humanoid92

Umm. Marcus was 11/11 from the line tonight and made how many clutch free throws down the stretch in regulation? He was 85% from the line for the season, whereas Denham was 86% Yeah, I'm sure Marcus was the last guy Calhoun wanted on the line. Not to mention the fact that Marcus, their only indespensible player, had to come out of the game for 1-2 minutes of overtime. Not to mention the fact that they don't have another reliable point guard, and had to put Austrie, an untested freshman that's only on the team because of AJ Price's health issues, into the game. All for that extra 1% upgrade to Denham. Okay. By the way, anyone that actually knows what they're talking about knows Marcus is their best player and has been for the last season and a half now. Yes, this includes Villanueva and Gay.

Best Match: Bret- vs. Bulldog, Wembley Shawn- vs. Jarrett, IYH 2 Flair- vs. Steamboat, Clash Austin- vs. Bret, Survivor Series As Workers: 1) Bret 2) Flair 3) Shawn 4) Austin Talkers: 1) Flair 2) Austin 3) Shawn 4) Bret Overall: 1) Bret 2) Flair 3) Shawn 4) Austin

He has some sort of rare condition where he can't grow any hair anywhere. Anyway, Josh Boone is pretty ugly. I remember last year around this time Bill Simmons declared UConn the ugliest team in basketball.

The whole promotion is screwed up bigtime. It's funny how before WCW started to go down the shitter, the WWF NEVER acknowledged its own past, but all they've done for the last five years is focus on their history. There's got to be a happy medium here. I don't understand this philosophy of creating a product that's more or less an homage to the past but happens to be set in the current day. Wrestling has always been about progress and finding the "new big thing." Not rehashing past eras. I hate it when people talk about "dream matches." What the hell? Austin vs. Goldberg would have been fine in '99. It's 2006, people. Who really needs to see it now? Austin vs. Hogan? No! Hogan was popular in the 80s, Austin was popular in the 90s. Great. What does it have to do with anything? Wrestling is not supposed to operate that way. Guys should not be feuding because one was popular during -time period x- and one was popular during -time period y-. Look at it this way. Yeah, business sucked in the mid 90s. But had Randy Savage not been under contract to WCW, would the WWF have brought him back for Wrestlemania 13 to put him in a "dream match" with Shawn Michaels? How about bringing Harley Race back to wrestle the Undertaker at Wrestlemania XI? Would this have ever happened in a million years? Of course the business was different then because Vince had competition, but the objective was always to get new people over. Maybe business sucked, but they focused on the PRESENT instead of the past, and something FINALLY clicked with Austin, and clicked big. It's all about evolution. The WWE has not evolved since 2001. Business may have been down in 1992-1996, but that whole time they still EVOLVED. Turn on Raw today and it's the same shit from four years ago, starring guys from 5-10 years ago (and beyond). Another thing: Mick Foley should not be on TV. Aside from barely being able to walk, he has no rub left to give. If Edge beats him, it means nothing. And that whole feud is a prime example of what's wrong with this company's mentality. Look at the show. There are never any real issues. Nobody is feuding over anything tangible. Foley/Edge makes NO sense: "I'm a better transitional champion than you." What the fuck is that?? That phrase never should have been used on television. Vince/HBK and HHH/Cena make NO sense either. It's like everybody is fighting over their status or their place on the card and their place in history instead of an actual reason. It's one big confusing mix of status and nostalgia. It's like a show within a show, and that vibe does not work for wrestling. During the video package for the HBK/Vince feud tonight, there were a million audio clips from JR and Shawn himself, describing Shawn's place in history. "The showstopper. The icon. The main event. The most decorated Champion in history. The most legendary superstar." Blah, blah, blah. Listen to all the adjectives used to describe HBK, HHH, Undertaker, Austin, or any "legend" that comes back for an appearance. It's all the same shit. We get it- there are legends that have accomplished a lot in this business and somehow they're all still around in some fashion. When HHH, HBK, Flair, and Undertaker (and to some degree Angle) are gone, they're going to be in even worse shape. They haven't built anyone up that can replace them in the eyes of the fans. When Austin was catching on, they had the established guys like Bret and Shawn and then Taker to put him over huge. The Rock, in turn, had Foley and Austin to put him over huge. Foley and Rock made HHH. HHH easily could have made Jericho or Angle or maybe even RVD. He never did. And with Foley, Rock, and Austin all gone, he was the guy that had to do it at some point. But that's never happened. I don't care how many times he jobbed to Batista or Benoit- he didn't MAKE anyone. He's still the top guy no matter what and everyone knows it. And the worst part is, in 2, 3, 5 years, where do they go for new talent? There are no other promotions that are giving other wrestlers instant credibility. There are no more big free agents. Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, and Mysterio aren't going to show up on your doorstep and give you that depth to the roster. Territories are of course long dead. Because there's no competition they HAVE to make their own stars, and they're failing at that. The last guy they truly created was Angle and that was 7 years ago. I'll give them credit for trying with the likes of Cena, Batista, and Orton. But even those situations were screwed up from the start. That's a whole other thread, but the bottom line is it hasn't been done properly and the fans don't give a shit. Not only is the formula of the shows stagnant, as you guys have touched on, but look at the roster itself. It's ridiculously stale. We don't realize this but think about it. Look at the midcard and above in the 80s and early 90s. DiBiase's singles run lasted 4 years. Jake was around for 6. Perfect for 4. Beefcake about 5. Honky for 3. Santana for 6 or so before he came irrelevant. Savage and Hogan were around for 8-9 years. Back then, they got what they could out of the midcarders, and when they ran their course they moved on. Bret Hart's entire singles run lasted 6 years. So did Shawn's original run. Look at the WWE roster today. HHH won his first Title SEVEN years ago, and he's showing no signs of slowing down. Kane has been around for EIGHT years. Big Show for seven. Bradshaw, Edge, Hardy, Benoit, Angle... I'm not even getting into the Undertaker here. And look at the amount of exposure today compared to back then. Weekly TV (twice-weekly from 99-02) and 12-16 PPVs per year. 5 years these days is like 10 back then with all that happens. There's only so much you can do with a wrestler before there's nowhere else to go; that's why Show and Kane are where they are right now. In the territory days, you'd go somewhere for a few months, get built up, do your big program and leave. It's that simple. There's only so many guys that can be on top at once, so eventually there's nowhere to go but down. Benoit had his run with the Title, but now what? There's nowhere else to go but down and he's gonna look like a shmuck because he used to be the Champ but now he's nowhere near the main event. He's already peaked. And once you've peaked in wrestling, it's over. Austin peaked, and rode that popularity for a long time, but when it started to slip he was gone. It's a good thing he left when he did because what would the alternatives have been? Either you keep the guy on top, which will inevitably get stale after years and years, or you demote him down the card and he looks like a loser because he's not the same guy on top anymore. Same deal with the Rock. He wasn't even 30, had been a main eventer for 4 years, and had won the Title who knows how many times. Where else do you go with that? Well, the WWE has waaaay too many guys that have already peaked. There's nowhere to go with them. The entire roster is either guys who have peaked (HHH, Kane, Show, etc.), "legends" (Shawn, Undertaker, for awhile it was Goldberg and the occasional Austin, Foley, Hogan, Rock appearances), guys whose big chances have slipped by and will never recover (RVD, Booker, soon to be Edge and Rey... Jericho fell under this category as well), guys that are pushed but aren't very over because in this environment there's no good way to get them over (Carlito, Masters, Benjamin, etc.) and guys that we aren't given a reason to care about at all. And those are major reasons why the product sucks, aside from the general crappy booking. Overexposure, a stale roster, the show-within-a-show complex, this constant nostalgia kick, and the unwillingness to commit to the future and find the right guys to do it with. All that, and we didn't even touch the issues of: - The show is way too scripted and no one's allowed to be themselves and come up with their own promos - The stale format and production. - Even-steven booking. (How can anyone get over when everyone has to get over?) - Lack of focus on what a wrestling match is supposed to be (this bothers me so much; I'll have to elaborate later). - Wins and losses that don't matter. - Unnecessary "authority" figures. - Vince and Shane all over TV. And the politics of HHH.

