WWE HOF; Prestige or Pointless?

[Lee]

Ok I got this idea from the Dean Malenko HOF thread, where the main argument that came out was that Malenko should be inducted because "wrestler A" was inducted. So that got me thinking about the HOF, but first a history lesson;

The first inductee was Andre the Giant in 1993 and was held annually until 1996, in that period 22 people were inducted. This went on hiatus until 2004 and has been held annually ever since. There has now been there have been a total of 68 inductees, with 60 members inducted individually and four tag teams inducted. Thirteen of these are posthumous.

In order to be in the HOF a wrestler generally needs to be on good terms with WWE hence no Randy Savage or they need to accept the offer, hence no Bruno Sammartino.

We have such greats as Hogan, Andre and Flair and some not so greats such as Pete Rose and Rocky Johnson (which was overshadowed by his son inducting him).

There are no requirements (other than good term) to get in, no bench marks, you don't have to have been a champion,heck you didn't even have to have been in the WWWF/WWF/WWE.

So the question I ask is this...Is the Hall of Fame prestigious or is it pointless?
Are too many people inducted?
Should there be 'wings?
Should there be a benchmark?

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm split on this. Obviously a lot of names in the Hall have to be in there to make it look legit: Hogan, Flair, Hart etc, but then there's guys in there that have nothing to their credit but being names from the 80s. Guys like JYD, Antonio Rocca, or Johnny Rodz have done nothing to be inducted. To me, Rocky Johnson and Peter Maivia have no business there. What did they do? They fathered the Rock. There's no reason for them to be inducted. Now of course there are people that deserve it, and they should be recognized. As to answer your question, I don't think too many are inducted as there are several out there that should still go in. Wings? Yes. There should be a team, a mid card wing, celebrities, commentator, and Main Eventer, with most of those having one a year.

As for benchmarks, that's hard to say. There's really no stats in wrestling aside from title reigns or main events for big shows. I suppose you could have benchmarks, but it would be somewhat difficult to establish them.

 

[Dead Kennedy]

I'm also split on this. Some of the workers already in the Hall of Fame have earned their spot in the Hall of Fame, some have not. WWE definitely need to be more picky about who they induct into the Hall of Fame if they expect it to be worth something to be in it.

I'm not gonna shoot down the accomplishments of any worker out of respect for them, but I think most will agree that Junkyard Dog was not inducted for his workrate or ring excellence but more as a tribute to a man who passed away. This I think WWE should really be careful about. Inducting someone into a Hall of Fame simply because they passed away as a sign of respect to them isn't really the way to go. That way, every Tom, Dick 'n Joey could die and BAM, they're in the Hall of Fame.

The more guys whom it is quite obvious to see if someone checks up on their history has not really done much of note, it only helps devalue the privilege of being in a wrestling Hall of Fame. And of course, many deservant guys who perhaps spent most of their glory years in WCW, ECW and lucha feds have little to no chance to get inducted. For instance, I think most would agree that Sting is a man whose name is synonymous with Hall of Famer, but since he's been in TNA or more importantly, never did anything for WWE I doubt we'll ever see him inducted into the Hall of Fame.

One way to help this is to slow down with Hall of Fame inductions and perhaps have an induction ceremony every two years instead of every year. That way, it won't get flooded with undeservant workers as much. But I guess, in the end, all that really matters is if Vince McMahon thinks they're worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, so what can you do really?

In short, being inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame somewhere right now is somewhere between prestige and since I find pointless to be a sort of bad word here, lesser importance.

 

[I_Like_All_Wrestling]

It is 100% pointless. For the following reasons:

-It doesn't actually exist, there's no physical entity right now.
-Being chosen is arbitrary, it's whoever they feel like inducting
-People are excluded based on personal vendettas (ex. Randy Savage)
-It's WWE HOF not "Pro Wrestling HOF" which is akin to something like the Seattle Seahawks HOF instead of the NFL HOF (sure it's okay to some people not not the be all end all of it)
-There are certainly people in it who are not HOF quality by any means
-Scripting makes it difficult to judge who should be in, creative could decide to give a ten year title run with every title to someone like Curt Hawkins and technically that would make him the "best ever"

There's just too many things going against it. Sure it's nice for the wrestlers but it really means nothing.

