WWE HOF Rookie Card Checklist

[sthoemke]

Paul Heyman has 1991 Championship Marketing WCW cards

[ghooper33]

Updates to the list:

Lex Luger - 1988 Wonderama #125
Updated: Paul Heyman - 1991 WCW Championship Marketing #23

[Crackerwax]

Really great list, and round of applause to all for contributing to the updates.

I think I found another one that could be amended.

I notice that '95 Isaac Yank'em/'98 Kane are listed one after another, and this one is a little bit like that, because prior to his days as a train conductor, The Godfather was (allegedly) involved in the dark arts of voodoo...

AKA: Papa Shango - 1992 Merlin Series 1 #93

I will also comment that I agree with the listing of the two characters, with each having a wrestling "rookie" card. If you were putting together this type of collection, the first Kane card is notable, as is the first Godfather, but then you close your eyes and pretend just hard enough, and we all know each of these men lived a past life that spawned their true first RC.

And last comment here, I know the list is meant to be Hall of Famers, but the 1992 Merlin set got me thinking about another name who will likely never be in the WWE hall, but who probably deserves to be in a collection like this...

Owen Hart - 1992 Merlin Series 1 #37

(Yes, I know 1990 Classic with half a face of the Blue Blazer, but that's another argument for next time, haha!)

[ghooper33]

Originally Posted by Crackerwax

Really great list, and round of applause to all for contributing to the updates.

I think I found another one that could be amended.

I notice that '95 Isaac Yank'em/'98 Kane are listed one after another, and this one is a little bit like that, because prior to his days as a train conductor, The Godfather was (allegedly) involved in the dark arts of voodoo...

AKA: Papa Shango - 1992 Merlin Series 1 #93

I will also comment that I agree with the listing of the two characters, with each having a wrestling "rookie" card. If you were putting together this type of collection, the first Kane card is notable, as is the first Godfather, but then you close your eyes and pretend just hard enough, and we all know each of these men lived a past life that spawned their true first RC.

And last comment here, I know the list is meant to be Hall of Famers, but the 1992 Merlin set got me thinking about another name who will likely never be in the WWE hall, but who probably deserves to be in a collection like this...

Owen Hart - 1992 Merlin Series 1 #37

(Yes, I know 1990 Classic with half a face of the Blue Blazer, but that's another argument for next time, haha!)

Great stuff! I have updated the Papa Shango cards:

Papa Shango (Godfather)- 1992 Merlin Series 1 #93

Legit he had me wondering if he was real or a gimmick…

Owen is an interesting possibility to the list. I don’t think he meets the criteria only because this is a “HOF” list, but certainly would be in the list of all time greats. I wonder if there is ever a time where the WWE is comfortable recognizing him along with the all time greats.

[Crackerwax]

I have a couple more...

Abdullah The Butcher has a 1976 Yamakatsu card #36. I don't know very much about the set, so maybe it's excluded for being an oddball? I just remembered it exists and looked it up, it's undersized, but it's a cool image of him bleeding all over the place. And the '81 Popy card is cut from a figure, so idk?

As well, they were already mentioned in this thread (sthoemke, thank you), but I would agree and suggest these to also be amended...

Rikishi - 1993 Merlin "Fatu" #78

Stacy Keibler - She has the 2000 Ms. Hancock card, which should maybe just be the one? But if that's excluded as oddball, the Royal Rumble set is generally considered the big one for 2002 (Cena, Lesnar, Orton, Batista), so I would suggest it's #55 there (if it's not Ms. Hancock).

[Crackerwax]

A few more thoughts...

I think Ultimate Warrior should be 1989 Classic #127. He has some other action cards in the set, but generally the "studio/portrait" is considered the one. We have it listed as card #11, which might just be a typo? It's not one of the Ultimate Warrior cards.

I would also comment that the Rick Rude Monty Gum card should be tossed out. There are two cards of him in the set, and he appears on both with Billy Jack Haynes, so neither is a solo card, and to me they just don't cut it in terms of honoring the wrestler. Rude also has a tiny card from Hostess chips in '88, and I think also a playing card, but for my own collection, I feel there are two better solo RCs. One is the Classic 1989 back #104. The other is the '89 Market Scene card.

