2009 WON HOF thread

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't see any argument for Lesnar's case is up for debate using your standard. Based on buyrates alone it's fairly evident he should be a no brainer if this argument you are presenting is something you think ought to be applied consistency.

It depends. I imagine Dave will support Lesnar's candidacy and I imagine there were be a ton of debate over it. Personally, I don't care. I don't subscribe to the WON, I just have an outside curiosity about the whole thing. But for every Japanese fan I know, and I mean hardcore fans, Sakuraba is a no-brainer. I don't see why you have to apply the same standards for each candidate. That doesn't make any sense.

 

Basically, this argument comes down to how you feel about pro-wrestling and MMA, and to a lesser extent how you feel about Dave Meltzer. Lesnar had a more successful pro-wrestling career than Sakuraba and may have a more successful MMA career too. That may make it difficult to leave Brock out since Sakuraba and Funaki have already set a precedent. The key difference, I would imagine, is that US pro-wrestling fans and the media (whoever they are) haven't exactly flocked to Lesnar as the biggest thing in pro-wrestling. If New Japan had been in the position that the WWE is now, perhaps Sakuraba wouldn't have been quite as big a deal, but you never know... Japanese people eat this shit up. When a Japanese baseball player goes to MLB, it's massive. When a US player comes to play baseball in Japan, it doesn't cause a ripple in the States. There's not that many direct comparisons you can make, because you're dealing with two different countries.

 

PRIDE was more or less a pro-wrestling promotion in my eyes. Look at one of the major guys behind it -- he went and started HUSTLE which is the flipside of the same coin. Anything that has Inoki involved is not going to be on the up and up. People can talk about trying to legitimise pro-wrestling, but let's not legitimise PRIDE too much.

[El-P]

PRIDE was more or less a pro-wrestling promotion in my eyes. Look at one of the major guys behind it -- he went and started HUSTLE which is the flipside of the same coin. Anything that has Inoki involved is not going to be on the up and up. People can talk about trying to legitimise pro-wrestling, but let's not legitimise PRIDE too much.

All our debate goes down to this actually. Once you've said you consider PRIDE as pro-wrestling (which I already knew), it sums up pretty much everything there's to say on your part. PRIDE did promote some worked matches which were pro-wrestling matches, but that doesn't make the company pro-wrestling. Like some pro-wrestling promotion did promote some legit shoot matches (like the kickboxing stuff in early ARSION cards) but it didn't made them legit fight promotion.

[ohtani's jacket]

How is politics unrelated to pro wrestling?

If you want to argue that there's a connection, go for it.

 

I don't really care whether I'm right or wrong about this. I have never understood why works and shoots should be kept separate. If you ask me, Funaki was the hottest pro-wrestler in Japan in 1996 and his match with Rutten was the best fight -- worked or shoot -- that year. I also think Tamura's best shoots ought to be included in his list of best matches, and that from a work perspective if you're a good shooter that makes you a better wrestler in general, pro or otherwise. I don't understand how you can praise guys for faking a fight and saying how great their matwork looks etc. and then suddenly if they're fighting for a real submission it's completely separate and unrelated. Bullshit. If Yoshiaki Fujiwara had wanted to, he could've hooked on a submission for real (or maybe he couldn't have, but let me keep my fantasy.)

 

The fact that this doesn't apply to Hulk Hogan or Dusty Rhodes hardly matters.

[El-P]

I don't understand how you can praise guys for faking a fight and saying how great their matwork looks etc. and then suddenly if they're fighting for a real submission it's completely separate and unrelated. Bullshit.

This explains your contemp for Takada who, from all acounts, couldn't shoot worth a damn.

 

If Yoshiaki Fujiwara had wanted to, he could've hooked on a submission for real (or maybe he couldn't have, but let me keep my fantasy.)

No idea if Fujiwara would have been worth anything in a real setting. I know the though guy shooter reputation of a guy like Regal for instance, is pretty much bullshit.

 

The fact that this doesn't apply to Hulk Hogan or Dusty Rhodes hardly matters.

Why ? Aren't they pro-wrestlers ?

