BrickHithouse

I enjoy reading others' dissection of workers and matches, and I read 95% of everything here, although I have little interest breaking stuff down myself. I'm here as a student, not as an instructor. Found this board by accident probably 5 years ago when searching for WON archives. I've never cared for Bruiser Brody and was never big on Michaels. Finding out that a lot of others held the same viewpoint made me stick around, and it's really opened my eyes towards shit that I wouldn't have bothered watching before. And not every board would let a person post ridiculous Harley Race photos.

I think Triple H is a good wrestler, he's just very low on the list of wrestlers I want to see.

I'd put Ivan Putski and Brutus Beefcake below him and Fred Ottman and Honky Tonk Man ahead of HHH, in the 750-800 range.

Bill Watts' book is pretty solid on booking philosophy, and the Kayfabe Commentaries re-book series (or whatever they're called) are hit-and-miss.

.

.

Furious Bleacher Report Editor Will Make Staff Rank Things All Fucking Night If He Has To: http://www.theonion.com/articles/furious-b...taff-ran,30662/

.

Well it's about time someone said it

Wait, the cake remained intact?

I do not believe I have ever heard a Bob Dylan song - or if I have I didn't know it was Bob Dylan. Who is the musical equivalent to "I've never seen a Ric Flair match?" Michael Jackson? Led Zeppelin?

Harley and religion don't mix! He may have bladed at his own wedding though...

I love the Steiners, Scott in particular. Always have, always will, and choose to turn a blind eye to the fact that their shit doesn't really hold up. I could watch them mutilate jobbers all day and never get sick of it.

Damn Jerry, now you've got me re-considering the purchase again. I enjoy a bit of smark myself, and can generally plow through opinions that I don't agree with. Keith's books are a solid source of info if you know going in what he's all about, but a person just starting out with watching wrestling damn sure better not start with SKeith or these guys for their history lessons. One would think that with multiple authors at least one of them could come up with a paragraph or two of decent Backlund info, and for whatever reason, that Valentine paragraph had me seeing red instantly. Based on that single paragraph, the author(s) come across as "thicker than two short planks", fair or not.

Thoughts? It kind of pisses me off and would stop me from purchasing the book (which I was considering purchasing today). Is the whole book filled with shit like this? I don't mean to derail the Valentine thread to discuss this "author"...

.

He was definitely involved in all of the killings I saw earlier today, but capturing the image of Harley bringing an elephant down with his bare hands didn't work out. Of course, the NWA Title was still draped over his shoulder in mid-killing but other than that it was a disaster.

.