Call me crazy but When you think about big men in the WWE over the past 20 years and since 1999 Kane has been the best big man they've had. You blindly look at the man's body of work and accomplishments and he's a sure fire WWE and Observer Hall of Famer. You analyze it, he's a good worker, has the accomplishments that many others do not have, been on top or near the top for all of that time and he's delivered in big spots. The reason why they keep putting him in the main event picture is because of his reliability and his ability to deliver. Think about it and compare him to even the Big Show and you'll see that Kane has a better overall resume than any other big man besides taker over the last 15 years.

He's never been much of a draw. He's not a standout worker. He's not influential. So no.

Had a better 99 than Jericho, so there's that.

I go no. When he drew he was just part of the package. Plenty of other guys from his era higher on the pecking order.

You have to look deeper into the man's career to come to this conclusion. I'm not saying he's a home run or anything but by a criteria of what WWE has been over the past 15 years he's a better modern candidate than a Brock Lesnar

Stop the thread. I want to hear Dylan compare and contrast Kane and Brock's candidacies for 2 hours on a podcast (2 but not 3).

You have to look deeper into the man's career to come to this conclusion. I'm not saying he's a home run or anything but by a criteria of what WWE has been over the past 15 years he's a better modern candidate than a Brock Lesnar

 

What metric is a win for Kane vs. Brock other than number of matches / appearances?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

I'm not saying it's a total home run. Initially I said no but digging deeper into his career he was always a gatekeeper to your main event. Brock can't even touch the time Kane's been on top. Who's been a constant in the upper mid card and main event other than Kane? Big Show has had more roller coaster pushes than anybody. Maybe Edge but he didn't get on top till 2005. Kane was always on top or near the top from 1997 on

I think you're overstating his case based on being a big man. Being a big man has no bearing on his HOF candidacy unless he was influential. He wasn't He was less of a draw than Austin, Rock, HHH,Foley,Taker, Cena. He was never the guy in the promotion.

That's fair but I think he's a lot better candidate than an Edge or a Brock.

Who cares how long he's been on top? It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Pushes.

Their are other candidates to get behind . Like Ivan Koloff and Sgt. Slaughter .

Who cares how long he's been on top? It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Pushes.

The WOHOF is all about pushes, and what they did with their pushes that made them HOF material.

Saying Kane is a hall of famer is like saying Horace Grant is a hall of fame basketball player.

 

Reliable big man that was with great players most of his run - yes

 

One of the greats of all time - No

I'm a younger wrestling fan so I can't get behind a Koloff or a Slaughter legitimately because I haven't watched enough. I cone from the modern era so this is a candidate I can get behind. More than an Edge or a Brock Leanar because the length of time on top is there and the work rate is there. For modern candidates besides a Randy Orton, Kane is one if the more legit ones

Dave has explicitly stated that "he was in the main event for X years" is not a valid reason to induct someone. The stated criteria:

 

Working ability

Quantifiable drawing power

Positive influence

 

Is Kane HOF-caliber in any of those areas?

I'd say in working ability and call me crazy yes. You can make a work rate case for Kane

You can't make that case. Only one or 2 guys are in based on work rate. Kane isn't one of the best 2 workers of his era.

I have no issue with your opinion that Kane is a HOFer. I like Kane but I can't say I see him as a WON HOFer just due to how many other guys are not in that I think are better. If you think there is a case to be made off for him though I'd like to see you compare him to a similar modern candidate who is already in.

Yeah I agree there are a lot more deserving candidates but it's not fair for me to judge older candidates because I didn't live through those eras. I lived through the modern era and Kane is a constant. Do I think he's the best candidate? Hell no bit do I think he doesn't get the respect he deserves? Yes

You don't have to have "lived through" a different era to be able to watch the footage. All you have to do is watch the matches. I can list a bunch of guys from earlier eras who I think are more worthy AND point to matches that I think they have that are better than anything Kane has to match.

 

Dig into some Dick Murdoch, Jerry Blackwell, Ivan Koloff, Sgt. Slaughter, etc footage and you might see why people on this board don't like the idea of putting in more modern candidates just because "well there aren't many of them in the HOF" when there are a lot of better candidates from earlier eras that aren't getting anywhere near the same kind of push towards the Hall that a guy like Edge gets from Meltzer himself.

If guys like Edge and Batista aren't in, if Sting isn't in, if Luger isn't in.......there is no chance of Kane getting in

 

Great character, longevity, versatile performer, very entertaining at times and other times not so much........not a high end worker.....not a lot of great matches on his resume.....doesn't really strike me as a WON HOFer

 

I doubt Big Show goes into the WON HOF......though I think he should. Both are no brainer WWE HOFers though

WWE have gotten the maximum value out of Kane despite his limitations, but he was rarely depended on to draw anyway. There's maybe a sports analogy that escapes me for the argument for Kane in the WON (like about career batting averages...or something), but I don't see it.

Dave himself called him the 'king of the two star matches' before on WOL some time back. And he's not a historically important draw either. Unless he has some insanely positive influence I'm aware of, this is a big no.