What is Workrate? Does Workrate Matter?

[Matt D]

That's why Bill put "you" in every question but one. I feel strongly about my views, but they're my views, and they weren't always my views, so I can appreciate your views as well and your right to have them. There's nothing objective here. I do personally feel like I get more out of pro wrestling than someone who cares more about execution. I probably also have to put in more to get more out, though.

 

I'm kind of curious though. If that's what you want out of wrestling, why the heck did you spend so much time going through late era WCW instead of a different time/place/territory/etc where you might have found a lot more to enjoy? Because from reading your posts, I don't think you got a whole lot of what you enjoyed from that project, especially relative to the copious amount of time you put into it.

[El-P]

That's why Bill put "you" in every question but one. I feel strongly about my views, but they're my views, and they weren't always my views, so I can appreciate your views as well and your right to have them. There's nothing objective here. I do personally feel like I get more out of pro wrestling than someone who cares more about execution. I probably also have to put in more to get more out, though.

 

I respect that and I know you have a very precise, definite and specific idea of what you seek and enjoy in pro-wrestling. Which isn't mine, but that's fine with me.

 

I'm kind of curious though. If that's what you want out of wrestling, why the heck did you spend so much time going through late era WCW instead of a different time/place/territory/etc where you might have found a lot more to enjoy? Because from reading your posts, I don't think you got a whole lot of what you enjoyed from that project, especially relative to the copious amount of time you put into it.

 

I spent so much time revisiting the 90's (WCW from 89 to 2001, ECW and SMW) because I wanted to check that one last time before I finally put it to rest. I don't think I'll ever come back to watch that stuff, ever. What do I want out of pro-wrestling at this point ? I dunno. I enjoy a lot of little things. A good angle. A good promo. A good announcing spot. A solid match. A fun vignette. A great nearfall that I didn't see coming. A stupid but fun and unexpected line during a promo. A manager/valet doing good work at ringside. I don't think I'm looking for the great matches anymore. When I stumble onto one, that's great (like rewatching Eddie vs Rey at Havoc, which is one hell of a "workrate match", if I might say so), but I've been enjoying more the characterization aspect of the US wrestling of the 90's. SMW was all about the promos and Dirty Dutch at the announcing table for instance. I really don't have a definite idea of what I want. But I know what bothers me and what I don't want. Kinda like in life actually.

[W2BTD]

Saying "I don't care about/I don't need a high workrate" makes zero sense. It would be like saying "I only care about the plot on a movie". Yes, ultimately the psychology is what matters most (sometimes this isn't true, but I don't want to derail this), but why wouldn't you want it delivered in an aesthetically pleasing way? You can tell the greatest in ring story ever, but if the work is lazy or shitty, that's no different than a movie with a great plot filled with shitty actors, a cheap looking set, and a bad director.

 

This idea that "PWO has moved on from workrate mattering" is bullshit. I don't buy that. I believe that some of you may think this is true, but it isn't. You can't move away from workrate mattering. Take a step back from that and listen to how absurd that sounds. Why WOULDN'T you want wrestlers working hard? It makes no sense. Good workrate can never be a negative. You can be missing the other ingredients, but good workrate can never be a bad thing to have. And workrate is the one component of a wrestling match that can most easily cover the other flaws. This is why a short sprinty spotfest will always hold surface entertainment value.

 

"Workrate doesn't matter" is a lie, even if you don't realize it is.

[Matt D]

1.) Maybe I should have put it that "We've moved away from workrate as the #1 component in judging matches." Which is a huge leap and it took many years to get there, I think.

2.) Good workrate can absolutely be a negative if it takes away from a smart match. If they're so focused on working hard and hitting their shit that they aren't selling or letting things breathe or making sure that they matter. I'm not sure I want to have this discussion with you to be honest, because you are so vehement about it and so exasperated, that I'm not sure you're a guy I really want to talk to about this. Sorry. Take a breath. Slow down. Try to look at a bigger picture. I think you hang around here sometimes just to get into these arguments and go back to the rest of the internet and tell like-minded people how crazy everyone is here, like you're earning some sort of forest exploration badge or like it's some burden you carry for the sake of the greater good. I'm not particularly interested in that. Bill asked questions. He singled me out in asking for an answer. I'm happy to oblige. I'm not happy to have this discussion with you right now when you're expressing yourself in such a petty, immature, and small-minded manner. Look at the difference between how Jerome presented himself and how you did.

