cm funk Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 The "Pacific/other" category isn't ideal, but I think it's for the best. Puerto Rico may be a US territory, but it's very removed from the United States. It's just as close to South America as it is to the tip of Florida. If it goes with North America, why not Australia/New Zealand with Great Britain in a British Commonwealth category? Why not throw Canada in there too? Why not Mexico as part of North America? I think the divisions are as good as you can hope for right now. And for Colon, his best chance to get in is from this category. If a strong candidate emerged from South Korea or India down the road would you include them with Japan in a larger Asia category? Unless puro just dies they'd have no chance. In a misc. category they'd get a fairer look Also on the non-wrestlers it looks like everyone just canibalized votes from each other. That's going to be a tough category in the future because there's no real consensus on anyone but lots of people with pockets of support. Then you get Weston added and splitting the vote with Apter essentially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Was going to start a separate thread for this but apparently I don't have thread starting permission found this interesting from Dave: Punk is far from a lock, as to me he needs more years on top. He talks of retiring early and is constantly battling injuries at this stage of his career. Bryan also needs more years, and I sense he'll be around as long as he physically can, but one wonders how he'll be booked. I sense Punk will be a headliner for years just because his mic skills can't be denied. Bryan will also be a strong character, but it's harder to predict how he'll navigate the political waters when his turn on top registered the way it did. Doesn't sound high on either as candidates right now Bryan is surprising to me what with his WON credentials. Most Outstanding 5 years in a row. Best technical 8 years in a row! A WON MOTY (v. Morishima, 2007). If these awards matter at all shouldn't he be a virtual lock when he hits the ballot in 2016? Similarly Punk has 2 matches rated ***** by Meltzer (with Joe in ROH, MITB 11 with Cena), which is pretty rare for modern North American wrestling. And unlike Bryan he's had a 2+ year stretch of being a top headliner, 3 PPV main events in 09, and the longest WWE title reign since Hogan. Doing a glance at Meltzer's star ratings in recent years (09-13) and Punk and Bryan consistently show up among his highest rated WWE matches, where getting ****+ is rare. Not to mention all the snowflakes he threw at them in ROH. Now, I wouldn't vote for either til further down the road as Bryan should have many more years ahead of him, and Punk may or may not. But Dave doesn't have that issue with some candidates (Tanahashi) who are heavily pimped on work (and I know the argument is also that Tanahashi is a big draw now, but I remain on the fence a bit) so I found his "wait and see" stance on these two a bit puzzling. Especially on Bryan with how heavily decorated he is in Observer awards. I cosidered maybe that Dave is looking at Edge, someone he supports and always rated highty, not getting in and thinking, "these two haven't done close to as much as them in modern WWE, so the bar is set," possibly? As well as Batista and Jeff Hardy falling off the ballot so quickly? We know it's practically impossible to prove almost anyone but Cena and attitude era names a draw in WWE over the last decade, because they push one guy as THE guy and the rest is the brand. Is this a topic worthy of it's own debate? There's already enough stuff going on in here I thought I thought it should be separate from the 2013 stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 We talked some about Punk and Bryan on the podcast. I wouldn't vote for either guy myself, but I think it is going to be really hard to seriously argue against Bryan, if you were someone pushing Tanahashi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Dave utterly burying Dr. Wagner Sr. on the HOF podcast today was something. I don't think I've ever heard a more qualified "endorsement" of the voters decision from Dave than that one. Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 What did he say about Wagner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Dave utterly burying Dr. Wagner Sr. on the HOF podcast today was something. I don't think I've ever heard a more qualified "endorsement" of the voters decision from Dave than that one. Jesus. Good thing Cien Caras didn't go in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 What did he say about Wagner? Basically "well he got in, I saw him live and he was okay, but nothing special a all. His kid is better." Obviously not a direct quote but that was essentially the gist of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I don't think I deserve a HOF ballot. I'm far more interested in match quality and booking/working theory than I am wrestling history. That's not to say I don't enjoy wrestling history. It's just not something I'm nearly as interested in as talking about the quality of matches. Now, a wrestling match HOF I could absolutely get behind, and that could be really, really interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I don't think I deserve a HOF ballot. I'm far more interested in match quality and booking/working theory than I am wrestling history. That's not to say I don't enjoy wrestling history. It's just not something I'm nearly as interested in as talking about the quality of matches. Now, a wrestling match HOF I could absolutely get behind, and that could be really, really interesting. Wrestling needs another Hall of Fame like I need a hole in my head. A wrestling match HoF, that would just be circular arguments as it's purely based on someone's perception unless we are taking things like how much a match drew at the gate and other tangible data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 What did he say about Wagner? Basically "well he got in, I saw him live and he was okay, but nothing special a all. His kid is better." Obviously not a direct quote but that was essentially the gist of it That's odd. But I agree that Wagner Jr. has got a better HOF case than his dad. Of course I didn't vote for him as we still have to see if his own stupidity doesn't kill what could be one of the 10 most historical mask vs mask matches in history if he ever faces Park, and if