Guest bravesfan Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Regarding Henry's work as of late, how much of it is because of the opponents he's working with? Alvarez made a point that the boards are commending Henry on his work with Angle and Rey - "well, it's Angle and Rey, the fuck did you expect?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Obviously, some of it, but there are plenty of people that Angle and Rey have not had good matches with, so some of it has to be attributed to Henry stepping up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 I'm curious how many of the people saying "It's Angle..." are the same people that will bash Angle in a match with another notorious good worker. Once again, I think it's the double-standard reering it's ugly head. Either everything he does is flawless or he gets nit-picked apart. What if Henry has a match with Benoit and it stunk? Instead of it being a good match and people saying "It's Benoit, what do you expect" we'd hear "It's Henry, what do you expect?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DylanWaco Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 People who say Henry only looked good because of who he was in there with either didn't watch the matches or are so predisposed toward hating Henry that they will never give him credit for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Yeah, that's kind of the point I was trying it make. It's like, what's a wrestler have to do to get a clean slate or a second chance? If you made a bad first impression you're regarded as a shitty worker for life? That doesn't seem fair. Henry hasn't done anything wrong, on TV, since his return. I think he's been playing his role fine and being involved with MNM & Davari will just help his cause more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 I think some people don't really pay attention to the matches and just call things great based on the reputation. If it's Shawn Michaels against Chris Benoit or Kurt Angle, hey, it's got to be great. And if it's Mark Henry versus Big Show, it can't possibly be, because of who they are. Big Show is another worker who's improved substantially, but he'll never be good in some people's eyes because they base "good" on athleticism and not much else. I don't know what more people could really want from Big Show that they don't get at least most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Meltzer and Alvarez are very guilty of that. In the debate ,you referenced the Cena/Jericho v Christian/Tomko match from last summer. Dave and Bryan didn't say why they thought it was a bad match, they basically said, "Well Cena and Tomko were in the match, of course it sucked". And Bryan's ragging on the Big Show the last 5 or 6 years is the most blatant personal attack on a wrestler by a reporter that I've ever seen. It reeked of jealousy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Thanks Loss for the link. Alvarez seems to have a really hard time coming up with anything in regards to your "If people think Hogan is great and his matches are great, then they must be" argument and I am only on page 3 of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DylanWaco Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Alvarez lives in an echo chamber, so he never has any reason to rexplore any of his views on anything. Unfortunately he has huge influence as does Meltzer and their opinions on wrestling are almost entirely based around reputations which becomes really evident if you follow any argument they have ever had online (go read some of Dave's embarrasing shit on Classics). Henry, Masters, Carlito and Show have all improved in recent years, but three of the four are big guys and don't have a ton of MOVES!!! so they'll never get credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 I think it all comes down to what people look for in wrestling matches, and how a lot of people -maybe everyone- has a restricted/limited view where, if they don't see what they are looking for, then it's a bad match, despite there being other positives that can make it a good match in another persons eyes. This also applies to wrestlers. The best we can do when watching wrestling is to look at it from several different angles rather than just one, and even if you think it's a bad match in one regard and you think it's bad, acknowledge that it could be good in this other way, and vice-versa. The problem then comes with sufficiency and acceptability, but if you provide your reasons and whatnot, there really shouldn't be a problem after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Famous Mortimer Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 (go read some of Dave's embarrasing shit on Classics). I heard about one time when he was defending Ken Shamrock as the greatest fighter in the world in the mid 90s, or something. His argument was piss poor but I was banned from Classics almost instantly so I couldn't discuss it with him. Saying that, if the Angle thread at F4W is anything to go by, none of them (and by this I mean all the sheet writers) are much bothered about actually backing up their suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DylanWaco Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dave on MMA is actually even worse than Dave on wrestlling. He stole a fight once because he's an idiot. Can't get much worse than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dave on MMA is actually even worse than Dave on wrestlling. He stole a fight once because he's an idiot. Can't get much worse than that. Elaborate on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dave judged one of the shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DylanWaco Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I believe it was UFC 18. Rizzo/Coleman. Dave is a fucking idiot and stole the fight from Coleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Famous Mortimer Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 He completely fucked up the judging and was never invited back. So we're supposed to take his thoughts on MMA as gospel? I've just been turned down for membership of Classics twice, so I guess I'll never get the chance to have a decent discussion with him about it. And a few more attempts to draw Bryan into any sort of discussion on...well, anything, have failed. He just criticises my ability to understand "what he really meant". I may give up my subscription if this is all I'm going to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Oh Loss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 I haven't been on since yesterday afternoon. Hmmm ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World's Worst Man Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Sounds like DRAMA~! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 I haven't been on since yesterday afternoon. Hmmm ... Oh, you didn't get any reply that I saw, but I was surprised to see you around there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Yeah, I have a membership that keeps auto-renewing itself, so might as well enjoy it. I'll probably stop trolling BA now, though. Now, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bravesfan Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Not that I should really drag it up, but UFC invited Meltzer back after that specific fight (though he said in the eYada show around that time that "live, he voted for the right man" giving a good explanation of why he voted the way he did). There was an incident with the NJ Athletic Commission that prevented him from judging that subsequent show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 A few weeks back on F4D, he explained that UFC stopped using any writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 I don't know if it's laziness or if it's the ego of being a big shot on the net. I see a lot of people who get well known start to develop the "I don't have to defend my position because I have a column/newsletter/etc" attitude.Yeah, that attitude is sadly widespread through most of the major columnists. Whether it be Bruce Mitchell taking cheap shots in his forum at DVDVR for calling Mark Henry gasp a good worker now and making the cardinal sin of criticising Angle's and Michaels' work, James Caldwell standing by what he wrote when Dave Meltzer criticised his horrible Bret Hart columns on Figure 4 Daily or Dan Wahlers also slipping in cheap shots to the DVDVR brigade in his most recent column, they are all the same. They treat the outspoken minority who watch wrestling with a critical eye like they do but come to different conclusions than them like delusional idiots, which really encourages bitching and trolling rather than debate and discussion and does their profession a disservice. Old discussion, but lots of interesting things in it. One of the interesting things is that Meltzer, Mitchell, Wade and Bryan were all at one time "outsiders" who were critical of pro wrestling in ways that got them hammered by people in the business. Included in that were comments on the concept of "work". I've been with Dave, Bruce and Wade each when people in the business tried to explain why their match was great *and* watch Dave, Bruce and Wade either disagree openly with those people, or later over food recall how the person was delusional. They had a different view on "work" than the majority of people in the business *and* the majority of people watching wrestling. But that didn't stop them from being willing to voice their opinions on what they thought was good, what they thought was bad, and why. They irony now is that despite all their attempts to toss at others the notion that some folks think there's "only one right way to work", it's actually those other folks who are the open minded ones of this era, while they happen to get wound a little tighter in their views. The Hogan analogies drawn by Loss in the thread are pretty spot on. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Well, if we're going to bump this, I'm go back and fix all the formatting issues that happened when the board was switched over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts