The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[Prophet]

I think it depends on what criteria you're using. The three names that most people seem to circle around are Hogan, Flair, and Austin. And depending on the list, all three can be the number one of the group. The differences is in which way they'd outrank the others, in my opinion.

 

With Flair, he's the standard. When it comes to success, no matter where he's gone, or who he's faced, or what have you, inside the ring, Flair has been, pardon the pun, the man. And at a time when most people only knew the local guys who were busting their humps at the county fair down the road, almost everyone knew the name of Flair.

 

Then there's Hogan. Hogan doesn't have as many accolades, per say, but where Hogan leads is that he's the icon. He was the face of the world of wrestling when it became a world of wrestling. Hogan made wrestling mainstream, and that alone is enough for him to be appreciated as the greatest of all time.

 

Austin's different. Austin was the beneficiary. By the time the Ringmaster became Stone Cold, wrestling was in a boom, and he became the focal point. He capitalized on opportunity. He fits in a nice little niche between Flair and Hogan, depending on which way you're listing ... however, Austin gets a nod because he's something of a Renaissance man. Austin helped create a new direction, which helped wrestling thrive. I believe financially Austin edges Hogan, although I could be wrong on that. Either way, it's fairly close, and it's because of his influence on wrestling at the time, and even to some extent, now.

 

And I say all of that based on perception of what I grew up with, but if it was my personal list, Savage would be at the top. He may not top any of those three in any of those categories, but when I watched Savage wrestle, I always felt like I saw something special. Even when it was a devenomed snake sucking on his bicep. lol

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yes your top vote could be worth twenty points and then you work your way backwards. A thread like that could start a flame war, I mean look at how worked up people get in the NBA thread when you disagree with them about Phil Jackson.<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Is "flame war" some new expression for a reasonable disagreement? I don't think anyone was hostile or insulting, people just disagreed with you. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Here's the problem, though, with that listen. Steamboat above Flair? Really? If you are talking about drawing power and money, then Flair made people more money than Steamboat did. <p> </p><p> And I love Steamboat, and I prefer him over Flair. but even I recgonize that he's above Steamboat... and John Cena. Does he draw money? Yes. But comparatively speaking, what he's done is unimpressive to me. Even when comes to drawing money. He needs to be drawling a lot more to impress me.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I didn't say anything about the list posted ..i Said MY top 5. Steamboat wouldn't even crack my top 15.</p><p> </p><p> And i don't know what to tell you on Cena. You've pretty much proven you're a "crazy internet smark" with previous posts; if you're not "impressed" by someone who's been the biggest draw in wrestling for the last 6 years, it's really not that surprising.</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Austin deserves that spot too, but I don't think, as much as Hogan does. and I LOVE Stone Cold. But Hogan's pre-WWF career was way more storied, and he literally helped Vince make the WWF what it was in the 80's. <p> </p><p> Austin did something similar, but it's hard to say his post-WWE or pre-WWF career was all that impressive. He was a journeyman wrestler until he became Stone Cold Steve Austin. Hogan had a lot more success before the WWE and after it. </p><p> </p><p> Again, I have to say this... I prefer Stone Cold over Hulk Hogan. But Hogan's just that important. He was one of the key, if not, the key wrestlers that changed the definining product of wrestling. Instead of focusing on old-school, traditional style of wrestling, it ws transitioned into a more "sports entertainment" style of wrestling more digestable for the masses (at the time). </p><p> </p><p> That's not something even Austin can claim to do.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Totally agree with this. Austin may have drawn bigger house and PPV numbers at his height, but if you look back at it now...he's had nowhere near the lasting effect that Hogan did and he had nowhere near the impact on pop culture and the mainstream that Hogan or even The Rock did.</p><p> </p><p> Austin was awesome but as time has passed he looks more and more like his popularity was a fad</p>

[Stennick]

<p>I agree with this completely, by the time 2004 came around and Austin was rolling on ATV's nobody cared. Austin was the most over guy in the company from about 98-2000ish. Even before WMX7 Rock was arguablly more over than Austin. </p><p> </p><p>

