WingedEagle

Considering the bulk of the material in the book was never written about in the Wrestling Observer you can imagine how seriously I'm taking this claim of plagiarism. I'd be happy to engage any specific critiques, but I'm not interested in some kind of personal battle of wills with an anonymous internet guy making pretty absurd and hurtful claims of illegal and unethical behavior. Maybe I didn't articulate these ideas well and took things beyond the HIAC discussion. For that, I apologize to anyone I offended and won't raise the topic again. Of course that's not what I wrote at all. No? Specifically, you said: Your words telling people they didn't enjoy the show because they intended not to and should reevaluate themselves as wrestling fans (or were we critics here yet?). And they had to enjoy this show because you said it was good. And if we dare to opine otherwise, we're no longer wrestling fans. Which part of that is not telling people to enjoy the wrestling that is served them and going above and beyond that to tell them if they don't, they're no longer fans? I like, no love to eat. Huge fan of food. My aunt can't cook to save her life. The woman literally screws up boiling vegetables. I'm not exaggerating. This intelligent, otherwise fully functioning adult is rendered an absolute incompetent in the kitchen. But I'm a food fan, so should I eat that garbage and just ask for more? Its effing wrestling. It goes through hot spells and cold spells of various lengths, like many creative endeavors. But since when can fans of the genre not acknowledge the highs and lows? I think The Wire is the greatest TV show I've ever seen. I think Season 4 is far and away the best season of any show I've ever seen and an easy pick for my desert island DVD. In spite of all that am I no longer a fan when I say Season 5 just didn't measure up to what came before it, even if I liked much of it and loved other parts? If Raw tonight kicks ass, I will say so and hope it does. If that happens, I guess I'm a fan again. Fingers crossed for all of us!

I think its a fascinating question with compelling cases to be made for both. One of those things you could listen to reasonable people debate for a long, long time. Without Bischoff and Nitro, does Vince give Austin & Rock a chance to rise to the level they did? Who gets a chance at the top of the card if Turner money isn't there to bring over Hall & Nash? All interesting stuff.

That doesn't even make sense as a critique. I wrote the book in Pages for one and it's meticulously sourced to include dozens of interviews with core subjects. Don't they explain the whole literal / metaphor thing in writing 101? Maybe it is meticulously sourced. It just so happens that when reading it the thought that came to mind most often was "huh, this sounded a whole lot better when I first read it in the WON" and the second was "wow, this was poorly edited." In this case, I'm speaking as critic, not fan. That last line is the closest thing you've come to an accurate statement, though it is again flawed because the issue here isn't a blind rejection of anything other than a clean finish. It was a rejection of what people viewed as a crap finish on top of a crap match in a main event that was highly anticipated. If that same finish followed a hot match, rather than what those who didn't enjoy it may have seen as a couple contrived spots built around some poor storytelling, I don't think the reaction would be quite so negative. Similarly, if there was a strong, conclusive finish after a hot, brief finishing stretch that followed the earlier theatrics and wasn't built around a bunch of characters people find stale, I don't think the reaction would be quite so negative. There are very strong purposes for having inconclusive finishes. Believe it or not, some of the fans you rush to label as critics actually understand and appreciate that. Very often, that purpose is to build and maximize anticipation of a conclusive finish. Where that's teased and drawn out for so long only to be scrapped in favor of smoke and holograms -- literally -- people may very well find that disappointing. But stay the course with such nuanced analysis that says everybody should enjoy whatever is presented to them at all times and avoid any criticism at all. That's the kind of deep, probing thinking that keeps the critics coming back.

Up to you how you take it. As it is also up to you and your editors to determine how little citing you can publish with. Pro tip: next time, use something a little more reliable than MS Word's spelling and grammar check. You're not working on a 7 day deadline and thus have the time for proper editing.

Yeah my concern with Mizdow is I don't know how far you can take it. I'm still loving it, but the joke will run its course eventually as it seems it is for some. You can have them split but that ends the gimmick and I don't know they'll get behind any meaningful Sandow push at that point, so it may just be a winner of a short-term gimmick and hopefully something else along the way clicks.

