WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Who's the guy who thinks that Buddy Rose was an all-time top five worker?

*Raises hand*

[Dylan Waco]

I was thinking of Will, but could have just as easily been talking about my brother.

 

Also I would say he was the best in the world from the period between 77-84. I would listen to cases for a few other guys (Flair, Funk, Fujinami, Lawler), but everything I've seen points to Buddy. At his absolute peak I'm not sure there is anyone who I thought was better. As good? Sure. Better? No.

[Dylan Waco]

It's true, "seemingly" is doing a lot of work there -- except for in the case of St. Louis. By which I mean you can't compare St. Louis to WCW in the 1990s.

 

The broad point I made remains the same though: the mind that sees a case for Patera but none for Sting is working uninuitively -- it requires a lot of thought and justification. And, this and other boards being THE INTERNET, and our subject being wrestling and not, say The Thought of Aristotle, you can see why these conflicts come up. Most people aren't going to put the work in.

St. Louis was a single town so it doesn't make a good comp, but take something like Patera in 83-84. He was past his prime at that point as a star (though still a good worker) but he was consistently at the top of the card in mains or semi-mains for the AWA around their very expansive loop. And he was also taking some shots in Montreal. And he was still a star who was booked well on the cards in St. Louis. And he was down in Memphis main eventing with Lawler fairly regularly. And he worked a NJPW tournament.

 

Or you could look at something like 78 where he started off in New York, then was working around the loop in MACW where he was a semi-main or main event guy (he main evented a lot of the second tier markets during that run, which doesn't show up in my latest breakdown of major market main events), but was also being brought in and positioned very well on the Toronto shows and was brought in as Dusty's opponent for the semi-main of the Superbowl of Wrestling show in Florida.

 

That's sort of muddled but my point is that while you can't compare your "single shot's" like St. Louis, Toronto, Montreal or Memphis to WCW in the 90's they weren't the only thing he was doing at the time. He was working for major promotions AND doing those things.

 

On your broad point I understand it and basically agree, but I've never been a guy who was going to post on a discussion forum and not have a discussion.

[ohtani's jacket]

Sure.

Well, if it had nothing to do with Sting and everything to do with the business then why emphasise what a poor draw he was? Unless there were specific reasons why he couldn't draw. What were his failings?

[Dylan Waco]

The thing I don't get about Sting is that people say he couldn't draw during a low drawing period but then they say guys like Edge shouldn't be in for drawing during a reasonable drawing period, so if Sting had been in Edge's position would he be a HOF'er?

That's not the argument I would make against Edge. Does anyone make that argument against Edge?

[Loss]

Sure.

Well, if it had nothing to do with Sting and everything to do with the business then why emphasise what a poor draw he was? Unless there were specific reasons why he couldn't draw. What were his failings?

 

That's not the point. What were his successes? Putting Sting in the HOF because his failures weren't his fault isn't a particularly strong case.

 

At some point, you have to switch from just responding to negatives and start producing some big positives, which I haven't really seen anyone do yet. It's all in a feeling, which is fine, but it's not a HOF case.

[NintendoLogic]

I asked because of what Dylan posted at WC. I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I was genuinely curious.

 

Anyway, I don't know if Dylan has addressed this, but it occurred to me that being the biggest draw in Portland history might not be worth all that much. It seems to me that most guys who establish themselves as strong draws wouldn't stick around in a small territory like Portland for too long because they could make more money elsewhere.

[Loss]

Dylan acknowledged that a few posts back. It was the strong in-ring in combination with being their biggest draw. Either of those things on its own wouldn't have warranted a HOF case.

[Loss]

But if the HOF is going to be a place to acknowledge people who had their potential cut short through no fault of their own, there are probably dozens of guys we could make a HOF case for. Admittedly, Sting is near the top of that list.

[Dylan Waco]

I asked because of what Dylan posted at WC. I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I was genuinely curious.