The guy had about three or four really good years and then that was it. </p><p> </p><p>

Why did Austin make more money than Hogan? Because during Austin's height of popularity there were three main stream cable television shows, he had about ten different shirts out at once, and when Hogan was at his height they had WM, Summerslam and Survivor Series three ppv's a year. When Austin was at his height they had FOUR times that amount. So every year Austin was main eventing he was main eventing four times as many pay per views as Hogan did in a single year. You add that up over three or four years and thats a pretty large gap. </p><p> </p><p>

Not too mention there was no such thing as pay per view for the first few Wrestlemania's let alone buyrates. And Merchandise? Hogan had one shirt and that bear. Sure he had other stuff with his name on it but not near what Austin or even mid carders in the WWF had during Austin's stint. </p><p> </p><p>

Steve Austin was a product of the late ninties teenage rebellion. He played his part well but I don't think the wrestling world will have the same love for Austin as it does Hogan. </p><p> </p><p>

Hulk Hogan returned to the WWE has a heel after 13 years and couldn't even cut a promo the first few appearances he had because the crowd just refused to boo him. If Austin came back as a face right now I don't think he would get that kind of reaction. </p><p> </p><p>

Really even a conversation for Flair as the number one wrestler is a weak conversation. Ric Flair was a big fish in a small pond. He wasn't near as recognized as Hulk Hogan, he didn't draw near the money as Hulk Hogan. The only thing he has over Hogan is people think he was a better wrestler. Although again thats the internet talking and believing that a thousand moves owns three moves. Even though Hogan got a bigger reaction with those three moves than anyone in the history of pro wrestling so really isn't that what its about? </p><p> </p><p>

Anyway Hogan is the greatest pro wrestler of all time atleast in its current form. You can't go back much farther than the sixties because it was a different animal so guys like Ed Lewis, Thesz, Gorgeous George can't be taken into consideration. </p><p> </p><p>

Oh and by the way I know saying this nearly implodes the internet but John Cena is a top five wrestler of all time. </p><p> </p><p>

In fact my top five would be Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, The Rock, Steve Austin and John Cena. Thats the top five biggest and therefore best pro wrestlers of all time. Honorable mention to Sting for drawing a massive buyrate without ever saying a word for an entire year. Although thats one year, I need more than one buyrate to annoint someone a top five.</p>

[PeterHilton]

<p>Tremendous post.</p><p> </p><p>

Even if my top 5 isn't your exact top 5, that's my reasoning. </p><p> </p><p>

Wrestling is a work; the one criteria that really matters is the ability to make money. That list that's being done on these boards is going to look like one of those lists that Rolling Stone magazine does of 'The Best Bands of All Time' where the top 10 are mostly really famous and then there's one wildly obscure act no one heard of. </p><p> </p><p>

Other things matter...there are personal favorites i have that weren't great draws..but if people didn't pay to watch you then you weren't really doing your job</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<p>Are we compiling a top 5 list of all time? If so MY personal top 5 are...</p><p> </p><p>

