Page 7 of 8

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:37 pm
by Joe Lanza
DezWalker wrote:
Rich Kraetsch wrote:
DezWalker wrote:Just sent mine in:

I FOLLOWED THE MODERN PERFORMERS IN U.S/CANADA CANDIDATES - YES
Bryan Danielson/Daniel Bryan
Edge
Sgt. Slaughter
Sting
Let's talk about St... just kidding :)

Edge is a funny one. To you, what was his case? I've always felt he's a hall of very good guy but I've seen quite a few cases over the years that has made me think long and hard about it.
DezWalker wrote: FOLLOWED WRESTLING IN JAPAN CANDIDATES - YES
Jun Akiyama
Yuji Nagata
Satoshi Kojima & Hiroyoshi Tenzan
Love Akiyama getting in, he'll be in when I eventually send mine in as well. Nagata I've discussed before and he's borderline for me, probably leaning NO but I have no issues with people voting him in.

TenKoji... man I really waver on them. Are you voting them in and combining their singles accomplishments WITH their tag accomplishments? To me that's the only way you can really do it, I'm not sure as a raw team they did enough. BUT if you count their singles accomplishments, especially Kojima, in with the tag, I can absolutely see it. Just curious on your case for them and how/why you voted in. Definitely guys that probably have stronger cases individually than as a team.
NON-WRESTLERS
Bill Apter
Howard Finkel
Gene Okerluind
My man. I can't fathom how Gene isn't already in and I'm a Finkel voter 4 life. Dude added so much to the product and deserves recognition.
For Edge, it's a little bit of everything. I basically scored every candidate on a scale from 1-10 on each of the three important categories and Edge did well in each of them. Not blow-away but better than most on the ballot.

For Kojima/Tenzan...honestly, I'd prefer to just vote for the individuals but the fact that they've been an iconic tag team AND had individual singles success puts them over for me. I personally don't expect them to get it, I've just kinda got a soft spot for them.

I think the reason that Finkel and Okerlund aren't in is because of the confusion with the categories. I suspect that a lot of the people voting in the historical category aren't voting for anyone n the non-wrestler category, which essentially qualifies as a no vote for them.

I really think the non-wrestlers should just be a separate category on their own that you either vote for or you don't for. Could even be similar to the "writer's awards" in the other halls of fame.
This is interesting, because I always looked at it in reverse. I always felt bad because my non wrestler votes were hurting the historical guys, but you are right, Historical votes hurt the non wrestlers, too.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:11 am
by kjharris
Dave's hugely influential on Hall of Fame voting, but to a degree voters are going to ignore what he says. When he writes:

"The other is drawing power. That’s meant as someone who pulled in big numbers at the arenas, or later, as the business changed, on PPV, based on consistent main event spots. A longtime main eventer who didn’t draw shouldn’t be considered. A longtime main eventer who worked minor territories that didn’t draw in major markets and big buildings shouldn’t count either. While Mil Mascaras, for example, is in the Hall of Fame, the fact he’d come to San Jose when wrestling was dead here and increase the normal weekly crowd of 400 to 1,200 does not make him a Hall of Famer. His success in Mexico, Texas, Japan and Southern California is a very different story."

there's no way you can vote for Big Daddy, who only drew a couple of crowds above 10K, but I still voted for him regardless because I think his cultural fame in the UK makes him such a historically important figure that he deserves to be in and outweighs the fact that he largely worked in town halls across the country. I'd also argue if you applied Dave's rules for drawing consistently, then you couldn't vote for Sting either, because there are plenty of wrestlers who drew huge on one day who aren't in the Hall of Fame and likely never will be (John Tolos being the obvious example).

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:31 am
by Brandon Howard
Wait, if I vote in the Non-Wrestlers category and abstain from the Historical category, I'm hurting everyone in the Historical category?

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:56 am
by Rich Kraetsch
Brandon Howard wrote:Wait, if I vote in the Non-Wrestlers category and abstain from the Historical category, I'm hurting everyone in the Historical category?
Oh jeez, I hope not. Sorry Historical guys.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:38 am
by Joe Lanza
Brandon Howard wrote:Wait, if I vote in the Non-Wrestlers category and abstain from the Historical category, I'm hurting everyone in the Historical category?
mookie discovered when running the math that if you vote for a non wrestler, it makes you a voter for whatever other bucket they fall into. SO if you vote for Jim Crockett Sr, it's a "no" vote for the rest of the historical bucket, and If you vote for Mean Gene, it's a no vote for the rest of the N.A. bucket, regardless of whether you indicate you are voting for that bucket.

dave has never made this clear, but the math adds up. He should probably put what category the historical guys are technically a part of in parenthesis or something, because most people don't realize this.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:58 pm
by mlev76
Joe Lanza wrote:
GOTNW wrote:
Goat wrote:I'd have to take issue with the characterization that Kobashi and Akiyama was the sole draw on the first NOAH Tokyo Dome show when you had the first and only match that had Mitsuharu Misawa and Keiji Muto on opposite sides.
It's quite peculiar how forgettable that one is. 2004 Dome still doesn't come close to the 2005.

