+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Hall Of Fame (/forumdisplay.php?fid=359)
+---- Thread: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread (/showthread.php?tid=80446)
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - winsaw - 29-12-2022 02:52
The term legend is being stretched a bit by this year's two in the final,
Lilly one good year when she found oil and Sophie who was consistently Mid,
Starting to think some of the true legends who shaped the babeshows are never going to get in as people seam to not remember stuff from 15+ years ago,
There needs to be some way to get there girls in or it can never be a legitimate hof,
The format needs twerking a lot of hof us a mix of vote and committee to get in people who are highly important to there area but are not as well known by younger people who are more likely to be voting
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - lovebabes56 - 29-12-2022 04:30
Points noted Winsaw.
I would say with the first two categories I'd say it is easier criteria but with the legends I'd say it is a bit more difficult as you have to try and get the mix/balance right to ensure everyone is happy it is not an easy category to define I guess as a lot of it is down to who we all individually remenber on the shows that far back that not only meet the current criteria but all are eligible to be given legends status, as I'm sure most of us have our own idea of what we would term as legendary status in terms of performance, etc.
I would say as an example that for a lot of us Fernanda, probably ticked every single box for legendary status but I think the one thing I think is nice that that people nominate girls that most of us don't even recall or remember!!
I feel that the criteria set for legends status is fair, but I think at some point, if we have to look at it again, we will look at it to see if it needs more redefining to ensure better definition & fairness.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - 29-12-2022 09:43
We needed a name for the over 10 category and 'Legend' (without the category being ageist) seemed to be the nearest fit.
Each years categories are fluid, this year we decided to induct 3 girls including a dayshow girl.
I also feel that we need to target some of the early babeshow girls and it's something that we are working towards.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - winsaw - 29-12-2022 11:26
(29-12-2022 09:43 )Charlemagne Wrote: I also feel that we need to target some of the early babeshow girls and it's something that we are working towards.
That's good to hear, I do definitely think a 4 category is needed, maybe use a short list of names for people to vote from ,
How can it be a hof if it's not got the likes of Dani O'Neal in she basically invented the way night shows are still done to this day,
Danica no girl has ever made as big an impact on days as she did she got bigger than the channels, no one has ever since drawn the money she did on days,
Just two who spring to mind am sure can think of others
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - KerrAvon - 29-12-2022 12:01
(29-12-2022 02:52 )winsaw Wrote: The format needs twerking a lot of hof us a mix of vote and committee to get in people who are highly important to there area but are not as well known by younger people who are more likely to be voting
I've been thinking the same way for a good while. Instead of yet another straight out vote where people will just vote for their favorite girl again, let people throw names into the hat and perhaps give a reason why the babe should be in the HOF. Then leave the final decisions to a respected committee who may or not take the best suggestions and include worthy ones missed out.
Like winsaw says, it's a farce Dani O'Neal & Danica haven't been included given their impact to the babeshows genre.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - ryuken - 29-12-2022 12:05
I really like the current HOF format and don't think it needs tweaking.
The creation of categories for day babes and babes that started over 10+ years ago were great ideas.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - SecretAgent - 29-12-2022 13:19
Interesting comments and Dani O Neal got 3 votes as far as I can see in the Nominations thread. I can't see that Danica got any (including from those who think its a farce she isn't in the Hall of Fame
)Personally I'm happy with the current process but appreciate it may be helpful if the Legend category included a bio of girls but whatever you do I won't vote for girls I've never seen or don't like enough to vote for.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Doddle - 29-12-2022 14:39
By definition if you add one name per category per year, then some will never be added.
If you added 3 or 5 at a time per category, you'd probably still not catch up by the time we all get old and die, but some current complainees might be more mollified along the way (though not if their faves still get omitted
)It's only a bloody board member-voted contest anyway, not the bleeding Nobel Prize.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 29-12-2022 14:45
^^
SecretAgent
I think that your own personal Favourite has a chance of making it in,
as Danni is a current daybabe & also just sneaks into the Legends category.
Personally, for the HOF I revert to full-on fanboy mode, & whilst this year's changes are a big improvement, I am resigned to the fact that the babe that I am championing has no chance whatsoever of making it into the HOF despite the fact that she also qualifies in 2 categories.
I was never a big fan of Dani O'Neal or Danica, but I'm with winsaw & KerrAvon, it's undeniable that both babes deserve to be inducted in the future. The same applies to Mrs. Agent. imho
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 29-12-2022 14:55
(29-12-2022 14:39 )Doddle Wrote: By definition if you add one name per category per year, then some will never be added.
If you added 3 or 5 at a time per category, you'd probably still not catch up by the time we all get old and die, but some current complainees might be more mollified along the way (though not if their faves still get omitted
It's only a bloody board member-voted contest anyway, not the bleeding Nobel Prize.
Good points made, but whilst it's more than likely a throw-away tongue in cheek comment, as a board member yourself why do you see fit to belittle our efforts to make this the best/fairest contest that it can possibly be.
