2009 WON HOF thread

[Dylan Waco]

There are very, very few people who are in on work alone from what I can tell. Actually I would argue that really no one was in on work alone, as there was always some sort of complimentary argument about someones drawing power or influence. The most obvious exception here would probably be Angle, but he's also the guy most often pointed to as a discrediting error for the Hall so I see no real defense in citing him.

 

Money drawn is the only real metric stat you can go by with wrestling and ultimately is the most important thing in a non-competitive athletic exhibition anyhow.

[JHawk]

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.

Finlay is from Northern Ireland. Does that count?

[Dan]

I'm also mildly thunderstruck by this:

 

Anyway, I'm going to look to build up a case and try to do some research in my spare time over the next ten months and then look to debate the issue with Dave on Figure Four Daily or Observer Radio next summer (before voting takes place for 2010 entrants). My argument will be that Daddy should be inducted in without a vote, much like Karadagian was last year, becuase otherwise Daddy will never reach 60% due to an almost complete lack of knowledge on the subject amongst the vast majority of voters.

So Big Daddy is a whiter, fatter El Santo, but voters aren't familiar enough with him (presumably even in his own region) to vote him in.

[Death From Above]

To be honest, I don't even care one way or the other if Big Daddy is in the hall (and I don't really care about the hall in general). I don't know much of anything concrete about the UK wrestling scene that is relevant to a hall of fame discussion, beyond "for whatever the reasons, Big Daddy, who sucked as a worker, was the biggest star in his territory for a billion years". I just find his situation an interesting case study, basically.

 

There are guys in the hall that drew money, and could have "great matches" according to the standard the people voting hold. Everyone pretty much agrees those guys should be in. (The subjectivity of what is "great wrestling" is an entire other discussion I suppose. I think it's probably the second-most subjective "I enjoyed that" subject I can think of besides music. And I refuse to even have a serious "what is good and what sucks" discussion about music because it's utterly pointless and is based almost entirely upon your own history and points of reference.)

 

There are guys in the hall that drew money, who were "average" to "somewhat poor" wrestlers, depending on who you ask. Most still seem to agree they should be in.

 

Daddy is a horrible wrestler by almost unanimous consensus, who clearly drew some amount of money (I couldn't talk specifics personally) and was a top star in a territory. I guess the crux for me is there seems to be a tipping point where being "blah" as a worker but making money is fine, but being really bad as a worker and making money isn't.

 

It's like the opposite of the big discussion in Pulp Fiction about if a pig has a charming enough personality does he cease to be a filthy animal.

 

The entire discussion is moot of course if there wasn't any real money in the UK scene, and I honestly have no idea if there was or not. And I guess there's another subpoint there about "if you draw 10 000 at $5 a ticket, have you really got more drawing power than the guy who drew 2500 at $30 a ticket". Obviously if you can't work or draw money, you're a clear "no" vote. But, I'm approaching this whole thing assuming that this end of the equation comes up trumps.

 

If not, the whole thing is ridiculous.

[ohtani's jacket]

Territory seems a bit misleading. He was a national draw. It's a little different from saying someone drew in Calgary or Memphis or Mexico City.

[El-P]

I think wrestling was really big in France in the 50s-60's or so, big stuff on TV. Yet, I never heard a thing about it online. Probably because the footage is very rare, and it's french, and I don't think any of the big star toured anywhere. From the french wrestling scene, only Eddie Carpentier (who became a canadian citizen) and Andre really became big in the US (and the world in the case of Andre). The rest of the history of french wrestling pretty much disapeared.

[S.L.L.]

A thought about Big Daddy's candidacy:

 

Again, let's use the line of thought that Big Daddy was this really huge money-drawing mainstream star in the UK, but is out of the Hall because he was an absolute shit worker.

 

What happens if - hypothetically speaking - we discover this huge vault of old film reels showing the matches of Frank Gotch, and it turned out Gotch totally sucked?

 

Now, I grant you that Gotch was both a bigger star and more historically important than Big Daddy. He still has a better case without workrate than Big Daddy does. But there are still a bunch of people who went into the HOF not for or even in spite of their workrate, but without known evidence of it. Is it fair or logical to keep someone out of the Hall based on a certain criteria when others go in without that criteria even being considered? Everything I've read about Stanislaus Zbyszko suggests he was a total bore in the ring. He was a big star, but certainly never the star that Big Daddy was (though the "exchange right" may or may not make that a negligible difference). He also had some historical influence from shooting on Wayne Munn to get the World Title away from the Ed Lewis/Billy Sandow camp and back to Joe Stecher. If we had evidence that he was as bad of a worker as Daddy, and applied the same emphasis to it, does he still go in as easily (yeah, I know he went in by fiat, just work with me)? Does he even go in before Big Daddy does? I'm not sure...probably "yes" to the latter, but certainly "no" to the former.

