WON HOF 2013 discussion

[mookeighana]

One (very minor) limitation to mookieghana's formula described above is that it doesn't account for performance in the year which somebody gets into the Hall of Fame. I suspect a lot of people who voted for Tanahashi this year were taking at least a little and possible a lot of account of his 2013 work/drawing. That won't be reflected until this year's awards, at which point I suspect his "awards score" will improve dramatically.

I very much expect it.

 

2013 induction: Hiroshi Tanahashi (0.28) = after a huge year in NJPW, his score may dramatically rise when 2013 results are included

The other factor I could add in (but haven't yet) is a star rating (snowflake) count by person. I have a feeling that, along with adding match/feud statistics would probably also support some of the modern candidates in HOF.

 

I also think the formula I'm using might overweight tag teams (i.e. by putting outstanding wrestler/wrestler of the year and tag team of year on the same ground). Hence why guys like Marufuji or KENTA would show up super high.

[W2BTD]

EDIT: Wrong Thread.

 

That being said, the scores are interesting. Not surprised that Tanahashi and Sasaki had low scores.

Tanahashi is just barely under the 0.33 threshold for "low" scores at 0.28, and is going to clean up this year, with a good chance placing in no less than five categories, and will probably win at least two. There is also a good chance he'll have multiple placings in MOTY this year.

 

I think it's very likely he places in four of these, and could easily win the four marked*:

 

Wrestler of the Year*

Most Outstanding*

Most Charismatic*

Match of the Year*

Best Technical Wrestler

Best Box Office Draw

 

Match of the Year it's not unrealistic to think he could take all three spots. I'd be shocked if he doesn't take at least two.

[Steven]

/

[jdw]

Good lord... the Suzuki "candidacy" was even funnier than I thought. Yow...

[Dylan Waco]

I like Suzuki more than nearly any active wrestler in Japan right now, but that "argument" is unreal.

[WingedEagle]

Suzuki needs to go into the hall so he kick Alvarez off the apron while entering the ring to accept his plaque.

[Dylan Waco]

Meltzer from The Board, talking about the age requirement for the HoF

 

An age limit is a red herring with Benoit.

 

If he killed his wife and son five years later, he'd have been 45. The NFL enshrined O.J. because he waited five years after retiring to kill his ex-wife. Same thing could happen here. Plenty of sports where you don't have teams forcing retirements put people in Halls of Fame when active and with limited age restrictions. Team sports are different because you can't hang on based on your name for very long.

 

Argument makes no sense that an age limit would have prevented another Benoit from going in because a man can commit a crime at any age.

 

This is a business that changes way too fast and style and trends change way too fast. If you don't evaluate people close to their time it's going on, you get too much of the goofiness we have where people who understand nothing of a time frame try to evaluate a time frame from other people who understand nothing of a time frame and trying to find limited old matches while not understanding either the style or substance of what they're watching.

 

I probably should have let it go, but I read the last part as a thinly veiled shot at people who actually try and learn new things by watching old footage, so I responded. I have a feeling this could get heated...or maybe he'll just ignore it like he did my post about AWA markets, after he claimed the Bay Area really wasn't there worst market.

[Dylan Waco]

Suzuki needs to go into the hall so he kick Alvarez off the apron while entering the ring to accept his plaque.

This is literally better than the argument advanced for him in the thread at Classics

[Matt D]

Man, i can't wait til they try to have my kid read the Scarlet Letter in school so I can tear them a new one.

[goodhelmet]

Well, he does make a good point... think of the millions of people reading the Bible.

[NintendoLogic]

At the risk of sounding like a troll, why shouldn't the opinions of peers and contemporaries carry more weight than those of guys watching footage decades after the fact? Also, if Rose was so highly regarded by his peers, why isn't he a serious HOF candidate? It's not just that he cant get in, he can't even stay on the ballot.

I already covered the second part, you willfully ignored it as you do with any post I make that you dislike.

 

The first part has been covered a multitude of times on this forum as well.

 

Ummmm....OK. I guess I should clarify. You did offer explanations, but I didn't find them entirely convincing. They explain why he wasn't voted in, but I don't think they adequately explain why he wasn't even seen as a serious candidate for the most part. I could go into greater detail, but arguing points with you is like a duel to the death, and I don't have the stomach for that sort of thing. But rest assured that I'm not willfully ignoring you.

