2014 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame thread

[KrisZ]

Wrestlers were in love with him because he was legitimate and it also helped his case that he was a darling of Meltz's

[GSR]

Meltzer didn't give a breakdown percentage for Angle like he did in later years. He got the 60% required to be elected getting 105 of the 175 US/Canada votes cast. From the Observer:

 

'Angle received tremendous support among wrestlers themselves, both active and retired legends. HHH, who had more longevity and has always been positioned as a stronger character than Angle, actually did better among current wrestlers, as well as reporters, than Angle, but not nearly as well among retired legends.'

 

Just as an aside Triple H got 59% that year.

[NintendoLogic]

I was glad to see Bix make the case for Mark Lewin in the latest F4W. I don't see how anyone can vote for Curtis Iaukea and not him.

[Matt Farmer]

I have read from Dynamite Kid, that Stu told him he was the biggest draw in Stampede. But I've never heard Stu directly make that claim. I don't see how Dynamite was as big of a draw as Abdullah the Butcher or Mongolian Stomper. Was always under the impression, including when reading stories from the children talking about their parents financial situations that the 60's business was good and Stu was buying a bunch of property, cars, chandeliers etc.

 

Don't think the Harts ever got to that point again.

[WrestlingPower]

Way behind on reading this thread so sorry if this has been covered. I was reading up to the stuff about Matysik and thought of Kevin Dunn. He's not involved with the booking per se but as far as his influence on Vince McMahon & the way WWE product is presented, it seems like he's at the very least worthy of being on the ballot.

[kjh]

Some of the arguments being espoused for Edge as a Hall Of Famer are pretty preposterous, like Jeuron Dove arguing that Vince McMahon had such great respect for Edge that he allowed him to retire as champion and that no other WWE superstar in history had a bigger send-off.

[Steenalized]

Way behind on reading this thread so sorry if this has been covered. I was reading up to the stuff about Matysik and thought of Kevin Dunn. He's not involved with the booking per se but as far as his influence on Vince McMahon & the way WWE product is presented, it seems like he's at the very least worthy of being on the ballot.

Dunn has a lot of influence but I wouldn't call it a positive influence, especially at this point.

[FedEx227]

In case you guys are interested (i haven't been posting these individually) but we have a ton of WON Hall of Fame content but at VoicesofWrestling.com

 

Discussion of Europe candidates with John Lister: http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/09/19/european-candidates-john-lister/

 

Mexico candidates with Matt Farmer: http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/09/22/mexico-candidates-matt-farmer/

 

Random columns, guest posts, etc: http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/category/2014-wrestling-observer-hall-of-fame/

[evilclown]

I have read from Dynamite Kid, that Stu told him he was the biggest draw in Stampede. But I've never heard Stu directly make that claim. I don't see how Dynamite was as big of a draw as Abdullah the Butcher or Mongolian Stomper. Was always under the impression, including when reading stories from the children talking about their parents financial situations that the 60's business was good and Stu was buying a bunch of property, cars, chandeliers etc.

 

Don't think the Harts ever got to that point again.

 

Exactly. You can say what you want about Dynamite Kid as a draw, but when he was on top the promoter was broke and looking for a lifeline. If that's the biggest draw in the company's history, it's amazing they lasted to the that point?

[cm funk]

 

 

 

 

Dynamite Kid has got to be a pure work HOFer no? He was a 96 fiat right?

He was a fiat pick but Dynamite Kid was also either the biggest or second biggest draw in the history of Stampede Wrestling according to someone Bix mentioned to me who I can't remember at the moment.

I can't imagine that was true. I'd assume that the guys who Stu flew around in chartered planes and who helped him build the big mansion were bigger draws than the guy on top as they declined and eventually sold out to Vince.

I believe the story is that Dynamite drew the most dollars overall.. As in he consistently drew Stu money for years. Not a guy who came in for 3 months here, 3 months there.

