2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

User avatar
Jeff Hawkins
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:28 am

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Jeff Hawkins » Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:25 pm

The non-wrestler category should be eliminated and dave and few other guys, perhaps historians should discuss or just have him let them in

they take votes away from wrestlers, and in a world where Finkel can get more consideration for contributions to the business than Koloff, Slaughter, Sting is laughable.

is there anyone who'd be angry if the Crocketts, Apter, Jerry Jarrett, etc. were put into the "contributors" wing on non-votes? No.

User avatar
Headbutt Stoppage
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:34 pm

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Headbutt Stoppage » Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:03 pm

It looks inconsistent to both tar Sting with a lack of TV matches leading up to an all-time buyrate, but then disregard the work that Edge and Orton did anchoring their shows on a weekly basis. The total number of times a guy gets in a ring with a ref either matters or it doesn't.

My more serious, HOF-qualifying pet peeve is the ineffable "influence" argument- not only is it loosely defined it also is never highlighted as a negative in the same way that negative draw or negative workrate can be.

To me, I see negative influence like the way Moolah hurt women's wrestling in how Edge (along with others) built a career on suicidal geekery that shortened said career but remains popular to this day. The number of people that saw the CZW Speedball-AR Fox match certainly wasn't enough to qualify it for a MOTM nomination despite being nastier than most headdroppy nosense.

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 5:06 pm

cheapshot wrote:What information can I provide you to make you confident to vote in the European category guys?
We had John Lister on the show last year, and he sent us his files on each guy. I'm not completely ignorant to the category, but here's the thing. I've actively followed lucha to one degree or another since about 1994 when I started trading/buying tapes. I went through periods where I was super into it (90's), where I barely paid attention (2000's), and somewhere in between (today, where I casually watch whatever CMLL TV I get, all of the hyped matches, and all of the major shows). So even as someone with moderate knowledge of modern lucha, I am not comfortable voting the category, and probably won't until all of the pre-mid 1990's candidates are off of the ballot (and maybe not even at that point).

When it comes to Europe, I never actively followed the scene until maybe a year or two ago when I started paying attention to places like Rev Pro & PROGRESS. Everything I know about the candidates is anecdotal, shit people say, or others people's research. I've watched some World of Sport, and i'm usually bored to tears by it. I've seen *maybe* a match or two of Wanz's promotion. I could play catch up on the workers, but I will never have a grasp for the culture.

The point here is that I feel like i'm about a million miles ahead of Europe when it comes to Mexico, and I don't even vote Mexico. I will very likely never vote Europe.

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 5:07 pm

Jeff Hawkins wrote:The non-wrestler category should be eliminated and dave and few other guys, perhaps historians should discuss or just have him let them in

they take votes away from wrestlers, and in a world where Finkel can get more consideration for contributions to the business than Koloff, Slaughter, Sting is laughable.

is there anyone who'd be angry if the Crocketts, Apter, Jerry Jarrett, etc. were put into the "contributors" wing on non-votes? No.
They don't take away votes from wrestlers, because you get up to ten votes for wrestlers, and five additional votes for non-wrestlers. So a hypothetical ballot can actually have up to 15 names on it.

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 5:27 pm

They can, though, in many instances hurt chances of wrestlers.

I've seen so many people post their ballots, abstaining from the Historical category. Then, in Non-Wrestler, they vote for someone like Jim Crockett Sr. So, in effect, they didn't abstain from Historical. A vote for Jim Crockett Sr means that someone like Red Bastien just got a No vote, lowering his percentage even though the voter 'abstained' from Historical.

So while it doesn't have to always take votes away, it certainly does lower chances for some candidates while the voter may not even realize they've impacted it in that way.
Shake Them Ropes
iTunes | Stitcher | Twitter |YouTube

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 5:38 pm

Rob McCarron wrote:They can, though, in many instances hurt chances of wrestlers.

I've seen so many people post their ballots, abstaining from the Historical category. Then, in Non-Wrestler, they vote for someone like Jim Crockett Sr. So, in effect, they didn't abstain from Historical. A vote for Jim Crockett Sr means that someone like Red Bastien just got a No vote, lowering his percentage even though the voter 'abstained' from Historical.

So while it doesn't have to always take votes away, it certainly does lower chances for some candidates while the voter may not even realize they've impacted it in that way.
And this is something that nobody knew until Chris Harrington ran numbers a few years ago and figured it out.

I think dave really needs to explain this to people.

