goc Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yeah I agree there are a lot more deserving candidates but it's not fair for me to judge older candidates because I didn't live through those eras. I lived through the modern era and Kane is a constant. Do I think he's the best candidate? Hell no bit do I think he doesn't get the respect he deserves? Yes This part I definitely agree with. I think people go way overboard in their dislike of Kane. No, he doesn't consistently put on great matches every week but his matches are never outright BAD imo. They are usually just mediocre. When they actually give Kane an important match I feel like he delivers a much better performance than when he's in a pointless 5 minute Raw match. I don't think he's being under sold as a HOF candidate though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSR Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 You have to look deeper into the man's career to come to this conclusion. I'm not saying he's a home run or anything but by a criteria of what WWE has been over the past 15 years he's a better modern candidate than a Brock Lesnar I stopped reading at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conker8 Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 I agree with what will say my fellow frenchman El-P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkookypunk43 Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Some of you are making really good points. How in the hell is Batista not in this HOF? Was a consistent draw and put on good matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Some of you are making really good points. How in the hell is Batista not in this HOF? Was a consistent draw and put on good matches. Dave always showed surprise with how poorly Batista did in the voting, but he just wasn't set up to wrestle the sort of matches that the WON audience has been conditioned over the years to appreciate. He was the sort of wrestler that they have always traditionally railed against. So, it doesn't really matter that he was probably a much better candidate from a drawing perspective than most WWE guys from the 00s, he never got a real look. That's a generalization but it's got enough truth in it that I feel comfortable saying it to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Some of you are making really good points. How in the hell is Batista not in this HOF? Was a consistent draw and put on good matches. Dave always showed surprised with how poorly Batista did in the voting, but he just wasn't set up to wrestle the sort of matches that the WON audience has been conditioned over the years to appreciate. He was the sort of wrestler that they have always traditionally railed against. So, it doesn't really matter that he was probably a much better candidate from a drawing perspective than most WWE guys from the 00s, he never got a real look. That's a generalization but it's got enough truth in it that I feel comfortable saying it to you. Pretty much. And Big Dave Meltzer was genuinely surprised how little support Batista got when he hit the ballot. A television ratings mover on RAW and SD in his peak years, a PPV and merch mover, a house show draw, and also a pretty damn big draw internationally.....about as big a star and good draw for WWE as anyone not named Cena or Rey over the past decade Also, I think he's a pretty underrated worker with some really high end matches with a variety of opponents on his resume, but yeah, not the kind of guy the average WON voter would think highly of workrate wise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Legitimately think I could name 300 people I would rank as clearly better candidates than Kane with minimal effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkookypunk43 Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 I'm not justifying Kane as a legitimate candidate because of the reasons stated here but Kane has had a good career whether y'all like it or not. I know I just made Dylan Hales throw up with even the slightest thought of Kane going in but he's a good not great modern candidate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 The thing is there are not many modern candidates (as in people who became stars post Attitude Era) I would rate as good and possibly not any (besides Cena who is in already) that I would rate as great. Kane had a good career in the sense that he has been around forever, feuded with some big names, been in the mix, et. I think he's average in the ring, with occasional runs of being serviceable, and other periods when he sucks, but he's never been dynamic. And I never want to see him. This is a Hall of Fame where Buddy Rose and Ken Patera can't stay on the ballot, JYD takes almost twenty years to get on the ballot and gets no traction, Bearcat Wright can't get on the ballot, Fujiwara can't get on the ballot, Bill Dundee would be scoffed at as a joke candidate by huge percentage of voters (let alone Observer readers), et. In a Hall of Fame like that guys with "good" careers like Kane, Jim Duggan, Tommy Dreamer, et. have no place.