 

 

I have read Stu himself saying that Dynamite, not Abdullah or the Stomper, is the guy that made him the most money. Whether that's true or not is a different case but that's what he said.

 

 

Did Stu have a percentage cut of DK's booking? He was a hot commodity at the time and with Japan and the WWF, if that were the case, I could see Stu doing pretty well from that.

 

Also, he might have been looking at Dynamite being a key thing in selling to WWF, which surely made him very rich

 

I have a hard time believing DK directly made more money or drew bigger for Stampede than Archie or Abdullah or Stu himself

[JNLister]

Drew money for Stu or made money for Stu? The latter depends on his payoff.

[Ricky Jackson]

Also, he might have been looking at Dynamite being a key thing in selling to WWF, which surely made him very rich

 

I don't think Stu received a dime from Vince when he "sold" him the territory in 84. Vince essentially gave him Stampede back a year later when he decided he wasn't going to pay him anything. He still had TV and could run shows in Calgary and other towns anyway

[WrestlingPower]

Was the 15-year rule ever completely ironed out? One thing I haven't seen discussed is if someone hits 15-years and gets 50% to stay on, then I assume every single year after that he has to maintain 50+%? What if someone is dropped after 15 years & then gets readded later? Do they have to maintain 50+% each year from then on? That could get tricky if someone hits 15 years before their career is even over. Eventually that would create 2 subcategories of guys each year, those that need 10+% and those needing 50+%. That could become a mess logistically.

 

The only solution I can see would be eliminating regions and have every voter have to choose yes, no, or "I don't know enough" for each & every candidate. Something like that will eliminate the whole "I don't want to vote for Colon and essentially vote No on all the others in the region".

[shakla]

Was the 15-year rule ever completely ironed out? One thing I haven't seen discussed is if someone hits 15-years and gets 50% to stay on, then I assume every single year after that he has to maintain 50+%? What if someone is dropped after 15 years & then gets readded later? Do they have to maintain 50+% each year from then on? That could get tricky if someone hits 15 years before their career is even over. Eventually that would create 2 subcategories of guys each year, those that need 10+% and those needing 50+%. That could become a mess logistically.

 

The only solution I can see would be eliminating regions and have every voter have to choose yes, no, or "I don't know enough" for each & every candidate. Something like that will eliminate the whole "I don't want to vote for Colon and essentially vote No on all the others in the region".

 

I'm not on the board nor have I read the latest Observer, so I'm not sure if anything related to this has been ironed out yet. Once the results are tallied, you have 10-11 months before next year's ballot comes out, plenty of time to refine things. I bet there will be clarifications/modifications to the rules for 2015.

 

There are 4 candidates on the 15/50% list that have not appeared on 15 ballots. In a few cases, the gap between falling off the ballot and returning is quite lengthy. It can be difficult to determine why or who brought certain people back on the ballot. Was it requested by voters or did Dave just add the name? I don't think it should be held completely against the candidate if they were off the ballot for 5+ years and it somehow counts as being on for 15. Like for Cien Caras, he was off for many years, what brought him back on? Voters who request candidates aren't going to deeply research a bunch of names each year. Maybe one or a few. I suggest that for those who fell off the ballot and were brought back on, add the total ballots the candidate has appeared on, then add 2 as a "penalty" for dropping off. Reach 15, you're "done".

 

I'm hoping something will be done for Pedro Morales if he doesn't get 50%. He also had a long gap between falling off and being placed back on the ballot. This is his first year in the historical category, yet he has to reach 50% in a different voting pool. The category switch is like in the Baseball HoF when you fall off the regular ballot and are on the Veteran's Committee ballot. He should get a few cracks, assuming he gets 10+%.

