WON HOF 2013 discussion

[Dylan Waco]

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.

 

Really? I have never heard of this before.

[W2BTD]

Also pretty obvious that Dave votes for Jarrett, which as an aside i'd be curious to know why people would vote no on him. He strikes me as a no brainer.

[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.

 

Really? I have never heard of this before.

 

Yup. From the ballot itself:

 

"The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked."

[Dylan Waco]

As Dave mentioned and has been discussed here before I think Jarrett suffers a ton from the fact that he was a shit payoff guy as I would guess he pulls little from wrestlers. Then there are some historians who are more "purists" in their thinking and aren't likely to vote for any candidate responsible for Memphis style wrestling. I am sure others have their reasons. John doesn't vote for him if I remember correctly, so maybe he wants to weigh in.

[Dylan Waco]

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.

 

Really? I have never heard of this before.

 

Yup. From the ballot itself:

 

"The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked."

 

Okay but do we know if you check a category and vote for no one that it counts as a no vote against all of the above ?

[mookeighana]

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.

 

Really? I have never heard of this before.

 

Yup. From the ballot itself:

 

"The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked."

 

Okay but do we know if you check a category and vote for no one that it counts as a no vote against all of the above ?

 

Originally, when there was a paper ballot - you would actually check off things next to the categories. The opening statement "I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES" was essentially a Yes/No that you'd be answering. I don't know how others would handle it, but if I was doing that, I would just send Dave an email that said "X I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/PUERTO RICO CANDIDATES" and put "NONE OF THESE" under it for my email.

[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.

 

Really? I have never heard of this before.

 

Yup. From the ballot itself:

 

"The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked."

 

Okay but do we know if you check a category and vote for no one that it counts as a no vote against all of the above ?

 

That would be the implication, no?

 

He wants to know A.) What categories you are voting for, and B.) Who (if anyone) you are voting for.

 

Now, are the voters being meticulous enough to follow the instructions that implicitly? Are there voters who glance, at say, the Euro ballot, determine that nobody belongs, but don't bother to check the category, thus artificially inflating the percentages? I don't know.

 

All I know, is that I will be very clear on the three categories i'm voting on.

[Hollinger.]

I think his question is really "Is Dave too flighty to think to count all of the none votes against the category?" Which is totally reasonable.

[jdw]

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

There should be, but there's an easy way around that. If you don't think someone should be in (let's say Sakaguchi), then you vote for someone else in the category. If you think all are awful them you vote for the person least likely to get in. That's essentially a No vote for Sak.

 

With Japan, I'm not overly enthused about any of them. I tend to vote for Volk because I wouldn't have a problem with him getting in, but I've never been 100% he's worthy. So it's one where I don't think everyone is awful... but think Sak going in would be awful.

[jdw]

As Dave mentioned and has been discussed here before I think Jarrett suffers a ton from the fact that he was a shit payoff guy as I would guess he pulls little from wrestlers. Then there are some historians who are more "purists" in their thinking and aren't likely to vote for any candidate responsible for Memphis style wrestling. I am sure others have their reasons. John doesn't vote for him if I remember correctly, so maybe he wants to weigh in.

I've never found a compelling "Jarret was a great promoter" argument that can be separated from "Lawler was a massive star locally who had a special connection with the local fans and Jarrett happened to be the guy he got in bed with when it was time to deservedly fuck over Gulas." I mean... maybe there's an argument. But one tend to think that if one of the follow two things happened in say 1978:

 

* Lawler dropped dead

* Jarrett dropped dead

 

The the first would have killed the territory dead in about a month or two. The second one would have... well... hard to tell. Lawler effectively would have either been the promoter or selected who he wanted to do business with. It might screw everything up, or might now. Who knows.

 

That doesn't mean Jarrett was a shitty promoter. Or wasn't a good one. But I'm not entirely sure that Jarrett being the promoter Lawler chose to do business with is a HOF thing. :/

 

Style? I don't give a shit. When we got to Onita's picture when doing the Initial Class, I pushed hard on Onita's. Suspect Dave would have put him in if I wasn't involved, but I pushed hard for Onita and his style wasn't a negative even if I don't care for it.

[jdw]

Originally, when there was a paper ballot - you would actually check off things next to the categories. The opening statement "I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES" was essentially a Yes/No that you'd be answering. I don't know how others would handle it, but if I was doing that, I would just send Dave an email that said "X I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/PUERTO RICO CANDIDATES" and put "NONE OF THESE" under it for my email.

Was there a paper ballot? I never got a paper ballot. Seriously.

 

It's been e-mail forever. But he started doing "ballots" in 1998, and there was no ballot sent out. There just was the list in the middle of an issue of the WON. I have no idea how others did it, but I either typed up who I was voting for an faxed it to him... or just went through who I was voting for the next time we talked on the phone.

[KrisZ]

Lawler was going to break away from Jarrett in 1983 with Lance Russell going with him but they made amends in the end. That would've changed a lot of history for damn sure.

[Dylan Waco]

Since we have had other ballots posted I may as well ask - John, who are you voting for this year?

[jdw]

I never post my ballot. Heck, I don't think I ever talk to even Steve about everyone I vote for. A quirk. :/ Not trying to be a dick... just the way I've done it for more than a decade.

[KrisZ]

I'm really getting a feeling that Edge is going in this year from people I've talked to that have ballots that are in the business plus I think Batista is going to come closer than people think.

[Childs]

Dylan, you've rightly built your Patera case around drawing/star power. But I'm curious about the overall view of his in-ring ability. I really like his Backlund matches, and I'm no great fan of Backlund. But was he regarded as a capable worker from early in his career? Is his in-ring something that could hold him back with any of the wrestlers who vote?

