soup23 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 So I'm thinking this should at least have the following regions: WWF NWA/WCWTerritories Japan Lucha Britain Would anyone see any big opposition to that before we talk about splitting up eras or years. I don't want to exclude anyone from making a list because they don't want to watch foreign footage and I do think all of the regions above have multiple matches worthy of being in a pro wrestling matches hall of fame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 I would change Britain to Europe. Just to confirm, the regions are defined based on where the home promotion is based, not where the match takes place, right? So something like Summerslam 1992 wouldn't be in the Britain region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted September 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 Correct, SummerSlam 1992 would be WWF. It gets a little murkier with something like the M-Pro tag on Barely Legal but I say those types of exceptions would make it a nominee for the home promotion as well if we have any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 So I'm thinking this should at least have the following regions: WWF NWA/WCW Territories Japan Lucha Britain Would anyone see any big opposition to that before we talk about splitting up eras or years. I don't want to exclude anyone from making a list because they don't want to watch foreign footage and I do think all of the regions above have multiple matches worthy of being in a pro wrestling matches hall of fame. So 70's wrestling and 2014 wrestling are in the same category? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted September 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 So I'm thinking this should at least have the following regions: WWF NWA/WCW Territories Japan Lucha Britain Would anyone see any big opposition to that before we talk about splitting up eras or years. I don't want to exclude anyone from making a list because they don't want to watch foreign footage and I do think all of the regions above have multiple matches worthy of being in a pro wrestling matches hall of fame. So 70's wrestling and 2014 wrestling are in the same category? I want to get the regions set in stone before moving on to whether we are breaking up the years or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 First, I think any matches should be 15 years before voting on them. My suggestions: Pre 1980s Puro Lucha NWA/WCW WWF/WWE Territories Indies Europe & The Rest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan4L Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 I would absolutely love to be a part of this if ye'll have me! I'd say it'd be enjoyable regardless of whether you factor in drawing/stage on top of pure match quality. I'd be fine either way, but I do think that factoring in all elements may make the Hall more "legit" if that's even the word. I also think 10-15 years before eligibility is a good idea because it means we limit how many matches need to be considered at the outset. It'd also be fun getting a new year's worth of matches from the 2000's every year following. I think these categories would be good: -pre 1980s -WWF 80s -WWF 1990 and onwards -Territories (I think I'd include pre-WCW NWA stuff here) -WCW -Indies -Japan 1980s -Japan 1990 and onwards -Lucha (seems like there'd be less need to split this into periods) -Europe & The Rest This is a really, really great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 I dig the pre 80's all encompassing idea and think that is a lock. Only worry I have with not including the JCP/NWA stuff with WCW is just looking from the WCW stuff 1989 onward, I am not sure how many matches I would be able to justify for this list. Also, where would people slate ECW? Indies or Territories - I feel like they should either be the last territory in consideration or the first indy (there could possibly be some TWA with the Gilbert vs. Cactus stuff) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted September 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 Another thing I was thinking about was instead of a set quantity of matches you were able to vote for, how about a specific percentage of say 15% in each category? I see pros and cons to this but If we do institute the 15 year rule for example, next year would have the Japan 2000's category instituted more than likely. If we allow a certain amount of matches to be selected from each category, a person could conceivable vote for what I would see as inferior matches being included. I think there are great matches or historical significant matches every year but this selection will be scrutinized greater overall. Another option would be to limit the overall amount of votes you can pick like Meltzer does. Let me know what you guys think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted September 14, 2014 Report Share Posted September 14, 2014 I like the idea of making a pre-1980s category just so that era, slept on in general even among most people here, will get a fair shake. I don't think we need period categorization after 1980 because I don't think a lot of the pimped stuff after then is going to need any extra help to get a fair shake. If there's a "Europe" category, that will give slept on stuff that OJ talks about a fairer shake. Otherwise, I think 80s matches should duke it out with 00s matches etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted September 15, 2014 Report Share Posted September 15, 2014 Another thing I was thinking about was instead of a set quantity of matches you were able to vote for, how about a specific percentage of say 15% in each category? I see pros and cons to this but If we do institute the 15 year rule for example, next year would have the Japan 2000's category instituted more than likely. If we allow a certain amount of matches to be selected from each category, a person could conceivable vote for what I would see as inferior matches being included. I think there are great matches or historical significant matches every year but this selection will be scrutinized greater overall. Another option would be to limit the overall amount of votes you can pick like Meltzer does. Let me know what you guys think. I think we could use that 15% as a rule to come up with the total number of nominees and number of votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted September 15, 2014 Report Share Posted September 15, 2014 Depending on the final form, I'd be interested in taking part in this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted September 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Extremely close to finalizing my thoughts on this. Be on the lookout for a post on the official rules and we can get the discussion going! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hegs Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 Is there a chance this is still happening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted November 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 Hey Hegs, It is still happening but I am trying to gauge the correct time for interest with all the stuff going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgrblue Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 If we factor in drawing, then Steamboat vs. Flair, Clash 6 probably wouldn't get in.True. How many free tix did WCW give away for that program? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 I disagree with that. Not every match that goes in has to be a big drawing match and a great match. If it's overwhelmingly strong in one category, which Flair-Steamboat is, it should go in. The same match HOF can have room for both Flair-Steamboat and something like Hogan-Andre. It's about the whole, not the sum of the parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 I hope people still have interest in this. Earlier this year, I contacted Chad about getting this project off the ground. Since he was too busy, he gave me the go ahead to help get it running. Since January, Elliott, CapitalTTruth, and myself have been debating rules, formats, and nominations. We have got input from many smart people to make sure it all makes sense and I am happy to announce here, that we are ready to put this thing out in the fall of this year! We have our set of nominations, but we won't release those yet. Maybe this thread can sway us? One thing we did decide is that a match has to be 25 years old to be nominated. That puts us at matches that are 1992 or earlier for the first year. Yes, the plan is for it to be a yearly thing like the WON HOF. It will have the same format, 60% get in, 15% to stay on the list (or whatever WON uses). The big discussion point was on format of regions. We argued that for months, until we found a system we are pretty happy with. Region A: Matches not on tape Region B: Matches for which their main argument is on importance Region C: Matches for which their main argument is quality Of course, people can vote any way they like. Same as in WON, just because Steve Williams is in the Japan category, doesn't mean his USA stuff doesn't count. I'd love to hear people's thoughts, what they think the nominations should be, and any ideas here before we roll this out in the fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 Sounds cool. This is more interesting to me than ranking wrestlers actually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 In addition to everything Grimmas outlined we also have a "angles/segments" section that will function much the same way but be separate in terms of voting. That is, participants will not have to use one of their allotted match votes and will in fact get a smaller set number of votes for the "angles/segments" category. Sorting out what this all might look like has been fun and quite a bit more challenging than I thought. That said, I am pretty proud of/happy with what we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concrete1992 Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 I love that this is getting off the ground but I have qualms with things being separated by what the case is for the match. Maybe I'm comparing it too much to the WONHOF where that's where a lot of the discussion takes place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 I lost enthusiasm for this when I started seeing a movement toward unnecessary choices between drawing and quality. I think the criteria should be intentionally vague: matches with the most positive and significant contributions to pro wrestling. Of course, that can come in many forms. I'm not interested in doing all of one or all of the other. Why make the choice? Both types of matches have a worthy place in history, and both are too quickly dismissed by the other side. Aside from the fact that the binary is something that I think smart fans created themselves (which is a separate discussion), there's no reason to exclude either type of match from consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 Criteria is vague still. If something isn't a draw, you don't think it belongs in, you don't vote for it. The problem when you start to separate by area is it gets really messy. You have shit like Puerto Rico, England, India, or whatever all crammed together or really tiny regions where it's super easy to get in. Of course we are open to change and for suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concrete1992 Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 I do agree that "Did not make tape" should be its own bucket. It is only able to go in under one criteria and I think arguments for it become a much different animal at that point. I still think regions can work under this setting. Though it brings up the question is it based on promotion or actual location of the match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted July 24, 2017 Report Share Posted July 24, 2017 I do agree that "Did not make tape" should be its own bucket. It is only able to go in under one criteria and I think arguments for it become a much different animal at that point. I still think regions can work under this setting. Though it brings up the question is it based on promotion or actual location of the match. or time too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.