[hb2k]

Originally Posted by Bad News Gertner Koko and Nikolai were big stars during their time. It's such a ridiculous arguement

Not saying they weren't stars during their time, but Koko was never a key player at any point, ever. He was rarely a pushed commodity and mostly used during his prime run as a guy to put other people over. He was a fun babyface, a name on the card during a time when wrestling was more popular, and so was he as a result. But by that mentality you could surely put in so many people based on people being stars during a hot period that it absolutely kills exclusivity, which is the point I'm making.

Nikolai has one moment of true identifiable top level success, which was headlining MSG with Bruno. But with that said, Bruno sold out MSG with Tarzan Tyler and Dr. Bill Miller, so it says more about Bruno than Nikolai. Again, Volkoff was part of the business during a more popular time, but in terms of body of work or accomplishment relative to the time he was in, he got to the same point as countless others.

Originally Posted by MatthewAllenHanso You walk into a bar right now and way more people are going to know KoKo and Nicolai....I doubt you could find anyone in most places who knows who Pillman is.

Perhaps so. But like I said, that's a product of the times, and if that's the barometer, anybody who was ever any kind of star goes in, at which point the exclusivity aspect of the Hall of Fame is gone (and Pillman certainly qualifies). Just talking WWE's HoF, you can make a case for Pillman doing things that evolved the business and based on performance through his career. They clearly recognise there was something to it since they released a DVD on his life.

Originally Posted by WhiteyFord So Inoki shouldn't be in it then? His WWF career doesn't even come close to Koko's and we're basing their inclusion solely on that criteria right? Like Gertner said, both big stars during their runs, both did well pre WWF too, so yes it's the most retarded logic ever.

Not sure how much og this is in response to me, but if so - I never said you have to be a WWF guy to get in. But the argument people seem to be making for Koko and Nikolai is that they were stars in the 80s boom. But so was damn near everybody else. It's a very broad lens, and if it is that broad you can absolutely make a case for Pillman (albeit for different reasons). That's all.

Originally Posted by Shisen KOTF Should do a podcast and put HBKK on trial for his silly opinions

Not guilty, your honour.