2007 Wrestling Observer Awards

[jdw]

Graham's at least a legit HOFer.

Not really.

 

 

John

[Al]

Graham's at least a legit HOFer.

Not really.

 

 

John

 

I'd say there are others who are much less deserving who are in. If you want the analogy route, Graham is the Dizzy Dean of the Hall, a popular guy who got in despite a short career because of a couple hot years.

[JHawk]

Graham's at least a legit HOFer.

Not really.

 

 

John

 

I'd say there are others who are much less deserving who are in. If you want the analogy route, Graham is the Dizzy Dean of the Hall, a popular guy who got in despite a short career because of a couple hot years.

 

Graham got in largely because he could draw money, although he sucked hard in the ring. The knock on Backlund was that a lot of the houses he drew had really strong undercards (which is kind of a circular argument, because then you could turn around and say the reason Nash didn't draw as WWF champion was because the undercards sucked) and he didn't have enough charisma to draw a house on his own.

[tomk]

So I said that Dave's whinning and explaining were more laughable this year than last.

 

But then I looked at last years.

 

Dave Dave using Ole talking points was pretty damn funny "Cena can't draw in the same place week after week".

 

Still this years was exponentially funnier.

[jdw]

I'd say there are others who are much less deserving who are in. If you want the analogy route, Graham is the Dizzy Dean of the Hall, a popular guy who got in despite a short career because of a couple hot years.

I'm not a big fan of the "there are worse in" argument. It basically means anyone better than the worst person in the HOF deservers to be in. That's a problem.

 

 

Graham got in largely because he could draw money, although he sucked hard in the ring.

Graham's drawing power had less to do with him getting in that would now seem 11+ years after the fact. The MSG book wasn't out, and the pimping of Graham as a great draw wasn't then what it would become.

 

Graham's "impact" relating to juice and bodying building in wrestling had more to do with it.

 

 

The knock on Backlund was that a lot of the houses he drew had really strong undercards (which is kind of a circular argument, because then you could turn around and say the reason Nash didn't draw as WWF champion was because the undercards sucked) and he didn't have enough charisma to draw a house on his own.

I think the real reason the argument is circular is that people don't slow down to look at the cards of Graham in contrast to Backlund.

 

John

[Al]

I'm not a big fan of the "there are worse in" argument. It basically means anyone better than the worst person in the HOF deservers to be in. That's a problem.

I certainly agree with that point actually.

 

I think though that if you have a Hall of Fame, wrestlers get points for historical impact. Graham more or less ushered in a new type of professional wrestler. He is one of the more recognizable faces in professional wrestling, and one of the top heels of the 1970s. John Molinaro and co. in their book ranked him 64th in professional wrestling history. To put this all in perspective, the Observer Hall currently holds 200 names, about 100 of which are North American professional wrestlers (excluding Mexico). Is Graham one of the 100 most important wrestlers in American wrestling history? I wouldn't think that statement is a stretch in the slightest.

 

You can argue that Superstar Graham is overrated, certainly. I would even concede that. But I can't see downgrading him to the point of taking him out of Hall of Fame consideration. If you put him up for the vote today, he would easily clear 60%.

[sek69]

As far as this year's awards go, is it just me or was Dave really weirdly emo about the placements he didn't like, especially when it came to TNA winning worst TV show? Whining that a few weeks of one bad feud made ECW the worst and how TNA must be better because its ratings went up a little and ECW's went down a lot was strange and out of place.

His response paragraphs were really embarrasing this year. I mean last year I don't remember them being as laugh out loud funny. Not just emo in the sense that he came off genuinely emotionally hurt that "the wrong guy won" but in the contradictions form one response to the next (this time comparing apples to oranges means we shouldn't compare them, this time it means we've compared them incorrectly), the abolutely nut ball arguments about why voters were wrong about most overrated or underrated, how he thought international expansion was reason that Vince was candidate for best promoter, that Tenay and Styles low votes as best announcer were due to bad product, the whole TNA vs. ECW thing, etc etc.

 

And EMLL having a better year in 2007 then 20006?

 

Each response brought more laughs than the last.

 

 

Agreed, some of Dave's responses were almost "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!" level. What was funniest to me is that most of the voting seemed to reflect what Dave was pushing all year (ROH winning best show, TNA getting all the "Worst..." awards) and then having him turn around and tell people that they should have voted for so-and-so instead.

[jdw]

I think though that if you have a Hall of Fame, wrestlers get points for historical impact. Graham more or less ushered in a new type of professional wrestler. He is one of the more recognizable faces in professional wrestling, and one of the top heels of the 1970s. John Molinaro and co. in their book ranked him 64th in professional wrestling history.

