Pro Wrestling Matches Hall of Fame

[WingedEagle]

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.

 

Agree with this. Its one thing to separate things on some sort of objective basis (even while acknowledging its not flawless) -- region, age/period, or any other clear criteria. But when the overarching theme or organization is that vague it may take the discussion away from the matches and towards these other abstract concepts.

[JKWebb]

I'm looking forward to this. It sounds like a lot of fun, and thanks to those working out the kinks!

[Cap]

First and foremost, I think it is important to recognize that this is – as all three of us working directly on it agree – a work in progress that can and should evolve over time. The format is not and cannot be perfect in satisfying everyone’s orientation to or expectations of a project like this. We understand that changes will not just be made from year to year, they will be required to maintain meet the goals of the project. I, for one, hope that those who are averse to categories as they are still support the project and help it gain momentum. We have put some time and effort into this initial ballot, but it could get easily derailed and never meet its potential if it isn’t given a chance.

 

Generally speaking, and I can only speak for myself obviously , but I believe the main reason we settled on these categories was functionality. We tried to do region and even played briefly with the idea of time period but wound up with very uneven categories that sort of felt laden with traps that would ultimately penalize certain regions and/or time periods. Objective bracketing of matches seemed to implicitly privilege dominant orientations to or narratives of wrestling that we were hoping to circumvent, at to the extent that we could structurally. It also sort of felt like putting a square peg in a round hole to me, like we were breaking things up into sections because that was objective, knowing that it probably didn’t match the reality of how the matches would be viewed, discussed, and judged.

 

Ultimately, we found the “importance” and “quality” categories to be more functional because they broke matches up in ways that we believed people would naturally compare/contrast matches anyway, while not setting them in a necessary binary that prevented one from voting across categories. The categories (although separate) are not mutually exclusive. A few matches were on both lists and at the end of the day we included them in the section that we felt most voters would generally associate them with regard to their primary case.

 

Intuitively, my gut tells me that these will be talking points with or without the categories and I (perhaps Grimmas and Elliot agree) think acknowledging them outright could help mitigate needless quarrels about which is MORE important by drawing attention instead to productive ways we can functionally compare and contrast matches based on how their cases have discursively evolved over time (while encouraging discussion and votes to be based on the entirety of a match’s case). The cases for these matches aren’t going to be created in a vacuum. They are more or less created in the ways matches have been discussed, hyped, reviewed, and so on in the endless see of wrestling commentary that is out there. Discussion/debate about matches will be nuancing points and determining which matches can and should edge out others for inclusion.

 

It is actually to avoid the “unnecessary choices” between the two criteria while simultaneously acknowledging the reality that “Both types of matches have a worthy place in history, and both are too quickly dismissed by the other side” as Loss points out, that we broke the ballot into these categories. Functionally speaking, you don’t have to choose between draw/importance and quality/artistic merit if you don’t want to. You can disperse your votes among both categories however you see fit. The categories primarily ensure that there is a relative even distribution of matches that are typically associated with different criteria present on the ballot. Granted, we could, once we put the lists together, drop the categories (a discussion I am not necessarily opposed to having), creating one big “televised match” category. However, I am – as of right now – skeptical of artificially dropping distinctions that even those averse to the categories have seemingly acknowledged are discernable and consequential categories for people as they discuss and judge matches. The categories provide a way to potentially prevent the dismissal of one criteria or another from aversely affecting matches who’s primary case is made on said criteria. For those who may be more drawn to one or the other category (I believe a reality of internet wrestling fandom), those voters would not be put in a position to punish matches who’s primary case is made on a criteria they are less interested in or less knowledgeable of. They could simply vote in one category and not have their votes count in the % calculations for inclusion or all together deletion from the ballot for the other.

 

In short, the system was designed to give voters flexibility while acknowledging the organic ways voters are most likely to bracket matches off. Does this draw attention to one criterion and perhaps away from another for certain matches? Yes, that is a risk if not an outright drawback of this system. Will all voers think in this way? Of course not. However, I don’t believe this asks anyone to choose between the two criteria. We sort of had more faith in those who would come to discuss matches for the project and those who might vote, that they could recognize these as somewhat organic (though not objective) categories created from discursive patterns and talking points over time that would naturally inform discussion and judgment and that each match should be considered for all of its noteworthy characteristics and positive and significant contributions.

 

Again, I want to reiterate, this is and will remain a work in progress. What we have done is work to get something off the ground that we can work with.

[concrete1992]

I feel like following up with a short post after your long and thoughtful one is disrespectful but I am naturally a short spoken person. I almost wish there were no categories outside of taped and untaped. As is I am a bit less interested in even discussing matches if I am already being told how to think of them even if the goal is to prevent dismissal with them.

[Grimmas]

I feel like following up with a short post after your long and thoughtful one is disrespectful but I am naturally a short spoken person. I almost wish there were no categories outside of taped and untaped. As is I am a bit less interested in even discussing matches if I am already being told how to think of them even if the goal is to prevent dismissal with them.

That's a valid point and we will discuss that. One of our first model had no regions at all. There was a complaint that people didn't want to debate an Andre-Hogan vs a Chono-Mutoh match, for example.

