Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only
NintendoLogic

2020 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame

Recommended Posts

Doesn't matter he was still the WWE champ in the main event of WM.  I mean lets be real without Ronda Rousey, Becky vs Charlotte wasn't gonna main event either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ronda Rousey has a much stronger case on those grounds. As hot as Becky was, there's no way she would have been considered for a Mania main event without Rousey as an antagonist. And it was her success in UFC that forced WWE to treat women as more than a T&A sideshow. "MMA is pro wrestling" is a longstanding punchline on this board, but the fact remains that plenty of voters take it into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Rocco said:

Doesn't matter he was still the WWE champ in the main event of WM.  I mean lets be real without Ronda Rousey, Becky vs Charlotte wasn't gonna main event either.  

He literally was slotted in the main event so he would not overshadow Rock and Cena with his overness. I will definitely take the point about Ronda being more important, but to equate Miz and Becky is ridiculous. Does this also apply to Daniel Bryan's main event too? Why would Becky v. Charlotte main event when Ronda v. Becky was the main feud and the hottest feud the promotion had?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MoS said:

I think Becky goes in when she is eligible for historical influence - she became the people's choice to be the first woman to main event WM, and then had a long reign where she was consistently treated as the top star of the promotion, with multiple main events. The rest of the horsewomen I am not sure, but Sasha is young and has plenty of time to add to her case.

Meltzer doesn't really get her or the big picture history of modern US Pro Wrestling. Typically talks Becky down. While the Speaking Out movement, his analysis, takeaways from it shows how little he talks to female wrestlers or thinks about or knows the end to end history of it. I don't think he knows much about SHIMMER Wrestling, the seeds Dave Prazak and Allison Danger planted and effect it had on Wrestling Worldwide.

I could see Charlotte going in as Meltzer has always been a booster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah.

Meltzer in Friday's Daily Update posted Mike Tenay will do part one of a two part Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame podcast this weekend. Mike's WON HOF shows back in the day on Wrestling Observer Live were excellent listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

I think Ronda Rousey has a much stronger case on those grounds. As hot as Becky was, there's no way she would have been considered for a Mania main event without Rousey as an antagonist. And it was her success in UFC that forced WWE to treat women as more than a T&A sideshow. "MMA is pro wrestling" is a longstanding punchline on this board, but the fact remains that plenty of voters take it into account.

Ronda Rousey has no chance because the lack of longevity argument is too strong to overcome. We already have established precedent for this (Danno O'Mahony). 

Becky Lynch is the first female wrestler in history to be the legitimate top star of a North American promotion. That was the case even after Ronda left - she eclipsed Seth Rollins quite easily. That automatically ticks the historical significance box. Main eventing WM is irrelevant since the draw for that show has always been the show itself and not the wrestlers - that's why the majority buy tickets long before any card is announced. 

The question marks for her will be over longevity (TBD) and drawing power. She moved ratings. Enough to satisfy voters? Meh. Probably not. Honestly, most of the current gen are going to struggle badly in the drawing power category. Most voters agree that the modern US section of the ballot is the weakest and it's only going to get worse over the next few years. I may vote for Goldberg and/or the Steiners in there, but that's definitely it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rovert said:

Meltzer doesn't really get her or the big picture history of modern US Pro Wrestling. Typically talks Becky down. 

This is absolutely not true. He was asked on his radio show a few months back which American's women's wrestler he thinks will go to the WON HoF first, and his response was Becky. He has also on Twitter on multiple occasions said she is one of the, if not the biggest full-time ratings mover on the WWE roster. On the other hand, he has consistently pointed out that Charlotte did not one way or another make a difference in NXT's ratings. I actually listen to him and read his work, and he has been a fan of Becky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MoS said:

This is absolutely not true. He was asked on his radio show a few months back which American's women's wrestler he thinks will go to the WON HoF first, and his response was Becky. He has also on Twitter on multiple occasions said she is one of the, if not the biggest full-time ratings mover on the WWE roster. On the other hand, he has consistently pointed out that Charlotte did not one way or another make a difference in NXT's ratings. I actually listen to him and read his work, and he has been a fan of Becky.

You are wrong and at best citing brief fleeting incidents especially on Charlotte. And I do listen to him and his work. And all the times he completely ignored Charlotte's botched moonsaults and shitty chops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rovert said:

You are wrong and at best citing brief fleeting incidents especially on Charlotte. And I do listen to him and his work. And all the times he completely ignored Charlotte's botched moonsaults and shitty chops. 

"You are wrong except all examples you gave. I will, on the other hand, make vague sweeping statements like always and will not give any proof, as per my usual modus operandi." 

Predictable but still eye-roll-worthy from you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MoS said:

"You are wrong except all examples you gave. I will, on the other hand, make vague sweeping statements like always and will not give any proof, as per my usual modus operandi." 

