|
I dont see what the big deal with Pete Rose is.
In other sports HOF's they have separate categories for things like announcers, builders and the like. So why cant wrestling, which has used celbrities as part of their shows induct people who made an impact into the HOF.
Now, Pete Rose never sold any buyrates, but he was an entertaining character on a number of Wrestlemanias and added to the overall show. Its not like he's being inducted as a wrestler, he's being inducted as a celebrity perfermor, so I dont see the harm.
Dont get me wrong, I know the WWE is just using him to get publicity, but I dont think they are hurting whatever credibility their HOF has by inducting Rose, who like I said has done some entertaining stuff for the WWE. Would people object to inducting Tyson, he did help put the WWE back on the map, so why not?
The Arquette thing I found far more offensive. Why? Because the whole idea behind pro wrestling is that there are a bunch of guys fighting to become the world champion. When you bring in a guy who visually has no business being in the ring, and put the world title on him, you make that title worthless, when you make the world title worthless you make the promotion worthless, when the promotion is worthless it eventually goes out of business. So by my logic Arquette blows the Rose-HOF thing out of the water.
Of course the WWE HOF really has no credibility because Bruno isn't in it. I understand Hogan and Hart not being there yet, because they haven't been out of the business that long, but until Bruno gets in, I dont think the WWE HOF has any value to begin with.
|