2009 WON HOF thread

[kjh]

See, what gets me is that the above names are largely more recent and/or more accessable to foreign fans than Masa Saito. It's not like Saito was an all-time great evil foreigner heel in the territories, nor was he a uniquely great bit player in Japan.

 

I just don't understand.

I think Dave mentioned somewhere that every Japanese wrestler and writer given a ballot voted for Saito. That's why he's in. Clearly the perspective of Saito's career is different inside the Japanese wrestling business than outside it in America. My gut feeling is that they're marks for his relative success in America.

[ohtani's jacket]

What's with the voting patterns for Saito? -- 2008 - 49%; 2007 - 18%; 2006 - 46%; 2005 - 13%

[Cox]

I believe he even fell off the ballot one year as well, and had other years before where he came close. Maybe he was left off of other Japanese ballots in years where bigger stars were inducted?

[jdw]

You might have some insight into this, but how much of Cornette's induction related to his booking of SMW as well?

None.

 

"Yes. Greatest manager of all-time is either Cornette or Heenan. In."

 

I paraphrase, but literally no thought was given to Jimbo beyond that. Five seconds, on to the next.

 

Now, it might look ridiculous, because he never really booked a successful territory for very long, but in 1996, it might not have seemed so crazy to include that for Cornette, which was enough to make Corny a first-ballot guy separate from the MX.

I think if more than five seconds were spent on it, we might have come to a better thought process:

 

Hayes + Gordy + Roberts similar as a group to Eaton + Condrey/Lane + Cornette

 

Not identical roles. Not identical "impact". But as candidates, what they did together makes up the core of their candidacy. Individually, they all did other things, some of them not at all insignificant (Hollywood Blondes, Fabs, Gordy's career in Japan). But when one talks about these guys as HOF'ers, most people point to what they did in the "groups" and the "greatness" on some level of these groups.

 

I think the MX would have gone in long ago if we hadn't put Jimbo in and instead set him aside:

 

"We need to think about groups a bit more. So many of them have someone like Gordy or Flair or Choshu who did a lot outside of the groups. Flair and Choshu are HOF'ers on their own. Flair was before the Horsemen were ever formed. Ishin Gundan did launch Choshu to superstardom, so that's a little different. Gordy might be a HOF'er on his own, though the Birds would be a large part of that. And how do you deal with all the people who flow through the groups over time, and come up with the core, key members who would go in? A lot of stuff to think of. Let's punt Cornette to next year as we think more about groups, and whether he should be part of the MX + Jim Cornette rather than just a solo candidate."

 

I don't know if Dave would agree with all that *now*. I suspect if I said it in 1996 when we were going through the candidates that he would have. I also suspect that if I mentioned in 1999 that putting Jim in the original class rather than thinking about him as a member of a group, and walked through it a bit, he would have agreed. It would have been too late to do anything about it, as other than killing your wife and kid there isn't anyway to get tossed out of the Hall (and even that didn't do it).

 

Groups remain an interesting topic. It's too bad that the candidacy of the Birds and the MX didn't lead to a better discussion of the topic. We tried back in 2003... 2005... and 2007:

 

http://www.otherarena.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=609

 

But it never really went anywhere.

 

John

[jdw]

What's with the voting patterns for Saito? -- 2008 - 49%; 2007 - 18%; 2006 - 46%; 2005 - 13%

Most likely a candidate from Japan in 2007 who got a lot of votes from US Based voters (i.e. people in the business and "reporters").

 

*takes a look*

 

The Rock

 

The only person voted in.

 

Whereas the year before was Hase, Funaki and Aja.

 

Honestly don't understand that big drop and then bump. Did Dave push him at all?

 

John

[jdw]

See, what gets me is that the above names are largely more recent and/or more accessable to foreign fans than Masa Saito. It's not like Saito was an all-time great evil foreigner heel in the territories, nor was he a uniquely great bit player in Japan.

 

I just don't understand.

I think Dave mentioned somewhere that every Japanese wrestler and writer given a ballot voted for Saito. That's why he's in. Clearly the perspective of Saito's career is different inside the Japanese wrestling business than outside it in America. My gut feeling is that they're marks for his relative success in America.

 

That puts us in our place.

 

John

[tomk]

See, what gets me is that the above names are largely more recent and/or more accessable to foreign fans than Masa Saito. It's not like Saito was an all-time great evil foreigner heel in the territories, nor was he a uniquely great bit player in Japan.

 

I just don't understand.

I think Dave mentioned somewhere that every Japanese wrestler and writer given a ballot voted for Saito. That's why he's in. Clearly the perspective of Saito's career is different inside the Japanese wrestling business than outside it in America. My gut feeling is that they're marks for his relative success in America.

 

http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimate...;f=7;t=000463;p

 

It's what Dave told Yohe, to get him off his back.Reading the Meltzer analysis in the actual issue where he talks about Saito getting worker votes vis a vis Murdoch, it's implied that a bunch of that is American worker votes.

[jdw]

Hard to imagine a ton of US voters going for Saito. Unless they looked around the ballot, couldn't find other people to vote for, and just felt like they needed someone to vote for.

 

I don't even know who a good US comp for Saito would be.

 

John

[tomk]

What I had remembered from the observer issue was this line:

 

Saito did numbers even better than Dick Murdoch got among his own peers.

Which is kind of confusing in the actual context of paragraph.

 

Saito did well among reporters, and in particular, among Japanese wrestlers, Saito did numbers even better than Dick Murdoch got among his own peers. That made up for lack of support among historians and retired wrestlers.

As I mistook "Saito's peers" for being retired wrestlers.

 

TOP TEN AMONG DIFFERENT VOTING GROUPS

 

ACTIVE WRESTLERS

 

1. Midnight Express

 

2. Rey Mysterio

 

3. Kensuke Sasaki

 

4. Konnan

 

5. Carlos Colon

 

6. Dr. Alfonso Morales

 

7. Roy Shire

 

8. Jesse Ventura

 

9. Dick Murdoch

 

10. Masa Saito

 

 

FORMER WRESTLERS

 

1. Dick Murdoch

 

2. Owen Hart

 

3. Red Bastien

 

4. Curt Hennig

 

5. George Gordienko

 

6. Jesse Ventura

 

7. Chris Jericho

 

8. Gorilla Monsoon

 

9. The Assassins

 

10. Gary Hart

 

 

REPORTERS

 

1. Konnan

 

2. Roy Shire

 

3. Seiji Sakaguchi

 

4. Rey Mysterio

 

5. Bill Miller

 

6. Dr. Wagner Sr.

 

7. Mark Rocco

 

8. John Tolos

 

9. Don Owen

 

10. Midnight Express

 

 

HISTORIANS

 

1. Roy Shire

 

2. Hans Schmidt

 

3. Ivan Koloff

 

4. Bill Miller

 

5. Volk Han

 

6. The Assassins

 

7. Enrique Torres

 

8. Big Daddy

 

9. Midnight Express

 

10. Don Owen

 

On a completely seperate note rereading issue realized that neither Dylan Waco or I when discussing the historical candidates mentioned the Assassins( who showed up in top ten of former wrestlers and historian voters). I kind of forgot that the Renesto/Hamilton team ended before the cut off, but they look to be the next ones in.

 

BILL MILLER 69 70% 58%

The Assassins 56 57% 51%

Wilbur Snyder 49 50% 38%

Red Bastien 47 48% 44%

Hans Schmidt 46 47% 34%

John Tolos 37 37% 22%

George Gordienko 32 32% 28%

Enrique Torres 31 31% 36%

[kjh]

I'm beginning to think Dave is the only person who truly understands how his HOF voting system works. From a Cien Caras in the HOF thread, where my misconceptions prompted a confusing reply from Dave:

 

Not really, but the Observer voters tend to shaft real luchadors when it comes to awards and the Hall.

Yeah, Lizmark and Satanico were real big draws in the U.S.

That was 2001, it is currently 2009, that was eight years ago and not a single guy who mainly worked Mexico has been voted in.

Blame Konnan. I'm sure there were several HOF voters (like Jim Cornette, perhaps Bret Hart, etc) who voted for Konnan over the past few years despite not knowing enough about other Mexican candidates to vote for them, because they knew Konnan was a big draw in the early 1990s. With Konnan off the ballot and no similar Mexican candidate to replace him, a real luchador being voted in next year seems highly likely.

Well, good to know you've been reading the Internet.

 

Any Konnan votes from the U.S. other than from Lucha experts wouldn't count in his Mexico totals and are irrelevant when it comes to other people getting in.

 

The Mexico votes come from people there, or Lucha experts in the U.S. and a few in Japan, or U.S. wrestlers who worked there for at least a few years.

 

When people don't get in, it's almost always because the people from their part of the world didn't vote for them.

 

Thought I explained that with Mark Rocco and Japan.

OK, I'm still confused. Do the HOF voters from the U.S. who aren't Lucha experts know that their vote will essentially be ignored? Because if they don't and they've wasted a vote on Konnan that they would've used on someone else, then Konnan votes may be irrelevant when it comes to other Mexican candidates going in, but are not irrelevant when it comes to other non Mexican candidates going in.

 

Blame the Internet, but if there are misconceptions about how your HOF voting system works, partly it's because the voting system hasn't been perfectly explained to your readers and voters.

[Cox]

Hey Bix, I think you are right about Dave. It appears he and SLL share more in common than Judaism.

[Bix]

Now I'm really confused. Everything that's ever been written on the regional process by the voters explained it as them understanding that region was set by who was voted for. I'm not sure if Dave ever said anything about it before, but given the lack of limits on who can be voted for and how the voters understood it, it was reasonable to guess that it was the truth. If he was saying that it was set up like the older candidates are now (the new system that got Bill Miller in this year) then it would still be a surprise but it would make sense relative to how he positioned the change in the system this year. Wasn't it JDW who mentioned a few years ago in a WC thread (maybe with Dave) that voters should be designated as eligible to vote only in categories where they have a reasonable grasp of the history only for some people to say it was a bad idea because it would be too hard for Dave to manage?

 

I'm interested in seeing what he says next.

[Eduardo]

This is Dave's blow-offish reply today to kjh:

 

The cover letter on the ballot explains the voting system.

[Bix]

This is Dave's blow-offish reply today to kjh:

 

The cover letter on the ballot explains the voting system.

That was an interesting way to tell him to go piss off...

 

Keith should ask him to C&P it if he thinks we're so poorly informed (Or maybe JDW could post it here).

 

Does he understand that none of the voters who discuss the HOF online seem to think that how he just outlined it is how it works and THAT'S why we had these misconceptions? In all of the WC discussions, the voters have understood that voting for a wrestler in X region makes you a voter in that region. Kurt Brown has obviously come to the same conclusion based on what he said during the podcasts we did. The voters obviously have the cover letter with the rules.

 

Quick search at WC for "region" in the WON forum yielded:

 

From JDW in 2003:

Tomer Chen wrote:

 

> Question: I thought in order to be in

> inducted, you needed 60% of your regions'

> voters to vote you in? If so, wouldn't any

> additional votes be 'surplus' votes, and not

> actually help you in the case of being

> inducted? If so, wouldn't Todd Martins' ballot

> therefore only really count for (or against)

> American candidates, assuming he is a voter

> specializing in the US?

 

If you vote for even one Japanese wrestler, you are then considered a "Japanese Voter". On the other hand, if someone like me who Dave would consider to be knowledgable on some level about puroresu, didn't think any of the Japanese wrestlers on the ballot this year were worthy and didn't vote for any, I wouldn't be considered a Japanese Voter that year.

 

Flaw? Yes, very clearly.

 

Dave would be better off designating 40 or so of the voters as the Japanese Voters, and you need 24 votes from those voters to get in. Ditto on Lucha, though there are almost certainly far fewer people qualified to vote on Lucha. Ditto on Older US/Canadian Wrestlers (say 1960-1984 primes), and on Recent US/Canadian Wrestlers (1984-present). Of course the latter two would have large classes of voters.

 

Basically, if I don't think any of the Japanese wrestlers are worthy, but I want my "ballot" to count among Japanese Voters, I need to select someone I know won't get voted in and vote for them. For example, if Taue were on the ballot, or Chono now.

 

It's really something Dave needs to fix. It's not hard to fix, but I doubt Dave sees it as a problem... and I'm not sure he talks to anyone who could walk him through the problem.

From JDW in 2007:

One needs to vote for someone so that the Sakaguchi Rubes don't vote him in simply because people like you and I aren't voting for anyone in Japan. Pick a safe one, like Volk.

 

Yes... it is an odd reason for vote. But Dave's counting of the ballots based on (a) people casting votes in a region rather than ( people identified as knowledgeable about a region is a flaw in the system.

 

I've said it before - when he sends out a ballot, he should identify what Regions the voter is eligible to vote in. No disrespect to Jim Ross, Paul Heyman or Dan Wahlers, but they're don't have enough knowledge on Japan to vote in that region. Similar to historical candidates, or lucha (which I frankly don't feel qualified to vote on).

 

What we end up having is Parrot Voters - people who don't know much about candidates and the region they come from, but end up voting for them because of what others say. Be that people voting for Funaki who know little about Japan other than Dave banging the drum for him, or people voting for Aja because I banged the drum for her.

 

It should be streamlined. It shouldn't be a case of feeling like I "have to cast some vote in the Japan Region" for fear of a small turnout putting in a bad candidate. A freaking Hall of Fame shouldn't be like a School Board election where the right wingnuts get in due to low turnout.

[jdw]

TOP TEN AMONG DIFFERENT VOTING GROUPS

Wait... Saito got in by making the Top 10 of only *one* of the four groups, and only #10 within that one?

 

That's some kind of groundswell of support?

 

John

[jdw]

Keith should ask him to C&P it if he thinks we're so poorly informed (Or maybe JDW could post it here).

It's time for the 2009 Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame balloting. 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 for your opinion on who should be inducted into the Hall of Fame this year. The basic criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer as well as having historical significance. A candidate should have something to offer in all three categories, or be someone so strong in one or two of the categories that they deserve inclusion.

 

The names listed below are those under consideration for this year's ballot. To be eligible, a performer must have either reached his 35th birthday and completed ten years since their debut as a full-time pro wrestler, or 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 significantly important as a trend-setter in the business or valuable to the industry that they should be included. However, just longevity, without being either a long-term main eventer, a top draw and/or a top caliber worker, should be seen as relatively meaningless.

 

You can pick as few as zero names from the list of wrestlers for inclusion or as many as ten, which is the maximum number among performers eligible.

 

The second category of inductees, which is for wrestling executives, managers and announcers, is a separate process. You can vote for them or not. But selecting people from the non-wrestler category doesn't count against the maximum number of ten wrestlers that can be voted for.

 

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 their geographic region (broken down as United States & Canada; Mexico; Japan; or Europe) will be added to the Hall of Fame this year. If you are unfamiliar with any of the candidates due to geography of never having seen them, that is fine. Ballots are sent to many people all over the world and in different wrestling cultures so that everyone has as fair a shot as possible.

 

For wrestlers whose last year as a headline performer was before 1979, they only have to get 60% of the votes from those who were old enough to have been in the same era with them.

 

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 other wrestlers if voters believe they should be put on or returned to the ballot.

John

[jdw]

And I confess... I don't have a clue how Dave totals them up. I expect it to be very, very, very simple as none of Dave's math over the years has been complex. I think the problem here is that Dave provides very few numbers with the results so it's hard to figure out. We don't know how many voters there are in each "group". We can reverse engineer the number of ballots represent a "region", but we have no idea what is behind it.

 

I didn't vote this year (just misfiled the e-mail into my Mitchell folder rather than leave it in my inbox). But when I do, I'm 99.99% certain that Dave tosses me in the "historian" group since I do zero reporting. Yohe obviously is in the historian category.

 

When we vote for a Japanese wrestler, our ballot has to be considered as a ballot that counts in the Japan Region. But since we also vote for US and usually Lucha wrestlers, our ballot also has to count in *those* regions as well.

 

I don't think it's anymore complex than that. One ballot counted in three regions.

 

What's kind of interesting is the number of ballots that contained voters for at least one nominee in each Regions:

 

200 US

100 Lucha

99 Old Timers

98 Japan

98 Non-Wrestler

 

200+ ballots is pretty staggering. The lion's share people in the business. The lack variance between the number of ballots in the bottom four "regions" is pretty amazing. Not reading anything into it, but it's pretty flukey.

 

John

[Bix]

Anyone who receives mention on 60% of the ballots from their geographic region (broken down as United States & Canada; Mexico; Japan; or Europe) will be added to the Hall of Fame this year. If you are unfamiliar with any of the candidates due to geography of never having seen them, that is fine. Ballots are sent to many people all over the world and in different wrestling cultures so that everyone has as fair a shot as possible.

If one was to read this cold, without having discussed the issue before:

 

The first part of it implies that the totality of voters FROM the region where the candidate was a star are the whole, >=3/5 of which are required to get voted it, but the second part implies that if you're familiar with candidates and want to vote for them, it's fine, but if you don't vote for them solely because you're not familiar with them, you shouldn't worry because the ballots are spread out enough that a substantial enough portion of the electorate is familiar with each candidate. Reading it all together, that leads to the conclusion we had all reached: That voting for a wrestler in X region makes you a voter in X region.

 

As far the "prime before 30 years ago" candidates, I can't figure out if younger voters should be voting for them. If a yes counts and a no doesn't, wouldn't that mean a candidate could get over 100% support? Was he using the "prime before 30 years ago" system for the different regions and we never realized it (and again, does this mean that someone can get over 100% support)?

 

Also, if the ballots are assigned the way Dave says they are, that means that he's picked 75 Lucha experts, which sounds high. Also, unless I messed up the math, 54.1666667 people voted on European candidates, which is impossible, indicating Dave messed up the calculations, and anything close to it seems high for hand-picked experts in European wrestling.

[Bix]

But when I do, I'm 99.99% certain that Dave tosses me in the "historian" group since I do zero reporting. Yohe obviously is in the historian category.

 

When we vote for a Japanese wrestler, our ballot has to be considered as a ballot that counts in the Japan Region. But since we also vote for US and usually Lucha wrestlers, our ballot also has to count in *those* regions as well.

 

I don't think it's anymore complex than that. One ballot counted in three regions.

Dave is saying that's not the case:

 

Well, good to know you've been reading the Internet.

 

Any Konnan votes from the U.S. other than from Lucha experts wouldn't count in his Mexico totals and are irrelevant when it comes to other people getting in.

 

The Mexico votes come from people there, or Lucha experts in the U.S. and a few in Japan, or U.S. wrestlers who worked there for at least a few years.

 

When people don't get in, it's almost always because the people from their part of the world didn't vote for them.

 

Thought I explained that with Mark Rocco and Japan.

[jdw]

You're right... 75 in the Lucha region.

 

Again, if Yohe voted for Blue Panther, it's a vote that would have been counted and Yohe's ballot would have been included in the Lucha "region". Dave has *never* told us not to vote in specific regions, or that he wouldn't count out votes in specific regions. Which means that he counts voters in multiple regions.

 

It's possible that he only counts Fumi Saitoh only as a "Japan Voter". But if Fumi voted for Rey Jr, does anyone honestly think Dave wouldn't count it? Or if Jim Ross voted for Masa that it wouldn't count?

 

Not saying those two voted... they're examples.

 

But I think people are reading too much into what Dave is saying because he's not being clear at all.

 

I mean... Todd Martin has voted for Japanese wrestlers, as has Bruce. "Experts"? I'm sure they're counted, or Bruce would stop voting for Japanese wrestlers.

 

John

[jdw]

Dave is saying that's not the case:

And I 100% quarantee that isn't the case.

 

Take a step back, Bix. If I voted for Sasaki and also voted for the MX and also voted for Bill Miller, do you really think Dave would only count my Bill Miller vote? Or just Sasaki vote? And that he would count my ballot against just one region?

 

If a ballot only counts in one region, 620+ people voted:

 

200 US

99 Old Time

98 Japan

98 Non-Wrestler

75 Lucha

54 Euro

 

Do you think there's even a 1% chance of that?

 

250+ is an insane number. But I don't think he's more than double that.

 

John

[jdw]

Easy solution to this.

 

khj can ask Dave what region's Yohe's ballot was counted in.

 

We know Yohe voted for US, Old Timer, Lucha and probably Japan (Han). He may have voted for a non-performer.

 

John

[Bix]

Dave is saying that's not the case:

And I 100% quarantee that isn't the case.

 

Take a step back, Bix. If I voted for Sasaki and also voted for the MX and also voted for Bill Miller, do you really think Dave would only count my Bill Miller vote? Or just Sasaki vote? And that he would count my ballot against just one region?

 

If a ballot only counts in one region, 620+ people voted:

 

200 US

99 Old Time

98 Japan

98 Non-Wrestler

75 Lucha

54 Euro

 

Do you think there's even a 1% chance of that?

 

250+ is an insane number. But I don't think he's more than double that.

 

John

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was making sure you understood what Dave is claiming since your reply wasn't clear.

 

I don't think Dave has any reason to lie, so he must be misunderstanding the other posts, even if they were pretty easy to understand, right?

[Bix]

I dragged what Dave said over to RIM and now the discussion there is confusing me even more about this.

 

The Rocco thing that Dave mentioned was:

 

John Lister:

The percentage isn't based on where the voters come from.

 

Within each regional group you need to get a vote from 60% of people who voted for at least one person from that group. So, for example, this year 53 of the people who voted listed at least one person from Europe, meaning European candidates had to get at least 32 votes to get in.

 

That system throws up a few quirks. I suspect it explains Masa Saito's percentage yo-yoing from year to year - it may be down to whether there's a very strong Japanese candidate who attract votes from people who don't always vote for someone from Japan.

Dave:

Actually not true for Europe because Japanese voters could have voted for Rocco to sway percentages. It's a European vote.

Wait...what??

[jdw]

I think Dave is using Dave-Speak.

 

He really needs to take one candidate and break it down with Real Numbers. He doesn't have to name names, but give the real numbers.

 

How many ballots from Historians. Retired? In The Business? Reports?

 

I can't imagine that he embarassed by how much the WON HOF has turned into an Inside-The-Industry HOF since he's clearly stated that there are a ton of voters from inside the business. So be done with it and give it a number.

 

John