WON HOF 2016

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd put Okerlund's value to WWF / AWA over the years at something like 20 times more than Finkel's, if not more.

[NintendoLogic]

Dave has called Finkel the greatest ring announcer ever, but has also said ring announcer is not really a position a company can't do without, like a wrestler, announcer or promoter. So the argument against Finkel in the HOF is the unimportance of the role of ring announcer, not Finkel's talents.

 

Then why is Jimmy Lennon in?

[Loss]

Well, that part has never been addressed.

[Loss]

I'm not even entirely sure I agree with him that ring announcer isn't a money role. I do think some guys get over more as stars because of how they are introduced. I'm not sold on that, but I'd be willing to hear an opposing argument to Dave on that idea.

[JerryvonKramer]

Joe McHugh was a ring anouncer for about 50 years. From the 1930s right till the mid-80s. He was synonymous with Allen Town. No one cares.

 

Dr Tom Miller was a long-time ring announcer in Greensboro, and he had some immortal lines. No one cares.

 

Did it make a difference when Gary Capetta replaced Miller in that region? Did it make a difference when Michael Buffer replaced Capetta?

 

Did it make a difference when Lilian Garcia took over from Fink?

 

I think I'm broadly with Dave insomuch as it's clearly not a money role.

 

As for Fink vs. McHugh / Capetta / Miller / X it's just subjective. They all had legendary voices and calls.

 

--------

 

With Okerlund, I think there's a lot of other ways to demonstrate his value. He hosted shows, he carried segments, he interviewed 100s of guys, he did the hotline, he was amazing.

[Loss]

I'm with you on Gene Okerlund. He was a tremendous salesman, and I think he fit the WWF landscape perfectly at the time because he was a character himself. I think he generally made interviews better. I think he was a highly effective hype man for big shows. The hotline scam was highly profitable in WCW. I support Gene Okerlund for the HOF 100%.

[JerryvonKramer]

I've been focusing pretty intensely on 83 to 84 transitions from Vince recently, and the moment Okerlund turns up it is like "wow, we're on, this is Vince's vision". Seems like first week of Jan 84 is when Vince presses the button on his creative vision. From that moment, we get Hogan in the titles, new music (Thriller / Modern Love), Piper's Pit debut, etc., and Gene all over the TV.

 

Okerlund is as synonymous with the boom period as any single indvidual I think bar Hogan and Vince himself.

 

Also, he should get into HoF for his intereviews with Bock and Heenan in AWA alone, cos the chemistry between those three is electric.

[Dylan Waco]

Gene should be in.

 

I wonder if the Tamura HOF stuff and subsequent discussion should be moved over from The Microscope

[elliott]

Yeah feel free to move it over here. And if you, or anyone, wants to post the Gordy list on wrestling classics by all means go for it. I know there are more voters there that probably aren't coming here and I don't have an account there

[Loss]

Just that one post? Can you indicate which ones I should move and I'll do it.

[sek69]

I'm with you on Gene Okerlund. He was a tremendous salesman, and I think he fit the WWF landscape perfectly at the time because he was a character himself. I think he generally made interviews better. I think he was a highly effective hype man for big shows. The hotline scam was highly profitable in WCW. I support Gene Okerlund for the HOF 100%.

 

I was just thinking about this, do you think the hotline might be held against Gene in some way? There were some pretty scummy things said at times and while I doubt Gene came up with them he's the one associated with it.

[goc]

Doing carny shit should never count against you in regards to eligibility for a Hall of Fame about pro wrestling.

[sek69]

Agreed, but it's amazing how mad people got over stuff said on the hotline at times.

[Grimmas]

Jimmy Hart and Gene Overlund seem like the two on the ballot who are the biggest omissions.

[Dylan Waco]

Just that one post? Can you indicate which ones I should move and I'll do it.

I'd say everything after The Gordy List fits as well in this thread as that one

[Loss]

 

Just that one post? Can you indicate which ones I should move and I'll do it.

I'd say everything after The Gordy List fits as well in this thread as that one

 

 

Done.

