2009 WON HOF thread

[El-P]

A WWE fan at heart. Great resumé to get a vote in the Hof....

[kjh]

To be fair, now that Dave has put the historical candidates into their own bucket, Dan having a ballot isn't quite as bad as it once was. Still, any heat should be placed on Dave for giving Dan a ballot in the first place, not on Dan for having one.

[Dylan Waco]

The real problem with someone like Wahlers having a vote is that there are probably twenty regular posters on this message board who are better qualified and more deserving to be voters - and I don't think anyone here would consider themselves a historian or a reporter.

[tomk]

Honestly reading the interview, I mean nothing there that is too embarassing. Wahlers had a favorite fed and a rooting interest in his home team. That he might think that Alavarez's book would give him some insight is sad but whatever.

 

Some of his columns are more indicting than that interview.

 

I mean yes, I think an actual sportswriter like Childs should get a journalist vote before the likes of Wahlers (and thats even with Childs' inexplicable dislike of RogerSmith v Animal Hamaguchi). But lets be honest. Standards for wrestling journalism are really really low. There is no Taylor Spinks award for wrestling jouranlism. But if their was, who would deserve it?

 

I've mocked the Snowden takes on Metlz and gang threads on the ob server board a bunch. They are amusing dumb threads.

Part of what made those so amusing and also part of what made them so sad was that when it comes to MMA watching Meltzer, Snowden, Todd Martin and Alvarez debate is like getting access to a debate between Shirley Povich and Bill James.

 

According to Meltzer:

 

When you are around a lot of the MMA reporters, and there are good ones now (a few years ago there were very few), Todd [Martin] is one of the best and most knowledgeable around

Thats the best the field has to ofer.

Wrestling journalism standards are even lower than that. And by those standards Wahlers is nowhere near the bottom of the pack.

[kjh]

I completely agree with what tomk said. Really the "reporter" classification is a bit of a misnomer, as there are only a handful of people who really break wrestling news stories today (Dave Meltzer, then a bit of a drop off to the likes of Bryan Alvarez, Wade Keller and Michael Johnson). HOF voters Bruce Mitchell, Todd Martin and Dan Wahlers aren't pro wrestling reporters, they're pro wrestling columnists and commentators. Not really that much different to what a well informed regular message poster or blogger does, though they don't have a column on an official wrestling website. Of course, people like that are unlikely to get given a vote by Dave, because Dave mimics his HOF electorate to that in other sports in an effort to legitimize his HOF. When the standards of wrestling journalism are so low, it's a bad idea to copy what other sports do, just because that's what they do.

[Cox]

I assume the voting will be announced with today's Observer - anybody want to hazard a guess as to who makes it in?

[Childs]

Yeah, the state of wrestling reporting is shitty. It's so shitty that Dave is forced to wear the hats of chief reporter, chief analyst and chief historian. That simply would not happen with baseball or politics or education. Nor should it, because as Dave demonstrates, it's extremely difficult to be good at all three roles. That's not a knock on him. He's a prolific, often excellent reporter and knows a lot of history. But he struggles to communicate analytical ideas. I could say the same thing about many of the highly trained journalists sitting around me in the newsroom right now. The difference is that Dave doesn't have a lot of peers to make up for his weaknesses (actually, this is a growing problem at newspapers as well.)

 

Because Dave is the czar in all these areas, the Hall of Fame almost has to take on his view of the wrestling world. And in the big picture, that's fine, because it's his thing and no one really has a better claim to managing a wrestling HOF. All HOFs are fucked up in one way or another. I mean, I'm a member of the Baseball Writer's Association, and I don't think highly of the body's analytical or historical acumen. The trick is to stop thinking of HOFs as definitive. They're merely sources of entertainment propped up by flawed bodies of opinion makers. Always will be.

[Loss]

Honestly reading the interview, I mean nothing there that is too embarassing. Wahlers had a favorite fed and a rooting interest in his home team. That he might think that Alavarez's book would give him some insight is sad but whatever.

There isn't much that's too embarrassing, but I don't think reporter/historian ballots should be given to promotional loyalists, especially not WWE loyalists, specifically because they downplay the existence of other wrestling too much and think wrestling started in 1984. Yes, I'm grouping a whole group of people together, which probably isn't right. And yes, maybe I'm wrong about that, I'm willing to discuss it more, but it seems like the requirement should be that anyone who has a HOF ballot should be someone with a good knowledge of wrestling and wrestling history in the U.S., Japan, Europe, and Mexico. Anyone who doesn't at least know enough to be dangerous on one of those topics shouldn't get a ballot.

 

Maybe that's setting the bar too high, maybe it's not realistic, maybe that would end up with about five people voting on HOF candidates. That would mean Bret Hart doesn't know enough about wrestling to vote in a HOF because he patronizes Mexican wrestling and Southern territories. But that just seems a little different to me than doing the same to a national wrestling promotion, and at least Bret Hart is a wrestler.

 

But again, maybe I'm wrong, because it's hard to think of too many people, if anyone, who are in the HOF primarily because of what they accomplished under Turner. Maybe Steamboat wouldn't be in without the Flair series in '89, and maybe Vader wouldn't be in without his World championship run in WCW. But Flair, Hogan, Piper, Savage, Benoit, and Guerrero all have their HOF case that isn't hurt by their time in WCW, but their time in WCW wasn't make-or-break for their induction either.

 

On the flip side, there are plenty of guys in the HOF based solely on a strong WWE run.

[Herodes]

While he has his faults, Meltzer is the only real chronicler of wrestling history and the wrestling business, and his knowledge and memory of wrestling is almost scary. He is alone in his field mainly because I don't think anyone else could ever be so dedicated and prolific in the amount he writes on a weekly basis for the Observer and Yahoo, the amount of stuff he must watch, his radio shows and the shows he attends, in addition to all the time he must spend researching news and history and speaking to contacts. Has he ever taken a (non wrestling) holiday? He has set such a ridiculously high standard of dedication which I don't think anyone can match, or would want to match at the expense of having a life outside of the business.

[Eduardo]

Here are the results:

 

PERFORMER VOTES PCT 2008

BILL MILLER 69 70% 58%

 

MIDNIGHT EXPRESS 128 64% 54%

 

KONNAN 48 64% 48%

 

MASA SAITO 62 63% 49%

 

ROY SHIRE 61 62% 55%

The Assassins 56 57% 51%

 

Kensuke Sasaki 56 57% 31%

 

Rey Mysterio 113 56% 42%

 

Chris Jericho 104 52% 12%

 

Jesse Ventura 101 50% 49%

 

Wilbur Snyder 49 50% 38%

 

Red Bastien 47 48% 44%

 

Rollerball Mark Rocco 26 48% -----

 

Hans Schmidt 46 47% 34%

 

Dr. Wagner Sr. 35 47% 48%

 

Dick Murdoch 93 46% 46%

 

Kiyoshi Tamura 44 45% 34%

 

Fabulous Moolah 89 44% 56%

 

Big Daddy 24 44% -----

 

Don Owen 87 43% 38%

 

Seiji Sakaguchi 42 43% 51%

 

Rock & Roll Express 82 41% 39%

 

Carlos Colon 80 40% 47%

 

Ivan Koloff 80 40% 35%

 

Dr. Alfonso Morales 30 40% 45%

 

Tim “Mr. Wrestling” Woods 39 39% 29%

 

Volk Han 38 39% 45%

 

John Tolos 37 37% 22%

 

Kendo Nagasaki 19 35% -----

 

Blue Panther 26 35% 25%

 

Gary Hart 69 34% 38%

 

George Gordienko 32 32% 28%

 

Mick McManus 17 32% -----

 

Pedro Morales 62 31% -----

 

Enrique Torres 31 31% 36%

 

Villano III 23 31% 40%

 

Gorilla Monsoon 61 30% 31%

 

Jackie Pallo 16 30% -----

 

Jerry Jarrett 59 29% 29%

 

Gran Hamada 26 27% 22%

 

Karloff Lagarde 20 27% 19%

 

Sting 53 26% 24%

 

Owen Hart 47 23% 27%

 

Curt Hennig 46 23% 31%

 

Gene & Ole Anderson 46 23% 22%

 

Edge 44 22% -----

 

Jim Crockett Jr. 43 21% 16%

 

Dr. Wagner Jr. 15 20% -----

 

Lou Albano 38 19% 24%

 

Atlantis 14 19% 35%

 

Sgt. Slaughter 35 17% 25%

 

Mr. Wrestling II 29 14% 28%

 

Sabu 23 11% 18%

 

Vampiro 8 11% 15%

 

Less than 10% of the votes from the region and dropped from next year’s balloting: Rocky Johnson, Mark Lewin, Jose Lothario, Rick Rude, Ultimo Guerrero & Rey Bucanero

 

ADDED TO THE BALLOT NEXT YEAR: Perro Aguayo Jr., Cien Caras, Cibernetico, Yukon Eric, Johnny Saint, Kent Walton

EDIT: Also, Everett Marshall was added as an overlooked figure.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Raging Noodles

[Cox]

What's weird is, Snuka wasn't mentioned at all, not as a guy who fell off the ballot nor as a guy who was staying on.

[floyd]

Great picks this year.Glad to see Bill Miller and the Midnight Express get in.

 

I missed is discussion cause Ive been away.What do you guys think of Carlos Colon's future chances?

 

Atlantis and Blue Panthr were lower than I'd thought.

[Indikator]

Why does everybody assume that Dave is the only wrestling historian? Is it because he is the only person with a big fanbase who talks about history?

 

As if people were saying that Karl Stern was the premier wrestling historian when he still had his newsletter.

 

I think it's a good thing that the Don Luces and JMKs we have are not patronizing egomaniacs who dismiss others people attempts to contribute. Thank god there is nobody who has a Thesz-like power to form history for their own needs aka revisionism

[Bix]

Kenyon's pretty...eccentric, to say the least, though. Yohe, too.

[Indikator]

Yes, they are. But have you ever had to say about a HoF entry "he only got this much support becaue of the very subjectional piece Yohe had written" ? Compare that with all the guys who were voted in because something about them was published in the Observer months prior.

 

I should be glad though - it's not revisionism. A bit annoying and maybe stupid, but nothing that does damage.

 

I always have the feeling that in the future MMA historians will be way more off compared to the new batch of wrestling historians in the future. Take me and Bix for instance, born in 83 and 84 respectively, we had all those different promotions, wrestling styles and concepts to feed on when we grew up. For us wrestling is not a one dimensional thing, we know that there are can be fundamental differences in how to run a company. That would have been virtually impossible a generation ago.

 

There will be a lot more fanboys ala Mike Chapman in MMA. That will be horrible, guys who swoon over a certain individual like Tank Abbott or Kimbo Slice. Though when Bret Hart will get mythological treatment I will shake my head, too.

 

Ever tried to tell MMA fanboys that if you try to trace back modern MMA to its root you will eventually get to pro wrestling (RINGS and all the Japanese promotions ==> UWF 1984 / Gracies ==> Zbyszkos) ? I did that a couple of times, but nobody was ever able to accept that notion whatsoever. They are in total denial, cause "how could their sacred MMA be not pure and tainted by the evil pro-wres".

So yeah, I think "we" are more objectional. We are able to detect bullshit and are not shook by it to use internet slang. We can assess and explain Bob Sapps / Muhammed Alis fame because of their media appearances with methods that have been pretty much perfected by the wrestling business. And we don't have to kiss asses *looks at the MMA HoF*

[kjh]

But have you ever had to say about a HoF entry "he only got this much support becaue of the very subjectional piece Yohe had written"?

Steve's pieces are actually very opinionated (and thus very subjective), but he backs up his opinions as far as possible with facts. All wrestling analysis is subjective, but good analysis is well informed not based on romantic nostalgia or tired conventional wisdom.

[Al]

I'm surprised but pleased that Bill Miller got in. Seems like the voting favored quite a few old school candidates.

[S.L.L.]

I'm surprised but pleased that Bill Miller got in. Seems like the voting favored quite a few old school candidates.

Yeah, I'm really pleasantly surprised by that. 70%? I would never have expected a historical candidate would be able to get that kind of support. I guess it does make some sense. We've cleared out all of the major modern candidates (except for Mysterio, who bafflingly remains on the outside looking in despite having all the makings of a slam dunk pick), so I suppose if you must vote for someone, you'll have to look to the past. There are a lot of good historical figures who still have strong cases for inclusion, so as long as they keep looking past Moolah to actual deserving candidates like Miller and Shire, that's fine by me. Hans Schmidt in 2010, maybe? Maybe not.

 

The R'n'R's should go in ahead of the MX, but still glad to see they finally made it.

 

What exactly is Masa Saito's case? I honestly don't know much about his role in wrestling history.

 

So for all the hubbub about the introduction of major British candidates, none of them got much real support? That kinda stinks. Still, glad they're at least doing it, and I'd think the inclusion of Johnny Saint on the ballot next year will help their cause.

 

And one more thing on the historical candidate tip....I don't know if Yohe did some big write-up for him that I missed, but while Everett Marshall - in the words of jdw - passes the laugh test, he seems like a pretty weak candidate compared to the other fiat inductees from recent years, not to mention a number of other guys from his time like Orville Brown, Maurice Tillet, Steve Casey, and Lou Daro who all seem to have much stronger cases for inclusion. Not sure what gave him the edge here.

[Cox]

The R'n'R's should go in ahead of the MX, but still glad to see they finally made it.

Not sure that I agree with you there. The MX have a better track record as a drawing team (at least the Condrey/Eaton team) and drew against opponents other than the Rock 'n' Roll. The Rock 'n' Roll's run as a top drawing tag team was shorter as well. I think both teams should have gone in, and really probably should have gone in together because you can't tell one's story without the other, but if you're going to put in one ahead of the other, I'd go with the MX first.

[Childs]

I guess Saito's case is that he was the rare Japanese guy who found success in a number of American promotions and that he was a very good worker for a long time. He was also a building block for the initial hot run of Choshu's Army in New Japan, like Arn Anderson to Choshu's Flair but with a mentor vibe.

 

He struck me as a boarderline case, but I was glad to see him go in, because I really enjoyed his stuff from '80s NJ. He worked extremely hard, came off as a credible ass-kicker and bled like a freak until he was pushing 50.

[kjh]

Yeah, I'm really pleasantly surprised by that. 70%? I would never have expected a historical candidate would be able to get that kind of support. I guess it does make some sense. We've cleared out all of the major modern candidates (except for Mysterio, who bafflingly remains on the outside looking in despite having all the makings of a slam dunk pick), so I suppose if you must vote for someone, you'll have to look to the past. There are a lot of good historical figures who still have strong cases for inclusion, so as long as they keep looking past Moolah to actual deserving candidates like Miller and Shire, that's fine by me. Hans Schmidt in 2010, maybe? Maybe not.

It should be noted that Miller got 70% of the U.S. and Canada historical vote, not 70% of the U.S. and Canada modern vote, which is a much higher threshold and by the old standard only got 34% of the vote and would not have been inducted. Moolah still obtained 20 more votes than Miller. I know Moolah wrestled forever and had her biggest match in 1984 as part of the Brawl To Settle It All, but it's still strange to consider her a modern candidate when she was born 4 years earlier than Bill Miller.

 

At this point I can't see Hans Schmidt not getting in eventually, though it may take a few years. Four wrestlers going in really opens up the ballot, especially when there aren't four really strong new candidates to replace them. With the change in rules, we'll probably see more years with a large number of candidates being elected.