 

As to the first part, I get that wrestlers can have agendas. But that's the whole point of having multitudes of voters: to neutralize that factor and allow the wisdom of crowds to prevail. Someone thinking that Kane should have a shot at the HOF because he's a nice guy and doesn't work stiff can get him on the ballot, but it can't keep him there.

[Dylan Waco]

I think the reason Buddy wasn't treated seriously as a candidate is because Portland is viewed as a small time promotion and being a "big star" there is seen as a minimal accomplishment at best.

[kjh]

This is a business that changes way too fast and style and trends change way too fast. If you don't evaluate people close to their time it's going on, you get too much of the goofiness we have where people who understand nothing of a time frame try to evaluate a time frame from other people who understand nothing of a time frame and trying to find limited old matches while not understanding either the style or substance of what they're watching.

 

I probably should have let it go, but I read the last part as a thinly veiled shot at people who actually try and learn new things by watching old footage, so I responded. I have a feeling this could get heated...or maybe he'll just ignore it like he did my post about AWA markets, after he claimed the Bay Area really wasn't there worst market.

I don't think it will get heated as your response was politely worded. Even with Dave's argument it's hard to justify the 35/15 boundary, as the vast majority of wrestlers are still active until they're 40 nowadays.

[W2BTD]

I'd say most wrestlers peak around their mid 30's, in fact we talked about that with mookie on our show one time, and he had some data in terms of star ratings & awards that back that up.

 

35 is really smack dab in the prime/peak of many, many male performers. I agree that the eligibility is at least a tad too early.

[cm funk]

Do people actually cite the Benoit murders as a reason for a change in the age criteria? That's one of the last places I'd think of going when arguing to change the standards.

[Bix]

Dave:

Changing the age would do more harm than good.

 

I doubt Akira Maeda or any of the Japanese women would have gotten in at 45 even though they clearly belonged. Things change in the U.S., Japan more, styles, and things.

 

If people are not evaluated close to "their time," you get situations where it's like the evaluations of the guys from the 50s and 60s today. Let's just say that people who were around and lived through that period mock how certain people are perceived by Hall of Fame electorate because they lived and know better.

 

If this was baseball, a stagnant team sport, same basic game being played for 100 years, with stats and such, where when guys aren't good they can't play, and 5 years later you vote on them, that's one thing.

 

This is an evolving entertainment athletic form. There are guys who were awesome and landmark performers during their time but if watched now, because standards have changed, people who didn't see them in their context wouldn't understand. Same in reverse, some guys stuff today may seem better because it's closer to what is done now than it actually was taken by its audience at its time.

 

One guy who is in and I don't want to embarrass him with his name, is some that his peers after the election told me after was terrible and you couldn't have a good match with him. He was very well liked, nice guy to everyone, reasonably big star and me writing his bio seemed like a good case. People watching him on the little bit of tape of him said he was this great worker but the guys who worked with him said the opposite. No system is perfect, but I'd like to avoid that as much as possible and evaluating guys as close to their prime as possible is the best way.

 

Also, evaluating drawing power when you weren't there is difficult at best. People who were there have a better idea of why something did or didn't click, than trying to look back at a number and not knowing the context of the number, state of the territory, etc.

 

Last year Cena, Schmidt and Albano got in from North America and nobody did from Japan or Mexico. The complaints last year if they were of the system being unfair to Mexico or Japan would be unfounded based on this year.

 

This year's North American ballot consisted of only people judged over and over again as being close but not Hall of Famers. The fact not one of them got in is not a problem. If John Cena hadn't gone in, it would be a problem. If Tanahashi hadn't gotten in, it would be a problem.

 

Rock & Roll Express or Assassins have been borderline guys for years. If they get in, good, but their credentials are in both cases very far from no-brainers. When a legit no-brainer doesn't get in, then I would worry. That hasn't been the case in a long time, and even when it did happen, the guy got in the next year anyway.

[El Boricua]

Then why even bother with a hall of fame voting process at all if that's his stance? And (rhetorical question), legit no brainer to who? The assumed 'infability' of people who were there always has amused me.

[goodhelmet]

Also, why are guys like Alan or John Lister or Dave Musgrave qualified to vote for the Rock N Roll or Murdoch? Why is anybody but Jose allowed to vote for the luchadores? Why is anyone younger than jdw qualified to vote for the 1970s guys? This just doesn't make sense.

[EricR]

It's really obnoxious that Dave thinks it's completely impossible to evaluate how well something worked unless you watched it as it happened. As if seeing modern workers is what made Brody or Takada's 80s work seem boring as hell. From all the 80s projects it's been REALLY fucking obvious what worked and what didn't, and from what I've seen the same shit that worked then works today, style notwithstanding.