The Molinaro book is a joke. I think pretty much everyone, other than those involved in doing the book and those who are locked into defending it, admit that. So Graham being #64 there doesn't mean a great deal.

 

 

To put this all in perspective, the Observer Hall currently holds 200 names, about 100 of which are North American professional wrestlers (excluding Mexico). Is Graham one of the 100 most important wrestlers in American wrestling history? I wouldn't think that statement is a stretch in the slightest.

The thing is, the 100 NA wrestlers in the WON HOF are the "100 Most Important" NA Wrestlers. Honestly... Rick Steamboat isn't that important of a wrestler. But he's in. Benoit wasn't an important wrestler when he went in. I don't think Kurt Angle was terribly important when he went in. Etc.

 

Importance/impact are just one of the criteria. Graham's relates to juice, but it's one he shares with a number of wrestlers from Hogan to Kerry to the Road Warriors to the Ultimate Warrior as things evolved. How do your spread it among those people? I don't know. But each of them, along with probably a few others on a lower level, had enough significant impact that you can't simply give Graham 100% of the "juice impact" bonus points for the HOF.

 

It's similar to people who try to give Michaels 100% of the "smaller guys getting pushed" points... then giving Rey a big chunk... and Bret a big chunk... and Benoit & Eddy a big chunk, etc.

 

 

You can argue that Superstar Graham is overrated, certainly. I would even concede that. But I can't see downgrading him to the point of taking him out of Hall of Fame consideration. If you put him up for the vote today, he would easily clear 60%.

I have no doubt he would get 60% now simply from all the pimping of him that Dave has done.

 

That doesn't make it "correct". Don't forget that Dave seems to think Akira Maeda wouldn't get 60% from his own voters now. That threshold doesn't exactly define good analysis.

 

 

John

[Guest KCook]

This issue was indeed incredibly bizarre, especially his hard on for Rampage. "Well, if you're impressed by a one-punch knockout of UFC's most popular and perhaps best fighter in one of the biggest money fights the company's ever had, and a grueling five round decision over an Olympian who held world titles in two weight classes at the same time in the most-watched serious fight in American MMA history, then I guess you probably think Quinton Jackson had an impressive year. Me, I like Clay Guida."

[Al]

JDW,

 

I won't quote the whole response as it gets unwieldy to read in that fashion. What it comes down to as a Hall of Famer in any sport is what the person did that separates them from the pack. There is no set criteria for a wrestling Hall of Fame. But if a person distinguishes themselves as a worker (as Ricky Steamboat did), or in some other fashion, that makes them a Hall of Famer (assuming of course the change is positive for the business).

 

You bring up the steroids/juice/bodybuilding aspect. That's a bit simplistic, Hulk Hogan got over thanks to Rocky III while the Road Warriors got over by not selling anything for nearly a decade. I am certain there were other "physique guys" before Graham. But Graham wasn't just a guy who juiced and got over. He excelled at delivering promos and while his matches weren't classics, they were watchable. He is probably one of the most charismatic wrestlers ever. The only legit knock on him when it comes to his candidacy was that his prime was so short, he dropped off the radar after dropping the belt and he deteriorated at alarming speed in the 1980s.

 

The argument in my mind really comes down to how much reputation counts in a Hall of Fame argument. If you buy the "Fame" part, Graham's an easy choice. You may find his candidacy weak when you break it down, and if you were to develop a sort of alternative "Hall of Merit," Graham might not rank.

[S.L.L.]

The argument in my mind really comes down to how much reputation counts in a Hall of Fame argument. If you buy the "Fame" part, Graham's an easy choice. You may find his candidacy weak when you break it down, and if you were to develop a sort of alternative "Hall of Merit," Graham might not rank.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on Graham's HOF candidacy. But I always felt it was a mistake to put too much emphasis on the "Fame" in "Hall of Fame". It always seems to be applied selectively, too. George "The Animal" Steele is more famous than a good 3/4 of the guys in the Hall - possibly including Superstar Graham - but I don't think anyone would seriously consider him for induction. "Hall of Fame" is pretty obviously meant to be a figurative term that actually refers to a "Hall of Merit", otherwise one kind of wonders how people like King Kong Bundy and Captain Lou Albano are kept out while Diablo Velazco and Bert Asserati get in. I mean, the WON HOF doesn't have an actual "Hall", either, but none of us see anything odd about that.

[jdw]

What it comes down to as a Hall of Famer in any sport is what the person did that separates them from the pack. There is no set criteria for a wrestling Hall of Fame. But if a person distinguishes themselves as a worker (as Ricky Steamboat did), or in some other fashion, that makes them a Hall of Famer (assuming of course the change is positive for the business).

I don't disagree with that. What I would add to it would be just how significant that separation from the pack is.

 

Kevin Mitchell separated himself from the baseball pack - he won an MVP. Of the 1000 or so players who were in major league baseball in 1989, how many ever won an MVP? 10%? 5%? 2%? Of the people who've played in MLB during and since 1931 when the MVP's became a permanent annual tradition, how many folks have won it. 1% of all players? 0.5% of all players?

 

It's something that goes up on the board and stays there forever.

 

Is he a reasonable HOF candidate? Not at all.

 

So it's not *just* that a person distingushed themselves in an area. It's just how much they did, and how it rates next to others who distingushed themselves, the context, etc.

 

 

You bring up the steroids/juice/bodybuilding aspect. That's a bit simplistic, Hulk Hogan got over thanks to Rocky III

I think as other people have often pointed out, Hogan was over before Rocky III came out on May 28, 1982. In fact, he had a rather big and famous match against Bockwinkle before that.

 

Hogan was over back in 1980 in the WWF. They could have turned him face at that point and he would have been a megastar.

 

 

while the Road Warriors got over by not selling anything for nearly a decade.

The Road Warriors didn't get over after a decade of no selling.

 

The got over almost instantly because of their *look*. And kept getting over because of it. In promotion after promotion. The Warriors were usually over *before* they ever stepped foot in a promotion. They were over in the AWA before they got there. They were over big in Japan before their first tour. They were over in Crockett before they showed up. Look and hype.

 

I am certain there were other "physique guys" before Graham. But Graham wasn't just a guy who juiced and got over. He excelled at delivering promos

His promos have to be the most overrated of all time. Compare his promos on his DVD (which had to be the best the WWE could turn up since they were trying to make him look like a king) with those by Dusty in the 70s on his WWE DVD. They are not even remotely close. Graham was just babbling nonsense. Dusty, while rambling for a long time, had the ability to pulling himself back in and tie everything up into the points he was making. The one he does with Vince in the empty arena is simply amazing.

 

Note: I always have hated Dusty. If I would, I'd like to give him zero credit for anything in his career. But I can't. So when I say that his interview ran circles around Superstars and Billy's were sucky messes, it's not because I love Dusty. I really don't care to put him over.

 

I'm sure Bix could pop in here to tell you how Lawler as well would run circles around Graham... and not even when cherry picking Jerry's best like they did for Billy's DVD. Jerry in a throwaway mic spot out there with Lance Russell would do a spot on job of getting over this weeks match, the opponent, and why people needed to come out to see it. Rather than rambling on and on in a coke stupor about the 24 inch pythons. Hell, I suspect Bix could tell you that Bill Dunde from that era could smoke Billy on the mic like a cheap cigar.

 

and while his matches weren't classics, they were watchable.

No... really... they were dogshit. The next watchable Superstar match that I watch will be the first. They're terrible.

 

 

He is probably one of the most charismatic wrestlers ever.

One of the 10 most charismatic? I don't think so.

 

One of the 20? 50? I just don't think he was that earth shattering in terms of charisma, especially when you don't tie it to juice-related charisma.

 

 

The only legit knock on him when it comes to his candidacy was that his prime was so short, he dropped off the radar after dropping the belt and he deteriorated at alarming speed in the 1980s.

I think the knocks are:

 

* he was a shitty worker

 

* his prime on top was short

 

* his prime on top in MSG is overrated because he was working opposite Bruno, Dusty, Mil and Bob. When he wasn't, you'd have something like the Bruno-Patera blow off actually main eventing the card. There's are few shows other than those types of cards. Somehow, Superstar gets 100% of the credit for all that, which is ironic relative to his successor.

 

* his impact wasn't earth shattering. Not saying that it didn't exist, but he was more part of a trend that came to dominate wrestling more than five years after his prime run (and actually after he'd briefly come back not remotely in the same shape).

 

* his mic work was/is overrated

 

* he was given a golden spot - the first sustained heel "champ" in New York since Rogers from 6/30/61 - 5/17/63. Close to 15 years. It was a novelty watching top faces (Bruno, Dusty, Mil and finally the new star Backlund) line up to take the belt, with NY fans wondering if this would be the night... especially since Koloff and Stasiak didn't get past their *first* defense in New York. I'm not saying that was 100% of the reason he drew, as it wasn't. But his quality of opponents and the uniquing benefit of the context of his run _never_ get talked about when people are talking about the Greatness of The Superstar. Which again is ironic.

