WON HOF 2024

[ethantyler]

Ballots were sent out to us over the weekend: 
 

This is our ballot for the 2024 Hall of Fame.
This ballot is being sent out to major wrestling stars, past and present, major management figures in the industry, writers and historians.
If you are getting this, you are being asked your opinion on who should be inducted into this year's Hall of Fame class. The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling, as well as having historical significance in a positive manner. A candidate should either have something to offer in all three categories, or be someone so outstanding in one or two of those categories that they deserve inclusion.
The names listed below are those under consideration for this year. To be eligible, a performer must have reached their 35th birthday and completed ten years since their debut as a full-time performer, or be someone who has been a full-time pro wrestler for at least 15 years.
Longevity should be a prime consideration rather than a hot two or three year run, unless someone is so significant as a trend-setter or a historical figure in the business, or valuable to the industry, that they need to be included. However, just longevity without being either a long-term main eventer, a top draw and/or a top caliber in-ring performer should be seen as relatively meaningless.

There are more changes in the rules this year largely because the modern U.S. & Canada category is so full of viable candidates. Each category is separate and the number of votes in a category allowed will be one in every three people on the ballot, so each category will have a different number. The idea is categories with fewer balloters won't be easier to get in, and categories with a lot of balloters won't be so difficult that it causes a logjam.

The election is broken down into a number of categories. You should check each category for wrestlers that you feel you are familiar enough with based on geography that you've either traveled or are familiar with, and based on the time you have followed pro wrestling. You do not have to vote for a wrestler in every category you've checked. The ballot is also broken down to wrestlers and those who are not pro wrestlers but have been valuable parts of the industry.
You can pick as few as zero in categories if you don't believe anyone on this list deserves inclusion or you can skip voting in categories that you don't believe you are familiar enough with to vote in.
All responses are confidential. There is nothing to worry about politically about any involvement in this process. Your selections will not be revealed unless you choose to do so yourself.

Anyone who receives mention on 60% of the ballots from the geographical region and time frame (broken down as Continental United States & Canada; Mexico; Japan; and the rest of the world) will be added to the Hall of Fame in the class of 2023.

If you are unfamiliar with any of the candidates due to geography or having never seen them, that is fine. Ballots are sent to many people from all over the world and from different wrestling cultures so that everyone has as fair a shot as possible.

The breakdown for modern and historical performers is 30 years ago, or 1994. So if the last year the person was a headliner, or was a key figure in the industry, was prior to 1994, they would be in the historical class.

All performers who receive mention on 10% to 59.9% of the ballots from their geographical region or era will remain on the ballot for consideration next year. All those who receive less than 10% of the vote will be dropped from next year's ballot. They can return in two years based on if there is significant feedback from voters who say they will vote for them. This is mostly for wrestlers who are still active who may improve their career legacy, but can be for retired wrestlers if voters believe they should be put on or returned to the ballot.
In addition, in following the lead of the baseball Hall of Fame, which is the model here, we have a 15-year-rule. The following candidates have been on the ballot since 2008. In baseball, this would be their last year of eligibility. Here, if they don't get at least 50% of the votes in this year's election they will be removed from the ballot. If they are modern candidates, they can be brought back in the historical performers era in two years if it is more than 30 years since their career as a Hall Fame level performer is up:

The following candidates will be dropped from next year's ballot unless they are elected in or garner 50% of the vote:

Johnny Saint
Huracan Ramirez

HISTORICAL PERFORMERS ERA (Seven maximum)

Ole Anderson
Afa & Sika Anoa'i
Bob Armstrong
Tully Blanchard & Arn Anderson w/J.J. Dillon
British Bulldogs (Dynamite Kid & Davey Boy Smith)
June Byers
Wild Bull Curry
Junkyard Dog
Cowboy Bob Ellis
Pampero Firpo
Black Gordman & Great Goliath
Archie "Mongolian Stomper" Gouldie
Hart Foundation (Bret Hart & Jim Neidhart)
Sputnik Monroe
Dusty Rhodes & Dick Murdoch
Johnny Rougeau
Iron Sheik
Ricky Steamboat & Jay Youngblood
Mad Dog & Butcher Vachon
Kevin & Kerry & David Von Erich

MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA (Seven max)

