ESPN's Grantland

[evilclown]

Well, someone bought into hype.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Squared-Circle-P...f=zg_bs_16594_3

[Bix]

I hadn't read the blurb until now and this part stood out:

 

Starting in the early 1900s and exploring the path of pro wrestling in America through the present day, The Squared Circle is the first book to acknowledge both the sport’s broader significance and wrestling fans’ keen intellect and sense of irony. Divided into eras, each section offers a snapshot of the wrestling world, profiles some of the period’s preeminent wrestlers, and the sport’s influence on our broader culture.

After the Bruno article, this should be...interesting.

[rovert]

So it seems Peter Rosenberg is joining TMM for the occasional podcast. Can't complain about this honestly, I like Rosenberg.

Masked Man was very likeable on that podcast which can be found on the Grandland Sports podcast feed.

 

Seems like a normal smart fan who just is writing to Grantland's style/content requirements rather than being an uber pretentious and/or clueless douche.

[evilclown]

normal smart fan who just is writing to Grantland's style/content requirements rather than being an uber pretentious and/or clueless douche.

He was writing in the same style at Deadspin. I suspect he's a pretentious douche who saw pro wrestling as fertile ground with little competition. I know a guy like that....

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

He's been Simmons-ized. Everything is relateable to some ironic section of pop culture or a sports analogy, even if it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

[evilclown]

He's been Simmons-ized. Everything is relateable to some ironic section of pop culture or a sports analogy, even if it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Grantland, as a whole, is not really very Simmons-ized. They don't seem to ape his style for the most part at all. Their serious writers in other sports are nothing like Simmons.

[Migs]

I have pre ordered the book and will gladly offer thoughts when I get to it.

 

Much like Simmons, some of what he writes is pure bullshit but its usually readable and entertaining. And there's nothing wrong with that. Style can get you far. Heck, lots of people love Malcolm Gladwell and he basically fakes analysis with a bunch of examples... but he does it so well you can still enjoy reading it.

[marrklarr]

I'm not surprised that Shoemaker isn't well-regarded around here. People who write on certain subjects for a general audience have nothing to offer the initiated. (It's the same reason a medical research scientist wouldn't bother to read a dumbed-down write-up on the results of a cancer treatment study in the newspaper. Only a peer-reviewed medical journal article would be worth reading for an actual expert)

 

Some of his dispatches on the current product are eye-rollingly bad, but I have to say, I loved the guy's work in the Dead Wrestler of the Week series. (Perhaps that's just because I'm not on the same level of expertise as most of the PWO population.) I really think Shoemaker is a talented writer, and I believe his work has appeared in some prestigious magazines in the past.

 

He's been described as pretentious, but that's not really fair. He writes in a style that is intelligent and high-brow, or at least meant to be. I think you can only call it pretentious, however, if it's bad. But the Dead Wrestler series is fantastic. Check it out if you haven't already.

 

Writing intelligently about topics that are considered dumb pop culture has become a very tiresome fad in the last 10-15 years. Chuck Klosterman made a whole career out of it. But what I love about Shoemaker is that he is utterly sincere. When Klosterman writes about Coco Puffs or Saved by the Bell, he always does so with a wink, as if to say, "Can you believe I'm writing about something so silly? Aren't I cute!" It's a goof. It's cloying schtick.

 

But when Shoemaker writes an essay worthy of New York Magazine on, say, Road Warrior Hawk, he isn't winking. He means it. He honestly believes that Road Warrior Hawk is deserving of such a serious treatment. I think he's right, and I admire him for it.

[evilclown]

But when Shoemaker writes an essay worthy of New York Magazine on, say, Road Warrior Hawk, he isn't winking. He means it. He honestly believes that Road Warrior Hawk is deserving of such a serious treatment. I think he's right, and I admire him for it.

He's an average stylist at best. The idea he's writing essays "worthy of New York Magazine" is only true of the version of New York Magazine that includes the likes of Will Leitch.

 

I suspect he's the beneficiary of the typical incestuous New York literary arrangement. Works for a publisher; given freelance work by editors who want to write for that publisher.

[Migs]

But when Shoemaker writes an essay worthy of New York Magazine on, say, Road Warrior Hawk, he isn't winking. He means it. He honestly believes that Road Warrior Hawk is deserving of such a serious treatment. I think he's right, and I admire him for it.

He's an average stylist at best. The idea he's writing essays "worthy of New York Magazine" is only true of the version of New York Magazine that includes the likes of Will Leitch.

 

I suspect he's the beneficiary of the typical incestuous New York literary arrangement. Works for a publisher; given freelance work by editors who want to write for that publisher.

