2014 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame thread

[Johnny Sorrow]

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.

But Mania never bombs. That's like saying a team should be considered a great team because they were in the Super Bowl. Mania draws on being Mania.

[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.

But Mania never bombs. That's like saying a team should be considered a great team because they were in the Super Bowl. Mania draws on being Mania.

 

 

I agree. Not everybody does.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Who doesn't agree that at this point WrestleMania draws on being WrestleMania? The show sells most of its seats before the card is announced.

[W2BTD]

Who doesn't agree that at this point WrestleMania draws on being WrestleMania? The show sells most of its seats before the card is announced.

 

People who cite headlining modern WrestleMania's as a major feather in a candidates drawing cap.

 

The Rock has won Best Box Office Draw in the Observer Awards, essentially based solely on Mania. Even in a year he didn't actually wrestle.

[Al]

A note on modern performers. Here's how the HOF electorate breaks down by Year of Birth:

 

1920s: 28

1930s: 19

1940s: 23

1950s: 25

1960s: 28

1970s: 5

 

Modern candidates like Edge are getting rejected in the voting thus far. But it seems to me that either the way we evaluate new candidates need to be reviewed, or we're admitting that modern wrestling is virtually dead. There is validity to the latter argument. But there's also real danger of an era bias at work.

[Grimmas]

I finally figured out what I hate about this 15 year rule, and it's not the 15 years that is the problem. It's the early eligibility.

 

If you get put on at 30 and don't get in, you are thrown off at 45. 45 seems way too young to be taken off the ballot forever.

[soup23]

 

Who doesn't agree that at this point WrestleMania draws on being WrestleMania? The show sells most of its seats before the card is announced.

 

People who cite headlining modern WrestleMania's as a major feather in a candidates drawing cap.

 

The Rock has won Best Box Office Draw in the Observer Awards, essentially based solely on Mania. Even in a year he didn't actually wrestle.

 

 

He did also have the Survivor Series bump that year. I do think that Mania buyrate is a feather in Rock's cap considering the bump of that buyrate compared to other years and the format of that card. HHH vs. Taker can't take much credit for it since Taker vs. HBK the year before in a more high profile spot with the career stip did 250k less. Ditto for Cena vs. Miz. You can also see that the other big shows of 2011 (SummerSlam and Rumble) did worse than the last two years which show the bump was pretty much caused by Rock.

[kjh]

 

Who doesn't agree that at this point WrestleMania draws on being WrestleMania? The show sells most of its seats before the card is announced.

 

People who cite headlining modern WrestleMania's as a major feather in a candidates drawing cap.

 

The Rock has won Best Box Office Draw in the Observer Awards, essentially based solely on Mania. Even in a year he didn't actually wrestle.

 

 

The problem is Brock Lesnar hasn't headlined WrestleMania in his current run yet.

 

At WrestleMania 29, his match with Triple H was clearly positioned behind Rock vs. Cena II. On the night, Undertaker vs. Punk had a bigger reaction too. It should be noted that the show drew less than the prior year's WM, despite having Lesnar on the card.

 

This year, Brock had the deadest Undertaker match since at least 2006. Without the end of the Streak, it would have been totally overshadowed by Daniel Bryan's WWE title victory. In one sense, this show did bomb at the box office, as it was available for a $9.99 subscription to the WWE Network and they didn't get significantly more people watching than they had done for their biggest past WrestleManias on pay-per-view alone.

 

Next year, Brock should be in the world title match, but it remains to be seen whether it will be the real main event.

[Matt D]

If Dave's argument is that Brock drew wrestling fans to watch MMA and he should get in for that, shouldn't Ventura be a lock? He obviously mobilized the lapsed AWA fanbase. Politics is way more like wrestling than MMA is anyway.

[Loss]

How does Mania even "bomb" (or succeed) anymore? The only metric we have is live attendance. Pay-per-view is dead.

