WON HoF Candidate Poll Thread

[Mad Dog]

Was he actually suggesting that Edgar was a worse player than Tony Womack? Is that a DH thing?

 

As for the Womack argument, I'd take him over Lenny Harris and Mark Davis. I think he's neck and neck with Bichette. The other guys at least hit higher peaks, though it was, of course, pointless to throw them on the HOF ballot.

DH thing. I don't think if you're a DH you should get serious consideration for the Hall. That's just me though. If I had a team, I would take Martinez over Womack without a second thought. But for Hall of Fame consideration, Womack played in the field and Martinez was primarily a DH. I would still take Martinez in the NL over Womack though. I remember his half season with Cincinnati and that was more than enough for me.

[Al]

The rules of the American League allow you to use the DH, and the production of the DH helps you to win the game. I don't see how you can hold that against Martinez, beyond not giving him credit for playing defense that you would other players. Especially when relief pitchers are in the Hall of Fame. Is Edgar Martinez less one dimensional than Bruce Sutter? Or Lee Smith?

 

As far as worse players than Womack, it's only Lenny Harris unless you go back to 1988. That ballot had Willie Montanez and Jim Spencer. Womack really only got on the ballot because he led the league in steals three times. It's kind of a shame because if he were used properly, he would've been quite a useable bench player.

[ohtani's jacket]

I've noticed that a lot of the folks who are coming out against JR's hard-on for college football are from outside the US, so to explain: college football is absolutely HUGE in the American South, and that was an area WCW was obviously targeting hard in the late 80's and early 90's. I look back and see that as Ross trying to relate some of their top wrestlers to an audience that loves college football. I can see where it might be considered grating to those who haven't grown up with college football as practically a second religion, but to the core WCW audience, I think it was a good move. Of course, JR being a legit mark for college football probably had a lot to do with it too...

I can understand why Ross did it in theory (WWF commentators did the same thing and Ross himself continued doing it when he moved out East), but in practice it was ridiculous. Whenever a guy turned heel, he'd flip it and start saying things like: "I can't believe this former one-time member of the Green Bay Packers could commit such a heinous act" or "I wonder what Luger's Jacksonville teammates think of him now." Sometimes he wouldn't even bother with that and lust over their football background even when they were a heel.

 

I don't buy the whole "real sports" play-by-play gimmick. He was a big fat company shill. And if you watch enough WCW for a project or a poll he starts to really grate on your nerves. The most annoying thing about him was the ridiculous 180s he'd do when people turned. All commentators do this, but Ross was exceptionally bad. He was so unbelievably whiney. I don't think he ever got the emotional tone right his entire career.

[El-P]

Eh, you Europeans just don't understand the greatness of REAL Football.

Well, I don't give a shit about "soccer" either. Actually I can't stand it.

[JerryvonKramer]

I did try to watch American Football once and it confused the fuck out of me.

 

Incidentally, some of my old school friends have turned their back on "soccer" and have converted to watching NFL. They are disillusioned with football's elitism and stupid wages so talk up the slightly more commie American Football way of doing things.

 

They still watch football, but they get more excited by American Football. One of my mates even takes the day off work for the Super Bowl. Crazy.

[Ricky Jackson]

Yes, the somewhat socialist aspect of TV revenue sharing in America's Favorite Sport is one of life's great ironies. (although, I think revenue sharing was first implemented in the 60s (50s?) to basically prevent the pattern of franchise failures and instability that plagued the NFL during its formative years)

[jdw]

It's actually not socialist. It's a great boondoggle by the owners to control costs and pocket more $$$. It's closer to robber baron capitalism.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

Yes, but can a billionaire like Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour waltz into the NFL take over one of the clubs and buy all the best players? It's not a free market economy is it.

[Childs]

No, that's baseball.

[PeteF3]

I'd say the playoff system, which is inherent in all American sports to a degree not seen almost anywhere in soccer, is a much bigger impediment to any one team (or small group of teams) dominating a league year after year.

 

Imagine if the Premier League standings meant nothing except seeding for the FA Cup (okay, and imagine seeding for the FA Cup). One bad leg could knock ManU or Chelsea out of championship consideration, the same way the New York Yankees can buy everybody they can, dominate in the regular season, and then trip up in the first round of the postseason against Detroit.

[NintendoLogic]

When it comes to confusing, Gaelic football takes the cake. It's like somebody wanted to see what would happen if you stuck every sport ever made into a blender.

[Loss]

Playing catch up.

