francescofuoco1998

Hi. We have just entered in the WON HOF season, so I decided to open this poll where I compared some wrestlers. You can choose who is the better candidate for the WON HOF. I also added some wrestlers who are already inducted into the WON HOF. First of all, how would you weigh the criteria? For example, who is a better candidate, objectively (although objectivety doesn't exist)? A huge draw for a short period, like Goldberg and Ultimate Warrior, or a poor draw, but great worker for a long time, like AJ Styles, Daniel Bryan, Jun Akiyama, Akira Taue? For example, the historian Matt Farmer said that workrate has been overrated today, in the sense that it's a subjective criteria, and also that a lot of great workers of the 60s and 70s are not considered for the HOF (60s and 70s hall of famers are in particular great draw). Is it right that a great worker, like Bryan and Styles (both DB and AJ are stars but they are probably also not as big stars and they are way less known by people and casual fans than Orton Big Show, Kane, Batista, wrestlers that got few votes, in fact for example Batista, Kane and Show fell of the ballot) is inducted into the HOF before a huge draw and a mainstream name like Warrior, Golbderg and even Big Daddy. Does a great worker deserve the HOF only because of work, or does he need to be an influential name? As you know, 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. 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. The comparisons are: Mistico original vs Junkyard Dog Jun Akiyama vs The Ultimate Warrior Daniel Bryan vs Goldberg Kerry Von Erich vs CM Punk Randy Orton vs Akira Taue Cien Caras vs AJ Styles Thank you very much

Next time I will open this kind of topic, I will put in Stan Hansen vs Terry Funk

Good afternoon. Like last time I opened a poll in which you should compare some of the best wrestlers of all time. The criteria is exclusively IN RING ABILITY, that includes criteria like storytelling, workrate, in ring psychologhy, selling, versatility, cleaning in the execution of moves, technical skills, high flying skills, brawling skills... The comparisons are: -Bret Hart vs Shawn Michaels -Kazuchika Okada vs Kenta Kobashi -Daniel Bryan vs Hiroshi Tanahashi  -AJ Styles vs Toshiaki Kawada -Rey Mysterio vs Kenny Omega  Thank you very much

John, on wrestlingclassics, I opened the poll where I compare wrestlers with WON HOF criteria. In particular I'd like to know what do you think about the comparison between Toshiaki Kawada and AJ Styles Who do you think is better second WON HOF criteria?

John, do you like my idea of make a list of the best matches of all time? It will also help me in working on Sting's Gordy List.

Harley Race vs Ric Flair - (NWA Starrcade 1983): ****1/4 The match had a great build up. Race became champion, but he refused to give a rematch to Flair. So he offered 25,000 dollars to Bob Orton and Dick Slater, that injured Flair, who was retired. But Flair returned and he got the rematch. It was a Steel Cage match to prevent external interference, and the former NWA World Champion, Gene Kiniski, was the referee. The match had a great in ring psychologhy and storytelling, althought it was a slow match. Race controlled for the most part, working Flair's neck. Flair was the undedog, and at the end he won after a Crossbody. The crowd was so hot for Flair.

Greg Valentine vs Roddy Piper (NWA Starrcade 1983): **** First Dog Collar match ever in tv; it was an unsanctioned match. It was a violent match, where Piper injured his ear and he became deaf. From a quality of matches standpoint, JCP was so much better than WWF, that would have started his nation expansion. They used the chain in the right way, it limited the movements of wrestlers, and it was used as a blunt weapon. Maybe the finish was a little bad, but you should consider that it was rare that, in 1983, wrestlers did maneuvers from the stake. So you should watch the match, not with today eyes, but with 1983 eyes. It was a classic.

Considering that in this topic, I'm talking about the best wrestlers of all time, I'm going to review the best matches of all time. I'd like to start with 1983, in particular Roddy Piper vs Greg Valentine, and Ric Flair vs Harley Race from Starrcade.

Good afternoon. Like last time I opened a poll in which you should compare some of the best wrestlers of all time. The criteria is exclusively IN RING ABILITY, that includes criteria like workrate, storytelling, psychologhy, selling, who is more all rounder, ability to help less experienced wrestlers, versatility, technical skills.... The comparisons are: -Ric Flair vs Ricky Steamboat -Daniel Bryan vs Jushin Liger -Bret Hart vs Hiroshi Tanahashi -Chris Benoit vs Eddie Guerrero -AJ Styles vs Kenny Omega -Toshiaki Kawada vs Kenta Kobashi I added Ric Flair in the poll, that was not in the poll last time.  Thank you very much

I think that, today, some of the voters are Kenny Omega, Young Bucks, Daniel Bryan, Bret Hart, maybe also Bruno Sammartino in the past, considering that they were/are guests a lot of time.

John, about the WON HOF, did Meltzer ever say who were active and retired wrestlers voters? It's just a curiosity.

An other controversial choise was Hiroshi Hase, I think. He was a very good worker for a short period. People gave him credit as a booker, but, as John Williams wrote, Riki Choshu was the head booker. Do you agree?

Yes, as a worker I agree with you. Yesterday, with a friend, we watched WCW Halloween Havoc 1995. It was an horrible ppv. Almost everything was horrible. There was the debut of the Yeti ? In this ppv there were so many horrible workers, like Lex Luger, Zodiac, Meng, Road Warrior Hawk (who was very bad against Kurasawa, even the crowd didn't react during the match). Sting, in comparison to these wrestlers was very good, so for sure was not a bad worker. I'm also starting watching 1992 WCW because I want to watch his matches against Vader.

I think that many people don't know Sting's career. In the past, 3 or 4 years, I also thought that he was a huge star, because I always read comments of this kind: "Sting was the face of WCW and he was the face of WCW during the hottest period in wrestling." In an Italian forum, he also won the tournament "The Greatest wrestlers of WCW". Luckly I joined wrestlingclassics and I learned the reality. About the Gordy list, give me two or three months. In the sense, I want to study in depth his career. Yesterday I started watching WCW of 1992. I want to make a list of his best and worst matches, then make a definitive judgment about his body of work.

Last time after I asked you about the reason that Danielson only got 12% of votes among active wrestler and also he got few votes among retired wrestlers (if Nick Bockwinkel and Red Bastien would have voted for him if they were alive), I searched the WON HOF issues from the past. Triple H, for example, in 2004 and 2005 got so much more votes than Eddie Guerrero, . I think that wrestlers vote for their friends, while retired wrestlers for sure don't watch a lot of wrestling of today. Yesterday on reddit, the real Greg Valentine wrote that the best wrestler today is Randy Orton because his father, Bob Orton Jr., was his friends. That shows how wrestlers vote. I imagine how many votes Shawn Michaels got from his friends. However, I'd like to know who are the wrestlers that vote in the WON HOF. I think the majority is made WWE wrestlers.

An other name that was responsible of various threads in the past was Sting. I'd like to write a Gordy List.

John, can you explian better this last sentence. You said that you have not a good opinion of pro wrestlers (both retired and active) who vote in the WON HOF? Right?

1)About Dragon I agree with you. He was a very good worker, but I don't think he was ever regarded as a top 5, even top 10, in the world or in his country, so also the criteria "quality of work" is not enough strong for him. 2)About Sakuraba I don't know what he did in MMA, but if he is in the WON HOF, then also Conor McGregor, Ronda Rousey, others great MMA athletes should be inducted. 3)Angle was never a draw by himself. Reading the WON I noted that he was never a big merchandise draw, neither a ppv draw and a ratings draw. In this criteria I think that there is not so much difference with wrestlers like AJ Styles, Daniel Bryan, Edge, wrestlers who were never draw by themselves. When he went to TNA, he never moved buyrates (only the first against Joe), didn't increase ratings. His strenght is quality of work. As John Williams wrote in his last Gordy lists, he answered to the question "Was he ever reagarded as the best worker in the world, in his country or in his promotion?", he was regarded as the best worker in the world, by WON readers, in 2001-2003 (obiouvsly the fact that Meltzer loved him, he influenced the WON voters). After 2003 he was no more regarded as the best worker in the world, neither in his country. Anyway he entered in the top 10 among best workers, but no more regarded as the best, who was Bryan Danielson in the period 2006-2010. In this aspect Bryan Danielson is for sure stronger because he was regarded as the best worker for longer, and he remained considered as the best worker in USA until 2013, and in the top 3 all over the world. Angle is so much appreciated by retired wrestlers (probably because he was a real athlete) and active wrestlers. In fact he received a lot of votes from wrestlers in 2004 WON HOF.

Even if he had credit for training them, I think that he should have not inducted. For example, if Regal will train other 7/8 wrestlers that will be great workers in future, I don't think that he should be Hall of Famer for that.

I'd like to write a Gordy List for every non no-brainer wrestlers. This is the list of every wrestler who was in the ballot. https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/won_hof_ballot_results

I agree with you. Stu Hart doesn't deserve to be in the WON HOF. I think that he was inducted because he trained a lot of future great workers like Dynamite Kid, Bret Hart, Chris Benoit, Owen Hart, British Bulldog... I don't think that trainers should be in the HOF.

I remember also when he destroyed Mysterio, when he turned heel. However, reading the WON, it was the wrong time to turn heel Eddy. He was no more over with the live crowd. Meltzer wrote that WWE had to edit the audio because in some SD episode nobody cared about their segments. Neverthless I think that Eddy's character in 2005 was really great.

His last year was really great, but he was no more at his peak, from an athletic standpoint. Reading the WON, I learned that the night before the shows he had severe pain. There are a lot of wrestlers who confirmed that like Hardcore Holly.

@West Newbury Bad Boy I agree with you. The critical was also about the fact that second this user he had only average matches in the period 2010-2012, although he wrestled almost every week against the various Mysterio, Rhodes, Swagger, Barrett, DiBiase, Regal, Christian, Orton, Punk. However, what do you think about his WWE style matches during the period 2010-2012. If you remember, how would you judge his match against the various Rey Mysterio, Cody Rhodes, Ted Dibiase, Mark Henry? About Eddie Guerrero, what is the period where you think he was at his peak? In WWE or during the 90s in WCW/NJPW/AAA?

@West Newbury Bad Boy Great post. However, I'd like to ask you what do you think about the fact that Bryan is criticized in some Italian forums (I'm Italian) because he is not able to deliver great few minutes matches. In the sense, in a discussion, a user wrote that Bryan's style is more static than, for example, Kurt Angle's style that is more dinamic, with fast moves, a lot of near falls, finishers. Also Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit had a lot of few minutes great matches in various Nitro, and also in WWE in the period 2002-2003. What do you think about that critical? To explain better a user compared two matches: the first is Bryan Danielson vs Tyler Black (ROH Southern Navigation 2008), the second is Kurt Angle vs Edge (Backlash 2002). Bryan vs Black was more static, with a long phase in which Bryan controlled the match with mat wrestling. There were few near falls and few moves. Edge vs Angle was more dinamic, fast moves, near falls, a lot of action. This user said that the second match was better because it was with a continue action, without dead phases. He also criticized Bryan vs Nigel McGuinness (ROH Unified) because, in his opinion it was static in the first 20 minutes. These are the matches that he talked about.