Loss Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Good to hear. How soon is soon? Maybe we should hold off on the whole columns thing until the move? As soon as I get off my duff and do a few things Danny Dubbya has asked me to do for a little while now. I'll make it happen ASAP. I still want to do the trial thing, just to make sure we have a full staff of writers willing to write consistently. I'll be posting about this very soon with lots of information once I have more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I'd be embarrased for Alvarez if this wasn't so typical of the kind of shit that guys like him, Meltzer, Keller, Mitchell and Martin shit out on a consistent basis (to be fair, I sort of like Todd as a person based on my limited interactions with him).? Because they are hipster insiders they see themselves as intellectually surperior to anyone who challenges them on anything.? This allows them to totally ignore any actual argument in favor of just saying "everyone disagrees with you" the irony of course being that since they control the print wrestling media, they basically manufacture consent for their views. The truth is that Meltzer has always been good for general news, but has never been good at match analysis.? Alvarez is a mildly amusing Meltzer-bottom, who is really worthless for any kind of anaylsis since you can get the exact same shit from Dave.? Mitchell is like Bobby Heenan was in WCW..occasionally he'll do or say something hilarious, but he's really just a tired version of his old self.? Keller blows and Martin just doesn't appear to know that much about wrestling (that sounds WAY more elitist than I mean it to sound, but there are any number of people on this board who have more knowledge of the sport he covers than he does).? Still these guys run the newsletters, so they set the tone and what they report about match quality gets treated as fact by alot of people. Of course there is a deeper irony here in that the syncophants that frequent Figure Fours board are basically a self selecting audience that are going to tend to fit into Alvarez' equation anyhow.? I'd love to hear Alvarez' explain why it is that my viewing comrades think Michaels sucks now (I still sorta like Shawn FWIW) because he "does the same old shit" and "acts to much like Hogan when he wrestles".? Somehow I doubt the Death Valley Driver or tOA board have an influence on these guys, since not a one of them is a hardcore fan and none has ever visited a wrestling website. The truth is that if you want match analysis or critique of wrestlers you are a fool to go the Observer, Torch, Figure Four or any "news site".? They all suck for this and have been pretty bad, with no redeeming qualities in this category since Zavisa and JDW left the Torch in the late 90's (incidentially even ECW lapdog Dave Scherer was always better at match critique than Alvarez or Keller).? They tend to pick favorite workers and shamelessly applaud them no matter what the flaws or inconsistencies in ways that are far, far worse than that of the average "mark" (I hate that term) or casual fan. If you want critique give me Loss, Bix, goodhelmet, Ty from a1, JDW and Frank from tOA and tomK from DVDVR.? I may not always agree with them but they at least bring arguments to the table and try and leave the fanboy shit at home.? It shouldn't be surprising that sites like this one, smarkschoice, dvdvr, a1 and tOA are far better places to discuss the fundamentals of wrestling than are sites hosted by proffessional wrestling "elites" like Alvarez. "It's a great match because it was a great match. I know what a great match looks like and that, my friends, was a great match. You want my reason why it was a great match? It was a GREAT MATCH. If it wasn't a great match, then I wouldn't think it was a great match." Rudo, I've read this quote at least a hundred times and can't get enough of it, because it's SO accurate when it comes to the newsletter crowd. Dylan, you summed everything up so well here. Great post. My thing, and I think this is the way you and me and *most* of the people you named see things, is not necessarily in the argument of who's right and who's wrong, but rather focusing on who has something interesting to say about wrestling and who doesn't. Wildpegasus is one of my favorite posters here, and in the same way that Alvarez loves Angle and Michaels, he loves Benoit quite a bit. But the difference between the two is that WP is not going to write off someone because their thoughts are different from his, and he's also interested in discussing everything. I get a lot of enjoyment out of talking about wrestling online, as long as I'm talking to people who are open to suggestions and are willing to both speak out and be spoken to when it comes to wrestling. I can respect the opinion of someone who thinks Michaels and Angle are the two greatest wrestlers who ever lived -- or at the very least enjoy conversing with said person -- as long as they aren't shunning every other viewpoint available without even listening to it. The names you mentioned are all people I feel like have taught me so much about wrestling. I still think I learn something new about wrestling every time I read a well thought-out post, which I think is awesome, because someone coming along with a fresh perspective can help you rethink things. And that's the fun in wrestling -- so much of it out there, so much great, even more bad, and as your tastes change, you can rewatch everything as if its brand new again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DylanWaco Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I totally agree. Take JDW. I don't agree with him on a whole