[ohtani's jacket]

PRIDE was more or less a pro-wrestling promotion in my eyes. Look at one of the major guys behind it -- he went and started HUSTLE which is the flipside of the same coin. Anything that has Inoki involved is not going to be on the up and up. People can talk about trying to legitimise pro-wrestling, but let's not legitimise PRIDE too much.

All our debate goes down to this actually. Once you've said you consider PRIDE as pro-wrestling (which I already knew), it sums up pretty much everything there's to say on your part. PRIDE did promote some worked matches which were pro-wrestling matches, but that doesn't make the company pro-wrestling. Like some pro-wrestling promotion did promote some legit shoot matches (like the kickboxing stuff in early ARSION cards) but it didn't made them legit fight promotion.

 

Nobody in this thread is going to change their stance, but pro-wrestling to those people was whatever drew. HUSTLE is a good example of that. My argument is not that the fights were pro-wrestling fights, but that the company was a pro-wrestling outfit. They saw an opportunity and exploited it. I don't see the underlining difference between PRIDE and a gimmick fed.

[El-P]

I see your point about the company being a pro-wrestling outfit.

The difference is, as soon as the fights aren't worked, then it becomes a sport, and it's not pro-wrestling anymore. That's where I, personnaly, draw the line. HUSTLE isn't much different from later days FMW in spirit and execution, with pro-wrestling matches going around all the entertainment bullshit. PRIDE was closer to K1 or UFC than to any pro-wrestling promotion.

[tomk]

I don't think the difference is about historical perception.

Moolah is well liked by her voting peers.

Impression I get is that Big Daddy isn’t well liked by voting peers (British wrestlers or the wrestlers who toured the Uk during their careers).

Perhaps if Crabtree was more gregarious backstage or had a stable of female trainees he was willing to whore out he might do better

Moolah also does extremely well with active wrestlers, so I think part of the difference is historical perception, unless she taught the modern day Divas how to whore themselves out to management and all the top stars. Also, many of Moolah's female peers hated her guts for the same reasons Daddy's peers hate his.

 

I don't really have good answers for this outside of Moolah was well liked by the boys. Moolah's legend as beloved figure is passed down from one generation of wrestlers to next. And yes her female peers hated her, but she was liked by the boys.. and I don't think Meltzer has many of those girls voting in HOF. The girls he does have voting like Missy saw Moolah as role model (an example of someone who figured out how to stay ahead in this male dominated industry) and not someone to hate.

[ohtani's jacket]

I know the though guy shooter reputation of a guy like Regal for instance, is pretty much bullshit.

I'm sure a lot of guy's reps are bullshit, but people always cherry pick what suits their argument. If a guy looks legit in a pro-wrestling environment, that's generally a plus. Strikes, matwork, whatever. Some people don't care about that stuff and that's fine, just like some people don't like shoot style, but pulling or throwing a strike doesn't make a world of difference and neither does the difference between a work and a shoot. Sakuraba trained to make a work look like a shoot. Then he trained to shoot for real. That, in my books, makes Sakuraba a better overall "worker" than he otherwise would have been if he'd stayed in the works only scene. That no doubt sounds stupid to others, but again I say people are only too happy to legitmise pro-wrestlers through their amateur background whenever it suits them.

 

The fact that this doesn't apply to Hulk Hogan or Dusty Rhodes hardly matters.

 

Why ? Aren't they pro-wrestlers ?

Pro-wrestlers are not created equal. This is one of the fundamental problems with the WON HOF. People are always saying "well, where's the equivalent who's already in the Hall?" Then they go off on these wild tangents saying if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck should it be in the HOF? No, use your discretion.

[S.L.L.]

I linked to this earlier in the thread, but I feel like I need to actually re-post it because apparently some people still haven't got the memo that wrestling =/= MMA any more than it does "The Wizard of Oz".

 

MMA is just a real version of professional wrestling. Professional wrestling is the exhibition.

Prove it.

 

Seriously. I want to hear you back up this claim. Everybody says it, everybody takes it for granted as being true, nobody ever stops to consider what it means. Nobody ever stops to consider if it's really a valid claim. I'm opening the floor to you, Mr. Evil nee Pegasus. Prove it.

