Observer HOF prediction/ballot question thread

[mookeighana]

Honestly, one of things that's screwing up the system in my opinion is the non-wrestler category. When people vote for certain non-wrestlers, they become voters for their entire category. So even if you abstain for the Historical Wrestlers category, if you vote for certain non-wrestler personalities, you might be counted as a Historical Wrestler and casting a no vote for all of the Historical Wrestlers. Really, you should be just casting a no vote against all of the Historical non-wrestler personalities. You've got guys like Jerry Jarrett who had impact in both modern & historical wrestling, so it gets confusing how your vote is going to count and the ballot isn't clear about it at all.

[kjh]

That's definitely something that should be clarified on the ballot itself. I know I voted for Stanley Weston last year whilst abstaining from the Historical Wrestlers category.

[WingedEagle]

Potential spoiler alert?

 

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/646543877655007232

[mookeighana]

That's definitely something that should be clarified on the ballot itself. I know I voted for Stanley Weston last year whilst abstaining from the Historical Wrestlers category.

 

That's what happened to me too. This year I ended up leaving Weston off my ballot this year because I didn't want to be in the Historical Wrestlers category. That's why Jarrett is unclear.

[kjh]

 

That's definitely something that should be clarified on the ballot itself. I know I voted for Stanley Weston last year whilst abstaining from the Historical Wrestlers category.

 

That's what happened to me too. This year I ended up leaving Weston off my ballot this year because I didn't want to be in the Historical Wrestlers category. That's why Jarrett is unclear.

 

 

I think Jerry Jarrett is considered a modern candidate and will be for some time, as he promoted in Memphis well into the mid '90s and was instrumental in starting up TNA.

[Bix]

Asked Dave and it looks like it's just Crockett Sr. and Weston. I thought Matysik would be historical, too, but Dave said his onscreen presence locally on WWF shows went int '87 or so. It's definitely trickier with non-wrestlers (and if he was still on WWF TV that late, it was definitely because he had value in the St. Louis market), but I'd argue for Matysik that his cutoff should be when he went to the WWF. I don't think anyone's factoring in his indie work, WWF work as a local promoter/wraparound announcer, etc. to his candidacy, just his work as announcer, booker, and GM for the St. Louis Wrestling Club. And maybe to an extent his brief run with his own promotion in '83.

[jdw]

Just to drop it here, Dave has addressed the criticism of making guys eligible too soon before. He has said he wants people who lived through the era voting on the wrestlers from it as much as possible, because the hindsight perspective leaves voters too open to hearsay and rose-colored memories, and you also have a less knowledgeable pool of voters. I think the opposite is true, as people are much more likely to get lost in the moment and have an inability to be objective about it because it's fresh. The more time is removed, the more rational the thought process. I was mainly just dropping that here because it is something Dave has addressed.

 

Is this something new that Dave rolled out? This doesn't sound like something he ran in with back when the issue was discussed last decade. In fact, I seem to recall the Maeda Argument was the one made, which most of us saw as a problem with the Electorate rather than the Candidate.

[jdw]

Potential spoiler alert?

 

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/646543877655007232

 

Guess that means Weston, unless he's asking Stu about Apter.

[jdw]

I was wonder: am I the only one who thinks having Ten-Koji/Tencozy on the ballot as being a way to get them in without having to ponder their careers away from each other? If Ten-Koji warrants being in, and Tenzan also has all that time with Cho-Ten, doesn't that mean:

 

Tenzan = Cho-Ten + Ten-Koji + Other Tenzan Stuff

 

Tenzan > Ten-Koji

[pantherwagner]

 

Potential spoiler alert?

 

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/646543877655007232

 

Guess that means Weston, unless he's asking Stu about Apter.

 

Doesn't voting close in two weeks? He may just be trying to anticipate things.

[mookeighana]

Is anyone "collecting" ballots this year? I did it last year. I've had a few people ask I was doing it again this year.

[cheapshot]

 

 

Potential spoiler alert?

 

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/646543877655007232

 

Guess that means Weston, unless he's asking Stu about Apter.

