WON HOF 2013 discussion

[evilclown]

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?

It's an interesting dynamic. I've had disagreements with him in person that were passionate but cordial. I never felt like he was dismissing me outright and he's willing to concede solid points. But online, perhaps because he thinks the horrible people on his message board are an example of how to interact, he's genuinely mean and awful at times.

 

Of course, people might say the same of me.

 

Generally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt online. They likely aren't trying to be rude, even if they don't seem to have basic social skills.

[El Boricua]

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.

This is one of the things I was thinking about when I mentioned what was the point of having the voting process. Meltzer's position about "being there at the time" vs. "looking back from a modern perspective" is at odds with allowing the voters to self select the areas they are voting in instead of having some sort of pre certification for the right to vote in that bucket.

 

 

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.

What I find funny about this is that, thinking about it, anyone who could have their work standing lowered through revisionism would not be affected for the hall of fame because they're already in (although I may be overlooking someone). And even if the opinion of their match work or quality shifts, guys like Brody and Sayama check off other factors such as influence, drawing and impact when he was active that opinions of their work or match quality are really a smaller part of their hall of fame case. In any case, complaints about denigrating or revising the perception of someone's work (particularly when this is the most subjective area of the factors looked at) make it seem like it's the driving force of someone's worthiness when in reality it's just one part of the equation. In reality, it's whether the sum of everything makes it a yay or a nay with everyone having different weights to the factors depending on their career. That's without going into the fact that from the 80's onwards opinion of the wrestlers' work was influenced by Meltzer himself, so I don't know if going against the established perceptions means saying he was wrong then.

 

 

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.

And this touches again on the point of the voting body selection and how it reflects on Meltzer that's been brought up before in this thread. Going back to "being there at the time" vs. "looking back from a modern perspective", look at the Modern U.S./Canada category. Next year JYD and CM Punk join the ballot and would be in the same category. JYD is someone whose prime was 30 years ago and whose perception is built on his post prime career and repeated JunkFood Dog slagging (setting aside the fact that JYD was a poor worker during that time). CM Punk is currently wrestling, stlll in his prime and has always been an Internet fan darling. Does it seem right for both of them to e evaluated in the same voting group? Remember, a voter self selects where he'll vote regardless of experience or knowledge with the entire time period covered by the that group. There's two generations worth of performers in that group, it doesn't strike me as 'right' to have them be all one group.

 

 

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.

I agree that revisionism of someone's influence, drawing and impact in the face of solid evidence (which a Tiger Mask definitely has) should not affect their hall of fame standing. Which is why I've always thought that focusing on workrate or quality should be a bit more of a complement for the hall of fame, then as the be all and end all that some treat it as. But match quality and work has always been a subjective thing and it's tough to objectively evaluate this to everyone's satisfaction. That's why we have situations on the ballot like Big Daddy, although his is a case where I have not seen anyone have a positive perception of him as worker. I think it shouldn't matter in his case because I believe everything everything else outweighs that.

 

Honestly, you need both "being there at the time" vs. "looking back from a modern perspective" to really be fair. Both have their value and drawbacks. My position is the more information from varied sources the better. Modern perspective misses nuance and context from the time that should be considered. But you have to filter 'being there' for intentional or unintentional bias (we are all human after all). Trust, but verify. And for some performers, looking back is what has allowed them to be recognized now after being forgotten or ignored by the modern people who live in the now.

 

 

It's an interesting dynamic. I've had disagreements with him in person that were passionate but cordial. I never felt like he was dismissing me outright and he's willing to concede solid points. But online, perhaps because he thinks the horrible people on his message board are an example of how to interact, he's genuinely mean and awful at times.

 

Of course, people might say the same of me.

 

Generally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt online. They likely aren't trying to be rude, even if they don't seem to have basic social skills.

You are right, it's tough to read tone and intention sometimes when people write online. After all, this medium is a bit impersonal without having someone right in front of you, so it will affect how we communicate. Very wise words about giving the benefit of the doubt.

