HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

My goodness me this year's HOF has been a bone of contention, more so than other years I think...

I think there's a sense of relief from many members that two long ago babes, if that's the correct term, have made it in to the HOF. I would hope it gives encouragement to many long time members that their favourites, however long ago they appeared, still have a chance in this award.

The current system, once the count is correct, has advantages and disadvantages, but I still would think we as members all need to come together to devise another strategy in the new year that would allow babes from different eras to succeed.

And Tumble_Drier, if you could provide the refreshment at the meeting that would be much appreciated.

(25-12-2025 21:27 )verybadroger Wrote:  

(25-12-2025 20:45 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  

(25-12-2025 19:53 )verybadroger Wrote:  I think the induction of Lolly rather supports the idea of an initial nomination phase, where the top 8 (or more, in case of ties) make QFs. There are so many HOF-worthy performers from the last 20+ years that to make the top 8 in a year suggests a high likelihood of suitability for the HOF. If a babe makes the top 8 and then goes all the way by beating babes who received more mentions in the preliminary suggestion thread (as Lolly has), she has in effect won people over and convinced voters that she deserves to be in the HOF.

Kelly swept the board; Lolly came from the back of the leading bunch. Both impressive victories in the head-to-head finals.

I've never looked at the nomination phase in the way that you describe it. I believe that Lolly got inducted despite the format used, not because of it.
How can scrapping in to the quarter finals with just 3 nominations suggest a high likelihood of suitability.
Once members were faced with the final 8 there was obviously something of a lightbulb moment & Lolly's name stood out to more voters when compared to the other options.
Although Lolly eventually won by a substantial margin, the fact that she made the quarter finals at all was very tenuous to say the least, just one vote less & she'd have been forgotten about for another year.

Each voter only puts forward three babes per section, but can still feel strongly that other nominees should be in the HOF one day. I know that I nodded in approval when I saw Lolly finally mentioned on page 3 or 4 of the nomination thread. I don't think her three votes initially is a sign at all that forum members weren't on board.

Surely you would agree that there are many, many HOF-worthy performers, with the top 8 from a given year very likely to be strong candidates?

The picking up of steam or lightbulb moment of subsequent rounds shows that voters endorse her and feel she is richly deserving of the HOF.

To me, her progressing to the QFs and going on to claim the whole thing is an endorsement of Lolly in the HOF by the majority and a lovely example of the possibilities offered by this system - people can support more than the three they named initially, should they be knocked out. It's a recognition of the riches of the last 20+ years, allowing us to transfer our memories, affections and our vote, ultimately.

Even though I didn't nominate her I am thrilled that Lolly is now in the Hall of Fame, and enthusiastically say that she very much belongs there!

Do you support a process of switching votes mid-round ?

I noticed that after being the 3rd member to submit your nominations you posted again some days later after 27 of the total 35 members had nominated & asked if you could swap out Karina Curry as you had noticed she'd picked up no other votes up to that point & you'd prefer to use your nomination on someone else who had a chance of progressing.

What part of what you were actually asking made any sense to the fairness & integrity of the HOF competition process ? You would have to allow all the other 34 members who nominated the same opportunity to switch. A ridiculous thought.

I asked, because I see something like this as a forum get-together where we put our heads together and reach a sort of consensus. I think it's nice to support faves that others appreciate as well. What goes around comes around, hopefully. Plus, I thought it was possible that tallying of lists wouldn't start until the deadline.

As I've said I think heaps of babes past and present are HOF-worthy (including Karina and Honey for sure). I would only vote for a performer that I thought was deserving of being in the HOF, and the sad reality was that Karina had been left aside for this year. I only asked whether it was something that would be allowed. I don't know whether my request was allowed or not. The other 34 voters had the same deadline and opportunity to request a change.

It's not a very nice tone you strike in your last line.

The Hall of Fame award has often asked many questions.
What does a babe have to do to be considered?
There are examples in the world of sport and of music of how they reward who they see as HOF'ers.
And there's also the problem as to how do we include the 'Pioneers' of the babeshows who the left before the awards where created.
There's no easy answers.

There are some formats which are used around the forum, and there's always pro's and cons on which one is best. But it doesn't matter how we get there, it's making sure that we finally induct all the babes who deserve to be there.

There's also something else that we need to resolve, and that is how do we get the members who have started over the last decade to get involved.

There's been a lot of posts as to what should be done and a lot of the suggestions seem workable.

The next person to take up the challenge must be given the freedom. The freedom to run the awards when he wants, and with any criteria that he believes will work best. And with any format that will get the desired results.

Running this award is difficult, and what we need next is for everyone to get behind him. He will need the backing of all of us.

I’ll toss this in, for what it’s worth, as it may help to explain the seemingly anomalous “Lolly Badcock paradox” — i.e. how did she scrape into the quarterfinals and then run away with the competition?

It’s what I have previously described as the “oh yeah” factor.

Lolly was comfortably one of my favourites when she was active. But a decade later, when the time came to nominate three babes, I had forgotten all about her. Not because she wasn’t great, but simply because I don’t watch babeshows professionally — my memory of all the girls who have graced the screen is flawed and fragmented.

I nominate three that I remember fondly in the moment, but rely on the nomination process to remind me of all the ones I’ve forgotten. As soon as Lolly’s name popped up, I said — as I say almost every year — “Oh yeah! Of course she should be in the HOF!” I always end up voting for someone that I didn’t even think to nominate.

I’m agnostic on the method — whether by panel, nomination, knock-out, etc. Whoever volunteers to take this on should be free to make their own rules without a lot of second-guessing. But I humbly suggest that the two-stage process is retained, if only for the sake of preserving the possibility of these “oh yeah” moments.

When the HOF 2026 hopefully happens, I propose two Night Babes and two Day Babes so four in total. I think two a year is too few. It's going to take ages for some no brainers to get in.

I do hope this is run again even with how hard going it is trying to please everyone. I'll be sad to see it go. I miss taking part when absent from here.

(26-12-2025 04:59 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  I nominate three that I remember fondly in the moment, but rely on the nomination process to remind me of all the ones I’ve forgotten. As soon as Lolly’s name popped up, I said — as I say almost every year — “Oh yeah! Of course she should be in the HOF!” I always end up voting for someone that I didn’t even think to nominate.

I’m agnostic on the method — whether by panel, nomination, knock-out, etc. Whoever volunteers to take this on should be free to make their own rules without a lot of second-guessing. But I humbly suggest that the two-stage process is retained, if only for the sake of preserving the possibility of these “oh yeah” moments.

Nicely put.

Contributors vote for three faves, but in a group endeavour there'll always be occasion that babes one likes as much or more than one's own picks are nominated.

I didn't forget about Lolly. Rather, I voted for three standout faves who I thought stood a reasonable chance of chiming with forum sentiment.

Like you, I'm happy that Lolly caught on this year. She has been gone for some time, so it's good to see that three prompts in the nomination round brought back all the collective support of forum members. I think it's the knock-out system working well. As I said earlier, most if not all on here will have way more than three babes they are enthusiastic about entering the HOF..

(26-12-2025 04:59 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  I’ll toss this in, for what it’s worth, as it may help to explain the seemingly anomalous “Lolly Badcock paradox” — i.e. how did she scrape into the quarterfinals and then run away with the competition?

It’s what I have previously described as the “oh yeah” factor.

Lolly was comfortably one of my favourites when she was active. But a decade later, when the time came to nominate three babes, I had forgotten all about her. Not because she wasn’t great, but simply because I don’t watch babeshows professionally — my memory of all the girls who have graced the screen is flawed and fragmented.

I nominate three that I remember fondly in the moment, but rely on the nomination process to remind me of all the ones I’ve forgotten. As soon as Lolly’s name popped up, I said — as I say almost every year — “Oh yeah! Of course she should be in the HOF!” I always end up voting for someone that I didn’t even think to nominate.

I’m agnostic on the method — whether by panel, nomination, knock-out, etc. Whoever volunteers to take this on should be free to make their own rules without a lot of second-guessing. But I humbly suggest that the two-stage process is retained, if only for the sake of preserving the possibility of these “oh yeah” moments.

There's two reasons that can explain Lolly coming from the back of the field to win. This ^ (which is also exactly the reason I never jump in early in nomination rounds, or single vote competitions) and people swapping to her after their own favored babe doesn't make the cut, or is knocked out in earlier head to heads. So they're effectively voting her in as their second or third choice. Which, along with tactical voting, is the flaw with the head to head method, imo.
And, just to remind everyone, I was one of the few who nominated her in the first place. So I'm not suggesting she didn't deserve the victory. I'm just dissecting the process here.

My preferred format would be a weighted nominations round (which would reduce the likelihood of tied places) followed by a shortlist for a single voting round. I don't see any reason the number in the shortlist couldn't be flexible, within reason. i.e. if there was a tie for last place in a 8 place field, just make it 9 rather than have a run -off.

On a separate note, here's something I'm going to throw out. How about automatic induction for any babe who's done 10 years on the channels. Not necessarily consecutively, but say 5 years, a 2 year break, then 3 back on, would only count as 8.
I haven't done any research, but off the top of my head, that would bring in Beth (who's clearly going to make it anyway, but it frees up space in future draws for other babes) and Lori (who never seems to feature in comps anywhere, but has clearly done the miles).

^ Many sound thoughts here.