Post by gstaylor99 on Sept 27, 2014 23:35:07 GMT -5
Deadline day apparently is tomorrow to submit Wrestling Observer HOF ballots & I thought I might take one more stab to educate John & Court as to the error of their ways by not voting Sting & even worse, casting a vote for Brock Lesnar.
But, I can't write anything more that hasn't been written a year ago. Sufficed to say, it is a crime Sting isn't already in the HOF. The man wrestled meaningful TV matches 2 years before Court & John were toilet trained (presumably) up until JANUARY OF THIS YEAR & the best moment for RAW in 2014 was a 90 second commercial with his face shown for 3 seconds. His character underwent logical evolution (NWO wolfpack aside), he main evented 2 of the 3 highest grossing ppv in WCW history & wrestled a 45 minute draw with Ric Flair opposite a wrestlemania and did great ratings. His look was unique, was one of the first bigger men in North America to adopt an arial style and he brought energy to his promos in usually a believable manner.
Brock Lesnar wrestled 2 of the worst wrestlemania matches in history that were only made 'special' by the endings (flipping off MSG after one, and being the benefit of a questionable booking decision in the other). The other WM match was great, up until he landed on his head at the end of it and then tried to subtly blame someone else for even trying it in interviews after. He wrestled for 2 1/2 years, left for 8 and has wrestled, what, 7 matches in 2 years? UFC HOF if there was one? Sure. WRESTLING observer HOF? Makes no sense.
But that's just me. I don't have a vote. But, there are some guidelines voters are given from Meltzer (below). Based on these, if the vote came down to Sting or Lesnar who would you vote?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 'The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling, as well as having historical significance in a positive manner. A candidate should either have something to offer in all three categories, or be someone so outstanding in one or two of those categories that they deserve inclusion.'
Answer - STING - John & Court often cite Sting's average in ring ability (which is stunning in some ways) as a key reason to not vote him.
But the criteria indicates in-ring ability OR excelling in one's field of PRO WRESTLING. Tell me Sting did not excel in the field of pro wrestling. Seriously. And, ultimately, what the hell is Lesnar's historical significance in a 'positive manner'? The guy shows up once in a blue moon, wrestles, cashes a cheque and retreats to nowhere because he hates people.
2. 'Longevity should be a prime consideration rather than a hot two or three year run, unless someone is so significant as a trend-setter or a historical figure in the business, or valuable to the industry, that they need to be included. However, just longevity without being either a long-term main eventer, a top draw and/or a top caliber in-ring performer should be seen as relatively meaningless.'
ANSWER -STING
Sting 1985 -2014 (to date) & clearly a long term main eventer.
Lesnar - 2000 (to be generous) - 2004 & 7 matches sine 2012 (which sound suspiciously like 2 or 3 year runs by the way)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks once again if you're still with me. And while I fully expect John & Court to dismiss this no-brainer case for Sting and inexplicably not vote him again this year, I can at least take solace in the fact that Nate Milton is probably on my side of this one. And to me at least, that counts for something.
But, I can't write anything more that hasn't been written a year ago. Sufficed to say, it is a crime Sting isn't already in the HOF. The man wrestled meaningful TV matches 2 years before Court & John were toilet trained (presumably) up until JANUARY OF THIS YEAR & the best moment for RAW in 2014 was a 90 second commercial with his face shown for 3 seconds. His character underwent logical evolution (NWO wolfpack aside), he main evented 2 of the 3 highest grossing ppv in WCW history & wrestled a 45 minute draw with Ric Flair opposite a wrestlemania and did great ratings. His look was unique, was one of the first bigger men in North America to adopt an arial style and he brought energy to his promos in usually a believable manner.
Brock Lesnar wrestled 2 of the worst wrestlemania matches in history that were only made 'special' by the endings (flipping off MSG after one, and being the benefit of a questionable booking decision in the other). The other WM match was great, up until he landed on his head at the end of it and then tried to subtly blame someone else for even trying it in interviews after. He wrestled for 2 1/2 years, left for 8 and has wrestled, what, 7 matches in 2 years? UFC HOF if there was one? Sure. WRESTLING observer HOF? Makes no sense.
But that's just me. I don't have a vote. But, there are some guidelines voters are given from Meltzer (below). Based on these, if the vote came down to Sting or Lesnar who would you vote?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 'The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling, as well as having historical significance in a positive manner. A candidate should either have something to offer in all three categories, or be someone so outstanding in one or two of those categories that they deserve inclusion.'
Answer - STING - John & Court often cite Sting's average in ring ability (which is stunning in some ways) as a key reason to not vote him.
But the criteria indicates in-ring ability OR excelling in one's field of PRO WRESTLING. Tell me Sting did not excel in the field of pro wrestling. Seriously. And, ultimately, what the hell is Lesnar's historical significance in a 'positive manner'? The guy shows up once in a blue moon, wrestles, cashes a cheque and retreats to nowhere because he hates people.
2. 'Longevity should be a prime consideration rather than a hot two or three year run, unless someone is so significant as a trend-setter or a historical figure in the business, or valuable to the industry, that they need to be included. However, just longevity without being either a long-term main eventer, a top draw and/or a top caliber in-ring performer should be seen as relatively meaningless.'
ANSWER -STING
Sting 1985 -2014 (to date) & clearly a long term main eventer.
Lesnar - 2000 (to be generous) - 2004 & 7 matches sine 2012 (which sound suspiciously like 2 or 3 year runs by the way)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks once again if you're still with me. And while I fully expect John & Court to dismiss this no-brainer case for Sting and inexplicably not vote him again this year, I can at least take solace in the fact that Nate Milton is probably on my side of this one. And to me at least, that counts for something.