To add to the point I've been pushing about the issues of the HOF I don't think Dave's ever explicitly stated fame and starpower *on their own* have any merit and it's really about how good of a draw a wrestler is. Then you look at Kensuke Sasaki getting in and what really seperates him from his peers like Akiyama and Takayama is that he's a celebrity. That's it. He failed several times when he was pushed-initially in the 90s when he was essentially a Choshu cosplayer but also when Misawa put the GHC title on him out of desperation he drew baaaaaaaaaaaaad numbers. In terms of what is represented as WON HOF criteria I'd say it's pretty clear Akiyama is a better or at worse equally good candidate as Sasaki. But it's really perception that differs and makes Sasaki a no brainer HOFer while Akiyama has been fighting either to stay on the ballot or get in a long time. And you can say-well, sure, Akiyama may match or exceed Sasaki in terms of match quality, longevity, drawing ability and influence, but he just doesn't have the case for star power Sasaki does. Which is fine, but then make the star presence argument consistent and valid. Big Daddy is a no brainer HOFer, Sakaguchi and Kimura should get in. Hell-Bob Sapp and Naoya Ogawa were more famous than Misawa and Kobashi-get them on the ballot. But that criteria only seems to be applied selectively.
You can apply the fame factor to Sgt Slaughter on the N.A. ballot, as well.

I would think fame in ones culture fits into the "historical significance in a positive manner" part of the criteria. There a positives and negatives in dave not fully fleshing out the components of the three criteria (the most glaring example being leaving it up to the voters to work out how to count Brock's MMA career). Voters clearly weight "fame" differently, at least the ones I've talked to. Personally, I find it hard to ignore as a positive, but I don't consciously see it as a negative if a candidate was never famous outside of wrestling. With that said, if breaking through IS a positive, wouldn't that make not breaking through inherently a negative?

fwiw, I voted for Kensuke and I vote for Akiyama every year. I see Akiyama as the stronger candidate.
Based on Dave's comments in last week's Observer, he doesn't actually think "fame" should matter much in this consideration. Which is somewhat weird in something called a Hall of FAME

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:41 pm
by DezWalker
Brandon Howard wrote:Wait, if I vote in the Non-Wrestlers category and abstain from the Historical category, I'm hurting everyone in the Historical category?
Yes.

I made that mistake the first year I had a ballot.

Actually it depends which category the non-wrestlers you voted for would fall into. And Dave doesn't really make that clear on the ballot.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:20 pm
by Garuda
I guess I missed that VoW was going to be HOF-light on coverage this year.

Not whining, but I'd like to voice that the HOF coverage of the last two years is one of my very favorite things on the site and, for me personally, a big draw.

I imagine it just lost out to more important concerns, but I hope to see it return next year.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:21 pm
by Garuda
mlev76 wrote: Based on Dave's comments in last week's Observer, he doesn't actually think "fame" should matter much in this consideration. Which is somewhat weird in something called a Hall of FAME
Also an interesting wrinkle in the case of Sgt. Slaughter, where his mainstream fame during the time period plays a big role in the discussion of his candidacy.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:21 pm
by Rich Kraetsch
Garuda wrote:I guess I missed that VoW was going to be HOF-light on coverage this year.

Not whining, but I'd like to voice that the HOF coverage of the last two years is one of my very favorite things on the site and, for me personally, a big draw.

I imagine it just lost out to more important concerns, but I hope to see it return next year.
If you follow us on Twitter you'll know we attempted to rally troops, get freelance pitches, book podcast guests and it seemed nobody was really into this season. We had staff members mention wanting to do something but nothing ever really came of it. On the VOW Flagship neither Joe nor I really had a chance to fit it in because of so much else happening in wrestling but again, that tells you our personal interest level. In previous years we would've talked about it a lot but for whatever reason it was just a down year. Sorry we couldn't deliver you much this year but it wasn't for a lack of effort.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:07 pm
by mlev76
Garuda wrote:
mlev76 wrote: Based on Dave's comments in last week's Observer, he doesn't actually think "fame" should matter much in this consideration. Which is somewhat weird in something called a Hall of FAME
Also an interesting wrinkle in the case of Sgt. Slaughter, where his mainstream fame during the time period plays a big role in the discussion of his candidacy.
One of the key reasons I believe it's a shame he's not in. Any kid growing up in the 80s, regardless of the level of fandom, knew certain names. Hogan, Andre for sure. Piper, Savage and Slaughter would be in the next highest bucket. All but Slaughter are in.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:59 pm
by Rich Kraetsch
There's no evidence of this so I'm just speaking in my opinion but I think Slaughter is way lower on that list than the others. Those other guys are no doubt household names, I'm not sure Slaughter is. You do have to remember, by the time of WWE's major explosion he was a non factor and only returned when WWE's business was beginning to wane. I'm not saying this is a reason to put him in the Hall or not but I feel those others you named, specifically that five are far and away bigger stars to casual fans that came up in the late 80s/early 90s than Slaughter.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:29 pm
by mlev76
Rich Kraetsch wrote:There's no evidence of this so I'm just speaking in my opinion but I think Slaughter is way lower on that list than the others. Those other guys are no doubt household names, I'm not sure Slaughter is. You do have to remember, by the time of WWE's major explosion he was a non factor and only returned when WWE's business was beginning to wane. I'm not saying this is a reason to put him in the Hall or not but I feel those others you named, specifically that five are far and away bigger stars to casual fans that came up in the late 80s/early 90s than Slaughter.
Based on my recollection of your age from the podcast, you're from an age group who probably missed the full peak of his popularity by a few years. But, even after he left WWF, Slaughter was a big figure in the sport in part because of his exposure as a cartoon character on GI Joe. That's in part where the continued fame came from and if we are judging on that, you have to consider that fully. I'm not saying it's a certainty that it should matter, but when it comes to fame alone, he's right up there.

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:23 pm
by yesdanielbryan
Who are the voters for WON HOF? How many voters are there?

Re: 2016 WON HOF Ballot & Discussion

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:50 pm
by Rich Kraetsch
yesdanielbryan wrote:Who are the voters for WON HOF? How many voters are there?
It's not transparent enough where we know everyone who voted but there are many including wrestling historians, wrestling journalists, idiots like Joe and I as well as current and past wrestlers.