[Dylan Waco]

Carolina Panthers drastically increased ticket prices the year after Kevin Greene started wrestling

[djhaigh]

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.

I'm probably just treading the same ground cubsfan already covered more eloquently, but I hate the implication of this: that the primary motivation for your research was to actually get a dude in Meltzer's Hall. That feels like giving up on watching all the footage for the Greatest Ever project because wwe.com has already crowned Shawn Michaels.

 

The Observer Hall is at least 75% a joke. The candidacy rules are hilarious, many of the voters are absurd and there are several laughable guys already in. When you and Dave do your annual Hall of Fame podcast eps those aren't -really- about Meltzer and his goofy list. The Observer just provides a jumping-off point.

 

You're speaking to the Remnant. And the Remnant are aching to hear about Greg Valentine's impact on 70s houses.

[Bix]

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

[Grimmas]

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

I believe it's people who don't vote lucha, but have heard Cien Caras is a slam dunk and don't want him to fall off. So, they vote for him in the lucha category only and no one else.

 

I guess to see that is see how many total voters there were this year in lucha compared to last year.

[shakla]

On a similar note, didn't Dave claim in the newsletter that a fair amount of US Voters also only voted for Big Daddy in the Europe category?

[El Boricua]

 

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

I believe it's people who don't vote lucha, but have heard Cien Caras is a slam dunk and don't want him to fall off. So, they vote for him in the lucha category only and no one else.

 

I guess to see that is see how many total voters there were this year in lucha compared to last year.

 

 

This illustrates a problem with allowing such fluidity in self selecting where to vote.

[Grimmas]

 

 

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

I believe it's people who don't vote lucha, but have heard Cien Caras is a slam dunk and don't want him to fall off. So, they vote for him in the lucha category only and no one else.

 

I guess to see that is see how many total voters there were this year in lucha compared to last year.

 

 

This illustrates a problem with allowing such fluidity in self selecting where to vote.

 

The problem is if you give ten votes to a person and say they can only vote in one category, what will that do?

 

I think you do something like this:

 

at most you get 10 votes.

You are set into certain categories that you can only vote in those.

Each category gives you a certain amount of votes (Say 2, 5, 3, etc.. based on how many people in that category).

 

So, say A is allowed to vote in Category 1 & 2, he would get 5+3 votes, so 8 votes to use anywhere.

Say, B is allowed to vote in Category 1, 2, 3, & 4, he would get 5+3+2+5, but the max is 10, so 10 votes.

[W2BTD]

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

 

Problems like this occur because people vote strategically, when the system isn't set up for strategic voting. People allowed the 15/50 to cause them to panic. What confuses me, is if you didn't vote for Caras the year before, what is the motivation to "save" him if you don't vote for him anyway? I guess there are scenarios where people may think more than 10 candidates are worthy. Would anyone be in favor of unlimited choices? I don't believe any other HOF of note operates that way to my knowledge. I don't think i'd care either way.

 

If your hypothesis is correct, the 15/50 actually saved Caras to live to fight another year, because last year he was below 50%, and it likely didn't keep anybody out because the next closest Mexico candidate Lagarde was only at 48. It definitely didn't keep anybody out below Lagarde. It may have caused Ciclon Negro to get dropped, but if he was that close to 10% to begin with, he wasn't a serious contender anyway.

[KrisZ]

 

 

 

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

I believe it's people who don't vote lucha, but have heard Cien Caras is a slam dunk and don't want him to fall off. So, they vote for him in the lucha category only and no one else.

 

I guess to see that is see how many total voters there were this year in lucha compared to last year.

 

 

This illustrates a problem with allowing such fluidity in self selecting where to vote.

 

The problem is if you give ten votes to a person and say they can only vote in one category, what will that do?

 

I think you do something like this:

 

at most you get 10 votes.

You are set into certain categories that you can only vote in those.

Each category gives you a certain amount of votes (Say 2, 5, 3, etc.. based on how many people in that category).

