-
Posts
10174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Dylan Waco
-
Yeah, the HoF is about consensus guys. Consensus being horribly wrong at times and prone to change over the years is one of the many reasons the HoF should have changed long ago. Work alone would get Rose in, and Windham, and a lot of other people that simply don't have any hope at this point.
-
Where are these phoned in performances? I kept expecting them during the SC poll last year and never found them.
-
How many holy grails are left?
-
It's an excellent obit - content wise probably the best Meltzer obit I can remember. One thing in reading it that really jumps out at me is how Rose - who I doubt anyone would think of as an HoFer - is at least as good a candidate as a lot of people who have popped on and off that ballot in recent years. I wouldn't advocate for him, but that sort of detailed piece really does give a person a good look at the strength and weaknesses of guys that we never seem to get come HoF time. It's really a shame that such effort only appears when someone drops dead.
-
Tremendous bumping big man that could cut an insane pace. Looking back on what I've seen of Rose over the last year, I really think he smokes someone like Adrian Adonis in this regard. Obviously was great with Somers and was in the best Backlund match I've ever seen (where he was the better worker in the ring IMO) but his best stuff was for Don Owen. It's actually a shame Portland stuff didn't become available earlier, because Rose is a guy who I don't think is going to get his due until long after he's passed. Speaking of Portland stuff over at DVDVR someone claims that Rose is actually the source of most of the available Portland which is awesome if true.
-
I miss flash pins to a degree, but also think certain guys (i.e. Bret Hart) used them way too often. It rarely hurt the individual matches, but I do think it hurts the credibility of "top guys" (I still hate the finish of Eddy v. Angle from Mania because of this). I agree with Loss that multiple finishers really enhances guys. I remember thinking that one of the reasons Booker T appeared to be such a good worker at times is because he had at least four credible finishers (axe kick, harlem sidekick, harlem hangover, rock bottom). Taker is another guy that has benefitted enormously from this as he has five moves that he has used to finish people with regularity over the years. Big Show also has four or five.
-
What a scumbag
-
As someone who has been around the IWC for a long ass time and started tape trading/collecting in 94, I think what has happened in a lot of cases is that the well has run dry. I agree with John about the product being smaller, and the death of puro really hurt a lot of discussions as their were a lot of smarks that were really connected to that scene, but really I think the two things that have killed off a lot of the high quality discussion have been: 1) WWE having a virtual monopoly on U.S. wrestling 2) All of the interesting topics have been done to death. The IWC has been around for fifteen years now, and it has been rather large for at least 12 years. All of the "greatest..." style threads have been done. Historical issues have been largely hashed out. Many of the old forums and venues for discussion have dried up, disappeared or quieted dramatically as a result. It's not surprising that the best discussions of the last few years have been revival campaigns focused on older territories or wrestlers - or grandiose projects/lists that allowed people to set up revisionist movements on behalf of various workers and matches. There are obviously pockets here and there of good discussion on all sorts of things, but they are much,much smaller than they used to be. For the most part we are talking about the same posters, jumping from board to board.
-
All wrestlers are repetitive, which is good because formulas are good. Formulas guide the crowds and are the basis for all psychology in wrestling so shitting on them is ridiculous. Non-formula wrestlers are guys like Lance Hoyt and I don't seen anyone clamoring for him to enter the pantheon of great workers. I actually did go back and watch a fuckload of Bret Hart matches for the SC poll last year. I've never had a higher opinion of Bret than I do now after watching all of those matches, and really the claim that he worked the same match every time out is pretty laughable. He had a formula, but he wasn't working a stump match - there is an obvious differrence.
-
GUYS TERRY FUNK SAID MASATO TANAKA WAS BETTER THAN ANY OF THE AJPW GUYS AND MIKE AWESOME AGREED SO WE HAVE A FACT
-
I agree with John. Let's be honest. The WON HoF went down the shitter when Angle and Ultimo went in. It's no coincidence that the attention that gets paid to it online has plummeted since the door was opened that wide.
-
I'm pretty sure Taue was on the ballot and fell off.
-
Not confused. Although to be clear I agree with you that the early SNME match is the better match. My point was more that I disagree with your assesment of the quality of the match and that I have no problem with it being on the set.
-
They do have the fucking awesome Hogan/Warrior v. Genius/Hennig match on here though. For freakishly, ridiculous bump schhtick Hennig bouts this is the best. Also I disagree with John, on that Rockers v. Busters match. It's one of a very small number of two/three falls WWE/F matches that I like at all and I think for such a short sprint it is well worked. One of the better WWF tag matches I can recall from that period.
-
I know non-wrestling fans who have read the books because a) I work a at a book store and have recommended the book to co-workers I helped line up an interview for Matthew that resulted in a couple of non-fan radio people I know reading the book and c) I reviewed the book on my blog, which eventually led to some folks I know in the world of polemical political writing/blogging reading the book.
-
Funny thing about this is, excluding one person, everyone I know who read this book and liked it a great deal was a non-wrestling fan, and in fact a "book person." On the other hand everyone I know who didn't like the book was a wrestling fan.
-
I've never said that was the case. Going back to your thread on F4W: I'm sure you can see the difference between those two things. Also worth noting that the book clearly does do that, and to be honest Jericho's book arguably does as well.
-
I admire your candor but I feel from an "outsiders" perspective you (and others) did a poor job PR wise for the book. I don’t want to subcategorise people and groups of posters even though some have already. I think most of you have enough sense of self to know how some view you. I think a more reserved approach to plugging a book in the future will pay dividends rather than the triumphalism of this summer. The book didn’t totally debunk the "myth" of Beniot as you put it either. This begs the questions what Wrestling books have you read? I’ve in the past have used Pain & Passion as a comparison piece to Ring of Hell so I will again. I think Pain & Passion is a far superior book. At least you didn’t get the heavy handed use of the English language which made the book a chore to read in many parts. P&P had an even structure and a logical narrative, while Ring of Hell at points didn’t know what it wanted to be. I would dispute any claims that the book was read by the author more than once. With P&P I wasn’t distracted by the writing and the quality of writing didn’t make me question the validity of the book which Ring of Hell did. Arent you him? Actualy Pain& Passion is one of the very few wrestling books I haven't read, so I can't comment on a comparison there. On a comparison to every other wrestling book I've ever read? Ring of Hell is an easy winner. It also happens to be one of the more poorly edited books you'll ever see though. Also the sales of the book tend to indicate that your theory about PR not working well doesn't really hold up. It was far more succesful than the publisher expected. A lot of that had to do with folks like Bix talking it up the net. I helped line up an hour long radio interview for Matthew here in town, which was really my only "PR"/marketing contribution (unless you count reviewing the book for my blog, which is a stretch) and I know for a fact that the book sold very well locally shortly after that interview. So again I think the "triumphalism" approach worked pretty well
-
Honestly the quality of the writing absolutely smokes anything I've seen in any other wrestling book. The problem is not the writing, which is Menckenesque and far above what could have been expected. The problem was the editing which was very bad. You could tell the book was rushed to press. Matthew definitely ran certain words and phrases into the ground because of this, but that shouldn't surprise anyone who is actually used to writing to fit deadlines. To me arguing that the writing sucked is a stretch, especially if we are comparing it to other books on wrestling.
-
There is also the fact that the folks that hate the book are a lot more annoying than the folks that defend it to a fault. Honestly if I have to read another person say something along the lines of "Randazzo is scum! Why didn't he write more about the positives of our favorite wrestlers!" I may barf. If anything Matthew went overboard at times doing move-by-move play-by-plays to show how fanboys like us could (and did) become so enamored with someone who was at best a walking, brain dead, shell of a human, and at worst something akin to the Manson family. Yet in a book about a guy who off'ed his whole family and the background of the fucked up business that promotes those who take their fake craft so seriously that they are willing to die for it, we are supposed to be upset because there isn't enough talk about the fine technical application of Dean Malenko's top rope gutbuster. WTF? Also I was a little "eh" on the internet sources myself, but then I remember that this is a culture where someone like Jerome Corsi can write a slash and burn book on a future President, relying entirely on internet "sources" and it makes the bestseller list for months. In that light pointing to the very real sick side of internet wrestling geekry (and the few critics within its gates) seems a lot less absurd. Then again what do I know, I am a friend of Matthew's as well and thus must be shilling for the book.
-
The Ric Flair shoot interview and related stuff thread
Dylan Waco replied to Bix's topic in Pro Wrestling
Not really the place for a deep political discussion, but Flair is basically a salt of the earth, populist, "conservative of the heart." Those folks have a lot more in common with main street than wall street. Keep in mind that Huckabee was endorsed by Flair and supported by the NEA, even though he's been a strong advocate of home schooling as well. fwiw, I say this as someone who would never have voted for Huckabee. -
This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password