I'd say mid 92, sometime after WM 8 is when the "old" era ended and the new one began. Summerslam 92 was the first PPV that didn't have Hogan. Sure, he came back breifly in '93, but he felt out of place. All the 80's mainstays left in early '92: Hogan, Piper, Jake, Hercules, Haku, Valentine, Barbarian, Warlord, Neidhart, Sid, etc. Beefcake was out, Perfect wasn't wrestling. Guys like Boss Man, Duggan, Slaughter, Santana and even DiBiase were put into lesser roles. By early '93, Warrior was gone again, the Flair experiment was over and even Savage had been cut down. Some major stuff began around this time, with the introduction of Yoko, Razor, Luger, Bigelow, Crush, the emergence of Michaels and Bret, etc. 1992 was definitely the big transition year. I don't think people realize how huge that Bret/Bulldog match at Wembley was in terms of historical significance. It proved that they didn't need Hogan and Warrior types in the main event. So I point to '92, and not '94, being the birth of a different era. '94 was just the peak of the change in direction that began in '92. If you compare the roster just before WM 9 to the roster just before WM 10, not a whole lot has changed. But compare the Rumble 92/pre-WM 8 roster to the WM 9 roster. Huge turn around in every way possible.

I'm bored and I've been watching way too much college basketball, so I got to thinking what it would be like if the WWE had a 64 team tournament like the NCAA does. My question for you is this: What would the seedings look like according to how the WWE has been booking everybody recently? I actually made my list without considering potential matchups at all (with the exception of my 16 seeds) and it worked out surprisingly well. Here's what I came up with: My Seeds: #1 Seeds Kurt Angle John Cena Triple H Undertaker #2 Seeds Randy Orton Rey Mysterio Edge Shawn Michaels #3 Seeds Big Show Kane Shelton Benjamin Chris Benoit #4 Seeds Chris Masters Carlito Mark Henry Booker T #5 Seeds Ric Flair Rob Van Dam JBL Lashley #6 Seeds Fit Finlay Chavo Guerrero Johnny Nitro Joey Mercury #7 Seeds Boogeyman Eugene Matt Hardy Gregory Helms #8 Seeds Orlando Jordan Goldust Tatanka Animal #9 Seeds Trevor Murdoch Gene Snitsky Val Venis Viscera #10 Seeds Tyson Tomko Kid Kash William Regal Hardcore Holly #11 Seeds Sylvian Rob Conway Paul Burchill Psychosis #12 Seeds Stevie Richards Simon Dean Nunzio Rene Dupree #13 Seeds Jamie Noble Rosey Scotty Too Hotty Super Crazy #14 Seeds Paul London Brian Kendrick Funaki Matt Striker #15 Seeds The Spirit Squad: Nicky Kenny Johnny Mikey #16 Seeds Daivari Jonathan Coachman Jerry Lawler Shane McMahon Comments and Justifications: - The #1 seeds: In the interest of fairness, there are 2 from Smackdown and 2 from Raw. As the Champs, Cena and Angle are no-brainers at #1. HHH is always viewed as #1 in the company and is currently the top contender. And the Undertaker is a legend that just came inches away from winning the Title twice. Besides, it would be unfair to put either Orton or Mysterio over the other considering they're both getting a Title shot at Wrestlemania. Yes, Orton beat Rey, but Rey did win the Royal Rumble. - The #2 seeds: Rey and Orton are in as the top contenders on Smackdown. On the Raw side, Edge was the Champion recently and Shawn Michaels will always be highly regarded. Even though the storyline is terrible, he's in a major program leading up to Wrestlemania. - The #3 seeds: This slot goes to the secondary champions. US Champ Benoit and IC Champ Benjamin. Then there's Show (fresh off a feud with HHH) and Kane, the unstoppable Tag Champs that are still booked individually as monsters. - The #4 Seeds: Mark Henry has been booked very strongly and is feuding with the Undertaker. Carlito and Masters have flirted with main events and have been consistently been in the upper mid-card. After going with 3 Raw guys and 1 Smackdown guy as the #3 seeds, I can't do that again (as easily as Flair or RVD could fit here), so the fourth slot goes to Smackdown. Booker is coming off a best of 7 series for the US Title with Benoit, so he gets it over JBL, Lashley and Finlay. - The #5 Seeds: Flair and RVD are clearly the top remaining stars from Raw, as both will be in the upcoming Money in the Bank match. From Smackdown, it's JBL and then Lashley just edges out Finlay. - The #6 Seeds: MNM are the Tag Champs so they belong next, and Finlay finally gets in. This makes up for the #3 seeds where Raw had 3 representatives and Smackdown only had one. The lone Raw guy here is Chavo, which is debatable, but he gets the nod for the Eddie sympathy the WWE seems to be so obsessed with. - The #7 Seeds: Boogeyman arguably could have been higher, but I wouldn't put him above anyone already listed because of the wacky nature of the gimmick. Helms lands here only because he has the Cruiserweight Title. Matt Hardy has fallen off the charts but he's still less of a joke than any of the 8 seeds. Same for the once-popular Eugene. - The #8 Seeds: The returning Goldust and Tatanka get the nod on name value alone, and Animal and Jordan have at least been somewhat involved with Smackdown recently (Animal with the Matt Hardy storyline and the MNM feud before that, and Jordan's involvement with the US Title). - The #9-14 Seeds: This was pretty much ranking the leftovers and I'll admit I didn't put a ton of thought into the 11-14 seeds. I'm not positive of the status of a few guys like Dupree and Holly. Obviously if they're injured, they'll have to be replaced. I know Holly and Regal haven't wrestled on TV in awhile, but their name value still gets them a #10 seed over virtual unknowns. - The #15 Seeds: The Spirit Squad gets more TV time than a lot of the 10-14 seeds, but they've barely wrestled so I didn't want to put them any higher. Besides, I think it would be nice to showcase them against guys like Rey, HBK, and Edge. - The #16 Seeds: These four were carefully picked. Instead of total squashes against the likes of Funaki, the #1 seeds should at least face people that are interesting without being legitimate threats. Coach and Lawler are obviously novelty acts but there's more interest in one of their matches than someone like Super Crazy. Coach fits into a match with Cena, and Lawler gets HHH. Daivari is there only because he fits as a natural opponent for Angle. I'd rather have not included Shane, but he is back on TV wrestling now. By process of elimination, he gets the Undertaker in Round 1. Alternates: Guys like Batista and Ken Kennedy are, of course, injured so that's why they weren't included. Possible alternates for other injured people that I didn't include are: The fifth Spirit Squad member (There's no need for more than four.) Lance Cade (What happened to him?) Big Vito (What happened to him?) Parisi (I don't know who this is.) Doug & Danny Basham (Where are they?) Gymini (I don't know who this is.) I was against using "legends" but these are the guys most likely to be available: Hulk Hogan Mick Foley Steve Austin The Rock Sgt. Slaughter Jim Duggan Marty Jannetty (if his probation officer allows him to participate) Guys that may or may not be coming back: Jamal Charlie Haas And if they're desperate, there's always: Vince McMahon The beauty of the brackets: To me, the cool thing is that the #1 and #2 seeds work out perfectly. In the NCAA Tournament, the committee tries to rank the top 8 and then pair them up accordingly (1 vs. 8, 4 vs. 5, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6). Well, my rankings look like this: 1) Angle, 2) Cena, 3) HHH, 4) Undertaker, 5) Orton, 6) Mysterio, 7) Edge, 8) Michaels. This is perfect because the one and two seeds in each bracket have a history with each other. Taker and Orton have feuded at length, as have Cena and Edge, and Angle and Michaels. Then there's HHH and Rey who battled in the Royal Rumble and are rumored to feud at some point down the line. Even if some of the top two seeds get knocked off before the Elite Eight, those are all still solid teases. Disclaimer: I know some people don't like fantasy booking-type threads like this, but notice I didn't come in here and book the entire tournament. I'm just interested to see how other people would seed the roster based on the current booking, because it's an interesting way to evaluate the current state of the roster and it ties into what's going on in college hoops right now. So, if you were on the WWE selection committee, how would you seed the field of 64?

Just thought I'd add that apparently one of the writers at WWE.com will be doing this: http://www.wwe.com/inside/commentary/030806louiemaniabegins

All this recent talk about the WWE Hall of Fame has gotten me thinking. We all know the WWE Hall of Fame is more or less a joke. People are included and excluded based on politics more than anything else. The whole process seems pretty arbitrary. But what if wrestling had a legitimate Hall of Fame, similar to that of Major League Baseball and other major sports? The problem with wrestling, of course, is that there are no statistics. It's impossible to accurately quantify and measure one's accomplishments. In baseball, 300 wins and you're in. 3,000 hits and you're in. But wrestling is just one giant blur. Even Title reigns don't indicate very much because titles hold different values in different eras and different promotions. For instance, the WWF has had ten year spans where three guys were the only ones to hold the World Title, but in 1999 alone, seven different people held it. So it wouldn't be very consistent to put too much stock into Title reigns. What I'm asking TSM is this: What criteria do you think should be considered for a wrestling Hall of Fame? I think it would be cool if we could come to some sort of consensus on what the criteria should be, and in a group effort, try to assemble what a real wrestling Hall of Fame should look like. Hopefully this catches on. Once we come to a general agreement about criteria, we could form a list of eligible candidates and maybe even hold polls to vote them in. Is anybody interested in making this work? Two notes: - I'd like to keep the candidates limited to those who were significant in the US/North America. This isn't a knock against Japanese wrestling, but I see them as two different entities. The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame doesn't include Japanese players, so I'd like to keep American and Japanese wrestling separate as well. Besides, wrestling is subjective enough as it is. Throwing the Japan vs. America debate into the mix is opening up a whole other can of worms. - This isn't limited to just wrestlers. Managers, announcers, promoters, bookers, etc. all have their place in history as well. Major League Baseball inducts managers, announcers, sportswriters, etc. into their HOF and this should be no different. I'll list some more potential criteria later, but just to get the ball rolling and open up discussion, here's one factor I think is worth considering: 1) Longevity: I think longevity is important. This certainly isn't to say that everyone that hangs around forever should get in (Bob Holly comes to mind). In baseball, guys like Don Sutton have been criticized because some feel he just hung around so long that he just accumulated stats. He never really had a dominant period; his numbers were a product of time. Obviously, in wrestling there are no stats to be gained by simply by hanging around for so long. So I don't think people should be rewarded *just* for being around a long time. But when considering a wrestler's productivity, his length of time on top and his length of time in the business, has to be taken into account. At one time or another the Ultimate Warrior, Sid, Brock Lesnar, and Goldberg were on top. But I don't think any of them are Hall of Famers. They just either weren't around long enough or didn't sustain their runs on top. To use another baseball analogy (sorry for those that don't like baseball), Ken Caminiti was a really good player for a few years, made some all star teams and even won the MVP. But he's clearly not a Hall of Famer. Six more years like his MVP season and he'd be considered- but as it is, he just didn't keep it up for long enough, so he's out. OK, it's your turn. What criteria do you feel is important for the TSM Wrestling HOF?

Oh, I totally agree. We're getting into a really interesting time period as far as the baseball Hall of Fame is concerned because of all the inflated numbers. Guys like Jim Thome and Carlos Delgado are going to finish with ridiculous career numbers but I wouldn't call either of them Hall of Famers. They were never dominant for any period of time. And of course back in the teens there was the whole dead ball era, which is impossible to compare to today. What's funny is this: while most fans like you and me accept that 40-45 HRs today are roughly equivalent to 30 HR in years past, nobody ever mentions the discrepancies between pitching numbers now and then. Aside from the guys that are already very close, we might not see another 300 game winner for a long long time. As recently as the early 80s, most teams still went with four man rotations, which means most starters got around 40 starts per season. Now if they stay completely healthy they get 30-33 tops. Plus, relief pitching is so prominent now that naturally more decisions go to the bullpen and are taken away from the starters. The result is that winning 20 games today is far more of an accomplishment than it was in the 60s, but nobody ever acknowledges this. I'd say winning 16 or 17 now is as good as winning 20 back then. So believe me, I agree with you. I was just trying to make the point that there are no stats at all in wrestling. Title reigns can't be considered a legitimate statistic.

I don't think Flair should win either, but I don't understand where everyone's coming from with the idea that he shouldn't win "especially because it's a ladder match." To me, him winning a match like this is more realistic than him winning a regular match (consistently beating guys half his age in one on one encounters and lasting for 20 minutes in a cage with HHH). To win a ladder match, all you have to do is climb to the top of the ladder when everyone else is incapacitated. It's a total crapshoot. Pyschologically speaking, all he'd have to do is sit back and let the other five guys destroy each other with big spots, then take advantage when they're down. All you have to do is last long, play it smart, and not get hit with a big spot. I'd buy him doing that way more than I buy it taking HHH 20 minutes to put away a 57 year old man when it's just the two of them. I agree they should really consider putting RVD over, but I don't have the confidence in them to do it. And remember- showcasing him in this match and booking him to win are two totally different things. That Triangle Ladder match was just an excuse to showcase Jeff Hardy, but the Hardyz didn't go over (in any of those matches, come to think of it). Even the WM X ladder match was sort of a showcase for Shawn, and he didn't go over in that one. I just wish they weren't going through with MITB again.

He is. He's the first one under the 2003 inductions. I'm sure Eddie will get in this year. I'm surprised he put Angle in after just four years, but there's no Rock.

Just found the link for Meltzer's WON Hall of Fame. I thought I'd post it since his list is better than anything I could ever come up with. For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestling_Obs...er_Hall_of_Fame I pretty much agree with his choices of those I've actually heard of.

Agreed. That's all I was trying to say.

Yeah, I know it's pretty similar but there are enough differences to make it work. First off, the dynamic is reversed, in that it's a feel good ending because the good guy is the one doing the challenging. Also, he'd be challenging a guy that had just won the title and had been champ for two minutes as opposed to the guy who had been champ for almost a year. And the fact that he cashes in right away means there wouldn't be months of build up like there was with Edge. The only alternative to not doing this and not repeating what was done with Edge would be the guy cashing it in ahead of time for a big Raw or PPV. Which is fine. But that's how everything is built up. It wouldn't make the MITB stipulation seem very unique. Personally, I didn't even want to see another MITB in the first place. I think it was a good idea last year, but I really don't want to see it become a regular thing. The only reason the above secnario popped into my head in the first place is because I'd want to see them get it out of the way as soon as possible instead of dragging it out forever. The first time around was fine, but we really don't need to see it again.

Is there any chance whatsoever that they'll have the MITB winner challenge the winner of HHH/Cena immediately after the main event? That way we don't have to watch someone carry around the briefcase for months and months again. Considering that this year's card is shaping up to be pretty lackluster, that would at least provide something memorable and unexpected. Especially if Flair ends up winning, this would make total sense. He's an old man, he doesn't want to waste any more time and he's never gotten to finish off Wrestlemania. So he cashes it in immediately. And HHH probably wouldn't mind jobbing to Flair as long as he gets to destroy Cena. You know HHH would just get the Title back again a few weeks later. This way, come summertime he'd be working on reign #12 instead of #11. It bumps up his total one more. It's essentially WM 9. Underwhelming Title match where the face will lose the belt but then the new champ immediately drops it to a washed-up legend to send the crowd home happy in some sort of attempt to create a "classic WM moment." Except this time there would be an actual storyline behind it. Of course HHH could just put himself over the challenger too, so he gets to win two Title matches to end the show. Either way. Is it realistic that they might consider something like this, or not?

Perfect by a wide margin Eaton but barely Hogan by default Sting by deafult Marty- I've always loved him I guess Haku Savage over Steamboat- way more versatile, better character Lawler definitely Midnights Benoit- haven't seen enough of Dynamite's earlier stuff, but I respect what he's done 11) Don't care Quake Pillman 14) Don't care 15) Who? Edge by a mile and I'm not one of those Edge fanboys Andre- he was the original Eddy RVD by default 20) Who? Funk but that was close This was the hardest one- I'll go Angle because he's provided more entertainment over the years but I love Deano Rey Rey Bret by about a million miles. And I have nothing against the Rock. 25) Neither 26) Not qualified to answer that one Definitely Scotty in his hey-day, but JBL over Big Poppa Pump 28) Who? 29) Who? 30) Don't care