[peachchaos]

First of all, thanks to all three of you for putting this together. I think it's long overdue. Like Ricky Jackson, I'm more of a "match" guy than a "worker" guy.

 

I don't have a horse in the categories race, though. I can see both sides of the coin. I guess my biggest fear is the entire narrative of great matches changing. Plenty of people won't throw snowflakes at Steamboat-Savage, so does one of the most universally acclaimed matches become simply "historically significant"?

 

Part of me just wants to see an even playing field where The Empty Arena Match is on the same list as 6/3/94, but I can see how that would be unreasonable to a lot of people.

[Cap]

I feel like following up with a short post after your long and thoughtful one is disrespectful but I am naturally a short spoken person. I almost wish there were no categories outside of taped and untaped. As is I am a bit less interested in even discussing matches if I am already being told how to think of them even if the goal is to prevent dismissal with them.

Yep, I also think that is a completely valid and worth consideration

 

I would ask, in complete earnestness, would you be willing to or inclined to blaze the trail of bringing up other criteria within each category. For example, would you be interested in bringing up how draw or historical impact is important within the "quality" category or how each match in the "importance" category stacks up with regard to quality? Or even if you aren't heading that up, would those types of conversations appeal to you in the process? I would like to see those conversations as a way of highlight not just he obvious ways in which a given match shines, but how we may understand its overall case.

 

 

 

First of all, thanks to all three of you for putting this together. I think it's long overdue. Like Ricky Jackson, I'm more of a "match" guy than a "worker" guy.

 

I don't have a horse in the categories race, though. I can see both sides of the coin. I guess my biggest fear is the entire narrative of great matches changing. Plenty of people won't throw snowflakes at Steamboat-Savage, so does one of the most universally acclaimed matches become simply "historically significant"?

 

Part of me just wants to see an even playing field where The Empty Arena Match is on the same list as 6/3/94, but I can see how that would be unreasonable to a lot of people.

I don't want to say too much about the specifics of the ballot just yet, but I can safely say that is a concern we have indirectly (and somewhat directly) discussed just that in this process, particularly with regard to that match and kept in mind in terms of where it ends up.

 

Ultimately much of the organizing of the ballot is theoretical. I sympathize with both the above concerns and it is my (I think our) hope that conversation manifests itself in a way that considers the entire case, gives people flexibility to talk about matches how they want , and considers varied matches side by side (including The Empty Arena Match and 6/3/94 eventually) however people see fit. The categories certainly do draw ones attention to certain types of conversation, but ideally the execution of threads and the conversations themselves don't allow those categories to be absolute boundaries.

 

I am honestly not trying to quell critiques. Actually, I am happy to see these types of concerns voiced like this. It doesn't just help me think about the process (for now and the future), but also it gives me faith that people will approach the deliberation process thoughtfully, not get too bogged down in distractions or dead ends, and ultimately help improve the project long term.

 

[TeeVenegas]

I'd say a GWE-style Greatest Match Ever project would be a much better way to go as opposed to a Match Hall of Fame. That's just my opinion.

[Loss]

First of all, thanks to all three of you for putting this together. I think it's long overdue. Like Ricky Jackson, I'm more of a "match" guy than a "worker" guy.

 

I don't have a horse in the categories race, though. I can see both sides of the coin. I guess my biggest fear is the entire narrative of great matches changing. Plenty of people won't throw snowflakes at Steamboat-Savage, so does one of the most universally acclaimed matches become simply "historically significant"?

 

Part of me just wants to see an even playing field where The Empty Arena Match is on the same list as 6/3/94, but I can see how that would be unreasonable to a lot of people.

 

That is where it gets AWESOME to me. Comparing things people would usually never think to compare. I want to compare a death match from Big Japan to Bock-Hennig at some point in my life.

 

And CapitalTTruth, I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful response and the work you're putting into it. I really didn't intend to be overly dismissive in my post, and re-reading it, it seems that way, so I apologize for that. I only intended to just state that I am someone who generally appreciates all aspects of wrestling, and I hope that in showing appreciation for one style or one aspect of it that I don't have to disregard another. If whatever system we get allows for that balance, then count me in.

[elliott]

CapitalTTruth is way smarter than me and did a beautiful job summing things up here.

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28549-pro-wrestling-matches-hall-of-fame/?p=5808485

 

But I figured I'd share a few of the posts I made while arguing in favor of having a separate section for match quality. I knew that was going to be the biggest point of contention with the ballot at the same time I was taking the devil's advocate position in favor of them. A few things to keep in mind for context before getting into the posts which I'll spoiler as usual because its typical long-winded Elliott:

 

It may not look like it, but in many ways we used the WON HOF as a guideline. We tried to learn from some of the bigger mistakes on the WON ballot, while acknowledging there will be mistakes with our ballot & process both foreseen & unforeseen. That is why we want to model the WON HOF in that we are totally open to reformatting and making rule changes as the years progress.

 

A few other things we learned from the WON HOF, is we wanted a longer period of time in-between matches taking place and matches becoming eligible for the ballot. I feel like this wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is the WON HOF anyway, but we decided to play it safe & go with 25 years.

 

We also didn't want to put every single feasible candidate in by fiat in year. Perhaps that was a mistake because there are SO many matches. But we wanted to start this from scratch which led us to having a "small ballot." That was important to us. Since we're starting from zero, if we put out a 100 match ballot then the chances of anything actually getting voted in would be small with votes spread so thin with 100 "no brainer" candidates.

