HOF poll on Observer site

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Basically, the reason Sting shouldn't be in the Observer Hall of Fame...he worked for WCW.

 

[EmpireWF]

Basically, the reason Sting shouldn't be in the Observer Hall of Fame...he worked for WCW.

He was very good and it's not the hall of very good.

The time he spent as one of the best in the business was few and far between. He was not a major boost for business and while he improved to be a fine worker, it was never his strong point.

If he does get in, it's longevity.

Maybe I've just soured on the guy, but you know what....Dr. Death is in (admittedly, I'm not up to snuff on his international career) and Eddie Guerrero is in.

Guerrero was a beast in the ring, was not a draw, but I'll assume gets voted in based almost exclusively on his workrate (he was great on the mic later in his career).

Maybe Sting has a place.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Eddie was A+ in the ring, a Savage like meticulousness to his match layout.

If there is a guy that is in the Observer Hall that I can point to and say "this guy is in, but Sting is not?" Its Ted Dibiase more than anyone else.

I hate looking at really old eras to compare...different era...and while Dibiase came a little before Sting...I don't see how Dibiase is in but Sting isn't.

With that said, I think both should be in.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Also, lets keep it real...you can write a novel on why Sting shouldn't be in a meaningless Hall of Fame, and attempting to discredit him...but really "Its Sting!" would trump any and all of the metrics and numbers to 99% of fans.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Basically, the reason Sting shouldn't be in the Observer Hall of Fame...he worked for WCW.

There is truth to this.

Meltzer once compared it to a QB being drafted by an awful team, and then not having the stats or championships to stake a hall of fame claim, even if the talent was there.

The fact is, nobody knows what he would have been in WWE. Its all speculation. And like you already said, because he wasn't a top draw or elite worker, people have trouble breaking him down.

For me, 1997 + longevity at or near the top puts him in. But I don't have a vote, brother. Cranky old m'fers only care about gate. Contemporaries place heavy weight on workrate. He ends up coming up short with both groups.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Historians, reporters, and retired cranky old guys are the three groups that tend to kill him. I think when some of the older guys die off and people who grew up with him and have the "but...its Sting!" mentality, he'll have a shot.

But think about this. Curt Hennig isn't in, and really never sniffs 60%. All would agree a much better worker, and if you take away 1997, you can make good arguments on both sides as draws. Hennig was a better promo. He's another one I struggle with.

The standards are really high. Its tough.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

There is truth to this.

Meltzer once compared it to a QB being drafted by an awful team, and then not having the stats or championships to stake a hall of fame claim, even if the talent was there.

The fact is, nobody knows what he would have been in WWE. Its all speculation. And like you already said, because he wasn't a top draw or elite worker, people have trouble breaking him down.

For me, 1997 + longevity at or near the top puts him in. But I don't have a vote, brother. Cranky old m'fers only care about gate. Contemporaries place heavy weight on workrate. He ends up coming up short with both groups.

Its funny...because, "contemporaries" place heavy weight on workrate...

I would gather that Flair, Hogan (these two especially absolutely love the guy), and some other Hall of Fame workers that actually worked extensively with Sting (Vader, the aforementioned Foley, IIRC) would vote this guy in, as they've praised Sting pretty heavily in a few mediums...I'm curious who actually votes for this thing as his true contemporaries have done nothing but praised the guy in every way imaginable, whenever they get the chance.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Its funny...because, "contemporaries" place heavy weight on workrate...

I would gather that Flair, Hogan (these two especially absolutely love the guy), and some other Hall of Fame workers that actually worked extensively with Sting (Vader, the aforementioned Foley, IIRC) would vote this guy in, as they've praised Sting pretty heavily in a few mediums...I'm curious who actually votes for this thing as his true contemporaries have done nothing but praised the guy in every way imaginable, whenever they get the chance.

I know for a fact Flair votes. I don't know about Hogan. Raven isn't shy about his participation. Cornette always lobbies for people and takes it way too seriously.

There are some gold posts that big Dave has made over the years on this topic, because people always complain about Sting, when I get back from Vegas I will copy & paste. He talks about what other workers tell him about Sting's ring work, etc. I don't want to paraphrase.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Historians, reporters, and retired cranky old guys are the three groups that tend to kill him. I think when some of the older guys die off and people who grew up with him and have the "but...its Sting!" mentality, he'll have a shot.

But think about this. Curt Hennig isn't in, and really never sniffs 60%. All would agree a much better worker, and if you take away 1997, you can make good arguments on both sides as draws. Hennig was a better promo. He's another one I struggle with.

The standards are really high. Its tough.

I disagree that the standards are high at all...most of the guys in the Hall of Fame are "no duh" guys...

The biggest issue is, the standard is a moving goal post. Terms like "gate" "draw" "top guy" and all that shit has a certain metric, but the variables for them range drastically. Then, what quantifies good workrate...I know whats good when I see it. If you're a 10 in workrate, but a 3 draw...why does that guy get in over a guy who is a 7 workrate and 7 draw...you know what I'm saying? Its silly, really.

Sting's workrate compares very favorably, IMO, with Cena. Not a guy that will reinvent the wheel, but incredibly workable...can give you a legitimate classic match and more than hold his own.

Now, I won't compare both as draws...why? Well, Cena's metrics will blow Sting's out of the water, but Cena's draw has some black eyes, too. Top guy in an increasingly declining business, but, Cena works house shows like a mad man (Sting rarely, if ever worked house shows) in a company that works house shows like crazy (Sting worked for WCW that de-emphasized house shows), Cena sells merch out of his ass in a company that promotes the fuck out of his shit and they are the only game in town (WCW's merch business outside of the nWo shit was garbage)...its just different eras to compare...and Cena is superior, but not without black eyes...

Cena is an unquestioned first ballot, landslide guy...and for good reason.

Sting is the Donovan McNabb of pro wrestling.

To me, that's a fucking fine line there for such a huge difference in opinion.

 

[s@ppisgod]

You know what really rustles my jimmies...Joe and I actually have the same opinion...he should be in.

I just think a lot of the details of where people knock Sting are a bit inaccurate or overblown.

No, Sting isn't a huge draw (but if you are just putting in the top draws, you get 6 over the course of 30+ years of United State's Wrestling, which is silly)...but he drew a little bit, and had a mix bag otherwise as a top guy, with some good shows and some poor showing during eras of bad business...he also wasn't a great worker, but he was a good worker...with quite a few top flight matches, a lot of really really good ones, and a lot of fucking stinkers.

I have seen Dave state before...basically...the best draws and the best workers are the ones who get in...but, IMO, guys who were a little bit of A and a little bit of B are very much qualified as well. He's not Hogan or Flair and he's not Danielson or Benoit...which, I guess would mean he shouldn't be in, but I think that's crap...I think its a no brainer he's in...he's not Warrior or some other stiff that was a bit of a star and a shitty worker, nor is he William Regal, a superior performer but not anything close to a star...he's like the Curtis Martin of wrestlers...always at the top, never considered great, but that's still Hall of Fame worthy, IMO.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not knocking Foley. I ate up his everyman story just like everyone else at the time. But was he a draw in the ring? No. People bought the tickets and PPVs to see SCSA, Rock, and the machine first. Foley is a little further down the list. That's not discrediting him, those two wrestlers are two of the biggest money-making machines in the history of the business. It's crazy to look at the numbers in attendance and PPV buys when Foley was champ and say that he did those numbers himself. I just used him as saying he was an above average worker and wasn't a known draw as a WRESTLER. Those are the arguments against Sting.

Bret Hart, like Sting, was never a part of a big drawing feud until maybe Stone Cold's breakout. Does that mean he wasn't a star in the 90's? Hell no, he was the biggest name in the biggest company between Hogan and Austin.

 

[FedEx227]

Never apart of a real huge drawing feud but that Summerslam 1992 gate is always going to put him on a different level.

 

[FedEx227]

For the record, I would probably put Sting in. I'm just arguing because it's fun.

I completely disagree that he should be in before Foley though, that's madness to me.

 

[FirstTimer]

That's all I'm saying. I'm not knocking Foley. I ate up his everyman story just like everyone else at the time. But was he a draw in the ring? No. People bought the tickets and PPVs to see SCSA, Rock, and the machine first. Foley is a little further down the list. That's not discrediting him, those two wrestlers are two of the biggest money-making machines in the history of the business. It's crazy to look at the numbers in attendance and PPV buys when Foley was champ and say that he did those numbers himself. I just used him as saying he was an above average worker and wasn't a known draw as a WRESTLER. Those are the arguments against Sting.

Bret Hart, like Sting, was never a part of a big drawing feud until maybe Stone Cold's breakout. Does that mean he wasn't a star in the 90's? Hell no, he was the biggest name in the biggest company between Hogan and Austin.

Never apart of a real huge drawing feud but that Summerslam 1992 gate is always going to put him on a different level.

Wasn't Bret's feud with Owen awesome?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

For the record, I would probably put Sting in. I'm just arguing because it's fun.

I completely disagree that he should be in before Foley though, that's madness to me.

Foley gets in because he's the greatest enhancement talent of his era...no one made more people look better and helped advance more careers. Flair would be the only guy in the discussion, but Flair doesn't leave a trail of bodies behind that were essentially apart of two generations of wrestlers at the top of the card. Foley is truly a special talent in that regard. Foley has a pretty damn good eye for talent, too, in regards to who he wants to work with to help get over.

I just disagree that he was a draw, because, really...he was never given the ball to be a draw.

"Star" I guess, would be a relative term.

 

[s@ppisgod]

Fed, I'm not saying put him in over Foley. I'm saying if Foley is in, while not being elite in the ring or selling tickets, why shouldn't Sting? Those are his knocks.

Also, Hart doesn't get all the credit for SS 92. They didn't even know Bret/Bulldog was going to go on last. He's associated with that one, but not really attributed it. UK has some rabid wrestling fans, and it's a pretty easy sell-out even today for a small, incompetent company like TNA.

Wasn't Bret's feud with Owen awesome?

That was the best feud and story arc in WWF since the Mega Powers split until probably today. Nothing since has made more sense, had better timing, or better matches.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Hart/Bulldog absolutely drew that monster gate. You can't just throw anything into Wembley and sell it out. Or, they would.

Big difference between packing Wembley and TNA putting 4000 or whatever in some small arena.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Any thoughts on the rest of the poll? Opinions on the others aside from Sting?

 

[FedEx227]

Any thoughts on the rest of the poll? Opinions on the others aside from Sting?

The one thing I saw that was surprising is how little support Tanahashi had. I mean, to me he's a no-brainer. Like an absolute no doubter by the definition of the Hall. Was extra surprised to see Punk ahead of him. While I think Punk has had an awesome career, I think if you put their resumes against one another Tanahashi blows him away.

That's not to discredit Punk at all. I personally prefer Punk but from a business standpoint it's hard not to argue Tanahashi >>>> Punk.

 

[s@ppisgod]

Hart/Bulldog absolutely drew that monster gate. You can't just throw anything into Wembley and sell it out. Or, they would.

Big difference between packing Wembley and TNA putting 4000 or whatever in some small arena.

I'm sure Bulldog made a big difference. I'm not discounting that. But Hart wasn't a star at that point. And obviously Wembley is on a bigger scale, but don't belittle the point that British fans have always and will always buy WWE tickets in strong numbers, not to mention it was the only time a big 4 PPV was held overseas.

 

[FedEx227]

Regardless, that gate is legendary. $2,200,000! Only card in the same area to gate anywhere NEAR that was WrestleMania VI.