Observer HOF prediction/ballot question thread

[Grimmas]

If I had a ballot, which I don't, I would vote this way:

I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES:
I abstain.

I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES

Bryan Danielson/Daniel Bryan

Junkyard Dog

Ivan Koloff

Sgt. Slaughter

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES

I abastain.

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES

Brazo de Oro & Brazo de Plata & El Brazo

Cien Caras

Blue Panther

L.A. Park

Villano III

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN EUROPE CANDIDATES

I abstain.

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/CARIBBEAN/AFRICA CANDIDATES

Carlos Colon

NON-WRESTLERS

Bill Apter

Jim Crockett Jr.

Jimmy Hart

Jerry Jarrett

Stanley Weston

[Parties]

I wanna say that I love, love, love Jimmy Hart in Memphis. Really I love all Jimmy Hart up until roughly Rhythm and Blues. Like them in the pink Cadillac at Mania 6 is pretty much the death of Hart for me. But I can't quite decide if being the second or third (depending on whether you like him more than Cornette) best manager of the 80s is enough to get you in. Feels like it should be (otherwise I'm saying that Heenan and Cornette are the only two managers who should ever get in, which seems too harsh), but I'm not sure. He was definitely a draw in Memphis. Not sure you can say the same in WWF. Definitely can't say so in WCW. Hard to see him as a lasting influence, as to the extent that managers exist after the mid-90s, it's a bunch of guys emulating Heenan, Cornette, and Robert Fuller much more than Hart. Someone like Truth Martini seems more of a Grand Wizard than any of those four.

 

What can you point to in Hart's career that made money due to his involvement? For a few years there he was the lynchpin who kept Lawler vs. Monster-of-the-Week viable, but is that enough? One that I might point to is his involvement in some of the early WWF theme music. He really set the soundtrack of the company to a degree that is remarkable in hindsight.

[Grimmas]

I wanna say that I love, love, love Jimmy Hart in Memphis. Really I love all Jimmy Hart up until roughly Rhythm and Blues. Like them in the pink Cadillac at Mania 6 is pretty much the death of Hart for me. But I can't quite decide if being the second or third (depending on whether you like him more than Cornette) best manager of the 80s is enough to get you in. Feels like it should be (otherwise I'm saying that Heenan and Cornette are the only two managers who should ever get in, which seems too harsh), but I'm not sure. He was definitely a draw in Memphis. Not sure you can say the same in WWF. Definitely can't say so in WCW. Hard to see him as a lasting influence, as to the extent that managers exist after the mid-90s, it's a bunch of guys emulating Heenan, Cornette, and Robert Fuller much more than Hart. Someone like Truth Martini seems more of a Grand Wizard than any of those four.

 

What can you point to in Hart's career that made money due to his involvement? For a few years there he was the lynchpin who kept Lawler vs. Monster-of-the-Week viable, but is that enough? One that I might point to is his involvement in some of the early WWF theme music. He really set the soundtrack of the company to a degree that is remarkable in hindsight.

Hart could be argued as the greatest manager ever and him vs Lawler in Memphis was a huge draw for a number of years. He should easily be in, before Cornette and maybe only after Heenan.

[Parties]

OK, but I'm what I'm asking is: how do you measure Hart's "draw"? Or that of any manager? We can say that he was the guy who managed the monsters who fought Lawler. I buy that he was the recurring element, and that fans might have really wanted to see him get his comeuppance. But that's not the same thing as quantifiably saying, "Feuds/events X, Y, and Z in which Hart was a focal point did great business, or this feud did phenomenal ratings." What are the specifics to saying "huge draw for years"? I'm hoping someone who knows Memphis better than I do has/can make the case for Hart as a guy who improved business when he was on top. Maybe it's all more subjective than I'm suggesting here, but people have done deep dives into various territorial guys' drawing ability in the past, and I wonder if anyone's done it for Heenan/Hart/Cornette.

 

Re: Cornette vs. Hart - did Hart's stable vs. Lawler do better business than RNRs/Midnights? (I have no idea - I'm asking.)

