Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame

[humanoid92 0]

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?

[stahl 0]

The WON hall of fame is probably the closest to the most credible considering people in the industry have a say. Any hall of fame with be scrutinized to death though. 4 main things I feel are most important.

 

- Drawing money:

 

As with any business, you are far more valuable if you can make money for your company

 

- Longevity:

 

Competing at a high level for a long period of time is an asset.

 

- Workrate:

 

This is pro wrestling, the ability to put on great matches at a high level should be considered

 

- Titles/Accolades:

 

Even in the fake sport, titles and accomplishments do add credibility. It's easy to say someone who is 17 time world champion deserves to be in a hall of fame.

 

Consideration should also be given to people who do ground breaking things in the industry. Rey Mysterio Jr for example has helped make the little wrestlers have a chance at being headliners by helping someone with the size barrier. Eddy Guerrero was the smallest WWE champion ever, etc.

[BruiserKC 0]

What about wrestlers that were significant in both America and Japan? You not only have American wrestlers like Harley Race, Bruiser Brody, "Dr. Death" Steve Williams, and even Hulk Hogan, but those like Antonio Inoki, Jumbo Tsuruta, Great Muta, Shohei "Giant" Baba. Do you not include them for their achievements in both Japan and the US?

[humanoid92 0]

What about wrestlers that were significant in both America and Japan? You not only have American wrestlers like Harley Race, Bruiser Brody, "Dr. Death" Steve Williams, and even Hulk Hogan, but those like Antonio Inoki, Jumbo Tsuruta, Great Muta, Shohei "Giant" Baba. Do you not include them for their achievements in both Japan and the US?

 

 

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.

[stahl 0]

Do you not include them for their achievements in both Japan and the US?

 

I would look at the bottom line in regards to the 4 criterias. If I was inducting, I would induct wrestlers based on their wrestling name alone, I wouldn't have northamerican/mexican/japan sections and whatnot. Just a list of names.

[humanoid92 0]

The WON hall of fame is probably the closest to the most credible considering people in the industry have a say. Any hall of fame with be scrutinized to death though. 4 main things I feel are most important.

 

- Drawing money:

 

As with any business, you are far more valuable if you can make money for your company

 

- Longevity:

 

Competing at a high level for a long period of time is an asset.

 

- Workrate:

 

This is pro wrestling, the ability to put on great matches at a high level should be considered

 

- Titles/Accolades:

 

Even in the fake sport, titles and accomplishments do add credibility. It's easy to say someone who is 17 time world champion deserves to be in a hall of fame.

 

Consideration should also be given to people who do ground breaking things in the industry. Rey Mysterio Jr for example has helped make the little wrestlers have a chance at being headliners by helping someone with the size barrier. Eddy Guerrero was the smallest WWE champion ever, etc.

 

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.

[stahl 0]

Again, there are no real concrete available statistics to back up money-drawing

 

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.

[humanoid92 0]

Again, there are no real concrete available statistics to back up money-drawing

 

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.

[gwf0704 0]

You might include something like the Rock N Roll HOF has where they have to have been in the business for at least 20 yrs or so. Otherwise people will include wrestlers like Samoa Joe, RVD and CM Punk. Not that they are not good, but this way you eliminate the flash in the pan types like Goldberg.

[gwf0704 0]

You might include something like the Rock N Roll HOF has where they have to have been in the business for at least 20 yrs or so. Otherwise people will include wrestlers like Samoa Joe, RVD and CM Punk. Not that they are not good, but this way you eliminate the flash in the pan types like Goldberg.

[Just John 0]

I think 20 years is a bit high for wrestling. Workload, injuries, etc can really cut down careers quickly. 10 years is probably a better range, but even then you have to make exceptions for guys like The Rock.

[humanoid92 0]

You might include something like the Rock N Roll HOF has where they have to have been in the business for at least 20 yrs or so. Otherwise people will include wrestlers like Samoa Joe, RVD and CM Punk. Not that they are not good, but this way you eliminate the flash in the pan types like Goldberg.

 

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.

[stahl 0]

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.

 

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.

[humanoid92 0]

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.

 

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.

[stahl 0]

Since many guys have wrestled in more than one fed, just research the data from all the feds a wrestler has worked for to determine drawing ability, tv ratings and merchandising and what not. Some guys are better draws then others in different promotions, but once they hit the big time they are just another wrestler. Kevin Nash drew weak PPV buy rates when put in a headlining position for WWE. Stuff like that stands out but I understand where you are coming from in regards to analyzing midcarders. If I recall correctly, Jericho was one of the better ratings draws when he was doing the whiny bitch character in WCW. He was also a fairly good ratings draw in WWE. It's also a good idea to take someones placement on the card and compare it to what kind of ratings they draw if using tv as an example. If you are really curious about who was the better draw, Roberts or Rude, try asking at the wrestling classics board. Meltzer posts there and usually has something insightful to offer, there are also others who are very knowledgeable about such things and can provide sufficient cases for either guy.

[humanoid92 0]

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.

[Just John 0]

I don't know why Benoit isn't in the WON HOF, but other active guys (Angle, HHH, Taker) are. I mean, he doesn't have as many titles as those guys, but you'd think his long career and large body of great matches would compensate for that.

[humanoid92 0]

I don't know why Benoit isn't in the WON HOF, but other active guys (Angle, HHH, Taker) are. I mean, he doesn't have as many titles as those guys, but you'd think his long career and large body of great matches would compensate for that.

 

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.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Rock hasn't reached the 35 year age minimum. He'll make it first ballot.

[Guest burth179]

To comment on how you compare to baseball's hall of fame.

 

"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?"

 

I definitely agree to a certain extent...

 

But this is actually becoming a problem in baseball as well. Is 600 HR's today necessarily more impressive than 400 HR in the 1950's?

 

Probably because it is such a big gap. But maybe a better question would be, Is 500 HR's today more impressive than 400 HR's in the 1940's?

 

I say this is NOT necessarily the case. Because of the steroids, better training facilities and methods (illegally or legally), the "juiced ball" theories, 162 games are played now instead of 154 (I don't know exactly when it went to 162 games), expansion teams "watering down" pitching today, the mound is LOWER now than it used to be (thanks to Bob Gibson and his 1.12 ERA in 1968) allowing hitters that extra split second to see the ball,

 

All these things factor into why 400 HR back then may actually be more impressive than 500 now.

 

500 HR will not automatically get you in like it did in the past, especially for the accused and proven juicers (namely Palmerio, I think he's not getting in). And even for the non juicers like Fred McGriff (I doubt he was on roids but I guess you never really know, but I'll assume he's clean). I think he'll have a hard time getting in as well.

 

So it actually is a little more similar to baseball (& other sports) than you may think...

 

In football, at one time 3000 yards passing in a season was considered to be a great accomplishment. Now, it is considered to be a decent accomplishment, but certainly nothing that spectacular.

 

Don't get me wrong I get your point and it's well taken, I am just pointing out that for ANY Hall of Fame you have to keep the time frame that things are occurring into perspective, not just for the wrestling Hall of Fame.

[humanoid92 0]

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.

[Guest burth179]

I agree. We will see another 300 game winner some time, but I have no idea when. The 5 man rotations and use of bullpens seriously diminishes those chances.

 

As far as Thome/Delgado goes, I don't see them as HOF'ers YET, but I feel both (at least Delgado) have quite a few years left to prove themselves. Being 1B/DH types doesn't help though..

 

As far as titles go, I think they have to be taken into considertion at least. Not as a "do all and end all" statistic though. But it has to mean something. However, I would lean toward duration of title reigns more so than # of title reigns...