People like Meltzer have no problem with getting data from the shows including attendance and gate receipts. If you know the right people you can get the statistics you need. As for the B and C shows drawing as much as the A shows headlined by Hogan. Not a chance. Many wrestlers on shoot interviews would state that simply wrestling on a card that had Hogan would ensure them way more money then they would otherwise make on any other card. Point taken on Meltzer's info and Hogan's drawing power. But once you get past the obvious big money draws (Hogan, Andre, Austin, Rock, etc), I still think there's a gray area that makes it hard to compare people in any concrete way. Who was a better draw? Curt Hennig or Ted DiBiase? Jake the Snake or Rick Rude? Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels? Benoit or Jericho? Angle or Lesnar? HHH or Undertaker? If looking at numbers was all it took to determine that, anyone on this forum would be able to tell me the answer to those questions. I just think that aside from the elite it's hard to definitively say who drew more money one way or the other, especially in modern times. There are too many other factors to consider these days. When times are down like they are now, and they were in the mid 90's, one guy doesn't draw. It's more of a group effort. Anyway, getting back to the point of the topic, I do think the ability to draw money is important and those that have done it consistently are definite Hall of Famers. My only problem is that once it trickles down to the border-line candidates, I don't think there's an accurate way to declare one guy as a better draw than another.

Good point. But I don't know about setting an exact limit, because deserving people might be eliminated that way. If Kurt Angle keeps this up for a couple more years and then retires (or breaks his neck, whichever comes first), he would have been around for less than ten years. But he'd still deserve Hall of Fame consideration. I would restrict the flash in the pan types by limiting eligibility to retired and semi-retired wrestlers. There are a lot of current stars that would eventually make the HOF (Flair, Michaels, Benoit, Undertaker, HHH, etc) but to include them now wouldn't make sense since they're still active.

Sure there is. You can look at the gates from shows in which the wrestlers headline and compare it to cards that they didn't headline on. Look at PPV buys when certain wrestlers headline compared to when others headline, etc. TV ratings usually imply money drawn as people who tune into certain wrestlers are more likely to purchase tickets to the shows, as well as buy merchandise. And so on. Yeah, but across the board it's tough. First of all, I don't know where you'd find gates from before the days of PPV, except for maybe major MSG shows. House shows from the 80s would be hard to find info on. I'm sure the B and C circuits often drew as many people as the A shows just because the product was so popular at the time, but it doesn't mean Tito Santana drew as much money as Hulk Hogan. And even though a few people deserve most of the credit with sparking the rise of the Attitude era and "drawing money" (Austin, Bret, Shawn, Vince, Rock, Foley, etc.) "drawing money" can still a subjective term. DX was on fire in mid-98 and early '99 and their leader, HHH, was a midcarder. He wasn't in a single PPV headliner, and Austin probably had the highest rated segments, but that doesn't mean DX wasn't a significant draw during that time period. During some periods, I honestly believe that to an extent the entire show is the draw. During down periods, I think what keeps most loyal fans around is their personal favorites, regardless of their position on the card. The last few years, I bet just as many people have bought tickets because they wanted to see Benoit, Jericho, Angle, RVD, Edge, Christian, Mysterio, etc. even if they happened to be in the midcard, than they have to see HHH, Undertaker, Cena, and Orton on top. I know when I went to shows, I went for the entire thing. I've been to shows main evented by HHH and Austin and I've never really cared for them all that much. I can't be the only one that goes to shows automatically because I happen to like who's main eventing that night. Also, during the Attitude era, TV and PPVs would sell out almost immediately, long before the ticket-buyers knew who would bein the main event. I know there are money figures, and in some cases it's undeniable who the big draws are (Hogan, Austin, Rock, etc. were clearly major draws). All I'm trying to say is that there are definitely some gray areas.

