WWE Hall Of Fame 2021

LineOfBeauty

Blue_Dabadee wrote: »

I thought Molly Holly had a fun run with WWE. I still remember all of her Mighty Molly skits, she can do comedy very well unlike most wrestlers today.

While Trish and Lita main focus of the division, she was workhorse of the division.

She was even committed to shaving her head to get a spot on WrestleMania card.

She could of had a longer run with company but she did not like the direction of division at the time.

Dude we're talking about a HOF candidacy. If the criteria were anything other than "Vince doesn't hate her" then there's no way she'd get into a HOF. You wouldn't even consider her.

"she did comedy well" every single person on the roster does comedy! Every single diva on the roster has been in at least 1 comedy feud in their run.

What qualifies her as a workhorse other than being less pushed and less talented in the ring than like half of the women's roster during her time there? Unless "workhorse" is code for most unremarkable woman on the roster, I don't know what you're getting at with this.

Ye and fair play, it was the only way she was ever going to get on a Wrestlemania card.

Delighted Molly got in, one of my all time favourites and one of the few people who could carry Trish in a match and make her look like a star.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Delighted Molly got in, one of my all time favourites and one of the few people who could carry Trish in a match and make her look like a star.

"one of the few", Trish had good matches in that time with Lita, Victoria, Jazz and Gail Kim in that time period. Literally the half of the roster that wasn't your Torrie Wilsons, Stacy Keiblers, Christy hemme's of the world.

Anyway I'm now going to stop talking about Molly Holly but I think I now understand why Vince has a HOF the way it's done. Everyone gets in, everyone is the same, everyone is happy.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

"one of the few", Trish had good matches in that time with Lita, Victoria, Jazz and Gail Kim in that time period. Literally the half of the roster that wasn't your Torrie Wilsons, Stacy Keiblers, Christy hemme's of the world.

Anyway I'm now going to stop talking about Molly Holly but I think I now understand why Vince has a HOF the way it's done. Everyone gets in, everyone is the same, everyone is happy.

Yes, and all of those women should be and will be in the HoF.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, and all of those women should be and will be in the HoF.

So Aristotle can I ask you, what women from that time period should NOT be in the HOF in your opinion?

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So Aristotle can I ask you, what women from that time period should NOT be in the HOF in your opinion?

Well I can't remember them. If I can name a female wrestler from 20 years ago, then it's likely because they stood out as memorable.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I can't remember them. If I can name a female wrestler from 20 years ago, then it's likely because they stood out as memorable.

Dude you can name all of them! There was like 10 of them. You're telling me that from this roster of like 10 or 11 women you'd put in all the ones you can name, which is all of them! Trish, Lita, Jazz, Ivory, Stacy, Torrie, Terri, Sable, Jazz, Victoria, Gail Kim, Dawn Marie, Jacqueline, Sable. You remember all of them, should they all be in the HOF?

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Dude you can name all of them! There was like 10 of them. You're telling me that from this roster of like 10 or 11 women you'd put in all the ones you can name, which is all of them! Trish, Lita, Jazz, Ivory, Stacy, Torrie, Terri, Sable, Jazz, Victoria, Gail Kim, Dawn Marie, Jacqueline, Sable. You remember all of them, should they all be in the HOF?

Yes. The only one who would be a maybe is Dawn Marie (and perhaps Jazz, I think I got her mixed up with Jacqueline), but all of the others I would put in the HoF for sure. A total of ~10 women from the Attitude Era being in the HoF doesn't sound like too many to me.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. The only one who would be a maybe is Dawn Marie (and perhaps Jazz, I think I got her mixed up with Jacqueline), but all of the others I would put in the HoF for sure. A total of ~10 women from the Attitude Era being in the HoF doesn't sound like too many to me.

It's the post Attitude Era but whatever. An era that is maligned by current standards because the female wrestlers had limited storylines, were placed in mainly storytelling devices for the male wrestlers and whose matches often were regarded as "piss breaks" by the live crowd and were placed as such on cards by WWE booking. You're telling me they should all be in a functioning HOF? In that case, anyone above the rank of jobber on the male side should also be in the HOF.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

It's the post Attitude Era but whatever. An era that is maligned by current standards because the female wrestlers had limited storylines, were placed in mainly storytelling devices for the male wrestlers and whose matches often were regarded as "piss breaks" by the live crowd and were placed as such on cards by WWE booking. You're telling me they should all be in a functioning HOF? In that case, anyone above the rank of jobber on the male side should also be in the HOF.

It's also the Attitude Era. Many of those women you listed were already stars by 2002.

And no, your false equivalence doesn't work as I cannot remember the names of jobbers from 20 years ago. These women paved the way for the next generation, male jobbers did not.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

It's also the Attitude Era. Many of those women you listed were already stars by 2002.

And no, your false equivalence doesn't work as I cannot remember the names of jobbers from 20 years ago. These women paved the way for the next generation, male jobbers did not.

I mean that was a snapshot of the roster that I took in 2003 (probably the peak of Holly's run) but again, whatever.

Dude I said anyone above the rank of jobber. Holly, like it or not, was a lower mid card act her entire WWE run. Point me to main events. Point me to semi main events. Even point me to weekly show main events. I'll even go as low as to ask how many opening quarter segments or top of the hour quarter segments was she actually in during her time in WWE? (you know, the key drawing quarters) and I'd suspect very few. So ye, her HOF candidacy (like one with actual criteria) has all the substance of Rene Dupree, Rico, Chuck Palumbo and apparently even less than Carmella.

"paving the way" isn't an argument unless you can actually back it up. And, going by your line of thinking, every single woman whose ever set foot in WWE has "paved the way."

Again, it's the WWE HOF, I'm the mark for even getting worked up about it. Everyone gets in, everyone's the same, everyone's happy.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I mean that was a snapshot of the roster that I took in 2003 (probably the peak of Holly's run) but again, whatever.

Dude I said anyone above the rank of jobber. Holly, like it or not, was a lower mid card act her entire WWE run. Point me to main events. Point me to semi main events. Even point me to weekly show main events. I'll even go as low as to ask how many opening quarter segments or top of the hour quarter segments was she actually in during her time in WWE? (you know, the key drawing quarters) and I'd suspect very few. So ye, her HOF candidacy (like one with actual criteria) has all the substance of Rene Dupree, Rico, Chuck Palumbo and apparently even less than Carmella.

"paving the way" isn't an argument unless you can actually back it up. And, going by your line of thinking, every single woman whose ever set foot in WWE has "paved the way."

Again, it's the WWE HOF, I'm the mark for even getting worked up about it. Everyone gets in, everyone's the same, everyone's happy.

I don't need to point you to any main events, world title runs etc. because I believe midcarders totally deserve to be in the HoF. The British Bulldog, Mr. Perfect, Big Boss Man, Owen Hart, Raven, Rick Rude, Bam Bam Bigelow, Jim Duggan etc. to name but a few all deserve to be in the HoF.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't need to point you to any main events, world title runs etc. because I believe midcarders totally deserve to be in the HoF. The British Bulldog, Mr. Perfect, Big Boss Man, Owen Hart, Raven, Rick Rude, Bam Bam Bigelow, Jim Duggan etc. to name but a few all deserve to be in the HoF.

At least with some of those you can point to actually historically significant matches and you can equate some drawing credence to them. Molly Holly has literally neither of those things.

And obviously we're working off very different criteria for what we would consider to be HOF (not WWE) worthy. You seem to be in the line of thinking "anyone I can remember" and I'm thinking more along the lines of a WON HOF (which, before the usual suspects jump in, isn't perfect) but at least the candidates have to be justified under a set of criteria and the selection is strict. I'd rather that, where the selection is arguably too strict, compared to a case where it doesn't matter in the slightest because everyone goes in anyway.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

At least with some of those you can point to actually historically significant matches and you can equate some drawing credence to them. Molly Holly has literally neither of those things.

And obviously we're working off very different criteria for what we would consider to be HOF (not WWE) worthy. You seem to be in the line of thinking "anyone I can remember" and I'm thinking more along the lines of a WON HOF (which, before the usual suspects jump in, isn't perfect) but at least the candidates have to be justified under a set of criteria and the selection is strict. I'd rather that, where the selection is arguably too strict, compared to a case where it doesn't matter in the slightest because everyone goes in anyway.

No, I am not in the line of thinking "Molly should go in the HoF because I can remember her". I am instead in the line of thinking "when I think back, I remember that I was entertained a lot by Molly, both in terms of her technical wrestling and her character arcs".

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I am not in the line of thinking "Molly should go in the HoF because I can remember her". I am instead in the line of thinking "when I think back, I remember that I was entertained a lot by Molly, both in terms of her technical wrestling and her character arcs".

So the criteria for the HOF should be "people some fans enjoyed for their technical wrestling and story arcs"? In that case, Jamie Noble is a far stronger HOF shout, should he go in? Or Chad Gable?

I don't mean to be horrible, but if you're discussing a HOF with actual criteria nobody that you've mentioned would be in the thing. But again, I suspect I've thought more about Molly Holly going into the HOF than they have so that's pretty dumb.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So the criteria for the HOF should be "people some fans enjoyed for their technical wrestling and story arcs"? In that case, Jamie Noble is a far stronger HOF shout, should he go in? Or Chad Gable?

I don't mean to be horrible, but if you're discussing a HOF with actual criteria nobody that you've mentioned would be in the thing. But again, I suspect I've thought more about Molly Holly going into the HOF than they have so that's pretty dumb.

No. Jamie Noble does not stand out to me as someone I remember being particularly noteworthy for his technical abilities compared to other male wresters, nor do I remember him having noticeable character arcs.

Chad Gable is a good technical wrestler, but whether I will look back 15-20 years from when he retires and remember how entertained I was by his wrestling and characters I cannot currently tell you.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

No. Jamie Noble does not stand out to me as someone I remember being particularly noteworthy for his technical abilities compared to other male wresters, nor do I remember him having noticeable character arcs.

Chad Gable is a good technical wrestler, but whether I will look back 15-20 years from when he retires and remember how entertained I was by his wrestling and characters I cannot currently tell you.

Dude Noble is so highly thought of he's one of their most prominent road agents right now! For all the talk of Molly Holly's "inlfuence" Jamie Noble is a far more influential guy to that current WWE roster. And he's considered one of the best technical guys of his era, particularly following his run as ROH World Champion near the peak of the promotion.

These aren't the criteria for a HOF, this is a list of wrestlers you like or don't like. It's a different thing dude.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Dude Noble is so highly thought of he's one of their most prominent road agents right now! For all the talk of Molly Holly's "inlfuence" Jamie Noble is a far more influential guy to that current WWE roster. And he's considered one of the best technical guys of his era, particularly following his run as ROH World Champion near the peak of the promotion.

These aren't the criteria for a HOF, this is a list of wrestlers you like or don't like. It's a different thing dude.

Yes I am aware of Jamie's current employment status.

And he is considered one of the best technical wrestlers of his era by who? What are your sources?

And no, this is not a list of wrestlers I do or do not like. There are plenty of wrestlers I like who I believe should not be in the HoF, and there plenty of wrestlers who I dislike who I believe should be in the HoF.

Let me make is easier for you. For me, the main criteria for going into the HoF is that the majority of wrestling fans believe that that person deserves to be in the HoF and want that person to be in the HoF. I can easily find evidence that suggests that is true, e.g. here. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

daithi1989

If I can jump in here...

I think the fact Molly is the first name announced is the issue I have with this; I dont mind her being inducted as such (I dont really mind one way or another who gets inducted!), but as the first announced its odd.

If she was 4-5th inductee announced, I would have thought “yea, she was grand back in the day”.. But not as the first one.. Does seem a strange one!

...and I’ll jump out again. As you were!

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I am aware of Jamie's current employment status.

And he is considered one of the best technical wrestlers of his era by who? What are your sources?

And no, this is not a list of wrestlers I do or do not like. There are plenty of wrestlers I like who I believe should not be in the HoF, and there plenty of wrestlers who I dislike who I believe should be in the HoF.

Let me make is easier for you. For me, the main criteria for going into the HoF is that the majority of wrestling fans believe that that person deserves to be in the HoF and want that person to be in the HoF. I can easily find evidence that suggests that is true, e.g. here. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

The same ones that consider Molly Holly a workhorse I'd say.

Except you can literally go to Ring of Honor's OTT service and watch his matches and then you can find a Molly Holly match of comparable quality (spoilers, you wont).

Dude I'm not clicking on a Squared Circle Link that brings me to a WWE's The Bump video, I can't imagine a worse place on the internet.

That criteria is silly. And it's why the WWE HOF means nothing. Because everyone gets in! BTW the joke here is that Jamie Noble is a lock to go into the WWE HOF. In sports HOF's, you know, HOF's with criteria, if you don't fulfil the criteria you don't go in!

Even by their own silly HOF standards, Holly is a weak choice. Even with the lowest of low bars, nobody can justify her selection other than "she's nice and people like her"

Nobody can name me 3 memorable Holly matches
Nobody can give me an example of her drawing record
Nobody can give me any examples of even a weekly show she main evented. Like that's how low a bar I've set and she still doesn't pass it
People keep telling me about "paving the way" or "workhorse" or whatever else but I've gone through the roster from that time and she's in the bottom half of workers I'd imagine for most people and was one of the least pushed acts in the division.

In closing, Carmella should be going into the HOF this year, not Molly Holly.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

The same ones that consider Molly Holly a workhorse I'd say.

Except you can literally go to Ring of Honor's OTT service and watch his matches and then you can find a Molly Holly match of comparable quality (spoilers, you wont).

Dude I'm not clicking on a Squared Circle Link that brings me to a WWE's The Bump video, I can't imagine a worse place on the internet.

That criteria is silly. And it's why the WWE HOF means nothing. Because everyone gets in! BTW the joke here is that Jamie Noble is a lock to go into the WWE HOF. In sports HOF's, you know, HOF's with criteria, if you don't fulfil the criteria you don't go in!

Even by their own silly HOF standards, Holly is a weak choice. Even with the lowest of low bars, nobody can justify her selection other than "she's nice and people like her"

Nobody can name me 3 memorable Holly matches
Nobody can give me an example of her drawing record
Nobody can give me any examples of even a weekly show she main evented. Like that's how low a bar I've set and she still doesn't pass it
People keep telling me about "paving the way" or "workhorse" or whatever else but I've gone through the roster from that time and she's in the bottom half of workers I'd imagine for most people and was one of the least pushed acts in the division.

In closing, Carmella should be going into the HOF this year, not Molly Holly.

There is no video in my link.

I asked you two questions, both of which was to provide evidence about your "facts", and you did neither. Likely because you are wrong in both cases because such evidence does not exist.

Inductees into ceremonies such as this are typically decided in one of two ways. Either by the audience, i.e. WWE fans in this case, or by experts, e.g. past wrestlers or inductees. Unless you can provide evidence that suggests that even one of these two groups believes that Molly does not deserve her spot, then she deserves to go into the HoF.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no video in my link.

I asked you two questions, both of which was to provide evidence about your "facts", and you did neither. Likely because you are wrong in both cases because such evidence does not exist.

Inductees into ceremonies such as this are typically decided in one of two ways. Either by the audience, i.e. WWE fans in this case, or by experts, e.g. past wrestlers or inductees. Unless you can provide evidence that suggests that even one of these two groups believes that Molly does not deserve her spot, then she deserves to go into the HoF.

Dude who starts an argument with "prove that SHOULDN'T be the case"? I think each person should be obliged by law to walk around with a parrot on each shoulder when they walk around in public. Prove to me why that SHOULDN'T be the case. By the way, that last criteria with experts and ex wrestlers, we've already got that HOF in wrestling dude. And you're lower mid card acts from WWE 20 years ago don't sniff it.

And guy I've asked the same stupid questions the entire way through the thread and we're 4 pages in and nobody can recommend me a single Holly match worth watching (not 1, let alone 3) or give me just 1 example of her drawing. Like I've set the bar an inch off the ground for you guys. I'm not even being horrible.

Because, if I was being horrible, I'd say none of that dopey roster belongs anywhere near a proper HOF, not Stratus, not Lita, not Victoria, not Ivory. None of these dumb mid card acts with barely a notable performance between them and not a draw among them deserve to sniff a proper HOF with proper pro wrestlers in it. Proper female wrestlers who are every bit as good as the men in it, proper female wrestlers who drew thousands and thousands of fans on their own, proper female wrestlers whose influence is still felt to this day in pro wrestling because of their wrestling. And, if I was being really horrible, I'd tell you the horrible truth, which is that the only female wrestler from WWE in the last 20 years who even deserves consideration for a proper HOF is Ronda Rousey.

But I'm not going to be horrible, I'm trying to be nice.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Dude who starts an argument with "prove that SHOULDN'T be the case"? I think each person should be obliged by law to walk around with a parrot on each shoulder when they walk around in public. Prove to me why that SHOULDN'T be the case.

I asked you to show evidence that Jamie Noble was considered one of the best technical wrestlers of his era. That does not fall into that category, and yet you still ignored that request.

As for my second request, if a movie is nominated for a Best Picture Oscar but many people believe it shouldn't be, you can easily find many articles, discussions etc. of people complaining that that movie got that nomination. Likewise, if someone does not deserve a HOF spot, you should easily be able to find similar sources. You can't do that because she does deserve her spot, and wrestlers and wrestling fans alike agree.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

By the way, that last criteria with experts and ex wrestlers, we've already got that HOF in wrestling dude. And you're lower mid card acts from WWE 20 years ago don't sniff it.

If you are referring to the WON HoF, that is a terrible comparison. The WON HoF regularly inducts active wrestlers and therefore has a much larger pool to choose from. You are not comparing like with like.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked you to show evidence that Jamie Noble was considered one of the best technical wrestlers of his era. That does not fall into that category, and yet you still ignored that request.

As for my second request, if a movie is nominated for a Best Picture Oscar but many people believe it shouldn't be, you can easily find many articles, discussions etc. of people complaining that that movie got that nomination. Likewise, if someone does not deserve a HOF spot, you should easily be able to find similar sources. You can't do that because she does deserve her spot, and wrestlers and wrestling fans alike agree.



If you are referring to the WON HoF, that is a terrible comparison. The WON HoF regularly inducts active wrestlers and therefore has a much larger pool to choose from. You are not comparing like with like.

You mean aside from the fact that WWE currently employ him to work with wrestlers on constructing their matches? If that's not proof enough, you can literally go and watch his matches in ROH (Honor club) or WWE (WWE Network). If you want to search for referrals you can Google but why look for the lip service when the proof is in the pudding. He was the ROH World Champion at a time when being ROH World Champion was very special and the title was incredibly protected. He's the guy who lost the belt to Danielson to kick off Dragon's legendary ROH World Title reign.

lol dude I don't know what Facebook groups you lurk but God if Holly is considered an acceptable pick for a HOF you need to find new groups. End of the day, who cares, it's the WWE HOF where literal jobbers are grand choices. But man saying "they should be in the HOF because my Facebook group says so" is bad mate.

And the last point is really odd. Are you saying all WWE inductees are active wrestlers? Was Bruno Sammartino seriously still lacing up the boots in 2013? I must've missed that.

At this point I just feel bad.

JP Liz V1

Did Molly train some of the current or past crop as a lot mention her as inspirational etc.,

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

You mean aside from the fact that WWE currently employ him to work with wrestlers on constructing their matches? If that's not proof enough, you can literally go and watch his matches in ROH (Honor club) or WWE (WWE Network). If you want to search for referrals you can Google but why look for the lip service when the proof is in the pudding. He was the ROH World Champion at a time when being ROH World Champion was very special and the title was incredibly protected. He's the guy who lost the belt to Danielson to kick off Dragon's legendary ROH World Title reign.

None of that answers my question. You said he is considered to be one of the best technical wrestlers of his era. I asked you who said this? Because if it's just you then no, that does not make him one of most technical wrestlers of his era. That just makes it your opinion. And, unless you provide some sources, it is not an opinion shared by many.

Also, the fact that you are suggesting that him being employed to work with WWE wrestlers indicates that he was one of the best technical wrestlers of his era is absolutely ludicrous and delusional. Have a look at other wrestlers who were also hired for similar positions, and tell me if they are all considered good technical wrestlers let alone one of the best of their generation.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

lol dude I don't know what Facebook groups you lurk but God if Holly is considered an acceptable pick for a HOF you need to find new groups. End of the day, who cares, it's the WWE HOF where literal jobbers are grand choices. But man saying "they should be in the HOF because my Facebook group says so" is bad mate.

I am not on Facebook. And you care, which is why you are replying. The fact that the only thing you can do is make up stuff about me demonstrates that you have absolutely no valid argument.

Pick out any wrestling discussion forum and see what the overwhelming opinion is. You might find out that your opinion is in the severe minority.

You have been asked 5 or 6 times now to provide sources to either of your claims. Instead of doing so, you have deflected with waffle. Because no such sources exist. Because you are wrong.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

And the last point is really odd. Are you saying all WWE inductees are active wrestlers? Was Bruno Sammartino seriously still lacing up the boots in 2013? I must've missed that.

At this point I just feel bad.

Wow, you suffer from so much bias that you read the complete opposite of what I said. Impressive.

There are many active wrestlers in the WON HoF (Daniel Bryan, Lesnar, Omega etc.). The WWE HoF only tends to only induct retired wrestlers. Therefore, there is a smaller pool of people who are likely to go into the WWE HoF, and that is without also considering the fact that the WWE HoF is more likely to induct wrestlers who worked for them at some point for obvious reasons.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

At this point I just feel bad.

You certainly should. You should probably slow down and read the questions that you are asked properly less you want to embarrass yourself some more. While you're at it, provide sources for your "facts". Otherwise, they are just opinions.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

None of that answers my question. You said he is considered to be one of the best technical wrestlers of his era. I asked you who said this? Because if it's just you then no, that does not make him one of most technical wrestlers of his era. That just makes it your opinion. And, unless you provide some sources, it is not an opinion shared by many.

Also, the fact that you are suggesting that him being employed to work with WWE wrestlers indicates that he was one of the best technical wrestlers of his era is absolutely ludicrous and delusional. Have a look at other wrestlers who were also hired for similar positions, and tell me if they are all considered good technical wrestlers let alone one of the best of their generation.



I am not on Facebook. And you care, which is why you are replying. The fact that the only thing you can do is make up stuff about me demonstrates that you have absolutely no valid argument.

Pick out any wrestling discussion forum and see what the overwhelming opinion is. You might find out that your opinion is in the severe minority.

You have been asked 5 or 6 times now to provide sources to either of your claims. Instead of doing so, you have deflected with waffle. Because no such sources exist. Because you are wrong.



Wow, you suffer from so much bias that you read the complete opposite of what I said. Impressive.

There are many active wrestlers in the WON HoF (Daniel Bryan, Lesnar, Omega etc.). The WWE HoF only tends to only induct retired wrestlers. Therefore, there is a smaller pool of people who are likely to go into the WWE HoF, and that is without also considering the fact that the WWE HoF is more likely to induct wrestlers who worked for them at some point for obvious reasons.



You certainly should. You should probably slow down and read the questions that you are asked properly less you want to embarrass yourself some more. While you're at it, provide sources for your "facts". Otherwise, they are just opinions.

OK, so actually watching his matches doesn't count. And his current job in WWE doesn't count towards that either. Honourable mentions list for Most Outstanding Wrestler 2005 in the WON Awards probably doesn't count either. So you're the expert on proving stuff, so here's an easy one, can you give me an example of what proof is there that say, Mick Foley is a great brawler?

You know what a road agent does, right? I mean, you get why they're in that role and why they choose who they choose ye?

Dude I don't care that she's going into the WWE HOF. Everyone is in the WWE HOF! Literally the only thing you have to do is have a run on TV for a few years, don't cross Vince and eventually you get into the WWE HOF. Now, the WON HOF, there's a HOF with criteria. So I'll throw you a question because now I'm curious, who from the WWE HOF do you think would get into the WON HOF using the WON criteria? Just curious.

Ye but those other forums that you've seen are really dumb. If you want I can point you in the right direction dude, it's one of the things I do for people.

I mean that "retired" rule is hardly set in stone but whatever, and the vast majority of WON inductees are retired or semi retired wrestlers or wrestling personalities upon induction. Infact, just looking at the two to me the difference doesn't look all that huge at all. But even if you take active workers out of the equation (which, btw there is actually criteria a wrestler has to meet before even getting on the ballot), and taking into account that WWE will only want wrestlers that have worked for them in the past, Molly Holly is still scraping the bottom of the barrel.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

OK, so actually watching his matches doesn't count. And his current job in WWE doesn't count towards that either. Honourable mentions list for Most Outstanding Wrestler 2005 in the WON Awards probably doesn't count either. So you're the expert on proving stuff, so here's an easy one, can you give me an example of what proof is there that say, Mick Foley is a great brawler?

You know what a road agent does, right? I mean, you get why they're in that role and why they choose who they choose ye?

OK, so I'm starting to think that it's the English language that's confusing you. Let me break it down even further for you with another example.

Let's say I said "Maradona is considered to be one of the greatest football players of all time". Now, what does that mean?

For start, does that sentence tell you whether I personally think that or not? No. Do you even know whether I think he is a good footballer or not from that sentence? No.

So what does that statement mean then? It means that the majority of football critics, the majority of football fans or both believe he is one of the greatest football players of all time.

Now, did I mention anywhere there what his accomplishments were? No. Did I say whether he went on to to be a football manger or not? No. Because it's completely irrelevant to the statement.

Now, apply that same logic to your statement of "Jamie Noble is considered to be one of the greatest technical wrestlers of his era" and hopefully you can see, all by yourself, that you're not make the slightest bit of sense.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Dude I don't care that she's going into the WWE HOF. Everyone is in the WWE HOF! Literally the only thing you have to do is have a run on TV for a few years, don't cross Vince and eventually you get into the WWE HOF.

Yes of course. That's why everyone who has ever done that is currently in the HoF, and people who have crossed Vince like Bret and Savage are not in the HoF. A very good, but ridiculously inaccurate, generalisation.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So I'll throw you a question because now I'm curious, who from the WWE HOF do you think would get into the WON HOF using the WON criteria? Just curious.

Ha, you actually have the nerve to ask me questions where you've completely ignored my questions about backing up your "facts" with something known as "evidence". I will gladly answer any of your questions once you have stopped avoiding answering mine.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

DYe but those other forums that you've seen are really dumb. If you want I can point you in the right direction dude, it's one of the things I do for people.

Oh so you do have links to "real" forums that contain threads where the majority of people think her induction is not deserved. Amazing! Well, ignore everything in this post and point me to such threads then!

No such threads exist because you are talking complete nonsense again.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I mean that "retired" rule is hardly set in stone but whatever

aka "Good point and you're completely right but I don't want to admit it."

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Infact, just looking at the two to me the difference doesn't look all that huge at all. But even if you take active workers out of the equation (which, btw there is actually criteria a wrestler has to meet before even getting on the ballot), and taking into account that WWE will only want wrestlers that have worked for them in the past, Molly Holly is still scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Oh great, you've done the math too! So list the people in the WON HoF who were retired when inducted, have a large affiliation with WWE, but who are not in the WWE HoF? It must be quite a large list if you're so upset by so many of them not being included in the WWE HoF!

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, so I'm starting to think that it's the English language that's confusing you. Let me break it down even further for you with another example.

Let's say I said "Maradona is considered to be one of the greatest football players of all time". Now, what does that mean?

For start, does that sentence tell you whether I personally think that or not? No. Do you even know whether I think he is a good footballer or not from that sentence? No.

So what does that statement mean then? It means that the majority of football critics, the majority of football fans or both believe he is one of the greatest football players of all time.

Now, did I mention anywhere there what his accomplishments were? No. Did I say whether he went on to to be a football manger or not? No. Because it's completely irrelevant to the statement.

Now, apply that same logic to your statement of "Jamie Noble is considered to be one of the greatest technical wrestlers of his era" and hopefully you can see, all by yourself, that you're not make the slightest bit of sense.



Yes of course. That's why everyone who has ever done that is currently in the HoF, and people who have crossed Vince like Bret and Savage are not in the HoF. A very good, but ridiculously inaccurate, generalisation.



Ha, you actually have the nerve to ask me questions where you've completely ignored my questions about backing up your "facts" with something known as "evidence". I will gladly answer any of your questions once you have stopped avoiding answering mine.



Oh so you do have links to "real" forums that contain threads where the majority of people think her induction is not deserved. Amazing! Well, ignore everything in this post and point me to such threads then!

No such threads exist because you are talking complete nonsense again.

aka "Good point and you're completely right but I don't want to admit it."



Oh great, you've done the math too! So list the people in the WON HoF who were retired when inducted, have a large affiliation with WWE, but who are not in the WWE HoF? It must be quite a large list if you're so upset by so many of them not being included in the WWE HoF!

Swear this must be a prank.
He got 104 votes for "Most Outstanding Wrestler" in 2005! You know, those awards fans, critics and wrestlers vote in? He was ROH World Champion. Let's do a quick recap of who the ROH World Champions were at that time. Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, CM Punk, James Gibson (Noble), Bryan Danielson, Homicide, Takeshi Morishima, and Nigel McGuinness are all 2 years either side of his run. I mean, do you see what I'm getting at here with those wrestlers?

Actually, have you seen any of Jamie Noble's work outside of WWE?

But look, I get it, when the WWE HOF is all you know then of course the Molly Holly induction doesn't seem out of the ordinary. It totally follows the trend of past inductees, I understand. If you're not coming at it from a sports POV, or with the criteria applied by the WON HOF then sure, why not have Molly Holly? But, for people who do know about that stuff, having a lower mid card act in your HOF comes across as dumb. You seem to like football, so I'll try that. For a lot of people, like me, the HOF should be reserved for footballers like Messi, Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, maybe even players like Zidane, Xavi, Platini. But, if you inducted players like Lee Cattermole into the same HOF as those other players I just mentioned, that HOF wouldn't mean very much at all would it? Because if Cattermole can get in, any footballer whose played in a top division could get in, couldn't they? And a HOF is supposed to actual be an exclusivity thing isn't it? If you let everyone in, it defeats the purpose of it right?

Also dude we're debating the WWE HOF, nobody is "right" other than what Vince McMahon says is right. My point is she's one of the weaker entrants to ever be put into it. If you're out here trying to tell me that Molly Holly belongs in a HOF with actual criteria, then you can't win an argument. As long as you're arguing in that direction, I could be in a coma and I'd still be "right"

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Swear this must be a prank.
He got 104 votes for "Most Outstanding Wrestler" in 2005! You know, those awards fans, critics and wrestlers vote in? He was ROH World Champion. Let's do a quick recap of who the ROH World Champions were at that time. Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, CM Punk, James Gibson (Noble), Bryan Danielson, Homicide, Takeshi Morishima, and Nigel McGuinness are all 2 years either side of his run. I mean, do you see what I'm getting at here with those wrestlers?

Actually, have you seen any of Jamie Noble's work outside of WWE?

Wow, so I actually ELI5'd why you're not making the slightest bit of sense, and it went in one ear and out the other and you instead replied by repeating the exact same thing again. Simply stunning.

And holy ****, you just listed the holders of a title as if that proves whether they are good technical wrestlers or not. That is beautiful. And you seem to have conveniently left out one or two names there. Is it possibly because your point makes no sense?

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But look, I get it, when the WWE HOF is all you know then of course the Molly Holly induction doesn't seem out of the ordinary. It totally follows the trend of past inductees, I understand. If you're not coming at it from a sports POV, or with the criteria applied by the WON HOF then sure, why not have Molly Holly? But, for people who do know about that stuff, having a lower mid card act in your HOF comes across as dumb. You seem to like football, so I'll try that. For a lot of people, like me, the HOF should be reserved for footballers like Messi, Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, maybe even players like Zidane, Xavi, Platini. But, if you inducted players like Lee Cattermole into the same HOF as those other players I just mentioned, that HOF wouldn't mean very much at all would it? Because if Cattermole can get in, any footballer whose played in a top division could get in, couldn't they? And a HOF is supposed to actual be an exclusivity thing isn't it? If you let everyone in, it defeats the purpose of it right?

Also dude we're debating the WWE HOF, nobody is "right" other than what Vince McMahon says is right. My point is she's one of the weaker entrants to ever be put into it. If you're out here trying to tell me that Molly Holly belongs in a HOF with actual criteria, then you can't win an argument. As long as you're arguing in that direction, I could be in a coma and I'd still be "right"

Why are you wasting your time typing all of this nonsense for? You said you know of non-dumb wrestling forums where there are people like yourself who will have given the correct opinion that Molly Holly does not deserve to be in the HoF. So what are you waiting for? Link it! You don't need to reply with anything except a link to such a thread and you can prove us all wrong!