Asuka/Kana
Mark & Jay Briscoe
Young Bucks
Edge
Bill Goldberg
Samoa Joe
Matt & Jeff Hardy
Becky Lynch
Jon Moxley
Kevin Nash & Scott Hall
Paul Orndorff
Randy Orton
Kevin Owens
C.M. Punk
Roman Reigns
Cody Rhodes
Trish Stratus
Rick & Scott Steiner
Jimmy & Jey Uso
Sid Vicious
Bray Wyatt
Sami Zayn

JAPAN (Four max)

Cima
Satoshi Kojima & Hiroyoshi Tenzan
Yoshiaki Fujiwara
Hayabusa
Antonio Inoki & Seiji Sakaguchi
Kento Miyahara
Zack Sabre Jr.
Meiko Satomura
Tiger Jeet Singh
Shingo Takagi
Yoshihiro Takayama
Manami Toyota & Toshiyo Yamada

MEXICO (Four max)

Angel Blanco & Dr.Wagner
Sangre Chicana
Psycho Clown
El Dandy
Los Hermanos Dinamita (Cien Caras & Mascara Ano 2000 & Universo 2000)
Dorrell Dixon
Gran Hamada
El Hijo del Santo & Octagon
La Parka AAA
Huracan Ramirez
Mascarita Sagrada
Volador Jr.

EUROPE/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND/PACIFIC ISLANDS/AFRICA (Three max)

Spyros Arion
Dominic DeNucci
George Gordienko
Billy Joyce
Killer Karl Kox
The Royal Brothers (Bert Royal & Vic Faulkner)
Johnny Saint
Adrian Street
Jose Tarres
Otto Wanz

NON-WRESTLERS (Seven max)

Dave Brown (U.S. & Canada modern)
Zane resoff (U.S.& Canada modern)
Bobby Bruns (Japan)
Bob Caudle (U.S. & Canada historical)
Bobby Davis (U.S. & Canada historical)
Joe Higuchi (Japan)
Jim Johnston (U.S. & Canada modern)
Larry Matysik (U.S.& Canada historical)
James Melby (U.S. & Canada historical)
Rossy Ogawa (Japan)
Reggie Parks (U.S. & Canada modern)
Morris Sigel (U.S. & Canada historical)
Tony Schiavone (U.S. & Canada modern)
George Scott (U.S. & Canada historical)
Kevin Sullivan (U.S. & Canada historical)
Mike Tenay (U.S. & Canada modern)
Ted Turner (U.S. & Canada modern)
Roy Welch (U.S. & Canada historical)
Stanley Weston (U.S. & Canada historical)
Grand Wizard (U.S & Canada historical)
Koichi Yoshizawa (Japan)

[ethantyler]

I consider Bobby Davis to be the strongest candidate on the entire ballot and have uploaded a timeline of his career, attendance data (5k+), and newspaper archives that talk about what kind of a manager he was here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ntw9DNyscIxo0tNx5nFcC6P1J3mmeERq?usp=sharing

Summary:
Drawing - managed the no.1 draw in the business for 3 years (highest peak of any manager in history), managed 4 different top-10 draws across ~6 years, overall longevity-on-top ~7 years.

Ability - HOF-level. The best of his era, one of the best of all time. Overall longevity of work ~8.5 years.

Positive historic significance - HOF-level. The blueprint for a TV-era heel manager. At a minimum, direct influence on Ernie Roth, Bobby Heenan (HOFer) and Gary Hart (HOFer). At a minimum, indirect influence on Jim Cornette (HOFer), and Paul Heyman (HOFer) who are both on record admitting this.

The foundation he laid is still alive in 2024 with Heyman, but the name of the man has been long forgotten. 4th year on the ballot, I hope we correct that this year.

[JNLister]

I know it's just because of a mainly-objective date criteria (and will resolve itself in a couple of years), but Paul Orndorff so clearly looks in the wrong group for comparisons there. 

[Control21]

Another year, another ballot Yoshiaki Fujiwara will probably miss for reasons only known to God.

[sek69]

Any UK folks or britwres aficionados here know if Johnny Saint is HOF level? That's one area that's been a blind spot in my fandom but considering he's one of the few UK names that people in the US have even heard of makes me think there must be good reason for that. 

I know its hard for lucha guys to get in, but the Dinamitas and Dorrell Dixon not being in are especially puzzling.

[PeteF3]

I feel like Saint's a HOFer on influence. Even though George Kidd was a TV pioneer of the style, Saint's the one whose tapes were studied and the one most closely associated with British wrestling spots elsewhere in the world.

