WON HOF 2016

[elliott]

Man, Chyna gets put on the ballot and Sputnik Monroe can't get a whiff?

 

Looking at it, I would probably vote for 7 Lucha Candidates and that doesn't include Fishman who I don't know enough about but seems like his US or Japanese Wrestling Equivalents probably went in by fiat in 96. And I base that on absolutely nothing.

 

But the main thing I've been thinking about is Daniel Bryan who is viewed as "no brainer" by some, I wanted to ask the following questions.

 

1. Is Bryan's status as a "no brainer" candidate based 100% on him being a "work" candidate?

2. If the answer is "yes" who else would you consider for the HOF based 100% on "in ring work."

3. If the answer is "no" how much weight is being given to Bryan's independent run and how much is being based on his year as a headliner in WWE?

 

If credit is being given for Bryan's indy run for reasons other than work, I'm curious about the following questions related to Ring of Honor:

1. Did Bryan draw the biggest house/gate in Ring of Honor?

2. What WAS the biggest drawing card in ROH history?

3. Was Bryan the key figure in the early days of ROH?

4. Was Bryan the key figure in ROH's most successful days?

5. Did Bryan have the most important ROH title run?

6. Did Bryan have the most memorable ROH title run?

7. Was Bryan the biggest star in ROH history (not after he left, but while he was there)?

8. Did Bryan leaving for WWE have a negative impact on ROH's business?

 

And moving away from ROH to general indy questions.

1. Was Bryan the "biggest draw" on the indy scene and if so, how long was that run?

2. Has independent wrestling as a whole suffered since Bryan went to WWE?

3. Last one is a thought experiment: If Bryan never existed, would the indy boom have still happened?

 

I just want to get a better picture because I know everyone really likes him, but he strikes me as a "no way" for the WON Hall of Fame.

[sek69]

Also it seems that the WON HOF is fast becoming like the Football HOF where there's becoming an embarrassing backlog in some positions due to the limits of how many can enter at at time. Maybe it's time for some sort of Veteran's Committee to review candidates after a certain time rather than expecting voters to select guys who's careers get farther in the rear view mirror.

[W2BTD]

I do not get why Europe is now being included in the mish-mash miscellaneous group after being separate up to now. It comes off as only paying lip service to there being wrestling outside of North America and Japan. This does not help any of those candidates. I think the better option would have been Europe staying separate and doing two miscellaneous groups (an Atlantic and Pacific group).

 

I think the problem is a lack of voters for anything outside US, Mexico, & Japan, and barely enough for Europe. I suspect Colon was driving the total voting pool for the old "misc" category. As a personal anecdote, I felt so strongly about Colon as a candidate that my first year with a ballot, I researched the rest of that pool for the sole intent of being able to vote Colon with a clear conscious of not hurting the other candidates with totally uninformed no votes. I still felt somewhat "dirty" about it, because no matter how many hours you spend combing over drawing records or watching Mark Lewin matches from Australia, a crash course on the history of an entire region isn't really fair. I'm someone who would have likely abstained from the category moving forward, because I'm far from any kind of expert on the rest of the field. I just wanted to vote for Colon, and now he's in. I don't think I'm alone, and let's be honest, I'm not trying to put myself over here, but I doubt a good chunk of Colon voters bothered learning about the Oceania candidates, even at my cursory level.

 

I always felt Colon (and anyone else from the Caribbean) belonged in US/Canada anyway.

 

I think having an Oceania or South/Central America or Africa category(ies) would be a negative, because the voting pools would be minuscule. Adding everyone who doesn't fit to Europe isn't the best idea, either. It's a tricky spot. I don't have a solution.

[kjh]

I think arguing for more perspective on Mistico is really unfairly penalising him for peaking young as a performer. He was CMLL's top star for six years and was the key act for sparking a boom in Arena Mexico attendance. Obviously his WWE run was a disaster and that blunted his effectiveness as a draw when he returned to Mexico, but he was still a top 3 star for AAA on his return and helped draw some big houses for them in conjunction with Alberto Del Rio and/or Rey Mysterio.

[Childs]

Man, Chyna gets put on the ballot and Sputnik Monroe can't get a whiff?

 

Looking at it, I would probably vote for 7 Lucha Candidates and that doesn't include Fishman who I don't know enough about but seems like his US or Japanese Wrestling Equivalents probably went in by fiat in 96. And I base that on absolutely nothing.

 

But the main thing I've been thinking about is Daniel Bryan who is viewed as "no brainer" by some, I wanted to ask the following questions.

 

1. Is Bryan's status as a "no brainer" candidate based 100% on him being a "work" candidate?

2. If the answer is "yes" who else would you consider for the HOF based 100% on "in ring work."

3. If the answer is "no" how much weight is being given to Bryan's independent run and how much is being based on his year as a headliner in WWE?

 

If credit is being given for Bryan's indy run for reasons other than work, I'm curious about the following questions related to Ring of Honor:

1. Did Bryan draw the biggest house/gate in Ring of Honor?

2. What WAS the biggest drawing card in ROH history?

3. Was Bryan the key figure in the early days of ROH?

4. Was Bryan the key figure in ROH's most successful days?

5. Did Bryan have the most important ROH title run?

6. Did Bryan have the most memorable ROH title run?

7. Was Bryan the biggest star in ROH history (not after he left, but while he was there)?

8. Did Bryan leaving for WWE have a negative impact on ROH's business?

 

And moving away from ROH to general indy questions.

1. Was Bryan the "biggest draw" on the indy scene and if so, how long was that run?

2. Has independent wrestling as a whole suffered since Bryan went to WWE?

3. Last one is a thought experiment: If Bryan never existed, would the indy boom have still happened?

 

I just want to get a better picture because I know everyone really likes him, but he strikes me as a "no way" for the WON Hall of Fame.

 

I think the feeling is that others--Benoit, Eddy, etc.--have gotten in almost entirely on work and given that Bryan was on the same level or better, he should also be in that group. He was also enough of a star for it not to feel ludicrous.

 

I'm not making that case myself, necessarily, but that's my reading of it.

[Al]

Daniel Bryan was at points considered both the best performer (by the WON readers), and the most popular performer in wrestling. I don't think there's a comparable wrestler not in the Hall of Fame.

 

Mistico if forced upon a decision is probably a Hall of Famer. But there are three "50% or else" performers in the Mexico category I would stump for first. I don't dislike Mistico, there are just other factors in play.

[WingedEagle]

I think being the focal part of a Wrestlemania -- and a successful one -- is a strong point in Bryan's case. I almost look at that as tantamount to a QB winning a Super Bowl, where winning one isn't on its own grounds for inclusion, but a factor for discussion when you can count on a couple hands the number of wrestlers who've been responsible for buys at the biggest show of the year.

[Loss]

The argument Dave always makes for Bryan is that no one has ever won Most Outstanding Wrestler that many times and not gone in the WON HOF for work. I think as a work candidate, Bryan has a super strong case, but again it shows that the owner of this HOF really sees it as about historiography more than history.

 

The thing to remember, and I say this every year, with cases built on work, is that it's not about actual great work. It's about work that's well-received and well-regarded when it's happening. Sometimes, the two overlap, but that's not what this is about. So the case isn't that Bill Dundee had a great working punch and could sell, or whatever. It's that the hardcore readership at the time was saying, "Wow, what a great worker!" Show popularity. That's it.

[Loss]

I would also add that cases on in-ring work are mostly about big influence that's generally perceived as positive. Daniel Bryan (and CM Punk) seem to have inspired some changes in WWE that are still sorting themselves out. I see no hurry to induct Daniel Bryan because I'd like to have more time to see how far the changes reach and out long they sustain to truly measure his WWE impact. At the same time, by conventional standards, the work case that was there for Chris Benoit and Eddy Guerrero and Jushin Liger and Rey Mysterio and Dynamite Kid is already there for him.

[Loss]

Sorry for the third post in a row, but I think "drawing" would have to be looked at in ROH as DVD sales, not live gates. The goal was to do great shows and create buzz that could be used to sell the shows *after* they already happened. Every live gate was an intentional loss leader. It's an inverse from the traditional wrestling model where shows are hyped *before* they happen. That model was short-lived -- only PWG is still doing it, and opinions vary on how wise that is -- but sadly, we don't have access to the number of DVDs sold for each show. Perhaps if Gabe Sapolsky was still in ROH, he would provide them for the purposes of HOF consideration.

[kjh]

Daniel Bryan was at points considered both the best performer (by the WON readers), and the most popular performer in wrestling. I don't think there's a comparable wrestler not in the Hall of Fame.

 

Mistico if forced upon a decision is probably a Hall of Famer. But there are three "50% or else" performers in the Mexico category I would stump for first. I don't dislike Mistico, there are just other factors in play.