As well, I would argue that Macho Man's true RC is the one with Miss Elizabeth. I think it's okay if the second person on the card is the manager, and 1985 OPC #63 is generally accepted as the Macho Man's true RC. Card #11 is great in its own right, but it's the "action" card in that set, rather than the "player" card.

Another one I might challenge is Shawn Michaels. The 1990 card we currently have listed is a sticker, and I think it's also pretty undersized, so it's a bit of an oddball. We all know the solo run started the moment Marty Jannetty's forehead broke the glass on The Barber Shop, and that aired on TV in early 1992. The first solo cards of Michaels as The Heartbreak Kid came that year, and I would say his solo RC is 1992 Merlin Series One #80. He appears with Sensational Sherri, but it's the portrait card in the set, and she was his manager, so that's the card on my personal list and the one in my collection. You could also argue for Merlin Series 2 #65, which is another great Heartbreak Kid card from '92, and it's the first true solo portrait.

And one more, Sting Wonderama. If we're excluding the '87 test run with the brown backs, it should be '88 Wonderama #194. If you look at the back of the cards in the set, each wrestler has one "index" card with a bunch of stats listed, as opposed to others with a little write-up. The index cards are usually considered the ones in this set, and again if we're tossing the test run, it leads us back to card #194 as Sting's RC.

[sthoemke]

Originally Posted by Crackerwax

I have a couple more...

Abdullah The Butcher has a 1976 Yamakatsu card #36. I don't know very much about the set, so maybe it's excluded for being an oddball? I just remembered it exists and looked it up, it's undersized, but it's a cool image of him bleeding all over the place. And the '81 Popy card is cut from a figure, so idk?

As well, they were already mentioned in this thread (sthoemke, thank you), but I would agree and suggest these to also be amended...

Rikishi - 1993 Merlin "Fatu" #78

Stacy Keibler - She has the 2000 Ms. Hancock card, which should maybe just be the one? But if that's excluded as oddball, the Royal Rumble set is generally considered the big one for 2002 (Cena, Lesnar, Orton, Batista), so I would suggest it's #55 there (if it's not Ms. Hancock).

Two versions. The "1st Edition" would be the earliest

Stacy Keibler - 2000 Ms. Hancock card 1st Edition

[ghooper33]

Hey everyone - for some reason I missed the other suggestions. They were great! I added the Fatu separately along with leaving the Rikishi. I am still torn on whether the 1st card of the character is the rookie or the first card of the person is the rookie card. My vote: Why not both!

@crackerwax - love your feedback - I will be on top of the changes moving foward!

I didn't add the 2000 Ms Handcock card because it is a TCG, and I am putting this as an oddball. I also think the 2002 Royal Rumble card is usually considered her rookie - but I would to hear what you guys think!

I am not a big fan of the Monty cards, but the 80's was pretty much all oddball. I have always considered this Rick Rude's rookie, but always happy to discuss and update.

And we get to add Stephanie McMahon to the list!

Here are the updates:

• Abdullah the Butcher - 1974 Yamakatsu #36
• Fatu (Rikishi) - 1993 Merlin #78
• Macho Man Randy Savage - 1985 OPC #63 (updated the card number)
• Shawn Michaels - 1992 Merlin Series 1 #80
• Sting - 1988 NWA Wonderama Superstars #194 (updated the card number)
• Stephanie McMahon - 2001 Fleer Raw is War #68

[BlowoutBuzz]

I think tag team card considerations should be made. A lot of guys start that way -- such as Shawn Michaels.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Originally Posted by ghooper33

I didn't add the 2000 Ms Hancock card because it is a TCG, and I am putting this as an oddball. I also think the 2002 Royal Rumble card is usually considered her rookie - but I would to hear what you guys think!

Any of her base cards from 2002 would be RCs. (Same for any stars in modern years with a few brand appearances. First year of in-pack base cards = all are RCs.)

[ghooper33]

Originally Posted by BlowoutBuzz

I think tag team card considerations should be made. A lot of guys start that way -- such as Shawn Michaels.

I definitely can see this, but because tag teams go into the HOF as a tag team, then the first tag team card would work for the tag team RC and the solo card works for the solo HOF RC.

This is what I love about wrestling cards - so many nuances to collect. Is it the person’s first appearance on a card? The first character on a card? Tag team? Does it have to be the first card in the WWF/WWE promotion? Are TNA cards part of the WWE multiverse now?

[ghooper33]

Originally Posted by BlowoutBuzz

Any of her base cards from 2002 would be RCs. (Same for any stars in modern years with a few brand appearances. First year of in-pack base cards = all are RCs.)

100% agree. If I had to pick the most recognized RCs then I go with the Fleer Royal Rumble base cards.

Modern wrestling RCs are going to be trouble trying to pick one to represent the “most desired” RC.

[Crackerwax]

Originally Posted by BlowoutBuzz

I think tag team card considerations should be made. A lot of guys start that way -- such as Shawn Michaels.

I totally agree that tag-team cards should be included.

One thing that I just generally accept for my own collection is that a wrestler can have more than one RC. That might be a tag-team card, a solo card, or the first card of a new character. Or it might be an oddball first card, or the first actual pack-pulled licensed trading card, or even the first solo WWF portrait style card. It always depends, and for some wrestlers this stuff matters and means they have several notable RCs or firsts, others it just doesn't and it leads you to a single obvious one.

For this reason, I think the list could be expanded to allow some of the names to have several listings. This might apply to someone like Shawn Michaels (The Rockers came up), or also wrestlers with more than one card that came out the same year. Ultimate Warrior Market Scene or Undertaker Merlin come to mind as iconic and notable cards that are missing.

Wrestling is case by case in a way that's different from the stick and ball sports, and I think it's more fun to just play along and suspend disbelief when it comes to cards that fall outside the traditional rules. It would be okay to include The Rockers Market Scene and Classic cards, and it would also be okay to include a solo card of The Heartbreak Kid. Kane as the big red machine and Isaac Yank'em as the dentist. Papa Shango and The Godfather...

All aboard!

The whole point is just to have fun and use the list to hopefully put together a collection of wrestling cards with a story, and I think it only gets better when we toss out the idea of trying to get it down to one card for each particular guy.

[Crackerwax]

Furthering my last post...

If there are two licensed, pack-pulled sets that came out the same year, I believe they should both count. I don't think cards that came out in North America should be given priority, as wrestling is worldwide in a way that other sports aren't, and especially because it leads us to a bunch of cards not currently on the list that are probably considered "better" than the ones that are.

I also don't think it matters which set came out before the other, since it's accepted across the hobby that there are RCs in all the different sets in a given year.

Following that logic, a few cards that deserve to be added...

1989 Market Scene Series 3 - Ultimate Warrior #11
1991 Merlin - Undertaker #40 (German, Italian, UK)
1995 Merlin - Jeff Jarrett #23
1991 Championship Marketing - Jim Ross #15
1991 Merlin - Paul Bearer #141
1989 Market Scene Series 1 - Sensational Sherri #12

[Crackerwax]

I would also comment that when there's more than one card of a wrestler in a set, the card that takes priority is the studio "portrait" card, or the "player" card with the name only on the front, ahead of the action/in-ring cards.

And other rules that I think make sense if there is no portrait card, it's the one where the wrestler is solo (managers excepted), wearing the most ring gear, and/or with the best close-up of the face.

Sometimes the back of the card can also factor, and it would be the one with the stats, basically the "player" card. No checklist.

[itsbaytime]

I agree with both of the above posts and have basically used them as guidelines for years. That is why I like the 85 OPC Macho with Eiizabeth portrait card as opposed to the Macho by himself card as well as the 91 Undertaker in both Classic and Merlin.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Originally Posted by ghooper33

Is it the person’s first appearance on a card? The first character on a card? Tag team? Does it have to be the first card in the WWF/WWE promotion? Are TNA cards part of the WWE multiverse now?

Top level of competition (major promotion) with a card set issued in packs or pack/set by the promotion work as RCs for me. A lot of WWE Hall of Famers worked elsewhere first.

WWE, AEW, WCW, oldschool NWA, BBM Japan, TNA/Impact, AAA Lucha, etc. would work in my mind. Only tough part is when somebody has international cardboard ... is that readily available enough to be a RC? (Maybe, maybe not.) Stardom is a good example of this. Their sets are LOADED.

Gaming releases also kind of make things cloudy ... in most/all instances, they are not RCs. Just not the same in distribution and content/backs.

Punk RC, for example, would clearly be Pacific TNA. They were big enough at time to have a card set from a major company at that time before the company shrunk, had no cards, got cards back and then didn't have them for a long time. (Their now is where I think promotion-made cards could be considered but still might be more like what I mention next.)

Smaller indy companies of now just aren't at that level in my mind -- so I'd treat their sets more like minor league or XRCs if one is familiar with that past cataloging tag and its logic. (Tough would be whether today's NWA, for example, is still highest level or tier down. Always some interpretation. I'd probably lean toward no.)

I'd go with RC being a person's first card from packs in calendar year no matter what as RC -- then can highlight first as a later character if need be. Much like how a tag team card is a first -- and then later first solo card.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Originally Posted by ghooper33

100% agree. If I had to pick the most recognized RCs then I go with the Fleer Royal Rumble base cards.

Modern wrestling RCs are going to be trouble trying to pick one to represent the “most desired” RC.

Taste preference doesn't matter in terms of the definition. They all either are a RC or they aren't. (Parallels and inserts aren't if from same year, for example, as both are inserts.) I'm using the same RC criteria as any other sport -- they should all apply.

[ghooper33]

Originally Posted by BlowoutBuzz

Top level of competition (major promotion) with a card set issued in packs or pack/set by the promotion work as RCs for me. A lot of WWE Hall of Famers worked elsewhere first.

WWE, AEW, WCW, oldschool NWA, BBM Japan, TNA/Impact, AAA Lucha, etc. would work in my mind. Only tough part is when somebody has international cardboard ... is that readily available enough to be a RC? (Maybe, maybe not.) Stardom is a good example of this. Their sets are LOADED.

Gaming releases also kind of make things cloudy ... in most/all instances, they are not RCs. Just not the same in distribution and content/backs.

Punk RC, for example, would clearly be Pacific TNA. They were big enough at time to have a card set from a major company at that time before the company shrunk, had no cards, got cards back and then didn't have them for a long time. (Their now is where I think promotion-made cards could be considered but still might be more like what I mention next.)

Smaller indy companies of now just aren't at that level in my mind -- so I'd treat their sets more like minor league or XRCs if one is familiar with that past cataloging tag and its logic. (Tough would be whether today's NWA, for example, is still highest level or tier down. Always some interpretation. I'd probably lean toward no.)

I'd go with RC being a person's first card from packs in calendar year no matter what as RC -- then can highlight first as a later character if need be. Much like how a tag team card is a first -- and then later first solo card.

Well said! Chris Jericho’s 1993 CMLL Tops Corason Leon card is awesome, but I don’t consider this his mainstream rookie. This post summarizes my thought process too.

[ghooper33]

Originally Posted by BlowoutBuzz

Taste preference doesn't matter in terms of the definition. They all either are a RC or they aren't. (Parallels and inserts aren't if from same year, for example, as both are inserts.) I'm using the same RC criteria as any other sport -- they should all apply.

My goal for this is to find the one card that folks think of for “the” rookie card for a wrestler.

For example, Tony Gywnn unquestionably has three rookies cards in 1983, but his Topps card is the most desired rookie card and the card most people think of.

Parallels are tricky and super low printed product muddies the water for me. Bowman Chrome numbered cards are generally considered rookie cards, but not the subsets. Is an Oba Femi Panini Select Gold a rookie card? Is the Flawless Diamond the best? All are rookies to me, but which one would I want to represent him as his rookie card (I don’t think there are any wrong answers here).

[BlowoutBuzz]

Parallels are insert cards. Rookie Cards are never insert cards -- they are base set cards. In some products, auto/mem cards can be built into the main set's checklists. So, while those are hits (and hits are often inserts), they are also technically RCs if part of the main set's checklist. There can be short-printed tiers that are RCs like with Select.

All 2024 Oba Femi base set cards are RCs. Gold is a parallel, so no. In Flawless, the base cards are the gem cards so the regular one (highest volume found most often) would be a RC with other versions being parallels.

I think narrowing the list to the definition-based RCs is step one and is the only one that ultimately matters. Letting people decide their favorites, a taste/preference thing, is secondary. (There will never be a consensus in the hobby in 2025. lol.)