|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 15, 2012 22:53:12 GMT -5
There has to be some reason for it. I mean Bret Hart didn't sell a ticket to save his life either, and he's not getting buried for it. And he doesn't have the benefit of a second act of his career like Shawn Michaels did, because let's be honest, without it, he belongs there far less than Sting does.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 15, 2012 22:55:39 GMT -5
There has to be some reason for it. I mean Bret Hart didn't sell a ticket to save his life either, and he's not getting buried for it. And he doesn't have the benefit of a second act of his career like Shawn Michaels did, because let's be honest, without it, he belongs there far less than Sting does. Wait, who's getting buried?
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 15, 2012 23:10:59 GMT -5
I like and respect Meltzer a lot, but also feel that this list of reasons why Sting should be disqualified from a hall of fame don't stack up against "Dude, it's Sting."
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 15, 2012 23:45:03 GMT -5
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. Some of them are employees. Most are people he's established relationships with over the years. They vote on several dozen guys every year. Most of them have voted for years, with a few comings and goings every year. That's the part that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around. It's a much bigger process than just this one Sting vote. He's not hand-picking 120 guys to vote just on Sting. If he has this vendetta you claim he has, with this singular goal to keep Sting out of the HOF, he'd have to put the wheels in motion on it years and years ago, to get all these people in place, all for this one vote, on this one guy, in 2012. That's just comical. How would that even work? Did he decide not to start sending Bill Watts or whoever a ballot in 1998 because he knew that Watts liked Sting and might vote for him 15 years later?
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Dec 15, 2012 23:52:14 GMT -5
I like and respect Meltzer a lot, but also feel that this list of reasons why Sting should be disqualified from a hall of fame don't stack up against "Dude, it's Sting." Which is fair. I'm being serious.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Dec 15, 2012 23:52:35 GMT -5
I'm just not seeing it. Meltzer posts on that board from time to time (and the thread in question was the case for Sting being in)...he just gave his own opinion on why HE felt he shouldn't. I like Sting, but he made a very valid argument than just "It's Sting!". Not to be a dick here, but the people who think Sting is a no brainer, please back up why he is with fact instead of nostalgia.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 15, 2012 23:54:33 GMT -5
And the voting wasn't even close - 38% voted for Sting. The more rational explanation here is that Sting's peers and people in the industry don't hold him in quite as high esteem as the fans do.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Dec 16, 2012 0:05:41 GMT -5
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. Some of them are employees. Most are people he's established relationships with over the years. They vote on several dozen guys every year. Most of them have voted for years, with a few comings and goings every year. That's the part that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around. It's a much bigger process than just this one Sting vote. He's not hand-picking 120 guys to vote just on Sting. If he has this vendetta you claim he has, with this singular goal to keep Sting out of the HOF, he'd have to put the wheels in motion on it years and years ago, to get all these people in place, all for this one vote, on this one guy, in 2012. That's just comical. How would that even work? Did he decide not to start sending Bill Watts or whoever a ballot in 1998 because he knew that Watts liked Sting and might vote for him 15 years later? When you control everything and nothing is transparent, you don't have to have some elaborate plan. If the man who owns and operates the the HOF comes out and states with no uncertainty that a person should not be in HIS HOF, he has influenced people and done his job. Once again and for the last time because we're going in circles, he does everything. He chooses the voters based on his opinion of them, he holds everything in secret and he is the only one who seems to give an opinion on these guys. If I grab X number of people on this board I like and ask them their opinion on a guy while listing how bad said person is, how they know nothing about a subject, and post stupid pictures or one word answers for everything but hey, they have a high post count and have been around forever so people know the name, how do you think they are going to vote? You can see with you're own eyes what this person has done and what this person means or doesn't mean but the last thing you'll hear from the person in charge is that person sucks but he could sure post a lot, the opinion you'll most likely have is negative.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 16, 2012 0:17:11 GMT -5
