tomk

Yeah I'm familiar with them. they recorded with tiny Tim at one point. More goofball polka than traditional polka. Chaz Taylor v Johnny Mantell being "judged" by fetishists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uXUVV6Tf94

On a side note CHAZ TAYLOR is now being advertised as one of the participants!!!! Didn't he feud with Mantell in Global? I haven't really watched non Philly or IWAMS or XCW indy wrestling in any serious way since the DVDVR 500 days and I still know five of the currently 10 advertised participants (assuming that is the Chris Steele who used to work for Oates Bros promotions), I have seen maybe 12 guys work the Doomsday gimmick in TN/LA/MS area so it's possible that I'm familiar with this one too. Which would make me knowledgeable of 6 of the ten. Beer! Polka! (or Polko if you like) Here comes the judge Karl Killer Kox! Chaz Taylor! Three days of indy wrestling! Barbeque coookoff! Nagelshlagen (contest to see who can hit a nail into a tree stump with least amount of hammer swings)!!! I allways prefer cover versions of Beatles tunes to their originals anyway! Beer garden! ROADTRIP!!!!! Already going to Nashville for the Nashville Coliseum memorial show but this feels like a good additional wrestling roadtrip

No one is upset with Mantell for running a hustle. That's what hustlers do. People are surprised by Meltzer and Alvarez pimping for the hustler.

I remember you praising the effectiveness of the work in a Pat Patterson v Rikishi match (where people confused praise of effective work for something more). Don't remember praising a Trip one.Perhaps the Patterson match was used as a contrast with a lesser Trip match.

We've seen the Vince Mcmahon tribute shows, which parodied the manufactured formula nature of the tribute shows. I think the whole guy dies due to our negligence/tribute show formula is pretty cynical and shameless. No need to parse the individual parts.

There is an absolutely hillarious piece on Dan Madigan's Mondo-Lucha-a Go-go book by Ranjan Chibber which I want to say is titled "Paul Heyman: The Luchador's Friend". Reading something written by a WWE writer may give you an insight into the thoughts of a WWE writer but probably shouldn't be used to draw larger conclusions. That's not unique to writers. I don't think I could ever tell you what the motivation behind which ideas went forward and which stalled in any job I've had. Sometimes when there are a couple years between me and a project, I can go "Hey wait this is the larger pattern". but still.

I found the Edge/Jericho cage match from last year sort of fascinating. The only thing I can really compare it to is GAB 91 Luger/Windham. The latter is a cage match both without an issue and with heel/face lines blurred. What you get is a bloodless cage match where the guys aren't trying to kill each other. They want to win the belt, not bloody one another or hurt the other guy. The cage turns into something of a prop, something to be indirectly used instead of directly. With Edge/Jericho, they had an issue, but they were stuck in the PG environment and they couldn't use the cage in the more traditional feud-ending ways. So it's a bloodless cage match. Obviously given who they were, they couldn't work it like a Bundy/Hogan match or something. I thought they at least tried to make the most of what they had to work with despite the limitations. I'm not saying it was great or anything but it was interesting and I was glad I watched it. Television bloodless workrate cage match has been a feud ending staple for the WWE for most of this decade. At least as far back as when I was last writing weekly workrate repoorts. It is a weird way to end a feud and move on to the next one. But it was the formula. The June 15, 2004 Eddie v JBL bloodless workrate cage match that ended the Eddie v JBL (blood feud) and set up the Eddie v Angle stuff is probably a good reference point for comparison.

Huh? Maybe he did include multiperson matches or semi mains. Edge singles main event matches according to archives of star ratings not including multi person matches or semi mains would just be: 8/20/06 Edge vs. John Cena (Title Can Change Hands on DQ) ***3/4 9/17/06 John Cena vs. Edge (Tables, Ladders, and Chairs) ****1/4 3/30/08 Edge vs. Undertaker ****1/4 6/1/2008 The Undertaker vs. Edge (Tables, Ladders, Chairs) ***1/2 7/20/08 Triple H vs. Edge ***1/2 8/17/08 Edge vs. Undertaker ****1/2 (Hell in a Cell) 4/26/09 John Cena vs. Edge (Last Man Standing) ****1/2 5/17/09 Jeff Hardy vs. Edge ***3/4 6/7/09 Jeff Hardy vs. Edge (Ladder) ****1/4 8/2/08 Jeff Hardy vs. Edge ***1/2 is a SNME but clearly not from the 85-91 SNME run.

TNA not counted. And very specific last slot is main event definition of main event. When O'Laughlin discounts multiple person main events. My sense is that he is discounting 3 ways, 4 ways, 6 ways, etc... and that he is not discounting tags (the mention of Arn) or six man tags. But if I'm wrong then tag league would be screwed.

