WON HOF 2013 discussion

[JerryvonKramer]

This seems like an effective promotional tactic for said podcast.

[W2BTD]

There IS a debate that he is not the best big match worker in the world. Wrestling match quality is subjective. You cant have it both ways and say we worship at the alter of El Dandy, Buddy Rose, etc and then accept no possible explanation of another answer. Just as I type that you admit that it is all subjective so what are you arguing exactly.

That is indeed my opinion, and that is indeed subjective.

 

What is NOT subjective, is the idea that Rose (who I am only using as the example because that was one of the the examples presented here by KrisZ and it was backed up by others) would be a "first ballot" guy if judged on workrate alone. That statement is just flat out false. Because there have been people who have gotten in largely on workrate alone, and Rose not only did not make it when he was on the ballot, but if fact garnered such little support that he was booted from the ballot altogether.

 

We'll know later today, but my assertion is that the voters at large are more open to Tanahashi's work in terms of being HOF caliber than somebody like Rose. That is not opinion. That is fact. Can't be argued. Because Rose had his shot, and didn't come close. In the eyes of the voters, he is not some legendary worker. Nothing subjective about that. He just isn't. The results speak for themselves. And Tanahashi is likely either getting in, or coming close. This despite not having any sort of slam dunk drawing record in the eyes of most, and generally being considered a workrate candidate.

 

Saying Rose or Regal or Dundee would be first ballot guys based on workrate is not understanding the voting patterns and the types of workers the voters tend to prefer when work is the primary strength of the candidate. I couldn't have been more clear that my personal opinions of those guys are irrelevant. One I like, one I REALLY like, and one I don't care for at all. None of that matters in relation to the point i've been trying to make.

 

And of course there is some opinionated stuff in that rant, because, well, it's my show and i'm giving my opinion. If the above wasn't clear, sorry. I thought I pounded that home when I listened back, but maybe not.

[cheapshot]

To be fair though, not all Rose footage was as freely available for consumption in 1996 as it is today.

[soup23]

There IS a debate that he is not the best big match worker in the world. Wrestling match quality is subjective. You cant have it both ways and say we worship at the alter of El Dandy, Buddy Rose, etc and then accept no possible explanation of another answer. Just as I type that you admit that it is all subjective so what are you arguing exactly.

That is indeed my opinion, and that is indeed subjective.

 

What is NOT subjective, is the idea that Rose (who I am only using as the example because that was one of the the examples presented here by KrisZ and it was backed up by others) would be a "first ballot" guy if judged on workrate alone. That statement is just flat out false. Because there have been people who have gotten in largely on workrate alone, and Rose not only did not make it when he was on the ballot, but if fact garnered such little support that he was booted from the ballot altogether.

 

We'll know later today, but my assertion is that the voters at large are more open to Tanahashi's work in terms of being HOF caliber than somebody like Rose. That is not opinion. That is fact. Can't be argued. Because Rose had his shot, and didn't come close. In the eyes of the voters, he is not some legendary worker. Nothing subjective about that. He just isn't. The results speak for themselves. And Tanahashi is likely either getting in, or coming close. This despite not having any sort of slam dunk drawing record in the eyes of most, and generally being considered a workrate candidate.

 

Saying Rose or Regal or Dundee would be first ballot guys based on workrate is not understanding the voting patterns and the types of workers the voters tend to prefer when work is the primary strength of the candidate. I couldn't have been more clear that my personal opinions of those guys are irrelevant. One I like, one I REALLY like, and one I don't care for at all. None of that matters in relation to the point i've been trying to make.

 

And of course there is some opinionated stuff in that rant, because, well, it's my show and i'm giving my opinion. If the above wasn't clear, sorry. I thought I pounded that home when I listened back, but maybe not.

 

You didn't clarify this well enough. I agree with your above crux and think its one of the better talking points you have raised. Rose was on the ballot and dropped after one year. Done deal. Now, questions can be raised on who voted for him and I do think there is some flawed selection in HOF voters and how they can be arbitrarily selected by Dave. In addition, I do think there is some voters who give little to no thought on who they vote for. This is natural of any HOF though, and I don't think there is realistically a perfect system as of yet to remedy this problem.

