Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

briany

beakerjoe wrote: »

People take these hall of fame’s way too seriously.

My gripe is just because someone isnt successful, ie title runs, big main event angles etc, shouldnt be a criteria for Hall of Fame.

People gripe about folks like Koko B. Ware being put in the WWE Hall Of fame, saying things like "They'll let anyone in now" or "Hes only getting in because hes black". Koko may have been a jobber to the stars for WWF and never really was in any big angles or have a title run, but the guy was a damn hard worker. His place in the roster as an enhancement talent is a vital role and thanks to him many new stars got over during the 80's and early 90's. I could argue he deserves his place in there as much as Hogan or Savage.

Its Vinces Hall of Fame and him and his close friends backstage choose who goes in. Whether the candidate is well liked backstage or marketable for publicity for the current WWE are the only reasons people get in. It’s a nice pat on the back for those in wrestling to have their moment, which Id say all of them deserve.

WWE, because of their stature in the industry, and their owning of so much IP, essentially makes them the vanguard of the industry within North America and perhaps even worldwide. And their HOF, well, there are other HoFs, but they tend to take place in hotel function rooms, while WWE's takes place in a huge arena and available to view for millions of people. These factors put WWE in the position where they can essentially erase or highlight whole swathes of wrestling history, and certain wrestlers' careers, especially in the eyes of more casual fans. It is a position of responsibility not best-served by indulging in petty politics.

leggo

Blue_Dabadee wrote: »

His best in-ring work was when he was tagging with Cody at a time when he was lobbying hard to have a match with him. I could imagine he is a huge asset backstage since a lot of guys like Mark Henry, Cena, Big Show and Kane only appear on a part-time basis.

Exactly, and that's SO important and makes a huge difference to the end product. If I was starting a wrestling company, if I didn't have someone who could be a leader in the locker room, it'd descend into chaos and pretty much wouldn't be a worthwhile venture. But because we don't see it, it gets totally glossed over. Same goes for when people were chanting for Big Show to retire, I hear that and it just shows me those people don't have a clue.

diusmr8a504cvk

The Rock's promo before facing Goldberg at Backlash 2003 is awesome.
Referring to Goldberg as a 'whisker biscuit bald-headed bitch' and telling the fans that they can 'wipe a cockatoo's ass' with what they think
Link

Mr.Nice Guy

The whole point of the term 'Hall of Famer' is to honour those who are special and above the rest. If we use it for people based on the fact they've been around a while then we cheapen the whole concept.

I'm not sure how a guy who was voted by readers of the WON newsletter a three-time winner of the Worst Gimmick award - as well as winning Most Embarrassing Wrestler award - can be deemed to have turned chicken salad into chicken ****. In reality he was given chicken **** and it remained chicken ****.

I've been listening back to the Retro Raw reviews that Bryan and Vinny and Craig do and the Goldust stuff is just awful. Lousy angles with Marlena and Val Venis, lousy angles with Pillman before his sad passing, it's so bad.

There seems to be this strange WWE-promoted revisionist history of the Goldust character, pretending that he was some pivotal member of the Attitude Era when he really wasn't.

The fact is he's never been a significant draw and was never an exceptional wrestler either. Even using the anecdotal nature of our own Pro Wrestling draft game, the guy never to my recollection was picked in the early rounds and was always chosen at best around the Round 6 mark. If someone picked Goldust in round 1 or 2 it would be regarded as a bad pick - and that shouldn't be the case for a bona fide, legit Hall of Fame talent.

Again, if we're talking the WWE Hall of Fame which has far worse wrestlers in there than him like Godfather and Koko B. Ware then fine, by all means put him in and give him his moment. He certainly warrants it more than they did. But let's not throw around the epithet of Hall of Famer so easily that we give it to the likes of Goldust.

Omackeral

In my opinion, the true stars of the WWE Hall of Fame are those that lead their particular year's class as headline acts. They're the only one who gets their own entrance music at WrestleMania. That's the measuring stick I'd use (loosely) for determining who the real mega stars are.

Take for example this;

2005 Hulk Hogan
2006 Bret Hart
2007 Dusty Rhodes
2008 Ric Flair
2009 Steve Austin
2010 Ted DiBiase
2011 Shawn Michaels
2012 Edge
2013 Mick Foley/Bruno Sammartino (can't recall who 'main evented')
2014 Ultimate Warrior
2015 Randy Savage
2016 Sting
2017 Kurt Angle

Agent Coulson

So Piper in as well in 2005 is he not HoF worthy?