 

There almost certainly are more, but I'm running it into the ground. The point is that the criticism of Graham's candidacy isn't just limited to the shortness of his run.

 

 

The argument in my mind really comes down to how much reputation counts in a Hall of Fame argument. If you buy the "Fame" part, Graham's an easy choice.

I'm not even sure his fame is that great. So much of it frankly comes simply from being a champ in New York, and a rare heel one to boot.

 

 

John

[Al]

You make great points, I can not really dispute any of them. I don't think he's top half of the Hall, to me he sneaks in there somewhere.

[Bix]

while the Road Warriors got over by not selling anything for nearly a decade.

The Road Warriors didn't get over after a decade of no selling.

 

The got over almost instantly because of their *look*. And kept getting over because of it. In promotion after promotion. The Warriors were usually over *before* they ever stepped foot in a promotion. They were over in the AWA before they got there. They were over big in Japan before their first tour. They were over in Crockett before they showed up. Look and hype.

He stated it wrongly, but he's right about the no-selling bulldozer aspect of their appeal. Since they were on TBS, they were able to do a run as touring attractions.

 

I am certain there were other "physique guys" before Graham. But Graham wasn't just a guy who juiced and got over. He excelled at delivering promos

His promos have to be the most overrated of all time. Compare his promos on his DVD (which had to be the best the WWE could turn up since they were trying to make him look like a king) with those by Dusty in the 70s on his WWE DVD. They are not even remotely close. Graham was just babbling nonsense. Dusty, while rambling for a long time, had the ability to pulling himself back in and tie everything up into the points he was making. The one he does with Vince in the empty arena is simply amazing.

 

Note: I always have hated Dusty. If I would, I'd like to give him zero credit for anything in his career. But I can't. So when I say that his interview ran circles around Superstars and Billy's were sucky messes, it's not because I love Dusty. I really don't care to put him over.

I'd have to agree about the rambling. Check out this promo from the Watts reels, promoting his Superdome match with Dusty in July '78 (after he lost the WWWF title to Backlund):

 

It's amusing, and neat to see given the lack of McGuirk footage (even if it's a promo sent in from elsewhere), but it's a bunch of non-sequiturs that don't seem to have anything to do with the match.

 

A similar Dusty promo (sent to Memphis) from a couple years earlier:

 

While it's goofy as hell (the phone and 17 dancing go-go bears), he is able to hit all the right spots: He's coming to Memphis to wrestle Lawler to determine the top contender, he makes an Elvis reference for local flavor, and does his trademark bit about all of the races coming together to watch.

 

I'm sure Bix could pop in here to tell you how Lawler as well would run circles around Graham... and not even when cherry picking Jerry's best like they did for Billy's DVD. Jerry in a throwaway mic spot out there with Lance Russell would do a spot on job of getting over this weeks match, the opponent, and why people needed to come out to see it. Rather than rambling on and on in a coke stupor about the 24 inch pythons. Hell, I suspect Bix could tell you that Bill Dunde from that era could smoke Billy on the mic like a cheap cigar.

Pretty much. When watching Memphis footage, even in the bad periods, I tend to watch as much as I can of the Lawler (and Dundee) promos even if I skip other stuff from the feuds, because I love to see how he can make the most of everything, even when feuding with a dead-end like Tom Branch or working a World Title program with prelim guy King Cobra based on Lawler taking offense to King Cobra's name including "King" after Lawler won his lawsuit against the WWF over the deceptive Harley Race advertising (seriously, that's how they started the feud).

 

and while his matches weren't classics, they were watchable.

No... really... they were dogshit. The next watchable Superstar match that I watch will be the first. They're terrible.

I like the Dusty matches, but for Dusty, as it's neat to watch him try to carry things with charisma and schtick.

 

He is probably one of the most charismatic wrestlers ever.

One of the 10 most charismatic? I don't think so.

 

One of the 20? 50? I just don't think he was that earth shattering in terms of charisma, especially when you don't tie it to juice-related charisma.

A reprise of the "'80s brawlers better than Brody" discussion?

 

* his prime on top in MSG is overrated because he was working opposite Bruno, Dusty, Mil and Bob. When he wasn't, you'd have something like the Bruno-Patera blow off actually main eventing the card. There's are few shows other than those types of cards. Somehow, Superstar gets 100% of the credit for all that, which is ironic relative to his successor.