 

I think Mistico is an obvious Hall of Famer for a modern candidate, although I'm sympathetic to the argument that there's no rush with him.

[EricR]

 

Man, Chyna gets put on the ballot and Sputnik Monroe can't get a whiff?

 

Looking at it, I would probably vote for 7 Lucha Candidates and that doesn't include Fishman who I don't know enough about but seems like his US or Japanese Wrestling Equivalents probably went in by fiat in 96. And I base that on absolutely nothing.

 

But the main thing I've been thinking about is Daniel Bryan who is viewed as "no brainer" by some, I wanted to ask the following questions.

 

1. Is Bryan's status as a "no brainer" candidate based 100% on him being a "work" candidate?

2. If the answer is "yes" who else would you consider for the HOF based 100% on "in ring work."

3. If the answer is "no" how much weight is being given to Bryan's independent run and how much is being based on his year as a headliner in WWE?

 

If credit is being given for Bryan's indy run for reasons other than work, I'm curious about the following questions related to Ring of Honor:

1. Did Bryan draw the biggest house/gate in Ring of Honor?

2. What WAS the biggest drawing card in ROH history?

3. Was Bryan the key figure in the early days of ROH?

4. Was Bryan the key figure in ROH's most successful days?

5. Did Bryan have the most important ROH title run?

6. Did Bryan have the most memorable ROH title run?

7. Was Bryan the biggest star in ROH history (not after he left, but while he was there)?

8. Did Bryan leaving for WWE have a negative impact on ROH's business?

 

And moving away from ROH to general indy questions.

1. Was Bryan the "biggest draw" on the indy scene and if so, how long was that run?

2. Has independent wrestling as a whole suffered since Bryan went to WWE?

3. Last one is a thought experiment: If Bryan never existed, would the indy boom have still happened?

 

I just want to get a better picture because I know everyone really likes him, but he strikes me as a "no way" for the WON Hall of Fame.

 

I think the feeling is that others--Benoit, Eddy, etc.--have gotten in almost entirely on work and given that Bryan was on the same level or better, he should also be in that group. He was also enough of a star for it not to feel ludicrous.

 

I'm not making that case myself, necessarily, but that's my reading of it.

 

 

Eddy had a nice run as a draw than Bryan never had though, yes? Especially through the West/Southwest parts of the country. I thought I remember his run, along with Rey being at the top of cards, doing really good house show business.

[InYourCase]

Japan: I would like to hear the argument for CIMA. I don't know who separates themselves from the rest of the pack, though Volk Han seems like a strong candidate. Masahiko Tamura is intriguing as well because very few of Japan's pioneers are in. I'm far from an expert though.

1) He's been the face of Toryumon/Dragon Gate for 16 years now, and I'm a firm believer for the past 8-10 years they've been the #2 in Japan. They cycle guys up and down the card, so even their current top stars go through periods where they are in no position to draw, but CIMA has seemingly stayed at the top of the card since the inception of the promotion, and even when they had powerhouses like Milano, Mochizuki, Dragon Kid, or Magnum TOKYO (yuck), the promotion still felt like CIMA's promotion. Dragon Gate inflates numbers, but you can give any of their shows the eyeball test and see that venues are packed. He had a very well received (from a box office standpoint) Dream Gate reign that lasted from December 2011 to July 2013. I don't recall reports of any show bombing in attendance.

 

Should note he's done very well globally, whether that be in Germany, Australia, or America, also.

 

2) Super Shisa is the head trainer in the Dragon Gate dojo, but it's my understanding that at one point, CIMA was in charge of the training - notably for the first generation of guys - Shingo Takagi, BxB Hulk, etc. Regardless of how much time he's physically put in the dojo, he's a major influence on an entire generation of junior heavyweights. He's been a major influence on a handful of American wrestlers. Jack Evans, PAC, Ricochet, Rich Swann, and Matt Sydal would not be where they are without CIMA. Evans, Sydal, and Ricochet specifically spent time teaming with CIMA and there's a huge difference in their work before CIMA and after CIMA. Swann never teamed with CIMA, but wrestled him constantly for three years straight from 2011 to 2013. Upped Swann's game. PAC wrestled and teamed with CIMA throughout his entire time in Dragon Gate and I think he's the biggest example of "what the Dragon System can do for you" because 2007 PAC and 2012 PAC are drastically different.

 

3) I voted CIMA #39 in the GWE poll and five months later, I probably could've talked myself into putting him in my 30-35 range. He's noticeably very good in his FIRST televised match

In total I've given three CIMA matches five stars - 7/3/05, 3/31/06, and 7/17/11. Those are all tags or six-mans that CIMA has played a major rule in. I think he has a stronger output from 1999-2004 than Masaaki Mochizuki (#10 on my GWE ballot) did, and in the years since, has delivered countless classics.

 

I'm working on something for CIMA's HOF case and sadly, I don't know if it'll be done before ballots are due. It involves some outside people, some of which are very slow with their communication.

 

That's a brief rundown. I know he won't get it, but in my mind he is a 100% deserving HOF'er. I don't think he's the best Dragon Gate wrestler of all-time. In fact, I think there are guys that smoke him when it comes to in-ring, but with these criterias, he should be a no-brainer. He checks all of the boxes. The prime of his career is over. There are 16 years of analyzation that can be done on him. Pull the trigger. Vote for him.

[shakla]

This post of those who fell off the ballot by Yohe is helpful, although the last election results are not included: http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000499

 

Lot of recently deceased added to the ballot. There's usually a few, but seems heavier this year.

 

Didn't Dave say the WON Best Technical Wrestler award is going to be named after Daniel Bryan? He must think he's a lock by doing that.

[elliott]

I think the feeling is that others--Benoit, Eddy, etc.--have gotten in almost entirely on work and given that Bryan was on the same level or better, he should also be in that group. He was also enough of a star for it not to feel ludicrous.

 

I'm not making that case myself, necessarily, but that's my reading of it.

 

Yeah, I get that point of view. And while I personally wouldn't vote anyone in strictly for work for a number of reasons, I understand that the precedent was set long ago and people do it and Bryan's a long time favorite. And I agree with/understand Loss' point about the perception of being a good worker is more important than actually being a good worker.

 

But if there's more to his candidacy than just work, I'd like to see it talked about specifically. Partially because I'm a jerk but also because it's interesting. I think the indy candidates are interesting thought experiments and some of them might deserve to be in. But I'd rather it be for reasons other than "we all like his performance." But that's just me. I understand the "influence" argument but that sort of goes back to it being stupid that guys go on the ballot so quickly. How can we actually determine Bryan's influence when whatever influence he has is still taking shape?

 

I know jdw's been talking about Bryan going in the HOF since before he was even in WWE. And I get it. They're the WON Awards and so it makes sense that Junkyard Dog would be viewed as a joke candidate and Bryan is viewed as a "no brainer." It would be silly that the "Junkfood Dog" makes it if the winner of the most "Most Outstanding Wrestler" awards was on the outside looking in. It is very much the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame before a Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame.

 

But I'm still curious if someone wants to have a go at answering my specific questions. Loss raises a good point about ROH DVD Sales. I should have asked about that. I seem to recall reading at some point that Samoa Joe vs Kenta Kobashi sold the most DVD's in ROH history. Is that still true? Do we know what ROH averaged in terms of DVD sales and if we can point to Bryan consistently surpassing the average sales? I'm not sure what the magic number of DVD sales is to make it "enough" to be a HOF level guy.

 

I do think its interesting that people point to his WWE run as a headliner. I'd like to see that examined more. It's great that a Mania was built around him. Super super cool...

 

...But isn't it always discussed about how "WrestleMania" is the draw itself? Wasn't the show basically sold out before Bryan was announced in the main event? Doesn't that happen every year? How many Mania's were built around Bryan? Just the one? Sid's got 2. Miz has one. Edge has one. Randy Orton. Batista. King Kong Bundy headlined a Mania. Obviously Bryan's case is built on other things and he was hotter than all of those guys and Bryan's "main event" of Mania was different than King Kong Bundy's. But people are pointing to his run as a headliner and main eventing a mania. And it really is ONE Mania. So, how what does that really mean? Was Bryan's run "on top" of WWE as long as Goldberg's run as the arguably the biggest name in the business. Did Bryan surpass Cena in terms of merchandise? If so, for how long? What were house show numbers like under Bryan? If they "went up slightly" that's cool but if it that means Bryan made a difference between 5500 people showing up for a house show and 6500, I'm not convinced that means anything to a HOF career especially if it lasted for less than a year.