Some of them are employees. Most are people he's established relationships with over the years. They vote on several dozen guys every year. Most of them have voted for years, with a few comings and goings every year. That's the part that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around. It's a much bigger process than just this one Sting vote. He's not hand-picking 120 guys to vote just on Sting. If he has this vendetta you claim he has, with this singular goal to keep Sting out of the HOF, he'd have to put the wheels in motion on it years and years ago, to get all these people in place, all for this one vote, on this one guy, in 2012. That's just comical. How would that even work? Did he decide not to start sending Bill Watts or whoever a ballot in 1998 because he knew that Watts liked Sting and might vote for him 15 years later? When you control everything and nothing is transparent, you don't have to have some elaborate plan. If the man who owns and operates the the HOF comes out and states with no uncertainty that a person should not be in HIS HOF, he has influenced people and done his job. Once again and for the last time because we're going in circles, he does everything. He chooses the voters based on his opinion of them, he holds everything in secret and he is the only one who seems to give an opinion on these guys. If I grab X number of people on this board I like and ask them their opinion on a guy while listing how bad said person is, how they know nothing about a subject, and post stupid pictures or one word answers for everything but hey, they have a high post count and have been around forever so people know the name, how do you think they are going to vote? You can see with you're own eyes what this person has done and what this person means or doesn't mean but the last thing you'll hear from the person in charge is that person sucks but he could sure post a lot, the opinion you'll most likely have is negative. The HOF voting doesn't always turn on Meltzer's stated opinions. And this this particular Meltzer post was made after Sting got 38% of the vote. And ya, the whole thing is in Meltzer's image, it makes sense that the group with have some similarities with him, because these are people who know him and are willing to help him out and be voters year after year. That could explain any kind of broad trend you want to identify with data - a preference for mat wrestling, a bias towards the 60s, whatever. But not a particular vendetta against one specific guy, which to my knowledge, he's never expressed in any other manner in years and years of writing about him. He'd have to hand-select dozens and dozens of guys who share his specific vendetta against Sting to be voters, and he chose them all to vote year after year for just that purpose - to exclude Sting in 2012. Maybe there's this secret Sting-hating society that incorporated as the Wrestling Observer, but the odds are against it. Edit: And this thread kind of proves my point too. There are people who agree with him on Sting. And others who disagree but see where he's coming from. It's possible just to have different opinions when it comes to valuating a guy's career.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Dec 16, 2012 1:04:02 GMT -5
Here's the TLDR for people not actually paying attention; Sting is a guy who is a strong candidate to be talked about. If you make a valid case for Sting, he'll get in. It's happened with a lot of people in the past.
If wrestlers considered Sting a great worker, he'd be in.
Sting's drawing numbers are not Hall of Fame.
He had a very long career where he was considered a top star, and still is today, which is a plus and is his best credential.
I get people's childhoods but you have to be able to move past that.
Does his longevity as a mid-teir top star outbalance his luke warm acceptance by his peers and his less then stellar drawing history? If so why? Make the argument and change some minds. I personally thought Sting was great, and if I had been asked to vote BEFORE reading this article would have definitely voted yes but I can totally see the argument for why he is not HOF caliber, because Meltzer lays out a better case then any I have seen to support Sting.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 16, 2012 1:08:54 GMT -5
About a decade ago, I used to have an email address on AOL similar to Raven's real name (I was a lame fanboy at the time...). And I would send news tips about local wrestling shows and stuff like that to Dave Meltzer from time to time. One day I got an email from Dave with a Hall of Fame ballot intended for Raven. I could've been dishonest and voted, but I didn't... So that's how I know for sure that Raven is or atleast was once on the list of people who voted for the Observer Hall of Fame. And Meltzer definitely relies on the votes of former/current pro wrestlers. But hopefully he's a bit more careful to make sure he sends the ballots to the right people now.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 16, 2012 1:37:26 GMT -5
