Matt Farmer Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 Even two years from now, in the most optimistic scenario, you'll be talking about a career where Styles had four HOF-quality years and 15 years where he basically accomplished absolutely nothing. Given that Styles is primarily a work candidate and he was churning out high quality matches in TNA/ROH/indies on a regular basis from 2002-2013, it would be wrong to say he accomplished absolutely nothing. Clearly, Dave values that a lot more than his electorate does. I've argued this before and even have spoken with Dave about it, he agreed with me (this past week). If you are a great "worker" say on the Bryan Danielson level when he was on top with ROH and having great matches in front of approximatley 500 people 10 times a month, even if you win a "best worker" award. Does that really fit under Hall of Fame criteria? Look at the dozens and dozens of wrestlers in Europe that did just that for decades, guys that were great "workers" for years but only worked in small halls in Europe. Are they Hall of Famers? Look at the dozens of GREAT wrestlers that worked small territories in the US, some that were even stars in their territories that were excellent workers, are the Hall of Famers? We didn't have "best worker" awards in the 1960's or 1970's let alone in the 1930's. Being a great worker has been HIGHLY overrated when it comes to being a Hall of Famer. And if you were not a great worker on a high level stage then you should not be a Hall of Famer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 I don't think I could vote for anyone who stayed at the independent level, even if they were a great worker, but I think getting over on the indies before achieving mainstream stardom is a positive for a case in today's era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 Even two years from now, in the most optimistic scenario, you'll be talking about a career where Styles had four HOF-quality years and 15 years where he basically accomplished absolutely nothing. Given that Styles is primarily a work candidate and he was churning out high quality matches in TNA/ROH/indies on a regular basis from 2002-2013, it would be wrong to say he accomplished absolutely nothing. Clearly, Dave values that a lot more than his electorate does. If his work in TNA/ROH/indies really resonated in any meaningful way, he would have gotten more than 11 votes in 2013 and he would have stayed on the ballot in 2015. Clearly, nothing that has happened in his career pre-NJPW has any bearing on his case whatsoever, or else he would have had enough traction to stay on the ballot. Therefore, for the sake of talking about AJ Styles' Hall of Fame case, he has accomplished absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pol Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 Some quality circular logic right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2BTD Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 Even two years from now, in the most optimistic scenario, you'll be talking about a career where Styles had four HOF-quality years and 15 years where he basically accomplished absolutely nothing. Given that Styles is primarily a work candidate and he was churning out high quality matches in TNA/ROH/indies on a regular basis from 2002-2013, it would be wrong to say he accomplished absolutely nothing. Clearly, Dave values that a lot more than his electorate does. I've argued this before and even have spoken with Dave about it, he agreed with me (this past week). If you are a great "worker" say on the Bryan Danielson level when he was on top with ROH and having great matches in front of approximatley 500 people 10 times a month, even if you win a "best worker" award. Does that really fit under Hall of Fame criteria? Look at the dozens and dozens of wrestlers in Europe that did just that for decades, guys that were great "workers" for years but only worked in small halls in Europe. Are they Hall of Famers? Look at the dozens of GREAT wrestlers that worked small territories in the US, some that were even stars in their territories that were excellent workers, are the Hall of Famers? We didn't have "best worker" awards in the 1960's or 1970's let alone in the 1930's. Being a great worker has been HIGHLY overrated when it comes to being a Hall of Famer. And if you were not a great worker on a high level stage then you should not be a Hall of Famer. I have a ton of problems with this. How is being a great worker highly overrated when it comes to being a Hall of Famer? If anything, great workers get the shaft. Daniel Bryan is the greatest worker of his generation and he didn't make it. There are plenty of people who wouldn't hesitate to rate Jun Akiyama as a top 20 or even top 10 all time great worker and he isn't even sniffing induction. Blue Panther. AJ Styles can't even get 10%. The HOF has three stated pieces of criteria: -Drawing ability -Work, or excelling in ones area of pro wrestling (managers, bookers, etc) -Historical significance Nowhere does it say any