* *Before people freak out, no, I don't think Kane, Duggan, Dreamer are necessarily lateral as theoretical HOF candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkookypunk43 Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Dylan you make some good points. See I'm coming at it from a 19 year old who has had compared to you a limited exposure to wrestling. I haven't seen the Pateras or the Dundees of the world to make a good assumption on them. I can listen to all the podcasts and watch all the footage and do all the research I want and I would have a slanted view based on what I've seen. I can acknowledge that these guys were cornerstones of our business and were influences but I feel like I can't truly comment on their work. That's why I don't have a vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 I'm not justifying Kane as a legitimate candidate because of the reasons stated here but Kane has had a good career whether y'all like it or not. I know I just made Dylan Hales throw up with even the slightest thought of Kane going in but he's a good not great modern candidate Having a "good" career is not a Hall of Fame metric. If you want to make a case for Kane, how about back it up with some evidence? Pull some numbers. Attendance figures, PPV buys, etc. Just saying he's been around forever doesn't really add anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Dylan you make some good points. See I'm coming at it from a 19 year old who has had compared to you a limited exposure to wrestling. I haven't seen the Pateras or the Dundees of the world to make a good assumption on them. I can listen to all the podcasts and watch all the footage and do all the research I want and I would have a slanted view based on what I've seen. I can acknowledge that these guys were cornerstones of our business and were influences but I feel like I can't truly comment on their work. That's why I don't have a vote I'm not sure why you feel that way though. I'm 29, I didn't watch any Bill Dundee or Ken Patera matches at the time that they happened. I can watch a match from before I was born and be just as objective about a match from 1980 as I can a match from the last WWE PPV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkookypunk43 Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yeah you're right. Wrestling does have rewatch value. I just have trouble placing myself in that timeframe and judging whether it was a good match in that time period. To me I'm used to the spotfest of today and conditioned to enjoy those type of matches. I'm not saying I don't like older wrestling because I love the Freebirds vs Von Erichs and stuff from earlier eras. It's just hard for me to place myself in that timeframe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 If you are arguing that Kane is a good enough worker to be in the HOF I don't think you're going to have a problem watching Dick Murdoch or Jerry Blackwell matches. It seems like you think that you wouldn't enjoy any of it and would simply be trying to determine if it was good then because it couldn't possibly still be good now. Don't fall for the "everything is a constant evolution and thus everything today is way better than it was 20 years ago" myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Kane is still mechanically very good, especially for a guy his age. I freaked out over that low dropkick he threw in the match with Daniel Bryan on Main Event last year. He does a great job conveying his gimmick within a match, and I'd have no problem putting him as a worker ahead of pre-1996 Undertaker. The problem with Kane is that he's never really been able to translate all the solid fundamentals that he has into even one classic match, and it's not like he has not had the booking focus, push and opportunity to do so. You could argue that was never his role, but it wasn't designed to be Undertaker's role either, yet he made it happen anyway (eventually). I give Kane credit for being a very good utility player despite overstaying his welcome, but I don't think he's at all a HOF-level guy. He has been a good company man and should absolutely be in the WWE HOF one day, though. I remember Dave once calling him the most famous masked wrestler of his generation, and if that was true, it would be sort of a case. But Dave said that in 2003 when he lost the mask vs title match to HHH, only shortly after Rey put the hood back on and before he became a bonafide top draw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkookypunk43 Posted May 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 OK goc I agree with that point. If I'm making a true argument for Kane then I shouldn't have a problem watching those type of matches. Loss you made some great points about Kane's role and how he as a worker wasn't designed to have those blow away matches. Was a wrestler like Dick Murdoch, Taker or even Stan Hansen to a degree designed to have blow away matches? No but, they absolutely did have those blow away matches. Kane never had that one blow away match. I think though the way they positioned him and always keeping him strong is a good deal for discussion. Goc, I do fall into trap and probably wrongly so. I need to open my eyes to more of this stuff. I actually watched the world class stuff on the network and thought it was some of the best storytelling I've ever seen. I bought the Mid South DVD and was surprised to see how over these guys were. So in those ways my eyes are opened but in the way of work rate I absolutely think Most of today's workers are better. Part of it is the booking of today and part of it is that they do moves that nobody imagined they would do. Maybe somebody like a Red Basteen or a Lou Thez were ahead of their time but I think the in ring work is a better but it's more dependent on what they're asked to do now compared to then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted May 28, 2015 Report Share Posted May 28, 2015 Kane is the Baron Mikel Scicluna of this generation. To make an argument for Kane, you would have to argue that this generation is woefully underrepresented in the Hall of Fame and a slew of candidates need to go in to even things out. About 20-30 wrestlers born in the 1960s are currently in the WON Hall. Compare that to five from the 1970s, none yet from the '80s. (Kane and Batista were born in the late '60s, but I'm making a larger point.) At some point you either have to conclude that this era is vastly inferior, or that we need to evaluate the current slate of candidates in a different lens than the past. And if it's the latter, then