 

Dylan, I'll answer your question a bit later after I think about who could be a ballot possibility.

[Dylan Waco]

I have a lot of problems with Dave's argument, but I'm not sure it's worth engaging him super deeply on it. Maybe the biggest problem I have is that he appears to be arguing two things that contradict each other 1. You need to vote for modern candidates when they are near their peak so we have an accurate accounting of how they were seen in their era and 2. It's implied that older candidates may not get a fair shake because of this and/or the context of their candidacy is "off" but any attempts to try and research and/or piece together history from the scraps we have is somehow dangerous because it might challenge a consensus that doesn't even really exist in many cases. The solution is apparently to defer to the wisdom of wrestlers, i.e. professional serial liars, who assuredly will give us more accurate ideas on who the great talents of any given era actually were without the "bias" of perspective ("Bob Orton is the greatest worker of all time" - Buddy Rose).

 

To OJ's point I understand the argument that revisionism doesn't have a place in HoF discussion, but the problem is that much of wrestling history is in fact "revisionist" because we are trying to make sense of a world run by carnies, con men and criminals. When we read a book like Shoemaker's we are pissed off because the book relies heavily on Fall Guys for it's early history - a work that was considered "definitive" by many before "revisionists" like Steve Yohe took an interest in things called facts.

 

Of course in the case of Brody and Sayama it's a different situation in many ways, but here is the thing - for all the anti-Brody and to a lesser degree anti-Sayama people that have come to that perspective through "revisionism," I don't know if any of them would oppose either for an HoF. If I were a voter and I had a ballot I would vote for both. I'm not sure there are very many candidates that have actually emerged through revisionism. It's probable that Buddy Rose got on the ballot because of it to one degree or another, but he didn't last. Fujiwara and Dandy haven't gotten on the ballot yet, and a part of the case of one, if not both, extends beyond work. Patera got on the ballot, but it wasn't because of detailed analysis of his in ring career.

 

Which brings me to another point. This talk of how wrestlers were perceived in their era often strikes me as a cover for "how I perceived this wrestler, when I watched him." All too often legit questions, or interesting research is brushed aside with "you weren't there, you didn't know." A few examples that are notable:

 

Meltzer saying that The High Flyers really weren't that over and/or weren't all that big of a deal in the AWA because "he saw them live" and they got boos and ridicule all the time. This is compounded by the fact that Dave saw them in the worst market the AWA had, a point he disputed recently, but my follow up post with details was ignored.

 

The old argument touted by myself for years - and more importantly, others who were fans during his peak - that Backlund wasn't really that big a deal/he wasn't over and it was the titles that drew. Or the promotion. Or the heels. Except when you watch the footage, look at the history and talk to casual fans it's hard to defend this argument. At all.

 

People who were fans during the 80's, insisting that Jerry Blackwell couldn't have possibly been a drawing card, or even all that important of a star, because they didn't perceive him that way at the time. Except the footage, history, results and those who were AWA fans from the Midwest/Canada all point in another direction.

 

My point is that the goal should be to look at all the available evidence - including perspectives from the era of course - when trying to make serious conclusions.

[JerryvonKramer]

The old argument touted by myself for years - and more importantly, others who were fans during his peak - that Backlund wasn't really that big a deal/he wasn't over and it was the titles that drew. Or the promotion. Or the heels. Except when you watch the footage, look at the history and talk to casual fans it's hard to defend this argument. At all.

I'd agree that it is basically impossible to watch those old MSG or Spectrum shows and argue that Backlund wasn't over on his own. I've seen him against some pretty shitty workers now (Swede Hanson, Sika to name but two) and, it doesn't matter who it is, Backlund is crazy over. The most negative possible argument you could make is that those fans were trained so well that they'd pop for any face (see also Ivan Putski), and there's some truth to that, but I take things like fans counting the see-saw arm wrenches as evidence of them being into his matches and Backlund being over entirely on his own terms. And I still don't even like the guy that much.

