|
Post by aramnasrallah on Sept 29, 2014 15:09:20 GMT -5
Is anybody honored to be in the observer hof? I really wanna know more about this fantasy hof they talk about every year.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Sept 29, 2014 15:13:54 GMT -5
Some more thoughts: 1. So Lesnar deserves to be in a wrestling hall of fame because he exposed wrestling fans to UFC and helped build UFC's business? You're making the case for a UFC hall of fame entry, not a pro wrestling one. And, respectfully, save the 'he's not brought back if not for his UFC success.' Everyone comes back John. Goldust. Batista. Jericho. The Rock. The New Age freakin Outlaws. If you've got a name and are halfway interested, the WWE has shown it will accommodate you. 2. Cite the case? Who are you Bob McCown? Don't be Bob McCown John, he's a goof. And while I am not on trial, let's see, off the top of my head...a couple vs. Angle in 2007 I think...vs Bully Ray for the last title shot ever...putting over Magnus (in 2014) in a career match...lockdown with Foley in a match Foley rates as one of his best ever... I'm not saying they are 5 stars (whatever that means), but, in that time the matches carried meaning. And, hence, are 'meaningful'. 3. Interesting. How is it when Lesnar is the victim of bad booking (vs Cena in his comeback) it's the WWE's fault. But when Sting is the victim of bad booking (the starrcade debacle and the lack of true follow through on a title run) it's Sting's fault? And, by the way, no one was more of a bit player heading into WM this year than Lesnar based on what happened in 2013. But that's not his fault right? It's the WWE's. 4. Yeah. And the WWE was raking in bucketloads with Bret Hart at or near the top in the same era. The business in general was in a downturn in that era. Don't cherry pick the top guy in the #2 company in a crappy time for the biz in general and think it's evidence he can't draw. In terms of skill, for the era there were very few people doing what he was at that time. Promos? Sit in your chair and dismiss them, but the fact is he connected with them. If he was so terrible, people would've not given a crap and he would've faded away. He drew people in and kept them interested and that's all you can ask. And, please, keep your bone. 5. I can't speak to the intelligence levels of those who are given ballots and cannot accurately apply criteria (see Rob Ford). 6. Hopefully it's the start of at least something...doubt it though. Thanks John. I truly do appreciate the podcasts you & Wai somehow get through every week. Drawing in another sport, or even movies is still proof on what a draw that person is. Can't pigeon hole or cherry pick the only stats a professional wrestler has.....Ratings and buyrates. In an entertainment based genre all you have are those numbers. Actors have box office, and so do wrestlers. Because you can't use championships or how long you've been in the business. Because those are based off someone else's booking of you. Bret Hart has that Wembley Stadium record to fall back on, Sting doesn't have anything to really fall back on. he has had some big feuds, but he was involved in feuds that others have been put into....Horsemen and nWo programs were recipes used for people like Luger. Also, let's not pretend like Bret Hart didn't bring a faster paced ring style to the WWE mainevent, and the fact that he is considered a big deal in his home country. I didn't know who Rikidozan or El Santo were, but I'm not going to act like they don't matter because someone would hold them in higher regard than someone I like. Unless it pays or helps their payrate increase.....I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by RKing85 on Sept 29, 2014 15:57:57 GMT -5
The way I understand it, you can vote for up to 10 wrestlers and 5 non-wrestlers. If I was a voting member (obviously I am not), my ballot would be 4 wrestlers and 5 non-wrestlers:
Sting Rock N'Roll Express Gene/Ole Anderson Brock Lesnar
Jim Crockett Jr. Bill Apter Gene Okerlund Howard Finkel Jesse Ventura
|
|
|
Post by richiecuk on Sept 29, 2014 17:36:50 GMT -5
the simple facts are this John and Court do not think sting is observer hof with valid reaons none the less and tbf it doesnt matter if you or i think he is worhty doesnt matter the facts are they get the vote we dont.... he is not going in so i think its peace out to this thread
|
|
|
Post by Milky on Oct 1, 2014 14:59:06 GMT -5
Nitro beat RAW for 84 consecutive weeks on the strength of Sting acting as the most consistent protagonist to the nWo, which again demonstrates his drawing power. In ring he wasn’t anything special but I’d say he was a draw and that he made a positive impact on the industry that has continued through the generations. And when you think back to that 1996-1998 period, and you think of the top players in WCW at that time, I think Sting would make most people’s Top 5 (and two of those five - Flair and Hogan - are already in Meltzer’s HOF).
Sure, Sting didn’t really have a memorable match in TNA, but he was also in his mid-40s when he joined the company and again I would argue that, even at that age, he didn’t do anything to embarrass himself. And he certainly raised the profile of TNA and had entertaining promos.