[El McKell]

18 hours ago, Control21 said:

Another year, another ballot Yoshiaki Fujiwara will probably miss for reasons only known to God.

Not a big enough star, historical impact case is strong but not enough on it's own, not a great performer (I know there's plenty of people here who disagree but there's not enough people who think he is some great worker)  

[ethantyler]

16 hours ago, sek69 said:

Any UK folks or britwres aficionados here know if Johnny Saint is HOF level? That's one area that's been a blind spot in my fandom but considering he's one of the few UK names that people in the US have even heard of makes me think there must be good reason for that. 

I know its hard for lucha guys to get in, but the Dinamitas and Dorrell Dixon not being in are especially puzzling.

I ranked Saint 7th out of 10 in that section. He was never a draw/main event talent, so his case is all about work (HOF-level for me) and historic significance. The latter I perceived to be no more than "good". His influence is mostly indie level, which isn't HOF-level under any circumstances. How he stacks up vs the competition: 

Jose Tarres was a HOF-level draw, the biggest star in Spain's history (stadium sized crowds), one of the biggest star's in Europe's history (top-10 all time for sure), but not much of a wrestler. Kills Saint in 2/3 categories and has every objective advantage over him. Is Saint's in-ring advantage strong enough to overcome all of that?
George Gordienko was a great draw outside of North America, a perennial headliner throughout the 60s into the mid-70s, and considered arguably the greatest heavyweight wrestler of his era. Saint's only advantage here is maybe historical significance via influence. Is that enough to counter the massive drawing power & longevity-on-top gap? 
Billy Joyce wasn't much of a draw, was rarely one of the UK's top headliners, was considered a HOF-worker, and has great historical significance due to his direct influence on HOFers like Karl Gotch & Billy Robinson along with his role in the shooter lineage tree that meant a lot in that era (unlike today). I have no idea how you could rationally justify Saint > Joyce. Joyce drew more, headlined more, has more historic value, and no evidence to decipher the in-ring gap (if any) between them so....?
I also consider DeNucci, Arion, and the Royal Brothers to be stronger candidates than Saint. To be clear, I see these 6 candidates as vastly superior to Saint. It's not a particularly close contest from my perspective. 


Dinamitas always poll well and are expected to do so again this year. Agree with you re Dixon. He's the strongest candidate in Mexico by far for me, mostly due to his overwhelming historical case - which involves both Mexico & the US.

[Control21]

2 hours ago, El McKell said:

Not a big enough star, historical impact case is strong but not enough on it's own, not a great performer (I know there's plenty of people here who disagree but there's not enough people who think he is some great worker)  

Well, that's just flat out wrong but I'm not part of the "intelligentsia" so what do I know?

Read my piece from last year: https://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2023/10/25/won-hof-2023-the-case-for-yoshiaki-fujiwara/

[PeteF3]

I love Fujiwara as much as any PWO poster but there are definitely longtime Observer voters who would be confused (not even shocked, just confused) at the suggestion that he's a top-10 or even top-50 worker all-time. He wasn't disliked or anything but neither Dave nor a lot of his readers see him the same way a lot of us do.

Gordienko...man, the rep is there, but I thought I struck the motherlode on getting early-'70s Grand Prix footage of him and he showed me *nothing.* Not as an interview, not as a personality, not as a worker. It was at the end of his career and he was maybe miscast as a heel, but it was the most disappointing "find" in my personal wrestling footage-collecting hobby probably ever. It certainly casts doubt that he was a major name into the "mid-'70s" though because he looks pretty washed-up by 1972-73.

[ethantyler]

45 minutes ago, PeteF3 said:

Gordienko...man, the rep is there, but I thought I struck the motherlode on getting early-'70s Grand Prix footage of him and he showed me *nothing.* Not as an interview, not as a personality, not as a worker. It was at the end of his career and he was maybe miscast as a heel, but it was the most disappointing "find" in my personal wrestling footage-collecting hobby probably ever. It certainly casts doubt that he was a major name into the "mid-'70s" though because he looks pretty washed-up by 1972-73.

