Ridiculous quotes from WO.com columnists

[sek69]

On the 24th August show someone emails him the spreadsheets of the matches and he is far more moderate as he begins to understand it more viewing how many voted, the pact that voters went into it without any preconceived notions etc.

 

There's something about needing spreadsheets to understand how people feel about wrestling that really just screams "you're doing it wrong".

[Dylan Waco]

I just can't really believe anyone could watch that NJPW footage and come away thinking "Tiger Mask more than lives up to the hype." I mean I"m not a fan of Dyno really but I can see what people would like about Dyno. Same with Inoki. But TM?

Why not? Different people like different shit. For example, I thought Aliens vs Predator: Requiem was far superior to the first Alien vs Predator movie, but unfortunately I seem to be in the minority on that one. Everyone has some really strange opinions on something which don't line up with those of the mainstream.

 

And why is your first instinctive response "did he actually watch the set?" When you hear an opinion you disagree with, don't immediately assume that the person must be speaking out of ignorance. Especially since Tiger Mask is a guy who is still rated highly by plenty of people, especially wrestlers. I know there's been a modern ubersmark backlash against him, but those TM/DK matches are still beloved by a whole shitload of people.

 

 

Well aware that people like different shit and don't really need a lecture on that from you.

 

My point was that as someone who watched the set, TM is not a guy who came out living up to his previous rep. This has nothing to do with being an ubersmark. It has to do with watching the matches. My little brother is hardly an "ubersmark" - much less so than you or I at the very least - and he thought TM was even worse on the set than I did.

 

Bix is right. It's not just that he blows spots, has no psych, seems to get lost in the middle of stuff, et. it's that even in the areas where he was supposed to be a revolutionary, i.e. insane speed, doing new crazy shit, et. he is totally destroyed by Hamada. This is hardly my opinion alone. The vast majority of people who participated in that set seemed to be at best indifferent to Sayama.

[Jingus]

The vast majority of people who participated in that set seemed to be at best indifferent to Sayama.

So, not even everybody who watched the set agree with your point? That's my point. It's entirely possible for two different people to watch some footage and take away two completely different opinions. You're implying that anyone who watched this set would automatically feel the same way you do about it. "If he had watched the set, then he'd naturally cool down on Sayama" seems to be the gist of your argument. He might indeed have that reaction if he watched it, but then again he might not.

 

Hey, weren't you the guy who once told me that Hollywood Hogan never had shitty matches in WCW, even the celebrity matches were awesome, and that in fact the only good matches Kidman ever had were with Hogan? Haven't you had to put up with plenty of online shit, holding an opinion like that? You're hardly a stranger to odd attitudes which don't jibe with the group consensus.

[El-P]

If Samaya was that bad, how was he considered an innovator and the icon of junior wrestling for so long in Japan, and elsewhere for that matter ? Don't tell me the Tiger mask does it all, because although the gimmick was gold, if the worker was that awful, he just wouldn't have became so big of a star.

As far as the people watching the set being majoritary indifferent to Tiger Mask, it's not exactly surprising considering the "movez is bad" trend going on over there. I mean, let's be serious, it's not like this is happening in a vacuum, there's a predisposition to hate a guy like Tiger Mask these days. Now, the fact that he was nowhere as great as he has been pimped to is hardly a new opinion either, it's been said for years, it's not like the people watching the set discovered anything new.

Dylan can't even see what people would like about Tiger Mask ? Well, I guess there's something he doesn't get about japanese wrestling in the 80's then, because the NJ audience and shitloads of junior wrestlers that got influenced by Sayama sure found a whole lot to like about him.

 

And I don't particulary care about Sayama to begin with, and agree that Gran Hamada was a much better worker, but I just roll my eyes at some of the stuff here.

[Dylan Waco]

The vast majority of people who participated in that set seemed to be at best indifferent to Sayama.

So, not even everybody who watched the set agree with your point? That's my point. It's entirely possible for two different people to watch some footage and take away two completely different opinions. You're implying that anyone who watched this set would automatically feel the same way you do about it. "If he had watched the set, then he'd naturally cool down on Sayama" seems to be the gist of your argument. He might indeed have that reaction if he watched it, but then again he might not.

 

Hey, weren't you the guy who once told me that Hollywood Hogan never had shitty matches in WCW, even the celebrity matches were awesome, and that in fact the only good matches Kidman ever had were with Hogan? Haven't you had to put up with plenty of online shit, holding an opinion like that? You're hardly a stranger to odd attitudes which don't jibe with the group consensus.

