JerryvonKramer

Can you please remember the co-ownership of all four Andersons between WWF and ICW? Many thanks.

The WWF is pleased to announce its latest developmental scheme candidate: Tommy Rogers. Rogers is will join other young starlets on WWF Superstars and WWF Challenge for the next three months. The deal will also see Ricky Steamboat returning to JCP to work a number of dates in the fall.

I'd be more interested in seeing those Venn diagrams than in continuing this discussion any further. I think it's reached a nice conclusion with the last two posts.

I am not sure from his correspondence if dawho realises that it is that guy and not the British Steven Regal. I think he thought it was Regal as a teenager.

Yeah, it does help to speed things up. Only remember to format the entire line as with italics not just the name of the booker / promotion. The worker's name should be italiced too. Very grateful though.

No, I'm using drafted guys as jobbers. Me too. It's what I planned to do, but can we clean up the list of workers thread so it's clearer who's left? Also add in any jobbers who have been left off. Tony Zane stands out right away as someone who should have been on the original list. I'm a little pressed for time. When I made the thread I thought Grimmas and Kris would be helping out with it, but that didn't really happen. Updates are taking like an hour each time and I've been pretty busy.

Masks.. that way the same jobber can do a bunch of different shows and steal keep fresh. Vince Sr isn't keen on that. Although The Baron might be dusting off the Demon #1 mask soon.

Oh I thought we did.

This is where doing Titans will be some help because, through Kelly, I feel I've built up a very good working knowing of early 80s jobbers.

My concern is that I need a job crew of at least 10 for my plans to work. Your talent can't go over exactly the same jobber on each and every show. Got to switch them up.

The WWF have also agreed a deal with Southwest Championship Wrestling that will bring Lord Alfred Hayes onto WWF television. Hayes will be the colour commentator alongside Gorilla Monsoon on WWF Challenge.

No, I'm using drafted guys as jobbers.

Pardee was a guy I'd have taken eventually. I've seen him before. Could do a job on the undercard.

I still want 5+ more guys.

The WWF confirms that Steve Regal will be joining developmental scheme candidates Bret Hart, El Gran Apollo and Bobby Eaton on WWF Superstars and Challenge tapings for the next three months. Since Regal is 32 years old, he is not on the developmental scheme himself and therefore will also be working house shows and big arenas. In other news, Vince McMahon Sr. has appointed long-time WWF wrestler Dominic Denucci to oversee the development of Hart, Apollo, and Eaton. Denucci was reported to have been happy to take on these three youngsters and said "I canna notta waitta to teacha the-a Bret Hart the airplane spin" Denucci then launched into his own version of that Italian classic "Shaddap Ya Face"