I'm just not seeing it. Meltzer posts on that board from time to time (and the thread in question was the case for Sting being in)...he just gave his own opinion on why HE felt he shouldn't. I like Sting, but he made a very valid argument than just "It's Sting!". Not to be a dick here, but the people who think Sting is a no brainer, please back up why he is with fact instead of nostalgia. Yeah, it's weird but I came into the thread thinking Sting should be a Hall of Famer and the more people try to support that opinion the less I believe it. The case for has been super weak compared to the case against. I have to admire some people's creativity though, bonus points to the guy who tried to turn this into another "let's argue about Bret Hart" thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Dec 16, 2012 2:43:45 GMT -5
I'm just not seeing it. Meltzer posts on that board from time to time (and the thread in question was the case for Sting being in)...he just gave his own opinion on why HE felt he shouldn't. I like Sting, but he made a very valid argument than just "It's Sting!". Not to be a dick here, but the people who think Sting is a no brainer, please back up why he is with fact instead of nostalgia. Yeah, it's weird but I came into the thread thinking Sting should be a Hall of Famer and the more people try to support that opinion the less I believe it. The case for has been super weak compared to the case against. I have to admire some people's creativity though, bonus points to the guy who tried to turn this into another "let's argue about Bret Hart" thread. I'll take up that offer to present a case for Sting but it'll have to wait until tomorrow. If I try to do it now, a certain someone will be cheesed off that I'm not in bed at 3am.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 16, 2012 2:47:42 GMT -5
There has to be some reason for it. I mean Bret Hart didn't sell a ticket to save his life either, and he's not getting buried for it. And he doesn't have the benefit of a second act of his career like Shawn Michaels did, because let's be honest, without it, he belongs there far less than Sting does. Wait, who's getting buried? Sting is getting buried for not being a draw, but two of the worst main draws in WWE/F history are in the HOF. It's illogical. Granted both are superior (and in HBK's case, far superior) workers, but Sting is also a better "character/promo" than Bret is. Bret's career on top was not that long and without the second act, Shawn's would be even shorter. Since everything that happened after the last Nitro is detrimental in Sting's case, why is Bret not held to the same standard.... considering the "total package" as a worker/entertainer, they are not far off from each other, and neither of them was a big draw?
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 16, 2012 2:49:28 GMT -5
Here's the TLDR for people not actually paying attention; Sting is a guy who is a strong candidate to be talked about. If you make a valid case for Sting, he'll get in. It's happened with a lot of people in the past.
If wrestlers considered Sting a great worker, he'd be in.
Sting's drawing numbers are not Hall of Fame.
He had a very long career where he was considered a top star, and still is today, which is a plus and is his best credential.
I get people's childhoods but you have to be able to move past that.
Does his longevity as a mid-teir top star outbalance his luke warm acceptance by his peers and his less then stellar drawing history? If so why? Make the argument and change some minds. I personally thought Sting was great, and if I had been asked to vote BEFORE reading this article would have definitely voted yes but I can totally see the argument for why he is not HOF caliber, because Meltzer lays out a better case then any I have seen to support Sting. It's not so much a case of making a case why he should be in, it's more of making a case of "if Sting isn't in, why are *these* guys in?" To me it feels like the standards are moving goalposts. Forget HBK and Bret. Benoit? One of the best workers ever, I guess if that's a criteria you put him in, but what is his draw? When did he work as a top guy or as the focus of anything short of the one 4-5 month run where he got CM Punk'd to angles involving a developmentally disabled character. Jericho. Jericho IMO is more worthy than Benoit, but he's mainly been a support character and his first and third WWE runs could be considered pretty big disappointments, and his second was about to go off the rails until the turn saved his career. Is he making the HOF just for that run? I can't even talk business for him because he was never put in the position to be a "draw". And I like Jericho....
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 16, 2012 3:02:22 GMT -5
And then there's Vader. Vader goes in because he was a revolutionary worker and he was a star in Japan. Fine. But he goes in the first class and his run in WCW as a top guy isn't held against him, but down the road it's held against Sting. Kinda illogical.
To me it seems like the majority of the voters are guys who have indy/Japan experience or knowledge and it skews in that way. Since WCW is a dead promotion it gets held against the guys that worked for it.... and if you are primarily a WCW worker, you are f***ed.
