WON HOF 2013 discussion

[jdw]

Regarding the Andersons their last year together as a team was 1981 while Ivan worked as a high profile type guy during the JCP/WWF war so he is definitely more modern than the Andersons as a team.

Ole and Gene started teaming in 1969. Ivan started working the WWWF in 1969, and was challenging Bruno before the year was out.

 

Ole & Gene's peak was 1969-81. Clearly Ivan's peak was 1969-81. His return main events in 1983 against Backlund really weren't among his top ones of the year.

 

08/25/42 Ivan

09/22/42 Ole

 

Ivan and Ole are direct peers.

 

I get that Ivan continued to work after 1981. But the core of his HOF candidacy is this:

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - December 9, 1969

Ivan Koloff defeated WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino when the match was stopped due to blood at 21:34

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - January 19, 1970 (16,858)

WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino pinned Ivan Koloff at 18:10 after a double reverse back flip body-hold

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - January 18, 1971 (21,666)

Ivan Koloff pinned WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino with a bodyslam and knee drop off the top rope to win the title at 14:55 after kicking the champion in the face as he charged into the corner

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - February 8, 1971

US Champion Pedro Morales pinned WWWF World Champion Ivan Koloff to win the title at 23:18 kicking off the top turnbuckle as Koloff had him in a waist lock, with both men falling backwards and having their shoulders down, but Morales lifting his at the count of 2

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - October 13, 1975

WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino fought Ivan Koloff to a draw when the match was stopped due to blood at 21:59

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - November 17, 1975

WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino defeated Ivan Koloff via disqualification at 21:14; Gorilla Monsoon was the special referee for the bout

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - December 15, 1975

WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino defeated Ivan Koloff in a steel cage match by escaping through the door at 9:39 after sending the challenger into the corner of the cage (the first cage match held at MSG)

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - March 29, 1976

WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino & WWWF Tag Team Champion Tony Parisi defeated Superstar Billy Graham & Ivan Koloff in a Best 2 out of 3 falls match at 26:57; fall #3 - Sammartino & Parisi won via count-out

 

Note: this was after Bruno had blown off the initial feud with Graham two cards earlier, and the third Ivan go around the prior December. Kind of a filler match before the Hansen feud started.

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - August 28, 1978

Ivan Koloff defeated WWWF World Champion Bob Backlund via referee's decision at 30:11 when the referee deemed Backlund unable to continue due to facial cuts

 

WWWF @ New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - September 25, 1978

WWWF World Champion Bob Backlund pinned Ivan Koloff at 17:09 with the atomic kneedrop

 

That's really the meat of Ivan's candidacy. 4 runs on top in MSG, with a major iconic moment.

 

It's difficult for me to see Ole & Gene in one, when Ivan is in the other. :/

[KrisZ]

Stats wise you are right but more people remember Ivan from teaming with Nikita than his runs for WWWF.

 

At least in the younger voters minds

[jdw]

At the risk of hijacking some good 2013 discussion for a future debate, people think Bryan Danielson is a sure bet?

He was the Most Outstanding Wrestler five straight years. Not only has no one else won that award five straight years, no one else has won it five times *period*.

 

He will go in easy. Perhaps not in the first year, but very soon after.

[jdw]

Stats wise you are right but more people remember Ivan from teaming with Nikita than his runs for WWWF.

 

At least in the younger voters minds

Which never got him much by way of votes. It's the MSG stuff.

 

They also think of Ole as a Horseman. :/

[JerryvonKramer]

Seeing Ivan in one category and Gene and Ole in the other was a bit of a head scratcher for me too, I had a post typed out about it but thought it was ultimately too tangential to submit.

 

The only rationale I can think of is that Gene was done by the time of the first Starrcade, whereas Ivan kept going till 1990. So a generation of fans know Ivan whereas they've probably only heard of Gene.

[ohtani's jacket]

Business was dropping in England in the mid-70s as fans grew tired of seeing the same older stars like McManus, Pallo, Kellett and Logan. I might dig watching the 70s footage we have of them, but they were in the 50s by that point and a few of them in their 60s. Joint Promotions tried to push some younger workers around this time and a few of them became mainstays like Steve Grey, Mark Rocco and Marty Jones, but it was clearly Daddy and Haystacks and John Quinn, the heavyweights and super heavyweights, who drew the last of the big houses for Joint. If Daddy had worked properly like in the Elijah match instead of being a lazy fuck all the time, it wouldn't be so hard to contemplate him in the HOF.