 

Doesn't voting close in two weeks? He may just be trying to anticipate things.

 

Or maybe he's just trying to send Stu a ballot.

[Loss]

 

Just to drop it here, Dave has addressed the criticism of making guys eligible too soon before. He has said he wants people who lived through the era voting on the wrestlers from it as much as possible, because the hindsight perspective leaves voters too open to hearsay and rose-colored memories, and you also have a less knowledgeable pool of voters. I think the opposite is true, as people are much more likely to get lost in the moment and have an inability to be objective about it because it's fresh. The more time is removed, the more rational the thought process. I was mainly just dropping that here because it is something Dave has addressed.

 

Is this something new that Dave rolled out? This doesn't sound like something he ran in with back when the issue was discussed last decade. In fact, I seem to recall the Maeda Argument was the one made, which most of us saw as a problem with the Electorate rather than the Candidate.

 

 

He said it on The Board either last year or the year before.

[mookeighana]

 

 

 

Potential spoiler alert?

 

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/646543877655007232

 

Guess that means Weston, unless he's asking Stu about Apter.

 

Doesn't voting close in two weeks? He may just be trying to anticipate things.

 

Or maybe he's just trying to send Stu a ballot.

 

Usually Dave says that he doesn't even start counting ballots until after the cut-off date. Whether or not I really believe that (since you need to validate that ballots are following rules) is questionable, but I would find it really surprising that he would be tipping his hand that much this early. It's probably for a larger project or discussion.

[mookeighana]

 

 

Just to drop it here, Dave has addressed the criticism of making guys eligible too soon before. He has said he wants people who lived through the era voting on the wrestlers from it as much as possible, because the hindsight perspective leaves voters too open to hearsay and rose-colored memories, and you also have a less knowledgeable pool of voters. I think the opposite is true, as people are much more likely to get lost in the moment and have an inability to be objective about it because it's fresh. The more time is removed, the more rational the thought process. I was mainly just dropping that here because it is something Dave has addressed.

 

Is this something new that Dave rolled out? This doesn't sound like something he ran in with back when the issue was discussed last decade. In fact, I seem to recall the Maeda Argument was the one made, which most of us saw as a problem with the Electorate rather than the Candidate.

 

 

He said it on The Board either last year or the year before.

 

 

Here's a quote from Dave: http://theboard.f4wonline.com/viewtopic.php?p=4786314#p4786314

Changing the age would do more harm than good.

I doubt Akira Maeda or any of the Japanese women would have gotten in at 45 even though they clearly belonged. Things change in the U.S., Japan more, styles, and things.

If people are not evaluated close to "their time," you get situations where it's like the evaluations of the guys from the 50s and 60s today. Let's just say that people who were around and lived through that period mock how certain people are perceived by Hall of Fame electorate because they lived and know better.

If this was baseball, a stagnant team sport, same basic game being played for 100 years, with stats and such, where when guys aren't good they can't play, and 5 years later you vote on them, that's one thing.

This is an evolving entertainment athletic form. There are guys who were awesome and landmark performers during their time but if watched now, because standards have changed, people who didn't see them in their context wouldn't understand. Same in reverse, some guys stuff today may seem better because it's closer to what is done now than it actually was taken by its audience at its time.

One guy who is in and I don't want to embarrass him with his name, is some that his peers after the election told me after was terrible and you couldn't have a good match with him. He was very well liked, nice guy to everyone, reasonably big star and me writing his bio seemed like a good case. People watching him on the little bit of tape of him said he was this great worker but the guys who worked with him said the opposite. No system is perfect, but I'd like to avoid that as much as possible and evaluating guys as close to their prime as possible is the best way.

Also, evaluating drawing power when you weren't there is difficult at best. People who were there have a better idea of why something did or didn't click, than trying to look back at a number and not knowing the context of the number, state of the territory, etc.

Last year Cena, Schmidt and Albano got in from North America and nobody did from Japan or Mexico. The complaints last year if they were of the system being unfair to Mexico or Japan would be unfounded based on this year.

