evilclown

Of course we can. I've talked in depth with fighters and their teams about training camps and associated costs. While it varies widely, the top of the heap fighters are spending five figures to prepare for a major bout. Much less than boxing, but much more than lower level UFC fighters. In some ways economic disparity can be a major factor in the outcome of a fight.

Have college wrestlers really been a HUGE part of wrestling's talent base? Researching the issue, I didn't find that to be true. In fact, I think it's notable how few collegiate stars made significant runs in the business.

I'm honestly shocked that Dean hasn't been scooped up to write somewhere. Does he still write regularly? Does he make enough money from DVDVR to keep him from moving on to a bigger platform?

Has anyone read this guy? Beneath some pretty fine (for wrestling) prose, this is like a handbook for smark talking points. This guy could have been a member of the old Workrate Cru.

Is there an audience there that finds that kind of thing interesting? I've never quite grasped who the WON audience is.

I don't think you can possibly believe this. What was similar about Lesnar's Gary Albright impression and CM Punk's, well, CM Punk impression? The matches didn't seem to be laid out in a similar way. On the surface there was a glut of finishers, but as a whole those matches didn't really build or finish the same way.

The idea is correct, but it seems the catch wrestling lineage was more powerful in Japan. That's where Gotch and Billy Robinson settled in their final days in the business and Thesz, too, was a figurehead for the shootstyle movement. On the American side of the house, catch wrestling is an almost non-existent influence. I remember talking to Daniel Cormier, the Olympic wrestler and Strikeforce champion, who before fighting Josh Barnett was almost entirely unfamiliar with catch wrestling or a wrestling based submission style.

My Meltzerian Magnum Opus! http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1585679...ling-done-right

Bas Rutten told me a funny story about Doleman and other guys from Rings that he palled around with like Dick Vrij. When they would lose a match they'd play up that it was just a business move and a work. But when they won a bout in Rings they'd strut around the gym like the cock of the walk afterwards. Rutten would be infuriated "It can't only be real when you win and fake when you lose!"

This was massive dejavu. This could have been 1998 with the role of Jerry played by "Fat Tony", "NetCop", or "Kristina L. Kendall and Jonathan E. Snowden."

Hack-Gotch II was such an obvious work they wouldn't accept bets on the match. At least it feels that way reading about it. People at the time certainly thought so. The hero worship of these guys, despite people of their era pretty clearly believing they were frauds, is astounding. That said, I wonder how much of this we see because we want to see. Are we prejudiced and see work because we are accustomed to wrestling being a charade?

This is certainly up for debate. I would suspect that the vast majority of his matches while tour the country with various athletic shows and circus like extravaganzas were all works. It's unclear whether his matches with Hackenschmidt and Jenkins were fixed, but both were accused of match fixing during the course of their careers.

Thanks. Now I'm afraid to check if Yohe read Shooters....

Yohe wrote up a really scathing criticism of the book's sections of Stetcher and Lewis at Classics. Can you link that please?

No problem. If you'd seen some of the things jdw and I have written about each other over the years it would make you blush. That Sting thread was long forgotten. Thanks for your support. I hope you enjoy.

I think there is truth to that. Obviously I've had to talk about it quite a bit with a variety of wrestling interviewers and old timers. It's such obvious self loathing. Who could really wrestle? Who cares? The business wasn't about that. I'm often asked about whether Hulk Hogan was a tough guy. People looking for a snarky answer I suspect. But come on—he was 6'5" and a jacked 330. I'm guessing he was a handful and is to this day. I sure wouldn't want to test him.

Why do you think Joe Stecher is usually included as kind of an after thought? What about other short term box office stars like Danno O'Mahoney, Gus Sonnenberg, Bronko Nagurski, etc? Why do the 1930's-1950's seem like they don't even exist when people make lists like this?

I thought it was obvious as soon as Swagger came out with a new Tea Party gimmick that he would be paired with Del Rio at WrestleMania and said so at Bleacher Report. It seemed like the only finish that would really work for the Elimination Chamber other than Jericho winning and Ziggler cashing in to create that pairing. I think the WWE has grand plans for this one. They want to get on cable news and patted on the back for being topical and current. We'll see if it works and how desperate they get to make it happen.

Why do you care? Bleacher Report is generally regarded as one of the worst sites on the web, existing solely to generate google hits I care because it's a fountain of misinformation. I care because there's a chance that 1,500 young WWE fans now think The Genius is the 2nd worst manager in history. I care because it feels like noise that drowns out better-informed opinions from people like the DVDR guys and many of the guys with columns and things who post here. I care because I'm a wrestling fan and I don't like to see the perpetuation of inauthentic and shallow views. My favorite part of this whole temper tantrum is that the Genius sucked.

But that's the OPPOSITE of what happened here. This is Vince sticking to what I'd imagine to be a long term plan to bring his biggest stars face to face for the biggest show of the year. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from anyone writing about wrestling who doesn't understand, at the most basic level, what wrestling is. What's funny about these kinds of fans is just how misguided this is. In fact, historically, when wrestling has caught on with hipsters and Hollywood types it's typically been the product of very broad and over the top characters, whether it was Gorgeous George or Hulk Hogan. No one wants "serious business" wrestling except 30 year-old men who still collect comic books.

Some of the vitriol amazes me. One of the 20 biggest drawing cards in wrestling history, a legitimate living legend, is supposed to beat up a guy who isn't even the main star during his year plus title reign. The fans who somehow expected Punk to win were living in an alternate universe. The fact that he beat him in the middle, with his iconic move that has stopped some of wrestling's biggest stars, is just icing on the cake. Isn't the star babyface supposed to win this way? He overcame all the odds and then took the hard path rather than let Vince do his dirty work for him. That's what being a hero is all about. Now, if you were turning Cena? How about this—it wasn't the Shield who ran in to ultimately cost Punk. It was John Cena who was desperately wanting to avoid the Rock at Wrestlemania.

Throwing this into the mix: Nash is by far the most interesting and personable wrestler I've talked to in the course of writing two books on the sport.

This isn't going to be about me? BAIT AND SWITCH!

I love this as fantasy booking until I remember how wretched Dan Severn was.

Exactly. "Best Guy Real Fans Don't Care About."