But we should look at Sting’s career while he was in his prime, working for WCW. In any other sport a star player who played for a really bad team would still be recognized as a Hall Of Famer. To me, it just seems like Sting is being punished for not having played on a good team. If he had gone to the WWE at the height of his popularity I think he’d be in Meltzer’s HOF without question, because he would have main evented WrestleManias and worked top WWE stars.
|
|
|
Post by aramnasrallah on Oct 1, 2014 15:57:29 GMT -5
Relax its a fantasy hall of fame. I tell you what he is gonna enter The Law Hall Of Fame such as Scott Putski, X factor and Jameson
|
|
|
Post by Jack Raines on Oct 1, 2014 20:25:52 GMT -5
Relax its a fantasy hall of fame. I tell you what he is gonna enter The Law Hall Of Fame such as Scott Putski, X factor and Jameson I don't know where you came up with this "fantasy hall of fame" shit. The wrestlers in the Observer Hall are inducted by their peers in the industry (and selected journalists), so it's considered far more credible than the WWE HOF where people are inducted on the whims of Vince McMahon. And there's no WWE Hall of Fame building either, if a physical building is where you draw the line for it being a real or "fantasy" Hall of Fame.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Oct 2, 2014 1:07:30 GMT -5
Relax its a fantasy hall of fame. I tell you what he is gonna enter The Law Hall Of Fame such as Scott Putski, X factor and Jameson I don't know where you came up with this "fantasy hall of fame" shit. The wrestlers in the Observer Hall are inducted by their peers in the industry (and selected journalists), so it's considered far more credible than the WWE HOF where people are inducted on the whims of Vince McMahon. And there's no WWE Hall of Fame building either, if a physical building is where you draw the line for it being a real or "fantasy" Hall of Fame. Hollow accolades for a fake sport.....atleast a WWE HOF ring fetches a nice price on E-bay. And the whims of Vince McMahon?........Almost like the sports writers who keep people like Barry Bonds and Pete Rose out of the baseball HOF are just like the wrestling media who do those votes.....There are biases in anything that goes down to a vote among peers. Also, Sting has a Lex Luger type of career, it was a good one, made a lot of money. But he didn't draw on his own, and he didn't make an impact on the industry in terms of work rate, popularity, brand awareness nor brought the brand into new markets.
|
|
|
Post by yaknow on Oct 2, 2014 5:35:44 GMT -5
Luger deserves to be in more than Sting. Luger's peak as a worker was better than Sting's peak. Luger's work did drop drastically after his accident. Unfortunately most people seem to judge him based on his WWF stuff in the 90s. Sting and Luger both had runs on top in WCW and Luger was the bigger draw. If you want to give Sting credit for 97 Starrcade fine. Sting doesn't get a lot of credit for that from HOF voters since most of them are well aware that Hogan and the NWO were the draw. Sting plays a part in that for Starrcade obviously. That comes from the strength of the angle though. Not Sting's ability. Luger was more entertaining in angles and skits as well. There was a period somewhere in the 99-00 range, when WCW was tanking, that cowardly heel Luger was the only entertaining thing on the show. Consistently funny.
Sting has longevity that is true. Hasn't done much with it though. Consistently average at best in the ring. You have to go all the way back to 1995 for his last great. He did have good ones after that but nothing great. You do have to go back further than 1995 for Luger's last great match. He's been out of the business longer than Sting though so hasn't had as many chances. Luger had the higher highs but he also had the lower lows as well.
When Sting was on top and not drawing the WCW wasn't putting on a lot of great show. So booking does play a role in Sting. You can ask what would he have done with better booking. That isn't applicable to the Observer Hall of Fame though. The HOF is for judging what was done. Not what could have been done. Doing could of would benefit Luger as well. Since you could ask what would have happened had he not had the accident. Pointless speculation for the HOF.
I do think that Sting has became an iconic wrestling figure which isn't true for Luger. Personally I think that warrants some consideration in Sting's favor for the vote. Looking at the Meltzer's criteria:
The criteria for the Hall of Fame is a combination of drawing power: Neither Sting or Luger were a draws of any significance. Luger did better in this area. Neither were big enough draws to earn a HOF spot here.
being a great in-ring performer: Neither were good enough for this as well. They both had their moments in ring. Neither were ring generals that could carry someone to a great match
or excelling in ones field in pro wrestling: This is more for managers and bookers.
as well as having historical significance in a positive manner: Between the 2 of them Sting does have the more important moment. The angle against the NWO is historically significant. Not in a good way though due to the payoff at Starrcade. That isn't Sting's fault really. The match was hurt due to the need for them to protect Hogan with that ridiculous slow count that wasn't slow.
A candidate should either have something to offer in all three categories Neither did well enough in any of the categories to earn a Hall of Fame spot.
or be someone so outstanding in one or two of those categories that they deserve inclusion: Far from it.
There aren't many people that would consider Luger for the HOF. He has a better case than Sting though. People voting Sting are doing it because of perception not performance. Performance is what counts when it comes to the WOL HOF.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Oct 2, 2014 13:09:02 GMT -5
Luger more entertaining and Meltzer criteria? The only thing entertaining Luger ever did was run from Bruiser Brody. He had a nice career, but let's not act like he was some kind needle mover. Only thing he ever did for the business was secure the guaranteed contract. Pretty significant deal in the shady world of kayfaben carneys. But in the ring, or selling himself, he wasn't better or worse than Sting.....Both were the exact same with the exception of woman beating charges. Also, I think it's pretty presumptuous to act like we know if Sting was or wasn't a ring general, it's not like we ever worked with him in the ring. All I know was, he appeared to be solid in the ring because the southern rasslin audiences seemed to always be on their feet with girls screaming during a Sting match and would lose their shit when he made the comeback.
|
|
|
Post by Milky on Oct 3, 2014 15:38:17 GMT -5
Also, Sting has a Lex Luger type of career, it was a good one, made a lot of money. But he didn't draw on his own, and he didn't make an impact on the industry in terms of work rate, popularity, brand awareness nor brought the brand into new markets. I disagree with your last sentence. Didn't draw on his own, fair enough; but he did draw, which is still meaningful. You can't just throw Hulk Hogan in with anyone and expect it to captivate audiences. Sting was a good dancing partner, so to speak, and there's value in that. Didn't impact the industry in terms of work rate, again fair enough, but neither did Hulk Hogan, John Cena, or Andre The Giant. Didn't impact the industry in terms of popularity? C'mon. Read my earlier posts about Jeff Hardy or about Sting being the face of WCW. This argument also applies to his ability to increase brand awareness and expand into new markets, particularly in the US.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Oct 4, 2014 14:44:07 GMT -5
Ask a person who doesn't watch pro-wrestling who Hulk Hogan, John Cena or Andre the Giant are, and they will tell you "they are fake wrestlers right?" They would know who they are. Ask the same people if they know who Sting is, they will say "the guy from The Police right?" WCW wasn't exactly a national company when Sting was the man, Flair left in 91 and the company couldn't sell tickets to live events and had to go the strict TV route until the nWo formed and brought WCW into mainstream attention.
In the wrestling bubble.....Sting is an ICON, but to anyone else who don't follow wrestling....he is nobody. That's what is meant by increasing brand awareness and popularity. People like Hogan, Macho Man, Flair, Cena, Rock and guys who hit the mainstream are examples of what making an impact in terms of popularity and increasing brand awareness.
I'm not saying he isn't HOF worthy, but I can see why some people would think he isn't. But atleast he is definitely WWE HOF bound, something that isn't some overrated fanzine that tries to portray opinion as facts and nobody gives an actual shit about like the Observer HOF.
|
|
|
Post by Milky on Oct 6, 2014 15:22:08 GMT -5
Ask a person who doesn't watch pro-wrestling who Hulk Hogan, John Cena or Andre the Giant are, and they will tell you "they are fake wrestlers right?" They would know who they are. Not a chance. I know PLENTY of non-wrestling fans. They know Hulk Hogan but that's about it. Maybe The Rock too. They have no idea who John Cena is. They might know Andre the Giant as an actor from The Princess Bride, if they're of a certain age, but even that's highly doubtful. You are right that Sting the singer is more well-known amongst non-wrestling fans, but that is not a reason to not put the wrestler Sting into the HOF. In the wrestling bubble.....Sting is an ICON, but to anyone else who don't follow wrestling....he is nobody. That's what is meant by increasing brand awareness and popularity. By this logic, John Cena, Kurt Angle, Mick Foley, etc… are nobodies. Yet two of those three are already in the Wrestling Observer HOF and the other is a sure lock to be there one day. Furthermore, increasing brand awareness is exactly what happened when wrestling took off in the 90s and about 6-7 million more fans started watching than who currently watch. We shouldn't discount this impact because they are "wrestling fans." If anything, the fact that they are no longer wrestling fans should count in Sting's favour; this is what is meant by increasing brand awareness and brand popularity.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on Oct 6, 2014 22:22:32 GMT -5
So now we saying WCWs popularity was all because of Sting now? Not the nWo? Because as soon as 98 hit Sting wasn't even the number one babyface in the company.
Cena and Foley have numbers to back up their careers, what does Sting have? Does he have PPV buys over a million when headlined by him? Kurt Angle has a gold freaking medal and tons of amatuer accolades to be HOF worthy, what does Sting have? A few months in a hot angle against hot heels twice in his 20 year career?
Also, who cares about the Observer HOF? He will be a WWE HOF lock and become a bigger star after he retires because of the WWE machine.
|
|
|
Post by Milky on Oct 7, 2014 11:32:19 GMT -5
So now we saying WCWs popularity was all because of Sting now? Not the nWo? Because as soon as 98 hit Sting wasn't even the number one babyface in the company. I never said that WCW’s popularity was solely down to Sting, just that he was a contributing factor. You sound like the guy a few months ago who was criticizing Daniel Bryan for not being the #1 merchandise seller in the WWE, as if #2 was so bad. You are right about 1998, once Goldberg's monster push arrived Sting was relegated to #2 babyface, sometimes #3 depending on the flavour of the month, but is that really so bad? Even Hulk Hogan stepped aside for an Ultimate Warrior run. Cena and Foley have numbers to back up their careers, what does Sting have? Does he have PPV buys over a million when headlined by him? Yes - Starcade 1997 On a side note, I did find one non-wrestling fan who knew who John Cena was - as the boyfriend of Nikki Bella on Total Divas. I guess that's something.
|
|