The Heenan Family
Unicron
I'm a legend in this sport. If you don't believe me, ask me.
Posts: 2,569
|
Post by The Heenan Family on Dec 16, 2012 3:35:03 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. I wonder if Meltzer thinks Raven is qualified to be in his online HoF? He'll send him a ballot to vote, but does that come with a rant about why he's not qualified to be inducted too? Or does Meltzer think he's more qualified than Sting?
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,648
|
Post by khali on Dec 16, 2012 3:41:05 GMT -5
To me, Sting is a guy who seems like a no brainer until you think about it more. Meltzer laid it out pretty well too. He's good in the ring, but certainly not great. Generally, not a great draw either. The biggest strength in his favor seems to be his longevity, which is important, to be sure. But is that really enough?
There is a much stronger argument for him not going in than just saying "it's Sting." What are the real concrete reasons for him being a HOF candidate?
As far as Meltzer goes, anyone who's read a lot of his stuff or listened to him on podcasts or whatever knows that he is just naturally long winded. This is not him just going off on a tirade on Sting because he doesn't like the guy passionately. It takes a long time for him to get his point across about anything. Listen to the post Hall of Fame podcasts he did on F4W. Every guy he talks about he goes into this much detail. It's never him going on a tirade. He is just very analytical.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Dec 16, 2012 4:33:47 GMT -5
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. Yes a lot of the Hall of Famers had glaring weaknesses worse than Stings, but those guys had that ONE strength that put them above most others in that dimension, that made them iconic to their peers. What is Sting's strength that he far outshines most of his peers at?
|
|
Corporate H
Grimlock
He Buries Them Alive
Posts: 13,829
|
Post by Corporate H on Dec 16, 2012 4:45:40 GMT -5
Sting belongs in any pro wrestling hall of fame simply because he did it all without working for Vince. That in of itself speaks volumes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2012 4:51:23 GMT -5
Sting belongs in any pro wrestling hall of fame simply because he did it all without working for Vince. That in of itself speaks volumes. I disagree. I still think the strength of what]/i] he's done matters. Don't get me wrong I think Sting's had a great career, but it's like what ritt says above, what one thing has he done in wrestling above anyone else? He's been a solid hand for a long time and as I said a few pages ago, his career deserves to be recognized but not under the guidelines Meltzer described.
I don't give a lot of credence to Sting making it without Vince since he made it in a time where WWE wasn't the monopoly.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 16, 2012 4:53:08 GMT -5
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. Yes a lot of the Hall of Famers had glaring weaknesses worse than Stings, but those guys had that ONE strength that put them above most others in that dimension, that made them iconic to their peers. What is Sting's strength that he far outshines most of his peers at? The above post could be considered that strength. Another could be being enough of a company guy to sit out over a year of his career for one payoff match. Which in classic WCW fashion, was botched. Outshining Ricky Steamboat as Ric Flair's historic foil, etc.... Years of being a Cena type performer (good paint by numbers worker who can be improved by his opponents into having really good matches). I just feel if Sting jumped at any point in time this would be a total non-issue. It seems like almost everyone of consequence that jumped is recognized for it.
|
|
Corporate H
Grimlock
He Buries Them Alive
Posts: 13,829
|
Post by Corporate H on Dec 16, 2012 5:01:37 GMT -5
Sting belongs in any pro wrestling hall of fame simply because he did it all without working for Vince. That in of itself speaks volumes. I disagree. I still think the strength of what]/i] he's done matters. Don't get me wrong I think Sting's had a great career, but it's like what ritt says above, what one thing has he done in wrestling above anyone else? He's been a solid hand for a long time and as I said a few pages ago, his career deserves to be recognized but not under the guidelines Meltzer described.
