Here you go Ernie.....work some magic.

When are we getting the next person to vote for, and if everyone's going to get their underpants in a bunch, I'll vote yes no matter who the next candidate is.

Who gets to decide who is nominated? Because I think we should skip the bullshit and just put Flair and Hogan in now and move on from there. Sammartino was a good pick, I personally would have put Brody in, but hey, I guess it was democratic.

Also, this may have been covered, but can someone put what we're supposed to be evaluating about the performer on here? Because I would put someone like Pillman in for his overall ring performance and character work, but also put someone like Andre or Dusty Rhodes in for impact on bidness.

You know my list, baby.

How about everyone involved gets to pick a candidate.

I say leave it up to Ernie to make the nominations. He's done a good job thus far in sparking conversation. That way we don't get too broad of a spectrum to start out.

Should we come up wth some hard criteria that we expect out of our Hall members? Maybe a rating system or something?

I'd be all for it......but we won't be able to agree on anything.

Here's my proposal:

Ernie makes a nomination. Let's just say it's Hogan. Each voter posts his own evaluation based on this list:

"Overness" - What kind of crowd response did the nominee get?
In-ring ability - Work rate, or ability to produce memorable matches.
Promos - I guess it's important.
Position on card - Since titles are props, card placement may be a better judge
of ability to draw.
Misc. - This could be what ever you want to add, look, charisma, innovations,
whatever.

You rate each category 1-10 and if the combined score is 35 or more, you vote yes.

So my rating for Hogan would be:

Overness - 10
In-ring ability - 4
Promos - 7
Position on card - 10
Misc. - 8

Total: 39, so I would vote yes for Hogan.

That's all fine and dandy WMD, but I don't think that we would be able to do that fairly.

Why not? It's still up to each voter to assign ratings in each category and to post his ratings. Then we'd know why or why not each person voted how they did. I think it would stir more conversation, because you could look at my ratings and say, " You only gave Hogan a 4 for in-ring? You're crazy". I think it'd work.

Ric Flair is not eligible for being nominated yet because he is not retired and I'd consider him full-time with WWE. Hogan is eligible because he wrestles only a handful of times a year, if that.

I'll post the third nominee in a minute. Feel free to PM requests for future nominations, after all, I nominated Bruiser Brody because WMD suggested him.

Oh no, I like the system. Your just assuming that "some" people here know WAY more than they do. That being the reason why I don't think this would be the best idea to go by doing this. I would rather have a good discussion going, than people bitching about points, etc.

Good point. That Brody thread would have been empty if people would have actually had to post reasons for their vote.

Yeah, I do see your point. I just added a poll for Sting, so why don't we start using the system there and hope that the others pick up on it.

I know it was hypothetical, but a 4 out of 10 for Hogan? Come on... in his prime, he could probably wrestle circles around all the hosses he was thrown against. I would say 6 out of 10, which would be a "C". If we're talking past his prime... then yeah, 4 "D" sounds right.

I like the scale though, and didn't even notice this topic was here. Silly old me...

It was hypothetical, but Hogan sucked in the ring. Which Hoss could he wreslte circles around? Bam Bam Bigelow...Vader? I think not. 4 may have been generous. But DK is right. This is exactly why my scoring system is not a good idea. It's not a bad guide if you're trying do decide on which way to vote though.

He was a good wrestler in his prime, not Benoit, but not bad. I haven't seen a lot, but his AWA stuff isn't that bad. He was trained by Hiro Matsuda and a lot of his trainees went on to be big names, despite some opinions on those wrestlers. ;) And he was IWPG Champion. ...Even if by accident. :lol:

I'd argee with giving Hogan a 6 for workrate. I doubt there are many people that could build a match as well as Hogan. His *** matches really build up during his 80s run in the WWF. He had some excellent brawls.

Example of opponents Hogan had from his 1984-90 run...

King Kong Bundy = Sucked
One Man Gang = Sucked
John Tenta = I'm sorry he's ill, but he sucked
Andr the Giant = 1987-1990? Horrible
Big John Studd = Sucked.

Non-Hosses:
Ed Leslie (1984-85) = Sucked.
Harley Race (1987-88) = Horribly past his prime and way too slow and dull for the WWF.
Dino Bravo = Ultra Sucked.
Zeus = They were tag matches, but some of the worst ever.
Warrior = Complete Carry Job at Wrestlemania VI

Leslie wasn't that bad until the..... whatever accident it was that ruined his inring ability. One Man Gang was pretty carriable.

I liked OMG and his Akeem gimmick, but I can't remember a match he's had that stood out as good. Ed Leslie... carriable by a worker far better than him or in matches that are 4-5 minutes at the most, but very very limited.

Um....he was probably a better worker at that time though that most of the roster until the injury. Plus, he was a better bumper than ANYONE in the company except for a small few as well.

Opinions may vary... It just seemed like he was too methodical in all of his matches to keep fans interested in his matches when not versus people more over than Jesus.

It was more the fanbase was too stupid to appreicate Race at the time. The Rock N Roll Wrestling fanbase wasn't really made up of many wrestling fans.

I didn't say his style was ideal for the WWF 80's time period, but that doesn't change how good of a worker he was at the time.

May I suggest that Rowe start a Hall of Fame thread that gets pinned. There he'd add pictures and the bio of those we induct into the Hall.

I think that's a good idea. Definitely when we get the site, we need to have a full on hall of of fame.

There is already one, it is in the Fantasy Folder. I'll move it over here.

Cool, I say only posts with pictures of who gets in be allowed in there from Rowe as well.

Right now my plan is to post pics of inductees in the very first post and just edit the entry whenever someone new gets inducted.

Below the HOF list there is an Honorable mentions list for those who did not get voted in. I don't plan on posting pics of those people and right now the only honorable mention is Bruiser Brody.

I think a cool idea is for everyone who contributes to the voting to put comments in for why the person should be in the HoF. I know... bad idea.

Eh, post anything you'd like in it, hopefully WMD will pin the new thread soon.

Done. The only thing I ask is that we keep the discussion out of that thread. We've got plenty of place to discuss our HOF, so for now, let's leave it as an induction thread only. Is that cool with everyone?

Sounds good to me. If you close the thread, will I still be able to edit the first entry?

I'm not gonna close it. I'll just ask that only inductions go in that thread. I fanything else is there, I'll delete it.

Hehe, sounds good. I just know someone will eventually try posting other stuff in it :)

If by "someone" you mean "Scrooge", you are probably right. :D

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe :rolleyes:

I was also thinking of posters who show up once in a long while and may not be so familiar with some rules. B)

WRONG~! I post where I feel like it, and follow the guidelines. (posts in closed topic) Why won't my post go through?!