2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Mon Oct 05, 2015 8:48 pm

Rich Kraetsch and Joe Lanza are joined by Shake Them Ropes co-host Rob McCarron for a very special Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame edition of Voices of Wrestling. All three men reveal their ballots for the 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame, who they voted for, who they didn't vote for and why. Discussions along the way including the overwhelming resume of Daniel Bryan, whether CM Punk is worthy of the Hall, Sting's status as a Hall of Famer, Brock's MMA career - should it count or not, the impact of Dragon Gate and if CIMA is a worthy candidate, Howard Finkel, Gene Okerlund, Jimmy Hart and much more along the way.

http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2015/1 ... iscussion/

User avatar
Rob McCarron
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:21 am
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rob McCarron » Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:00 pm

Sent my ballot in on Sunday night. Official!
Shake Them Ropes
iTunes | Stitcher | Twitter |YouTube

User avatar
ceftaxias
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:53 am

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by ceftaxias » Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:52 am

Great show guys.

One candidate I'd love to hear people smarter and more researched than me make points in support of is Edge, I feel like his case is solidly ahead of Punk's and it blows away Orton's. Again you won't find me looking up drawing records and whatnot but for whatever reason he resonates with me as a top guy from 06 to 11 way more than Punk and Orton ever were in their title runs. I also feel like as a worker the gap between him and the other two is even greater, to me you could copy Rob's argument for Orton's mythical collection of great matches and paste it right in an argument for Edge.

If I had a vote I'm not even sure I'd vote for Edge, but from the perspective of someone who finds him to be a much better worker than Punk and Orton, I'm surprised he's so easily dismissed, to the point where I think portions of his career are being overlooked or something. But with these three guys in particular, it's not like there's a tangible difference between them as draws in today's era, and workrate is subjective so at the same time if you don't think he's a hall of fame worker then I could see why he's an easy no.

User avatar
Joe Lanza
Site Admin
Posts: 2732
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:00 pm

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Joe Lanza » Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:13 am

I don't vote for any of them, so maybe Rich or Rob will explain what sets Punk (Rich) & Orton (Rob) apart from Edge.

I think they're about equal as drawing cards.

I'd go Punk, Orton, Edge in work. Edge was pretty great in plunder matches. If i'm on a desert island, and can only have one 6 hour VHS comp tape, i'm taking Punk's.

Historical significance i'm going Punk >>> Edge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orton. I don't have a ton of respect for Orton's career. I see him as a guy that was always over pushed. Punk is one of the more memorable personalities of his era and opened the door for "indie guys". He's also a ROH Mount Rushmore guy. Edge was in a big time tag team, was part of the Smackdown Six, and had an entire second career with the Rated R thing. He was the first MITB cash in. Orton... wrestled Cena a lot?

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:23 am
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Hobbes » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:25 am

The best compliment I can give this is that on a day where a billion pro wrestling podcasts dropped, I made sure this was the first I listened to. Although I follow more than just modern American wrestling, it's the only scene I feel close to authoritative on, so I thought I'd say who I'd vote in and give some thoughts on them as well as some thoughts on your thoughts on them. Then you can give your thoughts on my thoughts on your thoughts.

Daniel Bryan Danielson: YES
The only yes I would give to a modern American candidate if I had a ballot. I'm a lot like Joe (Who I agreed with the most of the three on this podcast), where I think a Hall of Fame should be strict. I like HOF's that are for the elite, not the very good. Bryan isn't a HOF draw or a HOF influence, but he is one of the rare guys who is so good at one quality that it wouldn't matter if he brought literally nothing to the other two (And he does bring more to those than nothing as well, just not HOF level drawing or influence). If you are one of the top three to five workers in the world for a decade, you should be in on work alone, and Bryan is exactly that to me.

Brock Lesnar: NO
Joe mentioned how Rich's article on Brock convinced him not to vote for Brock, and it did the same for me. Brock had a mixed at best drawing resume until his return to WWE, and even then he wasn't a huge HOF level draw in terms of added buys. It's also worth noting that Brock was not able to sell out his hometown this year for Raw without a lot of comps, and wasn't able to fill MSG last week to capacity, even with 2,000 comps, despite being a heavily protected guy who rarely appears. Brock was a very good wrestler pre-return, but not a HOFer. His work since the return has been HOF worthy, but it's three to five great matches a year. It's the Sasha Bank conundrum, if a wrestler hits a few grand slams a year but doesn't even get singles otherwise, for whatever reason, should they get awards? There's also the fact that if Brock was wrestling full time, I feel he might get exposed as being over reliant on a million suplexes and squashing guys half the time. Brock is an awesome performer, and his Rumble and WrestleMania matches are two of my favourite matches of the year, but if Brock was working matches like he did against Seth and Big Show every week, the bloom would be off the rose in a few months.

