Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

2009 WON HOF thread


Bix

Recommended Posts

I think the divide here is in how the HOF criteria is defined.

 

We all think people who go in on work should be people who go in based on having great matches that we can still watch years later and enjoy. Dave is more of the opinion that someone going in on work is based on how they were perceived at the time, and how they're remembered by the vast majority, not how good they actually are or were. (In a weird way, this makes the case for Sabu stronger than it has any business being, but as Dave always says, wrestling is filled with double standards.)

 

Dave doesn't see the value in going back and watching tapes, because the HOF is about perception, not about truth. It's wrestling. It doesn't matter that Bill Dundee was genuinely better in the ring than Kurt Angle. Angle is in because he's more fondly remembered than Dundee, whether it's deserved or not. Ted DiBiase was always regarded as a great worker, so it doesn't matter if he actually was one. The HOF is about reputation. He doesn't see the value in watching old tapes because he doesn't see how it matters what people think now. All that matters is what people thought at the time.

 

That's a pretty irreconcilable difference to overcome. I'd be more interested in having discussions about which side is right and which side is wrong on the core of this argument than I would debating the merits of specific people, at least until it's generally established where most people are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The arguments are terrible and so stupid that I can only conclude he doesn't actually mean them.

I think Dave's analysis is heavily shaped by the voters he talks with about candidates. Athletic credentials and shooting ability are still important to the old carnies who yearn to legitimize their phony profession. If his arguments are terrible and so stupid, I think that reflects badly on his electorate more than Dave himself.

 

I don't believe that there's anyone who thinks that Snuka's competitive bodybuilding history strengthens his case at HOFer. Other than maybe Dave.

I'm sure there's plenty more bodybuilding marks in his electorate than just himself. Superstar Billy Graham rings a bell? :) We can't be sure which wrestlers have ballots, but there's probably enough jacked up muscleheads who would have been enamored with Snuka's physique when growing up or working with him that his physique strengthens his HOF candidacy in their eyes.

 

Speaking of you, I see Dave posted a letter by Matt Jones on the main site including this classy paragraph:

 

In closing, I'd just like to say that Big Daddy even being on the ballot brings the quality of your Hall of Fame down several notches, and I spent last night weeping at the very idea. Please don't listen to the David Bixenspan-esque Little Englanders who piss and moan that you're somehow disrespecting British wrestling by not putting clueless shitarses onto your Hall of Fame ballot. If you ever waver in your belief, go onto Youtube and find the Daddy vs Haystacks bout on there.

Dave doesn't see the value in going back and watching tapes, because the HOF is about perception, not about truth.

When you put it like that, that's a pretty damning indiction on his HOF. I'm not sure Dave would see it that way, even though I think you're right. :) He saw the truth when it happened; we beseech him, in the bowels of Christ, to think it possible that he may have been mistaken at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, I am not even sure I meant that as an insult. It's more just a point of view. I tend to think his opinion is more like, "What does it matter if someone was great at the time and no one considered them great? We watch them on tape 25 years later and think they were great, but they didn't have a strong reputation among people in the business for being great. What does watching them on tape 25 years later and enjoying them have to do with the price of tea in China, much less the Observer Hall of Fame?"

 

And looking back, I shouldn't have used Bill Dundee as an example. He was well-regarded at the time, both as a wrestler and as a booker, and he was somewhat in demand in multiple territories. If there's a perception problem with Dundee, it's with modern WON fans who became fans during the Attitude Era who haven't been terribly exposed to much stuff before that, unless they've read about it in the WON. In fact, most of the contentious candidates have a perception problem with that group more than any other. Dan Wahlers even admitted a while back that he didn't really have many opinions on the downfall of WCW because he wasn't watching at the time.

 

But regardless of that, I think my general point still stands about the HOF being more about perception and reputation than truth and accuracy. Maybe it's better that way, because it's a pro wrestling Hall of Fame. Beats me. Maybe it can't help but be that way for two reasons:

 

(1) It's wrestling

(2) People within wrestling determine who goes in

 

But I think most of the criticism comes from people who have a fundamental disagreement on viewing wrestlers and wrestling history in that context, so that's the source of much of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of you, I see Dave posted a letter by Matt Jones on the main site including this classy paragraph:

 

In closing, I'd just like to say that Big Daddy even being on the ballot brings the quality of your Hall of Fame down several notches, and I spent last night weeping at the very idea. Please don't listen to the David Bixenspan-esque Little Englanders who piss and moan that you're somehow disrespecting British wrestling by not putting clueless shitarses onto your Hall of Fame ballot. If you ever waver in your belief, go onto Youtube and find the Daddy vs Haystacks bout on there.

Looks like one of those "members only articles not labeled as members only and not of special interest to anyone but still members only" articles. Why is it that everyone who internet calls me out by name accuses me of saying things that I've never said? Or thinks I'm from another country? Guessing this is a case of Dave seemingly not reading what he posts as he does sometimes because we've been getting along fine.

 

Anything else in the letter of note?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand where Dave's British readers are coming from.

 

The TV show was different too. There was rarely the continuity of episodic booking of feuds. Instead we were given a rotating showcase of stars. Each week of the show would have different wrestlers and you would only see your favourite every couple of months. There were a lot of great workers but practising a style that was unique to our culture and which has all but died out (notwithstading revivial by current day fans like Colt Cabana). The style was technical and not spot based. Gimmicks, both in performers, matches and booking were definately the exception, not the rule.

The last two sentences aren't true at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's more that "technical" and "spot-based" aren't mutually exclusive (see T2P).

 

Oh, and I figured out that Matthew Jones = MOJ who I guess doesn't like me because I'd call him on his story of allegedly seeing CM Punk drinking a pint of beer. Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like one of those "members only articles not labeled as members only and not of special interest to anyone but still members only" articles. Why is it that everyone who internet calls me out by name accuses me of saying things that I've never said? Or thinks I'm from another country? Guessing this is a case of Dave seemingly not reading what he posts as he does sometimes because we've been getting along fine.

 

Anything else in the letter of note?

I think he must assume that since you pushed for Martin Karadagian's induction last year, you must be in favour of swamping the Hall Of Fame with other campy national stars who couldn't work a lick or something. :lol:

 

The rest of the letter was more running down of Big Daddy's household status; some of it was fair like pointing out why wrestling outdrew the FA cup on ITV, while some of it was pretty dumb like pointing out that there were only three TV channels in the UK at the time, that he was only a star due to being the promoter's brother and anyone given a similar push in that climate would have become a major celebrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joint Promotions featured all manner of workers and wrestling styles.

 

To make out that every match was worked in the George Kidd style is misleading. The vast majority of the workers had gimmicks -- technical worker is a gimmick itself. There were gimmick matches, angles and spots. A ton of spots. It's not as though it was Memphis or anything, but it was pro-wrestling through and through. You only have to watch the WOS starting where they do a comedy intro to realise that the Johnny Saint style (or whatever it is that people identify British wrestling with) was part of a larger show. If you watch the catchweight matches, it opens your eyes to the booking side of JP. I dunno, to me it's like pimping AAA's hot period and ignoring what was on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I figured out that Matthew Jones = MOJ who I guess doesn't like me because I'd call him on his story of allegedly seeing CM Punk drinking a pint of beer. Or something.

The use of the term "shitarse" in his post should have been a pretty good indicator of who Matthew Jones actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The three channels part is pretty significant.

Not really. How many national TV channels were there in Japan in Rikidozan's, Inoki's and Baba's heydays? Or in America and Mexico when wrestling first appeared on TV there? Not many!

 

That's exactly the point. There's a lot of stuff that did monster ratings when television first began to spread. It's something you have to keep in perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mo Chatra on Big Daddy on the F4W board:

 

I wouldn't put anyone from the UK in before him. He was easily the biggest star in the history of British wrestling who was a headliner for most of the 37 years he was active over a 43 year period, he transcended the business in a way only a small handful of individuals have done worldwide in the last 140 years, he is still very well known and fondly remembered (which extends to one of his chants being used at sporting events to this day) and he was the top star for a promotion that up until the late eighties outdrew New Japan and All Japan combined at live shows and also was a staple part of British television for over three decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from sheer stardom in his home country, what is the case for Big Daddy? Because I'm not sure if "he was really really popular in his place and time" is enough for the HoF. (Now I find myself wondering if Hogan, Santo, Dusty, Rikidozan, Wanz, and Bruno are all already in; we need a list of current members for debating purposes here. After all, there are many stories about big crowds in Africa going crazy for many years for Power Uti, but nobody's exactly rushing to put his name on the ballot.

 

I admit to knowing little about the man's career, aside from a couple of his matches I've seen on Youtube (which were absolutely terrible) and all the insults Dynamite hurled at him in his book (which were even worse). But to me the He Was A Great Big Star seems like insufficient reason without other qualities. Was he a good wrestler? Clearly not, he was abysmal. Did he leave any lasting legacy on the business beyond his own career? Nobody has suggested so. And the fact that a lot of his popularity probably stemmed from the constant, selfish booking of him as the top superman would probably undermine his case a bit too. So what besides sheer fame (in only one country) makes him a good candidate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, why didn't I think to check Wiki. Thanks. Let's see, according to the list here, everyone I mentioned except Otto are all in. In fact, they all got inducted in that ridiculously massive collection of 120 people in the first year.

 

Still, you'd think the same arguments I've seen here against Moolah and Ventura would also apply to Daddy. Am I wrong about this? Is simple fame in one region enough, when counterbalanced against the most clumsy of remedial ring skills? To make sure I wasn't remembering wrong, I went on the Tube and rewatched some Daddy matches. He never took one single bump, always went over, and the majority of his offense seemed to be literally just walking into people and having them bounce off his bulbous stomach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've skimmed over a ton of stuff so this might just be rehashing old ground, and my sarcastic humour is occasionally wasted on the internet, but anyway.

 

There are other guys in the hall besides Big Daddy who can't work. Daddy is particularly shit from what little I saw, but I don't know if in the big picture that means a ton to me. Wrestling is a carny scam, and if "having good matches as defined by less than 1% of wrestling fans that give a shit about a hall of fame for pro wrestling" was the criteria, you really need to start over with the whole thing. The Crusher was one of the people given a free pass in year one. The last 20 years of his career (and for all I know, the 20 before it) weren't exactly Tenryu vs. Jumbo or Santo vs. Casas.

 

There are other guys in the hall besides Big Daddy who only succeeded through being selfish and putting themselves in positions to succeed. Daddy happened to do it in an unpopular (to the American voting audience) territory.

 

There are plenty of other guys in the hall who weren't significant draws out of a single region, like Mexico, or one specific US territory. Or realistically, almost every Japanese worker in the hall (although in it's heyday Japan generated so much money that no one sane would argue that alone isn't major). There are plenty of guys in the hall that succeeded in the US, or in some cases only one region of the US. These people all got in without (relatively to Big Daddy) much fuss.

 

If Daddy had been born in Mexico City, stunk up the ring, pushed himself to the moon, got himself into 8 lucha movies, and become one of the biggest names in the history of Mexico, he'd probably be in the hall despite not being able to work. But he didn't, he's English. Different culture, but for better or for worse he's easily the biggest name in British wrestling. People in England who know nothing about wrestling anbd/or think it's retarded still often know who Big Daddy is. That says something of note when discussing a carny scam hall of fame.

 

Dusty Rhodes is a (somewhat loveable) selfish fat fuck that pushed himself to the point he'd kill a company to see his name on the headline. There are Mexicans in the hall of fame that never drew a nickel outside of Mexico but became super-famous in their niche, made a few movies, and are in the hall. I have no problem with any of that. In fact, I basically think that's what a pro wrestling hall of fame organized by people outside of any one company is supposed to be about. Turning a carny hustle in to name value. If you can do it through AMAZING WORKRATE, good for you. If you can do it through talking/manipulating promoters/manipulating fans/manipulating the media, so what? Is that less of a skill than "ZOMG Benoit Headbutt off the top of a cage 5 stars"?

 

Hell, only one of those two is actually a useful life skill.

 

Is the hall about workrate, or is it about acknowledging this is a stupid carny scam and rewarding people who made their name mean something? I'm not even sure the people voting on this thing really know. That's probably the one thing about the hall that discredits it the most to me.

 

If it's about celebrating the art of the carny hustle - and if it isn't there's not much point in having a pro wrestling hall of fame, the only reason Big Daddy isn't in the hall is because he's English, and not Big Billy Joe Bob the Killer Pig Farmer from Memphis, Super Yokozuna Samurai Machine from Tokyo or El Grande Nacho Burrito Papa from Tijuana.

 

Would Big Daddy be the worst worker in the hall? Possibly. Hell, maybe even probably. But I'm not really sure that's a huge knock against his case at the end of the day. Keeping him out because he managed to pull off this ridiculous hustle in the wrong location or because his work is all kinds of ass just makes people look like marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The resistance to Big Daddy is that he was an attrocious worker. In every other sense, he was a HOF level candidate.

 

I have no idea if he was a better worker in the late 50s/early 60s, but he was 46 when he first got the Big Daddy push and a super heavyweight. His whole gimmick was based on a camp ring entrance with a Seekers song, a union jack hat and a whole bunch of other stuff that seems hokey now but was relevant to the times. England went through a major recession from 1979-81.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're partly right about your anti-England bias, but only partly. Name another European country which has a wrestling scene even half as well-known in America as England did. Germany was legendary for its tournaments drawing big numbers night after night for weeks on end. How many of their top stars are in the Hall? There are literally only four countries on earth that are better known among our peer group for wrestling than England is. There are more English matches on Youtube than there are from the rest of Europe, all of non-Japanese Asia, and the entire continents of South America, Africa, and Australia. Combined. Sure it sucks that the UK got less coverage than the USA, Mexico, Japan, and Canada. But they're still above every single other country on the planet in terms of their stuff being out there. Quick: name an African wrestler besides Power Uti or Kofi Kingston. I can't, and that's a continent of two freaking billion people. To make it more Anglicized: name a wrestler from Ireland. I can't do that either. But I can easily name a couple dozen English wrestlers without even thinking hard.

 

Is the hall about workrate, or is it about acknowledging this is a stupid carny scam and rewarding people who made their name mean something? I'm not even sure the people voting on this thing really know. That's probably the one thing about the hall that discredits it the most to me.

In many cases, there are guys who got inducted clearly on the basis of workrate rather than dollars drawn. It would kinda defeat the purpose of the whole thing if it were solely based on financial results, just adding up the gates and voting in whoever was at the top of the list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...