[El-P]

2.) Good workrate can absolutely be a negative if it takes away from a smart match. If they're so focused on working hard and hitting their shit that they aren't selling or letting things breathe or making sure that they matter.

 

Indeed. But to me this has nothing to do with workrate. This is the definition of a spotfest. And a spotfest can also have terrible workrate, meaning sloppy execution, useless stiffness, bad selling, contrived spots, bad setups etc… That's the problem I have with this whole question, I feel like we're confusing spotfest and workrate a bit here (and that is my issue with a lot of exemples you gave in your first post when you refered to what the word "workrate" makes you think about, Matt).

[W2BTD]

1.) Maybe I should have put it that "We've moved away from workrate as the #1 component in judging matches." Which is a huge leap and it took many years to get there, I think.

2.) Good workrate can absolutely be a negative if it takes away from a smart match. If they're so focused on working hard and hitting their shit that they aren't selling or letting things breath or making sure that they matter. I'm not sure I want to have this discussion with you to be honest, because you are so vehement about it and so exasperated, that I'm not sure you're a guy I really want to talk to about this. Sorry. Take a breath. Slow down. Try to look at a bigger picture. I think you hang around here sometimes just to get into these arguments and go back to the rest of the internet and tell like-minded people how crazy everyone is here, like you're earning some sort of forest exploration badge or like it's some burden you carry for the sake of the greater good. I'm not particularly interested in that. Bill asked questions. He singled me out in asking for an answer. I'm happy to oblige. I'm not happy to have this discussion with you right now when you're expressing yourself in such a petty, immature, and small-minded manner. Look at the difference between how Jerome presented himself and how you did.

 

Amazing.

 

First of all, if you don't want to have a discussion with me, fine. That doesn't offend me. Don't reply. There are people here I don't want to engage, so I don't.

 

This post is also a good example of why I take large chunks of time away from this board. I hear Loss & others claim they want to diversify the site, but some of you guys are so non-receptive to the non group think that goes on here that you take any contrary posts as some sort of trolling.

 

Sorry if you think i'm just poking you. I re read my post, and I dont think it comes off that way (especially on a site where the smarm level is often set at 100), but whatever. I can see why people like Alan or rovert barely ever post here, and why this site had trouble attracting alternative views. For a site that prides themselves on "we question everything" & "we challenge everything", some of you really don't like being challenged or engaged. Who wants to deal with it?

[Matt D]

 

2.) Good workrate can absolutely be a negative if it takes away from a smart match. If they're so focused on working hard and hitting their shit that they aren't selling or letting things breathe or making sure that they matter.

 

Indeed. But to me this has nothing to do with workrate. This is the definition of a spotfest. And a spotfest can also have terrible workrate, meaning sloppy execution, useless stiffness, bad selling, contrived spots, bad setups etc… That's the problem I have with this whole question, I feel like we're confusing spotfest and workrate a bit here (and that is my issue with a lot of exemples you gave in your first post when you refered to what the word "workrate" makes you think about, Matt).

 

 

I think the issue there is whether workrate can actually mean "to work slower if it is appropriate to work slower," a balance.

 

If that's the case, then I don't think it's generally used that way. "Proper and balanced workrate."

 

Workrate isn't used as "to work at the appropriate speed for a match." Maybe it should be used that way but I don't think it's generally used that way. I don't think it was used that way in the statement I was countering.

 

The confusion in semantics is part of the reason for the note, but I'm pretty certain my statement holds on the idea I was countering that "bad workrate" is "lazy," not "ill-paced."

[W2BTD]

 

2.) Good workrate can absolutely be a negative if it takes away from a smart match. If they're so focused on working hard and hitting their shit that they aren't selling or letting things breathe or making sure that they matter.

