WON HOF 2013 discussion

[mookeighana]

I just finished a large revamp of the WWWF/WWF/WWE database (1963-2013).

 

After spending a lot of time cleaning up names, I ran a little experiment. I looked at four variables: # of total matches, total attendance on all cards where I had attendance, total number of shows with 10,000 or more people, total number of matches where wrestler was in the same match as the world Champion. Again, this was just for WWWF/WWF/WWE but I thought it might provide some interesting comparison for the some of the candidates with strong WWE backgrounds such as Brock, Edge, Pedro, Owen, Slaughter, Hennig, Slaughter and Snuka. This methodology is going to skew some results since I don't have nearly as many attendance figures for the 60s and 70s as I do for the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

 

I took the current WON HOF and entered them as 1.0 for the variable. Everyone who was over 35 years old with at least a hundred matches in the database was entered with a 0.0. I removed everyone was on the ballot currently or under 35 years old. Only male wrestlers were included.

 

Regression Equation = 0.071745297 -0.000108284 *matches + 3.60933E-08xattendance -0.000322576x10k_houses+0.001103713*matches_with_world_champion

 

It's an interesting equation because it essentially punishes you for having tons of matches without being involved with the world champion. Guys with thousands of WWF matches that weren't top talent such as Baron Mikel Scicluna(0.02), Tony Garea(-0.06) or Johnny Rodz(-0.1) score quite lowly.

 

The attendance/10k+ houses number ends up being a positive variable. It plays strongly for HOF inductees such as Bret Hart, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Randy Savage, John Cena, Hulk Hogan.

 

In the end, among the people who aren't on the ballot and aren't inducted, the people in the top 30 who aren't being considered for the ballot were: Big Show(0.58), Glen Jacobs(0.53), JBL(0.39), Ultimate Warrior(0.33), Yokozuna(0.3), Alberto Del Rio(0.3), Mark Henry(0.29), Kevin Nash(0.27), Jeff Hardy(0.25), Booker T(0.24), Christian(0.2), Sid Vicious(0.2)

 

The people already inducted in the top 30 were: Bruno Sammartino(1.84), Hulk Hogan(1.17), John Cena(1.1), Bob Backlund(1.07), Triple H(1), Undertaker(0.84), Bret Hart(0.6), Randy Savage(0.58), Shawn Michaels(0.51), Chris Jericho(0.47), Rock(0.47), Kurt Angle(0.45), Steve Austin(0.44), Ric Flair(0.42), Rey Mysterio Jr(0.34), Superstar Billy Graham(0.31), Chris Benoit(0.28), Mick Foley(0.26)

 

 

Other HOF inductees that were in the 450+ person dataset were: Ted Dibiase, Vader, Eddie Guerrero, Killer Kowalski, Roddy Piper, Bill Miller, Road Warrior Hawk, Road Warrior Animal, Harley Race, Antonio Inoki, Bill Watts, Freddie Blassie Curtis Iaukea, Tatsumi Fujinami, Terry Funk, Stan Hansen, Jerry Lawler, Bobby Heenan, Andre the Giant, Bobo Brazil, Dusty Rhodes, Ernie Ladd, Ray Stevens, Ricky Steamboat, Johnny Valentine, Al Costello, Capt Lou Albano, Bruiser Brody, Pat Patterson, Dynamite Kid. Obviously, some of of these were inducted for the quality of their work or success in territories besides the narrow WWWF/WWF/WWE scope that I'm considering.

 

So, what does this equation say about the chances of the people on the ballot?

Here were their calculated values:

 

High

Edge(0.69)

Batista(0.68)

 

Medium

Pedro Morales(0.35)

Owen Hart(0.27)

Brock Lesnar(0.24)

Sgt Slaughter(0.23)

Gorilla Monsoon(0.22)

 

Low

Curt Hennig(0.16)

Ivan Koloff(0.14)

Spiros Arion(0.09)

Jesse Ventura(0.09)

Ken Patera(0.09)

Dick Murdoch(0.07)

Mario Milano(0.07)

Jimmy Snuka(0.06)

 

Again, this only looks at things through the lens of a single territory. However, I thought it was an interesting experiment, and I hope to replicate the results with AWA and JCP/WCW in the near future. Also, I think continues the case that at least Big Show should be given a chance on the ballot.

[Dylan Waco]

Looking at the results of that it looks like it is heavily slanted toward people from the modern era. That is one of the reasons I am so suspicious of numeric calculations being a basis for voting in and of itself (see Farmer's 10k plus attendance metric). It's not that it has NO value, but any metric that rates Koloff, Patera and Snuka below Del Rio, Sid and Booker is transparently flawed in my view.