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Dec 16, 2012 3:04:59 GMT -5
More likely he had an opinion of Sting then looked for stuff to back-up said opinion. Sting is a Hall of Famer, if he worked in WWE he'd be in already. No to the first part and yes to the second part. Meltzer never said I can't vote for Sting because I hated him. He says he looks at stats that Sting doesn't do favorably in. As for the second part he addresses that too: If Bernie Kosar had played for the 49er and Joe Montana had played for the Browns would their careers be graded differently? Of course, but then you travel down a whole road of hypotheticals. He isn't saying Sting couldn't have been the guy, just that he never was, he had a year long build and a very memorable program that they blew at the end and followed up terribly. Vince was better at making guys into stars and Bischoff preferred to promote already established stars from Vince. The major break from that pattern was Goldberg who gets his due in that article. I do not buy that he did research then came to a conclusion about Sting. Much more likely he just didn't think Sting needed to be in the HOF then looked for what would back his position up. I never said he hated Sting, but it's obviously he's not the biggest fan either. As far as my comment about if he was in WWE he'd be in I was talking about voting bias not Sting's career being bigger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2012 3:06:35 GMT -5
I like and respect Meltzer a lot, but also feel that this list of reasons why Sting should be disqualified from a hall of fame don't stack up against "Dude, it's Sting." EXACTLY what I was about to post. Dude. It's Sting. I don't need to write 12 rambly paragraphs, and it holds just as much water as "well this rando no one's heard of drew similar money for the Idaho territory in '46, and he's not in". But now after reading, I'm compelled to make an argument, so there's this: he was the top babyface of the WWF's only rival since they wiped out the territories for a decade. He also pulled off one of the great character/gimmick changes ever in the industry at a time when the show he was on was pulling 7 million viewers a week. And he's easily the biggest star that never worked for Vince McMahon, and a much bigger one than most that have. And the fact that people can just say "dude it's Sting" says a lot about the aura he's always had around him, particularly after he adopted The Crow gimmick which he played to a hilt. I don't know, to me the big reasons for outweigh all the little reasons against. A classic example of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 16, 2012 3:21:39 GMT -5
No to the first part and yes to the second part. Meltzer never said I can't vote for Sting because I hated him. He says he looks at stats that Sting doesn't do favorably in. As for the second part he addresses that too: If Bernie Kosar had played for the 49er and Joe Montana had played for the Browns would their careers be graded differently? Of course, but then you travel down a whole road of hypotheticals. He isn't saying Sting couldn't have been the guy, just that he never was, he had a year long build and a very memorable program that they blew at the end and followed up terribly. Vince was better at making guys into stars and Bischoff preferred to promote already established stars from Vince. The major break from that pattern was Goldberg who gets his due in that article. I do not buy that he did research then came to a conclusion about Sting. Much more likely he just didn't think Sting needed to be in the HOF then looked for what would back his position up. I never said he hated Sting, but it's obviously he's not the biggest fan either. As far as my comment about if he was in WWE he'd be in I was talking about voting bias not Sting's career being bigger. You're just wrong and the actual system has been explained repeatedly, but whatever. And you know what else? I wasn't gonna say this, but since we're getting all this "Dude, it's Sting" stuff and we're even started to bring other guys into it, I will. Sting as a character/personality is and has always been terrible. First there was surfer sting who did the same "whoo" as Ric Flair, and then he had the Crow ripoff gimmick, and then the Joker ripoff after Dark Knight became popular which was just pathetic. Sting is not creative at all. I get it that he's really popular, but there are so many better guys than Sting and the longer this conversation goes the more I don't think he is at all an essential inductee to a wrestling Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 16, 2012 3:27:55 GMT -5
I do not buy that he did research then came to a conclusion about Sting. Much more likely he just didn't think Sting needed to be in the HOF then looked for what would back his position up. I never said he hated Sting, but it's obviously he's not the biggest fan either. As far as my comment about if he was in WWE he'd be in I was talking about voting bias not Sting's career being bigger. You're just wrong and the actual system has been explained repeatedly, but whatever. And you know what else? I wasn't gonna say this, but since we're getting all this "Dude, it's Sting" stuff and we're even started to bring other guys into it, I will. Sting as a character/personality is and has always been terrible. First there was surfer sting who did the same "whoo" as Ric Flair, and then he had the Crow ripoff gimmick, and then the Joker ripoff after Dark Knight became popular which was just pathetic. Sting is not creative at all. I get it that he's really popular, but there are so many better guys than Sting and the longer this conversation goes the more I don't think he is at all an essential inductee to a wrestling Hall of Fame. The "Crow" rip-off character was one of the more over things ever in wrestling. What was Benoit's character? What was Bret's? "Great wrestler guy?" That hasn't been done before. Forget about ever putting a monster heel in. Even Jericho's character change was a movie rip-off and he himself admits it. What's the big deal? There's just a built-in bias towards WCW because it no longer exists and doesn't even control its own tape library in non-existence. Someone else is getting to dictate their history. You have to bring other people into these discussion, it's a point of comparison for what the "bar" for getting in is. Everything that is being held against Sting in the rationale can be applied to someone(s) who is in. That's a problem.
|
|