shit load of stuff. He can be a real asshole at times. But I still think he's a person worth engaging and treating seriously because he treats the topic seriously and isn't afraid to defy conventions and think outside of the box, nor is he afraid to step in front a firing squad of people who aren't going to agree with a god damn thing you say. The thing about the net is sometimes you set the trends, sometimes you defy them and sometimes you don't understand what the hell is going on. But like you said the important thing is that if you are gonna spend your time watching this stuff and formulating opinions on it, you ought to offer them up honestly and with an open mind when engaging others. I would imagine that living inside an echo chamber has got to get boring for Alvarez and the Meltz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SweetMama Scaat Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Just because Kane, A-Train & The Undertaker have had bad matches in the past, that doesn't mean that every match they have is going to be bad. Like Mark Henry? Take JDW. I don't agree with him on a whole shit load of stuff. He can be a real asshole at times. But I still think he's a person worth engaging and treating seriously because he treats the topic seriously and isn't afraid to defy conventions and think outside of the box, nor is he afraid to step in front a firing squad of people who aren't going to agree with a god damn thing you say. We need more of this. Automatically assuming a persons wrong kinda defeats the purpose of discussion forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bravesfan Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 After reading through this thread, I've came to the conclusion that DA and I gave Loss bad advice. I went back and re-read what Loss had said while he was on the verge of joining, and it should've ended there. What Loss was looking for was something that Alvarez has little of. Alavrez rarely does in-depth reviews of matches and shows, and Meltzer just has too much on his plate to do those either. The reason I signed up for Alvarez' newsletter is his style of humor. One look at the "Death of WCW" book says it all. The guy co-wrote a book with RD REYNOLDS, for god's sake. The guy knows his niche and doesn't claim to be a "wrestling historian" or anything close to what Meltzer or Stern are or claim to be. One look at his newsletter and you'll see what I mean. Hell, one listen of his podcast and you'll see why he still defers to his guest when it comes to anything regarding a match and its story. EDIT: One more thing: the guy just looks to be burnt out on wrestling. The guy gets more enjoyment out of his board than he does anything on the scene today. The early F4W's and the current ones are worlds different. If you listen to the B&V shows he does with Vince after a night of wrestling on television or pay-per-view, you see that shooting the shit with his buddy about the show eats up about 90% of the review. Why be bothered to analyze a product that's so dodgy (WWE), so directionless (TNA) or so long (OVW) when he can simply spend 5 minutes harping on Chris Benoit's new gimmick of being a badass who hates terrible wrestling? His followers love that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bravesfan Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 LOSS: In the chapter about the WWF Invasion, you discussed Vince thinking the problem was that the WCW guys didn't know how to work, which was ludicrous since WCW turned around business with Kevin Nash, who was worse than almost anyone in WWE. ---- ALAVREZ: OK, so you're seriously telling me that you're reading that as me saying that Kevin Nash turned WCW around with his horrible matches? --- LOSS: No. I read that as you saying that WCW used a horrible worker in a top spot and the fans didn't reject it, so the argument that the WCW guys couldn't work from Vince was meaningless. The same mindset applies to Cena, does it not? -- ALVAREZ: No. That was ten years ago in another company under entirely different circumstances. I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more. -- BIBLICAL FURY: C'mon, now. It's ONLY the personalities that people are into when they cheered for Michaels and Angle? That's absurd. Fans can get interested in matches that are good too. Do you honestly think that it was Angle's anti-American personality that was getting him cheers during the Cena feud? People realized that Angle was a good wrestler and Cena was a bad one and cheered and booed according, despite Cena's personality. ----- ALAN4L: You said any Hogan match would be remembered more than anything Shawn and Kurt did together, you did not say Hogans biggest matches. If that is what you meant I would agree, but to say any Hogan match is ridiculous. The point Bryan is making which you seem to be missing is that Angle and Shawn through working a crowd by what they do IN THE RING physically is different from a crowd going nuts in a Hogan match which is generally based on 1. Build Up Surrounding The Match 2. His Opponent's working their asses off (in most cases) 3. The fact that he is Hulk Hogan. ------ ...then it goes into where Loss followed up with that extended post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I wasn't really looking for in-depth analysis from Bryan as much as I was looking for a good message board. And no, it's not anyone else's fault (I was kidding about that). I just didn't expect someone who writes a newsletter to be so stubborn that he couldn't even stand to hear someone possibly criticize one of his favorites. The post that bravesfan mentioned annoyed me because they twisted my words and said