He headlined a 50,000 capacity stadium show against Dara Singh, the biggest star in India's history, in 1975. Billed as "Firpo Zbyszco", out to avenge the loss suffered by his "uncle" Stanislaus Zbyszko at the hands of the Great Gama more than half a century earlier. We don't have attendance data, but it drew well enough that they repeated it in Namibia (small, wealthy, Indian population) later in the year. Singh actually invited Gordienko back for a 3rd round in 1976, but he had retired by that point. All of this indicates that he was still a major name in the mid-70s, but not in North America. He was never, actually, a major name in North America. Hence his placement in the Rest of the World section.  

Physically yes, he was done by the early 70s. My evidence for that is the anecdotal reports from fans & wrestlers who had nothing but the upmost respect for him - no reason for these folks to lie. Born in 1928, started wrestling in 1946, in-ring peak I'd guesstimate to be somewhere around the mid 50s - late 60s. My grandfather raved about seeing him live here in the UK during the 60s. As did most UK fans of that era. Along with Japanese fans who saw him vs Billy Robinson in Japan 1968, or Canadian fans who saw him vs Dory Funk Jr in 1969, etc. No doubt in my mind that he was a HOF-level talent during his prime.

[InYourCase]

Myself and Mike Spears did 90 minutes on Gran Hamada with The Cubs Fan. We went through his entire career, including his impressive and often unheralded drawing record in Mexico, contextualized his influence and how it's still seen in modern-day wrestling, and ripped through a bunch of great Hamada match recommendations. If you're considering voting in the Mexico region, or just like wrestling history, I would highly recommend. 

  

[DylanZero]

Hey everyone, I had my show running down the whole ballot with special focus on Japan, but debates were had on plenty of other candidates as well, just some discussions and thought process and me trying to get Takayama, Fujiwara and Pampero Firpo more of a look.

Eastern Lariat Special: 2024 WON Hall of Fame Show (w/Special Guest - HOF Voter Gerard di Trolio)

[Control21]

21 hours ago, DylanZero said:

Hey everyone, I had my show running down the whole ballot with special focus on Japan, but debates were had on plenty of other candidates as well, just some discussions and thought process and me trying to get Takayama, Fujiwara and Pampero Firpo more of a look.

Eastern Lariat Special: 2024 WON Hall of Fame Show (w/Special Guest - HOF Voter Gerard di Trolio)

Great listen. It's very frustrating that Takayama and Fujiwara seem to carry a certain stigma with WON HOF voters and the 'researchers' that drive the discussion around it these days. Ishii is in, Shingo is likely getting in this year.....if those two guys are in and Fujiwara/Takayama are still unworthy, all you can do is shake your head I guess.

[DylanZero]

1 hour ago, Control21 said:

Great listen. It's very frustrating that Takayama and Fujiwara seem to carry a certain stigma with WON HOF voters and the 'researchers' that drive the discussion around it these days. Ishii is in, Shingo is likely getting in this year.....if those two guys are in and Fujiwara/Takayama are still unworthy, all you can do is shake your head I guess.

I just hate that we're even talking about these active guys. I'm certain a majority of people here would all agree that the Hall would be immediately improved significantly by raising the age minimum to where people could be judged against their contemporary players rather than someone from a totally different generation with way different standards of stardom and drawing circumstances. I mentioned it on the show, for years Hayabusa was talked about as a failed draw because of how things dropped after Onita left or our favorite Fujiwara has been talked down as a draw despite his success through the second half of the 80s. But if you compare them to these new guys put on the ballot they're galaxies ahead. How can Shingo be hailed as a YES on drawing but in the same scene we talk down on Fujiwara? I'm not buying it. And on top of it how we do know how significant historically any modern guy would be because there's no history to see.

 

I think if we were to leave things as they are because Dave thinks it's better to vote for people while they're active that's fine. What about separation of modern and historical candidates for Japan the same way as they do the US? I think that would at least give us a better context for these votes whether we agree or disagree with the votes or not.

[InYourCase]

5 hours ago, Control21 said:

Great listen. It's very frustrating that Takayama and Fujiwara seem to carry a certain stigma with WON HOF voters and the 'researchers' that drive the discussion around it these days. Ishii is in, Shingo is likely getting in this year.....if those two guys are in and Fujiwara/Takayama are still unworthy, all you can do is shake your head I guess.

Would love to hear some expanded thoughts on this. I love Takayama and I don't think he's a HOFer. I'm so tired of this Fujiwara discussion. He's not a HOFer. There's no metric in which he is. Shoot-style is at best, properly represented in the Hall, and likely, overrepresented. There's no metric of this Hall that Fujiwara outperforms Shingo in. Fujiwara has been on the ballot since 2016 and he's never finished about 40%. Is that the "researchers" fault? 