User avatar
Jeff Hawkins
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:28 am

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Jeff Hawkins » Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:44 pm

My semi-gripe over the HOF and the attitude towards it I went over with Rob last year, and the problem itself is directly tied to the comparison to baseball hall of fame

The thought that it *HAS* to be exclusive, otherwise it doesn't "mean anything"....so a lot of the leg work in the discussion is trying to find data and then create an argument to keep guys out because of the "integrity" of what a Hall of Fame should be. This should be a celebration of wrestling, a niche entertainment artform we all love and we make it about "significance" which to me sucks the joy out of it. Meanwhile baseball's HOF for all its self-seriousness still has Tinkers-Evers-Chance because they were in a poem.

Just for perspective, I also don't like the minutiae of star ratings, but to each their own.

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 130
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 5:57 pm

Jeff Hawkins wrote:The non-wrestler category should be eliminated and dave and few other guys, perhaps historians should discuss or just have him let them in

they take votes away from wrestlers, and in a world where Finkel can get more consideration for contributions to the business than Koloff, Slaughter, Sting is laughable.

is there anyone who'd be angry if the Crocketts, Apter, Jerry Jarrett, etc. were put into the "contributors" wing on non-votes? No.
The one problem I have with the non-wrestler category is guys are competing for votes that are completely apples to oranges. You can compare Edge to Randy Orton, how do you compare Jerry Jarrett to Howard Finkel? They had two completely different jobs.
Last edited by Hobbes on Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 130
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 5:58 pm

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.
Rich wrote: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.
I do think he was the first worker on that "golden age" of US indie workers to truly make in big in WWE. I just have a hard time knowing how much significance to give Punk for this though. If Punk is truly the difference between Bryan/Owens/Cesaro etc making it or not making it, then he should be in the HOF. How much influence did he have though? His best friend Cabana did not get a fair shot in WWE, while Bryan had to spend years in the mid to upper midcard like Punk, knocking on the door before he basically forced WWE's hand on pushing him as a top guy, much like Punk. Even guys like Cesaro prove that while it's never been easier for a talented indie guy to get their foot in the door in WWE, if you're not a guy that Vince likes, you're going to stay stuck in the middle, despite the talent you have or the reactions you're getting. I vaguely remember sometime after Punk, Dave had reported that WWE's mindset had gone back to "Only sign talent 6'2" and taller". That edict has obviously changed again, but it kind of dilutes in my mind how much influence Punk had on WWE's desires for talent.

User avatar
Robareid
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:38 am
Location: South East England, UK
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Robareid » Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:54 pm

When you say "Hall of Fame level draw/worker/influence" are you referring to the overwhelming draw/worker/influence that gets you in on its own, or the third of the way there where you need the same from the other two categories?

User avatar
Headbutt Stoppage
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 3:34 pm

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Headbutt Stoppage » Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:36 pm

I find odd to credit CM Punk with being a beginning of the indie scene revolution of short guys when the guy is at minimum six foot (and credited as 6'2"), the indie scene around him shrank precipitously after he left it, and UFC's boom period has unquestionably taken most of the giants that Vince likes and turned them onto MMA. There are at least 36 guys fighting in just UFC's heavyweight division that are a legit six foot tall or greater. Thats not counting non-UFC guys in camps across the world learning jits rather than backbumps.

Punk is a talented individual but crediting him with an indie scene boom or breakout is silly when DBry was there first, longer, and has a better catalog of accomplishments in the indies.

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 7:38 pm

Robareid wrote:When you say "Hall of Fame level draw/worker/influence" are you referring to the overwhelming draw/worker/influence that gets you in on its own, or the third of the way there where you need the same from the other two categories?
Who are you referencing here?

User avatar
Robareid
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:38 am
Location: South East England, UK
Contact:

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by Robareid » Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:41 pm

All three of you use it during the pod, and I'm assuming you mean the 1/3 candidacy check but wanted to make sure I'm understanding you properly.

User avatar
BoxingRobes
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:02 pm

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by BoxingRobes » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:43 pm

How CM Punk isn't a slam dunk will forever baffle me. Get lawst with this 50/50 nonsense. Best big match wrestler this side of the Pacific of his era. Undeniable influence. Savage level draw of his era.

User avatar
benjaminkicks
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:22 pm

Re: 2015 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame - Panel Discussion

Post by benjaminkicks » Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:56 am

Listened to the show tonight at work and really enjoyed it. Once again you fine folks have helped me pass the time at my job, so thank you a bunch for the entertaining show.

Quick thought though: I think Mr. Lanza was really selling Akira Taue's in ring work short. Even if he was the "worst" of the Pillars (a narrative I don't buy into), that still makes him, in my mind, one of the greatest workers ever. Forget drawing and influence, Taue is a guy (like Akiyama and Danielson) who deserves the inclusion based on his amazing in ring resume.

Post Reply