Commonly used words and phrases that annoy you

[JerryvonKramer]

It's no different to talking about how someone sets up their introduction in an essay, or if you want to stick with the film analogy, about how X, Y and Z is done in the first act / introduction / establishing scene / whatever you want to call it.

 

I think OJ taking against the use of the word "shine" is basically irrational.

[ohtani's jacket]

How many movies go fifteen minutes?

 

Short ones.

[ohtani's jacket]

It's no different to talking about how someone sets up their introduction in an essay, or if you want to stick with the film analogy, about how X, Y and Z is done in the first act / introduction / establishing scene / whatever you want to call it.

 

I think OJ taking against the use of the word "shine" is basically irrational.

 

It's unnecessary usage of an insider term and I don't see what the practical application is. Besides, this is a thread about terms that annoy you. I don't think it needs to be rational.

[jdw]

As do I with "control segment".

 

"Shine"

[jdw]

 

I mean, like the term or not, Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez are part of the IWC. So am I. So are you.

 

 

Nah. We're just wrestling fans.

 

Dave is a "wrestling journalist". I don't read Bryan enough to put something on him... but probably "wrestling writer/podcaster".

 

Whether we're on the Interwebs or not doesn't matter at all. I don't "talk" any differently about wrestling now than I did in 1994 before getting online, nor is my fandom any different. Other than being burned out now, and actually enthusiastic then. The internet had nothing to do with that: I would have gotten pissed off at wrestling by the later 90s / early 00s anyway.

[jdw]

I think there were a large majority of everyone who felt pretty much the same about this stuff. Looking at Kunze's old posts sum it all up pretty well. Maybe it was "A" IWC and not "the" entirety of the internet or whatever, but I think it sums up 90% of the people I remember dealing with at the time. A major, major majority who would take a massive offense at the Vanilla Midgets comment and all that.

 

That never was the case. In RSPW, you had WCW Fans who hated the WWF, WWF Fans who hated WCW, and ECW Fans who hated the other two. There were puro fans who liked garbage, there were ones who liked All Japan, there were those who liked joshi, there were those who liked Juniors. Folks don't want to believe that, but my girlfriend never cared much for All Japan, never really cared for joshi but loved the Juniors in New Japan and MPro. My friend Scott Lacy was more a Juniors and Joshi guy, and not so high on All Japan.

 

There never was one big group of hippy IWC folks who loved everything and all got along. It was exactly like the real world of fandom: different people liked different things, while some liked a lot of things.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

It's no different to talking about how someone sets up their introduction in an essay, or if you want to stick with the film analogy, about how X, Y and Z is done in the first act / introduction / establishing scene / whatever you want to call it.

 

I think OJ taking against the use of the word "shine" is basically irrational.

It's unnecessary usage of an insider term and I don't see what the practical application is. Besides, this is a thread about terms that annoy you. I don't think it needs to be rational.

 

It's an economic use of language. I've just run a search for people using it to see if it really is unnecessary.

 

Quite a long shine sequence to start during which Rich and Dundee work over Idol with headlocks, snapmares and armdrags. Spot where Idol is caught in the wrong corner and gets the ping-pong punches.

This is telling you in fewer words than you'd use without "shine" that the babyfaces spend a longer amount than is usually the case dominating the match at the beginning. It's shorthand, and you know exactly what it means straight away.

 

Regular match between these two now. Not much of a shine as Ted dominates early until Magnum gets a backdrop in and DiBiase begs off and then bails. He regains control and takes it outside. Slam out on the concrete. Slam into the post. Magnum's back is hurt.

Here we see that Magnum TA doesn't get as much of the opening as you'd expect. Again, not necessarily necessary but economic.

 

Not just me who uses it. Here's my man Marty Sleaze:

 

Roberts did not seem up to work at all as there was no babyface shine and he worked the entirety from underneath in holds. The entire match was structured as Valentine works a hold -> mini-Snake comeback ->signals DDT -> Valentine bails & stall. Rinse, lather and repeat.

