WON HOF 2022

[PotentiallyMason]

I'm not sure he'll get in but I would definitely give Sanshiro Takagi a shout.

 

Created the second largest promotion in Japan today that has run Sumo Hall and Budokan hall many times and has drawn well in them. As well as well as running Saitama Super Arena with Pro Wrestling NOAH and Tokyo Joshi Pro-Wrestling Tokyo Joshi Pro-Wrestling. Two other promotions who he plays a major role in running their day to day operations under the Cyberfight banner.

Speaking of Cyberfight, in totality known as Cyberagent, Takagi sold this once seen as outlaw promotion to a massive media conglomerate. 

Lastly he helped define what is comedy wrestling and  reset boundaries for over the top acts in its promotions in ways predecessors never could. For over two decades he has and is still making strides as a promoter.

 

 

 

Images

 

 

[Timbo Slice]

He also has an argument for being one of the most influential people in the modern era for being able to reach fans; he embraced social media and online access to product relatively early and understood virality in a way few promotions ever have. 

[ethantyler]

Here's the ballot I sent Dave for anyone else interested: 

I FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA CANDIDATES
Argentina Rocca & Miguel Perez
Cowboy Bob Ellis
Johnny Rougeau
June Byers
Mad Dog & Butcher Vachon

I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES
Becky Lynch
Rick & Scott Steiner

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES
Akira Taue & Toshiaki Kawada
Kota Ibushi
Tetsuya Naito

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN MEXICO CANDIDATES
Angel Blanco & Dr.Wagner
Dorrell Dixon
Los Villanos

I FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/PACIFIC ISLANDS/AFRICA
Billy Joyce
Dominic DeNucci
George Kidd
Jose Tarres
Spyros Arion

NON-WRESTLERS
Bobby Davis
Morris Sigel
Roy Welch
Stanley Weston
Ted Turner

[ethantyler]

Posting this here too for the sake of eyeballs: 

Based on early trends, it looks like Becky Lynch will be knocked off the ballot 1st time out despite contextually being the greatest peak female draw of all time. Instead of just saying this is what she is, I'm going to show my work and hope it convinces some to vote for her.

Methodology
Contextual drawing power refers to where you were ranked compared to your peers at the same time. Top-10s per year, like that seen in the Aug 5 2009 Observer, are an easy way to illustrate this. The databases I used were predominantly wrestlingdata.com & luchadb.com. We have to deal with some major limitations for Mexico & Europe and, where relevant, I will openly disclose these. In the Observer issue, the lists were based on 10,000+ attendance but I found that too limiting so expanded it to 7,000+. This way, we can include standout numbers from smaller territories - Amarillo, Stampede, etc - and reduce the risk of creating a list that suggests you had many different top-draws in one place (almost always false). To expand it any further, say to 5,000, seemed unwise as it would lead me to including not-so impressive crowds in too many places. This analysis won't be perfect - it never is - but it's a hell of a lot better than just saying stuff with zero evidence.

Results
The first woman to bring up, despite not being eligible based on the criteria above, is Clara Mortensen. In 1937 she consistently drew between 5-6,000 in places like Chattanooga & Shreveport (big numbers for these towns in those days) and appears to have been the first major female headliner that did good business. She may have been top-20ish for that year but, since all her numbers are all sub-7,000 I can't say for certain. Regardless, I see her as a pioneer and she deserves a shoutout here.

From there, we go to Mildred Burke & June Byers. I'm linking these two together for reasons that will become apparent in a minute. In the Aug 5 2009 Observer Burke is mentioned as a top-10 draw for both 1939 & 1941. I have found zero evidence for the former, and can outright disprove the latter. The 1941 claim was based on the myth of her drawing 19,000 in Louisville vs Elvira Snodgrass. This never happened. The best we have for her is 7,123 on Feb 11 and even that has to come with a disclaimer since it was a co-main (Orville Brown vs the Masked Superman Hans Schnabel for the Ohio heavyweight title went on last). Regardless, she has a case for being a top-15ish draw for both 1941 & 1947. Burke really was remarkable for her consistency as a draw more than her peak, which really isn't too different to June Byers. Speaking of which, I have Byers as a top-15 draw for her 1948 peak (headlines in front of 7,000 3x and co-mains for 10,000). My list:

