Observer HOF prediction/ballot question thread

[Tim Cooke]

Tamura’s legit skills were good but he suffered from the same thing that eventually did Sakuraba in – no weight classes in Japan. He was fighting guys like Gilbert Yvel and Antonio Rodrigo Noguiera, who were 25-40 lbs heavier than he was. We never got to see the true level of Tamura, which is a shame. We got to see it with Sakuraba and the impressive thing was even against a guy like Mirko CroCop (legit HW vs. LW), he held his own and then some.

 

It also didn’t help that even with a somewhat reduced schedule, Tamura having to do works and mix in some shoots in 1999 until they went all shoot by late ’99. You don’t see any MMA guys doing pro wrestling regularly while training for a legit fight. Tamura going to a draw with Frank Shamrock in April ’99 speaks to the argument of “what if he had just done shoots in a proper weight class - how good would he have been?”

 

By the time he entered Pride, he was shot. Tamura/Sakuraba in a full on work or shoot in their primes, is a dream match that will forever be left on the table, along with Rickson Gracie vs. Sakuraba and Frank Shamrock vs. Sakuraba.

[jdw]

We can debate the Pro Wrestling --> MMA "bridge". When Funaki was a candidate, people pointed to Funaki (while nicely forgetting about Suzuki and Shamrock who were right there with him). When Sak was a candidate, people pointed to Sak. When Tamura is a candidate, they point to Tamura.

 

There is some irony is that the two people who were key MMA In Japan draws in getting it over were not Funaki from Pancrase or Tamura from Rings. It was Takada and Sak from UWFi.

 

When I look at Tamura as a candidate for my ballot, his shooting means nothing. It's was a Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame when it was created, and I could give two shits about any of the candidates shooting or college wrestling or being Gov of Minnesota.

[pantherwagner]

There is some irony is that the two people who were key MMA In Japan draws in getting it over were not Funaki from Pancrase or Tamura from Rings. It was Takada and Sak from UWFi.

John, don't be so quick to forget the true catalyst of the change....

[Tim Cooke]

The podcast Paul was listening to held influence against Tamura, which doesn't make sense to me since he was arguably the best there ever was in the worked shoot match (from a working standpoint - drawing is a different story). The idea that influence is keeping some from voting for him is strange.

 

No doubt that it was Sakuraba that lead directly to the MMA boom in Japan (Takada helped, but PRIDE doesn't take the leap forward until Saku vs Gracies is in full swing), but RINGS was essentially the minor league feeder system. The first two Pride HW champions won their respective RINGS Mega Battle Tournaments the year before they went on to become champions in Pride.

[jdw]

 

There is some irony is that the two people who were key MMA In Japan draws in getting it over were not Funaki from Pancrase or Tamura from Rings. It was Takada and Sak from UWFi.

John, don't be so quick to forget the true catalyst of the change....

 

 

[pantherwagner]

The podcast Stomper was listening to held influence against Tamura, which doesn't make sense to me since he was arguably the best there ever was in the worked shoot match (from a working standpoint - drawing is a different story). The idea that influence is keeping some from voting for him is strange.

 

Here’s an excerpt from the email that Dave sends with the rules: “The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling, as well as having historical significance in a positive manner.”

 

Being (arguably) the best worker ever at a particular style is a workrate argument, not a historical significance argument.

 

“Having historical significance” can be interpreted many different ways but to me these arguments need to be based on being a creator of a style, or a key component in the change, furthering or evolution of an already existing one. It also needs to be influence on a major league level. If it’s indy level influence it needs to be a complete game changer at the indy level that eventually impacted the major leagues.

 

Things like somebody’s moves being copied by a few peers, or a supporting player being one of the best workers at one style, should almost never be part of a historical significance argument.

 

FWIW: I voted in the past for Han as a unique workrate candidate and a good draw, but I don't see the historical significance there either.