 

Indeed. But to me this has nothing to do with workrate. This is the definition of a spotfest. And a spotfest can also have terrible workrate, meaning sloppy execution, useless stiffness, bad selling, contrived spots, bad setups etc… That's the problem I have with this whole question, I feel like we're confusing spotfest and workrate a bit here (and that is my issue with a lot of exemples you gave in your first post when you refered to what the word "workrate" makes you think about, Matt).

 

 

Part of the issue is the term workrate has multiple meanings now, as I alluded to in my first reply. And that is coming through in this thread.

[Matt D]

 

Sorry if you think i'm just poking you. I re read my post, and I dont think it comes off that way (especially on a site where the smarm level is often set at 100), but whatever. I can see why people like Alan or rovert barely ever post here, and why this site had trouble attracting alternative views. For a site that prides themselves on "we question everything" & "we challenge everything", some of you really don't like being challenged or engaged. Who wants to deal with it?

 

 

The issue isn't the difference of opinion. It's how you present yourself. I think Alan usually comes off as a gentleman and as someone who is very enthusiastic about the things he likes. His honest love for the wrestling he cares for is actually a joy when it comes to reading his posts and hearing his podcasts. I haven't had many interactions with him but I'm always willing to read his opinion and I find it very useful even if I have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

You come off like a combative jerk, generally.

[El-P]

 

 

2.) Good workrate can absolutely be a negative if it takes away from a smart match. If they're so focused on working hard and hitting their shit that they aren't selling or letting things breathe or making sure that they matter.

 

Indeed. But to me this has nothing to do with workrate. This is the definition of a spotfest. And a spotfest can also have terrible workrate, meaning sloppy execution, useless stiffness, bad selling, contrived spots, bad setups etc… That's the problem I have with this whole question, I feel like we're confusing spotfest and workrate a bit here (and that is my issue with a lot of exemples you gave in your first post when you refered to what the word "workrate" makes you think about, Matt).

 

 

I think the issue there is whether workrate can actually mean "to work slower if it is appropriate to work slower," a balance.

 

If that's the case, then I don't think it's ever used that way. "Proper and balanced workrate."

 

Workrate isn't used as "to work at the appropriate speed for a match." Maybe it should be used that way but I don't think it's generally used that way. I don't think it was used that way in the statement I was countering.

 

 

To me "workrate" has taken a negative connotation in the late 00's following what I like to call the "Post Benoit trauma workrate guilt", which came more or less at the same time when if you wanted to enjoy the current product, you had to find ways to like the"storytelling oriented" matches of John Cena + the heavy pimping of some 80's guys like Lawler at the time following the Memphis set (pardon me if the dates don't all match-up, but all of this was around these years, more or less I believe). This is when workrate became a bad word I think.

[Matt D]

I think there's an argument to be made that there was a shift, it was a backlash to Benoit(and later Misawa), and that MAYBE shift went too far, but I think it's only happened in relatively small circles. I'm an extreme outlier. I do think you heavily underplay the footage that became more easily available and the effort that went into the 80s projects, as well as a lot of the excess that started to show up on the US Indy scene. Things developed organically over a span of years, and a lot of people came to a similar conclusion in different ways and to different extents. To me, it was sort of like seeing a magic eye. Once you start seeing wrestling this way and valuing other aspects, you kind of can't unsee it. You start looking for it everywhere.

 

I think something comparable is post-modernism in academia, where you have a lot of old texts looked at using different methods. Older wrestlers and matches were examined using different criteria.

[El-P]

I think there's an argument to be made that there was a shift, it was a backlash to Benoit(and later Misawa), and that MAYBE shift went too far, but I think it's only happened in relatively small circles.

 

But this is our small circle.

 

I do think you heavily underplay the footage that became more easily available and the effort that went into the 80s projects, as well as a lot of the excess that started to show up on the US Indy scene.