Brock might be a Hall of Famer to me in the future, he's producing the best work of his career right now, but it's not enough yet. Like Rich said on the podcast, it would be great to see monthly Network numbers to see how he does or doesn't move subscriptions. It's unfortunate that just the PPV Brock got turned into something special was the same PPV where the PPV model got destroyed, as it makes it harder to judge.

CM Punk: NO
I'm a big CM Punk fan, and I can create an argument for him getting in if I try hard, but even then it's borderline. I've seen other people say that if you're 50-50 on a candidate, they shouldn't get your vote, and that's kind of where I'm at with Punk. To me, he's just a tiny bit under HOF under each of the three criteria. He's a very good wrestler, he's a very good WWE draw by some metrics in the modern era, and he does have some influence. But like I said earlier, I like a HOF that is the elite, not the very good. I will say that I think Punk's influence on WWE opening the doors to indie talent is overblown. He likely did have something to do with it, but WWE changes their mind so often on what they want that it's hard for me to give Punk sole credit until the end of time for opening the door to every other US indie worker that makes it in WWE.

The two things Punk has that feel HOF level are his promo ability and possibly his merchandise numbers. You guys talked about how it's hard to know which criteria bucket to put promos in and how much to value them, and I agree. I agree specifically with Rich too on really wanting to know Punk's merchandise sales. In this modern era of WWE, where there are so few individual mega stars, a few years of huge merchandise sales might actually be the thing that would put Punk over the top into HOF levels as a draw, at least for me.

Randy Orton: NO
There is a lot of candidates where I have to think about them for awhile before I decide if I'd vote them in. Randy Orton is a guy where my gut reaction is an instant No and nothing ever makes me even change my mind for a second. Not close to a HOF draw, despite getting multiple heavy WWE pushes. No influence, unless you think Randy Orton opened the door for big second generation white wrestlers. As for work, I don't know if Randy Orton would be even be a lock for the Hall of Very Good. The most damning argument against his work was made by you guys, when you revealed that Dave Meltzer, who loves him some Randy Orton, has barely ever had him rate **** 1/2 as a singles performer. His best singles match ever was against Foley at Backlash, he was 24 years years old. He's had eleven years since, the prime of his career, and I don't know if he has come close to that match again. He had a million matches with Cena, and none of them were as good as the first major PPV shots Punk and Bryan had with him.

Orton is loved by some veterans because of his look, his pedigree, and because by all accounts he's a smooth worker that's easy to have a match with. Orton is not horrible, but nowhere close to a Hall of Famer in my opinion.

Edge: NO

A better version of Randy Orton, similar to Punk in that he's very good but not HOF level. I would argue Edge has had more influence on the industry than Orton, as he along with Christian, the Hardyz and Dudleyz kept tag wrestling alive in WWE for a few years, and started the trend of multi-man ladder matches that continues to this day with Money In The Bank. That's not close to enough for a HOF though.

Sting: NO
Easy no. Sting had a very solid career, but it's not close to elite. As a worker he was as good as who he was facing, and very rarely elevated a lesser worker to something better than they normally were capable of. People point to Sting being a top star in WCW for a long time, but as Joe pointed out, many of those years were horrible years for WCW. That is not completely Sting's fault, but that's also not a feather in his cap either. If I wanted to be cheeky I'd point out that 1997, the year Sting was never more popular, was the year where he never wrestled or cut a promo.

Ivan Koloff: YES

Okay, not a modern candidate but I just wanted to use this as an excuse to talk about the WON HOF as a whole. I did not live through prime Ivan Koloff, but I think his career is worthy of the hall. Dave last year basically said without saying that he thought Koloff was the best candidate currently, and Dave doesn't do that often.