 

I never said Hollywood Hogan never had shitty matches. I said that their really weren't that many that were outright terrible and I remember thinking the basketball player tag was pretty decent.

 

Point about Sayama is that I literally can not imagine anyone watching the NJPW set and thinking "here is a guy that was an awesome wrestler." I don't think that makes me intolerant or narrow minded. It merely means I have an opinion - an opinion that happens to be informed by watching the set. Of course it is possible for people to think Sayama was tremendously great and that the set backed that up. Just as it is possible to think Tiger Jeet Singh is the greatest wrestler who ever lived. But neither point of view is something that I can comprehend.

 

The "DVDVR GUYS ARE ANTI-MOVEZ" is really a stupid talking point that means nothing. My favorite guy in the World to watch is Chico Che - a guy who is awesome in large part because of his "MOVEZ." Freelance was probably my favorite guy to watch last year and I still freak out when he has popped up this year. He's probably the most dynamic highspot wrestler on Earth. I think Rey Misterio was the best wrestler of the last decade, another guy who is hardly known for his anti-MOVEZ wrestling style. Of the stuff I've been watching a lot of recently Too Cold Scorpio and Tajiri have been two of the big standouts - Scorp is one of the most innovative "MOVEZ" guys in history and Tajiri had one of the more versatile and well executed big time movesets of anyone on Earth in the era he worked in. So if I'm anti-MOVEZ I've chosen some strange favorites.

 

What I do not care for is psychology-less, no selling, no heat building, stunt shows, that build to nothing and feature needlessly long nearfall trains just so guys can get their shit in. Even there maches will occasionally click with me from that style - Briscoes v. Teddy Hart/Jack Evans from JAPW anniversary show being a good pretty recent example - but for the most part it is a senseless style that I find incredibly boring and unimpressive.

 

My personal opinion of Sayama has nothing to do with being anti-MOVEZ. It has to do with being anti-shitty wrestling.

[El-P]

Cool down and read my post Dylan. I'm not talking about YOU being anti-moves. I'm saying it's not surprising that the vast majority of the people watching the set hates Sayama because there's a trend.

I'm not a Tiger Mask fan (as far as NJ goes, my deal is rather Choshu you see), but I can totally see his appeal, particulary in his timeframe. I don't think you'll ever come across anyone thinking Tiger Jeet Singh was a great worker. Stupid analogy really.

[Dylan Waco]

Where is the trend? Showcase the anti-Movez bias in concrete terms.

 

Replace Singh with Bob Holly if you want. Point doesn't change.

[Jingus]

Point about Sayama is that I literally can not imagine anyone watching the NJPW set and thinking "here is a guy that was an awesome wrestler."

I know, I feel the same way about Mark Henry and plenty of other workers who have lots of fans around various places. You just stated your point in an awkward way, as if Watching The NJPW Set = Tiger Mask Is Meh like it were some kind of mathematical equation with only one possible correct answer.

[El-P]

Where is the trend? Showcase the anti-Movez bias in concrete terms.

Aww come on, Dylan, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's been going on for a few years now. I don't even see the point of denying the obvious. I don't know why you would even argue about that anyway.

 

Replace Singh with Bob Holly if you want. Point doesn't change.

No, it's stupid, because no one ever said Holly was a great and influencial wrestler either.

[El-P]

Point about Sayama is that I literally can not imagine anyone watching the NJPW set and thinking "here is a guy that was an awesome wrestler."

I know, I feel the same way about Mark Henry and plenty of other workers who have lots of fans around various places. You just stated your point in an awkward way, as if Watching The NJPW Set = Tiger Mask Is Meh like it were some kind of mathematical equation with only one possible correct answer.

 

I really didn't want to mention Mark Henry because it's like the own Godwin Point of the DVDVR boards, but that's a great exemple of the anti-moves trend. The Mark Henry craze was really laughable to me, and it all about one or two trendsetters and a crowd following the trend. Because it was "cool" to think Mark Henry was a better worker than Jerry Lynn. Or something.

[rovert]

Where is the trend? Showcase the anti-Movez bias in concrete terms.

Dont feed the troll. Ive never never known you to be this transparent.

 

Normally your troll attempts are wrapped in "limb selling" and "believable strikes."

 

Yes by saying this I clearly think all movez and flipz are good and you guys all meet up secretly to discuss the next wrestler du jour.

[S.L.L.]

Point about Sayama is that I literally can not imagine anyone watching the NJPW set and thinking "here is a guy that was an awesome wrestler."