he then wins, he could drop his mask to Santo or somebody else in another mega-match. And to reference to a jdw post from a few pages back: poor Cien Caras but if he was paired with his brothers as a trio I think that it would make it even WORSE for him. Today I spoke to Dr. Lucha and next year we'll tag team to produce some stuff on some of the candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 5571185[/url]'] Was going to start a separate thread for this but apparently I don't have thread starting permission found this interesting from Dave: Punk is far from a lock, as to me he needs more years on top. He talks of retiring early and is constantly battling injuries at this stage of his career. Bryan also needs more years, and I sense he'll be around as long as he physically can, but one wonders how he'll be booked. I sense Punk will be a headliner for years just because his mic skills can't be denied. Bryan will also be a strong character, but it's harder to predict how he'll navigate the political waters when his turn on top registered the way it did. Doesn't sound high on either as candidates right now Bryan is surprising to me what with his WON credentials. Most Outstanding 5 years in a row. Best technical 8 years in a row! A WON MOTY (v. Morishima, 2007). If these awards matter at all shouldn't he be a virtual lock when he hits the ballot in 2016? Similarly Punk has 2 matches rated ***** by Meltzer (with Joe in ROH, MITB 11 with Cena), which is pretty rare for modern North American wrestling. And unlike Bryan he's had a 2+ year stretch of being a top headliner, 3 PPV main events in 09, and the longest WWE title reign since Hogan. Doing a glance at Meltzer's star ratings in recent years (09-13) and Punk and Bryan consistently show up among his highest rated WWE matches, where getting ****+ is rare. Not to mention all the snowflakes he threw at them in ROH. Now, I wouldn't vote for either til further down the road as Bryan should have many more years ahead of him, and Punk may or may not. But Dave doesn't have that issue with some candidates (Tanahashi) who are heavily pimped on work (and I know the argument is also that Tanahashi is a big draw now, but I remain on the fence a bit) so I found his "wait and see" stance on these two a bit puzzling. Especially on Bryan with how heavily decorated he is in Observer awards. I cosidered maybe that Dave is looking at Edge, someone he supports and always rated highty, not getting in and thinking, "these two haven't done close to as much as them in modern WWE, so the bar is set," possibly? As well as Batista and Jeff Hardy falling off the ballot so quickly? We know it's practically impossible to prove almost anyone but Cena and attitude era names a draw in WWE over the last decade, because they push one guy as THE guy and the rest is the brand. Is this a topic worthy of it's own debate? There's already enough stuff going on in here I thought I thought it should be separate from the 2013 stuff As a member, you should be able to start threads. Hell, we let vonKramer start threads all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 What did he say about Wagner? Basically "well he got in, I saw him live and he was okay, but nothing special a all. His kid is better." Obviously not a direct quote but that was essentially the gist of it That's odd. But I agree that Wagner Jr. has got a better HOF case than his dad. Of course I didn't vote for him as we still have to see if his own stupidity doesn't kill what could be one of the 10 most historical mask vs mask matches in history if he ever faces Park, and if he then wins, he could drop his mask to Santo or somebody else in another mega-match. And to reference to a jdw post from a few pages back: poor Cien Caras but if he was paired with his brothers as a trio I think that it would make it even WORSE for him. Today I spoke to Dr. Lucha and next year we'll tag team to produce some stuff on some of the candidates. Excited about that. The Villano III bio you did needs to be spammed all over the voting universe next year. Curious as to why you see Wagner Jr as being a better candidate than his dad. This interests me for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it is one area where I think there has been a huge division among the really knowledgeable Lucha voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I don't think I deserve a HOF ballot. I'm far more interested in match quality and booking/working theory than I am wrestling history. That's not to say I don't enjoy wrestling history. It's just not something I'm nearly as interested in as talking about the quality of matches. Now, a wrestling match HOF I could absolutely get behind, and that could be really, really interesting. Wrestling needs another Hall of Fame like I need a hole in my head. A wrestling match HoF, that would just be circular arguments as it's purely based on someone's perception unless we are taking things like how much a match drew at the gate and other tangible data. Yes, and this thread has no circular arguments based on perception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilclown Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I think the idea of a Hall of Fame for matches is wacky enough for me to get behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I don't think I deserve a HOF ballot. I'm far more interested in match quality and booking/working theory than I am wrestling history. That's not to say I don't enjoy wrestling history. It's just not something I'm nearly as interested in as talking about the quality of matches. Now, a wrestling match HOF I could absolutely get behind, and that could be really, really interesting. Wrestling needs another Hall of Fame like I need a hole in my head. A wrestling match HoF, that would just be circular arguments as it's purely based on someone's perception unless we are taking things like how much a match drew at the gate and other tangible data. Yes, and this thread has no circular arguments based on perception. Just because it's happening here, doesn't mean I want more of the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilclown Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Just because it's happening here, doesn't mean I want more of the same. Any award given to art is based on people's perceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted November 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 What did he say about Wagner? Basically "well he got in, I saw him live and he was okay, but nothing special a all. His kid is better." Obviously not a direct quote but that was essentially the gist of it That's odd. But I agree that Wagner Jr. has got a better HOF case than his dad. Of course I didn't vote for him as we still have to see if his own stupidity doesn't kill what could be one of the 10 most historical mask vs mask matches in history if he ever faces Park, and if he then wins, he could drop his mask to Santo or somebody else in another mega-match. And to reference to a jdw post from a few pages back: poor Cien Caras but if he was paired with his brothers as a trio I think that it would make it even WORSE for him. Today I spoke to Dr. Lucha and next year we'll tag team to produce some stuff on some of the candidates. Excited about that. The Villano III bio you did needs to be spammed all over the voting universe next year. Curious as to why you see Wagner Jr as being a better candidate than his dad. This interests me for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it is one area where I think there has been a huge division among the really knowledgeable Lucha voters. I need to re-read my own Villano III bio. I was out of the loop for so long that I wouldn't remember most of that stuff anymore. But yeah, we will definitely re-work that one. I want to get some work done on Cien Caras. I think Steve votes for him too and considers him a no-brainer so we should be able to put together something strong. I may be personally biased on Wagner Jr. because he was one of my favourites for a while but except for a short time where Mistico was king, he's been almost consistently the biggest star in the country for more than a decade. Tremendous regional draw: I know "crowds drawn over XX,XXX" is a measurement used often when talking about HOF accomplishments but due to the way that the business in Mexico is set up, a guy that can consistently bring 3,000 people to Puebla, 5,000 to Tijuana or 2,000 in Torreon (I'm just kind of throwing in numbers just to explain my point) week after week is as valuable as anyone to the promotion. But to be completely fair, I haven't really done a lot of actual solid research on him so it's just a gut feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Just because it's happening here, doesn't mean I want more of the same. Any award given to art is based on people's perceptions. To me, art is anything that evokes a response. I am not going to kid myself and say that perception isn't a factor, of course it is. I post on here as I enjoy the debate by most people, but alas, there are certain posters than can turn a debate into a circular argument without backing down at all. It's that, that I don't enjoy, and I can see it happening if a HOF for matches came to fruition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I asked this in the thread for the latest WC podcast, but I will ask it here - has there ever been an ace with a spottier drawing record inducted into the HoF? On the surface I would argue Michaels, but his case wasn't entirely related to his run as an ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I need to re-read my own Villano III bio. I was out of the loop for so long that I wouldn't remember most of that stuff anymore. But yeah, we will definitely re-work that one. Is that online somewhere? A quick google search gave me a dead link. I think I found the Ray Mendoza one though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 I didn't realize that Matsunaga was going to be counted against the Japan standard (it does make sense) but it is a bit startling when you realize he actually got the second least number of votes among all non-wrestlers. I voted for him, but I didn't vote in the rest of Japan - I wonder how Dave counted that -- a higher bar for Japan or just a free vote? I threw my ballot up in twitter (@mookieghana) too. Edit: updated with Tamura #s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concrete1992 Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Wrestling match HOF??? That's almost outrageous! ... ... ... Meaning I would love to see it from this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanClingman Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 It doesn't matter that there is a ton of iPPV success. PPVs are PPVs. It's the medium that's different. NJPW is just taking advantage of a medium they didn't have before. That's not necessarily because of Tanahashi, especially considering that there have been plenty of iPPVs without him on top. I also think that some people are taking claims of numbers in the range of 100K with a massive grain of salt. John And while it's impressive if it's legit, I do find myself wondering if they would've done similar numbers proportionate to the overall level of business if such a service was available years earlier. Obviously it's an unfair comparison, but IMO there's a pretty decent argument for it just being proof that the market was always there and was untapped due to the lack of cable/satellite penetration, which would say more about the technology than anything else. The technology debate is a very difficult one, whilst this is a localized region you could make similar cases for traditional PPV, TV, merchandising etc. The fact of the matter is that New Japan was able to create a revenue stream for themselves from something that wasn't there in the past, and they used Tanahashi among others to turn that new revenue stream into a major one that is able to effect their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted November 7, 2013 Report Share Posted November 7, 2013 Quick question for Mookieghana: Would it make sense to look at wrestlers as draws in term of standard deviations above or below their contemporaries? I'm still trying to find the right mix of factors to use to evaluate something like that, but yes - I think there could be merit to that approach. Honestly, I think it's the sort of thing where three or four passes on "drawing power" are probably required and if someone shows up on most/all of those passes, that's a strong argument for them. I did a thing once where I plotted WWF/WCW Champs against average House Show attendance 1991-2001: https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharringt...cs/avghouseshow Like many charts, it's interesting but I don't know if I can draw a meaningful conclusion to it... .yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.