 

I'm glad Resident Evil responded to my post. Nobody who claims that wrestling is MMA and vice versa ever seems to explain how they came to that conclusion, and I'm glad he outlined all his reasons, because it really does give a great illustration of how tenuous the comparisons are and how backwards and flawed the logic used to make the conclusions are. I don't know if he'll realize it, but there you go.

 

Anyway, if he's right, I'd like to take this time to prove that "The Wizard of Oz" is pro wrestling.

 

Like I said either, they both alter their matches to draw people in. MMA wil also book matches if it draws in the crowd.

The makers of The Wizard of Oz tried to draw a paying crowd. A number of alterations were made to the plot of the book to help draw the crowd.

 

They both use bad guys and good guys. Personalities to draw people in moreso than most other sports.

The Wizard of Oz used good guys and bad guys, moreso than other sports.

 

The goal of the participants is the same. To become the best and become champion. Even in the exhibition world, this is top priority and achievable to a degree.l

Everyone wants to be the best. Dorothy's friends were all about self improvement. And Dorothy and the Wicked Witch kept feuding over those coveted Ruby Slippers. Not a title, strictly speaking, but then the UWF didn't have titles, and if you consider MMA to be pro wrestling, you would have to consider the UWF to be pro wrestling.

 

The goal of the organizations are the same. To make money by selling the product to the crowd.

Same goal that The Wizard of Oz had. And, you know, every business ever.

 

They both use highly motivated, tough, well conditioned. similar mindset and competitive individuals.

I don't know what kind of athletes the cast and crew of The Wizard of Oz were. They probably don't compare favorably to wrestlers or mixed martial artists. That said, all very motivated people, competitive, similar mindset.

 

They both get hurt. They are both violent activities which appeal to a lot of the same emotions in the viewer. This is partly where a TV comparison falls apart. Pro Wrestling is not totally fake.

As has been noted, wrestlers aren't supposed to get hurt. Neither were Buddy Ebsen or Margaret Hamilton, but it happened on the set of The Wizard of Oz.

 

They have a storied history together

 

MMA is often seen as the real version of professional wrestling by people. It is what would happen to professional wrestling if it did decide to go legit someday.

 

 

Professional wrestling became the way it is partly due to the preformers not believing that real professional wrestling would be exciting enough for the fans. It has morphed into different formats since than. There is a big difference between Memhis, Pancrase and UWFI for example. But the links and roots - I assume people here know them -- with MMA and wrestling in Japan or even other places are just too strong for me to ignore.

Things can have common roots without being the same thing.

 

But in conclusion. Wrestling is in essence an anything goes contest where you can pretty much do anything you want comat style. Even punching which is supposed to be illegal is commonly forgotten about. So you have an activity that allows you do what you want -- kicking/punching/wrestling/etc, has contact harsh enough to draw in millions of people, is displaying a common goal of combatants wanting to be the best/have the championship belt, uses the advantage of exhibiton/booking to draw people in to make money, has bad/good guys personalities, ring announcers, ring music, conditoned/determined preformers and so. The other activitity that has the exact same thing.

 

The question becomes, "What would happen to professional wrestling if it left its fake roots and became legit?" It would become MMA. Therefore, MMA is professional wrestling except one has the difference of one being a total exhibition while the other is the real thing who only partially uses exhibition which I believe is what my original statement was.

That's a pretty big difference. If wrestling went legit, it would become MMA. That doesn't mean it would still be wrestling. MMA is a game, and as with any game, it's defined by it's rules. It's rules, as you may or may not have noticed, are very different than pro wrestling's "rules". It's necessary for me to throw those quotation marks in there because pro wrestling is not a game, and therefore is not defined by rules. It's a genre of fiction. It belongs to an entirely different categorization of stuff. Like Law & Order and actual police work. Or MMA and The Wizard of Oz. Sure you can compare the two. There may even be real, valid comparisons, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

 