 

If he gets voted on and everyone agrees its because of the work, that's cool because he does have the rep as an all time great. But "Hall of Fame Draw" or "Hall of Fame Influence" I don't see.

 

I guess my biggest problem is that the last year of Bryan's career struck me as the beginning of a Hall of Fame Career. Not the final exclamation point.

 

I guess what I'd really like is for someone who is proclaiming Bryan to be a "Slam Dunk no brainer candidate" to do one tenth of the work that Dylan did getting Ken Patera on the ballot.

[Loss]

I've already filled my bug Dave quota lately on Twitter, so does someone want to ask him how ROH's overall business was in 2006 compared to other years in that decade?

[Matt Farmer]

I shared this with a few folks already on Cien Caras. Reason I typed this up was when I saw him on the less than 10% list and thought it would be sad if he dropped off the ballot when he should be in.

 

Cien Caras:

One of Mexico's biggest drawing cards over the past 35 years. He still holds numerous attendance record. Here are a few of his attendance highlights.

In 1984 as a tecnico was involved in a very underrated cross-promotion feud with Perro Aguayo and El Faraon. This brought huge sellout business to both El Toreo and Arena Mexico.

September 21, 1990 Mask vs Mask match with Rayo de Jalisco Jr drew the largest recorded crowd ever to Arena Mexico. The overflow crowd was so huge it caused structural damage to the Arena causing it to close for more than a month.

Along with Konnan, Perro Aguayo, Vampiro, Rayo de Jalisco Jr and others on top were part of one of the hottest periods of business ever at Arena Mexico from 1990 to 1992.

On a September 6, 1991 Arena Mexico card a 3 way hair match with Konnan and Perro Aguayo drew another huge standing room only crowd, turning away thousands of fans.

March 15, 1992 Cien Caras defended his CMLL Heavyweight title against Vampiro at Plaza de Toros el Monumental in Monterrey drawing one of the largest turn away crowds ever at the outdoor bullring.

When AAA was formed he was one of the top 3 or 4 names in a promotion that probably had the greatest freshman year in the history of wrestling in terms of paying customers.

April 30, 1993 in a career vs career match with Konnan the two set the all time record attendance for Mexico with nearly 50,000 fans turning an estimated 5,000 fans away. This record stands to this day. Five days prior the two wrestled in a singles match at the bull ring in Villahermosa setting the city's attendance record.

On August 28, 1993 Cien Caras had a 3 way match with Konnan and Jake Roberts at the LA Sports Arena in Los Angeles selling out the building, turning away a massive crowd and drawing the largest crowd to watch wrestling in the United States for 1993. And to this day the largest crowd from a Mexico based promtion ever in the United States.

March 19, 1994 with brothers Mascara Ano 2000 and Universo 2000 in a match with Konnan, Perro Aguayo and Heavy Metal set an attendance record in the city of Toluca.

Los Hermanos Dinamitas (Cien Caras & Mascara Ano 2000 & Universo 2000) was the biggest drawing trios of the 1990's.

[Matt Farmer]

Saw it mentioned here and commented on it elsewhere. When Blue Panther was brought up as needing to be in the Hall of Fame, while I am a fan of his in no way is he a hall of famer. He's a guy who was a good worker, who had a couple flirtations on top that did well. But was for the most part a career long mid-carder. That's a good career, but not a hall of fame career.

 

In terms of star power he's not even in the same discussion as Villano III, Huracan Ramirez, Death Missionaries, Brazos, LA Park, Cien Caras, Mistico, Karloff Lagarde or even Fishman. A stronger case can be made about for Fishman than for Blue Panther.

 

The biggest run of his career was mostly due to the incredible charisma of Art Barr. Put another mid-card luchadore in that spot and I bet it would do the same business. Panther was a very talented, fundamentally sound wrestler who was very dependable and consistent. But does being a consistently good wrestler alone make you a Hall of Famer or just a "good hand?"

[W2BTD]

There are three criteria to be considered for the HOF, according to the ballot. Drawing ability, work, and historical significance. Nowhere on the ballot does it say that any part of the criteria is more important than the others, yet there has always been a clear bias towards drawing ability among the voters. Great workers are scoffed at if they weren't draws. You always hear things like "I wouldn't vote for someone based on work", yet you never hear "I wouldn't vote for someone based on drawing ability".

 

I would never tell another voter how to interpret the criteria or how to vote, but to me, I interpret the criteria as equal. If someone is one of the greatest draws of all time, they should get in, even if they're terrible in the ring. And based on history, that person wouldn't struggle to get in.