 

So that's just a little context in terms of the things we were thinking about when putting a ballot together. Anyway, as I said before, I wanted to share some of the posts I made arguing in favor of an artistic quality section.

 

Note, this first one was written very early in the process before we decided on the 25 year Rule. We first talked about 20 years And the thread I reference in it is this one http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/36653-most-important-matches-in-history/ :

 

 

 

Here's an outside the box idea...since the PWO community is the hardest of hardcore wrestling fans and so much of our type of fandom is predicated on match quality and analysis, what if we had an entirely separate "workrate" section. We could treat it like the "non-wrestler" section of the WON HOF.

 

If the First Class goes the way I hope it will go, it'll be something like:

Gotch vs Hack

Shikat vs O'Mahoney

Rikidozan vs Thesz

Rikidozan vs Destroyer

El Santo vs Black Shadow

Starrcade 83

Mania I Main Event

Hogan vs Andre

Outsiders & Mystery Partner vs Savage, Sting & Luger Bash at the Beach 96

 

Considering we don't want to overload the class the first year and there are so many matches out there, there could theoretically never be a Negro Casas match in the PWO Matches HOF until we're all dead. Bret vs Owen WrestleMania X would never get in. Misawa vs Kawada 6/3/94 hasn't even been brought up in the thread and is that even really on anyone's radar as an all time important match? Doesn't just focusing on the biggest matches and ignoring the work aspect sort of fly in the face of what PWO and our little subsection of fandom was built on?

 

I know workrate is important, and we're not totally discrediting it in a way. I actually agree with the poster in the thread who brought up Savage vs Steamboat. Same thing with HBK vs Ramon ladder match. Those are "great matches" from a working/critical standpoint, but are also actually really important. While Savage vs Steamboat isn't a first ballot type match, it is sort of the perfect borderline match. The work of the match has a lot to do with that sure, but its what the work meant: It showed casual WWF fans what great wrestling was, it influenced a ton of young wrestlers, it wasn't just a "great match" it stole the show on the biggest/most memorable show in wrestling history so when you think about Mania III you HAVE to think Savage/Steamer AND Hogan/Andre both. So it is a match I would consider for the Hall of Fame even though it wasn't the main event or specifically ignite a hot run by itself or whatever. So that's how I see the "workrate" criteria right now. By far the least important criteria possible. I'll vote for a match purely on "ring work" but it has to be the most important fucking ringwork possible.

 

Really I was thinking about it in terms of important/influential matches and based on importance and influence you could make a case that the Eddy Guerrero vs Dean Malenko and Rob Van Dam vs Jerry Lynn ECW matches are more deserving of consideration than the Flair vs Steamboat series in 89 and no, just no.

 

It's a pro wrestling matches hall of fame at PWO so there's got to be some way we're able to talk about William Regal and El Dandy matches and since they're not all that important when we're talking about Frank Gotch, Rikidozan, El Santo & Hulk Hogan, we gotta tweak things a bit.

 

So what if we had a separate category with stuff like Misawa vs Kawada 6/3/94, Flair vs Steamboat, Sangre Chicana vs MS-1, Bret vs Owen, Sting vs Vader, Eddy Guerrero vs Rey Jr Title vs Mask, Lawler vs Dundee, Austin vs Bret Hart Survivor Series, etc etc. Matches that aren't necessarily important and wouldn't really belong in a Hall of Fame that starts with Gotch vs Hack, Hogan vs Andre, and Rikidozan vs Thesz but are critically acclaimed. This could be a separate section where you get five total votes that don't count against your normal ballot. This way the project can still be about learning more about history but it can also be about watching, revisiting, and critiquing matches - the very backbone of PWO.

 

I love this idea. You know you love this idea. Let's do this.

 

 

 

Grimmas didn't really like this idea and so we tabled it. When Truth joined the process he said something that made me share it with him. Truth liked the idea and Grimmas still wasn't in favor of it. Grimmas voiced concerns that Artistic Quality was as important as Drawing Influence Whatever. He was afraid that separating them out would downgrade the importance of match quality. So he MADE me write this

 

 

 

This isn't fair because you're basically forcing me to argue a side where "separate but equal" is the defining principal and because of the history of that phrase, I can't really do it without being really uncomfortable. I keep trying to respond but I'm like "UGGGGH Fuck US History!" I'm way too dialed in on the current political landscape as well as my country's history to feel good about arguing for it. But we're talking Pro Wrestling Website Message Board Hall of Fame's not Schools. And Wrestling Matches Have People but Wrestling Matches Themselves Aren't People. So its a little different. But really. Super uncomfortable.

 

But that's really kinda how I viewed it as a "Separate and Equal" thing. If a person looks at the HOF decides for themselves that the match quality section is less important than the historical section, that's on them and how they're choosing to perceive it. Its not like we're building a real HOF and the match quality wing will have shitty lighting, only one bathroom, unqualified guides, and dogs attacking them.