 

Anyway, I don't know if Dylan has addressed this, but it occurred to me that being the biggest draw in Portland history might not be worth all that much. It seems to me that most guys who establish themselves as strong draws wouldn't stick around in a small territory like Portland for too long because they could make more money elsewhere.

It's arguable.

 

What's notable about Rose is that he's not just considered the cumulative best draw though. He's considered the PEAK best draw too. People talk about Rose/Piper and say "well it was Piper." But the Martel feud did nearly as well and even three years later the stuff with DK, Hennig, et was pretty close to that level.

 

If you believe Piper, Hennig and others Buddy was offered shots in multiple places including GA and MACW. There are some who think he didn't go because he was afraid of failure. Others think he didn't go (and this is what he always said) because he made great money in Portland, working a small loop, for the most honest promoter in wrestling, where he was home every night.

 

It's funny as Sting is sort of the ultimate "what if" candidate, but I always look at Buddy and think "if Don Owen wasn't as smart a businessman and ran a 10k seat building in Portland every week with Rose on top of 5k plus weekly shows consistently....." But it's a what if. And I don't hang my hat on Buddy's drawing power. To me it's a piece of a unique puzzle.

[KrisZ]

Sting & Edge is a tough comparison because Sting was the top face and Edge more often than not was the top heel so it's two totally different philosophies. Edge also was given more of a chance to succeed in a big singles programs while Sting didn't have that luxury.

[ohtani's jacket]

Sure.

Well, if it had nothing to do with Sting and everything to do with the business then why emphasise what a poor draw he was? Unless there were specific reasons why he couldn't draw. What were his failings?

 

That's not the point. What were his successes? Putting Sting in the HOF because his failures weren't his fault isn't a particularly strong case.

 

At some point, you have to switch from just responding to negatives and start producing some big positives, which I haven't really seen anyone do yet. It's all in a feeling, which is fine, but it's not a HOF case.

 

I'm not trying to say it strengths his case. I just think if his failure to draw wasn't his fault then it shouldn't be held against him as black mark. Wrestling is a business and it's on the bookers first and foremost if a promotion can't draw. If Sting had done something to turn customers away I could understand the emphasis, but apart from being wooden and not as charismatic as the top stars he did just about everything you'd expect of him. When business was bad he couldn't spike attendance. When business was in an upswing he played his part. People are basically holding it against him that he wasn't an all-time great draw. I understand your point about producing positives, but what I'm driving at is that if there's a big negative then people ought to be clearer about whose fault it was instead of pinning it on the worker like they're inherently to blame.

[ohtani's jacket]

The thing I don't get about Sting is that people say he couldn't draw during a low drawing period but then they say guys like Edge shouldn't be in for drawing during a reasonable drawing period, so if Sting had been in Edge's position would he be a HOF'er?

That's not the argument I would make against Edge. Does anyone make that argument against Edge?

 

I've probably forgotten the arguments against Edge. I thought people had counter arguments for Meltzer's points about Edge as a ratings draw or whatever it is. My point really is about timing. If Edge were to get in because he came along at a time when business was strong and Sting doesn't because he was on top when business was poor then how much of it is based on each man's merits or lack thereof and how much is sheer dumb luck?

[Loss]

It's only being mentioned because the reason everyone has been inducted has been for either great in-ring or great drawing power. Sting doesn't have the in-ring, so the drawing power is getting mentioned a lot. It happens with every HOF candidate, not just Sting.

 

Every single person who headlined during the time he did that is in the HOF has accomplishments outside of that time period. We're not debating the worth of Sting's career. We are debating if he's a HOF guy or not.

 

No one is holding anything against Sting. The HOF is for the best of the best. Sting doesn't quite hit that level. That doesn't mean his career was completely worthless.

 

I'll try this one more time because I feel like I have posted this about a dozen times in this thread and for whatever reason, it's not getting through. Sting is not to blame for his career not taking off the way it could have. Sting is not to blame for not being a huge draw. That's not something I'd chalk up to a weakness on his part. But a HOF has to be about what actually happened, not what might have been. You can mention all the positives you want about Sting, and most of them are probably true. But there are plenty of people we could say nice things about that have no business entering a Hall of Fame.

 

For some reason, that's being interpreted as Sting being "blamed" for something. If he's going to go in the HOF, I'd rather talk about his positives than his not-negatives.

[Loss]

The thing I don't get about Sting is that people say he couldn't draw during a low drawing period but then they say guys like Edge shouldn't be in for drawing during a reasonable drawing period, so if Sting had been in Edge's position would he be a HOF'er?

That's not the argument I would make against Edge. Does anyone make that argument against Edge?

 

I've probably forgotten the arguments against Edge. I thought people had counter arguments for Meltzer's points about Edge as a ratings draw or whatever it is. My point really is about timing. If Edge were to get in because he came along at a time when business was strong and Sting doesn't because he was on top when business was poor then how much of it is based on each man's merits or lack thereof and how much is sheer dumb luck?

 

Being in the right place at the right time is how Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin got over too. Part of it is luck. That's wrestling.

[Johnny Sorrow]

When exactly was Edge's big drawing period according to Meltzer, btw? Cause I remember him headlining house shows against Taker around 2008, (I was at one) and the draw there seemed to be a mixture of Taker and the name "WWE". Honestly, based solely on the house shows I've been to around here over the last 6 years the only two names that were definitely draws based on the fans I saw around me were Cena and Rey.

[blueminister]

Man, I should have replied late last night, but on the other hand I'm not sure having Dylan reject Jake Roberts, Naoya Ogawa and Brian Pillman for reasoning I already reject would have been at all productive. My post wasn't even intended as a shot at anyone, as I appreciate the efforts of Dylan to look up attendance figures when making the case for late-territory wrestlers like Patera and Blackwell, just an acknowledgement that I think having stats be any sort of "final word" in measuring an individual's worth like in sports isn't universally instructive as we're dealing with performers pretending to be athletes and essentially rating the efforts of same backstage powers the further we get into the televised era.

 

But if the HOF is going to be a place to acknowledge people who had their potential cut short through no fault of their own, there are probably dozens of guys we could make a HOF case for. Admittedly, Sting is near the top of that list.

I think the idea that Sting didn't "meet his potential" is wrong. We're enthusiasts, we have youtubes and bootleg discs of good-to-great matches and engaging and energetic promos from Sting and other performers that give lie to the notion that their efforts weren't sufficient to engage their audience. I find it weird that WCW failing to draw crowds or pop buyrates is effectively blamed on Sting shitting the bed as a performer when it's clear the company was fucked on several levels that had nothing to do with Sting not being great enough at his job. It seems founded on a "great performances can overcome bad booking and promotion" assumption that seems to have no basis in the history of pro wrestling and actively ignores the last twenty-five years of mass-marketed wrestling centralized under a handful of bookers whose efforts have hindered the abilities of their performers to promote themselves more often than not. Even if you disagree with me on the idea of Sting's merits, the idea that his merits are some sort of unknowable quantity because he worked for the wrong companies is nuts.

 

I'm not totally discounting the idea that figures could have a place in the modern context, but in this case that still brings us back the claim that Sting finally being booked well as the face in one of the hugest angles of all time somehow not being sufficient instead of proving his case. It's a conclusion built from the assumption that he was merely good-to-middling performer to begin with who lucked into working with heel Hogan instead of a guy who was able to parlay his years as the mast of a sinking ship into being one of the most popular faces of America in the sort of long game you don't see much of in wrestling.

[Victator]

Also WCW would have been profitable from the start, if Turner had been paying for the programming. That did not start til Bischoff.

[Dylan Waco]

Man, I should have replied late last night, but on the other hand I'm not sure having Dylan reject Jake Roberts, Naoya Ogawa and Brian Pillman for reasoning I already reject would have been at all productive. My post wasn't even intended as a shot at anyone, as I appreciate the efforts of Dylan to look up attendance figures when making the case for late-territory wrestlers like Patera and Blackwell, just an acknowledgement that I think having stats be any sort of "final word" in measuring an individual's worth like in sports isn't universally instructive as we're dealing with performers pretending to be athletes and essentially rating the efforts of same backstage powers the further we get into the televised era.

