The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,320
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 15, 2012 16:04:38 GMT -5
Is this even a legitimate Hall of Fame?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 16:16:13 GMT -5
Is this even a legitimate Hall of Fame? What is?
|
|
|
Post by wwfmark on Dec 15, 2012 16:23:26 GMT -5
I was always a WWF/E guy over a WCW guy but it's a complete joke that Sting isn't one of the biggest stars in the last 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by notasmark on Dec 15, 2012 16:34:03 GMT -5
Isn't the Dave Meltzer Hall of Fame like the NWA Hall of Fame?
- Strictly online
- Decided by people who whilst being educated on wrestling aren't wrestlers and have never performed in the big time
- Basically doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of the real hardcore fans
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Dec 15, 2012 16:36:35 GMT -5
To me, Sting is a no-brainer for any sort of pro wrestling Hall of Fame.
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Dec 15, 2012 16:47:40 GMT -5
Isn't the Dave Meltzer Hall of Fame like the NWA Hall of Fame? - Strictly online - Decided by people who whilst being educated on wrestling aren't wrestlers and have never performed in the big time - Basically doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of the real hardcore fans Couldn't be further from the truth - both existing wrestlers and retired wrestlers vote on it, along with writers and historians. It's probably the most respected Hall of Fame in wrestling, along with the one in Amsterdam, NY.
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,615
|
Post by PKO on Dec 15, 2012 19:16:46 GMT -5
To me, Sting is a no-brainer for any sort of pro wrestling Hall of Fame.
|
|
NOwave
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,735
|
Post by NOwave on Dec 15, 2012 19:22:48 GMT -5
This is the answer. To say Dave Meltzer is fair or non-biased is silly. To begin with, EVERYONE is biased-that just means they have an opinion, be it positive or negative. Second, Meltzer has proven (with his writings over the years) that he has his particular favorite wrestlers just like any other fan. His opinion is of no more importance than any other fan, EXCEPT as regards his(the Observor) Hall of Fame.
That being said, the single most important criteria for any athlete(assuming you consider wrestlers athletes) is how they performed in comparison to their peers during their peak era, and secondly, how long was their peak era? Was he a dominant performer who carried the team/company/whatever for an extended period of time? By that criteria, Sting is clearly a Hall of Famer. He was the face of WCW throughout it's existence. He became the face of TNA(while TNA may not be on the level of WCW at it's peak, it is clearly a major international promotion) and was it's first HOFer.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 15, 2012 19:33:11 GMT -5
I definitely don't agree with his defence of how a guy who was a star on a local scale should trump someone who was a star on a global scale. That doesn't seem to make much sense.
But at the end of the day it's his award and he can scale it anyway he likes, and I'm free to not care about it.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 15, 2012 20:06:04 GMT -5
This is the answer. To say Dave Meltzer is fair or non-biased is silly. To begin with, EVERYONE is biased-that just means they have an opinion, be it positive or negative. Second, Meltzer has proven (with his writings over the years) that he has his particular favorite wrestlers just like any other fan. His opinion is of no more importance than any other fan, EXCEPT as regards his(the Observor) Hall of Fame. That being said, the single most important criteria for any athlete(assuming you consider wrestlers athletes) is how they performed in comparison to their peers during their peak era, and secondly, how long was their peak era? Was he a dominant performer who carried the team/company/whatever for an extended period of time? By that criteria, Sting is clearly a Hall of Famer. He was the face of WCW throughout it's existence. He became the face of TNA(while TNA may not be on the level of WCW at it's peak, it is clearly a major international promotion) and was it's first HOFer. But Dave Meltzer doesn't decide who goes in or doesn't. It's up to a large group of wrestlers and journalists, Dave is only one of many voters.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Dec 15, 2012 20:13:10 GMT -5
This is the answer. To say Dave Meltzer is fair or non-biased is silly. To begin with, EVERYONE is biased-that just means they have an opinion, be it positive or negative. Second, Meltzer has proven (with his writings over the years) that he has his particular favorite wrestlers just like any other fan. His opinion is of no more importance than any other fan, EXCEPT as regards his(the Observor) Hall of Fame. That being said, the single most important criteria for any athlete(assuming you consider wrestlers athletes) is how they performed in comparison to their peers during their peak era, and secondly, how long was their peak era? Was he a dominant performer who carried the team/company/whatever for an extended period of time? By that criteria, Sting is clearly a Hall of Famer. He was the face of WCW throughout it's existence. He became the face of TNA(while TNA may not be on the level of WCW at it's peak, it is clearly a major international promotion) and was it's first HOFer. But Dave Meltzer doesn't decide who goes in or doesn't. It's up to a large group of wrestlers and journalists, Dave is only one of many voters. But he does choose who votes and who doesn't which can easily lend itself to choosing people who share his point of view.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 15, 2012 20:21:32 GMT -5
Isn't the Dave Meltzer Hall of Fame like the NWA Hall of Fame? - Strictly online - Decided by people who whilst being educated on wrestling aren't wrestlers and have never performed in the big time - Basically doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of the real hardcore fans I do find it fascinating when people reply to a post without actually reading it.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 15, 2012 20:33:22 GMT -5
But Dave Meltzer doesn't decide who goes in or doesn't. It's up to a large group of wrestlers and journalists, Dave is only one of many voters. But he does choose who votes and who doesn't which can easily lend itself to choosing people who share his point of view. That's reaching a little bit, I think. I don't really understand Hall of Fames in general, for wrestling or anything else, so I don't have too much of an opinion one way or another as to whether Sting should be inducted. Having said that, I can totally see Sting being a wrestler who is popular with the fans but isn't considered a truly exceptional worker by his peers, which is the main thing I would infer from them not voting him in. I haven't heard anybody say they think Sting is a terrible worker so I don't think that's the case either, not by a long shot, but they apparently don't consider his quality of work to be in that top tier. I would have been confused about why he didn't get in if it there wasn't any explanation, but after reading it I don't think it's so unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Dec 15, 2012 20:40:05 GMT -5
come on now, Stings a hall of famer. no question about it. Not really. A Hall of Fame is supposed to honour the Best of the Best. Sting was neither a great draw or a great wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 15, 2012 21:18:32 GMT -5
I love to hear some evidence or even reasoned speculation as to the basis of this supposed vendetta Metlzer apparently has against Sting.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,047
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Dec 15, 2012 21:20:32 GMT -5
I love to hear some evidence or even reasoned speculation as to the basis of this supposed vendetta Metlzer apparently has against Sting. This. Do you guys know for certain he doesn't like Sting? Has he said so himself? Has he written anything at all to stay "I don't like Sting." Just because he doesn't believe he's a hall of famer(An opinion I personally disagree with) doesn't mean he thinks he sucks.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Dec 15, 2012 21:53:59 GMT -5
I love to hear some evidence or even reasoned speculation as to the basis of this supposed vendetta Metlzer apparently has against Sting. Since I believe I first made mention of a persona vendetta, I ask you to re-read what I said: I hate when people campaign against a person going into a Hall of Fame, especially the owner(s) of it. It just reeks of having a personal vendetta against someone when no one else's voice will be heard in the matter. My feeling is anytime someone spends more time arguing why someone isn't a Hall of Famer (no matter the HoF) and disregarding peoples' feelings than trying to argue for someone or allowing the opposite side to be heard it reeks to me of having something against them. I don't know that he does but to me it seems that way. But he does choose who votes and who doesn't which can easily lend itself to choosing people who share his point of view. That's reaching a little bit, I think. I don't really understand Hall of Fames in general, for wrestling or anything else, so I don't have too much of an opinion one way or another as to whether Sting should be inducted. Having said that, I can totally see Sting being a wrestler who is popular with the fans but isn't considered a truly exceptional worker by his peers, which is the main thing I would infer from them not voting him in. I haven't heard anybody say they think Sting is a terrible worker so I don't think that's the case either, not by a long shot, but they apparently don't consider his quality of work to be in that top tier. I would have been confused about why he didn't get in if it there wasn't any explanation, but after reading it I don't think it's so unacceptable. It's a reach to think that someone who owns and operates a Hall of Fame and believes his opinion to be the truth would be choosing people he knows feel the way he does about wrestling over people who don't? Never mind his argument holds no weight when you realize he has no legitimate numbers to back up his not a draw argument and the rest is completely subjective and he keeps contradicting himself time and again. He at one point argues that Sting wasn't a draw because no one came to house shows to see him, then a few paragraphs later states that Sting didn't work house shows. Then he says that his fellow wrestlers don't think Sting was a good worker when there are more instances of people praising him than people running him down. The fact he takes one paragraph to run down people who don't agree with his opinion shows to me Meltzer is only looking for people who feel the way he does (Yeah, I know I can be accused of doing the same thing).
