ESPN's Grantland

[Mad Dog]

I've seen video game sites do interviews with wrestlers where the interviewer barely knows who the guy is and they manage to churn out better stuff than that.

 

The beard shit was really awful. I mean holy shit did James Harden, Vlade Divac, Johnny Damon, Mike Commodore and Kimbo Slice not exist in the past fucking decade?

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I never understood how people can listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern for the sole purpose of complaining about what they hear. I don't care for Shoemaker's Grantland work, so I quit reading it. The Shoemaker hate in this thread is getting a little silly. I suppose you can say he's well-known so he's worth reading and taking to task on a deeper-thinking board such as this one, but at this point, it's starting to sound elitist.

 

Regarding the DB interview: Why do we jump all over Shoemaker for asking bad questions, but give Steve Austin a pass for not asking the right things on his podcast (i.e. Flair claiming he worked a match after Brody was stabbed)?

[Mad Dog]

Because Austin is a part of the culture. He's not there to bring you factually correct information. He's there to have entertaining conversations with wrestlers.

[Jmare007]

And he did a waaayy better job interviewing D-Bry.

[Timbo Slice]

I never understood how people can listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern for the sole purpose of complaining about what they hear. I don't care for Shoemaker's Grantland work, so I quit reading it. The Shoemaker hate in this thread is getting a little silly. I suppose you can say he's well-known so he's worth reading and taking to task on a deeper-thinking board such as this one, but at this point, it's starting to sound elitist.

 

Regarding the DB interview: Why do we jump all over Shoemaker for asking bad questions, but give Steve Austin a pass for not asking the right things on his podcast (i.e. Flair claiming he worked a match after Brody was stabbed)?

It's more about the audience he's presenting this stuff to and the platform he's doing it on. Basically, he's a guy presented as someone with "inside knowledge" about pro wrestling, yet his interviews are full of fluff. It's pretty obvious in the Triple H interview that he was putting him on something fierce, and here, he's given time with one of the best stories in pro wrestling in a long time and doesn't really get into the parts of his backstory that aren't easily accessible on the WWE website. That's not an "elitist" take. It's more about why a guy like that is being given time on a major website when there are many other prominent writers on the subject (some that post on these forums) who would do much better.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I never understood how people can listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern for the sole purpose of complaining about what they hear. I don't care for Shoemaker's Grantland work, so I quit reading it. The Shoemaker hate in this thread is getting a little silly. I suppose you can say he's well-known so he's worth reading and taking to task on a deeper-thinking board such as this one, but at this point, it's starting to sound elitist.

 

Regarding the DB interview: Why do we jump all over Shoemaker for asking bad questions, but give Steve Austin a pass for not asking the right things on his podcast (i.e. Flair claiming he worked a match after Brody was stabbed)?

It's more about the audience he's presenting this stuff to and the platform he's doing it on. Basically, he's a guy presented as someone with "inside knowledge" about pro wrestling, yet his interviews are full of fluff. It's pretty obvious in the Triple H interview that he was putting him on something fierce, and here, he's given time with one of the best stories in pro wrestling in a long time and doesn't really get into the parts of his backstory that aren't easily accessible on the WWE website. That's not an "elitist" take. It's more about why a guy like that is being given time on a major website when there are many other prominent writers on the subject (some that post on these forums) who would do much better.

 

You mean a company that has Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, Stephen A. Smith and Chris Berman as some of its most visible personalities trots out a lead pro wrestling voice who pushes fluff over insight?

 

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Because Austin is a part of the culture. He's not there to bring you factually correct information. He's there to have entertaining conversations with wrestlers.

So kind of like we give ex jocks a pass for being bad TV analysts, we should give Austin a pass because he used to be a wrestler?

 

I enjoy Austin's podcast, so I don't mean to shit on it. But sometimes I wish he'd go beyond simple lead-ins in his interviews like "Tell me about the time...." or "Do you have any good road stories?"

 

I know, I know. It's wrestling, not foreign policy, but still....

[Timbo Slice]

I never understood how people can listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern for the sole purpose of complaining about what they hear. I don't care for Shoemaker's Grantland work, so I quit reading it. The Shoemaker hate in this thread is getting a little silly. I suppose you can say he's well-known so he's worth reading and taking to task on a deeper-thinking board such as this one, but at this point, it's starting to sound elitist.