 

Honesty the inspiration for this idea is me wanting to vote for something like Hansen vs Kobashi 7/27/93. Its one of my favorite matches ever and I'd argue its one of the best matches of all time. But it was a semi-main event in the middle of a period where AJ was selling out all its shows no matter what and it was underneath the first Misawa vs Kawada Triple Crown match since Kawada joined Taue opposite Misawa. Hansen vs Kobashi was an awesome match but in the grand scheme of things probably isn't in the top 100 most important matches in All Japan's history let alone wrestling's history. We shouldn't pretend its the same as El Santo vs Black Shadow just because we all really like the Hansen match. But FUCK I LOVE THAT HANSEN MATCH AND WANT TO VOTE FOR IT. Maybe its because I'm taking it all way too seriously and want to make sure all the right matches get nominated and get a chance or whatever but when you add this completely different and unmeasurable criteria into the equation its harder to figure out what the right matches are to even nominate, especially if we're having so few nominations.

 

Think about it this way. If match quality is completely equal to the historical stuff then how does that affect a match like Black Shadow vs El Santo which we have no footage but we know is important vs something like Jerry Lynn vs LIghtning Kid from Global which we "know" or at least "think" is great but has as much importance as there is footage of Santo/Shadow? Should Lynn vs Kid go on the ballot? If not, doesn't that inherently mean that work isn't actually equal as a criteria? If we nominate matches purely on historic value with no footage then we'd have to nominate matches purely on subjective opinions of footage but no historic value. Should we do that for a Hall of Fame?

 

I'm also not saying that work shouldn't matter. If someone wanted to vote for Chicana vs MS-1 because they think it was a major drawing match, 50th anniversary show main event and an all time great match, then I'd say yeah vote for it, shit I might to. I'd just prefer that people are voting for those reasons than ONLY "because it's an all time great match." Oh I thought of an even better one. Tiger Mask vs Dynamite Kid. Those matches are influential and have historic value because of the work. But they sucked. I wouldn't vote for them for the match quality section, but I would consider them for the historic wing because they were important because of the way they were worked.

 

Having a separate wing for match quality or artistic brilliance allows us to pay homage to the Hansen vs Kobshi's, the Regal matches, shit like that. It's the ALL Work category. As CapitalT said, its a way to find out the best of the best without worrying about how much it drew or its position on the card.

 

So in summary, I really don't think it's making artistic quality less than historical importance unless you personally decide to make it that way in your head. We have an overall general Hall of Fame. These matches are hall of fame worthy because they are important. These matches are hall of fame worthy because they were artistic achievements. They're all in the same hall of fame. They're just organized into why they're in the hall of fame instead of being all muddled together.

 

Separate AND equal.

 

I'm going to go vomit and shower the disgusting off myself. I think Steve Bannon hacked my brain.

 

 

 

Grimmas wondered if what I was arguing for was to completely remove quality from the importance/drawing section and my answer was "no, not really." I used Keiji Muto vs Masa Chono from the 1991 G-1 Climax as an example:

The 91 G-1 Climax final is a hugely important match and part of what made it so important is that it was of such high quality at such an important time/place/position for NJ & Japanese wrestling. So for some of these matches you literally can't separate the work.

 

I'll just share one more thing. Grimmas, rightfully, took issue with my example of Waltman vs Lynn Global matches. My response to that expands on my rationale a little further:

 

 

 

I picked Lynn vs Kid because it really means nothing at all. Zero importance, influence whatever unless you're a big fan of either guy. It probably won't come close to sniffing the ballot for years. But there's no way to argue its important.

 

Take something like Kobashi/Kikuchi vs Can Ams. If Work is considered Equal to Historical Importance and we're making a concerted effort to reflect that reality on the ballot, we'd almost certainly have to nominate that match for the ballot. It was Loss's #1 match of the 90s (awesome!), I'd probably have it top 20 all time, Meltzer rated it 5 stars, its about as universally loved a match as I can think of. Even if people don't think its as great as Loss or me or Meltzer, everyone I've ever seen has put over that match as a classic

 

Now, once it's on the ballot, someone could justify voting for it because it was an all time classic AND important. You could point out that it was a title change that started Kobashi/Kikuchi's year long run with the All Asia Titles and mention Kobashi went on to become a major major star therefore this was a major match and that combined with how great it is means it belongs in the HOF. But that would be a complete misrepresentation of the importance of the match. The All Asia Titles were the mid card titles by this point equivalent to the US tag titles. Yes Kobashi went on to become a major star, but he was well on that path before this match. They had no main events in major buildings as a team defending those titles. That match is a PURE work candidate. If someone is going to vote for it, I'd like it to be on the merits of the match. Being convinced that a match you love belongs in can easily allow for people to artificially inflate its actual importance to justify voting for something they subjectively love. I'm not saying its intentional or even conscious, but I think it would be inevitable. Call it the Chris Benoit Effect. That's how he got into the WON HOF.