1) Gorgeous George 18.69
2) Yvon Robert 5.5
3) Frank Sexton 5.25
4) The Duseks 4.8,
5) Bill Longson 4.56
6) French Angel Maurice Tillet 4.19
7) Bob Wagner 3.94
8) Enrique Torres 3.71
9) Primo Carnera 3.42
10) Lou Thesz 3.14
11) The Zaharias brothers 3.12
12) Larry Moquin 2.8
13) June Byers 2.63
Disclaimer: lack of data on Billy Watson and Jose Tarres with severely limited data on Tarzan Lopez.

The points, in bold, are based on a variety of factors (headline draws, multi-man main events, co-main events, etc) and the differential tell a bigger story than the exact numbers themselves - Gorgeous George is clearly the biggest draw in the business for example. I'm certain that the 3 mentioned in the disclaimer were major draws but incomplete data means I can't position them accurately. So June Byers' real position may vary from 13-16, which puts her in the same category as Burke. This is notable because June Byers was the no.1 contender - not the champion. For her to outdraw Burke and match her 41 & 47 ranking is extremely impressive to me. Lots of historians complain about the way the title changed hands in 1954 (Burke essentially being forced out by Billy Wolfe) but based on business metrics, you have a valid case for a switch in 1948-49. I assume it didn't happen because Burke didn't want it to happen.

Fast forward to 1954, and we have Burke's best when she goes on an extremely successful short tour of Japan that draws between 8-13,000 on a regular basis. This is the year you can say she was a top-10 draw overall. My list:

1) Rikidozan 34.4
2) Antonino Rocca 13.11
3) Verne Gagne 9.12,
4) Pat O'Connor 8.99
5) Medico Asesino 8.9
6) Lou Thesz 7.01
7) Togo Brothers - Great & Tosh Togo (Harold Sakata) 6.67
8) Sharpe Brothers 6.45
9) Killer Kowalski 6.34
10) Mildred Burke 5.4
Disclaimer: severely limited data on El Santo.

Until you get to Becky Lynch, this is the best peak drawing performance by any woman in history. We can debate whether Burke's 10 or 11, but there is no debate about anyone doing better. Her and Byers' accomplishments are far greater than the numbers themselves suggest too. Post-WWII you're dealing with rampant US conservatism that hated the idea of a new gender norm. You had mass media campaigns trying to convince women to get away from work and focus on becoming desirable for a husband. The idea of 2 women who were real athletes trying to be taken seriously wouldn't have gone down well because it contradicts what the campaign was trying to achieve. Men watching women because they're desirable? Yes. Men watching women as competitive athletes? No. This is why you see commentators routinely mocking women's matches in this era. The same applied to women in other sports. This attitude is reflected in films and other sources of entertainment at the time as well. For more info on this from the perspective of how the media viewed female wrestling fans (the majority in the early 50s), I'd recommend "The Revenge of Hatpin Mary; Women, Professional Wrestling and Fan Culture in the 1950s" by Chad Dell.

Unfortunately, this "return to gender norms" campaign succeeded in pro-wrestling. Post-Byers, women stopped being treated seriously and became something to look at in the mid-card. Japan had a revolution in the mid-70s, but North America had to wait until 2015 - 56 years after Byers' final run as a consistent headliner.

While North America was stuck in the Moolah dark ages, Japan had a revolution in 75-79 thanks to Beauty Pair and, predominantly, Jackie Sato. This is arguably the peak of pro-wrestling's popularity with young pre-teen girls, but it wasn't enough to enter as a top-10 draw contextually. The same can be said for the mid-80s Crush Gals and the 93-95 stars (Toyota, Hokuto, Nakano, Aja Kong, etc). Most of these women have already been inducted into the HOF - deservedly based on in-ring ability and historic significance - but it's important to point out that if you think a HOFer should be a top-10 draw, none would qualify. This isn't to downplay any of these remarkable women, but at this point, it's still fair to say that Mildred Burke was the biggest contextual draw of them all.