The problem I have is that I feel like the Koloff's of the world get hurt badly by the WON HOF system. I believe there are a ton of people that simply are only interested in voting for the names they're personally familiar with, and they don't realize that if you say, just vote for Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton in the American category, you aren't giving a "don't know/don't care" vote to everyone else in the category, you're giving a No vote to everyone else in there and actively hurting their chances of getting in. I don't expect everyone to be interested in every era of wrestling, but if you're going to be voting in a HOF that's structured like this, you better do your research on every candidate up for vote in your categories. Rob himself mentioned multiple times that he's not confident passing judgement on people he didn't grow up with, but he's voting for almost all modern candidates in America and Japan. I feel like Dave should change the voting from just voting for who you want to forcing you to vote "YES", "NO" or "NO OPINION" on every candidate in a category. Then you would calculate the vote percentages only from the YES and NO votes. That way people who specialize in one decade or promotion could still vote without hurting everyone else. It would make for a way more inclusive Hall, one that I think would actually more accurately reflect the voter's true opinions.

User avatar
Rob McCarron
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:21 am
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rob McCarron » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:54 am

I voted for five of the 13 candidates in US Modern. That isn't "almost all." I grew up watching all but two of the US Modern candidates, but am quite familiar with Slaughter from research.

I didn't vote in categories I wasn't comfortable in, as did almost everyone else who turns in a ballot. And my lack of voting for someone is a No Vote, not a "don't know" vote.

Singling me out as an example of an issue with the voting structure seems odd, and your reasons behind it unfactual.
Shake Them Ropes
iTunes | Stitcher | Twitter |YouTube

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:23 am
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Hobbes » Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:15 am

Rob McCarron wrote:I voted for five of the 13 candidates in US Modern. That isn't "almost all." I grew up watching all but two of the US Modern candidates, but am quite familiar with Slaughter from research.

I didn't vote in categories I wasn't comfortable in, as did almost everyone else who turns in a ballot.

Singling me out as an issue with the voting structure seems odd, and your reasons behind it unfactual.
Whoa, I was probably unclear so I apologize. I never intended it to sound like you voted for every recent candidate in every category. I meant that the vast majority of people you voted for were people from the modern era. Danielson, Punk, Orton, Lesnar, Akiyama, CIMA. The only non-modern wrestler was JYD. When I talked about people who don't do research, I wasn't talking about you, as I've listened to the podcast and heard you talk about doing research, and I've seen your ballot on PWO and know that you're abstaining from most categories.

Now, I did single you out as someone who said that they feel like they can't accurately judge wrestlers they didn't grow up with. I disagree, I think while there are some things you can only know by growing up with a wrestler, if you do research and watch footage, you can get a pretty full view of someone. But by your own reasoning, and the weird rules of the HOF, you essentially cast a "No" against some candidates in America and Japan that you researched, but aren't comfortable passing judgement on.

I'm not saying you don't have valid things to say about wrestling Rob. That's why I said I think the rules should change. It's unfair that Dave basically says "Rob, you have a lot of knowledge and things to say about certain periods of wrestling, but if you have a strong knowledge and opinion on Jun Akiyama, you also need to have a strong knowledge and opinion on the Sharpe Brothers". That's nuts. Doing voting the current way, only a few handfuls of the most hardcore historians can submit ballots that they feel truly comfortable with. You made a great point on the podcast that if you hadn't seen Bryan Danielson in ROH, you might not have voted for him. I agree completely with that, if you took Danielson's indy career out of his resume, I don't think he has a long enough track record to get in solely on his work. You're completely informed on Danielson, but how many people do you think are going to vote against him because they don't want to watch that "indie bullshit"?

So in closing, I feel like you should have a vote in the HOF and I know you've done research, but I feel like the current system puts people like you or me in a shitty position that hurts the percentages of some guys. I also know you were a referee, please don''t yell at me.

User avatar
VicVenomBytes927
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:56 am

2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by VicVenomBytes927 » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:01 pm

Sting is a tough guy to assess/over thought.

He's had tremendous matches, has drawn huge numbers Starrcade 97 did something like 650K buys and even main evented a Tokyo Dome show that did 60K +.

There is the downside working for two massively inept companies that hurt the careers of tons of people. Remember Steve Austin jobbing to Hacksaw? Or the Black Scorpion or TNA as a whole.

Who is going to do good business in those circumstances?

Sting still was the guy for most part, and WCW was still doing better live attendance and viewership than any promotion not named WWE ever has come close to doing.

Sting, for me needs to be looked at from a high level to best assess what his legacy is. He's the only main stream era guy that did business and didn't need WWE to do it. That has a pretty large significance.

