Hall of Fame

[WRAITH]

Hey guys you are missing an awesome debate right now at my house. It started out as a debate on whether or not Barry Bonds should be in the hall of fame or not. It eventually grew to including Mark McGwire, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson. It then turned to OJ Simpson and we of course know where this then lead to. Then my brother throws me under the bus and throws out how I do my Hall of Fame for the GWF. Here if you missed them are my rules to getting into the hall of fame ...

#1 The superstar must has at least 8+ title reigns accredited to their careers AND had captured more then two different titles, unless they meet below rules ...
#2 GRAND SLAM RULE - If a wrestler captured more then four different titles and have 6+ least f title reigns to their respective career.
#3 RAVEN EFFECT - A wrestler that captures at least three titles with one title reign exceeding 200 days.
#4 MEGATOURNAMENT WITH A VENGEANCE RULE - If a wrestler has more then 4 title reigns and has won MegaTournament twice.

... which if you know my federation these rules benefit some and exclude others, aka STAR WARRIOR and currently Chaos. But anyway, the big thing being discussed on what makes people "Hall of Fame" worthy and should things outside there career make them excludable (is that a word). Look at Pete Rose, should be excluded as a player because of something he did as a manager? Should OJ Simpson be banned because of something he did outside of his playing careeer? Right now I stress EVERYTHING on titles, Actagon and Malice make the hall of fame because of the way the rules are worded. But should Actagon make it if Proteus carried him to 12 tag team title reigns? Star Warrior has 7 GWF Heavyweight (Earth) title reigns and it is being argued he would beat Actagon one on one so he should be in the hall of fame over Actagon.

What do you guys think? How should a hall of fame be decided? I very strongly believe a hall of fame should be the best of the best. Actagon in my mind was part of one of the greatest tag teams ever and he should be in the hall of fame. Warrior was good but if he was hall of fame worthy he would have done something that would seperate him from the crowd. I believe Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame ... ooh someone is arguing Michael Jordan possibly bet on basketball (does anyone know more about this?? so I can argue back). Anyway Im going back in to argue ...

[Matt]

Why does the number of title reigns come into play? If someone has held a title 8 times, that means that he's lost the title 8 times as well. One long title reign is much more impressive than 8 or more short ones.

[WRAITH]

Actually that is something I've debated ... and something we just talked about. If Barry Bonds was the all time home run record and the all time strikeout record would he still be considered hall of fame worthy? We argued yes because his name is in the books, right now he is not proven guilty.

But anyway I do REALLY like your point, maybe Ill do by title length. Maybe if you have spent 600 days as champion you get in the hall of fame. But then Wolf or Star Warrior would not be in barely ... only Wraith, Thantos, Proteus and Spike would be in ... though Spike never did anything besides the one tag title reign with Brute.

[Matt]

hex said:

Actually that is something I've debated ... and something we just talked about. If Barry Bonds was the all time home run record and the all time strikeout record would he still be considered hall of fame worthy? We argued yes because his name is in the books, right now he is not proven guilty.

But anyway I do REALLY like your point, maybe Ill do by title length. Maybe if you have spent 600 days as champion you get in the hall of fame. But then Wolf or Star Warrior would not be in barely ... only Wraith, Thantos, Proteus and Spike would be in ... though Spike never did anything besides the one tag title reign with Brute.

I have always kept track of the number of successful title defenses a champion has. That, to me, is more indicative of their greatness.

[WRAITH]

What do you think of Barry Bonds ... or even Chris Benoit being in the hall of fame?

We all know have a different view of Benoit now, but should that be held against him? Think of Mandrill or Mangus, or even Murdok? There possibly the killer of many should they be excluded from the hall of fame? What about someone like OJ?

I already have an opinion on this but what do you guys think?

[tombraider]

one is a cheater

the other two cowards.

nuff said.

[dukedave]

hex said:

What do you think of Barry Bonds ... or even Chris Benoit being in the hall of fame?

We all know have a different view of Benoit now, but should that be held against him? Think of Mandrill or Mangus, or even Murdok? There possibly the killer of many should they be excluded from the hall of fame? What about someone like OJ?

I already have an opinion on this but what do you guys think?

Did you have the intention of starting a firestorm with this post because it is ludicrous.

1. Where do you get off putting fictional characters with OJ and Benoit. They are murdering scumbags. Benoit will never be in the HOF and I'm surprised the NFL hasn't removed OJ. I suppose it's the whole "He hasn't actually been found guilty thing".

2. I hate Bonds but to include him in this argument is almost as ridiculous as including fictional characters. Bonds is an A$$wipe. However, with the exception of some "alleged" IRS and domestic issues, his record is clean.

This is putting is delicately as I can. I feel that you won't get the same treatment elsewhere from those who read this post.

[tombraider]

you tell him havoc.

[jefft]

I'll have to go with Havoc on this one.

[crowfan]

OJ did not do it. Bonds sucks anyways. Benoit can go to hell for all I care.

[theamazingbadger]

I also have to go with Havoc on this one, and aside from this statement I'm not touching that particular conversation with a ten kilometer pole.

As for Hall of Fame requirements here's what I'd consider qualifications:

Quality of title runs: If you win a title, hold it for a long time and defend it against everybody then you deserve a HOF nomination, no matter how many titles you have.

Quantity of titles: If you win a lot of titles you should get an HOF nomination. After all, if a wrestler is going around winning every title match he's booked in that's gotta count for something.

[Matt]

crowfan said:

OJ did not do it.

Yeah, of course he didn't...

[WRAITH]

Ok ... I never meant to incite a riot Havok ... I couldnt think of any better examples. Lets stick with something along the lines of Pete Rose or even lets go the opposite. Lets take Pulsar. He has a decent career but not something to say you would consider great. After his career he discovers the cure for cancer should he make the GWF hall of fame over someone like Vendetta a tag specialist but alcoholic at the end of his career. How about say Thantos who wins say 10 galaxian title reigns, but near the end of his career throws a match and lets say Vanity win a title (ok PRETEND, since wrestling is fake but something along that line)

I apologize for bringing up the before mentioned people but they are the most obvious examples. Trying to show that hall of fame should be about stats, yet memorable moments or deeds could outweigh those (aka Scott Norwood who was an AMAZING kicker but we will always remember him for a kick he should never have made anyway)

[Matt]

hex said:

Ok ... I never meant to incite a riot Havok ... I couldnt think of any better examples. Lets stick with something along the lines of Pete Rose or even lets go the opposite. Lets take Pulsar. He has a decent career but not something to say you would consider great. After his career he discovers the cure for cancer should he make the GWF hall of fame over someone like Vendetta a tag specialist but alcoholic at the end of his career. How about say Thantos who wins say 10 galaxian title reigns, but near the end of his career throws a match and lets say Vanity win a title (ok PRETEND, since wrestling is fake but something along that line)

GWF wrestling isn't fake though.