Childs

Yeah, if that false information was "Bruno was a Nazi youth who wanted his Mom shot!"Twitter Dave is a character he's embraced, he's said as much, and this one thing was just a weird ill timed thing to immediately tweet upon Bruno, his friend, passing away. If you're gonna embrace Twitter to engage morons because you've been told it's what you do, it's gonna bite you in the ass occasionally. Number one, no one cares. It doesn't matter if 187 or 188 is real. It's a mythology and it doesn't effect anyone or anything to let it be. And anyone going crazy on Twitter calling Dave terrible things over this ? They're assholes who are over reacting on purpose because Twitter is a sewer. But people just pointing out that it was an ill timed tweet has gotten a response of crazy hostility and escalation of weird anger from some people. I know Dave was full of emotion and then finished the obit he's already had written. ( Not a criticism, that's how it's done) and just tweeted an ill timed and honestly strange tweet. Shit, if we all want to redirect our feelings of anger and frustration, there's no better than the New York Times obit of Bruno which is condescending and awful. Man, that NYT obit really was terrible. The guy spent as much space re-litigating the fakeness of wrestling as he did describing Bruno's life. And he didn't seem to have interviewed anyone. It always amazes me how often the "fake" thing still gets brought up in the wider world.

Honestly, it's "fucking bizarre and at least slightly troubling" that you think it's inappropriate to discuss the facts of a prominent person's life on the occasion of his death. Do you think obituaries are disrespectful? How do you think they come into existence? Fucking magic? Someone has to report and check the facts of the person's life.

Sure. If I were researching an obit on Bruno, I would check out Daves feed for possible reference points. I wouldnt take it as gospel, but good chance I would look at it.

Bruno Sammartino is not your friend or your uncle. He was a public figure. People are writing news stories about him today. It would be better if those stories are accurate. So the timing is perfect.

You know what's fun? People A: This was a little socially clueless, maybe shouldn't had said that. People B: Isn't it amazing how people will get outraged about anything? I'm outraged. People A: We are not outraged at all, it just came off wrong. People B: People will get outraged over anything. Dude, call it outrage. Call it what you want. You felt the need to make a sarcastic comment on twitter about the appropriateness of Daves completely topical, reasonable tweet. Now youre throwing up your hands like you were a coolheaded non-participant, which is bullshit. Normally, I would hold my tongue on all of this because it it is a silly kerfuffle. But I get so sick of social media scolding culture, and this is a prime example.

Why because Bruno just died today. That's why people don't like it. I saw that he paid tribute and that's the right thing to have done. A significant news story ? It's a fecking sell out number for msg from over forty years ago. I'm not desperate to be outraged but bringing it up today but now isn't the time or place. Bruno's death is a significant news story. I know that when I'm writing an obituary for a prominent person, which I've done plenty of times, I work extra hard to get the facts right. An obituary is like the final word on someone's life. If anything, I'd argue it's more important to be careful with the details in that context. I know if I were writing Bruno's obituary, I would be happy that Dave, as an authority in the field, clarified this point. Then maybe don't go on twitter, and just send correction notices to people writing the article with the mistake in it? Why shouldn't he post factual (and in no way negative or critical) information on Twitter? Have we really become this infantilized? I don't even get where people are coming from with this.

Why because Bruno just died today. That's why people don't like it. I saw that he paid tribute and that's the right thing to have done. A significant news story ? It's a fecking sell out number for msg from over forty years ago. I'm not desperate to be outraged but bringing it up today but now isn't the time or place. Bruno's death is a significant news story. I know that when I'm writing an obituary for a prominent person, which I've done plenty of times, I work extra hard to get the facts right. An obituary is like the final word on someone's life. If anything, I'd argue it's more important to be careful with the details in that context. I know if I were writing Bruno's obituary, I would be happy that Dave, as an authority in the field, clarified this point.

Why isn't it the moment to bring it up? He paid tribute to Bruno. He will no doubt do so again in a long obituary. But he's a reporter, and this is a significant news story on his beat. He's not besmirching Bruno's legacy by pointing out a widespread factual error. He's doing his job. For fuck's sake, people are so desperate to be outraged these days that they don't even think.

But seriously, people should fuck off with the Dave criticism on this one. He tweeted about his deep admiration for Bruno. But he's a reporter who's watching misinformation spread, and he spoke up about it in a respectful way. That's what he's supposed to do.

He had that rare quality -- in the way Daniel Bryan does now though Bruno was obviously a bigger star -- of feeling absolutely real. Whenever I talk to Baltimore wrestling fans a little older than me, Bruno is the first name to come up, and the feeling for him is not cartoony, it's genuine. I interviewed him a while back, maybe a year or two after the Benoit thing, and he seemed like exactly the guy you'd want him to be -- righteous and concerned about the younger wrestlers without giving in to sanctimony. It would be hard to find a guy with a higher approval rating in this screwy world.

not in the context i look at it a submission match should have of mat work in it and its fits the setting that match sets as per the name of the stipulation i expect form submission match worker in the ring trading submission holds to secure a tapout victory i quit is by any means mean match like watching someone in th head with a chair or threting to put someone eys out with the wooden leg so soon as ny one uses weapons or leaves the ring it become an i quit match or that is how o view it submission matches should be pure mat work and limb work as part of work toward the affomaetioned tap out victory iv never seen an i quit match end in clean submission holds for hpld victory ie wuth not weapon or brawking involved its a match structure debate in my eyes You seem to judge wrestling based on extremely rigid parameters that exist only in your head, and you demonstrate little understanding of the context in which matches were actually worked. There is no debate to be had with you because you talk past everyone. This argument is particularly stupid because to submit someone literally means to make them say I quit. There is no difference.

I watched it again. Brock gassed out in less than five minutes, to a degree where he couldn't execute his basic offense. On top of that, we got almost none of the intense, violent exchanges that distinguished the first match. Still, I thought they were having a pretty good match for about eight minutes, right up to the point where Brock countered Roman's third spear attempt with that boss-looking knee. But then Brock went to the F-5, which Roman kicked out of to no reaction, despite the fact WWE protected the move for a year. Instead of adjusting, Brock went back to the F-5 four more times as the crowd shat on it more and more vociferously. His choices were both monotonous and horribly misguided given the reaction. The blood was cool but came way too late to fuel any kind of drama, especially when they were going to beat the poor bastard anyway. Basically, I thought the match was worse, not better, on rewatch. The design actively killed any potential drama. Roman came off as a resilient weakling. Brock came off as a guy without the fitness or range of skills to handle a big match. It was a failure, plain and simple.

Amazing on tape as well. That match was a big gateway drug for me in terms of deepening my exploration of both the indies and Japan. Is it one of those time and place things in terms of the 5 stars? Probably, but I will always feel great affection for it.

I've been surprised over the course of the week to realize there's a significant segment of folks who rated the ladder match above the main event. As I said in the original Takeover thread, I no longer feel anything toward those WWE stunt fest matches. I don't even hate them. I'm just indifferent. But for a lot of people, that style is obviously the pinnacle of wrestling. I guess it's a testament to WWE that they satisfied such a wide range of tastes at a high level in the course of one, five-match show.

I guess what struck me was not that Hulk and Vince are full of shit, which is what you would expect, but that the director bought their bullshit as gospel. He regarded the WMIII match as the climax of the story, and he liked the crap they fed him, so he rolled with it uncritically. Again, its not a big deal compared to the shit he got right about the human story. But it did not reflect well on his understanding of the wrestling story.

That is a good word for it.

Come on, that match was not a classic. It was two all-time great workers riffing on television for 10 minutes. And don't get me wrong, that's a wonderful thing. It's a match I have time for any week of the year. But there were no stakes. The match was designed to set up Nakamura rather than to pay off on its own terms. Perfect for what it was but it was designed to top out in the *** to ***1/2 star range.

I listened to the podcast with Simmons and the director, and it left me frustrated. The guy is an astute filmmaker and has a wonderful grasp of the human story of Andre. But he is an idiot about wrestling. He made a huge point of acting as a myth buster, but he had no idea that Vince and Hogan worked the shit out of him. No idea at all. I know it doesnt really matter, but it left a weird taste in my mouth.

The stuff with Hogan saying he was afraid that Andre wouldnt put him over at WMIII was pretty hokey. Did we really need to build fake retrospective drama around a match thats famous enough on its own terms?

I thought it was well done but not ultimately that different from the carny doc WWE would have made in house. The early footage was the best stuff.

His reign as NXT Champion was a colossal bore (to be fair, the same can be said for Finn Balor and Shinsuke Nakamura) and I honestly don't see anything special in him. 15 years ago? Maybe he had it then. But he's just another old brawler type now who isn't very convincing in the "tough guy" role he's been cast in. I could buy him as an overconfident jock whose glory days are behind him and he's bitten off more than he can chew. Dude, I don't need you to make the argument again. I just said it was distinctive.

I know C.S. for his avatar and recent insistence that Asuka isnt over. For me, it's his avatar and strange distaste for Samoa Joe.

I was just listening to the Wrestling Observer Radio show on 'Mania and feeling a little disconcerted at how much I agreed with Dave on everything.

I completely agree with this. But then, why throw Roman to the lions year after year? Why book one of your biggest names - a homegrown talent, at that - to be fucking weak at every major point? He is one of the more versatile wrestlers in the company, but that means absolutely nothing when you kill his credibility. Their handling of Roman has been bizarre, no question. I just think they and we need to move past the idea of him as the next GUY.

Are we the ones who are misguided for even believing they need an ace? They have an ultimate organic babyface in Bryan. They have a superworker who's automatically accepted in any big program in AJ. They have a red-hot monster in Braun. They have one of the highest profile female athletes in the world -- and apparently a pretty good pro wrestler -- in Ronda. They have Cena and Brock to cycle back in for big maches here and there. They have a huge middle class of excellent performers to work in and out of programs. I realize the hottest runs in company history were fueled by transcendant stars. But those were different times. Maybe they're just fine with the more flexible upper card of the moment.