Makes perfect sense. And he's said in two words who might have taken ten.

 

Here's a dude called Gregor:

 

Great shine & fire from Dustin early with fists, lariats and a bulldog.

Yip, I'm there, I can picture it.

 

Many many many many other examples of people using the term in situations where not using it would require significantly more verbage.

 

It's not a pointless use of an insider term, it's saving space and time for everyone.

[JerryvonKramer]

If I seem to be coming out really defending it, by the way, it's because I think it's part of the critical lexicon here that lots of us use and I don't want anyone to think that it has no application, because it does.

 

I don't see people complaining about the uses of the terms "comeback" or "finish", yet those are also insider terms. Senseless.

[jdw]

More dislikes -- shine and heat. Nobody used to use these terms.

 

 

I do use the word "control", but don't think I use the phrase "control segment" a lot. I tended to use the word Control interchangeably with Top. If I was trying to get across how a match was structured, I might lay out the Segments such as Backlund-Muraco going 60 or Rude-Warrior. With Backlund-Muraco, I might tag them as:

 

x minutes: Muraco controlled working the arm

y minutes: Backlund worked the leg

z minutes: Muraco on top working the neck

 

Etc.

 

But I don't doubt that there were times control+segment popped up.

[jdw]

One of the interesting things about doing a search on Shine here is:

 

2007: 0.5 uses of it like it's being used now (Loss... sort of... close call)

2008: 1 uses of it like it's being used now ("guest" robgomm)

2009: 0 uses of it like it's being used now

2010: 1 use of it like it's being used now (by MJH)

2011: year starts with only MJH using it... then Matt once in April... Shoe once in May... Dylan joins in June... starts getting more common after that

 

Perhaps it was used quite a bit on other boards earlier than that and more regularly.

 

It's rather amazing that it was so little used in 2007-2010, and even into early 2011. It's not like the posters here didn't talk about matches in a different way back then compared to now (i.e. "smart" or "analytical"), or didn't talk about matches a lot.

[Matt D]

 

I think there were a large majority of everyone who felt pretty much the same about this stuff. Looking at Kunze's old posts sum it all up pretty well. Maybe it was "A" IWC and not "the" entirety of the internet or whatever, but I think it sums up 90% of the people I remember dealing with at the time. A major, major majority who would take a massive offense at the Vanilla Midgets comment and all that.

 

That never was the case. In RSPW, you had WCW Fans who hated the WWF, WWF Fans who hated WCW, and ECW Fans who hated the other two. There were puro fans who liked garbage, there were ones who liked All Japan, there were those who liked joshi, there were those who liked Juniors. Folks don't want to believe that, but my girlfriend never cared much for All Japan, never really cared for joshi but loved the Juniors in New Japan and MPro. My friend Scott Lacy was more a Juniors and Joshi guy, and not so high on All Japan.

 

There never was one big group of hippy IWC folks who loved everything and all got along. It was exactly like the real world of fandom: different people liked different things, while some liked a lot of things.

 

John, I get that it may not be historically accurate. I do think that it works as a useful term to describe some broad trends that a lot of people did have back then. Maybe there's no need for a phrase like that, even if it's not necessarily historically accurate, but I can think of situations where it'd be useful.

 

The symbol means more than the actual truth in this case?

 

One of the interesting things about doing a search on Shine here is:

 

2007: 0.5 uses of it like it's being used now (Loss... sort of... close call)

2008: 1 uses of it like it's being used now ("guest" robgomm)

2009: 0 uses of it like it's being used now

2010: 1 use of it like it's being used now (by MJH)

2011: year starts with only MJH using it... then Matt once in April... Shoe once in May... Dylan joins in June... starts getting more common after that

 

Perhaps it was used quite a bit on other boards earlier than that and more regularly.

 

It's rather amazing that it was so little used in 2007-2010, and even into early 2011. It's not like the posters here didn't talk about matches in a different way back then compared to now (i.e. "smart" or "analytical"), or didn't talk about matches a lot.

