WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » WON Information Forum » The Less than 10% HOF Club (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The Less than 10% HOF Club
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like Goldburg but he only wrestled 4 or 5 years full time. Most of his matches were very short & I don't know how many main events he had. His ability to work is limited. From what has been said, his stay at WWE didn't go well. Maybe he'll get 3 interesting matches out of Brock in the coming months & he's stock will go up. Has a lot against him but I don't know. He'd have a better chance if Kevin Nash hadn't been born. Goldburg was the only thing that WCW did right....and then they screwed him up. He also kick Bret Hart in the head ending that career.

Tell me why he should go in the HOF?--Yohe

IP: Logged
francescofuoco
Member
Member # 126538

Icon 1 posted      Profile for francescofuoco     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks very much, Steve, for your answer
IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
New members of the "Less than 10% Cub" in 2016 were: Brute Bernard & Skull Murphy, Domenic DeNucci, Kinji Shibuya, Ron Wright, George Gordienko, Masahiko Kimura, Fishman, Mario Milano
 
New members of the "Hung Around (15 years) Too Long Club" were: Seiji Sakaguchi, and Volk Han.--Yohe

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I worked on this:

Under 10% club
2017 (12-4-17)
Pepper Gomez
Dick Hutton
Sangre Chicana
Chyna

Hung Around Too Long (15 years) Club
Curt Hennig
Tim "Mr Wrestling" Woods

Perdo Morales became the "first Hung Around too Long Club" member to make it into the WON HOF.

Both A. J. Styles & Mark Lewin were two time members of the "Less than 10% club".

The Sharpe Brothers were one time members.

Steve Yohe

[ 12-17-2017, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Steve Yohe ]

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Yohe:
New members of the "Less than 10% Cub" in 2016 were: Brute Bernard & Skull Murphy, Domenic DeNucci, Kinji Shibuya, Ron Wright, George Gordienko, Masahiko Kimura, Fishman, Mario Milano
 
A new member of the "Hung Around (15 years) Too Long Club" is Volk Han.--Yohe

Am I the only one aghast that the best wrestler of our lifetime can't get into the WON HOF?

[ 12-20-2017, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: OSJ from NM by way of WA ]

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know of one more, but it isn't the one person who created the rule that wasn't needed.

There are some people on the "over the 15 year club" that are better than the candidates on it. Dan put in 5 new HOF members & is adding only 2. Without historical admits, which is only controlled by Dave,...it looks pretty uninteresting.--Yohe

[ 12-20-2017, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Steve Yohe ]

IP: Logged
Matt Farmer from WA
Member
Member # 1177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt Farmer from WA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get why people push for Volk Han, but here's how I look at it and I'll use a reference Steve brought up when talking about Bill Goldberg.

Goldberg was a huge draw, for a short period of time was probably the biggest draw in wrestling or at least tied with Steve Austin. His run was short, but it was an incredible run that really lasted about a year. Then he made a lot of money off of the name he built during that time.

Volk Han was an incredible worker, maybe one of the best in the world at the style he wrestled. He was never a major star and drew okay at times. Like Goldberg his longevity can be questioned, as Volk has had less than 70 matches.

Now I get there is a difference in that Volk Han was wrestling in a worked-shoot. And had a few shoots mixed in there too, so you can't really compare it with a wrestler who works matches 4 or 5 times a week. But still it's hard for me to vote for someone in a pro wrestling hall of fame that had less than 70 professional wrestling matches.

And I'll be straight up with everyone, being good to great at being a wrestling who does "worked-shoots" is a helluva a lot easier than being a good to great traditional style pro wrestler. It might be physically harder for that one match, but mentally it's much easier to have that match once a month than to become a great worker match after match as a pro wrestler.

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many pro wrestlers are good enough to make a good living working one match a month? He would have worked longer if his style of wrestling hadn't died. He should have gone to Noah when asked.

Also RINGs, when it first started, was not covered by Dave in the WON very well. So Volk's early period & development was never spelled out to the smarts. Dave did end up covering RINGS, but he always had a bias of Japanese wrestlers over the European types.

This was a period, at least it's how I remember it, when I was around Dave a lot. I was going nuts over Volk and RINGS....and I would force Williams to watch the tapes. John was close to Dave & talked to him on the phone a lot. Dave then started covering RINGS better & saying good stuff about Volk.

I used to yell at the TV watching Volk. He was creating a style at the time, & I thought he was important. But since that time, MMA & shoot style has developed & I don't think a lot of smarts see anything in him new or important.

Also part of the job was working with & putting over some bad stand up European type guys...and he may look bad to some watching those matches. He was always great with the Japanese guys on the mat & they loved him.

I think there are a lot of smart people who don't see Volk Han like I did....and it's understandable. I accept their view & I could never change it.

