WON HOF 2013 discussion

[JerryvonKramer]

His case is strengthened by a few things he has over Sting and Nash. Keeping the Gordy List questions in mind:

 

- He was a tremendous worker, unlike Sting or Nash

- He worked a lot of different territories and wasn't just an opponent in them, he held titles in just about every single one. Main event titles and tag titles.

- He was a national star during an era when you can count the number of national stars on two hands - he was big in Florida, Georgia, Mid-Atlantic, and WWWF -- as well as Puerto Rico, Canada, and Australia. So arguably an international star.

- Had a great "second wind" as Uncle Ivan in JCP, which Nash didn't have in his career and ... well, Sting's was in TNA

 

He was more than just an opponent for Bruno.

[evilclown]

His case is strengthened by a few things he has over Sting and Nash. Keeping the Gordy List questions in mind:

 

- He was a tremendous worker, unlike Sting or Nash

- He worked a lot of different territories and wasn't just an opponent in them, he held titles in just about every single one. Main event titles and tag titles.

- He was a national star during an era when you can count the number of national stars on two hands - he was big in Florida, Georgia, Mid-Atlantic, and WWWF -- as well as Puerto Rico, Canada, and Australia. So arguably an international star.

- Had a great "second wind" as Uncle Ivan in JCP, which Nash didn't have in his career and ... well, Sting's was in TNA

 

He was more than just an opponent for Bruno.

No offense, but that's wind. That's not the kind of stuff that would make me vote for a guy.

 

Looking at his record post WWE title I see:

 

1972: Follows WWWF run with a build to a match with Verne. Loses and then loses his way down the card too.

 

1973: Successful heel tag team with Billy Graham near top in AWA.

 

1974-1975: Spent the year in Crockett. Looks to have been on the losing end in a lot of midcard matches.

 

1976: WWE run.

 

1977: Florida run. Looks to have had some success here. Would have loved to have seen his team with Pat Patterson

 

1978: More Florida and an Atlanta run teaming with Ole. Back in New York in the latter part of the year.

 

1979: More Atlanta. Teaming w/ "Other Nikita" Alexis Smirnoff

 

1980-1981: More of the same. Less successful return to Florida and then Crockett.

 

1982-1987: Mixed bag in Crockett. Really catches a break when Nikita catches fire.

 

That's pretty solid stuff, actually. What I don't know is how he did in any of those runs? He had some sustained runs, but rarely at the tippy top of the card. He seems to have been a solid player in a couple of major territories. What value do we place on that in a Hall of Fame context? Lots of wrestlers meet that criteria.

[mookeighana]

For non-wrestlers, what sorts of critieria should be applied?

 

As I thought about it over coffee this morning the general themes that came out were innovation/originality, effectiveness, longevity, influence and overall transformative nature of their participation on the world of pro-wrestling in their respective role (manager, promoter, interviewer, magazine publisher). Did I miss anything ?

 

I think of how the induction of Lou Albano really shone a light on how a single manager could be so effective whilst being a long-lived, original character.

 

Jimmy Hart hits those hurdles for me; and I think there is a persuasive case for Okerlund as well. He was stayed in demand for decades. Ventura's political career (and to a lesser extent movie and conspiracy host) always seems to bleed into arguments for his candidacy which don't seem apropos in the role hes being considered for HOF context.

[soup23]

His case is strengthened by a few things he has over Sting and Nash. Keeping the Gordy List questions in mind:

 

- He was a tremendous worker, unlike Sting or Nash

I enjoy Ivan over Sting and Nash but I am surprised to see you use the tremendous adjective when discussing him Parv. I would have Ivan as a good worker that executed his role really well but I doubt if I made a top 50 GOAT list, he would be in contention at all. For instance someone like Atlantis seems like a better worker to me based on available footage seen.