[DylanZero]

7 hours ago, InYourCase said:

Would love to hear some expanded thoughts on this. I love Takayama and I don't think he's a HOFer. I'm so tired of this Fujiwara discussion. He's not a HOFer. There's no metric in which he is. Shoot-style is at best, properly represented in the Hall, and likely, overrepresented. There's no metric of this Hall that Fujiwara outperforms Shingo in. Fujiwara has been on the ballot since 2016 and he's never finished about 40%. Is that the "researchers" fault? 

I said it on my show, we're all in a standoff on Fujiwara. Everyone's dug their heels in and he's become this lightning rod candidate and I think it enables people to go overboard on whatever side we happen to land on with him. I think the biggest flaw of the anti-Fujiwara folks are you have to ignore the people he had a hand in training to disparage his historical significance which should be universally considered very high, which is similar to Hamada which your very show and Cubs did a great job advocating for and I totally agree with him also being in the HOF for the record. The work level will always be subjective but it's why I can't knock Ishii personally even though he was significantly less of a star and vital to Puroresu history than a Fujiwara & Takayama in the grand scheme. 

 

Takayama is interesting because you yourself just wrote an article advocating for Samoa Joe and I feel they're actually somewhat similar candidates and you would be the guy to bring this up to as much as anyone when looking at them directly.

 

Both had a 3 year or so run where they were BITW level in-ring followed by a stark drop in quality. The difference is Joe went 15 years or so either doing stuff that was wholly unimpressive or actively bad. Gerard brought up his run in WWE as being better than I thought and when I asked which great matches he had to make him think that he didn't have any answer, and nobody would. Because there aren't any. Even now, he really needs the right opponent like Darby who is literally one of the best wrestlers alive to get something really memorable. He is one of the best promo guys and was even a great Commentator and that's why he was able to reinvent himself and that's admirable and why he's lasted as well as he has.

 

With Takayama there are multiple instances on tape of him having great performances as late as 2015 and he never dipped below being at least good until the tail end in DDT and was always actively effective in his role. Also even before his peak years he had NO FEAR as a team and Joe didn't have anything on that level before his breakthrough, and in general Takayama has a much deeper tag lineage and versatility both I that team and him and Suzuki which were a main event level act in 2004 and had a decent amount of hidden gems, I actually thought that may be the best and most consistent Minoru Suzuki has ever been was teaming with Takayama.

 

Also different even in their peak runs were Takayama was literally a top 5 star and most famous name in Japan during his time whereas Joe was a top 5 indie  name in a huge down period of wrestling overall. The one time he ever has felt like a top top guy in US wrestling overall was the Brock feud which of course they totally fumbled after. Joe did stabilize AEW after the disastrous Cole/MJF run which could be akin to Tak raising business a bit in AJPW after the goofy stuff Muto was doing in 08/09. Also as I mentioned, this isn't an opinion but something that we know is true based on historical precedent all the way up to the aforementioned Brock, which is MMA has ALWAYS counted for the WON which Takayama also has in his back pocket over not just Joe but virtually every candidate in terms of historical significance which we still see parodied to this day 20 years later.

 

And I love Joe BTW and you could argue his run at the top up until around 2008 or so was all time great and he was one of my favorites. But I just think Takayama when compared directly as a similar short peak type of candidate would win out.

[ethantyler]

I ranked Fujiwara 5th in the Japan section this year. Great worker, very good historic significance, and has something to offer in drawing power as a key rival to HOF-draws. Despite being a fan, I don't see him as HOF-level in any category, which is why I described him as a Hall of Very Good candidate on WOR. It's not a derogatory term even if some folks took it that way. 

Some friendly advice to Eric/Control21: if your goal is to convince voters to pull the trigger on Fujiwara, or anyone else you're advocating for, spend far less time questioning our credentials and more emphasizing the candidate's credentials. You could learn a lot from Dylan's approach in that regard.       