He is off the ballet now, and will be forgotten in time. I lost that argument.--Steve Yohe

[ 01-05-2018, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Steve Yohe ]

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I seem to be losing the Orville Brown argument too....and I just have to convince one guy for that to happen. 20 years ago, it seemed like wrestling history stopped in 1937...and restarted in 1948 with G. George. On the first WON ballot, Longson, Sexton & Szabo were missing. Those guys over came the problem....Orville Brown can't. Ether can Tillet, Detton, or Shikat. Bronko Nagurski was seen as a no brainer, but the argument for Brown is much stronger. Maybe Brown would have had a better chance if his name had been Bronko instead of Orville. He was a top class rodeo performer before becoming a wrestler. No one wants to vote for a guy named Orville.---Steve Yohe

[ 01-05-2018, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Steve Yohe ]

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, here's the thing with Orville Brown & Bronko Nagurski, relying on my memory (which is actually pretty damn good), I subjected both men to the "great-uncle challenge".

The great-uncle challenge is this: I had six great-uncles, elderly gents that we saw at extended family gatherings, all were of an age to have served in WWI, one of them had even been gassed by the Germans. Anyway, two of them were gone by the time I was nine, the other four by the time I was thirteen. I used to pester these poor old guys with questions about wrestling (assuming that everyone was as into it as I was.)

These gents were casual fans at best, they watched on the Dumont Network primarily because that station got the best reception out in Olympia with the rabbit ears, not because they were hardcore fans. Anyway, if they brought a wrestler's name up in conversation, than that guy had to have been a pretty big deal...

Bronko passed the great-uncle challenge with flying colors, Orville Brown failed miserably. Now this isn't by any means my first test, it's more like an addition to the Gordy List. Yes, it's very flawed, if I were to go solely from this, I would be accepting the premise that Leo Nomellini was the greatest wrestler of the 1950's. I'm not sure how this occured, but it was pretty much accepted as fact that Thesz was #1, with Leo right behind him in the #2 spot. Of course, Gorgeous George was right up there, though I'll never forget Uncle Adelbert telling me, "There's something wrong with that fellow, go on and ask your dad what a queer is..."

All these years later, I'm willing to write that statement off as coming from a product of his time, though I do think it was rather *********** of him to have me blindside my dad instead of just giving me an explanation. Nine year-old kids in 1966 understood way more about sex than their elders would imagine... Still, the look on my dad's face when I interrupted a conversation that he was having with his older brother and my grandpa was worth a fortune. They were talking about salmon fishing or somesuch only to have me burst in with "Dad, Uncle Adelbert told me to ask you: "what's a queer?" the silence was deafening...

[ 01-06-2018, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: OSJ from NM by way of WA ]

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Yohe:
I seem to be losing the Orville Brown argument too....and I just have to convince one guy for that to happen. 20 years ago, it seemed like wrestling history stopped in 1937...and restarted in 1948 with G. George. On the first WON ballot, Longson, Sexton & Szabo were missing. Those guys over came the problem....Orville Brown can't. Ether can Tillet, Detton, or Shikat. Bronko Nagurski was seen as a no brainer, but the argument for Brown is much stronger. Maybe Brown would have had a better chance if his name had been Bronko instead of Orville. He was a top class rodeo performer before becoming a wrestler. No one wants to vote for a guy named Orville.---Steve Yohe

Steve, I think the problem here is with the process and the self-identification of number of voters as watchers of the "classic wrestling" when they mean that they started in the expansion era. Now there's nothing wrong with those voters honestly believing that what they grew up on was "classic wrestling". We'd be a lot better off if Dave phrased his self-qualifiers to something like this:

I was/am a fan of pre-WWII wrestling.

I was/am a fan of wresting in the 1940s & 1950s.

I was/am a fan of wrestling in the 1960s & 1970s.

I began watching during the expansion era.

Maybe that's breaking it down too far, but there is a differentiation between the perception of voters that are in the age bracket of say, Dave, myself, and Yohe and the thirty-somethings that now make up the largest demographic of viewers. Most of these folks would have grown up with the wrestling of the late 1980s and the 1990s and would logically consider the expansion era as the "classic era", and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that on an individual basis.

But here's the problem, you wind up with a large demographic of voters who really believe that the expansion era is "old school" and to them it is, but the fact that this is your largest demographic of voters will tend to see a lot of qualified candidates get overlooked, because they were from an era that this particular demographic (for the most part) can't really understand, just as most of my contemporaries have trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of just how popular Jim Londos was. Yeah, ask me about Londos and I'll talk you ears off, but I'm one of those weird wrestling fans; ask most guys in the 55-65 years old bracket about Londos and you'll get a blank stare.

The best solutions that I see are adding more points of self identification, or set up an "Old School Advisory Board", basically find a dozen folk and task them with presenting a slate of 5-10 candidates every year with the committee collaborating on presenting factual essays on each candidate. That way you have helped the HOF process by having more informed voters. I don't for a second blame a voter for not voting for Orville Brown if they've never seen or heard of him; no, I blame a system that expects a fan who considers Bruno and Pedro Morales as "old school" to also be thinking about guys from Orville's era. It's just not realistic.

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
Crimson Mask from FL
Administrator
Member # 10449

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Crimson Mask from FL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think those would be better categories than the current ones. The geographical ones just leave too many holes.

--------------------
So long from the Sunshine State!

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Dave started with the right idea with the geographical breakdowns. However, the system didn't account for evolution, so what's happened is that as the WON voters as a group become younger we're soon going to be coming up on a time when a well-informed current fan will literally ask "What were the territories?"