[stomperspc]

I didn't mean to imply that Tamura was the bridge or the pro wrestler with the greatest influence on the Japanese MMA boom. Obviously there are other pro wrestlers who in some respect or another paved the way for MMA in Japan through the pro wrestling style they worked or their popularity. Same argument would apply to them (Sakuraba, Funaki, Suzuki, Takada, ect.). If we are talking about what they did as pro wrestlers having an influence on MMA, I think that is relevant to their candidacy. I agree with jdw that any impact they might have had on MMA (or anything else) before or after their pro wrestling careers were over doesn't mean anything. It can be a blurry line trying to separate them sometimes.

[jdw]

The podcast Paul was listening to held influence against Tamura, which doesn't make sense to me since he was arguably the best there ever was in the worked shoot match (from a working standpoint - drawing is a different story). The idea that influence is keeping some from voting for him is strange.

 

 

I never thought that influence was a requirement. It's just one of many things that might make a case.

 

 

No doubt that it was Sakuraba that lead directly to the MMA boom in Japan (Takada helped, but PRIDE doesn't take the leap forward until Saku vs Gracies is in full swing),

 

 

I don't think Sak goes into MMA without Takada.

 

but RINGS was essentially the minor league feeder system. The first two Pride HW champions won their respective RINGS Mega Battle Tournaments the year before they went on to become champions in Pride.

 

 

It was running MMA at the time of the tourneys. Then Pride stole their talent.

 

Should Henderson and Nog and Fedor go into the WON Pro Wrestling HOF for winning the King of Kings, Openweight and Absolute tourneys in Rings? :/

 

To say that Rings in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when those happened was a bridge is a stretch. What drew more: Rings big events in 2000-2001, or Pride?

[pantherwagner]

The joke at the time was that the prize for winning the RINGS King of Kings tournament was a contract with PRIDE.

[Loss]

Here's a different topic -- as we get more into the Modern Era of WWE, when do some behind-the-scenes people other than Vince start getting nominated? I tweeted Dave asking if anyone had ever discussed Kevin Dunn or Jim Johnston with him. But along those lines, is anyone really tracking any contributions Michelle Wilson or George Barrios are making to the company? Hell, Stephanie McMahon has been an important executive for the company for 15 years. I'm not advocating her as a candidate, but I do think she should be put on the ballot so people can talk about her actual successes and failures heading Creative in the 2000s. If it really is true that WWE is driven by the brand, I think it's time to start looking more closely at the people responsible for shaping and maintaining the brand.

[kjh]

If you're willing to accept the MMA boom in Japan as a positive influence, Tamura would rank fairly low down the list behind Inoki, Maeda, Takada, Funaki, Sakuraba and arguably Fujiwara. I mean Maeda was the one who turned RINGS into an all-shoot format not Tamura. I don't see it as a strong positive for Tamura's case.

[RyanClingman]

My current ballot:

 

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES

 

The Sharpe Brothers

Volk Han

 

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

 

Daniel Bryan/Bryan Danielson

Ivan Koloff

 

I have been going back and forth on JYD, and Colon.

[kjh]

Here's a different topic -- as we get more into the Modern Era of WWE, when do some behind-the-scenes people other than Vince start getting nominated? I tweeted Dave asking if anyone had ever discussed Kevin Dunn or Jim Johnston with him. But along those lines, is anyone really tracking any contributions Michelle Wilson or George Barrios are making to the company? Hell, Stephanie McMahon has been an important executive for the company for 15 years. I'm not advocating her as a candidate, but I do think she should be put on the ballot so people can talk about her actual successes and failures heading Creative in the 2000s. If it really is true that WWE is driven by the brand, I think it's time to start looking more closely at the people responsible for shaping and maintaining the brand.

 

I don't see Wilson and Barrios as good candidates at the moment given that before they came to the company in 2007 WWE grossed $485.7M and posted a $52.1M profit. They entered an already successful company, but have seen profits decline under their watch in the first half of this decade. They mishandled expectations of the NBCUniversal deal, which led to a stock price crash and investor lawsuits. If the WWE Network becomes a big success and leads to record profitability in the latter half of this decade, then maybe you could make the case for them.

