2014 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame thread

[KrisZ]

Memphis was seen as a joke territory that was nothing but angles and wild gimmicks not to mention the ex-wrestlers that always whined about the payoffs which carries a lot of weight with the "historians"

[Loss]

Do you suspect he'll eventually get in? He did have a near 10% increase in support this year. He seems like someone who it would be worth walking through his case on a big platform. He had some major successes as a booker and promoter and while there was an eventual decline, it was a gradual one. He weathered the storm of the WWF expansion longer than any other territory. And I'm not sure I'd point to any bad promotional or booking choices that specifically led to Memphis going down the tubes.

[soup23]

Yeah, it is a perception of Memphis of being all angles, characters, schtick and stalling. It is also perceived as very regional and "southern" rooted.

[soup23]

Non-wrestler is tough for me to see many candidates get in based on the "five vote" only rule and that most of them have a fairly good argument for themselves minus Matysik.

[Loss]

I suppose it is a bit more of an uphill climb for a non-wrestler to get in the HOF, especially since most of the discussion typically centers around wrestlers.

[mookeighana]

Him exempting Morales from his own rule is bullshit, more later.

 

That really got my goat. I kept thinking, "I looked at Morales as a headliner" in my own research. I wasn't confused by his place in history. But suddenly because Dave did the headline count, it's now official? I don't get it. At this point, he really should consider moving things into a body of people who help make the decisions so they don't come across so arbitrarily.

[Matt D]

I'm now very curious about the Bix-run WON in 2024

[Al]

A few thoughts on the process. I might be wasting my time, but this is the knowledgeable forum I am most comfortable with.

 

I've said several times that the criteria for eligibility really should be "X number of years after debut." It's the cleanest and most effective way to do it, and it's similar to the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame which is really the closest equivalent to professional wrestling. Voting on wrestlers who are clearly mid-career is beyond silly. Brock Lesnar, C.M. Punk, Daniel Bryan, Hiroshi Tanahashi may be Hall of Famers. But we need more perspective on what they meant to wrestling before we decide. Especially when you're kicking guys off the ballot for ten years.

 

Historical/modern performers. If you're going to make this kind of distinction for a ballot, just use year of birth. You'll end up with a few guys in less than ideal categories, but at least it's objective and not subjective. Ideally you want objectivity to decide who goes on the ballot, subjectivity to decide who goes in.

 

The way the ballot is constructed right now is a mess. Multiple categories, all voted on every year with 10-15 candidates on each one. This year's ballot had a total of 90 candidates. To give each candidate their full consideration almost requires a full time job. Another problem with the process is when you crowd the ballot, you make it impossible to form a consensus. Let me link the 1945 MLB Hall of Fame vote to illustrate.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_1945.shtml

 

That was their Hall of Fame before they straightened out their voting. 95 players received votes. 56 of them would eventually get selected into the Hall. Many of them comparatively more qualified than the best WON HOF candidate. And not a single one got voted in by that group. Personally, I think Meltzer needs to scrub the current system and work out some sort of nomination system. It can look similar to the ballot we have now, honestly. But instead of being the end all, the top vote getters get placed on a single 20-30 candidate ballot. There are several ways to go about it, but the idea is to first identify the best candidates before we go about arguing who is Hall of Fame worthy. Otherwise it's hundreds of voters arguing for 50 different candidates, and it becomes a log jam.

[Cox]

I'm now very curious about the Bix-run WON in 2024

The best part about that is that Bix will assuredly change the rules to keep Murdoch on the ballot until he gets voted in.

[shakla]

On the "when should a wrestler be in the historical category" viewpoint, since Dave tries to model the HoF in part by the baseball HoF, where you don't make the ballot until 5 years after the last season you played in the major leagues. Goose Gossage was not a superstar player the last 5+ years or so of his career, but since he last played in 1994, he got on in 2000. Ricky Henderson did independent league ball for a few years after his last MLB stint, but that didn't delay his ballot eligibility.

 

Dave should probably reword that guideline to something like "last year spent as a regular performer in a major promotion".

[shakla]

 

Him exempting Morales from his own rule is bullshit, more later.

 

That really got my goat. I kept thinking, "I looked at Morales as a headliner" in my own research. I wasn't confused by his place in history. But suddenly because Dave did the headline count, it's now official? I don't get it. At this point, he really should consider moving things into a body of people who help make the decisions so they don't come across so arbitrarily.