The more interesting question to me is (given Dave's tendency to throw out lots of stars for certain guys) what are the Angle or HBK main event matches that Dave rated under four stars? Angle has been in probably as many PPV main events as Edge (I think this list doesn't include TNA PPVs). HBK has probably had about twice as many PPV main events as Edge. Wonder which matches were the ones that brought down their star per PPV average.

I don’t want to be the guy defending Edge. Yes he sounds like a guy doing a Shadow Stevens impression on the mic, his acting is as bad as DDP or HBK, his “ultimate opportunist” “I’m smart” mic work is as unconvincing as HHH’s worst “cerebral Assassin” “master of the mental game” mic work. He was a horrible babyface, who worked face matches exactly the same way Spike Dudley worked face matches (except Spike has better bumps and better looking “hit out of nowhere” offense---and well Edge is 6’3” and jacked while Spike is 5’6” and rail thin). His exaggerated heel facial expressions are as embarrassing as HBK’s most corny face facial expressions. All of this is true. But…. In 2006 when he was moved into the RAW main event/(PPV semi) scene he was super refreshing. It may be a completely corny main event heel act. But he was committed to it. And it was the first time in along time that RAW had a main event heel that was actually willing to work heel. That‘s worth something.

I don't remember people criticizing Maekawa for being dangerous. The criticism is that her stuff was meaningless. There is a difference between Flairs first chop exchange and first stiff chop exchange. Between Aja's first back fist and first big back fist. Same true for Hotta. Maekawa had about four or five really cool stiff kick spots and she'd throw them out a million times in a match. There was no difference between the first time she threw a kick combination and the last time. Part of this could be blamed on the way Nakanishi and her other AJW opponents sold and some of this was the problem of the length of the matches exposing her ( I mean HHH is also a guy with about 8 minutes of interesting time filling ideas who is exposed in matches that go over 11 minutes).

Meltzer is probably right here. We've seen Donahue, we've read the congressional testimony. From everything we've seen Vince is a horrible debater. I wouldn’t want Alvarez on my debate team. He isn’t a guy who seems to be a particularly careful or insightful thinker, isn’t particularly good at forming arguments: there rarely is any connection between the logic of argument he makes and the conclusions he makes. He doesn’t see big picture patterns well. He isn’t particularly good at listening to anyone else’s debate points, isn’t interested in thinking through any arguments different than his own, he isn’t good at building on anyone else’s arguments. None of that is meant in anyway as a shot at Alvarez. My sense is that none of these things are things that Alvarez cares about or puts any emphasis on. He'd probably readily admit to all of this. These debate skills aren't neccesary for the job he does. He wouldn’t be a good debater but he isn’t interested in being a debater. Still I imagine he'd easily do better than Vince in a debate. Hulk Hogan is the most important wrestler of the last 30 years (and in the minds of the world at large probably the greatest wrestler of all time), and responsible for two huge wrestling booms. But he is a horrible interview. He isn’t very self aware, isn't interested in deep self examination, has spent the last thirty years building his own self mythology and surrounded by yes men. Hogan in a debate format comes off like a guy who is completely full of shit. I imagine Alvarez would do well in a debate opposite Hogan. Vince isn’t very different than Hogan. We’ve seen him in fewer interviews. And he rarely comes off as well as Hogan. But I don’t think saying that Vince or Hogan would loose in a debate is really much of a shot at them. Neither one would be a good debater but like Alvarez, I don’t think either one is interested in being a debater. Who would win in a debate means as little as who would win in a game of darts.

Yeah this. That is how carnival hustles work. You can actually win a 12 cent cupie doll if you pay the two dollars and climb up the rope ladder. Potential of winning actual cupie doll doesn't make it less of a scam. On the one hand I think it's nice that Mantell found a way to pay his old friends to sit around and drink at a beerfest. On the other hand, I think Patty Mullen and Ken Osmond are still alive...it seems sad not to use them.

It will be Alexandra York.

I’m not at all sure what you’re asking: Are you asking would these guys make my top 100? Are you asking if these guys will end up making Meltzer’s top 100 in a world where his criteria were consistent? ??? DK and Valentine aren't comparable. DK was a influential showcase midcarder while Valentine was a guy people built promotion around. Rey would definitely make my 100 and if Meltzer were consistent he would make his. It should be said Rey took till 2010 to get in the WON HOF and Meltzer didn’t ever really push him as a strong candidate. Cena is interesting: In the May 26, 2008 Observer, Meltzer wrote about drawing in the WWF: Later in same issue he pointed out that in recent PPV when they had Cena work a match on the lower part of the card, you could see people leave after the Cena match. Mcmahon has decided that no one should make a difference and yet Cena is the guy who makes a difference. I think the conclusion is that at this point (for better or worse) that Mcmahon has decided that it is a better business move to coast on the brand name and not put all the eggs in one basket, not have one person anchor his promotion. But that said Cena is the one guy on the roster who they could build around. Loss’ statement about Cena’s period being short is accurate. He’s the one guy who they could anchor the promotion around, but the promotion would rather sail without an anchor.

This is a great scam. I'm assuming by the look of this that it is also a paid show. He is being paid by a Germanfest to have wrestling and the wrestlers are paying to be on the show. Assuming the prize is a work, I am voting Johnny Mantell as best promoter in 2011.

Eh. I think I'd rather read Maystik's list than a list made by Maystick recruiting 100 like minded wrestlers, historians, and reporters and having them vote. I like lists, I like list projects. There are advantages and disadvantages to any strategy of list making. This is Roger Ebert on list making: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/th...e.html#comments Least interesting type of list is the one based on mass aggregated opinion and ends up just repeating consensus opinion back on itself. Part of what I like about the current DVDVR 80s project v the 90s one, is that you have essentially a curated exhibit that then is judged (which I think has the power to create consensus opinions instead of merely reflecting back already held ones).

Yes I know that. You know that. I'm not sure to what degree Meltz himself understands that. As we've seen him over the years wheel out various versions of "his guy gets all the votes from veterans but current wrestlers don't seem as convinced" or this "contemporary guy gets lots of votes from current wrestlers but retired wrestlers aren't sold" as though his pimping isn't the main source that contemporary wrestlers get their opinions on veterans from and vice versa. That said Koloff is a guy who he's pimping more and more as a no-brainer where " I don't understand".

Bearcat Wright is a guy like Koloff who came out well (for their respective decades) in Farmer's attendance formula thing. As result they are guys Meltz has started regularly using as "guys who should be in the HOF but for some reason don't get the votes"

What the hell? I know Dave isn't the biggest fan of Memphis Wrestling, but come on, man. Wait, wait. Looking through that list one name stood out. someone ask Dave tomake the case for Ole based on national prominence, drawing power, ring ability, gettting over in more places or any number of other reasons. I want to hear Dave make the case for Ole. I am pleased that Kurt is not on that list.

It's wrestling. The WWF lockerroom wasn't as open about its drug use as the ECW one. But still.

don't see that as a diss to anyone here at all. In fact it’s followed up by a discussion of dragons gate/ Angle v HBK type matches that almost sounds likes it was transcribed from something Schneider wrote 4 years ago. The actual shot he took is based on this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1010202440.html There are two college profs quoted in the article; one is a professor specializing in economics of underground drug traffic who also happens to be a lucha fan. The second is Heather Levi who is anthropology prof at Temple who was one of writers of "World of Lucha" (which I haven't read) and wrote academic articles on Exoticos as far back as 97 (some of which I have read). She isn't a college lecturer commenting on some cultural phenomenon the she isn't familiar with. She has done ethnographic work with luchadors and fans, and I think she may have trained. She's been writing about lucha for as long as Alvarez has been writing his sheet. I thought the article needed an actual lecturer on narco-culture (someone like Alma Guillemoprieto) who would point out that the narco culture is so pervasive that you don't need a character to be an actual "drug dealer" to be a character that celebrates narco culture. I assume Bryan is taking a shot at Levi’s “over analysis” . Not sure how you could call that an over analysis as essentially her explanation is “people go to lucha shows to boo the corrupt refs, cheer the good guys, and yell slurs at the assholes…which is awesome and cathartic cause you can’t do that in actual day to day life”.

I don't think you need to make the distinction of at least midcard. Guys who were in developmental (for one company or other) during Nitro era who are currently employed as on air talent by WWE: Daniel Bryan, R-Truth, and Joey Mathews. My memory is Cena signed to OVW a round the same time as the WCW sale, Randy Orton showed up there about a month after it. I used to talk about this a bunch at the height of Cena's 06-07 RAW run starting around the Federline matchup and the Booker and Court v Lashley, Gunner Scottt, etc. Smackdown run. Smackdown was the show built like traditional EMLL with rudo maestros leading green tecnicos, while RAW was Toryumon with a bunch of green rookies who had trained together and John Cena as face version of SUWA (the guy who could build a good main event match against anyone). I don't know if either show has that kind of identity anymore.

I have no desire to electioneer. But I assume the major candidates are: 1) Some variation on stand up for the WWE. This is a year where Linda Mcmahon said "I might have met him once, but the WWE can be held no more accountable than the studio should be held accountable for Heath Ledger's death, who kows what causes people to have addictions?" Plus whatever other BS was being sold as part of the promotion's stand up for the WWE promotional propaganda... 2) Tna ran several concussion-sploitation angles. 3)The UFC told the PPV fans that Josh Koschek acting like a dick was just an act. I could see any of these three winning and will claim that a non-vote is a vote for #3.