 

Meltzer comes across to me as someone who is used to enjoying, at least in his own mind, a near-monopoly on giving "the definitive account of wrestling history". All this seems like an attempt to protect that legacy from new readings or interpretations. He might not even realise he's doing it and I suspect he doesn't. You see that in academia all the time: the old guard don't like to see their version of things overturned. Meltzer represents a kind of orthodoxy, nerds like us revisting old footage and reading around and piecing together a picture of the wrestling landscape and forming new opinions represents a threat to that orthodoxy. This whole argument from him reads like a post-hoc justification for a stance which is essentially "I'm Dave Meltzer dammit, and my version of things is right". It's transparently obvious.

[kjh]

The "Akira Maeda wouldn't get into the Hall Of Fame at age 45" talking point that Meltzer brought up again seems ridiculous today when Masakatsu Funaki got voted in and the dearth of superior candidates that are left on the Japanese ballot.

[El Boricua]

The "Akira Maeda wouldn't get into the Hall Of Fame at age 45" talking point that Meltzer brought up again seems ridiculous today when Masakatsu Funaki got voted in and the dearth of superior candidates that are left on the Japanese ballot.

And based on a quick look at certain boards, it seems some voters are ready to rubber stamp the three new Japan candidates for next year, while not giving JYD even a glance. Why is Japan held as some sort of holy land of wrestling where everything from there is treated as ambrosia while other stronger candidates from other places are left languishing?

[Dylan Waco]

I can't believe people are treating Suzuki as a lock, including people who in theory should know better. I am a mark for Akiyama, but it's hard for me to imagine actually voting for him. On other hand when I look at the last several guys to get in under the Japan category, he is comparable or better. Taue I like as a candidate, maybe more than I should.

 

JYD gets dismissed because it's easy to dismiss a guy who's act you never "got" or "liked." That shouldn't happen with a historic HoF, but it does.

[FLIK]

I wonder if we'll get any tidbits on how the Matsunagas ran business. There were five of them, IIRC. I'm assuming Takashi was more than just a Paco Alonso figurehead.

I had suggested "The Matsunaga Brothers" collectively since there were a number of them involved in the business. Dave was going to check with people in Japan to see if one was really the lead of them. I know of at least one native Dave knew well in the mid-90s who dialed into the inner workings of AJW and likely was one he would have checked with.

A few years back I brought up the Matsunaga's being an oversight and also thought the family as a whole should go in. But if just one member had to go in, Takashi was the best choice based off what I read in Meltzer's bio he did on him after he passed away.

[Matt D]

If it's a WON HOF, then should the guy who Meltzer spent years calling the Junk Food Dog get in? Can he without making Dave look like a freaking putz?

[ohtani's jacket]

I'm all for positive revisionism, but I also think perceptions have their place. I think Fujiwara is one of the greatest workers ever, certainly one of the greatest Japanese wrestlers ever, but that wasn't the perception of Fujiwara at the time among Japanese fans or tape traders. You can probably find positives for Fujiwara in terms of drawing, but it doesn't change the perception that he was considered another tier down from the truly top stars of his era. I'm not sure he warrants being on the ballot to be honest, other than the standards for being on the ballot aren't that stringent.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm all for positive revisionism, but I also think perceptions have their place. I think Fujiwara is one of the greatest workers ever, certainly one of the greatest Japanese wrestlers ever, but that wasn't the perception of Fujiwara at the time among Japanese fans or tape traders. You can probably find positives for Fujiwara in terms of drawing, but it doesn't change the perception that he was considered another tier down from the truly top stars of his era. I'm not sure he warrants being on the ballot to be honest, other than the standards for being on the ballot aren't that stringent.

Give me an example of someone you think merits being on the ballot.

 

I can see an argument for prioritizing what fans of the era think, but can't think of a single reason why tape traders then should have more value then viewers now.

[El Boricua]

I agree that perceptions have their place and value, but I also believe its important to understand the why of those perceptions.

[Dylan Waco]

Pretty amusing side point, but Alvarez admitted on the radio show today that he didn't even vote this year.

