HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

^^Three babes have been inducted in years gone past.
Suitable categories need to be arranged, so that if you do want 3 then you need the appropriate number of categories. Ideas for the categories may be of help to snooks.

You don't want a babe who comes second in a category being inducted.

And you have to work out what is a suitable number to induct. There's a danger that we could be watering down the award by inducting too many in one go. After all it is supposed to be select award.

There seems to be a category logic to three inductees:

1 x Night
1 x Day
1 x [insert name of category for ‘wild card’ babes who are deserving, but wouldn’t be nominated because they’ve lapsed from forum memory]

I can’t really see the reason for the fourth one except to accelerate growth of the HOF. I know some are in favour of that. I’m not all that fussed about it, to be honest. There are plenty of babes that I would induct, but I suspect it’ll be years — if ever — because they are so far down the pecking order. I’ve made my peace with that (…hang in there, Teejay! Your day will come!)

I still struggle with the “competition” theory around the Hall of Fame. Surely we should be trying to induct deserving candidates and I fail to see how a girl who comes 2nd by one vote in a year or maybe in multiple years would not be considered deserving. Maybe we should consider all category winners as elected AND any runner up who gets more than a certain percentage of the final votes. We could even consider any girl who is a runner up twice as deserving of automatic induction. I’d even contemplate not inducting any girls if we as a membership don’t give anyone a number of votes that passes an agreed threshold.

In my mind it’s about quality and quantity is a secondary issue. There doesn’t need to be too tight a restriction on girls who are inducted in any given year/category as the focus should be on getting the right girls inducted.

^^^^
I'm all for something like this, sounds similar to how the NFL does it.

How about something like this....
No categories
Eligible babes must have debuted before, say, 2010
( Then next year raise date to 2011, then next year etc )
A round of voting to narrow the suggestion thread babes down to a shortlist of finalists . ( Everyone gets to vote for 3 babes )
Then do a yes or no ballot for each finalist.
( Maybe have 5 finalists)
If they meet the agreed yes vote % threshold they go in the HOF.

Or if no categories sounds extreme, split it to pre forum ( 2008 ) debut and modern ( 2016 ) debut, and reduce finalists to 3 in each category.

Just some random thinking out loud here (of which there will be a fair amount between now and July 26th).

Let's say..... for example...... that we have a non date defined daytime category, a non date defined nightshow category and a bespoke category drawing contenders from the pre suggestions thread.

Questions to ponder.
1. Should the babes qualified in the bespoke category still be allowed to be nominated in either of the other two categories?
2. If the majority view is yes they should be allowed to be nominated in the bespoke category as well as the day or night category then what should happen in the event that the same babe wins the bespoke category and one of the other categories?
Should the 2nd placed babe from either of the categories be promoted for induction and if so which one? Should such a scenario be decided by a run off?

To explain here is the scenario

Bespoke winner: Jill Bloggs. Runner up: Susan Spencer
Nightshow winner: Jill Bloggs. Runner up: Penelope Peacock
Daytime winner: Nora Noon

Jill Bloggs has won Bespoke and Night categories.
Should one of the runners up be promoted for induction and if so which one?
Susan Spencer or Penelope Peacock?
Should Susan face Penelope in a run off?

OR

Should both Susan and Penelope go in as well as Jill?

(09-05-2026 20:01 )SecretAgent Wrote:  “…the focus should be on getting the right girls inducted.”

There’s the rub though, isn’t it? Who are “the right girls”?

Some mechanism is needed to define and defend a quality threshold. Other Halls of Fame do this by committees of experts, critics and writers. I recall there be a bit of a backlash on here when a committee approach was tried. Maybe it was structured or communicated poorly and maybe it’s worth reconsidering? Or maybe this is an Internet forum and we all just like a bit of agency and “gamified” participation in these choices? I dunno.

On a slightly more philosophical tangent, I think we should all just accept that some really good babes simply won’t make it in. The Smiths and Iron Maiden are not in the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame. Don Mattingly isn’t it the Baseball Hall of Fame. Shawn Kemp isn’t in the NBA Hall of Fame. Matt le Tissier and Robin Van Persie are not in the Premier League Hall of Fame. All of them will have fans who think their omission is an outrage. But if some performers are not permanently relegated to the “Hall of Very Good”, then there is no real “Hall of Fame” — it is just an unfinished catalogue that we are slowly compiling year after year.

I know we all have a list in our heads of babes who are nailed-on definites for the Hall of Fame and we can be impatient to see their induction (…hang on, Teejay, we’ll get there…!). But the list in my head is probably different to the list in your head. The idea that there is an objective definition of “the right girl” doesn’t ring true to me. And if someone somewhere isn’t feeling frustrated at the omission of this girl or that girl, then the honour of being in the Hall of Fame has arguably been eroded (…get on with yer life, Teejay, it just isn’t gonna happen for ya…).

Returning to some more pragmatic questions…

No categories? Fair point. There was a time when I would have strongly advocated for the importance of Day / Night distinctions. Once upon a time, these were almost two different worlds attracting different babes, performances, audiences, etc. To have them in the same category seemed a little unfair, as the night show audience was so much larger than it was for the day show. But the lines have blurred so much now that I’m not sure there is a meaningful difference between Night and Day babes. Maybe it’s time to dispense with that distinction?

(10-05-2026 08:17 )Supersteve247 Wrote:  …Eligible babes must have debuted before, say, 2010
( Then next year raise date to 2011, then next year etc )…

I like the focus on eligibility. I don’t think we discuss eligibility enough. I know that eligibility issues get much more ink in other Halls of Fame discussion than nominations or inductions.

In effect, there are three steps into a Hall of Fame: Eligibility, Nomination, Induction.

A date-based eligibility criterion seems pretty standard. NFL: 5 years since last appearance; NBA: 3 years since full retirement; Rock’n’Roll HOF: 25 years since first commercial release; Premier League HOF: 1 full year since last appearance; etc…

And that ‘cooling off’ period makes sense to me. I share some concern about the ‘recency bias’ we’ve often discussed, but that can go too far. If being fondly remembered after so much time is a sign of Hall of Fame worthiness, then being forgotten must also be a sign that she may belong in the Hall of Very Good.

Sorry, a bit long and rambling…

(When I INEVITABLY make it into the Member’s Hall of Fame, just think how awful my acceptance speech will be…!)

Who's going to check eligibility if we're going with debut dates and what resource will they use? Sporting Halls of Fame have a wealth of stats to rely on but somehow I doubt in a truly accurate list of Babeshow info exists. I suppose someone could dig through forum threads to back it up but who in their right mind wants to do that?


Sounds like a recipe for more arguments to me.

The Rock and Roll Hall of fame foundation have announced that Iron Maiden will be one of the Rock and Roll Hall of fame inductees for 2026.

Sorry for going off at a tangent. Carry on...

(10-05-2026 12:36 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:  Who's going to check eligibility if we're going with debut dates and what resource will they use? Sporting Halls of Fame have a wealth of stats to rely on but somehow I doubt in a truly accurate list of Babeshow info exists. I suppose someone could dig through forum threads to back it up but who in their right mind wants to do that?


Sounds like a recipe for more arguments to me.

I think the A to Z thread on here is a pretty accurate source.