 

I mentionned the heavy pimping of Lawler and such, and yeah, I agree this also played a simultaneous role (although talking strictly about Memphis, Dundee is really a guy that is all about workrate, and I say that in a positive way). The excess of indy wrestling too, but I never really followed the scene, but I guess you mean the Alljapanism cosplayers from ROH and the absurd contrived work of the X division in TNA (Canadian Destroyer anyone ?).

 

Speaking for myself only, I remember already kinda turning the corner in the early 00's when I was going through NJ & AJ TV. It got obvious when I ended up enjoying Choshu's simple yet super effective matches better than Liger vs Benoit state of the art junior stuff on the same TV blocks, and also enjoying the hell out of the Blood Outlaws. Also, my love for Onita always came from the fact the guy was all about milking the shit out of everything he was taking and doing über dramatic sell job, and not because of the electrified stunts, and this was reinforced when I went through most of FMW later in the decade.

 

As far as Misawa goes, this hit me harder than Benoit as far as my perception of pro-wrestling went, because the Benoit incident to me had nothing to do with his style of work. But Misawa clearly died from an injury he got because of the the toll his body took over the years. Because of this, I really never watched an AJ match again since then, and really have no urge to do so. And I loved 90's AJ big match style (not talking about the ridiculous headdropping that really marred the style in the later days then in NOAH). I'd probably rather watch the whole HUSTLE history with subtitles if I could now.

[Dylan Waco]

Joe you have taken the hardest line in this thread, absolutely no nuance and you are complaining about the perceived elitism of your ideological opponents. That is not a winning strategy for debate

[W2BTD]

Joe you have taken the hardest line in this thread, absolutely no nuance and you are complaining about the perceived elitism of your ideological opponents. That is not a winning strategy for debate

 

Yes, i'm clearly the only one digging their heels in when it comes to this beaten to death topic. C'mon, Dylan.

[BigBadMick]

Saying "I don't care about/I don't need a high workrate" makes zero sense. It would be like saying "I only care about the plot on a movie". Yes, ultimately the psychology is what matters most (sometimes this isn't true, but I don't want to derail this), but why wouldn't you want it delivered in an aesthetically pleasing way? You can tell the greatest in ring story ever, but if the work is lazy or shitty, that's no different than a movie with a great plot filled with shitty actors, a cheap looking set, and a bad director.

 

This idea that "PWO has moved on from workrate mattering" is bullshit. I don't buy that. I believe that some of you may think this is true, but it isn't. You can't move away from workrate mattering. Take a step back from that and listen to how absurd that sounds. Why WOULDN'T you want wrestlers working hard? It makes no sense. Good workrate can never be a negative. You can be missing the other ingredients, but good workrate can never be a bad thing to have. And workrate is the one component of a wrestling match that can most easily cover the other flaws. This is why a short sprinty spotfest will always hold surface entertainment value.

 

"Workrate doesn't matter" is a lie, even if you don't realize it is.

That IS pretty aggressive, Joe.....

[Dylan Waco]

 

 

Joe you have taken the hardest line in this thread, absolutely no nuance and you are complaining about the perceived elitism of your ideological opponents. That is not a winning strategy for debate

Yes, i'm clearly the only one digging their heels in when it comes to this beaten to death topic. C'mon, Dylan.

The tone you've taken speaks for itself. You can't complain about the elitist, close minded thinking of others, when you consistently post things dense with elitism and close mindedness.

[Steenalized]

Saying "I don't care about/I don't need a high workrate" makes zero sense. It would be like saying "I only care about the plot on a movie". Yes, ultimately the psychology is what matters most (sometimes this isn't true, but I don't want to derail this), but why wouldn't you want it delivered in an aesthetically pleasing way? You can tell the greatest in ring story ever, but if the work is lazy or shitty, that's no different than a movie with a great plot filled with shitty actors, a cheap looking set, and a bad director.