Fast forward to 2019 and Becky Lynch's peak. Lynch was the biggest ratings mover for WWE for around 14 months. The likes of Trish, Sable, etc who were hyped based on ratings movements (in the case of Sable, overrated as she was never top-10 in that category either unless you pay attention to smaller sample sizes) were never no.1. This is worth mentioning because ratings are the primary business metric in this era - not gates. Being number 1 for the number 1 company worldwide suggests the biggest star in the business. But, we're going to dig into attendance data too because 1) it adds to Lynch's case and 2) it's necessary for the comparisons we're making here. For the following, I've applied a heavy brand-discount value for WWE wrestlers. This discount varies from 25-75% - higher for shows that draw on name alone like Wrestlemania, Summerslam, etc and lower for house shows. This addresses the constant criticism of the modern talent that "the brand draws, not them". The list:

1) Omega 7.18
2) Jericho 6.4
3) Okada 4.88
4) Tanahashi 4.87
5) La Nueva Generacion Dinamita (El Cuatrero/El Forastero/Sanson) 4.45
6) Mistico 4.09
7) Ultimo Guerrero 3.89
8) Naito 3.8
9) Lynch 3.63

For those interested, I had Rollins at a distant 2nd place for WWE, Brock's not around enough, and Reigns' beyond dead as a babyface (this is the year he returned from his Leukemia scare remember). Lynch is clearly their biggest star and, unlike with the previous lists, we don't have to worry about severe data limitations. Now, had you not read everything so far you'd think Lynch is a top-10 draw and worthy of a spot on the ballot but nothing more right? But if you have read everything so far, you'd know she eclipses Burke's 1954 and becomes the greatest contextual draw in women's history - not just in relation to North America. HOF-level pioneering even with a heavy brand-value discount applied. 

Conclusion
I've accepted that Lynch has no chance of being inducted this year. That's fine. I wish to avoid the possibility of us voters knocking out a pioneer 1st time out. I take precedent seriously and that'll put me in a position where I can't vote for anyone else - certainly in that section - because the bar has been raised ridiculously high. More than that, it just isn't a good look long-term. I know the heel run sucked. I know we have longevity questions. My response is that the overwhelming HOF-level historical significance, shown here, minimizes those concerns. Her achievement is not one that'll age badly. In fact, it's likely to be valued even greater as time goes on since absolutely no woman anywhere right now is even close to achieving what she did. Never mind eclipsing it. This isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Lynch belongs in the same company as Mildred Burke and the Joshi inductees. I hope this doesn't become a Bobby Davis/June Byers situation with people only rating Lynch decades later but if it does, at least I can say I tried.

[Happ Hazzard]

Are tag teams where both members are already inducted eligible to go on the ballot now? For instance Stevens/Patterson or Bockwinkel/Stevens?

[Ricky Jackson]

No, I think at least one member of the team has to be not already in the HoF to qualify.

Great write up on Lynch, @ethantyler

[ragemaster]

26 minutes ago, ethantyler said:

But if you have read everything so far, you'd know she eclipses Burke's 1954 and becomes the greatest contextual draw in women's history - not just in relation to North America. HOF-level pioneering.

I'm not saying she should be in or shouldn't be in, but your argument for her is she is the best woman draw. She should be rated higher than the men who drew more than her, because she's a woman we should have a lower standard for her to go in? 

I thought the whole argument for her was she was one of WWE biggest draws for a small period of time? Drawing more than the men?

 

[ethantyler]

53 minutes ago, ragemaster said:

I'm not saying she should be in or shouldn't be in, but your argument for her is she is the best woman draw. She should be rated higher than the men who drew more than her, because she's a woman we should have a lower standard for her to go in? 

I thought the whole argument for her was she was one of WWE biggest draws for a small period of time? Drawing more than the men?

