HOF poll on Observer site

[Warner2BruceTD]

WHAT ACTIVE WRESTLER NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME IS THE BEST CANDIDATE?
Sting 43.1%
C.M. Punk 16.9%
Hiroshi Tanahashi 14.2%
L.A. Park 5.3%
A.J. Styles 4.9%
Randy Orton 3.3%
Jun Akiyama 3.3%
Kensuke Sasaki 2.5%
Yuji Nagata 2.3%
Dr. Wagner Jr. 2.1%
Minoru Suzuki 1.1%
Atlantis 1.1%

Here's how i'd rank them. I'd put in the bold:

Sasaki - I'm baffled at the fact he still isn't in. Sold out the Tokyo Dome multiple times, genuine top star for 20 years, only man to hold IWGP, Triple Crown, & GHC titles, successful trainer and runs his own promotion (Diamond Ring).

Tanahashi - Last year or so gets him in. Workrate he has few equals, ever. Proven draw whose latest run on top helped take his promotion to a new level of international popularity. One of the greatest big match performers of all time. A legend in our midst.

Sting - Some days, I put him in. Others, I don't. Today, I do. Check back tomorrow. Best argument is his longevity at or near the top. Lack of WWE run or strong track record of drawing hurts him with voters and always will.

CM Punk - Not yet. Would not be offended if he got in, however. Hard to quantify as a draw due to his era. 'Summer of Punk' & the MITB/pipe bomb run are legendary moments of his era. Match quality is not an issue. Has he ever truly been the top guy?

Dr. Wagner Jr - Same boat as Punk. Put him in, I dont care. Still building the resume, but it's already probably good enough or really close.

Jun Akiyama - Same question as Punk - was he ever really the top guy? Match quality is no issue, but then again, what are his classics? None that pop up immediately. This guy is Ken Anderson (the football QB) - in other words, he is the line. If you're better than Akiyama, you're in.

Atlantis - see above. Best known for his classic mask vs mask match where he took the mask of Villano III (2000 Wrestling Observer 'Match of the Year')

Minoru Suzuki - Don't forget his Pancrase days. He's probably closer than you think, thanks to his fantastic late career run as the top heel in New Japan during what is a renaissance period for the company. Underrated worker who works a style that is unique to him. Charisma for days. Never the top guy, even in Pancrase.

LA Park - WCW run as a mid carder doesn't help. Bounces around too much to truly be a top guy anywhere, even though he's considered a top lucha star overall. Has gotten better with age.

Yuji Nagata - Running theme - was he ever truly the top guy, even as IWGP champ? Work isn't the issue.

Randy Orton - Broken record. Never the top guy. Even in modern WWE, safe to say he isn't a HOF level draw. Classic matches? Eh. Works to the level of his opponent. Too many stinkers, not enough classics. Classic upper mid carder who is pushed at a higher level than he really is. What makes him any better than a guy like Scott Hall? Curt Hennig? Nagata or Akiyama? None of those guys are in, and probably never will be.

AJ Styles - I am a huge AJ Styles fan. Not even close or even worthy of discussion.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I would say that Sasaki killing that kid in training is what's keeping him out, but it's his own region not voting him in, and the Japanese have a totally different attitude towards what the rest of the planet would consider abusive training practices.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I should also note that the poll results always skew American because the polls are public and not restricted to paying members of the site.

 

[Aso]

Isn't Sting in the TNA HOF? Nothing else matters!

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I really have a problem when you start using the word "top guy" because unless you are one of maybe 10 guys post-territory era, you weren't really a top guy in the United States, which makes for a really shitty and small Hall of Fame.

 

[EmpireWF]

In WWE, since 2005, do you count guys like Batista, Edge and Punk? If you do, you may have to count Orton, and I'm not much of a fan of his so I'd be inclined to say no.

But, they all took a back seat to Cena.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I really have a problem when you start using the word "top guy" because unless you are one of maybe 10 guys post-territory era, you weren't really a top guy in the United States, which makes for a really shitty and small Hall of Fame.

That's the standards the voters use, so that's how I use it.

Let's take Akiyama, for example. He left All Japan on the way up, never the top guy there. In NOAH, it was always Misawa & Kobashi. Even when Akiyama was champion, he wasn't THE guy. He's kinda sorta the top guy now, back in All Japan. But SUWAMA is the native ace.

If you were the top guy and you drew real money, you're in. So it becomes easy. If you are other worldly as a worker, you're in (Angle, Benoit, soon to be Daniel Bryan, etc). What we see with the majority of the guys above, are a bunch of dudes who are on the cusp of being elite in both areas, but probably aren't in either. Punk, for example, really rides the line. But he has other intangibles. Akiyama really rides both lines.