I know, I feel the same way about Mark Henry and plenty of other workers who have lots of fans around various places. You just stated your point in an awkward way, as if Watching The NJPW Set = Tiger Mask Is Meh like it were some kind of mathematical equation with only one possible correct answer.

 

In a weird way, it actually is. Practically everyone who watched that set came away with a pretty low opinion of Tiger Mask. To put that into perspective, there were seven Tiger Mask matches that I ranked higher than the statistical average, and I think Tiger Mask sucked. If I was upvoting Tiger Mask matches, imagine how much the consensus viewers must have hated him. If that's the reaction people who watched the set had to his matches, I don't think it's that hard to hear Stern say "these guys are crazy, Tiger Mask was great" and jump to the conclusion that he didn't see the set. It's not impossible for that to be wrong, but unlikely enough that I can see why Dylan would (correctly, FWIW) think that. I know I did.

 

Where is the trend? Showcase the anti-Movez bias in concrete terms.

Aww come on, Dylan, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's been going on for a few years now. I don't even see the point of denying the obvious. I don't know why you would even argue about that anyway.

Because there are two different ideas that are being conflated here:

 

1. Wrestlers who don't have a large and varied moveset aren't necessarily bad, and wrestlers who do have a large and varied moveset aren't necessarily good.

 

2. Wrestlers who don't have a large and varied moveset are good, and wrestlers who do have a large and varied moveset are bad.

 

The former is the actual point of view of Dylan, myself, and other "anti-smarks" as we've been labeled. The latter is obvious nonsense that no one has actually said, but it's a handy strawman, and it's easier to argue against that than to form a coherent defense of Sayama's work. When you talk about "anti-M0VES~!" bias, it suggests the latter, and I think that's what Dylan is (correctly) arguing against.

[Dylan Waco]

Where is the trend? Showcase the anti-Movez bias in concrete terms.

Dont feed the troll. Ive never never known you to be this transparent.

 

Normally your troll attempts are wrapped in "limb selling" and "believable strikes."

 

Yes by saying this I clearly think all movez and flipz are good and you guys all meet up secretly to discuss the next wrestler du jour.

 

 

More level headed analysis from rovert. Best part about this is I don't know that I have ever used the terms "believable strikes" or "limb selling."

 

The difference between me and a functional illiterate like rovert is that I can and will illustrate why I think a wrestler is good/bad/whatever. I don't know that I've ever seen rovert tell me why he thinks one of the "wrestler du jour" candidates sucks. Instead it's "lol these guys who like wrestlers other than those that have historically been deemed as great are trolling contrarian douchebags!" Shitty gimmick posting like that deserves a "flipz are kewl rejoinder."

 

I also have no clue how liking Mark Henry has anything to do with being "anti-MOVEZ." I also don't think an "anti-MOVEZ" trend exist. As it happens I recently watched a shit load of 08 Mark Henry and almost the totality of Jerry Lynn's ECW run. And while Lynn came off better than I had expected coming in, I think 08 Henry smokes Lynn from that era. And it has zilch to do with MOVEZ.

[goc]

Dylan I think it's time to come clean and just admit we had a secret ballot nominating Chris Masters as the "wrestler du jour"

[S.L.L.]

I thought we all agreed on Mogur as the new wrestler we would start arbitrarily pimping.

[goc]

Ok, PM me our talking points because I don't know who that is.

[Phil Schneider]

http://luchawiki.com/index.php?title=Mogur

[rovert]

More level headed analysis from rovert. Best part about this is I don't know that I have ever used the terms "believable strikes" or "limb selling."

 

The difference between me and a functional illiterate like rovert is that I can and will illustrate why I think a wrestler is good/bad/whatever. I don't know that I've ever seen rovert tell me why he thinks one of the "wrestler du jour" candidates sucks. Instead it's "lol these guys who like wrestlers other than those that have historically been deemed as great are trolling contrarian douchebags!" Shitty gimmick posting like that deserves a "flipz are kewl rejoinder."

DIED

 

On the rest of your post if that is what youve taken away then god help ya. I was referencing what you previously said on other message board you dolt.

 

I really dont mind people who as you term like " wrestlers other than those that have historically been deemed as great" it is the from out of nowhere statements of that OMGies Scotty 2 Hotty might just be the best worker in North America right now!!!! and the type of discourse that some use. Both elements make any form of discussion seem like a troll/baiting job rather just a dude having a personal favourite wrestler. Sorry but there is a trying too hard and douchey element to it all.

[Dylan Waco]

More proof that anything more than "flips r kewl" is above your head.

[rovert]

More proof that anything more than "flips r kewl" is above your head.

Sure Dylan sorry to hurt your feelings to this degree.