 

I think separating the wildly different criteria forces the voter to think about what truely belongs in other than going by feel. Its easier to compare the more objective stuff with the more objective stuff and the subjective stuff with the subjective stuff than mixing it all up together and trying to sort it all out. If its all thrown in together you look at a ballot and think "Yeah, these ten matches." If they're separate you're more likely to go "Wait, should Mania I, Mania III & Hogan/Andre on Main Event ALL make it" or think "ok, so are these the 10 best matches nominated?" (I feel like this last part was lost in text, and I needed inflection and possibly hand motions to properly convey what I meant )

 

More important than who gets in and when is the discussion surrounding everything. I think compartmentalizing it in this way allows for more focus (and more matches). Not only does it encourage research and discussion on stuff we don't normally talk about on PWO but for artistic brilliance it forces us to discuss not just "its great" but "how great is it?" and give us the opportunity to compare classic matches directly to other classic matches from a pure footage standpoint without worrying about how many people were watching in the building or on TV at the time.

 

 

 

We proceeded to go back and forth arguing some smaller points here and there before agreeing to run with it.

 

So, I actually think that the way we set things up is actually going to make Loss' desire to compare a Big Japan Death Match to Bock vs Hennig a potential reality. If we lumped everything into one bucket, a Big Japan death match would never even make the ballot until we were all long dead.

 

I also anticipate the ballot evolving as we go forward. This first year is really laying the ground work with everything nominated being a total no-brainer if you look at it using the WON HOF standard.

[Cap]

 

First of all, thanks to all three of you for putting this together. I think it's long overdue. Like Ricky Jackson, I'm more of a "match" guy than a "worker" guy.

 

I don't have a horse in the categories race, though. I can see both sides of the coin. I guess my biggest fear is the entire narrative of great matches changing. Plenty of people won't throw snowflakes at Steamboat-Savage, so does one of the most universally acclaimed matches become simply "historically significant"?

 

Part of me just wants to see an even playing field where The Empty Arena Match is on the same list as 6/3/94, but I can see how that would be unreasonable to a lot of people.

 

That is where it gets AWESOME to me. Comparing things people would usually never think to compare. I want to compare a death match from Big Japan to Bock-Hennig at some point in my life.

 

And CapitalTTruth, I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful response and the work you're putting into it. I really didn't intend to be overly dismissive in my post, and re-reading it, it seems that way, so I apologize for that. I only intended to just state that I am someone who generally appreciates all aspects of wrestling, and I hope that in showing appreciation for one style or one aspect of it that I don't have to disregard another. If whatever system we get allows for that balance, then count me in.

 

 

No worries at all.

 

I really do hope that the way it set up - as Elliot articulated - lets us make those comparisons. If we find that the categories create too much of a hurdle I will be the first person championing to dissolve them. I do think, already, that those brackets helped us create a more balanced ballot and even if we dropped them down the road I would very much be in favor of maintaining them (or something similar) in the process of ballot construction.

 

.... and don't even get me started on Bock/Hennig

[Loss]

Elliott, what's interesting about that post is that believe it or not, I'd have to stop and think about Kobashi-Kikuchi vs CanAms as a HOF match. It's possible it is, but I don't see it as a no-brainer, even though I do think it's the best match of the 90s. Talk about brain twisters. To me, even on the match quality side, and I don't necessarily think everyone has to consider this, but I want to see some indication that it didn't exist entirely in a vacuum. So I don't think it's as great a match, but something like Savage-Steamboat at Wrestlemania III has a far stronger case in my mind. So you're right that in many cases, the two ideas just cannot be separated.

[Grimmas]

I forgot how much I was against separating the two categories at first.

[concrete1992]

If categories were separate for "importance" and "quality" I would not see it as worth engaging in other aspects of a potential case. If you are telling me it is in the importance category the influence and importance matter. If it is in the quality category it comes down to how many stars I would throw at it. To say "these are why these matches are on this ballot" and then say that I am free to consider other pieces to the puzzle seems conflicting. But I'm just one person and don't watch enough wrestling to even be in consideration for the voting pool.

[Grimmas]

The way to look at it is not as importance and quality categories, but more like the WON as a region. Even though Steve Williams is in the Japan region, you don't just count his work in Japan, you count his Mid South and WCW work too.

[concrete1992]

The way to look at it is not as importance and quality categories, but more like the WON as a region. Even though Steve Williams is in the Japan region, you don't just count his work in Japan, you count his Mid South and WCW work too.

 

Part of the WON HOF discussion isn't about whether Steve Williams is Japanese. If it is this colors that process in an entirely new way.

[Grimmas]

 

The way to look at it is not as importance and quality categories, but more like the WON as a region. Even though Steve Williams is in the Japan region, you don't just count his work in Japan, you count his Mid South and WCW work too.

 

Part of the WON HOF discussion isn't about whether Steve Williams is Japanese. If it is this colors that process in an entirely new way.

 

 

In the WON people are grouped with others that are similar in order to get fair comparisons. What the person decides make a HOFer is up to the voter.

 

This system is the same, just instead of area it's just category A and B. If we removed the titles to the regions and just said this is region A and this is region B would that work?

[elliott]

Elliott, what's interesting about that post is that believe it or not, I'd have to stop and think about Kobashi-Kikuchi vs CanAms as a HOF match. It's possible it is, but I don't see it as a no-brainer, even though I do think it's the best match of the 90s. Talk about brain twisters. To me, even on the match quality side, and I don't necessarily think everyone has to consider this, but I want to see some indication that it didn't exist entirely in a vacuum. So I don't think it's as great a match, but something like Savage-Steamboat at Wrestlemania III has a far stronger case in my mind. So you're right that in many cases, the two ideas just cannot be separated.

 

Its interesting that you feel that way about Kobashi/Kikuchi vs Can Ams. I actually think you would be an outlier in this sense. I think back to last year's WON HOF thread where I tried to get people to talk about Daniel Bryan's case outside of his in ring work. People kinda refused to engage because "HE's THIS GOOD AND THEREFORE SHOULD MAKE IT! IN RING IS ENOUGH! ITS ONE OF THE CRITERIA!!!" In terms of the WON HOF, I'm more on your side. I said in that same discussion that I wouldn't vote for Tamura for the WON HOF even though I think he's the best in ring Japanese wrestler ever. So I do get where your coming from, even while admitting your super high ranking of that match absolutely played a role in the existence of the Critically Acclaimed section.

 

I just think its a tougher reality for a Pro Wrestling Matches HOF because there are so many matches, we're starting from scratch and we're not putting anything in by fiat. Each WON HOF has 1000s of matches to their name so its not an apples to apples comparison. Assuming we have a broad criteria, similar to the WON HOF, based on drawing, in ring quality, influence, etc, where all criteria are given equal weight, what does the first ballot look like? Could un-taped matches be nominated? If so, we would also have to nominate matches that have literally no importance but only "in ring work" as their defining HOF criteria. So what does that do to a "small ballot." Presumably we would want the ballot to reflect this sort of equality in the criteria. If the ballot doesn't reflect that, then (in a way) we're saying either one or the other (importance or in ring quality) is more important than the other. If we lumped all of the criteria into one bucket and tried to weigh things equally and honestly, then I think the ballot would most likely be almost entirely Ric Flair & All Japan matches. And that's no fun.

 

In regards to viewing matches in a vacuum, and I suspect people won't like this, but that's kind of the point of the Critically Acclaimed/Artistic Quality/Workrate Category. I mean, take Gilbert Cesca vs Billy Cantanzaro. That has been universally praised by basically everyone since it appeared in our circles. Do we know much of anything about that specific match, those workers, or French Catch at all? It exists not completely in a vacuum, but pretty damn close. Should it be disqualified from nomination? What about something like El Santo vs Black Shadow? We know its a major match and important and "HOF worthy." But nobody could speak to the quality of the match. How do you compare those matches?

 

I think a Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame would be silly without stuff like Santo/Black Shadow or Gotch/Hack. But at the same time, I think in a community like ours that is so footage & match quality based, a "Pro Wrestling Matches" Hall of Fame would seem totally bizarre if an El Dandy or Fujiwara or Buddy Rose match was never even nominated for the ballot.

 

When the ballot gets released, there will be Critically Acclaimed Matches in the "Historical Significance" section and historically significant matches in the "Critically Acclaimed" section.

[elliott]

 

 

The way to look at it is not as importance and quality categories, but more like the WON as a region. Even though Steve Williams is in the Japan region, you don't just count his work in Japan, you count his Mid South and WCW work too.

 

Part of the WON HOF discussion isn't about whether Steve Williams is Japanese. If it is this colors that process in an entirely new way.

 

 

In the WON people are grouped with others that are similar in order to get fair comparisons. What the person decides make a HOFer is up to the voter.

 

This system is the same, just instead of area it's just category A and B. If we removed the titles to the regions and just said this is region A and this is region B would that work?

 

 

I think I can offer a little bit more clarity on this. It goes back to something I referenced above and something Loss agreed with when he wrote "in many cases, the two ideas just cannot be separated."

 

I think Muto/Chono from the G-1 Climax is one of the best examples to use. It was unquestionably a historically significant match. It was the finals of the first G-1 which was wildly successful at the time and still happening 26 years later. Its the tournament/match that firmly solidified the 3 Musketeers Generation in the eyes of the fans. Shit, it was over a year before the first Misawa/Kawada Triple Crown match. Etc etc etc. Its a major match no matter which way you slice it. A major part of why that overall tournament and especially that specific match were so successful at the time was because of how incredibly great it was as a match. What happens if they go out and lay an egg in that match? What happens if they have a merely average match? Its impossible to say for sure, because they went out and had one of the best matches in the history of the company (wrestling). The historical significance/importance of that match is directly tied to it being a "Critically Acclaimed/Artistically Brilliant/5 Star Match. You can separate the ring work from the historical significance and discuss Muto vs Chono. You can't discuss the historical significance of it while ignoring/separating out the ring work. Does that make sense?

 

The whole point of the Critically Acclaimed/Artistically Brilliant/Workrate/In Ring Quality category (in my mind) is to strip away all the extra stuff from Muto/Chono and compare it directly to Satanico/Cochise from an in-ring only perspective. I think that's a more interesting conversation than "Well, both matches were great, but Muto vs Chono has all of this other stuff going for it, so I vote for that" and more in the spirit of the footage based foundation of PWO.

[gordi]

Here's the thing: There are only going to be a few matches voted in each year, right?

 

And: When separating matches into "quality" and "importance" surely there were *several* matches that qualify for *both* categories, right?

 

So...

 

If we need to find a way to chose just a limited number of matches to put on the ballot...

 

Why not - at first, anyway - limit it strictly to those matches that could arguably fit into *both* categories.