I'm surprised this isn't brought up more, since Graham getting a decent length reign allowed them to bring popular occasional guests Dusty & Mil as regulars in a fresh role as babyface challenger (and given how this went against the WWWF formula, fans may have been more inclined to expect a title change).

[Al]

I really do agree with that last point actually. Even guys like Chief Jay Strongbow and Ivan Putski could get title shots, and that gave the fans something different.

[Bix]

Ay Tom, we forgot "Kennedy must've gotten so many votes for Most Overrated because he made an ass of himself post-Benoit" before adding that Kennedy's a great promo (really? I mean seriously, really) and is in the right spot because of that.

 

We need to go back to the days of everyone commenting on their ballots.

[jdw]

He stated it wrongly, but he's right about the no-selling bulldozer aspect of their appeal. Since they were on TBS, they were able to do a run as touring attractions.

It had a role, but their look is what always got them over before they even no sold against opponents.

 

I actually think their no selling gets a little overplayed anyway. They were heels in GA, and actually got beat on occassions by teams that we *now* scratch our heads over. We also can say that they no sold for the Russians, but they actually would work Hawk-in-Peril or Animal-in-Peril sequences. Just not very effectively, other than building for a comeback.

 

To a degree the Steiners often had similar issues. They could work Scott-in-Peril or Rick-in-Peril, but they in the end weren't very good against most teams. No one really believed against most opponents that Scott or Rick were in trouble - they just had that aura of a super team that would wake up and suplext the opponents all over the place. And while they might be semi-game in trying to sell, it usually was pretty stiff in appearance. You don't have to be Terry Funk or Ricky Steamboat in selling... but even Hogan in his periods of selling conveyed being in "pain" better than Rick and Scott.

 

Hawk & Animal were the same. It's not that they didn't sell for the opponents, other than specific no-sell spots. It's just that no one really bought it after they went face.

 

I'd have to agree about the rambling. Check out this promo from the Watts reels, promoting his Superdome match with Dusty in July '78 (after he lost the WWWF title to Backlund):

 

It's amusing, and neat to see given the lack of McGuirk footage (even if it's a promo sent in from elsewhere), but it's a bunch of non-sequiturs that don't seem to have anything to do with the match.

 

A similar Dusty promo (sent to Memphis) from a couple years earlier:

 

While it's goofy as hell (the phone and 17 dancing go-go bears), he is able to hit all the right spots: He's coming to Memphis to wrestle Lawler to determine the top contender, he makes an Elvis reference for local flavor, and does his trademark bit about all of the races coming together to watch.

Yeah... Dusty could be out in left field for a while with you wondering where he was headed... then pull the threads together. The other amazing thing is the his out in left field stuff also connected strongly with the fans - he was talking about the common man, or that he didn't look pretty or wasn't in the best shape but had the biggest heart, yadder yadder.

 

It's just stunning how good his 70s interviews on the WWE DVD are. And I doubt that they're remotely close to the best stuff he was doing in the era. If we were to get all the FL stuff on the weekly shows while he's in the middle of a major feud, I'm sure we'll see even more blow away stuff.

 

Pretty much. When watching Memphis footage, even in the bad periods, I tend to watch as much as I can of the Lawler (and Dundee) promos even if I skip other stuff from the feuds, because I love to see how he can make the most of everything, even when feuding with a dead-end like Tom Branch or working a World Title program with prelim guy King Cobra based on Lawler taking offense to King Cobra's name including "King" after Lawler won his lawsuit against the WWF over the deceptive Harley Race advertising (seriously, that's how they started the feud).

Yeah... Lawler was amazing on the mic, and extremely versatile. Could work humor, a bit arrogant when needed, really pissed when needed. And always able to get across the storyline, even when as you say they were thin.

 

* his prime on top in MSG is overrated because he was working opposite Bruno, Dusty, Mil and Bob. When he wasn't, you'd have something like the Bruno-Patera blow off actually main eventing the card. There's are few shows other than those types of cards. Somehow, Superstar gets 100% of the credit for all that, which is ironic relative to his successor.

I'm surprised this isn't brought up more, since Graham getting a decent length reign allowed them to bring popular occasional guests Dusty & Mil as regulars in a fresh role as babyface challenger (and given how this went against the WWWF formula, fans may have been more inclined to expect a title change).

I'm not sure if Dave, the biggest Graham supporter there is, even slowed down to think about it. I don't know if anyone has.

 

That's the irony. Some of the stuff gets lobbed at Backlund is never taken a step back from to see if it applies to other WWWF/WWF folks.

 

 

John