[goc]

 

Dave has called Finkel the greatest ring announcer ever, but has also said ring announcer is not really a position a company can't do without, like a wrestler, announcer or promoter. So the argument against Finkel in the HOF is the unimportance of the role of ring announcer, not Finkel's talents.

 

Then why is Jimmy Lennon in?

 

This is what Dave wrote in the 10/24 issue of the Observer and should put to rest any ideas that he doesn't think Finkel or Okerlund are HOFers

 

[Luchaundead]

Who got in?

[elliott]

Had a ridiculous stretch at work. Sorry for taking so long to respond to these posts.

 

Responding to Dylan

 

My struggle with this is that where would it leave someone like El Dandy, William Regal, or if we want to get really outside of the box Chris Hero.

 

To take it a step further, people can easily think Sid or Nash or whoever was a great wrestler and frame cases for them. That's obviously extreme, and quite frankly I don't think anyone voting for the WON HOF would think Nash was a great wrestler for a lot of reasons, but we just spent almost 2 years figuring out the Greatest Wrestler Ever and we couldn't all even come to agree on criteria for what makes for a great wrestler. So it seems...odd...that being a great worker is so important that it can get people in by itself and can keep people out by itself when we can't even get a group of (relatively) like minded individuals who (semi) regularly converse with each other to agree not only who great wrestlers are but what makes for one.

 

I mean, Scott Steiner pulled a #1 vote, people called bullshit and dude passionately explained himself. You can't come close to doing that as far as Steiner being a draw or influence.

 

Dandy was almost certainly a bigger star at his peak in Mexico than Tamura was, like Tamura can realistically claim years where he was the best on Earth based on the opinions of those who have watched the footage, worked in higher profile promotions and had higher profile feuds, is widely revered by fans of the style he represents, et. Dandy finished above Tamura in the GWE, and had a close average placement per ballot.

 

Dandy should probably be in, but much later after a bunch of Lucha guys go in. He is the sort of mostly work candidate I could get behind though because he had some real drawing positives with the Satanico feud. My knee jerk reaction is that the bulk of his HOF case is too short. I'd like to learn more about his drawing/impact on either side of the Satanico feud. I get the impression he's a real borderline candidate (even if worse candidates are already in & yet to get in) and you have to be a slam dunk no brainer (or tragically pass away) to make it through the Lucha ballot (and even then you probably won't make it). I don't know if Dave views Dandy as an all time great wrestler. If Dave thought Dandy was a top 30 wrestler ever or so, I suspect he'd likely be on the ballot already if he didn't go in with the 1996 class.

 

I'd like to see Dandy on the ballot at some point and if you take the "he's better than the worst guy in" viewpoint he should really be in the HOF. Considering work is as important to some as drawing, it seems silly that Vampiro is on the ballot but Dandy isn't. But I'd want to see...maybe every luchadore on the ballot except for Vampiro & Doc Wagner go in before Dandy. I also think people like Sangre Chicana, Los Infernales as a trio, and others should get looks as well.

 

 

Skipping ahead. Though, I think Regal's candidacy is going to look really interesting 15-20 years from now and he could even end up as a non-wrestling candidate depending on what happens.

Now it may be that you would advocate for these guys as HOFers, or it may be that you consider them just below the threshold for where work alone can get you in. But my suspicion is that Tamura is viewed differently because of the novelty of the style, and because he's someone who connects in a way where if you divorce the volume issue from the discussion he seems like a believable candidate for THE best wrestler ever not ONE of the best wrestlers ever. That said that doesn't reflect consensus, nor has anyone explicitly made that case.

 

In addition to the novelty of style, Tamura also has the advantage of being regarded as one of the (at worst) two or three best wrestlers ever in his style. Its either Tamura, Volk Han or Takada with Tamura & Han being the most frequently cited, even back before all the Takada hate. Fujiwara obviously is a real candidate for best shoot stylist ever, but I'm trying to view this through the prism of the WON experience instead of my experience because my experience is that Tamura is one of the 3 best ever.

 

Anyway, I think that's "best wrestler ever at his style" is a real tangible plus for some people even if I kinda shot holes in that idea already. I'd suspect if we went through all the "styles" of wrestling and figured out who the top handful of workers ever were, they'd likely all be in ignoring death matches.

