WON HOF 2013 discussion

[Matt D]

Is drawing less of an issue in Japan by default? Would Buddy Rose Portland numbers have been good in Japan?

[evilclown]

Japan is significantly overrated and over represented. The fact that someone would use lack of Japanese stardom as a negative...is mind blowing. But the Hall of Fame is bound to resemble its creator in this.

[Childs]

The numbers can be argued, what's harder to combat is the rap that he was apathetic. Here are a couple of interesting articles on Bellamy from before he died that explore his career:

 

http://prohoopshistory.com/2012/10/17/the-...-hawks-bullets/

http://hoopsanalyst.com/blog/?p=400

 

The latter has some pretty decent research; the author's taken his time at any rate. But I do wonder if there's a substitute for actually having "been there", because that rap that he didn't play hard enough, was detached and couldn't win is easy for a guy like Simmons to slip into as I think he did in his basketball book, and the numbers are there to support it if you don't buy the expansion team theory.

 

There are a lot of excuses thrown out on Bellamy's behalf, but perhaps that's because his rep was a little unfair. When I brought Bellamy up I was thinking more along the lines of the more recent trend (I think it's a recent trend) of taking a deeper look at 60s numbers (Wilt, Robertson etc.) to determine why they put up such huge numbers, which is not analysis that I think factors into Hall of Fame perception, but rather a million was Wilt overrated internet arguments.

Yeah, we don't have a complete picture. I wish '60s NBA games were viewable en masse so I could have realistic mental images of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Elgin, West, Petit, etc. I'm a huge pro basketball fan and it's always bugged me that, as much as I know about Wilt or Oscar, I don't really know them as players. I feel like with basketball, actually watching is more important than it is with baseball.

 

So, getting back to Bellamy, it's possible to come up with a decent understanding of his career based on stats, awards voting and contemporary writings. I think we know enough to have a good argument about him as a HOF. But could the picture be richer? Absolutely, 100 times yes.

 

Fortunately, we do have the footage to do some of that type of work with WON HOF candidates. And the fact that Dave, as a wrestling historian, doesn't see the value and fun in it is, at best, disappointing.

[Matt D]

Is a lot of that the idea that Dave thinks unless you're in the ring with someone, you can't know how good they actually are? Even if you watch a thousand matches?

 

EDIT: except for maybe when it comes to Action (and or the elements Dave tends to gravitate towards. Someone flesh this out or call me out as wrong)?

[Cox]

I think I've made this point before, but I think there is sometimes a pretty huge difference between what a wrestler likes in a wrestler and what a fan likes in a wrestler. That doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive, but there is often a huge disconnect between what a wrestler likes about another wrestler and what fans who watch matches like in watching them work.

[Childs]

Is a lot of that the idea that Dave thinks unless you're in the ring with someone, you can't know how good they actually are? Even if you watch a thousand matches?

 

EDIT: except for maybe when it comes to Action (and or the elements Dave tends to gravitate towards. Someone flesh this out or call me out as wrong)?

He's rated thousands of matches himself and has given HOF ballots to scores of non-wrestlers. So I don't think it's that. He seems to believe that you can't recreate context and/or that the quality of work can't transcend context. That perspective is rife with contradictions to the way he actually runs his HOF. But that's how I've understood his comments.

[Matt D]

I didn't state it well. I guess I wanted to put forth the idea that there are certain elements in a match that are easier to attribute to a wrestler than others (which does not mean you can't do it with the others. It's just more effort and subjectivity) and those attributes seem, to me, to be high on the list of what Dave values.

[Childs]

Well, it's definitely true that when he's defending certain workers, he calls on the authority of other wrestlers he has spoken with. But as with many things Dave, he's not consistent about how he uses such arguments.

[Robert S]

I'll be honest, no one has ever really been able to explain how or why Saito got in. I say that as a pretty huge fan of the guy and someone open to the idea that he is a good candidate. He was someone who Dave said was voted on in huge numbers by actual Japanese voters - a group that also voted in huge numbers for Sakuraba, Funaki and Steve Williams all of whom are sort of controversial inductions to one degree or another. The feeling from many is that he benefited a ton from being in the Japan category, when you could easily argue that he should have been in the U.S. category. I sort of see him as a guy who could go in either. My own thought is that the Japanese voters may have seen him as a guy who was a true international star in that he was a rare Japanese star who was someone of note in Japan and actually was also well pushed (to varying degrees to be fair) in the States. Sort of like how I think Ultimo benefited from the theoretical idea of him being a big international star, even when he wasn't all that much of a star.