 

Mr. Wrestling Intellectual sir.

[S.L.L.]

I really dont mind people who as you term like " wrestlers other than those that have historically been deemed as great" it is the from out of nowhere statements of that OMGies Scotty 2 Hotty might just be the best worker in North America right now!!!! and the type of discourse that some use. Both elements make any form of discussion seem like a troll/baiting job rather just a dude having a personal favourite wrestler. Sorry but there is a trying too hard and douchey element to it all.

You're gonna have to explain that. On a certain level, it seems the "problem" with the discourse is that it exists at all. That fact that Dylan can explain in sound and coherent terms why, say, 2010 Chris Masters is a great wrestler is a problem to those who disagree or refuse to consider him but can't back up their claims as well.

[rovert]

I really dont mind people who as you term like " wrestlers other than those that have historically been deemed as great" it is the from out of nowhere statements of that OMGies Scotty 2 Hotty might just be the best worker in North America right now!!!! and the type of discourse that some use. Both elements make any form of discussion seem like a troll/baiting job rather just a dude having a personal favourite wrestler. Sorry but there is a trying too hard and douchey element to it all.

You're gonna have to explain that. On a certain level, it seems the "problem" with the discourse is that it exists at all. That fact that Dylan can explain in sound and coherent terms why, say, 2010 Chris Masters is a great wrestler is a problem to those who disagree or refuse to consider him but can't back up their claims as well.

 

Can o' worms.

 

Do you not see that there is an inherent or even an associated douchbaggery to terms like "believable strikes" or "limb selling"? I remember Naylor busting out laughing finding out that he was saying the term "believable strikes" aloud on one of Alan's podcasts. There is a range of reasons why they might grate on people. For example Ive read in the past posters attacking the fat guy/great puncher formula of instant "DVDR" pimpage as they saw it as fans of that "genre" of wrestling trying to compenstate for what is seen as a fake and phony "sport." Additionally no one on either side of the MOVEZ divide want to be associated with the term workrate anymore as both sides have used it as a stick to beat the other with.

[EricR]

Point about Sayama is that I literally can not imagine anyone watching the NJPW set and thinking "here is a guy that was an awesome wrestler."

I know, I feel the same way about Mark Henry and plenty of other workers who have lots of fans around various places. You just stated your point in an awkward way, as if Watching The NJPW Set = Tiger Mask Is Meh like it were some kind of mathematical equation with only one possible correct answer.

 

I really didn't want to mention Mark Henry because it's like the own Godwin Point of the DVDVR boards, but that's a great exemple of the anti-moves trend. The Mark Henry craze was really laughable to me, and it all about one or two trendsetters and a crowd following the trend. Because it was "cool" to think Mark Henry was a better worker than Jerry Lynn. Or something.

 

The whole Mark Henry/Chris Masters/Mogur thing really stinks, and it really frustrates me. All of the "trendsetters" who began praising Henry/Masters/Mogur all backed up their opinions with very specific examples of WHY they felt those guys were awesome.

 

But I don't get posts like this that make it sound like a whole bunch of people are blindly following a trend. It really stinks that someone like Dylan can list solid reasons why Masters is really good now, and some person might see those reasons, go out of their way to check out 2010 Chris Masters, genuinely enjoy what they see......but then get derided as a person blindly jumping on the bandwagon.

 

What is so horrible about someone saying "I think X may be the best worker in Y right now", and then backing up his statement with very solid reasons?

 

Mark Henry and Chris Masters were guys that weren't very good at pro wrestling for awhile, so they were both guys that a large majority of people stopped really following. In 2010, most people aren't going out of their way to see Chris Masters matches, which frequently take place on the WWE's lowest rated TV show. But if someone who sees those matches, starts telling people just how good Chris Masters has gotten, and people who had completely written off Masters years ago suddenly like him.....what is so laughable about that?

 

I had never heard of Mission Of Burma 9 years ago, but then I read the book Our Band Could Be Your Life, and I already liked most of the bands featured in that book, and Azerrad made a lot of compelling arguments why I might really like MOB, so I checked them out.....and they have since become a band I have seen live 4 times and whose albums get frequent play in my car. Am I a bandwagon jumper, because I now love a band who had previously flown under my radar?

 

I would love to see proof of ANY post from someone who loves Henry/Masters/Mogur, who has then NOT listed reasons why they think those guys are awesome. I honestly can't remember seeing one, ever. On the other hand, many people who write those guys off don't even respond to the reasons why we think those guys rule.