 

On a sidenote, I'm going to start making the case for him as the GOAT in the Complete & Accurate thread soon. I've working on writing up comparisons between him and the 61 wrestlers who placed ahead of him in GWE. He's one of my favorite wrestlers ever and I kinda turned my celebratory thread about him into me tearing down his HOF case. So I'm gonna move away from that and get back to him as the best Japanese wrestler ever.

 

I echo a lot of what elliot has said in this tread, but I do think the issue of consensus is a tricky one. On the one hand I reject the notion that democracy or master narratives of wrestling history should govern how we view certain workers. I'm also not comfortable with the idea that Matt expressed in this thread about WON history disqualifying JYD. As a voter I believe we are trustees and not delegates. If our job were simply to reflect back consensus, the research would be all within the context of the Observer canon. I don't even think Dave wants that or otherwise I wouldn't be getting a ballot.

 

That said I do think the extreme subjectivity surrounding the issue of in ring work, combined with the increased disagreement surrounding who is and isn't a great worker, makes it hard to say yes to someone purely on your thoughts alone. I do get that you referred to the results of a large poll, and that in effect none of the counters to Tamura I listed above are wildly outside the boundaries of what would be considered a great worker by the vast majority of WON HOF voter types. That said Dandy can't get on the ballot, Regal fell off easily, and even though Hero's eligible I doubt Dave has even given a thought to including him.

 

In a way revisionism has allowed candidates like Buddy Rose and Akira Taue to get on the ballot, but revisionism has also killed the idea of a work alone candidates by contributing to the breakdown of critical consensus. Conditions on the ground as we speak probably can and will change this, and there are people who seem to transcend and still find themselves appealing to virtually every cross section of hardcore fandom (Danielson, Styles, dare I say it, Chris Hero), but it does feel odd to me to vote for someone that didn't reflect a certain degree of critical consensus on work without at least strongly arguing for them via some other metric to bolster the claim.

 

 

I love what Dylan says about being a trustee and not a delegate. I think that's absolutely how the HOF should be run and thats why I was happy for Dylan when he got a vote finally and glad others like soup, Bix & Kris who run in our circles have ballots.

 

I don't mean to start a section where we stand around and pat each other on the backs for being the best voter, but I'm a lot more comfortable with someone like Dylan or Soup voting for someone with a large emphasis on work than the voter pool at large. When there are people who have gone on record about not voting for the Rock n Roll Express because Robert Gibson didn't know the name "O'Connor Roll" that's where I get uncomfortable. When Karl Stern lets readers/listeners/whatever make his last pick for him I get the feeling that work isn't a great idea. When Dave talks about how watching old footage and revisiting & rethinking workers is dumb because its all about what was happening then, I start to think voting for work is a terrible idea because you're just relying on your memories/memories of others and personal favorites/bias comes too much into play and that has no place in a legit hall of fame which is what we all want the HOF to be.

 

Ideally, the voters would all view themselves as trustees and do as much research/thinking about this shit as folks here and other places over the years do. But I'm under the impression you guys are in the minority when it comes to research, analysis, discussion, and openness to alternative candidates. I do think most people who vote will be like "JYD, he sucked, no way." Which...I mean...again I hate to harp on better than the worst guy in but freaking Ultimo Dragon is in and Dave has to be dragged kicking and screaming into putting JYD on the ballot.

 

This ties into what I referenced before & what Matt talked about the HOF is just a self fulfilling prophecy and so JYD going in would be bizarre given his coverage in the WON. But Dave wants it to be about wrestling & WE especially want it to be about wrestling. But I think Dave's influence (and probably unintended influence to be fair) guides the Hall so much that someone like JYD being in sticks out like a sore thumb in a world where Dragon & Angle get in & Dynamite Kid & Bret Hart are 1st ballot HOFers in 1996. It shouldn't be about that. I don't want it to be. But that sort of looms over the whole hall of fame.