REMOVED AND PUT IN GDS Top 50.</p>

[Stennick]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="juggaloninjalee" data-cite="juggaloninjalee" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> 2) Stone Cold Steve Austin - The face of the Attitude era. Probably my personal favorite wrestler based on how much I liked him. He had heel tendencies but people couldn't boo him. He had record breaking numbers for Wrestlemania and helped WWF become the #1 wrestling company again after WCW was kicking their butt in the ratings.</p><p> </p><p> I wanted to put a tag team on the list but could only think of the Legion of Doom and I felt I may be a bit biased as they have always been my favorite tag team. Could have put the Rock on my top 5 list too but he was only a big WRESTLING star for less than 10 years and I felt longevity was kinda important.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Just curious as Steve Austin was only "Stone Cold" for roughly four or five years before retiring. He wrestled before that but he wasn't a draw by any shape of the imagination. The Rock became the Rock at nearly the exact same time Austin became Stone Cold and The Rock actually wrestled as The Rock longer (Austin retired at their WM match, Rock had a program with Goldberg as well as coming back at WMXX for a match). </p><p> </p><p> I'm not saying anything negative it just struck me as weird you didn't put The Rock on the list for longetivity when in reality "The Rock" wrestled longer than "Stone Cold". </p><p> </p><p> I don't think you can lend points to a guy who became big with one persona because of another persona. </p><p> </p><p> Hogan doesn't get points for Sterling Golden or Terry Boulder, The Rock doesn't get points for Flex Kavana. So really Austin shouldn't get points for Stunning and Superstar. </p><p> </p><p> Solid list no doubt most likely would have put Rock above Shawn Michaels since Shawn has actually as crazy as it is never drawn as a main event attraction. Part of that is he was on top during the WWE's lowest period and came back after the attitude era was over but none the less I don't think we can base any "would have beens" on anyone's resume.</p><p> </p><p> Anyway it just struck me as weird that you mentioned The Rock's short time as a wrestler when he wrestled with that persona for longer than Austin wrestled with his Stone Cold persona. And really thats all that should matter right?</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Just curious as Steve Austin was only "Stone Cold" for roughly four or five years before retiring. He wrestled before that but he wasn't a draw by any shape of the imagination. The Rock became the Rock at nearly the exact same time Austin became Stone Cold and The Rock actually wrestled as The Rock longer (Austin retired at their WM match, Rock had a program with Goldberg as well as coming back at WMXX for a match). <p> </p><p> I'm not saying anything negative it just struck me as weird you didn't put The Rock on the list for longetivity when in reality "The Rock" wrestled longer than "Stone Cold". </p><p> </p><p> I don't think you can lend points to a guy who became big with one persona because of another persona. </p><p> </p><p> Hogan doesn't get points for Sterling Golden or Terry Boulder, The Rock doesn't get points for Flex Kavana. So really Austin shouldn't get points for Stunning and Superstar. </p><p> </p><p> Solid list no doubt most likely would have put Rock above Shawn Michaels since Shawn has actually as crazy as it is never drawn as a main event attraction. Part of that is he was on top during the WWE's lowest period and came back after the attitude era was over but none the less I don't think we can base any "would have beens" on anyone's resume.</p><p> </p><p> Anyway it just struck me as weird that you mentioned The Rock's short time as a wrestler when he wrestled with that persona for longer than Austin wrestled with his Stone Cold persona. And really thats all that should matter right?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The Rocks career as a whole wasn't very long though. Austin had wrestler much longer than the Rock. I guess that was my reason. Plus maybe a bit biased as like I said Austin was my favorite wrestler at the time.</p>

[Stennick]

<p>Yeah thats fine a lot of guys on here are on the young side so their in the Bret Hart/Steve Austin era more than the Hogan era. </p><p> </p><p>

I think that would be the better route of an explanation "I like these five guys more" because the whole "Steve wrestled longer" doesn't really have much to do with anything. If anything wouldn't it be more impressive that The Rock became more popular than Steve Austin and ONLY wrestled for five years before going into Hollywood where he's now doing 100 million dollar box offices? </p><p> </p><p>

Anyway good list other than I wouldn't have put Shawn Michaels in the top five but hey this is all about who people like rather than who truly is the top guys so cheers on the list.</p>

[Bigpapa42]

It saddens me that Bruno Sammartino gets so forgetten, relatively, anymore. The guy was Hogan before there was Hogan. When selling out areas was the primary measure of workers success, he owned the single most important arena in the wrestling world. He made fans care. He sold out Shea Stadium with a feud and he wasn't even champion. Obviously I understand that he was before our time for many of us, but the same can be said of Hogan for a lot of fans, yet the way that the WWE held (maybe not so much know that he's in TNA) Hogan in high regard helped the younger fans know. Because of Bruno's issues with Vince, that doesn't seem to happen in his case.