 

Also, and this sincerely isn't directed at Grimmas, as it's a pervasive semantic pet peeve that I'm totally guilty of along with so many other people on wrestling boards/writing/podcasts/etc, but: saying "could be argued that" has really run its course as a rhetorical trope. It's something that a handful of guys in IWC circles started saying, and now we all say it constantly, and honestly I think it's a super lame, backdoor way of half-heartedly making one's points. "Could be argued that" now reads to me as: What I'm about to say may or may not be true, but I can't prove it or really decide how I feel, and thus don't want to get into a back-and-forth of backing it up, so I'm going introduce this as something that some other anonymous person might suggest. It's not that everyone needs 120% conviction for everything they propose, esp. on a pro wrestling message board. But personally, I'd say that "could be argued that" isn't as fulfilling or interesting as actually just acknowledging what you think, even if what you think is undecided/murky/tentative/subject to change. Sorry for the long-winded pedantic streak for something so petty, but it's just one weird, tiresome turn of phrase that I've heard/read four hundred times this year.

[Grimmas]

OK, but I'm what I'm asking is: how do you measure Hart's "draw"? Or that of any manager? We can say that he was the guy who managed the monsters who fought Lawler. I buy that he was the recurring element, and that fans might have really wanted to see him get his comeuppance. But that's not the same thing as quantifiably saying, "Feuds/events X, Y, and Z in which Hart was a focal point did great business, or this feud did phenomenal ratings." What are the specifics to saying "huge draw for years"? I'm hoping someone who knows Memphis better than I do has/can make the case for Hart as a guy who improved business when he was on top. Maybe it's all more subjective than I'm suggesting here, but people have done deep dives into various territorial guys' drawing ability in the past, and I wonder if anyone's done it for Heenan/Hart/Cornette.

 

Re: Cornette vs. Hart - did Hart's stable vs. Lawler do better business than RNRs/Midnights? (I have no idea - I'm asking.)

 

Also, and this sincerely isn't directed at Grimmas, as it's a pervasive semantic pet peeve that I'm totally guilty of along with so many other people on wrestling boards/writing/podcasts/etc, but: saying "could be argued that" has really run its course as a rhetorical trope. It's something that a handful of guys in IWC circles started saying, and now we all say it constantly, and honestly I think it's a super lame, backdoor way of half-heartedly making one's points. "Could be argued that" now reads to me as: What I'm about to say may or may not be true, but I can't prove it or really decide how I feel, and thus don't want to get into a back-and-forth of backing it up, so I'm going introduce this as something that some other anonymous person might suggest. It's not that everyone needs 120% conviction for everything they propose, esp. on a pro wrestling message board. But personally, I'd say that "could be argued that" isn't as fulfilling or interesting as actually just acknowledging what you think, even if what you think is undecided/murky/tentative/subject to change. Sorry for the long-winded pedantic streak for something so petty, but it's just one weird, tiresome turn of phrase that I've heard/read four hundred times this year.

Hart-Lawler sold out every Monday for years that is a huge draw. He was a big part of TV and it was the highest rate show in maybe wrestling history.

 

As for Hart being the best manager ever, someone like Will has argued it. He believes it, that is why I said it the way I did.

[Dylan Waco]

Hart v Lawler did not sell out every Monday for years. I'm a Hart advocate, and think he's at least as deserving as Cornette, but that just isn't true. I am at work on my phone but will respond to Parties later. *Spoiler* it's fair to question anyone's drawing record, but no clue why Bastien of all people was pointed to as a draw in first post if that is the approach you are taking.

[Grimmas]

Hart v Lawler did not sell out every Monday for years. I'm a Hart advocate, and think he's at least as deserving as Cornette, but that just isn't true. I am at work on my phone but will respond to Parties later. *Spoiler* it's fair to question anyone's drawing record, but no clue why Bastien of all people was pointed to as a draw in first post if that is the approach you are taking.

Very fair, I await your post. My impression was probably wrong.

[Matt D]

That they spent years trying to replicate Hart is telling to me (just like they spent so long in Mid-South trying to replicate JYD).

[JerryvonKramer]

Dylan's point about catergorisation is true. It's baffling, especially historical candidates.

[Jingus]

To an outsider who's never participated, but has read many attempts by others to explain how the voting process works: I have no fucking idea how this voting process works. It seems really, really needlessly overcomplicated.

[dkookypunk43]

From doing research and soul searching and talking to other people here is my theoretical ballot if I had a vote

 

Historical

I Abstain

 

Modern US and Canada

Daniel Bryan/Bryan Danielson

Junkyard Dog

Randy Orton (people are going to kill me for this one. With debating the other candidates from his specific era besides Danielson, Orton has the best case. He has been a number one guy and has done well in that spot, consistently has good to great matches, and had a career that I would deem HOF worthy)

 

Japan

Jun Akiyama

Volk Han

 

Mexico

Villano III

Los Misionarios de la muerte

Blue Panther

Cien Caras

 

Europe

I abstain

 

Hodge Podge

Carlos Colón

 

Non Wrestlers

Gorilla Monsoon

Gary Hart

Jimmy Hart

Howard Finkel

Jerry Jarrett

[kjh]

Dave isn't going to drastically overhaul the system, so I think any suggested improvements have to be based on the current framework.

 

It's clear that he's not going to change the eligibility criterion to "40 years old/20 years in a major league promotion" or higher, as he'd have to remove 8 candidates from the ballot or go five years until the next crop of modern candidates hit 40. The only solution I see is if Dave himself becomes more conservative at adding wrestlers still in their prime years on the ballot. Allow people to build their candidacies and only put them on the ballot when they are clearly slowing down as a worker.

 

With regards to the problems with the region system, I think it would be best to scrap the "AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/CARIBBEAN/AFRICA" region and replace it with an international historical category for wrestlers that worked multiple regions. I'd foresee the people being in such a category being:

 

George Gordienko (wrestled all over the world)

Mike & Ben Sharpe (big stars in northern California, as well as Japan)

Spyros Arion (headliner in New York and Australia, as well as worked in Europe towards the beginning and end of his career)

Johnny Barend (worked a variety of American territories before homesteading in Hawaii)

Brute Bernard & Skull Murphy (had runs as tag champions in Florida and New York, as well as Australia)

Domenic DeNucci (worked a variety of American territories, although his greatest stardom came in Australia)

Killer Karl Kox (was a big star in Texas, as well as Australia)

Mark Lewin (worked almost everywhere)

Mario Milano (was a star in Tennessee before moving to Australia)

Ricki Starr (drew in multiple territories in North America before moving to the UK)

I'd also give candidates like Miguel Perez Sr. and King Kong Czaja another shot in this new category. Kimura could be moved here (because of his matches with Helio Gracie and Valdemar Santana in Brazil) or stay in the Japan section.

That leaves Carlos Colon, who hopefully goes in this year, which would solve that problem. If not, he's such a unique candidate I think he should be put up to a straight vote (yes - one of the ten best candidates on the ballot, no he's not or abstain), as Dave doesn't seem like he wants to put other Puerto Rican stars on the ballot.

[Al]

If I were to propose a fix, I'd turn the categories into nominating devices. Take the top finisher(s) from each category and put them all on a simple 10-20 candidate ballot. Something much more focused.

[cheapshot]

My pretend ballot:

I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES

I Abstain

I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES

Bryan Danielson/Daniel Bryan

Junkyard Dog

Ivan Koloff

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES

Volk Han

Mike & Ben Sharpe

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES

Cien Caras

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN EUROPE CANDIDATES

Big Daddy

Jackie Pallo

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/CARIBBEAN/AFRICA CANDIDATES

Carlos Colon

NON-WRESTLERS

Bill Apter

Gary Hart

Jimmy Hart

Gene Okerluind

Stanley Weston

[goc]

Aren't you only allowed to vote for 10?

[cheapshot]

I voted for 9.

 

You also get 5 Non-Wrestler votes.

[goc]

Oh ok. I didn't know the Non-Wrestler votes were separate from the 10. Shame on you for not going for the full 10 and adding Jim Breaks then!

 

It's funny how Ted DiBiase went in by fiat due to how great he's supposed to be but I couldn't see an argument that he's better than Breaks.

[cheapshot]

I wouldn't vote ANYONE else in the Euro section until Daddy and Pallo are in.

[goc]

I'm gonna put the Breaks special on you until you edit his name in....