 

[The Undercover Man]

Personally i think the Hall Of fame is prestigious, its somewhere where us fans can celebrate a wrestlers achievements and also remember what they have done for the wrestling business when in the WWE. I understand that many people may think its pointless because of the simple fact wrestling is scripted. So how can people be inducted into the Hall Of Fame when infact its not them that has achieived anything? They are the ones that have been given these opportunities and asked to complete the jobs they have been given. so i'm kind of neutral oveer the whole Prestige or pointless arguement.

I think there are to many people inducted, there are some people that did'nt really acheive much throughout their careers and yet the get inducted, whether its because they've asked or their good friends with Vince i don't know. But certainly some of the Hall Of fame inductees are very suspicious to say the least

Yes, i think there should be different "wings" if you like, so say a legends area and maybe others. maybe this would add more prestige to the Hall Of fame and maybe it would stop people being inducted who don't deserve it.

I think there should be a benchmark but not to high otherwise there would be uproar between fans who insist "this guy should have got in because he was a better wrestler then the other". Its a complicated subject but one i'd say another area of the WWE thats needs to be asessed.

So overall, i'm pretty neutral on the subject although i disagree with some of the inductees already in the Hall Of Fame

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I'm split on this. Obviously a lot of names in the Hall have to be in there to make it look legit: Hogan, Flair, Hart etc, but then there's guys in there that have nothing to their credit but being names from the 80s. Guys like JYD, Antonio Rocca, or Johnny Rodz have done nothing to be inducted. To me, Rocky Johnson and Peter Maivia have no business there. What did they do? They fathered the Rock. There's no reason for them to be inducted. Now of course there are people that deserve it, and they should be recognized. As to answer your question, I don't think too many are inducted as there are several out there that should still go in. Wings? Yes. There should be a team, a mid card wing, celebrities, commentator, and Main Eventer, with most of those having one a year.

Ummmm, Peter Maivia was a well respected promoter back in the territory days and Rocky Johnson was the one half of the first EVER afro-american tag team champions, along with Tony Atlas who is ALSO in the HOF. That's a little bit more significant than fathering The Rock imo.

I consider the HOF to be a sign on respect towards people who gave a LOT to the wrestling business during the last century or so and deserve to have their legacies recognised.

Sure Pete Rose doesn't deserve to be in there for getting beaten up 3 WM in a row, and yes Eddie G's only happened in 2007 because he died, but he blatently would have been put in there even if he'd lived to 100.

There's no point in having 'Wings'. If there were an actual Hall with plaques for inductees then maybe, but as it's just being given a plaque with your name on, there's no point in saying something like; 'In 2009 we induct Percy Pringle, better known as Paul Bearer, the manager of such legendary athletes as the Undertaker, Mankind, Vader and Kane, into the Manager's Wing of the WWE HOF' because there is no building. Why bother segregating like that?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

The HOF would be a hell of a lot better if they didn't induct so many people. The likes of Hogan & Flair have enough star power, and there are enough stories to be told about them that they can more than fill the 3 hour running time.

Adding certain wrestlers only devalues what should be an important event. At the rate WWE is currently going they'll run out of wrestlers to add to the HOF, so in several years time we'll be getting Repo Man as one of the star inductees. It should be one wrestler per event. And WWE should try to legitimatize it by adding wrestlers that fans care about. The McMahons might not want to work with Randy Savage, but it's only for one night, and WWE would benefit from it more than he would.

As WWE is the premier wrestling promotion, it must be the premier wrestling HOF. But it needs solidifying by inducting some of the more important wrestlers in history, and excluding some of the lesser ones.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

Jake is right. If they didnt induct so many people each year then it wouldnt be pointless. If they only inducted say two people, three tops then it would definitely bring pretige to it. There should also be wings. Main Event, Midcard, Tag team, and Celeberity. Then they should induct one Main Eventer, one Midcarder, one Tag team and possibly one celebrity each year. Then they could also spend more time telling some fun stories and other shit like that.

So yes, its pointless right now, and there should be less inductees and seperate wings.

