that "serious" on this forum as to quibble over semantics each and every time hyperbole is employed? Well?

You can take things seriously that aren't terribly serious. People do it all the time, yourself included. You have 1500 posts on a pro wrestling message board and have started some thought-provoking threads, so there's no reason to pretend to be above it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Loss - does that mean that that all of the other guys maineventing in that period shouldn't go in?

 

Rick Rude is the name that sticks out, he was over as hell as a heel during that time, but the figures show that he didn't make any difference as a draw. Rude is not in the HoF to my knowledge, is there a case for him?

 

Steamboat is another guy who was mainevening then, but he's in by fiat for being a GOAT worker.

 

Are we saying that unless there is exceptional work-based arguments to be made that no one from the early 90s gets in because business was bad? Seems an odd argument. Those guys are all just unlucky?

[Dylan Waco]

How is it an odd argument? Why should guys from the 1990's get affirmative action points pushing them in when they don't have HoF careers?

 

Also worth noting that Vader was a big star in Japan which helped him as much as anything he did here in the ring, and Steamboat was considered a great worker going back to the mid-70's and had at least some periods of drawing. Both really shouldn't have been put in by fiat, but both should be in the HoF.

[Matt D]

And Sting could have gone over to the WWF in the early 00s and have gotten that last run that might have put him over the top but he didn't do it for moral reasons. That wasn't him being in the wrong place at the wrong time like in the 90s. That was him making a conscious decision about his career. It's great he stood up for his values and admirable he didn't blow his cash but it doesn't help his credentials.

[Gregor]

Wrestling was in a big lull from 1992-1996. It's sometimes called the dark ages because business was so bad. So, excluding Bret, who I think most of us agree should have had to go on the ballot, there is no one in the HOF for what they accomplished in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, except maybe Vader. And Vader is in for being the best working guy at his size possibly ever, more than he is in for being a huge draw.

I think Michaels' induction was primarily for his 1992-96 work, although that his election was contentious at best and misguided at worst probably supports what you're saying.

[Dylan Waco]

Wrestling was in a big lull from 1992-1996. It's sometimes called the dark ages because business was so bad. So, excluding Bret, who I think most of us agree should have had to go on the ballot, there is no one in the HOF for what they accomplished in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, except maybe Vader. And Vader is in for being the best working guy at his size possibly ever, more than he is in for being a huge draw.

I think Michaels' induction was primarily for his 1992-96 work, although that his election was contentious at best and misguided at worst probably supports what you're saying.

 

It was and it was a terrible induction in hindsight.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Wrestling was in a big lull from 1992-1996. It's sometimes called the dark ages because business was so bad. So, excluding Bret, who I think most of us agree should have had to go on the ballot, there is no one in the HOF for what they accomplished in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, except maybe Vader. And Vader is in for being the best working guy at his size possibly ever, more than he is in for being a huge draw.

I think Michaels' induction was primarily for his 1992-96 work, although that his election was contentious at best and misguided at worst probably supports what you're saying.

 

It was and it was a terrible induction in hindsight.

 

Just out of curiosity, what's your case against Michaels? How did some voters justify their vote for Michaels at the time? I know Meltzer has long been a Michaels mark and used to praise Michaels as the best worker in the WWF in many WONs between 1992 and 1996, but Meltzer's bias hasn't been a deciding factor in some cases, e.g. Edge. The best arguments against Michaels that I can think of with respect to 2003 is his bombing as champion in 1996 and that his backstage politicking was low on a different level. FYI, I would have voted for Michaels by now, but I wouldn't have voted for him in 2003.

[JerryvonKramer]

So what is being said here, if I can understand it correctly, is that no one whose main run took place in the dark ages should be considered for the HoF? That the HoF should be reserved only for those people who had demonstrable runs as top draws?

 

I would like to reiterate my hypothesis and conclusion:

 

Here is my hypothesis:

 

After about 1987 (i.e. after the end of the territory system), most main event wrestlers DO NOT make a discernible difference on attendance figures, the ones that do can be counted on two hands.

 

Hogan, Rock, Austin - these are guys who can make 1000s of people attend a show who wouldn't have otherwise.

 

The rest of the time the hotness of the company is the only differentiator. Doesn't matter if it's Sting, Steamboat, Bret Hart or Kevin Nash.

 

Conclusion: Guys like Hogan give us an unrealistic and skewed perspective on what draws can be and how to measure them. He is the exception, rather than the rule. i.e. MOST guys make no real difference to the amount of people who watch wrestling matches live.

1. What do you make of this? Do you agree with it?

 

2. If that is the case, then does it stand to reason that from that generation of US workers only a handful should be inducted? Hogan, Rock, Austin, Cena. Who else? Who else is demonstrably a draw in the way that we are trying and failing to prove that Sting was? Did a single other worker boost business for either WCW or WWF between 1987 and now? Savage? Did he boost business or did he just keep something going that Hogan started? Well? Who actually boosted business?