 

As for Blue Panther and Atlantis, Panther was obviously better on the mat and was Atlantis' best singles opponent (and vice versa, really), but I don't think Panther was as good a trios worker as Atlantis nor do I think he was as good a technico or rudo in terms of playing a role. Panther was never really the greatest brawler and a lot of his hair and mask matches are weak. In fact, there are quite a few weakish Panther singles matches in general. I'd rather watch Panther against another top worker than watch him try to carry Love Machine, for example. So, I don't think there was a vast difference in their in-ring ability even if there were times such as the end of '97/early '98 where Panther is off the charts.

[pantherwagner]

This is what my ballot looks like today.

Carlos Colon

Big Daddy

Ivan Koloff

Enrique Torres

 

Cien Caras

Karloff Lagarde

Blue Panther

Villano III

Dr Wagner Sr.

Atlantis (*)

 

(*) I could easily drop Atlantis off the ballot and vote for him next year if I can be convinced that somebody else is more worthy. I think he's the most worthy candidate in Mexico other than Cien and Villano and I think that he'll have it easier in the long run and the others need the help now. I think that other than dying and people realising suddenly how awesome he was (and fuck hopefully this never happens and he wrestles while he's happy to do so), Blue Panther isn't probably going to have a much stronger case in 1, 2 or 5 years.

 

I don't know if I will vote for non-wrestlers. Other than Matsunaga and Jarrett nobody looks too appealing to me. I need to think about these.

[JerryvonKramer]

Okerlund and Ventura are two guys who absolutely defined their roles. I might dig up the arguments I put forward last year, but why is there such resistance to voting for them?

 

It's interesting that in the two big talent raids -- Vince's on AWA in 84 and WCW's on WWF in 93/4 -- Okerlund was one of the very first guys to be acquired both times, which suggests he was considered a key asset.

 

I can see with the non-wrestlers that some guys are gateway guys ... no journalists have gone in, so if Apter goes in it opens up the question of Meltzer himself or Wade Keller. As far as I know, no interview guys are in, so if Okerlund goes in it opens up the question of other interview guys. If Ventura goes in, then you think of other colour guys. If Howard Finkel goes in, you have to think of other ring announcers.

 

As it stands though, if you rule out putting Okerlund in you're basically saying "the role of interviewer is not HOF worthy". I think the same is true of Ventura with the position of "colour man" albeit to a lesser extent (shorter time, greater competition from others).

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not averse to Okerland, but I don't think he's one of the five best guys in his category. I remain unconvinced on Ventura, though I grant that a big part of what hurts him in my mind is the perception that people are voting for him for things that have nothing to do with wrestling.

[mookeighana]

At the risk of hijacking some good 2013 discussion for a future debate, people think Bryan Danielson is a sure bet?

He was the Most Outstanding Wrestler five straight years. Not only has no one else won that award five straight years, no one else has won it five times *period*.

 

He will go in easy. Perhaps not in the first year, but very soon after.

 

Thats true; I agree he will go in. At this moment, I think a serious world champion run is what would hold him back from being an inevitable first ballot choice. People with most top five outstanding wrestler finishes would be all HOFers: Flair, Liger, Kobiashi, Angle, Benoit, Misawa, Kawada along with Mr Danielson.

[BrickHithouse]

I'm not averse to Okerland, but I don't think he's one of the five best guys in his category.

I don't disagree with this at all as I'm not a Gene fan, but who would you rank above him?

[pantherwagner]

Okerlund I could see. You are absolutely right. I don't know if he was such a hot commodity when he jumped to WCW, but I agree with your arguments. I don't see right now the role of an interviewer as being sufficient. It's the same problem I have with Apter or Weston. IMO Valente Perez of Lucha Libre has got a much stronger case. He literally created Tinieblas, Cien Caras, Canek, Dos Caras and Mil Mascaras as characters, among others. He had a much more tangible impact on the business than the American magazines. Three of his creations are unarguable WON HOF'ers, to me Cien Caras is a WON HOF worthy wrestler and Tinieblas can't be disputed as a Mexican-only HOF'er.

 

Ventura, though, would be different but he doesn't have the longevity that I think you need in that role. A commentator or colour man is (or should I say used to be) a key person in getting you to buy tickets or PPV's. I can see Lance Russell, Jim Ross, Alfonso Morales, but not Ventura, as funny and smart as he was. His political career doesn't mean anything to me when talking about the WON HOF (you didn't bring it up Jerry, but most people who vouch for him end up doing so).

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not averse to Okerland, but I don't think he's one of the five best guys in his category.

I don't disagree with this at all as I'm not a Gene fan, but who would you rank above him?