That's a pretty big difference. If wrestling went legit, it would become MMA. That doesn't mean it would still be wrestling. MMA is a game, and as with any game, it's defined by it's rules. It's rules, as you may or may not have noticed, are very different than pro wrestling's "rules". It's necessary for me to throw those quotation marks in there because pro wrestling is not a game, and therefore is not defined by rules. It's a genre of fiction. It belongs to an entirely different categorization of stuff. Like Law & Order and actual police work. Or MMA and The Wizard of Oz. Sure you can compare the two. There may even be real, valid comparisons, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

To the people saying that boxing is MMA or wrestling or whatever -- it's not because boxing is just combat where you "only" use your fists. Combat where you use "everything" is wrestling or MMA. Boxing is different though similar in some aspects.

Combat where you use everything is street fighting or war.

 

Combat where you use everything within reason is MMA.

 

A genre of theater defined by it's focus on a fictional form of combat is wrestling.

 

Professional wrestling is not combat. It is a genre of fiction about combat. These are two very, very, very different things.

 

The second line is what I disagree with. It would still be professional wrestling. What would professional wrestling turn into if it weren't fixed? MMA. So how does it suddenly not become professional wrestling?

Because you dramatically changed something very crucial to it's definition as pro wrestling.

 

Let me put it to you this way. If you could see me right now, you could accurately describe me as a living human being. If you then produced a revolver and shot me through the head, you could probably accurately describe me as a dead body. You took a fundamental aspect of my first classification (being alive) and changed it rather drastically, much like taking a fundamental aspect of wrestling (it's a genre of fiction) and changing that. Would you apply the same logic in this situation and say that a living being and a lifeless corpse are the same thing, or do you agree with me that this is stupid?

 

While the above example may seem severe, keep in mind that it's actually a more direct comparison than pro wrestling and MMA. At least life and death belong to the same classification of things. MMA and pro wrestling are entirely different types of things. One is a form of legitimate combat, and one is a genre of fiction. It's like suggesting boxing and the stories of P.G. Wodehouse are the same thing. Or muay thai and "The Lord of the Rings". Fuck, there's a more direct comparison between MMA and video games about pro wrestling than there is between MMA and actual pro wrestling, just because they're both games.

 

But you can't change something crucial to the definition of something and expect it to be the same thing. In the original book of The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy wore silver slippers. In the movie, they became ruby slippers, because that would better highlight the use of Technicolor. Are silver and rubies the same thing? If you replaced the cast and crew of The Wizard of Oz with the cast and crew of Roadhouse, changed the setting to a bar in Jasper, Wyoming, changed the plot to something about a deeply philosophical bouncer helping take back a small town from a corrupt businessman, and changed the title of the movie to "Roadhouse", then it would be Roadhouse. Are The Wizard of Oz and Roadhouse the same movie? It doesn't work that way. You don't get to change the definition of things on a whim like that.

 

Nobody is saying they're the EXACT same thing. What is being said is that they're the same thing EXCEPT one is an exhibition and the other isn't. Besides the exhibition part, they're very similar and way more similar than the comparison of Wizard of Oz (nice comparison though as I'm familiar with that movie and what happened behind the scenes) to MMA or Law and Order to Police Work. There's a reason why fights on the TV screen aren't generally as compelling as a well done wrestling match. They're way more fiction like and feel more distant without even an attempt to pass if off as somewhat real even if they get how to actually put a fight together. Wrestling is a step closer to its reality form than Wizard of Oz is to MMA or TV cop work to actual police work.

No, it really, really isn't. Well, okay, more real than The Wizard of Oz, but not even close to reality, unless you're just living in a really fucked up place.

 

If Jesse Ventura's political career doesn't help his case, I wonder if his acting career does? Being an actor and being a wrestler at least belong to the same classification of things, which is more than I can say for being a wrestler and being a mixed martial artist.

[sek69]

I wonder why the people who try to link MMA to pro wrestling based off their common roots never try to make the claim that soccer, rugby, Australian rules football, and the NFL are all the same thing. I mean, they all come from the same roots, right? Soccer players re-invented the role of placekicking in the NFL, yet there's never been a kicker elected to the Football HOF.