 

I view Daniel Bryan as one of the greatest workers of all time. As in, Top 10, Top 5 territory,so overwhelmingly great in that area that he is comparable to any of the great draws in wrestling history. To me, that makes him an absolute slam dunk, to the point I find it absurd that he isn't already in, the same way it would be absurd if a Top 5 all time draw wasn't in. And he was great for a decade plus, so he has the longevity, which to me makes him a far better candidate than someone like Goldberg, who ticks one box (drawing ability), but was only elite at his thing for roughly a tenth of that time.

 

Bryan is going to get in eventually, probably this year, so this is sort of a waste of time to complain about it, but I did find it annoying that he didn't make it on the first try. If one of the greatest workers of all time, or at minimum his generation (very few people would argue the latter) can't get in, then just eliminate the working portion of the criteria and call it what it is - The WON HOF of Draws.

 

Someone could go through the extensive academic exercise of breaking down Bryan's entire candidacy, and he'd do well enough in the other categories that in my view it would help him, but to me that just speaks to the drawing bias. It would be no more necessary to break down Bryan in full than it would The Rock. The Rock is one of the greatest drawing stars of all time, his argument ends right there and nothing else really matters. You could make a case for Rock's work and historical significance if you really want to, and he might come up a little short in the work department, but who cares? Bryan Danielson is one of the greatest in ring workers ever, and it really should end right there.

[Matt D]

Drawing is quantifiable at least to some degree. I think that's why.

[W2BTD]

Drawing is quantifiable at least to some degree. I think that's why.

 

That is why, and I do understand it. But shouldn't the 60% take care of that? In other words, I could think Chyna is the greatest worker ever and vote based on that, but I'm not getting 60% to agree with me. That sort of fixes the subjective nature of judging work.

 

In the case of Bryan, I think there are voters who feel he's an all timer, but won't vote for him because they don't think he brings enough drawing ability to the table.

 

I relate this to the baseball HOF. Hitting is weighed far more heavily than fielding. You can get in based on fielding, but you need to be SUPER elite, as in one of the greatest defensive players of all time (Ozzie Smith, Bill Mazeroski) to get in strictly based on fielding, and in Mazeroski's case I doubt he gets in had he not hit a legendary HR in the World Series. Drawing ability is hitting, work is fielding. I have no idea what historical influence would be. Maybe Mazeroski's HR.

 

I think Bryan would qualify as an "Ozzie Smith" level worker to where his bat wouldn't really matter. But I would go even further. I think Bryan is more Babe Ruth. His bat makes him a no brainer, and his pitching is good enough to add to his case even if it wasn't good enough on its own.

[elliott]

I'm much more interested in discussing/learning about Bryan's actual place in wrestling history, specifically in regards to the growth and development of modern indy wrestling than whatever rabbit hole this is starting to head down.

[cad]

The biggest run of his career was mostly due to the incredible charisma of Art Barr. Put another mid-card luchadore in that spot and I bet it would do the same business. Panther was a very talented, fundamentally sound wrestler who was very dependable and consistent. But does being a consistently good wrestler alone make you a Hall of Famer or just a "good hand?"

Think this is unfair to Panther. The mask vs mask with Love Machine drew a turnaway crowd to Arena Mexico, and that was for masked tecnico Art Barr. The people weren't there to see whether Love Machine kept his mask, they were there cheering on Panther. Barr's charisma didn't explode until he became a rudo.

 

Also I think this overlooks that part of what got Love Machine over was that he was competitive against someone as good and as popular as Blue Panther. You really think substituting for Panther with somebody like Bestia Salvaje would have had the same result?

[EricR]

Mazeroski was also a really nice guy, with a lot of friends on the Veterans Committee. Something tells me we won't be seeing Omar Vizquel or Andruw Jones getting in, and they were more complete players than Maz (and also nice guys). Voting trends are just different now.

[goc]

If someone is one of the greatest draws of all time, they should get in, even if they're terrible in the ring. And based on history, that person wouldn't struggle to get in.

I agree that the WON HOF voters as a whole look more favorably on guys who have proven track records as draws but that statement is not 100% true. There are still guys who were massive draws and so popular they were cultural icons in their areas but still aren't in the HOF because they have reps as bad workers. Most notably Big Daddy and Junkyard Dog (who was much better in his Mid-South days than Dave gives him credit for)