Predictable but still eye-roll-worthy from you. 

If the completely made-up quote by you was anywhere close to what I've had said I'd agree but no. Eye-roll-worthy from you. Add something more and constructive to the topic next time.

Meltzer wasn't really a Champion of Becky's fleeting/brief rise and I stand by that. And if it was discussed at any real length it would be shot down by Meltzer. The WON HOF still needs to changed/adapted for the brand era of modern wrestling and the "length on top" run should be shortened for female Wrestlers as they do have a small window before thinking about any of the 4HW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol of course you don't agree with a comment calling you out on your predictable bullshit. "Add something constructive" coming from you is probably the most hilariously ironic post made here in several weeks. Come on dude.

If you  have any actual examples, I am happy to be proven wrong. Most I can see is he has said she does not always spike ratings, but that is countered by him saying on multiple occasions that she is a ratings mover and the biggest star in the promotion. He literally said he thinks Becky Lynch will be the first American woman to be inducted into his hall of fame. If he has said/tweeted anything to the contrary (and he does contradict himself so I am not ruling it out), I will take your point, but not this "I know what and how Meltzer thinks" nonsense and your usual shtick. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He literally said he thinks Becky Lynch will be the first American woman to be inducted into his hall of fame."

Link me please as I am honestly interested and you feel so strongly about this.

Again please stop making up imaginary quotes it is completely pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MoS said:

lol of course you don't agree with a comment calling you out on your predictable bullshit. "Add something constructive" coming from you is probably the most hilariously ironic post made here in several weeks. Come on dude.

Yet you don't explain how it is ironic or why it is hilarious. Please explain and back up you baseless rhetoric. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rovert said:

"He literally said he thinks Becky Lynch will be the first American woman to be inducted into his hall of fame."

Link me please as I am honestly interested and you feel so strongly about this.

Again please stop making up imaginary quotes it is completely pointless.

It was a mailbag question on a WOR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, rovert said:

The WON HOF still needs to changed/adapted for the brand era of modern wrestling and the "length on top" run should be shortened for female Wrestlers as they do have a small window before thinking about any of the 4HW.

No, the WOHOF does not need to lower its standards to accommodate the modern, shittier, candidates. That's just ass backwards logic stemming from incorrectly attributing a flaw to the hall that actually belongs to the modern era.

Also, Longevity never held back the list of Japanese women who were easily inducted before. Again, you're attributing blame to the HOF that actually belongs on the modern era of candidates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ethantyler said:

No, the WOHOF does not need to lower its standards to accommodate the modern, shittier, candidates. That's just ass backwards logic stemming from incorrectly attributing a flaw to the hall that actually belongs to the modern era.

Also, Longevity never held back the list of Japanese women who were easily inducted before. Again, you're attributing blame to the HOF that actually belongs on the modern era of candidates.

 

 

For the record, I am not a voter.

I am not against maintaining original WON HOF standards but Pro Wrestling HAS changed and become more about the brand on a WWE level and elsewhere niche. The Observer and Meltzer's star ratings have changed and greatly reflected the indie uprising and the formation of AEW. Chuck Taylor has ***** match now for example to ignore the Observer/Meltzer's approach is just ignoring reality. Cornette IS both doing a grift and reflecting a culture war between old school/original subscribers vs more recent ones. Brian Last says he discounts Meltzer's modern ratings by a *1/4-*1/2 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rovert said:

Helpful.

I will try and find in good faith the episode. Can you point to where he has downplayed her chances at the WoN HoF? 

2 minutes ago, ethantyler said:

No, the WOHOF does not need to lower its standards to accommodate the modern, shittier, candidates. That's just ass backwards logic stemming from incorrectly attributing a flaw to the hall that actually belongs to the modern era.

Also, Longevity never held back the list of Japanese women who were easily inducted before. Again, you're attributing blame to the HOF that actually belongs on the modern era of candidates.

 

The thing about the WON HOF criteria is that we have no concrete means to measure drawing power of modern candidates now. When it started, house shows based on advertising marquee names was a thing, as was PPV buys. We don't have PPV now, Network numbers are not the best replacement because WWE offers their entire repository there and the appeal is as much historical as current, and even before COVID, WWE had cut way back down on house shows. That is one of three factors eliminated. Quality of work has always been subjective and I don't think anyone has ever got in based on quality of work alone. By traditional metrics, Cena was the last North American worker who should be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MoS said:

I will try and find in good faith the episode. Can you point to where he has downplayed her chances at the WoN HoF? 

Never said he did. Just he was never taken with her on the level of Charlotte or the ELITE or whatever. 

Becky was never someone who leaked or talked to the sheets, brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rovert said:

Never said he did. Just he was never taken with her on the level of Charlotte or the ELITE or whatever. 

Becky was never someone who leaked or talked to the sheets, brother.

When did he talk Becky down?