of the three are more important than the others or should be weighted heavier. It says a candidate should excel in all three, or be overwhelmingly impressive in one or two. There is a clear voting bias towards those who excel in drawing ability. I listened to all of your audio with dave, and your primary focus (and sometimes ONLY focus) was drawing. Any candidate who won Best Draw five years in a row would moonwalk into the HOF, even if they were the worst worker of all time. Yet Daniel Bryan was the consensus best worker for a half decade, with the Most Outstanding hardware to prove it, and he doesn't get in. And the highest grossing Wrestle Mania of all time was built around him to boot. It's not a drawing hall of fame, yet many voters treat it that way. The idea that being great in front of 500 fans is meaningless not only comes off snobbish, but also somewhat ignorant to what pro wrestling is in this era. Context should matter. ROH will go down as a historically significant promotion that produced overlooked stars that the business completely missed the boat on in some cases, and hopped on the boat too late with others. Daniel Bryan was much more than a good hand in a small territory, he was a transcendent performer who is one of the best of all time. A comparable draw receives no debate whatsoever. Work being overrated is complete bullshit. Read the criteria. If dave wants drawing emphasized more than the other criteria, he should just say so. Until then, anyone who fails to vote for Daniel Bryan is completely lost and without a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted November 7, 2015 Report Share Posted November 7, 2015 As someone who cares a lot more about the aesthetics of wrestling than the economics, I've often found the HOF debates tedious. Ultimately, I don't care that much about a list of the greatest draws in history--doesn't fire my imagination in the least. But it does seem fairly apparent that the voters, especially the other wrestlers, dismiss great work in "small-time" settings. That doesn't seem to be changing rapidly, even with more and more ex-indy guys in top spots. Work aside, I belive the creation of a stable, successful indy is a real business accomplishment and should be treated as such. It's why CIMA is a compelling candidate. I'd like Dave to at least push a discussion of how to weigh modern success outside WWE/NJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Joe, WrestleMania 30 was not the highest grossing WrestleMania of all time. It was actually the lowest grossing WM in many years due to offering it for a cutdown price on the WWE Network. That's not something I'd hold against Bryan for obvious reasons, but let's keep the facts in order when we stump for candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 But WWE said it was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 30 undoubtedly did lower PPV numbers than Mania was accustomed to -- partly because it was the first iteration after the three year Rock-Cena feud, and partly due to the Network. I don't believe there's any way to measure how it did based on his role, but don't find it unreasonable to think the numbers would've been significantly worse without his involvement at the top of the card. Do we think Orton-Batisata, Taker-Lesnar and HHH-Punk were pulling in north of 600K buys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 There was no historical precedent for WM30, which is a shame because had it done a huge number on pay-per-view, it might have been enough for WWE to stop claiming Daniel Bryan doesn't draw. HAHAHAHAHA, I almost got through a whole post without laughing at that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I think part of the reason it still did 600K on pay-per-view was because people didn't have confidence at that point that the stream would work without a hitch, and also because it wasn't rolled out initially worldwide. We have nothing to fairly compare it to, so it's hard to say whether it was a good or a bad number. Looking at the card, it probably would have done the lowest PPV number since 2011 because of the lack of The Rock, if it was available on traditional pay-per-view. I'd think it would have done about a million buys worldwide though, a respectable figure. And Loss, we all know if it had drawn huge, Triple H and Steph would have taken all the credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 We can compare gates. How did the New Orleans gate compare to previous Manias? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 How much do early sales matter relative to late sales when it comes to that too? When tickets were on sale, did it look like Bryan was out of the main event picture or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 WM 30 drew a $9.8M gate, which would be no. 3 of all time behind WMs 29 and 31, which both grossed around $12M. As Matt D says though, the majority of the tickets sold would have been before the main event was even announced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 You can't judge Mania's by gates anymore because they are like Super Bowls and will sellout regardless these days. PPV buys would've told the tale more than that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Farmer Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 Even two years from now, in the most optimistic scenario, you'll be talking about a career where Styles had four HOF-quality years and 15 years where he basically accomplished absolutely nothing. Given that Styles is primarily a work candidate and he was churning out high quality matches in TNA/ROH/indies on a regular basis from 2002-2013, it would be wrong to say he accomplished absolutely nothing. Clearly, Dave values that a lot more than his electorate does. I've argued this before and even have spoken with Dave about it, he agreed with me (this past week). If you are a great "worker" say on the Bryan Danielson level when he was on top with ROH and having great matches in front of approximatley 500 people 10 times a month, even if you win a "best worker" award. Does that really fit under Hall of Fame criteria? Look at the dozens and dozens of wrestlers in Europe that did just that for decades, guys that were great "workers" for years but only worked in small halls in Europe. Are they Hall of Famers? Look at the dozens of GREAT wrestlers that worked small territories in the US, some that were even stars in their territories that were excellent workers, are the Hall of Famers? We didn't have "best worker" awards in the 1960's or 1970's let alone in the 1930's. Being a great worker has been HIGHLY overrated when it comes to being a Hall of Famer. And if you were not a great worker on a high level stage then you should not be a Hall of Famer. I have a ton of problems with this. How is being a great worker highly overrated when it comes to being a Hall of Famer? If anything, great workers get the shaft. Daniel Bryan is the greatest worker of his generation and he didn't make it. There are plenty of people who wouldn't hesitate to rate Jun Akiyama as a top 20 or even top 10 all time great worker and he isn't even sniffing induction. Blue Panther. AJ Styles can't even get 10%. The HOF has three stated pieces of criteria: -Drawing ability -Work, or excelling in ones area of pro wrestling (managers, bookers, etc) -Historical significance Nowhere does it say any of the three are more important than the others or should be weighted heavier. It says a candidate should excel in all three, or be overwhelmingly impressive in one or two. There is a clear voting bias towards those who excel in drawing ability. I listened to all of your audio with dave, and your primary focus (and sometimes ONLY focus) was drawing. Any candidate who won Best Draw five years in a row would moonwalk into the HOF, even if they were the worst worker of all time. Yet Daniel Bryan was the consensus best worker for a half decade, with the Most Outstanding hardware to prove it, and he doesn't get in. And the highest grossing Wrestle Mania of all time was built around him to boot. It's not a drawing hall of fame, yet many voters treat it that way. The idea that being great in front of 500 fans is meaningless not only comes off snobbish, but also somewhat ignorant to what pro wrestling is in this era. Context should matter. ROH will go down as a historically significant promotion that produced overlooked stars that the business completely missed the boat on in some cases, and hopped on the boat too late with others. Daniel Bryan was much more than a good hand in a small territory, he was a transcendent performer who is one of the best of all time. A comparable draw receives no debate whatsoever. Work being overrated is complete bullshit. Read the criteria. If dave wants drawing emphasized more than the other criteria, he should just say so. Until then, anyone who fails to vote for Daniel Bryan is completely lost and without a clue. Here is why I take that stance and will stand by it forever. A "good worker" is subjective, Being a draw is not as subjective, however that is starting to change. Also what is a true good worker? After all the real work in professional wrestling is simple. The very origins of the work was not to have an entertaining match, but to put on an exhibition to manipulate the fans to part with their money. So in that regards a true GREAT worker is someone who is the best at manipulating the fans to part with their money. Daniel Bryan is not neccasarily the best example for this as I have no real problem with DB going into the Hall of Fame, not just because he was talented but due to the influence he had on the industry and that he did head line a Wrestlemania, which was actually one of the LEAST profitable Mania's in many years. While Mania that year did draw over 600k buys on PPV, more than 400k came from international buys which has a much lower price point than they do in the US or Canada. If you have one vote between two wrestlers, who get's the nod? Wrestler A) Who for the past 5 years has been head lining including the biggest event of the year and produces good