[cheapshot]

I'm gonna put the Breaks special on you until you edit his name in....

 

As soon as Daddy and Pallo go in, Breaks would be the next strongest candidate.

 

But saying that, as much as he's a great worker, he's no Terry Rudge. I might be in the minority but I feel Rudge deserves to be on the ballot for his workrate and his influence (Rudge -> Regal -> Bryan).

 

Has anyone made a case to Dave about Rudge?

[JNLister]

Even if you think Rudge is better in-ring than Breaks, they're not exactly in the same planet for WON HOF candidacy given the criteria. Rudge would be the most literal "workrate-only" candidate ever. Breaks is a great worker who was the most featured TV wrestler ever in the UK, was active for 30 years and a top star for most of it, and was regularly a main eventer despite being about 140 pounds. In-ring is his strongest point, but he's certainly got "something to offer in all three categories."

[JNLister]

Spotted something reading the Observer from a couple of weeks ago. Dave clarified that while people thrown off the ballot permanently under the 15 year/under 50% rule are eligible to get back on as and when they qualify for the historical category, the 50% rule will then apply again immediately the first time they reappear on the ballot as a historical candidate.

[pantherwagner]

Here’s my ballot.

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES
Brazo de Oro & Brazo de Plata & El Brazo
Cien Caras
Karloff Lagarde
Blue Panther
Huracan Ramirez
El Signo & El Texano & Negro Navarro
Villano III

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC ISLANDS/CARIBBEAN/AFRICA CANDIDATES
Carlos Colon

As usual, I have decided not to vote in the US or Japan groups and for the first time in years I am not voting in Europe as I’m part of the problem in that region. I voted for Colon because he may be the strongest person on the ballot but all these guys are stuck in that weird category. That sucks for them.

 

I don’t like voting for people who still have a few relevant years left and for different reasons I haven’t considered Perro Aguayo Jr. but I may do so in the future.

[stomperspc]

Listened to the Kris/Dylan/Alan podcast on the Japan candidates over the weekend. I think you have to consider Tamura’s influence on MMA in his candidacy.

 

Shoot style pro wrestling was always destined to be a bridge style between traditional pro wrestling and MMA. I think with hindsight that is abundantly clear. RINGS, Tamura, and Han pushed the style as far as it could go in terms of work and crowd reaction. There was not a lasting legacy for them to make in pro wrestling through their influence because the next step in their style’s evolution had to be shoots. We can nitpick about small improvements that could have been made to the style. However, given the rise in popularity of shoots/MMA at the same time it is safe to say that RINGS was the height of that style and the next step in the evolution was going to be out of pro wrestling and into MMA.

 

I’ve never bought Dave’s “Pride = Pro Wrestling” talking point passed a certain extent but I also don’t think it matters in this case. If it was possible for shoot style to remain in existence after the Japanese fans got a taste of quality MMA and the style chugged along as a niche but viable style until this day with a modicum of well thought of workers, I am guessing Tamura would be credited for his influence. The fact that his pro wrestling work influenced and served as a bridge for a widely popular MMA boom (far more popular than we can reasonably expect a continuation of shoot style to have been) should be considered on his pro wrestling resume. As a pro wrestler he influenced the next evolution in the style he worked, which just happened to be shoots instead of another form of pro wrestling. That influence belongs on the resume of a pro wrestling hall of fame candidate because it happened as a pro wrestler.

 

If I had a ballot, Tamura would be on it without hesitation due to the fact that he was a great worker (the best worker at a popular style), decent-ish track record of drawing with RINGS, and he had a major influence in bridging the gap between pro wrestling and MMA. Han is a little more tricky. I don’t think he is the “all work” candidate some have labeled him as. He has a decent drawing record and was only second to Tamura in pushing a particular style to is absolute zenith. The latter is work related but “he was a really great worker” is not quite the same as being one of the two best all time at a very difficult style. He might not make my ballot but I think if you (a) believe shoot style was important and ( b ) believe Han was one of the two best at it, he certainly deserves major consideration.

[Loss]

I think I've read that Tamura was a very good shooter, but he wasn't great because he instinctively left himself open because he was so used to working cooperative spots. Is there truth in that? Is he the only guy to whom that would apply who has done both?