 

I did specifically point out that she was the biggest WWE draw - men and women - for 2019. Both in terms of ratings and attendance. You could say that she was the biggest draw in the business period if you're just looking at TV ratings - biggest ratings mover for the biggest promotion with business driven more by TV than any other metric - but I'll leave that decision up to the reader.   

The argument for her is that she's the greatest contextual female draw of all time, which goes far beyond simply being WWE's top draw for 14 months. It's pioneer level and gives her incredibly strong positive historical significance that no man of this era will come close to matching. Factually. It also means, factually, that she has a stronger drawing power case than every single woman already inducted. That includes Mildred Burke who was auto-inducted in 1996. So, again factually, you're not lowering the standard - you're actually keeping up with it based on precedent. 

For her to not get in is difficult to justify long-term. For her to be dumped 1st time out even more so. The voters would be raising the bar dramatically for that section. I'm not sure they realize that, but it's what would happen.

[ragemaster]

Thanks for the clarification, plus for the hard work you put into her case, a very interesting read and very informative 

But on this basis (let's play devil advocate) should Mildred Burke even be in the hall of fame? For me a year's draw is not enough to go into the hall of fame. Unless she did Austin/ hogan level of business over that year.  I think there is the double standard that because she's a woman she is getting graded on her wrestling career/drawing power at different level than that the men are voted in on.

 

[ethantyler]

1 hour ago, ragemaster said:

Thanks for the clarification, plus for the hard work you put into her case, a very interesting read and very informative 

But on this basis (let's play devil advocate) should Mildred Burke even be in the hall of fame? For me a year's draw is not enough to go into the hall of fame. Unless she did Austin/ hogan level of business over that year.  I think there is the double standard that because she's a woman she is getting graded on her wrestling career/drawing power at different level than that the men are voted in on.

 

Once you're inducted, it's over. Precedent is set and at that point should be followed. So, this conversation has a risk of turning into practical irrelevancy but lets give it a go:

We have 3 set criteria for the hall of fame: drawing power (peak & longevity), in-ring ability (peak & longevity), and positive historical significance. On historical significance, you'll struggle to find any credible historians who think Mildred Burke shouldn't be in. She may never have been a HOF-level draw, but her steady consistency on-top established a standard for women that remains unsurpassed. Becky is the go-to for peak drawing power, Burke for longevity-on-top. 

There is no double-standard for drawing power. There is for historical significance because our forefathers made it so. In theory, you should treat every single candidate regardless of sex, race, etc equally but at some point that theory has to come into contact with reality. Then it'll need to be altered accordingly because men & women were not treated equally, neither were people of color, etc. If you continue to prioritize theory over reality, then you're left with zero context and false conclusions. In other words, factually inaccurate historical significance. I talk about this more in the write-up with reference to Burke/Byers' accomplishments being far more impressive than the numbers themselves suggest. 

History needs to be reflected accurately, not spun all over the place with manufactured equality. Becky has set the standard for women's peak drawing power. That makes her a pioneer. I don't think it's a particularly controversial viewpoint to suggest that significant pioneers, like her, should be inducted into the hall of fame. Or, at a more minimalistic level, not dumped off the ballot in round 1.

[sek69]

Women sports (which we will include pro wrestling in for this argument) tends to get significantly less media exposure than their male counterparts regardless of their ability, which allows the "well they just aren't at the level of the men" argument to get a foothold. Then you get cases like the UMass women's college basketball teams and the US Women's soccer teams which go on impressive if not historic runs only to get the "yeah, but it's *women's* sports though" as if that is a disqualifying factor. 

In pro wrestling, women's matches were largely seen as either just eye candy or the sideshow to the sideshow like midget matches. The oddity on an otherwise "normal" card. So there is going to be an inherent issue judging women's wrestling historically since it really has only been taken seriously outside of Japan for less than two decades. Having someone like Becky Lynch potentially fall off the ballot when she was clearly the #1 draw of the #1 company would be an amazing slap in the face to the whole idea of women's wrestling. Even getting to the point where she did is practically HOF worthy itself considering the way women in wrestling historically have been treated. 