 

 

Of course the big difference (as alluded to before) is that none of those football-related sports are seen as jokes and as such none of them need to latch on to something else to appear legit.

 

 

The whole thing reminds me of how people will point out that guys like Angle got in because the old timers want to make their life's work seem more legit, but it's almost exactly the same logic as the MMA=pro wrestling argument. Hell, it's the same logic that Inoki used to send NJ guys to get slaughtered in MMA events, thinking that if the wrestling guy at least made a go at it it would make the pro wrestling style seem legit.

[Resident Evil]

And I still think your logic is flawed SLL. I don't know why it hurts you to think of similarities between wrestling and MMA but apparantly it does.

 

It goes like this

 

Pro wrestling and MMA are not the same thing

 

Pro wrestling is an exhibition of combat fighting designed to get the most emotionally out of the fans. The exhibition has some realness to it though.

 

MMA is a sport where poeple try to beat each other.

 

The exhibition of pro wrestling "has some realness" to it. As it is today, pro wrestling shares more in common with MMA than it does whatever other comparison anyone wants to make. To deny this is to deny the truth just to make a point.

 

However, if pro wrestling were to stop a being an exhibition and go the competive route than it becomes 100 percent sport. A combat sport and the closest thing to that is MMA. If MMA were to become an exhibition, than it becomes pro wrestling. It's not that hard to understand. They're not the same thing but there are similarites.

[ohtani's jacket]

I wonder why the people who try to link MMA to pro wrestling based off their common roots never try to make the claim that soccer, rugby, Australian rules football, and the NFL are all the same thing. I mean, they all come from the same roots, right? Soccer players re-invented the role of placekicking in the NFL, yet there's never been a kicker elected to the Football HOF.

Uh, they're all football codes. There's been guys who've switched codes and been successful at more than one. There's been guys who've failed at switching codes. The only difference between switching football codes and going into an MMA environment is that pro-wrestling is worked.

[Loss]

All these years, and we're still debating what wrestling is and isn't? If we can't get that straight, how can we talk about anything else?

[Loss]

And to show I'm equally guilty ...

 

What's more, worked shoots go back further than Inoki in Japan.

Isn't all pro wrestling worked shoots?

[ohtani's jacket]

And to show I'm equally guilty ...

 

What's more, worked shoots go back further than Inoki in Japan.

Isn't all pro wrestling worked shoots?

 

It depends whether you define pro-wrestling as a worked shoot or as a style of promoting. If it's the latter, then any content can be pro-wrestling.

[Loss]

It's not a style of promoting. I think that's how Dave defines it, which is where the disconnect is. He sees wrestling as something promoted, I see wrestling as something done by wrestlers. I think all wrestling is worked shoot, what Sakuraba did was equivalent to very successful method acting.

[khawk20]

And to show I'm equally guilty ...

 

What's more, worked shoots go back further than Inoki in Japan.

Isn't all pro wrestling worked shoots?

 

Now you've got to define what a "shoot" is! **sigh**

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't have a problem with that opinion, but there's a lot of things in pro-wrestling that amount to gimmicks. It seems anything goes in pro-wrestling except shoots. Once you start talking about shoots, people get all twitchy. Suddenly, MMA is a sport. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't MMA fought for its legitimacy as a sport? Surely, there are people from the fighters' respective backgrounds who see it as a circus.

 

My argument isn't that pro-wrestling and MMA are one in the same, it's that MMA is a way for pro-wrestling people to make money. PRIDE was never regarded as a stand alone thing in Japan. It was lumped in with pro-wrestling, boxing and every other type of fighting. It was born, for the most part, out of UWF-i going belly up and Kingdom folding. It was not a clear cut alternative to pro-wrestling in Japan, it was essentially the new wave of wrestling promoting in Japan. Had it started like K-1, perhaps I might view it differently (though K-1 was certainly on the radar of Japanese wrestling fans.)

 

The fact that PRIDE ended up folding in the same manner that all the shoot style promotions did highlights to me that it was just another promotion. There were a large number of new fans who were drawn to PRIDE, but it wasn't a completely different market from the one they were already operating in. I know people who went to UWF shows in the 80s and then went to every single PRIDE show.

