Macho Man for Hall of Fame

I know this has probably been discussed before, but what with Randy's passing, it makes it even more signifcant. We all know that Vince had a problem with Randy, for whatever reasons, which has probably stopped Randy getting HOF.

I am thinking though that next Wrestlemania, the Rock will probably get HOF in Miami. If that's the case, he would get "star billing" (like HBK got this year). So if they give to Randy it next year, it will give him the HOF credit but not make it such a huge occasion as that would belong to the Rock.

I am just thinking that would suit us as fans, and Vince as an enemy of the Macho Man.

I think he has far more chance of being inducted now he has died.

I think he may be more likely to be inducted now, but I'm not sure whether the WWE should do it instantly.

It would look to me like they are just doing it because he passed, and not for the impact and legacy he created. It would seem cheap that a man like Randy Savage couldn't get in without tragedy having befallen him.

He thoroughly deserves to be in of course, and should have been long ago.

Absolutely agree sodhat.

The reasons it's easier for WWE to induct him posthumously are that it avoids awkward confrontations with Triple H, Steph and Vince, and they may not have trusted him with the speech. Also they probably wouldn't have wanted fans chanting "one more match".

A posthumous induction can be done tastefully and I think they should do it next year.

from lawlers "he will always be a hall of famer" line i am thinkin that this will be done sooner rather than later

I hope his wife and family decline the offer, I don't want to see the WWE use Savage now he's gone to push their tainted Hall of Fame

the-gaffer wrote:I hope his wife and family decline the offer, I don't want to see the WWE use Savage now he's gone to push their tainted Hall of Fame

And to make huge profits (dvds etc...) from his death also

Unfortunately it may well depend on their financial need and the kind of royalties position they are offered.

I doubt Savage would have been in need of money to be honest

the-gaffer wrote:I doubt Savage would have been in need of money to be honest

How so?

I would say Savage was only a hand full of guys warrior included who didn't/would't have to depend financially on the business

He made millions in his career in the WWF and more so in WCW he also made unbelievable amounts of cash from advertising Slim Jims and has been getting Royalties off the WWE for years including his 3 disk DVD, also, if he was in need of cash he'd be doing indies and TNA appearances all the time, the fact he could become so private suggests he was extremely comfortable

the-gaffer wrote:He made millions in his career in the WWF and more so in WCW he also made unbelievable amounts of cash from advertising Slim Jims and has been getting Royalties off the WWE for years including his 3 disk DVD, also, if he was in need of cash he'd be doing indies and TNA appearances all the time, the fact he could become so private suggests he was extremely comfortable

Good point, I always assumed that as much as those guys earned; that they tended to spend large amounts as well.

JoshSansom wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:He made millions in his career in the WWF and more so in WCW he also made unbelievable amounts of cash from advertising Slim Jims and has been getting Royalties off the WWE for years including his 3 disk DVD, also, if he was in need of cash he'd be doing indies and TNA appearances all the time, the fact he could become so private suggests he was extremely comfortable

Good point, I always assumed that as much as those guys earned; that they tended to spend large amounts as well.

Most prob did to be honest but there would of been a select few that were good with thier money or intent on making alot of money setting them selves up for life and getting out of the business (Warrior).

I think its an absolute travesty if he isn't included this year. The HOF is becoming a joke with celebrities even getting inducted now,Macho man should of been in the hall of fame years ago. It's about times Vince shows respect too the man and puts him in the HOF.

Liam It's not a real hof, who goes in it is never based on their impact on wrestling, the wwe hof is pruley political

Why? The WWE Hall of Fame isn't the be all and end all, being in or out of it means Jack in the grand scheme of things, Savage would be top 10 of any all time greats list IMO amoung Wrestling fans, that is far more worthy than some political BS, the more I think about it the more I want Savager family to decline

I agree with you all, and like Liam, I believe it is a travesty.

The problem arises is just how deep the resentment Vince holds for him. He doesn't HAVE to include him in the HOF. The three disk DVD that Josh mentions, I believe, has only been released recently. Before then there was nothing. So maybe this can be seen as a step in the right direction and giving the Macho Man credit that he deserves.

You can't agree with us all mate when I hope he doesn't go in the HOF

the-gaffer wrote:You can't agree with us all mate when I hope he doesn't go in the HOF

You beat me to the next post gaffer, hence why it doesn't make sense

Maybe your right and Savage's family will decline. I don't even know who could indunct him. Anyone know what the wwe's relationship is currently with Randy's brother, who was The Genius in the wwe? Regardless, I think most fans would like to see him in. Yes the HOF has been let down with so many celebrities going into it, but I still think he is the biggest name that hasn't yet gone in it and should be in it.

I dont think he should be inducted, he wasn't considered in life, Vince should have the balls to stick to his messed up views now that he is dead, all it will look like is a cheap PR Stunt and for me Randy Savage deserves so much more than that

the-gaffer wrote:I dont think he should be inducted, he wasn't considered in life, Vince should have the balls to stick to his messed up views now that he is dead, all it will look like is a cheap PR Stunt and for me Randy Savage deserves so much more than that

Yeah, it isn't like Eddie Guerrero who passed while still competing after all... and hopefully that whole incident will have taught them not to try to make money out of people's deaths.

Roddy piper on twitter said Mcmahons dislike of savage was because savage once punched him in a bar

The quote itself
R_Roddy_Piper Rowdy Roddy Piper
Randy slapped Vince in a bar...End of that story!!

ncfc_Tooze wrote:Roddy piper on twitter said Mcmahons dislike of savage was because savage once punched him in a bar

The quote itself
R_Roddy_Piper Rowdy Roddy Piper
Randy slapped Vince in a bar...End of that story!!

The rumours are it goes far deeper (excuse the pun) and closer to home than that...

yeah thats the rumours, but i would prefer go with a version from some one who was acctually there then.

I'd wager its a lot more than that, i wouldn't doubt for a moment he slapped him but there is no-way he'd be blackballed for that, Bret Hart knocked him out in Montreal and was welcomed back with open arms

Plus Piper is a company guy, He wouldn't jeopardize his 1 or 2 appearance fee a year, now would he

He's not only that he is old school, he'll want to put a lid on things, its what they did way back when

the-gaffer wrote:I dont think he should be inducted, he wasn't considered in life, Vince should have the balls to stick to his messed up views now that he is dead, all it will look like is a cheap PR Stunt and for me Randy Savage deserves so much more than that

I must admit that after watching the tribute video on Raw I admittedly thought he needs to be in the hall of fame. But Gaffer your spot on, it ain't a true hall of fame anyway. He's hall of fame material (top 10 ten all time for me) in my book & Jerry Lawlers but if Vince can't wait until after his death to honour him

then too bad. I don't think a guys death should sway the thinking on a potential entry. A guy should get in based on achievements in the business.... The argurment has been said a thousand times though if your on good terms with Vince your much more likely to go in

Thats why for me the WWE Hall of Fame is meaningless, Vince McMahon shouldn't be the lone voice who decides who deserves to be inducted, to me it just looks like an add on to WrestleMania weekend.

The only way it would get any sort of validity would be if they set up a HOF commitee and had independant Wrestling personalities and agents and trainers and journalists who would debate and vote

the-gaffer wrote:Thats why for me the WWE Hall of Fame is meaningless, Vince McMahon shouldn't be the lone voice who decides who deserves to be inducted, to me it just looks like an add on to WrestleMania weekend.

The only way it would get any sort of validity would be if they set up a HOF commitee ame had independant Wrestling personalities and agents and traines and journalists who would debate and vote

Altho a good idea, I would say Vince still would have some sort control over it all in some way.

Untill someone wrestles the monoply that Vince holds on pro-wrestling away it will never happen

People really need to not take the hall of fame so seriously. It is not the pro wrestling hall of fame; that is based in New York state and (naturally) counts Savage among its alumni.

The WWE hall of fame is entirely biased towards Vince McMahon's personal feelings and opinions. It has a degree of legitimacy, but shouldn't be seen as the be all and end all. It's entirely politically driven, just as a McDonalds hall of fame or a Tesco hall of fame would be. Imagine a Labour party hall of fame inducting Margaret Thatcher - it wouldn't happen, despite the fact she was one of the most influential and memorable prime ministers of the 20th century. If you're running the hall of fame, you get to choose who goes in it.

Ironically, Savage was himself guilty of similar bias when he requested a place in the WCW hall of fame for his father, who never wrestled in WCW and spent most of his career restricted to the Memphis region. The request was granted to the disgust of Gordon Solie, who quit in protest. Angelo Poffo thus stands out as the Koko B Ware of the WCW hall of fame.

Furthermore, if the long-standing rumours about Savage are true, I wouldn't blame Vince McMahon for having animosity towards him. McMahon considered Savage a friend - he was one of the few confidants he had in wrestling, travelled on the McMahon private jet, etc - so it's no surprise he felt betrayed by what allegedly happened. Remember, at the time Savage was 40/41 years old and Steph was 17, legally below the Conneticut age of consent I believe. I think any father in that situation would feel betrayed by their friend.

Savage was a great wrestler and thoroughly deserves his place in the pro wrestling hall of fame. He also was probably one of the top 10 wrestlers in WWWF/WWF/WWE history, based solely on appearances in that company, but his absence from that company's hall of fame does more damage to the hall of fame itself than to the legacy of Savage. I'm sure he didn't really care whether he made it in or not.

Apart from the Stephanie rumour the first rumour was Savage gave Shane his first line of Coke and that was meant to be what Vince was outraged at

Davies you're correct though, Savages absense from the HOF does more damage to the HOF than it does to Savage and with that I don't want Savages family to accept

I felt a little uncomfortable with the way Macho Man's death has been used in some quarters to almost "punish" Vince McMahon, for want of a better word.

For me, the way to honour someone's life is not to say;

"I hope Vince feels bad now"
"Well I hope he gets inducted now"
"Let's see what WWE say about this - they'd better do a tribute"
etc. etc.

It doesn't matter how Vince feels. It doesn't matter if he's in the hall of fame. And it doesn't matter how WWE honour him. What matters is that you remember him, and you share your memories of him. What matters are the little tributes that people like Jay Lethal and CM Punk have paid, free from corporate alliance.

I know when I die, I hope it's not used as a guilt-trip over someone else - because that's borderline sick. In fact, if I was Macho Man, and I had been in this years-long feud with McMahon - the last thing I would want is to have anyone mentioning McMahon in MY tributes!

The fact is, McMahon does have a problem with Savage for whatever reason, and it was clearly unforgiveable. But that has no relevance at all to the death of one of the greatest entertainers of all time.

(And I'm not saying that anyone on this particular thread has said these things - but I have read them said)

Electric Demon wrote:I felt a little uncomfortable with the way Macho Man's death has been used in some quarters to almost "punish" Vince McMahon, for want of a better word.

For me, the way to honour someone's life is not to say;

"I hope Vince feels bad now"
"Well I hope he gets inducted now"
"Let's see what WWE say about this - they'd better do a tribute"
etc. etc.

It doesn't matter how Vince feels. It doesn't matter if he's in the hall of fame. And it doesn't matter how WWE honour him. What matters is that you remember him, and you share your memories of him. What matters are the little tributes that people like Jay Lethal and CM Punk have paid, free from corporate alliance.

I know when I die, I hope it's not used as a guilt-trip over someone else - because that's borderline sick. In fact, if I was Macho Man, and I had been in this years-long feud with McMahon - the last thing I would want is to have anyone mentioning McMahon in MY tributes!

The fact is, McMahon does have a problem with Savage for whatever reason, and it was clearly unforgiveable. But that has no relevance at all to the death of one of the greatest entertainers of all time.

(And I'm not saying that anyone on this particular thread has said these things - but I have read them said)

On the tribute thread to Savage, If you refer to my comments they were along the same lines, people were more concerned with was he going to be remember on raw then actually having their own thought on the event

I think I've run out of Saliva, after Davies mentioned that cow Thatcher it should always be followed with intense spitting

I cried Gaff.

When he mentioned her it just made me weep and think "of all the people who could have died... why Macho Man"

the-gaffer wrote:I think I've run out of Saliva, after Davies mentioned that cow Thatcher it should always be followed with intense spitting

Now now, Margaret Thatcher was one of the greatest Prime Ministers this country has ever had. She revolutionised our economy and propelled it into the 21st Century. Without her influence, the economic boom of the late 90's/00's would never have happened and this country would still be stuck in an economic dark age of ruinous Unions, industrial action and economic inaction.

The 70's were a horrible time - very little was produced, thousands of days were lost to strike action, the country had three day weeks, a lack of power and crippling tax rates. The fact that this was transformed into a modern economy in such a short period of time is testament to her skill and political single mindedness. Blair/Brown/Cameron would have fiddled, hesitated, and left it all as a mess.

Many people criticise her for the downfall of UK industry but UK industry was primarily crippled by the Unions who made sure we produced nothing decent, had no competitiveness and a bad reputation for working... quite frankly do you want to be driving a BL car now?? If the Unions hadn't stirred things up for their own ends and their own self-preservation than UK industry would be far stronger today than it is.