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't see how Becky Lynch was a bigger draw than the Beauty Pair or the Crush Gals. The latter weren't just draws, they were phenomenons. I'm sure Lynch does well in whatever metrics are used to judge wrestling draws these days, but the Beauty Pair and the Crush Gals weren't just wrestling draws, they were entertainment/show business stars. Now, admittedly, the show business world is a lot smaller in Japan, but they were still on television and in the media *all the time* on TV commercials, television dramas, variety shows, interview and news shows, music shows, etc. Does Becky Lynch have anywhere near that level of celebrity? The Matsunagas business model was never designed to draw big houses. Their number one priority was show business. After that, their focus was on running as many shows around the country as possible within a single year. Eventually, they were able to run Budokan, and later on, they ran bigger venues during the inter-promotional era (to determinantal effect for the most part.) If the metric for a draw during the Crush Gals run was the most number of 10,000 houses drawn, then they probably didn't qualify for top 10, but you'd be hard pressed to find 10 more famous wrestlers in Japan at the time, and frankly the world-wide competition for being a draw in the 80s was significantly higher than in the modern era where other a handful of companies draw. 

I get the need for Becky Lynch advocacy, but I think you can do that without trying to draw a straight line from Burke to Lynch while downplaying the drawing power of the Joshi stars in relation to WWE's global stranglehold on the business. 

[rovert]

Becky Lynch into WON HOF is way too fucking early. I'd hate for her being inducted this soon. Her retiring Ronda at Wrestlemania, her autobiography will be Have A Nice Day level good and successful and her having a run under NOT Vince and as a BABYFACE should be her real case.

[ethantyler]

54 minutes ago, ohtani's jacket said:

I don't see how Becky Lynch was a bigger draw than the Beauty Pair or the Crush Gals. The latter weren't just draws, they were phenomenons. I'm sure Lynch does well in whatever metrics are used to judge wrestling draws these days, but the Beauty Pair and the Crush Gals weren't just wrestling draws, they were entertainment/show business stars. Now, admittedly, the show business world is a lot smaller in Japan, but they were still on television and in the media *all the time* on TV commercials, television dramas, variety shows, interview and news shows, music shows, etc. Does Becky Lynch have anywhere near that level of celebrity? The Matsunagas business model was never designed to draw big houses. Their number one priority was show business. After that, their focus was on running as many shows around the country as possible within a single year. Eventually, they were able to run Budokan, and later on, they ran bigger venues during the inter-promotional era (to determinantal effect for the most part.) If the metric for a draw during the Crush Gals run was the most number of 10,000 houses drawn, then they probably didn't qualify for top 10, but you'd be hard pressed to find 10 more famous wrestlers in Japan at the time, and frankly the world-wide competition for being a draw in the 80s was significantly higher than in the modern era where other a handful of companies draw. 

I get the need for Becky Lynch advocacy, but I think you can do that without trying to draw a straight line from Burke to Lynch while downplaying the drawing power of the Joshi stars in relation to WWE's global stranglehold on the business. 

You've answered your own query in bold as to how Becky Lynch was a bigger contextual draw than both Beauty Pair or the Crush Gals. I've cited the databases I've used to make those statements and I'm happy to re-calculate if you have more data to add.

My analysis had nothing to do with celebrity. It was about drawing power based on ticket sales - a historic measure used as an indicator - and TV ratings for modern era US because that's clearly the primary metric today. This type of analysis has been done by Dave, Matt Farmer, and countless others more knowledgeable than me. It's not perfect, but still provides valuable information for those who seek it. 

I have said the word "contextual" ad nauseam for a reason. Becky Lynch in her era is a bigger draw based on these metrics than the other women in their eras. Contextually, she's ahead of more of the pack. Yes, you can blame the insane competition (particularly for the Crush Gals and everyone in 93-95) but that doesn't really change the statement. The Joshi stars were absolutely draws, they just weren't as strong as others at the time based on these metrics. That isn't me downplaying them - just telling it like is. They're still easy HOFers based on in-ring ability and historic sig (insert mainstream appeal here) - as I stated in the write-up.

I strongly disagree with the final sentence. Most people view Lynch as WWE's biggest star for a short period of time and that's it. It is vital to give historical perspective on how she ranks in order to accurately push her case forward. Context is key and the line from Burke to Lynch is absolutely there to be drawn, but it isn't straight. You have to discuss Joshi from Beauty Pair to the 90s stars, then move to the ratings movers of the attitude era, and then get modern with it - as I did. I never meant to downplay anyone I mentioned and if it came across that way I apologize unreservedly.  

[Happ Hazzard]

4 hours ago, Ricky Jackson said:

No, I think at least one member of the team has to be not already in the HoF to qualify.

Great write up on Lynch, @ethantyler

It doesn't seem right that Stan Lane could be inducted twice but Bockwinkel/Stevens/Patterson can't.

I'm sure Meltzer's argument is that having teams made up of two HOFers on the ballot would just take up votes that would otherwise go elsewhere, which is a valid argument.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

31 minutes ago, ethantyler said:

You've answered your own query in bold as to how Becky Lynch was a bigger contextual draw than both Beauty Pair or the Crush Gals. I've cited the databases I've used to make those statements and I'm happy to re-calculate if you have more data to add.

My analysis had nothing to do with celebrity. It was about drawing power based on ticket sales - a historic measure used as an indicator - and TV ratings for modern era US because that's clearly the primary metric today. This type of analysis has been done by Dave, Matt Farmer, and countless others more knowledgeable than me. It's not perfect, but still provides valuable information for those who seek it. 

I have said the word "contextual" ad nauseam for a reason. Becky Lynch in her era is a bigger draw based on these metrics than the other women in their eras. Contextually, she's ahead of more of the pack. Yes, you can blame the insane competition (particularly for the Crush Gals and everyone in 93-95) but that doesn't really change the statement. The Joshi stars were absolutely draws, they just weren't as strong as others at the time based on these metrics. That isn't me downplaying them - just telling it like is. They're still easy HOFers based on in-ring ability and historic sig (insert mainstream appeal here) - as I stated in the write-up.

I strongly disagree with the final sentence. Most people view Lynch as WWE's biggest star for a short period of time and that's it. It is vital to give historical perspective on how she ranks in order to accurately push her case forward. Context is key and the line from Burke to Lynch is absolutely there to be drawn, but it isn't straight. You have to discuss Joshi from Beauty Pair to the 90s stars, then move to the ratings movers of the attitude era, and then get modern with it - as I did. I never meant to downplay anyone I mentioned and if it came across that way I apologize unreservedly.  

Small business model vs. big business model is the same stumbling block we face when trying to advocate British and European candidates, as well as other small markets and regional promotions. I don't see why you can only be considered a strong draw if you drew x number of live gates, especially in a large promotion like the WWE where the brand itself draws the gate. The WWE is going to draw a certain number of fans regardless of whether Lynch is on the card. How do you determine the exact number of fans who attended a WWE show because of Lynch's individual drawing power? A big show like Wrestlemania is going to draw a large number regardless. It seems to me as though workers like Lynch get a ton of credit for where they're positioned on the card, but the card was already a draw. Is there any evidence of a bump in ticket sales after a Lynch match has been announced? Because we can damn sure credit Beauty Pair for selling out Budokan, or point to huge prime time TV ratings for the Crush Gals and Dump Matsumoto. In a cyclical business model, it's easy to see who the draws are, but in the modern WWE, they have tried extremely hard to create a scenario where it's the company that draws and no one individual star, even if there are popular stars who can still move the needle. It's fantastic that Lynch is being positioned high on WWE cards as a woman, and that women's wrestling has achieved what it has within the business is the past decade or so, but a bigger star than other women's wrestlers because she works for the number one company? I dunno about that. 

[Matt D]

All this drawing stuff is fun and all but everyone should be happy to hear I plan on writing up a bunch of Big Daddy to try to decide if everyone’s been wrong about him or not on my own set of criteria. 