 

Jerry Jarrett

Don Owen

Takashi Matsunaga

Stanley Weston

Jimmy Hart

 

Those are all people I think are safely better candidates than Okerland.

[Matt D]

Okerlund I could see. You are absolutely right. I don't know if he was such a hot commodity when he jumped to WCW, but I agree with your arguments. I don't see right now the role of an interviewer as being sufficient. It's the same problem I have with Apter or Weston. IMO Valente Perez of Lucha Libre has got a much stronger case. He literally created Tinieblas, Cien Caras, Canek, Dos Caras and Mil Mascaras as characters, among others. He had a much more tangible impact on the business than the American magazines. Three of his creations are unarguable WON HOF'ers, to me Cien Caras is a WON HOF worthy wrestler and Tinieblas can't be disputed as a Mexican-only HOF'er.

 

Ventura, though, would be different but he doesn't have the longevity that I think you need in that role. A commentator or colour man is (or should I say used to be) a key person in getting you to buy tickets or PPV's. I can see Lance Russell, Jim Ross, Alfonso Morales, but not Ventura, as funny and smart as he was. His political career doesn't mean anything to me when talking about the WON HOF (you didn't bring it up Jerry, but most people who vouch for him end up doing so).

Who innovated the heel color role? Piper in Mid-Atlantic?

[KrisZ]

Jose is so dead on with Valente Perez......the old Lucha Libre magazines were insanely huge in making stars in that era and were quality wise as good if not better than their American counterparts.

[Dylan Waco]

Okerlund I could see. You are absolutely right. I don't know if he was such a hot commodity when he jumped to WCW, but I agree with your arguments. I don't see right now the role of an interviewer as being sufficient. It's the same problem I have with Apter or Weston. IMO Valente Perez of Lucha Libre has got a much stronger case. He literally created Tinieblas, Cien Caras, Canek, Dos Caras and Mil Mascaras as characters, among others. He had a much more tangible impact on the business than the American magazines. Three of his creations are unarguable WON HOF'ers, to me Cien Caras is a WON HOF worthy wrestler and Tinieblas can't be disputed as a Mexican-only HOF'er.

 

Ventura, though, would be different but he doesn't have the longevity that I think you need in that role. A commentator or colour man is (or should I say used to be) a key person in getting you to buy tickets or PPV's. I can see Lance Russell, Jim Ross, Alfonso Morales, but not Ventura, as funny and smart as he was. His political career doesn't mean anything to me when talking about the WON HOF (you didn't bring it up Jerry, but most people who vouch for him end up doing so).

On Weston/London Mags I would argue they were effectively the first "national" promoters. I am 32 and every wrestling fan I knew and grew up with read them regularly - and this was largely at the tail end/after the territory era when the magazines were starting to become passe. To me the mags are the best promoters not already in.

[KrisZ]

Okerlund I could see. You are absolutely right. I don't know if he was such a hot commodity when he jumped to WCW, but I agree with your arguments. I don't see right now the role of an interviewer as being sufficient. It's the same problem I have with Apter or Weston. IMO Valente Perez of Lucha Libre has got a much stronger case. He literally created Tinieblas, Cien Caras, Canek, Dos Caras and Mil Mascaras as characters, among others. He had a much more tangible impact on the business than the American magazines. Three of his creations are unarguable WON HOF'ers, to me Cien Caras is a WON HOF worthy wrestler and Tinieblas can't be disputed as a Mexican-only HOF'er.

 

Ventura, though, would be different but he doesn't have the longevity that I think you need in that role. A commentator or colour man is (or should I say used to be) a key person in getting you to buy tickets or PPV's. I can see Lance Russell, Jim Ross, Alfonso Morales, but not Ventura, as funny and smart as he was. His political career doesn't mean anything to me when talking about the WON HOF (you didn't bring it up Jerry, but most people who vouch for him end up doing so).

Who innovated the heel color role? Piper in Mid-Atlantic?

 

Piper was the first weekly heel announcer in GCW in late 1981.

[JerryvonKramer]

I actually missed the fact that you only get 5 non-wrestler picks now, so it is a little tougher.

 

I agree from that field that Ventura does not get in. I am not one of these guys who takes things outside of wrestling into account. Ventura's outside activities mean diddly squat to his case.

 

With Okerlund, the strongest case I could make for him would include these points:

 

1. He worked directly with basically every single US wrestler of note in a 20-year time span. Pretty much every single one, sometimes recording 100s of interviews in a single day.

2. He had a very long career and is still working today.

3. I think he's as synonymous with the Hogan era as any other on-screen figure. And in a way, he was actually an integral part of the Hogan package -- "well d'ya know Mean Gene ..." This is a key part of his case: he's there with Hogan in AWA and is the guy he talks to after being screwed out of the AWA title, then he's there when Hogan wins the WWF title, he's there for a lot of the key Hogan angles, and then even in 1996 he's standing right there in the ring as Hogan turns heel. Through this strong association, he was part of a lot of legendary moments.

 

That's Gene's case as far as I see it. That's without going into subjective stuff such as how good he was at his job.

[Matt D]

To me a lot of Okerland is how much he actually "produced" the guys he was interviewing during those marathon sessions and whether people think that those local promos actually drew people in to shows in 1984-5-6-7 or so.

[evilclown]

I just don't find Koloff's case compelling.

 

John has kindly listed 10 matches over the course of a decade, against opponents who generally did amazing box office no matter who was across the ring from them. If you cherry picked the ten most important moments of Sting's career, or even Nash's career, they'd be equally impressive.

 

Is this really a Hall of Fame case? Opponent for Sammartino and Backlund?

 

In the parlance of Football Outsiders, what's his VORJ? Value over Replacement Jobber? What would have changed for the WWWF if someone else had filled those spots?

[Dylan Waco]

I just don't find Koloff's case compelling.

 

John has kindly listed 10 matches over the course of a decade, against opponents who generally did amazing box office no matter who was across the ring from them. If you cherry picked the ten most important moments of Sting's career, or even Nash's career, they'd be equally impressive.

There are two differences here....

 

Sting and Nash failed terribly as aces Koloff may have never really been an ace, but in his role (challenger/foil) there is no record I know of that shows failure.

 

You don't have to cherry pick with Koloff to near the degree you do for Sting or Nash.

 

I did the work on Sting last year - ace Sting drew sub 1986 AWA levels. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. Koloff was in demand and positioned well on the cards in shows that did big business in Toronto, WWWF, AWA, MACW and Georgia at minimum. Is being in demand enough? I don't know the answer to that, but I tend to think for non-aces, especially traveling heels from the territory era, it's a pretty useful way of looking at their careers.

 

This is to say nothing of the fact that the cherry picked plusses for Sting and Nash wouldn't be in the territorial era which was governed by a completely different set of rules.

 

Is this really a Hall of Fame case? Opponent for Sammartino and Backlund?

Not in and of itself no. I think you need more than that. I understand the argument that maybe people need to present more detailed argument on Ivan, but I don't think anyone really believes his case boils down to "opponent for Bruno/Backlund."

 

In the parlance of Football Outsiders, what's his VORJ? Value over Replacement Jobber? What would have changed for the WWWF if someone else had filled those spots?

We don't know. What would have changed if Jim Brunzell had been WWWF champion and not Backlund? We don't know.

[El-P]

Totally agree with Jerry and Matt's points on Okerlund.

[Dylan Waco]

Not complete or detailed as much as I would like, but here is something of an Ivan record book via Clawmaster

 

http://sportsandwrestling.mywowbb.com/forum2/14118.html

[Dylan Waco]

Totally agree with Jerry and Matt's points on Okerlund.

 

Already answered above

[evilclown]

There are two differences here....

 

Sting and Nash failed terribly as aces Koloff may have never really been an ace, but in his role (challenger/foil) there is no record I know of that shows failure.

I agree, but that's kind of my point. If you only took the best of Sting or Nash they'd look pretty good too. We know they failed because we've been able to look into their careers in a significant way. But, when compared to their peers and for their era, you can still find serious highspots for both. Is that what we've done for Koloff?

 

Koloff was in demand and positioned well on the cards in shows that did big business in Toronto, WWWF, AWA, MACW and Georgia at minimum. Is being in demand enough? I don't know the answer to that, but I tend to think for non-aces, especially traveling heels from the territory era, it's a pretty useful way of looking at their careers.

From what I can tell he worked consistently in a variety of places. Lots of guys did. For most Hall of Fame level talents each stop is home to a memorable feud or run. If Koloff had those moments, it hasn't survived to become a part of wrestling lore. Was Koloff a card filler for the most part instead? It feels that way to me. Is that wrong?

 

 

 

In the parlance of Football Outsiders, what's his VORJ? Value over Replacement Jobber? What would have changed for the WWWF if someone else had filled those spots?

We don't know. What would have changed if Jim Brunzell had been WWWF champion and not Backlund? We don't know.

I think someone could do that. Where is Chris? What did Koloff draw against the WWE aces? How does that compare to others, both in the same calendar year and on similar dates during the rest of the decade?