 

Regarding the DB interview: Why do we jump all over Shoemaker for asking bad questions, but give Steve Austin a pass for not asking the right things on his podcast (i.e. Flair claiming he worked a match after Brody was stabbed)?

It's more about the audience he's presenting this stuff to and the platform he's doing it on. Basically, he's a guy presented as someone with "inside knowledge" about pro wrestling, yet his interviews are full of fluff. It's pretty obvious in the Triple H interview that he was putting him on something fierce, and here, he's given time with one of the best stories in pro wrestling in a long time and doesn't really get into the parts of his backstory that aren't easily accessible on the WWE website. That's not an "elitist" take. It's more about why a guy like that is being given time on a major website when there are many other prominent writers on the subject (some that post on these forums) who would do much better.

 

You mean a company that has Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, Stephen A. Smith and Chris Berman as some of its most visible personalities trots out a lead pro wrestling voice who pushes fluff over insight?

 

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

 

Grantland is presented as an alternative to ESPN that isn't supposed to feature the fluff of the guys you mentioned. It's SUPPOSED to push insight. Shoemaker isn't.

[Mad Dog]

Because Austin is a part of the culture. He's not there to bring you factually correct information. He's there to have entertaining conversations with wrestlers.

So kind of like we give ex jocks a pass for being bad TV analysts, we should give Austin a pass because he used to be a wrestler?

 

I enjoy Austin's podcast, so I don't mean to shit on it. But sometimes I wish he'd go beyond simple lead-ins in his interviews like "Tell me about the time...." or "Do you have any good road stories?"

 

I know, I know. It's wrestling, not foreign policy, but still....

 

It's more like, giving an ex-jock a pass when he's an obvious homer for teams he played for I think.

 

He's never really established that he's there to bring you hard hitting truth. I mean, I think we would all be a little disappointed if Austin and his guests weren't trying to work us just a little bit.

[Mad Dog]

I never understood how people can listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern for the sole purpose of complaining about what they hear. I don't care for Shoemaker's Grantland work, so I quit reading it. The Shoemaker hate in this thread is getting a little silly. I suppose you can say he's well-known so he's worth reading and taking to task on a deeper-thinking board such as this one, but at this point, it's starting to sound elitist.

 

Regarding the DB interview: Why do we jump all over Shoemaker for asking bad questions, but give Steve Austin a pass for not asking the right things on his podcast (i.e. Flair claiming he worked a match after Brody was stabbed)?

It's more about the audience he's presenting this stuff to and the platform he's doing it on. Basically, he's a guy presented as someone with "inside knowledge" about pro wrestling, yet his interviews are full of fluff. It's pretty obvious in the Triple H interview that he was putting him on something fierce, and here, he's given time with one of the best stories in pro wrestling in a long time and doesn't really get into the parts of his backstory that aren't easily accessible on the WWE website. That's not an "elitist" take. It's more about why a guy like that is being given time on a major website when there are many other prominent writers on the subject (some that post on these forums) who would do much better.

 

I shouldn't feel like I could read someone's Wiki entry and have better questions for an interview ready than a guy who is getting paid to do it.

[bradhindsight]

Jon Robinson, who used to write for ESPN's games department (and GamePro) was really good at interviewing wrestlers. He did a solid one with CM Punk that I remember.

 

It's a shame Shoemaker's stuff like this is so generic - especially since Grantland is more conducive to NOT be fluff ESPN stuff.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

Because Austin is a part of the culture. He's not there to bring you factually correct information. He's there to have entertaining conversations with wrestlers.

So kind of like we give ex jocks a pass for being bad TV analysts, we should give Austin a pass because he used to be a wrestler?

 

I enjoy Austin's podcast, so I don't mean to shit on it. But sometimes I wish he'd go beyond simple lead-ins in his interviews like "Tell me about the time...." or "Do you have any good road stories?"

 

I know, I know. It's wrestling, not foreign policy, but still....

 

It's more like, giving an ex-jock a pass when he's an obvious homer for teams he played for I think.

 

He's never really established that he's there to bring you hard hitting truth. I mean, I think we would all be a little disappointed if Austin and his guests weren't trying to work us just a little bit.

 

Right, it's a carny interviewing carnies. Steve Austin isn't a journalist or member of the media. He's a guy bullshitting with guys who worked in the same field as he did, some of which were co-workers/are close friends.

[evilclown]

Others pointed out that it was dull as hell. Mad Dog and Jesse pointed out that Bryan was a good interview with Cabana and Alverez (holy shit?!?!).