[ohtani's jacket]

Give me an example of someone you think merits being on the ballot.

Of the top of my head, George Kidd, Mike Marino, Les Kellett, Masambula, Count Bartelli, Steve Logan and Ricki Starr and possibly The Wild Man of Borneo, Dirty Jack Pye and Dirty Dominic Pye all deserve consideration for European section. Possibly even the likes of Albert Wall, Tibor Szakacs and even the Saints and the Royals. In all honesty, I think the Europe section is bollocks at present, but I don't think that Dave is interested in Europe or in opening the floodgates.

 

I can see an argument for prioritizing what fans of the era think, but can't think of a single reason why tape traders then should have more value then viewers now.

I don't think my watching old school European wrestling in 2013 and determining what's good wrestling holds much weight compared with historical research and accounts from people who were fans at the time. If somebody says that X was never a good worker, perhaps there's enough footage to dispute that, but when it gets into the territory of how big a star someone was, you'd have to defer to the folks who were there, especially since there isn't a lot of attendance records for Europe and we're often left to look at card placement on big shows.

 

There's also bias that needs to be eliminated. I don't like Saint's matches for the most part and Rocco annoys the shit out of me by not wrestling the way I like and the way I know he can, but that type of stuff needs to be ignored when judging how important they were historically or even how good they were as a worker, IMO. In my own private viewing I can have any opinion about workers that I like, but objectively I think you need to weigh up all the factors even if there are a ton of guys working at the same time who in 2013 I think were better than Rocco or Saint. Otherwise, I think there's a danger of saying "Rocco wasn't the first or only guy to push a more workrate orientated style, look blah, blah, blah and blah, blah, blah were doing it first" when the perception that Rocco was the first guy to do it was a big part of both his rep and stardom and ultimately part of his candidacy.

[Dylan Waco]

I understand what you are saying, but historical research involves watching tapes. They aren't mutually exclusive and if you are talking about the over all stardom and relevance of a star, it is nice to have more tools, not fewer. Perception should be the starting point for historical research, not the unquestioned deity all research much bow too.

[kjh]

I can't believe people are treating Suzuki as a lock, including people who in theory should know better.

I think Suzuki is an interesting candidate in the sense that he turned a rather mediocre shoot career with Pancrase and by perfecting the shooter gimmick, he's had a very good freelance run past the age of 35. If you're a new fan today I can see you thinking he was a much bigger deal in his prime than he actually was.

[soup23]

Pretty amusing side point, but Alvarez admitted on the radio show today that he didn't even vote this year.

That is so embarrassing. I may not and probably wouldn't agree with an Alvarez ballot but the least he could do is give the discussion 1/10th of the thought that individuals here that don't even vote do.

[mookeighana]

Wow, Dave vastly increased the voter base (258 for Modern US in 2012 up to 329 for 2013, for instance) this year (and that doesn't even include the voters like Bryan who apparently abstained this year!).

 

Several years ago Steve Yohe started a list of people who hit less than 10% on the ballot. He hasn't updated it recently so I decided to step in.

 

1996 (8-19-96)

No voting

 

1997 (9-1-97)

No voting

 

1998 (8-24-98)

Fuerza Guerrera

Scott Hall

Curt Hennig

Mark Lewin

Lex Luger

Don Muraco

Kevin Nash

Paul Orndorff

Blue Panther

Ken Patera

Jake Roberts

Rick Rude

Hans Schmidt* (inducted in 2012)

Davey Boy Smith

Rich & Scott Steiner

Sting

Akira Taue

Barry Windham

 

1999 (8-16-99)

Curtis Iaukea* (inducted in 2011)

Bill Miller* (inducted in 2009)

Masa Saito* (inducted in 2009)

Tiger Jeet Singh

Sgt Slaughter

Kerry Von Erich

Steve Williams* (inducted in 2011)

 

2000 (8-28-00)

Lou Albano* (inducted in 2012)

Masahiro Chono* (inducted in 2004)

Masakatsu Funaki* (inducted in 2006)

Chavo Guerrero Sr.