If this is the W2B HOF, i'm probably drawing the line at Akiyama instead of Sting. But i'm analyzing this from the basis of how they will really be broken down.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

In WWE, since 2005, do you count guys like Batista, Edge and Punk? If you do, you may have to count Orton, and I'm not much of a fan of his so I'd be inclined to say no.

But, they all took a back seat to Cena.

I think all three of those guys were bigger stars than Orton. Especially Batista. But all of them, really. Quite easily, in fact.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

That's the standards the voters use, so that's how I use it.

Let's take Akiyama, for example. He left All Japan on the way up, never the top guy there. In NOAH, it was always Misawa & Kobashi. Even when Akiyama was champion, he wasn't THE guy. He's kinda sorta the top guy now, back in All Japan. But SUWAMA is the native ace.

If you were the top guy and you drew real money, you're in. So it becomes easy. If you are other worldly as a worker, you're in (Angle, Benoit, soon to be Daniel Bryan, etc). What we see with the majority of the guys above, are a bunch of dudes who are on the cusp of being elite in both areas, but probably aren't in either. Punk, for example, really rides the line. But he has other intangibles. Akiyama really rides both lines.

If this is the W2B HOF, i'm probably drawing the line at Akiyama instead of Sting. But i'm analyzing this from the basis of how they will really be broken down.

My problem with it is...there really isn't a standard...its extremely loose, "top guy" is a very loose interpretation.

Sting was a top guy...really by any definition...the argument of the semantics of it, is why the term "top guy" is silly.

 

[s@ppisgod]

Alls I'm sayin is, if Foley is in, Sting should be in.

 

[EmpireWF]

Alls I'm sayin is, if Foley is in, Sting should be in.

Foley was more influential than Sting ever was.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Foley elevated more people he worked with than any wrestler I could possibly think of.

If you were a major player in the 90's, odds are, Mick Foley took you to another level working with him. A very rare trait, and one that not many can compete with.

Whether it was Sting himself, Vader, the entire ECW brand, Austin, Rock, H's, Mr. McMahon, Edge, Orton, Michaels, Undertaker...the list goes on and on, its really ridiculous.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Foley was more influential than Sting ever was.

Foley was more influential and was a better worker, IMO...but Sting was a better draw, given the ball to be a star, and was a bigger star.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

..but Sting was a better draw, given the ball to be a star, and was a bigger star.

Not even close. We've been over this.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Not even close. We've been over this.

Foley has never actually been a draw or really been given the ball to draw, so Sting being even a loss would conclude him being a better draw and star.

And, we have been over it...but it seems you don't remember some of the facts presented, like some of Sting's main evented or "featured" event PPVs actually had higher buyrates than the previous year, and Sting being the feature performer of the biggest buyrate PPV up until WrestleMania X7.

You can mention house show gates until you're blue in the face, but the factors that go into that make those numbers often skewed.

I'm not saying Sting is a big draw, but you mooks over at the Observer have bashed his drawing power so much, its actually an underrated attribute at this point. He's not some blackhole of money, he also wasn't Hogan or Cena...but, he had his moments where he was the top guy and drew in some metric, if even a little.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Foley has never actually been a draw or really been given the ball to draw, so Sting being even a loss would conclude him being a better draw and star.

And, we have been over it...but it seems you don't remember some of the facts presented, like some of Sting's main evented or "featured" event PPVs actually had higher buyrates than the previous year, and Sting being the feature performer of the biggest buyrate PPV up until WrestleMania X7.

You can mention house show gates until you're blue in the face, but the factors that go into that make those numbers often skewed.

I'm not saying Sting is a big draw, but you mooks over at the Observer have bashed his drawing power so much, its actually an underrated attribute at this point.

Foley was an integral part of the Attitude Era, and a few of his segments drew some of the highest quarter hours in wrestling history (title win, "This is your life" w/Rock, etc). Like already mentioned, he was the go to guy to get new stars over. Historically great at it.

How did Sting's book do, by the way? Surely a bigger star than Foley would have blown him away in book sales, no?

Foley was not only more influential in the ring, he really exasperated the wrestling book boom, too. Foley drew more money with BOOKS than Sting drew in the ring, but Sting was a bigger star? Let's reel this back into reality.

Sting had exactly one run & one PPV where he was true difference maker. And he was hanging out in the rafters during that run. Which i'm not holding against him, because drawing money is drawing money, but it was gimmicky. And it was his one & only run where he truly moved things.

Aside from 1997, you can remove Sting from the Nitro era and it would make little to no difference. I know that bothers people, but it's true.

WCW dies if Turner doesn't bail it out. And that's with Sting as the top face, never able to make a difference, with the company constantly losing faith and trying Luger or Flair or Steamboat in his spot over the years. I know that bothers people, but it's true. The company would have folded, with Sting on top. He was not the star you think he was. WCW did a great job making people think he was, but he wasn't.

Not saying he wasn't a star. To some degree, on his small time level, he was. He was a good babyface foil to Flair over the years. In 1997, he was a legit big star. But lots of guys had one big year. Lots of guys had two or three big years. Scott Hall & Kevin Nash were far bigger stars than Sting, in the same promotion. They aren't Hall of Famers. But personally, I think Sting is. He's fringy, but i'd put him in for longevity.

Look, i'm on your side here. But let's not get crazy. Foley was a bigger star by a mile. People rip Sting over there, and i'm one of the ones that defend him. I'm in a debate with some geeks right now who think an Undertaker/Sting match would flop. Some of these guys are insane. But I can't say he was a bigger star than Foley. No way.

 

[Leftwich]

Foley was an integral part of the Attitude Era, and a few of his segments drew some of the highest quarter hours in wrestling history (title win, "This is your life" w/Rock, etc). Like already mentioned, he was the go to guy to get new stars over. Historically great at it.

How did Sting's book do, by the way? Surely a bigger star than Foley would have blown him away in book sales, no?

Foley was not only more influential in the ring, he really exasperated the wrestling book boom, too. Foley drew more money with BOOKS than Sting drew in the ring, but Sting was a bigger star? Let's reel this back into reality.

Sting had exactly one run & one PPV where he was true difference maker. And he was hanging out in the rafters during that run. Which i'm not holding against him, because drawing money is drawing money, but it was gimmicky. And it was his one & only run where he truly moved things.

Aside from 1997, you can remove Sting from the Nitro era and it would make little to no difference. I know that bothers people, but it's true.

WCW dies if Turner doesn't bail it out. And that's with Sting as the top face, never able to make a difference, with the company constantly losing faith and trying Luger or Flair or Steamboat in his spot over the years. I know that bothers people, but it's true. The company would have folded, with Sting on top. He was not the star you think he was. WCW did a great job making people think he was, but he wasn't.

Not saying he wasn't a star. To some degree, on his small time level, he was. He was a good babyface foil to Flair over the years. In 1997, he was a legit big star. But lots of guys had one big year. Lots of guys had two or three big years. Scott Hall & Kevin Nash were far bigger stars than Sting, in the same promotion. They aren't Hall of Famers. But personally, I think Sting is. He's fringy, but i'd put him in for longevity.

Look, i'm on your side here. But let's not get crazy. Foley was a bigger star by a mile. People rip Sting over there, and i'm one of the ones that defend him. I'm in a debate with some geeks right now who think an Undertaker/Sting match would flop. Some of these guys are insane. But I can't say he was a bigger star than Foley. No way.

Dont forget about Halftime Heat. The amount of people that watched that is ri-goddamn-diculous

 

[s@ppisgod]

Foley a bigger draw for selling books? Doesn't that clash with the Sting gimmick argument? Does Foley as a wrestler deserve credit as a draw because he wrote pretty much the best wrestling autobiography ever? To argue Foley as a draw would be totally discounting the effect SCSA, Rock, DX, etc had, and it's impossible to take one away from the other and view them individually. He had a bunch of fans, but let's not forget that EVERYBODY was over at that time. The New Age Outlaws alone were unbelievably over. Foley was over, but who knows if he ever made a noticeable difference in PPV buys or attendance? The WWE sold out like crazy between 98 and 01. And the only 3 things I can concretely attribute that to are Austin, Rock, and the WWE machine. That doesn't just go for Foley. It goes for HHH to some extent(he was kinda big during that time though) and HBK, UT, and anyone else on the card. The whole thing was going so well that it's hard to take anyone's numbers seriously unless they were a superstar in a whole other stratosphere. The concrete is Foley's ability to get people over. Flair-like, but in a completely different way. His drawing power in the WWF is very much in question though, and I think it's naive or short-sighted to say it isn't.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Foley was an integral part of the Attitude Era, and a few of his segments drew some of the highest quarter hours in wrestling history (title win, "This is your life" w/Rock, etc). Like already mentioned, he was the go to guy to get new stars over. Historically great at it.

How did Sting's book do, by the way? Surely a bigger star than Foley would have blown him away in book sales, no?

Foley was not only more influential in the ring, he really exasperated the wrestling book boom, too. Foley drew more money with BOOKS than Sting drew in the ring, but Sting was a bigger star? Let's reel this back into reality.

This is a Wrestling Hall of Fame. Even in this small little bubble where both guys were given runs and popped a rating or a buyrate, you are comparing Foley's few segments with one of the highest buyrate shows of its era, and biggest up to that point. And, did Hogan's book outsell Foley's? No. Terrible metric. By that measure, Foley is the biggest star in the history of wrestling. This is what I am talking about where being a "star" and a "draw" is not exactly a standard...the goal posts are moved all over the place.

Sting had exactly one run & one PPV where he was true difference maker. And he was hanging out in the rafters during that run. Which i'm not holding against him, because drawing money is drawing money, but it was gimmicky. And it was his one & only run where he truly moved things.

His one run was pretty fucking substantial...lets not forget that besides the Starrcade PPV, the SuperBrawl match with Hogan and Sting was also a top 5 PPV buyrate in WCW. The match where he and Hall were wrestling when Sting was champ also was a high buyrate for WCW.

and, as I've mentioned before, his run in the early 90's is a mixed bag...there are positives to draw upon, it wasn't the blackhole as you describe later. WCW was doing declining business even with Flair at the top. Also, how to you explain Sting main evented PPV buyrates maintaining or popping during his early 90's run. It was sporadic, but he had some high buyrates in there as the main eventer. Some shit ones, too, to be fair.

Aside from 1997, you can remove Sting from the Nitro era and it would make little to no difference. I know that bothers people, but it's true.

You can remove WCW from wrestling after Sting's run in 1997/98 and it would have made little to no difference. It was a sinking ship.

WCW dies if Turner doesn't bail it out. And that's with Sting as the top face, never able to make a difference, with the company constantly losing faith and trying Luger or Flair or Steamboat in his spot over the years. I know that bothers people, but it's true. The company would have folded, with Sting on top. He was not the star you think he was. WCW did a great job making people think he was, but he wasn't.

Turner purchased the company in 88, Flair was still at the top at that point. In 88, Sting was still working the mid-card, and in the beginning of 89 he was on tour with All Japan.

Not saying he wasn't a star. To some degree, on his small time level, he was. He was a good babyface foil to Flair over the years. In 1997, he was a legit big star. But lots of guys had one big year. Lots of guys had two or three big years. Scott Hall & Kevin Nash were far bigger stars than Sting, in the same promotion. They aren't Hall of Famers. But personally, I think Sting is. He's fringy, but i'd put him in for longevity.

Look, i'm on your side here. But let's not get crazy. Foley was a bigger star by a mile. People rip Sting over there, and i'm one of the ones that defend him. I'm in a debate with some geeks right now who think an Undertaker/Sting match would flop. Some of these guys are insane. But I can't say he was a bigger star than Foley. No way.

I'm not the one getting crazy here...in wrestling, Sting was a bigger star...Foley made a name for himself outside of wrestling on the back end of the Attitude Era/Monday Night War Era but his success with books never translated to wrestling. I've never said Sting was a major star, but he had moments were he was legit big time star (97, and I would contest some of these other year-long reigns at the top don't compare to Sting's), and in his other moments at the top, while not a success, wasn't the complete flop others make him out to be.

That's not a knock on Foley, but Foley was never given the ball to be a star, Sting was. Foley lucked into a couple of pop high segment ratings (one involving the Rock, one telling millions of people on another channel to tune in lol)...Sting was given the ball a couple of times...one of those times, he was a legit big time star...the others...a mixed bag with some bullet points of success, some bullet points where he's a flop, and others were he simply maintained.

No, Sting wasn't a huge star, but he was a low level star that did draw money. He wasn't the star WCW made him out to be, but I'm not claiming he was. Foley would rank higher on my list of favorites or best workers or whatever...but thats not really the discussion...Foley's star power didn't exactly pop buyrates after the WWF gave him the ball after the success of his first book either.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Foley's drawing power is not in question. He was a proven ratings draw, that's concrete, better than some of the guys you mentioned. That's how you can conclude that he made a difference. His promo work made his feuds compelling, and made his big matches ones that people wanted to see. I'm not attributing the entire Attitude Era to Foley. But I think it's pretty clear he carried his own weight.

And how does the success of his books not factor into the discussion, if this is about start power? His autobiographies were not only bestsellers, but they opened the door for everybody else to put out books, none of which matched the success of his. Including Sting's which was a gigantic flop, which if he were a bigger star than Foley, simply does not jibe. William Regal's book is very good, but nobody bought it. Hogan, Chyna, Angle, all shitty books, all blew Regal out of the water, because they are bigger stars than Regal. Having a good book helps, but the number one prerequisite to selling autobiographies is star power.