[InYourCase]

2 hours ago, DylanZero said:

I said it on my show, we're all in a standoff on Fujiwara. Everyone's dug their heels in and he's become this lightning rod candidate and I think it enables people to go overboard on whatever side we happen to land on with him. I think the biggest flaw of the anti-Fujiwara folks are you have to ignore the people he had a hand in training to disparage his historical significance which should be universally considered very high, which is similar to Hamada which your very show and Cubs did a great job advocating for and I totally agree with him also being in the HOF for the record. The work level will always be subjective but it's why I can't knock Ishii personally even though he was significantly less of a star and vital to Puroresu history than a Fujiwara & Takayama in the grand scheme. 

 

Takayama is interesting because you yourself just wrote an article advocating for Samoa Joe and I feel they're actually somewhat similar candidates and you would be the guy to bring this up to as much as anyone when looking at them directly.

 

Both had a 3 year or so run where they were BITW level in-ring followed by a stark drop in quality. The difference is Joe went 15 years or so either doing stuff that was wholly unimpressive or actively bad. Gerard brought up his run in WWE as being better than I thought and when I asked which great matches he had to make him think that he didn't have any answer, and nobody would. Because there aren't any. Even now, he really needs the right opponent like Darby who is literally one of the best wrestlers alive to get something really memorable. He is one of the best promo guys and was even a great Commentator and that's why he was able to reinvent himself and that's admirable and why he's lasted as well as he has.

 

With Takayama there are multiple instances on tape of him having great performances as late as 2015 and he never dipped below being at least good until the tail end in DDT and was always actively effective in his role. Also even before his peak years he had NO FEAR as a team and Joe didn't have anything on that level before his breakthrough, and in general Takayama has a much deeper tag lineage and versatility both I that team and him and Suzuki which were a main event level act in 2004 and had a decent amount of hidden gems, I actually thought that may be the best and most consistent Minoru Suzuki has ever been was teaming with Takayama.

 

Also different even in their peak runs were Takayama was literally a top 5 star and most famous name in Japan during his time whereas Joe was a top 5 indie  name in a huge down period of wrestling overall. The one time he ever has felt like a top top guy in US wrestling overall was the Brock feud which of course they totally fumbled after. Joe did stabilize AEW after the disastrous Cole/MJF run which could be akin to Tak raising business a bit in AJPW after the goofy stuff Muto was doing in 08/09. Also as I mentioned, this isn't an opinion but something that we know is true based on historical precedent all the way up to the aforementioned Brock, which is MMA has ALWAYS counted for the WON which Takayama also has in his back pocket over not just Joe but virtually every candidate in terms of historical significance which we still see parodied to this day 20 years later.

 

And I love Joe BTW and you could argue his run at the top up until around 2008 or so was all time great and he was one of my favorites. But I just think Takayama when compared directly as a similar short peak type of candidate would win out.

I don't get put off by people voting for Fujiwara, but I am put off by the idea that somehow the voting base isn't doing the right kind of research and that's why Fujiwara isn't in, which I felt like the comment I was replying to was saying. I've always found your Fujiwara stance to be compelling, even if I ultimately disagree. 

It's funny you mention the Joe comp because I had a few paragraphs in there originally about how he's similar to Takayama, but I took them out because I couldn't figure out exactly what I was trying to say. Takayama raising business in All Japan is an interesting point that I admittedly hadn't thought of. I want to dig into some of that now. I think Joe's 2010's are more of a positive than you do (I reference his brief ROH return in 2015 in my article, I love all of those matches). I like his NXT run (and I think those house show numbers I highlighted are really impressive), I like the Brock match and love the four-way at Summerslam, and I think he's been kind of awesome in AEW. He's probably not someone I would consider voting for without this AEW run, but when I realized that he'd be pushed to the top in literally every promotion that used him in any real way, I started thinking he had a real case. 

In my head, I've always hand-waved 2010's Takayama. That might be wrong of me, though. The last great match that I remember him having was the tag with KENTA vs. Sugiura & Tanaka in 2014, which was GREAT. The MiSu title match in 2015 I enjoyed as a car crash spectacle, more than anything. 

So in short, I think you're right, Joe and Takayama are very similar. The difference is that I think Joe stayed relevant for a longer period of time, and I think ROH has been unfairly (or perhaps unknowingly) shafted over the last few years.