Konnan* (inducted in 2009)

Bas Rutten

Sabu

Ken Shamrock

 

2001 (8-20-01)

Eric Bischoff

Cien Caras

 

2002 (9-2-02)

Gene & Ole Anderson

Pedro Morales

 

2003 (8-25-03)

Fuerza Guerrera

Yuji Nagata

Yoshihiro Takayama

 

2004 (8-23-04)

Atlantis* (inducted 2013)

Pepper Gomez

Black Gordman & Great Goliath

Gran Hamada

Original La Parka

Great Sasuke

Mike & Ben Sharpe

Dr Wagner Jr

 

2005 (8-24-05)

Lonnie “Moondog” Mayne

Don Muraco

Yoshihiro Takayama

 

2006 (9-4-06)

Arn Anderson

Davey Boy Smith

Booker T

 

2007 (10-15-07)

The Dudley Boys

Ultimo Guerrero & Rey Bucanero

Satoshi Kojima

Paul Orndorff

Rich & Scott Steiner

Universo 2000

Rob Van Dam

Kerry Von Erich

 

2008 (9-8-08)

Fit Finlay

Hector Garza

Jun Akiyama

 

2009 (9-28-09)

Rocky Johnson

Mark Lewin

Jose Lothario

Rick Rude

Ultimo Guerrero & Rey Bucanero

 

2010 (9-27-10)

Cowboy Bob Ellis

Yukon Eric

Bearcat Wright

Cibernetico

Dr Wagner Jr

Giant Haystacks

 

2011 (10-24-11)

Ray Gunkel

Sabu

 

2012 (11-12-12)

Chief Jay Strongbow

Jeff Hardy

Kane

Buddy Rose

Perro Aguayo Jr.

Marty Jones

 

2013 (11-6-13)

Rip Hawk

Dutch Savage

Count Billy Varga

Bob Armstrong

Batista

A.J. Styles

 

It's interesting to see how many people have come back and were later inducted (Schmidt, Iaukea, Miller, Saito, Dr Death, Albano, Chono, Masa Funaki, Konnan, Atlantis) along with which people keep springing back up (as of 2013 Curt Hennig, Ken Patera, Sting, Gene & Ole Anderson, Pedro Morales, Yuji Nagata, Pepper Gomez, Gran Hamada, Mike & Ben Sharpe, Mark Lewin, Blue Panther, Cien Caras, Hector Garza, Giant Haystacks are all back on the ballot).

[KrisZ]

If it's a WON HOF, then should the guy who Meltzer spent years calling the Junk Food Dog get in? Can he without making Dave look like a freaking putz?

DING DING DING DING

[JNLister]

Had the HOF been going in those days, he'd have been eligible in 1987. I wonder if the "he's gone fat and lazy" would have been substantial enough or have been a factor long enough to affect his standing with voters at that point.

[Loss]

People like JYD should really be evaluated closer to their time, so people aren't relying on things like money drawn without understanding the context of his bad workerdom and poor diet.

[JerryvonKramer]

Either make it about work or make it about drawing and titles. This halfway house fudge is a total mess.

[Loss]

Either male it about work or make it about drawing and titles. This halfway house fudge us a total mess.

I like that it's about both. The compartmentalization of these things is specific to wrestling fans like us. People within wrestling tend to look at the entire composite of what someone brought to the table. In other words, they are more like the arguments you have raised in the past about looking at the big picture instead of one specific aspect of what made someone great and/or effective.

[Matt D]

I know, personally, I'm more interested in talking about work, which is one reason (of a few) I don't get so deep into these exchanges except for in asking questions I'm curious about or occasionally bringing up something that I think was missed (like whether or not Jimmy Hart's role in Summerslam 90 should matter).

[JerryvonKramer]

Meltzer seems to want to catch the zeitgeist of critical opinion based on the quoted comments. Fine, so make it about work and work alone. I think the whole thing is a clusterfuck.