jdw

"That ain't right... that ain't right." -Bill Dundee

I thinking the Jeffey Jarrett egofuck-centric nature of the company will drive Jerome nuts before "it gets better".

I had them as my #10, then flip it for someone I thought might fall off. :/ I did have several on there that you advocated.

I didn't vote for Hase, and was pretty strong at the time in saying that I didn't think he warranted going in. For the life of me I don't recall whether I voted for Chono. The other guys who got in that year (Angle, Taker, Sakuraba and Backlund) ate up more of my focus and those discussions stick more in my mind. I would rate Chono higher than Sasaki all around.

Interesting question. This would be high on the list, with the caveat that he did get a lot of airtime for an extremely minor character over the years: It was Earl's debut in the WWF, playing the Fake Dave, and pretty much just a background player in the match until the end. Earl became a fixture as a ref after that. Mostly a background figure for ages, and then we get the Montreal Screwjob as well. Lot's of airtime is the hang up. But from both a kayfabe (ending Hulks original dynastic reign) and non-kayfabe (screwing over Bret), that's pretty major impact for someone who was nothing more than a minor character.

One of these years you need to do a companion piece on the "positive" side of WCW in the Monday Night Wars era: September 4, 1995 (first Nitro) - through December 28, 1998 (last Nitro before the Finger Poke). There was no Thunder in between that last show and the next Nitro. The main event of that is Flair vs Bischoff, and in the middle of the show is: Eddy & Juve vs Rey & Kidman (16:23) "Another GOLDEN match from these guys." -CRZ There's also a Fit vs Booker match. Of course looking at Starcade the night before... uh... er... um... John

I don't know. I feel songs like "Discotheque", "Mofo" and "Last Night on Earth" are extensions of the direction of Achtung Baby. "Please" is a song they could have recorded in several eras, but they way the recorded it fits into the AB era. "Staring at the Sun" is a bit like "One" where it could fit into different eras with that recording. That why I say that the last three albums aren't really a big new reinvention, but kind of focusing on the things that "worked" in the earlier eras. They could easily record "Mysterious Ways" today if it were a new song, probably slightly different instrumentation and it would fit in with the recent albums. I don't think it would be as good as what they were up to at the time fit the song well... where as "One" could be recorded in pretty much era with their playing style of the time and get nailed because it's such a simple song. Well, maybe Boy/October era would be quirky and interesting, but by War they would have figured it out.

Good post, Tim.

Yeah, Steve is content over craft to a T. We disagree on all sorts of things. He'll pull something out of left field that sounds nuts, and a good chunk of the time is nuts (like most of what all of us pull out of left field). But there a lot of times where something he said two years ago, sounded goofy at the time, turns out to be pretty damn spot on when you've had more time to ripen it in the brain. I could give two examples of major advancements that he's had, which are just two of many: Fall Guys was like the Old Testament of pro wrestling, with the WON the New Testament. It was sacred holy writ, unassailable except for having some dates wrong perhaps, but even there fewer than most books of that vintage. At some point, Steve started noodling around in his brain that one of the primary sources of it was Toots Mondt, that it shamelessly put over Toots and the Toots Version Of History, and that maybe it was full of shit on that stuff. After giving it a fair amount of thought and thinking there was a germ there, he want to work on it. And more work. And researching. And writing. In the end, it was an epic hammer job that shredded the Toots Version of History. "Toots Mondt writing wrestling history is like the Nazis running the Nuremberg trials." -Steve Yohe Fall Guys is no longer thought of as the Old Testament of pro wrestling. The second would be Gambling & Pro Wrestling, which is a concept that's been developed enough over the past decade that Jon touched on it in his book. The early days of pro wrestling weren't about making money off of spectator tickets. It was about ripping off / conning / working the gamblers. You find talk of it in 1904 when Gotch and others are ripping off gamblers in the Pacific Northwest, burning out the territory, and the fact that it's a work getting out in the papers (right down to a classic quote of Gotch along the lines of "even if it's fake, I'm still the champ"). You get the gambling, and stuff like the booking of Gotch-Jenkins (even the cities run in) get richer, the turn around with Beel gets does as well, Stecher-Caddock gets deeper, Stecher-Lewis does as well. There's lots of other stuff that Steve, and a lot of other people doing research, have come across and given thought to. It's been pretty cool to watch and read and talk about. This is true.

Two more threads that I think are terrific: Puerto Rico Wrestling http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=19176 It's backbone are matches and work/match discussion, but what takes this to a different level than a usual thread along those lines are: * fresh area of discussion * El Boricua PR isn't an area that has had a lot of match discussion and analysis over the years. It's mostly been limited to, "Holy shit what a BLOODBATH!!!!!" Dylan and the others go beyond that, though of course there is a lot of blood. But not only has there been little match discussion and analysis over the years on the territory, there also have been very little general discussion of the territory other than the old meme of "PR was a hellhole" and stuff of that kind. We're lucky that a local fan has popped up to give us a lot of additional background and storyline and general info on the territory. El Boricua is a rare treat, and we're lucky to have him... and I think future folks looking at PR will be lucky for it as well. WCW's Highway to Hell: 27 months of fucking it up a notch http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=19237 Jerome's insane project to watch everything WCW from The Finger Poke of Doom to "Vince & Shane Show Up". He's not trying to write essays about it like Shoemaker would. He's not doing a CRZ-style recap of each show. He'd got his format, he hits all the big things, he hits what's good, he hits what's bad, he hits what is batshit crazy. By feeling his pain, you relive your own pain from having lived through it back at the time. When things like General Rection show up, you go, "Oh fuck... I forgot about the stupidity." Since there was so might dumb ass shit, it's easy to have forgotten most of it. Thanks to Jerome and a host of people following up on the posts, we'll have a nice overview to look back at if we ever want to wade into it. Or... just thank Jerome for doing it so that we don't have to.

Historically they've been crap. If there's an uptick, that's a positive. That's said, I was less enraptured by the Last Battle of Atlanta than most. "Oral Histories" are hip and hot right now. But that ones was... pretty vacant. When did the feud start? What were the phases of it? How did the cycle away from it and back to it? It was pretty empty of dates. We get the "they were never the same", with no real thought behind why or what happened to them. Ellering and Apter were in half kayfabe mode, and Tommy wasn't exactly giving a lot of depth or insight. I get that people want to be careful about the "personal stuff". But if we compare it with the Oral History of Cheers that Grantland did, those guys were willing to talk about the coke and partying of people who are *living*. It's better than how the WWF use to treat history. There's some cool pics, and 4 clips. But if you're asking whether that's good pro wrestling writing... it isn't. :/ I'd get vastly more out of watching your Slaughter-Shiek comp, and I wouldn't even need to have Slaughter, Shiek, Apter and say Lord Al provide soundbite blurbs.

I'm not sure if most of it centers on work. We tend to be a board that looks at that, but there's probably lots of boards that look at angles and quality of TV, etc. There are other threads/boards that look at history... all sorts of topics. Here are a few from here: Vince McMahon vs. The World http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=11633 Basically looking at Vince & Hogan vs The World in the Expansion Era (1984-89). It's business focus is more "conquest" strategy, and doesn't care about work. It's long, with lots of data to wade through... but I thought quite good. These two look at alternative champions: If Not Race Then Who? http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=19796 If not Backlund who? http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=19792 The first one has a lot of good stuff in it, but a Jerry-jdw (with others in it) section in the middle that may drive you nuts. But even that is analysis. I could list a half dozen ones, but others probably should toss up ones they like.

There are largely these types of wrestling writers: * Newsletter / primary Wrestling Website writers That's the WON (including Fig-4 now), Torch. You could toss PWSpyware in here since it, and it's predecessor in spirit (Bob.com), has been around long enough. * Company website writers Who gives a shit about these? That goes for any company message boards they have, though perhaps the local indy ones are more interesting because they're not flooded with a mass of people. * Network Sites That would be ones connected to SBNation, Bleacher Report... there's probably another one or two like that I'm missing. Bix and Keith write for some of these. Jon writes for one. * Wrestling Websites & Boards There are loads of these. The genre has evolved over time, with loads coming and loads going. Most of them are ones we'll never hear about or read or give a shit about if we stumble upon. In turn, this place is probably small potatoes compared to some larger websites and boards * Mainstream writers There are hardly any of them. Maybe Mooneyham is still writing, and perhaps some other local papers have guys. Our friend at Grantland is one. Historically they've not been terribly relevant. Shoemaker likely gets a crapload of hits, but how well that lines up with drawing in wrestling fans and keeping them interested... who knows. Overall... the first group dominated through 1995/96. Online wrestling discussion took a while in getting going. Through the balance of the Monday Night Wars era, they directly and indirectly continued to dominate even if the majority of people reading "wrestling writers" weren't specifically reading the Torch and WON: they were reading news lifted from the Torch & WON, and maybe half or more of the hardcore thinking was shaped by the old school thinking. It wasn't like there were a ton of people talking about Sid being a great worker: the shaping of things on work, and how angles worked, was still at its core an extension of newsletter writers or "thinking" cultivated in the past by the newsletter writers. If I'd hazzard a guess of when things changed, it was in the area of WCW and ECW dying. Just one promotion. Can't say that the newsletters loved that. It wasn't an era of much new thinking coming out of the newsletters. Not saying they sucked, but it was a stagnant period for the business, and for the newsletters covering now just one thing of note. People online tended to either wander off, or reach out for other things to take a look at. Indy's were moving along, and of course ROH focused a lot of indy attention not unlike ECW the prior direction. People who liked TNA really didn't give a shit if the newsletter didn't like it. Folks looked at older stuff that became more available in the DVD era, etc, etc, etc. I don't know how much the Newsletter / primary Wrestling Website writers drive much of the discussion anymore. Certainly in some ways, like the WON HOF... which is kind of what you'd expect since it's Dave's HOF. But on the rest? I don't think that what Newsletter / primary Wrestling Website writers have massive impact beyond (i) news, and (ii) how a lot of how we look at work was long ago shaped as I said in that prior post. Dylan is far removed from his Torch reading days, and he disagrees with a lot of what Dave, Bruce, Wade and Bryan write. His view on work has probably changed a ton from 1996 when he was reading the sheets, and again from say the turn of the decade when he was getting knee deep in online discussions. What he looks for in terms of good work has likely changed. But that he looks, that he gives it thought beyond simply "I liked it", and that he organizes his thoughts on it... that's stuff that tends to go back to the sheets, and his early days on boards. Anyway, a the best "writing" I see on wrestling now is less on the "writing" side than the "thinking" or "analysis" or "research" side. The quality of wordsmithing is less important than the thought content. * * * * * I don't know if all of that post is terribly coherent.

Beatles went through massive changes in a short period: 1962-69. Pop-rock music was changing throughout that period, though they were part of the force changing it. U2 strikes me as four phases, with the fourth being largely as refinement of the prior two: * Boy --> War * UF & Joshua Tree & Rattle and Hum * Achtung Baby --> Pop * since then I don't really think the last three albums really are a reinvention, but rather taking elements of the prior two periods, maybe toning down the electro on some level. But if you look at the last three albums, it's not like "One", "Mysterious Ways" or even "Even Better Than The Real Thing" wouldn't fit onto those albums. Maybe they would do them slightly different instrumentally... but they're not raidcally different. I get that they dropped going off in the "Lemon" direction, but their present feels more like the past rather than them suddenly becoming a heavy metal band or going off into doing a Rod Stewart style Big Band album. Bowie and Madonna seem to be on a different level than most anyone else. Neil Young is one who musically changed all over the place over the years.

Not really.

More likely, his editors choose for him. Name one writer who writes about wrestling, but does not write for a wrestling publication, that you enjoy reading. This site is full of them. John

Shoemaker doesn't have to explain things to a general audience. He chooses to. In turn, he really isn't writing for a general audience. Non-wrestling fans don't give a shit about wrestling. The people who regularly read his shit are wrestling fans. The rest of Grantland readers could give a flying fuck about it. I disagree about a difference between what he and Lowe does. Lowe writes for Basketball Fans. He's not writing for the folks who are football-only fans. He's not writing for the folks who read Greenwald's tv stuff and don't care about hoops. He's writing for hoops fans. And he strikes the balance between (i) expecting them to know a baseline about hoops and (ii) dealing with "new" concepts for them that he'll have to explain. In fact, he often doesn't explain in the new piece, but will simply link to an earlier piece that discusses it. Lowe expects his readers to be as smart and curious as he is. Shoemaker expects his readers to be as stupid as he is, or dumber. John

Since this section is behind the log in curtain, I'll toss it here. It's a recent subsection of an essay by Bill James that I thought was a good read. * * * * * IV. On the Practical Advantages of BS Did you ever think about this: that Bullshit has a huge advantage over actual knowledge, in that bullshit can be created and deployed wherever it is needed, whereas actual knowledge has very limited ability to travel? At this time of year I get a lot of questions from people who want to know who I think is going to win the World Series, and whether it is better to win your division and have a 7-day cooling off period before you go into the playoffs or whether it is better to have to compete right up to the end of the season, and whether it is meaningful that a team ends the season playing well as opposed to limping into the playoffs after a two-week slump, and whether a team whose best pitcher has two different-colored eyes has an advantage in post-season play. The only honest answer to these kind of questions is "I have no idea." This is not a satisfying answer to those who ask the questions, nor is it particularly gratifying to me to have to answer so many questions by saying "I’m sorry; I really have no idea." Some of these questions I can’t answer because there is no answer; the only way to answer the question would be just to make something up and go with it. Others I could answer if I had done the right research, but the right research very often would be a two-week project, and I can’t really find space in my life to undertake an awful lot of two-week projects, and anyway, if I could, it would still be two weeks before I could answer the question. From my perspective, then, it often seems that what people want from me is that I should be a bullshitter like the guys on TV. "The guys on ESPN,". . ..this is what I hear, when people ask me questions about which there is no relevant research. . .."The guys on ESPN are able to give expert opinions on every question under the sun. Why can’t you? Why can’t you just make something up and go with it, like everybody else does?" Generally, we decry and denounce bullshit. My point here is that actually there is a huge advantage to bullshit. It fits everywhere. You never run out of it. It’s always in stock. Once you decide that you are happy answering questions with bullshit. . .you’re set. The cupboard is always full. I was watching a football game today. Kansas University got ahead of a much better team 10-0, then settled in to lose the game 54-16. The announcer had a ready explanation for the surprising start (paraphrasing). "Texas Tech had to travel in here yesterday. They spent most of the day getting to the airport, taking the flight, getting on the bus to Lawrence, getting off the bus, getting into the hotel, sleeping in a strange room. Sometimes, particularly to a young team, it takes you a few minutes to get your feet on the ground and to get your head back into the game." Bullshit? Of course its bullshit—but he got paid to say that. That’s the wonderful thing about bullshit: you can never run out of it. No matter what happens, you can make up an explanation for it on the spot. Every effect can always be traced back to some readily apparent cause. Whenever you have a condition (a) and an outcome (, you can always assert that a caused b. Since conditions and outcomes exist in almost limitless supply, any number of supposed causal links can be established. That sounds pejorative, but I don’t mean it that way. We all do that. His assignment was to say something that might be true, and. . .that might be true. Nobody can prove that it isn’t. We all use bullshit, including myself, because we are all "asked questions" or confronted by issues for which there is no obvious answer except bullshit. But research isn’t like that; research runs out. Research is always in limited supply. Research is never around when you need it most. That’s why knowledge can never take the place of good, old-fashioned, time-tested bullshit.

I think we'd all agree that we'd like Jon to write about MMA at Grantland. I think writing about pro wrestling there would be a waste of his time.

That makes sense.

This is nonsense. Zach Lowe puts the lie to what you're saying, writing to the same audience on the same web site. I know from my own journalism experience that experts in many fields appreciate it when their work is explained well to a general audience. Shoemaker's work on Grantland just isn't very good. Ding ding ding. If Lowe wants to get on TV, he probably over time will edge over into the Blowhard category because that's what TV wants. But right now, he's business his ass off writing very informative pieces that are opeing up a lot of "new thinking" on hoops to a broad audience. We didn't have something like Grantland in 1982 when Bill James was revolutionizing what people thought about baseball. He was transitioning from self-publishing to Ballentine, he'd have a 1-2 articles a year published in the likes of Esquire and Sport/Inside Sports, and you might get lucky if your local fishwrap wrote a moderately indepth article on him... ones in five years. In turn, nearly the entire establishment of baseball and baseball media ridiculed him. It was a long, uphill struggle... to the point that when he got hired by the Red Sox there still was a strong Anti-Saber vibe in baseball, the media and fandom. With Lowe? Welcome to the modern informational and analytical world. I don't know what the pro wrestling analogy would be... exactly. Dave as James. A certain period of the internet being the pre-Moneyball era (i.e. before the book was released, but while some teams were moving in the direction of increased saber thinking). We're not far beyond that, as is baseball. Stuff like the 80s Project or Lawler & Fujiwara Luv clearly spring from Meltzerian thinking as it's base level: thinking about and analyzing wrestlers and matches at a "work" and "entertainment" level. That this type of thinking and analysis isn't remotely controversial anymore, to the degree that someone like Shawn Michaels built up a legend *within the business* for Work as much as old school "accomplishment", and that it was part of how he was pushed. So it's not just fans who buy into looking at things that way, and loads of then, but also to a degree the business itself. In turn, the level of analysis has gone a pretty decent deal beyond what you'd reason in a 1983 WON. Not just in the sense of people rethinking how people in 1983 (or the 80s) were rated, but also in how or in what people are looking at. That Colon thread? Welcome to the modern informational and analytical world. That such a thread exists, and that level of thought/discussion exists, it's odd anymore. It isn't the old "thinks too much" that we had tossed at us in the mid-90s. It's not uncommon. Anyway... That's Lowe. I'm not a massive Barnwell fan, but he's trying to go analytical. They have baseball writers who have long been analytical. Beyond sports, Andy Greenwald is trying to bring a variety of things to his writing above TV. I'm not always a fan of the shows that he loves and writes about, but I appreciate the effort he puts in... and when he's dealing with a topic/show I like, I tend to find his stuff very readable. There isn't a massive attempt to be the SportsGuy of TV. Shoemaker... he's just mediocre. :/

Grantland, as a whole, is not really very Simmons-ized. They don't seem to ape his style for the most part at all. Their serious writers in other sports are nothing like Simmons. This. There are a lot of posts in the thread pointing that out.

After the Bruno article, this should be...interesting. Good lord is this going to suck.

Wouldn't disagree with that at all. And simply reinventing your self doesn't = sustained success. For everyone like Madonna or The Beatles that have, lots of others flopped or faded.