Pro Wrestling Matches Hall of Fame

[dawho5]

I would think that the factors that go into a top 10 match list would be valued differently for most voters anyway. So if Bill didn't care for drawing in his vote it would hardly be an awful thing. I think one of the ideas of these kinds of projects is variety in the opinions presented rather than uniformity anyway. Wrestling is pretty subjective material.

[fxnj]

Factoring in drawing is not a zero-sum game. Not every match that is going to be in the HOF is going to be in for the same reason. A HOF based entirely on drawing is boring and too factual. A HOF that doesn't factor it in at all and goes entirely with match quality lacks perspective. The absolute best matches of all time should make a HOF, but so should iconic, generation-defining matches that shattered attendance records. There's room for both.

Of course every match should be in for the same reason. That reason should be because it entertains the voters. If you go with some other criteria you're opening the door for putting on matches that weren't taped and I don't see much point in doing that if this is just for fun and not some attempt at science. I think neither untaped matches nor purely historical picks should be in for the same reason in that the voters would be that missing key insight that comes from deriving the same level of enjoyment as the crowd that saw the match at the time.

 

I also think that the distinction made between "match quality" and "historical impact" is ridiculous.You really wouldn't be missing anything by focusing on match quality when all it really amounts is the summation of a match's context in practical currency (ie the viewer's enjoyment). If context wasn't part of match quality any varying levels of enjoyment would be impossible as every match would just be guys doing nondescript moves.

[Loss]

Context is absolutely part of match quality. No one has argued that point longer than I have. But I also don't think the best matches are simply the ones I enjoy the most. In fact, that kinda goes against the idea of context meaning anything at all.

 

I'll put it this way - I hate Hogan-Andre from Wrestlemania III as a match, but I would be the first to argue that it should go in a HOF. It doesn't matter if I enjoy it or not. It's a much stronger pick than something like Yoshiko Tamura vs Toshie Uematsu from GAEA in 1997, which I'd argue is one of the best matches I've ever seen.

[soup23]

I want to reiterate that untaped matches will never be elgible for this. That is a rule I am firm on.

[Al]

You could always create a separate "pioneer" type category for untaped/unavailable matches. Kind of an honorable mention for Gotch/Hackenschmidt, Rich/Sawyer, etc. that have an obvious place in wrestling history.

[Matt D]

This isn't really my sort of thing, BUT after listening to you guys talk, were I to offer a suggestion I'd say go for two lists, just like Loss has defined when it comes to the GOAT stuff.

 

The WON style for the drawing/important/influencial, etc and then the PWO GOAT sort for the greatest aesthetically.

[BillThompson]

This isn't really my sort of thing, BUT after listening to you guys talk, were I to offer a suggestion I'd say go for two lists, just like Loss has defined when it comes to the GOAT stuff.

 

The WON style for the drawing/important/influencial, etc and then the PWO GOAT sort for the greatest aesthetically.

 

I like this idea. My main issue with drawing and context is, why should I care? It's great that a match drew a ton or was important to the history of wrestling, but ultimately all that matters to me is match quality. Not even in a workrate sense, but just that the match be of a certain quality. I have never read a compelling argument for why a match making money for a promoter should matter when it comes to that match being viewed as a great, good, bad, etc. match.

 

To use an analogy, Transformers made a ton of money, it drew huge and one could argue that it's use of CG was important. But, neither of those things matter when it comes to the actual quality of the film. Wrestling and wrestling matches are the same, making money is great for those who get some of the money but otherwise it's a metric that has little to no value in a respectable "greatest of" discussion. (Unless of course that discussion is specifically about who drew the most/made the most money).

[Grimmas]

 

This isn't really my sort of thing, BUT after listening to you guys talk, were I to offer a suggestion I'd say go for two lists, just like Loss has defined when it comes to the GOAT stuff.

 

The WON style for the drawing/important/influencial, etc and then the PWO GOAT sort for the greatest aesthetically.

 

I like this idea. My main issue with drawing and context is, why should I care? It's great that a match drew a ton or was important to the history of wrestling, but ultimately all that matters to me is match quality. Not even in a workrate sense, but just that the match be of a certain quality. I have never read a compelling argument for why a match making money for a promoter should matter when it comes to that match being viewed as a great, good, bad, etc. match.

 

To use an analogy, Transformers made a ton of money, it drew huge and one could argue that it's use of CG was important. But, neither of those things matter when it comes to the actual quality of the film. Wrestling and wrestling matches are the same, making money is great for those who get some of the money but otherwise it's a metric that has little to no value in a respectable "greatest of" discussion. (Unless of course that discussion is specifically about who drew the most/made the most money).

 

Sight & Sound or AFI do not take into account how much money the movie made when making their greatest movies list.

[Loss]

Fair enough. I'm fine not factoring it in at all. I was just trying to avoid the inevitable criticism that will come for not doing so.

[JerryvonKramer]

While Sight and Sound don't consider box office, they surely do consider "historical significance" (AFI certainly does).

 

So ... why don't we include "historical significance" as a nice if slightly nebulous criterion, and leave drawing to one side?

 

That way, we can include older matches that none of us have seen, and leave the door open for your Hogan vs. Andres while not making it a straight up numbers game.