 

So: there would be ZERO chance of Hogan vs. Andre being addressed until we have worked through ALL of the matches that are HOF-worthy based on both quality and importance. (Because: It's an important match, but the quality is not HOF level).

 

Good.

 

There would be ZERO chance of a superb-but-random AJPW semi-main six man tag going in until we have already worked through ALL of the matches that are at a similar level of quality but have more historical importance

 

Also: Good.

 

Some of our absolute personal favourite matches will just have to wait until we have first given HOF spots to ALL of the matches that deserve to get in because they were both great and important.

 

You wanna vote for some random El Dandy or Dick Togo match that has personal meaning for you because you found it on an old tape somewhere and the action is amazing? Tough! This isn't a "participating voters favourite matches poll."

 

This is a Hall of Fame.

 

What belongs in a Hall of Fame? Matches that are both excellent and important.

 

Everything else can wait its turn.

 

(Matches that are not on tape can still be a separate category...)

[elliott]

Here's the thing: There are only going to be a few matches voted in each year, right?

 

And: When separating matches into "quality" and "importance" surely there were *several* matches that qualify for *both* categories, right?

 

So...

 

If we need to find a way to chose just a limited number of matches to put on the ballot...

 

Why not - at first, anyway - limit it strictly to those matches that could arguably fit into *both* categories.

 

So: there would be ZERO chance of Hogan vs. Andre being addressed until we have worked through ALL of the matches that are HOF-worthy based on both quality and importance. (Because: It's an important match, but the quality is not HOF level).

 

Good.

 

There would be ZERO chance of a superb-but-random AJPW semi-main six man tag going in until we have already worked through ALL of the matches that are at a similar level of quality but have more historical importance

 

Also: Good.

 

Some of our absolute personal favourite matches will just have to wait until we have first given HOF spots to ALL of the matches that deserve to get in because they were both great and important.

 

You wanna vote for some random El Dandy or Dick Togo match that has personal meaning for you because you found it on an old tape somewhere and the action is amazing? Tough! This isn't a "participating voters favourite matches poll."

 

This is a Hall of Fame.

 

What belongs in a Hall of Fame? Matches that are both excellent and important.

 

Everything else can wait its turn.

 

(Matches that are not on tape can still be a separate category...)

 

I get what you're saying. I do.

 

But a Pro Wrestling Matches Hall of Fame that doesn't include Hogan vs Andre on the first ballot is just wrong.

[Microstatistics]

I'd say a GWE-style Greatest Match Ever project would be a much better way to go as opposed to a Match Hall of Fame. That's just my opinion.

 

I second this. Though this project does sound interesting.

[Loss]

GME can happen if people really want it, but I don't think PWO is the place for it. We'll probably never do "Greatest ____ Ever" for anything here again if we hope to maintain any sense of community.

[Loss]

 

Elliott, what's interesting about that post is that believe it or not, I'd have to stop and think about Kobashi-Kikuchi vs CanAms as a HOF match. It's possible it is, but I don't see it as a no-brainer, even though I do think it's the best match of the 90s. Talk about brain twisters. To me, even on the match quality side, and I don't necessarily think everyone has to consider this, but I want to see some indication that it didn't exist entirely in a vacuum. So I don't think it's as great a match, but something like Savage-Steamboat at Wrestlemania III has a far stronger case in my mind. So you're right that in many cases, the two ideas just cannot be separated.

 

Its interesting that you feel that way about Kobashi/Kikuchi vs Can Ams. I actually think you would be an outlier in this sense. I think back to last year's WON HOF thread where I tried to get people to talk about Daniel Bryan's case outside of his in ring work. People kinda refused to engage because "HE's THIS GOOD AND THEREFORE SHOULD MAKE IT! IN RING IS ENOUGH! ITS ONE OF THE CRITERIA!!!" In terms of the WON HOF, I'm more on your side. I said in that same discussion that I wouldn't vote for Tamura for the WON HOF even though I think he's the best in ring Japanese wrestler ever. So I do get where your coming from, even while admitting your super high ranking of that match absolutely played a role in the existence of the Critically Acclaimed section.

 

I just think its a tougher reality for a Pro Wrestling Matches HOF because there are so many matches, we're starting from scratch and we're not putting anything in by fiat. Each WON HOF has 1000s of matches to their name so its not an apples to apples comparison. Assuming we have a broad criteria, similar to the WON HOF, based on drawing, in ring quality, influence, etc, where all criteria are given equal weight, what does the first ballot look like? Could un-taped matches be nominated? If so, we would also have to nominate matches that have literally no importance but only "in ring work" as their defining HOF criteria. So what does that do to a "small ballot." Presumably we would want the ballot to reflect this sort of equality in the criteria. If the ballot doesn't reflect that, then (in a way) we're saying either one or the other (importance or in ring quality) is more important than the other. If we lumped all of the criteria into one bucket and tried to weigh things equally and honestly, then I think the ballot would most likely be almost entirely Ric Flair & All Japan matches. And that's no fun.

 

In regards to viewing matches in a vacuum, and I suspect people won't like this, but that's kind of the point of the Critically Acclaimed/Artistic Quality/Workrate Category. I mean, take Gilbert Cesca vs Billy Cantanzaro. That has been universally praised by basically everyone since it appeared in our circles. Do we know much of anything about that specific match, those workers, or French Catch at all? It exists not completely in a vacuum, but pretty damn close. Should it be disqualified from nomination? What about something like El Santo vs Black Shadow? We know its a major match and important and "HOF worthy." But nobody could speak to the quality of the match. How do you compare those matches?