[Bix]

The Koloff record book is missing, at the bare minimum, his run in Australia in 1970, which fits since there's a big gap that year. He was brought in w/ a $1,000/week guarantee; only a few of the established main eventers ("the $1,000 club") were paid that much, and Gary Hart said in his book that "Ivan was one of the highest priced guys that Jim ever brought to Australia." That's in a territory with little to no road expenses (Barnett flew you everywhere and reimbursed you for your meals if you filed an expense report), too.

 

He's a guy I'm most likely voting for. He was:

 

- A draw in a major market (Montreal) as soon as he took on the Koloff gimmick.

- In money spots in money territories for a good two decades. His smallest territories were JCP during the George Scott transition as it was blowing up, Florida, and Vancouver when it still mattered

- Booked into all of the "cherry-picking" cities (St. Louis, Toronto, and Houston) and foreign destinations (Japan and Australia) as a top guy.

- Was a big enough star to both hold Vince McMahon Sr. up for money (his coup w/ Ernie Ladd and Superstar Graham) and work in the IWA as co-top heel with Ladd.

- The guy who beat Bruno. Even if you don't consider it a tangible positive for his candidacy, it was a huge deal he was supposed to have more of a Graham-length run until the whole "save him from being murdered" thing had to happen.

 

His last JCP run isn't the type of thing that screams HOFer on his own, but being the Satanico to Nikita (whose matches he was often calling from ringside, including during the best of seven series with Magnum) and Krusher's Guerreros Del Infierno helps his case,,

 

If you subscribe to the Dick Murdoch as measuring stick idea, Koloff wins out aside from stardom in Japan and in-ring work, which he was no slouch at. Well, Murdoch was also a bigger star in St. Louis but that's not the be all and end all.

[evilclown]

- In money spots in money territories for a good two decades. His smallest territories were JCP during the George Scott transition as it was blowing up, Florida, and Vancouver when it still mattered

I'm not sure what that means. He went up and down the card. When was he in a "money spot?" His best run on top probably was Florida. Was he exceptional there? He's never mentioned as one of the big draws or opponents for the Briscos.

 

- Booked into all of the "cherry-picking" cities (St. Louis, Toronto, and Houston) and foreign destinations (Japan and Australia) as a top guy.

Based on that record book he didn't work Japan often and didn't seem to be a top guy the way we'd normally define it. And, if anything, St. Louis refutes a Hall of Fame case. He was slotted as a midlevel guy—and he still did jobs.

 

 

- The guy who beat Bruno. Even if you don't consider it a tangible positive for his candidacy, it was a huge deal he was supposed to have more of a Graham-length run until the whole "save him from being murdered" thing had to happen.

It comes down to this. Everything else is solid and respectable but not Hall of Fame worthy even if you're stretch Armstrong.

[Dylan Waco]

His case is strengthened by a few things he has over Sting and Nash. Keeping the Gordy List questions in mind:

 

- He was a tremendous worker, unlike Sting or Nash

- He worked a lot of different territories and wasn't just an opponent in them, he held titles in just about every single one. Main event titles and tag titles.

- He was a national star during an era when you can count the number of national stars on two hands - he was big in Florida, Georgia, Mid-Atlantic, and WWWF -- as well as Puerto Rico, Canada, and Australia. So arguably an international star.

- Had a great "second wind" as Uncle Ivan in JCP, which Nash didn't have in his career and ... well, Sting's was in TNA

 

He was more than just an opponent for Bruno.

No offense, but that's wind. That's not the kind of stuff that would make me vote for a guy.

 

Looking at his record post WWE title I see:

 

1972: Follows WWWF run with a build to a match with Verne. Loses and then loses his way down the card too.

 

1973: Successful heel tag team with Billy Graham near top in AWA.

 

1974-1975: Spent the year in Crockett. Looks to have been on the losing end in a lot of midcard matches.

 

1976: WWE run.

 

1977: Florida run. Looks to have had some success here. Would have loved to have seen his team with Pat Patterson

 

1978: More Florida and an Atlanta run teaming with Ole. Back in New York in the latter part of the year.

 

1979: More Atlanta. Teaming w/ "Other Nikita" Alexis Smirnoff

 

1980-1981: More of the same. Less successful return to Florida and then Crockett.

 

1982-1987: Mixed bag in Crockett. Really catches a break when Nikita catches fire.

 

That's pretty solid stuff, actually. What I don't know is how he did in any of those runs? He had some sustained runs, but rarely at the tippy top of the card. He seems to have been a solid player in a couple of major territories. What value do we place on that in a Hall of Fame context? Lots of wrestlers meet that criteria.

 

These are all very valid questions and I honestly hope HoF voters as a rule look at things this way. I would rather have a high standard then a low standard and people wanting to study then going on gut.

 

In many ways I think Koloff is comparable to Patera (here I go again I know, but here me out for a second) because neither was ever really an ace, neither were homesteaders and neither was ever the absolute top heel in the country (though there were times when both were probably really close and there are metrics where you could argue Patera was in 1980 but I digress). Koloff has the big "moment" that Patera lacks - namely a WWWF title win and more importantly the fact that the win was over WWWF god Bruno. It is possible that that win inflates the value of Ivan in the eyes of some myself included. I'm open to the idea that that is the case, but the real point is that I would want to look at Ivan in the particulars and not necessarily the generals.

 

For example with Patera here is what I can say as a cliff notes case:

 

He debuted as a guy who was at or near the top of the card in programs that were designed to draw and basically stayed that way minus a month here or a month there in between territories until he went to prison 12.5 years later. How many guys with careers like this during the territorial era exists and aren't in?

 

He headlined in Montreal, Toronto, Philly, New York, Boston, Milwaukee, Chicago, Memphis, St. Louis, San Fran, Dallas, Winnipeg, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Landover, Baltimore, et, et, multiple times. In his case I have a post that breaks this down and is actually really conservative in how I apply the data (for example I count virtually no AWA shows as main events unless he went on last which is not realistic. Same with St. Louis where everyone acknowledges they often ran double mains. Same with the Carolinas where it wasn't always clear. Et.). But the point is how many people have that sort of major market main event record spread over more than a decade who aren't in?

 

He feuded, had rivalries with or was an extremely regular opponent of Dusty Rhodes, Bob Backlund, Bruno Sammartino, Pedro Morales, Pat Paterson, Hulk Hogan, Billy Graham, Wahoo McDaniel, Jerry Lawler, Andre The Giant, Bill Watts, Jack Brisco, Tommy Rich, Tony Atlas, Dino Bravo and The High Flyers. How many guys who did this or something comparable aren't in?

 

These point specifically to Patera but the point is these are the sort of things that would be useful to have pointing to Ivan. Some of that can be gleaned from a record book, but not all of it. These are generals that can get you to specifics or which can illustrate specifics.

 

Okay so we get more specific.

 

He was brought in for multiple big money runs in New York opposite both Bruno and Backlund. How many guys who did that aren't in? Not specific enough? Okay, he had 28 WWWF title shots against Backlund alone. How does that compare to other wrestlers? Did anyone have more title shots against Backlund? Did anyone have more title shots in New York in the Bruno era forward against an individual champion? If not who were these other people and what did their history look like? Are they Hall of Famers?

 

Now I know the counter here is "that's a fuck of a lot of work and no one is going to do that." Probably so. I mean I might one day, but I'm not going to now. That's where I would say thinking about things that combine the specific and the general are helpful.

 

For example Patera got title shots against Bruno, Backlund, Billy Graham, Hogan, Terry Funk, Harley Race, Ric Flair and Dusty Rhodes virtually all of which were in major markets and all of which we have numbers for did great business? Who else has done that or something roughly comparable over a span of nine years (76-85) and isn't in?

 

Or my favorite in the case of Patera has anyone else headlined the Kiel, the Mid-South Coliseum, MSG, The Boston Garden, The Philly Spectrum and Toronto Maple Leaf Gardens ten times or more a piece and not gotten into the Hall of Fame (actually has anyone EVER done this besides Patera?)?

 

I realize these aren't criteria but the point is are they anomalies and are these the sort of anomalies you would expect to see in someone who was a Hall of Famer?

 

The point here isn't solely to talk up Patera (though of course that is always partially my point ), but to illustrate the kind of work that maybe should be done in greater detail on Ivan. I think he's an HoFer and would almost certainly vote for him if I had a ballot, but I think evilclown is on to something in arguing that someone should go out there, do the work and then show it.

 

One other thing relevant to something evilclown said in another post.

 

Pointing to whether or not guys popped houses is great if you can get, the problem is it's not always possible. Sometimes territories don't have attendance figures available (often in fact). Sometimes they aren't reliable attendance figures or are inflated (often in fact). Sometimes promotions are hot and stay hot when a new ace comes in which means the ace held the fort down but he didn't really "pop" anything. This is one of the reasons historians seem to have started looking at things like whether or not guys were in demand all over and/or getting multiple major title shots in important spots - it suggests they had value to promoters, and in the absence of other metrics it is the best you can do.

[JerryvonKramer]

His case is strengthened by a few things he has over Sting and Nash. Keeping the Gordy List questions in mind:

 

- He was a tremendous worker, unlike Sting or Nash

I enjoy Ivan over Sting and Nash but I am surprised to see you use the tremendous adjective when discussing him Parv. I would have Ivan as a good worker that executed his role really well but I doubt if I made a top 50 GOAT list, he would be in contention at all. For instance someone like Atlantis seems like a better worker to me based on available footage seen.

 

Let me put that another way: he had a rep as a good to great worker. You hear a lot of guys from the era talk about him in glowing terms. Not "best in the world" status, but certainly a guy who was highly rated as being more than just a good hand.

 

I understand why evil clown is subjecting his case to scrutiny and wanting to see numbers -- that's all good. My point was that compared to the likes of Sting or Nash, he was a "great worker".

 

I was trying to think of an 80s or 90s equivalent of an Ivan but I'm drawing a blank. I'll say this: he's mostly a notch down from most of the guys who are already in from that era. We could talk about Billy Graham as an interesting comparison point. Graham had a hotter peak, but I don't know if you could say career vs. career he had a better one than Ivan. Other than that you're pretty much looking at "super workers", all-time champs, or all-time draws, or all three, and I'd admit that Ivan's not quite there on any of those scores.

 

I do think in a way Ivan is a "gate way" guy: put him in, and maybe you slightly lower the bar for everyone else. He is a bit of a "best of the rest" pick.

[evilclown]

Great reply Dylan. I'm not ruling out Patera or Koloff. Just trying to figure out what we know as opposed to what we think we know.

 

I guess I'm more skeptical that some others when it comes to a wrestler being used over and over again in key spots. Does that really mean he was working out?

 

If we look at modern wrestling, we see guys recycled again and again because they are "stars." It seems possible to me that Koloff rode the wave of his Bruno win to opportunity after opportunity from copycat promoters who were dumb as rocks.

[Dylan Waco]

For non-wrestlers, what sorts of critieria should be applied?

 

As I thought about it over coffee this morning the general themes that came out were innovation/originality, effectiveness, longevity, influence and overall transformative nature of their participation on the world of pro-wrestling in their respective role (manager, promoter, interviewer, magazine publisher). Did I miss anything ?

 

I think of how the induction of Lou Albano really shone a light on how a single manager could be so effective whilst being a long-lived, original character.

 

Jimmy Hart hits those hurdles for me; and I think there is a persuasive case for Okerlund as well. He was stayed in demand for decades. Ventura's political career (and to a lesser extent movie and conspiracy host) always seems to bleed into arguments for his candidacy which don't seem apropos in the role hes being considered for HOF context.

 

I think all those criteria are relevant, but I would say the most important one to ask in most cases is "were they part of a formula that was successful in drawing fans and how big a part were they?" In the case of promoters this is usually fairly clear. I think the problem here is that there is a tendency to punish promoters for their worst moments and biggest failures. "Well Jim Crockett Jr. went out of business so he can't be a WON HoFer." Yes, but this ignores the fact that they ALL went out of business eventually excluding Vince. I'm a skeptic on whether Crockett belongs, but the point is that he shouldn't be judged entirely on the fact that he went out of business. It's a piece of the puzzle not the whole puzzle. Same goes for Jarrett (I guess he technically didn't go out of business but still), Owen, et.

 

I would argue the same goes for non-promoters too. Jimmy Hart is an HoFer in my eyes not just because he a great performer, not just because he was a template of sorts for someone like Corny and others, not just because he was around forever, et. In fact the primary reason I think he was an HoFer is because he was effectively the lead heel for Memphis during a hot period for Memphis wrestling and in the absence of Lawler was asked to carry the show. Hart is a Hall of Famer because he was a drawing card who did all those other things, not because he was a guy who just happened to be a drawing card while doing those other things. If that makes sense.

[Dylan Waco]

His case is strengthened by a few things he has over Sting and Nash. Keeping the Gordy List questions in mind:

 

- He was a tremendous worker, unlike Sting or Nash

I enjoy Ivan over Sting and Nash but I am surprised to see you use the tremendous adjective when discussing him Parv. I would have Ivan as a good worker that executed his role really well but I doubt if I made a top 50 GOAT list, he would be in contention at all. For instance someone like Atlantis seems like a better worker to me based on available footage seen.

 

Let me put that another way: he had a rep as a good to great worker. You hear a lot of guys from the era talk about him in glowing terms. Not "best in the world" status, but certainly a guy who was highly rated as being more than just a good hand.

 

I understand why evil clown is subjecting his case to scrutiny and wanting to see numbers -- that's all good. My point was that compared to the likes of Sting or Nash, he was a "great worker".

 

I was trying to think of an 80s or 90s equivalent of an Ivan but I'm drawing a blank. I'll say this: he's mostly a notch down from most of the guys who are already in from that era. We could talk about Billy Graham as an interesting comparison point. Graham had a hotter peak, but I don't know if you could say career vs. career he had a better one than Ivan. Other than that you're pretty much looking at "super workers", all-time champs, or all-time draws, or all three, and I'd admit that Ivan's not quite there on any of those scores.

 

I do think in a way Ivan is a "gate way" guy: put him in, and maybe you slightly lower the bar for everyone else. He is a bit of a "best of the rest" pick.

 

I think Ivan is comparable to Wahoo.

 

Wahoo may be a stronger candidate. My inclination is to say that he is. But I don't think he is a VASTLY better candidate. I think they are similar in many ways, probably have a lot of the same sorts of positives and probably even similar negatives.

 

I actually think Ivan is a better candidate than Graham on the surface, but I wouldn't want to have to defend it with specifics

[Indikator]

Just to insert a tidbit - I have a scan of a Joint Promotions letter to wrestler Erich Koltschak from around 1965 where they decline his wish to have one of those 40 matches UK tours on the basis that business is way down

[JerryvonKramer]

His case is strengthened by a few things he has over Sting and Nash. Keeping the Gordy List questions in mind:

 

- He was a tremendous worker, unlike Sting or Nash

I enjoy Ivan over Sting and Nash but I am surprised to see you use the tremendous adjective when discussing him Parv. I would have Ivan as a good worker that executed his role really well but I doubt if I made a top 50 GOAT list, he would be in contention at all. For instance someone like Atlantis seems like a better worker to me based on available footage seen.

 

Let me put that another way: he had a rep as a good to great worker. You hear a lot of guys from the era talk about him in glowing terms. Not "best in the world" status, but certainly a guy who was highly rated as being more than just a good hand.

 

I understand why evil clown is subjecting his case to scrutiny and wanting to see numbers -- that's all good. My point was that compared to the likes of Sting or Nash, he was a "great worker".

 

I was trying to think of an 80s or 90s equivalent of an Ivan but I'm drawing a blank. I'll say this: he's mostly a notch down from most of the guys who are already in from that era. We could talk about Billy Graham as an interesting comparison point. Graham had a hotter peak, but I don't know if you could say career vs. career he had a better one than Ivan. Other than that you're pretty much looking at "super workers", all-time champs, or all-time draws, or all three, and I'd admit that Ivan's not quite there on any of those scores.

 

I do think in a way Ivan is a "gate way" guy: put him in, and maybe you slightly lower the bar for everyone else. He is a bit of a "best of the rest" pick.

 

I think Ivan is comparable to Wahoo.

 

Wahoo may be a stronger candidate. My inclination is to say that he is. But I don't think he is a VASTLY better candidate. I think they are similar in many ways, probably have a lot of the same sorts of positives and probably even similar negatives.

 

I actually think Ivan is a better candidate than Graham on the surface, but I wouldn't want to have to defend it with specifics

 

I think Wahoo is an interesting comparison because he highlights what evil clown is saying.

 

I don't know if Ivan was ever as important to a promotion as Wahoo was for Mid-Atlantic, for example. Ivan's strength -- that he was a top guy brought into every major territory for high profile runs -- is also a kind of weakness. "Well why was he never an anchor?"

 

Ivan's candidacy may well rest on this question: "How many guys outside of the NWA champ of that era were considered good enough to have a similar career as a kind of 'traveling top heel'?" Everyone traveled around to an extent, but I don't know if there are a huge amount of guys in that class. If you can count them on one hand, then that's surely a boost for Ivan's case. If you can find 20 other guys who had big runs in all the places he did, then he's simply typical of the era. From the stuff I've looked at in recent times listening to Matysik, researching bios for the Titans show, reading through random 70s cards and so on, I think it's more towards the former -- but I'd be willing to listen to a counter argument.

[Indikator]

I'd be very careful with the anchor argument, as that could be interpreted as "he didn't own a territory and put himself on top".

[Dylan Waco]

Great reply Dylan. I'm not ruling out Patera or Koloff. Just trying to figure out what we know as opposed to what we think we know.

 

I guess I'm more skeptical that some others when it comes to a wrestler being used over and over again in key spots. Does that really mean he was working out?

 

If we look at modern wrestling, we see guys recycled again and again because they are "stars." It seems possible to me that Koloff rode the wave of his Bruno win to opportunity after opportunity from copycat promoters who were dumb as rocks.

I see absolutely no problem with skepticism. I am a Patera lobbyist obviously and it's going to annoy the shit out of me if he drops off the ballot this first go around (yes I know he was on the first ballot out of the gate but that was well over a decade ago), but I would rather people be skeptical then just say "well I take Dylan's word for it because he's done the work." That's why I think it is important to show the work and not just do it. It's how Yohe convinced me on Torres - you look at the record book and read around the other stuff that's available and talk to other historians (yes I'm a big enough geek where I have done that even though I don't have a vote which probably says something about my sanity) and you start to get a complete picture. From there if we disagree on what constitutes an HoFer that's fine. The important point is that we try to operate from the same basic group of facts.

 

On the in demand metric I am extremely skeptical of applying modern standards to "pre-modern" standards. In other words, I am very suspicious of the argument that we can look at the post-territory landscape the same way we look at the territory landscape.

 

Again I don't know a ton about Ivan's specifics but I do know a ton about Patera and here is what I know about the "in demand" metric in his case.

 

- His early feud with Billy Graham was considered strong enough in the AWA where it got farmed out to the Texas office and unfolded in exactly the same fashion a good indication that an office (which was not closely related) that it could make them real money.

 

- He was brought in to work multiple feuds and runs against Backlund and Bruno in NY and around the loop. This was not terribly common in NY. I'm still not positive anyone got more title shots against Backlund (maybe Valentine) and I am doubtful anyone got more major market title shots. Also notable that Bob/Patera was worked on the road in key locales (Greensboro, St. Louis, Toronto) an indication that it was considered an especially hot feud.

 

- He was a top of the card/main event guy in St. Louis and Toronto, two of the three big "one shot" spots in wrestling (he rarely worked Houston for whatever reason) for several years, headlining both outright ten times or more a piece. In fact he was a big enough main event guy in St. Louis where he was still getting main events and NWA title shots there even after he walked out on the Georgia office and was working full time in the AWA, something that is hard to imagine a non-major star getting.

 

- The list of guys who were regular opponents is pretty much a who's who of stars. It strikes me as odd that a guy who's most consistent opponents, rivals and feuds were against those names would be a guy who promoters didn't consider an attraction with some real value.

 

- He headlined at least once in virtually every major market in the country and the vast majority of the key towns he was either a regular main eventer or a regular semi-main eventer (I use that term conservatively - in a lot of places there were double main events or the match that went on second to last was a hotter feud underneath a title match).

 

- Even on shows he didn't technically main event, he was often booked second from the top in a match that would have clearly been considered an attraction by any reasonable metric. For example working second from the top v. Andre at Maple Leaf Gardens or working v. Dusty second from the top at the Super Bowl of wrestling super show in Florida.

 

- Even after the period that would generally be considered his prime enough was thought of him that he was working main event runs and slots for the AWA, St. Louis, Memphis and Montreal all at right around the same general time in 1983. Some of these were tag bouts, but not all including a main event v. Andre at The Forum in Montreal that drew 16,500 people.

 

- Despite a pending jail sentence Vince thought enough of Patera to bring him into the WWF and put him in a money drawing angle with Studd v. Andre and friends around the loop. This feud was often paired with Greg/Tito on shows that did very strong business and was almost never the tour that worked with Hogan. It was one of these cards that sold out Detroit for the first time in over a decade effectively opening up the town for the WWF.

 

These are just some points and they are sort of scattered around. Some of them feel more like addendum's then rock solid building blocks for a candidacy (particularly the last one), but the point is they are things that you can glean from a review of Patera's career which suggests to me that it's unlikely he just kept lucking his way into promoters who saw more value in him then he was really worth. The fact that there are at best only a couple of guys with comparable resumes from the same general time frame who aren't in the HOF (if there are any at all) makes me feel even more strongly about it.

 

With modern guys they are stars made by a national tv model, not a local tv/house show model. Kane is a star because he's on tv a lot and presented as a star and he gets "recycled" up top because there is one show in town and that's just how he is presented. I don't think you can say the same thing for Patera or Koloff

[kjh]

The problem I have with Jim Crockett Jr. as a candidate compared with other promoters is that he wasn't very hands on with the booking. Most of the promoters already in the Hall Of Fame were great bookers too. Crockett was very hands off and let George Scott, Dory Jr. and Dusty largely do their thing. That's of course a positive when things are going well, but a negative if you don't shake things up when your winning hand becomes a losing one.

 

I think if the Crockett family were considered as a group, then they would be impossible to deny, but not sure they deserve to go in separately.

[Dylan Waco]

I can't argue with that Keith.

 

I wouldn't vote for either of the Crockett's at the moment. I'm not completely opposed to the idea but I think there are five better candidates in that category and I'm not sold that they really belong. I was mainly using Jr. as an example of how I think people should take a more discerning look at promoters instead of just saying "well he went out of business so no" which is an argument I have actually seen voters make before.

[Childs]

Do we have a sense of how many voters take their HOF selections seriously? Or more specifically, how many would go beyond their gut impulses (that guy was a star!) to read something like Dylan's Patera research?

[JerryvonKramer]

From the Crockett doc, I thought he came off as being quite a weak leader who was easily led and didn't really have a handle on anything. Just "went with the flow". I also don't think the case for his dad is particularly strong, but would love to see an argument for him.

[Matt D]

One reason why i never seriously get into these discussions is that I always lean towards the novelty stuff. With Hart, I swear the first thing that comes to mind isn't Memphis but him coming up with so many songs.

 

With Koloff, I immediately wanted to know who he trained. With Wahoo, you hear so much about him teaching guys the ins and the outs of the business and serving as a mentor and helping guys get jobs later and what not. Hell, with Patera, I mentioned there'd be no Flair without Patera.

 

I am useless to meaningful conversation here.

[Dylan Waco]

I think Wahoo is an interesting comparison because he highlights what evil clown is saying.

 

I don't know if Ivan was ever as important to a promotion as Wahoo was for Mid-Atlantic, for example. Ivan's strength -- that he was a top guy brought into every major territory for high profile runs -- is also a kind of weakness. "Well why was he never an anchor?"

 

Ivan's candidacy may well rest on this question: "How many guys outside of the NWA champ of that era were considered good enough to have a similar career as a kind of 'traveling top heel'?" Everyone traveled around to an extent, but I don't know if there are a huge amount of guys in that class. If you can count them on one hand, then that's surely a boost for Ivan's case. If you can find 20 other guys who had big runs in all the places he did, then he's simply typical of the era. From the stuff I've looked at in recent times listening to Matysik, researching bios for the Titans show, reading through random 70s cards and so on, I think it's more towards the former -- but I'd be willing to listen to a counter argument.

To me you have to look at both anchoring and the "in demand" metric more closely then just saying "well X did Y so there for he is in." Some anchors anchor smaller promotions or weaker offices or don't draw as well or have brief runs. Some of those people who are theoretically "in demand" spent an awful lot of time in the mid-card, didn't work top guys very often, and didn't really stay any place all that long.

 

To Indikator's point I think there is a tipping point with the "self promoters." I have watched enough Puerto Rico at this point to know that Colon was over as fuck. He may have promoted some loaded shows, may have kept himself in that top slot, but at those shows people were dying to see him win and he was drawing in that top slot. Not drawing enough to sustain himself, not drawing enough to make a little coin, drawing enough where WWC was one of the hottest promotions on the planet for much of the 80's. I understand the skepticism of guys who book themselves in those slots, but even those kind of anchors some times have numbers that I personally feel are impossible to deny.

[Dylan Waco]

Do we have a sense of how many voters take their HOF selections seriously? Or more specifically, how many would go beyond their gut impulses (that guy was a star!) to read something like Dylan's Patera research?

 

I think it's tough to say.

 

Between people who post here and Classics there are probably at least twenty-five voters that are at least looking at some of this stuff. Whether or not they use it to make informed decisions I have no way of knowing. In some cases I think it is likely that is happening (pretty much everyone who posts here for example and I think we have something like 10-12 voters here maybe more), in other cases I'm not sure.

 

With the wrestlers themselves I think it's largely a lost cause.

[mookeighana]

Do we have a sense of how many voters take their HOF selections seriously? Or more specifically, how many would go beyond their gut impulses (that guy was a star!) to read something like Dylan's Patera research?

A few years ago I ran some numbers ( http://theboard.f4wonline.com/viewtopic.ph...371640#p2371640 ) trying to extrapolate based on Dave's clues in the Observer results about how any voters he had in 2010, in particular in what was then called "US & Canada Modern" there was about 181 voters participating. Based on a series of tidbits, I ended up with a list that was predominantly current wrestlers and retired wrestlers my (guess was 120 current wrestlers, 45 former wrestlers, 6 historians, 10 reporters but that feels skewed). I am rethinking those numbers because I believe theres more than 20 non-wrestlers vote for modern wrestlers and the basis of voters must be broader than I estimated. But I can't believe more than 5% of wrestlers would think about the arguments listed by a guy like Dylan. I think almost a third to a half of historians or reporters would consider such an argument but that's going to be a function of which forums they frequent. Speaking of which, what forums should voters be frequenting?

[Dylan Waco]

The WON forum at Classics has some excellent threads. Beyond that and here of course I wouldn't begin to guess. Maybe Kayfabe Memories

[JerryvonKramer]

Why doesn't Farmer come here Dylan?