My problem with this is that the argument put forward isn't nuanced enough. I've been trying to put my finger on why, and I think I've got it. It's because: the argument follows the logic that because there is "some subjectivity" when assessing a given criteria, THEREFORE the whole thing is "entirely subjective". And this, it seems to me, misses something in what actually happens in any critical process. --- I am going to make an analogy now. For this entire month so far, I've been bogged down with the business of marking undergraduate essays. My discipline is English Literature. This is not a discipline like mathematics where answers can be "right" or "wrong", and it seldom deals in absolutes. Accordingly, there is some subjectivity in marking undergraduate essays in English. But there are many factors that help to mediate the "subjectivity" of any individual marker. The process is pretty robust: - Marker marks essay, writes feedback, awards grade - Moderator reads essay, looks at feedback, looks at grade and decides if it is fair or whether they want to mark it up or down - Marker and moderator fill in a "dialogue sheet" to note any differences in grading and their reasons - Whole thing is sent to an external examiner who then looks over the work, the marking and the dialogue sheet at ratifies that the whole process has been fair This all works because everyone in the department, and broadly speaking across the discpline, agree on the criteria for assessing an undergraduate essay. We have descriptions of what an excellent essay looks like, a very good one, a good one, an average one, a poor one and an outright fail, etc. The criteria includes: - Written style (must be lucid, clear, adhere to correct grammar and punctuation etc.) - Structure and coherence of argument - Research - Quality of analysis - Originality of argument Now, as a marker, I have certain tendencies and biases. I tend to come down heavy on a lack of research and I tend to reward originality -- I can forgive a few errant commas if the essay has really good ideas informed by diligent research. A colleague of mine wants all the grammar and punctuation perfect and comes down harder on the written style than I do. Another colleague really wants to see evidence of good close reading in the analysis. Both of those colleagues are less stringent than I am on research. So we all have slightly different approaches. And yet, we are all broadly agreed that an excellent essay will likely excel in all five of the above areas. For dissertations, all work is double marked, so we'd both mark something independently and then arrive at two scores separately. Occassionlly the scores are off as far as 6 or 7. As in, I'd give something 67 where my colleague has said 73. We probably meet in the middle at 70. But A LOT of the time the gap is within 1-2 marks and with a lot of regularity. And so yes, "it's subjective", but is it fair to say that it is "ENTIRELY subjective"? It isn't, the criteria sets parameters and within those parameters there are things you can point to that are "objective". Easy ones are the grammar, punctuation, and quantity of research. You can see if someone is not using commas correctly, or incorrectly formatting a citation, or if they've only got 2 articles in their bibliography. It's measurable. A bit more room for interpretation with some of the other criteria, but there are still tangible things to look for. Great analysis is textually specific with trenchant and original insights, whereas poor analysis is more vague and general failing to support its claims with textual evidence. And so on and so forth. ---- Now here's the thing: I don't think the process of analysing and reviewing matches is all that different. Many of us on this site have reviewed 100s of matches. I remember watching the first disc of the lucha set and writing my reviews and grades and being within 1/2* of Chad on virtually every match -- I hadn't read or seen his stuff on it either. Yes, you occassionally get times when the gap is wider. But most of the time you find agreement. It is simply not true that every person has THEIR OWN unique criteria. It just isn't true. It's much more like the group of academics described above where everyone is looking for the same stuff but people put emphasis in different places. Will like good punches, Joe from VoW values workrate, Pete likes limbwork, Matt D wants "logical coherence", and pretty much everyone values storytelling and psychology. So what's the point in making out like everyone has unique criteria? They don't. Everyone might have their own specific tweaks, but there is enough in common between each person that as a community there is something approaching "standards". I don't expect those standards to be as robust as a university awarding degrees to students. That's work and has the weight of people's actual lives behind it. Whereas this is fun, for enjoyment and for the love of wrestling. We are relieved of the burden of formalising criteria and meeting up to agree on marks, we'll never have to do that ... but there is still "a standard" set by a community with a shared set of criteria. Your El Gigante fan doesn't exist -- I know he doesn't because I made him up myself as a flippant straw man -- and if he does, he doesn't post here. I hope to have shown by this post that even though there is "subjectivity" in assessing matches its extent is really overstated when people say things like "it is entirely subjective". Thanks.

- General (for public announcements including trades) - Fed threads - NWA business (password locked, NWA members only) - AWA business (password locked, AWA members only)

Can you remind me, do we have a deal in place?

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is objective" always do so in a way that ignores their own subjective selection of criteria that they use to rate and rank. The irony and the arrogance are not lost. Yeah, nice try, only read the thread and you'll doscover that the "everything is objective" side doesn't actually exist. Not a single person has argued that.

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is subjective" always do so in a way that suggests it is an objective truth. The irony is not lost.

Baron Scicluna

"World class levels of scoffing" got a lol out of me.

Also Toru Tanaka is a phenomenal pick at this point. Not sure how I missed him, figured he'd alread retired and moved to Hollywood to be an actor.

Sure fine, I can roll with that statement. It's so empty and limp as a statement though that I don't know why anyone would ever bother to say it.

There needs to be a creator or appropriator for it to be art. It can't just be a man pointing to a cloud and calling it art. Not unless he can find some way of exhibiting it. Even then, a nature reserve isn't art, it's a nature reserve. No amount of theory can get you to the point where the distinction between art and nature breaks down because their difference from each other is fundamental to their definition. Art presupposes human intervention and creativity. Nature presupposes an absence of human activity. So maybe your dolphin show at waterworld could be called art, because it's a human creative vision that gave you the show. What constitutes "art" does have wide limits, but to act as if there as no limits is incorrect and renders the word meaningless.