 

Bryan Gerwirtz would probably the best behind the scenes guy to put on the ballot at the moment, as he was Monday Night Raw's lead writer for over a decade. He'd be a tough sell to get people to vote for though. But that longevity in the role is impressive.

[goc]

I have been going back and forth on JYD, and Colon.

JYD was a HUGE star for Mid-South for close to 5 years. People say he doesn't have longevity and it's true he fell off hard but his run in Mid-South is not THAT short. He was more popular with kids in New Orleans than other sports heroes like Saints QB Archie Manning or 'Pistol' Pete Maravich.

 

http://rare.us/story/how-capitalism-and-the-junkyard-dog-helped-integrate-pro-wrestling/

 

 

 

In the 1981-82 academic year, the New Orleans school system asked students which local sports star they’d most like to meet. It was the heyday of Archie Manning’s reign as the Saints’ quarterback. Basketball legend “Pistol” Pete Maravich had just retired from a hall-of-fame career centered on a still-unbroken division scoring record at LSU and five years leading the New Orleans Jazz.

Both these giants received many votes, but New Orleans’ schoolkids overwhelmingly wanted to meet the Junkyard Dog.

[jdw]

The joke at the time was that the prize for winning the RINGS King of Kings tournament was a contract with PRIDE.

 

[mookeighana]

 

Here's a different topic -- as we get more into the Modern Era of WWE, when do some behind-the-scenes people other than Vince start getting nominated? I tweeted Dave asking if anyone had ever discussed Kevin Dunn or Jim Johnston with him. But along those lines, is anyone really tracking any contributions Michelle Wilson or George Barrios are making to the company? Hell, Stephanie McMahon has been an important executive for the company for 15 years. I'm not advocating her as a candidate, but I do think she should be put on the ballot so people can talk about her actual successes and failures heading Creative in the 2000s. If it really is true that WWE is driven by the brand, I think it's time to start looking more closely at the people responsible for shaping and maintaining the brand.

 

I don't see Wilson and Barrios as good candidates at the moment given that before they came to the company in 2007 WWE grossed $485.7M and posted a $52.1M profit. They entered an already successful company, but have seen profits decline under their watch in the first half of this decade. They mishandled expectations of the NBCUniversal deal, which led to a stock price crash and investor lawsuits. If the WWE Network becomes a big success and leads to record profitability in the latter half of this decade, then maybe you could make the case for them.

 

Bryan Gerwirtz would probably the best behind the scenes guy to put on the ballot at the moment, as he was Monday Night Raw's lead writer for over a decade. He'd be a tough sell to get people to vote for though. But that longevity in the role is impressive.

 

 

If the WWE Network becomes a huge success and the company actually has the 3M-4M annual paid subscribers that Barrios & Wilson have talked about, then there would be a case that the architect(s) of that success (one or both of them) would be worth considering. However, I still believe they are being overly optimistic in their estimates. They're telling Wall Street what it wants to hear and the shareholder lawsuits prevent them from backing away quietly.

 

The lack of clear leadership for the WWE Network project is my biggest qualm. Barrios might be the CFO and Chief Strategy Officer, but the track record of people coming and going from the Network project (Singerman, Fox, Miller, Schwartz, etc) doesn't project people who are designing a top-to-bottom solution as much as a shell of a project which is missing some key ingredients.

 

If WWE were to achieve another major broadcast coup - say striking a concurrent significant television deal with a NBCU rival (can't see how, but let's pretend) - and they used it really building a significant secondary revenue source (let's say an "alternative wrestling promotion"), then the business architects of that would deserve to be considered.

 

However, the state of WWE today is a lot of revenue with profit levels at/below the old PPV model. We're still a far cry from the popularity and financial success in the attitude era with WWE taking a bath on the XFL-esque projects.