 

This idea that "PWO has moved on from workrate mattering" is bullshit. I don't buy that. I believe that some of you may think this is true, but it isn't. You can't move away from workrate mattering. Take a step back from that and listen to how absurd that sounds. Why WOULDN'T you want wrestlers working hard? It makes no sense. Good workrate can never be a negative. You can be missing the other ingredients, but good workrate can never be a bad thing to have. And workrate is the one component of a wrestling match that can most easily cover the other flaws. This is why a short sprinty spotfest will always hold surface entertainment value.

 

"Workrate doesn't matter" is a lie, even if you don't realize it is.

You've made a big leap in the first paragraph going from "workrate is an important component of a match" (which it can be) to "workrate is how matches become aesthetically pleasing." Some people hold that view but not all. Work rate is not what defines the aesthetics of wrestling, this isn't a one-to-one correlation. It is a part of it, sure, but so are facials, selling, crowd interaction, etc.

 

Work smart, not hard, it's true in just about every walk of life. Sure, if you're unable to work smart at some point, working hard is a great alternative. But working hard in and of itself isn't enough to make a good wrestling match. But you're right, being lazy in the ring tends to make for bad, dull matches. What you've done though is equivocated high workrate with "good workrate". You're right, good workrate, i.e., workrate that fits the psychology and flow of the match, that's always a good thing. It's inherent in the name. Good tasting food tastes good. What you're arguing is salty food is good food because almost every dish has salt to some degree or another.

[rovert]

Sorry if you think i'm just poking you. I re read my post, and I dont think it comes off that way (especially on a site where the smarm level is often set at 100), but whatever. I can see why people like Alan or rovert barely ever post here, and why this site had trouble attracting alternative views. For a site that prides themselves on "we question everything" & "we challenge everything", some of you really don't like being challenged or engaged. Who wants to deal with it?

 

That is why I don't put much effort in here that something as a basic as saying Devitt is extremely well respected in the industry - which he is and there's three pages about it in this month's Fighting Spirit Magazine with Wrestlers from all over the World being quoted about Fergal's list of positive qualities gets an utterly bizarre reaction from people like Will and Matt D:

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/21572-wrestle-kingdom-8/

 

Matt D bizarrely trolls other places about it still and makes weird anti-Irish posts on the basis of it.

 

This place as valuable as it is can at times be excessively uninviting and often just out of touch.

[Loss]

This seems to have brought out a lot of hostility. While I consider myself pretty fair-minded about criticisms people throw at PWO, most of you also know I'm especially sensitive to any ideas of PWO as a monolith. "Many posters at PWO" may think something, but "PWO" doesn't think anything, and I do think there is a distinction. I think some of the points being raised are valid, and as rovert remembers, I backed him in that thread.

 

I don't really like it at all when one poster tries to speak for the entire board, even if whatever is being said is positive and I agree with the message. But given the choice, I'd rather have that happen occasionally from someone who is generally respectful and enters debates earnestly than someone posting here to tell us how awful we are as a collective. And I say that as someone who thinks W2BTD is making some points I generally agree with in this thread, although I would probably apply some additional nuance to it.

 

If anyone has a problem with something many people are saying, I only ask that you call them out by name instead of lumping everyone who posts here in the same group. Because even if you think it applies to the majority of us, there are still some to whom it does not, and it's not fair to them. There are very few people that I've argued about wrestling more with than Matt D. I consider Dylan and Will good friends and those are probably the only two guys I've argued with more than him! So the idea that we all agree about what good wrestling is and what bad wrestling is is something I can't accept, because I know it's not the case.

[Jimmy Redman]

I agree that it's not fair to paint PWO as being of one mind when it comes to wrestling opinions, but I think it is pretty fair to suggest that the board as a whole can be pretty unwelcoming and intimidating to new people, especially when they have opinions that don't jive with what is seen to be the majority or consensus view here. Speaking from experience, it took me a long time to stop lurking and actually post when I came here, and even now when it comes to opinions I hold that I know would be controversial here, I usually choose to keep them to myself rather than go through the hassle of trying to defend an unpopular viewpoint.

 

Eventually I will state my case for Shawn Michaels as my #1 in GWE, and I'm dreading it because I know it will be challenged (and rightfully so) and defending Shawn as the GOAT on THIS board is an exhausting prospect. Arguing with you guys is exhausting. In a good way most of the time (until we get into dead horse beating territory, like now). But still exhausting.

