jdw

Several versions of it up there, but that's the best quality cap that I found. John

Found it: #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d02Jjxa4u9k #2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cZVaTyVhw #3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UkbLMHhFhw John

Wow... how far have we fallen. :/ What's the date and the opponent. I feel that I need to find it on youtube to watch just what makes for a Tokyo Sports MOTY these days. John

This kind of typifies why I think we can't compare the vampires of the Dusty/Abby era with today: Jun Kasai vs MASADA - Razor Death MatchPart 1 Jun Kasai vs MASADA - Razor Death MatchPart 2 Jun Kasai vs MASADA - Razor Death MatchPart 3 Doubt that's even the most extreme thing Kasai or Masada have done. John

Dave's intro to the TUF finals: John

I suspect over time that I've knocked every type of "hard hitting wrestling style" that's out there. No doubt there some easy stuff out there to find showing me enjoying Hotta stiffing Toyota as well. My point was that if it's headroping, use headroping examples. If it's vampire wrestlers, be honest about the difference between Dusty slicing his head and Sandman and Foley. If we're talking about hard hitting wrestling, there probably are better examples than Hash *despite* the style he worked because folks will point to the cause of death and go, "It's a brain aneurysm... what does that have to do with his style?" We (meaning those of us who have railed against the various stupid dangerous stuff in the ring) have over time convinced a lot of people that things need to change. Not the folks in the business, and not what remains of the "Kill yourself for us" crowd. But the general tone of the conversation is quite different from what it was back when Foley went through the cage. Different from 2003, even. I think that's largely because folks on our side have made good arguments, and the medical facts overtime keep favoring us. We shouldn't cloud that by being sloppy or extreme in making the arguments, but instead stay clear and precise. :/ John

I don't disagree with that. There were tons of things that caused the issues seen in his brain tissue. I tend to think "headrops" are a small item in there. He really wasn't that insane of a headropper relative to Misawa an others. The diving headbut isn't a headrop, or we should toss Harley in here as well. :/ He did take (and more to the point *give*) suplexes with more *force* than most, but headrops weren't really his specialty. Other concussive things added up far more. I tossed out the chairshot because it's a garbage standard spot from the 90s. Agreed on all of that. Same could be said of 90s vampire wrestlers. Rotten is still alive, right? We don't know how scrambled he is. Dittos Sandman. I didn't know Hash died of headroping. That's news to me. Takayama is alive and the TC champ at the moment. He's been pretty scrambled over the years. How much of that is from his pro wrestling and how much of it is from stuff like Frye punching him right in the skull a few dozen times (and other MMA ass kickings he's eaten over the years)? I don't know. And for all we know, Takayama would "live a long life". Hoshikawa is a tricky one. Power Bomb off the cage, lariat... those are dangerous moves, but are they what we consider "headrops". Foley going through the cage practically dropped on his neck. But was the spot a "headrop", or just another really fucking stupid dangerous spot that people in wrestling shouldn't be doing. This gets to my point: suddenly Hash, Takayama & Hoshikawa are on a list of "maimed my headroping moves". That's an extreme. And if someone doesn't buy that Hash died because of a headrop, you risk losing them even buying into the "headroping is dangerous risky stuff that has no business in pro wrestling" point. :/ I agree. We also need to be clearer: Misawa died from his neck breaking, which isn't the same as Benoit's brain damage or Andrew Martin's. Edge and even Scott Hall have injured their next working a far safer style than Misawa. We can't lump everything in together, other than we know: * A lot of shit in pro wrestling is dangerous * More effort needs to be made in *eliminating* the dangerous stuff * too much effort is made in trying to claim the dangerous stuff isn't, or in trying to make the dangerous stuff "safer" Chairshots are bad. Headrops are bad. I'd just as soon see both gone from wrestling. Powerbombs can be riskier than we think, even after we've seen a ton of "soft" ones... so a lot of thought needs to be put into them. Doing them off cages is pretty fucking dumb. Doing them "hard" or "stiff" is pretty dumb. But even stuff like the Gore/Spear appears to be a pretty damn dumb move. John