 

To me, it's like the film business where studios latch onto whatever genre is making money. This isn't the case for UFC, I believe, so you can't talk about it in general terms. There will always be guys who were out and out pro-wrestlers. Then there's other guys for whom switching being works and shoots wasn't that big a stretch, like Funaki and Shamrock. If you watch UWF/PWFG and then Pancrase, it is not night and day.

[ragemaster]

Its very hard on a message board to convey why someone should be in the hall of fame like Big Daddy, unless as you grew up, they were part of your culture. Its hard to get across how big, big daddy was in the uk. The one match i think that proves a strong argument for him, is Big Daddy vs. Mighty John Quinn from 1979 at the wembley arena. Its is on youtube but i think you need to track down an unedited version with both men's entrances and the aftermath to get the complete effect. I also think its one of the most enjoyable matches i ever seen. Should Big Daddy be in the hall of fame, shouldn't be a question. The question is why isn't he. As he was the biggest wrestling star in the uk if he's not in, than nobody from the uk should be in.

[Jingus]

I can't believe we're still discussing the "MMA=prowres" argument. They are not the same thing. Period. Not even close.

 

PRIDE was a shootfighting company. Period. "But they did worked fights!" And? WWF did Brawl 4 All. Does that make them a MMA company? Of course not.

 

Did PRIDE announce these fights were gonna be worked? No. Then they're not "works". They're fixed. There's a difference. Kazushi Sakuraba vs Little Guido in UWFi is a work. It's supposed to be fake, and the fans know that and accept it. Don King-Promoted Boxer #1 vs Don King-Promoted Boxer #2 is a fix. It's not supposed to be fake, and the fans get angry if they discover it is, not to mention possible inquiries from athletic commisions and such for breaking the law.

 

MMA is a legitimate athletic sport in which two opponents are both trying to defeat the other according to strict guidelines. Professional wrestling is a performance art involving actors putting on a fictional show. The physicality of this show is meaningless in determining whether it's a "sport" or not. I bet that Jackie Chan and his stuntment often beat the living shit out of each other while making their kung-fu movies. Do we consider that a sport? Of course not. The "similarities" between fighting and rassling are meaningless, because one's fictional spectacle and the other is serious competition. They are not the same thing. Period.

[ohtani's jacket]

Period!

[Bix]

By the way does anyone here have the "I can't comment on the death of WCW because I wasn't watching wrestling yet" thing that Dan Wahlers wrote that I was recently alerted to the existence of? THIS MAN HAS A HOF BALLOT. I wonder if he's a "reporter" or a "historian."

[Jingus]

Wow. I suddenly feel better about only starting to watch it in 1999.

[El-P]

By the way does anyone here have the "I can't comment on the death of WCW because I wasn't watching wrestling yet" thing that Dan Wahlers wrote that I was recently alerted to the existence of? THIS MAN HAS A HOF BALLOT. I wonder if he's a "reporter" or a "historian."

Oh shit. That's embarrassing...

[Loss]

By the way does anyone here have the "I can't comment on the death of WCW because I wasn't watching wrestling yet" thing that Dan Wahlers wrote that I was recently alerted to the existence of? THIS MAN HAS A HOF BALLOT. I wonder if he's a "reporter" or a "historian."

http://www.armpitwrestling.com/dan-wahlers-interview.shtml

 

And I stand corrected. He didn't say he wasn't watching at the time. He did say that he was really only a fan of one promotion, which I think is just as bad in some ways.

 

No, I wasn't a big WCW fan, in fact I wouldn't consider myself a WCW fan at all. I taped the replay of Nitro every week, and I watched it to keep up with what was going on, but I was, and still am a WWE fan at heart. Sometimes I get flack for it, but I make no apologies. WWE is what I grew up on. During the height of the wrestling war, I hated WCW. The war was not only real to the people in both companies, but it was real to the fans as well. Those were the good old days. I haven't had the chance to read Death of WCW yet, maybe Bryan can slide me out a free copy? I do intend on reading it at some point. Right now, I'm backed up with books I'm supposed to be reading.