 

The greatest success for WWE in the past 15 years has been negotiating stronger and stronger television rights with guaranteed contracts (i.e. ratings slides don't cost them dough in the short-run). However, those negotiations did come at the expenses of advertising revenue.

 

In retrospect, I wonder whether moving to Viacom in September 2000 for was really the right decision. At the end of that deal (Spike ending negotiations abruptly) exposed WWE as weak and they had to give up their domestic advertising revenue.

 

Perhaps just sticking it out with USA would have been best (especially since WWE wouldn't have been the lead-in for UFC on SpikeTV).

 

 

Toady, there's nothing about the current WWE model that I think is HOF-worthy (from a business perspective). Especially when you still have albatrosses like the WWE Studios around and it's unclear whether WWE really has their licensing department back in shape.

 

Upon further thought, only person I'd nominate for WON HOF in terms of impact/influence? Jerry S. McDevitt.

[kjh]

Moving to Spike TV was the right move, they were just wrong to believe that the ratings erosion they suffered from 2000-2005 was due to the channel they were on and they tipped their hand too much in contract renegotiations with Spike.

[goc]

SOME of it was due to the channel they were on. There was an immediate drop the week after they went from USA to Spike because Spike was available in less homes. It kept dropping though because of the brand split and how horribly depressing Raw was at the time with HHH killing off any babyface that started gaining momentum.

[Loss]

Ratings shouldn't be impacted by the number of available homes, because a rating is a percentage of available homes that watched the show, is it not? A show on a network with less available homes would have a higher rating than a show with more available homes if a higher percentage of the available homes were watching the network with less available homes, even if the show had less viewers overall.

 

Writing that made my head hurt. I apologize in advance for anyone having to read it.

[goc]

I don't think it works that way. The rating percentage is based off the number of overall homes watching TV that night. There is no caveat for whether or not the show is available in all homes.

 

The NUMBER of viewers also dropped. I think that's a more interesting number anyway and I get mad when people just give the ratings figures without adding the number of viewers to go along with it.

[Loss]

I've argued in the past that we should look at number of viewers instead of overall rating when trying to gauge WWE's popularity, so I'm with you. But what number do advertisers and networks care about? Because that's really the only number that matters. Most ratings talk I've read that isn't centered on wrestling takes an even more narrow view -- everything that's not a number among the 18-49 demo is tossed out as irrelevant.

[Loss]

I'd also add that works both ways. Smackdown at its peak had more viewers than RAW, but it was part of a much bigger Network audience, so the rating was always going to be lower, even if it was the more popular show. I still knew a decent number of people who didn't have cable in 1999, which meant Smackdown was their first exposure to WWE and they became fans off of that.

[goc]

I've argued in the past that we should look at number of viewers instead of overall rating when trying to gauge WWE's popularity, so I'm with you. But what number do advertisers and networks care about? Because that's really the only number that matters. Most ratings talk I've read that isn't centered on wrestling takes an even more narrow view -- everything that's not a number among the 18-49 demo is tossed out as irrelevant.

Yea I understand how advertisers look at it, and agree it seems like a really stupid view of things. But people get so caught up in the ratings that they'll go off talking about "See the ratings are down! That confirms that I was right when I trashed them for doing *insert thing here* last week!" and totally miss that the number of viewers is either the same or actually UP.

 

*This is kind of a bad thread to have this discussion in though as it's not really relevant to the WON HOF

[RyanClingman]

I've argued in the past that we should look at number of viewers instead of overall rating when trying to gauge WWE's popularity, so I'm with you. But what number do advertisers and networks care about? Because that's really the only number that matters. Most ratings talk I've read that isn't centered on wrestling takes an even more narrow view -- everything that's not a number among the 18-49 demo is tossed out as irrelevant.

 

The 18-49 is a very important demographic, the most important demographic in fact when it comes to advertiser satisfaction, but it seems that very few people take much notice of it -- those both in the company and covering the WWE.

[Loss]

It's especially relevant in wrestling because it's actually seen as a weakness that WWE draws from all age groups instead of being especially strong with one age group.