This year's North American ballot consisted of only people judged over and over again as being close but not Hall of Famers. The fact not one of them got in is not a problem. If John Cena hadn't gone in, it would be a problem. If Tanahashi hadn't gotten in, it would be a problem.

Rock & Roll Express or Assassins have been borderline guys for years. If they get in, good, but their credentials are in both cases very far from no-brainers. When a legit no-brainer doesn't get in, then I would worry. That hasn't been the case in a long time, and even when it did happen, the guy got in the next year anyway.

Last edited by dave on 09 Nov 2013 18:26 GMT, edited 1 time in total.

 

[kjh]

I was wonder: am I the only one who thinks having Ten-Koji/Tencozy on the ballot as being a way to get them in without having to ponder their careers away from each other? If Ten-Koji warrants being in, and Tenzan also has all that time with Cho-Ten, doesn't that mean:

 

Tenzan = Cho-Ten + Ten-Koji + Other Tenzan Stuff

 

Tenzan > Ten-Koji

 

Tenkoji's not getting in. They got hardly any support last year and I can't see their case as a team improving with age. I wouldn't be surprised if they fell off the ballot this year.

[WrestlingPower]

Just caught up on the thread. Re: Will's comment about the electorate and in particular people like Dean Rasmussen. Unless someone was actually in the wrestling business, I don't think Dave sends out ballot to non-subscribers. Dean has never been a subscriber, ever. This HOF is such an Observer-centric thing that I'm pretty sure even people like Mike Johnson don't get a ballot. Those sites operate in separate universes. We know Bruce Mitchell votes and possibly Wade Keller. But unless proven otherwise I'd be fairly certain that any reporters/historian/fan types that weren't already on Dave's radar when the HOF started and haven't directly attempted to engage in the WON universe since then, are still off his radar as far as getting ballots. Same thing where only current subscribers are supposed to vote for the year-end awards. Of course the loophole there is you could subscribe for a month just to vote.

[Dylan Waco]

Mike Johnson gets a ballot.

 

I haven't had a sub in months and I got a ballot this year.

[pantherwagner]

People like Dean Rasmussen don't have a ballot because they are not on Dave's radar. I doubt Dave would have ever read one of his reviews, Dean doesn't send questions/opinions/reports/whatever to the Observer and they don't hang out on the same message boards or websites.

 

Some people on this board who deserved a ballot made themselves aware to Dave through their work/research/podcasts and got one.

 

I know about several historians who never have been subscribers who have a ballot but, again, these are people that Dave knows about.

[Loss]

Dave used to refer wrestlers to DVDVR on the old version of Wrestling Observer Live when they would ask about good websites. He also used to provide comments on the DVDVR 500 almost every time it was updated in his daily news updates. Dean has mentioned email correspondence with Dave before too. So I think it's a site very much on his radar, or at least it was at one time. Honestly, anyone who followed wrestling everywhere in the early 2000s who didn't have DVDVR on their radar wasn't really following wrestling everywhere. The site had a significant impact on the independent wrestling landscape of the time and good reviews helped some guys secure dates.

[JNLister]

I suspect there's no way a Europe guy gets on this year. We've already got the Daddy logjam issue, but now I'm seeing people who are clearly voting for Ricki Starr based on his US run and are thus being counted as European voters even though they've likely not even considered the others in the category.

 

I get the logic behind the region/era categories, but it really is a total mess in application.

 

At this stage I really think it would be better to scrap all categories and ballot limits and just give people a straight list of names and ask them to vote Yes, No or Abstain, stressing that it's both acceptable and desirable to abstain if you don't know enough about the candidate. The threshold would then be:

 

Twice as many Yes as No (ie 66% yes of those who voted on you): In

Twice as many No as Yes: Off the ballot

In between: Stay on ballot next year

[Dylan Waco]

The way guys are categorized has been problematic for a while.

 

Up until two years ago I wasn't even aware that non-wrestlers who counted as part of the region where they worked. I doubt many voters were. That's a problem.

