Loss

I have actually never seen this match, so I'm looking forward to watching it. In the buildup, Davey Boy and Diana sitting by the Christmas tree talking about how Bret Hart is a liar and a horrible person with family time smiles on their faces (also on the yearbook) was outstanding.

How does this compare to the '93 match?

Well, Tom was the one who compared him to Goldberg, arguing that they're both the same type of wrestler who works from above instead of selling from underneath. I don't know how over Sin Cara is, I'm just disputing the point that it was a bad idea to hire him.

Yes, please, do the thread. Because I'm still not seeing why it was a bad idea to sign Sin Cara. Rey is breaking down. They need a new Hispanic draw that can move merchandise. It has nothing to do with the type of character or wrestler that Mistico was. It has everything to do with him being Mexican and wearing a mask that can be replicated and sold. So they found someone with a track record of drawing and brought him in. I'm not saying the mask and being Hispanic are the entirety of Rey's appeal, but that's the role Sin Cara was brought in to fill. And I'm not sure why they have to establish that beating Averno means something. Did WCW establish that beating Jerry Flynn or Hugh Morrus meant something? The key was Goldberg, not the opponent. If Averno came in, it would just be someone he can have good matches with, someone that will make him look really good. I'm not sure why Averno needs to be any more established than that, the same way that most enhancement talent hasn't been established as long as pro wrestling has been around. And I don't think the definition of something not looking good on paper is being able to point to negatives as well as positives. There were negatives and positives to bringing Hogan back in 2002. He wasn't a good fit, and they tried to make him fit into a style that required him to wrestle long main events. He was put into a midcard tag role, which probably wasn't the best use of him either. Does that mean bringing Hogan back was a bad idea on paper?

Instead of "Hey, we're actually booking a top heel like a top heel. Maybe we should try that more often."

Leading a declining company is not a WOTY case, but being the only thing that keeps people watching a declining company is. Again, I recall late 80s Ric Flair.

While I agree with this, it's hard for me to think of another case where a wrestler who made his name elsewhere was approached about bringing someone else in to work his style and make him look good. There was an attempt to make him fit in effectively.

Well, the biggest issue was the constant references to Kanyon's "lifestyle" tormenting him. What exactly was his lifestyle? To be a pro wrestler? Kanyon was gay, but nothing about his "lifestyle" was gay. He also mentioned that the book seemed to be written for "two audiences" that can't be reconciled, and he doesn't live Kanyon's lifestyle so he can't understand his torment. I don't expect Dave or the writers on his site to take positions in favor of gay issues. It's a wrestling/MMA news site. At the same time, I don't expect Dave or the writers on his site to take positions opposing gay issues either. People are allowed to be ignorant. I just think it reflects really poorly on Dave when something like this makes it to the main site without being caught.

Yeah, I was floored that this made it on the site. As I've gotten older, I've developed a pretty high threshold for things I consider offensive, but that was pretty startlingly offensive. It's still poorly written too. More than anything, this shows that it's incredibly unwise for Dave to post stuff to the web site without reading it. I'm assuming he didn't. If he did and saw nothing wrong with it, that's even worse.

Huh? How were either on paper good ideas? Both really felt like the kind of Konnan bringing in Shima Xion and Danielson to AAA type foolishness. Helmsley takes the role of Konan: guy who watches tape and reads sheets but with little to no understanding of whats taking place on those tapes, no sense of what the pimped people are that he's bringing in and what the actual product that he has that he's bringing that talent into. It's the WWE, so Pena isn't dead yet but everything I've read about HHH's post retirement approach is super Konan-esque. My point was that they normally sign people based on size/physical appearance who have no track record. Mistico at least had a track record. You can make whatever argument you want about how he has been booked, but signing a guy because he was WOTY in the WON is a departure from how Vince normally does business. I'm not sure how bringing in Kharma didn't seem like a great idea. I still think it was, as I'm sure when she comes back, she'll be a star.

Completely agreed. That's a ridiculously long ballot.

MMA is Pro Wrestling, Jerry. Have you watched MMA, Jerry? Yes, I've seen it. And ... what? No it isn't. For a start, pro wrestling is worked. MMA is a shoot, correct? How are they in any way the same thing? Because they have belts, entrance music, do promos and their matches take place in a ring? Come on. Is Boxing pro wrestling too? I don't see how this can be argued unless MMA is worked. He's being sarcastic. It's becoming a talking point of Dave Meltzer that wrestling and MMA are exactly the same thing, except one is worked and the other isn't, based on the promoting style of convincing people to pay to see matches between people they care about. We both know that means the promotion is similar, not any other aspect, but he is pretty locked into this view.

To me, of the people still on the ballot, the Rock & Rolls and Jerry Jarrett are the most glaring omissions, with Murdoch not far behind. If Cena goes in his first year on the ballot (which is embarrassing if he doesn't), once all of those guys go in, assuming they do, I start to wonder if there's any reason to induct anyone else at all. But yeah, there are guys way down the list like Jim Crockett that have a better case than those getting way higher percentages.

The point is that it's a bad argument.

As they only drew in one major territory for a limited amount of time. Yes, because everyone else in the HOF drew in multiple places.

Not that I'm not preaching to the choir with a Luger > Brock argument at this board, but I was reading some 1990 WONs today in preparation for the 1990 yearbook that I found interesting. It's pretty known that Flair and Luger drew well in 1988. But the same was true immediately following Wrestle War '90. There was a spike in gates that was strong enough to make them think they had turned a corner. Luger never sustained as a draw, probably because people got tired of waiting on him to win, but there is a consistent theme -- when people thought he was about to win the title, they showed up. Luger is not a HOF candidate, but looking at accomplishments in wrestling, he was a bigger star for a longer period of time, and you can point to more cases where he moved the needle.

Glad to see I had all of those listed on the early draft. Thanks. Everyone: Keep the recommendations coming. I'm hoping to close this thread within the next week. Don't worry, that doesn't mean the yearbook is coming out already, but just that we're trying to get a little ahead of ourselves.

Even if it's true, I suspect he meant it figuratively.

Any idea why with King of the Ring, they eventually stopped doing the quarterfinal match the same night? I think the appeal of KOTR was doing the entire tournament in one night. 2000 ... wow, that one should have been a fantastic night of wrestling that could have had months of fallout and they completely killed it with rushed matches and the wrong guys going over in almost every match.

Humbug, that's a lot of needless bureaucracy.

That's the only explanation I can come up with.