 

Wrestling needs more writers like him, who at least attempt to break down what they're seeing and interpret it, as opposed to people simply recapping shows. It's the direction of television criticism as well. And good TV critics write for New York Magazine (specifically Matt Zoller Seitz). I think it's fair to criticize when you think he's overreaching for deeper meaning, but he's certainly writing in the style of our important TV critics.

[Childs]

People who write on certain subjects for a general audience have nothing to offer the initiated. (It's the same reason a medical research scientist wouldn't bother to read a dumbed-down write-up on the results of a cancer treatment study in the newspaper. Only a peer-reviewed medical journal article would be worth reading for an actual expert)

This is nonsense. Zach Lowe puts the lie to what you're saying, writing to the same audience on the same web site. I know from my own journalism experience that experts in many fields appreciate it when their work is explained well to a general audience.

 

Shoemaker's work on Grantland just isn't very good.

[jdw]

I hadn't read the blurb until now and this part stood out:

 

Starting in the early 1900s and exploring the path of pro wrestling in America through the present day, The Squared Circle is the first book to acknowledge both the sport’s broader significance and wrestling fans’ keen intellect and sense of irony. Divided into eras, each section offers a snapshot of the wrestling world, profiles some of the period’s preeminent wrestlers, and the sport’s influence on our broader culture.

After the Bruno article, this should be...interesting.

 

Good lord is this going to suck.

[jdw]

He's been Simmons-ized. Everything is relateable to some ironic section of pop culture or a sports analogy, even if it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Grantland, as a whole, is not really very Simmons-ized. They don't seem to ape his style for the most part at all. Their serious writers in other sports are nothing like Simmons.

 

This. There are a lot of posts in the thread pointing that out.

[jdw]

People who write on certain subjects for a general audience have nothing to offer the initiated. (It's the same reason a medical research scientist wouldn't bother to read a dumbed-down write-up on the results of a cancer treatment study in the newspaper. Only a peer-reviewed medical journal article would be worth reading for an actual expert)

This is nonsense. Zach Lowe puts the lie to what you're saying, writing to the same audience on the same web site. I know from my own journalism experience that experts in many fields appreciate it when their work is explained well to a general audience.

 

Shoemaker's work on Grantland just isn't very good.

 

Ding ding ding.

 

If Lowe wants to get on TV, he probably over time will edge over into the Blowhard category because that's what TV wants. But right now, he's business his ass off writing very informative pieces that are opeing up a lot of "new thinking" on hoops to a broad audience.

 

We didn't have something like Grantland in 1982 when Bill James was revolutionizing what people thought about baseball. He was transitioning from self-publishing to Ballentine, he'd have a 1-2 articles a year published in the likes of Esquire and Sport/Inside Sports, and you might get lucky if your local fishwrap wrote a moderately indepth article on him... ones in five years. In turn, nearly the entire establishment of baseball and baseball media ridiculed him. It was a long, uphill struggle... to the point that when he got hired by the Red Sox there still was a strong Anti-Saber vibe in baseball, the media and fandom.

 

With Lowe?

 

Welcome to the modern informational and analytical world.

 

I don't know what the pro wrestling analogy would be... exactly. Dave as James. A certain period of the internet being the pre-Moneyball era (i.e. before the book was released, but while some teams were moving in the direction of increased saber thinking). We're not far beyond that, as is baseball. Stuff like the 80s Project or Lawler & Fujiwara Luv clearly spring from Meltzerian thinking as it's base level: thinking about and analyzing wrestlers and matches at a "work" and "entertainment" level. That this type of thinking and analysis isn't remotely controversial anymore, to the degree that someone like Shawn Michaels built up a legend *within the business* for Work as much as old school "accomplishment", and that it was part of how he was pushed. So it's not just fans who buy into looking at things that way, and loads of then, but also to a degree the business itself. In turn, the level of analysis has gone a pretty decent deal beyond what you'd reason in a 1983 WON. Not just in the sense of people rethinking how people in 1983 (or the 80s) were rated, but also in how or in what people are looking at.

 

That Colon thread? Welcome to the modern informational and analytical world. That such a thread exists, and that level of thought/discussion exists, it's odd anymore. It isn't the old "thinks too much" that we had tossed at us in the mid-90s. It's not uncommon.

 

Anyway...

 

That's Lowe. I'm not a massive Barnwell fan, but he's trying to go analytical. They have baseball writers who have long been analytical.

 

Beyond sports, Andy Greenwald is trying to bring a variety of things to his writing above TV. I'm not always a fan of the shows that he loves and writes about, but I appreciate the effort he puts in... and when he's dealing with a topic/show I like, I tend to find his stuff very readable. There isn't a massive attempt to be the SportsGuy of TV.

 

Shoemaker... he's just mediocre. :/

[Hollinger.]

Agreed. Where do we push to get Snowden hired at Grantland?

[jdw]

I think we'd all agree that we'd like Jon to write about MMA at Grantland. I think writing about pro wrestling there would be a waste of his time.

[marrklarr]

This is nonsense. Zach Lowe puts the lie to what you're saying, writing to the same audience on the same web site. I know from my own journalism experience that experts in many fields appreciate it when their work is explained well to a general audience.

Zach Lowe writes about basketball, and fairly well at that. Grantland has many good contributors. (My favorite is Rany Jazayerli.) This puts the lie to me?

 

Shoemaker's work on Grantland just isn't very good.

Won't dispute that. Have you read Dead Wrestler of the Week?

[Childs]

This is nonsense. Zach Lowe puts the lie to what you're saying, writing to the same audience on the same web site. I know from my own journalism experience that experts in many fields appreciate it when their work is explained well to a general audience.

Zach Lowe writes about basketball, and fairly well at that. Grantland has many good contributors. (My favorite is Rany Jazayerli.) This puts the lie to me?

 

Shoemaker's work on Grantland just isn't very good.

Won't dispute that. Have you read Dead Wrestler of the Week?

 

 

You seemed to be giving Shoemaker a pass because his material is intended for a general audience and not for wrestling crazies such as the posters on this site. My point was that Lowe (along with Rany, Keri, etc.) writes about the NBA for the same general audience, yet is beloved by hardcore basketball people. Are the posters on this board going to be a tough audience for any wrestling writer? Sure. But the folks here are also apt to get excited about a really good wrestling piece. Writing for a general audience needn't make you uninteresting to a more discerning audience.

 

And yes, I agree that Dead Wrestler of the Week was better, both in concept and execution, than his Grantland stuff.

[marrklarr]

You seemed to be giving Shoemaker a pass because his material is intended for a general audience and not for wrestling crazies such as the posters on this site. My point was that Lowe (along with Rany, Keri, etc.) writes about the NBA for the same general audience, yet is beloved by hardcore basketball people. Are the posters on this board going to be a tough audience for any wrestling writer? Sure. But the folks here are also apt to get excited about a really good wrestling piece. Writing for a general audience needn't make you uninteresting to a more discerning audience.

 

And yes, I agree that Dead Wrestler of the Week was better, both in concept and execution, than his Grantland stuff.

I see what you're saying, but there are some key differences that I'd like to point out. First of all, when it comes to football, basketball, baseball, Grantland's audience, as well as the audience for other sports media outlets, isn't general at all. They are there specifically for football, basketball, and baseball coverage and usually show up with a solid understanding of those sports.

 

Wrestling, on the other hand, is one of the most niche subjects covered there. This is why Shoemaker is constantly having to explain and define basic concepts that most of us take for granted while trying to educate readers with historical background that for us is too obvious to mention. A hardcore fan would have about as much need for this as Stephen Hawking would Physics 101.

 

Now, there are some topics discussed by Grantland like advanced stats in baseball that are niche and do get explained for a general audience without alienating the initiated. Hardcore stat heads usually do love it when a good mainstream writer like Jonah Keri or Joe Posnanski can explain advanced stats to average readers. But this is a special case, because there is an ongoing war between sabermetrics and traditional ideas about baseball stats. The saber crowd desperately wants their stuff to be understood by average fans, so it celebrates writers who are good at this.

 

I think Shoemaker is his own worst enemy because a lot of his recent work has been shit. On the other hand, how do you simultaneously appeal to general readers without alienating hardcore fans? It's enough to make you wonder if Grantland needs a wrestling writer. The hardcore won't get much out of it, and the mainstream doesn't really care.

[jdw]

Shoemaker doesn't have to explain things to a general audience. He chooses to.

 

In turn, he really isn't writing for a general audience. Non-wrestling fans don't give a shit about wrestling. The people who regularly read his shit are wrestling fans. The rest of Grantland readers could give a flying fuck about it.

 

I disagree about a difference between what he and Lowe does. Lowe writes for Basketball Fans. He's not writing for the folks who are football-only fans. He's not writing for the folks who read Greenwald's tv stuff and don't care about hoops. He's writing for hoops fans. And he strikes the balance between (i) expecting them to know a baseline about hoops and (ii) dealing with "new" concepts for them that he'll have to explain. In fact, he often doesn't explain in the new piece, but will simply link to an earlier piece that discusses it.

 

Lowe expects his readers to be as smart and curious as he is.

 

Shoemaker expects his readers to be as stupid as he is, or dumber.

 

John

[marrklarr]

Shoemaker doesn't have to explain things to a general audience. He chooses to.

More likely, his editors choose for him.

 

Name one writer who writes about wrestling, but does not write for a wrestling publication, that you enjoy reading.

[BrickHithouse]

Name one writer who writes about wrestling, but does not write for a wrestling publication, that you enjoy reading.

I know the question isn't meant for me but my answer is:

 

Dylan Waco

[jdw]

Shoemaker doesn't have to explain things to a general audience. He chooses to.

More likely, his editors choose for him.

 

Name one writer who writes about wrestling, but does not write for a wrestling publication, that you enjoy reading.

 

This site is full of them.

 

John

[marrklarr]

Shoemaker doesn't have to explain things to a general audience. He chooses to.

More likely, his editors choose for him.

 

Name one writer who writes about wrestling, but does not write for a wrestling publication, that you enjoy reading.

 

This site is full of them.

 

John

 

good point

[jdw]

There are largely these types of wrestling writers:

 

* Newsletter / primary Wrestling Website writers

 

That's the WON (including Fig-4 now), Torch. You could toss PWSpyware in here since it, and it's predecessor in spirit (Bob.com), has been around long enough.

 

* Company website writers

 

Who gives a shit about these? That goes for any company message boards they have, though perhaps the local indy ones are more interesting because they're not flooded with a mass of people.

 

* Network Sites

 

That would be ones connected to SBNation, Bleacher Report... there's probably another one or two like that I'm missing. Bix and Keith write for some of these. Jon writes for one.

 

* Wrestling Websites & Boards

 

There are loads of these. The genre has evolved over time, with loads coming and loads going. Most of them are ones we'll never hear about or read or give a shit about if we stumble upon. In turn, this place is probably small potatoes compared to some larger websites and boards

 

* Mainstream writers

 

There are hardly any of them. Maybe Mooneyham is still writing, and perhaps some other local papers have guys. Our friend at Grantland is one. Historically they've not been terribly relevant. Shoemaker likely gets a crapload of hits, but how well that lines up with drawing in wrestling fans and keeping them interested... who knows.

 

 

Overall... the first group dominated through 1995/96. Online wrestling discussion took a while in getting going. Through the balance of the Monday Night Wars era, they directly and indirectly continued to dominate even if the majority of people reading "wrestling writers" weren't specifically reading the Torch and WON: they were reading news lifted from the Torch & WON, and maybe half or more of the hardcore thinking was shaped by the old school thinking. It wasn't like there were a ton of people talking about Sid being a great worker: the shaping of things on work, and how angles worked, was still at its core an extension of newsletter writers or "thinking" cultivated in the past by the newsletter writers.

 

If I'd hazzard a guess of when things changed, it was in the area of WCW and ECW dying. Just one promotion. Can't say that the newsletters loved that. It wasn't an era of much new thinking coming out of the newsletters. Not saying they sucked, but it was a stagnant period for the business, and for the newsletters covering now just one thing of note. People online tended to either wander off, or reach out for other things to take a look at. Indy's were moving along, and of course ROH focused a lot of indy attention not unlike ECW the prior direction. People who liked TNA really didn't give a shit if the newsletter didn't like it. Folks looked at older stuff that became more available in the DVD era, etc, etc, etc.

 

I don't know how much the Newsletter / primary Wrestling Website writers drive much of the discussion anymore. Certainly in some ways, like the WON HOF... which is kind of what you'd expect since it's Dave's HOF. But on the rest? I don't think that what Newsletter / primary Wrestling Website writers have massive impact beyond (i) news, and (ii) how a lot of how we look at work was long ago shaped as I said in that prior post.

 

Dylan is far removed from his Torch reading days, and he disagrees with a lot of what Dave, Bruce, Wade and Bryan write. His view on work has probably changed a ton from 1996 when he was reading the sheets, and again from say the turn of the decade when he was getting knee deep in online discussions. What he looks for in terms of good work has likely changed. But that he looks, that he gives it thought beyond simply "I liked it", and that he organizes his thoughts on it... that's stuff that tends to go back to the sheets, and his early days on boards.

 

Anyway, a the best "writing" I see on wrestling now is less on the "writing" side than the "thinking" or "analysis" or "research" side. The quality of wordsmithing is less important than the thought content.

 

* * * * *

 

I don't know if all of that post is terribly coherent.