[Dylan Waco]

Also on Big Show I suspect if you and others email Dave and ask to put him on he will but he's not going to put someone on the ballot who he thinks will get no votes. I like Big Show a lot and he was a part of some major shows and moments, but it would take a hell of a lot of convincing for me to see him as an HoFer

[evilclown]

My ballot:

 

I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES

Gene & Ole Anderson

Enrique Torres

 

I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES

Ivan Koloff

Ken Patera

Rock & Roll Express (Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson)

Mr. Wrestling II

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES

Volk Han

Kiyoshi Tamura

 

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES

 

ABSTAIN

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN EUROPE CANDIDATES

 

ABSTAIN

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/PUERTO RICO CANDIDATES

 

ABSTAIN

 

NON-WRESTLERS

Jerry Jarrett

Takashi Matsunaga

Gorilla Monsoon

Stanley Weston

[Dylan Waco]

Obviously I am thrilled you voted for Patera, and in general I agree with virtually all of your ballot, but I am curious as to why you chose to vote for Gorilla Monsoon? I don't think he's a terrible candidate, but I've never seen someone articulate a case for him

[JerryvonKramer]

Glad you went with Ivan in the end too.

[Cox]

How many voters have made their ballots public? Enough to do something like this?

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsst...ollecting_gizmo

[Dylan Waco]

Wrestlers almost never release their ballots and they vote much, much differently so I can't see that working.

 

There are several voters who have gone public with who they plan to vote for and a few who have released ballots. All total probably around fifteen or so.

 

Complete ballots of Dave Musgrave, Kurt Brown, Karl Stern, KrisZ, Bix (assuming he doesn't change his) and evilclown are the ones I know of off hand.

[shoe]

Dylan with all the work on results and championing of Patera . What % of the vote would you be really happy with?

[Dylan Waco]

First year I just want him to stay on the ballot. The toughest thing is convincing people that he belongs in the discussion because the perception of him is almost entirely based around the last little bit of his career, which is a tiny percentage, but the only thing that occurred post-boom.

 

Ultimately I think he should be in and I won't really be happy unless that happens, but it's not going to happen in the first year and very possibly might never happen. Still he has to stay on the ballot and then the vote total has to grow.

[pantherwagner]

I believe I posted intermediate ballots but not the final one. I ended up voting for Atlantis, switched Koloff with Bastien, and read enough on Weston to be sold on him.

 

I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES

Red Bastien

Enrique Torres

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES

Atlantis

Cien Caras

Karloff Lagarde

Blue Panther

Villano III

Dr. Wagner Sr.

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN EUROPE CANDIDATES

Big Daddy

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/PUERTO RICO CANDIDATES

Carlos Colon

 

NON-WRESTLERS

Jerry Jarrett

Takashi Matsunaga

Stanley Weston

[ohtani's jacket]

Why'd you vote for Daddy?

[pantherwagner]

Fame and longevity. I know the arguments against him, they have probably been discussed here as well as other places dozens of times. I feel he's just too strong of a figure not to include. For whatever it's worth, I'd have also voted for Martin Karadagian, whose career is fairly similar.

[cheapshot]

2013 is going to be Daddy's year! *crosses fingers*.

 

I know both sides of the argument have been exhausted so I am not going to add anything; however I BET if I stood in a random town/city centre and asked anyone over the age of 35 who the first wrestler that pops into their head - I'd say 80%+ would say Big Daddy in the first instance. That is the level of fame culturally he has.

[W2BTD]

I'd like to hear for/against for Stanley Weston/Bill Apter, or be pointed to evidence/arguments. I don't see these two discussed very often at length.

[mookeighana]

This year I was terribly surprised to discover Dave sent me a ballot.

 

I found it to be a really tough experience choosing; at times you can start to feel so overwhelmed that you almost feel bad voting or not voting for anyone. I really appreciate the passion and effort of everyone in this thread contributing some really good analysis & thoughts & anecdotes on why certain wrestlers were worthwhile.

 

After a month of crunching some numbers in my own way (warts and all), I finally decided to send my ballot in 3 days ago based on my thinking at that moment with my WWF-analysis bias firmly fueling my thinking.

 

Here was my ballot:

 

I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES

X Batista

X Edge

X Brock Lesnar

X Pedro Morales

X Dick Murdoch

X Rock & Roll Express (Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson)

X Sgt. Slaughter

 

NON-WRESTLERS

X Jimmy Hart

X Takashi Matsunaga

X Gene Okerlund

 

I didn't end up voting for Ivan or Patera but I do hope they stay on the ballot so I can give them several months of thoughts rather than trying to cram a whole year's worth of pondering into a couple weeks. I listened to the Karl Stern's HOF podcast after I submitted my ballot, and thought Dylan's Patera argument was compelling (which I'd read earlier, but hearing it again gave me another chance to process it) to give me pause.

 

Likewise, I don't know if I would vote for Edge or Pedro or Murdoch or Batista next year. I don't think Batista will do well; Edge will probably doing middling, but not terrific numbers except among his modern peers. Murdoch should pull the same numbers are before. I think Patera will stay on the ballot until next year. I believe this is R&R's year.

 

In the end, you're one voter among more than a hundred, and I tried to keep my impact narrow so I didn't dilute votes in Mexico, Japan or Historical categories where I may have favored one candidate, but I would essentially be casting non-votes for a lot of other people just by becoming part of the voters.

[mookeighana]

I'd like to hear for/against for Stanley Weston/Bill Apter, or be pointed to evidence/arguments. I don't see these two discussed very often at length.

You can read the thread over at wrestling classics - http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimate...=7;t=000546;p=1

 

There's some discussion about whether it should be Apter, Weston or jdw's discussion on whether a broader group like, "London Publishing" is more appropriate.

[Dylan Waco]

For those with WON subs there has been an interesting debate in Alan's forum about promoters, with Dave coming out as harshly against Don Owen calling him "average at best" as a promoter and saying people vote for him for the same reason they vote for Moolah. I can't speak to why people vote for Owen, but it's pretty clear Dave's position is that his promotion was too small time. I understand that position and can see a case for keeping promoters like that out, but was kind of shocked at how much of a joke Dave seems to see Owen as a candidate when Stu Hart got in by fiat and Heyman got in primarily as a promoter.

 

I was starting to get slightly more optimistic about Patera's chances of staying on the ballot, but the more I think about it the more I think he is definitely going to fall off. I think in a lot of ways it will be like last year with Rose (though I think Patera is a much better candidate) where I know virtually everyone who votes for him. I just can't see Patera pulling any real votes with modern wrestlers and it's unlikely he will do well with retired wrestlers either. There are a lot of people who seem receptive to him in the historians/reporters camp but I think a lot of them view him as a guy who is just below the cut off or they would vote for him if they had fifteen picks but they only have ten. Hopefully he survives this year. I really want to do some similar research with other guys (finishing The High Flyers, Valentine and to a much lesser degree Sarge who I actually have already started on) but I'm not going to waste my time either.

[JNLister]

How do people go about choosing which categories to vote in? I set myself a threshold this year that I'd only consider a category where I thought I had a good enough knowledge of at least 75% of candidates, which gave me modern US, Japan and Europe.

[W2BTD]

How do people go about choosing which categories to vote in? I set myself a threshold this year that I'd only consider a category where I thought I had a good enough knowledge of at least 75% of candidates, which gave me modern US, Japan and Europe.

I decided to be ultra conservative my first time out. I stuck with US/Canada, Japan, & non-wrestler, categories where I was very well versed on just about everybody.

 

I stayed away from everything else because like others have said, even though there are people I think deserve to be voted for (Colon, for example), it's not fair for me to vote for them because i'd be hurting the others in the category who I know little or nothing about.

 

I'll probably vote Mexico next year. I am well versed on the workrate end, but wasn't comfortable enough on the culture or drawing power of the candidates to place what I feel were well informed votes. By next year, i'll be better prepared because I plan to really dig deep. I don't have the time for that this year with a few weeks notice.

[mookeighana]

How do people go about choosing which categories to vote in? I set myself a threshold this year that I'd only consider a category where I thought I had a good enough knowledge of at least 75% of candidates, which gave me modern US, Japan and Europe.

Yeah - I assume that voters are smart enough to understand that whenever they essentially vote for one person in a category, they're in essence casting a no vote anyone else excluded. For categories that have less than a hundred voters (Europe and Pacific Islands - maybe Mexico) your non-vote are essentially 1% to 2% off the total count which isn't an inconsequential amount.

 

To your question, I might have a slightly lower tolerance - say, 60%, but I think the threshold for me would be strong understanding of at least a third of the candidates, and an good knowledge of at least half of them (or the circumstances - promotion or timeframe - they were popular in.)

[Dylan Waco]

Am I crazy for thinking there should be a "None of The Above" option in each category?

[W2BTD]

For those with WON subs there has been an interesting debate in Alan's forum about promoters, with Dave coming out as harshly against Don Owen calling him "average at best" as a promoter and saying people vote for him for the same reason they vote for Moolah. I can't speak to why people vote for Owen, but it's pretty clear Dave's position is that his promotion was too small time. I understand that position and can see a case for keeping promoters like that out, but was kind of shocked at how much of a joke Dave seems to see Owen as a candidate when Stu Hart got in by fiat and Heyman got in primarily as a promoter.

For me, Dave didn't really shed a ton of new light on Owen. I'm still voting for him. Most of what he said I already knew. The longevity can't be ignored, even if some guys (most of whom i'd vote for, too) made more money.

 

My issue with the Crockett's is still where you draw the line between the two. I'm not sure if individually they are worthy, but as a collective I think i'd vote for them. Voting for Owen and not either Crockett isn't really saying you think Owen was a better promoter, I think for a lot of people it's saying we don't know how to treat the Crockett's as separate entities. I know that's the case for me, so i'm probably just leaving both off this year because that category is loaded anyway.

[W2BTD]

Am I crazy for thinking there should be a "None of The Above" option in each category?

There is. You can choose a category, and then vote for nobody if you feel none of them are worthy. This is different than not choosing the category and not being counted as part of the voting field.

[Dylan Waco]

I pretty much agree with you. What bothered me the most was that Dave ignored the things about Owen that set him apart from his dad and other promoters in his reply. I just want more particulars on the Crockett's and while I think Dave provided some, it's not at all what I would call a complete picture.