 

Shoemaker is just a shitty interviewer. Like I say, there could be a lot on the cutting room floor. It's possible that Shoemaker tried, and Bryan wasn't going anywhere interesting with the responses. It's also possible that Shoemaker is a shitty interviewer (which has been the case in the past), and Bryan just checked out and slogged his way through the interview. The result was a Tiger Beat level piece.

 

Is the bar low in wrestling? Sure. But I don't think Wade is the only person who can get some interesting responses out of folks.

 

John

I didn't get much time with Bryan, but this is what I did earlier this year.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1738742...nquered-the-wwe

[Wahoos Leg]

This basically is the quality of an interview that you'd find in USA Today. Perhaps Shoemaker was overly controlled by the WWE in what he could ask, or Bryan is a totally shitty / uninteresting / unenlightening interview where it's like pulling teeth to even get these keepers form him, and if we saw the rest of say a 30-45 minute interview Shoemaker had with him we'd get why this is the "good stuff". But... shit... the questions are mediocre, and the responses are a bit pedestrian.

 

I can verify this is not the case from firsthand experience.

 

http://www.gonzogeek.com/Blog/tabid/62/ID/...niel-Bryan.aspx

 

I won't go so far as to say there were any great revelations, but we at least had an entertaining conversation.

[jdw]

I never understood how people can listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern for the sole purpose of complaining about what they hear. I don't care for Shoemaker's Grantland work, so I quit reading it. The Shoemaker hate in this thread is getting a little silly. I suppose you can say he's well-known so he's worth reading and taking to task on a deeper-thinking board such as this one, but at this point, it's starting to sound elitist.

Aw... the classic old "If you don't like it, why do you watch/read it" meme.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, by my reasons for reading it are pretty simple:

 

1. I read Grantland regularly

2. I'm a Wrestling Fan

3. he was chosen to be The Wrestling Writer at Grantland

4. of course I'm going to click on his pieces when they pop up there

 

I find Barnwell's pieces hit and miss: some good, some decent, some skim material, some a waste. But I'm an NFL Fan. I read Grantland. Barnwell is their NFL writer. So I'll click on his stuff when it pops up on a visit there.

 

Not complicated.

 

As far as "deep thinking"... we're the board that had a thread on 1984-92 Hogan really being a Heel that was nothing but jokes on Hogan... and that's before there even was that subthread on cartoon characters and what an asshole Tweety Bird was. We tend to talk about all sorts of shit, some of it "deep thinking" and some of it just busting balls.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I never understood how people can listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern for the sole purpose of complaining about what they hear. I don't care for Shoemaker's Grantland work, so I quit reading it. The Shoemaker hate in this thread is getting a little silly. I suppose you can say he's well-known so he's worth reading and taking to task on a deeper-thinking board such as this one, but at this point, it's starting to sound elitist.

Aw... the classic old "If you don't like it, why do you watch/read it" meme.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, by my reasons for reading it are pretty simple:

 

1. I read Grantland regularly

2. I'm a Wrestling Fan

3. he was chosen to be The Wrestling Writer at Grantland

4. of course I'm going to click on his pieces when they pop up there

 

I find Barnwell's pieces hit and miss: some good, some decent, some skim material, some a waste. But I'm an NFL Fan. I read Grantland. Barnwell is their NFL writer. So I'll click on his stuff when it pops up on a visit there.

 

Not complicated.

 

As far as "deep thinking"... we're the board that had a thread on 1984-92 Hogan really being a Heel that was nothing but jokes on Hogan... and that's before there even was that subthread on cartoon characters and what an asshole Tweety Bird was. We tend to talk about all sorts of shit, some of it "deep thinking" and some of it just busting balls.

 

I like steak. If I go to a restaurant and choose to order a steak instead of chicken, seafood or something else, and the steak tastes like shit, I'm not going to order steak from that restaurant again. I sure as hell won't order steak just because it's on the menu and I like steak, or I want to bitch about how bad it tastes.

 

I also read Grantland. I'm also a wrestling fan. I read Shoemaker's stuff when he started there and thought it was terrible. Of course when I go to Grantland and see his pieces pop up I am NOT going to click on them solely because I like wrestling and read Grantland. Shoemaker isn't any good. Why waste my time? There's plenty of good wrestling writing/analysis out there to waste time on the bad stuff.