[Ma Stump Puller]

I don't invest much into these sort of things but the idea of Takayama not being a HoF-guy is legit baffling to me tbh, not to knock anyone in particular (we all have our blind-spots!) Guy was one of the few who was could be stuck as a legitimate top star in all three mainline promotions and his peak was pretty much him having good to great to ground-shattering epic matches with pretty much everyone. Even his UWF stuff (which is usually overlooked) has a bunch of solid material that proves he could've been successful down that road as well as a rampaging knee-throwing monster. Shit even his AJPW stint has a bunch of matches that any contender would be happy to have on their resume. 

I've talked about late-Takayama before in detail but I do want to say that he doesn't have a REALLY bad decline in terms of match quality. He just goes from a insane peak to being more varied. I likened him to a late-stage character actor before; he's someone who relies more on the classical psychology of a giant than being the freak of nature that he was before; more of a oddity who's about filling in and getting work out of being able to play all sorts of roles regardless of condition or opponent. It allows him to do a silly comedy bout with a Inoki impersonator the one week, do a freakshow match with a green ex-MMA guy the next, fight in a dingy basement floor covered in chains as a sleazy enforcer after, then pop in to fight Tiger Mask in a dream match and then somehow also be a big main event hoss all at the same time without losing any face. He had legendarily high levels of variety in him; I even seen him recently on a old 2009 AJPW house show taping where half of his moves were just dropkicking people! There is a wealth of great work there for the guy and it absolutely warrants a deep analysis by anyone interested.

 

[DylanZero]

6 hours ago, ethantyler said:

I ranked Fujiwara 5th in the Japan section this year. Great worker, very good historic significance, and has something to offer in drawing power as a key rival to HOF-draws. Despite being a fan, I don't see him as HOF-level in any category, which is why I described him as a Hall of Very Good candidate on WOR. It's not a derogatory term even if some folks took it that way. 

Some friendly advice to Eric/Control21: if your goal is to convince voters to pull the trigger on Fujiwara, or anyone else you're advocating for, spend far less time questioning our credentials and more emphasizing the candidate's credentials. You could learn a lot from Dylan's approach in that regard.       

I can say this, when I put the show up with Gerard a whole host of people got ahold of his anti-Takayama in the HOF article and were really upset, dismissive and mean spirited about it and that sucked and wasn't what I want ever. I didn't say "f you" because that's lazy and easy. I had a platform and let him speak on it and heard his side out. I had Case on the very first year he got a ballot and we had a wonderful conversation even if we disagreed on some things. Eric was significantly more respectful than those types of people who were going at Gerard (and VOW since that's also a lightning rod in and of itself) and anyone can see even just through his cagematch reviews how legit his knowledge base is and how deep he goes. I get that comment was pointed a bit against non-voters but as I said Fujiwara is a lightning rod candidate and also I think seeing these modern guys get in when the same standards are not being held for them in terms of star power/legacy (you can argue they shouldn't be due to context, it's a different conversation entirely) that it's easy to think that and want to stand up that much taller, same for anti-Fujiwara in HOF people in response and it creates a loop that isn't necessary. And I'll say this. I totally agree with him that there are some people voting in this HOF who shouldn't be and I would get rid of, but it doesn't have anything to do with Fujiwara and it isn't anyone who loves wrestling and cares enough to do hours of research, write articles and appear on worldwide media shows to talk about it AND goes to PWO which we all presumably have spent hours and hours on over the years, which includes every person in this conversation right now.

 

4 hours ago, InYourCase said:

I don't get put off by people voting for Fujiwara, but I am put off by the idea that somehow the voting base isn't doing the right kind of research and that's why Fujiwara isn't in, which I felt like the comment I was replying to was saying. I've always found your Fujiwara stance to be compelling, even if I ultimately disagree. 

It's funny you mention the Joe comp because I had a few paragraphs in there originally about how he's similar to Takayama, but I took them out because I couldn't figure out exactly what I was trying to say. Takayama raising business in All Japan is an interesting point that I admittedly hadn't thought of. I want to dig into some of that now. I think Joe's 2010's are more of a positive than you do (I reference his brief ROH return in 2015 in my article, I love all of those matches). I like his NXT run (and I think those house show numbers I highlighted are really impressive), I like the Brock match and love the four-way at Summerslam, and I think he's been kind of awesome in AEW. He's probably not someone I would consider voting for without this AEW run, but when I realized that he'd be pushed to the top in literally every promotion that used him in any real way, I started thinking he had a real case. 