I forgot about the WON Hall of Fame. Is there a link where I can check out who's in that? I'd be very curious to see the list. I pretty much agree with everything you said. Drawing money is extremely important. Again, there are no real concrete available statistics to back up money-drawing so this is going to be very subjective. But guys like Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin obviously drew tons of money and are no-brainer Hall of Famers. Hall of Fame candidates should have had sustained main event runs at some point in their careers and been able to draw money with multiple opponents. Sid, for instance, may have drawn money against Hogan, but he never really proved himself as a consistently strong draw at any point during his career. Also, we must consider that in previous eras, when there were three different house show circuits, more people had the opportunity to draw money. In 2001, we wouldn't have considered Edge vs. Christian a big money drawing house show match, but who knows? In the '80s, people like Tito Santana, Don Muraco, Rick Rude, etc. were probably considered solid draws as far as their roles went. So just because we only value main eventers as the money drawers now doesn't mean it was always that way. Midcarders and tag teams would draw all the time during wrestling's peak. I also feel that it would help the wrestler's HOF resume if it's easy to attribute at least one specific moment that is considered truly classic and memorable. Hogan and Andre have their match. Bret and Shawn, sadly, have the screwjob (among others). Austin has the Bret match. Flair has the Steamboat series. Benoit has WM XX. It's important to have defining moments like this. Maybe not every HOFer has them, but those that do (on top of an already special career) are the no-brainers. I already commented on longevity; I agree it's important. Workrate is debatable. I liken this one to the overstated notion in sports that player's careers are somehow validated only by winning championships. (This is a whole other rant, but I hate it when sportscasters make too big of a deal out of this.) My stance on workrate for the HOF is this: Yes, guys that were so bad that they nearly exposed the business should never be considered. And yes, like an NBA player winning a championship, strong workrate can definitely help your cause. But it shouldn't be the only thing. Just like no one in their right mind would ever claim that Robert Horry deserves to get in the HOF over Charles Barkley, I don't think anyone would claim that Lance Storm deserves to make it in over Randy Savage. Maybe that's not the perfect comparison, but you get my point. So yes, I think workrate should be factored in to an extent, but not to the point where it's ridiculous and Hulk Hogan is left out while Marty Jannetty gets in. Of course, everything overlaps anyway. Nobody that's god-awful in the ring would ever be able to stay on top and draw money consistently and thus would never be considered in the first place. And those that are great workers, like a guy like Jamie Noble, would never accomplish enough otherwise to draw strong consideration in the first place. I agree that Titles add credibility, but it should be considered that Titles aren't what they used to be, and in modern years there has simply been more of them. Edge has been the Intercontinental Champion a bazillion times whereas Mr. Perfect won it twice. Doesn't mean Edge was a better IC Champ. That's all I meant by that; Titles shouldn't be interpreted as straight up statistics. In baseball, 600 HRs is significantly higher than 400 HRs and that's not debatable. But in wrestling, who's to say that five title reigns are necessarily better than two? Mick Foley was a three time WWF Champion and Savage had it twice. Doesn't make Foley a better Champ. Significant accolades should certainly be considered though, and obviously something like 17 World Title reigns, or World Title reigns in two different promotions, etc. is something that should be held in high regard. I completely agree that innovative people should be considered. Like you said, Mysterio and Guerrero are great examples. Dynamite Kid is another one. I probably shouldn't even mention this, but I was thinking about Chyna. I never liked her, but the fact that she was pushed as an equal against the guys and even won the IC Title is saying something. Even in the mid 90s, would you have guessed that a woman would hold the IC Title before the millenium? On top of that, she was a fairly major character during a big money-making era. I don't know that I'd put her on the HOF ballot, but it did cross my mind. It's interesting to think about which tag teams could be considered HOF-worthy. From the early 90s on tag team wrestling has been pretty dead (with the exception of the brief resurgence in the WWF in 2000). I'm curious to see if people think if there might be any different criteria to consider for tag teams, and which teams might fit their standards.

Well, guys like Race and Hogan obviously would get in on their US merits alone. I know this is tricky because tons of guys have gone through Japan at some point in their careers. I didn't mean to imply that people should be eliminated from contention just because they've contibruted in Japan. That's not the case. I just meant that they should be judged primarily by their American career. Ichiro will probably get into the MLB Hall of Fame one day, and he was nasty in Japan too. But he put up HOF-worthy performances in the US, so he gets in. Yet the Japanese Home Run King (I don't know his name but I think he has like 800 HRs) isn't in the MLB HOF... because he never even played in America. Similarly, I wouldn't put Misawa or Kawada into this HOF. So as long as their body of work in the US is "HOF-worthy" that's all that really matters, though I suppose additional contributions in Japan could only help their cause.

You've got your tag titles reversed. The Raw ones are the originals, and the Smackdown ones are the new ones. Yeah, my bad. Well, the point still stands. When Benoit and Rhyno teamed up was that for the SD Titles? I guess that would be my "favorite", which only means I like it more than whatever crap they threw together for XX. I'd like to see more categories added to this, like favorite six man tag, or favorite guest ring announcer, or something ridiculous like favorite opening match in a dome.

Favorite World Heavyweight Title Match (currently the SDown Title): Benoit vs. HHH vs. HBK Favorite WWE Title Match (currently the RAW Title): Savage vs. Flair Favorite IC Title Match: Savage vs. Steamboat but Bret/Piper is damn close Favorite US Title Match: Umm, isn't Cena/Big Show the only one? Favorite WWE Tag Title Match (SDown Tag Titles): Triangle Ladder Match at WM 2000 Favorite World Tag Title Match (RAW Tag Titles): Don't have one Favorite Cruiswerweight Title Match (includes the Light Heavyweight Matches from the past): I guess Rey vs. Matt Hardy Favorite Women's Title Match: Moolah/McIntyre (Past Titles): Favorite Hardcore Title Match: Hardcore Battle Royale at 2000 Favorite Million Dollar Title Match: Again, wasn't Jake/DiBiase the only one for the Title? Favorite Non-Title Singles Match: Bret vs. Owen Favorite Battle Royal: I'll go with the Gimmick Battle Royale even though I'm tempted to say 4 just for Uecker's commentary. I don't consider the Hardcore Battle Royale an actual Battle Royale. Favorite Non-Title Tag Match: Rockers vs. Barbarian & Haku Favorite Multi-Man non-Title Match (any non-normal 2v2 Tag Match that involves at least 3 participants): Off the top of my head, I don't even know what else would qualify besides Money in the Bank Ok, and finally, pick your total Top 10 WrestleMania matches (can be any kind of match, and it can be one you've already listed): 10) E & C/Hardyz/ Dudleys, WM 2000 9) Shawn/Jericho 8) Savage/Warrior 7) Bret/Austin 6) Shawn/Razor 5) Bret/Shawn 4) Bret/Piper 3) Savage/Flair 2) Savage/Steamboat 1) Bret/Owen