 

Does torturing ourselves with bad wrestling writing/analysis have something to do with bad wrestling being enjoyable? Sometimes I enjoy watching bad wrestling, then coming on here and cracking wise about it. Perhaps others get the same joy out of mocking bad wrestling writing/analysis. To each their own.

 

And this is a deep-thinking board. If you think otherwise, you're overthinking.

[cowboy hats]

have never read shoemaker, but i finally turned on simmons in the last few years after being a fan since the early aughts. i'm no gambler outside of office pools, but i've been following vegas watch (http://www.vegaswatch.org) for nfl survivor thoughts for some time and him and his e-buddies have taken to shitting all over the grantland gambling guys (GGG!!). i can't say i get all the specifics, but read through his blog and twitter feed and the terrible analysis and defensiveness (even football outsiders gets in on the poor writing game) will wash over you. is there anything of value at the site outside of lowe and keri?

[Mad Dog]

The lady that writes about hockey is pretty good.

[WingedEagle]

I've been a big Simmons fan for over a decade now, dating back to my early years in college. At this point I'm really only interested when he writes about basketball, but the football stuff is sometimes interesting. Unfollowing Grantland on twitter has allowed me to avoid everything I can't stand about the site as I'm really not into most of what is produced there now. I can get everything I might need between Simmons & Lowe without subjecting myself to anything else produced on the site.

 

The very fact that they have a pro wrestling columnist qualifies them as "above the curve" on wrestling, but that doesn't mean I need to subject myself to what is produced there. Its not interesting, the writing isn't compelling and there is no perspective on wrestling provided that I need as part of being a fan. Much happier without it.

[Mad Dog]

I mostly just listen to Simmons' podcast now. His writing has slowly lost my interest since his basketball book. Love his podcast though, he always has good guests on.

[WingedEagle]

Yep, the podcast is generally great.

[Mad Dog]

I think Barnwell's stuff is shit personally. Still waiting for that 9ers regression he's been promising for 2 years now. He bugs me because he trusts "his numbers" more than what's actually happening on the field. And he has a habit of not admitting when he's wrong so he tends to double down on his bad arguments when he should just admit defeat and look less like a fool.

[Jesse Ewiak]

I think Barnwell's stuff is shit personally. Still waiting for that 9ers regression he's been promising for 2 years now. He bugs me because he trusts "his numbers" more than what's actually happening on the field. And he has a habit of not admitting when he's wrong so he tends to double down on his bad arguments when he should just admit defeat and look less like a fool.

I'd rather have a guy have too much faith in the numbers than 98% of NFL analysts out there.

 

As for Simmons, as long as you remember he's an NBA expert whose allowed to write about other sports, he's all right. His NBA stuff is obviously fantastic, but anything else I'm just there for the jokes and references.

[jdw]

I like steak. If I go to a restaurant and choose to order a steak instead of chicken, seafood or something else, and the steak tastes like shit, I'm not going to order steak from that restaurant again. I sure as hell won't order steak just because it's on the menu and I like steak, or I want to bitch about how bad it tastes.

That's a really great analogy.

 

Except shit in your mouth isn't exactly like spending a couple of minutes reading an article. One is no big deal... with the other is shit in your mouth.

 

 

I also read Grantland. I'm also a wrestling fan. I read Shoemaker's stuff when he started there and thought it was terrible. Of course when I go to Grantland and see his pieces pop up I am NOT going to click on them solely because I like wrestling and read Grantland. Shoemaker isn't any good. Why waste my time? There's plenty of good wrestling writing/analysis out there to waste time on the bad stuff.

A couple of minutes to read an article. That's nothing. I watched every episode of Sopranos, and I think the series went to hell at some point in the 3rd season. I spent two hours watching Oliver Stone's Savages, and that is far worse of a movie than Shoemaker's writing. We all watch and read and participate in a lot of stuff that's bad / mediocre / boring / subpar. 2-3 minutes on a Shoemaker piece is nothing. Good lord... I watched Ohio State play tonight, and I tend to spend the entire college football season watching 8-12 hours of games each Saturday while actively trying to avoid Big 10 games unless it's an upset special of a team Lacy and I hate. Which is what tonight's game was all about... and it was still painful to watch OSU.

 

2-3 minutes a week on Shoemaker is that much of a life altering chore to you that you think not only you should skip it, but that the rest of us should as well to avoid becoming Snuka and killing our girlfriends?

