The WWE Hall of Fame

WWE, TNA, and all U.S./Canada based graps talk
Post Reply
User avatar
mlev76
Posts: 2576
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:32 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by mlev76 » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:17 pm

After reading some of the tweets that came out today regarding the induction of Jacqueline into the WWE Hall of Fame, I figured the very nature of the Hall of Fame (and how it compares to the WO Hall of Fame) might be worth discussing.

To start, I am in no way ignoring the key components of the WWE Hall of Fame-as a marketing and merchandising tool as well as a means to keep former WWE wrestlers on their side by offering a 'carrot' to side with them. I also understand there is no real criteria beyond who Vince and a select unrepresentative few decide to put in any particular year.

But as time as gone on, some of the bigger critiques of it have become somewhat moot. The inductions of Bruno Sammartino and Randy Savage eliminated the most prominent omissions from the Hall aside from people who will be inducted in the future. Further, while not every inductee would be someone I'd consider a choice I'd make, the days of inducting Vince Sr.'s chaufeur have gone by the wayside.

And in many ways, the WWE HOF more correctly reflects the wrestling I grew up with than the WO Hall. To me, it's ridiculous that people like Jesse Ventura, Sgt. Slaughter and Junkyard Dog, people my non-wrestling fan friends know, are not in the HOF while guys like Sakuraba, who is in for his MMA work and not his wrestling, is. Furthermore, it is rather odd that only one American women's wrestler is in the Observer Hall-and that's Mildred Burke. Sure, Jacqueline is essentially filling a quota, but there's no denying which Hall better reflects women's wrestling history.

The reality is all Hall of Fames have a certain degree of subjectivity to them and therefore objective criticism is a bit odd. But, I think both serve their own purposes and have their own shortfalls.

User avatar
rovert
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:45 am

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by rovert » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:23 pm


User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:36 pm

mlev76 wrote:After reading some of the tweets that came out today regarding the induction of Jacqueline into the WWE Hall of Fame, I figured the very nature of the Hall of Fame (and how it compares to the WO Hall of Fame) might be worth discussing.

To start, I am in no way ignoring the key components of the WWE Hall of Fame-as a marketing and merchandising tool as well as a means to keep former WWE wrestlers on their side by offering a 'carrot' to side with them. I also understand there is no real criteria beyond who Vince and a select unrepresentative few decide to put in any particular year.

But as time as gone on, some of the bigger critiques of it have become somewhat moot. The inductions of Bruno Sammartino and Randy Savage eliminated the most prominent omissions from the Hall aside from people who will be inducted in the future. Further, while not every inductee would be someone I'd consider a choice I'd make, the days of inducting Vince Sr.'s chaufeur have gone by the wayside.

And in many ways, the WWE HOF more correctly reflects the wrestling I grew up with than the WO Hall. To me, it's ridiculous that people like Jesse Ventura, Sgt. Slaughter and Junkyard Dog, people my non-wrestling fan friends know, are not in the HOF while guys like Sakuraba, who is in for his MMA work and not his wrestling, is. Furthermore, it is rather odd that only one American women's wrestler is in the Observer Hall-and that's Mildred Burke. Sure, Jacqueline is essentially filling a quota, but there's no denying which Hall better reflects women's wrestling history.

The reality is all Hall of Fames have a certain degree of subjectivity to them and therefore objective criticism is a bit odd. But, I think both serve their own purposes and have their own shortfalls.
I couldn't possibly care less about the WWE HOF but this was a well thought post and deserves some time. My issue with the WWE HOF has never been who wasn't in but rather who was in. To me, that defines your HOF more than snubs. Of course, the WO HOF has many snubs that people spend endless days, hours, months fighting for each year they do that though because it's a reputable HOF with very few glaringly awful inductees. Sure, there are some people have issues with and that's to be with any HOF but by and large it's a very solid list of performers in there. You mention Sakuraba specifically but that's certainly not fair given the criteria for the Hall of Fame and what he meant for business in the odd blended era of wrestling/MMA that permeated Japan at his time.

Regardless, my concerns and eventual "ah who gives a shit" attitude towards WWE HOF came through in less than worthy candidates going in. Again, it's simply a marketing tool of people who get along with Vince in the given year that Vince is deciding who he wants in so whatever. The WO HOF despite its numerous snubs has what I'd consider a stellar list of entrants featuring very few undeserving candidates.

User avatar
mlev76
Posts: 2576
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:32 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by mlev76 » Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:42 pm

Rich Kraetsch wrote:
mlev76 wrote:After reading some of the tweets that came out today regarding the induction of Jacqueline into the WWE Hall of Fame, I figured the very nature of the Hall of Fame (and how it compares to the WO Hall of Fame) might be worth discussing.

To start, I am in no way ignoring the key components of the WWE Hall of Fame-as a marketing and merchandising tool as well as a means to keep former WWE wrestlers on their side by offering a 'carrot' to side with them. I also understand there is no real criteria beyond who Vince and a select unrepresentative few decide to put in any particular year.

But as time as gone on, some of the bigger critiques of it have become somewhat moot. The inductions of Bruno Sammartino and Randy Savage eliminated the most prominent omissions from the Hall aside from people who will be inducted in the future. Further, while not every inductee would be someone I'd consider a choice I'd make, the days of inducting Vince Sr.'s chaufeur have gone by the wayside.

And in many ways, the WWE HOF more correctly reflects the wrestling I grew up with than the WO Hall. To me, it's ridiculous that people like Jesse Ventura, Sgt. Slaughter and Junkyard Dog, people my non-wrestling fan friends know, are not in the HOF while guys like Sakuraba, who is in for his MMA work and not his wrestling, is. Furthermore, it is rather odd that only one American women's wrestler is in the Observer Hall-and that's Mildred Burke. Sure, Jacqueline is essentially filling a quota, but there's no denying which Hall better reflects women's wrestling history.

The reality is all Hall of Fames have a certain degree of subjectivity to them and therefore objective criticism is a bit odd. But, I think both serve their own purposes and have their own shortfalls.
I couldn't possibly care less about the WWE HOF but this was a well thought post and deserves some time. My issue with the WWE HOF has never been who wasn't in but rather who was in. To me, that defines your HOF more than snubs. Of course, the WO HOF has many snubs that people spend endless days, hours, months fighting for each year they do that though because it's a reputable HOF with very few glaringly awful inductees. Sure, there are some people have issues with and that's to be with any HOF but by and large it's a very solid list of performers in there. You mention Sakuraba specifically but that's certainly not fair given the criteria for the Hall of Fame and what he meant for business in the odd blended era of wrestling/MMA that permeated Japan at his time.

Regardless, my concerns and eventual "ah who gives a shit" attitude towards WWE HOF came through in less than worthy candidates going in. Again, it's simply a marketing tool of people who get along with Vince in the given year that Vince is deciding who he wants in so whatever. The WO HOF despite its numerous snubs has what I'd consider a stellar list of entrants featuring very few undeserving candidates.
The worst, most egregious inclusions occurred long before there was any real thought behind the the HOF. Since it became a regular thing, there haven't been any individual inclusions that were so outside what the HOF is meant to be. The celebrities are obviously silly and the necessity to include a woman every year, even when there isn't a clear cut deserving candidate, is as bad as the WO HOF having one NA woman inducted. Aside from that, its a mix of a great acts and fun personalities and does overall reflect WWE over the years. Its begun to reflect wrestling more broadly recently and I suspect this trend will continue.

To me, the key part of a hall of fame is the last word. It should have the most famous and important people in a given industry or sport, not just the best. Obviously, it's Dave's creation and his rules, but in the grand scheme of wrestling, Sgt. Slaughter is a more famous and important person in pro wrestling than Sakuraba. I also find some of the rules with regard to non-US inductees odd especially the Carlos Colon induction category where Dave admitted he rigged the game just to get him in.

I see both the WO and WWE HOFs to be opposite ends of the same spectrum with one being more for mainstream fans and the other for hardcores. It just seems odd that one is considered a complete joke while the other is revered and lauded.

User avatar
rovert
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:45 am

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by rovert » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:34 am


User avatar
Buzz Sawyer
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:42 pm

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by Buzz Sawyer » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:08 am

It's not a real HOF until Uncle Ivan is inducted.
Who's Rob Viper ?

User avatar
rovert
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:45 am

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by rovert » Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:23 am


User avatar
Rich Kraetsch
Site Admin
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:12 pm
Location: Wheaton, IL
Contact:

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by Rich Kraetsch » Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:16 pm

Slowest moving HOF tickets ever with almost no secondary market.

Big Dave Meltzer is finally vindicated vis a vis Sting.

User avatar
InYourCase
VOW Staff Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:50 pm
Location: Lanza's Dojo
Contact:

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by InYourCase » Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:20 pm

The idea of Snoop Dogg and Stan Hansen being in the same room brings me great joy. I'll actually be watching the speeches this year because I want to hear what both men have to say.

Hoping Shop releases some Hansen merch. Totally not against buying a Stan Hansen t-shirt from WWEShop.com with the VOW affiliate link.

User avatar
rovert
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:45 am

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by rovert » Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:08 pm

Lock thread:



Seriously watch Stan Hansen, Snoop, Freebird and Sting's inductions and skip the rest.

User avatar
NutCrack
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by NutCrack » Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:41 pm

Just got through with watching the show and I thought it was really good. Michael P.S talking about the time he almost pissed on Linda at an airport stole it for me. I've heard X Pac tell the story before, but I've always taken it with a pinch of salt.

User avatar
wac
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:54 pm

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by wac » Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:20 am

mlev76 wrote:To me, the key part of a hall of fame is the last word. It should have the most famous and important people in a given industry or sport, not just the best. Obviously, it's Dave's creation and his rules, but in the grand scheme of wrestling, Sgt. Slaughter is a more famous and important person in pro wrestling than Sakuraba.
Wouldn't Sakuraba have been voted in by the Japanese voters, who wouldn't be voting in Slaughter's category anyway? Weird comparison.

User avatar
mlev76
Posts: 2576
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:32 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: The WWE Hall of Fame

Post by mlev76 » Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:12 pm

wac wrote:
mlev76 wrote:To me, the key part of a hall of fame is the last word. It should have the most famous and important people in a given industry or sport, not just the best. Obviously, it's Dave's creation and his rules, but in the grand scheme of wrestling, Sgt. Slaughter is a more famous and important person in pro wrestling than Sakuraba.
Wouldn't Sakuraba have been voted in by the Japanese voters, who wouldn't be voting in Slaughter's category anyway? Weird comparison.
Well, and I don't know the answer to this, how many of the "Japanese" voters are actually not voting in other categories? Are there many actual wrestlers involved in voting or is it mostly journalists/historians/etc.?

Just judging by listening to and reading many of the podcasts/columns that come out regularly, there is a lot of overlap it seems.

Post Reply