Since baseball is always brought up I feel like it's saying we aren't putting Ken Griffey Jr in the HOF because the Mariners sucked.
Last edited by VicVenomBytes927 on Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:04 pm

ceftaxias wrote:Great show guys.

One candidate I'd love to hear people smarter and more researched than me make points in support of is Edge, I feel like his case is solidly ahead of Punk's and it blows away Orton's. Again you won't find me looking up drawing records and whatnot but for whatever reason he resonates with me as a top guy from 06 to 11 way more than Punk and Orton ever were in their title runs. I also feel like as a worker the gap between him and the other two is even greater, to me you could copy Rob's argument for Orton's mythical collection of great matches and paste it right in an argument for Edge.

If I had a vote I'm not even sure I'd vote for Edge, but from the perspective of someone who finds him to be a much better worker than Punk and Orton, I'm surprised he's so easily dismissed, to the point where I think portions of his career are being overlooked or something. But with these three guys in particular, it's not like there's a tangible difference between them as draws in today's era, and workrate is subjective so at the same time if you don't think he's a hall of fame worker then I could see why he's an easy no.
It probably comes down to how enjoyed their work. If you thought Edge was a better in-ring worker than Punk, I won't grill ya, that's your opinion and you have a right to make it. To me, Punk is a far superior worker and that coupled with what I consider some significant mainstream influence (both MITB '11 and getting that over to the mass media and the indie worker influx), makes Punk a solid candidate for me. Edge, while I'll let you have the work argument (for what it's worth, I don't hate Edge but thought he only excelled in gimmick matches), I just don't know that he can touch Punk in regards to influence. Drawing is whatever at this point. I'd like to come to a conclusion on anyone but it's become so difficult I almost just have to throw my hands up and consider in some ways drawing and influence to be on the same plane. Back to Edge though, influence isn't really there for me. I dont think he's a guy who in 15 years anyone will be talking about. Shit, i'm not sure people are talking about him much now. If he came back tomorrow and was a regular guy on the roster, the buzz wouldn't be nearly as much as it would if Punk made the same declaration.

For me, Edge just isn't a HOFer, he's not really close, honestly. With that said, he's a better candidate than Orton in my mind. I don't think Orton ticks ANY of the boxes and I fully expect to be floored when I see what % he garners this year.

User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:11 pm

Hobbes wrote:The best compliment I can give this is that on a day where a billion pro wrestling podcasts dropped, I made sure this was the first I listened to.
Thanks man, that's much appreciated. I know there's a lot right now, especially ones talking this subject so that you picked us really does mean a lot. Thank you.
Brock Lesnar: NO
Joe mentioned how Rich's article on Brock convinced him not to vote for Brock, and it did the same for me. Brock had a mixed at best drawing resume until his return to WWE, and even then he wasn't a huge HOF level draw in terms of added buys. It's also worth noting that Brock was not able to sell out his hometown this year for Raw without a lot of comps, and wasn't able to fill MSG last week to capacity, even with 2,000 comps, despite being a heavily protected guy who rarely appears. Brock was a very good wrestler pre-return, but not a HOFer. His work since the return has been HOF worthy, but it's three to five great matches a year. It's the Sasha Bank conundrum, if a wrestler hits a few grand slams a year but doesn't even get singles otherwise, for whatever reason, should they get awards? There's also the fact that if Brock was wrestling full time, I feel he might get exposed as being over reliant on a million suplexes and squashing guys half the time. Brock is an awesome performer, and his Rumble and WrestleMania matches are two of my favourite matches of the year, but if Brock was working matches like he did against Seth and Big Show every week, the bloom would be off the rose in a few months.

Brock might be a Hall of Famer to me in the future, he's producing the best work of his career right now, but it's not enough yet. Like Rich said on the podcast, it would be great to see monthly Network numbers to see how he does or doesn't move subscriptions. It's unfortunate that just the PPV Brock got turned into something special was the same PPV where the PPV model got destroyed, as it makes it harder to judge.
I wavered on Brock a lot during this process. I wrote last year that he should get in, that he deserves it, etc. but once I got the ballot and REALLY took a huge look at him, he's just not there yet. Even more so after the podcast I went back and looked at the article, looked at some other things with Brock and though during this show I was asked "If he retired tomorrow would you vote him?" and I said Yes. I think I'd say No now. He just hasn't done enough...YET. He's certainly on pace to make it though, this year's WWE Network programming has been centered around him and if he continues to have great matches a few times per year, he's in. If he retired tomorrow though, probably not. He's a good No vote for now.
CM Punk: NO
I'm a big CM Punk fan, and I can create an argument for him getting in if I try hard, but even then it's borderline. I've seen other people say that if you're 50-50 on a candidate, they shouldn't get your vote, and that's kind of where I'm at with Punk. To me, he's just a tiny bit under HOF under each of the three criteria. He's a very good wrestler, he's a very good WWE draw by some metrics in the modern era, and he does have some influence. But like I said earlier, I like a HOF that is the elite, not the very good. I will say that I think Punk's influence on WWE opening the doors to indie talent is overblown. He likely did have something to do with it, but WWE changes their mind so often on what they want that it's hard for me to give Punk sole credit until the end of time for opening the door to every other US indie worker that makes it in WWE.

The two things Punk has that feel HOF level are his promo ability and possibly his merchandise numbers. You guys talked about how it's hard to know which criteria bucket to put promos in and how much to value them, and I agree. I agree specifically with Rich too on really wanting to know Punk's merchandise sales. In this modern era of WWE, where there are so few individual mega stars, a few years of huge merchandise sales might actually be the thing that would put Punk over the top into HOF levels as a draw, at least for me.
I highlighted the portion above because I think it's an interesting way of looking at it and I'm not sure where I stand with regards to this argument. Would you agree that he was the first of the major indie workers (post-ECW era) to make it big with WWE? If so, should he get credit for the success of indie workers after him? I don't know. I think in other eras the first to do things received a TON of credit but now it seems like people are apprehensive to do it. I don't know exactly where I stand. I tend to think if you were the first to do something then the flood gates opened behind you, that you deserve some amount of credit for it. Was it purely coincidence? Perhaps, but a lot of the "FIRST TO DO ITS" are coincidence. A lot of people had the same idea as someone who made a revolutionary invention, they were just first to come out with it and thus got the credit. Does that apply to Punk? I say yes but it's a good discussion nonetheless.

User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:15 pm

VicVenomBytes927 wrote:Sting is a tough guy to assess/over thought.

He's had tremendous matches, has drawn huge numbers Starrcade 97 did something like 650K buys and even main evented a Tokyo Dome show that did 60K +.

There is the downside working for two massively inept companies that hurt the careers of tons of people. Remember Steve Austin jobbing to Hacksaw? Or the Black Scorpion or TNA as a whole.

Who is going to do good business in those circumstances?

Sting still was the guy for most part, and WCW was still doing better live attendance and viewership than any promotion not named WWE ever has come close to doing.

Sting, for me needs to be looked at from a high level to best assess what his legacy is. He's the only main stream era guy that did business and didn't need WWE to do it. That has a pretty large significance.

Since baseball is always brought up I feel like it's saying we aren't putting Ken Griffey Jr in the HOF because the Mariners sucked.
Sting was supremely loyal... to a fault. Sure, it would've been great if WCW hadn't sucked around him but that's the breaks. He chose to stick with the company through all of the crap and it's admirable he did but in a case like this, it has to be a factor. I'm a firm believer in the cream rises to the top, we've mentioned that numerous times on this site/podcasts. Ken Griffey was such a great individual player during his Mariners years that him being on losing teams shouldn't have colored any thoughts people have about him. With Sting, it does and to me that's yet another reason why he's not a great candidate. He never overcame the odds WCW put him behind. Maybe it's not fair but again, that's how it works sometimes.

I also get somewhat irked by the fact the biggest feather in Sting's cap came during a period where he didn't wrestle for close to a year.

User avatar
VicVenomBytes927
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:56 am

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by VicVenomBytes927 » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:25 pm

Rich Kraetsch wrote:
VicVenomBytes927 wrote:Sting is a tough guy to assess/over thought.

He's had tremendous matches, has drawn huge numbers Starrcade 97 did something like 650K buys and even main evented a Tokyo Dome show that did 60K +.

There is the downside working for two massively inept companies that hurt the careers of tons of people. Remember Steve Austin jobbing to Hacksaw? Or the Black Scorpion or TNA as a whole.

Who is going to do good business in those circumstances?

Sting still was the guy for most part, and WCW was still doing better live attendance and viewership than any promotion not named WWE ever has come close to doing.

