Sean Liska Posted December 25, 2009 Report Share Posted December 25, 2009 I dunno, I was at the Chicago Dragon Gate show and was actually kinda bored by it. It was just too much. I had more fun at the Bob Barker RAW the next night. The Dragon Gate show reminded me of all the complaints that I thought people unfairly threw at ROH, like every match being a similar style of spotfest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 According to Crimson Mask: I have known Dave to publish a retraction of something he knew to be fact because it could have hurt a wrestler's ability to get work.Like Mask or not, he doesn't pull that sort of stuff out of his ass. It's one thing to not report something for circumstantial reasons but retracting the truth is kinda...yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted December 26, 2009 Report Share Posted December 26, 2009 According to Crimson Mask: I have known Dave to publish a retraction of something he knew to be fact because it could have hurt a wrestler's ability to get work.Like Mask or not, he doesn't pull that sort of stuff out of his ass. It's one thing to not report something for circumstantial reasons but retracting the truth is kinda...yeah... He should be heartless and just wreck careers then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Being real is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. See Kimbo's post-TUF ratings compared to his pre-TUF and first TUF fight ratings. Imagine what his TUF finale rating would have been if UFC had been able to book him to decimate all of his opponents on the way to the finals. UFC being real fucked that up and has hurt him as a draw. http://forum.f4wonline.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=89040 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 According to Crimson Mask: I have known Dave to publish a retraction of something he knew to be fact because it could have hurt a wrestler's ability to get work.Like Mask or not, he doesn't pull that sort of stuff out of his ass. It's one thing to not report something for circumstantial reasons but retracting the truth is kinda...yeah... He should be heartless and just wreck careers then? No, he shouldn't have reported it in the first place. Also, there aren't a lot of things that he could report that would make it hard for someone to get work. It's pretty much drug problems, injuries, and general reliability issues. For the first two at least, he's enabling the the problem if he covers it up after reporting it in the first place. Also, it's hypocritical coming from the person who talked about how wrong he was to cover up Jake Roberts' suspension for failing a cocaine test in '87. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Being real is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. See Kimbo's post-TUF ratings compared to his pre-TUF and first TUF fight ratings. Imagine what his TUF finale rating would have been if UFC had been able to book him to decimate all of his opponents on the way to the finals. UFC being real fucked that up and has hurt him as a draw. http://forum.f4wonline.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=89040 Just...wow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted December 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I think that's what really gets me about the whole MMA=wrestling deal, wrestlers who buy into it are all "it's like pro wrestling, only real" while Dave and company are all "man wouldn't MMA be awesome if it was predetermined like pro wrestling". On one hand, yeah a lot of things would be more awesome if you could book the outcomes to your advantage, but then a lot of the appeal of MMA is that it is real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Yeah, even I'll admit that Alverez quote is fucking stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Speaking of people I've never head of, who is this Babinsack guy? Has he been around for a while? Unfortunately the figure four/observer web site doesn't seem to have a search engine. If someone can find Babinsack analysis of Barthes for the observer, it is worth reading for a sense of Babysack as guy who neither understands philosophy or understnads wrestling. He is the single biggest idiot writing as a regular columnist for the figure four/observer website. This is him complaining about a science fiction novel elsewhere: http://www.arwz.com/zinereviewJOB1.php Babysack is from Pittsburgh and has managed to sucker Bruno into allowing Bablesack to either edit or cowrite his updated bio (also acts as liason between Bruno and wrestling media). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 You can search whatever site you want by Googling "site:domain search term" So this would be "site:f4wonline.com barthes" but there are no results so it was probably pre-merger. That said, Google found me a link to the article from when it was first posted and I ran it through the Wayback Machine, where it still exists (Also, on top of the Babinsackery, the old WON site looks massively ugly after being away from it for 18 months): Joe Babinsack looks at Roland Barthes writing on wrestling I’ve promised to annihilate one of the darlings of “Deconstruction” and figure now’s the best time to do so. The funny thing about Roland Barthes is that his “seminal” article on professional wrestling -- the one that most of the deconstructionists love to quote, the one called “The World of Wrestling” that was published in1957 and reprinted in 1971 in “Mythologies” is really just a pile of nonsense. Now, if that’s what Deconstruction is all about, fine. But I don’t think that was the intent. From Wikipedia, Deconstruction is “a process by which the texts and languages … appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in the