[ethantyler]

1 hour ago, ohtani's jacket said:

Small business model vs. big business model is the same stumbling block we face when trying to advocate British and European candidates, as well as other small markets and regional promotions. I don't see why you can only be considered a strong draw if you drew x number of live gates, especially in a large promotion like the WWE where the brand itself draws the gate. The WWE is going to draw a certain number of fans regardless of whether Lynch is on the card. How do you determine the exact number of fans who attended a WWE show because of Lynch's individual drawing power? A big show like Wrestlemania is going to draw a large number regardless. It seems to me as though workers like Lynch get a ton of credit for where they're positioned on the card, but the card was already a draw. Is there any evidence of a bump in ticket sales after a Lynch match has been announced? Because we can damn sure credit Beauty Pair for selling out Budokan, or point to huge prime time TV ratings for the Crush Gals and Dump Matsumoto. In a cyclical business model, it's easy to see who the draws are, but in the modern WWE, they have tried extremely hard to create a scenario where it's the company that draws and no one individual star, even if there are popular stars who can still move the needle. It's fantastic that Lynch is being positioned high on WWE cards as a woman, and that women's wrestling has achieved what it has within the business is the past decade or so, but a bigger star than other women's wrestlers because she works for the number one company? I dunno about that. 

I had the same mindset with the modern WWE talent that you do, but it simply isn't fair to dismiss them altogether because metrics change. It isn't. You apply a brand discount and focus more on TV ratings - at least that seems the most logical approach to me. 

I applied a brand discount to all modern WWE wrestlers for the 2019 rankings. This ranged from 25% on small house shows to 75% for Wrestlemania, Rumble, etc. That's why you see Lynch listed 9th rather than 1st, which would've been possible otherwise but also totally misleading. I'm confident that 9th is a worse case scenario for her. 

Lynch was clearly the biggest WWE star in 2019 based on ratings - her movement eclipsed everyone else's. That in itself is notable because to be ahead of the top male talent - Reigns, Rollins, etc - on a weekly basis is another first for a woman. Burke & Byers never did that because they were special attractions, and neither did the T&A draws of the attitude era+. It's also worth noting that card position wasn't always in Lynch's favor. She had plenty of mid-card bouts in 2019 including a notably bad feud with Lacey Evans. Yet, still the biggest ratings draw. This isn't someone being gifted the top positions by WWE - she earnt it. Her and Bryan Danielson are the only stars that I can think of that the fans pushed onto Vince and he begrudgingly accepted. It is worth noting that we are not having this conversation about Charlotte. And nor will we ever be. 

Again, based on these fairly standard metrics she's contextually the biggest draw of them all. You can question how expansive this is in relation to the Joshi talent - fine, fair enough. Dave does that too. But North America? No way. Burke & Byers were attraction draws who had a ceiling of 7,000ish everywhere they went. If they stuck to one territory, even the biggest one, weekly we wouldn't be placing them in this conversation today. Of that I'm certain. So even if you limited overall drawing power to North America, it's still very clearly HOF-level historical significance. We should be talking about when/if she gets in rather than her chances of scrapping 10% to survive. 

[sek69]

It's also a pretty unfair comparison considering AJW was pushing women wrestlers as idols while Wendi Richter got fired despite being a big part of Rock n Wrestling for not signing a contract put in her face while she was on her way to the ring.  Women's wrestling wasn't taken serious in the US until the NXT women got too good to ignore and started stealing the show nearly every time. Even then main roster WWE had to be dragged kicking and screaming to go along with it (and only then if it could be retconned as Steph Invented Feminism). 

So yeah, Becky Lynch didn't reach the heights of the Crush Gals, no shit. She got super over only after an extremely questionable heel turn attempt and Nia Jax being a sloppy piece of shit. She took the lemons WWE was trying to give her and made lemonade like no woman in WWE had before. 