 

I think you are getting too hung up on the Rose, Dundee talking point without acknowledging the "Tanahashi is the best big match worker" one. In the podcast you state that you hate Dundee and would rather have your face lit on fire than watch one of his matches. I could make that same claim about Tanahashi and since you didn't offer any analysis on the reason you dislike Dundee, we are in the same boat. Thinking Tanahashi is the best big match worker in the world and is a top 5 all timer in that regard is one thing, but both Rich and yourself dismissed the notion initially that any other person could be compared to him. You flat out said that was wrong before we had some backpeddling with discussion on Daniel Bryan and the subjective argument.

 

I think the Rose/Dundee point has been somewhat validated but sometimes in arguments you have to decide whether intangible statements can have a counterpoint. I think a comparison of Tanahashi's two year run in direct competition with other big match workers from which you have watched a vast arrangement of would be fascinating and not nearly as dismissed as you allude to it being.

[evilclown]

And of course there is some opinionated stuff in that rant, because, well, it's my show and i'm giving my opinion. If the above wasn't clear, sorry. I thought I pounded that home when I listened back, but maybe not.

If you really wanted to further the discussion you would have invited one of us on your podcast to discuss.

 

What is NOT subjective, is the idea that Rose (who I am only using as the example because that was one of the the examples presented here by KrisZ and it was backed up by others) would be a "first ballot" guy if judged on workrate alone.

How do you possibly know that? I agree that you are likely right. But, considering the "first ballot" performers were selected by fiat and that no one has been elected exclusively for workrate, I think it's safe to say we don't know for sure who would be elected with that as the lone criteria.

 

I will say this: I am glad the initial class went in without leaving it in the hands of the voters. If it was up to Dave's personally selected voters it would be a Hall full of guys from the 80's to the present and a handful of older guys they vaguely recall reading or hearing about.

[JerryvonKramer]

There should be a little box on the ballot that says something like "have you seen enough footage of this guy to make a call" and the percentage should only be taken from those who mark "yes".

 

With historical candidates replace "footage" with data / information.

 

System is too flawed otherwise.

[W2BTD]

There should be a little box on the ballot that days something like "have you seen enough footage of this guy to make a call" and the percentage should only be taken from those who mark "yes".

 

With historical candidates replace "footage" with data / information.

 

System is too flawed otherwise.

There is a little box on the ballot for that. You vote on the categories you feel comfortable & knowledgeable enough to vote in.

 

Now, do all of the voters take the ballot as seriously as one another and police themselves? The answer is very likely no.

[JerryvonKramer]

But the categories are wide aren't they? As Chad outlined.

[evilclown]

But the categories are wide aren't they? As Chad outlined.

Yes. The same guy who is an expert on Tanahashi also has to be an expert when it comes to the Sharpe Brothers and Sakaguchi.

[soup23]

Categories are way to wide and force unnatural comparisons. This along with the age of inductees and voting requirements are my biggest complaints with the process.

 

I am not entirely comfortable comparing the Sharpe Brothers to Tanahashi as candidates ( I have argued before that match quality and structure can be compared) but when they are in the same category and you are a voter in said category, then you are forced to do so given your limit of 10 votes for wrestlers.

[JerryvonKramer]

That's a problem. You might as well ask a group of kids to pick between Toy Story and DW Griffiths's Intolerance. One of those choices has no chance of a fair vote.

[KrisZ]

I just love that you are taking personal shots at guys like Dundee & Rose it shows your pettiness in this whole debate. I've watched Tanahashi since his debut and have been a big fan of him over the years and I would never say anything like that about him even if I didn't like him.

 

To say you would rather set your face on fire than watch a Dundee match is asinine and shallowminded plus you are denying yourself of watching one of the all-time greats perform.

[goodhelmet]

Among those who worked with Buddy Rose, he IS universally acknowledged as one of the great wrestlers. He is also acknowledged to be one of the biggest assholes who ever entered the business by those same people. It was confirmed that at least one voter in the business refused to vote for him based on his reputation backstage and not on his abilities as a wrestler or his drawing ability. In fact, said person had never met Buddy, just heard stories. That was enough.

[W2BTD]

I just love that you are taking personal shots at guys like Dundee & Rose it shows your pettiness in this whole debate. I've watched Tanahashi since his debut and have been a big fan of him over the years and I would never say anything like that about him even if I didn't like him.

 

To say you would rather set your face on fire than watch a Dundee match is asinine and shallowminded plus you are denying yourself of watching one of the all-time greats perform.

Never took a personal shot at Rose, and as i've stated I enjoy Rose.

 

I don't like Dundee as he is pretty much the antithesis of what I enjoy in my fake fighting. I've sat though enough Dundee over the years to be 100% certain in that opinion. I don't know what to tell you. We all like different things, this is part of the reason I don't see the point in strongly trying to turn people on Tanahashi's work beyond my personal opinions of him. I feel like that sort of thing goes nowhere, because there is nothing anybody can ever say to me to "turn" me on a guy like Dundee. I've seen enough of his stuff to know I don't like it, and he's not exactly churning out new stuff these days to change my mind.

 

The face on fire stuff is just being over the top and goofy and is no different than what somebody like Dylan does when he reviews stuff and makes some outlandish analogy. Sorry if you took it personal or whatever. It's not that serious.

[WingedEagle]

Looking forward to catching up on this thread next week. Avoiding until then so that I can crack the WON without spoilers when it arrives.

[cheapshot]

Looking forward to catching up on this thread next week. Avoiding until then so that I can crack the WON without spoilers when it arrives.

So, you get the Observer via post still? Just out of curiosity why do you do this?

 

Rovert kindly told me that the HoF issue should hopefully land between 5pm - 1am EST.

[WingedEagle]

Call me old school or crazy, but I enjoy having and keeping a hard copy. I also like being able to flip back to past issues. Someone here was helpful in providing a template for formatting it if I wanted to subscribe online and print them, but haven't made that leap yet.

[cheapshot]

Call me old school or crazy, but I enjoy having and keeping a hard copy. I also like being able to flip back to past issues. Someone here was helpful in providing a template for formatting it if I wanted to subscribe online and print them, but haven't made that leap yet.

I was just going to suggest that, if only to save you a few bucks. It may of been Lister who created the template for formatting.

 

I have a huge box full of WON's from 1997-2004 that is just collecting dust, I'd probably revisit them if they were online (which to be honest Jan 1997 will be in a few months). I can understand the appeal of having a physical copy though.

[evilclown]

Call me old school or crazy, but I enjoy having and keeping a hard copy. I also like being able to flip back to past issues. Someone here was helpful in providing a template for formatting it if I wanted to subscribe online and print them, but haven't made that leap yet.

I was just going to suggest that, if only to save you a few bucks. It may of been Lister who created the template for formatting.

 

I have a huge box full of WON's from 1997-2004 that is just collecting dust, I'd probably revisit them if they were online (which to be honest Jan 1997 will be in a few months). I can understand the appeal of having a physical copy though.

 

If you have a complete-ish set, I'll take them off your hands....

[cheapshot]

Call me old school or crazy, but I enjoy having and keeping a hard copy. I also like being able to flip back to past issues. Someone here was helpful in providing a template for formatting it if I wanted to subscribe online and print them, but haven't made that leap yet.

I was just going to suggest that, if only to save you a few bucks. It may of been Lister who created the template for formatting.

 

I have a huge box full of WON's from 1997-2004 that is just collecting dust, I'd probably revisit them if they were online (which to be honest Jan 1997 will be in a few months). I can understand the appeal of having a physical copy though.

 

If you have a complete-ish set, I'll take them off your hands....

 

I do, but I think the shipping wouldn't be worth it for you, UK based you see. Plus we got the copies FAXED over from Dave in the dark ages and the print quality of some of the UK distributors during this time was, let's just say, less than perfect. Still readable however.

[FedEx227]

I'll use this as a welcome of sorts, some of you guys know me through Twitter but I'm Rich Kraetsch (W2B's co-host on Voices of Wrestling). Thought this thread would be a good reason to finally register for the board.

 

If you've listened, I'm obviously not as nearly wound up with the issue of Tanahashi and have enjoyed the debate from afar.

[evilclown]

I do, but I think the shipping wouldn't be worth it for you, UK based you see. Plus we got the copies FAXED over from Dave in the dark ages and the print quality of some of the UK distributors during this time was, let's just say, less than perfect. Still readable however.

I see. I have a brother in London, but I'm not sure I could convince him to put them in his luggage instead of clothes on his next trip.

[soup23]

I would be interested Rich if you agree with the top five big match worker claim? Apologies if you mentioned it on the podcast, but I know you have really enjoyed the New Japan stuff this year so I was wondering where Tanahashi compares for you historically.

[FedEx227]

I would be interested Rich if you agree with the top five big match worker claim? Apologies if you mentioned it on the podcast, but I know you have really enjoyed the New Japan stuff this year so I was wondering where Tanahashi compares for you historically.

