HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

(07-12-2025 20:52 )lovebabes56 Wrote:  

(07-12-2025 20:41 )Charlemagne Wrote:  ^It's surprising how many of the girls meet the date criteria.
Charlie C started on Babestation way before the start of the forum. So she been a babe for at least 19 years.

I'm wondering if there are others (who we have probably all forgotten about), who go back a little bit further than Charlie.

As for Rebecca Kelly (now Honey Gold) I think it was pretty much to the strength of her performances and her personality that got her nominated that year, and don't forget she was a multiple winner of forum comps too at the time.

Yes, don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVED Rebecca on Studio 66 - especially the glorious tease shows. I fully supported her sweeping the board for all awards of the year she was eligible for. She was a tantalising, charming delight.

I do think she has dropped off now and stands out less. I like to look across a long span to weigh up HoF entry. Being great over a long period is what it's about IMO.

Remembering her S66 days fondly.

Love the nomination of Sophia, B!

Is Kelly Bell classed as daybabe or a night babe in this award

^^ If you are unsure Rammy just vote for her in both.

As good as they were, Kelly didn't really do enough nights to warrant an induction alone, but if you add those shows to the 3 or 4 years of days then it's a fine body of work.

A vote for Kelly almost feels like a wasted vote as recency bias counts against her & other babes from year ago due to the knockout process which puts them head to head with more familiar babes from the recent past & a significant proportion of this forum will just vote for the babe that they have actually seen live & not for one who has retired from the shows who they have never seen. The format is unfair to these babes.

Kelly Bell is the best daybabe ever, by a country mile in terms of looks, outfits & the best phone conversation you could wish to have. It's a travesty of justice that she wasn't inducted year ago & I will keep banging my drum until it happens. The fact that it hasn't already undermines the whole integrity of the HOF.

I'm glad I've got that off my chest.

(08-12-2025 00:03 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  A vote for Kelly almost feels like a wasted vote as recency bias counts against her & other babes from year ago due to the knockout process which puts them head to head with more familiar babes from the recent past & a significant proportion of this forum will just vote for the babe that they have actually seen live & not for one who has retired from the shows who they have never seen. The format is unfair to these babes.

Totally agree. I've said it before, the Hall Of Fame should be spared the knockout competition treatment. Like other HoFs, should be decided a panel of 'experts' who know the shows more than most. And induct a good handful of babes each year say half a dozen or more. We'll all be pushing up daisies lol nominating 1 or 2 a year before those who should be recognised eventually get inducted

Now that's off my chest too

^Fair points made guys

I will say this - If we used outside 'experts' like other HOF's do, how many of you would agree with their choices?

This is your Hall of Fame and it's your votes that count in who gets inducted into it, and by doing as a knockout competition - it feels the best way to determine who gets inducted and let's face it, some favourites of the members of this forum probably will lose out to other favourites, but when you look at the roll of honour, we have some pretty firm favourites in it from over the years and who knows, maybe this year we might have a face from the past inducted that was firm favourite with everyone. In some ways, I'd say it is pretty unique HOF.

It's your Hall of Fame - and your votes count!!

In reply to the recent posts.

The rule is 'For the night and dayshow award the girl must have spent the majority of their babeshow time on that category.'
Kelly Bell spent most her time as a day show babe. As Lynda Leigh spent most her time as a nightshow babe.

A few years ago we tried one award (out of three) nominations by commitee (I used the forum winners ), but then went on a forum voting stage. Although it went well I took a lot of stick because of this.

But the award is fluid and each award can be changed. But you have to define where your panel of experts comes from.

^^ Stick that wasn't deserved. Just trying to do the right thing and make a change for the better.
It is about getting a balance between fun & accuracy. Sure knockouts are exciting & you can just about, (but not always) get away with a decent outcome in an annual award.
In a HOF it should be reflecting longevity & consistency over a period of years, the current format isn't really the best fit.

It should be a case of "Gone but not forgotten" As it stands it's a case of "Gone & never even heard of her"
As every year passes the chances of the veteran babes diminishes.
I have seriously thought about boycotting the HOF due to aspects that I find unfair, but would no doubt be viewed as childish.

I don't honestly know what the fairest way to recognise babes long gone (Yvette Merriman, Tara Lee anyone?) would be, but I appreciate the efforts to organise it and look forward to it!

I suppose the only way that would really do away with recency bias would be to limit the HoF to babes who aren't any longer on TV, or who have largely given it up.

Maybe one inductee of 10+ years' absence and one current/recently left? Just a thought...