[Dylan Waco]

You hear different things about his early years as a face. Some say he was bland but fine. Some say he sucked. Some say he was a good hand. There is no real consensus.

 

From the heel turn forward the majority of people you talk to seem to think he was at minimum a good worker. I've mentioned this before, but Matysik seems really high on him as a worker. Obviously he was great in 1980 which was the peak year we have enough on tape to document.

[KrisZ]

Once Patera changed his body he became a much better worker and at his peak was one of the top tier guys in North America.

 

Patera & Ivan have a lot of similarities regarding their careers and their bodies

[jdw]

Bruno vs Patera from Bruno's second reign:

 

http://www.wwe.com/videos/madison-square-g...171977-25058984

 

Date is wrong on it. It's January 17, 1977.

 

So if one is interested in how Patera worked as a heel before his peak year in 1980, this is an example. There's a decent amount of Bruno out there to use as a comp.

[W2BTD]

I'm really getting a feeling that Edge is going in this year from people I've talked to that have ballots that are in the business plus I think Batista is going to come closer than people think.

I really can't fathom an argument for Edge.

 

I'm not voting for Batista either, but I totally understand why somebody would. Edge, I just don't get it.

[Log]

Do any of you guys think that Edge gets some credit based on his kayfabe credentials? The guys held like a million belts. Could that be coloring voters opinion on him?

[Cox]

Meltzer has said that Edge had a rep backstage for being one of the best guys at putting a match together, which you'd think would have manifested itself last year with a good showing among current wrestlers, but he failed to make the top ten in that group. In fact, he failed to make the top ten in any of the four voting quadrants last year (Current Wrestlers, Former Wrestlers, Reporters, or Historians) which makes me think he won't be getting in anytime soon, at least until he starts pulling in better numbers among one of those groups. He dropped last year from 46% to 37%, and hasn't done anything since last year to help his case, so I find it hard to believe he's going to receive a sudden surge of support to help him gain 23% of the vote. If anything, the 46% was probably a post-retirement bump and 37% is his true support range.

[mookeighana]

Regarding the ebb and flow of Edges support, I will say that I think Dave is expanding his base of voters so that ought to affect the results a bit. Also each year a single voter may find different reasons to support or abstain from supporting someone and I think it's going to vary every year. For instance, you're looking at the top ten overall and within each category I think you can start to mentally rank the candidates. Someone may put Edge far behind Cena but behind Batista. Last year, less support while this year it grows. I think he has a good rep as a hard worker and top brand champion which doesn't hurt. I expect his support with grow with the next three years.

[Timbo Slice]

I know there's arguments out there against how much a guy really draws in the modern age, but I never really saw Edge as a guy that people came to see more than anyone else. Much like Sasaki, there were always guys on the card that were the focal points, even if they high up on the card or even in the main event. I think I weigh drawing power more than other things when it comes to HOF, and Edge wasn't really that big of a draw. Hell, even Trips said so the other week.

 

I don't see him as "top brand" champion, either. I saw him as a guy who was given the belt a lot as a transitional champ. In fact, here are his title reigns:

 

WWE Title

1) 1/8-1/29/06 (Cena cash-in, Cena wins it right back)

2) 7/3-9/17/06 (Where he won the belt after RVD was about be released, transitions to Cena after a couple months)

3) 11/23-12/14/08 (Hardy's surprise replacement in Triple Threat, wins and then loses to Hardy in Triple Threat w/Trips)

4) 1/25-2/15/09 (Wins No DQ vs. Hardy, Lost in Elimination Chamber, only to go to WHC EC and win)

 

World Heavyweight Championship

1) 5/8-7/17/07 (dropped due to injury)

2) 12/16/07-3/30/08 (Wins triple threat, sets up dropping belt to Taker)

3) 6/1-6/30/08 (CM Punk cash-in)

4) 2/15-4/5/09 (Jumps Kofi to take his place in EC, wins, loses to Cena in Triple Threat with Show)

5) 4/26-6/7/09 (Wins LMS vs. Cena, drops to Hardy in ladder match, CM Punk cash-in)

6) 12/19/10-2/15/11 (Wins Fatal 4-Way, stripped due to use of spear)

7) 2/15/11-4/12/11 (Beats Ziggler on same night to win title, vacates due to retirement)

 

So out of all of the WWE title reigns that Edge has, one was to establish the MITB usage, one was so that there was an easy transition to Cena after RVD was a bonehead, one was so that the belt went from Triple H to Hardy without Hardy actually pinning Trips, and then to establish him back on the SD brand...while Trips got his win back without pinning the guy who won the belt in the first place.

 

The WHC stuff is a bit better, where his first win could have really established him a lot better had he not gotten injured, and the second one set up him dropping the belt to Taker and the match went on last at WM. The rest of his reigns don't really do anything for me, especially the last two.

 

Edge seems to be a guy to me who is "HOF talent" because he was a guy who created a lot of big moments in garbage-style matches and has so much TV on him that people who liked his style would make him easy to get into. In his earlier days, he was a hard worker, but was never the top guy in a match, having the benefit of working with Rey, Eddy, Angle, Benoit and the like. He was a good hand, he was semi-popular, but he wasn't a HOF guy in the sense that the WON HOF looks for. However, because there's a lot of new voters whose viewing is limited to wrestling in the last 10-15 years (as brought up earlier), he seems like another Ultimo Dragon pick.

[Cox]

I do think Edge is probably going in at some point (much as I may not want it to happen) but it won't be this year. I think he has way too much ground to make up from last year. I do think he is going to get a bump up with Cena off the ballot and the lack of a can't-miss top guy being added to the US ballot, but I think asking Edge to gain about 40 votes from last year (after accounting for new ballots) is probably asking too much. My guess is his vote percentage will be around 45% this year.