One of the big issues for me is I'm relatively new to the Japanese game. I was one of the morons who was hesitant because commentary was in a different language and I just never followed it so it was hard to dive in. I've been playing catch up the past 2-3 years and thanks to YouTube and iPPVs i've been able to watch a ton more and consume years worth of matches in relative quick time.

 

I'm not sure how comfortable I am saying top five big match worker of ALL TIME. I think he's certainly (really without a doubt actually) the best big match worker of this current era. Cena always rises to the occasion but I'd argue Tanahashi has better bigger matches than Cena and obviously has them with more regularity than a Michaels or Undertaker.

 

On the podcast I continued to bring up the idea of "era" vs. "all-time" and although these guys are voted groupings with guys from all eras, you still need to take into account era and that needs to be important. Tanahashi has dominated his "era", end of the story for me really. Absolutely been the top star, in the top promotion in Japan, having the consistently best matches. Maybe it doesn't stack up with 90s All Japan level, but that shouldn't really be the debate. He's doing the best he can possibly do, in the era that he's in.

 

To answer your original question though, not sure I can feel totally comfortable saying top five big match worker of all-time just because I haven't consumed or studied enough to say that — he certainly is the top big match worker of his era though. Very comfortable in saying that.

[Dylan Waco]

There IS a debate that he is not the best big match worker in the world. Wrestling match quality is subjective. You cant have it both ways and say we worship at the alter of El Dandy, Buddy Rose, etc and then accept no possible explanation of another answer. Just as I type that you admit that it is all subjective so what are you arguing exactly.

That is indeed my opinion, and that is indeed subjective.

 

What is NOT subjective, is the idea that Rose (who I am only using as the example because that was one of the the examples presented here by KrisZ and it was backed up by others) would be a "first ballot" guy if judged on workrate alone. That statement is just flat out false. Because there have been people who have gotten in largely on workrate alone, and Rose not only did not make it when he was on the ballot, but if fact garnered such little support that he was booted from the ballot altogether.

 

We'll know later today, but my assertion is that the voters at large are more open to Tanahashi's work in terms of being HOF caliber than somebody like Rose. That is not opinion. That is fact. Can't be argued. Because Rose had his shot, and didn't come close. In the eyes of the voters, he is not some legendary worker. Nothing subjective about that. He just isn't. The results speak for themselves. And Tanahashi is likely either getting in, or coming close. This despite not having any sort of slam dunk drawing record in the eyes of most, and generally being considered a workrate candidate.

 

 

 

 

I have a nightmare of an internet situation going on right now (road workers destroyed the infrastructure for the net that fuels my home) so I can't respond in anything approaching the detail I want to some of this. But I would like to note real quickly that I think Tanahashi as a work candidate that appeals more to WON voters is totally unknowable, but also something that we will probably have a skewed perspective of whether he gets in or not. Over at Classics Yohe talked him up based on a couple of matches and then said he would have voted him below the absolute first tier of Japanese HoF guys (for his top 100 project, not HoF) because he's obviously as important to this era or some such thing. This is Yohe, a guy who doesn't closely follow modern Japan and is getting most of his context directly from Dave (which he admits). Yohe who is also a huge advocate of drawing power being the key metric in HoF debates and he's talking up a guy as being the equal or superior as a candidate to guys like Choshu and Maeda - and yet Tanahashi has NEVER sold out Sumo Hall for a non-G1 show. Never. That's nuts. You mentioned Akiyama earlier, I'll be honest, I'd consider Jun much more strongly than Tanahashi because I think he was a better worker, but also because his drawing record - flawed as it has been at times and terrible as it may be in 2013 alone - is stronger as a body than Tanahashi's. Anyhow the point is that it's pretty obvious that Yohe might end up voting for a guy like Tanahashi in large part because of how his stardom has been portrayed in Japan by Dave, with the work as a nice addendum, not the other way around. And that's why the criticism of Tanahashi as a drawing card is relevant. He is a star. He is a draw of some note. He is not an HoF level draw by any metric that is sensible.

 

Also my big problem is with the notion that Tanahashi is a no brainer. Maybe this is just a linguistic issue, but to me there is exactly one no brainer from this era - John Cena. And even with him, he's not a no brainer in the way Hulk Hogan or Lou Thesz or Jim Londos were. To me a no brainer is someone who strongly checks off the categories in such a way where you can't even have an argument about him that doesn't melt into something where you are entirely playing devil's advocate. There are a lot of guys in the first class who I wouldn't even consider no brainers.