 

People like Masa Saito and Steve Williams have got in via being placed in categories that were much more favorable to their chances. Meanwhile you could argue that someone like Hamada or Murdoch were either in the wrong category or defied categorization all together. They are now off the ballot, possibly forever depending on how the reintegration theory actually works.

 

Candidates that would qualify as "Historical candidates" via the metric Dave uses for U.S. and Canada - The Sharpes, Starr, Gordienko, most of the "Islands" region, et. are judged against modern candidates from within their regions which seems unfair. Even worse, some of these figures like The Sharpes are probably better suited in different categories anyhow, and others like Gordienko are puzzling in that no one can figure out how the hell they are even in the category they are in (or why).

 

I understand the idea behind the categories, but I am starting to think it is causing more problems than it has solved. At the very least if categories stay in place I would like to see a hard move where historical candidates are all shifted into one bucket so that people like The Sharpes aren't competing with the likes of Minoru Suzuki and Shinsuke Nakamura for votes.

[jdw]

 

 

 

Just to drop it here, Dave has addressed the criticism of making guys eligible too soon before. He has said he wants people who lived through the era voting on the wrestlers from it as much as possible, because the hindsight perspective leaves voters too open to hearsay and rose-colored memories, and you also have a less knowledgeable pool of voters. I think the opposite is true, as people are much more likely to get lost in the moment and have an inability to be objective about it because it's fresh. The more time is removed, the more rational the thought process. I was mainly just dropping that here because it is something Dave has addressed.

 

Is this something new that Dave rolled out? This doesn't sound like something he ran in with back when the issue was discussed last decade. In fact, I seem to recall the Maeda Argument was the one made, which most of us saw as a problem with the Electorate rather than the Candidate.

 

 

He said it on The Board either last year or the year before.

 

 

Here's a quote from Dave: http://theboard.f4wonline.com/viewtopic.php?p=4786314#p4786314

Changing the age would do more harm than good.

I doubt Akira Maeda or any of the Japanese women would have gotten in at 45 even though they clearly belonged. Things change in the U.S., Japan more, styles, and things.

If people are not evaluated close to "their time," you get situations where it's like the evaluations of the guys from the 50s and 60s today. Let's just say that people who were around and lived through that period mock how certain people are perceived by Hall of Fame electorate because they lived and know better.

If this was baseball, a stagnant team sport, same basic game being played for 100 years, with stats and such, where when guys aren't good they can't play, and 5 years later you vote on them, that's one thing.

This is an evolving entertainment athletic form. There are guys who were awesome and landmark performers during their time but if watched now, because standards have changed, people who didn't see them in their context wouldn't understand. Same in reverse, some guys stuff today may seem better because it's closer to what is done now than it actually was taken by its audience at its time.

One guy who is in and I don't want to embarrass him with his name, is some that his peers after the election told me after was terrible and you couldn't have a good match with him. He was very well liked, nice guy to everyone, reasonably big star and me writing his bio seemed like a good case. People watching him on the little bit of tape of him said he was this great worker but the guys who worked with him said the opposite. No system is perfect, but I'd like to avoid that as much as possible and evaluating guys as close to their prime as possible is the best way.

Also, evaluating drawing power when you weren't there is difficult at best. People who were there have a better idea of why something did or didn't click, than trying to look back at a number and not knowing the context of the number, state of the territory, etc.

Last year Cena, Schmidt and Albano got in from North America and nobody did from Japan or Mexico. The complaints last year if they were of the system being unfair to Mexico or Japan would be unfounded based on this year.

This year's North American ballot consisted of only people judged over and over again as being close but not Hall of Famers. The fact not one of them got in is not a problem. If John Cena hadn't gone in, it would be a problem. If Tanahashi hadn't gotten in, it would be a problem.

Rock & Roll Express or Assassins have been borderline guys for years. If they get in, good, but their credentials are in both cases very far from no-brainers. When a legit no-brainer doesn't get in, then I would worry. That hasn't been the case in a long time, and even when it did happen, the guy got in the next year anyway.

Last edited by dave on 09 Nov 2013 18:26 GMT, edited 1 time in total.

 

 

 

Okay, so Dave was still sticking to the bong hitting Maeda point.

 

One wishes that Dave would slow down to think through some of these Great Explanations that he has to see if they pass the laugh test.

 

If the requirement was 45 years of age without the 20 years past debut part (since that would have made Maeda eligible in 1998), then Maeda would hit the ballot in 2004. Look at who got into the Hall from Japan from 2004 to the present. Anyone delusional enough to think that people who voted for Aja and Hase in 2006 would have voted for Maeda in 2004? Or those who voted for Chono in 2004 (after several years on the ballot) wouldn't have voted for Maeda?

 

So epic fail on the laugh test that takes about one minute to think about, and no more than a couple of minutes to research (i) Maeda's birthday, and (ii) who got in when he would have been hitting the ballot.

 

This is a bit like the half dozen explanations for Jumbo Was Lazy. They make perfect sense when you spin the theory out. If one happens to spend some time to research whether they fly, you're left with a bullshit explanation.

[jdw]

For reference, using a 45/25 rule here are when the "Japan" wrestlers who have gotten in would have hit the ballot of they weren't already eligible by 1996. The number in the () is whether they became eligible by 45 years of age (by Ballot Year) or 25 years of experience, or in two case "B" for both.

 

1999 Atsushi Onita (25)

 

2000 Jackie Sato (25)
2000 Big Van Vader (45)

 

2001 Satoru Sayama (25)

 

2002 Jaguar Yokota (25)

 

2003 Akira Maeda (25)

 

2005 Dump Matsumoto (45)
2005 Chigusa Nagayo (25)
2005 Lioness Asuka (25)
2005 Steve Williams (45)

 

2006 Mitsuharu Misawa (25)
2006 Nobuhiko Takada (25)
2006 Hiroshi Hase (45)

 

2007 Toshiaki Kawada (25)
2007 Keiji Mutoh (45)

 

2008 Bull Nakano (25)
2008 Masahiro Chono (45)

 

2009 Jushin Liger (
2009 Shinya Hashimoto (25)

 

2010 Akira Hokuto (25)

 

2011 Ultimo Dragon (45)
2011 Aja Kong (25)
2011 Kensuke Sasaki (

 

2012 Kenta Kobashi (45)
2012 Manami Toyota (25)

 

2014 Kazushi Sakuraba (45)

 

2021 Hiroshi Tanahashi (45)

 

Looking at that list, I'm trying to figure out who gets hurt by the change.

 

Everyone through Maeda, with the possible exception of Sato, would go in. Vader may have been counted in the US anyway, which lowers further the number Sato would need. There would be no other comp for her: Onita would have gone in instantly.

 

I suspect that Dump and the Crush Girls would have all gone in together, and Dave would have loved it. Chigusa with her partner and rival. Again, there is no real competition. Doc didn't get in until two years after his death. In 2005 he wouldn't have been a threat to the joshi wrestlers.

 

Misawa goes into the Hall in 2006. Contrary to Dave's believe, Takada would have gone in. Hase would have been fucked for year given the guys coming up behind him... which isn't a bad thing.

 

Kawada and Mutoh would have gone into the Hall in 2007: in real life, Hase went into the HOF in 2006, and no one thinks he's as good of a candidate as those two.

 

Bull might have struggled, and Chono might have struggled just as he did in the real ballots taking several years to get in. I think Dave would have pushed the hell out of Bull, and she would have gotten in with a few years.

 

Liger and Hash both go in straight a ways in 2009.

 

If Bull didn't go into the Hall in 2008, she would make it in 2010 with Hokuto... and somewhere around here Chono starts making a case.

 

Funaki would have been more interesting in 2010 than he was earlier, and even then it took him a while to get in. Looking at how regularly strong Pro Wrestling candidates are hitting the ballots, he might wait a longer time.

 

In making the case for Bull and Hokuto, we would have been making the case for Aja. She might not have gone in instantly, but she would have started with a good base.