 

Who exactly was sold on the WWF "because of Jesse and Vince"?

Me and others like me. If you've never seen wrestling before and you don't know who any of the wrestlers are, what the storylines or angles are, or even the internal logic behind the whole thing, you tend to pay attention to the commentators. Vince and Jesse were extremely good at this, because like all good wrestling commentary they were the moral compass of what was going on.

There is nothing remarkable about that. As you said, every announcer does it.

 

When you go back and watch that era, the matches aren't good but the commentating of Jesse and Vince holds up. Later on, when Vince went through his whole "whatta maneuver/Shawn Michaels" phase, do you really think Lawler was as good a foil as Jesse? Early Monday Night Raw with Vince, Macho Man and Bartlett was atrocious and even when they brought in Bobby it wasn't much better. I can't think of anyone who was a better fit with Vince than Jesse. What's more, there was so much terrible commentating in the the WWF in the 80s and 90s before and after Jesse that I can't understand why anyone would think there was anyone better.

Aside from Vince at times and Jim Ross at times, I don't think there's ever been a consistently good announcer in the entire history of the company, so that doesn't mean much to me. No, I don't think Lawler was as good. I agree that Vince and Jesse stands out. But they only look good if you ignore that wrestling existed in other places in the U.S. at the time.

 

I don't think it was a particular strength of Ross' getting over shitty gimmicks.

I agree with that. Jim Ross is at his best when wrestling is being presented the way I like it best. There are valid points I could make against him too -- he was at times a very annoying self-promoter, announcing all the shows by himself, getting his mug on camera before and after every break and plugging all of his personal appearances and his radio show every five minutes at his most offensive.

 

But do you enjoy Ross' football fetish?

I wouldn't say I "enjoy" it. But I appreciate it. I never looked it as being about football as much as I did being about providing personal background. In many cases, that just happened to be football-related. In Pillman's case especially, it was a compelling story that he also talked about alongside his history of throat operations, just like he talked about Luger's 3.78 GPA and turning down a Naval Academy offer along with his football background.

 

By the way, I would seriously argue that the way Jim Ross called Lex Luger matches is the standard by which all other announcers should be judged on how they put over top stars.

 

When Ventura went to WCW in 1992 he worked with Ross for a year. When he first arrived, Jesse was still working WWF style, Ross was still basically working in his Mid-South/ UWF style. I typed out what Jesse had to say about Ross in 93/4 yesterday. I'm not saying I agree with him, but if you go back to the early 92 shows you can see a clash of ideologies between Jesse and Ross.

Sure. And when Watts came in, he made Jesse stop doing all the off-topic jokes and call the matches. To Jesse's credit, he adapted well during that time. If you liked him during that time, thank Bill Watts for staying on him to not be so Jesse Ventura-like. Then, SuperBrawl III came and he and Tony seem obviously elated that Ross and Watts are gone and are both in jovial moods, which has some entertainment value I will admit.

 

 

Well, they already announce a real sport, so it's totally different. Pro-wrestling isn't a real sport.

I get that, and I actually do see where you're coming from. "This isn't just a bunch of guys playing pretend - no, these guys are athletes, and this is serious business."

 

It's just never sounded like that to me. When a baseball broadcaster notes that Dave Winfield was drafted by pro teams in both basketball and (American) football, it sounds like he's trying to say that Winfield was a super athlete. When Jim Ross notes that Brian Pillman played football, it sounds the same. I understand that the two announcers are starting from different places - the baseball player is already understood to be an athlete, whereas the wrestler might not be - but they don't sound very different to me.

 

Ross loved to point out that D'Lo Brown was a Certified Public Accountant. He would point this out in half of Brown's matches and possibly even more than that. I never got the impression that he was trying to say something about how professional wrestlers are smarter than you might think; it just sounded like a way of getting Brown over.

 

You feel what you feel, though, so if a whole bunch of people were bothered by Ross' talking about football careers, then it's possible that it hurt more than it helped.

 

This was all perfectly put, and I agree with it.

 

Ross at times bordered on being a creepy stalker-type fan of Pillman, Luger and Simmons.

It was a lot worse with Steve Williams.

 

Well, both Steve Williams I should say.

 

It's said when being a good announcer who actually puts people over strongly is viewed as "creepy stalker-type fan". I loved that stuff, because it convinced me. I always felt like Jim Ross was announcing like he was speaking to skeptics. About wrestling. About the match going on in the ring. And this is why I liked him so much.

[El-P]

I always felt like Jim Ross was announcing like he was speaking to skeptics.