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 15, 2012 21:58:26 GMT -5
Since I believe I first made mention of a persona vendetta, I ask you to re-read what I said: My feeling is anytime someone spends more time arguing why someone isn't a Hall of Famer (no matter the HoF) and disregarding peoples' feelings than trying to argue for someone or allowing the opposite side to be heard it reeks to me of having something against them. I don't know that he does but to me it seems that way. It's a reach to think that someone who owns and operates a Hall of Fame and believes his opinion to be the truth would be choosing people he knows feel the way he does about wrestling over people who don't? Never mind his argument holds no weight when you realize he has no legitimate numbers to back up his not a draw argument and the rest is completely subjective and he keeps contradicting himself time and again. He at one point argues that Sting wasn't a draw because no one came to house shows to see him, then a few paragraphs later states that Sting didn't work house shows. Then he says that his fellow wrestlers don't think Sting was a good worker when there are more instances of people praising him than people running him down. The fact he takes one paragraph to run down people who don't agree with his opinion shows to me Meltzer is only looking for people who feel the way he does (Yeah, I know I can be accused of doing the same thing). Have you ever read Meltzer? He spends pages and pages talking about anything and everything, including making different cases for and against guys in the HOF, as well as analyzing voting patterns, etc. He talks about every guy on the ballot. So ya, it is kind of a stretch to believe that he would invite voters, and make employment decisions, based on whether they'll vote for this one particular guy in the HOF, out of the dozens of guys who are considered year after year. That's just silly. There's more than 100 voters, and they do this every year, and consider workers from all regions of the world from all different eras. Meltzer doesn't always agree with the inductions, he gives his 2 cents on each one (though with Meltzer's writing style, that 2 cents tends to read more like 25 cents.) If you believe Metlzer structured all of that around the goal of keeping Sting out in 2012, I think you have to bring something more to the table than the fact that he argued against his induction in one of his newsletters one time. If he really has this mission to keep Sting out, it's odd that he would say things like this: "At 38%, I believe Sting is a stronger candidate than people who have done better, such as The Rock & Roll Express. If you really rank them side-by-side, while the Express were a great working tag team, often copied and had great matches, they were never the level of star Sting was. Then again, one can argue the Rock & Roll Express was one of the greatest working babyface tag team ever, and that counts for something."
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Dec 15, 2012 22:34:19 GMT -5
Since I believe I first made mention of a persona vendetta, I ask you to re-read what I said: My feeling is anytime someone spends more time arguing why someone isn't a Hall of Famer (no matter the HoF) and disregarding peoples' feelings than trying to argue for someone or allowing the opposite side to be heard it reeks to me of having something against them. I don't know that he does but to me it seems that way. It's a reach to think that someone who owns and operates a Hall of Fame and believes his opinion to be the truth would be choosing people he knows feel the way he does about wrestling over people who don't? Never mind his argument holds no weight when you realize he has no legitimate numbers to back up his not a draw argument and the rest is completely subjective and he keeps contradicting himself time and again. He at one point argues that Sting wasn't a draw because no one came to house shows to see him, then a few paragraphs later states that Sting didn't work house shows. Then he says that his fellow wrestlers don't think Sting was a good worker when there are more instances of people praising him than people running him down. The fact he takes one paragraph to run down people who don't agree with his opinion shows to me Meltzer is only looking for people who feel the way he does (Yeah, I know I can be accused of doing the same thing). Have you ever read Meltzer? Just what is posted here. I am not an anti-news, anti-Meltzer guy, I just find myself disagreeing with 90% of what I hear him say. See, I don't see that as making the case for someone so much as tearing down another should be easy HOF team in the RNR Express. Still if someone had actually answered with he does publish opinions that aren't his on the people eligible for his HOF like I asked on page 1 I might have had a slightly different opinion. That said, I don't buy that the voters are employees at all, he is choosing who he wants to vote and there is no way there is not a personal bias in it. Once again, I find spending more time on why someone shouldn't be in a HOF having something against someone. I don't care if it is arguing someone shouldn't be in the NBA HOF or a Wrestling HOF, if they are good enough to be considered, you shouldn't have to tear them down. Argue for who you want in, not who you want left out. Arguing to leave someone out reeks of either having something against them or being for someone not good enough to get in and since he decided to write some of the stuff he did, I think he has something against Sting.. And according to the OP, this wasn't something in a newsletter some times, Meltzer went to another board where they didn't agree with this and had a multi-paragraph researched article on hand as to why Sting didn't belong, including one paragraph telling people that if they didn't agree with him and his voters, they didn't know wrestling.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Dec 15, 2012 22:52:18 GMT -5
Is Meltzer even relevant today.
|
|