I don't think those stats are final words either. I got interested in those two by talking about them with others and watching their matches. The rest came later.

 

I also had no plans to "pick apart" any other names you would have mentioned. I was just curious.

[Loss]

I just said Sting wasn't being blamed for anything two posts ahead of this. Yet you say I'm blaming Sting for WCW's woes. This keeps happening again and again and again and again in this thread.

 

Ric Flair worked for a promotion that spent the better part of a decade attempting to undermine him, destroy his reputation, turn him into a second-tier comedy guy and cut his TV time. In spite of that, he was still the biggest ratings draw in the company at the end of the decade. So yes, wrestlers can overcome what is given to them.

 

So to emphasize the argument in short form:

 

Sting is not being blamed for WCW not drawing.

Sting is not being blamed for WCW not drawing.

Sting is not being blamed for WCW not drawing.

Sting is not being blamed for WCW not drawing.

 

But ...

 

Sting being a guy who should have done better doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Sting being a guy who should have done better doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Sting being a guy who should have done better doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Sting being a guy who should have done better doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

Sting being a guy who should have done better doesn't make him a Hall of Famer.

 

And ...

 

This doesn't mean Sting had a horrible career. No one is saying he did.

This doesn't mean Sting had a horrible career. No one is saying he did.

This doesn't mean Sting had a horrible career. No one is saying he did.

This doesn't mean Sting had a horrible career. No one is saying he did.

This doesn't mean Sting had a horrible career. No one is saying he did.

[NintendoLogic]

Just about any kind of major success is due at least in part to dumb luck, both in wrestling and elsewhere. What if the MSG Incident never happened and Austin never got the micard push that was supposed to go to HHH? What if Shawn never lost his smile and Austin never had the submission match with Bret? What if there hadn't been a huge walk-up crowd the day of the first Wrestlemania and it had bombed as a result? What if Stephanie never discovered that John Cena could rap? Seriously, how far are we going to go with the what-if game? Are people going to push for David Von Erich and Magnum TA based on the careers they could have had?

[goc]

How can you not put Magnum TA in the Hall of Fame? He would have beaten Ric Flair and become the JCP Hogan!

[blueminister]

Just about any kind of major success is due at least in part to dumb luck, both in wrestling and elsewhere. What if the MSG Incident never happened and Austin never got the micard push that was supposed to go to HHH? What if Shawn never lost his smile and Austin never had the submission match with Bret? What if there hadn't been a huge walk-up crowd the day of the first Wrestlemania and it had bombed as a result? What if Stephanie never discovered that John Cena could rap? Seriously, how far are we going to go with the what-if game? Are people going to push for David Von Erich and Magnum TA based on the careers they could have had?

I would assume Steve Austin would have been great at his job as a fake wrestler even if certain opportunities hadn't have come about or happened differently, that he would have continued to make the most of opportunities given, that you could watch footage of him being great at being a wrestler, and acknowledge whether or not his merits as a wrestler warrant him being honored alongside other wrestlers. I don't see where "what-if" scenarios and alternative universes come into it.

[Matt D]

I was thinking of Will, but could have just as easily been talking about my brother.

 

Also I would say he was the best in the world from the period between 77-84. I would listen to cases for a few other guys (Flair, Funk, Fujinami, Lawler), but everything I've seen points to Buddy. At his absolute peak I'm not sure there is anyone who I thought was better. As good? Sure. Better? No.

I really hate that cage match, Dylan.

[Dylan Waco]

I was thinking of Will, but could have just as easily been talking about my brother.

 

Also I would say he was the best in the world from the period between 77-84. I would listen to cases for a few other guys (Flair, Funk, Fujinami, Lawler), but everything I've seen points to Buddy. At his absolute peak I'm not sure there is anyone who I thought was better. As good? Sure. Better? No.

I really hate that cage match, Dylan.

 

Re-read that again carefully