we need to seriously reevaluate the candidacies of Edge, Randy Orton, Batista, Brock Lesnar, the Big Show, etc. Then maybe you come to Kane. But it would require a vast rethinking in how we view the WON Hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I was going to say this is the WWF/WWE equiv of the old Sting For The HOF argument, but Kane doesn't even get to the Sting level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I think it's kind of amazing how much mileage Kane got out of a gimmick that should have come and gone in about 6 months. I also think it's amazing how much bad booking he survived in his career. I think the fact that he survived the Katie Vick stuff says something about how he connected with the audience for awhile. I don't think he's a HoFer by any stretch though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...TG Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Remember that old cliche that's something to the effect of, "showing up is half the battle"? Kane fits that to a T. I'm sure he's had his share of injuries, but I can't remember his quad blowing out, or him getting spinal fusion surgery and missing a year. He doesn't embarrass the company, and does any kind of stupid shit they write for him. Hell, even Punk was complimentary of him on Cabana's podcast (IIRC). There's plenty of skill to that, but it certainly doesn't qualify him for an Observer HOF spot. WWF HOF is probably a given, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I'm a younger wrestling fan so I can't get behind a Koloff or a Slaughter legitimately because I haven't watched enough. I cone from the modern era so this is a candidate I can get behind. I don't understand this point and, don't want to come across as being too harsh, but I think this is just an excuse and a bit lazy. 1. You have the internet. 2. You have eyes. 3. You have time. Those are the tools you require. You've already found PWO. We've talked about the candicacies of people like Ivan Koloff and Sgt. Slaughter ad naseum. People have often done the research for you. It's a case of spending some time reading and finding out about them. Then there's youtube. I was born in 1982. Next month I'm planning on watching and reviewing the entire Sgt. Slaughter and Iron Sheik feud from 1984, it's about four hours all in. I couldn't have seen that feud at the time because I'd have been 2 years old. What's stopping you also watching that stuff along with me? Why can't you get behind Slaughter because he had his main runs before you were born? Don't understand the argument. I know the reason people think like this though. It's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic You'll go to the stuff that you know and that is most availble to you rather than to alternatives. It's not only easier, we are naturally inclined towards it. This is not intended as a rant. But rather pointing out that your claim that starts with "I am a younger fan therefore ..." is really just a post-hoc justification. If you want to see guys from the past, the footage is there. Your time is far better spent watching Sgt. Slaughter matches than it will ever be wondering about whether Kane should make any HoF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Kane is the Baron Mikel Scicluna of this generation. I can see where you're going with that but I think it might be a bit harsh on Kane in terms of card positioning. Scicluna was a Bruno opponent in the mid-60s and a headliner. When most heels moved on after the run, instead he stuck around. He bought a house in the territory. He didn't move because he wanted stability for his family. And so he slid down the card. First to tag title level, then to mid-card, then essentially to curtain jerking and jobbing. The Baron wasn't a true jobber, but by the end he was a low JTTS. If it's Dominic Denucci or SD Jones vs. The Baron, it's Baron who is losing every time. Kane has never sunk to that sort of level as far as I can see. On Titans we've joked about Baron clocking in and clocking out of work, and I can see that in Kane too, but he did it at a higher level. You could feasibly insert Kane into a main event spot for a show, it would suck ass, but you could still just about do it. Whereas Baron even by the late 70s would get a nosebleed if he was more than a match or two removed from the opener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkookypunk43 Posted May 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I don't think you come off harsh at all. I need a wakeup call. I do agree that Slaughter is a better candidate than Kane any day of the week. I like to go back and watch old matches. This is how I came to what is now is a crazy conclusion. I was watching old matches of his and really came to enjoy him. If I enjoyed Kane's style then I would enjoy many others that cane before him. I was just asking if Kane had a good case and bringing up points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Everyone has their wheel houses.Part of the problem with the Observer HOF is some of the voters. Their are a lot of qualified voters. Some aren't and don't know the difference between a top flight candidate, and the pretenders. Going back and looking at old footage is very beneficial to being able to analyze wrestling. Seeing what worked and what didn't. How work has evolved through the years. Did wrestler x deserve their rep. When it comes to viewing we all have our blindspots. I'm really weak in Lucha,Joshi along with others. Parv has plenty of self confessed blindspots. Roderick Strong in my opinion is having the 2nd best production between the ropes this year. It wouldn't surprise me if Parv couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Could anyone? He's just about the most non-descript looking guy I've ever seen! 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.