 

I think a Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame would be silly without stuff like Santo/Black Shadow or Gotch/Hack. But at the same time, I think in a community like ours that is so footage & match quality based, a "Pro Wrestling Matches" Hall of Fame would seem totally bizarre if an El Dandy or Fujiwara or Buddy Rose match was never even nominated for the ballot.

 

When the ballot gets released, there will be Critically Acclaimed Matches in the "Historical Significance" section and historically significant matches in the "Critically Acclaimed" section.

 

 

I don't entirely disagree with this. I think the baseline for every match for me is impact. And the impact is not something based on facts and figures, but more based on rose-colored glasses. In wrestling, that type perception is reality. If people think Tiger Mask and Dynamite Kid revolutionized junior heavyweight wrestling, they did even if they didn't, if it meant that they inspired Jushin Liger, Great Sasuke, Ultimo Dragon, and Shinjiro Otani to follow in their footsteps. So I look at impact first in that sense. In that case, the impact is influence, but the impact doesn't always have to be influence. Hogan-Andre's impact is that it's an iconic, generation-defining match. HHH-Reigns and Flair-Inoki actually happened in front of larger crowds, but no reasonable person would argue that the impact is in the same universe.

 

After you determine the amount of impact it had, you determine why the match made an impact and determine which ultimately meant more to pro wrestling. And yes, that's vague as hell and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but that's the fun part. So yeah, if someone can show me how some of the great hidden gem matches we have dug up really did make a lasting impact, even on a smaller scale, the match would have a chance of getting my vote. But just being a great match isn't enough, even if it's out of this world, just like a match filling the entire state of Texas would have no chance of getting my vote if no one who watched cared, the crowd turned on the match, and the build was nothing special or memorable.

[elliott]

I actually really like this as a broad general criteria for everything.

I think the baseline for every match for me is impact. And the impact is not something based on facts and figures, but more based on rose-colored glasses. In wrestling, that type perception is reality. If people think Tiger Mask and Dynamite Kid revolutionized junior heavyweight wrestling, they did even if they didn't, if it meant that they inspired Jushin Liger, Great Sasuke, Ultimo Dragon, and Shinjiro Otani to follow in their footsteps. So I look at impact first in that sense. In that case, the impact is influence, but the impact doesn't always have to be influence. Hogan-Andre's impact is that it's an iconic, generation-defining match. HHH-Reigns and Flair-Inoki actually happened in front of larger crowds, but no reasonable person would argue that the impact is in the same universe.

 

After you determine the amount of impact it had, you determine why the match made an impact and determine which ultimately meant more to pro wrestling. And yes, that's vague as hell and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but that's the fun part.

 

This is pretty much how I view "importance/historical value" section and hope that will be the way the matches are discussed.

 

Also in regards to this:

So yeah, if someone can show me how some of the great hidden gem matches we have dug up really did make a lasting impact, even on a smaller scale, the match would have a chance of getting my vote. But just being a great match isn't enough, even if it's out of this world,

 

I would just say that looking at the ballot, there's one "hidden gem" match like that in the Critically Acclaimed section, one match that isn't really important, and all the rest are main events or major matches that happen to be amazing in ring matches. Not to come across overly defensive and keep coming back to these few points, but I do think its important to keep in mind these facts:

 

We're starting from scratch. Meaning no matches are already in.

We're covering the entire history of wrestling in the world.

We wanted to keep a "small ballot" so as not to overwhelm voters with nominees.

 

This sort of context is important. Yes we want the Critically Acclaimed Section to be a place where matches of little to no-historic value but are simply "great" would get a shot at the ballot. But the reality of starting from nothing and having so many matches means that section will also be full of main events. However (speaking for Grimmas & Truth), we wanted to allow for the possibility of a Big Japan Death Match to be compared to Bock/Hennig at some point in the future. That isn't the current reality for many reasons. However, if people begin championing a Big Japan Death Match, we wanted to make sure it wasn't automatically disqualified for not being a "big enough match."

 

This is again speaking for Grimmas & Truth, but I think we'd all agree that this first year is very much an experimental year. We have no idea how people will vote & how many matches will get in. This will really set the groundwork for how we move forward in future years. Again with a "smaller" ballot the reality is every single match is a slam dunk pick. With a number (hopefully like 5 or more) of no-brainers going in the first year, results to look at, continued discussions like these and discussions on the nominees themselves will give us a better sense not only of voter patterns but of voter hopes for the overall project.

 

We're not only open to format changes going forward, we're expecting it. Maybe the "non-taped" matches section gets little to no attention and we have to shift that to a Veterans Committee (FIat by Experts essentially for folks not familiar with the Baseball HOF) (Sidenote, my real hope is that section will drive discussion of stuff we don't normally talk about at PWO). Maybe we decide after a few years of voting that regional or by decade is the way to re-format. Who knows. But I think the more information/discussion there is, the better chance we'll have at figuring out the right format as time moves forward.

 

I hope that makes sense. Its late/early.