 

 

I brought this up earlier in the thread, but Morales fell off the ballot awhile ago and wasn't put on for another 5 or so years. So he's only been on at most, 10 ballots. Considering how people can go back on the ballot for a variety of reasons, and the way the HoF voting pool has expanded/evolved (plus how research is done), I don't think that gap should be held against him. Plus, this was his first year in the historical category. I don't know if that was fair to give him such a higher vote requirement to stay on the ballot with a different voting pool and different candidates in his new category.

 

I think Dave should have put more work into who would would be subject to the 15/50% rule. It appears to me that he just looked at the 2000 results, saw who was still on the ballot, and went from there. Most were about to be on their 15th ballot, but a handful were not. You could have cut and paste the ballot names from the past in a spreadsheet and sorted them, would only take a few minutes to see the frequencies. And if you don't want to "reward" them for falling off the ballot, add 2 to the total ballots as a "punishment".

[pantherwagner]

 

I'm now very curious about the Bix-run WON in 2024

The best part about that is that Bix will assuredly change the rules to keep Murdoch on the ballot until he gets voted in.

 

 

Also he'll create the "Bixenspan rule": if you vote for lucha but don't vote for Los Misioneros de la Muerte your ballot doesn't count.

[KrisZ]

Do you suspect he'll eventually get in? He did have a near 10% increase in support this year. He seems like someone who it would be worth walking through his case on a big platform. He had some major successes as a booker and promoter and while there was an eventual decline, it was a gradual one. He weathered the storm of the WWF expansion longer than any other territory. And I'm not sure I'd point to any bad promotional or booking choices that specifically led to Memphis going down the tubes.

 

I think Jarrett gets in eventually yeah

[Dylan Waco]

Best thing about this year is that with Patera being dumped so easily it kills my will to go insane researching guys like Greg Valentine or Don Jardine who were never going to have a chance with the voters. I can focus my obsessive energies elsewhere without guilt or regret.

[KrisZ]

It's getting to the point with me that it is going to be tough for guys whose primes weren't in the last 25 years to get in..........I also wouldn't be shocked if there was a year coming up where no one got voted in because of it.

[W2BTD]

A few thoughts on the process. I might be wasting my time, but this is the knowledgeable forum I am most comfortable with.

 

I've said several times that the criteria for eligibility really should be "X number of years after debut." It's the cleanest and most effective way to do it, and it's similar to the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame which is really the closest equivalent to professional wrestling. Voting on wrestlers who are clearly mid-career is beyond silly. Brock Lesnar, C.M. Punk, Daniel Bryan, Hiroshi Tanahashi may be Hall of Famers. But we need more perspective on what they meant to wrestling before we decide. Especially when you're kicking guys off the ballot for ten years.

 

Historical/modern performers. If you're going to make this kind of distinction for a ballot, just use year of birth. You'll end up with a few guys in less than ideal categories, but at least it's objective and not subjective. Ideally you want objectivity to decide who goes on the ballot, subjectivity to decide who goes in.

 

The way the ballot is constructed right now is a mess. Multiple categories, all voted on every year with 10-15 candidates on each one. This year's ballot had a total of 90 candidates. To give each candidate their full consideration almost requires a full time job. Another problem with the process is when you crowd the ballot, you make it impossible to form a consensus. Let me link the 1945 MLB Hall of Fame vote to illustrate.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_1945.shtml

 

That was their Hall of Fame before they straightened out their voting. 95 players received votes. 56 of them would eventually get selected into the Hall. Many of them comparatively more qualified than the best WON HOF candidate. And not a single one got voted in by that group. Personally, I think Meltzer needs to scrub the current system and work out some sort of nomination system. It can look similar to the ballot we have now, honestly. But instead of being the end all, the top vote getters get placed on a single 20-30 candidate ballot. There are several ways to go about it, but the idea is to first identify the best candidates before we go about arguing who is Hall of Fame worthy. Otherwise it's hundreds of voters arguing for 50 different candidates, and it becomes a log jam.

 

This is a great post. I think it is almost universally agreed that candidates are on the ballot too soon, most of the time while still in their primes or on the back end of their primes.

 

Also completely agree that the ballot is too muddled, which is exactly why we see years like this one where very few candidates get in, just like the 1945 baseball vote. This is why I have no issue with the 15/50 rule, which is actually incredibly lenient compared to most other sports halls, and gives these candidates a million chances to get in.

 

I find it impossible to feel bad about a candidate that failed to get in after 15 years, especially when they stay on the thing if they stay over 50%, and especially when they can and in most cases will be brought back later as historical candidates. There is plenty of opportunity to get in. At some point, you just have to move on and move forward.