Okay, I guess I'm finally done: Day 1 Rey Mysterio vs. Eddie Guerrero (21) Million Dollar Title Match: Jake "The Snake" Roberts vs. "Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase © (6) Chicago Street Fight: Legion of Doom & Ahmed Johnson vs. Faarooq, Crush & Savio Vega (13) Chris Benoit vs. Kurt Angle (17) Piper's Retirement Match: Rowdy Roddy Piper vs. Adrian Adonis (3) European Title Match: X-Pac vs. Shane McMahon © (15) Tag Team Title Triangle Ladder Match: Edge & Christian vs. The Hardy Boyz vs. The Dudley Boyz © (16) Greg "The Hammer" Valentine vs. Earthquake (7) Intercontinental Title Match: Razor Ramon vs. Jeff Jarrett © (11) Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat vs. Hercules (2) Icon vs. Icon: The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan (18) Day 2 Brother vs. Brother: Bret "Hitman" Hart vs. "The Rocket" Owen Hart (10) $15,000 Bodyslam Challenge: Andre The Giant vs. Big John Studd (1) Light Heavyweight Title Match: Taka Michinoku © vs. Aguila (14) The Steiner Brothers vs. The Headshrinkers (9) Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho (19) British Bulldogs & Koko B. Ware vs. The Islanders & Bobby "The Brain" Heenan (4) Special Referee Steve Austin: Brock Lesnar vs. Goldberg (20) Strike Force vs. The Brainbusters (5) The Undertaker vs. Diesel (12) WWF Title Match: "Macho Man" Randy Savage vs. Ric Flair © (8) I really wanted the Can-Ams to open day one a la WM III, but I was also determined to use Strike Force/Busters. I don't like that three of the Title matches on Day one end with the heel champion retaining via shennanigans, but oh well. Thoughts?

Now that I've thought about my card again, it's apparent we have very similar tastes. I'm also a huge mark for the two big matches at VIII and X. The problem you mentioned above is the same thing I have been debating. Do I go HBK/Y2J and Benoit/Angle and something lesser at XX (somehow it always comes down to Cena/Show or Brock/Goldberg)? Or do I go with Benoit/HHH/HBK, Brock/Angle, and something lesser at X-7 (the Hardcore Match or even the Gimmick Battle Royale)? I'm torn. I don't think I'll be able to justify leaving off one of the "big" matches from X-7 in favor of something else though. Going the Benoit/Angle and HBK/Y2J route makes for two awesome matches, four awesome workers, and takes up two cards. With Benoit/HHH/HBK, you're sacrificing at least two other cards for a triple threat match. This match would be much easier to include if it was just Benoit/HHH like it should have been. I can't justify blowing HBK on a triple threat. So to answer your question, I'd go with the second choice but maybe consider a different match at XX. I'm a little upset that I can't use Jericho/Christian, but one of the TLCs has to go in, plain and simple. I also use the fact that I'm using one of the TLCs to justify not putting the Shawn/Razor ladder match on there (two ladder matches is overkill), which opens up Shawn... and leads to Bret/Owen instead of Bret/Austin. Which at first seemed wrong because 13 sucks compared to 10, but anything I'd put on from 10 outside of the big two is no worse than anything I'd put on from 13 outside of the big one. So no big deal I guess. It's funny how things trickle down when trying to do this. If you go Bret/Austin, Owen is available for V against Perfect. But if you go Bret/Owen, you have to do Strike Force/Busters at V, which takes Tito out of the tag match at 2 and leaves... your choice of garbage. Possibly Piper/T, which then eliminates Piper from XII, which forces you to go Taker/Diesel (no Taker/Kane, Taker/Flair, or Taker/Orton that way) or even Warrior/HHH (no HHH). Tricky. Basically, Taker, Savage, Shawn, and Bret are the key guys. With Rock, Hogan, Austin, Flair, HHH, Angle and Benoit screwing things up as much as they can. One card I did ended up having no WWF Title Match AND no Austin, Flair, etc. Weird. I also found that when I use Savage/Steamboat and Bret/Owen, I end up with Razor/Jarrett as the IC Title Match on that one, a match I actually do like, but one that probably wastes the IC Title. I tried the approach of the one guy who wanted to include as many titles as possible, but I felt it sacrificed too much quality. Plus, in order to use the Light Heavyweight Title (at XIV) you must then eliminate Taka, which gets rid of the Hardcore Battle Royale from 2000, which is the only Hardcore match that I like. Plus it pretty much automatically means HHH/Benoit/HBK must be used, and like I said, I don't like using Shawn in a triple threat. So, anyway- question: For XX, It looks like I'm going to have to go either Show/Cena for the US Title or Brock/Goldberg. Which do I use? I don't particularly remember either except for the crowd shitting on the latter. Do I go with the two big names that will probably never be at a WM again, or the US Title match? I'll have to post my final card sometime soon.