[Dylan Waco]

With about a week left to think about it here are the guys I'm positive I'm voting for:

 

Enrique Torres

Carlos Colon

Junkyard Dog

Ken Patera

Rock N Roll Express

Cien Caras

El Signo & El Texano & Negro Navarro

I am about 90 percent sure Ivan Koloff and Kinji Shibuya are going on too which leaves me with one slot left. Lots of guys I'm considering with that last vote, including The Andersons, The Assassins and Hamada who are in danger of being timed off the ballot this year, Taue, Akiyama, Murdoch, Volk Han, The Sharpes, Mark Lewin, Villano III, Blue Panther, Los Brazos, Lagarde and Ramirez. Of those I feel the strongest about V3 and Hamada, but I could be convinced if someone has really strong arguments for one of the others.

[Grimmas]

Villano III over Hamada, based on the fact that a vote for Villano is not a negative (since you've already entered the lucha category), while a vote for Hamada is a no to Taue & Akiyama.

[Mr. Lacelle]

Not voting for Edge?

[JNLister]

Hypothetical talking point here, but what would be the effect if the process was completely simplified so:

 

* there's no categories

 

* every voter gets a list of all the candidates and you vote yes, no or abstain on each.

 

* to get in you need 60 percent yes among people who voted on you either way (so abstentions don't count). Put simpler, you need 1.5x as many YESes as you get NOes.

 

Who gets in? Who's left out? Who's the big winner and loser from changing to this system?

[KrisZ]

I totally agree that the categories have gotta go...it hurts WAY more than it helps

[El Boricua]

The categories are a problem in that the voters self select in which ones they vote. While there are prudent voters that know their limitations, it wouldn't surprise me that many do not and they 'hit and run' categories voting for the one or two candidates they are familiar with while hurting other candidates in the total vote base count they have that to surpass for the 60%. Heck, that weird Australia/Caribbean/Latveria/Duloc mish mash category is forcing prudent voters to do just that through no fault of their own.

 

If you are doing categories, the best way is how Mr. Lister suggests with the yes, no or abstain format (provided all voters are honest about where their knowledge limitations are). Right now, someone with a little knowledge can be dangerous in terms of doing hit and runs on categories they really shouldn't be voting on, while voters with a wider and more informed knowledge base are handcuffed by the 10 candidate limit overall (Dylan's post being an example of someone that's constricted by the 10 candidate limit).

[Al]

That's a problem with the limited time eligibility rule as well. This ballot is complicated, candidates could be passed over because the process doesn't work. This isn't a sports Hall of Fame where there are obvious points someone's career ended. Candidates are literally thrown on the ballot mid-career.

[Matt Farmer]

Stu did get a percentage (a booking fee) for both Dynamite and Davey Boy when they went to New Japan. I do not think either Bulldog knew it at the time. That was the reason for major heat when the Bulldogs signed with Baba. It cut Stu out of his booking fee.

 

I do not believe it was much maybe $1,000 or $1,500 a week for the two of them, but when your business is not doing well that's a big chunk of change.

[JNLister]

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting Dave should use that bare bones voting idea, just thinking out loud about what effect such a change would have.

[kjh]

I think there probably does need to be some tinkering with the current system. However, I do think there should be some cap on the number of people you can vote for, as you wouldn't want a flood of candidates going in on the first year of a rules change (a possible consequence of John's suggestion). Being allowed up to 10 votes seems too many if you only vote for one bracket and abstain from all the rest. But 10 votes is probably too few if you vote in all or all but one bracket.

[JNLister]

I think the 10 votes limit is more important than ever now we're far enough down the pyramid of candidates that you've got a large number of people on a broadly similar level. There's a real danger now that the "if X is in, Y must be as well" argument would bring in a flood of entrants and water it down.

 

I think it's also important to remember (and the non-wrestler edition of VOW covered this) that it's likely boards like this vastly overestimate how much attention/thought most voters give to the rules and process. For example, I doubt the majority of people give any thought to the idea that there's a difference in effect between "I've not considered this category" and "I've looked at this category but didn't select anyone".