[W2BTD]

When it comes to legitimate candidates, the big ticket ones that have real cases, modern U.S. candidates do far worse than anybody else. Batista, Punk, Hardy, Nash, Goldberg, Edge, etc etc etc don't even sniff knocking on the door. I find this idea that cutting the fat by getting rid of perpetual limbo status candidates like Moolah, Snuka, Murdoch, Monsoon, Ventura, etc is going to result in people falling over themselves to vote for CM Punk to have no basis. I guess we'll find out, but I just don't see it. People like Batista & Jeff Hardy can't even stay on the ballot, and they have as good of a case if not better than a lot of these historical candidates who hover at 30%. At some point, you have to trim it down, it makes no sense to leave these people on who are never getting over 60 or dropping below 10.

[KrisZ]

Joe is on the money there because a lot of voters won't pick someone to get their vote for their favorite that dropped off.....they just won't use that vote at all...there are a lot of voters that vote less than 5 guys a year some even vote 1 or 2.

[Dylan Waco]

There are also guys like Musgrave who are on record saying they will use all ten picks every year

[KrisZ]

And I am in that boat myself......it's such a mixed bag with the voters you don't know what you are going to get.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't think scrubbing the ballot is necessarily. There are no slam-dunk candidates left, and there aren't any coming down the pike in the foreseeable future. The only real effect this will have is to make it easier for marginal candidates (or worse, joke candidates like Big Daddy) to get in.

[Johnny Sorrow]

And I am in that boat myself......it's such a mixed bag with the voters you don't know what you are going to get.

"Momma always said the WON HOF voters are like a box of chocolates, except that most of them are white chocolate ."

[W2BTD]

The fact that there are no slam dunk candidates coming down the pike if the foreseeable future may be an indictment of how voters are looking at modern candidates, in terms of holding them to drawing standards that are no longer relevant or fair. I think some of the shockingly low percentages for modern candidates bears that out.

 

Now, full disclosure, I didn't vote for Punk or Edge or Nagata or Batista last year or Lesnar this year. Does the thinking need to be readjusted? I don't know. How do you compare being the #2 guy in modern WWE to some 70's territory guy who worked #2 in most places but maybe had a few headline runs?

[thecubsfan]

One post before resuming lurk mode, because I was trying to explain this on Twitter and failing due to character limits.

 

If you are concerned about the "should MMA count for Brock Lesnar" question, you should probably listen to Wednesday's Wrestling Observer Radio. Dave doesn't answer it straight forward, as ever, but my understanding after listening is Dave doesn't believe there needs to be an outright declaration because it's so obvious to him that it counts. If someone - Brock or anyone else - draws wrestling fans to an MMA event than it counts towards his drawing power. I know other people heard it different but that seemed as a close to direct statement you're getting out of him on this (which admittedly is still not that direct.)

 

The caveat is you should probably not listen to it if people strongly believing Brock should be in the HOF will annoy you, because they feel as certain as that as some posters here feel the opposite. They might as well be speaking Swahili and you might as well be speaking German, because there's no reasonable conversation of exchange of views to be had on Brock Lesnar at this point, everyone is just talking past each other.

 

on a related note to get it of system: I'll be disappointed if Dylan (and others) stop doing research. I agree what Dylan said on Wrestling Culture, it's probably a futile gesture to change the voting patterns because only a low percentage of voters appear to be paying attention to any of that research unless it's published in the WON. Can't ask you to do what I wouldn't, and there's no way I'm researching a piece on Karloff Lagarde - this fabled lucha bloc y'all keep talking about is actually probably people who aren't much on the internet and aren't reading English language blogs, so it'd be among the most futile of efforts.

 

Still, as a consumer/reader/listener of all the stuff around the HOF voting, I'd hate to see it go away. The HOF list is nice, but I got about five minutes of information out of a list. I got a lot more when people are forced to explain a guy's career and why I should remember them. I hope the people who do them, Dylan included, find some value in doing the research itself and telling those stories about people who may not be as known as they should be, regardless of what the anonymous voters think. I generally wish people saw the HOF as excuse to tell (or read, because I'm lazy) stories about wrestling, not an endpoint in itself.

[W2BTD]

I think no matter what dave says, clear directive or not, people are going to do whatever they want when it comes to Brock's unique scenario.

 

If Brock headlines Mania this year, he's getting in unless the show bombs. And that isn't happening.