Omackeral

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So Piper in as well in 2005 is he not HoF worthy?

Omackeral wrote: »

IThat's the measuring stick I'd use (loosely) for determining who the real mega stars are.

That was put there just for you!

The HOF concept was only brought back a year at that stage so they were still sussing out the formula probably. Obviously Hotrod is a top draw on his own.

Itssoeasy

I think Christian will be in the HOF due to him actually being deserving. I know Edge took the spotlight in that team but Christian was no slouch in the ring. He also has done something that few have done and that's hold the nwa world title (domed globe)and the big gold. I think only Ric Flair and Christian have held those actual belts even if christian held it as the world heavyweight championship.

edit: Jeff Jarrett and Sting have also held these two belts and nwa and wcw champions. Still it's fairly rare company for old Captain Charisma.

Omackeral

Christian will get in but I wouldn't have him as headliner I don't think. Never quite hit the top echelon. Davey Boy and Owen really deserve their spot in there too.

Itssoeasy

Omackeral wrote: »

Christian will get in but I wouldn't have him as headliner I don't think. Never quite hit the top echelon. Davey Boy and Owen really deserve their spot in there too.

Well probably not as a headliner and him not hitting the top echelon wasn't his fault. The summit of the mountain can only have so many guys up there.

Owen will never get in and Davey Boy would be iffy IMO.

Agent Coulson

Christian held the ECW belt as well.

I know both the Big Gold and ECW ones were under the WWE banner at the time but still a nice run of belts to have.

leggo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm not sure how a guy who was voted by readers of the WON newsletter a three-time winner of the Worst Gimmick award - as well as winning Most Embarrassing Wrestler award - can be deemed to have turned chicken salad into chicken ****. In reality he was given chicken **** and it remained chicken ****.

I mean, you keep bringing up storylines/place on the card that as a metric for this and it's very hard to take you seriously when you do that. Like do you understand that when a wrestler goes out and performs a weird/embarrassing angle, he hasn't written that for himself? He was directed by Vince McMahon and/or the booking team at the time to do so and just did what he was told. So a bunch of readers of a newsletter (which represents an almost comically tiny % of the total fanbase, especially in 1997) voting it as bad doesn't actually mean anything.

Like when I first got the Internet and began following wrestling online, The Rock was HATED. He had a dumb finisher, Internet fans hated the eyebrow, he didn't deserve his main event spot (with people like Test and Ken Shamrock being touted as more deserving), he was just a comedy act...the list goes on, he was kinda the John Cena/Roman Reigns of the day, but the Internet fans weren't a sizeable enough portion of the base to have any influence on live crowd reactions. By your logic, the fact that this small % of the fanbase felt this way about him means he's undeserving of a HOF spot. But you're not gonna say that are you? Because The Rock could make a decent case for being on wrestling Mt Rushmore. So if you don't feel that The Rock should be out because of this, then looking for black marks in Goldust's career because readers of a newsletter didn't like him is equally ridiculous.

Mr.Nice Guy

leggo wrote: »

I mean, you keep bringing up storylines/place on the card that as a metric for this and it's very hard to take you seriously when you do that. Like do you understand that when a wrestler goes out and performs a weird/embarrassing angle, he hasn't written that for himself? He was directed by Vince McMahon and/or the booking team at the time to do so and just did what he was told. So a bunch of readers of a newsletter (which represents an almost comically tiny % of the total fanbase, especially in 1997) voting it as bad doesn't actually mean anything.

Like when I first got the Internet and began following wrestling online, The Rock was HATED. He had a dumb finisher, Internet fans hated the eyebrow, he didn't deserve his main event spot (with people like Test and Ken Shamrock being touted as more deserving), he was just a comedy act...the list goes on, he was kinda the John Cena/Roman Reigns of the day, but the Internet fans weren't a sizeable enough portion of the base to have any influence on live crowd reactions. By your logic, the fact that this small % of the fanbase felt this way about him means he's undeserving of a HOF spot. But you're not gonna say that are you? Because The Rock could make a decent case for being on wrestling Mt Rushmore. So if you don't feel that The Rock should be out because of this, then looking for black marks in Goldust's career because readers of a newsletter didn't like him is equally ridiculous.

Yes leggo, I am aware Goldust was not the head booker during the period; I remind you that you were the one who made the claim that:

"Goldust has over 20 years now of turning chicken **** into chicken salad (he even made that crappy angle with R-Truth a while back watchable), who are we to deny him when he gets a pat on the back?"

So it's quite reasonable to bring up Goldust's storyline involvement when you make such a bold claim, which I would argue doesn't hold up to even moderate scrutiny. And it's amusing to me that you don't take seriously the views of the WON fanbase on their awards, but you have more respect for the WWE HOF which is totally dependent on the often questionable whims of one man. The entire discussion came about when it was asked should Goldust be considered a Hall of Famer. Given that the two most famous wrestling Halls of Fame are the WWE one and the Observer one, it's fair enough to mention the latter publication.

Your paragraph about The Rock was a poor point imo. You highlighted one year of Rock's career when he got criticism from fans - for being pushed too heavily - and then tried to claim that it would be silly to dismiss Rock as a HOF worthy talent because of this. But the reason it would be silly to discount Rock as a HOF worthy talent is precisely because of what he did in subsequent years - which you omitted by focusing only on the Die Rocky Die years. You take a wrestler's career as a whole, not one year in isolation.

My logic for Goldust not being a Hall of Famer is straightforward: he was never a major draw, he was never an outstanding wrestling, he was never an outstanding character. And if he was any of these things, he would not have spent recent times in comedy skits with R-Truth that most fans found painful, and being treated as a jobber on TV.

What is the argument for considering him worthy of the title Hall of Famer, other than longevity and, occasionally, making the most out of bad material? Because using this metric, we would then presumably have to consider R-Truth a Hall of Famer as well.

LeeJM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

he was never an outstanding wrestling, he was never an outstanding character.

This is a joke right?!

Mr.Nice Guy

LeeJM wrote: »

This is a joke right?!

Seriously? If he's such an outstanding character why does he struggle to make it on to a 3 hour wrestling show that by most people's reckoning is not exactly fantastic TV? And are you actually of the opinion that Goldust is an outstanding wrestler?

LeeJM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Seriously? If he's such an outstanding character why does he struggle to make it on to a 3 hour wrestling show that by most people's reckoning is not exactly fantastic TV? And are you actually of the opinion that Goldust is an outstanding wrestler?

He doesnt make it onto Raw because its a shít tv show! They should be utilising a character with Goldust unique look and years of history and backstory within the company much better. And surely even you can admit that Goldust is a great character that has continuesly evolved throughout the years.

As for being an outstanding wrestler, I genuinely cant take you seriously if you dont think Goldust/Dustin Rhodes has been and still is a great professional wrestler. Go back to 1991-1994 WCW and he was having great matches there against Barry Windham, Rick Rude, Steve Austin. His ealry Goldust run has some good matches with HHH, better matches than anybody else was able to have with Hunter at the time. The Attitude Era is a complete write off as very few were having great matches or were put in a position to have great matches. His tag run with Booker was great and they had a great in ring feud with Jericho and Christian. Look at his feud with Sheamus in ECW that established Sheamus in WWE. Then of course the Rhodes Bros tag run, of which he was without a doubt the star.

Mr.Nice Guy

LeeJM wrote: »

He doesnt make it onto Raw because its a shtv show! They should be utilising a character with Goldust unique look and years of history and backstory within the company much better. And surely even you can admit that Goldust is a great character that has continuesly evolved throughout the years.

As for being an outstanding wrestler, I genuinely cant take you seriously if you dont think Goldust/Dustin Rhodes has been and still is a great professional wrestler. Go back to 1991-1994 WCW and he was having great matches there against Barry Windham, Rick Rude, Steve Austin. His ealry Goldust run has some good matches with HHH, better matches than anybody else was able to have with Hunter at the time. The Attitude Era is a complete write off as very few were having great matches or were put in a position to have great matches. His tag run with Booker was great and they had a great in ring feud with Jericho and Christian. Look at his feud with Sheamus in ECW that established Sheamus in WWE. Then of course the Rhodes Bros tag run, of which he was without a doubt the star.

Mate, when he was on the show with R-Truth for months and months it was still a sh*t show - if not even sh*ttier. I would agree that he could be utilised better, but the fact they don't deem him good enough to even make the show, or wrestle in matches longer than a few minute squashes, tells you what they really think of him. And my previous post was saying he was never an outstanding character - I think that's fair.

As regards his wrestling ability, again the issue was whether or not he was an outstanding wrestler, but you seem to be trying to downplay that by shifting the conversation to whether or not he was a "great professional wrestler".

I went through all of 1993's WCW PPVs a few years back and documented it at the time in one of the forum threads, and I would definitely not describe him as an outstanding wrestler. I'd personally say he was a good wrestler who at times could be very good, but definitely not outstanding and for a wrestler to be a Hall of Famer surely we want them to be better than great in some category.

I'm not sure how having good matches with Hunter is a feather in his cap. It's not like HHH was a bad wrestler and Hunter went on to have much better matches. Saying the Attitude Era is a write off, with respect that is really a cop out. Even if we move past the Attitude Era, I can't think of any outstanding matches he had.

I enjoyed the run with Booker but I don't think any of their feuds were great or classics. The matches with Sheamus had very little to do with the career Sheamus has since had, and even if they did, I'm not sure why that would be a feather in his cap either. I will agree that the run with Cody (initially) and the match with the Shield was great, but there's nothing here that makes me see this as a run that would get him into a Hall of Fame outside the WWE one. The WWE were seemingly not too impressed either since they refused to give the men their long talked about match at Mania.

My take for clarification - and to "be taken seriously" :pac: - is that Goldust was an edgy character who at times had some good matches and who deserves credit for his longevity, but the positives have to be taken into consideration with the negatives. The wrestling ability was never outstanding, he was never a major draw, he was never deemed good enough for a main event run, he was involved in some garbage TV, and he has been noticeabley phased out in recent years.

I don't want to give the impression I think he's a bad wrestler or someone who deserves only criticism. That's not the case. But to be considered a Hall of Famer I think the criteria should be deliberately tough and strict, otherwise the special quality of it gets diluted when everyone gets in for their pat on the back moment - which is precisely the problem with the WWE one.

leggo

MNG, your last post was by far your best on this debate, why didn't you lead with the more rational, balanced view and save yourself so much grief?! :pac:

My point is: okay, so have you ever seen the film Split? In it, James McAvoy delivers one of the finest acting performances I've ever seen, at one stage doing one uncut scene where he switches into like 13 different characters without missing a beat. As acting jobs go, it's a masterpiece. But the film itself is a mess: it can't decide whether it wants to be funny or dramatic, high brow or campy, the last act ruins anything intriguing the first two had built up by adding a pointless supernatural element, the characters act illogically and the story just doesn't make sense (especially when it comes together). It did not win awards, nor did it deserve to, and it was rightfully mocked by many. But just because it's a bad film doesn't mean that it takes anything away from James McAvoy's performance. His acting is so on-point it makes a horrible film mediocre. He can't make it a great movie, there are too many elements working against it to do so, but he makes you unable to leave saying, "I didn't completely hate that, even though I should."

That's Goldust. I'm not saying that he's put together masterpieces, but even when he's given absolute crap, it's at least watchable because you're watching a guy who commits to his character no matter how ridiculous the story is (the tourettes angle was Vince at his worst impulses, but Goldust made it funny and, somehow, as inoffensive as possible). If a bunch of newsletter subscribers made fun of the angles he did 20 years ago, that's fair enough, Goldie himself probably was in the back too. But it wasn't his job to come up with the angles and he did the best he could with it.

So when you say that a HOF candidate has to be a proven draw, or wrestle in the main event, or be a World Champion or whatever...well, to me (and I think several others), that shows a fundamental misunderstanding for what his job actually is: when he was saddled with the Goldust character and made it work, his card was written. He was never going to be World Champion with that gimmick, simple, in much the same way Doink The Clown could never be champ. His job was to be midcard fluff, something different to keep the rest of the show interesting and varied, and because he did that so well he ensured that he could never be the things you list as essential for a prototypical HOF candidate.

Then you take tenure into account: do you understand how hard and rare it is for Goldust to not only still be wrestling regularly, much less ALIVE once you consider his addiction issues and how so many of his peers turned out? Seriously, look through some of the rosters he's been on and ask yourself how many guys on there are still active, much less alive. He's still wrestling 3-4 times a week, including on television. He could be plugged into a programme at any stage and we'd accept it.

Now look at body of work: Goldust's career isn't Ric Flair's, but it tells a very real story of wrestling. He's the guy who got every brainfart of Vince McMahon's over the past 20 years and turned many of them into gold. The likes of the aforementioned tourettes angle, the Roddy Piper stuff (that many credit with starting the Attitude Era style of content), the edgy stuff with Marlena, the Booker-T tag-team, the Cody Rhodes team, even the recent R-Truth feud...this is all the kind of stuff that's designed to fail and we've seen fail with other guys time and time again. Yet we remember all of it and most of us remember it fondly. His ability to evolve his character over such a long period of time and keep it relevant to the ever-changing times and demands of WWE is up there with Undertaker, Kane and...who else? Same goes with ring work: he started out when WWE was very punch, kick, brawl. Then it became more tackle, drop down, hiptoss. Now they have a more indie flavour. Goldust has managed to roll with all of this and keep up with whoever he feuded. When they looked like they were putting him with Balor a few weeks back, I thought "Alright, I'm not mad! Let's see them wrestle 15 minutes at a PPV, that could actually be good with Goldust's experience and Finn's Balorness!"

If you're judging being a HOF candidate on those extremely arbitrary guidelines that you've set, no Goldust doesn't qualify. But that's you saying that. Others feel differently, and when you judge it based on the question of, "Does a man whose done what is asked of him well over a long period of time deserve to be commended for that?" Then it's a no brainer!

LeeJM

Thats the best post I have ever seen on this forum. Could not agree anymore and certainly could not say it any better.

Agent Coulson

Ok ok another one

Will/should/does he deserve to go in for all his years in the WWF/E in front and behind the scenes.


Should Steve Lombardi get a spot?


I would say myself he should but not in a wrestling capacity.

But as of now there isn't a wing for those who fit that bill so he more than likely will never get in.

Omackeral

Random fact; Gillberg could have become a double champion on two different occasions. He was Light Heavyweight Champion when he challenged for both the European and WWF Titles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b8pYhEOqjE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZuApUqG55M

Mr.Nice Guy

I agree with LeeJM that was an excellent post from leggo.

I was puzzled why so many were high on Goldust going in to a HoF and I genuinely couldn't see an argument for it, but credit to leggo that is the best argument I have heard yet. I would still be of the view that the criteria needs to be kept uber strict and I would say the same about all Hall of Fames, football ones, rugby, etc. But respect to you for an impassioned and quality argument.

Head over to the Around the Horn thread and sign up if you haven't already as you would be a welcome addition there. (Hopefully in the opposite end of the draw to me for my sake. )

Angron

I never expected Goldust to be such a divisive character :pac:

A Brad Maddox Guy

But.... I liked Split :pac:

sky88

im really enjoying drew gulak and aiden english at the minute. theyve been given gimmicks sound and tbh are a bit but they are given it there all and there highly entertaining and both are good in the ring.

leggo

sky88 wrote: »

im really enjoying drew gulak and aiden english at the minute. theyve been given gimmicks sound and tbh are a bit but they are given it there all and there highly entertaining and both are good in the ring.

Glad to know I'm not the only one walking around singing, "It's Rusev daaaaayyy..." in my head constantly.

Pentecost

“Unleashing your warrior” sounds decidedly inappropriate outside of certain circumstances.

CastorTroy

I know the reason, but I don't like the pink ropes. And I know it's been said before, but I don't like how heels wear pins or tshirts supporting charities.

As for Aiden English, I remember him coming to the ring singing a version of "Everyone's a Hero" from Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog

gerrybbadd

I hate Lana. Can't stand her.

She ruined herself with plastic surgery, was much hotter pre-augmentation. But since she's ruined herself, she cannot stop flaunting on social media. It's done in a "look at me" kind of way. Now, i know the likes of Nikki Bella is the same, but I don't find her to be as offensive for some reason - can't quite put my finger on it.

x43r0

gerrybbadd wrote: »

I hate Lana. Can't stand her.

She ruined herself with plastic surgery, was much hotter pre-augmentation. But since she's ruined herself, she cannot stop flaunting on social media. It's done in a "look at me" kind of way. Now, i know the likes of Nikki Bella is the same, but I don't find her to be as offensive for some reason - can't quite put my finger on it.

Did she go under the knife recently? I haven't been paying much attention to her lately