Well, the issue is that people who watch pro-wrestling to begin with aren't skeptics. If Ross is trying to pray to the already converted, it's a waste of time. Wrestling fans don't watch wrestling to be told about college sports and reminded that pro-wrestler are "real athletes you know". We're wrestling fans, we know what the deal is. The skeptics probably don't watch to begin with, and they aren't your audience, why are you trying to convince people who aren't watching anyway ?

 

But you're right, it came off that way, and that's why I say it sounded like there was some insecurity somewhere. "Hey skeptic people, I know you think it sucks because it's pro-wrestling, but these guys were real athletes in college you know, some even play for the NFL.".

 

Yesterday I watched that Main Event episode with a Dan Spivey squash match, and Ross dropped the football reference about Dan Spivey, that he used to be one hell of a (whatever, don't ask me for any football term) back then for this team. What the hell Ross, this is psycho Dan Spivey killing a jobber, really, I actually find it kinda counterproductive to always get back at freaking "real" sports. Tell me that "Dan Spivey is a psycho monster who likes to hurt people, look at his face". Don't tell me that he was a pro-football player, it only makes him look like just another ex-football guy turned wrestler.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I always liked it when Ross or anyone mentioned real sports backgrounds. As stated numerous times, it made guys seem more legit and also it made wrestling look like a legit "sport" for a guy to get into, in a kayfabe sense. I'd rather hear "He was a rough tackle for Miami" then "He was a garbageman who's decided to wrestle"ala the WWF "guys with other jobs" deal.

[El-P]

There's a middle ground between the über goofy WWF stuff from that time and Ross obsessive ways of talking about real sports.

[ohtani's jacket]

Interesting divide between people who like the football references and those who don't. I don't have a problem with the concept in general. Walton did it all the time on WoS for Grey's football background, Myers' arm wrestling and all of the various judokas. The problem was the way Ross did it. WoS had that time between rounds for Walton to drop in little facts about the pub some worker owned or whatever a guy had been doing since the last time he was on television and it was all very colloquial. Ross would beat you over the head with it. I do agree with Loss that he did a great job of getting the powerhouse Lex Luger over, but my recollection of it was less to do with real sports and more to do with Ross gushing over the total package's physical credentials.

 

And I disagree that what Jesse and Vince did was unremarkable. Didn't we have that big long thread that touched on doing the basics right? I doubt listening to Bruce Prichard or somebody else would have killed my enthusiasm for wrestling at that time but it sure would have sucked. Perhaps to enjoy Jesse you really have to appreciate how right he was whenever he pointed out babyface hypocrisy, McMahon's bias and the other side of the coin in most of the angles and storylines.

[Chess Knight]

And if you watch enough WCW for a project or a poll he starts to really grate on your nerves.

I've been doing this since 2010 and he hasn't bothered me. Actually, I found him more annoying in his first few WWF years. His call of Hart v Austin at Survivor Series was just bad and he came off to me as someone that had been commentating for about 2 months. Watched the first half of Capitol Combat (the 1990 WCW PPV) today and I found him perfectly good. Except when RoboCop came, but I'm blaming WCW since no one could have gotten that right.

[PeteF3]

If you want an example of actually using a football background to get somebody over instead of just to blither, Bill Watts knew how to do it with Jim Duggan. Duggan didn't just play for SMU (back when they were a powerhouse), he was the "wedge-buster" on kickoffs--i.e., the craziest most suicidal position on the roster. It was also where Duggan developed his flying tackle finisher. Even the WWF telling us Jim Neidhart quit the L.A. Raiders because it "wasn't rough enough" worked, goofy as it was (plus the Raiders themselves are sort of American sports shorthand for cheating and underhandedness). In the abstract, football and athletic backgrounds are just fine. Hell, when Brian Jordan played baseball for the Dodgers, even Vin Scully would often relate his NFL career to the game at hand. If Scully does it, that makes it okay in my book.

 

That said, Ross did tend to overdo it and many times it was counterproductive, like talking about Stan Hansen's alleged career with the Baltimore Colts. I don't need to be told about how Stan fucking Hansen was a football washout, thanks.

 

As an aside for Lex, thanks to Ross he's the only wrestler whose college GPA I know (3.8).

[El-P]

I've been doing this since 2010 and he hasn't bothered me.

I'have been watching WCW 89, 90 and doing 91 these days, well, it has really annoyed me at point.

Just a few minutes ago, during a freaking JYD match, Dog does a tackle, and here we go, Ross is talking about Dog's football credentials. Paul E. "It's wrestling Ross, it's not football." Ross "I know...".

[JerryvonKramer]

I should make it clear that Ross's football stuff doesn't annoy me, it just makes me laugh with how far he takes it.

 

Like I said, there are two different ideologies: one is not necessarily better than the other, they are just different. I like Jim Ross, he was great at what he did, I even don't mind him in the Attitude era.

 

The point I was trying to make was that Jesse worked NWA-style (to an extent) in 1992 and was pretty good at it, at least a B+ (to use the TEW-style ratings). I think at WWF-style Jesse was probably an A*, Ross at NWA-style taking it all into consideration I think was an A rising to A* on a good day, at WWF-style in 93 he was a C+, by the late 90s more like a B+

 

So if you take Ross's career let's say 85-92 he's a A-A*, 93-5 a C+, 96-2002ish a B+ and around a B after that. No one is arguing with Ross in the Hall of Fame.

 

If you take Jesse's career he's an A* 85-90, a B+ in 92 and I'd argue at least an A from 93-4 with Tony.

 

If you accept those ratings -- the question becomes to what extent is Ross there for his time on Raw? And if his work wasn't ever more than a B+ on Raw then does the argument become "well he was synonymous with Raw". If THAT is the case, then I'd argue that Jesse was as synonymous with SNME and Superstars as JR was with Raw. And is work was of a higher quality on average. Ross worked for longer., but was less consistently great

 

Breaking down Ross's case isn't necessary to make a case for Ventura, but doing so puts it into context for what we're looking at exactly.

 

I'm going to move on to Okerlund later.

[El-P]

I should make it clear that Ross's football stuff doesn't annoy me, it just makes me laugh with how far he takes it.

Seriously, I'm watching an excellent Brian Pillman vs Barry Windham match. And there we go, Ross go on a tangeant about Pillman never being the biggest guy on any athletic team he was part of. And he drops the line "He was the smallest kid on his little league team." For fuck's sake Ross. And then he goes on and on with the *entire* Pillman athletic credentials, complete with coach name and awards he recieved, while there's a wrestling match taking place. That kind of stuff is what annoy the shit out of me. It's not good announcing, plain and simple. It's not fun, it's not interesting. Ross is noticably worse when he's alone, because there's no Missy or Paul E. to distract him from college sports.

Also, I realized it's a lot worse when you actually pay attention to it, which means this thread hasn't helped my watching lately.

 

EDIT : and then later on the same show, during a Dan Spivey squash, from nowhere he talks about how the Atlanta Hawks could use a guy like this and goes on another tangeant... This on the same show. I mean... And then talks about yet another damn football team, during the same match !! Jeeez...

[El-P]

So if you take Ross's career let's say 85-92 he's a A-A*, 93-5 a C+, 96-2002ish a B+ and around a B after that. No one is arguing with Ross in the Hall of Fame.

To me Ross was pretty bad during the UWF days. I don't know if Watts put pressure on him at that time, but he was overselling everything, screaming like a madman like he would by the 00's in the WWF. Just bad stuff.

Ross was at his best during Mid-South before it turned into UWF, then WCW, then the WWF stint from 96 to 98. I thought he stunk in the 2000's.

[Dylan Waco]

Arn Anderson

 

Arn has been on and fallen off. He was one of those guys who hung around for a while before vanishing, but I don't think anything has changed enough for voters to see him as a viable candidate. He's one of my five favorite wrestlers of all time and I would not vote for him.

 

Brian Pillman

 

Another one of my five favorite wrestlers of all time who I wouldn't vote for. There really is no case for Brian. From 89-92 I feel that he was a great babyface and think he should have gotten a bigger push. The Blondes are well remembered though I didn't like them. I was a mark for the Loose Cannon stuff though it ultimately went nowhere and though we may like to think Pillman was influential in the change of the attitude direction I think at best that influence was extremely marginal (I'm being generous). Quite possibly could have been an HoFer if he didn't have the horrible car wreck, but that's impossible to say.

 

Booker T

 

I've always thought Book was overrated. Harlem Heat was an overrated team though that wasn't his fault. Book was really good in 98 during the tv title period but not great. His first main event run was as champion of a joke promotion that was clearly dying. Once he came to the WWF I guess he had some value in the Alliance storyline, but it really wasn't a dominant role. His high point was probably the lead to Mania 19, with the payoff being HHH burying him. Well, The King Booker act was pretty great but I don't know that it had much of an impact on business. I do think if Book got on the ballot at this point he would have more support than we might think due to being associated with the MNW era, but I can't see any reason for him to be on the ballot.

 

Kevin Sullivan

 

My understanding was that Sullivan did not draw well in Florida with the Devil gimmick though I could be wrong. Seemed like an influential gimmick at the time, and cribbing Great Mephisto in the South was pretty cool, but I'm not sure how much credit he gets for that. Sullivan is weird in that he seemed to dance around the top of the cards in WCW at times but without really doing anything of note. Looking back I remember thinking he had a better than I would have guessed run with Vince in the 70's. I don't see him as a candidate, though I guess someone could fill in the gaps with enough to convince me I'm wrong.

 

Jeff Jarrett

 

No case. I liked Jeff as a worker more than most, but I would vote against him just for his role in creating and maintaining the worst wrestling company of all time - and that is arguably his high point.

 

Diamond Dallas Page

 

Interesting guy for the discussion. Ultimately his run was too short, but he was a very good worker at his height, who was absolutely crazy over. I've never seen a finisher over like the Diamond Cutter was during Page's peak. If I'm not mistaken he did a couple of pretty good buyrates when placed at the top of the cards though I don't know if he had a lot of value as a quarter hour ratings guy. I do know that he was consistently the most popular WCW wrestler around Charleston other than Flair. His WWE run was nothing at all of note and I don't see him as a candidate going anywhere. Still kind of interesting guy though.

 

Koji Kanemoto

 

Kanemoto is interesting in that during the "peak" years of junior wrestling he was thought of as one of the least guys, but he stayed around and continues to work hard and is now seen as one of the best guys from the modern period (or at least he is seen that way by me). I liked him as a worker but honestly can't see how he's made any meaningful impact and he was never a draw.

 

Jim Duggan

 

Well, Duggan was a pretty big time star for Watts. I don't know if he was ever a part of any record setting or super high grossing stuff to the degree that JYD and some others from that territory were. But the matches hold up, Duggan was very good in them, they are well remembered and it seems like at minimum they were doing good business. His WWF run as a utility player is a better utility player run then most because Duggan was consistently one of the most over and recognizable guys on the roster. I don't recall him ever getting a main event level feud in New York, but he certainly had memorable moments. I don't really think anyone would vote for him, but he's a less ridiculous person to put on the ballot from my perspective than some of the people that have actually been on the ballot over the years.

 

Kamala

 

Good challenger for Hogan during an era where a lot of people were. Extremely memorable gimmick and he may have been a semi-relevant figure elsewhere in the 80's as a result of that. Still he was not a big enough star.

 

Los Misioneros de la Muerte

 

I don't know near enough to say one way or the other about their strengths but they have had support from people who would know so I think they pass the "constituency" argument.

 

Los Brazos

 

See above, though Los Misioneros de la Muerte seems to have more people mentioning them in the occasions where this issue comes up.

 

Pirata Morgan

 

SLL's complete and accurate needs to get more complete as I enjoy reading it. I have not seen a ton of Pirata Morgan, but it's clear that he's a great wrestler. I have no clue how much of a star he was though. I would love for someone to fill me in on the Lucha stars in general, but Morgan in particular as I could see him being a decent candidate if he was a reasonably big star.

[Loss]

With regards to Sullivan, should he be thought about as a booker and not just as a performer? He was definitely one of the key people in WCW's ascension to the top in the mid 90s. He had terrible points as a booker too, but most bookers did.

[Jingus]

Booker T

Once he came to the WWF I guess he had some value in the Alliance storyline, but it really wasn't a dominant role.

That would probably come down to your opinion on if anyone in the Alliance except for Austin and McMahons had a "dominant role". Booker was certainly used more strongly than anyone else they got from WCW at the time; compare him to the disastrous career-wrecking treatment that DDP got, for example. Booker looked like Choshu invading NJPW compared to the rest of his can't-beat-any-WWE-guys-ever chump teammates. He even got to main event Summerslam; yeah, that was so the crowd could have the feel-good moment of Rock beating him at the end of the night, but still.

 

Jim Duggan

I don't recall him ever getting a main event level feud in New York

He did have those "main event on the B house show" mini-feuds occasionally, against the likes of Andre or Yokozuna. Nothing tremendously exciting, but it happened. I recall seeing Andre getting a shockingly fun match out of him in some spot show (in Italy, of all damn places), which is not what you'd expect from either man in 1989.