[Al]

Hogan/Andre is the standard for "match that was terrible but drew money." But I don't think it's a bad match. It's not a good workrate match and it looks somewhat sloppy because Andre could never bump. But it was dramatic and hooked the crowd. What might be an example of a match that drew money or a big crowd and completely shit the bed? Something that would never get elevated to the status of a big match for that reason. Inoki/Ali?

[Lust Hogan]

This sounds like a good idea. I would love to be a part of it!

[Loss]

Hogan/Andre is the standard for "match that was terrible but drew money." But I don't think it's a bad match. It's not a good workrate match and it looks somewhat sloppy because Andre could never bump. But it was dramatic and hooked the crowd. What might be an example of a match that drew money or a big crowd and completely shit the bed? Something that would never get elevated to the status of a big match for that reason. Inoki/Ali?

 

Hogan-Andre on The Main Event

Undertaker vs Undertaker

Hogan vs Sting

Hogan/Rodman vs Page/Malone

Hogan vs Savage at Uncensored '98

 

Interesting pattern there with one particular wrestler.

[concrete1992]

I feel it is a bit important to remember that this would be a Pro Wrestling Matches HALL OF FAME and this isn't a Greatest Matches of All Time poll. I suppose it depends if this is a fun PWO project or something hoping to gain a bit of traction. Maybe off base though but SOME criteria outside of straight match quality, like the historical significance which was stated, should be present in my opinion.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Why not just let the voters decide whether to factor in drawing? "Hall of Fame-worthy match" already seems so subjective that I think any attempt at a tightly-defined voting criteria would still lead to wildy varied results. Just have the criteria be something like "matches that you feel set the standard for professional wrestling excellence". I also don't fully understand the need to compartmentalise the voting group into different regions, especially if only matches that are on tape are eligible.

[Matt D]

i think the main reason for some level of criteria is that it's annoying for the sake of arguments/conversations if person #1 goes "Well, this match is obviously better than this match because of X." and person number #2 goes "This match is obviously better than this match because of Y," where person 1 ignores Y completely and person 2 ignores X completely.

 

That's just not compelling to me. You have people talking about completely different things. There's no common ground for discussion in that case so what's the point of this as a social activity past making a list.

[concrete1992]

Doubt WON HOF season would be nearly as interesting to see unravel, discussion wise, without the set of subjective and objective criteria.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

I just feel like you're gonna get that anyway, because people value different things when judging a match, even if you restrict it just to "match quality". "This match had great matwork", "but it didn't go anywhere". "The stiffness was incredible", "but wrestling is supposed to not hurt". "Flawless execution throughout", "but it lacked narrative drive", and on and on.

 

I guess it largely depends on, as someone else said, where soup sees this ending up as a project. I just think people tend to micromanage these things a bit much.

 

edit: response to Matt.

[JerryvonKramer]

What will happen regardless of the criteria is that the people who make long posts and argue will do so, and the ones who make little short one-line posts will do that, and the ones who lurk and don't post much won't post much, because as great as PWO is, it's still the internet.

[Matt D]

I just feel like you're gonna get that anyway, because people value different things when judging a match, even if you restrict it just to "match quality". "This match had great matwork", "but it didn't go anywhere". "The stiffness was incredible", "but wrestling is supposed to not hurt". "Flawless execution throughout", "but it lacked narrative drive", and on and on.

 

I guess it largely depends on, as someone else said, where soup sees this ending up as a project. I just think people tend to micromanage these things a bit much.

 

edit: response to Matt.

 

That's fair, but there are different aesthetic elements and then there are completely non-aesthetic elements. I think you can categorize the first and find some sort of common ground, while I think the second is arguing about something completely different.

 

"This match had great matwork!"

"But it didn't draw money!"

 

is a different argument than

 

"This match had great matwork!"

"But it didn't go anywhere!"

[Loss]

I think this thread is the place to hash things out over what a match HOF should represent because when we decide to move forward, I think that topic should be over and done with. I don't want it to distract from debating the merits of matches, which is why I think it's important to keep hammering all of this out now.

[Grimmas]

I think you vote on historical important and whatever you feel makes a great match.

How much it drew should be the only thing thrown out. However, if somebody wants to argue this particular match is historical significance based on how much it drew, that is their prerogative.

[goodhelmet]

What will happen regardless of the criteria is that the people who make long posts and argue will do so, and the ones who make little short one-line posts will do that, and the ones who lurk and don't post much won't post much, because as great as PWO is, it's still the internet.

 

Excellent post... because that is what PWO should be, a place where people can have their own thoughts and ideas without being compelled to post in any particular way.

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

 

What will happen regardless of the criteria is that the people who make long posts and argue will do so, and the ones who make little short one-line posts will do that, and the ones who lurk and don't post much won't post much, because as great as PWO is, it's still the internet.

Excellent post... because that is what PWO should be, a place where people can have their own thoughts and ideas without being compelled to post in any particular way.

Preach on, Brotha Man.

[Mando]

I'm really excited about participating in this. It'll be nice to both to revisit some great stuff with fresh eyes as well as get turned on to some awesome stuff I've missed over the last couple decades of watching heavily. It'll also be interesting for people years down the road to see what matches made the inaugural class, what got in the next year, etc.