Could be someone started to use it and then people realized it was a useful and appropriate term?

[ohtani's jacket]

 

Quite a long shine sequence to start during which Rich and Dundee work over Idol with headlocks, snapmares and armdrags. Spot where Idol is caught in the wrong corner and gets the ping-pong punches.

This is telling you in fewer words than you'd use without "shine" that the babyfaces spend a longer amount than is usually the case dominating the match at the beginning. It's shorthand, and you know exactly what it means straight away.

 

What's the difference between that and:

 

"Quite a long sequence to start during which Rich and Dundee work over Idol with headlocks, snapmares and armdrags. Spot where Idol is caught in the wrong corner and gets the ping-pong punches."

 

The word "shine" alone doesn't tell you why it matters that the beginning was longer than usual.

[JerryvonKramer]

It's telling you that Rich and Dundee are the babyfaces and that this is the part of the match where they are popping the crowd and establishing their credentials to kick things off. It's telling you all that in one word. Your sentence tells you none of that.

[ohtani's jacket]

And wrestling fans writing for other wrestling fans need to do that? First you said the length of the shine sequence was the important factor. Now you're saying it clues the reader into the fact that they started with a shine sequence. But why should anybody care that there was a shine sequence? It's like saying "the second caida was longer than usual" as though that information alone means anything.

 

It's almost as though you have in mind a particular image when you think of "shine". Some utterly hot beginning that the word implies for you or some particular rhythm to the action instead of the generic babyfaces start out on offence vibe I get from it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dude, it's like talking about a song and mentioning how the singer hits the chorus or the middle eight.

 

"WHAT? You need to explain that there's a chorus to music fans?"

 

Your objection is silly OJ.

[sek69]

Mostly the WWE-created lingo - fans are not a "Universe", "divas" sounds like you think all your female competitors are uppity bitches (apologies to whoever from twitter I stole that from; it's true), Hillbilly Jim is not a "legend" (ditto), and not every wrestler is a "superstar". "Sports entertainment" I've learned to live with; "sports entertainer" is a fucking abomination.

 

 

I never could put my finger on why I never cared for the diva label, but that summed it up nicely. That along with the championship belt looking like a bedazzled vagina just makes it look like they're openly mocking the women who work for them.

[dawho5]

Can we just leave it at "OJ doesn't like those terms" for now? It's becoming pretty clear that nobody is going to change their minds here.

[dexstar]

"X-Pac Heat"

 

I am sure some dudes get boos because the crowd really wants them to go away, but way too often I think it reads as "I hate this guy/gimmick for some reason, but the crowds seem to react, so I can't be wrong, and they must all be boo'ing because they think it sucks too". I've seen it used with fuckin' Rusev already, and I think that's absurd.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I find "shine" racially offensive since I'm old.

[dawho5]

I've always wondered if it was Waltman or the gimmick that got all the hate. Because even some of his WWF stuff was really good, and I struggle to see where the fans would have turned on him that much without some help from creative. I know for a fact I've thought the way you described about Orton, but I've lately come to the realization (with help from the Microscope thread) that it just wasn't the case.

[ohtani's jacket]

Dude, it's like talking about a song and mentioning how the singer hits the chorus or the middle eight.

 

"WHAT? You need to explain that there's a chorus to music fans?"

 

Your objection is silly OJ.

 

But that's essentially all you're doing -- telling people there's a chorus. A wrestler starting out on fire and cleaning house is "shine," but so is a wrestler out for blood in a grudge match, or a techico outwrestling a rudo in a title match. The fact that it's the shine isn't really important. It's not even the wrestling equivalent of the hook.

[Dylan Waco]

Why do you have to use the terms babyface or techico?

[Johnny Sorrow]

Why do you have to use the terms babyface or techico?

I still say good guys and bad guys, with no sense of irony. It's how I grew up. I even hated it when the Apter Mags used "Scientific Wrestler " and "Rulebreaker".

[sek69]

I find "shine" racially offensive since I'm old.