 

I don't know WTF this turned into but the short of it would be I have less of a problem with someone like Dylan or Kris or Soup voting for "work" candidates, because I think they're less likely to be influenced by WON narratives because they are the sort of people who are going to go out and research, analyze, discuss, and take this sort of thing way to seriously. Its the people that look at the ballot and say "Big Daddy? Nah he sucked, but Sting was a national star for 20 years!" or "I sure did like Tim Woods, we drove around the territory together. Oh and fuck Jerry Jarrett, that jerk owes me money!" I have no percentage or real evidence I can point to, but I do think lot of voters look at the ballot and think shit like that instead of actually considering the cases.

 

That's sort of my problem with voting based on work. Its as much the voters and Dave as it is the criteria. In theory the idea of voting for work isn't a terrible one given the reality of the WON and the fact that its readership are the types to overanalyze work & matches and value it more than just stardom & drawing. But when the curator of the Hall of Fame thinks watching old footage is & rethinking old footage is a waste of time, it starts to be about delegation. If Dave thought El Dandy's 1989-1991 peak was the greatest 3 year stretch ever and Dandy was one of the 20 best workers ever. He'd have gone in. Instead he's just one of 30 luchadores standing on the sideline as Perro Jr goes in for passing away.The voter pool is so oversaturated that a lot of this does get filtered out to be fair. But that's also a problem, because someone like Ken Patera who is a total revisionist candidate gets filtered right out when if you took the time to look at the evidence Dylan presented about Patera and thought about it for more than "He sure did suck as babyface in WWE in 1987," Patera was pretty clearly a strong pick.

[NintendoLogic]

I found where Dave talked about Finkel:

 

I don't dismiss Howard Finkel. Nobody has nominated him. To me, and this is kind of unfair to him, but also reality, is that a Hall of Fame ring announcer in my mind should fit four categories:

1) So legendary that people in other cities bring him in for big shows because of his aura, somewhat like Solie was as an announcer, which Michael Buffer fits to a T
2) Really great at his job
3) Have tremendous longevity
4) Considered such a legend he's clearly irreplaceable in the role

Finkel fits No. 2. He's not there for No. 3 but you can make a case. He misses No. 1, and until 1984, the battle lines of wrestling weren't there and he could have been brought in if he was that famous, but he wasn't. Jimmy Lennon Sr., who is in the Observer Hall of Fame, was brought to Japan to ring announce big shows of other companies and is such a legend that 20 years after his death his clone is the No. 2 boxing ring announcer in the world today.

What kills Finkel is that he was replaced by Lilian Garcia. You can argue that decision and I have. But Michael Buffer will not be replaced by Lilian Garcia, and he will be ring announcing until he's old and washed up. Lennon was a ring announcer for 40 years for both boxing and wrestling and was the single best ring announcer ever at being able to get new talent over and get certain heels over (Gordman & Goliath are the best example). It's a trait most don't have a clue at.

Here's a comparison. Larry Matysik in the 70s and early 80s was considered, with Solie & Russell as one of the three best wrestling announcers. Most had him above Solie by the late 70s. He was so good and entrenched in his community that when Vince took over St. Louis, instead of Vince & Jesse, for years, Vince sent a tape to St. Louis and had Larry go in studio and do the TV for that market alone. He did that for no other territory. Eventually, he got tired of that. Should Larry be a Hall of Fame announcer? Probably not. If Vince hadn't made that call and Larry had a 35 year career as an announcer instead of 17 years, would he be a strong candidate? Yes? Is that fair to Larry? Perhaps not. If he grew up in Memphis instead of St. Louis, he'd have been Dave Brown and sat in that desk forever and never been replaced, since nobody ever replaced Lance & Dave and they stopped when they made the decision themselves in both cases. But "if he grew up in Memphis" isn't a Hall of Fame qualification. Fact is, of the announcers in, you have Lance at about 50 years, Solie at nearly 40, Dick Lane at nearly 30 (impressive since he was in his late 40s when television stations started, if he started at 30, he'd have had a 45 year run and he pulled off the Blassie-Tolos angle in his 70s), all who continued and were so strong locally that they left on their own as opposed to someone making the call.

Howard was there from 1984 to around 1999. He did arena shows before and after, but eventually was replaced on arena shows for younger better looking people as well. Should he have been? I would not have made that call. But he was. If the powers that be in boxing had bounced Buffer because they didn't feel he was integral enough to the product or they wanted a more youthful look or they felt a hot girl was better, then Buffer is not a Hall of Fame ring announcer.

Is there a NFL & MLB TV announcer with 15 years of television in?

And I do think Howard is one of the three best wrestling ring announcers I've seen. But again, Tanaka in New Japan was more associated with the product than Finkel ever was with WWF and he's not in, and was eventually gone (different circumstances than Finkel) as well. And in no way do I see him as a candidate even though New Japan peak (80s) was much bigger culturally than WWE peak (late 90s, the time Finkel was replaced for Lilian).

 

Having seen both, Jimmy Lennon Sr. was a better ring announcer than Howard Finkel, and they are my two favorites in wrestling. Finkel wasn't bad at this, but Lennon could get the faces and heels over, particularly newcomers, just by how he would announce them.

Finkel would probably be in for sure if it he wasn't replaced by Lilian Garcia. Lennon not only was never replaced in boxing or wrestling, but he was so over that they made his son a clone of him to continue the tradition and the son is in the boxing Hall of Fame.

When they make Howard's son the clone of him because Howard died and they needed Howard Finkel to announce wrestling in the Northeast or it wouldn't be the same, he'd be on the same level as Jimmy Lennon Sr.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm wondering why Dave doesn't seem to give Finkel any due for 77 to 83?

 

That's six years where he was ring announcer at MSG, the biggest venue in wrestling, and he also sometimes did the upcoming cards and things like that on the tv. He also replaced Joe McMugh (who did have a 50-year career incidentally, but no one talks about him for HoF) on Championship wrestling some time in 84, which are some big boots to fill.

 

The Vince Sr promotion wasn't some rinky dink outfit, it was arguably the largest of all the territories if you go on attendance and population, although I'm not sure if Finkel did arena shows outside of MSG. Cappetta did Philly, and I think was replaced by Mel Phillips both there and on All Star when he left. Phillips would also do Boston.

[JerryvonKramer]

There are also rumours that Finkel MAY have worked for Crockett sometimes before Vince went national: http://www.infinitecore.ca/superstar/index.php?threadid=80216&page=0#pager

 

The main source is Michael Cole mentioning it on an intro to Showdown at Shea (where for some reason Vince himself does the ring announcing).

[sek69]

So basically Dave's argument against Finkel comes down to something he had no control over and had nothing to do with his actual job performance. It seems unfair to punish a guy because Vince has a weird phobia of people he perceives as "too old" on his TV. By that argument, Jim Ross isn't a Hall of Fame announcer because Vince did the same thing to him and pushed him out the door for Michael Cole.

 

When they put Howard in the WWE HOF (I know, but bear with me here) they had interviews with a bunch of guys saying how when they were kids a title change wasn't official until they heard the "and NEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW".

 

It comes off to me as the WON HOF version of the NFL HOF's reluctance to put punters and kickers in. It's not the most important position of course, but it seems like Dave doesn't think like any announcer is worthy except Jimmy Lennon Sr.

[DeanColes1987]

Dave in the 11/28/88 WON after going to a WWF TV Taping

 

"The best thing about the show was the ring announcing by Howard Finkel. I've never really paid close attention to that before because I usually concentrate on the matches, but decided to concentrate on everything but the matches here. The guy belongs in the ring announcers hall of fame with Jimmy Lennon, and even Lennon wasn't so meticulously perfect."

 

From reading his comments about him you wonder why Dave doesn't try and put Michael Buffer on the ballot

 

Edit: Got the quote from one of the great summaries Loss did

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/10201-20-years-ago-won-112888/

[Dylan Waco]

I could probably be convinced to vote for Finkel on a ballot that didn't have 5 non-wrestlers who I thought were clearly better. And that could probably happen if two or three guys from that category get in, maybe even just 1. But he does strike me as a really weird guy to see as a horrifying omission.