WWE Hall Of Fame 2021

JP Liz V1

Any new names rumoured or just last year's names as no ceremony was held

The Undertaker?

Furious-Red

Id say they will hold off Takers HOF induction till they can have crowds again

JP Liz V1

Furious-Red wrote: »

Id say they will hold off Takers HOF induction till they can have crowds again

Have Christian headline this year so

Lord TSC

Think I read last week they are going with last year’s lot again.

JP Liz V1

https://twitter.com/WWE/status/1369671970862796807

J. Marston

Molly seems like the biggest sweetheart in the wrestling business. You only ever hear people saying great things about her.

JP Liz V1

I really thought all the Hollys were cousins when I was younger

J. Marston

Just googled Molly and saw she's only 43. That means she left WWE when she was only 27/28. That's wild.

LineOfBeauty

I know it's the WWE HOF and the bar is pretty low, but man Molly Holly has got to be one of the weaker entrants in the thing. 4-5 year run in the company, perennial undercard talent. I'm trying to think of any case you could make for her and I swear I can't think of 1 outside of she's popular with the office and they need a female entrant every year.

J. Marston

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I know it's the WWE HOF and the bar is pretty low, but man Molly Holly has got to be one of the weaker entrants in the thing. 4-5 year run in the company, perennial undercard talent. I'm trying to think of any case you could make for her and I swear I can't think of 1 outside of she's popular with the office and they need a female entrant every year.

Nonsense.

Two time women's champions and look at the legacy she has with the current women's roster with so many being inspired by her.

But unsurprisingly, you're just parroting Meltzer again...

Yeah, I mean it doesn't mean anything to me. You know it's like 'whatever, whatever' you know. I could go through the career it's like 5 years no main events you know what I mean? But they have to induct a woman that's the rules

Think for yourself, man.

I'd have Molly in it over any of the current women's division.

She was super popular during a time when the business was far hotter. Great worker.

LineOfBeauty

J. Marston wrote: »

Nonsense.

Two time women's champions and look at the legacy she has with the current women's roster with so many being inspired by her.

But unsurprisingly, you're just parroting Meltzer again...



Think for yourself, man.

Dude I watched that entire period (again, I see everything) and I can safely say in any normal HOF (one not determined by who Vince currently likes) she'd be nowhere near it.

Never drew a dime.
Never headlined a show.

You're telling me the main reasons for her going in are 2 Women's Titles (everyone in that company holds a million titles and the Women's Title was so far down the pecking order in her time there it's next to irrelevant). And her legacy? Dude what legacy? Name me 3 memorable Molly Holly matches?

It's the WWE HOF, we all know the score, but she's one of the weakest entrants yet and your threadbare arguments against that pretty much say everything that needs to be said.

I can promise you, I form more takes on different companies and eras in a day than you will in months. So probably don't question those.

LineOfBeauty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd have Molly in it over any of the current women's division.

She was super popular during a time when the business was far hotter. Great worker.

So if you're taking the WWE criteria then sure. And we are because that's the HOF she's going into.

If you applied any normal criteria: drawing power, legacy, body of work. She scores literally 0 in like all of those.

Again, it's the WWE HOF. But it's the modern equivalent of Carmella going into the HOF (which, she will if she stays on their good side).

J. Marston

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Dude I watched that entire period (again, I see everything) and I can safely say in any normal HOF (one not determined by who Vince currently likes) she'd be nowhere near it.

Never drew a dime.
Never headlined a show.

You're telling me the main reasons for her going in are 2 Women's Titles (everyone in that company holds a million titles and the Women's Title was so far down the pecking order in her time there it's next to irrelevant). And her legacy? Dude what legacy? Name me 3 memorable Molly Holly matches?

It's the WWE HOF, we all know the score, but she's one of the weakest entrants yet and your threadbare arguments against that pretty much say everything that needs to be said.

I can promise you, I form more takes on different companies and eras in a day than you will in months. So probably don't question those.

And they're all formed after reading Dave's newsletter. Your opinion on Molly Holly's HoF is exactly Meltzer's but with the words jumbled around. You haven't an original thought on wrestling in your skull.

My thoughts on her legacy of inspiring loads of this generation of female wrestlers and that being more than enough to warrant the HoF holds far more water than your "What's her star ratings?" nonsense.

JP Liz V1

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I know it's the WWE HOF and the bar is pretty low, but man Molly Holly has got to be one of the weaker entrants in the thing. 4-5 year run in the company, perennial undercard talent. I'm trying to think of any case you could make for her and I swear I can't think of 1 outside of she's popular with the office and they need a female entrant every year.