 

rovert mentioned the Devitt being respected thing as an example of the closemindedness of some people on the board. That was a weird conversation to witness. The 'Angle got in the HOF because of his medals' talking point is another. The way people go on about that it's like they have no idea that a huge majority of wrestlers and fans actually think Kurt Angle is a fantastic worker. They have to find some secret conspiracy reason why people would vote for him. They've been duped because he has gold medals. They can't possibly just have a different opinion about his ability to you. It's times like these when the people making noise on this board come off as out of touch with what is actually going on outside of this very small community.

 

I don't really agree with Joe's views on this particular subject. I don't usually put much stock in athleticism and Kurt Angle shits me up a wall. But I do think he's pretty brave to come to this board and argue for workrate and athleticism, because I sure as shit wouldn't be able to even if I believed it. He's come in all guns blazing in this thread and I agree has come off poorly and combative, but when he's received nothing but disdain for his opinion on the subject (as covered extensively in the Today's Wrestling... and Standards Change threads) I can see why he'd approach this one with his back up. Not that it's going to endear him to anyone or help him make his point. But if he'd said what he did in a nice voice I don't think it would have made his view any easier to swallow for those that disagree, since there's been no evidence of that so far in the million posts already made on this subject.

 

I say this all with love, I love the site and the level of debate is the main reason why. But you guys really can be intimidating and unreceptive to certain opinions.

[dawho5]

I have my share of opinions that don't run along the same lines as other people's here. And I will post them, but in a non-hostile way. Nor will I get overly worked up when somebody or multiple somebodies disagree. Very often I'll actually take their talking points into account when I find myself looking at something it might apply to afterwards. I can't say it always changes my mind, but I refuse to dismiss something just because it doesn't agree with how I look at wrestling. You never know when something will click for you and a match or wrestler or promo you didn't care for before all of a sudden makes more sense. I think that some folks (Joe is one of them, very often Parv comes across this way to me when arguing with certain people but not the majority) are so dug in at this point that it becomes an exercise in futility to argue. You can usually point to the exact spot in this thread and some of those mentioned above where things got personal and it stopped being a discussion. It is possible to disagree without attacking the points made by somebody else. Very often it comes down to the language you use to express what you're trying to say. I tend to look at the way I'm posting things and try to put more of my own thoughts and feelings on the topic rather than how I view what other people have written and my disagreements with that. A positive expression of your own thoughts is very often more conducive to a good argument than a negative take on somebody else's.

[Matt D]

Only point I'll argue is the Angle one, because it obviously needs to be broken out. I've been using shorthand on bit and that caused confusion.

 

Yes, lots of people liked Angle in 2004 (five or six years after he went pro), wrestlers and fans alike. Yes, DAVE liked Angle and touted him. The specific criteria about the WON HOF is that guys rarely get in through work alone and Angle wasn't exactly a huge draw, nor did he have a lot of years TO draw. A lot of the early 00s decline happened with him close to the top of the card (I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think it's the case). There are two sorts of wrestlers who like Angle, those who are impressed he got aspects of the business so quickly and worked with him (Austin will bring up this point), and then a lot of the old guys who talk him up a lot.

 

It had to be a near perfect storm for a guy with so few years on top and relatively unsuccessful ones at that to get in so early. There's something going on there, and I think it's pretty safe to say that one element of that thing was people focusing on Angle's real life achievements. One aspect of THAT was the way it legitimized the older guys in their own minds, which follows almost any interview you've ever heard with almost any carny old wrestler. Is it FACT? I don't know. Dave didn't break up voting back then. It's a pretty viable theory though. It's not saying that people don't like Angle and that they didn't like him. It is saying that something pretty weird and unusual was going on in 04 when he got into the very-hard-to-get-into WON HOF. That's mainly what's being said there.