It won't be a matter of the voting process being watered down, but rather a matter of natural ignorance of a time period that is far removed from relevance to people to people born in the 1980s and 1990s. Ignorance is of course a fixable situation, and we see a number historically-oriented younger fans posting here, but as a quick look at the WON boards will confirm, the vast majority of the WON readership are very enthused and well-informed about the current product, (both in North America and overseas), but the interest level pre-expansion era just doesn't seem to be there.

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
Matt Farmer from WA
Member
Member # 1177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt Farmer from WA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not sure about that OSJ. Seems like there's a new group of young researchers that have been doing an excellent job from the pre-expansion era. Guys like Phil Lions, Jimmy Wheeler and those that contribute to the Wrestling Historical Society website/Facebook group.

In the last four or five years they've done an excellent job researching countries across Europe and more.

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Farmer from WA:
Not sure about that OSJ. Seems like there's a new group of young researchers that have been doing an excellent job from the pre-expansion era. Guys like Phil Lions, Jimmy Wheeler and those that contribute to the Wrestling Historical Society website/Facebook group.

In the last four or five years they've done an excellent job researching countries across Europe and more.

Matt: In no way would I disparage the fine work being done by Phil, Jimmy, etc. I was speaking specifically of the vast majority of the WON readership, who understandably are interested in the topic from the time that they were kids, but have little interest in the earlier history. If every wrestling fan was historically inclined, this board's traffic would be unbelievable.
Guys like Phil, Jimmy, you, me, and many of the others here are hardly the norm in wrestling fandom. We're more akin to the S.A.B.R. folks in baseball fandom and how many regular fans are there as opposed to the S.A.B.R. members? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1? I suspect that there's an even larger discrepancy and the same sort of percentage probably holds true in wrestling fans.

Here's what I think is a typical fan, the next level being the WON reader (a much lower percentage or Dave would be a billionaire), followed by the folks like us (an even tinier percentage). My nephew (age 32) is an ardent WWE and TNA fan, he has the network and only uses it to watch PPVs. I asked him about NXT and he doesn't care because "they aren't ready for prime time". He's equally disinterested in 205 Live. However, this guy never misses an episode of RAW, SDL, or TNA. As far as the wrestlers on the main roster goes he's pretty knowledgeable. He doesn't watch New Japan as he thinks anyone good makes their way to WWE and when I roll out the 1980s Portland or JCP dvds he rolls his eyes in boredom. To say that my 1990s All Japan stuff gets a bad reaction would be an understatement. But yeah, this is a modern wrestling fan and based on the amount of money he spends on t-shirts and other stuff, he's exactly the type of fan that Vince and Kevin Dunn want. I think it kind of sad that he has no interest beyond the lowest common denominator of the current product, but that's the way he's been conditioned by WWE. How often do we hear them pimping all the wonderful older stuff they have available? Never, yet we get plugs for Total Divas and Ride Along until our ears bleed. Hard to get modern fans interested in history when the biggest company with the biggest archive of material just pisses all over their own history.

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
Wrestling Perspective
Member
Member # 1487

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wrestling Perspective   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OSJ from NM by way of WA:
He doesn't watch New Japan as he thinks anyone good makes their way to WWE

This is a recurring theme when people blast Meltzer on Twitter. "If he's so good, why isn't he working for Vince?" No answer will suffice.

--------------------
Fake ... Working Through Wrestling's Past

Check Out Our Book: Olympic Television: Broadcasting The Biggest Show On Earth

IP: Logged
Matt Farmer from WA
Member
Member # 1177

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt Farmer from WA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the thing though, those people aren't allowed to vote. I'm not exactly sure the criteria Dave uses to allow folks to represent reporters or historians, but I'm assuming he has some form of vetting process.

But here's the truth. Most "historians" have zero clue what was going on in Mexico, or Puerto Rico, or Bulgaria, or dozens of other countries that had huge periods of success. Yet those historians are still given credential to vote as historians.

IP: Logged
Steve Yohe
Member
Member # 302

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Yohe     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From interviews & meeting WWE people at the CAC dinners, I get the feeling that most or all of their employees feel that the only important measure is the WWE. They talk about what influenced them as kids, & it's all WWE stuff. And Dave gets those guys to vote, so no venting is keeping the WWE bias out completely.

Finding voters, who are complete in every area, has always been the problem. It's very hard to find people that fit in like that. Your only hope is to find groups with the same type fans or cover the same areas of thought, and when all of them vote, if the numbers are equal,....it comes out fair. At least you hope it evens out.

But no matter what you do...an WON HOF...will always be an American HOF. But more than any other in history...it attempts to be international.

But the information, that this group has, is very hard to get & learn (Pre-1900 & Europe & Asia for example). It also comes out of order & mixed with opinions of all levels of fans and the experts we talk to are bias by self interest. You don't know who to believe. So you can't be too picky with who your voters are, because you might end up with very few. (Like with my LA HOF.)

So it will never be perfect.--Yohe

[ 01-21-2018, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Steve Yohe ]

IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3