light of the assumptions and absences they reveal within themselves.” Ok, I really complicated the matter there. Sorry to go all philosophical. To try to put this in Benjamin Grimm words, instead of Reed Richards, the gist of it all is that all writing gets tied up into its own cultural understandings, its own content and its own limitations. Now, I’m not going to continue to spout off nonsensical terms. I’ve read Derrida, I’ve got a degree in English writing, and I’ve reviewed books for the University of Pittsburgh Press, many of which dealt with composition theory, Deconstruction and other fun stuff. I’ve read Being and Nothingness, assorted criticisms and theories, and I have Martin Heidegger’s two volumes of notes on Nietzsche sitting on my library shelves. That’s enough of that garbage. The sentence I want to zoom in on with Barthes is this one: “The public is completely uninterested in knowing whether the contest is rigged or not, and rightly so; it abandons itself to the primary virtue of the spectacle, which is to abolish all motives and all consequences: what matter is not what it thinks but what it sees.” Allow me to break down that monstrosity of illogic and complete ignorance of the professional wrestling world. First, the public itself is consumed by the question of whether professional wrestling is “rigged or not” -- obviously, the casual and hardcore and smartened up fans have very little questioning, but the mainstream types and the general public are always consumed with that question. If you’re a fan of any notable interest, the first thing ANY non-fan asks, is whether it’s fake or not. That’s more than likely a measure of how crazy YOU are as a fan, as most “normal” people ask it just to see if you’re ‘dumb enough to believe it.’ Of course, most marks these days are the ones who believe anything that the WWE says about almost anything. So, clause one of the most important sentence in Barthe’s much quoted essay is rendered crap. Next up: “it abandons itself to the primary virtue of the spectacle, which is to abolish all motives and all consequences” For a moment there, I stand dumbfounded and embarrassed, as the spectacle is indeed a major part of professional wrestling. Today, more than ever. When TNA believes that entrance music trumps athletic displays and intricate but believable and ongoing storylines, we can see that in spades. When the WWE has focused more on look and crafted moments and putting the right people in the right places, we can see that in spades. When I wonder about why ROH doesn’t get it’s due, and hear from far too many people who should know better that ROH doesn’t have stars, and thus they can’t “get into” that promotion, I know there’s merit to the “spectacle” as the driving force. HOWEVER! To “abolish” all motives and all consequences” is literary gibberish. Motives are the driving force of good wrestling, and consequences, even if they aren’t what the fans desire, expect or appreciate some times, are the results of histories, of storylines and of knowledge of main event matches, winning or losing belts and all the stipulation matches that appear. Sure, we can argue that so many stips get ignored, that belts are more diminished now than ever, and that history is constantly being rewritten by the winners (which reminds me of a cool song by “My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult” called Sex on Wheels, if you need a JBL like digression into the Gothic/Industrial sub-pop culture. Either that, or think Al Davis and add “baby“ to the end of this pre-parenthetical line.) But again, pro wrestling isn’t about destroying motivations. Deconstruction is. And of course the motive of the essay by Barthes is to justify his own pathetic evaluation of professional wrestling. Which of course is lacking at it’s core. Aside from Andre the Giant, who made his fortunes mostly on the continent of North America, and Rene Goulet (of the original Foreign Legion) there ain’t much to speak about when it comes to French pro wrestling. Most of the ethnic French in pro wrestling comes through Quebec. Which I guess is the same analogy as calling Deconstruction Marxism. Anyway, back to the final piece: “what matter is not what it thinks but what it sees.” And this, the most quoted bit of Barthes, is the most egregious. Professional wrestling is all about what the fans think. What they see is the product, sure, but what they think about it is the interactivity that Sharon Mazer speaks of, what I believe in, and what most of the great, old school wrestlers seem to care about first and foremost. Pro wrestling isn’t about some existential moment. It’s about storylines and professional wrestler’s histories and what is expected. Let’s take Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair. When Shawn mouths the words “I love you” we can read it and understand it in a variety of manners. I can even see where the Deconstructionalist critic can find homosocial value to it. But let’s leave that aside. That mouthing isn’t a moment of visual appreciation, it’s a strong point of reference for thinking about what is going on. It’s all about a show of appreciation before ending another wrestler’s career. Now, beyond that, it’s something for discussion and interpretation. A cynic (like me) can look and read motivations and history and make comparisons. A true fan can look and appreciate the sentiment of Shawn Michaels. Many will look and draw conclusions somewhere in between. But furthermore, we can wonder if it was part of a script, or a spontaneous shoot. Or we can wonder who planned it, who wrote it, who approved it, and whether or not it is a sentiment shared by the person who spoke it, the people who gave final approval, and then again, how the sentiment is taken by the person on the receiving end. Meaning, after seeing his opponent mouth the words “I love you” and then eating a super-kick, how does Mr. Flair feel about the whole situation? And that’s where’ I laugh at Roland Barthes and his cult of followers. They oversimplify the genre, they ignore the reality of the product, and they fail to see a level of depth and importance to that moment. In other words, they impose their own reality on another group of people’s entertainment. Of course, most (if not all) of professional wrestling fans could hardly care less, since we live in our own little universe of understanding. But, as Vince McMahon has noticed in his latest stockholder meeting, we live in a world where the media and the mainstream doesn’t understand our little universe. Maybe instead of playing nice, the education process should focus on building up the reputations of professional wrestling as an entertainment genre (not just an industry) and especially the level of reputation of the fan base (who are far more interactive, technologically savvy, understanding and reactive than ever given credit.) Of course, that could start with limiting the amount of exploitative imagery, the mindlessness of certain storylines and the frenetically paced shows that make involvement of new fans problematic, and criticisms of the product easy to make. Joe Babinsack can be reached at [email protected]. I’ve got Heartbreak Express, Absolute Intense Wrestling and other fascinating DVDS coming up, and a look at Heath McCoy’s Pain and Passion book, plus I’m vastly distracted by what can become the project of a lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indikator Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Just glanzed over both articles.... could it be, that Babinsack has written the worst article on wrestling ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Just glanzed over both articles.... could it be, that Babinsack has written the worst article on wrestling ever?I'm not sure. I would think there's been worse stuff, though he's extra-special because he has such a grossly-inflated of himself. Has Dave ever publicly praised Babinsack like he has with Martin and Wahlers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted December 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I tend to think Dave keeps Babbysack around for the Bruno connection, as I'd gather it's a lot easier for him to just email the Sackster "hey ask Bruno what he thinks about this" instead of waiting for Bruno to reply via carrier pigeon. Also this thread is reminding me that I need to go on a IRL Babinsack hunt since he lives somewhere around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Just glanzed over both articles.... could it be, that Babinsack has written the worst article on wrestling ever? Is that counting columns written by Tommy Fierro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indikator Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Never read them. Where can you get them? By the way, this is a link to Barthes http://www.tcnj.edu/~miranda/classes/theor..._wrestling.html [3] is interestingly the anti-thesis to Southern Wrestling with its in-match stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Meltzer and Alverez talking boxing lately is some funny shit in all the wrong ways. Can someone get Naimark out of "retirement" to comment on them? Please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 This is him complaining about a science fiction novel elsewhere: http://www.arwz.com/zinereviewJOB1.php Yikes! John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 According to Crimson Mask: I have known Dave to publish a retraction of something he knew to be fact because it could have hurt a wrestler's ability to get work.Like Mask or not, he doesn't pull that sort of stuff out of his ass. It's one thing to not report something for circumstantial reasons but retracting the truth is kinda...yeah... Funny how that thread got locked not many posts after that, with Mask ducking answering it. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Paraphrasing Meltz on Observer radio last night: "People don't want to see Shawn Michaels v Bret Hart. Well they want to see it but when the match is over they won't want to" Huh? I know what he was going for but that was classic Meltz double talk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I guess he's saying that the match won't be very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I have the Babinsack book and I'm about to dive in. Wish me luck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Jeez, that article on Barthes was pretty embarrassing... More than luck, you'll need ton of aspirins... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkeats Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Jeez, that article on Barthes was pretty embarrassing... More than luck, you'll need ton of aspirins... It was tough to even get by the first part of the article where he quotes the definition of Deconstructionism from Wikipedia, instead of, you know, the Dictionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHawk Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Paraphrasing Meltz on Observer radio last night: "People don't want to see Shawn Michaels v Bret Hart. Well they want to see it but when the match is over they won't want to" Huh? I know what he was going for but that was classic Meltz double talk Did you really expect him to say "The match would be money but it will suck"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I'm not really getting on Dave for that remark it's just funny (to me at least) how he has these run on sentences and tangents when he can sum it up efficiently with 5 or 6 words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.