I don't think it's falling for it. It's just not being used to it because most people here are pretty earnest and anyone who acts like that gets banned pretty quickly, no matter who he was friends with in 1998 or if he has 500,000 people reading his stuff. If you can't enjoy something like this it's because you are intent not to. That's not "trolling." I'm deadly serious. You should be reevaluating everything about how you approach wrestling and whether this is right for you as a fan and a person. Because that was good. It was well performed, to the point even the wrestlers who traditionally struggle seemed to find their path. If you can look at WWE when it is hitting on all cylinders, when the announce team is less annoying than usual, the wrestlers are inspired and one match moves into another and suddenly two hours are gone—and not enjoy it—I legitimately worry that you are incapable of loving it. If that's the case, you are wasting your time. Wasting it. We all learned here that life is fucking short. Don't be cynical and call any dissenting voice a troll. Anything but. I get why you'd want to do so. It's probably deeply disturbing that your identity is called into question. Maybe, just maybe, you aren't a wrestling fan anymore. You're a wrestling observer. A critic. Wrestling has moved to a new place and you can't find it in yourself to make that trip. I'm not blaming you for that. But don't sit in the proverbial stands with your arms crossed across your chest, determined to pick apart any perceived flaws. That's just not healthy. And I can't imagine it is fun. Trolling would be saying that instead of watching wrestling fans in their various environments, you should perhaps stick to going through your stack of WON's and highlighting the passages you want to include in your next book. But I'm not sure that's constructive. I may have missed the part where folks here said that you or any of the 500K wrestling fans at Bleacher Report who go there for the wrestling content (rather than the work of journalists like Howard Beck or the site's renowned SEO engineers) couldn't enjoy the show or were wrong for doing so. If that is the case, I apologize. Some folks may have hated this show up and down the card. Others may have enjoyed some parts and found others less appealing. Still others may have fallen into either camp and then found a highly anticipated main event devolve into something completely unsatisfying that left a bad taste in their mouth and soured the entire card. A poor main event can do that. A great main event can also sometimes redeem an otherwise uninspired night. I don't see how either a hardcore or casual wrestling fan would've enjoyed the show. But if they did that's great. That's the goal! But I'm sure as hell not to about to castigate someone and call them some blind fanboy for doing so. I'll be watching Raw tonight and next week and thereafter, and skipping Smackdown unless I hear there's something worth checking out, and then I'll be watching Survivor Series next month because I'm a wrestling fan. And if any of that sucks, I'll again say so because I'm a wrestling fan and will praise it for the same reason. Just like I'll be watching my 1-7 Jets next Sunday and likely losing my head at another garbage performance while awaiting a W and still sticking with my team. I don't have an audience of 500K, but think I learned a while back that being a fan doesn't mean loving everything my team does.

Funny, I actually watched that on the '94 Yearbook earlier in the day. I enjoyed it as retrospective camp there. I really, truly hated the HIAC finish. I didn't think there was any way for an underwhelming and too long Orton/Cena to outdo Ambrose/Rollins but they managed to do just that. The entire match felt like a poorly thought out end of Raw comedy skit between the new stooges, a beyond contrived bump and third rate characters getting involved. And that was before the Wyatt nonsense. Nevermind that I sold his stock months ago when it was established that he was a hot ring entrance supported by nothing other than Harper & Rowan's work and some cliched dialogue that would earn True Blood a writing Emmy. Actually, do mind that. I sure as hell do. I can't stand it and it now looks like the plan is to further degrade the potential of Dean Ambrose as a personality at the expense of Dean Ambrose the sketch comedian with Wyatt the Belushi to his Aykrod. Except Wyatt sucks and Ambrose isn't a comedian. Wow did I not like this show.

I wouldn't mind it as the high spot of a wrestling match or as part of the climax. But as the meat? Give me another 15 minutes of Orton/Cena.

If they did that match in half the time it probably would've been an acceptable spotfest. As it was, they killed a ton of time between spots and made me sad.

I also stand corrected that Cena always delivers in big matches. If he were Dominos in the old days tonight's pizza would be free.

Alright at least we're clearly getting a Henry turn.

I saw Birdman yesterday and after a while I just wanted it to end. I felt that way about this match pretty soon as well, though the acting in Birdman was at least great.

I was hoping I would. But it feels like a third rate parity of [insert Batman heel of choice].

I was open to the Dust Brothers gimmick at first, and I was wrong. Its garbage. Give me Dustin Rhodes again. Any chance HIAC #1 will be as good as the video preceding it?

Can't believe how much I enjoyed the Bellas' match. That dropkick was awesome and I liked the finish as well. Still trying to figure out the opener. The near falls felt incredibly forced and sloppy, I didn't really buy into the arm work and all that worked for me were Cesaro's signature spots. I hope they have something in mind for either/both of them because I don't get Dolph wining 2 consecutive falls if they'll both be back to business as usual tomorrow night.

Ambrose/Rollins has the potential to be great and if it is the show will be a good one. I'm not excited for Cena/Orton but given low expectations think its possible I'll be pleasantly surprised as its rare for Cena to have a bad big match. If Cesaro/Ziggler gets time I'll likely enjoy that and hope for a Henry heel turn or Rusez squash there. Usos should be fun again and hopefully they'll find another team to match them against going forward. Sheamus will be a good opportunity to check in on the game if its started by then.

I like the strike exchanges when done infrequently. Lately it feels like they're a part of every single Goto, Shibata and Ishii match which becomes more than overkill when these guys aren't in the same match. I also don't like when they'll stand there and actually invite their opponent to strike them, as was the case in Ishii/Shibata's G1 match last year. Something like Naito/Ishii furiously throwing elbows or forearms and not simply accepting it? I'm all for it as long as its not done up and down the card.

I actually think Taue vs. Akiyama will be an interesting call for me. I would've said Taue was the no-brainer choice for years, but Akiyama has managed to keep it going for so long now and has produced excellent matches in a lot of sub-optimal settings. We'll see. I'm really looking forward to comparing Taue & Akiyama. I've seen little of Akiyama post '04 or so but if he has as much quality stuff throughout that next decade as it sounds like, I'm not sure I can keep Taue ahead of him.

Awesome. Glad to find more love Mr. Taue. At the end of the day I'm prety sure he'll rank below Misawa/Kawada/Kobashi because of the singles matches that each has on their resume, but he just might be my favorite out of the bunch. He pulls off basically the perfect heel character with the facials and mannerisms to go along with it all the while fitting within the world that is All Japan. Just so unique. What an era.

+1 on the Takayama match. I think the point about Nakamura being able to bring out the best in poor opponents is both accurate as well as interesting. I don't think Tanahashi could've done as much with workers like Fale or Sakuraba (which in hindsight as a MOTYC is even more incredible as an all time performance), but I wonder how to weigh his output vs. lesser opponents versus Tanahashi's or others against elite talent. One of those debates that makes this all fun.

I'm a fan of ratings for that reason but absolutely get why some folks aren't. What are your thoughts on Taue after watching all of those matches? Sounds like you were a big fan of his as well, as I can't imagine someone really being down on him from that era, but where does he fit in big picture?

Its up to each individual and what's right or wrong for them. We won't all agree in each case and that's fine. Hopefully we can agree that someone is not wrong in making a personal decision on whether to consider a Benoit or Invader.

If you're able to watch someone wrestle without being distracted by anything particularly heinous they did outside the ring that's fine. If you're not, I think that's also okay. El-P touched on a distinction with Benoit/Invader that also makes sense for me -- I saw most of Benoit's career and highlights before June 2007, not after. I'm rewatching PPVs on the Network and depending on the match and how I'm feeling may watch a Benoit match, or I may skip it. Lately its kind of empty for me watching it, but I think at the end of the day I'm going to leave him off of my list for the simple reason that I really do not want to go back and watch him wrestle. Whether its because of what he did in the ring or otherwise, I don't want to spend my wrestling time with him. There are others I'm dying to watch more of and those who were always favorites that still are. But if I really don't want to watch your matches I can't say you're one of the 100 greatest ever. I haven't seen any Invader and I'm not sure I want to. I may look to check out some depending on what certain people may recommend, but perhaps I'll allocate that time to someone else instead and won't regret that either.

For a second there I forgot we couldn't like posts here. Anyways, great.

Wow. Babyface monster Vader. That is something. Great find.