[Dylan Waco]

Of the "old" guys on the ballot Schmidt and Koloff are the two that really strike me as "should be in" candidates. Red Bastion is interesting to me because based on what we know he was a Benoit-like superworker for his period and yet because he wasn't a smark-era guy I don't think he'll ever get in.

[jdw]

Part of what made those so amusing and also part of what made them so sad was that when it comes to MMA watching Meltzer, Snowden, Todd Martin and Alvarez debate is like getting access to a debate between Shirley Povich and Bill James.

I haven't read much Povich reporting over the years: he wasn't based out here, we didn't get the Washington Post and I just don't recall him writing in The Sporting News, Sports Illustrated or any of the other national magazines. No judgement on him.

 

I don't think that Bill James would have ever called himself truly a "journalist". He long has preferred "historian", and has been comfortable with forms of "analyst" and "writer" and even coined a term for his field. If one actually reads his writings from the 80s it's pretty clear that he's trying differentiate himself from "journalists" and "media" that cover the sport, and regularly pointed to why he did.

 

I've seen debates/discussions between James and people like Povich. He was part of a weekly radio show during the baseball season for a few years in the late 80s/early 90s. It was a three headed monster. The host was either a local baseball broadcaster or local talk radio guy. One of the years the other person was a noted award winning baseball writer. I'm pretty sure it was Tracy Ringolsby (a J. G. Taylor Spink Award winning in the HOF) rather than Tim Kurkjian (future Spinks winner) or Jayson Stark (future Spinks winner). Anyway... Ringolsby was really quite awful.

 

Pretty much all forms of American Journalism to a large degree such. They're frankly embarassing. Baseball Journalism, as with much of Sports Journalism, is dogshit.

 

Not saying that Wrestling or MMA Journalism is any good. It really isn't all that good relative to what we know as great journalism. But I wouldn't hold up much of any sports journalism as an example to wrestling or MMA journalism. They're pretty similar.

 

 

According to Meltzer:

 

When you are around a lot of the MMA reporters, and there are good ones now (a few years ago there were very few), Todd [Martin] is one of the best and most knowledgeable around

That is pretty funny.

 

John

[jdw]

But have you ever had to say about a HoF entry "he only got this much support becaue of the very subjectional piece Yohe had written"?

Steve's pieces are actually very opinionated (and thus very subjective), but he backs up his opinions as far as possible with facts. All wrestling analysis is subjective, but good analysis is well informed not based on romantic nostalgia or tired conventional wisdom.

 

Actually, Yohe pieces have gotten people into the HOF. And I do agree that they have been subjective at times. The Curley one clear was. Of course Curley should have gone in earlier if we had a better clue.

 

John

[tomk]

I guess Saito's case is that he was the rare Japanese guy who found success in a number of American promotions and that he was a very good worker for a long time. He was also a building block for the initial hot run of Choshu's Army in New Japan, like Arn Anderson to Choshu's Flair but with a mentor vibe.

 

He struck me as a boarderline case, but I was glad to see him go in, because I really enjoyed his stuff from '80s NJ. He worked extremely hard, came off as a credible ass-kicker and bled like a freak until he was pushing 50.

My impression is that Saito got lots of votes from other workers, and my guess is Saito went on based on being in wrong category.

I think Adrian Street could have easily gotten more than 32 votes but categorizing him as European would be silly.

 

Of the "old" guys on the ballot Schmidt and Koloff are the two that really strike me as "should be in" candidates. Red Bastion is interesting to me because based on what we know he was a Benoit-like superworker for his period and yet because he wasn't a smark-era guy I don't think he'll ever get in.

Kollof's career went way past 79 so he isn't categorized as part of the historical category.

Both Enrique Torres and Wilbur Snyder seem to also be as good candidates as Shmidt. I would need to read more about Gordienko as well.

Meltzer says that he will be moving the cut off date up for "historical candidates" every couple years, with the Andersons falling into it in next couple years.