 

It's very hard to make a case for anyone based on drawing power.

 

Savage goes in because he benefits from working on top in 88-89 at a time when Hogan had made the business hot, to a lesser extent DiBiase gets this rub too.

 

Sting doesn't go in because he had the misfortune of working for the wrong company.

 

That doesn't seem very fair to me.

[Al]

I would support Sting for the HOF. But I can't say that Sting was entirely the victim of circumstance. It's not as if he never had the opportunity to work elsewhere. His candidacy would have been greatly helped by a WWE run somewhere along the line, and he never attempted it. His complacency is ultimately his downfall.

 

As far as Goldberg, it is really difficult to imagine a Hall of Famer who pretty much worked less than five years as a worker his entire career. It's like putting Mark Fidrych in your Hall of Fame. Sting at least has a 25 year career going for him.

[Al]

To try and foster some discussion. Here are five workers with traits I think a bit similar to Sting. Most famous for face runs, got national exposure, not in the WON Hall of Fame. Where would you rank Sting among them?

 

Sting

Kerry Von Erich

The Junkyard Dog

Mr. Wrestling II

The Ultimate Warrior

Batista

[FLIK]

Also worth noting that Vader was a big star in Japan which helped him as much as anything he did here in the ring

Yeah, I see Vader as more of a Japan/international candidate then a US one. He really only has a little over 3 year run as a top guy in WCW that you could use to his credit but he was a big star in Japan for over decade in multiple big promotions that did business that dwarfed WCWs.

[Loss]

Loss - does that mean that that all of the other guys maineventing in that period shouldn't go in?

Unless they have something going for them outside of those years ... yes, that's exactly what that means.

 

Rick Rude is the name that sticks out, he was over as hell as a heel during that time, but the figures show that he didn't make any difference as a draw. Rude is not in the HoF to my knowledge, is there a case for him?

No.

 

Steamboat is another guy who was mainevening then, but he's in by fiat for being a GOAT worker.

Steamboat was a great worker for many years before this. The Steamboat/Youngblood team drew well in Mid Atlantic. The early versions of Flair/Steamboat did well too. Steamboat in 1992-1996 has nothing to do with him being in the HOF. He'd be in if he would have retired after the 1989 series with Flair.

 

Are we saying that unless there is exceptional work-based arguments to be made that no one from the early 90s gets in because business was bad?

Yes.

 

Seems an odd argument. Those guys are all just unlucky?

Those guys didn't have whatever qualities were needed, at least not at that point in time, to overcome all of wrestling's systemic problems and turn things around. That's not necessarily their fault, and that's asking a lot, yes. But a HOF is not a consolation prize for happening to peak during a period where wrestling was unpopular. "Sorry you didn't draw, but I like you anyway, so let's put you in."

[Loss]

So what is being said here, if I can understand it correctly, is that no one whose main run took place in the dark ages should be considered for the HoF? That the HoF should be reserved only for those people who had demonstrable runs as top draws?

Either that or someone who was a great worker, yes, that's about it. Keeping the HOF exclusive is what makes it worthwhile. There are plenty of people who were talented and had good careers that have no business going into a HOF. It's not an insult to be left out in most cases.

 

I would like to reiterate my hypothesis and conclusion:

"Hypothesis", "conclusion" ... "pro wrestling", "serious" ...

 

Just saying.

 

Here is my hypothesis:

 

After about 1987 (i.e. after the end of the territory system), most main event wrestlers DO NOT make a discernible difference on attendance figures, the ones that do can be counted on two hands.

 

Hogan, Rock, Austin - these are guys who can make 1000s of people attend a show who wouldn't have otherwise.

 

The rest of the time the hotness of the company is the only differentiator. Doesn't matter if it's Sting, Steamboat, Bret Hart or Kevin Nash.

Is "hotness" something that only happens out of thin air, or is it directly impacted by who is working on top?

 

Conclusion: Guys like Hogan give us an unrealistic and skewed perspective on what draws can be and how to measure them. He is the exception, rather than the rule. i.e. MOST guys make no real difference to the amount of people who watch wrestling matches live.

You can be a respectable draw without being Hulk Hogan. See Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Roddy Piper and plenty of other guys.

 

1. What do you make of this? Do you agree with it?

No.

 

2. If that is the case, then does it stand to reason that from that generation of US workers only a handful should be inducted? Hogan, Rock, Austin, Cena. Who else? Who else is demonstrably a draw in the way that we are trying and failing to prove that Sting was? Did a single other worker boost business for either WCW or WWF between 1987 and now? Savage? Did he boost business or did he just keep something going that Hogan started? Well? Who actually boosted business?