I'd say there's a difference between 70s bleeders (most of who was mentioned) and 90s bleeders. Chairshots were as basic of a staple in garbage matches in the 90s as headrops were in 90s All Japan. The "realism" of chairshots escalates every bit as much, if not more, than headrops did. What do we think had more of an impact on Benoit's screwed up brain tissue: headrops or chairshots? It's not like Chris was a heavyduty headrop eater, but when needing to eat a chairshot he seemed during and after his time in ECW to want to "make it look good" rather than protect himself like Triple H does (which is ironic since Trip isn't very protective when swinging a chair). Onita is alive. But we have no idea how screwed up his brain is from the chairshots. Dittos Mick, Sandman, Rotten, etc. On the other side, we have Misawa and... ? I don't think any of us have classified the move Plum died from in what we typically call "headrops". This was one of the things I was trying to get across above. I don't care for headrops. Turned on them early than most folks, as the only person I can recall ranting about their safety before me was Jewett, and the two of us pretty much got dismissed as panty wastes on the issue by the "They Kill Themselves For Us!!!" crowd. But... If you make the argument against these things in the extreme, you risk losing people who would otherwise be buying your point. John

Agreed. That's fairly accurate of Dave, and along the lines of what I was talking about with the "sick move" comment one moment and ****1/2 at the end. I think by the early part of this decade the blood vampires, garbage fans and headrop lovers were all pretty much lumped into a "They kill themselves to entertain us!" group and ridiculed. It was a large group of fans, so it's taken years to see it shrink. Of course there still are plenty of people who get off on it. John

This is a parody book, right? John

Just to be clear, I'm not massively disagreeing with your comment, Bix. A little symantic disagreement, and a bit less extreme in my comment. I wouldn't agrue that headrops are "safe". Dangerous, risky moves that likely cause some damage/pain (either at the moment or accumulation of years of bumping) to parts of the body even when done in a "protected" fashion. But they also aren't what I would call "legit". John

Headrops weren't introduced because they were "cool". They were introduced because wrestlers thought they gave an aura of danger and got a pop. One gets a pop, so someone else does it. Pop, more. Another pop, still more. The majority of "headrops" are *not* as legit as they look. Play it live and be unaware of what you're watching, and it looks like a backdrop drive should knock Kobashi out and/or break his neck and/or crack his skull and/or concuss the shit out of him. Watch it closely and you might pick up on what the two are attempting to do to make it "not hurt" or "not hurt much". Christ, Kobashi was in good enough shape after the first in their famous match to sell it in a theatrical fashion rather than sell that he was knocked out. Headrops aren't anymore "legit" than a gore. I don't think anyone ever argued that headrops weren't what they looked like: dangerous risky moves with a narrow margin of error that popped fans. What was fairly slow in coming was people making arguments that the headropping wasn't worth the risk, and actually contributed to escalating the risk as they were getting more heat than many safer elements of matches. There were people making that argument no later than 1998, and possibly earlier... but not a whole lot earlier. What was even slower is how long it took after the argument was made for the worm to turn strongly on it. Headrop Lovers are now seen as being as crackpotty as those who want to see Foley thrown through more cage ceilings. But that took a long time to happen, and I'm there still are pretty prominent people who just don't give a fuck. They might mouth a "that was a sick move" comment, but in the end you'll see a ****1/2 rating. John

I thought I said that. John

Yep, the WWE wanted to make sure they got in the word "terminated" and the date to put distance between themselves and the death. John

I'm not either. But we've had age of consent discussions here before (Savage-Steph), so it's very easy to Google up the laws in each state. The Wiki page is a good source that I recalled from that dicussion, nicely linking off the the codes in many of the states. John

See the Congress thread. John

I don't have time to listen to a freaking wrestling talk show. I read the piece before posting, and the Von Eric and Pro Wrestling stuff is in the article. Of course the 2008 Presidential Election was pro wrestling too. John, looking forward to Bret Farve vs Payton Manning or Tom Brady in the Super Bowl being a lead in the WON because it's total pro wrestling...

