WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[JerryvonKramer]

Let me phrase this another way. Wrestling has changed. The business model for wrestling has changed. The product has changed.

 

Where once TV was essentially a shill for live shows, now TV is an end in itself. The target is not necessarily house show numbers but Neilsen ratings.

 

Soooo, being "a draw", in the conventional sense, from one point of view isn't what it was. Live shows are not what they once were.

 

I asked this question, to an extent, with Sting in mind. Could you make an argument for Sting being a big TV star, despite the fact he was never a proven draw?

 

I don't want to get caught up in Sting though necessarily. I'm just wondering in general if being a big TV star could ever come to mean the same (or replace) the idea of being a big draw.

[Dylan Waco]

We are on the back end of ratings being the most relevant metric (if they ever were and I don't think they were but I'm playing along). It's arguable they aren't even now and haven't been in some time. Sting was never near the "tv star" of any number of people who aren't in the HoF. Sting's bombing on top was during a period where the model was pre-MNW and live attendance mattered a ton. If you have followed the arguments for a while, you know that people have been citing ratings as evidence of drawing power for close to twenty years if not longer.

[Loss]

It's definitely a big part of Lawler's candidacy. Dave always mentions Clash I and the early 80s ratings for Georgia Championship Wrestling when recapping Flair's career too.

[jdw]

Let's break Sting's "TV" career down into sections on a national level:

 

1986-87 UWF

 

Sting wasn't a bit star in the promotion. It died while he was moderately moving up. No HOF credit there.

 

1987-95 JCP/WCW

 

The company was losing money hand over fist. Sting's big ratings moment (such as Clash 1) didn't put any money into the company's pockets to keep it from losing money hand over fist.

 

Did it help keep the company alive because it was TV Content that had value to TBS? That's a trickier question. But for Ted and his fondness for the company, it's a question whether the promotion would have been kept alive. I don't think any of us have a clear picture of whether the $6M of losses on the WCW books were off set by more than $6M of add revenue for TBS (more in the sense that TBS and Turner in general had to turn a profit on the deal to off set the WCW losses). Not sure on that one.

 

1995-1996 WCW

 

There was a stretch where Nitro was doing ratings but before the companies (both WCW and Turner/TW) started making money in buckets. We can't just flip the switch at Nitro and say Sting being a TV star meant a massive crapload in terms of a HOF candidacy.

 

1996-1999 WCW

 

WCW gets hot, starts making money, and makes loads for Turner/Time Warner. Sting *is* a part of that.

 

We talked about this in the prior Sting threads on how we split this up, but the reality is that more than 50% of the credit ends up with Hogan and Eric. If Eric doesn't have the stones to pull what he did, and if Hogan doesn't go heel to anchor the whole clusterfuck, the rest of the knuckle heads keep losing shitloads of money. That's in terms of TV every bit as much as house show business and PPV, probably more.

 

Splitting up the rest of the 50% is where it gets even trickier. Some goes to Hall & Nash, because love them or hate them, their jump shaped where WCW, Eric and Hogan went. We talked about Savage and Piper doing huge business with Hogan, and having key TV roles to do so.

 

So it's really tricky to put a huge credit onto Sting. He gets a cut, but not a majority of it, nor close to it.

 

Before folks run in and talk about how big Sting up in the rafters was... I know that. We talked about it in the other thread. But up in the rafters has no impact without what came before it... which was caused by Eric and the Outsiders, then hit out of the park by Eric and Hogan.

 

1999-2001 WCW

 

Promotion went to total shit, lost tons of money, and went out of business. Skip "blame", and just focus on this: Sting gets no credit for being a TV Star of a Titanic of a tv show sinking what had been a wildly successful promotion. Don't get hung up on whether he gets any blame for it... just that the period covered by it is a 0 on the HOF candidacy.

 

2003–2013 TNA

 

The promotion has been a total bomb, losing money left and right, kept alive by money marks. Sting gets a Blutarsky as a TV Star for that period: 0.00. In fact, Sting is probably one of the reasons it's bombed: an obsession with past their prime overpaid "talent" from the 80s and 90s. Mixed in with the obsession of being a vanity promotion for years to put over Jeffey.

 

So we're back exactly where we were in Sting's normal HOF Candidacy:

 

He was a really big star for a certain period of time in say late 1996 through early 1999, where if you zero in on the really important part of it narrows way down into 1997 with a little tail before and after... but not as much as people think after he came out of the rafters for the two matches with Hogan.