 

The Devitt stuff was its own beast and I'm pretty certain that for once I can speak for everyone (and I will try not to do that in the future save for this time) that pretty much everyone gets it, right? (IT WAS ABOUT ROVERT AND HOW HE GENERALLY PRESENTS HIMSELF TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. IT HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH DEVITT. It was very much an aberration on this site.) Ok.

 

No, it's not easy to argue ANYTHING on this site except for maybe JERRY LAWLER WAS GREAT but it serves a function that nowhere else on the internet serves because of that. I spent a couple of years hesitant to say much here too. I think people are generally happy to reach a point of mutual understanding even if only rarely agreement.

[Jimmy Redman]

Only point I'll argue is the Angle one, because it obviously needs to be broken out.

 

Yes, lots of people liked Angle in 2004 (five or six years after he went pro), wrestlers and fans alike. Yes, DAVE liked Angle and touted him. The specific criteria about the WON HOF is that guys rarely get in through work alone and Angle wasn't exactly a huge draw, nor did he have a lot of years TO draw. A lot of the early 00s decline happened with him close to the top of the card (I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think it's the case). There are two sorts of wrestlers who like Angle, those who are impressed he got aspects of the business so quickly and worked with him (Austin will bring up this point), and then a lot of the old guys who talk him up a lot.

 

It had to be a near perfect storm for a guy with so few years on top and relatively unsuccessful ones at that to get in so early. There's something going on there, and I think it's pretty safe to say that one element of that thing was people focusing on Angle's real life achievements. One aspect of THAT was the way it legitimized the older guys in their own minds, which follows almost any interview you've ever heard with almost any carny old wrestler. Is it FACT? I don't know. Dave didn't break up voting back then. It's a pretty viable theory though. It's not saying that people don't like Angle and that they didn't like him. It is saying that something pretty weird and unusual was going on in 04 when he got into the very-hard-to-get-into WON HOF. That's mainly what's being said there.

 

I'm not saying that the medals weren't a factor. I definitely think they were. You can even see the same trend now with Brock where people are using any and all excuses to use his MMA success to vote him into the WON HOF.

 

I don't think it was the only factor or the main factor or even the factor that got him over the line. I think it was simply one factor. I think a much larger factor is that a majority of the voting base thought in 2004 that Angle was a GOAT level talent. And as seen by the examples of Jericho, Eddie, Benoit and probably in the future Bryan and Punk, a lot of the voters will see "main eventer in WWE" as an acceptable level of "drawing power" that justifies putting a largely workrate candidate in. Angle was a main eventer for most of his time in WWE up to that point, and he was seen as an amazing, all-time level worker. That's the main thrust of his case, and it's the same case that got others such as Jericho in as well, so it's not really such an outlandish one. But I do agree that the medals add another layer on top of that and made their decision even easier.

 

I agree that it looks really quick with the timeframe, but remember that it was more a flaw in the eligibility criteria that had Angle voted on so soon into his pro career. A guy with the rep Angle had at the time was probably going to be first ballot in. It just happened that his first ballot was so soon.

 

I wish I could pull up the exact conversation I'm thinking of, but the way people were talking about the subject in that specific conversation it came off as though the medals were the primary factor. Not work + medals but more like "it can't be work because he sucks, so it must have been the medals". Now, that may not have been what those people were trying to say or what they believed. But that's the impression that was given off, at least to me. And I'm talking about impressions, because my point was how the board is perceived by outsiders or new people. When it involves someone who works a style ill-suited to this board (Angle, Devitt, Davey Richards, Shawn Michaels), there is often a sense of incredulity that anyone could think they're good wrestlers, and any evidence that they do must be somehow explained away rationally.

[NintendoLogic]

The "blinded by the medals" argument is bullshit because it's impossible to falsify. How is someone who voted for Angle to go in the HOF supposed to prove that he isn't an insecure carny seeking legitimacy?

[KrisZ]

Meltz and other voters went on record saying that a big factor for Angle getting in was his legitimacy....especially among the wrestlers that voted. Yeah he was a solid performer but for a guy to get in the HOF after only 5 years of working basically is pretty shaky at best.