HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

I had a look and — as far as I can tell — almost every major Hall of Fame (sport, music, film & TV, etc.) periodically changes rules and processes precisely to deal with some of the issues occasionally raised in this thread. E.g. recency bias, eligibility criteria, speed of inductions, recognition of niche genres/categories, etc. Which is to say: adjustment and experimentation is all a normal part of the process.

Personally, I think we’ve landed on the right number of inductees in any given year, a fair set of nomination criteria, and a manageable voting process for what is essentially a volunteer-led bit of end-of-year fun.

A key test: does it feel different to and more special than all the other competitions around this time of year? If the answer is “yes”, then it’s probably doing the job. Others may disagree, but I think the answer is “yes”.

As a first time voter, I'd just like to add my humble perspective.

Looking at the roll of honour, we all have our favourites, but I don't think there is a sane argument against any of the inductees belonging on that list.
So the current voting system has obviously been working.

However, I do agree with the posts about some of the babes of yesteryear getting overlooked.
I don't know what the best way to combat that would be.
If you start adding to many sub categories ( day, night, from the past) it could turn into a tick box exercise.

Just thought I'd chime in, you guys are doing a great job regardless.

I agree about those inducted being worthy in their own right. The question is are they more worthy than those who are constantly overlooked, not in every case, so no it is not working as well as possible. What I mean by that is that its is a great list & all those inducted have deserved to be included at some point, but maybe some should've had to wait their turn behind others who have been overlooked. There's is a pecking order, or should be.
The key point to all of this is great babes will become increasingly overlooked due to the age demographic of the voters. Having been a babeshow viewer from the start I joined this forum in 2011 & was an active poster before packing in around 2014 the forum & the shows were at their peak at that time. When I returned in 2020, whilst many of my peers were still about, year on year they are leaving in increasing numbers leading to a much younger voting population which has impacted on the number of veteran babes likely to receive sufficient votes to ever come close enough to being inducted. The veterans might just scrape in to the knockout stages, but that is becoming increasingly rare, but then the younger voters can't really be expected to vote for babes they have never seen.

This is actually age discrimination against some of the former babes & more senior forum members.

I suppose if the rule was something like -
" To be eligible, babes must have debuted a minimum of 10 years ago "
this could help stop babes " jumping the queue".

(08-12-2025 09:33 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  ^^ 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.

If my earlier post disappointed you in any way Boomer, I apologise. and I apologise to any one else who saw my post and wasn't happy with it.

Has it always been two babes a year? I do fear some names from the past who paved the way and are remembered by us long time viewers are at a disadvantage to those babes say the past couple of years? It's a balancing act. Hope that came out right. Wish we could nominate 5 babes instead of 3, need those extra two slots!

Surprised to see Michelle Moist and Ella Jolie aren't in the HOF for Nights. Surprised to see Gemma Hiles isn't in the HOF for Days.

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence that the babes themselves value the induction to the HOF?

I know that many watch the babe of the year competitions closely, even if they profess not to give a damn. But that’s understandable as they are all ‘active’.

But the HOF is a funny bunch. Some are as active as ever, some are still on OF and thus in the industry if not the channels. Others are out of the industry but still ‘around’ on social media, and some have done their level best to disappear completely.

In general, how have inductees reacted — if at all — to their induction?

(08-12-2025 16:52 )TDK2008 Wrote:  Surprised to see Michelle Moist and Ella Jolie aren't in the HOF for Nights. Surprised to see Gemma Hiles isn't in the HOF for Days.

Gemma Hiles! Forgot about her.

(08-12-2025 16:52 )TDK2008 Wrote:  Surprised to see Michelle Moist and Ella Jolie aren't in the HOF for Nights. Surprised to see Gemma Hiles isn't in the HOF for Days.

Ella and Michelle are future inductees, I hope. Both long-appearing legends.