 

Sting's probably a bad test for this. A WWE wrestler of the 00's where TV revenue is higher is probably a better one. But then...

 

One would have to prove that he actually was a ratings driver, rather than it just being WWE Product in general that was drawing a large amount of the baseline rating. Tricky. I know Dave has toyed with that stuff for well over a decade, but it never was very satisfying / conclusive to all of us how he analyzed the data. But folks could have at it... he's certainly rolled it out enough.

 

John

[blueminister]

1987-95 JCP/WCW

 

The company was losing money hand over fist. Sting's big ratings moment (such as Clash 1) didn't put any money into the company's pockets to keep it from losing money hand over fist.

Ahahahaha talk about begrudging. "Sting actually proved himself early on, but it doesn't count because as a fake athlete he didn't single-handedly save WCW from colossal mismanagement issues." Geez, just give the dude a point.

[Dylan Waco]

Come on John, Give Sting a point for being ace of a promotion that drew at sub-1986 AWA levels

[Johnny Sorrow]

I think what he's getting at that Sting was a TV star. And he was. For a period of time, when the NWO deal/ Crow stuff was going on and Nitro was a hit show, Sting was a star on that TV show. As far as that having anything to do with the WO HOF, I don't think it has much bearing.

[Dylan Waco]

Rikishi was a star on a tv show for a couple of years too

[Johnny Sorrow]

Rikishi was a star on a tv show for a couple of years too

Yes, he was. There have been tons of TV Stars over the years. Sting was one of them, so was Rikishi.

[JerryvonKramer]

I've also come to realise my caveats will be explicitly ignored, especially by jdw. Like this one:

 

I don't want to get caught up in Sting though necessarily. I'm just wondering in general if being a big TV star could ever come to mean the same (or replace) the idea of being a big draw.

This the bit where I say this isn't really about Sting.

 

Since jdw's post there did return time and again to money though and since Dylan made a little quip about drawing at sub-AWA levels the answer appears to be "no".

 

The bottomline alwas comes back to money and being a draw. That's all I was really after here. There are a few guys who fall into the bracket of being "famous", of being perceived to be big stars mainly because a lot of people watched them on tv which doesn't always translate into box office numbers. I think Sting is one of them. Big Daddy is probably another. In a weird way, so is Shawn Michaels.

[Dylan Waco]

Sting was the public face of a national company that was well covered by wrestling magazines that lots of kids read. It's not really surprising that he's seen as a "star." But he wasn't a draw.

 

I think there is something to be said for looking at ratings and merchandising, but it's a lot of leg work and I'm not sure who is going to do it.

[Johnny Sorrow]

See, that's where the whole "Icon of WCW" thing comes from, that worked as part of the Crow/ NWO stuff. Sting was this big deal because in the world of a lot of wrestling fans, he was. Most kids who loved WCW back in the early to mid-nineties weren't aware of the fact that Sting wasn't a big draw, but he was on the TV show they loved as the big star. Add in him never going to Vince along with selling new fans at the start of the mid-90's boom all about him being the "Icon", and there ya go.

 

As far as actual drawing people to live shows goes, it's like Zenk said about all the fans dressed as chairs.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dylan, since I'm reading the observers week-by-week anyway, it wouldn't take a lot for me to note down TBS ratings. Meltzer was obsessed enough with them.

 

Not sure if I can be bothered to go back through the 80s but if I started from now we could have from Fall 89 on.

 

Need to know one thing though: how many people had TBS? Was that a cable channel on subscription or a network channel you got through an aerial?

 

I ask this because I know SNME doing a 5.0 means a hell of a lot more than your average WWF cable show doing the same.

[Dylan Waco]

That's one of the problems with relying heavily on ratings data - without knowing the details of who had what stations and what was considered good for a certain era or business model it's tough. Not impossible necessarily. But tough. Also you need to look at quarter hours to get the best possible picture, though even that can be somewhat deceptive.

 

In my case we ALWAYS had TBS on cable. But I can't speak for the rest of the country.

 

Also, since John is back in the thread, I'd love for him to address the Colon v. Onita comp I outlined previously.

[Bix]

Dylan, since I'm reading the observers week-by-week anyway, it wouldn't take a lot for me to note down TBS ratings. Meltzer was obsessed enough with them.