In my head, I've always hand-waved 2010's Takayama. That might be wrong of me, though. The last great match that I remember him having was the tag with KENTA vs. Sugiura & Tanaka in 2014, which was GREAT. The MiSu title match in 2015 I enjoyed as a car crash spectacle, more than anything. 

So in short, I think you're right, Joe and Takayama are very similar. The difference is that I think Joe stayed relevant for a longer period of time, and I think ROH has been unfairly (or perhaps unknowingly) shafted over the last few years.

As I said, lightning rod candidate, things get testy, I get it. We'll see if this is the year he makes a jump. I think it's tough with no new info available, unless Dave himself suddenly goes back and is like "whoa all these Fujiwara matches in the 80s were amazing". I also think one thing that is underdiscussed is his rivalry with Super Tiger which to me is among the best in-ring rivalries of at least the 80s and significantly better than the far more influential and hailed Dynamite matches. I know that's subjective and I think Ethan's round up of him being Hall of Very Good is fair and I actually agree in terms of his drawing record that his ideal role is as "the opponent to the guy" rather than the guy. Which is valuable in real life but also not a yes as a HOF worthy, he just isn't a zero like some people say. My argument is certainly much more for in-ring plus historical. 

 

As far as Takayama, I looked up Joe's cagematch and it's anecdotal I know but he's had 11 matches rated 8 or above from 2010 to now, and that includes Rumbles and Elimination Chamber. That's a pretty damning to me, he has had a ton of opportunities in 14 years, there were long stretches of Takayama's career that never even made tape and I could probably come up with 10 great matches he's had outside of his peak. And as a draw like I said, he had one main event feud against Brock, it lasted like 2 months? I definitely loved the 4 way, the Brock match I remember being a flop but admittedly I haven't seen it in awhile and I don't like Brock then very much. AEW I respect his work and he's one of the greatest mic workers in the world. And I loved his ROH stuff and if it were an indie Hall of Fame he would be a first ballot induction. But in a comparison to Takayama (and even Fujiwara for that matter) we're forced to compare big ROH & TNA shows to men who main evented shows that sold over 40k+ tickets in the Dome and in Takayama's case was literally one of the absolute top stars in his country at his peak. How can I reasonably say Joe should be ranked above people like that as a draw? I'm willing to hear a context-based argument but I just think Tak is a super version of Joe, I just think there's more emotional resonance as Americans towards Joe and his great work especially when it comes to his mic work which I certainly would rank him as a top 5 one and has been for better than half a decade.

[KinchStalker]

It's neat that Yoshizawa got into the non-performer nominations, but I would give the nod to Kosuke Takeuchi before him. Yoshizawa was the reporter who really helped get Gong going, but Takeuchi ~was~ Gong. But the whole history of puro journalism is not well-known to voters. I'd put Tarzan in the hall myself, for pimping shoot-style (including pretty much writing Sayama's Kayfabe) and then acting as a creative consultant to All Japan.

[fxnj]

Is the Fujiwara/Sayama rivalry really a hidden gem to voters? Thought that was one of the key parts of his career and shoot style as a whole.

[Bix]

On 10/31/2024 at 3:29 AM, KinchStalker said:

It's neat that Yoshizawa got into the non-performer nominations, but I would give the nod to Kosuke Takeuchi before him. Yoshizawa was the reporter who really helped get Gong going, but Takeuchi ~was~ Gong. But the whole history of puro journalism is not well-known to voters. I'd put Tarzan in the hall myself, for pimping shoot-style (including pretty much writing Sayama's Kayfabe) and then acting as a creative consultant to All Japan.

That's not really supposed to be Yoshizawa's case. If you haven't, you should definitely listen to the show that Meltzer and Tenay did last year after he passed. The short version is that he was pretty much the sole conduit for Japanese news (and contextualizing it) to the U.S. fanbase, via both the magazines and the bulletins/newsletters/fanzines, and also served a similar role in bringing American news to Japan. It's not a huge exaggeration to say that if not for Koichi Yoshizawa, the amount of Japanese wrestling information available in English before we started diversifying to non-Observer sources in the last 15-20 years would be virtually nonexistent.

[KinchStalker]

Ah, I haven't listened to that. I knew of his importance in improving the quality of Gong's coverage. Before he joined, they were just making up shit like "Mil Máscaras is a disfigured tailor named Miguel Morales". But there is absolutely merit in the role you describe. I admit I haven't subscribed to the Observer in years, but when I take the plunge next time I'll check that show out.