I realise I may just have started a war.

Good old Maggie, one of her first acts was to stop free milk for school kids, she got rid of the lauded free fruit and when she became PM all you could get for your school meals where burger and chips, the nations health was not her concern

she used the race card to get elected "we're being flooded" despite immigration being at an all time low and emigration being higher, her heroes where Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph who wanted to sterilise poor people and she makes him Education Minister LOL

We had TWO recessions under her and she killed 1/5 of the UK's industrial base, riots all over the UK and unemployment doubled, shd was voted the most unpopular PM ever

she totally destroyed local democracy

Under Thatcher VAT rore from 8% to 17.5% and VAT was put on Utility bills for the 1st time under her, she didn't spend on the NHS Schools or housing, she spent most of it on defence, the civil service and thd massive unemployment bill

Whatever the thoughts of individual policies are spending on services increased in real terms during each year that she was PM.

Every party has spoken up immigration in British politics, "British Jobs for British People" anyone??

First recession was a follow through of the problems of the Callaghan regime. Second was the fault of Lawson, not Thatcher. This is similar to Blair not being to blame for the last recession, but Brown taking the blame. PM's leave economic matters to their Chancellors.

The UK industrial base was killed off by its lack of competitiveness as a result of high wage costs and actions of the Unions. The spread of secondary tier jobs to Second and Third World countries as been a factor in most developed countries - not just the UK. We have generally moved towards a tertiary (service) based economy due to the actions of Thatcher's Government. The days of being judged on the basis of what he make are gone. We now have higher GDP and more qualified workforce as a result.

All Governments attempt to reign in local democracy - Labour did it as well.

VAT rose as it was an easy (and cheap) way to get in tax revenues - after all the "miracle" of Labour hadn't been created yet! Also it is essentially a fair tax as payment is proportional to what you spend. (and yes I do know the arguments about marginal tax rates - I just don't agree with them).

Unlike some other Governments she was prepared to take difficult decisions for long term gains. Many have shied away from these going for populism over policies. It is just that most people cannot connect what she did to the benefits 5 - 10 years later. There is a definite time lag in politics that means that policy decisions are often only felt many years later.

She also freed millions from social housing by giving them the ability to buy their own properties.

If she was so unpopular how come she won three elections?

The widening gap between the rich and poor, under Thatcher by the end of her time as PM the richest 50% owned all but 3% of the wealth, disgusting!

All her stupid spending took us smack bang into another recession under her 'leadership' and that along with the record unemployment lead to the boom of young people homeless on the streets

if i gave you my uncensored thoughts on 'The Poll Tax' I'd get banned from the Internet

"This Lady is not for turning" except she made more U Turns than any PM before or after, she was morally corrupt, she was a strong anti-smoking campaigner who ended up getting a pay packet from British American Tobacco

what about what she did to social professionals? Rapists and murderers got better press than social workers and Teachers where so poorly paid, derided and eroded its a surprise that profession survived, Mental Health carers where also derided in the same manor

JoshSansom wrote:
If she was so unpopular how come she won three elections?

Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock and the SDP.

You can only beat what's put in front of you...

Major, Hague, IDS, Howard for example

Ohh that's true, but I wonder if the left hadn't been split what would have happened.

I'd also add that even Major was able to beat Kinnock, 1992 was a real snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for Labour. However, it was probably a blessing in disguise for them, as they wouldn't have got that landslide in 97.

I do still imagine that the policies surrounding council houses gave the Tories a lot of support and the feeling that Labour was: a) to close to the Unions b) still untrusted over the economy would have given at a minimum two victories...

I imagine that if 1992 had been won by Labour that the Tories would have been back in power before the Millenium and Labour's Blair revolution happening about five years later.

What about Thatcher's promise to "take ur back to Victorian morality" and fair play to her she nearly succeeded, she was another term from bringing back child labour and with all of "Thatcher's homeless" we weren't far away from seething slums and disease, she also defended every last one of her corrupt ministers who got caught with their hands in the till or their trousers down or both, Archer countless times, Jon Aitken twice, Alan Clarke, Dave Mellor, Cecil Parkinson and many more.

Selfishness as a virtue was the true meaning of Thatchers office because unless she could forsee the Internet Generation her statement "there is no such thing as society" summed up her warped morality

what about over-privatisation and overt corruption? A totally dominant monopoly privatised at a discount price to big businesses so they cream off profits til the end of time, who can live without gas water and electricity