 

Not sure if I can be bothered to go back through the 80s but if I started from now we could have from Fall 89 on.

 

Need to know one thing though: how many people had TBS? Was that a cable channel on subscription or a network channel you got through an aerial?

 

I ask this because I know SNME doing a 5.0 means a hell of a lot more than your average WWF cable show doing the same.

TBS was a free over the air station in Atlanta. In 1976, Turner decided to launch a satellite feed and offer it to cable companies across the US and Canada. Because he got in early, it was a basic/bundled channel for most cable subscribers in the US.

 

When you hear ratings points used instead of the actual audience numbers, different criteria is used for over the air broadcast networks vs cable channels. Broadcast ratings are percentages of all homes with a television. Cable ratings are percentages of homes that actually get the channel. That's how the WWF MTV specials in '84-'85 did close to 10% ratings, stuff like that.

 

Don't even bother paying attention to syndicated ratings in old Observers: Wrestling promotions got a weird exemption where they were allowed to add up all of their shows (both cable and syndicated) to get one big number. Their agreements with Neilsen allowed them to claim the inflated audience figures but they wouldn't be ranked with those combined numbers and couldn't claim any ranking based on those numbers (WCW got heat for claiming to be #1 in the key demos in a big trade magazine ad around late '96-early '97). There was all sorts of gamesmanship here: For example, in the '90s, USWA ratings would be factored in to the WWF or WCW "syndication network" depending on who Jerry Jarrett worked for at the moment.

[jdw]

1987-95 JCP/WCW

 

The company was losing money hand over fist. Sting's big ratings moment (such as Clash 1) didn't put any money into the company's pockets to keep it from losing money hand over fist.

Ahahahaha talk about begrudging. "Sting actually proved himself early on, but it doesn't count because as a fake athlete he didn't single-handedly save WCW from colossal mismanagement issues." Geez, just give the dude a point.

 

My thought would be to read Jerry premise:

 

Let me phrase this another way. Wrestling has changed. The business model for wrestling has changed. The product has changed.

 

Where once TV was essentially a shill for live shows, now TV is an end in itself. The target is not necessarily house show numbers but Neilsen ratings.

 

Soooo, being "a draw", in the conventional sense, from one point of view isn't what it was. Live shows are not what they once were.

Jerry is talking about the business changing in terms of TV being a revenue stream, and TV being done to sell TV rather than simply push house shows and PPV.

 

That really only started happened in the 1996-98 time when first WCW than the WWF started turning their ratings into ratings for TV content.

 

That Sting became a TV Star in 1988 doesn't mean anything in terms of a Hall of Fame candidacy unless it made his company a good deal of money. Instead, his company failed and was forced to be sold. Then the new company lost money year after year after year.

 

A baseball manager's job is to win games.

 

Running up a record like this:

 

1988: 72-90

1989: 72-90

1990: 62-100

1991: 52-110

1992: 52-110

1993: 52-100

1994: 72-90 (thank you Hulkster!)

1995: 72-90 (thank you Hulkster!)

1996: 92-70

1997: 112-50 World Series Champs

1998: 92-70

1999: 52-110

2000: 42-120

2001: 42-120

 

That ain't a HOF career. Especially when we know that in that 112-50 season that Hulk and Eric had most of the credit for the team's sucess.

 

Sting was a Big TV Star much like a power hitting 1B who played 15 years for the Brewers, had 2-3 all star seasons, one MVP, won one World Series... and no one thinks is a Hall of Fame player.

 

John

[jdw]

I've also come to realise my caveats will be explicitly ignored, especially by jdw. Like this one:

 

I don't want to get caught up in Sting though necessarily. I'm just wondering in general if being a big TV star could ever come to mean the same (or replace) the idea of being a big draw.

This the bit where I say this isn't really about Sting.

Except that you were also explicit that you brought it up with Sting in mind.

 

So I addressed Sting.

 

 

 

 

Since jdw's post there did return time and again to money though and since Dylan made a little quip about drawing at sub-AWA levels the answer appears to be "no".

Except you were specific in your premise that you were talking about TV Star in the sense of When The Business Model Change.

 

The business model on "drawing" didn't change to being a TV Star to Sell TV until the point I cited. Prior to that, Sting's job as a TV Star was to Draw House Show Business and Draw PPV Business.

