HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

Personally, as close as we can get our HOF to other HOF formats the better. There's good reason why the babes are referred to as inductees & not winners. Flexibility in & around the numbers of inductees in any given year will set it apart from all the other competitions because as has been said before, this is not a competition per se, it's a process to find the best of the best historically. Whilst I respect the views of others it must not hamstrung by having strict numbers of inductees, trying to decide what is the wrong or right number of inductees is looking at it the wrong way. If 7 or 8 receive a required number of votes & or percentage of total votes, then put them in, if it's just 3 or 4 that's also fine.
SecretAgent made some great points, if you take the babes who have narrowly missed of in previous years you would hope that the same names would feature the following year & be the front runners for induction, but if the format doesn't accommodate for cases like these then they could fall back into the pack & not get considered for some time or maybe never. Something has to be put in place to mitigate this situation from occurring, although if we induct on a percentage number of votes that should do most of the job. in a nutshell, if any given babe come close to induction one year there's no good reason why they should suddenly not be good enough the following year.
I still have reservations regarding the category division of Day & night babes, which is becoming increasingly muddied. With large numbers of babes currently doing little or no tv work either by choice or lack of opportunity they are hard to categorize & shouldn't be pigeonholed & have their chances diluted purely on the basis of what hours they work.
In the past a Nightbabe & Daybabe could be defined by those who got their tits out & talked dirty & those who didn't, now we have babes working during daytime hours offering stronger content than we get from some on a Nightshow Given this I would have no issue with inducting an unequal number of what we perceive as Day or Nightbabe in any given year providing they meet the required criteria.
There are definitely babes even from the past who have done a large percentage of days & nights, but maybe not enough in either category to warrant selection & they shouldn't be dismissed or discriminated because of this. What we do have now is what could be described as Hybrid Babes but they should be no less worthy because of this. What I'm trying to say is within the strict Day & Night categories we have babes working to different levels & they are being measured against each other.
Apologies for this long ramble or for hijacking or repeating other peoples ideas/views I was simply agreeing with those & hopefully expanded on them to some degree.
Lastly the suggestions thread has been helpful & interesting & has highlighted one thing at least to me which is the complexity & the sheer numbers of babes involved, not only trying to remember past babes but also how good they really were when measuring them against others. Some members have put forward compelling cases. Hopefully it comes down to more than they just looked pretty or have great tits. Joking apart, we all just want our favourites in but at the same time be objective. Whilst the visuals are important, personality & engagement on a call, cam or other forms of chat are key factors. We need to identify the X-Factor, so are obvious others less so. Looking at some of the names suggested, some are good but I could compare them to another 50 babes of almost equal merit. My realization is that it is bloody difficult.
I still wonder if we are ever going to address the babes from the early years, even if you've been around long enough from day one of the channels it's impossible to keep track of every babe & also to expect members to vote on babes they know little or nothing about. Sorry to be boring, but recency bias is still a thing.
Whatever is decided on we all need to buy into & support snook & make it into something this forum should be proud of & at least on a par or if not, better than the UKBC Awards. What I will consider as a success is something that is attractive & fun to be involved in & a hope that an increased voting turn out will in turn bring more clarity to the whole process. We will never achieve perfect, but must just run with it & give it a chance & try to strike a balance between taking is seriously without taking it too seriously.

Ah. Now that is interesting.
Thanks Boomer for that.
I am particularly intrigued by the comments around inductee numbers and how that is decided. A whole new set of considerations are now in play in my head.
That is most welcome. More options created gives enhanced food for thought.

My inclination at the moment is to use the pre nominee suggestions thread primarily for the purpose of establishing candidates for consideration who worked in the earlier years of show transmission. I have been working on a hope that starting that thread a long way in advance of 26th July would give people sufficient time and opportunity to rekindle fondest memories of their own and others.
This acting as a best attempt to combat recency bias on the basis that it might be deemed impossible to completely solve the problem so an initiative to mitigate against it is about the best we can do.

All sorts of ideas are still floating around in my head as to how to proceed as regards categories, inductee numbers, formats and so much else besides.
This is why opinions expressed on here matter so much and why keeping the debate flowing over a long time span is so important. So please keep contributing folks both to this thread and the pre suggestions thread too.

This is absolutely fascinating stuff.
I am now doing all sorts of research across various threads. I'll be completely gaga by 26th July .

(10-05-2026 12:53 )Supersteve247 Wrote:  

(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.

I agree. I don’t think this needs to be over-complicated.

First, I think we’d have to go by first appearance, as it’s always hard to tell when a girl’s last appearance was or will be. Unlike sporting Halls, a girl can almost always come back to the babeshows and many erstwhile retirees really do. So if there were a date-criterion, it would have to be her debut.

But I don’t think that’s too hard to know or, at the very least, approximate.

It would be hardest for girls who were active before the forum. But they could just be eligible by definition. The exact date doesn’t matter.

Beyond that, the A-Z thread is a great resource. And if she isn’t in there or if she is but her debut date is not listed, then we could default to the first mention of her on the Forum.

(10-05-2026 12:13 )Snooks Wrote:  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?

The bespoke category should be held first. Whoever is chosen will be inducted and is therefore not eligible for the other two categories.

(10-05-2026 15:03 )Snooks Wrote:  This is absolutely fascinating stuff.
I am now doing all sorts of research across various threads. I'll be completely gaga by 26th July .

So you'll be wearing a meat dress then?

(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?

That job would be mine as tournament organiser and one that is already partially underway. As it happens I have halted this process for the moment.
The reason is one I eluded to in an earlier post i.e the option of using the pre nomination suggestions thread as the forum members opportunity to put forward names from the past and using either a defined selection of babes from that thread to compete in a Bespoke category or ALL babes from the thread.
This is a best attempt to mitigate against recency bias with an admission that such a problem almost certainly cannot be wholly resolved.
There is the potential to get a bit date obsessed and given that it is impossible to have a definitive start date for every single babe that could ever be eligible I feel a need to proceed with some caution on this front. More thoughts to follow.

The issue of flexibility around numbers of inductees from whichever categories are implemented is really intriguing particularly given the way Boomer framed it. I had not looked at quite in that way before so consider me enlightened .
There would be a mathematical formula I could insert to allow more than one inductee from any one category. I would feel a need to run this by people on this thread first however as fundamentally this represents quite the change from what may have been deemed as the norm up to now in HOF terms.

The categories are an interesting phenomenon in themselves in terms of how many and the breakdown thereof. Undoubtedly there are pros and cons to various options hence me taking time to work through them.

In comps of the past I have perhaps fallen into the trap of an 'It's my baby' approach.
Although the comps played out absolutely fine there is perhaps a stronger desire than ever not to fall into that trap with HOF. Yes of course certain final decisions are mine but this is not my competition.
It is the forum's competition. I am a custodian of the forum. Hence why this consultation exercise is so significant.
I owe this due diligence and time taken in an effort to take all opinion into account.
No matter what I decide there may be pockets of disgruntlement and I will live with that.
But be rest assured I will do what I believe to be right and explain my reasons in full when the time comes.

(10-05-2026 18:50 )Snooks Wrote:  There would be a mathematical formula I could insert to allow more than one inductee from any one category.

That would be a thoroughly bad idea.

A strict annual cap is what's required. A fixed number per year to keep standards high. Otherwise, someone being inducted feels less exceptional.

Important principle: It is better to induct too few than too many.

It's important because if you induct too many, the whole exercise quickly becomes pointless. It becomes just a catalogue of performers. So it's a must to always err on the side of inducting too few.

(10-05-2026 19:23 )William H Bonney Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 18:50 )Snooks Wrote:  There would be a mathematical formula I could insert to allow more than one inductee from any one category.

That would be a thoroughly bad idea.

A strict annual cap is what's required. A fixed number per year to keep standards high. Otherwise, someone being inducted feels less exceptional.

Important principle: It is better to induct too few than too many.

It's important because if you induct too many, the whole exercise quickly becomes pointless. It becomes just a catalogue of performers. So it's a must to always err on the side of inducting too few.

I wouldn't be too dismissive of change & you're entitled to your opinion. I think too many here aren't forward thinking, if we are not careful we will end up with an unsatisfactory format similar to what we had previously & waste a great opportunity to improve on what we had.
I don't buy into this fear of inducting too many. The babechannels have been in existence for over 23 years we aren't exactly rushing any babes in. If you read clearly what has been suggested the standards will still be kept high as we would induct one outstanding candidate & maybe only one other who came within a close percentage of votes to them.
If you use your recommendation, for example, Kelly Bell was inducted last year, but the other finalist Emma C received a large percentage of votes in the previous rounds & final. By your reckoning Emma C was not of a standard. But if she is inducted this year, she is somehow considered so much better than 12 months prior, that is ridiculous as very little will have change in 12 months..
Inducting Emma C last year along with Kelly Bell would have no way diluted the quality, it would've just made common sense to do so.
I must reiterate, this is not a competition with stand alone annual winners, we view all inductees equally which is why they are & should be referred to as inductees & not winners.