 

So, say A is allowed to vote in Category 1 & 2, he would get 5+3 votes, so 8 votes to use anywhere.

Say, B is allowed to vote in Category 1, 2, 3, & 4, he would get 5+3+2+5, but the max is 10, so 10 votes.

 

 

Well the easy way of handling this is eliminating categories

[W2BTD]

 

 

 

 

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

I believe it's people who don't vote lucha, but have heard Cien Caras is a slam dunk and don't want him to fall off. So, they vote for him in the lucha category only and no one else.

 

I guess to see that is see how many total voters there were this year in lucha compared to last year.

 

 

This illustrates a problem with allowing such fluidity in self selecting where to vote.

 

The problem is if you give ten votes to a person and say they can only vote in one category, what will that do?

 

I think you do something like this:

 

at most you get 10 votes.

You are set into certain categories that you can only vote in those.

Each category gives you a certain amount of votes (Say 2, 5, 3, etc.. based on how many people in that category).

 

So, say A is allowed to vote in Category 1 & 2, he would get 5+3 votes, so 8 votes to use anywhere.

Say, B is allowed to vote in Category 1, 2, 3, & 4, he would get 5+3+2+5, but the max is 10, so 10 votes.

 

 

Well the easy way of handling this is eliminating categories

 

 

This would hurt all candidates currently in categories aside from U.S. tremendously.

[sek69]

In the same show Dave also mentioned how he doesn't feel there isn't anyone in the HOF who doesn't belong there, which I'm hoping was him trying to be trollish because he can't seriously believe that.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

 

 

I write more about this in the F4W coming out today but the 15 year rule badly screwed up Mexico this year as it looks like a lot of Mexico voters (half?) only voted for Cien Caras. Other than Cien Caras and, for some reason, Huracan Ramirez, EVERYONE went down, with some by huge margins, plus frontrunner the frontrunner newbies ranged from disappointing (Misioneros de la Muerte, who actually came in 3rd place with just 36%) to pretty bad (Ultimo Guerrero at 24% and Los Brazos at 16%). While a lot of that is the fault of the voters, Dave needs to take stuff like this into account. Who are these people voting for Cien Caras that don’t see any of the other Mexican candidates as top 10 on the ballot?

I believe it's people who don't vote lucha, but have heard Cien Caras is a slam dunk and don't want him to fall off. So, they vote for him in the lucha category only and no one else.

 

I guess to see that is see how many total voters there were this year in lucha compared to last year.

 

 

This illustrates a problem with allowing such fluidity in self selecting where to vote.

 

The problem is if you give ten votes to a person and say they can only vote in one category, what will that do?

 

I think you do something like this:

 

at most you get 10 votes.

You are set into certain categories that you can only vote in those.

Each category gives you a certain amount of votes (Say 2, 5, 3, etc.. based on how many people in that category).

 

So, say A is allowed to vote in Category 1 & 2, he would get 5+3 votes, so 8 votes to use anywhere.

Say, B is allowed to vote in Category 1, 2, 3, & 4, he would get 5+3+2+5, but the max is 10, so 10 votes.

 

 

Well the easy way of handling this is eliminating categories

 

 

This would hurt all candidates currently in categories aside from U.S. tremendously.

 

So what?

[W2BTD]

So you don't want it to be fair? That's an odd stance.

[Grimmas]

So you don't want it to be fair? That's an odd stance.

So you don't want it to be fair? That's an odd stance.

Just trying to make it fair for every category. Obviously it easier get in some places than others. He does this make it unfair to Americans?

[W2BTD]

 

So you don't want it to be fair? That's an odd stance.

So you don't want it to be fair? That's an odd stance.

Just trying to make it fair for every category. Obviously it easier get in some places than others. He does this make it unfair to Americans?

 

 

It doesn't. Eliminating the categories makes in unfair for everybody else, not the U.S./Canada.