Lead story in this week's WON is the Kameda-Naito World Boxing Council flyweight championship match. I've always been supportive of MMA coverage, and back in the day defended it against the first wave of folks who thought Dave shouldn't cover it. Despite my distaste for the MMA=Wrestling themes, I still support Dave cover it. Boxing... John

Age of consent in MN is 16: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_conse...erica#Minnesota What Bix said is correct: 609.344, Minnesota Statutes 2006: CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE THIRD DEGREE I suspect it would be under this subsection: If Chad is around he probably knows more on this. But my recollection is that's a pretty common element to state laws in there aimed at roles such as teachers/school officials, preachers/clergy, coaches, mentors/adult supporvisors and employers of youth. There are other positions of authority like cops, but that captures many of the typical ones. I would think step-parents / step-siblings, adoptive parents and the like are captured by the "significant relationship" category. Anyway, I think Bix is correct. John

On Chapman, yeah... he's the one who will never cop to Gotch being a worker. He has too much invested in Gotch at this point to: it's pretty much his entire legacy when it comes to "pro wrestling historian". I also think in the past he's been willing to put over Caddock as the real deal, which pushes "fake" out to 1920 after Caddock dropped the title to Stecher to start Joe's second reign. So I think it's being consistent here. Wrong, but consistently wrong. John

Died? I thought he was just hospitalized. Reports are conflicting. John

I'd carve out Dave from "internet journalists" on this one. Dave wrote about Eddy's issues for a long time. He also didn't shy away from Chris being large long before Chris went double homicide. If there's a criticism of Dave on this issue is would be his comments with "look" can at times be at odds with his long standing writing about steroids being a problem in the business. I haven't talked to him about it for years, and don't listen to the WO Show, so I don't know how he currently reconciles and/or califies that two points. I suspect that he would put it that he wants wrestlers to stay in great shape and look athletic, but just without the juice and HGH. That can be a minor criticism of Dave because his writing and position on roids in the business has been out there for so long (no later than Gino's death) and been so strong. It's just a little jarring when you run across the "look" comment in the middle of a piece. John

Vince was discontinued as a performer (which was paying him a downside of $1m a year) about, oh, five minutes after the institution of the Wellness Policy. Incorrect: "Certain of our named executive officers have employment agreements that affect the compensation reported for them. We currently have employment agreements with each of Vincent McMahon and Linda McMahon having terms ending on October 14, 2010. Mr. and Mrs. McMahon also have booking contracts that are coterminous with their employment agreements." - WWE DEF 14A filed 3/18/2009 He still has a booking agreement that covers him for his ongoing performances on TV and PPV. What you're thinking about is this: "From November 2004 through January 1, 2007, Mr. and Mrs. McMahon waived all compensation, consisting of salary, bonuses and booking fees, under the agreements. Since the beginning of 2007, they began receiving salary in the amount of $850,000, in the case of Mr. McMahon, and $500,000, in the case of Mrs. McMahon. They continue to waive all other compensation." - WWE DEF 14A filed 3/18/2009 Reality Check: Vince's booking contract, which he continues to perform under: Booking Contract with Vincent K. McMahon, dated February 15, 2000 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2000). That covers both the "wrestling match" side, and the Entertainer side. The contract specifically covers taking dope, the WWE's dope testing program, and Vince's obligations under it. The standard moral turpitude language: But even more explicit, the Dope Testing language: Even if we ignore Vince's regular 2009 appearances as "performing" (though the WWE contractually doesn't), the timeline is also an obvious problem: February 2006 - Wellness Policy implemented April 29, 2007 - Vince McMahon & Shane McMahon & Umaga defeated Bobby Lashley © June 3, 2007 - Bobby Lashley defeated Vince McMahon © A full year after the policy was rolled out, Vince was in the ring as the ECW Champ. It's *possible* that Vince has been tested per the requirements of his contract. Possible. If he was, it hasn't been random, nor regular. Almost certainly it's been limited, he's been told well in advance, and he's either had plenty of time to get stuff out of his system... or he's had someone like Fink piss in the bottle for him. I think we all know that the WWE Drug Policy all through the years has always been applied in different ways to different people. John

And you're thinking that in his time with the WWE that Rey's test have show that he's taken 0 stuff? Rey's riods have gotten a pass because he had a prescription for the old testosterone excuse. His weed smoking is ignored. His painkillers have a scrip and likely fall within whatever silly limits the WWE sets. That's setting aside the times that he probably had had something stronger show up on the tests and had a Good Talking To. In fact, I seem to recall he got suspened at least once for exceeding the allowable use levels in the WWE's testing program. Though I maybe thinking of someone else since it's hard to keep track of them in the company. John