Sting, for me needs to be looked at from a high level to best assess what his legacy is. He's the only main stream era guy that did business and didn't need WWE to do it. That has a pretty large significance.

Since baseball is always brought up I feel like it's saying we aren't putting Ken Griffey Jr in the HOF because the Mariners sucked.
Sting was supremely loyal... to a fault. Sure, it would've been great if WCW hadn't sucked around him but that's the breaks. He chose to stick with the company through all of the crap and it's admirable he did but in a case like this, it has to be a factor. I'm a firm believer in the cream rises to the top, we've mentioned that numerous times on this site/podcasts. Ken Griffey was such a great individual player during his Mariners years that him being on losing teams shouldn't have colored any thoughts people have about him. With Sting, it does and to me that's yet another reason why he's not a great candidate. He never overcame the odds WCW put him behind. Maybe it's not fair but again, that's how it works sometimes.

I also get somewhat irked by the fact the biggest feather in Sting's cap came during a period where he didn't wrestle for close to a year.

I was just thinking about some of this stuff. Sting being a nice guy with what seems like zero ego hurt his career in a lot of ways.

He could of done business in the WWE if he wanted to.

I still think it's a noteworthy legacy when you look at the whole body of work and how he did it and come away impressed.

It's an odd legacy that I don't think we will ever see any one else ever come close to repeating which makes Sting one of a kind. That certainly makes the feelings about him arbitrary.

He's truly the nice guy of professional wrestling. Always chasing after the damaged goods, sticking around, doing whatever they ask, etc.

User avatar
cheapshot
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:13 pm
Location: Blackpool, England
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by cheapshot » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:30 pm

What information can I provide you to make you confident to vote in the European category guys?
wrestlingeye.libsyn.com

User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 pm

cheapshot wrote:What information can I provide you to make you confident to vote in the European category guys?
Add like 10 hours to each day.

User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:46 pm

VicVenomBytes927 wrote:
Rich Kraetsch wrote:
VicVenomBytes927 wrote:Sting is a tough guy to assess/over thought.

He's had tremendous matches, has drawn huge numbers Starrcade 97 did something like 650K buys and even main evented a Tokyo Dome show that did 60K +.

There is the downside working for two massively inept companies that hurt the careers of tons of people. Remember Steve Austin jobbing to Hacksaw? Or the Black Scorpion or TNA as a whole.

Who is going to do good business in those circumstances?

Sting still was the guy for most part, and WCW was still doing better live attendance and viewership than any promotion not named WWE ever has come close to doing.

Sting, for me needs to be looked at from a high level to best assess what his legacy is. He's the only main stream era guy that did business and didn't need WWE to do it. That has a pretty large significance.

Since baseball is always brought up I feel like it's saying we aren't putting Ken Griffey Jr in the HOF because the Mariners sucked.
Sting was supremely loyal... to a fault. Sure, it would've been great if WCW hadn't sucked around him but that's the breaks. He chose to stick with the company through all of the crap and it's admirable he did but in a case like this, it has to be a factor. I'm a firm believer in the cream rises to the top, we've mentioned that numerous times on this site/podcasts. Ken Griffey was such a great individual player during his Mariners years that him being on losing teams shouldn't have colored any thoughts people have about him. With Sting, it does and to me that's yet another reason why he's not a great candidate. He never overcame the odds WCW put him behind. Maybe it's not fair but again, that's how it works sometimes.

I also get somewhat irked by the fact the biggest feather in Sting's cap came during a period where he didn't wrestle for close to a year.

I was just thinking about some of this stuff. Sting being a nice guy with what seems like zero ego hurt his career in a lot of ways.

He could of done business in the WWE if he wanted to.

I still think it's a noteworthy legacy when you look at the whole body of work and how he did it and come away impressed.

It's an odd legacy that I don't think we will ever see any one else ever come close to repeating which makes Sting one of a kind. That certainly makes the feelings about him arbitrary.

He's truly the nice guy of professional wrestling. Always chasing after the damaged goods, sticking around, doing whatever they ask, etc.
Oh yeah, I 100% respect the hell out of the guy and think it's really cool that even through the Cheetums, even through fucking up his eventual defeat of Hulk Hogan, even through behind thrown off the top of the tron while on fire, he stuck with it and did everything he could to make it work. Granted, he was getting a dump truck full of money delivered to his house on a regular basis so it wasn't ALL for the love of WCW but still, his loyalty is admirable.

Post Reply