Bret Hart was mentioned earlier in this thread and you never responded to it, except to downplay it because of being in the right place in the right time. Hogan and Austin were in the right place at the right time too. That's what wrestling is about.

 

It's very hard to make a case for anyone based on drawing power.

Exactly! That's the whole point of a Hall of Fame.

 

Savage goes in because he benefits from working on top in 88-89 at a time when Hogan had made the business hot, to a lesser extent DiBiase gets this rub too.

 

Sting doesn't go in because he had the misfortune of working for the wrong company.

 

That doesn't seem very fair to me.

The Hall of Fame should not be used to right wrongs.

 

I feel like we're going in circles and you're ignoring counterpoints that have been made.

[Mad Dog]

Wrestling was in a big lull from 1992-1996. It's sometimes called the dark ages because business was so bad. So, excluding Bret, who I think most of us agree should have had to go on the ballot, there is no one in the HOF for what they accomplished in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, except maybe Vader. And Vader is in for being the best working guy at his size possibly ever, more than he is in for being a huge draw.

 

Sting is not the reason WCW wasn't successful. As I mentioned before, it was a dysfunctional promotion. But had Sting overcome all of that to draw anyway, that would be his HOF case. He didn't.

 

Sting drew a huge number opposite one of the biggest draws ever, and never really drew any other big numbers. The same could be said for Larry Zbyszko.

Let me ask you this though. If you had put anyone else in Sting's role for the nWo would it have worked as well?

[Matt D]

Wrestling was in a big lull from 1992-1996. It's sometimes called the dark ages because business was so bad. So, excluding Bret, who I think most of us agree should have had to go on the ballot, there is no one in the HOF for what they accomplished in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, except maybe Vader. And Vader is in for being the best working guy at his size possibly ever, more than he is in for being a huge draw.

 

Sting is not the reason WCW wasn't successful. As I mentioned before, it was a dysfunctional promotion. But had Sting overcome all of that to draw anyway, that would be his HOF case. He didn't.

 

Sting drew a huge number opposite one of the biggest draws ever, and never really drew any other big numbers. The same could be said for Larry Zbyszko.

Let me ask you this though. If you had put anyone else in Sting's role for the nWo would it have worked as well?

 

First of all, it'd be a differently executed role.

 

That said, I think Flair could have done something similar as a guy who bled WCW.

[blueminister]

Hahahaha bring Buddy Landell in as nWo Flair.

[Matt D]

Obviously, he wouldn't be Crow Flair, but he might have used the Horsemen as a Guerrilla Army or something to similar effect.

[Mad Dog]

Wrestling was in a big lull from 1992-1996. It's sometimes called the dark ages because business was so bad. So, excluding Bret, who I think most of us agree should have had to go on the ballot, there is no one in the HOF for what they accomplished in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, except maybe Vader. And Vader is in for being the best working guy at his size possibly ever, more than he is in for being a huge draw.

 

Sting is not the reason WCW wasn't successful. As I mentioned before, it was a dysfunctional promotion. But had Sting overcome all of that to draw anyway, that would be his HOF case. He didn't.

 

Sting drew a huge number opposite one of the biggest draws ever, and never really drew any other big numbers. The same could be said for Larry Zbyszko.

Let me ask you this though. If you had put anyone else in Sting's role for the nWo would it have worked as well?

 

First of all, it'd be a differently executed role.

 

That said, I think Flair could have done something similar as a guy who bled WCW.

 

It would be different but my point is that Sting doesn't get enough credit for his part in the nWo. There were things unique to Sting that made him take off. The guy didn't wrestle, didn't talk and didn't even appear much but he was the most over face on the roster for that year. Sting was inherently WCW. The guy stayed with the company through thick and thin. He had a credibility as the last bastion of hope that I don't think guys that had wrestled for the WWF could've pulled off.

[Matt D]

The only thing that I think people forget is anecdotally how big Sting was as a mainstream star at that point. I knew lots of people who were into the whole black baseball bat thing in a big way. It was huge at high school. The whole baseball team was into it. Sting in 97 felt as culturally over as Austin would be in 98 or the rock a year or two later, and more so than Goldberg was.

 

I know we can't quantify that, but it was the experience I had personally. That year it was not just socially acceptable but actually cool to like Sting.