 

Kensuke would have taken a while, especially since Kobashi hadn't hit. Dragon... who knows. Would love to have seen how he was treated if he hit the ballot in 2011.

 

Kobashi goes in instantly. I think Toyota makes quick work since Dave would push the hell out of her. *If* Aja was still on the ballot, this is the point where the argument for her gets clearer: she was the Ace during all those years people lost their shit over Toyota's work. In turn, the promotion started to decline in business after Aja's run (and the interpromotional era Aja anchored) ran it's course... with Toyota beating Kansai.

 

Sak in 2014 quite likely would have been fucked: he's an MMA Candidate who did nothing in Pro Wrestling. That argument could have won with Dave, as if Sak is a candidate, so was Cro Cop, Sak's great rival Wanderlei Silva, Nog, etc. That would have been fun to with Sak hitting the ballot a full 10 years after he slid into the HOF with folks not thinking too clearly about it.

 

Tanahashi in 2021 would have let folks put him in better perspective, but he likely would have gone in.

 

So the folks most like to have been hurt are the marginal candidates (Dragon, Sak, Funaki, Hase), probably the joshi wrestler who we had to work hard to get in (Aja) and possibly Jackie Sato, who would shortly have gotten in given the thin number of candidates from 2001-2004. Heck... Sato passed away in 1999 right around HOF time. Her bio would have been in people's minds in 2000 when she was the only Japanese wrestler of note on the ballot (assuming Vader was global right than Japan).

[Parties]

FWIW, across all categories as of now I'd go with:

• Red Bastien (I admit to not knowing enough about him, but he seems to have been a viable draw and massively influential. All of his performances online are brilliant and clearly innovative.)
• Bryan Danielson (I'm opposed to him being on the ballot this early, but as the best indie worker of the last 20 years - maybe the best worker period? - and a guy who completely changed WWE for the better, all-time best ROH worker, and international journeyman, he's the blueprint of a first ballot pick, especially in his era. He's not an Angle situation where people will say he went on too early without proper time/analysis.)
• Kiyoshi Tamura (Not sure he has the drawing power outside of smaller promotions in which he definitely did, but he's extremely influential and in pure skill truly one of the 2-3 best candidates. More of a phenom than anyone on the ballot.)
• Akira Taue (Might not have had him on prior to the Exile on Badstreet conversation, which I didn't agree entirely with, but ultimately convinced me from a genuinely great talent, can't leave Ringo out of the Rock and Roll HOF perspective. Rewatching 12/6/96 doesn't hurt.)
• Brazo de Oro & Brazo de Plata & El Brazo (They have it in all three categories.)
• Cien Caras (Not someone I would have picked two years ago, but his case has been made online.)
• Villano III (Maybe my favorite guy on the ballot. Deserves to stay on and I worry he'd be knocked off due to Meltzer calling his Triplemania outing one of the worse ever when it shouldn't factor in at all.)
• Jim Breaks (Best worker on the ballot? Can't speak to how influential he was, but he really should be. Would say all subsequent British/Euro heels owe a lot to him. Nuclear heat, which I would hope led to drawing power.)
• Carlos Colon (Case has been made here and elsewhere. I don't think he's a tremendous worker in terms of in-ring ability, but he got so much out of what he could do that he easily deserves it. PR only, but the crowds speak for themselves and analogously in his country he's like if Vince McMahon happened to also be Hulk Hogan. Would compare him to Verne for same reasons.)
• Jerry Jarrett (Memphis is the most influential territory of all time. You don't have modern WWE, TNA, or much of indie wrestling without it.)
• Gene Okerlund (Wasn't someone I would have voted for a year ago, but watching the Network you can see what a massive secret weapon he was for AWA/WWE/WCW. The MVP on-air personality of 1980-1995 not named Lance Russell?
• Stanley Weston (I can't really speak to whether it was him or Apter who set the tone for the magazines, but if he was in charge, I'll give it to him. This one feels a little weird in that while what he did is singular within the business, I don't think I value the mags' contributions as much as I do guys like Akiyama, JYD, or the Andersons who I don't have listed here.)