things I never said, but that happens sometimes I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 No. That was ten years ago in another company under entirely different circumstances. I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more. You should just be more blunt, Loss. With this quote right here, you should've just told the fucker your point was that he was a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I was thinking the same thing Loss, that line right there is the most incriminating evidence that he's a hypocrite. But in the end, I don't think you would have gotten anything out of him anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 You should just be more blunt, Loss. I have been telling him this for months. Still, I find this to be true for almost any radio show... the host has a point of view and if you try to question that view, they can dismiss you and get the final word in without a chance of rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 If I was more blunt, you would all hate me. Trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Hate is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Campbell Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Gotta agree with Will here, Loss. You're too damn likeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 He's the "Happy Homosexual?" It'll be a sitcome on UPN. A gay man with common sense trying to portray his opinion logically and clearly to a mass of uninterested, thick-headed rednecks. Sounds like a WWE gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I'd rather people listen to my words than my tone. Other people (everyone knows who they are) have been around in the past that have had great knowledge of wrestling and had a lot of informative stuff to share, but no one could get past the condescending tone. I get in that trap sometimes, but I try to stay away from it, because I don't want to get to a point where I can't even discuss this stuff online anymore because no one wants to talk to me. And there is a precedent for that happening to at least one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 No. That was ten years ago in another company under entirely different circumstances. I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more. You should just be more blunt, Loss. With this quote right here, you should've just told the fucker your point was that he was a hypocrite. Actually I don't think Bryan was being a hypocrite, because I believe he genuinely feels that wrestling fans today are much more savvy than they were 10 years ago and fans will now turn on World champions who aren't competent in the ring, because Bret, Shawn, Austin, Angle, Benoit, Eddy, Jericho, Rey, etc, have raised expectations so high for the standard of work in main events today. I actually think there is some truth to this, but it wasn't the main thing that made fans boo him, as I agree with Loss that fans seeing through his fake thug gimmick was more important and I also think the male fans were resentful of him getting the girly pop. With regard to good matches that get no heat I'm sure you could find a ton of high quality WWE cruiserweight matches on Velocity that the audience slept through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 No. That was ten years ago in another company under entirely different circumstances. I don't even know what you're trying to argue any more. You should just be more blunt, Loss. With this quote right here, you should've just told the fucker your point was that he was a hypocrite. I don't know. There were people on this very board that started crying when Loss got a little blunt over Edge as the WWF Champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Was that a shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I'm still crying. Evil Loss doesn't know that words are like knives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Not a shot. I'm just pointing out that Loss has been blunt before and people didn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Biggest difference being that Loss said he didn't watch the show. I think, at least for the most part, Alvarez makes his opinions after seeing the shows, however I could be completely wrong about that. That being said, Loss wasn't necessarily wrong I just felt like the surprised factor and the crowds turning on Cena were a good enough justification for a title switch. I'm all for attempts at making things less dull. Of course, Cena will probably get the title back next Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 You're missing the point though. You're encouraging him to do something on a board that went over poorly on a board where he's well known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Yeah ( ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dangerous A Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Actually, Coffey is on to something there. I'd be curious to see if Alvarez would actually terminate Loss from the message board when Loss is bringing up very good arguments that I don't believe fall into the trolling category. I'd be very interested in seeing if Alvarez would actually turn away someone's money just because someone disagreed with one of his opinions. (that is if Loss still has an account there and hasn't terminated it himself, which if he did, I wouldn't blame him) If so, it says something about him. Not sure exactly what it says, but it says something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Campbell Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 That he's insecure about his views and/or ability to back them up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts