Loss Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Crimson Mask over at Wrestling Classics has now posted his Observer HOF ballot for 2005. This year's candidates are: PERFORMERS LIST Jun Akiyama Arn Anderson Gene & Ole Anderson Masked Assassins (Jody Hamilton & Tom Renesto) Red Bastien Carlos Colon Fabulous Freebirds (Michael Hayes & Terry Gordy & Buddy Roberts) Masakatsu Funaki Eddie Guerrero Volk Han Owen Hart Hiroshi Hase HHH Curt Hennig Chris Jericho Ivan Koloff Konnan Aja Kong Mark Lewin Jose Lothario Lonnie Mayne Midnight Express (Dennis Condrey & Bobby Eaton & Stan Lane) Dr. Bill Miller Fabulous Moolah Don Muraco Dick Murdoch Paul Orndorff Blue Panther Rock & Roll Express (Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson) Rick Rude Sabu Seiji Sakaguchi Masa Saito Kensuke Sasaki Jimmy Snuka Wilbur Snyder Sting Yoshihiro Takayama Kiyoshi Tamura John Tolos Villano III Dr. Wagner Sr. Johnny "Mr. Wrestling II" Walker Tim "Mr. Wrestling" Woods NON PERFORMERS LIST Paul Heyman Jerry Jarrett Gorilla Monsoon Don Owen Roy Shire Jesse Ventura Here is the list of wrestlers currently in the Hall of Fame: Perro Aguayo Andre The Giant Bert Assirati Giant Baba Fred Blassie Nick Bockwinkel Bobo Brazil Jack Brisco Bruiser Brody Dick The Bruiser Mildred Burke Abdullah The Butcher Canek Negro Casas Riki Choshu Crusher Lisowski Alfonso Dantes Blue Demon The Destroyer Ted Dibiase The Dusek Family Riot Squad Jackie Fargo Ric Flair Tatsumi Fujinami Dory Funk Jr. Terry Funk Verne Gagne Cavernario Galindo Ed Don George Gorgeous George Frank Gotch Karl Gotch "Superstar" Billy Graham Rene Guajardo Salvador "Gori" Guerrero George Hackenschmidt Stan Hansen Bret Hart Danny Hodge Hulk Hogan Antonio Inoki Rayo De Jalisco Tom Jenkins Don Leo Jonathan The Fabulous Kangaroos Dynamite Kid Gene Kiniski Killer Kowalski Ernie Ladd Jerry Lawler Ed "Strangler" Lewis Jim Londos Akira Maeda Devil Masami Mil Mascaras Tiger Mask (Satoru Sayama) Dump Matsumoto Earl McCready Leroy McGuirk Danny McShane Rey Mendoza Mitsuharu Misawa Bronko Nagurski Pat O'Connor Kintaro Oki Atsushi Onita Pat Patterson John Pesek Roddy Piper Harley Race Dusty Rhodes Rikidozan Yvon Robert Antonino Rocca Road Warriors Billy Robinson Buddy Rogers Bruno Sammartino El Santo Jackie Sato Randy Savage The Sheik Dara Singh El Solitario Rick Steamboat Joe Stecher Ray Steele Ray Stevens Nobuhiko Takada Genichiro Tenryu Lou Thesz Jumbo Tsuruta Mad Dog Vachon Vader Johnny Valentine Fritz Von Erich Whipper Billy Watson Bill Watts Jaguar Yokota Stanislaus Zbyszko Jim Barnett Wild Red Berry Paul Boesch Jim Cornette Dory Funk Sr. Eddie Graham Stu Hart Bobby Heenan Fred Kohler Dick Lane Salvador Lutteroth Vince McMahon Jr. Vince McMahon Sr. Joe "Toots" Mondt Sam Muchnick Antonio Pena Lance Russell Billy Sandow Hisashi Shinma Gordon Solie Tony Stecher Frank Tunney Edouard Carpentier Toshiaki Kawada Jimmy Lennon William Muldoon Chigusa Nagayo El Hijo Del Santo Dos Caras Lioness Asuka Jushin Liger Keiji Mutoh Jim Ross Steve Austin Mick Foley Shinya Hashimoto Bill Longson Akira Hokuto Frank Sexton Sandor Szabo Black Shadow Lizmark Bull Nakano El Satanico Diablo Velasco Farmer Burns Jack Curley Kenta Kobashi Wahoo McDaniel Manami Toyota Chris Benoit Shawn Michaels Kazushi Sakuraba Undertaker Bob Backlund Masahiro Chono Ultimo Dragon Kurt Angle Requirements are that the candidate be 35 years old OR have 15 years experience in the business. Also, here's the Gordy list. It's far from official, but it's the closest thing we have to a method of weeding out the bad and supporting the good. Here are the questions. 1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in his country or his promotion? 2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw? 3. How many years did he have as a top draw? 4. Was he ever regarded as the best worker in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best worker in his country or in his promotion? 5. Was he ever the best worker in his class (sex or weight)? Was he ever one of the top workers in his class? 6. How many years did he have as a top worker? 7. Was he a good worker before his prime? Was he a good worker after his prime? 8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents? 9. Did he ever anchor his promotion(s)? 10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards? 11. Was he valuable to his promotion before his prime? Was he still valuable to his promotion after his prime? 12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs? 13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines? 14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles? 15. Did he play his role(s) effectively during his career? 16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of the reigns? 17. Did he win many honors and awards? 18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to his wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? 19. Was he a top tag team wrestler? 20. Was he innovative? 21. Was he influential? 22. Did he make the people and workers around him better? 23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling? 24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared? So, who are this year's top choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I'd have a hard time not voting for any of the non-performer's list. Every one left an indelible mark on the business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dorian Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Ventura, Monsoon and Heyman will get in sometime soon, me thinks. As for performers, will HHH get in? I mean, does he have the credentials to make it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 It's still a travesty the Rock n' Rolls aren't in, considering they re-defined tag team wrestling and pretty much set the standard for babyface heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I ceased to care about the WON HOF after Kurt Angle got in. Meltzer has way too much sway over the voters and who they vote for. The fact that Triple H probably gets in this year is an even bigger joke. He has no business anywhere near a HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I wouldn't object to HHH being in a HOF. For better or worse, he has been a main event player for several years and he's had several top level matches (admittedly when he feels like it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I'm going to separate these into four categories: Should go in Shouldn't go in Unsure Need more info Here's where I stand on everyone at this point: Should go in: Gene & Ole Anderson Carlos Colon Fabulous Freebirds (Michael Hayes & Terry Gordy & Buddy Roberts) Eddy Guerrero Volk Han Aja Kong Midnight Express (Dennis Condrey & Bobby Eaton & Stan Lane) Dick Murdoch Blue Panther Rock & Roll Express Sting Kiyoshi Tamura John Tolos Shouldn't go in: Arn Anderson Owen Hart Hiroshi Hase HHH Curt Hennig Chris Jericho Mark Lewin Fabulous Moolah Don Muraco Paul Orndorff Rick Rude Sabu Seiji Sakaguchi Jimmy Snuka Unsure: Jun Akiyama Red Bastien Masakatsu Funaki Ivan Koloff Masa Saito Kensuke Sasaki Wilbur Snyder Yoshihiro Takayama Johnny "Mr. Wrestling II" Walker Tim "Mr. Wrestling" Woods Need more info: Masked Assassins (Jody Hamilton & Tom Renesto) Jose Lothario Lonnie Mayne Villano III Dr. Wagner Sr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I ceased to care about the WON HOF after Kurt Angle got in. Meltzer has way too much sway over the voters and who they vote for. The fact that Triple H probably gets in this year is an even bigger joke. He has no business anywhere near a HOF. I still enjoy talking about the HOF, but I definitely agree about Kurt Angle. It's asinine to me that the MX, Rock & Rolls and Freebirds are considered marginal at best while Kurt Angle was able to get in so easily on his first try. Inflation would play a part, but I'd be willing to bet that the 'Birds headlined far more sold out shows than Angle has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Oh, and I might run a Gordy List for HHH soon because I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I think the 'Birds should get in based on their work in Texas alone. The heat for the feud with the Von Erichs was nuclear. I have that DVD Kevin put out, and most of the matches are against the Freebirds. Michael Hayes gets "I'm going to kill you" heat just standing in the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MJHimJfadeaway23 Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 I'm going to separate these into four categories: Should go in Shouldn't go in Unsure Need more info Here's where I stand on everyone at this point: Should go in: Gene & Ole Anderson Carlos Colon Fabulous Freebirds (Michael Hayes & Terry Gordy & Buddy Roberts) Eddy Guerrero Volk Han Aja Kong Midnight Express (Dennis Condrey & Bobby Eaton & Stan Lane) Dick Murdoch Blue Panther Rock & Roll Express Sting Kiyoshi Tamura John Tolos Shouldn't go in: Arn Anderson Owen Hart Hiroshi Hase HHH Curt Hennig Chris Jericho Mark Lewin Fabulous Moolah Don Muraco Paul Orndorff Rick Rude Sabu Seiji Sakaguchi Jimmy Snuka Unsure: Jun Akiyama Red Bastien Masakatsu Funaki Ivan Koloff Masa Saito Kensuke Sasaki Wilbur Snyder Yoshihiro Takayama Johnny "Mr. Wrestling II" Walker Tim "Mr. Wrestling" Woods Need more info: Masked Assassins (Jody Hamilton & Tom Renesto) Jose Lothario Lonnie Mayne Villano III Dr. Wagner Sr. I don't see your logic for Sting getting in and HHH not. I love Sting, but Sting was only a big draw for one year, and specifically for one match. He was never a great worker, and wasn't a great promo guy. During the mid 90s when WCW was desperate for star power and someone to carry the torch, Sting never drew them any money and never got any big gates attendances. He was very popular and was involved in some meorable storylines. However he never carried the promotion to success or drew any big money for them until the Crow angle. And HHH, hate him or love him, was a big draw for the WWE post-Rock era. And mainevented many sell-outs PPVs and househows, gets huge buyrates, and was one of the most successful WWE champions ever. Was a great worker in his prime, and was involved in numerous memorable angles. I don't even mind Sting that much if you had HHH in it too. But Sting being in it, and HHH not, I don't see how that's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Sting also outdrew HHH in that one year since HHH has never drawn aside from 2000 and even then it was all about the Rock. HHH has been on top while the WWF has continued to fall money, ratings and buyrate wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Right. Sting never actively sent the company into a decline, and I blame HHH about 90% for the end of the wrestling boom. There are guys like Hulk Hogan in the Hall of Fame that also caused the end of a wrestling boom (in WCW), but honestly, I don't see how someone like HHH's case is a hell of a lot stronger than that of Kevin Nash. Yes, HHH has been a more consistent headliner for a longer period of time, and yes, WWE has managed to avoid losing money by running an impractically lean operation during his time on top, but Sting never actively damaged the company he worked for. HHH has done that for five years now. HHH has headlined some big money shows, but ever year he's been on top has been worse than the one before it for the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Is the other 10% Stephanie McMahon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dorian Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Just for humor and so I can get hated for this, here's what I have to say about Sting and HHH for HoF. 1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in his country or his promotion? Sting and HHH were both respectively a top draw for their company for a brief period of their careers. Neither though were the best draw in their country (although Sting has a case for the NWO angle) nor the best draws in the world. 2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw? Sting and HHH both were international draws. Yes. 3. How many years did he have as a top draw? Sting had a few good years, while HHH had one. 4. Was he ever regarded as the best worker in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best worker in his country or in his promotion? While neither man was ever the best at in-ring work or promo work, HHH for his one year was at the top of his game and seemingly could put on some damn good matches with anyone. So at one time he was at the top of his promotion. 5. Was he ever the best worker in his class (sex or weight)? Was he ever one of the top workers in his class? Sting, no. HHH during his one year was one of the top workers. 6. How many years did he have as a top worker? HHH for one year. 7. Was he a good worker before his prime? Was he a good worker after his prime? Sting and HHH both were good workers before their primes but never really took it to that next step. Both men slagged off badly after their prime (more specifically HHH, since he only had one good year). 8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents? Sting and HHH both have some excellent matches, however against quite often the same opponents. 9. Did he ever anchor his promotion(s)? Sting at one time was the anchor of his promotion during his war against NWO, and HHH did manage to successfully anchor the WWF during his one year good run. 10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards? During their periods of being on top yes, but after the hotbed was over, neither man could keep up on top of the card (through political manuveuring [sting] or just flat out slagging [HHH]). 11. Was he valuable to his promotion before his prime? Was he still valuable to his promotion after his prime? Both men were quite the comodity before their prime, but afterwards either man could be written off. 12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs? No, both men had a single run at the top that was strong. 13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines? Both men had memorable rivalries, feuds, and storylines. 14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles? During their hot periods and before them, both men were good at what they did. However, after those, both men drastically dropped off in quality. 15. Did he play his role(s) effectively during his career? Sting effectively played the "crow" gimmick out well. HHH played out his gimmicks well up until the point that he came back from injury and then just did a poor man's Ric Flair. 16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of the reigns? I can't look up at the reigns right now, but both men had some pretty bland title reigns really. HHH's one year run literially was him not having the belt most of the time (funny that, eh?). 17. Did he win many honors and awards? Neither did that I can recall, again something I can't look up due to I'm speeding through this. 18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to his wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? HHH is only featured currently because he's the boss's son-in-law, so not really. Sting didn't get much exposure due to the NWO angle screwing him over. 19. Was he a top tag team wrestler? Neither man was. 20. Was he innovative? Neither man was. 21. Was he influential? Sting was quite influential in making the NWO angle work. HHH was also influential during his DX days as well as his transformation into the Game. 22. Did he make the people and workers around him better? Neither man really did. 23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling? Both men are/were commited to the wrestling business. Sting did what was best for his promotion, while HHH thinks he is but isn't. 24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared? Sting was probably better than he appeared but was oftenly screwed over by politics. HHH is better than he appears but oftenly would go out of his way slag off if he felt the opponent wasn't up to his snuff. Personally, I wouldn't enter either man into the HoF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MJHimJfadeaway23 Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Sting also outdrew HHH in that one year since HHH has never drawn aside from 2000 and even then it was all about the Rock. HHH has been on top while the WWF has continued to fall money, ratings and buyrate wise. WWE has never lost money with HHH as there top draw. WCW was losing money in the MILLIONS yearly when Sting was on top. You can say HHH's situation was helped out cause of the promotional advantage WWE has over WCW, but how do you quantify how much of that impacted HHH's drawing power? I could easily say Sting's drawing power in 1997 was mostly do to the nWo and Hogan. I mean how many shows sold well because of Sting when he wasn't even being promoted to appear on a majority of the shows that year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 WWF lost money in 2002 during his big face run and his early vanity plate run. Money has also gone down consistently every year he's on top. Go read the investors thread where they stated that they'll be doing less shows in the United States due to no one coming. They've also stayed profitable by chopping whole limbs off business wise. Ratings, money, etc. also show no sign of decline when he's not around. That's not being a draw. There hasn't been a WWF draw since 2001. You can interchange anyone right now and make the same amount of money. But HHH has been a proven negative PPV draw as he's headlined some of the worst buyrates in WWF history. Sting on the otherhand drew fistfulls of money just by walking around the rafters and pointing a baseball bat at people for over a year. He also headlined the biggest drawing WCW event ever with Starcade 97. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 While neither man was ever the best at in-ring work or promo work, HHH for his one year was at the top of his game and seemingly could put on some damn good matches with anyone. I personally think Triple H migh have been a smarter worker when he came back, but his ability to physically push himself, speed, and the quality of his opponents had fallen a bit. I think Triple H's carrying ability during that whole year is pretty overrated; look at who he was wrestling against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dorian Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 WWE has never lost money with HHH as there top draw. WCW was losing money in the MILLIONS yearly when Sting was on top. You can say HHH's situation was helped out cause of the promotional advantage WWE has over WCW, but how do you quantify how much of that impacted HHH's drawing power? I could easily say Sting's drawing power in 1997 was mostly do to the nWo and Hogan. I mean how many shows sold well because of Sting when he wasn't even being promoted to appear on a majority of the shows that year?Actually 2000 was the only time HHH was raking in money. Other than that, he's been costing them a shitload currently. I didn't say Sting is much better, just up until he was beaten by Hogan he was raking in the dough for WCW. Which is more than HHH's one year (which wasn't really a year more like 8 months). However, both men benefitted more from strong storylines that they were attatched to, rather than from their own work. While neither man was ever the best at in-ring work or promo work, HHH for his one year was at the top of his game and seemingly could put on some damn good matches with anyone.I personally think Triple H migh have been a smarter worker when he came back, but his ability to physically push himself, speed, and the quality of his opponents had fallen a bit. I think Triple H's carrying ability during that whole year is pretty overrated; look at who he was wrestling against.While HHH was a smarter worker when he came back from his quad injury, he also began slowly to slack off on his work and it shows in his regular matches. Until the point of were he is today, in which he doesn't have to bring his work boots unless for that special occassion. Yes, he had a shitload of wrestlers that were talented, but during that single year, it wasn't a carry job like it nearly has to be nowadays (cause he slags). During that year he held his own with the best, having some of the greatest matches of his career and actually being an entertaining bastard on the top of the card. I mean, I wasn't a fucking mark for him back then for nothing. I re-watched those matches against Foley, Austin, Rocky, Taker, and yes, lots of talent there, but then again he also went out against Funaki, Hardy, and put shows against lower talents too. But nowadays its like "why bother" for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Generally, I consider two things in Hall of Fame discussions... 1. What did this person do that sets them apart from their contemporaries? Dick Murdoch and the Andersons? What makes them stand out. There are dozens of good brawlers and tag teams. Why them and not any of the others? This is the absolute defining trait of any Hall of Fame. What did this person do that others did not. Similarity is a mark AGAINST Hall of Fame candidacy. Hall of Famers are standouts. Otherwise, when you elect too many lesser candidates, the field is flooded with wrestlers who have similar credentials to an existing Hall of Famer, and it just falls apart. 2. Am I absolutely sure of their selection, knowing it is irreversable? Tag teams are horrifically underrepresented, and that needs to change. Surely wrestling produces Hall of Fame caliber tag teams at a better rate than one every 20 years. I can't bring myself to vote for any of the MMA guys. It seems like competitors are candidates after a few big wins. Dominating a sport still in its infancy should not make one a Hall of Famer, especially this soon. We need perspective. If MMA outfits die out within the next few years (I don't know what their current state is, honestly), their inclusion would look quite silly. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Trips studying old AWA tapes of Ray Stevens during his quad tear instead of something actually useful is a big cause for his change...though I still debate whether he actually changed after the injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Some of these arguments against HHH are ridiculous. People are acting like he's to blame for business going down and not the fact WCW went out of business and wrestling lost half its audience. This whole "HHH had one good year" is silly too, he's become more selective in his performances to be sure but he can still put on a **** match when he wants to. I'll grant he came back too soon from the quad tear and it took a while for him to regain his form, but he's had some excellent performances since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Eh, I don't think it's so crazy. But I also don't think HHH has ever reached **** in his life. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 (1) I don't think HHH has ever had a **** match in his life. Several ***-**** ones, but nothing that looks outstanding. I'm not saying that to be elitist or unfair either, I'm just saying that I think the matches HHH has had that are heralded as classics with guys like Michaels, Rock, Foley, Austin and Jericho just aren't as great as they're made out to be. (2) HHH has never been the best worker in the company at any point. Austin, Rock and X-Pac were better in '98, Rock and Jericho better in '99, Rock, Benoit and others possibly better in '00, he was abysmal in 2002-2003 and in 2004, Eddy Guerrero was head and shoulders above him, and probably Benoit and Michaels too. (3) Wrestling lost half of its audience, but WWE's audience has also dwindled considerably. In actuality, ratings should have gone *up* when WCW died, but they went down. The core WWE audience has shrunk in his time on top. HHH has had on-again, off-again periods of drawing, largely based on his opponent and the fact that he became a headliner in a boom period for his company. The more they centered things around him, the worse off the company became. I actually don't think HHH regressed as much as he's been accused of post-injury, but rather that his flaws were more noticeable because the babyfaces had lost so much heat, largely thanks to him going over all of them so many times. In 2000, HHH's matches *seemed* better because there was more suspense and the possibility of him losing (both the match and his spot) was plausible -- now it's not. I would venture to say that only HHH's feuds with Austin and Rock have been draws based on the feud itself -- the rest of his big numbers have come either when WWE was touring internationally (which can be attributed to the company brand name) or when he was headlining a Wrestlemania (which has always drawn). He may have something in his favor if Vengeance posts an enormous buyrate, but the average-below average numbers he's posted against Benoit, Michaels, Jericho, Hogan and Batista on non-big five PPVs shows that the feuds themselves weren't really the draw as much as the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Once I get the final attendance numbers for some shows, my Gordy List for Carlos Colon will (finally) be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts