Tag Team Hall of Fame

[Superstar Sleeze]

The Patterson stuff isn't what's derailing this thread.

 

The problem with a WON-style HOF from my vantage is that the tag divisions were not used very effectively as box office draws in North America, but rather as springboards to singles success. Obviously there were tag territories like Mid-Atlantic in the 70s and it feels like the AWA was kind of a tag territory in the 70s, but for tag teams that I am familiar with and can watch I don't feel like I apply the same criteria to tag teams. Tag team gold is just not the end-goal in the post-Hogan world. It is just one of the stepping stones. Yes, most of this preface stems from the fact that I think Rockers are one of the best tag teams of all time and think they belong in the tag HOF, but cant justify it from a WON criteria point of view.

 

On The Rockers, from what I have gleaned from the other threads on HOF and the Wrestling Culture podcasts on the WON HOF, I agree they should probably not go in because they do not have a money feud. They have a great blood feud with Rose & Somers, but no money feud. McMahon used them specifically as a midcard act to energize the crowd and to deliver great athletic matches to the fans. Just like any company, everyone needs to perform their role in order to make sure the company worked smoothly. The Rockers may have not been moving the needle at box office, but I have watched enough matches to know they were over like rover. I would still contend they are a Top 5 North American team of all time based off excellent work in a variety of matches that all feel very different from each other. The Rockers are truly amazing for excelling at a breadth of styles. I am going to write up the big review when real life stops interfering. I agree that they probably should not go into a WON-style HOF.

 

Dylan, mind elaborating on why MNM would be a better overall act instead of the Rockers. They were pushed as the No.1 team on Smackdown and I remember some good matches with Hardys. Being the No. 1 team on Smackdown is pretty much the No. 1 team in the AWA in '86. Then add that the Rockers had 4 more years of kick ass matches. I don't even see how this is close. It is not like MNM was ever box office.

 

British Bulldogs weirdly enough do have a better case than the Rockers in my mind because they are very influential. The WWE style feels very close to the style that the style the Bulldogs worked. Benoit modeled himself after Dynamite and Benoit had a massive impact on the workrate of the business. His style emphasized offense over selling, which is what we see on the Indies and how crowds react to WWE matches. It is all about offense.

 

Demolition are mortal locks in my mind. From Wrestlemania IV-Summerslam '90, they ruled the WWF tag division at the height of the tag division's importance in that promotion. They did as both babyfaces and heels. They wrestled some great matches and were the actual box office draws of that tag division. You cant have a Tag Team Hall of Fame without Demolition.

 

Hart Foundation is a no way for me. I would put the Bulldogs and the Rockers way ahead. Cold, mechanical work coupled with an almost non-existent 1988 & 1989 pretty much renders unfit. From there, the 1990 title run was a lameduck reign to get Bret even further over for his singles run. The 1987 run was just the Bulldogs feud and that felt like the Bulldogs were more the stars than the Hart Foundation.

[Matt D]

One thing I do love about this place is the sort of macro view that one can only get by watching ALL the footage.

[Loss]

I split off the Patterson/Stevens stuff that I'm still confused about. If you have additional stuff to mull over, please post it in that thread and not here. Leave this Tag Team Hall of Fame, please.

[Dylan Waco]

I want to know what was so important about the tag division in the WWF during Demolition's reign. I'm not even opposed to the notion of them being in this discussion, I just want someone to make the pitch to me about importance of the division.

 

On MNM, I think it does wrong to say Smackdown during their era was comparable to 1986 AWA and this is coming from someone who loves 1986 AWA. Smackdown was a healthy show, for the biggest promotion in the world. MNM were a rare tag act in the modern era that had some value and they could work all over the cards against makeshift main eventers, or more traditional teams. The titles actually meant something when they had them - the Rockers never had the titles.

 

Now having said that I agree with most of what you said about The Rockers. I think they are absolutely tremendous as a team, and among the best teams we have footage from to come out of the States. I could see someone pitching them as being stronger candidates than MNM on the strength of their work, but it's worth noting that MNM would probably be my number two tag team in WWF history (going off the top of my head) in ring after only the Rockers.

[Al]

Oliver and Johnson had their Hall of Fame: Tag Teams book out several years ago. When I look at their list I would take their top 14 without much reservation, minus the British Bulldogs. To wit:

 

The Road Warriors

The Fabulous Kangaroos (Costello/Heffernan)

The Rock 'n' Roll Express

The Midnight Express

Patterson/Stevens

The Freebirds (Hayes/Gordy)

The Minnesota Wrecking Crew

The Assassins

Ernie & Emil Dusek

The Crusher & Dick the Bruiser

Black Gordman & Goliath

Ben & Mike Sharpe

Larry Hennig & Harley Race

 

That's a healthy starting point. If you can establish that your team belongs among that group, they're in. That's 13 teams, I would add the Funks and the Briscos without much hesistation to make an even 15. Then you can start looking at teams on the bubble.

 

Doc & Mike Gallagher- Apparently big stars of the golden age, but I don't know much. I was impressed watching them against Barend/Maurice, FWIW.

 

The Kalmikoffs/Von Brauners- I know little, but when a team is popular enough to become a franchise with interchangeable members, they've accomplished something

 

The Interns/Medics- I don't buy them as top 20, but apparently they were quite a team in the southeast

 

The British Bulldogs- Your mileage may vary

 

Arn Anderson/Tully Blanchard- I'm wary for some reason. More length of teaming than anything, because their matches were certainly great.

 

The Steiners- Not great matches generally, but good matches and pushed as a dominant team.

 

The Rockers- Concur with above statements about card placement. Another few years as a team and I'd feel better about their position.

 

The Dudleys- Overrated, but pushed in every promotion in both hemispheres.

 

The Hardys

 

Rip Hawk & Swede Hanson- Probably great, I just don't know enough about them to rubber stamp them.

 

Generally when I look at a tag team I like to see two things. One, long term as a team. Guys who are known more for that team than their singles accomplishments. And second, success across multiple promotions. The Hart Foundation were always favorites of mine, but I can't place them among the pantheon of great teams when they never did it elsewhere.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm 100% with Dylan -- if I understand him right -- that the 80s WWF scene (while all fondly remembered by us) just isn't very important in the overall scheme of tag-team wrestling history. The big teams of the 60s and 70s, especially in Mid Atlantic and Georgia, were at the top of the card and selling out arenas.

 

In the 80s, you can see some teams doing the same: The Freebirds, obviously, Midnight Express, Rock n Rolls (although arguably their peak as a top top team is shorter), Ivan and Nikita, Steamboat and Youngblood and The Road Warriors.

 

In WWF, the tag division was very firmly just that: a division. Tag guys didn't interact with other guys. They didn't main event many shows.

 

I haven't seen a single person mention The Wild Samoans in this thread. They held the WWF tag belts off and on for 3-4 YEARS. No one talks about them. Is it because they sucked? Is it because no one cares about the early 80s? Or is it because the WWF tag title scene never meant a whole lot?

 

Yet, we get plenty of Demolition and Hart Foundation and British Bulldogs talk. Why? It can only be because people know them and know about them. A proper Hall of Fame isn't about who you can remember or what you know. It's about who deserves to be there based on the criteria -- talent, drawing, longevity, whatever else. The WWF teams all seem significantly weaker to me than the big teams from the 60s and 70s and those from JCP and the other territories, simply because of positioning on the card and what was drawing the gates.

[Dylan Waco]

I would actually see The Moondogs as an interesting team to talk about more in the sense that they were an institution in their own bizarre way, than anything else. Not saying I see them as upper level, but I'd rate them above the Hart Foundation and teams of that ilk without a thought.

[Matt D]

There's also a perception issue. The official story of the WWF in the 80s is that the tag division was not just a big deal but a golden age. It was also probably something represented in the sheets with the Bulldogs and the Harts lionized. When some of our community went back and actually watched the matches a few years ago that didn't hold up. I know when I started naturally going through Demolition matches in a chronological watching, I was surprised because a lot of the common complaints of the era/style (From our community) wasn't true for them so ultimately it becomes really meta.

[khawk20]

I always found WWF tag matches compelling back then mostly because they had created a whole slew of "equal" teams. Anyone could beat anyone without the loser losing their standing as one of the teams in the mix. I think that was the goal that the WWF was trying to acheive as I view the sheer number of tag teams at the time as a way to accommodate all the talent they were grabbing. Those guys were made to look like they had meaningful roles due to their tag teams moreso than any of them could ever have done as singles guys.

 

By doing this, it also created an endless series of relatively meaningful title matches, by which I mean that it wasn't implausible that the Bees could win the title from Demolition based on past successes against them before they won the titles. Likewise, a team like Valentine and Beefcake could beat another established face team well past their title reign and nobody really thought anything of it.

 

So, whatever I thought of the tag matches themselves was usually offset by the fact that the outcome was always relatively in doubt, plus it meant we had passed the George Wells vs. Kamala portion of the card, where there was nothing compelling to see other than the finisher of the overwhelming favourite...and that was a god thing.

 

The teams that climbed above that mix are the ones that deserve Tag Team HOF consideration, because the environment they were wrestling in seemed to fight against that being able to happen.

[JerryvonKramer]

khawk, do you think being memorable and standing out from the crowd is enough for a HoF case? Are we saying that for tag teams drawing records and so on matter less? Or are you suggesting that the mid-80s WWF teams would be work-only candidates? Not having a go, just seeking clarification.

[khawk20]

khawk, do you think being memorable and standing out from the crowd is enough for a HoF case? Are we saying that for tag teams drawing records and so on matter less? Or are you suggesting that the mid-80s WWF teams would be work-only candidates? Not having a go, just seeking clarification.

No, it's not enough, my point is more about how I would structure my own considerations of WWF 80's teams for a HOF. The teams that stood out would be a starting point, but it wouldn't disqualify other teams that may not have "risen above the din" from being looked at.

 

I really wasn't thinking about drawing level per se, although it does bear some consideration, for sure. I don't think work-only is the basis of what I'm saying, especially when it comes to 80's WWF teams. I'm saying that standing out required something other than a push from above, they had to have something to get that push. Work is a part of that, as is longevity, charisma, innovation, look, fan-bonding, and probably other stuff I'm missing.