A Defense--and Critique--Of The WWE Hall Of Fame

The WWE Hall of Fame has been excoriated in a lot of circles in the internet wrestling community recently; it's been said that it's a sham, an illegitimate joke of entity that doesn't have a building a la Cooperstown, privileges more recent/popular wrestlers over more influential competitors from the past, and bases its induction criteria too heavily on whether a particular individual is on good terms with WWE.

All of these are legitimate and fair points. But do these criticisms mean that the Hall of Fame is meaningless? Or that it doesn't serve a purpose? I don't think so.

First, let's look at the fact that the WWE Hall of Fame isn't, well, an actual Hall. It has no visitable building in the way that the Baseball Hall of Fame has in Cooperstown, or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has in Cleveland. Certainly, a museum of some sort would be be awesome, but I don't think its required for a hall of fame (of any sort) to have merit.

A Hall of Fame's purpose is to set aside a core of individuals who have performed-- in terms of either popularity, creativity, talent, skill, magnitude, etc--above the rest, and deserve to be remembered as special and meaningful. A building isn't required for this, only recognition is.

Secondly, yes, the Hall of Fame DOES privilege more recent and popular wrestlers over pioneering legends. Shouldn't "Million Dollar Man" Ted Dibiase have gone in years ago? Shouldn't Lou Thesz go in before Steve Austin? These are valid points.

But quite honestly, almost all Hall of Fames do this, in order to maximize their visibility, popularity, and press coverage. Look at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; big name acts from the '70s and '80s have gone in ahead of pioneering acts from the '50s and '60s due to the fact the '70s/'80s acts have higher name recognition. Is it fair? Not really. But it's how these sorts of things often work. Popularity often trumps all, and while this is annoying to some, think of it this way: don't (most of) these people deserve to be inducted at some point? Maybe they've leapfrogged guys who've waited longer, but that's not to say they're undeserving.

Lastly, yes, the WWE Hall of Fame bases its induction criteria heavily on who is on good terms with the WWE. But again, this is true of other halls as well. Ozzy Osbourne famously dissed the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame many times over the years, and as a result, Black Sabbath had to wait 11 years to get in.

Also, keep in mind that the dislike is often mutual; Bruno Sammartino has actually been asked by WWE to join the Hall, but has turned it down numerous times. Owen Hart hasn't been inducted due to the fact that his widow would likely not show up, if not actively protest the induction.

Furthermore, it has to be said that WWE has done a better job in recent years of inducting guys who aren't necessarily on good terms with the company. They inducted Bret Hart in 2006 (though relations were already thawing at that point), are inducting Wendi Richter in this year's class, and WANTED to induct the Ultimate Warrior this year--a man who sued WWE, jilted WWE out of money in 1992, etc--but couldn't reach an agreement.

In fact, it could be said that--with the exception of "Macho Man" Randy Savage--the only wrestlers WWE hasn't thought of inducting yet are under contract to other promotions (i.e. TNA). And in that case, it's probably more an issue of the wrestler being unable to appear due to contractual obligations. Certainly, Mick Foley deserves to go in at some point, but it's highly unlikely that his TNA contract would allow him to appear.

With those criticisms addressed, let's look at why the Hall of Fame IS meaningful. Even though there's no building, even if certain guys jumped ahead of others, look at it this way: ALMOST (key word there) everyone who's been inducted has deserved it. They deserved to be recognized, set aside, and remembered.

And most of all, they deserved to get a chance to speak to all of their peers--and to the die-hards like us who'd be watching--to share their memories, tell their stories, and thank everyone for helping them along the way. Guys like Bret Hart and Ric Flair deserve that opportunity to speak for 30-40 minutes about their lives and career, and NO other entity besides WWE could deliver a bigger audience for them to address--both with all the talent that gathers in that room and the number of viewers watching online/at home.

That's truly something special, and for that reason alone, the WWE Hall of Fame is meaningful.

That being said, that brings me to my critique--the one thing that could permanently delegitamize the WWE Hall of Fame. Beginning last year, they did something they had never done previously: introduce time limits.

As I mentioned above, what makes the Hall of Fame meaningful is the platform these performers have to share their thoughts and feelings. By putting a time limit on this--as if it were some sort of crass awards show--WWE is taking all the emotion and meaning out of this ceremony, and making it more about a television presentation (and a rating) than about honoring the performers who've given their lives to this business.

Certainly, some sort of time constraint would be appropriate--no one wants to hear Koko B. Ware give a 2-hour address--but the time limit the WWE came up with was five minutes. Five. Minutes. That's all. To me, that's a travesty. That's barely enough time to say ANYTHING.

I had to swallow anger when I read that  Dory Funk had to throw away his previously written speech because it went on too long.

From what I've read (from Jim Ross), there WILL be a time limit again this year. One can only hope that it's more than five minutes.