 

His goal seems to be to discredit the people that are watching the footage, but it comes off as a far bigger insult to the actual workers, as that also implies that their work or "entertainment" wasn't good enough to transcend a couple decades. Imagine a movie critic arguing that a pile of shit like Forrest Gump must always be considered a classic because people in 1994 thought it was, and anybody who says otherwise now just don't understand what they're watching.

 

It's pretty clear that the reason he condescends to people who have been going back and re-evaluating footage is because by and large most of his favorites have aged like hot dogshit.

[NintendoLogic]

Same in reverse, some guys stuff today may seem better because it's closer to what is done now than it actually was taken by its audience at its time.

I think this is my biggest area of disagreement with Dave on this subject. Being ahead of one's time should be celebrated, not denigrated.

[Jmare007]

It's really obnoxious that Dave thinks it's completely impossible to evaluate how well something worked unless you watched it as it happened. As if seeing modern workers is what made Brody or Takada's 80s work seem boring as hell. From all the 80s projects it's been REALLY fucking obvious what worked and what didn't, and from what I've seen the same shit that worked then works today, style notwithstanding.

 

His goal seems to be to discredit the people that are watching the footage, but it comes off as a far bigger insult to the actual workers, as that also implies that their work or "entertainment" wasn't good enough to transcend a couple decades. Imagine a movie critic arguing that a pile of shit like Forrest Gump must always be considered a classic because people in 1994 thought it was, and anybody who says otherwise now just don't understand what they're watching.

 

It's pretty clear that the reason he condescends to people who have been going back and re-evaluating footage is because by and large most of his favorites have aged like hot dogshit.

It's either that or Dave thinks most his readers/voters are morons who can't possibly evaluate old footage the right way. I get why he tends to not respond a lot on wrestling boards but is he always so dismissive in person? Do people actually talk about this kind of criticism when they talk to him? Just curious.

[puropotsy]

Also, why are guys like Alan or John Lister or Dave Musgrave qualified to vote for the Rock N Roll or Murdoch? Why is anybody but Jose allowed to vote for the luchadores? Why is anyone younger than jdw qualified to vote for the 1970s guys? This just doesn't make sense.

In all fairness Will, I am VERY rock n roll in nature.

[goodhelmet]

Heh, I didn't want anyone tothink I was just picking on the Brits but there is no way a Canadian or a Brit without tape footage could possibly evaluate the quality of work of any of the territory candidates, Canadian territories exempt for you of course.

[Dylan Waco]

If you take Dave's argument seriously, it's hard to imagine why he would bother running pieces like Pat's Henri Deglane bio.

 

On a different subject Dave mentioned in passing Puerto Rico in the HoF issue and the issues with trying to categorize Colon. He noted that he couldn't include Invader I on the ballot without people wanting to "lynch" him. That seemed to me to be a tacit admission that Invader I would be a decent candidate, even though that' is clearly never going to happen. My question is, is there anyone else from PR who could arguably merit inclusion on the ballot? I was thinking about it last night and I have to say I think you can make a case for Chicky Starr at least being on the ballot. I was curious what Boricua thinks about that (or anyone else for that matter).

[ohtani's jacket]

I'm kind of torn on Dave's comments. On one hand, I don't believe that revisionism belongs in hall of fame discussions. If you were to examine the case for Sayama, for example, I think you'd need to take into account how he was viewed from '81-83 among Japanese fans to get a proper historical account of him. I don't think it makes a shred of difference what tape watchers think of him thirty years later. I was reading some bios on Walt Bellamy after he died the other day and you could give numerous reasons for why his early numbers was so good through re-evaluating the era, but to me that's a side issue and misses the point of a Hall of Fame. A Hall of Fame surely most enshrine those players who best represented their era regardless of critical appraisal. For many Japanese fans, that early 80s era is best represented by Choshu and Sayama and just because there's been a positive rethink on Choshu lately and negative criticism towards Sayama doesn't make one less of a Hall of Famer than the other.

 

On the other hand, Dave doesn't give enough credit towards positive revisionism. There's any number of films or albums or even wrestlers who wouldn't enjoy the same level of popularity today if we only took into account how they were viewed upon release or at the time they worked. Revisionism can be a positive and a negative, but I kind of think the judging of work is a sticky area. I would hope that voters are fair minded about that, but who knows.