[Ricky Jackson]

A Hall of Fame is supposed to honour the Best of the Best, period. Honestly, Sting shouldn't even be on the ballot anymore. I know the rule is if you maintain 10% of the vote you stay on, but how many years has Sting been on the ballot now? I have no idea, but if in the most extreme case he has been on since the late-90s and still hasn't been voted in after all these years, indeed, that his HoF case is based entirely on what he did prior to the 21st century, then the only way he is ever going to get in is as a "Well, we need to induct somebody this year, but all of the best candidates are already in, so we'll lower our standards and let him in this time" induction, and that would just make the HoF pointless. In baseball, if you are on the ballot for, I think, seven years and are not voted in, you are removed as a candidate. Something similar should apply to the WON HoF. If someone is truly one of the Best of the Best they will be voted in within seven years, and usually in much less time. Yes, many wrestlers are in the HoF who are, depending on your viewpoint, not the Best of the Best, as has been discussed thoroughly (usually, these controversial inductees are guys who were perceived by certain smart fans as being superworkers--Angle, Michaels, etc). Many wrestlers from the past were overlooked for much longer than seven years who were deserving of induction (eg. Hans Schmidt), but due to the fact their careers ended long ago and serious research must be made by committed fans to uncover the numbers, this is understandable. Sting is a modern star, not a name from the distant past whose career is unfamiliar to most wrestling fans. If he was one of the Best of the Best, his induction should have occurred at least ten years ago. He has not been overlooked. The majority of voters have looked at his career a million times over and have said "No" year in year out. I think it's time to move on.

[Dylan Waco]

The only thing that I think people forget is anecdotally how big Sting was as a mainstream star at that point. I knew lots of people who were into the whole black baseball bat thing in a big way. It was huge at high school. The whole baseball team was into it. Sting in 97 felt as culturally over as Austin would be in 98 or the rock a year or two later, and more so than Goldberg was.

 

I know we can't quantify that, but it was the experience I had personally. That year it was not just socially acceptable but actually cool to like Sting.

I live in the heart of Carolina's which in theory is the birthplace of "Sting" as a main event player and this is almost completely the opposite of my experience. I'm not going to say Sting wasn't over because he damn sure was, but at my high school - outside of perhaps a three month period right after Uncensored 97 - he was nowhere near as well known, talked about, "over" with the casual fans as even someone like Rikishi would be a couple of years later. Even if we restrict it just to WCW Goldberg and DDP smoked him in popularity among casuals, to say nothing of the NWO or Flair (though to be fair Flair is disproportionately loved around these parts). If I were to "rate" WCW figures from the boom era in terms of crossover appeal during that era Sting would struggle to make the top five, despite the advantage he had over some people of having been regionally significant before the boom. If we are extending it to WWE performers no way in hell he makes the top ten. I don't think this necessarily means anything in and of itself, but I did want to respond because my experience is so radically different than yours.

 

I would also note that the issue of whether or not Sting could have been replaced in his role is something that has been talked about in this thread at least two other times and for my part I would answer "no." That doesn't make him a Hall of Famer in and of itself though, and no one has taken up the Orndorff comp which is too bad because I think at minimum it would clarify some of the differing perspectives in the thread.

[JerryvonKramer]

I am resolved to throw in the towel like Arnold Skaaland. Sting shouldn't go in and a good case cannot be made. I have been persuaded.

[Matt D]

Obviously Crow Sting was more of a northern phenomenon.

 

And good, now do Kevin Sullivan on influence, drawing in Florida, and booking.

[El-P]

The thing people seem to forget, although John talked about it earlier, is that the nWo angle didn't need Sting to take off. It needed Hogan. Then the angle became the hottest in the decade with Sting being involved much anymore. The main single matches worked for the first six months were against : Flair, Giant, Savage and Piper. Sure, Sting was over as all hell in 1997, when he wasn't actually working. But DDP was over as all hell too, as was Luger (the pop he gets when he wins the title from Hogan on Nitro is defining). I'm not saying he deserves no credit in the whole thing. He was an important figure in 1997 opposing the nWo. Would the angle have been any less hot without him ? I doubt it honestly. Like Dylan said, there were other foils for the nWo like Flair when he came back, DDP working with Savage, Luger. By 1998, Goldberg had taken the promotion by storm, and Sting wasn't relevant as the big number one face anymore. He was just another guy wearing the (red) nWo colors.

[Loss]

Wrestling was in a big lull from 1992-1996. It's sometimes called the dark ages because business was so bad. So, excluding Bret, who I think most of us agree should have had to go on the ballot, there is no one in the HOF for what they accomplished in the U.S. between 1992 and 1996, except maybe Vader. And Vader is in for being the best working guy at his size possibly ever, more than he is in for being a huge draw.

 

Sting is not the reason WCW wasn't successful. As I mentioned before, it was a dysfunctional promotion. But had Sting overcome all of that to draw anyway, that would be his HOF case. He didn't.

 

Sting drew a huge number opposite one of the biggest draws ever, and never really drew any other big numbers. The same could be said for Larry Zbyszko.

Let me ask you this though. If you had put anyone else in Sting's role for the nWo would it have worked as well?

 

No. It would not have worked as well. Is that alone a HOF case?