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bigpapa42" data-cite="Bigpapa42" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It saddens me that Bruno Sammartino gets so forgetten, relatively, anymore. The guy was Hogan before there was Hogan. When selling out areas was the primary measure of workers success, he owned the single most important arena in the wrestling world. He made fans care. He sold out Shea Stadium with a feud and he wasn't even champion. Obviously I understand that he was before our time for many of us, but the same can be said of Hogan for a lot of fans, yet the way that the WWE held (maybe not so much know that he's in TNA) Hogan in high regard helped the younger fans know. Because of Bruno's issues with Vince, that doesn't seem to happen in his case.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> QFT</p><p> </p><p> That's it really...the WWE presents wrestling historically as if it started when the WWF went national and the Wrestlemania Era began.</p><p> </p><p> I've said myself that it's incredibly hard to go back much further than that and make a fair comparison of the industry (that's why I just ignore Thesz references) but the E really should mention Bruno. He carried that company for the better part of a decade. It really must be a personal vendetta when guys like Harley Race (who, while great, did very little for the WWF)are brought onto TV as legends of the industry and Bruno never even gets a mention.</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Bigpapa42" data-cite="Bigpapa42" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It saddens me that Bruno Sammartino gets so forgetten, relatively, anymore. The guy was Hogan before there was Hogan. When selling out areas was the primary measure of workers success, he owned the single most important arena in the wrestling world. He made fans care. He sold out Shea Stadium with a feud and he wasn't even champion. Obviously I understand that he was before our time for many of us, but the same can be said of Hogan for a lot of fans, yet the way that the WWE held (maybe not so much know that he's in TNA) Hogan in high regard helped the younger fans know. Because of Bruno's issues with Vince, that doesn't seem to happen in his case.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I did think of putting Bruno in my top 20 but I don't know much about him at all. Maybe I will try to read up on him more in the future.</p>

[Stennick]

<p>While I'm not the biggest fan of Bruno there is no doubt he was a draw. </p><p> </p><p>

That being said I think he kind of did it to himself. He's been at odds with Vince since at the very least the early ninties and maybe before that. </p><p> </p><p>

I think its pretty well documented they have reached out to Bruno several times and tried to make him a part of what their doing and a part of their legacy but Bruno doesn't want anything to do with them. </p><p> </p><p>

He absolutely refuses to do business with Vince and I think in that regard its tough to really do much with a guy that wants nothing to do with you. Remember Hogan in WCW? He wasn't the "babe ruth" of wrestling when he was in WCW. He was the Huckster, remember Mean Gene? The guy that hosts these legend round tables and is so well respected by Vince and co now? Remember Scheme Gene? </p><p> </p><p>

I think if you're the WWF, or the NFL or my business that I own. If a former employee that you reach out to refuses to do business with you and on top of that lets the entire media world know that they want nothing to do with you then I don't see a reason to include them in things. </p><p> </p><p>

I love Bruno but I think he's a bit bitter than wrestling moved away from the in ring aspects that he was involved in and in a lot of regards passed him buy. You don't think he's a bit bitter that guys like Hogan and Austin pushed him out of the lime light? I think Bruno doesn't like the type of pro wrestling that is going on today and would much rather not be involved in it at all than to be invovled with something he doesn't enjoy.</p><p> </p><p>

I can't fault Bruno for that very few people in the world today would leave the money that Bruno would seemingly leave on the table by not doing SOME business with Vince. At the same time I can't fault fans or Vince for not anointing the guy as great that has publicly bashed you and refused to do any business with you what so ever. </p><p> </p><p>

I agree with Peter though if we go to Bruno then we have to go to Thesz, then we have to talk about Ray Stevens, Ed Lewis, Gorgeous George, how do you compare those guys to the guys of today? Its impossible, its like comparing 1890's baseball with 2010 its just not possible and really they deserve their own list.</p>

[ampulator]

<p>The reason why he isn't included, is because Vince has effectively erased from history. Not completely, but just enough. He was pre-TV, so they can ignore with little effect to the company. </p><p> </p><p>