 

Does torturing ourselves with bad wrestling writing/analysis have something to do with bad wrestling being enjoyable? Sometimes I enjoy watching bad wrestling, then coming on here and cracking wise about it. Perhaps others get the same joy out of mocking bad wrestling writing/analysis. To each their own.

 

Tourture?

 

I had a five hour flight delay this Wednesday, spending it sitting in those shitty airport seats that are meant for 30 minutes tops for your rear and back. Then 5+ hours on the plain, reminding myself why I haven't flown AA in a decade with their shitty, squshed chairs. Then an hour drive home past midnight on a day when I woke up at 7am ET / 4am PT, trying to stay awake and not look like a drunk for the Chippers to pull over. Then crawling into bed with a massively sore back, a muscle pull in the right arm and hoping the crib will heat up quickly since I'd set the thermo low while out of town... and trying to doze off...

 

A couple of minutes of Shoemaker isn't torture. A couple minutes a week catching up on what nonsense the likely most read wrestling writer in the country is tossing up is pretty easy.

 

 

And this is a deep-thinking board. If you think otherwise, you're overthinking.

I think most of us hear have read deep thinking, scholarly stuff either in our college days or in our professional days, or both. This is just a place where folks are shooting the shit. At time people put some thought into it, and we hash stuff out back and forth. But you're wildly overthinking things if you believe anything on the site is remotely at the level of deep thinking of say what I was re-reading before going on vacation:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roman_Revolution

 

If the place was at that level of writing and deep thinking, there would be no posters as it would bore the shit out of everyone. And that comes from someone who finds Syme's work rather interesting even if it's a chore (and well nigh torture!) to get through.

[jdw]

have never read shoemaker, but i finally turned on simmons in the last few years after being a fan since the early aughts. i'm no gambler outside of office pools, but i've been following vegas watch (http://www.vegaswatch.org) for nfl survivor thoughts for some time and him and his e-buddies have taken to shitting all over the grantland gambling guys (GGG!!). i can't say i get all the specifics, but read through his blog and twitter feed and the terrible analysis and defensiveness (even football outsiders gets in on the poor writing game) will wash over you.

Does anyone read Simmons for the gambling advice? I always took that shit as skim material, instead looking to see if there's any halfway decent riff that pops up in the middle of the "Weekly Picks" article.

 

I think we've hit on Simmons being past his peak as a writer earlier in the thread. When making that point, or agreeing with it if someone else made it first, I did point to some recent pieces of his to show that occasionally he could still churn out the quality piece or the entertaining one when the stars aligned. I'd have to read back up the thread to refresh my memory on the ones I pointed to, but I'm pretty sure they held up as decent... don't recall anyone running in to point out why they were shit.

 

As far as other writers...

 

The movie critic is better than expected. His year end Top List was more varied and non-US Centric than you'd expect from a place as US Pop/Hip Centric as Grantland is. Seems he has a good deal of freedom to write on what he wants.

 

Andy Greenwald is the primary TV guy, and also seems to have a lot of freedom to write what he wants to. I think he's like pretty much any critic/writer that you come across in the base sense: you like what you agree with, and tend to roll your eyes at or skim what you don't like. He's a bit too fixated at times on the notion of the Golden Age of Television Drama, and given his age (born in 1977), one gets the sense of why: it's what he cut his teeth on. But he's quite prolific and broad on what he writes and covers, so he's going to touch on various things you watch in a given year. The stuff I end up finding good or entertaining tends to be pretty decent. Even a throwaway piece like his Trade Machine ones have some thought to them, and do on a level make you think about a show in a creative way.

 

Brian Phillips tends to be all over the place in what sports he writes about, and at times will be on a streak of just tossing throw away stuff together... which even can have something buried in them you're glad was point out. But there are some where he chews into something more, like the Di Canio piece, or even the Ozil one before it, where he's working over something interesting. I may not agree with some of it, but to disagree you've still got to give some thought to what he's tossing out, and how you see it, and think a bit about it.

 

I think that tends to be the case with most of the "best" of Grantland: they tend to be all over the place, there's a lot of throwaway stuff, there's a lot that doesn't interest, there's a lot of skim material, but there's also some good stuff there. Often all from the same writer.

 

Lowe is one of the few who is consistently top notch. But he also is narrow in focus (NBA Hoops), and at a time when the came is evolving rapidly on the knowledge base side. With Baseball, we went through this back in early to mid 80s. Lowe is at a really good point to be writing about Hoops, and be obsessed with it.