 

At which Sting was a failed TV Star until the Business Model Changed. After the Business Model Changed, he had an extremely short run where his being a TV Star drew WCW money.

 

 

The bottomline alwas comes back to money and being a draw. That's all I was really after here. There are a few guys who fall into the bracket of being "famous", of being perceived to be big stars mainly because a lot of people watched them on tv which doesn't always translate into box office numbers.

That's what my response answered with respect to Sting.

 

John

[jdw]

Also, since John is back in the thread, I'd love for him to address the Colon v. Onita comp I outlined previously.

Not a comp that I would make, for reasons you touch on:

 

Colon ran a territory that didn't have competition in his prime, which wasn't a short period of time.

 

Onita ran indy in a country/territory that already had two major promotions and a strong niche promotion (UWF 2.0)... not even getting into AJW since it's audience was different. To carve out a successful promotion in the face of that in 1989-95 is extremely impressive.

 

It's similar to the reason why I feel less embarrassed over time by the quick Pena selection in 1996. I do wish that we waited on some level, though one also wonders how voters would have treated him post-boom. But what he did, creating a national promotion out of thin air to take on a massively established national promotion with institutional advantages, to not only get key TV but also draw extremely well, and get over loads of new talent... it's one of the most impressive promotional achievements of the past 20 years. It would be like TNA actually getting over in the 2004-2006 period from scratch as big as WCW did in 1996-98 Monday Night Wars era. We would have been gobsmacked that someone could go up against Vince, especially after WCW failed (and the Lucha equiv was UWA fading).

 

Colon is Lawler. Icon in a territory, who is impressive not because he beat back challengers or carved out a new niche withing an area, but for longevity of staying on top and drawing impressively.

 

From a stylistic garbage wrestling super baby face hero to his fans perspective... I get the Colon-Onita. But it's not one I'd make because it's not really why Onita got in.

 

Does that make any sense?

[El-P]

Plus Colon always had TV, hasn't he ? Onita was promoting without the support of TV for most of his first stint, which makes it even more impressive to me.

[jdw]

On ratings... what Bix says. With the exception of SNME and The Main Event shows on NBC, ratings in the 80s are utterly meaningless:

 

* they don't tie to drawing or revenue

* cable penetration, and channel penetration, were far from 100%

 

The NBC shows are a different beast because they were on NBC with near total penetration and things we can comp to: other network TV shows and Saturday Night Live.

 

Even the "impressive" numbers that various Clash cards drew were largely meaningless.

 

John

[KrisZ]

Said it before

 

Sting = Dale Murphy

[jdw]

Dale Murphy was a better baseball player than Sting was a wrestler. He also had more peak years, and more quality years.

 

John

[KrisZ]

The Braves had a few drawing years with Murph (1982-84) and 84 is pushing it but most of Murph's career as the face of the team they were a terrible draw and put on a lackluster product on the field. There were many nights at Fulton County Stadium from 85-90 that the Braves drew about 2,000.

 

Take it from me who lived and died with the team as a kid.

[jdw]

I get the drawing analogy, but baseball is a problem on an individual comp.

 

The M's lost a SS who hit .316/.420/.606 in 2000, and essentially replicated those numbers the following year somewhere else.

 

In 2001, the M's won 25 more games.

 

A-Rod as a "negative draw", so that when he left they got magically better?

 

I know it's a great joke on A-Rod, but it's not really what baseball is about. The M's fell back to A-Rod level anyway in 2002-2003, before falling off the cliff after that.

 

In turn, the Braves won division titles in 1991-93, and none of their position players were as good as 1982-85 Murphy, let alone 1987... and probably weren't a load better than 1980 Dale.

 

In wrestling, a Hogan can draw huge money with Kamala. It's kind of hard for Dale to carry a baseball team.

 

Not advocating Dale should be in the HOF. There are worse CF who are in... and better ones like Jimmy Wynn who aren't. It wouldn't break my heart if Dale goes in, and wouldn't break it if he doesn't... though admittedly his idiot son annoys me.

 

Dale > Sting

 

John

[Johnny Sorrow]

Since we're using the term TV Star, instead of comparing Sting to an athlete, how about comparing him to an actor on a show that had a period of time as a hit. Say like, SNL? Who'd be a guy who was a star on SNL thru a big ratings period and during lows? Darryl Hammond?