Jmare007
pico pal q lee
With Bryan, who would be considered his peers in terms of voting? If it's mainly WWE people, then his indy run is pretty much irrelevant because their point of reference starts at 2010(when he was a good mid card hand) to now(incredibly over but too injury prone to actually make any money off it).
Still don't think Sting deserves to get in.
Not sure I get the question. A wrestler's whole career is taken into consideration to vote. And voting isn't separated by generations, Bryan competes with guys like Punk, Hennig and Slaughter, to give an example.
If you are talking about criteria for voting, the WON HOF is a combination of drawing power, being a great in-ring performer and having historical significance (in a positive manner). The ideal candidate should have something to offer in all of the three categories or be outstanding in either one or two of the categories. Meltzer has also specified that longevity should be a prime consideration rather than a hot but short run, unless, of course, that short run is so significant it cannot be ignored.
In Bryan's case, his indy run is absolutely relevant because that's what made a lot of voters consider him an historically great in-ring performer. As as I said before, his WWE run is the cherry on top.

) and most of the wrestling figure heads. shyt. half of that HOF is probably low key racist too...


these fukking retards didn't put in Mean Gene or Bill Apter. If it wasn't for Apter nobody would know who half the hall of famers even are.