 

 

All I hear when someone says that is Billy Batts telling Tommy to go get his fucking shine box.

[jdw]

 

 

I think there were a large majority of everyone who felt pretty much the same about this stuff. Looking at Kunze's old posts sum it all up pretty well. Maybe it was "A" IWC and not "the" entirety of the internet or whatever, but I think it sums up 90% of the people I remember dealing with at the time. A major, major majority who would take a massive offense at the Vanilla Midgets comment and all that.

 

That never was the case. In RSPW, you had WCW Fans who hated the WWF, WWF Fans who hated WCW, and ECW Fans who hated the other two. There were puro fans who liked garbage, there were ones who liked All Japan, there were those who liked joshi, there were those who liked Juniors. Folks don't want to believe that, but my girlfriend never cared much for All Japan, never really cared for joshi but loved the Juniors in New Japan and MPro. My friend Scott Lacy was more a Juniors and Joshi guy, and not so high on All Japan.

 

There never was one big group of hippy IWC folks who loved everything and all got along. It was exactly like the real world of fandom: different people liked different things, while some liked a lot of things.

 

John, I get that it may not be historically accurate. I do think that it works as a useful term to describe some broad trends that a lot of people did have back then. Maybe there's no need for a phrase like that, even if it's not necessarily historically accurate, but I can think of situations where it'd be useful.

 

The symbol means more than the actual truth in this case?

 

There really weren't broad trends beyond: People watched wrestling and people talked about wrestling. Which is the same thing folks were doing who weren't on the net. Trust me on that: I was on the net, and had quite a few friends who weren't on the net who talked about wrestling, be they Meltzer, Keller and Mitchell or Yohe and Hoback. My conversations with Dave in 1996 on the phone and on trips weren't on any different topics than my conversations with Dean Rasmussen on rps-w.

 

That's why I see things probably differently than some. I was online in 1996-99 watching the alleged IWC grow, and dealt with and/or read all of the major players other than probably Al Issacs and the Lords of Paste guys. In turn, I had dealings with most of the major newsletter guys. Then I had dealings with a number of the bigger hardcore fans who weren't online. The "IWC" really wasn't any different, other than being less connected than Dave and Wade, and rather quick and prolific in tossing out what they thought about wrestling... which actually was the same thing if I picked up the phone and talked to Steve or James or one of the sheet guys after Raw/Nitro.

 

The IWC really has always been just a bunch of fans. All this file sharing and linking to video and then talking about it that we think is the greatest thing ever? I use to eat shit a decade ago for getting together with Yohe and Hoback to watch tapes/dvds, and jokingly dubbing it King of Chicken when writing up what we thought about the stuff... you know... kind of like people are changing the world now with podcasts. Someone on here gets together with folks in a chatroom to watch matches and talk about them? Jewett and I just to do the same thing on the phone, and ate shit for jokingly calling that Syncovision then talking about it on the boards... and I'm about 99.99% sure that Dean and DVDVR guys would do the same shit and write about it.

 

IWC?

 

Nah... just fans doing fan stuff, and using evolving tech to communicate about it. Tape get togethers with people in your area went back to the 80s, which really are little more than a newer version of going to the matches with your buddies... except that here you're able to watch shit that happened in another city, or country, or year. But at the time it would have sucked to try to pull off synchovision because long distance costs were high. By the mid-to-late 90s? Free long distance plans, and I could hook up with someone for 2-3 hours of wrestling watching on phone... someone in a different city, or state. Which in turn was little different that hooking up with someone on a message board, writing up a match, them then tossing in what they thought of it, someone else getting excited to watch it, and then writing something about it after they were done. Which...

 

Isn't that different from the old Letters Pages in the Newsletters where people would write in what they thought about shit after Dave wrote what he thought about something.

 

Just fan stuff.

 

Folks either use IWC to put down wrestling fans if they feel outside the "IWC", or they're people who want to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves because they feel a part of a "IWC".

 

In the end, we're just fans. There really is no reason to waste a good deal of time trying to find or justify additional labels.