The reason why they ignore is, because he bad-mouthed the company after he left. Was lot of the things he said were true? Yes. But he also sounded old-fashioned and part of a different era. He dissed the WWE, so the WWE disses him. </p><p> </p><p>

I think he's an okay guy, but some of why he's unregonized is caused by himself.</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think he's an okay guy, but some of why he's unregonized is caused by himself.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think it's actually totally his fault. </p><p> </p><p> Bruno is obviously pretty bitter about the industry passing him by and he was critical of what the WWF became (which was ironic because in his prime he was criticized for being EXACTLY the type of worker Hulk was) but I guess i just have an issue with him being erased the way he has. </p><p> </p><p> Yeah...they have no reason to build him up.But the man DID carry your company; it's pretty cheap to pretend it never happened. Like Shaq and the Lakers; he's been a tool ever since he left LA, but what do you do? Take the banners out of the rafters?</p>

[Bigpapa42]

I understand why he's left out. I also get that going back gets tough. But Bruno's heyday was the 70s. Which in truth wasn't that different from the better part of the 80s in terms of how promotions functioned, the use of TV, the definition of a "draw"... Yeah, things get tougher as you go further back - the industry is a bit different and there is far less footage. But I do think that putting a cutoff point at the start of the 80s seems rather arbitrary.

 

The business side of excluding Bruno makes sense. It does. But it annoys me because it becomes pure revisionist history. I'm honesty not a huge Bruno fan in that sense, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for his place in the history of the business.

 

I guess part of why it bothers me is that Vince Jr built his success on the back of Bruno in a way. Not directly. But the success of Bruno Sammaritno in the 70s helped ensure New York was and remained a prime territory, profitable and appealing to talent. Take that away and I doubt that Vince Jr finds the same degree of success in trying to take things national in the mid 80s. The more I watch of old Sammartino footage, the more I believe that the Hogan babyface hero mold was based on him.

[PeterHilton]

I understand why he's left out. I also get that going back gets tough. But Bruno's heyday was the 70s. Which in truth wasn't that different from the better part of the 80s in terms of how promotions functioned, the use of TV, the definition of a "draw"... Yeah, things get tougher as you go further back - the industry is a bit different and there is far less footage. But I do think that putting a cutoff point at the start of the 80s seems rather arbitrary.

 

The business side of excluding Bruno makes sense. It does. But it annoys me because it becomes pure revisionist history. I'm honesty not a huge Bruno fan in that sense, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for his place in the history of the business.

 

I guess part of why it bothers me is that Vince Jr built his success on the back of Bruno in a way. Not directly. But the success of Bruno Sammaritno in the 70s helped ensure New York was and remained a prime territory, profitable and appealing to talent. Take that away and I doubt that Vince Jr finds the same degree of success in trying to take things national in the mid 80s. The more I watch of old Sammartino footage, the more I believe that the Hogan babyface hero mold was based on him.

 

Great post.

 

The 70s is probably as far back as I can look in doing comparisons and even then some of the southern regional stuff gets a little dicey..

 

But I completely agree with your main point about Bruno. It's the revisionism. And Vince needed NY..so again I agree with how important Bruno was.

 

And again..that unstoppable babyface hero..not only was it the mold for Hogan (like you said) but it's what they tried to re-create with Warrior and more successfully with John Cena. It's like Bruno is John Wayne in a world that seems to think that action movies started with Sylvester Stallone.

[Bigpapa42]

Thanks PH.

 

I realize that even style-wise, the 70s are a departure and that makes comparisons tougher. But I don't think the ring work of the 70s (for the most part) is any more radically different from the 80s and then 80s is from the 90s. If one is able to look at the 80s and 90s in comparable fashion, by taking the ring-work within the context of that era, I think the same thing can be done for the 70s.

 

As for the comparisons between Bruno and Hogan, I won't claim to have seen that much of Bruno's work. Maybe a few dozen matches, and mostly from the latter part of the 70s. I think the similarities go beyond the big babyface hero. It seems like Sammartino was willing to throw a cheap shot or even cheat a little to give one back to the heel. Hogan used to do that a ton during his WWF heyday. I had forgotten how often, until I went back and started rewatching a bunch of old matches. It was accepted - even approved - by fans because it was just giving the "bad guys" a tasste of their own medicine. It was a stark departure from Bob Backlund, who had this code of honor that basically kept him from taking an unfair advantage. I could be wrong, but it seems that what Hogan did was used by Bruno quite a bit too.

 

The movie star comparison is a nice one.

[PeterHilton]

<p>Speaking of HOFers:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="411mania.com" data-cite="411mania.com" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>WWE has sent out letters to cities, announcing that they would be accepting bids for cities to host their physical Hall of Fame. It is noted that WWE is looking for a location partner that would help offset the cost of building and maintaining the facility. They are very early in the process, and according to a source in the company, they are looking at 2012-2013 at the earliest for the project. There is also the idea that they could regularly tape footage and wrap-arounds for the potential WWE Network at the location.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/162067/WWE-News:-More-On-WWE-Hall-of-Fame,-Lawler-Update,-WWE-Promoting-Rocks-Next-Film,-More.htm" rel="external nofollow">http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/162067/WWE-News:-More-On-WWE-Hall-of-Fame,-Lawler-Update,-WWE-Promoting-Rocks-Next-Film,-More.htm</a></p><p> </p><p> Interesting. I'm sure it will be torn apart by hardcore wrestling fans -and deservedly so, the WWE's HOF criteria is a bit of a joke - but it would probably be worth visiting.</p>

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Speaking of HOFers:<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/162067/WWE-News:-More-On-WWE-Hall-of-Fame,-Lawler-Update,-WWE-Promoting-Rocks-Next-Film,-More.htm" rel="external nofollow">http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/162067/WWE-News:-More-On-WWE-Hall-of-Fame,-Lawler-Update,-WWE-Promoting-Rocks-Next-Film,-More.htm</a></p><p> </p><p> Interesting. I'm sure it will be torn apart by hardcore wrestling fans -and deservedly so, the WWE's HOF criteria is a bit of a joke - but it would probably be worth visiting.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I know they won't do it but Detroit needs a tourist attraction.</p><p> </p><p> Realistic possibilities... NO IDEA! Vegas maybe?</p>

[The Final Countdown]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="juggaloninjalee" data-cite="juggaloninjalee" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know they won't do it but Detroit needs a tourist attraction.<p> </p><p> Realistic possibilities... NO IDEA! Vegas maybe?</p></div></blockquote><p> I've read that Miami is interested. That might be a good fit, since lots of tourists flock to that area already.</p>

[TheKenwyne]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="The Final Countdown" data-cite="The Final Countdown" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I've read that Miami is interested. That might be a good fit, since lots of tourists flock to that area already.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> New York would fit - it's historically significant to the promotion.</p>

[Stennick]

<p>Although it would be a joke as far as the inductions think of the cool stuff that we could see in there. </p><p> </p><p>

I'm personally more excited for their WWE Network. I think that will solve a lot of their broadcasting issues. If NXT were to get thrown off the air on regular cable just air it on the WWE Network. Maybe air the FCW shows, etc it could be a ton of fun to watch.</p>

[Candyman]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="juggaloninjalee" data-cite="juggaloninjalee" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know they won't do it but Detroit needs a tourist attraction.<p> </p><p> Realistic possibilities... NO IDEA! Vegas maybe?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It would be nice to have the Hall be somewhere that's significant to the history of WWE, and the Hulk/Andre slam (and all-time attendance record) alone makes Detroit significant. New York is the most logical location, as far as ties to the promotion go.</p><p> </p><p> From what I've heard, they're more concerned with finding a city that will help pay to build and maintain it. Orlando was mentioned as a candidate, which is interesting given their ties to TNA. I would say Florida or California are both likely.</p>