[ohtani's jacket]

I see a lot of arguing online about whether Lynch is a draw or not with claims that both sides are using quarter hour ratings to fit their preferred narrative. Alvarez goes from arguing that Lynch isn’t a draw at the beginning of 2019 to claiming that she is the biggest star and biggest ratings mover of the year. Others claim it doesn’t mean much when ratings are down across the board.

Then there’s this from Dave:

I guess if you look at it from a certain point of view, Lynch is the biggest worldwide star in women’s wrestling history, but by that rationale a lot of WWE stars are bigger draws than national pr regional stars simply because of the company they work for. 

[Timbo Slice]

The TV ratings the Crush Gals pulled at their peak was insane. They were doing shares in the 10-12 range and were the highest rated programming draw in the country. Not pro wrestling. The COUNTRY OF JAPAN. They ran two 10k houses in the span of a week (8/22/85 at the Budokan and the famous 8/28/85 Osaka show) the first time in company history AJW had done such a thing. That is some high stakes shit.
 

The Becky draw argument is strictly on the merits of a traditional wrestling draw and she truly is the biggest female draw in history based on environment and precedent looking at it in that way. I actually think it’s apples to oranges given the societal aspects at play; trying to compare simply because they’re both women does both sides of the argument a disservice. 

[El-P]

The very much brand only oriented business kinda screws things up for modern candidates. Sure, Becky couldn't draw like the Crush Gals. She also doesn't work in the same country, in the same era (including technological), in the same market, under the same booking philosophy, in front of the same audiences. And on the other hand, working in WWE is also de facto an advantage in term of perception because WWE is the biggest company in the world. But also a disadvantage because of said brand oriented business model, which is pretty much everywhere now.

This is why comparison don't always make the most sense anyways. From within the context in which she exists, it's hard to argue against the importance of Becky Lynch. The fact she never became bigger really is a testament to the complete ineptness of WWE at the time.

[NintendoLogic]

Mildred Burke and the Crush Gals weren't just strong draws. They were also considered elite workers, and I don't know of anyone who considers Lynch on that level. To my mind, if drawing power is the primary basis for someone's candidacy, their case should be absolutely bulletproof to the point where it would be ridiculous to consider not voting for them. I don't think 14 months as a ratings mover quite qualifies, especially when someone like Mistico is still on the outside looking in.

[ragemaster]

13 hours ago, sek69 said:

Having someone like Becky Lynch potentially fall off the ballot when she was clearly the #1 draw of the #1 company would be an amazing slap in the face to the whole idea of women's wrestling. Even getting to the point where she did is practically HOF worthy itself considering the way women in wrestling historically have been treated. 

The WWE on how they book women wrestling has been a slap in the face, let's not make it into something it's not. AEW doesn't have the talent to book a strong women division, so I think we need to reassess woman wrestling in 5 and 10 years and see how it's been treated for the long term.

As for Becky falling of the list this year, it doesn't really matter as in 3 or 5 years if she's stronger enough she be put back on the ballot.

As for drawing since Cena it's been the WWE name which is the main draw.

Becky was a draw for a short amount of time, but how big a draw was she compared to Cena or even in comparison to Místico.

I get the argument she's the strongest women to come along in decades, but it still smells of double standards. This isn't me with a misogynist view of trying to keep a woman out of the hall of fame. But unless we have a hall of fame for woman, they should be judged as the same as men, if Seth Rollins had her numbers but nothing else, would you be calling for him to go into the hall of fame for just a year's wrestling career.

Don't forget people think The Rock shouldn't be in, because his wrestling career was so short. But his numbers blow's hers out the water for drawing power.

  

[El-P]

5 minutes ago, ragemaster said:

I get the argument she's the strongest women to come along in decades, but it still smells of double standards. This isn't me with a misogynist view of trying to keep a woman out of the hall of fame. But unless we have a hall of fame for woman, they should be judged as the same as men

The issue with that is that there is an actual double standards *in life* for women. You can't call for equality of treatments for the HOF when there's no equality of treatment IRL.

Not to say she should or should not be in (I actually never cared one bit about HOF and such, but enjoy some of the discussions).