After Lita, I think Molly was one of the most over face divas in WWE at the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnrvGXo9Avc

LineOfBeauty

J. Marston wrote: »

And they're all formed after reading Dave's newsletter. Your opinion on Molly Holly's HoF is exactly Meltzer's but with the words jumbled around. You haven't an original thought on wrestling in your skull.

My thoughts on her legacy of inspiring loads of this generation of female wrestlers and that being more than enough to warrant the HoF holds far more water than your "What's her star ratings?" nonsense.

Oh lord. What else is there to say on Molly Holly? She's a silly choice from the undercard. Any HOF would be devalued by having her in it, if the WWE weren't already a joke.

Tell you what, if you want to fire me some questions, I'll answer them quick before I could consult an Observer for takes and we'll see where we land. Though Dave has watched more pro wrestling than I ever will, I'd say I'd watch a greater range of modern stuff than he does, but whatever.

And why am I taking wrestling take advice from a guy who only watches WWE? Today alone I've watched shows from 4 different companies and it's a Thursday! (AEW, NXT, NJPW and a classic PWG).

Dude you realise that when she was an active member of the roster there was what, maybe 12 active female competitors on TV? Of those, Lita, Trish Stratus, Ivory, Victoria, Jazz (maybe Gail Kim but more for her TNA stuff) are all considered more influential to modern women's wrestlers in WWE because they were more focused on in ring work than what was featured in the late 90's. So, at very best, she's like the 6th most influential wrestler on like a roster of like 12 at a time? That's the best case you can put forward for her...

And that's a breakdown. Maybe I should do a newsletter?

LineOfBeauty

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

After Lita, I think Molly was one of the most over face divas in WWE at the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnrvGXo9Avc

Liz even taking the brief period of time where she was popular (because most of the time she was a filler in the women's division in this 5 year run) Trish, Lita, Stacy Kiebler and Stephanie McMahon were all more over acts. Literally there was like only 3 or 4 other women in the company at that stage!

Necro

Kind of agree with LineOfBeauty here sadly :eek:

I've stopped really paying attention to the HOF because of some of the people that have gone in, Molly is no different imo.

Lookit it's very clear that she's incredibly well respected by her peers and there is some merit in inclusion based off that but on overall end product she was popular for what, 2 years tops? And in that time it's very difficult to say she was a draw of any major merit in a WWE roster absolutely jampacked with legit megadraws.

The flip side to all of this is that because they insist on making it an annual thing with multiple inclusions the quality of the nominees is naturally going to diminish over time.

Who is left that is legit a HOFer in WWE circles that they could possibly induct? Not including currently active guys.

Taker, Vince, The Rock, Triple H.

Jericho (eventually)...
Punk (again at some point in time)


So because it continues to be an annual thing you just have to take it with a pinch of salt imo.

LineOfBeauty

Necro wrote: »

Kind of agree with LineOfBeauty here sadly :eek:

I've stopped really paying attention to the HOF because of some of the people that have gone in, Molly is no different imo.

Lookit it's very clear that she's incredibly well respected by her peers and there is some merit in inclusion based off that but on overall end product she was popular for what, 2 years tops? And in that time it's very difficult to say she was a draw of any major merit in a WWE roster absolutely jampacked with legit megadraws.

The flip side to all of this is that because they insist on making it an annual thing with multiple inclusions the quality of the nominees is naturally going to diminish over time.

Who is left that is legit a HOFer in WWE circles that they could possibly induct? Not including currently active guys.

Taker, Vince, The Rock, Triple H.

Jericho (eventually)...
Punk (again at some point in time)


So because it continues to be an annual thing you just have to take it with a pinch of salt imo.

You love me really.

And again I can't stress enough, for the WWE HOF sure, it's par for the course. You could run through their HOF and like you'd probably end up saying less than 10% belong in a HOF if you applied criteria to it like say the baseball HOF does. It's a nonsense. Though even by the standards they've set she's clearly one of the weaker picks they've had. Like it's impossible to get upset, or make a case for anyone because it's so dumb.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So if you're taking the WWE criteria then sure. And we are because that's the HOF she's going into.

If you applied any normal criteria: drawing power, legacy, body of work. She scores literally 0 in like all of those.

Again, it's the WWE HOF. But it's the modern equivalent of Carmella going into the HOF (which, she will if she stays on their good side).

She wrestled at a time when women were a sideshow. Even Lita and Trish are as well known for managing as they are for their singles runs.

She was trained by Dean Malenko and Finlay, and it showed.

She has been cited by numerous wrestlers as an influence so she certainly left a legacy.

As for the bolded bit - she's a millions lightyears away from what Carmella is, or ever will be, in every facet.

LineOfBeauty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She wrestled at a time when women were a sideshow. Even Lita and Trish are as well known for managing as they are for their singles runs.

She was trained by Dean Malenko and Finlay, and it showed.

She has been cited by numerous wrestlers as an influence so she certainly left a legacy.

As for the bolded bit - she was a millions lightyears away from Carmella in every facet.

That's great except I've already named 5 wrestlers from her era who are considered more influential in ring than she is. The other half of the roster were mainly valets. So that point is mute.

Where are these wrestlers? Literally who watched Molly Holly and thought "ye, that's what I want to do with my life." I'm running through the big name wrestlers in WWE right now and I can't think of any. Sasha? Big joshi mark. Asuka or Io Shirai? Hardly. Charlotte? Her dad is literally Ric Flair. Bayley? John Cena, Randy Orton and Rey Mysterio apparently. Nia? Family business. Like who are these people?

Is she? I'd argue Carmella has more accomplishments, has had a longer run and more memorable and better matches. I'm talking myself into Carmella being a viable candidate for this dopey HOF. The bar is absolutely low enough.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Dude you realise that when she was an active member of the roster there was what, maybe 12 active female competitors on TV? Of those, Lita, Trish Stratus, Ivory, Victoria, Jazz (maybe Gail Kim but more for her TNA stuff) are all considered more influential to modern women's wrestlers in WWE because they were more focused on in ring work than what was featured in the late 90's. So, at very best, she's like the 6th most influential wrestler on like a roster of like 12 at a time? That's the best case you can put forward for her...

Spouting out your hole.

Ivory, Victoria and Jazz are considered more influential by who?

No gripe with any of them, all talented women that I've enjoyed, but Molly was more accomplished all-round.

Ask 100 people in the street if they've heard of the above three plus Molly and Molly will be most familiar.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Where are these wrestlers? Literally who watched Molly Holly and thought "ye, that's what I want to do with my life." I'm running through the big name wrestlers in WWE right now and I can't think of any. Sasha? Big joshi mark. Asuka or Io Shirai? Hardly. Charlotte? Her dad is literally Ric Flair. Bayley? John Cena, Randy Orton and Rey Mysterio apparently. Nia? Family business. Like who are these people?

Is English your first language?

Do you know what an influence is?

LineOfBeauty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Spouting out your hole.

Ivory, Victoria and Jazz are considered more influential by who?

No gripe with any of them, all talented women that I've enjoyed, but Molly was more accomplished all-round.

Ask 100 people in the street if they've heard of the above three plus Molly and Molly will be most familiar.




Is English your first language?

Do you know what an influence is?

So.... You've asked me who those 3 are considered more influential by but haven't given me a single person who is influenced by Molly Holly? BTW if you watched that era, fairly clear those 3 were pushed to a higher degree than Holly (who outside of the initial cousin run, which was character stuff and didn't rely on her ring skill at all) and were trusted in bigger spots than her too.

Lol what street are you walking down where any 100 people would know any of the 4 of them? Hulk Hogan, ye. Steve Austin, ye. The Rock, ye. Molly Holly? Get outta here with your imaginary street.

After your 1st paragraph I'm not sure I do anymore. You seem to be in the process of redefining it.

LineOfBeauty

By the way, I asked for 3 memorable Molly Holly matches earlier (you know, something that should be like the lowest of low bars for any HOF candidate) and I've not gotten 1. Instead all I'm hearing about is influence, but nobody can actually tell me who it is she's influenced either. So now I'm really confused.

Not a single person has mentioned her drawing record (here's a clue, it's 0).

So I'm left with some aggressive takes for daring to ask why a lower mid card act would be going into a HOF. In the process of this, I've even found the time to make a stronger case for Carmella to go into the HOF right now than Holly.

JP Liz V1

Molly had decent feuds with Trish both as a face and heel, imho she contributed more than the Bellas (more reality tv fame) and Beth Phoenix also, so I do think she deserves her spot

johnnysmack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I can promise you, I form more takes on different companies and eras in a day than you will in months. So probably don't question those.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

jk23

Really hoping Haku goes in this year, in my own opinion I know some of you may disagree I am really surprised he isn't in it...

LineOfBeauty

johnnysmack wrote: »

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Well it's not arrogance if I back it up and brother I back it up every day.

Great, now I sound like a heel and a lunatic who wants Carmella in a HOF.

The way the two lads are going on you'd swear I'm here dissing Bull Nakano and not Molly bloody Holly.

B.A._Baracus

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Well it's not arrogance if I back it up and brother I back it up every day.

... LineOfBeauty - the new leggo.
You even post long essays. Seriously is that you leggo? :pac:

Blue_Dabadee

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.

Agent Coulson

I loved Molly and I'm delighted she gets in.

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.