matches more often than not. Occassionally having great matches while wrestling full time, in front of an average 6,000 fans working for a company the grosses half a billion dollars a year and he is on a program where 3 or 4 million fans watch weekly and maybe once a year will perform in front of 60,000 fans or so and is one of the top 3 or 4 top guys in the company. Or A wrestler who for the past 5 years have been headlining cards that averages about 500 fans for a company on a shoe string budget that may or may not be profitable. Once in awhile on a great night there will be 1,200 fans in attendance. You'll also be able to be featured on a DVD that will sell a few hundred copies, maybe a thousand. You'll also appear on a television show maybe a hundred thousand people may watch at the most. For the most part wrestler B will have good to great matches more often than not a handful of times a month. One is critically acclaimed by a small number of fans, and the other is acclaimed by a much, much greater base of fans. Between these two names more likely than not a voter who has a clue would vote for wrestler A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Farmer Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 You can't judge Mania's by gates anymore because they are like Super Bowls and will sellout regardless these days. PPV buys would've told the tale more than that Except when they don't sellout. (like this years) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 They didn't technically sell out because of some crazy-priced tickets but it was the biggest gate in wrestling history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Farmer Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 No there were a lot of lower priced tickets that were not purchased either. And one of the reasons they were heavily papering the event the last week, it was very well know if you wanted a ticket you could easily get one for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 My argument wasn't that Taue was a major star, though I believe he was the No. 4 or No. 5 guy in All Japan at times during that run. My point was you can argue that being a supporting main eventer in '90s All Japan is more impressive than being the No. 3 guy in recent New Japan. And it would be better if voters had more time to weigh this period of New Japan instead of deciding on Nakamura at the height of his acclaim. I do understand what you're saying. However, if in 1994 you are number 4 of 5 or 6 then he would be maybe at the very best number 13 or 14 in Japan. Wrestling was a much bigger deal in Japan than over now so Taue would as a star would easily be behind Misawa, Kawada, Kobashi, Hansen and Williams for All Japan. Then behind Muto, Chono, Hashimoto, Choshu, Fujinami, Vader and maybe Hase. He'd also be well behind Onita, Tenryu, Maeda, and Takada. There are many others you can argue would be over Taue, but these names were all more impressive and bigger stars during Taue's run. Today the top three guys in New Japan are the top three guys in Japan period. You may be able to reach down and find the forth guy in New Japan and make a case for him (maybe AJ Styles) but it would be a stretch. 1994 wasn't exactly his peak. 1995-96 would be. So where would he rank? Misawa Kawada Hashimoto Mutoh Chono Takada And it starts getting thin after that. Doc was out from 03/05/95 - 03/21/96, and clearly *behind* Taue when he returned. Hansen was behind Taue from April 1995 on. Hase retired in May 1995, and really wasn't a bigger "star" than Taue prior to that in 1995. We just happened to like Hase more. Sasaki... that's tough. He had exactly one IWGP Title challenge in 1995-96: on the first show of 1995. It was a Dome main event, but (i) it was before Taue picked up his game, and (ii) there was nothing after that. He had only one IWGP Tag challege, on 09/20/95 with Hawk after their team had largely fizzled out. Nothing after that. He finished at the bottom of his group in the 1995 G1 and wasn't one of the four to advance to the knockout round. I was in the building for all of his 1996 G1 matches, and people games less of a shit about him than Choshu, Hashimoto, Chono & Mutoh... and Koshinaka & Yamazaki... and Tenzan & Kojima. The only person they cared less about was Junji Hirata, and that was because Sasaki injured him in the first match. I'm not sold that in 1995-96 that Sasaki was a bigger star in Japan. Choshu had a strange 1995-96. He really didn't mean much in 1995, and was off to the side other than helping launch the Tenzan push. He was off to the side for much of 1996, other than the hot run in the G1. It was like he was saving himself for one run when it mattered, and knew that he couldn't sustain much. Smart. Bigger star... sure... kinda... but he didn't really rate in New Japan for most of 1995-96. More like a "special attraction" for a week. Koshinaka was kind of fun, and a reliable guy for New Japan, but he wasn't pushed like Taue was in All Japan. He wasn't as good of a worker either, once Taue picked up his game. Yamazaki got a lower push than Taue. I mean... you didn't see Yamazaki lifting the IWGP from Hash in either 1995 or 1996. Tenzan got a nice push, but he was pulled into Chono's circle as his lesser partner. Not really the same as winning the Triple Crown from arguably the #1 guy in the country. Maeda was a bigger "name", but Rings wasn't really drawing in 1995 or 1996 to any great degree. That's with him getting the big return push in 1995 into 1996. Onita retired somewhere in here. Tenryu was back bombing in his own promotion after his inter-promotional run ran out. He wasn't a bigger star in 1995-96. So you've got roughly six guys that were bigger than Taue in his two peak years: Misawa Kawada Hashimoto Mutoh Chono Takada I'm not sure I would say Chono was pushed harder than Taue, but he was a bit unique in the two companies: the clear lead flat out heel in one company. His accomplishments were pretty limited. He did get the Dome match with Hash at the Weekly Pro card, but it was more a throw away where New Japan just as soon would have rather not been there, they wanted to give nothing away (they were already aiming towards the Hash-Mutoh title change), and a certain Hall of Fame front office person with New Japan flat out copped to a pair of gaijin afterwards that All Japan blew them out of the water on the cards and their own Hash-Chono was pretty so-so. Chono ahead of Taue is a Pavlovian reaction on my part, but how much it holds up if I thought a ton about it beyond Chono's unique position... I'm not sure. And then there's Kobashi. Similar push to Taue's, though Taue's was the *stronger* one. He's the one who went to back-to-back Carny Finals, winning in 1996. Kobashi didn't reach either Final. Taue went to back-to-back Tag League Finals, winning in 1996. Kobashi went to one, taking it in 1995. Taue got to win the Triple Crown from Misawa. Kobashi got to win it from Taue. Taue held the Tag Titles longer. He had more Budokan main event singles matches (5-4) and overall main events (8-7). One could call it a tie. Kobashi was more popular with the fans, and was the won holding the TC at the end of 1996. Taue had more "stuff" in the two years, with it sustained while Kobashi's was pretty choppy such as having almost nothing of interest going on in the first four series of 1996. So Taue is probably in the range of #6 - #8 in 1995-96. Tied with one in Kobashi, and a couple of special circumstances in Chono and Takada. Did he ever reach higher than that? I doubt he ever got into the Top 5. Could be wrong, but would be surprised if we could find a year. Does one want higher than #6 - #8 for a HOFer? That's not an unreasonable thing to ask for. On the other hand, I'm not sure if being #2-3 when the business blows or is at a lower range is better than being #6-8 when business is a good deal better. So all years are not a like. Still, #6-8 isn't super strong in a country with largely two promotions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 I will take the controversial stance that when it comes to Wrestlemania, the economy and overall wrestling climate are bigger factors than the lineup, and that goes for both the gate and PPV buys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 One thing that bothers me with the drawing argument is that you've got lots of all-time great draws who have done some hugely disappointing numbers and have killed once-thriving companies by being pushed past their expiration. I'm not saying that should be weighed *more*, but I don't think just looking at big gates paints a fair picture either. If "Great Match Theory" is too prevalent in GWE arguments, "Big Gate Theory" is too prevalent in HOF discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 I will take the controversial stance that when it comes to Wrestlemania, the economy and overall wrestling climate are bigger factors than the lineup, and that goes for both the gate and PPV buys. With the gate you also have to factor in the local market. Does it have a large population base? Is it a traditionally strong market for WWE/wrestling in general? Is it a tourist hub? Is it easy to fly to? Lots of variables there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 All of which are far more important than the lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxnj Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 My main issue with giving such big weight to drawing power is you have no idea whether the numbers you're working with are bullshit or not. With a lot of current puro promotions, for example, there's a big trend towards inflating the numbers to claim a sell out every time even when that isn't close to being the case, and nobody cares enough to get the real numbers out there. In a way, drawing power is an even more subjective criteria than ring work because whereas there's not much uncertainty about whether you like a match or not, with drawing your basically taking a leap of faith that the numbers aren't fudged and you know the cause behind them. 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.