 

[Lee]

I'm going to agree with Monkey and Jake and say that far too many people are inducted. This number needs to be brought down, and I think wings and bench marks should be brought into play for some of these;

There should be a Mainevent wing where the inductee should have been a champion at some point and main evented a certain number of matches.

There should be a Midcard wing, where the inductee should have been a midcard champion.

A Tag team wing where again the inductee should be a former champion in this area.

A promoter wing, I dunno how to benchmark this, but it would be a good idea.

Lastly an Announcer/manager/celebrity wing. Again, I don't know how to benchmark this.

Moves like this would bring more prestige to the clutter bang that is the Hall of Fame. Moves like this would ensure that people don't get lost in the fold (what I mean by this is if there were 10 people inducted, you may forget about wrestler F as he is over shadowed by wrestler A).

There is also talks of WWE actually buying a building for this, which once again would be a great thing for the HOF, giving us a great history lesson on the company and wrestling as a whole.

 

[Shocky]

Meh, the hall of fame is okay for a nice night to remember the careers of the past, but other then that, in it's current form it's useless.

First of all, there are far too many people that get inducted into it each year. The Hall of fame should be something that is great and prestigous and very inclusive, not everyoen had mediocre success and they ahppen to be on good terms at the time they are inducted with Vince.

Second, the credentials: Some terrible choices have been made for a Hall of Fame. It's about as credible as the Hallmark Hall of Fame, whatever that is. So what exactly are the credentials to get into the hall. When the likes of the Fridge and Pete Rose get in, it opens it up to those Dean Malenko and owen Hart arguments. When you devalue the hall by putting nobodies in it, it essentially opens it up to everyone.

Third, its buy the WWE. It can't be a legit hall of fame, because it's run and operated by the WWE. It's not a true wrestling hall of fame, because the only people that get in are on good standing with the company at the time of their induction. Why no Road Warriors? Bruno Sammartino? Demolition? Macho Man, the list oges on and on, yet a guy like Ric Flair gets in, who did essentially nothing in the WWE gets in?

If the WWE wants to be a legit hall in my opinion, then a third party should be in charge of their hall of fame to keep out the bias within the company towards certain wrestlers.

 

[Shadowmancer]

If you want a generally third party Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame, there is one in existence. the only problem is that it has no physical building for it. It is not really well known about. But the people in it are all greats. It has been operating since 2002. While you may say that it lets in too many people a year there is a good guideline for each category that is there with Managers, Tag Teams, Foreign, and Women all getting represented with a pioneer years of Wrestling being a big part.

The Letters in front of the words Hall of Fame sort of give a good indication though. Personally I feel that if the WWE is going to have a Hall of Fame than it should just be for the WWE. That includes the WWWF and even Capitol Wrestling. They should go back and put in some of the guys that made the steps that Vincent K. McMahon took to being the current biggest promotion in the world.

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

Guys like JYD, Antonio Rocca, or Johnny Rodz have done nothing to be inducted.

JYD was a pretty big star in WWE in the '80s and elsewhere. He was one of the biggest African-American stars in pro wrestling history. He was for a period in the mid '80s probably the 2nd most popular wrestler in the WWE besides Hulk Hogan. He is one of the most memorable WWE stars of the '80s. He is a legend and definitely deserves to be in there.

And to say that "Antonio Rocca did nothing to be inducted" is absurd. No offense but to say something like that, you obviously don't know much wrestling history before the 1980's. Antonio Rocca should be in every pro wrestling hall of fame, let alone the WWE one. He was pretty much the first high-flying wrestler in pro wrestling history, excluding of course the early Mexican wrestlers, although they didn't even predate Antonio Rocca by a large amount of time (maybe a few years). Just as Gorgeous George pioneered the gimmick in the 1950's, Antonio Rocca was a pioneer of the high-flying style here in America. He was amongst the first wrestlers in America to use dropkicks, the flying head-scissors, and the first to do moves off of the top rope. Not to mention that he was the top draw in the New York territory before it was established as the WWWF in the early '60s with Bruno Sammartino as champion. Antonio Rocca was one of the biggest stars in wrestling across the country during the 1950's. He is probably one of the most important wrestlers in American pro wrestling history.

He should easily be in the WWE HOF, and it was fitting that he was inducted in the early classes, as he should've been.


Johnny Rodz is one of those wrestlers that I'm indifferent on. He may not have been a superstar, but he was a solid act for a long time in the pre-80's era of the WWE. It's kind of akin to someone like John Mellencamp being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They weren't exactly innovators or revolutionized their respective fields in any particular way, but they had a long solid career that was enjoyed and appreciated by many fans of the time and their peers.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

I think the HOF is good in a way but shady in another. Unlike the Wrestling Hall of Fame where there are certain criteria's you have to meet, and also different voting procedures, the WWE HOF is chosen but Vince and other WWE employee's. If they like a certain star than they will induct them into the HOF. If a certain star is hated or black balled from the company than they might not be able to get inducted. I just think if there was a set recuirment any different voting panels it would make the HOF seem more prestiges than it does now.

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

I agree with some of the points that have been stated about the WWE HOF and disagree on others.

First off, I read someone state that the WWE HOF is pointless, because there is no official building. This argument is mute, because there wasn't an official building for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for nearly it's first 10 years where it inducted artists. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame foundation began inducting artists in 1986, but the building in Cleveland wasn't finished and opened to the public until 1995. This isn't the only Hall of Fame like this. Heck there are current "hall of fames" in all kinds of different fields that don't actually have buildings dedicated to them.

I also disagree with the notion that there are too many inductees. The problem isn't that there are too many inductees, the problem is that the WWE doesn't induct the right people at times. For all of the nobodies or lesser wrestlers that are inducted each year and taking up the amount of inductions, the WWE could be better spending their time by inducting true legends like Randy Savage, Bob Backlund, Ted Dibiase, Jake Roberts, etc.

I wouldn't consider a class of Randy Savage, Ted Dibiase, Yokozuna, Owen Hart, Rick Rude, Demolition, Miss Elizabeth, and Howard Finkel, for example to be a class of too many inductees. It would be a great class, because it would be a class of all truly deserving inductees.

There are still plenty of people that deserve to be inducted, and until the time comes where every deserving wrestler is inducted, you won't hear me say there are too many inductees, unless the the number of inductees increases to over 7-8 inductees. I think 7-8 inductees (a tag team included) is just the right amount. Especially considering all of the great talents in the wrestling industry that have yet to be inducted.

It's like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame right now. Their biggest problem is that they only induct 5 artists each year, which is way too little considering that I could name at least 100 artists that are deserving of being in there.

I think the biggest problem with the WWE Hall of Fame and it's credibility is that it's basically run by one person, Vince McMahon. When one person basically decides who gets in and who doesn't, that really drains down the HOF's credibility. The WWE HOF isn't really "The WWE HOF" nor is it a pro wrestling HOF. It's basically Vince McMahon's wrestling HOF. It's similar to if Jann Wenner (the publisher of Rolling Stone and one of the top people on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame foundation) solely ran and decided who got inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

I think the WWE HOF would be more legitimate if more people got to vote on who gets in. In addition to Vince McMahon, most of the people in the WWE that have an understanding of pro wrestling history, such as the rest of the McMahon family, the people that serve on his crew (ala Pat Patterson, Sgt. Slaughter, Gerald Brisco, etc.), the agents, the wrestlers, and all of the past HOFers should all serve on some type of committee that nominates choices and then votes amongst those nominated choices. I also think allowing fans to vote who gets in would also be a great idea (which is something the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should do as well in an organized way of course). With lettings fans vote in the HOF there would have to be some guidelines of course.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has a rule that an artist is not eligible until 25 years after the release of their first record (whether it's a single, LP, or EP). The WWE should have a similar rule. Perhaps that a wrestler is not eligible until 20 (or maybe 15 years) after his/her first professional match. That rule could mean their first official WWE match or their first general pro wrestling match, take your pick. And that a wrestler should be generally retired or only wrestle on rare occasions. So that way fans couldn't vote for current wrestlers like John Cena, Batista, Rey Mysterio, etc. wrestlers who are still active and are not bona-fide legends and HOFers yet.

I think Shadowmancer brought up the actual Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame (which does have an actual building I believe located in New York I think) which is a great model for any pro wrestling HOF, and something that the WWE should study and look at for theirs. As Shadowmancer said, there are about 7-8 different categories for each year in that HOF. For each year, they induct two wrestlers from three different eras in pro wrestling history. The "Pioneers" era (wrestlers from the 1800's-1940's), the "Television Era" (1950's-1970's) and the current era (1980's-today). In addition to those 6 wrestlers they also have a foreign wrestlers category (for wrestlers from Japan, Mexico, Europe, etc.), a tag team category, a female wrestler category, a managers/announcers category, and I think a midget wrestlers category. They also have two awards for wrestlers that have done a lot for charities and things outside of wrestling. This is a great model that the WWE should perhaps officially do for their HOF. Although they kind of do that anyway, as they usually will induct a "headliner/main eventer," a manager, an announcer, a tag team, a celebrity, and a few other wrestlers.

So yeah, I'm for different wings for the HOF as well, especially when a building is officially built (which will most likely happen somewhere down the road. I've read that from interviews with people in the WWE, plus just common sense should tell you that it would be a great business venture for the WWE). I actually don't even have a problem with the "celebrities" wing for the HOF. There have been a number of celebrities that have been involved with WWE over the years and have even had an impact on the WWE (ala Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Mr. T., Lawrence Taylor, etc.). It would also be good business for WWE and it's HOF to have a celebrity wing as that might draw in non-wrestling fans to the HOF building if it were ever built.

Those are some thoughts I have towards the WWE HOF.

 

[Final Form Snyper.]

I voted for "Prestige" because it's more for the fans to show their recognition for the ones who entertained them, because when they get onto the stage area and all the fans are there watching them and all of them are showing their respects to the greats.

Not to mention that wrestlers give so much so for them to be inducted into Wrestling's biggest Hall of Fame is something that will carry with them, for the remainder of their lives.

 

[grahambrown]

First off, I read someone state that the WWE HOF is pointless, because there is no official building. This argument is mute, because there wasn't an official building for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for nearly it's first 10 years where it inducted artists. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame foundation began inducting artists in 1986, but the building in Cleveland wasn't finished and opened to the public until 1995. This isn't the only Hall of Fame like this. Heck there are current "hall of fames" in all kinds of different fields that don't actually have buildings dedicated to them.

Just because it may be true that there are plenty of intangible Halls of Fame, does it really make it ok? No one cared about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame until they opened up the building in Cleveland. I think WWE is missing an opportunity by not having a physical location. Nothing huge, just a place where fans can go and blow some money. Maybe even a traveling hall that could tour around with the PPV's or something. Having a legitimate hall of fame would be a good step toward WWE taking wrestling in the direction it needs to go; a form of entertainment that can be viewed as respectable and acceptable by the general public.

Right now, as it stand, the HOF is pointless. WWE is trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

Just because it may be true that there are plenty of intangible Halls of Fame, does it really make it ok? No one cared about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame until they opened up the building in Cleveland. I think WWE is missing an opportunity by not having a physical location. Nothing huge, just a place where fans can go and blow some money. Maybe even a traveling hall that could tour around with the PPV's or something. Having a legitimate hall of fame would be a good step toward WWE taking wrestling in the direction it needs to go; a form of entertainment that can be viewed as respectable and acceptable by the general public.

Right now, as it stand, the HOF is pointless. WWE is trying to make something out of nothing.

First off the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame did get plenty of press coverage before the building was opened. Each year they held induction dinners which the press attended and covered. Most of the early inductions were videotaped and have been shown on TV at various different times since (you can find many clips from these early inductions on YouTube). So to say no one cared about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame before the building was built just isn't true. It got much more attention and press and coverage once the building was built, granted, but it still got attention and notoriety before the building was built.

As for the WWE, in the past they actually did have a traveling Hall of Fame usually at the Wrestlemanias. I remember during the Wrestlemania fan fests, they would often have Hall of Fame displays that showed items from the past inductees. Like a mini Hall of Fame thing, kind of like what you described. I don't think they've done it lately, but I know they did in the past.

Either way, I'm totally with you in that they should build a building for it. That would make great business sense, and it would definitely make the Hall of Fame much more legitimate. While I think it's possible for a Hall of Fame to exist and have inductions without a building, an actual building dedicated to it certainly makes it much more legitimate, I won't argue with that.