Becky did give an interview to him, when he was in Las Vegas. 

Anyway, I definitely remember him saying Becky would be the first American woman of the new generation to go in. I will try and find the episode. 

I don't think Charlotte will go in because she has no historical influence argument. She was shoehorned into the WM main event but she was clearly the 3rd wheel there. Meltzer might be a big fan of her work but as I said, work by itself is never enough to go in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MoS said:

When did he talk Becky down?

Becky did give an interview to him, when he was in Las Vegas. 

Anyway, I definitely remember him saying Becky would be the first American woman of the new generation to go in. I will try and find the episode. 

I don't think Charlotte will go in because she has no historical influence argument. She was shoehorned into the WM main event but she was clearly the 3rd wheel there. Meltzer might be a big fan of her work but as I said, work by itself is never enough to go in.

I am not doing the internet bully boy deal on the Meltzer/Becky deal. I am honestly interested.

In terms of influence every female wrestler that has come after if has cited Bayley vs Sasha's NXT Brooklyn match to an astonishing degree. From public interviews, my personal experience to the late Casey Michael's podcasts with emergent women. That match inspired SO many women to sign up to wrestling class. Recent NXT recruit Indi Hartwell is one of them. I think the influence argument is stronger with those two. Again this isn't original WON HOF level strength points but the match made a serious dent in the industry and will be reference point at WMX Ladder match level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bayley v. Sasha is my favourite NXT feud of all-time, but those two were butchered so badly on the main roster, I don't think at present they have a prayer. Bayley has had a good heel title run, and it has really picked up when the Bayley-Sasha angle started, but she is still just a couple of years removed from being squashed by Alexa Bliss in 5 minutes in her hometown. Sahsa too was used to put over Charlotte's PPV streak, and at no point has been treated like even the top women's star on a single brand. Every time she would make a comeback, she would have a ton of momentum, and they would just beat her. Sasha is the youngest amongst them, I think, so she does have time to add to her case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ethantyler said:

Ronda Rousey has no chance because the lack of longevity argument is too strong to overcome. We already have established precedent for this (Danno O'Mahony).

That's only if her career is actually over. She still has plenty of good years ahead of her if/when she decides to return.

Quote

Becky Lynch is the first female wrestler in history to be the legitimate top star of a North American promotion. That was the case even after Ronda left - she eclipsed Seth Rollins quite easily. That automatically ticks the historical significance box. Main eventing WM is irrelevant since the draw for that show has always been the show itself and not the wrestlers - that's why the majority buy tickets long before any card is announced. 

The question marks for her will be over longevity (TBD) and drawing power. She moved ratings. Enough to satisfy voters? Meh. Probably not. Honestly, most of the current gen are going to struggle badly in the drawing power category. Most voters agree that the modern US section of the ballot is the weakest and it's only going to get worse over the next few years. I may vote for Goldberg and/or the Steiners in there, but that's definitely it. 

The problem is that WWE wasn't successful with her as the top star. If we're going to call Roman Reigns a failure on top, the women post-Ronda have been even bigger failures by any conceivable metric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MoS said:

The thing about the WON HOF criteria is that we have no concrete means to measure drawing power of modern candidates now. Quality of work has always been subjective and I don't think anyone has ever got in based on quality of work alone. By traditional metrics, Cena was the last North American worker who should be in.

TV ratings would be the primary measure today. If someone is a star, we'll know about it via that measure - we sure did in the attitude era. 

By the way, most of the voters already take the lack of star power into account while putting more emphasis on in-ring work/historical significance. The Bucks are a good example of this - sure to be inducted based on in-ring work and historical significance alone. 

1 hour ago, NintendoLogic said:

The problem is that WWE wasn't successful with her as the top star. If we're going to call Roman Reigns a failure on top, the women post-Ronda have been even bigger failures by any conceivable metric.

No one, in pro-wrestling history, has been as big a failure on top as Reigns. One of these days I'll do an analytical thread showing my evidence for that statement, but today is not that day since he's got no chance of being inducted this year. Suffice to say that 5 years of consistent, irrelevant, failure trumps any failure you could possible associate with Becky Lynch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ethantyler said:

No, the WOHOF does not need to lower its standards to accommodate the modern, shittier, candidates. That's just ass backwards logic stemming from incorrectly attributing a flaw to the hall that actually belongs to the modern era.

Also, Longevity never held back the list of Japanese women who were easily inducted before. Again, you're attributing blame to the HOF that actually belongs on the modern era of candidates.

 

The problem for me is that older, historically important wrestlers were barely a blip on the radar of mainstream media. Someone like Braun Strowman who really doesn’t figure as a historically important wrestler is doing television commercials. This generation of wrestlers are clearly known and they’re stars. But the core business of professional wrestling reflects that differently. Either they get dismissed or we need to change our metrics accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×