I think the idea with Saito is that he was one of the few Japanese guys who managed to be at least a relevant guy in the US for a significant length of time. Due to that he was idolized by a whole generation of wrestlers.

 

For years Dave wouldn't think he was a HOFer because he saw Sasaki's career, and he really wasn't at the level as package as the rest of the Top Guys from that era.

Is Sasaki really a worse HOF candidate than Chono?

[ohtani's jacket]

Would everyone here agree that Japan is the most overrepresented sector in the HOF? I realize Taue is still on the outside looking in, along with Han and Tamura. But it seems like most of the borderline Japanese candidates have gone in, where roughly equivalent U.S. stars have lingered on the ballot. I say that as an impression, without any real analysis behind it.

Japan is the second biggest market for pro-wrestling in the world so it deserves a fair degree of representation. The trouble with borderline candidates going in is that they require less overall votes to gain 60% support and with most of the major candidates already in the Hall there's plenty of elbow room for fringe candidates. It wouldn't surprise me if Taue and Akiyama both get in since they look much stronger on a ballot with Han, Tamura and Hamada than they would on earlier ballots. I'm not sure what you can do about it, though, short of no longer inducting Japanese candidates. If you removed the geographical element and required them to get 60% on the overall ballot, they wouldn't get in, but then there might not be any inductees. I suppose the voters could always refrain from voting, but I think it's clear that people are going to vote for Japanese candidates from here on out regardless of how good business is.

[Al]

Would everyone here agree that Japan is the most overrepresented sector in the HOF? I realize Taue is still on the outside looking in, along with Han and Tamura. But it seems like most of the borderline Japanese candidates have gone in, where roughly equivalent U.S. stars have lingered on the ballot. I say that as an impression, without any real analysis behind it.

1990s Japan is probably overrepresented. It feels less like "these are the best wrestlers of all time" and more like "this is the style of wrestling I personally enjoy." What's odd is that for all the Hall of Famers of that era, the only native Japanese from about pre-1975 are Inoki, Baba, Rikidozan and maybe Kintaro Ohki (counting the Koreans). We could stand to have more research on guys like Masahiko Kimura, Harold Sakata, Hiro Matsuda, Kinji Shibuya, etc.

[jdw]

When I brought Bellamy up I was thinking more along the lines of the more recent trend (I think it's a recent trend) of taking a deeper look at 60s numbers (Wilt, Robertson etc.) to determine why they put up such huge numbers, which is not analysis that I think factors into Hall of Fame perception, but rather a million was Wilt overrated internet arguments.

It's not a recent thing. Dave Heeren was doing Basketball Abstracts in the 80s and 90s to play off the success of Bill James, using his TENDEX stuff. My recollection is that he developed that long before writing his books. Dean Oliver was doing stuff in the mid-90s, and Hollinger popped up around that time. Anytime someone develops stuff like Heeren, Oliver and Hollinger, they or others are instantly draw to applying it to the past: how Jordan compared to Wilt, etc.

 

Had people looked deeper at things like (i) the high number of points being scored in the early 60s, (ii) the high number of shots / missed shots in the same period, and how (iii) it inflated PPG and RPG? Or that there were 9 teams in the NBA in Bellamy's "prime" and being 3-3-4-6-5 in Rebounds in a league with 9 Centers and the position of Power Forward not really developed yet isn't mind numbing? It's likely that people were onto that in the mid-90s at the latest. Bill James was doing it in baseball in no later than the early 80s, and influenced similar people in other sports.

 

John

[jdw]

Can someone break down the argument that got Saito in? I'm not questioning it. I'm just curious. I've liked what I've seen but I don't know his credentials.

That always was a strange one. It's not like Saito did anything between 1996 and when he got in that enhanced his candidacy.

 

"Don't ask me... I didn't vote for him."

-jdw

[jdw]

Would everyone here agree that Japan is the most overrepresented sector in the HOF? I realize Taue is still on the outside looking in, along with Han and Tamura. But it seems like most of the borderline Japanese candidates have gone in, where roughly equivalent U.S. stars have lingered on the ballot. I say that as an impression, without any real analysis behind it.

05/08/1961 Taue

06/18/1962 Misawa (HOF)

12/23/1962 Mutoh (HOF)

09/17/1963 Chono (HOF)

12/08/1963 Kawada (HOF)

07/03/1965 Hashimoto (HOF)

08/04/1966 Sasaki (HOF)

03/27/1967 Kobashi (HOF)

 

Of the top 8 heavyweights of the two companies of that generation, 7 are in.

 

Add in Liger and Hase, one was a jr and the other is a strange combo of a HOF candidacy, though he was a heavy for most of his NJPW career. Takada was of the same generation, but left to make a HOF career in UWF and UWFi. Sakuraba.

 

Jun will likely get in, and he's 2 years younger than Kobashi. Funaki, Suzuki, Tamura. At some point, someone will make the case for Nagata for his long reign, and someone will likely remember he thought he was a terrific worker at his peak. If Suzuki can get in, then Takayama will get in since it's likely there's more evidence that he drew... and he did have the famous fight with Frye, etc. Tenzan? Kojima?

 

I don't think the Japanese wrestlers of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s are over represented: we've still be successful in beating off the challenge of Sakaguchi. But the 90s... yeah.

 

Some of it is fine. What Maeda, Onita and Takada did as far as drawing really big and for a number of years with what were essentially Indy promotions is pretty impressive and to me significant. If ECW drew what Onita did, TNA what Maeda drew, and ROH what Takada drew, then I'd think we would see some HOF careers candidates get in for what they did in drawing those numbers.

 

Some of it, like Hase, Sasaki, Funaki... yeah... not who I voted for.

 

John

[jdw]

Well, it's definitely true that when he's defending certain workers, he calls on the authority of other wrestlers he has spoken with. But as with many things Dave, he's not consistent about how he uses such arguments.

Consistency is the issue.

 

When a wrestler tells him something that Dave things is totally full of shit, Dave will laugh it off. I've told the story of Funk putting over Tanaka plenty of times over the years.

 

When it lines up with Dave's thinking, it's more juice for the point.

 

If it's something Dave hasn't considered much yet, then it can sway him.

 

I think vastly more so in the past 10 years than in the 20 before that.

 

John

[jdw]

For years Dave wouldn't think he was a HOFer because he saw Sasaki's career, and he really wasn't at the level as package as the rest of the Top Guys from that era.

Is Sasaki really a worse HOF candidate than Chono?

 

Yeah.

[jdw]

Japan is the second biggest market for pro-wrestling in the world so it deserves a fair degree of representation. The trouble with borderline candidates going in is that they require less overall votes to gain 60% support and with most of the major candidates already in the Hall there's plenty of elbow room for fringe candidates. It wouldn't surprise me if Taue and Akiyama both get in since they look much stronger on a ballot with Han, Tamura and Hamada than they would on earlier ballots. I'm not sure what you can do about it, though, short of no longer inducting Japanese candidates. If you removed the geographical element and required them to get 60% on the overall ballot, they wouldn't get in, but then there might not be any inductees. I suppose the voters could always refrain from voting, but I think it's clear that people are going to vote for Japanese candidates from here on out regardless of how good business is.

Taue is unlikely to get in. Dave's not behind him, and the view that he's the lesser of the Big 4 is pretty much set in stone with the voters. While that view is also there for Sasaki, this is a problem for Taue relative to Sasaki:

 

Sasaki: 7 IWGP+TC+GHC reigns for 1070 days

Taue: 2 TC+GHC reigns for 139 days

 

Sasaki has the "honors", and one can portray his Domes/Big Halls "headlines" in a way that make him look very good. Taue... it's really tough. You're left trying to make the argument on Work, and it's always going to be a tough sell.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not asking you outright if you would vote for him John, but do you consider Taue a strong, middling or weak candidate? I ask because even though I see the flaws in his candidacy, it would be hard for me not to vote for him. Call it bias, but I've always thought he was a hugely underrated worker, was one half of possibly the best tag team of all time and I look at him as a sort of Foley candidate in the sense that he was never the biggest star in his company, or even really the second biggest, but it's very hard for me to envision that red hot period without him. I will say if Akiyama gets in (and I think he has a decent shot), I think it is almost impossible to construct an argument against Taue, not that that would help him.

 

Also I know Boricua may be busy, but I see him reading this thread, so I want to ask him again about Chicky/Hugo?

[jdw]

Would everyone here agree that Japan is the most overrepresented sector in the HOF? I realize Taue is still on the outside looking in, along with Han and Tamura. But it seems like most of the borderline Japanese candidates have gone in, where roughly equivalent U.S. stars have lingered on the ballot. I say that as an impression, without any real analysis behind it.

1990s Japan is probably overrepresented. It feels less like "these are the best wrestlers of all time" and more like "this is the style of wrestling I personally enjoy." What's odd is that for all the Hall of Famers of that era, the only native Japanese from about pre-1975 are Inoki, Baba, Rikidozan and maybe Kintaro Ohki (counting the Koreans). We could stand to have more research on guys like Masahiko Kimura, Harold Sakata, Hiro Matsuda, Kinji Shibuya, etc.

 

In Japan, those guys collectively meant very little. Kimura meant something until the Rikidozan match, and that was it for him as a pro wrestler of any note. Matsuda never was big in Japan... he wasn't even Taue level of being a star. Okay... he wasn't even Koshinaka level of being a star in Japan.

 

As far as other "stars" who aren't in...

 

Toyonobori isn't a HOFer. Got replaced on top by Baba, left/got fired, bombed with Tokyo Pro, and then wasn't pushed as the top guy in IWE and retired before the age of 40.

 

I don't care for Sakaguchi as a candidate.

 

There really isn't a missing candidate from that era.

[jdw]

I'm not asking you outright if you would vote for him John, but do you consider Taue a strong, middling or weak candidate? I ask because even though I see the flaws in his candidacy, it would be hard for me not to vote for him. Call it bias, but I've always thought he was a hugely underrated worker, was one half of possibly the best tag team of all time and I look at him as a sort of Foley candidate in the sense that he was never the biggest star in his company, or even really the second biggest, but it's very hard for me to envision that red hot period without him. I will say if Akiyama gets in (and I think he has a decent shot), I think it is almost impossible to construct an argument against Taue, not that that would help him.

I think Taue is a weak candidate. I'm thankful on some level that he existed to team with Jumbo and Kawada, and eventually have a run as a really terrific worker. But he's a weak candidate.

 

I don't see him as a comp for Foley as he's pretty much a zero for impact and influence, where as much as I don't like it, Foley was one of the key guys in bringing garbage to the US and/or elevating garbage in the US. Foley.. Sabu... Mick was doing it earlier, and on bigger stages.

 

I don't find the "If Akiyama gets in, then..." line of voting terribly compelling. If we did that, then the baseline are Hase or Dragon. I've never let the goofiness of voting in Hase make me draw up a list of everyone who was better than and/or more important than Hase and rally towards their candidacies. :/

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

My point on Akiyama is less "if he gets in Taue has to get in" and more "if Akiyama gets in and not Taue it will stick out like a sore thumb."

[El Boricua]

Sorry about not replying yet, I had an unexpected workshop meeting pop up at work and I haven't been able to take the time out I've wanted to write about Hugo and Chicky in more detail. I'm done with the workshop tomorrow, so hopefully I'll have time then. Short answer, both were very important in their roles, but if I had to choose who was more important, I'd say Hugo because he was also the producer of the shows. I'll go into longer detail tomorrow, since I also want to flesh out the show dynamics a bit.

[jdw]

My point on Akiyama is less "if he gets in Taue has to get in" and more "if Akiyama gets in and not Taue it will stick out like a sore thumb."

 

Not really anymore than Hase getting in and Koshinaka not. In the end, if people don't think Kosh is a HOFer, it doesn't matter and people don't care. Same with Taue.

 

I'm not advocating Kosh, but then again I'm not advocating Taue, Hase, Sasaki, Jun and Suzuki. This all is mining the chum of puroresu candidates.

[Dylan Waco]

I tend to think Taue is a vastly better worker than Koshinaka or Hase, but I get your point.

 

Having said that, if you think that's chum consider that KENTA is on the horizon.

 

There are candidates in the Japan category I think are interesting to one degree or another (Han, Hamada, the Sharpes, admittedly Taue), but it also makes me wish there was a None of The Above option. As it is voters have to select someone they don't think should be in to vote against candidates they fear will get in.

[Bix]

There are candidates in the Japan category I think are interesting to one degree or another (Han, Hamada, the Sharpes, admittedly Taue), but it also makes me wish there was a None of The Above option. As it is voters have to select someone they don't think should be in to vote against candidates they fear will get in.

No, they don't. I asked Dave and he assured me you can do that by including the category on your ballot and marking it with an X. That's what I did since I gave no thought to Matsunaga being a "Japanese" candidate for some reason.