I don't give a lot of credence to Sting making it without Vince since he made it in a time where WWE wasn't the monopoly.Sting was the main babyface in the hottest angle in professional wrestling's history, the nWo. Does that not say enough? His image was viewed by more eyeballs then than anybody on WWE television today and they were watching because they wanted to see him defeat the most recognizable face of the business, Hulk Hogan. I think that counts for something.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 16, 2012 5:12:28 GMT -5
I disagree. I still think the strength of what]/i] he's done matters. Don't get me wrong I think Sting's had a great career, but it's like what ritt says above, what one thing has he done in wrestling above anyone else? He's been a solid hand for a long time and as I said a few pages ago, his career deserves to be recognized but not under the guidelines Meltzer described.
I don't give a lot of credence to Sting making it without Vince since he made it in a time where WWE wasn't the monopoly.Sting was the main babyface in the hottest angle in professional wrestling's history, the nWo. Does that not say enough? His image was viewed by more eyeballs then than anybody on WWE television today and they were watching because they wanted to see him defeat the most recognizable face of the business, Hulk Hogan. I think that counts for something. He also maintained that heat without saying a word for what, 14-15 months?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2012 5:12:50 GMT -5
I disagree. I still think the strength of what]/i] he's done matters. Don't get me wrong I think Sting's had a great career, but it's like what ritt says above, what one thing has he done in wrestling above anyone else? He's been a solid hand for a long time and as I said a few pages ago, his career deserves to be recognized but not under the guidelines Meltzer described.
I don't give a lot of credence to Sting making it without Vince since he made it in a time where WWE wasn't the monopoly.Sting was the main babyface in the hottest angle in professional wrestling's history, the nWo. Does that not say enough? His image was viewed by more eyeballs then than anybody on WWE television today and they were watching because they wanted to see him defeat the most recognizable face of the business, Hulk Hogan. I think that counts for something. Not personally, because ultimately I think the real legacy carved out from that angle was the nWo concept. Sting just happened to be the guy that was the lead face put against them. Perhaps if they executed the big match better, Sting's stock would be better, but Sting won the match in a really awfully put together match, nWo finagled their way back into the picture soon after, and it was more chronicles of nWo. Sting was a cool part of the nWo angle, but I don't think anyone but hardcore fans look back and say "I remember Hulk Hogan vs. Sting", they thing "I remember nWo". He wasn't really a made man after that feud, he was still the really cool wrestler that people appreciate when they see him, but don't necessarily go just to see him.
|
|
|
Post by notasmark on Dec 16, 2012 5:39:37 GMT -5
People against Sting getting into the Hall of Fame are point blank anti WCW or TNA that's all it is.
Sting got real big in 1990 and finished up in 2001, throughout that time he was a main eventer and seen as the heart of WCW. It would be like saying John Cena based on his accomplishments today should not be in the Hall of Fame
Sting Vs nWo is the feud that made WCW better than the WWF and win them the ratings war for over a year.
Since everyone on this board loves to quote the Death of WCW book didn't that book claim that a House Show match between Hulk Hogan and Sting drew over a million dollars at the gate? But Sting isn't a draw, right?
Have a look at the crowds at the end of WCW, Sting masks everywhere and the guy always got cheered upon his return, always seen as a main eventer and yes, always made WCW money.
Someone else brought up a good point with Bret Hart, Bret is seen as this icon but was he ever a draw outside of Canada? Sure he was a good in ring worker but he didn't have much in the way of charisma or microphone skills take him out!
Lets have a Hall of Fame with guys who were fantastic talkers, had great characters and could have pure wrestling matches whilst drawing the casual fan in.
That Hall of Fame could feature 0 people.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 16, 2012 6:00:37 GMT -5
People against Sting getting into the Hall of Fame are point blank anti WCW or TNA that's all it is. Sting got real big in 1990 and finished up in 2001, throughout that time he was a main eventer and seen as the heart of WCW. It would be like saying John Cena based on his accomplishments today should not be in the Hall of Fame Sting Vs nWo is the feud that made WCW better than the WWF and win them the ratings war for over a year. Since everyone on this board loves to quote the Death of WCW book didn't that book claim that a House Show match between Hulk Hogan and Sting drew over a million dollars at the gate? But Sting isn't a draw, right? Have a look at the crowds at the end of WCW, Sting masks everywhere and the guy always got cheered upon his return, always seen as a main eventer and yes, always made WCW money. Someone else brought up a good point with Bret Hart, Bret is seen as this icon but was he ever a draw outside of Canada? Sure he was a good in ring worker but he didn't have much in the way of charisma or microphone skills take him out! Lets have a Hall of Fame with guys who were fantastic talkers, had great characters and could have pure wrestling matches whilst drawing the casual fan in. That Hall of Fame could feature 0 people. It's a joke. I mean look at Bryan Danielson, if he walked away from wrestling a year or so from now, he'd be in this hall of fame probably. Again, a guy I like, but you know it's gonna happen. There's a skew.
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Dec 16, 2012 6:47:57 GMT -5
Think Danielson becomes eligible in the next couple of years. He won't be first ballot, as his independent run will initially be held against him, but after a while, and sustained success in the WWE, he'll get in.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 16, 2012 8:40:45 GMT -5
Have a look at the crowds at the end of WCW, Sting masks everywhere and the guy always got cheered upon his return, always seen as a main eventer and yes, always made WCW money. When did Sting ever not get cheered like crazy? He has a special appeal with crowds that crosses typical divides among fans to bring everyone together to cheer for him. Jeff Hardy in WWE had something similar, and might again some day if he returns, but he lost it in TNA. Sting, though, from NWA to WCW to WCW/NWO to that weird goldberg tattoo logo WCW to TNA has always gotten unified positive crowd reactions. There's just something special about him, and it should not be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 16, 2012 9:39:16 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. I wonder if Meltzer thinks Raven is qualified to be in his online HoF? He'll send him a ballot to vote, but does that come with a rant about why he's not qualified to be inducted too? Or does Meltzer think he's more qualified than Sting? I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm sure Raven will be on the ballot at some point. Though I doubt he'll reach the 38% Sting did.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 16, 2012 9:40:38 GMT -5
Have a look at the crowds at the end of WCW, Sting masks everywhere and the guy always got cheered upon his return, always seen as a main eventer and yes, always made WCW money. When did Sting ever not get cheered like crazy? He has a special appeal with crowds that crosses typical divides among fans to bring everyone together to cheer for him. Jeff Hardy in WWE had something similar, and might again some day if he returns, but he lost it in TNA. Sting, though, from NWA to WCW to WCW/NWO to that weird goldberg tattoo logo WCW to TNA has always gotten unified positive crowd reactions. There's just something special about him, and it should not be ignored. Clearly, nobody's ignoring him, he's an important figure in wrestling and an often-discussed one when it comes to the wrestlingobserver hall of fame. Most of peers just don't think he meets that organization's criteria to be in though.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,097
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on Dec 16, 2012 10:01:49 GMT -5
I like Dave and I respect his opinion but I think if I disagreed with him any more it would actually fry my brain. This is mere speculation but since his points don't seem to have a lot of merit to me and most appear to be nonsensical at best that leads me to believe that maybe there is a different agenda preventing Dave from wanting Sting in his HOF.
Either way, Sting is a first ballot HOF'er in any wrestling HOF in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by evilone on Dec 16, 2012 10:02:58 GMT -5
What Dave wrote here can easily be applied to The Undertake as well if he had to justify why The Undertaker should not be in the hall of fame.
And for Kurt Angle, Piper, DiBiase, Andre, etc.
Sorry but "drawing power" is not an valid argument since it's not all about the wrestler. It's not like wrestler has sole power to make the great crowd draw and merchandise sales. It would be like saying John Stewart kills in ratings by himself but the truth is he has a gigantic team people behind him that assist him every single day.
It is obvious that Sting couldn't have "the major drawing power" since WCW never, ever got that sustainable compared to WWE. WWE was and is wrestling franchise and I bet if Sting shows up this year in WWE he would draw more than ever in his career, but only if WWE wanted him to draw more than Cena.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 16, 2012 10:11:00 GMT -5
I like Dave and I respect his opinion but I think if I disagreed with him any more it would actually fry my brain. This is mere speculation but since his points don't seem to have a lot of merit to me and most appear to be nonsensical at best that leads me to believe that maybe there is a different agenda preventing Dave from wanting Sting in his HOF. Either way, Sting is a first ballot HOF'er in any wrestling HOF in my opinion. Do you think the other 62% of voters (I think that's around 70 former wrestlers, historians, and journalists) that didn't vote for him share that "agenda"? Who are these people and what the heck did Sting to do them? Assuming Meltzer has been stacking the voting ranks for years just for this one pivotal Sting vote, how did he find all these people? I think there's just a lot of immature responses to this opinion (and the opinion of those 70 other people) in this thread. It's fine to disagree, especially if you can take the time to back it up. But it's a little much to invalidate views that you don't agree with and accuse people of having agendas just because you have a different conclusion. It is possible for humans to just disagree on things. It's not necessarily true that one's opinion is perfect on a matter and everyone else's is just inherently flawed and based on external prejudice. Especially when that opposition view is so broad, it's not some weird fringe idea Dave has here - it's actually the the majority view among those voters.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 16, 2012 10:20:43 GMT -5
What Dave wrote here can easily be applied to The Undertake as well if he had to justify why The Undertaker should not be in the hall of fame. And for Kurt Angle, Piper, DiBiase, Andre, etc. Sorry but "drawing power" is not an valid argument since it's not all about the wrestler. It's not like wrestler has sole power to make the great crowd draw and merchandise sales. It would be like saying John Stewart kills in ratings by himself but the truth is he has a gigantic team people behind him that assist him every single day. It is obvious that Sting couldn't have "the major drawing power" since WCW never, ever got that sustainable compared to WWE. WWE was and is wrestling franchise and I bet if Sting shows up this year in WWE he would draw more than ever in his career, but only if WWE wanted him to draw more than Cena. Drawing power isn't a fixed number or a perfect science but data can be evaluated in the context from which it comes from, and analyzed. If Jon Stewart's ratings tanked it would hurt his overall marketability. If his agent could convince people that there were other reasons for the ratings drop, like a weaker overall TV network or bad time slot, then maybe he could minimize that drop. It's just one criteria, and it's not the only one Meltzer talks about, and it's not the only one that's considered in evaluating HOF eligibility. But your success in drawing money wrestling, as far as it can be ascertained from the data, is certainly relevant.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,097
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on Dec 16, 2012 10:28:34 GMT -5
I like Dave and I respect his opinion but I think if I disagreed with him any more it would actually fry my brain. This is mere speculation but since his points don't seem to have a lot of merit to me and most appear to be nonsensical at best that leads me to believe that maybe there is a different agenda preventing Dave from wanting Sting in his HOF. Either way, Sting is a first ballot HOF'er in any wrestling HOF in my opinion. Do you think the other 62% of voters (I think that's around 70 former wrestlers, historians, and journalists) that didn't vote for him share that "agenda"? Who are these people and what the heck did Sting to do them? Assuming Meltzer has been stacking the voting ranks for years just for this one pivotal Sting vote, how did he find all these people? I think there's just a lot of immature responses to this opinion (and the opinion of those 70 other people) in this thread. It's fine to disagree, especially if you can take the time to back it up. But it's a little much to invalidate views that you don't agree with and accuse people of having agendas just because you have a different conclusion. It is possible for humans to just disagree on things. It's not necessarily true that your opinion is perfect and everyone else's is just inherently flawed. Hey, I don't read WON and I have zero idea how there voting system for the HOF works, all I'm saying is Dave's reasons for thinking Sting isn't HOF material seem really flimsy and that's something I'm not used to seeing from him which led me to believe that maybe we aren't being given the full picture, but you seem to know more than me about the subject so you're probably right, I was just offering my take on a subject I know little about.
|
|