 

It's really disappointing. It doesn't make me mad, it just frustrates me. It's like if I wanted to get my buddy into the White Stripes and Doors, but he throws the albums out because he doesn't like bands with no bass players.

 

So please, anybody: tell me why Henry/Masters/Mogur is no good. It is your opinion, and you are more than welcome to your opinion. I will gladly offer mine if you want them, but I am very curious to hear why some of you think those guys stink.

[S.L.L.]

I really dont mind people who as you term like " wrestlers other than those that have historically been deemed as great" it is the from out of nowhere statements of that OMGies Scotty 2 Hotty might just be the best worker in North America right now!!!! and the type of discourse that some use. Both elements make any form of discussion seem like a troll/baiting job rather just a dude having a personal favourite wrestler. Sorry but there is a trying too hard and douchey element to it all.

You're gonna have to explain that. On a certain level, it seems the "problem" with the discourse is that it exists at all. That fact that Dylan can explain in sound and coherent terms why, say, 2010 Chris Masters is a great wrestler is a problem to those who disagree or refuse to consider him but can't back up their claims as well.

 

Can o' worms.

 

Do you not see that there is an inherent or even an associated douchbaggery to terms like "believable strikes" or "limb selling"?

 

Of course not. What's so douchey about them?

 

I remember Naylor busting out laughing finding out that he was saying the term "believable strikes" aloud on one of Alan's podcasts.

 

Don't blame him. It's a good running gag about guys with Segunda Caida-ish tastes in wrestling. I have enough of a sense of humor about myself that I can laugh at it, too. But I'm not seeing how it's douchey.

 

There is a range of reasons why they might grate on people.

 

Offhand, I can only think of two.

 

1. The terms are used to praise a wrestler you dislike/criticize a wrestler you like. You can't defend your position as well as they can defend theirs, and you're too insecure to accept people with divergent opinions. Therefore, you interpret legitimate wrestling criticism as douchebaggery, allowing you to dismiss it offhand and carry on with your day. It's not the terms that are the issue, it's what they represent - somebody disagreed with you about something, you didn't like it, but you didn't have a good counterpoint, so now you're all upset, and are deeming these guys "douchbags" to help rationalize your failure. The problem - aside from this making you an intellectually cowardly and dishonest twit - is that the people making the "douchey" argument might identify you as an intellectually cowardly and dishonest twit, and if they're also the kind of people who like to kick around intellectually cowardly and dishonest twits for their own amusement, you've just become their new punching bag. But you're not about to seriously consider the merits of their opinion vs. the merits of yours. If you did, you might see things in a different light, and possibly even agree with them. And that would mean they win! We can't have that, can we? So you continue to shut your eyes and cover your ears, refusing to hear out any kind of contrary opinion to your own, perhaps putting up the occasional strawman or windmill along the way in the hopes that will do you some good. But it won't. Not with seasoned dogs of internet war such as myself. No, it will just create an endless, self-inflicted cycle of flaming, which....

 

2. ....some people might walk in on or witness long enough that they just become sick of it, regardless of which side (if either) they're on. Again, the terms aren't the issue, it's what they represent - petty bickering over drug addicts in funny underwear.

 

For example Ive read in the past posters attacking the fat guy/great puncher formula of instant "DVDR" pimpage as they saw it as fans of that "genre" of wrestling trying to compenstate for what is seen as a fake and phony "sport."

Sounds like reason #1 to me. "They can't possibly have a genuine, well thought out reason for having a different opinion than me. They're probably just compensating for their shame. That'll let me sleep at night."

[S.L.L.]

I had never heard of Mission Of Burma 9 years ago, but then I read the book Our Band Could Be Your Life, and I already liked most of the bands featured in that book, and Azerrad made a lot of compelling arguments why I might really like MOB, so I checked them out.....and they have since become a band I have seen live 4 times and whose albums get frequent play in my car. Am I a bandwagon jumper, because I now love a band who had previously flown under my radar?

DVDVR poster

 

Let me try to explain my (sometimes convoluted) thinking - say I showed someone "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Transformers". I don't think I'd need to explain why Jimmy Stewart is a better actor than Shia LeBeouf. If I needed to explain why Stewart was better without the person being able to figure it out themselves, then I have no idea how I could ever convince them

 

My explanation isn't going to be a better selling point than Stewart's performance. Does that make any sense?

As I told him at the time, his comment proved my point for me - It's a Wonderful Life was critically panned and a box office bomb upon it's initial release in 1946. It wasn't until the 70's that the tide of critical and public opinion started to turn in it's favor.

 

Am I a bandwagon jumper because I think It's a Wonderful Life is one of the best movies of all time?