 

Again, I'm well past the point of taking the HOF seriously, but there's got to be some kind of universal standard for inductees. It seems to me like if you're going to have historical figures in the HOF at all, then one of those standards has to be that you can't use a wrestler's workrate as a reason to keep them out.

 

Besides, even if we all think that Big Daddy's matches sucked, it's obvious that are a bunch of other people who must have liked them just fine. Otherwise, why would so many people have tuned in or bought tickets to watch them?

[Jingus]

That's the thing, there really is no single, universally accepted list of criteria. Like, why the hell is Kazushi Sakuraba in there? You can't tell me that it was for all those legendary, super-important contributions he made to the sport while working as a midcard jobber for UWFi. Clearly he's only in there because of his shootfighting career, which shouldn't count at all unless you accept the usual "Pride WAS pro wrestling" stuff from Dave. Every defense of Kurt Angle's inclusion (at least those that don't resort to "He's LEGIT") seem to be along the lines of "we're such a mark for him that we just had to put him in". And like you said, lots of the old pre-television guys seem to be inducted on legend alone, with only secondhand hearsay about their contributions. None of the choices are made according to any kind of established routine.

 

Of course workrate shouldn't be the only quality or even the primary one that people are judged for. But it should still play a factor. If it doesn't, we're essentially rewarding people who made the most money and nothing else, and that's just a terribly gray and boring way to look at what is essentially a performance art. That would be like having a Movie Hall of Fame where only record-grossing blockbusters are considered.

[kjh]

Really every criticism laid at Big Daddy's feet (crappy worker, only pushed so hard due to nepotism, killed a whole genre of wrestling) can be laid at the Fabulous Moolah's feet and she was the North American candidate who garnered the most support last year and she wasn't even a headliner of a successful territory, yet alone a national superstar. But I suppose being pushed as a legend of the business by WWE counts for a lot, if the Hall Of Fame is more about perception than truth as Loss earlier hypothesized.

[El-P]

Good analogy with Moolah.

[S.L.L.]

That's the thing, there really is no single, universally accepted list of criteria. Like, why the hell is Kazushi Sakuraba in there? You can't tell me that it was for all those legendary, super-important contributions he made to the sport while working as a midcard jobber for UWFi. Clearly he's only in there because of his shootfighting career, which shouldn't count at all unless you accept the usual "Pride WAS pro wrestling" stuff from Dave. Every defense of Kurt Angle's inclusion (at least those that don't resort to "He's LEGIT") seem to be along the lines of "we're such a mark for him that we just had to put him in". And like you said, lots of the old pre-television guys seem to be inducted on legend alone, with only secondhand hearsay about their contributions. None of the choices are made according to any kind of established routine.

One of the weird factors in play is that - as I recall - Dave does have a sort of loosely defined list of criteria that should be considered with HOF candidates. It's just that no one - including Dave himself - really seems to follow them, at least not in any consistent way. Like, Sakuraba is in because he lent "legitimacy" to puro by winning shootfights while being billed as a pro wrestler. So that's rationalized as him being influential, which is a major criteria. But that "influence" isn't really present anywhere - the puro scene went in the toilet while Sakuraba was off giving it "legitimacy", and remains there to this day. But voters liked seeing a guy billed a pro wrestler win shoots, so they voted for him and spun it as him being "influential". Same deal with Kurt - he's in for the reasons TomK went over already, but his amateur career isn't part of the official criteria, so they transfer their feelings about that to other aspects of his career, namely his work, and push him based on that. The old-timers are at least going in based on drawing power and historical significance, although some guys' candidacies are vetted better than others (Toots Mondt outlived most of his peers and got to re-write wrestling history to say that he basically invented wrestling as we know it, and people took him for granted because of his association with Ed Lewis; Lou Thesz outlived most of his peers and got to re-write wrestling history so that anyone who posed a threat to his spot as wrestling's top dog or otherwise rivaled him was completely marginalized, and people took him for granted because Thesz was a wrestling legend, etc.), not to mention the importance that people put on shooting ability in wrestlers from that era, even though the matches were universally meant as works with only two possible exceptions that I can think of, and most shoots of the era were like the aforementioned Zbyszko/Munn match - intended as works, but one guy doesn't cooperate, usually for political reasons. So the rules are there, but people choose not to follow them when they hurt/benefit the cases for certain wrestlers.

 

Of course workrate shouldn't be the only quality or even the primary one that people are judged for. But it should still play a factor. If it doesn't, we're essentially rewarding people who made the most money and nothing else, and that's just a terribly gray and boring way to look at what is essentially a performance art. That would be like having a Movie Hall of Fame where only record-grossing blockbusters are considered.

Agreed. A sufficiently talented worker should be able to get into the Hall on that basis. But I feel more comfortable putting people in for being great workers than keeping them out for being bad ones. If we do the former, and footage turns up showing that some obscure figure from the 30's was actually a superworker, we can put him in. If we do the latter, and footage turns up showing that George Hackenschmidt was a total load, we're kinda screwed. Workrate should be a criteria, but it's a criteria we should be careful with.

[tomk]

Tinieblas isn't in the HOF. Neither is Superzan or Neutron el Enmascarado Negro.

 

bios of Santo and Blue Demon covering their careers pre-movie stardom are availble here:

http://www.luchawiki.com/index.php/Santo

http://www.luchawiki.com/index.php/Blue_Demon

[kjh]

Like, Sakuraba is in because he lent "legitimacy" to puro by winning shootfights while being billed as a pro wrestler. So that's rationalized as him being influential, which is a major criteria. But that "influence" isn't really present anywhere - the puro scene went in the toilet while Sakuraba was off giving it "legitimacy", and remains there to this day. But voters liked seeing a guy billed a pro wrestler win shoots, so they voted for him and spun it as him being "influential".

I think you're overthinking things here a bit. Sakuraba is in because Dave put him on the ballot and people treated him as if he was a pro wrestler. He ticks all of Dave's boxes if you pretend Pride was pro wrestling. I don't really blame the voters for voting him in, because he meets all of Dave's HOF criteria; he just shouldn't have been placed on the ballot in the first place, unless Dave was honest about turning his HOF into a pro wrestling and MMA HOF, which was the path he started going down.

 

Same deal with Kurt - he's in for the reasons TomK went over already, but his amateur career isn't part of the official criteria, so they transfer their feelings about that to other aspects of his career, namely his work, and push him based on that.

I think some of the old carnies who voted for Kurt probably only saw a handful of his matches. I mean it's not like Bruno Sammartino or Bret Hart are avid WWE viewers. Dory Jr. probably votes for all his old trainees on the ballot, because it puts him over. Which is why the voting structure is so flawed.

[ohtani's jacket]

Sakuraba should be in the HOF and so should Funaki. I can't understand the argument that as soon as you do shoots you are no longer a pro-wrestler. There is no delineation whatsoever. If a MMA guy does a work is he a pro-wrestler? No, he's an MMA fighter doing works.

[El-P]

So Sakuraba should be in because he was a pro-wrestler being great and famous at doing something that isn't pro-wrestling ? That makes real sense...

[goodhelmet]

Sakuraba should be in the HOF and so should Funaki. I can't understand the argument that as soon as you do shoots you are no longer a pro-wrestler. There is no delineation whatsoever. If a MMA guy does a work is he a pro-wrestler? No, he's an MMA fighter doing works.

You can still be called a pro wrestler but you aren't pro wrestling. Should Sting's appearance in Dune be a factor in being included in the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame? Should we include Brock Lesnar in the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame because of his success currently in MMA?

[Dylan Waco]

Actually - and I am absolutely not advocating for him - Brock Lesnar would be an interesting comparison to Kurt Angle and I would be fairly shocked if Dave doesn't put him on the ballot when he's eligible.

[ohtani's jacket]

So Sakuraba should be in because he was a pro-wrestler being great and famous at doing something that isn't pro-wrestling ?

Absolutely.

 

We're talking about a HOF where an amateur background carries weight, particularly if you went to the Olympics. If that carries weight, then so too should a successful MMA career, especially if you were billed as a pro-wrestler, drew as a pro-wrestler and attracted long time pro-wrestling fans to shows that were essentially promoted as pro-wrestling. Whether PRIDE was a work or shoot never mattered in Japan. Sakuraba spent his pro-wrestling career trying to create the illusion that his matches were shoots. To say he was no longer a pro-wrestler when he joined DSE is silly. If he hadn't been successful, he probably would've wound up back in pro-wrestling. He was a cross-over star. He wasn't a judo-ka or a rikishi.

[ohtani's jacket]

Lesnar will be on the ballot and it won't surprise me one iota if he gets in.

[Ditch]

So Sakuraba should be in because he was a pro-wrestler being great and famous at doing something that isn't pro-wrestling ? That makes real sense...

He and Funaki would have gone into the now-defunct WON MMA HOF if it was there at the time.

[Cox]

So Sakuraba should be in because he was a pro-wrestler being great and famous at doing something that isn't pro-wrestling ?

Absolutely.

 

We're talking about a HOF where an amateur background carries weight, particularly if you went to the Olympics. If that carries weight, then so too should a successful MMA career, especially if you were billed as a pro-wrestler, drew as a pro-wrestler and attracted long time pro-wrestling fans to shows that were essentially promoted as pro-wrestling. Whether PRIDE was a work or shoot never mattered in Japan. Sakuraba spent his pro-wrestling career trying to create the illusion that his matches were shoots. To say he was no longer a pro-wrestler when he joined DSE is silly. If he hadn't been successful, he probably would've wound up back in pro-wrestling. He was a cross-over star. He wasn't a judo-ka or a rikishi.

 

Why should either a successful amateur career or a successful MMA career matter at all towards a pro wrestling Hall of Fame? They are three completely separate entities. Would an amateur wrestling Hall of Fame consider Kurt Angle's pro wrestling success? Would it consider Brock Lesnar's MMA success? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. When talking about the merits of a man for a pro wrestling Hall of Fame, all that should matter are pro wrestling credentials. What exactly has Sakuraba done as a pro wrestler that merits induction?

[El-P]

We're talking about a HOF where an amateur background carries weight, particularly if you went to the Olympics. If that carries weight, then so too should a successful MMA career,

Well, it's the way it is, but it really shouldn't because it's irrelevant to what the guy did in pro-wrestling

 

especially if you were billed as a pro-wrestler, drew as a pro-wrestler and attracted long time pro-wrestling fans to shows that were essentially promoted as pro-wrestling. Whether PRIDE was a work or shoot never mattered in Japan. Sakuraba spent his pro-wrestling career trying to create the illusion that his matches were shoots.

UWF-I was pro-wrestling. His matches weren't more legit than Onita's. There was no "illusion".

 

To say he was no longer a pro-wrestler when he joined DSE is silly.

He was a pro wrestler. But he was doing MMA, not pro-wrestling. As it is, he was a MMA fighter, with a pro-wrestler gimmick and personna. Does Dan Severn success in UFC and amateur wrestling makes him a HOF too? After all, he was a pro-wrestler before doing MMA, just like Ken Shamrock. Shamrock shoud be in a HOF because of his UFC accolades too ? Tamura's MMA fight should be considered too ? It makes no sense to me. Of course, if Sak matches were worked, then I understand, because it would be pro-wrestling then. But as far as I know, these were legit MMA fights.

 

It all goes down to Meltzer nonsense about MMA being pro-wrestling, because I guess there's a legitimity complex there.

[rovert]

Listen to Dave on the LAW I wouldnt put money on Murdoch getting in this year.

[S.L.L.]

Like, Sakuraba is in because he lent "legitimacy" to puro by winning shootfights while being billed as a pro wrestler. So that's rationalized as him being influential, which is a major criteria. But that "influence" isn't really present anywhere - the puro scene went in the toilet while Sakuraba was off giving it "legitimacy", and remains there to this day. But voters liked seeing a guy billed a pro wrestler win shoots, so they voted for him and spun it as him being "influential".

I think you're overthinking things here a bit. Sakuraba is in because Dave put him on the ballot and people treated him as if he was a pro wrestler. He ticks all of Dave's boxes if you pretend Pride was pro wrestling. I don't really blame the voters for voting him in, because he meets all of Dave's HOF criteria; he just shouldn't have been placed on the ballot in the first place, unless Dave was honest about turning his HOF into a pro wrestling and MMA HOF, which was the path he started going down.

 

Well, in my defense, my logic was factoring in the whole reason Dave et al. were considering PRIDE to be wrestling in the first place. It's also me thinking a lot about 2000 (I think) when a lot of people were seriously arguing Sakuraba as wrestler of the year for the above reasons (and Dave seemed to be considering him as a major candidate, I assume for those reasons...no successful PRIDE fighter who wasn't being billed as a pro wrestler who was getting that consideration).

[ohtani's jacket]

Why should either a successful amateur career or a successful MMA career matter at all towards a pro wrestling Hall of Fame? They are three completely separate entities. Would an amateur wrestling Hall of Fame consider Kurt Angle's pro wrestling success? Would it consider Brock Lesnar's MMA success? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. When talking about the merits of a man for a pro wrestling Hall of Fame, all that should matter are pro wrestling credentials. What exactly has Sakuraba done as a pro wrestler that merits induction?

He was the biggest pro-wrestling star in Japan this decade. Whether he did this by working shoots or works is irrelevant. Amateur wrestling wouldn't consider professional careers because an amateur hall is concerned with success at the amateur level, not drawing power and the business side of things. Pro-wrestling is concerned with whatever draws, which in the earlier part of this decade in Japan was PRIDE.